The Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA), has taken exception to the proposed criteria, althsu hn by lett-r uated “une 7, 1974, to the Chairman, che Director of DNA states that he ''will not contest the standards recommended by the Commission.'' DNA believes that radiation standards applicable to the general public are not appropriate for the smali Enewetak population and that such use could establish an undesirable precedent for other situations of environmental contamination from nuclear explosives. In their view, application of standards tor the general public does not allow adequate consideration of the desires of the people, especially as to establishment of a village on JANET. The DNA also recommended a risk-benefit analysis that they believe wouid justify the selection of higher radiation dose levels for the cleanup criteria. Standards for radiation workers, or comparisons with situations where people live in higher ambient radiation, i.e., monazite sands areas of India are cited as precedence for use ar higher doses. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has commented favorably stating that they accept the proposed criteria on an interim use basis. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has deferred to AEC judgement. Comments received from DNA, EPA and DOiare included in Appendix 1. Neither national nor international bodies have established radiation standards or criteria for cleanup that would apply specificaily to the Emewetak situation. Currently, cleanup criteria are developed onan ac hoc basis with consideravic given to such pertinent factors as: exposure leveis food chains, pathways to man, land use, cost, feasibility of cleanup, impact of cleanup, etc. The staff has applied the principle that cleanup of contaminated property for use by the general public must (1) keep predicted radiation dose levels within a conservative interpretation and ceecoteety merscpereeona eae ropaSETTarynhs eneeerepent pen Senet 8emg Les ete Te! oe Decision Criteria: . 2nat Lee woe