-2- oO) xt DOI Have concern that Janet may not be returned. Support the Task Group's approach to development of recommendations. Are hopeful of actions leading to return of people to Janet. Question when Janet can be returned if not now. Hold position that people will eventually return to Janet. HEW See need for more air sampling and investigation of exosure from inhaled Pu. Cited need for information on 291 exposure of the thyroid. Found the Task Grou draft a very satisfactory report. TASK GROUP a ? C . Supports use of current radiation standards and philosophy recommended by FRC and ICRP. Cannot support DNA approach to criteria development using c.ecanup experience such as current effort for removai of mill tailings under and near structures in Grand Junction. Cannot support recommendation of cleanup alternatives wherein basic Federal radiation exposure standards would not be met. Supports position that both internal and external exposures must be evaluated in considering cleanup alternatives. Cannot support concept of fall-back positions to be used if necessary funds for cleanup to acceptable criteria are not available. Hold to position that recommended actions are only those knownto be feasible and ezfective. Cannot support DNA recommendation of use of ''clean beds" of soil for growing food on a contaminated island since this action involves many uncertainties and is unproven as to ‘ effectiveness. View of remedial (cleanup) action is that once itis taken, the objective is to make substantial re- duction in radioactivity levels, not to-reduce levels to some specified value. Support approach of studying all alternatives for cleanup, but to recommend only a pre- ferred set of actions that in the judgement of the Task Group will comply with the "as low as practicable" requirement. Believe that DNA has misint2rpreted and is misusing AEC cleanup experience in citing this as a basis for choosing radiation exposure criteria. Observes that DNA uses a ''worst case'' approach to cleanup based upon AEC exposure estimates that are actually average cxposures. Believe that DNA recommendavions cannot be successfully defended against criticism from those who are familiar with current Federal regulavions and standards 968