“=. STON UNITED STATES a7 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION re WASHINGTON, O.C. 20545 pec 9 wr ‘7a Warren D. Jolson Licutcnant General, USAF Director . Defcase Nucloar Agency Washineton, D. C. 20305 Dear General Johason: ED This is in response to your Jetter of September 3, 1974, transmitting to the U. S. Atomic Enerzy Commission (AEC) the Draft Environmental Impact Statenent (DEIS) prepared under supervision of the Defense Nuclear Agency (DiA) for the proposed cleanup, rehabilitation, and resettlement of Enewetak Atoll. We have reviewed the Statement and are providing the following corments, and the enclosure of supporting comments for your consideration in preparing the Tinal Statcment for this proposed action: In general, the DEIS reflects'a careful and thorough study of the possikle cleanup of Enewetak Atoll and the future return of the people. We agree that the Case 3 approach, as presented in the DEIS, should be the preferred option for the cleanup project. This approach is based on successtul past experience, appears to be feasible, and ensures the health and safety of the people insofar as“practicable. Further, the quantity of material requiring disposal is more manageable than in Cases 4 and 5, and the residual levels of contamination would not 7ppear to be hazardous judging from present knowledge of contaminated levels in soils. The presentation of the AEC radiation exposure criteria is satisfactory; however, the turm "standards," as used throughout the DEIS is inaccurate to describe the AEC criteria and should be replaced by the word “euidelines."” While these radiological criteria are based upon current national and international standards (see AEC Task Group Report, Volume II, Appendix 1) we view them only es guides for the Enewetak cleanup project. _The AEC Task Group report clearly indicates that ad hoc guidelines, derived from the existing recognized standards,were required and formulated for the particular conditions existing at Enewetak Atoll and because future hunan habitation was planned for there. We further note that the plutonium guideline numbers, while having no particular scientific basis for establishing a standard, appear to be reasonable for the particular conditions existing at Enowetak Atoll.