REE WERT s+ RN eS Stier oR Raaac Mey 11, 1973 Tt. F. MeCrav Division of Operational Safety a ye ”,\ Vd Kv 0 ae iY na POSSIBLE DEGREES OF ENIWETOK CLEAMP Pts. Barr, Graha, Goldaen sad Harley have read 2. 8. Leachman’s draft eatitled as abeve. their comments. i. = | 4 e So 2. The fellowiag is 2 consolidation ef BEIR report is available and offers credible risk estimates whith are conservative. Use SEIR in lieu of GéT. Ia paragraph 3, page 1, the meaning of the statueat “radiological levels that happen te be presented as isodeses - - -" is net clear. Alse, how do “customary standards” enter in balance betveen the financing and insult te islands mentioned in paragraph 1, page 1. One canact particularise island situations and use generally applicable standards. 3. The “worst case” approach is tavelid. ‘The fallacy of basing plans and ections on a “worst case” abaiysis is that ene is correcting 8 non-existent situation; therefere, he finds a high price on any real reduction iu population exposures which should be the ebjective of and basis for deciding between the alternatives for cleamsp. pee Ff “a ” 4. a 5. All reviewers were uneasy about the paragraph ca page 6. Comments on thie paragraph are as follows: We aced to know what means are available te reduce population expesures. ow much de they reduce population: exposure? How dees the redectiea match with deliar aad environmental costs? While the “worst case” analysis avoids difficulties in the above sppreach, it dees aot selve the problen. The Pu deses, external betagames exposures, and internal emitter doses should be clarified. Bring aut relationship between reduc ef external exposure rate ead the intermal!l euitter risk. caunet contre) whee the major gauns is fren activation; be more concerned with Pa than is indicated. pater |. °ae 3, valwes containing more then one significant — ma For example, how will you measure - - " Form AEC-318 (Rev. 9-53) AECM 0240 woods GPO ef3—16-—81465-1 445-678 I