ML19308C529
| ML19308C529 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/20/1979 |
| From: | Kemeny J PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001280538 | |
| Download: ML19308C529 (57) | |
Text
'
s TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS PRESIDENT'S' COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND COMMISSION HEARING (EVENING SESSION)
Date: Saturday, October 20, 1979 Place: Washincton, D.C.
P00R BRGINAl.
BOWERS REPORTING COMPANY b
e
%.9 3800 8001280 53 S f
e 1
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON THE ACCIDENT AT THREE MILE ISLAND 2
3 4
COMMISSION HEARING 5
(EVENING SESSION) 6
- Saturday, October 20, 1979 7
2100 M Street, N.W.
8 Washington, D.C.
9 The hearing was convened pursuant to notice at 8:45 p.m.,
10 John G. Kemeny, Chairman, presiding.
11 PARTICIPANTS:
12 John G. Kemeny President 13 Dartmouth College 14 Bruce Babbitt Governor of Arizona 15 Patrick E. Haggerty 16 Retired President Texas Instruments 17 Carolyn Lewis 18 Associate Professor of Journalism Graducate School of Journalism 19 Graduate School of Journalism Columbia University 20 Paul A. Marks 21 Vice President Health Sciences 22 Columbia University
" 23 Cora B. Marrett I
Associate Professor of Sociology f 24 University of Wisconsin l
Lloyd McBride a 25 PFesident United Steelworkers of America N
1 PARTlC1 PANTS:
2 Harry McPherson Attorney 3
Russell Peterson 4
President Audubon Society 5
Thomas Pigford 6
Professor and Chairman Department of Nuclear Engineering 7
University of California at Berkeley 8
Theodore Taylor Professor of Aerospace and Mechanical Science 9
Princeton Unviersity 10 Anne Trunk Resident cf Middletown, Pennsylvania 11 STAFF:
12 Barbara Jorgenson 13 Stanley Gorinson Vince Johnson 14 Jeffrey Klein Harold Bruff 15 Russell Dynes Charles A. Harvey 16 Kevin Kane Withrop Rockwell 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 E2s 25
JREENWOOD 345 1
TAPE 1 EVENING SESSION 8 :4 5 P.!!
2 CHAIRMAN KEIINY:
Uill the meeting please come to 3
order?
I will try not to take the first vote until a couple 4
more people arrive, but we are alnost all of us here.
Our 5
next topic is training of operating personnel, and let me 6
explain where these came from.
Since in the NRC recommendations 7
we spoke about NRC certifying certain training institutions, 9
I felt we should spell out what these training institutions i
should do and what the residual role of the utility would be, 10 and that is what I attempted to do in 1 and 2.
Three has 11 come from a combination of inputs from the people who worked 12 on the utility and with Ron Eytchison and Ben Rockfore, and 13 I think we wanted to point out that the recommendation 14 that every control room should have a sbnulator in it came 15 from Ron Eytchison and not from me before you jump to the 16 wrong conclusion, and Len Jaffe.
17 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
I raise the question 18 on 1 and 2?
19 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Would you like to have a chance 20 to read it first or vote on it first?
21 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
That is the whole point.
22 CO!1MISSIONER TAYLOR: I have a question about lE.
23 What is background investigators for operators have to de with f24 the accredited institutions?
25 CHAIR!iAN KEMENY:
Okay, somebody put that in.
They
346 l
tried from the findings to respond to the fact that one of 2
our findings is that they don't look up at eil the backgrounds 3
of candidates, and --
4 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
The implication is that 5
background investications should be required for candidacy 6
to enter the training institute.
It sounds a little heavy.
7 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Yes.
8 Maybe it should go into 2 instead of 1.
Is that the 9
right answer?
10 COMMISSIONER MARRETT: It is in NRC's --
II CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
'Is it now in NRC?
Help us out, 12 Cora?
13 COMMI,SSIONER MARRETT:
Yes, it is in there where 14 it talks about the agency should set criteria for operator 15 qualifications and background investigations.
16 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
It does have background 17 investigation?
18 COMMISSIONER MARRETT: It has background investigatior t.
19 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
The Chair will entertain a motion 20 to remove E.
21 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
So moved.
22 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Second.
U 23
_y CHAINTAN KEMENY:
Seconded.
Any objections?
b 24 Without objection.
=
E 3 25 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
Where is it going?
l
347 I
CHAIRMAN REMENT:
It is already in NRC, and this 2
is clearly the wrong place to have it.
Yes, Lloyd?
3 COMMISSIONER MC BRIDE:
I have trouble with the d
term, must meet stiff entrance requirements, given the 5
curriculum.
I am just wondering whether we need to say, stiff 6
or if we say that it is going to leave a question of what is 7
neant.
I would think we could talk about adequate or somethinc 8
of that kind or entrance requirements to'be established, some-9 thing of that kind.
10 COMMidSIONER FIGPORD: I agree. I think stiff --
11 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
It seems to me if you just take 17 out stiff the sentence reads very well without it.
13 I have to confess, the word " stiff" was not there 14 when I last looked this particular piece of paper.
15 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
How about specify?
16 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Ted, read to the end of the 17 sentence.
Let me read it without stiff.
Candidates for the 18 training institute must meet entrance requirements geared 19 to the curriculum.
20 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY: I think it is all right.
21 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
I think that is a good consistent 22 statement.
v 23 COMMISSIONER TRUNK:
Where would they be getting
_y 24 this education, in a college or a community college or what?
I
$ 25 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
It says establishment right
348 1
at the beginning.
2 C HAIRMAN KEMENY :
Let me say in the NRC recommenda-3 tion we said that NRC should accredit certain training 4
institutions which could be a college or it could be a 5
utility or it could be B&W or GE doing this, but leaving all 6
those options open, and therefore this simply calls on them 7
to establish entrance requirements so they could get out of 8
the curriculum whatever they did.
9 I like the phrase " geared to the curriculum" 10 because you see, you could have one kind of training program Il that presupposes that you have gone to college and gotten 12 some of this and start at the higher point.
There could be a 13 different curriculum for students who don't even have a high Id school education but have some talent in science.
15 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
I move the question on 1.
16 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
Just a couple of editorial 17 changes.
That maintain high standards seems redundant or e 18 unnecessary.
I think I would say with highly qualified 19 instructors which will stress understanding of the fundamentals 20 of nuclear power plants and the possible health effects of 71 nuclear power, and train operators to respond to emergencies.
22 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
How many of you want to take out 5
U 23
-y will maintain high standards?
b 24 (There was a show of hands.)
(
=
I i
I a 25 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
I see less than seven hands.
So, i
349 l
it stays in.
2 COM!1ISSIONER MC PHERSON:
It is nind of a motherhood 3
phrase.
CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Commissioner McPherson, I just 5
tested it.
There were less than seven hands.
So it stays 0
in.
7 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
Were there six?
8 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
No, it is only one.
Any others, 9
!!arry?
Go ahead?
10 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
No.
II CHAIPEA'i KEMENY: Okay, then I will put the question 12 on 1.
Would all those in favor of 1 with stiff taken out and 13 E taken out, please raise your hand?
14 (There was a show of hands.)
15 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Okay, Carolyn, how do you vote?
16 COMMISSIONER LEWIS:
I think I had better 17 abstain.
Will that make any difference?
18 CH..IRMAN KEMENY:
Ncne at all.
19 COliMISSIONER LEWIS:
Okay, good.
20 Commissioner Lewis abstains, and 11 Commissioners 21 voted.
,I 22 Okay, No. 2.
No. 2 tries to spell out that if you iu 23 y
have the graduates of these institutions what should the i
l I 24 utility do?
It said that the utility's job is to train them 25 how to run that particular plant, that is give the plant 1
l
I specific training.
2 Please note the last phrase in there which speaks 3
specifically to one of our findings.
COM' '25IONER HAGGERTY:
I think the only question S
I have is A above admits that an individual system might 6
have sucn a training school and be accredited, and I can well 7
imagine that.
This sort of implies that might not be the 8
case.
9 We really mean individual utilities should be 10 responsible for the training of operators, et cetera, rather II than saying the role of, because up above we have said there 12 could be individual utilities.
13 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Right. I guess I actually thought 14 it would be more likely that the vendors would run one of these 15 schools, but you are absolutely right that it could be a 16 utility.
17 So, you suggest utilities --
18 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Should be responsible.
~
19 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Should be responsible for the 20 training of operLitors.
21 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Right.
22 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Who are graduates, et cetera.
v 23 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
That is right.
So, it would g
.h 24 read individual utilities should be responsible for the l
E
$ 25 training of operators who are graduates in the specifics of
35]
I operating a particular plant.
2 Question on 2?
3 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Stan, what question did you have?
d MR. GORINSON:
The word "requalification," in the 5
NRC portion we dropped the terminology requalification and 6
talked to the word " relicensing."
7 CUAIRMAN KEMENY:
So is it all right to substitute 8
relicensing?
9 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Yes, because we have changed 10 that.
II CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Yes.- Tom and then Ted.
12 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
One thing that bothers me 13 throughout 1, 2 and most of 3 is that it seems to be talking 14 exclusively about the operators, and I find missing any 15 recognition of those supervisory people who, also, are supposed 16 to have licenses.
Indeed, 3D touches on it, but only that.
17 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Operator and supervisor.
18 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
Of course, senior, I guess 19 includes that.
Do you suppose it does cover operators?
Does l
l 20 that cover the supervisors who may have operating licenses?
21 I guess maybe it does.
22 COMMISSIONER MC BRIDE:
I would think not.
There is U
23
_p a different line of responsibility, and it seems to me that
.b 24 clearly the supervisor is -- wouldn't that be a higher 25 respohsibility?
352 I
COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
It would be covared, however, 2
perhaps by requiring that supervisors had to have senior 3
operators licenses or some such thing.
The question is we 4
are not specifying that this has to substitute for training 5
in nuclear engineering, are we?
6 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
No, of course not, but there 7
is a special supervisory rating that does require the license, 8
and maybe we could call him supervisor-operator.
Then it is 9
clear we mean that as well.
10 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Yes, all right.
11 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
We could say operators and 12 supervisor-operators.
13 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Yes, we don't really mean 14 to substitute fer nuclear engineering.
15 CHAIRMAN PIGFORD:
That is right.
I would like to 16 find some accrediting institutions for that, too, though.
17 CHAIPP.AN KEMENY:
I think it affects two more -- Tom, 18 would you agree it affects two more than one because one 19 really speaks to the training of operators?
Obviously some 20 of these people will end up in supervisory positions.
21 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
John, I think a supervisor
{22 who is hired, and I think these are engineers, those require E
23 training in this accredited institution, also.
f 24 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
What he is really saying is i
$ 25 NRC accredited operator and supervisor / operator training
353 I
institutions.
That is what you are really getting at, the 2
supervisors who are directly over operators.
3 COMMISSIONER PIGPORD:
Yes, that would do it for me.
4 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
I think that is a good point.
5 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
And I would think that word 6
ought to appear in 1, 2 and 3.
7 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
What we are asking is this 8
kind of training for anyone who has authority to manipulate 9
any aspect of the operation or call for.
10 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
That was the idea of making 11 it supervisor / operator to indicate that it was that kind of 12 supervisor you were talking about.
13 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
I am a little reluctant to 14 try to define what the supervisor operators are because I 15 don't know if I know the words well enough, but I think just 16 supervisor operator may be enough.
17 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
I hate to mess up 1 which is 18 fairly clean.
Could I argue for putting it at the end of 19 2 to say that supervisors of operations should, also, have to 20 pass the same examinations and have the same training?
21 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
John, I am sorry.
I think k 22 supervisors of operation may reach higher into the management 5v 23 y
organization than we realize.
These titles mean different i
! 24 things.
I think it may be.
That is not so good.
E
$ 25 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
May I suggest something?
354 I
Change it to NRC accredited training institutions for operators 2
and supervisors of operators.
3 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Lloyd?
4 COMMISSIONER MC BRIDE:
I am not sure that this 5
conflicts, but I was thinking that we could define it and 6
be specific about what we mean by saying the immediate 7
supervisors of operators would be required to have as a 8
minimum the training and qualifications of the people that 9
they supervise.
Now, that thought may be an unwieldy sentence 10 but it seems to me that supervisor operator is not a term that 11 everybody is familiar with.
It may mean one thing in one 12 place and called another thing someplace else, but if we are 13 talking about the immediate supervisor of the operators, it 14 seems to me we are pinpointing what we mean.
15 CHAIR!RN KEMENY:
Let me take it one step at a time.
16 In 1 Pat suggests changing the headings that the NRC accredit 17 the training institutions for operators and supervisors of 18 operators, right?
19 Is that all right?
20 COMMISSIONIR HAGGERTY :
Uh-huh.
21 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
In 2 I would favor Lloyd's 22 sentence, if it would be agreeable that at the end of 2 we v
.y state that supervisors of operators should have a minimum 23 Ea 24 at the same qualifications and training as the operators they i
$ 25 supervise.
355 I
COMMISSIONER MC BRIDE:
And we continue to use the 2
word "immediate" to identify that supervisor.
3 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Vince?
4 MR. JOHNSON:
I think the requirement for an 5
operator's license goes one step beyond the immediate 6
supervisor, if you assume the shift foreman supervises the 7
operators, I think the shift supervisor must have an operator's 8
license, too.
9 MR. GORINSON:
An SRO license.
10 MR. JOHNSON:
Yes, must have an SRO license.
11 CO!1MISSIONER TAYLOR: I know what I am after is to 12 make sure that anyone who has command authority over operations 13 that have to do with running the reactor end --
14 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
That is why I like the phrase 15 supervisor --
16 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
Whoever that may be so that 17 if DECAP or its equivalent does not have this training, he 18 cannot give orders to anybody in the control room about what 19 to do.
20 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
How about putting it that way?
21 Lloyd, would you accept Ted's version, that anyone who has h 22 the authority to give orders to operators must have, at the iu
_y minimum, training and qualifications equivalent to --
23
.h 24 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
To operators with respect to 25 the operation of the plant.
356 1
CHAIRMAN F2tENY: With the operation of the plant.
2 Then it would -- okay?
3 COMMISSIONER PIGPORD: I am sorry.
I am very troubled A
I think there are many cases in which kigher management has to be able to give orders to operators.
6 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
With respect to the operation of 7
the plant?
8 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
Yes.
9 I believe in most organizations it is required that 10 the higher management be authorized to require a shutdown right now.
I think NRC has required that in' this internal 12 safety review system, and I think it is probably a good idea.
13 I believe we may be treading on something that is inconsistent I#
if we did that.
15 In my own view it is better to stick with supervisors 16 of operators and maybe if it is a shift foreman, maybe it is I7 already defined sufficiently. I am a lot more comfortable with 18 that.
I9 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Then are you willing to go back 20 to supervisors of operators?
21 The supervisors of operators should at the minimum 22 have the same qualifications and training as operators?
23 Cora?
I f 2#
COMMISSIONER MARRETT:
One minor question on the 25 last part in 2, where it says operators must pass every
357 I
portion of the examination dealing with safety issues.
Wo 2
have already been talking about broadening the concept of 3
safety.
Would we expect them to be examined on anything other 4
than safety?
5 CHAI? MAN KEMENY:
Sure.
6 COMMISSIONER MARRETT:
What else would be on 7
examination?
8
'I know what is in there now, but part of what we 9
are saying, isn't it, is there has to be a redevelopment of 10 the examination system.
So, do we want in part to have in a 11 recommendation that the examination must cover whatever we 12 are defining as safety?
13 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY: What we really mean is 14 operators must pass each section of the examination.
That 15 is what you are raising a question about.
Why let them flunk 16 any section of something they are getting examined on?
I 17 don't know.
18 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
I would be willing to go that far, 19 but you know with our safety emphasis we particularly wan+ed 20 to put in there at the least they should not be allowed to 21 flunk --
f22 COMMISSIONER MARKS: But I an inclined to agree with 5U 23 Cora.
If they give an exam, they should pass it.
If they
_y
^
24 don't pass it --
25 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Yes, the point is they have to pass
358 I
the exam cverall.
The question is do they have to pass each 2
section of it.
3 MR. KANE:
NRC is doing that.
They have a requirenert 4
for a passing grade in each part.
5 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY: You don't mean every portion.
6 You mean each section.
7 MR. KANE: That is what I mean.
We hit them pretty 8
hard on that.
9 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Would you favor changing that 10 sentence that was the last sentence of operators must pass 11 each section of the examination, period, okay?
12 Then we add the sentence about supervisors of 13 operators.
14 Any other comments on 2?
15 If not, all those in favor of 2 as amended?
16 (There was a show of hands.)
17 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Bruce, do you favor 2 as amended?
18 It is a unanimous vote of the Commission.
19 No.
3.
20 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
I think D, each utility' 21 should have ready access to control room simulator instead of 22 that on site.
That does not make sense.
A lot of times you U
23 g
would be better off with access to a more complex one than 24 requiring that they have one on site.
25 CHAIFJM KEMENY:
Is there any objection to changing
359 l
the fi:st sentence to each utility should have reddy access 2
to a simulator?
3 No objection.
4 CO!iMISSIONER TAYLOR:
My only question is, is there 5
an ambiguity about -- I mean there are simulators in the 6
simulators.
I am trying to think of an adjective, major 7
installation or something.
I don't know.
8 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
I was worrying about the 9
same thing.
Let me read 4, John, because maybe it suggests 10 something.
I suggested a 4 which said something as follows, 11 that research and development should be carried out on 12 improving simulation and simulation systems A, to establish 13 and sustain a higher level of realism in the training of 14 operators and B, to improve analysis and knowledge of 15 nuclear power systems.
16 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
Then each utility should be 17 required to have access to such a simulator.
18 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
It is not perfect, but don't you 19 think the wording indeed that each utility should have 20 ready access to a control room simulator at least gets the 21 genefal idea across?
22 Yes, Tom?
v 23
-p COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
No. C has a lot of merit in 24 it, but I am afraid that sorae places are going to decide they 25 need to hire a lot of college professors to teach them
360 I
LaPlage(?) trancform analysis and things like that.
2 CHAIRM7.N KEMENY:
That is good, Tom. Do you know how 3
many college professors are out of jobs /
4 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
That is not my purpose to 5
solve that problem, and I suggest that the sentence read, 6
emphasis must be placed on diagnosing, because to some of us 7
analyzing means in this particular area, means mathematical --
8 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
All right, of course.
9 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
On diagnosing and controlling 10 complex transients.
II CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Absolutely right.
12 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
Then I would strike in terms 13 of and say, "And on the fundamental understanding of reactor 14 safety."
Otherwise, we will start teaching them mathematical 15 analysis on that, too, and whereas, excuse me, John, I think 16 that is great, for these operators that is not the most 17 important thing.
18 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
I agree with that.
19 Tom, believe it o.
not, I completely agree with 20 you.
21 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY: With that I move 3.
22 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
Yours is 4, is that right?
u 23 g
CHAIRMAN KEMENY: Yes, that will come later.
24 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Question.
25 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
So, we have 3 with the amendment 1
36]
I Tom just made on C and Pat's amendment on D.
2 All those in favor, please raise your hand?
3 (There was a show of hands.)
4 CHAIR!1AN KEMENY:
It is a unanimous vote of the 5
Commission, and Pat, I believe by implication you are suggesting 6
a 4.
7 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Four, research and development 8
should be carried out on improving simulation and simulation 9
systems, A, to establish and sustain a higher level of realism 10 in the training of operators and B, to improve analysis and II knowledge of nuclear powered systems.
12 COleISSIONER BABBITT:
Question.
13 CHAIRMAN KEMENY: Paul?
14 COMMISSIONER MARKS: I am voting for it.
15 CO!iMISSIONER TAYLOR:
How about and no accident --
16 CO?iMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
A higher level of realism.
17 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would be happy with anything 18 that has the word " accident" or " transient" or " realism" or 19 something.
20 COMMISSIONER HAGGE.' TTY: Training of operators with 21 special emphasis on, or including is what you are really 22 saying, including transients and what else?
U 23 g
CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
We have not used transients yat.
24 Could we use including abnormal occurrence or something like 25 that, because we tried to avoid the word " transient."
362 1
COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Including abnormal.
2 COMMISSIONER MC BRIDE:
I feel badly, but it seems 3
to me that this is another way of saying what we have already 4
said in the preceding paragraphs.
5 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Pat's goes to --
6 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
No, no.
I am talking about 7
research.
8 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
We said that we don't know enough 9
about the right use of simulators.
10 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Research and develop.nent 11 should be carried out on improving simulation and simulator i
12 systems, A, to establish and sustain a higher level of l
13 realism in the training of operators, including dealing with 14 abnormal circumstances, and B, to improve analysis and 15 knowledge of nuclear power systems.
16 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
How about diagnostics?
17 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Diagnostics, all right.
t l
i l
18 Diagnostics, yes, the same point.
I wrote that before you 19 made it.
Agreed.
20 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
With that change, are you ready i
21 to vote on this?
l 22 All those in favor, please raise your hand?
l 23 (There was a show of hands.)
f24 CHAIRMAN KEMENY: Jt is a unanimous vote, and Pat, 25 could you pass your copy down, so we can have it?
m.
I J
363 I
COMMISSIONER MARKS:
Dc you want to say anything 2
about research and development in the control room man 3
interface?
COMMISSIONER MARRETT:
You can use a simulater to 5
do research on a number of different kinds of things.
6 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
Isn't that proposed under 7
technical assessment?
8 COMMISSIONER MARKS: Is it?
9 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
It is a good place for it.
10 That is not specific to the training of the operators.
II COMMISSIONER MARKS:
No.
12 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
If it isn't in there, it ought 13 to be in there.
So, let us remember it.
14 There is a recommendation in there that deals with 15 improving of control rooms.
16 Okay, I believe we have finished training of 17 operating personnel, unless someone has some additional 18 recommendations besides Pat.
19 If not, the next one is a very easy and unimportant 20
, area, health.
21 COMMISSIONER MC BRIDE:
What did we do with Harry's?
22 CHAIRMAM KEMENY:
We agreed it would come up.
So, U
23 g
we can cogitate it overnight, and we will come up under '
l 15 24 unfinished.
25 1
l l
364 lLA I
CHAIR'4K! KEMENY :
Let's sec, may I have your atten-
! TMI i
!10/20/79 2
tion?
I should call your attention to one thing.
We agread
,Evaning 3
Taps 2 and voted that Harry's recommendation would come up under unfinished business, but I should call to your attention that 5 Harry did pass out a copy of it, which you should have in your 6
batch there.
Please read overnight and decide wnat you want 7
to do with it.
8 COM'iISSIONER MC PHERSON:
Last thing tonight, fi.ist 9
thing in the morning.
10 CHAIRMAN KEIENY :
Okay, Dr. Marks, as principal lI author of thess, would you like to comment on recommendation 12 one or make any everall remarks?
13 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
I'll be glad to answer any ques-14 tions about it.
I would say that you should know that recommen-15 dation one follows very closely the main recommendations 16 developed in this report on institutional arrangements on the 17 interagency task force on health effects of ionizing radiation.
18 COfVIISSIONER TAYLOR:
Can we assume that you would 19 be prepared to vote yes on all seven of them?
20 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
You can so assume.
21 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Ted, I made very sure of that.
As 22 a matter of fact, he is essentially the author of all of them.
v 23 g
Let's see, should we read one, because I know that one and 24 two, in particular, are very important ones?
So let's take 25 the time to read them.
365 i
- LR2 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR
I have a question.
"To miti-2 gate untoward effects of exposure," what does that mean?
3
" Development of reports to mitigate untoward effects."
CO:011SSIONER IiARKS:
"To mitigate adverse effects."
5 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
Couldn't we say that?
6 CGMMISSIONER MARKS:
Sure.
7 CHAIRMAN KE!ENY:
Where is that enange, Ted?
8 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
About ten lines down from tas 9
top, "to mitigate adverse effects."
10 CHAIRM?di KEMENY :
Is it in D, Ted?
And what is the II change?
12 CO!GiISSIONER TAYLOR:
" Development of approaches to 13 mitigate adverse," instead of " untoward."
14 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
" Adverse health effects."
15 CO:@ilSSIONER TAYLOR:
Health effeets.
16 CO!&iISSIONER MC PHERSON:
So the assumption that they 17 are adverse effects.
18 COMI1ISSIONER MC BRIDE:
On the theory that a little 19 hit of some bad things are good for you.
20 COM'11SSIONER MARRETT:
In E, what does the "et cetera" 21 refer to?
22 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
You can leave it out.
It's just U
23
_p that we already said, "but not limited to."
$a 24 CHAIRM7d7 KEIENY :
Yes, could we leave out "et cetera,"
25 because yo2 do say,
'b ut not limited to."
r
366 l
LA3 CO:04ISSIO?:ER PETERSON:
What's the verb there, in E?
2 Cora just asked.
3 CO.sbiISSIONER MARRETT:
Well, it wasn't a verb.
Therc are no verbs in any of them.
5 CHAIR'!AN KEMENY:
Paul, I have a piddling detail.
6 Going in the direction of things that I don't feel co npetent 7
to vote on, near the very end, "This coordinated health related 8
research effort should incorporate the present biologd:al 9
research in the national laboratories" -- if you say so, I'm 10 willing to believe that -- "which would continue to be housed II in the present facilities."
I really don't feel competent to I2 vote on that.
I3 CO E1ISSIONER TAYLOR:
Why is that in there, Paul?
I4 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
Well, the major budget right now 15 being spent on biological research related to the effects of 16 radiation is being spent in support of research under the DOE, 17 being carried out in the national laboratories.
On the assump-18 tion that it is unlikely that Congress will suddenly budget a
19 large increase in these funds, this is one mechanism for sort 20 of including resources that might be ivailable to this effort, 21 which are now already committed.
It also has --
22 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
Reprogramming at the labora-v 23 tories?
_g 24 CO:1:1ISSIONER :1AnKS:
Well, there would be presumably
=
25 some reprogramming.
That's the implication.
In other words, i
367 I
LA4 you're going to have an interagency committee establishing 2 the fedsral priorities with respect to research and you are 3
going to give them, among their resources, those already
- comnitted to the largest sector of biological research.
That's 5
the idea behind it.
6 CHAIPJiAN KEMENY:
Tom?
7 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
Paul, I'm disturbed by that.
8 I think we 've seen a lot of cases in the past where what seems 9
to be a neat thing, to put all research in one area under an 10 agency, can cause damage.
For example, Jack Fabrikant, maybe II you don't call your research in this area, but I think many 12 pm;ple would.
Certainly some of your colleagues at the 13 Dunner (?) Laboratory are noted for that.
Are you happy to have 14 the Dunner Laboratory become an IJ!H laboratory?
15 MR. FABRIKANT:
No.
16 CO!ifiISSIONER PICFORD:
Then I think, in deference to 17 Jack, we ought to strike that.
18 CO!'aiISSIONER HAGGERTY :
Say it again.
19 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Which portion would you strike?
20 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
I would strike the last sen-21 tence.
At least I think it's saying that all of this research 22 would be budgeted by NIH.
It would incorporate all the present U
23
-p biological research in the national laboratories.
And I think h= 24 Jack's laboratory would be interpreted as one of those.
It is 25 usually.
'LA5 I
COMMISSIONER MARKS :
I suspect you're right.
2 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
And there are people like 3
Jack at other olaces, too.
COMMISSIONER MARKS :
Oh, yeah, I just point out what 5
I said before, that the present budget in this area, you know, 6
over 60 percent of it -- in fact, 78 percent of all federally 7
supported human health ef fects research now comes under DOE.
8 So if you want to give this any clout, you're going to have to 9
give it some support.
And most of that money now is being 10 spent in these laboratories, 78 percent of it.
II COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
Well, we're specifically 12 axcluding, for example, the plutonium effects laboratory at 13 the Universiry of Utah, things like that.
I mean, the word 14
" national laboratory," to most people, means -- would exclude, 15 I would think, Dunner Laboratory.
We certainly exclude tae 16 laboratory at University of Utah.
I think that's very danger-17 ous.
18 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
You've got this laboratory at 19 Oak Ridge, in that big red building.
And there are so many of 20 these.
I think Berkeley is frequently included among " national 21 laboratories. "
f22 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
Well, you could say, "should Eu y
incorporate the present biological research programs now 22 h 24 carried out under the DOE," if you wanted to make it clearer.
25 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
I think that 's what you mean, i
l 1
359 l
LA6 and that's wnat I'm against.
l 2
i COM!ilSSIONER liARKS :
Okay, you can be against it, but 3
that's what I mean.
rine.
I mean, that's what the stakes are.
4 In other words, you've got S48 million committed to these areas 5
now, compared to, say, $15 million committed under HEW.
- Now, 6
I think that, in fact, if you want to really give teeth to 7
this tning, you've got to give it the money, too.
And I think 8
that it's a question of how you want to set the agenda for 9
tne biological research in health related radiation effects.
10 CO?iMISSIONER MC PHERSON :
You' re saying essentially 11 that the DOE sponsored research is inadequate?
12 CO!GilSSIONER MARKS :
I'm saying that it would probably 13 would have somewhat different perceptions and priorities than
~
14 if it came under an agenda which was develcped by a committee 15 chaired by the director of NIH.
I6 CHAIRMAN KEMENY: 'Cora?
17 COM?uSSIONER HAGGERTY:
Does the last sentence add 18 anything?
If you quit, without the last sentence, "This should 19 be coordinated under the NIH with an interagency committee."
20 COMMISSIONER MARRETT:
I wanted to support that, 21 because I have problems -- and I think they were the ones that 22 John was expressing just now -- trying to figure out how I U
23 y
could evaluate that last part of the sentence.
I don't know --
_h24 CO.'1MISSIONER HAGGERTY:
How about just leaving the
=
I i
$ 25 last sentence out?
Would you really change anytning if you i
I
t
. 370 3
LA7 leave the last sentsnee out?
2 CO!E1ISSIONER MAPRS :
I mean, if the Congress wants 3 to do it, thsy're going to dstermins the budget anyway.
COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY :
Well, what you're asking is 5
that coordination be under the NIH.
You can leave the last 6 l cantsnce out and it doesn't --
7 CO 01ISSIONER MARKS:
- Okay, 8
CHAIRM?CI 'iI!ENY :
Okay, let's test the sentiments.
9 How many of you favor dropping the last sentence?
10 (There was a show of hands. )
Il CHJsIRMAN KEMENY:
That's clearly i majority.
I2 COMMISSIONER PETERSON :
Do you mean by the regulatory 13 agency, in that next to the last sentence, NRC?
I4 CO?tiISSIONER HAGGERTY:
No.
15 CHAIRM7Ci KEMENY:
No, we're dropping the sentencs 16 starting with --
17 COIGiISSIONER MARRETT:
No, he me'ans the one that's nov 18 the last sentence.
I9 CO!OiISSIONER PETERSON:
No, no, no, I'm changing ths 20 subject.
2I CHAIR!!AN ITIENY :
Oh, sorry.
22 CO!E11SSIONER HAGGERTY:
Now it's another question.
u 23 y
CHAIRM7CI KE!ENY:
The regulatory agency is the new 24 NRC.
25 CO!1MISSIONER HAGGERTY:
I think that's -- I have ths
37]
I LA8 same one.
"Of the new NRC, " is what you mean?
2 CHAIRW KE?ENY:
We usually have used "rhe 3
restructured NRC. "
COI@iISSIONER MARKS :
When these were written, we 5
hadn 't restructured NRC.
6 cot 01ISSIONER HAGGERTY :
With that, question on one.
7 CriAIRMA'1 KEIENY :
Okay, all those in favor of number 8
one.
9 (There was a show of hands.)
10 CHAIRMA'i KE ENY :
It's unanimous.
1I Okay, now, what's number two about?
12 CO!CiISSIONER MARKS:
For " agency," I guess you should 13 let's see, now, this was -- Hal, help me with this language 14 here.
I guess " agency" means the restructured NRC.
15 COIG1ISSIONER HAGGERTY:
And don't we every W re. have 16 to. change that Secretary of HEW to whatever the hell the new 17 acronym is?
18 COM!!ISSIONER MARKS:
Oh, yes, health and -- HHS.
19 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
HHS, isn't it?
20 CO?CIISSIONER MARKS :
We ought to get a ruling on that, 21 by the way.
22 CO!iMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
What is the new acronym?
v l
23 CO?O1ISSIONER MARKS :
HHS.
It passed -- the President p
l 24 signed the law.
25 CHAIRMA!4 KEIENY :
Look, we're in trouble on that.
372 LA9 l
Could we cop out on it, that at the time we wrote the bulk of 2
this report, it was still HEU?
3 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
I don't think so.
I think 4
you really -- I think it's been there for quite a while.
It's 5
a week, isn't it?
6 CHAIR'4AN KEMENY:
Pat, we even stopped following the 7
recovery ef fort as of October 1.
Couldn't we stop following 8
HEW as of October l?
I think actually more readers will 9
recognize HEW than whatever the new acronym is.
10 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON :
Paul, you mean agency II policy statements or regulations related to the health of 12 workers and the public in --
13 COMMISSIONER MARKS :
And the health of the general 14 public.
15 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
In radiation related 16 matters, right?
17 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
Sure.
l 18 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
You're not talking about l
19 all nealth.
20 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
Absolutely.
21 COMMISSIONER MARRETT:
It does say radiation of 22 related health --
v 23 p
COMMISSIONER MARKS :
It says radiation related health i
! 24 issues.
25 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Such policy.
373 l
LA10 CHAIRMAN KE!ENY:
So how about this, "To ensure ?.he 2
best available review of radiation related health issues, 3
pc.. icy statements or regulations of the restructured NRC"?
Okay?
Just to make the sentence a little better.
Okay?
5 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
"Such policy statements," or 6
" pertinent policy statements. "
Then it does away with all of 7
that.
It takes care of his " relating to this subject matter,"
8 is what I'm getting at.
9 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Yes, where are you now?
10 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Same one, number two.
It's 1I "such policy statements" or " policy statements or regulations 12 related to that subject matter of the restructured NRC should 13,be subject to mandatory review and comment. "
It does away with 14 all that "related to the health 'of workers and the general 15 public."
16 COM!1ISSIONER IGRKS :
ITnat are you saying now?
17 CO?CIISSIONER HAGGERTY :
Well, you're saying, "To 18 ensure the best possible review of radiation related health 19 issues, such policy statements," or " policy statements or 20 regulations in that area of the restructured NRC should be 21 subject to mandatory review and comment of the Secretary,"
22 that's all.
O 23 p
CHAIR!iAN KE!ENY:
" Policy statements or regulations"---
24 CO!CIISSIONER MARKS:
"In that area" --
25 CHAIIUiAN KE?EdY :
"In that area" --
374 LAll l
COMMISSIONER MARKS:
"Of the restructured NRC" 2
CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
"Of the restructured MRC" 3
CO:Oi!SSIONER MARKS:
"Should be subject to mandatory review and comments by the Secretary. "
5 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
We don't have to have the long 6
phrase, "related to," et cetera, et cetera.
7 Okay, any other changes on two?
8 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Question o'n two.
9 CHAIRMAN KEMENY :
Yes.
Let me just point out, you're 10 voting on a very important matter here.
I'm going to vote for 11 it, so don't misundsrstand my statement.
But this is a very 12 important one that Paul has come up with.
It is mandatory 13 sign-off by HEW.
It does not give it -- mandatory comment --
Id it does not give it a veto power.
Mandatory review and comment, 15 With that understanding, those commissioners favoring 16 this recommendation, please raise your hands.
17 (There was a show of hands.)
18 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
That's a unanimous vote of the 19 Commission.
l 20 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
It does pu'sh them into paying 21 attention to these areas.
I22 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
That's correct.
No, I told Paul iu 23
_y I'd support anything like this as long as it's not the veto h
l 24 power, because then we have got the problems we talked about
=
1 25 before.
I LA12 COMMISSIONER LEWIS:
This one still has teeth.
2 CHAIRMAN KEMENY :
Okay, number three.
COMMISSIONER IGRRETT:
This one we just have to make sure that it's consistent with what we said on FEMA, don't we?
5 CO!OiISSIONER PETERSON:
To help the outsider, we 6
ought to at least use HEW or DHEW consistently.
7 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
Yeah.
It's officially DHEW.
8 COLMISSIONER HAGGER'Y :
You know, two and three over-9 lap.
Do you really want, under two, to say, " including siting 10 issues"?
You're saying it all over again in three.
II COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
" Agency policy statements 12 or regulations, including siting issues," would do the whole 13 thing, wouldn 't it?
I4 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Would do the whole thing, 15 wouldn't it?
" Including siting. "
16 CHAIRMAN KEIENY:
The suggestion is, instead of three, 17 put in " including siting" under two.
I8 CO!VIISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Right after " health issuns,"
19 because that's what it means.
It's the health issues with 20 respect to siting.
21 CHAIRMAN KE!ENY:
Since we voted on two, is there 22 any objection to inserting " including siting issues" under U
23
_.y number two?
I hear no objection.
b 24 And, in that case, Paul, you would agree that three i
i 25 is not necessary.
l m.
376 l
LA13 COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
You mean reactor siting, I 2
guess?
3 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Yes, reactor siting.
It should be d
reactor siting.
5 COMMISSIONER PETERSON:
How about, " including reactor 6
siting and evacuation plans," then, too?
7 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
I think you' re right.
O COMMISSIONER PETERSON :
Because under three it talks 9
about evacuation plans.
10 COMMISSIONER MARKS :
Reactor siting does include Il consideration of evacuation plans.
I2 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
And they're health issues.
13 It just seemed to me that two is the broadest possible.
Almost 14 daything you do after that narrows it, rather than broaden:
15 it.
16 COMMISSIONER PETERSON:
Well, you worry a lot over 17 the years about siting.
And they found out in this investiga-18 tion almost nobody worried about evacuation.
19 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
And, of course, we wrote an 20 awful lot of stuff on evacuation by itself.
21 CHAIEUW KEMENY :
Okay, I'm going to continue readi::9 k 22 the old numbers, and I give a special assignment to Mr. Kane I
U 23
_y to renumaer the recommendations.
Okay?
I hope you can trust h
24 nim to do that.
a l
25
!1R. KANE:
I'll concentrate.
l
377 l
LA14 CHAIRMAN II!ENY :
Number four.
2 COPJ1ISSIONER PETERSON :
Where did we put " siting" in 3
two?
CHAIRMN; KEFENY:
Into two.
5 COMMISSIONER PETERSON :
Well, where?
How did you put 6
it in there?
7 CHAIRMN1 KEIENY:
In the first sentence.
8 MR. KANE:
Yes, it now reads, "To ensure the best 9 available review of radiation related health issues, including 10 reactor siting issues, policy statements or regulations in II that area of the restructured NRC," et cetera.
12 COMMISSIONER PETERSON:
How about putting in, "inclu-l 13 ding reactor siting issues and evacuation issues"?
Id CHAIRMAN KEMENY :
Okay, "and issues of evacuation. "
15 COMMISSIONER PETERSON:
Okay.
16 COMMISSIONER MC BRIDE :
I don't where -- you're not 17 suggesting that go in paragraph two.
18 CO!VIISSIONER PETERSON:
Yes, right, I guess I was.
19 If you're going to wipe out paragraph three, I do, yes.
20 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
The only thing is the broader 21 you -- you know, every time you put something down you' re I 22 narrowing it, Russ.
Ev
_p 23 COMMISSIONER PETERSON :
Well, then, take " siting" 24 out.
l 25 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Health issues, I'm not sure.
1 l
l l
i
378 l
LA15 I mean, health issues are the broadest.
2 COMMISSIONER PETERSON:
And, of course, the only 3
reason for evacuating is to minimize the exposure to health 4
effects.
5 CO!1MISSIONER LEWIS:
Well, we've got FEMA in there 6
on that anyway.
7 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
I'd be specific and say, 8
' siting. "
9 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
I mean, there's no issue with 10 siting, because it's such a concrete thing.
It seems health II issues sure -- I don't know how you deal with health issues 12 unless you get into evacuation and so forth.
I3 COMMISSIONER PETERSON :
No matter where the hell you 14 site it, if you get a major release, yo'u've got a problem of 15 evacuation.
16 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
Paul, who would -- excuse 17 me, are we through with this?
18 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Well, we're still having an argu-19 ment whether to include the phrase " evacuation. "
20 COMMISSIONER PETERSON :
Rather the.a bog it down, go 21 ahead.
22 CHAIRMM KEMENY :
So let's leave it as " siting issues.
U 23 UE have a slight problem with evacuation, because we may be y
.$ 24 contradicting ourselves.
We have a very specific statement on
=
25 how evacuation should be treated in the emergency section.
It w
l 379 l
LA16 I
also involves input from HEW, but that's the FEMA.
I I
2 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
Ready for four?
3 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Four.
COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
Who conducts this?
5 COMMISSIONER MARKS :
Well, I think it would have to 6
fundamentally be conducted by medical schools and postgraduate 7
medical continuing education programs, which are conducted now 8
by, say, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and places like 9
that.
10 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
And who would be responsible Il for seeing that it's been done?
I mean, that's what you're 12 really -- what's the evaluation process?
Evaluation of the
(
13 program, a portion of the licensing process, or something?
Id CHAIRFWI KEMENY:
I think that's a bit stiff, isn't 15 it?
16 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Well, I'm not arguing.
17 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
Is it an NRC responsibility 18 or HEW, to see that it's done?
Who pays for it?
19 20 21 22 O
23 g
s
$ 25
VG1 380 TMI-3 I
COMMISSIONER PIGFORD:
Well, in our hearings it was Evening 13-20-79 2 suggested the state should.
3 COMMISSIONER !* ARKS:
Well, right now this is mainly 4
a state-related responsibility.
The states establish the 5
criteria for improving curriculum of all the health professional 6
educational programs within that state.
So, this is really a 7
state responsibility for strengthening, you know, for seeing 8
that the progra' s are strong.
Uho pays for it is another is-m 9
sue.
I mean, the individual could pay for it.
With condi-10 tions in our society, that's how it's done.
Il COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
We recornend as a part of th<a 12 state responsibility for evacuation plans a significant --
13 CEAIRMAN REMENT:
Lloyd.
14 COMMISSIONER MCBRIDE:
I have some reservations about 15 dealing with a problem like this by calling for an educational 4
16 program for the public in this kind of an area but I don't know 17 what I would do to substitute for it.
18 CO!-DIISSIONER IGRKS:
Wait a minute, we ' re on 3, we ' r's 19 on 4 now.
This is the health professionals, the public is 20 5.
Now, you' re talking about the public?
21 COMMISSIONER MCBRIDE:
How, well in this area my 22 thought uas that rather than calling for an increased program u
23
_y of education we ought to specify the requirenents that these 24 health professionals be there and be available and I think thah 25 in itself would require the necessary training.
VG2 j
CO GIISSIONER MARKS: I see what you mean.
That whuld 2
be in another section.
In other words, as part of the --
3 COICIISSIO:7ER MCBRIDE:
I think we would want the 4
education program --
5 CO:OiISSIONER MARNS:
Emergency preparedness progran.
CO:CIISSIONER :-IC3 RIDE:
To be adequate to furnish the 6
number of people that are needed to do this work.
And I think 7
8 we obtain that by specifying the number of jobs required to 9
carry out an adequate program.
CO:CIISSIONER HAGGERTY:
But that wasn't the point of 10 4, was it, by itself?
The idea really was that it was part of
)j 12 the important educational program for the public, that health pr fessionals in the area be trained.
13 CO:BIISSIONER MARKS:
The kind of thing that Anne has
),
referred to from time to time.
About, you know, who's --
15 CO:GiISSIONER TAYLOR:
I think it's just Inore trouble
- g some if you try to change it.
If you leave it the way it is 37 yu spe es me, a
s all dgh.
18 COIOiISSIONER IiCPHERSON:
Do we want to trv to in-19 e ease de ha 20 g of research personnel 6 de deMy of nuclear power plants?
That's usually where they are, isn't it?
21 CO:CIISSIONER MARKS:
No, do we say that?
22 u
CO:CIISSIONER IiCPHERSON:
Uell, it says this --
23 f24 CO:CIISSIONER MARNS:
Oh, you're right.
],,
CO: MSS 10NER MCrnERSON:
It seye.
unclude training
VG3 382 1
of research personnel," and we repeat " health professionals."
2 So, we could just say energency response personnel.
3 CHAIR'IAi;:
Yeah, how about one sentence.
Paul, how 4
about one sentence.
"We recommend a significant increase in 5
programs of education for health professionals and energency 6
response personnel in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.
7 CO:011SSIONER MAPKS:
Right, cross out the research 8
personnel.
9 CO:1:1ISSIONER FIGFORD:
Is it clear that -- Is the 10 personnel in the vicinity, or the program in the vicinity?
I'm 11 not quite sure.
12 CHAIR'-1AN KE:iERY:
I think it's the personnel in the 13 vicinity.
I#
CO:1MISSIONER PIGFORD:
The personnel in the vicinity 15 of nuclear power plants.
Do you mean health professionals who 16 practice in the vicinity, live in the vicinity?
17 CHAIR'1AN KEME Y:
Yes.
IO COICIISSIO::ER TRUNK:What about the doctors who were I9 outside the vicinity who were giving their opinions and creat-20 ing a lot of problens?
2I CHAIR'1AN KE'IENY:
Would you like the recommendation 22 they should shut up and --
{ 23 CO:.1:iISSIONER TRUNK:
Yes.
I think we should just
.h 24 say --
25 CHAIR'IAN KE *EI;Y:
If you can cone up with a good
VG4 383 I
wording I'll vote for it.
2' CO::MISSIONER TRUNK:
Any doctor outside the area 3
should shut his mouth, d
CO:1:iISSIONER FIGEORD:
Requiring they graduate from 5
an NRC accredited institution.
6 CO:ci:SSIONER MCPHERSON:
Shouldn't it be a little 7
clearer about whom we are addressing this to?
8 COM'iISSIONER NARKS:
The one that we have now is, 9
we recommend as a state responsbility an increased, we don't 10 even need significant, an increased progran for educating 11 health professionals particularly in the vicinity of nuclear 12 power plants --
13 CO::'IISSIONER IIAGGERTY:
Health and emergency response 14 professionals.
Healti professionals and emergency response 15 personnel.
16 CHAIRIiAN KEMENY:
I think "in the vicinity of nuclea r 17 power plants" is all right.
18 COMIISSIONER IIARKS:
Okay.
19 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
I simply don't know what that 20 means.
I don't knou whether we're talking five miles or five 21 hundred.
I mean that literally.
22 CHAIRMAN KO*ENY:
I would suggest 10, but if you.uant.
23 to suggest 23 g
~
f I
! 24 Didn't that include sorebody in our transcripts?
25 CO:*2:ISSIONER IICPEERSON:
Within the expanded LP::.
i E
1
VG5 CO?OIISSIO!?ER HAGGERN':
In the general vicinity)84
)
That'd help.
It neans it's not just ir:aediately in the --
2 CO:CIISSIO;ER TAYLOR:
- ell, I guess I believe that 3
any practicing doctor should know a lot more about radiation 4
effects wherever they are.
5 CO:OIISSIO!!ER i:AGGERTY:
Right.
6 COI*CIISSIO!?ER !*.ARRS:
I? ell, obviously I agree with that.
7 Sut, the reality is that they're going to -- you know, just 8
like it is nou.
I mean, the people who go to Oak Ridge and 9
take the course are people who practice in the vicinity of a nuclear power plant.
1;ow, it's very hard to define how far
))
away that is.
I think it relates to the local pattern of phy-g sician practice.
CO GIISSIO!?ER HAGGERTY:
They ran that course every single year.
CO:1'IISSIOI!ER I' ARKS: In the Duke area it was up to 20 miles.
17 CO:CIISSIOiER TAYLOR:
As far as what the'v'll be called 18 on to do, it depends on the nature of the accident and the meteroloov.
20 CO:"IISSIOI;ER IIARRS:
'? ell, but it's even more than that.
I think we have a continuing function -- I mean, Anne 0
will tell you this I think.
There's a continuing function 23 g
g for these physicians in the area because people living in the
.j area are centinually having questions about it; like the w
VG6 385 1
cuestion Anne raised today about the possibility of a rela-2 tionship between a mongoloid child and low-level radiation.
3 I mean, those are continuing issues about which physicians in 4
the area snould be knowledgeable, particularly.
5 CO:OilSSIONER PETERSON:
Instead of worrying about a 6
specific area tie it into the energency response plan.
7 CO:r*ISSIONER TAYLOR:
But the thing is -- if we 8
were looking, for example, at the whole nuclear fuel cycle, 9
which we 're not.
If we were, we would certainly exclude any-10 thing having to do with being closed in at the power plant.
11 CO:GilSSIONER 1 ARKS:
If you think it's practical 12 to make the recommendation that all health professionals and 13 emergency response personnel have this education, it's okay 14 with me.
15 CO:it:ISSIONER TAYLOR:
I would certainly urge it.
16 CHAIF217.5 KE:iENY:
Lloyd.
17 CO:CIISSIONER MCBRIDE:
I'm wondering if we shouldn' t 18 continue to try to place emphasis on the problem in the vicini ty 19 of these plants and uould it be adecuate to say that we re-20 co=aend a significantly increased progrc= of education for 21 health professionals to serve in the vicinity of nuclear pouer 22 plants.
This, so on, it would include --
u CO:' :ISSIONER MCPEERSON:
?! ore particularly in the 23 J
g 24 vicinity.
25 CO:"i!SSIONER ! CERIDE:
I think it would be important
VC7 386 1
I to do it.
1 2
CO iISSIO:: R TAYLOR:
Well, I withdraw my objection.
3 CO:::ISSIO:sER MC3 RIDE:
To relate to that problem in 4
the vicinity.
And yes, it is a vide area at that.
5 CIIAIR"J.I; I;E'1EITI:
Excuse ne, could I request Mr.
6 Kane to read the version he now has?
7
- .1R. KA::E:
Ue recommend as a state responsbility an 8
increased progran for educating health professionals and emer-9 gency response personnel in the vicinity of nuclear power 10 plants.
1I CO:01ISSIOI?ER IIAGGERTY:
Special emphasis --
12 CO:CIISSIO :ER :'ARPITT:
I just thought of one point o '
13 clarification.
You said there are programs already, that's 14 why Ge're saying increase the programs?
15 CO:-1:iISSIO: ER MARICS:
That's right.
There are pro-16 grams already but they're not -- There are programs already 17 and they need to be increased.
18 CliAIR:iA1: KI :E ri:
Bruce.
19 CO:'OilSSIOI:ER SAESITT:
Would you settle for state 20 and local responsibility?
21 CO:EIISSIO1?ER IIARKS:
Yes.
22 COIL:ISSIONER MCPEERSOI;:
Lay it on Iliddletown, you v
23 nean?
g
.b 24 COIriISSIO !ER IIAGGERTY:
Absolutely.
25 CO.*CIISSIO!?ER IIARPITT:
Lay it on Middletown to be
VG5 387 1
responsible for training the health professionals?
2 CO:OIISSIONER DA3LITT:
What I'm really saying is 3
it's a non-federal responsibility.
I don't know whether it should lae universities or Ford Foundation --
4 5
CI: AIR IAN KE:*2NY:
Because, I mean, suppose it's 6
iew York City.
The City might be the end agency and not the state.
7 CO:CIISSIONER LD7IS:
There's no money in New York g
City.
9 CO *SISSIO12R BA33ITT:
No poney except federal money 10 CO: *ISSIONER LC?IS :
None of that either.
j; CHAIR'IAN LDIENY:
Is there further discussion of 12 number 4?
13 CO:CISSIONER I/ ARKS:
Question.
),
CHAIFFAN II:ENY:
Okay.
He have gast 4 read.
The 15 nly change since then was state and local responsibilities.
16 All those in favor of number 4 as amended.
)7 (Show of hands) 18 i
Unanimous vote.
j9 CO:*.MISSIONER WHERSON:
Haven't we done 5?
20 CO:*".ISSIONER TAYLOR:
We did 5 under public infor-21 mati n.
22 l
u CO:"*ISSIONER *ARPITT:
Yes we have -- No, we had it 23
_7 f24 uncer emergency planning.
It's just a slight variation on it.
CO:- ISSIONER : ARnS:
These were written ineepen-
TG9 388 1
dently.
2 CHAIPO:A: RE IENY :
Yeah.
Cora, you will remember 3
best.
This is almost identical.
4 CO:I'?ISSIO::ER :-1ARRETT:
Well, Vince has it right here 5
!!R. JOH::SO:::
It 's number 4.
I think that's the 6
wording.
7 CO:IIISSIO!!ER ?RRKS :
Yeah, I have it right here.
8 Let's see what it says.
Should I read you the two versions?
9 The one we passed is item 4 under emergency planning recommen-10 dations.
"If emergency planning and response is to be ef fec-11 tive, the public must be better informed about nuclear power.
12 Ue recommend a progran to educate the public on: A.
How a 13 nuclear power plant operates; 3.
Radiation, what it is and 14 it's health effects --
15 CHAIPJ1Ali KE 1EMY :
That vas, excuse me Pau, that was 16 changed.
Could I read you the one we passed?
17 CO:I'!ISSIO:<ER IGRKS:
By all means.
18 CHAIR *iA:: RE'IEUY:
"If emergency planning and respons e 19 to raliation-related emergencies is to be effective, the public 20 must be better informed about nuclear power.
We reconnend a 21 program to educate the public on how nuclear power plants operateg 22 on radiation and its health effects and on protective actions U
23 against such radiation.
Those who vould be affected by such g
f 24 cmergency planning must have clear information on actions they
^
25 would be required to take in an emergency."
Remember this is 3
l VG13' I
389 I
in the emergency section.
So, I think it includes all of this l
2 plus something on the emergency planning.
3 CO:C:ISSIONER MCERIDE:
I move we omit this 5.
4 COIriISSIONER MARKS:
I second.
5 CHAIR"AN KE:1Ei!Y:
Anyone objecting?
No.
Five is 6
gone.
It's going to make you renumber, are you still up to it 7
Kevin?
8 IIR. KA1:E:
I'ra working on it.
9 CliAIR'1AII KE!!ENY:
Number G.
Old number 6.
10 CO:il:ISSIONER :' ARKS:
This also may be redundant.
II CHAIR':AN KE!iENY:
I don't think so.
I2 CO:i:-IISSIONER MARKS:
In fact, if --
13 COICIISSIONER TAYLOR:
At the same time, can we have 14 a vote on that and if it turns out that this, it's found that 15 it's really covered in other places, to transfer it?
16 COICIISSIONER IIARKS:
Why don' t we ask Kevin to make 17 sure -- there's one recommendation in this area which includes 18 everything we vote on.
Is that all right?
19 CO!OIISSIONER MCPIIERSON:
On 6?
20 COI*ISSIONER MARKS:
On the other 6, yeah.
21 CO:GIISSIONER MARRETT:
Nell the way, the one that 22 we passed about NRC, or the restructured NRC, said it should 23 g
be directed to include as a part of the licensing requirements
.h 24 plans for the mitigation of the consequences of accidents in-25 ciuding the clean-up and recovery of contaninate plants.
The
VGil 390 1
agency should be directed to revieu existing licenses and set 2
deadlines for accomplishing modifications.
That was a more 3
limited --
4 CHJ.IRI'A': KC:E: Y:
I don't think that duplicates this 5
number 6.
i i
6 CO " ISSIO:!ER IERRETT:
Yeah, but it had come about 7
uith reference to the same sets of issues, having been that 1
8 there wasn't preparation at TMI for radiation monitors because 9
there vere design problems of where the monitors were located.
10 So, it had cone out of the same set of themes.
It just got 11 phrased differently.
12 CO:CISSIONER :' ARKS:
The importance of having it 13 here too, is that this not o~ 1y refers to emergencies but 14 ongoing, so-called normal o,. rations.
15 CO:1:1ISSIO1;ER FIGFORD:
Are ve on 6?
16 CHAII'c:Je KEMr. Y:
Yes.
Yes, Tom.
17 COIEIISSIO iER PIGFORD:
Under A I think it tells me j
18 that you want to have some monitors each of which can go from 19 routine to accident.
And really, that's not such a good idea, 1
l 20 The routine monitoring is at extremely low levels.
Like l
1 l
21 sometimes a nillirem per hour.
And that rate is beginning to 22 recuire techniques that are so different.
So, I would sug-f23 gest instead to say radiation monitors to include monitoring h24 of routine operation as well as accident conditions.
i 25 CO:1MISSIO:iER HAGGERTY:
Eecause it would be separate
?
1
VG12 39)
I ones most likely.
2 CHAIR:'AI: KDIENY:
Paul, is that an acceptable change?
3 Co??'ISSIONER ! ARKS:
It's an excellent change.
4 CHAIR 17di KE ENY :
Tom, as I understand the point 5
of that change is they should cover both but they don't need 6
to be the same instrument.
7 CO:Oi!SSIONER PIGFORD:
That's right.
8 I!R. KANE:
So, that would be, radiation monitors to 9
include monitoring of routine operations as well as accident 10 levels?
II CO:* IISSIONER PIGFORD:
Yes.
J 12 CHAIPJiTd' KEIIEUY:
Okay, anything in B or C?
- Both, 13 of course, come directly out of our findings.
I4 CO:CIISSIOMER I'CPEERSOI;:
Uhat's support equipment?
15 CHAIPJGui KEMEUY:
Protective clothing, Harry.
16 COICIISSIONER HAGGERTY:
How about radiation-related 17 support equipment, is that what you mean?
18 COIE1ISSIONER 1 ARKS:
Goodies.
I9 CO IIISSIONER IGnRETT:
Could we just say necessary 20 equiprc.ent and then --
21 CO:OiISSIONER PIGTORD:
On 3, to avoid somebody nitpickine 22 at it --
u 23 y
CHAIP;:AU KE:iEU'1:
Excuse me, Tom, one second and I'll h
24 give you a chance.
How did we come out on C?
=
I
} 25 CO:I*ISSIOMER IGGGERTZ:
Uccessary for support?
VG13 392 1
CO:-::!ISSIO::ER LEWIS:
Other necessary support.
2 CO:LIISSIONER EAGGERTY:
Not_ support, just other ne-3 cessary equipment.
4 CO:::IISSIOnER MCPEERSON:
And other necessary equip-5 ment.
6 CHAIR'-:A1: KE':E:PI:
But now, don't you have to get 7
radiation in there?
8 How, could somebody come up with an extra phrase here 9
because other necessary equipment, for exanple, could be a 10 reactor.
Uhat I'm saying is there is nothing in C that refers 11 here to radiation.
12 CO:rIISSIONER :1ARRETT:
Well, it would have to be in 13 th ere.
That's -- necesary for monitoring both routine and 14 energency -- health-related. -
15 COMMISSIONER MCERIDE:
Could it be all right if we 16 said respirators, conna, safety and other support equipment?
17 ror both routinc and emergency conditions?
18 CEAIPJ:A:: KEME:Y:
I'd love to get in something like 19 health-related equipment.
And other necessary health-related 20 equipment, all right?
Oh, I assume you meant the health-relat ed 21 equipment.
22-CO:' :ISSIONER 'IAPT.S :
Yeah, that's all I nean.
23 CEAIR'G n KE:*ENY:
Yes.
Chay, Ton, you had a connent f 24 on 3.
25 CO::::ISSIONER PIGFORD:
I think, in 3 you need two l
l l
I
V,G14 393 I
things.
You need a well-shielded area and you need an uncon-2 taminated air supply.
So, I think you should say, "should be 3
located in a well-shielded area and an uncontaminated air sup-A ply should be supplied. "
I mean, should be made available --
CO:iMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Supplied with --
0 CO:-1:IISSIONER PIGTORD:
Supplied with uncontaminated 7
air.
Is that what you mean?
Air for what, incidentally, 8
~
people or instruments?
9 COIIIISSIOUER HAGGERTY:
People.
10 CO:1:1ISSIONER PIGTORD:
Oh, all right.
Supplied 11 uith uncontaminated air.
12 CHAIPalAn KE:GY:
So, should be located in a well-13 shielded area, supplied with uncontaminated air.
14 COLIIISSIONER HAGGERTY:
I have a question under --
15 the last sentence under C.
Uhat you really want to say is 16 there should be an adequate maintenance program for all of I7 this calculated equipment.
Don't you really mean that?
\\
CO ITIISSIONER I'. ARKS:
Right, that's for everything.
l9 CO:1MISSIOUER HAGGERTY:
So, this is just the suffi-20 cient supply here.
21 l
u
(
I h2s
1 394 GRE7 WOOD 1
COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Make it D and say there TAPE 4 2
should be an adequate maintenance program for all of this 3
health-related equipment.
4 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Just for all health-related 5
equipment.
D, there should be an adequate maintenance 6
program for all health-related equipment.
Good point.
7 COMMISSIONER MAPJtS:
Question?
8 MR. KANE:
And then strike the last sentence?
9 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Yes.
10 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
All those in favor of 6 as amended?
11 (There was a show of hands.)
12 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Unanimous.
13 All 13 Commissioners voted.
14 I counted hand 5.
15 All right, No.
e.
16 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
Question?
17 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
The only one you presently 18 have is potassium iodide.
It is the only one.
19 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
Are we sure that this is a 20 good idea?
21 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
All we are saying here is it I 22 should be available.
I
.f23 COMMISSIONER LEUIS:
Not necessarily distributed.
24 COMMISSIONER BABBITT:
Ted's point is why does it i
25 have to be in the vicinity of each nuclear power plant.
3 7
1 395 I
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That is one thing I am worried l
2 about because to me that is perhaps too restrictive, because 3
if you remember, the places where this radiciodine really 4
is particularly important is at places where it is the 5
governing, causes the governing health effects, and other 6
things don't.
That tends to be some distance away from the 7
power plant, in some cases considerable distances.
That is 8
one of the main points that BA and Von Hipple were making.
9 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Ted, I think you are making a good 10 point, but let me pose a dilemma to you.
You certainly 11 cannot say that it should be available at places far away 12 from nuclear power plants.
The other alternative would be 13 to say to have it available everywhere in the country.
14 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
Or we could say that an 15 adequate supply of potassium iodide, and I don't think we 16 should say radiation blocking agents most importantly because 17 we don't really have another one, right?
If,
COI1MISSIONER HAGGERTY:
It really only is potassium 19 iodide.
l 20 CHAIRMAN KEMENY: Could we have a lead in, an l
l 21 adequate supply of the radiation blocking agent, potassium 22 idodide?
COMMISSIONER MARKS: Yes, should be available.
i
[ 23 f24 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Where?
25 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
In a designated location.
396 1
COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
For distribution to the 2
affected general population and workers in case of a radiation 3
related --
4 COMMISSIONER MARKS:
Right now it is where, Little 5
Rock?
6 COMMISSIONER BABBITT:
How about saying should be 7
available?
That begs the question.
8 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
That is very good.
9 MR. KANE:
For distribution to the general 10 population?
11 CHAIRMAN KEMENY: Yes, can we keep the rest of the 12 sentence?
13 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
Distribution to the la general population and workers affected by a radiation-related 15 emergency?
16 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
That was the idea.
17 COMMISSIONER MC PHERSON:
You don't give it to 18 everybody in the country.
For distribution to the general 19 population and workers affected by a radiological energency.
20 CHAIRMAN KE"ENY:
Have you got that, Kevin?
21 MR. KANE:
An adequate supply of --
I 22 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Would you listen, please?
Kevin r
5" 23 will read what we will have to vote on.
?
[
f24 MR. KANE:
An adequate supply of the radiation 25 blocking agent, potassium iodide, should be available regional:.y
397 l
1 for distribution to the general population and workers 2
affected by a radiological emergency.
3 CHAIRMAN KEMENY: Yes, Jack?
4 MR. FABRIKANT:
May I suggest something that nay 5
be of no importance to this recommendation, and that is 6
potassiun iodide for human use?
7 MR. KANE:
Is there another kind?
8 MR. FABRIKANT:
Yes, the kind that was gotten.
It p
was not pharmaceutically used. That is why Mellincrout was 10 approached because they were a pharmaceutical company, and 11 that means you have to go through all careful human use 12 requirements.
It has a pharmaceutical grade of potassium 13 iodide.
That is the point.
14 COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
Do the experts call it a 15 radiation blocking agent?
16 MR. FABRIKANT:
No, in that case it is a thyroid 17 blocking agent.
jg COMMISSIONER TAYLOR:
The trouble is for general 39 public that inplies that it stops the radiation, and it 20 does not.
21 MR. FABRIKANT:
No, I would not use radiation 22 blocking agent.
v 23 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
E Would thryoid blocking agent be the h24 right phrase?
I just think some phrase there that indicates 25 why they are giving them potassium iodide.
398 MR. FABRIKANT:
The general term would be
)
2 radiation protective agent.
COMISSIOER TAEOR:
If you put thyroid in there 3
then --
4 CHAIR'GN KEMENY:
Thyroid bloc):ing agent.
5 OMSSIOER MC PERSON:
Jack, does dat s W have 6
any known side effects?
7 I1R. FABRIKANT:
It does have side effects, but 8
they are minimal compared to other thyroid blocking agents.
p HA E
an you sds m ute 10 protective for blocking?
))
MR. FABRIKANTS :
The side effects are minimal 12 Compared to the others, but there are some side effects, particularly if you take large doses.
g COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
It really does more if you g
say radiation protection, parenthesis, thyroid blocking agent.
CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Then we have both in.
17 a
e n
re me en to 18 be sure I have got it?
An adequate supply of the radiation 9
pr tection, parenthesis --
20 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Protective.
MR. KAE : Radiation protective, parenthesis, g
E thryoid blocking, parenthesis, agent, potassium iodide for o
23 g
)
human use should be available regionally for distribution to f
the general population and workers affected by radiological
y s
O 399 1
emergency.
2 COMMISSIONER HAGGERTY:
Question?
3 CHAIRMAN FIMENY:
All those in favor?
4 (There was a show of hands.)
5 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Unanimous vote.
6 What do we do with our remaining 35 minutes?
7 COMV.ISSIONER MARKS: I would like to get a lecture 8
before this is all over on the use of this computer.
9 COMMISSIONER MC BRIDE: Could we use the 35 minutes 10 to fill out our overtime chit?
11 CHAIRMAN KEMENY:
Is there anything else?
12 I don't think it is worth starting a new topic 13 this late in the evening.
Therefore, would it be agreeable 14 if the Chair declared adjournment until 9 a.m. tomorrow 15 morning?
16 No objection.
17 The Chair declares that we ~are adjourned until 18 9 a.m.
tomorrow morning.
19 (Thereupon, at 9:55 p.m.,
a recess was taken until 20 9
a.m.,
the following day, October 21, 1979.)
21 22 Up 23 e
24 12,