we oe UNITED STATES w ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545 March 11, 1974 Martin B. Biles, Director Division oi Operational Safety COMMENTS ON TASK GROUP REPORT ON ENEWETAK CLEANUP In the short time available, since cur Task Group meeting on March 6, I have tried to characterize the differences of opinion and the general comments reccived on the Task Group drait report of February 1, 1974. Written comments have come to us from DOI, DNA, EPA, HEW, and AEC staff. These were discussed with cur technical advisors, division liaison members, and interagency liaison representatives ina day-long session last Wednesday. While there were points of differences on mumerous technical details, all attending the session supportea the AEC approachof using conservative radiation exposure criteria and objectives for xposure reduction promulgated by recognized standards bedies in evaluating the Enewetak radiation environment except for DNA. The Task Group listened to the briefing that has been used to describe the DNA position and discussed this approach at considerable length. We briefed on the Task Group approach and this wes discussec. We have agreed that to the extent possible, those actions and alternatives favored by DINA will be discussed in the next version of our report in the context of items considered (DNA has not presented any action that the Task Group has not heretofore looked at}, but we made no commitment to support or recommend one or another of these. 4 We are evaluating the suggestions received on the February 1 draft. The approach for sclecting radiation criteria is to be switched from -emphasis on ICRP to FRC suidance. The FRC philosophy is very much the same. The numerical standards are similar except for the dose for bone. Fifty percent of the FRC guide will be 0.75 Rem/yr instead cf 1.5 Rem/yr that appears in the February drait. The guide for bone marrow remains the same. The guide for gonadal cxposure is being reduced from 5 Rem/30 yrs, which is 100% of the generally accepted value, to 4 Rem/30 yrs. The reason for this comes from our deliberations with EPA staff.