b . . . . . ./ ,,. ./ - Leo M. Krulitz October 30, 1979 Page Seven . ● As I have said, the two principal considerations which are relevant to a decision about Enjebi, are the likely health effects from radiation exposure, if the island is to be resettled, and the likely adverse impact of denying resettlement. The dose estimates were done and set forth in the AEC Task Group Report and in S5.6.1 of the EIS. The risk estimate, that is the estimated number of health effects associated with each resettlement alternative, was calculated and set forth in Table 5-12, Vol. I of the EIS. The same subject is treated in the text at S5.6.2. A comparison of the health effects for all five cases is contained in Table 5-13 at p. 5-51. The health effects predicted in 1975 for the resettlement of Enjebi are not substantially different from those which have been calculated on the basis of the most recent data. The dose estimates which we find in the EIS, at s5.6.l (which are in turn drawn from the AEC Task Group Report and the Enewetak Radiological Survey) , are somewhat higher than current predictions, I suspect, because of the See Enewetak unrealistic dietary model which.was used. (Dr. Radiological Survey, NVO-140, Vol. I, pp. 492-498. appear that W.L. Robison observed that “it would . . . dose calculations based upon [the NVO-140 dietary model] may overestimate the total dose via the food chains. . . .“ Id. p. 497.) In any case, we were faced then with health =ects on the order of less than a single case of cancer or a single genetic defect as a result of resettlement of Enjebi, a prospect essentially the same as we now have b~fore us. . I have not discussed the concern with exposure from the That situation transuranics via the inhalation pathway. has been improved, insofar as more rigorous permissible limitations have been imposed than those included in the impact statement. I am not sure of this, however, but it seems to me that the soil removal may have reduced the concentrations of fission products as well. While it seems clear to me that the proposal to resettle Enjebi was thoroughly studied in 1975 in the course of the environmental impact statement, there is one serious flaw .