Leo M. “Krulitz October 30, Page Three . 1979 I shall come in due course to the question whether the 1975 impact statement is adequate for today's issues, but I should point out here that Enjebi was the issue. Early results from the 1972 radiological surveyregarding conditions in the southern islands did not surprise anyone. They presented no radiological problem whatever. Enjebi and the other islands in the north were the only questionable areas from the beginning. And the resettlement of Enjebi was the most thoroughly studied single issue because it was known, if not fully appreciated, by the people at AEC that the resettlement of Enjebi was the objective of prime importance to the beneficiaries of the program. It is very important to recall exactly how the AEC arrived at its adverse recommendation. During the interagency discussion which took place before the draft EIS was released in September 1974, the Director of the Defense Nuclear Agency insisted with the AEC that the Enjebi question called for a cost-benefit analysis which took into ‘account “the entire problem: biological — political — and fiscal, as well as the social and economic effects on the Enewetakese people ..."“ Letter, W. D. Johnson to Dixy Lee Ray, June 7, 1974. The AEC rejected that approach. Instead, Vol. II, it applied radiation protection standards. Tab B, pp. 4-5 and Appendix III. In its selection of the standards to be applied, EIS, the AEC chose the 1960 and 1961 Radiation Protection Guides (RPGs) and then reduced those numerical limits by 50% in the case of exposure to the whole body, bone marrow, bone and thyroid. Gonadal exposures were to be limited to 80% of the RPG value. Id. Appendix III, p. III-10 to III-11. (This apparentinconsistency was never satisfactorily explained, by the way.) We pointed out in “Radiation Protection at Enewetal Atoll" that if any radiation protection standards are to be employed in making decisions about Enewetak, it is the Protective Action Guides (PAGs), and not the RPGs. I have discovered that we were not the first to make that observation.During review of the draft version of the AEC Task Group Report, then Deputy Director of DNA, John W. McEnery, quite