Aol? Si. EO Stay, ih -WZ s "he pete qd 4 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 February 28, 1974 Mr. Tommy McCraw Division of Operational Safety U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C. 20545 Dear Mr. McCraw: In reference to your February 5 memorandum to Claire Palmiter we offer the following comments on the draft, ‘Report by AEC Task Group on Recommendations for Cleanup and Rehabilitation of Enewetok Atoll." 1. In view of possible precedents for handling plutonium contamination problems in other localities that may be established by the task group report, we have serious reservations as to the adequacy of the AEC recommendations for environmental protection. The exposure Situation at Fnewetok is expected to continue indefinitely with the return of civilians into a contaminated area. These Trust Territory people are entitled to as much protection as that afforded residents of the U. 5S. by the Federal Radiation Protection Guides. Conversely, it might be argued that the degree of soil contamination and the total doses expected to be received by the Marshallese are acceptable in the U. Ss. . 2. Recommendations 3a through 3e on pages 5 and 6 calling for partial cleanup with limited habitation is insufficient. The task group should carefully consider recommending sufficient removal of contaminated soils on all islands so that no restriction on the activities of the Enewetok natives will be a prerequisite for their return. Partial cleanup with limited habitation is probably not a viable alternative strategy, since the restrictions required would be unenforceable. 3. The method of disposal to be used for contaminated soils appears to be beyond the scope of this study and such alternatives will no doubt be considered in a following EIS. Therefore we do not believe inclusion of Appendix IV in this report is appropriate. We also believe the EPA position on ocean disposal of radioactive wastes, which is sufficiently flexible to give a fair consideration of an appropriate EIS, is seriously misrepresented in Appendix IV and we request this material be deleted from the task force report, S018 12