ML20023C851
| ML20023C851 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/19/1980 |
| From: | Strickler L NRC |
| To: | NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023A415 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-515 NUDOCS 8305180111 | |
| Download: ML20023C851 (1) | |
Text
.
- . pay J
UNITED STATES T
j 'E
.,
- p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHING T ON. D. C. 20555
\\..'ll #
FEB 191980 MEMORAriDutt FOR:
File
/
FROM:
Lawrence Strickler %
Investigator
SUBJECT:
NUCLEAR PHARMACY INC.
Earlier this month IE (Tom Brockett) provided 01A with a copy of a January 2,1980, letter (Attachment A) from Senator Harrison Schmitt to Chainnan Ahearne, regarding fluclear Pharmacy Inc. (flPI).
Brockett subsequently drafted a response to Senator Schmitt's letter. He obtained my telephonic concurrence on this draft. On January 21, Brockett provided me with a hard copy of his draft response (Attachment B) and, also, with a copy of a January 9,1980, letter (Attachment C) from Senator Peter Domenici to Chairman Ahearne, regarding f1PI.
On January 25, Julian Greenspun, Department of Justice (D0J) was furnished with copies of the January 2 and January 9 letters from Senators Schmitt and Domenici. He-was also provided with a copy of Brockett's draft response to Senator Schmitt.
On January 28, Greenspun called me and advised that the D0J would reply to Senator Domenici's letter. He rationalized this position by explaining that the Domenici letter asked several questions that related directly to possible criminal violations by flPI that were under active review by the D0J.
Greenspun said that it would be inappropriate to respond to Domenici's questions while the NPI matter was still unresolved and that this would be explained to Domenici in the letter from the D0J. Greenspun saw no problem in the f4RC's draft response to Senator Schmitt.
Subsequent to Greenspun's call I made several inquiries at IE (Jim Sniezek, Brockett, etc.) and found that a draft reply to Domenici's letter had been prepared (Attachment D) but that 01A's concurrence had not been sought or intended.
I also detennined that thb draft letter to Senator Schmitt, in which OIA had concurred, had been materially changed (Attachment E) and 0IA could no longer concur with it.
To correct the matter, it was agreed that the draft Domenici response be held up and that DIA prepare and submit a new draft (Attachment F) designed to advise the Senator that, since the matter of his inquiry was under D0J review, D0J would write to him to address his specific questions.
IE rgwrote the second version of their draf t response to Senator Schmitt and submitted it (Attachment G) to 01A for concurrence.
Since it was still not acceptable, 01A redrafted it (Attachment H).and delivered their draf t to IE.
I S,
.e ;,1 EMSHWIL82-515 PDR