-3-
0 DOE legal council advised that contracts
between DOE and the labs
should point out that DOE has requested this assistance
Advisory Group) and that assistance
Richmond:
is the important point.
This should be documented.
impact and role should be documented
McClel 1an:
is being provided.
The scope of this Advisory Group’s activities
What are our responsibilities?
(from the
for the historical
Our
record.
Different forms of charter are possible:
●
We don’t need a “formal charter” that would put us under
the Advisory Act.
o A “formal charter” is neither necessary or desirable.
o Wachholz should put together a letter for Ruth Clusen “n
which is outlined the reasons for the groups existence
the key people are, their responsibilities,
Bai r:
Suggests that Wachholz
who
etc.
discuss this matter with Clusen while on the
way to Enewetak this weekend.
14achholz:
We can avoid the Advisory Act if members are acting as individuals.
It was not the intent of DOE to set up an advisory group that Would
be under the Advisory Act.
How limiting and precise should the
charter be?
McClel 1an:-
Wants a general charter; one that’s not restricted to a specific
area of concern.
Healy:
Feels this Advisory Group overstepped
its bounds when we “set”
the 40, B(), 160 pCi/g limits for the cleanup of Enewetak.
Discussion of LLL Draft Post Cleanup Dose Assessment
(beforeLLL
McClellan:
Draft is not well written.
Wachholz:
DOE is committed to getting a LLL dose assessment
by July 15.
scientists
arrived)
It must reach many different audiences.
document to DOI