Comments on Draft Letter from Department of Interior to
\29°
oh
Representative Yates
-
Major Comments
1.
The primary point of the letter seems to be a discussion of
the possible resettlement of Enjebi.
It would seem appropriate, therefore,
for this issue to be discussed at the beginning of the letter rather than
at the very end.
2.
The space devoted to discussion of coconut planting and of the
Ujelang conference seem disproportionately large compared to the primary
purpose of the letter (i.e., the possible resettlement of Enjebi).
3.
There seems to be an imbalanced discussion of the two alternate
ways of approaching the question of Enjebi:
cost-risk-benefit evaluation
versus strict application of radiation exposure limits.
The discussion
of the "Enjebi Resettlement" does not clearly or adequately address the
aubject of U.S. radiation exposure limits.
The first two paragraphs
of this section discuss risk, the third addresses Interior's position,
while those following state what various opinions (e.g., Congress,
Mr. Mitchell) were on the AEC/ERDA recommended exposure
limits at the time of the authorization.
Either prior to or following
the third paragraph ({1.e., Interior's position), it would be helpful
to clarify the background of radiation exposure limits:
FRC guidance,
AEC/ERDA recommendations to Interior (and why they differed from the
FRC), and the recent EPA position (although this also might logically
come later in the discussion).
The two philosophies (risk vs. exposure
level) should be understood by the reader.
(A restructuring of this