oO DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENC.” We at INGTON, OC. UDOA 20205 14 MAY ‘74 Dr. Martin B. Biles, Director Division of Operational Safet,; U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Dear Dr. Biles, We are pleased to present our comments upon ''Report by the Task Group on Recommendations for Cleanup and Rehabilitation of Enewetak Atoll" dated 19 April 1974 and sent to us by you on 2 May 1974. We take strong exception to the recommendations of this Report and the philosophies on which these recommendations are based. On the other hand, we commend the AEC upon the thorough scientific work in this Report and in the backup volumes NVO-140 on the Enewetak radiological survey. In addition to being troubled about regulatory matters, we disagree with the recommendations of this Report because it is not in accord with wishes and probable needs of the Enewetak people. As a result of U.S. actions, parts of their lands were altered and the Enewetak people were displaced to accommodate U.S. weapons testing. We should now make every effort to allow them a living pattern to fit what they view to be their needs. The radiological and other safety conditions upon their return should apply to those local conditions, not necessarily those of the U.S. population with its different radiological conditions and its greater uncertainties of exposures. In fact FRC 1, para 7.7 and 7.8, emphasizes that ''there is no single permissible or acceptable level of exposure without regard to the reasons for permitting tne exposure." Within this context, the numerical values should be considered as guides which might be appropriate for a particular action under certain circumstances. Since permissible levels of exposure for the Enewetak conditions are not clearly established, the U.S. government function for Enewetak would be primarily to assure that national policies are not being exceeded JOya Amery eR AL ee