ML19332E426

Discusses Evaluation of Unsolicited Carver Research Foundation of Tuskegee Univ 891010 Revised Proposal.Proposal Should Be Funded Contingent on Verification of Proposed Line Item Budget Costs

ML19332E426
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/01/1989
From:	Bangart R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Funches J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8912070210
Download: ML19332E426 (8)

Text

V

~

.gC* W

}

3

,.y Jesse Funches, Director j

MEMORANDUM FOR:

e+

Program Management, Policy-

~

Development, and Analysis Staff i

. Office of auclear Material Safety and Safeguards j

1 FROM: L Richard L.,Bangart, Director Div unn of Low-Level Waste Management y

anc Decommissioning, NMSS

' SUBJECTS EVALUATION OF CARVER RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY'S REVISED PROPOSAL DATED OCTOBER 10, 1989 We have reviewed the above ;ubject unsolicited proposal from the Carver Rese1rch Fundation which, if fur.ded, would establish ccnferences on low-level radioactive e

waste. We have assessed the proposal against the criteria developed and

,provided to you in a memo from John Greeves dated June 28, 1989. We note that i"

.the3 ?oposal addresses most of.the comments and concerns outlined in the

> June 28 1989. memo, has technical merit, and should be funded contingent on:

'1)' verification.of. the proposed line item budget costs; 2) conversion of.the-

-proposaitfrom a grant to a cooperative agreement (note: this would allow minimal.

NRC involvement-in structuring the' content and due dates of deliverables and i

-fixing the location and sub-contractors); 3) agreement in principle to devote some of the proposed conferences to convene meetings of state re officials; 4) identification and reprograming of fonds; and 5) gulatory receipt and approval-of the following information:

_ 1... Details of.the " Granting System Accountability Mechanisms," discussed on

- pages 13 'and 14 of the proposal, how the mechanisms will work, and identification of the key people who will perform its essential functions.

2.:

The Solicitor's Identification of and commitment to a reasonable frequency for Project Director-Steering Committee review of " current" speakers and topico for the proposeo conferences.

3.

.The schedule which " Site Coordinators" will adhere to-in providing the

" reportable items" referred to in Attachment 6 of the proposal.

'We'have provided the written results of our technical review as an enclosure to

, this memo andtrecommend that a meeting be arranged with the solicitor of the i grsnt to discuss the results of our review.

If I may be of further assistance, please call me at X23440 g g P g go g staff at X20575.

Richard L. Bangart, Director Division-of Low. Level Waste Management p

and Decommissioning, NMSS (TICKET # LLWM 89-114)T si6sDifelT426MP NMSS r/f C

Distribution:

Lo $e RBangart.:LLWM y

JGreevei, LLWM MBell, LLRB JSurmeier, LLTB LPlohaus, LLOB-RMacDougall, LLOB LPerson, LLOB JJones, LLOB r/f

"~

CKammerer, SLITP JLepre, LL W JJones, LLOB t/f r

PDR. VES 17 M ;'. PDR_ NO- /] Category: Proprietary / / or CF Only

/~~7 j,

nv>.i M fI ACNW YES2-I"7 NO-C7

/

Md: SUBJECT AB CT:

EVALUNTONTTUSKEGEE UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL

$M

• SeePrevkwlsfoncurrencel@

//..'..: S itor 1 0FC :LLOB*-

LLOB*

LLOE J f :LL

..................................pq.....,

9 NAME LPersor./jj

.:RMacDougall:PLohaus / :RBangart

.C

. merer b-

'Date 89

/89 89

.12/ /89

~

~

~~~~~~"~ ' ~

~7

~~ ---

yl_; ', ? ~., e

~

i I

'~

.g g

~ - pc y

Y s % NDlM FOR: NsseFunches', Director.

u N E.

Progra1 Management,' Policy z

$$+ %

Development,'and Analysis-Staff-10ffice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

~

m l

1 A lFROM::

Richard L'. Bangart.- Director-9y Divison'of Low-Level Waste Management Qg and Decommissioning, NMSS t

EVALUATION <0F CARVER RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF TUSKEGEE

' 5UBJECT: ( !

1 M

< UNIVER$1T_Y'S REVISED PROPOSAL DATED OCTOBER 10,1989 L :

\\

• :We h& d reviewed the above subject unsolicited proposal from the Carver Research

)

, H Foundation which, if fur.ded, would _ establish conferences on-low-level radioactive waste.i We havesassessedithe propor,a1 against the criteria developed and j

~

(%

provided to~you. in aimemo from John Greeves to you dated June 28, 1989.

7f

?We note that the proposal addresses most of the comments-and concerns outlined in i

T

'the June 28, 1985 memo,,has; technical merit / and should be funded contingent on:

'R 1)1verificationof:theproposed'lineiitembudgetcosts;-2)conversionoftheproposal from a grant to a cooperative agreemect'(note:,this-would~ allow minimal NRC-O < 11nvolvement:in structuring the content and due dates of deliverables and.

~ '

i

• %4 fixing the location and' subcontractors for several' convener conferences);

~;

. ' 3)L identification and reprogramming of. funds; and: 4)receiptandapprovalofthe

~

r followingJinformation:

(',

L Details of, the "Grantisg System Accountability Mechanisms," discussed on j

/1.

pages 13 and 14 of the prcposal..how the mechanisms will work, and identification off the: key people who will perfrmn its' essential function;..

['

' 2; TheiSolic' tor's Identification of and ccennitment'to a reasonable frequency 1for Project Director-Steerinly Committee review of " current" speakers and.

l^

'~

topics for the proposed conferences.-

LTheschedulewhich;"S$teCoord ators" will adhere to in providin l3i:

'" reportable items"; referred to in Attachment 6 of. the proposal.. g the sA 1

O a g,

\\

L

We-have provided the' written -results of V.ur technical review.as an enclosure to P

.this memo and recommerd that a meeting Le arranged with the solicitor of the-

^ grant-to discuss the'results of our reviek If I may be of further '.

~

assistance, please call me at X23440 or Roy erson of sty staff at X20575.

~

s' Richard L; ngart, Director:

y; Division of ow-level Waste Management i

and Deconsiss'ioning, HMSS Ur

' Distribution:-(TICKETTLLWM89-114)CertralFileMBell, LLRB \\

.7 -

426 NMSS r/f M

RBangart,'LLWM.

JGreeves,. LLWM

,JSurmeier, LLTB vt

- PLohaus, LLOB RMacDougall, LLOB LPerson, LLOB JJones, LLOB r/f JLepre, LLWM JJones, LLOB t/f f

y0 POR YES 1 D Category: Proprietary L/ or CF Only

/

[l W

- PDR:(N0! G :

N0 l'~7

ACNW YES L U_ACT::

/

'$UBJECT ABSTR

-EVALUATDNTTUSKEGEE UNSOLICITED PROPOS 1, Lc 4

p h.l)

\\

,t

-0FC :lLO 4

LLOB /g (LLOB

LLWM

LLWM N:JM55

" ~, 9 --g.

s

~ NAME:L son /jj

RMacDougall:PLohausi

RBangart Ki:Date:11/4789.-

2:11/4A/89.

11/ '/89

.:11/ /89

11/ /89

11/ /89 n

s (w,,

DFFICIAL REGORD COPY.

u

~

?

u 2-i 4

EVALUATION OF PROPOSAL AGAINST REVIEW CRITERIA 1.;

POTENTIAL.-USEFULNESS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR DISSEMINATION 0F 50; LN1. F.;C KNUWLEDGE TO THE PUBLIC. AND THE ADVANCP.M ;N1 0F PUBLIC N tRtWF IN CUNTR; BUTING TO THE RESOLUTION OF NUCL M RELAltD ENERGY l

HND LRVLNU mLNTAL 155UE5 SOLICITOR'S RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE CRITERION:

1.

Faculty.and student observers will form a panel at each conference site to address questions to each speaker on their presentations.

Students will be provided extra credit in accordance with the institutional guidelines of each school (sub-contractor). :1 embers of the public with varying levels of knowledge will attend.

2.

Electronic end print media-will be contacted to provide coverage by public television, cable. and printed media at each conference site and a video

- cassette inter-library ' loan system will be established at each conference site.

3..

Pre and post conference " reportable items" have been established for each sub-contractor.

REVIEW CONCLUSIONS AND/0R COMMENTS:

~The solicitor's response to this criterion is adequate provided a schedule is

' developed for submission of the reportable items referred to in Appendix 6 of the

(

oroposal, that the details for the convener's conference including schedcle and date are worked out with NRC, and that a time table is developed for establishing

+

medie' coverage prior to any proposed conference date. These proposed schedules and dates ~ should be approved by NRC suf ficiently in advance of the confelence date. The NRC Division of Low-Level Waste Management and Decommissioning will L

also potentially use.several conferences to convene low-level waste L

regulator's meetings.

J

'I i

1 j

l u

1

y i

L

7, M.

y a

?

11. " CLARITY OF. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVESr METHODS. AND ANTICIPATED RESULTS" l

i SOLICITOR'S RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE CRITERION:

Statement of Objectives E

1.-

"The-Carver'Research Foundation (CRF) of Tuskegee University proposes to_

l'

- the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue its support of the education conference series.of distinquinshed speakers in which the various issues of radioactive waste identification, management, processing, and

+

disposal will be' presented throughout the U. S.."

2.

Theinvolvementofhistoricallyblackcollegesanduniversities(HBCU's) and minority institutions (M I's) in the conference series will further enhance the missions of the NRC and fulfill the guidelines addressed in Executive Order 12320 and President George Bush's 1989 Educational and

.Research Init'iatives_ for HBCU'S/MI's."

c

' Methods.

1.

' A Conference Steering Cosmiittee (or conference management organization) will

~

be formed consisting of an applied physicist a nuclear engineer, a chemical

' engineer, a nuclear pharmacist, a plant physiologist, the NRC project officer, a representative of the Southeast Compact Consiission and a representative of Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. The Project 1

Director and Steering comittee members will maintain _ a current. awareness file of'all candidate speakers from a national and international prospectus who are.well versed in one or more of the areas to be presented.

2.-

The Project Director and Steering-Committee will. continuously upgrade the list of waste management topic areas to include the most current issues.

cnd will use an approved conference topic _ and speaker selection process which will include the Carver Research Foundation, Conference ~ Coordinators and NRC. -The Project Director and Steering Committee will schedule meetings

between NRC recruiting representrAives, coordinating site faculty, and superior students prior to, during, and, after conferences to allow for optimal recruiting opportunities.

3.

Pre and. post ::onference " reportable items " have been established for each subcontractor to assure doucumented positive results.

Anticipated Results "It is important that. accurate information about radiation, it's safety factors n

'and the potential. benefits of its use be evaluated and presented to the public and public sectors....."

REVIEW CONCLUSIONS AND/0R COMMENTS:

'The proposal adequately addresses this criterion provided the solicitor

identifies ~ and commits to a reasonable (as approved by the NRC project officer) frequency for Project Director-Steering Comittee review of " current" speakers

'and topics for-the proposed conferences.

.,2 :

LP/TUSKGRNT/11/14

.v -

._g, n

y,.. :) '

1 III. RANGE 0F ISSUES COVERED BY THE MEETING AGENDA SOLICITOR'S RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE' CRITERION:

The conference topics will be periodically updated and will focus on, but not be restricted-to:

1. LLow, medium and/or high level radioactive wastes management and disposal (past.:present and' future) technologies.

-2. ~ Mixed wastes management and disposal techniques.

)

3.

Technology and engineering requirements for radioactive wastes management I

.and-disposal.

4. -Current litigations pertaining to local, state, regional and federal

'g regulations on radioactive wastes management and disposal involving both non-compact and compact agreement states.

5.

Issues specific to disposal facility sitting and developmental efforts in low, medium and/or high level radioactive wastes non-compact and compact regions.

6. ' Academic ar.d industrial consortium agreement for research and development (R&D)Ltechnology transfer and educational exchange in radioactive wastes management and disposal 1 areas.

7. - Environmental impact and health: physic assessments related to radioactive wastes management and disp 0 sal.

_8.

Radioactive wastes identification, management, transport, treatment and disposal technologies.

-9.. Radioactive ~ wastes cleanup technologies and facilities capabilities.

~

K c10., - Educational procedures in radioactive wastes personnel protection, safety and basic skills.

li.: : Radioactive wastes minimiz' ation technologies.

12. : Radioactive wastes contingency planning programs: Local, regienal and E

national prospectus.

h 13.. Alternative low, medium and high level radioactive wastes disposal E

o

-technologies.

g

14. Nuclear accidents: Environmental impact from a global prospectus.

15.; Problems, controlling mechanisms and prevention of nuclear accidents.

l

16. LRight to know policies pertaining to radioactive wastes identification.

L

- management, processing and disposal.

m

.17.

Interstate agreements on radioactive wastes generation, imports, exports p

and management capabilities.

y I

.i

'C

5 fI'Nc:/;I,LP/TUSKGRNT/11/14:

t

--5 y a;.1 -

y,.

b a:w,.

fii td REVIEW CONCLUSIONS'AND/OR COMMENTS:.

tThis criterion;is adequately addressed, however, topics should be submitted to r

NRC;for. approval once updated..

1 4

1:

i s

l 1

t

.l.~.

i

)

.'3, i

r--

7

'T } -,

r -

hi:

l

1..

+

l,'

A i

jiE..

i y

lit

\\

l

\\

l ll

'l

,4

LP/ TUSK 6RNT/11/14

]

i m

i

- IV. ~ QUALIFICATIONS-AND EXPERIENCE OF PROJECT SPEAKERS SOLICITOR'S RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE CRITERION:

?

1.

-A pre-selection screening process will be conducted from a pool of nationally and internationally recognized authorities on radwaste management and i

low-level waste disposal.

- 2.

The Project Director and Steering Committee is to maintain an awareness file of all current speakers who are well versed in the above areas.

j 3.,

~ A list of potential speakers will be submitted to NRC for approval.

4. -

The Carver Research Foundation, NRC and the conference I

'sub-contractors / coordinators will assess the credentials of all accademic faculty chosen to present issues at each site.

- REVIEW CONCLUSIONS AND/0R COPMENTS:

This criterion is adequately addressed.

i 9

I p

f I

P

.LP/TUSKGRNT/11/14-

.-7..

a.*

5.

e t' V.

REASONABLENESS OF ESTIMATED COST IN RELATION.TO ANTICIPAT SOLICITOR'S RESPONSE TO THE AB0VE CRITERION:

- A Grant manager and personnel manager computerized accounting system.will be instituted. This system will assess the cost effectiveness and usefulness related to anticipated costs and maintain an accurate update on the financial status of the grant.

. any problems and a bi-monthly; report will be submitted to NRC.This sy broken down for each conference.

Invoices will be REVIEW. CONCLUSIONS AND/0R COMMENTS:

This system will be considered adequate if the details of.the grant manager /

I

personnel manager accounting system are provided with an identification of the mechanisms and personnel to make.it work. As part of the verification of the-estimated costs for this project, the solicitor should also show the basis for

.the increase in' estimated costs over the actual costs incurred in putting on the conference. program under the previous grant.

4 1

Y

~

1.-

I' r

{

. ~

..