ML20059D496
| ML20059D496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/10/1978 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058J984 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-93-34 NUDOCS 9311020291 | |
| Download: ML20059D496 (1) | |
Text
'
f(,'(gy%;7i 4
UNITED STATES
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ((;[,g WAsmHGTON, D. C. 20555 W~d
\\..
}
ll.AY i C E7il
.l MEMORANDU M FOR: Director, Division of Organization & Personnel FROM:
Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement
SUBJECT:
RENEWAL OF CONSULTANT APPOINTMENTS REF:
Your memo dated 3/30/78 -
I The Office of Inspection and Enforcement is requesting renewal of nine consultant appointments for the period July 1,1978 through June 30, 1979.
Completed NRC Forms 443 and 448 are enclosed.
The following consultants are the subject of this renewal request:
Reyn'old Brown Belton Burrows Walter Grant William Hendee James liaxfield Eugene Saenger George Thoma Bruce Thomadsen Niel Wald Copies of this request and required forms will be provided OGC for their review.
fif.-
L. I. Cobb, Executive Officer for Management & Analysis Office of' Inspection & Enforcement
Enclosures:
As Stated.
cc w/encls:
H. Rose cc w/o encls:
B. Richards l
l 9311020291 930428 PDR FOIA DAVIS 93-34 PDR
wi A
M N E-W -j
.,g UNITED STATES
,ena g f
f, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AEGION til
[ t E
799 ROOSEVELT MO AD t
[
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOl$ 60137 t.
[
9...../
4 Hay 11, 1978 Eugene L. Saenger, M.D.
Padioisotope Laboratory Cinc h ati General Hospital Cincinnati, OE 45267 Dear Dr. Saenger This refers to your letter dated krch 4,1978, concerning your future activities as an NRC Wdical Consultant on the Riverside &thodist Hospital, Columbus, Ohio investigation. Since the regulatory aspects relating to this matter have been resolved there is no need for further medical review and evaluation of autopsy cases on behalf of the NRC.
It is therefore requested that you and Dr. Clarence Lushbaugh, who has assisted you as a consultant, discoutinue these medical reviews and that The you provide us a report su:s arizing your activities on this case.
e.atter of further medical follow-up by the Department of Energy, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research (DOE /BER) vill be discussed with that agency. In that regard, we also request that you provide us your recocraandations concerning the information that should be supplied to pot /BER.
It is our understanding that various materials have been furnished you in your NRC Consultant capacity by Riverside Methodist Hospital and the Franklin County Coroner's Office. Any such materials that may have been furnished on a loan basis may now be returned.
Your assistance in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion vill be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely.
A. B. Davis, Chief Fuel Facility and Materials Safety Branch bec v/1tr dtd 3-4-78: h J. G. Davis. Deputy Difector. IE L. B. Higginbotham, IE J. Touchard, PA:HQ g u,t vl, gl y
'.\\
,(
- -~.
'a o
UNIVERSITY OF. CINCINNATI
~
coLLtct or uroscint
.hantas ADD 9 TBS:
8 8060i$0f 073 Latca& Toff CimCimptil Gtata&L N0$ttt&L C8mCith A18. Omec 48847 t
March 4, 1978 1
Hr. William L. Fisher Acting Chief Fuel yacilities and Material Safety Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Clen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 i
Dear Mr. Fisher,
In November 1977 I wrote to your office concerning future activities I
in regard to the Riverside Memorial Hospital cases in Columbus, Ohio.
At that-
[
time I pointed out that since fatal damage had occurred in two cases in which Dr. Clarence Lushbaugh, as my consultant, and I reviewed the cases 'for you, it seemed possible that it would not be necessary to review the many other
/
cases which might be sent to us for evaluation since'the mandate of the NRC had already been carried out in determining that the Riverside Hospital activities-were certainly not in compliance. To date I have received no response to this letter.
In addition, I have received in this office 59 autopsy cases and
~
a rather volumnous file concerning the clinical progress of a number of patients included in the group receiving 10% more radiation than had been planned..
J j
At the time when I requested the services of a pathological consultant the Nuclear Regulatory Commission arranged with Dr. Clarence Lushbaugh of Oak Ridge Associated Universities to serve as a consultant.
is a world recognized authority on radiation damage and is a splendid personas youj to carry out such consultation. He and I have collaborated together in a number of scientific efforts over many years.
His only problem is that since the beginning of the Riverside investigation he has become Director of the Medical Division of ORAU and has become responsible for extensive administrative and research responsibilities.
Therefore it is difficult for Dr. Lushbaugh to complete his review of pathological material quickly.
It is my request that I be permitted to obtain the services of. one or more pathologists on the faculty of the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine who could review this material and in questionable cases I can sub-sequently confer directly with Dr. Lushbaugh.
Such arrangements vould of course require an increase in expenditures on the part of the NRC since 'such individuals vould require some reasonable compensation.
It is my feeling that we have been somewhat slow in completing analyses of many of these cases particularly those in which autopsy material is available C{ )D.b \\ f () f ~
\\L U?R 101978 i
1
.[Mr..WilliamL.. Fisher Parch 4, 1978 S
Page 2 of 2 to criticism.
Such a course w,1d involve and for this reason could be subject an unfortunate degree of publicity for the Nuclear Regulatory Commis ion perhaps.
As I mentioned in ry conversation with several members of your staf f on March 2, 1 am delighted to proceed with the inquiries at Riverside but do feel that time is somewhat of the essence and would wish to get on with all of This matter has been discussed with Dr. Lushbaugh and I this more rapidly.
would hope that we could work out a reasonable plan of action within the near future.
n Sincerely, I
i
,,,,_f-M Eugene L. Saenger, M.D.
Medical Consultant Nuclear Regulatory Cocnission ELS/swh
,Dr. Clarence C. Lushbaugh ec:
\\
4 e
!=
8.
- 8 u
s.
j r
i
[*
Untrersity of Cincinnell University of Cincinnatl Hospital Eugene L Seen9er Radosotope taboratorg l M0 dical Center Cincinnat. General Olvision TELEPHONE ($131872 4282 234 Goooman Street Cincinnate Ohio a5267 September 22, 1980 1
Brian K.
Grimes. Program Director Emergency Preparedness Program Office l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation q
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Crimes,
In answer to your letter of June 23, 1980 1 appreciate your suggestion about the OECD and am writing to Dr. Klaus B.
Stadie.
In regard to the questions raised in your letter and the accompanying draft document the following comments are offered.
1.
Side effects of iodide:
These effects have been grossly exaggerated.
A careful and continuing search of the medical r
literature to the present fails to indict o ra l doses of iodide at the levels indicated except in two anecdotal reports of patients whose immune systems and allergic responses were grossly abnormal following very rare diseases as noted in your document.
Bv stressing the importance of these two case reports and perhaps other similar ones unwarrsnted confusion is added to evaluation of an admittedly difficult problem.
In your letter you mention giving single doses to workers to evaluate side effects.
I would discourage the administration of single doses of K! or any other such drug, e.g.
Prussian Blue, Na alginate in an endeavor to screen our untoward reactions.
The population may not be large enough to find an effect.
Certain ethical issues arise, notably informed consent.
In regard to plant personnel at the time of an emergenev it would be essential to administer blocking doses of KI as described i
in NCRP Report 855.
My person 21 feeling is that the initial dose should be tripled.
i.e.
be the usual USP therapeutic dose of'300 mg of iodide.
It has been the intent of NCRP Report #55 and others that-blocking, evacuation, sheltering - extend protective measure.
oniv for 10 miles.
The 100+ mile scenario with a probability of 10-8 seems too far fetched to commit resources of iodide or other methods for such a contingencv.
xco gol 4
ol
//
4
s
$rian'K. Grimes September 22, 1980 Page 2 Under STATEMENT OF POLICY and subsequently in Table 1 it might be useful to calculate the costs of alternate courses of action in regard to reduction in the number of thryoid nodules and to compare the costs of storage of iodide to the risks and costs of evacuation.
In the brief analysis presented in Table 1 of your letter no cost benefit data are given for alternative actions.
As is painted out in the title of the Statement. the only policy addressed is in regard to stockpiling of KI.
Some attention should be given to the development of an inclusive statement concerning other methods of handling the accident situation.
The concept behind this statement is that the public is better served and can act in a far more orderly and coherent way if provided with necessary instructions for guidance wehther or not KI is planned for an emergency.
It is necessary to provide the public with a set of clear instructions of which KI may or may not be a part.
This point should be considered in the further development if NRC statements relating to protection of the public in the event of a reacter accident.
Consi'eration should be given to the panic which might be engendered t i. a city or other urban area where neither shelter nor evacuation is possible.
Under such a situation, unusual as it may be, the public may be better served if the drug is available etree no other recourse is possible.
Please pardon the delay in this letter.
I hope that the
- uggestions may be useful.
You will recall our conversation concerning a blocking conference to be held in the autumn of 1980 in Washington sponsored in part by Who and NCRP.
Hopefully support can be gotten from NRC, NRH. DOE and FEMA.
A copy of our tentative proposal is attached.
I shall visit Paris in about three weeks for an ICRP committee meeting and will
.l i s c u s s this e in f e re ne t with some of the French, Germans. Swedes and British c at.e e rne d with this issue.
I'll call you on my return.
Sincerely.
Eugene L.
Saenger.
M.D.
FL8/sch enclosure I
-