UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545 pec 9 «BFA Warren D. Johnson Lieutenant General, USAF Director Defense Nuclear Agency Washington, D. C. 20305 Dear General Johnson: ' This is in response to your letter of September 3, 1974, transmitting to the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared under supervision of the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) for the proposed cleanup, rehabilitation, and resettlement of ’ Enewetak Atoll. ‘J “-—-t iw. We have reviewed the Statement and are providing the following comments, and the enclosure of supporting comments for your consideration in preparing the Final Statement for this proposed action: In general, the DEIS reflects a careful and thorough study of the possible cleanup of Enewetak Atoll and the future return of the people. We agree that the Case 3 approach, as presented in the DEIS, should be the preferred option for the cleanup project. This approach is based on successful past experience, appears to be feasible, and ensures the health and safety of the people insofar as“practicable. Further, the quantity of material requiring disposal is more manageable than in Cases 4 and 5, and the residual levels of contamination would not appear to be hazardous judging from present knowledge of contaminated levels in‘soils. The presentation of the AEC radiation exposure criteria is satisfactory; however, the term “standards,” as used throughout the DEIS is inaccurate to describe the AEC criteria and should be* replaced by the word “ouidelines." While these radiological criteria are based upon current national and international standards (see AEC Task Group Report, Volume IT, Appendix B) we view them only as guides for the Enewetak cleanup project. The AEC Task Group report clearly indicates that ad hoc guidelines, derived from the existing recognized standards,were required and formulated for the particular conditions existing at Enewetak Atoll and because future human habitation was planned for there. We further note that the plutonium guideline numbers, while having no particular scientific basis for establishing a standard, appear to be reasonable for the particular conditions existing at Enewetak Atoll.