. ,“. G Department Washington, of Energy D.C. 20545 December 17, 1980 Dr. William Robison Lawrence Livermore National zLaboratory BOX 808 L453 Livermore, California 94550 Dear Bill: Enclosed are comments Tommy made after reviewing your draft on the Enewetak dose assessment paper. As you can see, they deal almost exclusively with the issue of dietary assumptions, which we all agree is central to the validity of the dose assessments. While at this point we probably are committed to use of the Ujelang diet, many of the points he raises, particularly regarding the compatibility of that diet with Jan Naidu’s values -- which we have had since the summer of 1979 -- are disturbing. The recent Brookhaven National Laboratory report on Rongelap and Utirik chronic dose equivalents, dated October, 1980, also provide disturbing information. It would be much appreciated if you would give some thought to these points and convey your opinions regarding them to me before the Enewetak document is finalized. Thanks-for your attention -- and welcome home. Sincerely, P> Bruce W. Wachholz, Ph.d. Office of Health and Environmental Research, Office of Environment Enclosure