attempt ‘to circumvent the spirit OYthe letter ot NEPA. NEPA, of course, requires study of the potential consequences of a proposed action priortoa decision being taken on the proposal. Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971). The question, here, is whether the matter of resettlement of Enjebi island was sufficiently well-studied in the April 1975 impact statement. I think the answer is yes. As I have said before, Enjebi was far and away the most Significant single issue during the planning phase of the program. Enjebi figured in several of the alternatives considered by the AEC Task Group and in alternative schemes for resettlement which were considered. The principal alternatives, in the EIS, were termed "cases." Case 1 posited full resettlement of the entire atoll with no cleanup. Obviously, that was ruled out by all concerned. Case 2 restricted: use to the southern part of the atoll for all purposes. Case 3 called for residence only in the south, with unrestricted travel throughout the atoll and limited food gathering from the north. Case 4 included Enjebi as one of the two principal residential sites, with unrestricted travel throughout the atoll and certain dietary restrictions for those living on Enjebi. Case 5 included Enjebi as well. see EIS, Vol. I For a discussion of these alternatives §5. The Report By The AEC Task Group on Recommendations For Cleanup and Rehabilitation of Enewetak Atoll, dated June 19, 1974, which was included in its entirety in the impact statement, Vol II, Tab V, gave a good deal of attention to Enjebi. The Task Group Report, in turn, was based to a great extent upon the enormous three volume work entitled Enewetak Radiological Survey, NVO-140, USAEC, October 1973. Those three volumes alone must contain over 2,000 pages of text, tables, plates and charts. It has been described