Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
Di\’is ion of FOI and Privacy Department of Energy This request is made pursuant to the Under date of Ma>; 15, 1979, the Assistant Secret ar)r of Environment sent a letter to the Honorable James A. Joseph, Under Secretary of the Interior, having to dO with Bikini atoll, Marshall Islands. J,,ttached to the letter is a document entitled “Radiological Impllcatio~. for Resettlement of Eneu Island. ” This request relates to that letter and its attachment. iiereby requested are all documents, l-ecorcis and materiels BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Page 2
1. On page 1 of t~,e attachment, the following “Based upon previous experience and past practices, however, it is doubtful whether imported food will be a significant part of Please provide any and all records, materials and documentation for this assertion. 2. On the same page the following statement is made: “It can also be questioned whether or not access to Bikini Island can be controlled. ” Please provide any and all records, documents, reports and materials which form the basis of 3.” On page 2 the assertion is made that in August, 1978, the Bikinians “left their Atoll because measurements of radiocesium rr,ade in April 1978 showed accumulations in the bodies of 13 out of 101 people such that if this level were maintalnec? for one year, it would result in an annual radiation close equal to or qreater than the 500 mrem/yr federal radiation protection criteria any and all records, reports, documents or other materials which form the basis of the factual assertions contained in that statement concernifiq (a) -the degree of volition in the departure of the people of Bikini from their atoll, and (b) the measurements of radiocesium in the P.~kinians. 4. On page 2 of the attachment appears the follok’inq “In early 1979, new information was obtained so that dose predictions for resilience on Eneu Island could, for the first time, be based upon data from analysis of actual food items of the
Page 3
diet grown on the island rather than on theoretical predictions derived from soil concentrations. ” Please provide a copy of all records, reports, or studies or other documents or materials which form the factual basis for this assertion. 5. Regarding the text on page 6 of the attachment which appears at footnote 10, please provide a copy of any study, report or other document which forms the basis of the decision to employ the federal radiation guidance which is taken from the Enewetak Clean-up Environmental Impact Statement of April, 1975. There is no need to provide any materials which are contained in the Environmental Impact Statement. This request is for any a6ditio~al or other materials. 6. Plese provide a copy of the publication relied upon for the calculated dose estimates which is cited at footnote 14 of the attachment, “An Updated Radiological Dose Assessment of Eneu Island at Bikini Atoll,” Robison, W.L. and 7. Be9inning at the foot of paqe 7, the following statement is found: “The diets are based on the recent experience and observations of the scientif~c teams %ho have bees working on Bikini Atoll.” No support is provided in the text or in the footnote for this statement. Please provide any and all records, reports, studies or other documer,ts or materials which describe the “recent experience and observations” and which provide the names of the members of the “scientific teams” referred to in the quoted statement. 8. With respect to the predicted doses presented on page 8 of the attachment, please provide a copy of any and all studies, reports or other documents
Page 4
or materials which show the number of fatal cancer cases and the number of genetic rn~lformations to be expected from a dose of 170 millirem per year, and the expected increase in the frequency of such cancer cases and genetic malformations, to be expected for the predicted dose rates presented on page 8 of the attachment. In other words , what is the expected f~-equency of fatal cancer cases at an average dose rate for the population of 170 millirem per year, compared with, for the whole body, a dose rate of 21o millirem per year, 240 millirem per year, and 260 millirem per year? For another example, what is the expected increase in leukemia cases at 170 millirem. per year compared with 190 millirem per year, 260 millirem per year, 280 millirem per year, and 300 millirem per year? What is the expected frequency of genetic anomalies at an average whole body dose rate of 5000 millirem per 30 years compared with 2700 millirem, 3200 millirem, 4700 millirem, 5200 millirem and 5700 !3. Please provide any records, documents and materials v,lF,ichwould explain why the attachment and the letter of May 15 did not contain any discussio~ of the biological risks associated with the predicted doses. If no such documents exist, please so state, and e~plain why such a discussion %’as not included in the advice provided to the Department of Interior. Thar,k \’ou in advance for your prompt attention to this