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

Page 1

Department of Interior w7C.SVMOOL During meettngs held in your office on May 17 with Messrs. Ted Mitchell and Earl GiUnore, and on July 6 with Dr. Hugh Pratt, I conmented upon RTCSYMSOL the general subject of U.S. radiation exposure criteria and its relationship to the Enewetak resettlement. Subsequent to the May 17 meeting, ------ -,w$?IAL37S,= I sent cop~es of appropriate portions of Federal Radiation Council (FRC) documents to you. The matter also was discussed in our letter to you DATE of May 15, 1979, re the Bikini/Eneu situation. I would, however, like to elaborate a bit on this subject. n’rc.SYMCIOL The FRC recommended that, for the general U.S. population, the individual~~l-r~ should not receive over 500 millirem per year to the whole body or to the bone marrow. The FRC also reconxnendedthat “...every effort should be .... made to encourage the maintenance of radiation doses as far below this guide as practicable.” In the absence of knowledge concerning the “~~.SYM,OLradiation exposure received by the individual, the FRC “...introciuced as an operational technique, where individual whole body doses are not ---—— —,N,,lAI_.jSIG. known, the use ofa ‘suitable sample’ of the exposed population in which the guide for the average exposure of the sample should be one-third the OAT= able to assume that the Individual would not var-yfrom the average by a “TGSYMOOL factor greater than 3). Therefore, the FRC indicated that the average exposure for a suitable sample of a population should not exceed 170 ‘~~~IALS/SIG ) millirem per year, assuiningthat individual exposure levels are not known.._.-—--—. Oh’rc In addition, to protect the genetic pool of the U.S. population (i.e., per capita dose limitation for the gonads of 5 reins(i.e., 5000 milllrems~ in 30 years.” The whole body dose was considered to be the equivalent of’N’T’ALs’s’” OFFICIAL FILE COPY

Page 2

the gonadal dose. This averages out to 170 mil1irem per year. However, w,=,SYA4,0L derived from exceeding these guides were greater than “,..the potential risk. ..” involved, exposures greater than these values could be justifiede=lT-—–––– “The ...radiation dose.. should not be exceeded without careful consideration of the reasons for doing so; every effort should be made to encourage.,........ the maintenance of radiation doses as far below this gu’ideas practicable,” And further, “The Guides may be exceeded only after the Federal agency ------ ----- having jurisdiction over the matter has carefully considered the reason tNITIALsrSIG, for doing so in light of the recommendations...”. .--—-—-.DATE Because of the uncerta~nties inherent in predicting the radlatlon exposure .......... levels to which the Enewetak people may be subject upon their return to Enewetak Atoll, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Task Group Report ---—————— included in the Enewetak Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) recommended that exposure limits for the Enewetak people be lower than FRC radiation ‘-..,. - exposure guidance in order to provide a reasonable margin of safety. For plannlng purposes, in place of the 500 millirem per year value for RTG. SVMmOL the individual, 250 millirem per year was recommended; and in place of the genetic dose of 5000 millirem over 30 years, 4000 mllllrem over 30 -----.t.l T’AL97TcRegarding radiation exposure limits for the Enewetak people, Dr. Milliam Mills of the Environmental Protection Agency stated In a letter to the AEC dated February 28, 1974, that: “These Trust Territory people are entitled to as much protection as that afforded residents of the U.S. —.—.——,w,T,A1.s/S,G, by the Federal Radiation Protection Guides.” With respect to the recommended exposure limits stated in the EIS, the Region IX EPA comments on ....--------— the EIS dated December 12, 1974, Stated that they considered them to be August 2, 1979, Mr. Todd Joseph of EPA’s Office of General Counsel and Dr. Mills of EPA both stated that the 1974 EPA letters expressed public --—.——,NIT1.Ls/SIG health views and not legal views. —.—— It also should be noted that the FRC reconmenciedthat occupational exposure of the whole body be limited to an average of 5000 millirem =TG.SVMDOL per year beyond 13 years of age (i.e., “...five times the number of to the possible need for exceeding the guidance and for the desirability of limiting exposures to level% below the guidance is pertinent here O*TC consideration of the reasons for doing so; every effort should be made to RTGSYMOOL encourage the maintenance of radiation doses as far below this guide as

Page 3

are not intended to apply to radlztion exposure resulting from natural background or the purposeful exposure ----------- of patients by practitioners of the healing arts.”) It ~s apparent in view of the above that amjuments on behalf of the Enewetak people are likely to include: n~c.SYU-OL 1) That U.S. radiation exposure guidance does not and should not -1:~7~&-L~ r i~c; - apply to the Enewetak people at Enewetak Atoll, inasmuch as the Enewe~k people are not citizens of the United States. -:XT7-—---. 2) That even ff they do apply, the benefits to be derived to the m~~.sv~uOL Enewetak people by returning to their several home islands clearly outweighs any potential risk involved should the predicted radiation exposure’N’’’A”O/”O. level exceed that of the FRC guides. With respect to 1) above, the matter was discussed in detail during the August 2 meeting and DOE, DOI, and EPA, together with their respective legal counsel, agreed as to the necessity of determining a U.S. position with respect to the applicab~lity of U.S. radiation exposure guidance fn the Marshall Islands generally and at the Enewetak Atoll specifically, and to determine the extent to which the U.S. has the authority and responsibility to enforce such guidance. Both 001 and EPA agreed that these issues must soon be resolved, and agreed to be responsible for providing advice as follows: A) Determining whether or not FRC guidance is legally applicable to the Marshall Islands generally and Enewetak Atoll specifically. B) If the FRC guidance is found to be applicable, determining whether there fs any discretion as to its applicability. C) If the FRC guidance Is found not to be applicable, what other authority, If any, does EPA have to establ~sh guidance for the Marshall both at present and after ~he termination of the Trust T6rritory agreement:;’=”’’”””’ e.g., does Interior or the United States Government have authority to -—--------- prevent people from living on islands of their choosing? What are the ,Rl T16LS/ 51.. . respective authorities of the Trust Territory Government and the Marshall Islands Government In this area? OFFICIAL FILE COPY

Page 4

Me would hope that firm guidance on these matters might be presented ““”’y”””’ and discussed at our next meeting to be held on August 16, so that the OTI :PAD U.S. position can be accurately reflected In the illustrated bilingual book that Is being prepared as a basis of presentation to and discussion ~Ar= with the Enewetak people. Any guidance received at that time will be considered for discussion with our translators during the week of 8/ /79 August 20, with final copy due at the printer no later than August 28. ““6[;;”’ Wtth respect to 2) above, ft fs expected that the legal counsel to the Enewetak people, together with scientific and technical consultants, wlll-4~E~ca~- evaluate projected radiation exposure levels, relative benefits to be 8/ /79 derived from compliance with the FRC gutdes, and alternatively benefits to be derived from exceeding the guides. If their analysis shows the benefits of exceeding the guides to be dominant, the argument may be made that the Enewetak people have a right to return to Islands of . thetr choosing (e.g., Enjebi). If this should come about, the U.S. may well be asked if It concurs fn or challenges that analysis. At the meeting on August 2 referred to above, DOI Indicated that they would explore the desirability of such an analysis; it ~s our opinion that an analysts by the U.S. would be of extreme Importance. While the Department of Energy is prepared to assist the Department of Interior with respect to the radiological exposure component of such an analysis, we are not in a position to address non-radiological factors which might need to be constderec!. That Guch rotters should be taken into account in the overall assessments would seem to be fn the best Interests both of the Enewetak people and of the U.S. lril TIA. s/ SIG. It should be noted at this point that it ts not obvious what the implications may be for the U.S. regarding possible litigation. However, we believe that our primary concern must continue to remain that which is in the best Interests of the Enewetak people consistent wtth applicable regulations and law. We would be pleased to discuss these matters further ff you wish. Office of Environment bee: R. Clusen, ASEV DOE FORM AO.9(1277) OFFICIAL FILE COPY