-. ● ✌ “* . . . Leo M. Krulitz October-30, 1979 Page Nine - “ . 1975. What we are asking you to do is apply a different, Indeed, the new more rational form of analysis to them. 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 response to the in accordance with 40 C.F.R. S1505.2. October 8 request by the people of Enewetak, the earlier In other words Enjebi decision shoul~ be reconsidered. 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 Then the decision taken be considered anew. Id. s1505.l(e). ch it was reached, including a and the reasoning by 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 Id. S1505.2(a) and (b). of decision.” If you would like to discuss this matter, you have only to call. Best regards, ● //4 Theodore R. Mitchell —. xc : ● R.R. R.C. R.G. W.A. Monroe, DNA Clusen, DOE Van Clever OTA Mills, EPA