ML20153A904
| ML20153A904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/16/1978 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7811290001 | |
| Download: ML20153A904 (31) | |
Text
_
,N
~
L x EG UL ATO RY CO MMisSI O N-N U C L.*
.r i
IN THE MATTER OF:
PUBLIC MEETING DISCUSSION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH EPA (see SECY-78-582)
(
Place - Washington, D. C.
Date. Thursday, 16 November 1978 Pcge.s 1-30 Teiecnone:
m aam x.
giqqooo/
ACE - FEDERAL RE?ORTERS,INC.
m.+-u*..
~
yy2 a.
l
.tu North C:=itei Streer Wcshingen O.C. 2CCC1 l
v
1 I
DISCLAIMER Ttis is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on 16 November 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, fl. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and.it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
s As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision. of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do no-t necessarily reflect final de' terminations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any p'roceecing as 'the result of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
i 4
i
2 1
. UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REdULATORY COMMISSION 3
l 4
PUBLIC MEETING l
5 DISCUSSION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH EPA (see SECY-78-582) 6 7
8 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N. W.
9 Washington, D. C.
10 '
Thursday, 16 November 1978
.11 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m.
12 BEFORE:
13 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 14 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner i
15 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner l
i 16 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 17 JOHN F. AHEARNE, Commissioner 18 19 20 i
-21 l
l 22
~i 23 j
24
,;v Featral Recorters Inc. ;
25 l l
v n-e,
r,
., - -.., ~.. -
,..,c-,,..
m-...,.,
s 3
t I
CR1352 P_ R_ O_ C_ E,E_ D_ I_ N_ G,S_
2 tape.1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we could come to order --
3 david 1 and John --
i l
Now.- we meet this morning to discuss a i
I 5
'F memorandum of understanding with EPA on a low level 6
radiation study.
We are due to have this completed, I 7
believe, by the first week in December, something like the 8
6th, under the Authorization Bill.
9 There's a paper, 582, in hand.
The-staff has 10 I had some trouble getting down this morning.
The executive director, I understand, got trapped on Foxhall Road.
What 12 happened to Bill Dircks?
Is he still there?
13 MR. GOSSICK:
Well, he was with me in the.
Id elevator.
15 (Laughter.)
16 He will be right in.
Sorry about the delay.
II Traffic is unbelievable.
We tried every street open to 18 us, and they were all blocked.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I ran into some people coming 20 from the Annapolis area.
That seemed to be a two hour 21 proposition this morning too.
I 22 l
Let me ask, before we move further; I have 23 what seems to be a redraft or a new draft of the memorandum 24 of understanding withsome modifications of the language
- e recewt Reporters. Inc.
25 l from the version that's in SECY 87-582.
I take it KRG is
~
Karl-Goller?
4 david 2 I
)
MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir.
~
A 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, good.
3 MR. MINOGUE:
Mr. Goller is prepared to speak to -,
j l
l I
the version that we sent to the Commission, of course, was
.l 5
our first. cut at this.
There has been some development in 6
the wording, and Mr.'Goller is prepared to speak to some of 7
these modifications.
i 8
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
All right, why don't you go f
9 ahead and here comes Bill.
10 MR. GOLLER:
Thank you.
11 Gentlemen, as has already.been mentioned, the NRC y
12 fiscal year 1979 Authc,.ization Bill specifically mandates 13 the NRC and EPA to undertake a joint preliminary planning l
f I#
and design study for epidemiological research on the l
15 health effects of low level, ionizing radiation.
l 1
16 i
Furthermore, a memorandum of understanding is l
I7 i
also specifically mandated by the act, which states that 18 within 30' days af ter the date of enactment of this section, 19 the Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency i
20 shall submit to the Congress a-memorandum of understanding 21 to delineate their responsibilities, the conduct of planning j
22 studies authorized by another section of this act.
l 23
\\
The president' signed this act into law on i
1 November 6th.
Therefoie, the'30 day period expires on
- e Feceral Reporters, Inc.
25
~
December 6th.
We have prepared a draft' of a memorandum i
n
.n.--,-,
e-n v-
a l
t david 3 I
of understanding in conjunction with the staff of EPA.
2 l
The draft provides a general descript. ton or the l
3ll principal responsibilities of the two agencies, provides a 4
summary of the requirements of the act, and it provides 5
for the establishment of a five man scientific review 6
group to develop, guide, and monitor the progress of the 7
activities required under the act.
8 The scientific review group would be composed 9
of two members from the NRC, two from EPA, and a member from 10 I the HEW.
The draft memorandum of understanding has been II submitted to HEW for their review, and they have agreed 12 in principle to the provisions therein.
13 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To which draft, the Id one we got on the 9th or the one ve got this morning?
j 15 MR. GOLLER:
- Both, i
16 l
MR. MINOGUE:
In effect, bo th.
I've discussed i
I7 and Mr. Goller will talk about the only change of any real 18 substance, and I have discussed that with Mr.
Libasie I9 and have got agreement in principle to the structural i
20 framework.
21 I think we all recognize that as the study 22 proceeds, there will remain some technical issues that need 23 to be resolved.
It's not a completely clear picture, but 24 the framework, there appears to'be agreement in principle on.
- sferceral Heoorters, Inc,
25 ll COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You said you got agreement i
c 6
I david 4
.with Mr..Libasie.
2 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So the issue is with 4
HEW, not EPA?
5 MR. MINOGUE:
The issue was also discussed with 6
EPA in a meeting several days ago, but the specific 7
wording problem came about because of concern on the part of 8
IIEW because they basically would be free to designate within 9
their own organization which element works on this.
COMMISSIONEL AHEARNE:
All right.
11 MR. GOLLER:
With the revision of tee MOU, 12 of which you have a copy before you in comparative texts I3 to indicate any and all changes,that are proposed --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
From the Commission paper 15 version.
16 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, from the previous version that 37 you had.
Our change is only an editorial and a clarifying i
i 18 nature.
There are in our opinion no substantive changes 19 in the proposed MOU.
To indicate to you the extent or the 20 magnitude of'the changes, I would like to call your 21
. attention to item number five on page 3, which constitutes 22 what we think is perhaps the most substantive change.
3 But even this is merely a specification of what
- Feceral Rcoorters,,Inc,,
25
~
draft.
L
l 7
l david [
Number five, as you can see, provides that, " aft.er I
2 I
review of the report by the scientific review group, the 3
report will be sent to the Commission and the Administrator 4
of EPA for final approval prior to transmittal to the 5
l Congress."
l l
6 The other changes are of even lesser substance 7
and constitute only editorial and clarifying changes 8
originally intended, i
9 MR. MINOGUE:
Let me clarify that; with the 10 1 exception of course of the one I just discussed, which 11 spoke to the nature of HEW's participation, which is the 12 change in paragraph one.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Then you had intended all 14 along that the program manager was not going to be one of i
15 those --
I i.
6 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes, sir, The specific point that l
I7 I think is different in intent than what was behind the draft 18 that was put before you -- the rest is just editorial 19 clarification, was the issue -- was the member from HEW a reg-20 ulator from HEW or was it generally someone selected by HEW management?
22 We dropped the " regulator" wording.
That's really 23 the substantive matter at issue.
The rest is just clarification.
l 24
.eJecord Rooorters. Inc, \\
25 j
revised wording still provides for NRC and EPA's agreement to ll
!)
l 8
I i
davidb 1
whomever HEW would so designate.
l 2
-COMMISSIONER"AHEARNE:
That'may have been latent 3
in the previous draf t.
It was not explicit.
4 MR. GOLLER:
That's correct, and this is what 5
we mean by " clarifying wording."
6 The previous draft, the draft that was submitted 7
with the Commission paper has been provided --
8 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Does that mean as to the 9
individual himself?
10 MR. GOLLER:
I would say primarily by his position 11 within the HEW organization, his expertise, his responsibilities 12 and so on.
As Mr. Minogue has already indicated, we would 13 be particularly interested in seeing that this individual 14 has a regulating -- a regulator's viewpoint to contribute 15 to this effort.
l l
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would say that I asked l
l 17 the question only because it seems a little odd to not only 18 define what his role, his position, his responsibilities in l
19 the agency would be, and say something about his background, 20 but then for other agencies to have veto authorities i
21 over somebody designated by the secretary of a major cabinet 22 department to fill the role is a little odd.
23 MR. MINOGUE:
Well, the wording as it's written 24 would clearly carry with it disapproval.right for a specific
- e.Fecerol Rooorters, Inc. ;
25 ' individual.
l i
l l
y
'e 9
MR.~GOLLER:
But it no longer specifies what j
I davidk 2
~
~
his' background position is.
It only provides for that i
3 review and approval who is designated.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And you're saying that's S
acceptable to Libasie?
6 MR. MINOGUE:
It's acceptable as to how this 7
would be established.
We all foresee some trying times in the 8
setting up of the study because it has to be coordinated 1
9 with and mesh into a much larger program that HEW is running, j
10 and that's going to be a little difficult because the l
l 11 I
perspectives of a regulator may not always exactly track those j
12 l
of HEW.
j 13 I
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My explicit point, Bob,
)
'14 l
is that it is acceptable to 'Libasie that NRC and EPA
{
f have to agree on their nominee?
l MR. MINOGUE:
Yes, sir.
I read these words to 17 him on the telephone, and I would describe his agreement in 18
-principle.
I would say that until a person has had a chance 19 l
to digest it, discuss it with the secretary, we can' t take j
20 this as a final concurrence.
j 21 But I did have the opportunity to discuss this 22 change with him which we worked out with EPA.
23 i
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would be a little bit l
24
- .s.oere noneri, ine, l more comfortable if.yo'u were sure in some informal discussion l
25 with hiu that he understood the language to be as we are
10 i
david 8 discussing it here.
That is a particular individual rather than -
because I say: that is,a.little'. odd..
I'm not 2
osjece1ne eo 1e.
I.
simp 1y saying 1t.s a 11ee1. oee.
I i
would like to be sure that they ceded that -.
j MR. MINOGuE:
I would need to red flag that for 3
him.
It's not that' evident to me.
I just talked to him 20 minutes ago, and I'm not that he understood this.
7 8
executive side, I would agree with Dick.
Certainly, in 9
its previous roles I would not accept that.
10 MR. MINOGUE:
I'll explore the specific point
- 3 with him.
I don't think tcat's an essential issue.
The g
main concern is the organizational expertise that that
~
person-is. suited for.
g COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
There's some limits 15 on Bob 's ability to keep saying, 'bre you sure you understand."
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, I understand.
If he i
~~
18 l
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But again, the language is j
39 not so precise as not to be subject to some difference of l
20 i
i interpretation.- That's the point.
j MR. GOLLER:
Someone mentioned that, exactly.
g MR. DIRCKS:
HEW does not sign this memo.
It's 23 EPA and NRC.
24
.m.rmai n.mnen. ne.
I COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, if you're committing i
i 1
'i
r 7
1 4
11 david 9 I
HEW to do something --
2 COMMISSIO'NER KENNED :
They ought to initial it.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In some way they have to 4
sign something like a concurrence sheet.
5 MR. MINOGUE:
A concurrence would be more on the 6
order of what we're talking about.
An earlier version, 7
the one before he's talking in terms of invitation, this 1
8 says " member designated by."
Maybe if we put it back to 9
" invitation," then it's open whether they actually designate 10 somebody or not.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All I'm saying is I 12 believe since you are specifically -- you have a specific 13 role that HEW wants to fill and there are constraints on the way they want to fill it, I think there are constraints 15 that you want to have someone at HEW and Libasie is 16 probably the perfect guy to initial something.
I7 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes.
The issue that kind of 18 underlies this of course, both they and EPA are looking 19 beyond the present study to a large research program, and 20 embedded in this is an issue of how that research program 2I gets directed between those two agencies with NRC playing 22 a rather peripheral role.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, we have great 24 !
interest because in a way, as -in all of these large research i
.ee-Fco;f al Reporters, Inc.
25 efforts, we have to try to tse the large research dollars t
12 I
l david-10 available in the other department, use our leverage 2
as a regulatory agency because m have to utilize their 3
products.
We want to make sure their products are what d
we deem them to be.
O MR. MINOGUE:
Yes, sir.
6 MR. GOLLER:
To go on then:
EPA has reviewed 7
this revision and agrees with all of the changes indicated.
8 The previous draft that was attached to the Commission paper 9
was as requested by the Commission, as submitted to the 10 appropriate Congressional committees for their review, and 11 there'have been no comments received, thereby, I think, 12 indicating satisfaction with the content of the proposed 13 MOU.
14 Since there are no substantive changes in the changes, we feel that this would be indicative of their 16 approval of this revised wording also.
I7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When you say there are no 18 comments received, does that mean that they haven't looked 19 at it yet, or that they looked at it and had no problems?
20 MR. GOLLER:
Well, in the one case, sir, the 21 committee most interested with this, Senator Hart's committee, 22 I discussed that with a member of the staff.
I know that 23 he read it and reviewed it in detail, and generally indicated 24 satisfaction with its provisidns.
..g3.Feocrol Reporters, Inc.
~
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
By " generally indicated,"
l t
i
r 13 1
davidll.
do youimean that he had.some. specific. problems or that
~
'2 there were no speciric problems?
3 1
MR. GOLLER:
There were no specific problems, 4
and as a matter of fact he generally indicated pleasure 5
and acceptance with the provisions.
6 MR. DIRCKS:
I think we should add one point, that 7
the committee did not want to be in the position -- would 8
i be in the position of concurren in this thing.
They 9
don't want to be -- I don't think any committee up there 10 wants to sign off and approve the document.
11 I think if anything the only point of concern 12 that they might have is this business of tha HEW.
They 13 would like to assure that we get the regulatory -- that 14 the HEW is aware of the fact because of the legislative 15 history and everything, that the regulatory side of HEW 16 should be well represented in this.
17 MR. MINOGUE:
And I have discussed specific 18
. point at great length with Mr. Libasie.
I'm certain he's 19 aware of this, the regulatory input and the recognition of 20 the Bureau of Radiological Health as a regulatory agency 21 jurisdiction in this area, just as EPA and NRC are.
22 MR. GOLLER:
And that of course is the primary 23 point that we would assure to be the case by our approval of 24
,.ee Feacect Reporters, inc-the~ person so' designated.
l 25 l'
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
14 I
davidl2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could I_ask a couple of 2
questions.
First of all, as to paragraph four, specifies 4
that NRC will make available up to $500,000 for outside 0
assistance.
That reflects the legislative history and 6
statutory mandates.
But it. is also odd that no reference 7
is made to any participation in this regard by EPA.
Is 8
it intended that they shall not provide any funds?
MR. MINOGUE:
Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They shall not provide it?
11 All funds will be provided by us.
12 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes, sir.
The funding for outside 3
work will be by NRC.
The commitment we got out of them was 14 the commitement to provide the staff resources to participate 15 in the planning and formulate the final report.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
They have no legislation --
17 MR. MINOGUE: Thq(had no legislation to mandate this l
18 and we did, which put us in a difficult bargaining position.
19 But we did get a solid commitment from them to 20 provide staff expertise. That's an important --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Where is that commitment in concrete terms?
MR. MINOGUE:
It's in-this agreement.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNED'Y:
Yes, I know, but I didn't
,iceJectrtl Reporters, Inc.
find it in terms of -- it says " staff," but it doesn't say l
t
a 15 davidl3 I
how much.
2 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes, sir.
I didn't mean firm in the 3
exact cense of numbers of people.
We really -- at this 4
points it's not clear.
5 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Wouldn't it be well or 6
is it beyond our capabilities to obtain from them a clear, 7
on the record commitment as to staff resources that they 8
will supply?
9 MR. MINOGUF:
I think this review group, which 10 already and informally had a number of discussions on the II scope of the job, would need to be further along before we 12 can be really clear how much would be needed.
Even in 13 our own organization we have the same problem.
14 We also plan to try to use consultants to provide 15 us with specific expertise in some of the planning work here 16 to avoid the problems in our own house.
I7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I was thinking about the 18 clear commitment we have from them, in your words, to the l'
orovision of staff resources.
And I just was trying to 20 nail down what those staff resources were going to be.
2I MR. MINOGUE:
I don' t think we can pin that down.
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
We have to wait.
Fine.
But 23 it seems to me that is an agenda item for a later rather 2#
mor/a explicit commitment.
You know, general statements about
,,ce.Feetra.1 Reporters, Inc, 25 the commitment of staff resources are comforting, not
~
l l
16 I
david 14 necessarily productive.
2 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes,'bu't'they're particularly 3
comforting if you recognize the change.
It hasn't been but 4
a few months ago that they were very negative.on this whole 5
effort, and I think the fact that we now have them solidly 6
on baord is real progress.
7
.MR.
MTLER:
Furthermore, I think it is a clear 8
commitment on both sides, NRC's as well as EPA to provide 9
whatever resources are necessary to do the job.
10 COMMISSINER KENNEDY:
They helped us in this II regard.
They told us they would.
Anyway, the next 12 question -- it's just something that I think we ought to, 13 if we can, look to nailing down rather more specifically, 14 because as we all know, as years roll on, demands on 15 rescurces come from all directions, and somebody then sits i
16 back in his ivory tower and makes I:iriority decisions and I7 we want to be sure that our priority is unmistakable, I I0 think.
19 MR. MINOGUE:
I think it should be of interest to 20 the Commission thct one thing that's noticeable in this context 21 is that Mr. Hawkins is much more involved in this area than 22 he was, say, a year ago.-
I think that 's a good sign in 23 terms of some sort of a long term commitment by EPA.
~#
COMMISSIONER KENNED.Y:
One last question is in
,,ew.casi n porters, Inc.
25-item six on' pace 4.
I'm not quite sure what the implication i
o-17 I-davidl5 here is.
Each of us will prepare separately assessments 2
of capabilities and research nee'ds and then jointly prepare a report to the ' Congress.
4 Now, how does that work?
Whatis visualized here?
5 Do we each prepare our assessment and then somebody writes 6
a cover sheet and puts them together and says tab A is this 7
one and tab B is that one?
I 8
MR. MINOGUE:
Let me let Karl speak to that.
9 MR. GOLLER:
Well, actually that detail of 10 compiling these has not been thought through or worked out 11 yet.
It could be as you described as a minimum to a more 12 complete integration of the two reports.
13 That report is of course, again, specifically Id required by the legislation to be submitted next spring, 15 I believe in April.
6 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Refresh my memory on I7 end 1 precisely what the terms of that requirement are.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 I
M-FCaeral Reporters, Inc.
25 I
1
)
i
f q
- 352.02.1 18-gsh 1
MR. GOLLER:.The t,erm was.for_each agency to 2
indicate --
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Each agency?
4 MR. GOLLER:
Each agency :to submit a report to 5
the Congre.ss indicating its research needs and its capabilities 6
in.this regard.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Right.
So there remains --
8 so the independent or-the separate preparation of ass essments 9
of capabilities and research needs meets that requirement.
10 Then what goes beyond that is something that we can look to 11 resolving over time.
We can decide whether some integration 12 of that would be useful.
13 It would s.eem to me that at some point,.indeed, it 14 would be.
IS MR. GOLLER:
Exactly. That would be considerably 16 dependent on the nature of these needs and capabilities, and 17 the extent to which they could be overlapped and integrated.
18 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Presumably, the Congrass had 19 in mind, I would hope -- we all would -- that duplication 20 doesn't necessarily result in greater product, except in 21 terms of expenditure of resources.
22 And so if there is a possibility of getting better 23 product, either for less money or getting better product, 24 considerably better product, with the available money, it 25 would seem to me that>s.what we're aiming at here.
Okay.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
352.02.2 19 gsh Ie Thank you.
2 MR. GOLLER: If there are no other questions --
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE John?
l 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I have 2 que s tions.
- First, 5
questions of schedule and deadlines.
Your paragraph I talks 6
about the scopes of work for the planning and design studies, 7
the type of organizations, monitoring, but doesn't addre.ss S
who sets the schedule deadlines and..when are they to be set 9
by.
10 And I'm.not saying that it ought to be in here, but 11 I would like to understand.
12 MR. MINOGUE:
I'd like to comment on that.
13 The overa.11 schedule, of course, is set by the 14 legislation.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
No, the legislation sets 16 when a report is due.
But to get the report done, you have 17 got to have a decision on what work is going to be done and 18 what the deadlines are for that.
19 MR. MINOGUE:
I was about to speak to that point.
20 The final end-produc t is defined by the legislation.
My 21 inst.inctive' reaction is to take that deadline dead serious.
22 One of the first tasks of this commi.ttee would then be to 23 lay out the schedule of activities that would be required.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So this committee will lay 25 out the schedule.
Will this committee also, then, establish ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
352.02.3 20 gsh 1.'
.the deadlines, or does, that committee,.then, have to go to 2
someone else like you and Hawkins to get approval of that?
i 3
MR. MINOGUE:
I would assume'that the line 4
organization structure of the - two agencies, which for us 5
would be standards and research, they're heavily involved 6
in this as well.
And on the EPA side would be the two 7
involved systems of administrators, would have some oversight 8
of that.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That's not in this memo of 10 understanding, then.
11 MR. MINOGUE:
That's right.
12-COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So do I correctly conclude 13 that at the moment there has been no extensive discussion or 14 agreement between us and EPA as to when or by whom those 15 schedu?.es are to be set?
16 MR. MINOGUE:
I think the presumption was the 17 schedules would be proposed by the task group.
There has been 18 a lot of discussion between the two agencies of the overall 19 schedule, specifically hinging on the point of how seriously 20 the Congre.ssional deadline is taken.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
My concern is that I've seen 22 lots of reports given that meet Congressional deadlines, and 23 a lot of them' have been done haphazardly at the last minute.
24 I. don't mean by NRC but by other agencies I've been in.
25 So, therefore, I recognize that it's very important ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
352.02.4 21 gsh
'l to get early agreement on, what the schedule is-and_to meet 2
the final deadline with a good product, you have to adhere 3
very well to the early deadlines.
4 I am concerned who is actually going to approve 5
those deadlines.
6 MR. MINOGUE: Well, the matter right now is basically 7
being discussed within our agency up to and including Bill 8'
Dircks, who has talked to Terk about it.
And within EPA, I 9
think Terk has been the principal spokesman.
He works for 10 Hawkins in a rather senior capacity.
11 I think there is an i.ssue here between the agencies 12 that's quite real in the sense that our thinking --and this 13 is important in terms of defining the task before this task 14 group, is to take the Congressional schedule dead serious.
15 I get the sense that EPA -- andBill might, want 16 to add to this -- has more an attitude that what 17 the Congress is looking for is the best effort, and they 18 don't really expect the end product on the stated date.
And 19 I think this is a very critical issue that needs to be 20 resolved.
21 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That probably has a lot to do 22 with those early deadlines.
23 MR. MINOGUE:
When the legislation was being worked 24 over before the conference conmittee, all of us went over and 25 met with the committee, incl uding HEW.
And there was a great ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
352.02.5 22-
'gsh I
deal of discussion.of this s.cheduling,.the scope of the job, 2
,the ability or lack of ability to go outside for contractors 3
or stay within the government.
4 And in that context, we asked the committee to 5
provide a longer schedule, and our request was not granted.
6 They gave some relief, but not complete relief.
7 I've taken that personally to mean that they're 8
dead serious.
s 9
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What did EPA conclude from 10 this?
Il MR. MINOGUE:
EPA would appear to me to be of the 12 impression that the schedule really is intended to be, give 13 it your best shot.
But we don't nece ssarily really expect 14 you to make that deadline.
15 It's a very critical question, because as 16 Commi.ssioner Ahearne has pointed out, what this commi.ttee lays 17 out as a schedule very early on, and even the type of task 18 that's undertaken, the kind of organization you go on hinges 19 very directly on how seriously you take the end schedule.
20 If you take it dead seriously, you're almost 21 mandated to stay within the government.
22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Do you anticipate to run into 23 the same problem we apparently did on the dollars at other 24-points in this study, as far as setting deadlines and getting 25 work done?
Will you have the same lack of leverage because the e
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
352.02.6 23 gsh I
burden is on NRC, lnot EPA?.
2:
MR. MINOGUE:
I think throughout this whole task 3
work, you have very difficult coordination problems.
4 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Stemming from that point?
5 MR. MINOGUE:
Stemming from diff erent perspectives 6
of urgency, different. perspectives of need, things that we 7
do --
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I guess the oversight 9
committee that has laid the charge is our oversight committee 10 and not theirs --
.11 MR. MINOGUE:
I.think they're EPA's, but they're 12 not HEW's oversight comm Lttae, and there's an issue here 13 that's not central to us at all.
That's who runs the 14 eventual major research programs, not just in the radiation 15 program, but across the board in all epidemiological 16 questions.
17 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So where is the schedule 18 set?
19 MR. MINOGUE:
The schedule, as we now see it, would 20 be proposed by this work group.
They're already working 21 defining the tasks.
22 MR. DIRCKS :
I. think where this question of missing 23 schedules came up was at one meeting. It was the end date 24 tha t was bothering, I think EPA, and that was a question of 25 meeting 'the September deadline.
And that would require going ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
352.02.7 24 gsh L
out for. bids and contractor. selection,.and "so on.
They
~
2 were saying that's when we go for that process. When you 3
go for competitive award for a contract in any sense of 4
the word, you have already. built in several months into that 5
thing.
6 And they were concerned about writing a good scope 7
and ge tting a good contract selection process. That's where 8
we met.this problem.
9 MR. MINOGUE:
Let me make a comment on that. I 10 think that's a very important point.
I wouldn't want to 11 misrepresent what their concerns are.
12 I met two nights ago with Dr. Mills, who is acting 13 for Bill Rowe, and that was a central point that he made 14 that they were very concerned that the right kinds of 15 expertise be brought into this job.
And they felt that to 16 assure that, you needad some latitude to be able to go outside 17 for contracts. And ycd almost can't do that if you take this 18 end schedule seriously.
19 So that also is part of their concern.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To get back into focus, the 21 schedule then is currently going to be proposed by this 22 working group, which I gather at the present time does not 23 have its five members.
24 MR. MINOGUE:
There is an ad hoc informal group 25 that's subject to approval by all concerned, that is acting as w
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS INC. (202)347-3700
r 352.02.8 25 gsh I
if they.were this group... They may,,or.may not..be.
~
y, 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
Then that group, 3
af ter having got their schedule together, will give it to you 4
and Hawkins, and you and Hawkins, then, have to approve it?
5 MR. MINOGUE:
That's the understanding I would have 6
as to how this would work, yes, sir.
7 MR. DOLLAR:
And, sir, we f eel that that would be 8
required by the normal procedures and policies within each 9
of the agencies.
It would not specifically need to be spelled 10 out in the MOU.
Il COWWISSIONER AHEARI.E s Right.
Could you give your 12 o n rough estimate as to when you expect it likely that that w
13 would occur?
That is, that there would be a clear schedule?
14 MR. MINOGUE:
It would have to be within the next 15 month if we're going to nave any hope.
16 CO MMI SSIONER AHE ARNE :
I understand that.
I want to
'17 know when y~1 think it will likely occur.
18 MR. MINOGUE:
It will have to occur within the next j
19 month. We'll have to make it occur.
20 COW 4ISSIONER AHEARNE:
So you would hope by the end 21 of December.
22 MR. MINOGUE: This is a very rocky road and we may 23 not succeed, but I have to shoot for that goal or we'll never 24 make the deadline.
25-I don't want t3 begin the whole thing by slipping
~
-ACE-FEDERAL' REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
352.02.9 26 gsh 1-the schedule six months.-
1 2
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: All right.
3 The other question-I have relates to, as I read the 4-memo of unders tanding, it would appear to me that you are 5
focusing primarily.upon completing the April report.
And I 6
wasn't really clear what you had in mind in going from April 7
to September.
8 MR. MINOGUE:
I think the main focus, in fact, is 9
on the September report.
And what we do to get that is 10 something that the task group is literally -- the ad hoc 11 informal task group is literally doing right now.
They are 12 trying to define the tasks to be done, the scope of work, 13 and so on.
14 As this shakes out a little bit, I would expect to 15 go with that and talk to Mr. Libasie and begin to get some 16 more HEW input.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
One of the things that led me 18 to this conclusion is that as I finish up with No. 6, in which 19 you have compiled the report, No. 5, after review of the 20 report, sent to the commission administrator and No. 6 is 21 NRC and EPA will separately prepare these a.ssessments of 22 capability and research needs -.which seem to drag to the 23 language of subsection C of the appropriate authorizing 24 bill, which speaks specifically to the report due April ist.
25 The report due September 30th is a study of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
i d
B 4
352.02.10 27 gsh I
options for. federal. research on health effects on low
~
2 ionizing radiation and evaluation of the f easibility of 3
such options, which has the consultation of HEW.
4 There didn't seem to be an similarly explicit 5
paragraph which tied to the submission of that report.
That's 6
what led me to conclude this was focused on approval.
7 MR. MINOGUE:
I think actually, paragraph 6 is 8
ac tually like an..addmat -The main thrust of what people were 9
debating and discussing up to that point was the September 10 report.
' ll MR. GOLLER:
The items 1 through 6 are not intended 12 to be in chronological order.
6 was included to provide for 13 that additional report, interim report.
14 MR. MiNOGUE:
I think
- this point needs to-be
' <4 15 clarified.
Please take yes for an answer..
16 I think this point should be clarified.
The intent 17 certainly -- the more difficult task by f ar, the September la report.
The other one is relatively easy.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
All right.
Okay. Those are 20 my questions.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I presume that paragraph 6 would 22 apply to both.-
23 MR. MINOGUE:
No, I really think it does apply to 24 the one on research capabilities and needs.
25 MR. G OLLAR:
And only to that.
It's not intended to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,'INC. (202)347-3700
i
- 352.02.11 28 gsh I
apply to the other..
2 MR. MINOGUE:
It's kind of an add-on.
I think this 3
point needs to be clarified.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY : The second, the September 5
30th report,-would derive from this one.
6 MR. MINOGUE: Plus the study.
7 COMMISSIONER XENNEDY That's right.
s 8
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Other comments?
Peter?
9 COMMI.SSIONER BRADFORD: (Nods in the negative. )
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It seems to me a perfectly 11 reasonable draft for the MOU. It seems to me the staff has 12 done a good job in laying the basis for this thing, and that 13 the statement here is adequate to cover tha formal agreement 14 between the agencies.
15 As Bob points out, there will undoubtedly be a 16 number of places down the road where the agencies, perhaps 17 all three immediately involved, w.111 have dif ferences of 18 opinion. out that's to be expected.
19 What I would ask in order that this can go forward and not need f urther massaging and potential hold-up at the 20 i
21 commission level, is that the commission vote to accept the 22 draf t memorandum of understanding. as presented in the 23 Goller 11/15 draft, with the understanding that paragraph 6, 24-some clarification about the separate assessments and the 25 report to which it applies be worked out with EPA.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
'352.02.12 29 gsh 1
. It seems.to. me-that. fo.r myself I " don't f eel any 2
need to massage the wording, a particular adjustment in the 3
words in which that adjustment will be couched, our knowledge 4
that it will be attended to.
5 It would seem to me to be su fficient.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
(Nods in the affirmative.)
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
(Nods in the af firma tive. )
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: We.11, that is a proposition which, 9
if you f eel ready to vote, I will ask the commission for those 10 in favor to so indicate.
11 COMMI.SSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Aye.
13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Aye.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Aye.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE So ordered.
Thank you very much.
16 COMMI SSIONER AHEARNE:
Could I ask one final 17 question?
18
.Your phrasing of that resolution does not mean that 19 Bcb shouldn't try to got HEW to initial something.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think an exchange of letters, 21 or whatever, between Bob and Mr. Libasie : or Lee and Mr.
22 Libasie., or whatever, seems appropriate.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Fine.
24 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But I didn't want to move in a 25 direction-of trying to make them signatories to this document ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700 j
4.,
2352.02.13 30 gsh 1
because then they.will. have.to. -
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: No, but I do think that the 3
exchange of letters will be fine.
But he ought to in.some 4
way make sure that ribasles concurs, at least if we're 5
committing HEW to do something.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE2 I think forwarding a copy, an 1
7 exchange of briefing -- exchange of briefs would be be all 8
right, forwarding of drafts. okay?
4 9
(Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m.,
the hearing in the j.
10 above-mentioned matter was concluded.)
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
< ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. (202)347-3700
,