. DIR ~ . 12 February 1975 SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (2) If so, again I need to tell Congress ‘and again Ido not believe we'd get any money this year! * (3) Once we decide on a course of action, we need a meeting with Ted Mitchell and this has to be laid out to him - honestly and. frankly. If we accept his recommendations and face delays and likely failure to obtain funds, then what? If we reject his recom- mendations, then what? I want to ask him point blank so that I can be accurate and complete in my statements to Congress. Because he was so late with his renly to the DEIS, there just may not bettime: to do all of this before we testify. | 3. There may be an alternative course for dealing with Congress: tell them of the problems and ask for a reduced amount sufficient only to assure presentfacilities do not further decay. This should be the bare minimum to assure a smooth transition to later preparation of the base camp. (In additionto present O&M, I would"guess" this -would be somewhere around four million dollars. ) a. How can this be done since the President's budget has gone in? “(What procedures?) (I realize this will anger OMB and Congress but 4t may be the lesser of evils.) We have been honest with them believing (as Mitchell. said to me in his telephone call) that his response to the. DEIS wouldn't contain any surprises. It did! 4, Having read the various replies to the DEIS, it seems to me we have to either reject some outright, or the return of the people to Enewetak can never take place. This just doesn't seem logical, since there are places in the world where people have lived for centuries with radiation levels equal to or in excess of those which would remain at Enewetak. It seems to me the statistical risk should be considered. If the Dri-Enewetak want to return to the atoll, are they unwilling to accept any risk? Don't they face a possibly greater statistical health ‘risk from other sources (like the suspected ruptured tubular pregnancy -while we were there)? I believe if that question were put to them in language they could clearly understand, they would elect to accept the "prudent risks'' we (ERDA and DNA) have assessed. ~4