Leo M. Krulitz October30, Page Nine 1975. 1979 - What we are asking you to do is apply a different, more rational form of analysis to them. Indeed, the new dose assessment done by Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and the risk estimates done by our own independent advisors Simply confirm the essential accuracy of the information contained in the EIS. What is required is the preparation of a “record of decision" in accordance with 40 C.F.R. §1505.2. In response to the October 8 request by the people of Enewetak, the earlier Enjebi decision should be reconsidered. In other words the decisionmaking process which is to be guided by 40 C.F.R. Part 1505 should be commenced and the "alternatives described in the environmental impact statement” should be considered anew. Id. §1505.l(e). Then the decision taken and the reasoning by which it was.reached, including a discussion of alternative courses of action which were considered, are not to be included in the impact statement itself, but rather set forth in "a concise public record of decision.” Id. §1505.2(a) and (b). If you would like to discuss this matter, you have only to call. Best regards, Oe /, . Theodore R. xc: R.R. Monroe, DNA R.C. Clusen, DOE R.G. Van Cleve, W.A. Mills, EPA OTA Mitchell