ML20129J356
| ML20129J356 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/14/1978 |
| From: | Moore R, Rubinstein D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Parsont M NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129J281 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-309 NUDOCS 8507220519 | |
| Download: ML20129J356 (2) | |
Text
. .
~ . . . - =
o UNITED ST ATES 2
{n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t t WASHINGTON. D. C. 20$55 s
%, i # / March 14, 1978
/1
// 6 .ST
- . . . . .o/
MEMORANDUM FOR: Michael A. Parsont, Environmental Standards Branch, SD FROM: Roger H. Moore, Chief, Applied Statistics Branch, EDO David Rubinstein, Applied Statistics Branch, EDO l
SUBJECT:
CONMENTS ON CONTRACTING
~' FOR REANALYSIS OF THE MANCUSO
~ DATA After our participation on March 8, 1978 in the Source Evaluation Panel for Project Health Effects of Low Level Ionizing Radiation and after further reflection on the results of that meeting, we would like to express again l our views on the contemplated RFP and eventual contracts. Much of this l
vas discussed at_the meeting and, in fact, many of our views were shared '
by other participants. We feel the issues are important enough that written reinforcement is indicated.
- 1. It does not appear likely that three month's analysis on " retro-spective" data will substantially advance our knowledge and remove M,@ygeludingthatofMancusoet al , implies that a prospective sexisting ambiguities. Whatever opinion we have heard or read,
'p/ #
. Q' N ,6 [ analysis holds the c'opention. best If the promise ofdoresolving contractors not havethe issues at hand under a great
,T. - varfety of statistical programs and packages that are suitable
]@-a to%edata,theywillbeparticularlyhandicappedwiththe c emplated time and budget constraints. Since submitting their
'O F%al Report to DOE, Stewart and Kneale performed some better
\ ^
ganalyses on a larger sample. They iterated their promise to
,9;i i? dontinue analysis and to look also at survivors. While we are not sure what tape contractors will get, we speculate that it will contain less information than is available to the Mancuso team. The contractors' work may be largely irrelevant by the time of its publication in view of what Mancuso, Stewart, and Kneale may have produced by that time. There may be (in fact one can make the case that there are) other competitors for good analysis and some with formidable resources, such as NCI.
- 2. The assumption that contractors will analyse "the same data" as Mancuso et al must be questioned, especially if one considers their latest studies.
8
- 3. The present RFP and the eventual contracts will detract from NRC efforts for a good prospective study should NRC ever support such a study. We recommend that NRC concentrate its effort on
. thorough studies rather than on "quickly once over" studies or on how well Mancuso et al did their Final Report.
8507220519 850524 .
PDR FOIA ALVAREZB5-309 PDR 11 - _
P-I
i
- 4. The issue of NRC involvement in the analysis of one contractor was raised at the meeting but not resolved because of time pressures. We recommend that NRC staff have inputs into the formulation of at least one set of analyses. We are open as to whether this should be done under a separate RFP or not.
- 5. All issues relating to the available tapes should be resolved l before we give out an RFP. i
- 6. If we consider a three-month contract, the quality and pertinence i of available computer packages for data analysis and their l exercise by the potential contractors becomes a prime consideration for selection.
f 3%
ger H. Moore, Chief pplied Statistics Branch Jame nn David Rubinstein k
Ralph Avery Applied Statistics Branch R. B. Minogue S. Yaniv R. G. Smith S. H. Hanauer D. Hartfield D. Tabor a
e mes J