ML20135B229
| ML20135B229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/09/1990 |
| From: | Crane P NRC |
| To: | Thompson H NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135B134 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9702280137 | |
| Download: ML20135B229 (2) | |
Text
,
1,1 ;
3 4
h r
! - NC Vt nd4Y ?. 1PdU N :.t e ior ip 4herpson l
Fron.: Iei r Cran +
! .J.u b.i e e t !!ANDLll'.i UF lOTAc.aIuli IODIDE bPO
/. c i n.nitic.n+d to you. I had a usefu.1 meetinc on detcher 12 wit h t at liathbun cf our staff and Jack lleitemes. What was part icuJ a r J v rerismri ng a b. .at the way in which th- revis2on of UUhl'/i Ch i44. w2;1. it se.:. ms , b+ conducted is that Jack hiraself, witb aii bis ,onsci+ntiousness and capabi.tity, is and will be at the till-r. I gather also that he plans 1.o bring in son.e new blood to r.in th project, so that the agency is not in the por.i t ion c.i always having the same person or persons asked to review and revise their c.wn previous work. Jack says also that they r;ali:w that they do not have the capscity to do thc- iob .in-hous- and r]au to Ic.ok t o an outside laboratory f or assisi ance.
Whst is c:isappointing is that money constraints prevent any such ,
contract at this time, and that the whcde process is likely to i tah.= a tot vf time. '
I remain concerned, however, that sixteen months after my DN was filed, not an hour has been s pe ra. . to the best os my unowledge. on a key part of the DPO: the part that said that the I liiN stall gave inaccurate information to the Commission and the ;
publie in the tJovember 22, 1983 briefing. What makes this point especially worth noting. I think. is that the ED0's memo to the Commissioners of April 16. 1990 smems to say that those aspects of the LPO not previously dealt with were now being addressed by t he staf f. (In fact, it appears that what the relevant sentence intended to convey was that those aspects of the DP0 were being addressed in t_be manner recommended by Dr. Beck.iord -- that is ,
by getting good contemporary information on the underlying health eff+ cts issues -- and by implication, ignoring the question of whether there was a misrepresentation to the Commission and the public. ) But the possibility is there that someday, someone will be in a position to accuse the EDO of having misled the Commission in April 1990.
As you know. I have never wanted to see this issue referred to the Inspe: tor General, where the focus inevitabiy tends to be on wrongdoing and wrongdoers. Far from being out to "get" -
anyone, it's a source of regret to me that one of the three people who seem to have dropped the ball in llovember 1983 -- as all of us occasionally drop the ball. heaven knows -
is someone whom I admire as a public servant and like as a person. iThe other two have long since left flRC. ) But this is a health and safety. issue, and as I have said before, I don't think we can afford to let this be an issue of personalities; rather. we have an obligation to correct the record and do so in a timely way. ~
}
9702280137 970226 PDR ORG NIRCTN PDR
- ~
1 .
I t
tio r + ov+ r , i;I in an issue that ec.ul d come back to haunt the NkC. notwithstanding th+ recent Centers for liicesse Contrc.1 !
repo rt that rec omniend s, against changing the F+deral Policy C.tatement at this time. tit also recommends a survey of existing stochs c.f I'.I and further study cf the stochpiling issue.) 2f the day ever ec.mes tunt the question is asked, "What did the agency ,
do to investigste the charge, made in the June l's B9 100. tnat th.- .
NRC staf2 mislea the Commission and the public on pota csiurn iodide in 1983'! , the honest anzwer as of tc.d,y wri l l b e.
nc.thi n g . And that ec.uld be a very oi.romfortable day sor th+
Commission and the staff.
b l
i
,