May 15, 1979 t - ™N Honorable James A. Joseph be available and comoared with the full FRC guidance of 500 mrem/yr to individuals and 5009 mrem/30 yrs to the population. These criteria for Enewetak were reviewec by interested Government agencies; no objections to these criteria were raised. Gne of the reviewing agenciés, the -« Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), found the criteria acceptable, but considered them to be “... upper limits ...“ and that "... ary proposed guideline or numerical values for the .:ose limits are only preliminary guidance and that a cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken to determine whetner the projected doses are really as low as readiiy achievable and practical before proceeding with the relocation project. On the basis of such analysis it may be prudent to lower dose guidelines for this operation." The dearee of uncertainty in estimating doses on Eneu Island is similar to that for Enewetak Atoll. Assuming, therefore, that Enewetak criteria are applicable to other similar situations in the northern Marshal] Islancts, the dose estimates for return of the Bikini people tc Eneu Isiand would be compared to the Enewetak criteria as describea above rather than to the FRC guidance. When this is done, it is found that even witn imported food the radiation doses to the people on Eneu would not be expected to be in compliance with the Enewetak criteria for about 29-25 years. Several basic combinations of residence and food constraints are discussed in the enclosed, and are illustrated and summarized in the attachments to the enclosed. Other considerations also are addressed. If any further refinement of the data changes these estimates in a significant way, we will immediately inform vou. We trust that this is helpful to you in resolving the issue of the acccptability of cneu Island as e resiaence island. _. Sincerely, Ly, ‘ TWIT C i Ruth ; Cluser f - ree ak - c. Assistant Secretary fo Lrvironmert Enclosure ce: Dr. William Mills, EPA