Honorable James A. Joseph
-2-
May 15, 1979
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 agencies, tre
“.
Environmental Protection Agency {EPA}, found the criteria acceptable,
but considered them to be "... upper limits ..." and that “... any
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 readily
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 degree of uncertainty in estimating doses on Eneu Island is similar
to that for Enewetak Atoll. Assuming, therefore, that Enewetak criteria
are applicabie to other similar situations in the northern Marshel]
islands, tne dose estimates for return of the Bikini people te Eneu
Island would be compared to the Enewetak criteria as described above
rather than to the FRC guidance. When this is done, it is found that
even with imported food the radiation doses ta 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 tha enclosed, and are tllustrated 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
wilt immediately inform you.
We trust that this is helpful ta you in resolving the issue of the
acecptability of tneu Island as 2 resioence istand.
.
Sincerely,
Leo yy
v\!
rT
(Oo
RUth ¢. Cluser
és
freer
OK.
Assistant Secretary fo: Lavironmert
Enclosure
cc:
Or. William Mills, EPA