-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