Leo M. “Krulitz
October 30, 1979
Page Three -

.

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 ALC 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, it applied radiation protection standards.
Vol. II, Tab B, pp. 4-5 and Appendix III.

EIS,

In its selection of the standards to be applied, 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-1l1l.

(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

Select target paragraph3