May 15, 1979
‘
Re
-
Honorable James A. Josepn
we
be available and compared with the full FRC guidance of 500 mrem/yr to
individuals and 5000 mrem/30 yrs to the population. These criteria for
Enewetak were reviewec hy interested Government agencies; no objections
to these criteria were raised.
One of the reviewing agencies, tre
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 wose limits are only
preliminary guidance and that 8 cost-benefit analysis must be undertaken
t> determine whetner the projected doses are really as low aS readily
acnievadle 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]
Islants, tne dose estimates for return of the Bikini people tc Eneu
Island 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.
Severaj basic combinations of residence and food constraints are discussed
in the enclosed, and are illustrated and sumnarized 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 you.
We trust that this is helpful to you tn resolving the issue of the
acccatadility of Eneu Isiand as 2 resiaence island.
_.
Sincgreiy,
L
{
NYT
O
Lice
a
Ruth ¢. Cluser
Assistant Secretary for Lnvironmert
Enclosure
ce:
Dr. William Millis, EPA