Letter to R Vancleve, Subject: Radiation Exposure Criteria and Its Relationship to the Enewetak Resettlement

Page 1

Bilrs. Ruth Van Cleve Department of Interior Dear Nrs. Van Cleve: During meetings held i n your office on May 17with Messrs. Ted Mitchell and Earl Gihore, and on July 6with Dr. Hugh Pratt,I comented upon the general subject o f U.S. radiation exposure criteria and its relationship to the Enewetak resettlement. Subsequent to the May 17 meeting, documents t o you. The matter also was discussed i n our letter to you of May 15, 1979, re the Bikini/Eneu situation. t o elaborate abit on this subject. The FRC recommended that, for the general U.S. population, the individual should not receive over 500 milllrem per year t o the whole body or to t h e bone marrow. The FRC also recornended that "...every effort should be made to encourage the maintenance of radiation doses as f a r below this radiation exposure recelved by the individual, the FRC 'I.. .introduced as an operational technique, where individual whole body doses are n o t known, the use of a 'suitable sample' of the exposed population i n which the guide for the average exposure of the sample should be one-third the (guide) for individual members of the group, " (i.e., that i t is reasonable t o assume that the individual would not vary from the average by a factor greater than 3). Therefore, the FRC indicated that the average exposure for a suitable sample of a population should not exceed 170 millirem per year, assuiiing that individual exposure levels are n o t known I would, however, like In the absence of knowledge concerning the per capita dose 1imitation f o r the gonads of 5 rems ( i .e., 5003 millirems i n 30 years.* The whole body dose was considered t o be the equivalent o f DOE FORM AD-5 (lS77) OFFICIAL FILE COPY

Page 2

the gonadal dose. T h i s averages out to 170 millirem per year. However, the FRC also recognized that if the "...probable benefits ..." t o be derived from exceeding these guides were greater than ' I.. .the potentlal risk.. .'I involved, exposures greater than these values could be Justified tion of the reasons for doing so; every effort should be made t o encourag the maintenance of radiation doses as f a r below this guide a s practicable And further, "The Gufdes may be exceeded only a f t e r the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the matter has carefully considered the reason for doing so in light of the recmimdations. ..". Because of the uncertainties inherent i n predicting the radiation exposur levels t o which the Enewetak people may be subject upon their return t o Enewetak Atoll, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Task Group Report included i n the Enewetak Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) recomnded that exposure llmits for the Enewetak people be lower than FRC radiation exposure guidance In order to provide a reasonable margin of safety. For planning purposes, i n place o f the 500 millirem per year value for the indlvidual, 250 millirem per year was recomnded; and .In place of the genetic dose of 5000 millirem over 30 years, 4000 milllrern over 30 yea w was re cm nde d. Regarding radiatfon exposure 1imlts for the Enewetak people, Dr. Hilllam Mills of the Environmental Protectfon Agency stated in a letter to the AEC dated February 28, 1974, t h a t : "These Trust Territory people are entitled to as much protection as that afforded residents of the U.S. by the Federal Radiation Protection Guides." mended exposure limits stated In the EIS, the Region I X EPA comments on the EIS dated December 12, 1974, Stated t h a t they considered them t o be August 2 , 1979, Mr. Todd Joseph o f EPA's Office o f General Counsel and Dr. Mills of EPA both stated that the 1974 EPA letters expressed public health views and not legal views. I t also should be noted that the FRC reconmended that occupational exposure of the whole body be limited t o a n average of 5000 millirem per year beyond 18 years of age ( i , e . , "...five times the number of years beyond age 18"). to the possible need for exceeding the guidance and for the desirability of limiting exposures to levels below the guidance is pertinent here consideration o f the reasons for doing so; every effort should be made t a encourage the maintenance of radiation doses a s f a r below this guide as With respect t o the recomHowever, In a meetfng held i n your office on The previously quoted FRC statement pertaining bOE FOR MAD - 9 (12-77) OFFICIAL FILE COPY

Page 3

(All o f the above guidance "...are not intended t o apply t o radiation exposure resul t i n g from natural background or the purposeful exposure of patients by practitioners of the healing arts. " ) Itis apparent i n view o f the above that arguments on behalf o f the Enewetak people are likely t o include: 1 ) That U.S. radiation exposure guidance does not and should not apply t o the Enewetak people a t Enewetak Atoll, inasmuch as the Enewetak people are not citizens o f the United States. 2) That even i f they do apply, the benefits to be derived t o the Enewetak people by returning to their several home islands clearly outweighs any potential risk involved should the predicted radiation exposur level exceed that of the FRC guides. With respect to1) above, the matter was discussed i n detail during the August 2 meeting and DOE, WI, and EPA, together with their respective legal counsel, agreed asto the necessity o f determining aU.S. position with respect t o the applicability of U.S. radiation exposure guidance i n the Marshall Xslands qenerally and a t the Enewetak Atoll specifically, and t o determine the extent t o which the U.S. has responsibility to enforce such guidance. Both DO these issues must soon be resolved, and agreed t o providing advice as follows: A ) Oetennininq whether or not FRC quidance the authority and a n d EPA agreed that to the-Marshall Islands generally and Enewetak Atoll specifically. B ) I f the FRC guidance i s found to be applfcable, determining whether there 4s any dlscretion as to i t s applicability. C) If the FRC guidance Is found not t o be applicable. w h a t other authority, f f any, does EPA have t o establjsh guidance for the Marsha11 A ) Determine the scope and extent of U.S. authority a t Enewetak, both a t present and after the termination of the Trust Territory agreemen e.g., does Interior or the United States Government have authority t o prevent people from livlng on islands of their choosing? What are the respective authorities o f the Trust Territory Government and the Marshall Islands Government in this area? OFFICIAL FILE COPY

Page 4

We would hope that firm guidance on these matters mfght be presented and discussed a t our next meeting t o be held on August 16, so that the U.S. position can be accurately reflected In the illustrated bflingual book that is king prepared as a basis o f presentation t o and discussion with the Eneeretak people. Any guidance received a t t h a t time will be considered for discussion with our translators during the week of August 20, with final copy due a t the printer no later than August 28. With respect to2) above, Itis expected that the legal counsel t o the Enewetak people, together with scientific and technical consultants, will evaluate projected radiation exposure levels, relative benefits t o be derived from compliance with the FRC gufdes, and alternatively benefits t o be derfved from exceeding the guides. I f their analysis shows the benefits o f exceeding the guides t o be dominant, the argument may be made that the Enewetak people have a right t o return t o Islands of their choosing (e.g., Enjebi). If this should come about, the U.S. may well be asked ifit concurs i n or challenges that analysis. A t the meeting on August 2 referred t o above, DO1 indicated that they would explore the desfrabllity of such an analysis; i t 4s our opinion that an analysis by the U.S. would be o f extreme Importance. Department of Energy is prepared to assist the Department of Interior with respect t o the radiological exposure component o f such an analysis, we are not In a position t o address non-radiological factors which might need t o be considered. That such matters should be taken into account i n the overall assessments wuld seem t o be I n the best Interests both of the Enewetak people and of the U.S. I t should be noted at this point that it is not obvious what the implications may be for the U.S. regarding posslble litigation. However, we believe that our primary concern must continue t o remain t h a t which i s in the best Interests of the Enewetak people consistent with applicable regulations and law. We would be pleased to discuss these matters further if you w i s h . Office of Environment DOE FORM AD-9 (12-77) OFFICIAL FILE COPY