DRAFT ‘happened in that time, including added experience fn the cleanup of areas contaminated with transuranium elements. draft as obsolescent. Thus, we can only regard the present Some of the later concepts and expertence should be abaied with respect to this guidance. In particular, the question of flexibility tn application of the guidance should be considered. Since DOE will undoubtedly be a technical advisor to 000 or NASA in event of another accident, we are concerned. that many options will be foreclosedby the present “lack of flexibility, in this respect, there are words. giving flexibility in ‘the document ; but not in the recommendat tons section. in fact, this section reflects the view that the guidance must be followed. Since we do not know what portion of this document «i be stoned by the President, if approved, this lack of flexibility in the recommendations could lead to serious problems in implementation. Finally, a number of statements in the present (and past) draft leads to belief that EPA was attempting to {ncorporate ALARA into their considerations but appropriate analyses for the present use tn future accidents are not included. As a result of this review, the DOE has several recommendations for the revision of this guidance and for development of future regulations and guidance. (1) The EPA should issue generally applicable radiation standards fn the form of a limiting-risk. (2) | The scope of the generally applicable guidance should be broadened to cover all radionuclides in the environment. Thts would provide O