ML20135B229
Text
,
1,1 3
4 h
r
- NC Vt nd4Y
?.
1PdU ip 4herpson N :.t e ior 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 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
~
I 1
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 l' B9 100. tnat th.-
do to investigste the charge, made in the June s
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
,