74 Statement to “Preliminary Report, Rongelap Reassessment Project”, April[15, 1988 April 15, 1988 page 2 of 4 ? What did the 1982 DOE report say "Tf 233 people live on Rongelap Island and eat local food only from Romgelap Island: Scientists estimate that the largest amount of radiation a person might receive in one year from radioactive atoms that came from the U.S. bomb tests iaf (...) The highest average amount of radiation people might receive in years is 2500 millirem in any part of the body and 3300 millirem in marrow .” The DOE report quotes the dose limits with 500 millirem for and a total of 5000 millirem over 30 years. 400 millirem. e coming 30 st the bone single year Which questions did Congress ask to be reviewed? the Department of Energy report (...) are conclusions are fully supported by the data.” If either of the foregoing questions adequate" is answered and in the complete survey of radiation and other effects of relating to the habitability of Rongelap Island.” the (2) " negative, nuclear testing program Was the data used by DOE adequate? The data used in the 1982 DOE assessment was inadequate. Aside ffom the fact that the assessment was based on only a small number of measurements,| the problem of elevated levels of plutonium in urine of Rongelap people, known since at least 1973, was not acknowledged in the 1982 DOE report. This is a [gerious and significant omission. From measurements of plutonium in urine, as imperfect as they were ht that time, radiation doses exceeding DOE’s regulatory limits were calculated. The foncern that Plutonium doses in the Marshalls might be in the tens of rems werefreported to DOE representatives in a meeting in March 1981. The authors of e bilingual booklet were present. Plutonium measurements were uncertain at that time, but the degree of uncertainty was not clear. Instead of explaining the situatibn, the DOE opted for omission of this troublesome discovery and chose to adopt t method of dose prediction with a dietary model in the 1982 report. The inv plutonium levels in urine of Rongelap residents still has not been comp 15 years after the initial discovery. The true plutonium dose is still no known and could well be, for some members of the Rongelap population, in excess o DOE’s dose limits. (I will deal with this question below). Were the conclusions correct? Reviewing DOE’s conclusions on the basis of the data which was used] major discrepancies. I find two First, the “maximum dose" for residents of Rongelap was given by DPE with 400 millirem per year. the supporting population will Rather than being the "maximum dose”, this dose is r@ferenced in documents as be lower and the 95% for 5% dose, of the meaning that doses population higher for than [95% 0 of the millirem.