ML20027C883
| ML20027C883 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/23/1982 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2003, NUDOCS 8210270375 | |
| Download: ML20027C883 (19) | |
Text
{
N A3-Adc3 g
(U (
lj f hl 3
CERTIFIED COPY JOINT MEETING DATE ISSUED: AUG. 23,1982 0F THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEES ON REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND SITE EVALUATION JUNE 23, 1982 WASHINGTON, D.C.
A joint meeting was held by the ACRS Subcommittees on Reactor Radiological Effects and Site Evaluation in Room 1046, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D. C.
The purpose of the meeting was two-fold:
to review the current status of NRC's proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation; and to discuss the use of potassium iodide (KI) for thyroid blocking in the event of a radiation accident.
Notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register on June 3, 1982 (Attachment A). The schedule of the items covered at the meeting is in Attachment B.
The list of attendees is Attach-ment C.
The meeting handouts are contained in the of fice files of the ACRS.
John C. McKinley was the Designated Federal Employee for this meeting.
Opening Statement Chairman D. Moeller opened the meeting by stating that the Subcommittees planned to discuss and listen to presentations regarding NRC's proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Agair.st Radiation." He said that any significant changes to Part 20 would impact not only upon NRC-licensed 1
nuclear power plants, fuel cycle and materials facilities, but also on DOE facilities and National Laboratories.
Dr. Moeller added that Part 20 had originally been written 25 years ago and had never undergone a thorough review, and that a risk approach is now being taken into account in revising Part 20.
Dr. Moeller said that the objective for this meeting is to be brought up to date on the revision task, and that the Subcommittees u
8210270375 820823
~
i 2
do not plan at this stage to ask the Full Committee for comment unless current developments warrant such action.
Dr. Moeller mentioned that the af ternoon session would be devoted to discussing the use of potassium iodide (KI) for thyroid blocking in the event of a radiation accident.
I.
10 CFR Part 20 W. Mills (hPC/RES) stated that Part 20 had been amended several times since its inception in 1960.
The current version contains many inconsisten-cies that need to be corrected.
Although the proposed rule departs in some ways from the recommendations of ICRP #26, he said, the basic tenets of the radiation protection approach, the justification, the dose limits, etc. of ICRP #26 are preserved.
He added that the task group had discussed with EPA on many occasions Part 20 and EPA's proposed Federal Radiation Pro-tection Guidance (RPG).
He indicated that EPA had put off the work on RPG, and would not likely proceed expeditiously enough to create impact on NRC's Part 20 revision, but NRC intends to work with DOE, EPA, OSHA and other federal agencies as the revision work further progresses.
Major issues and comments during this session are listed below:
a.
(Proposed I 20.1003) Dr. Moeller questioned why the excreta from individuals undergoing medical procedures are exempt from the regula-tory limits when we worry about minute amounts of radioactive materials released in the ef fluents from power plants.
Tne Staff replied that the pro-posed rule, when further revised, would require licensed hospitals to col-lect urine from hospitalized patients for two days following medical therapy using unsealed radioactive material that exceeds 1000 times the Appendix C quantities.
This would cut down radioactive liquid effluent releases while nimizing the burden on licensees.
O 3
2.
K. Z. Morgan (ACRS Consultant) commented that the rule as proposed would increase most of the MPC values currently used, and would, in turn, result in the public's losing confidence in the NRC, since cancer risk due to radiation is now known to be greater than generally believed when ICRP #2 was published in 1959.
He suggests that NRC only adopt ICRP 26/30 recommendations insofar as they do not result in increased MPC values.
The written cominents that he submitted are included in the ACRS copy of these minutes.
3.
The section on Planned Special Exposures (Proposed J 20.202), accord-ing to R. Baker, NRC task leader, was added to allow the flexibility that had been removed by dropping the dose averaging formula 5(N-18).
It must be a deliberate planned activity where ALARA is included in the planning.
A number of constraining provisions must be satisfied before using the planned special exposure provision, e.g., a lifetime limit of 25 rem from planned special exposures (in addition to the 5 rem / year limit),
and no more than 10 rem in any single year allowed for planned special exposures.
Mr. Baker said that inathe next draft, the task group plans to add the provision that women with reproductive capabilities not l
l receive any planned special exposures.
He indicated that this would be very dif ficult to implement since it involves the individual rights of women, etc.
Dr. Moeller added that the Canadians also had indicated that this should not be interpreted as a limit for female i
workers, that it is a limit for the fetus (i.e., to prevent the inadvertent l
l overexposures to the enbryo/ fetus during early stages of pregnancy which could be unknown to the mother).
4 4.
W. Kerr questioned whether the draft rule had been distributed to people abroad who have similar responsibilities.
W. Mills replied that a few individuals in the U.K. National Radiological Protection Board and Dr. John Dunster in the Health and Safety Executive had reviewed or comented on the draf t.
That was the only distribu-tion of the draf t outside the U.S.
In response to Dr. Moeller's questions as to whether any coments had been received from the Canadians, R. Baker said that he had discussed various features of the proposed rule with several individuals from the Canadian authori-ties at some of the United Nations meetings. The Canadians had never received a copy of the draft, Baker said, but they had indicated that they would lean heavily toward the U.S. Part 20 as they proceed with revising the Canadian regulations.
5.
R. Baker mentioned that the proposed rule would require licensees to report to both NRC and the exposed individuals external doses, intakes, and internal doses (e.g., rem, pCi, 50 year comitted dose equivalent).
J. Healy, ACRS consultant, express,ed concerns that this reporting requirement would result in legal consequences for the industry (e.g.,
exposed worker sues the enployer based on the report, when cancer develops years later).
6.
The proposed il 20.301 (Limits for Me:ters of the Public) sets a limit of 0.5 revyear. from all sources to the average of the critical group W. Cool, NRC task menber, explained that critical group, by defi-nition, is the group which has a rather uniform exposure and represents
5 the group that is highest exposed or at the greatest risk.
D. Moeller indicated that the current Part 20 limits and ICRP #26 recommendations of 0.5 rem per year both apply to the maximally-exposed individual within the critical group, which means the average to that group will be much less, i.e., about one-third of 0.5, or 0.17 rem per year.
D. Moeller felt that the proposed i 20.301 apparently implies an increase in risk.
The Subcommittee suggested clear definitions of " critical group" and " average to the critical group" in f 20.301.
7.
W. Bair, ACRS consultant, indicated that he was confused with the derived and secondary standards, deep dose, etc. that are contained in the proposed rule.
R. Baker said that the draft is still in the developmental stage, and that these and other factors have been changed since the November 1981 draf t.
8.
The value/ impact of implementing the proposed rule, according to W. Cool, is being evaluated by contractors at the present time, but is not expected to be-come a substantial burden to licensees.
He indicated that training the personnel could be relatively costly, but would be money well-spent.
9.
W. Mills stated that NRC would coordinate with OSHA, DOE and other agencies in l
finalizing the draf t.
He also said that the draft had not been formally circu-l lated within the NRC; however, the task group had met with licensees, AIF, labor unions, NCRP, NRDC, DOE contractors, Health Physics Society, hospital physicists, etc. to discuss practical problems encountered in the field, needed
+
changes to current Part 20. and the content, potential impact and methods of implementation.
R. Baker felt that these discussions provided useful comments and at the same time had built credibility for NRC.
6 10.
The Staff indicated that the next draft of the proposed rule would be completed by the end of July or early August, and that a final draft would be circulated for internal NRC review and comment by December.
II.
Issues on Potasssium Iodide (KI) 1.
E. Williams (NRC/IE) described the NRC recommendations that K1 be used by emergency workers, other individuals onsite during an emergency, and institutionalized persons within the plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) who may be difficult to evacuate.
The reasons for these, he stated, were that limited individuals would be involved, that these individuals are likely to be exposed to the airborne release during an accident, and that medical history for this special group could be more readily established.
He said that distribution of K1 to the general public is being questioned at the present time for several reasons:
The amount of radioiodine released during an accident might be significantly lower than the WASH-1400 estimates; the difficilty in effectively distributing Kl; simple respiratory protection devices (e.g.,
dust masks) that could be considered for use; public misperception that K! would provide total protection when the external whole body dose greatly exceeds the thyroid dose, etc.
R. Muller, ACRS consultant, commented that KI should be administered only af ter the release of iodine during an accident becomes a known fact, and that it would not have done any good if K1 had been given to the emergency workers and other individuals that were at TMI during the March 1979 accident since only a relatively small amount of radioiodine was released during that event.
1
7 2.
E. Saenger, Chairman of NCRP Ad Hoc Committee on Thyroid Blocking, briefly described the Committee's report, i.e., NCRP Report #55,
" Protection of the Thyroid Gland in the Event of Releases of Radioiodine" (8/1/77).
NCRP #55 recommends various thyroidal protective actions, e.g., evacuation, sheltering, etc.
It considers the use of KI the major protective action.
It recommends that KI be administered when the projected thyroidal dose from Iodine-131 is 10-30 rads, and that a daily dose of 130 mg be administered to adults and children, and 65 mg to infants (i.e., <one-year old).
The Committee states in the report that K1 should be administered either before or promptly after exposure in order to achieve greatest effectiveness.
Dr. Saenger mentioned that iodate had been in use, and is now stockpiled in the UK for the purpose of thyroid blocking in the event of release of radioiodine.
The first batch of iodate, which had been stored in aluminum foil, was found to have crumbled to a powder when some of the iodate tablets were opened up to be tested two years ago.
The iodine was essen-tially gone.
Dr. Saenger said that it would be interesting to see if any pharmaceutical studies might exist that would further clarify the stability of iodine preparations in view of the British experience with iodate.
He added that most European countries had already resolved the KI issue without the excessive introspection manifested in the U.S., and he felt that the U.S. had not evaluated the European work carefully.
E. Saenger said that an international conference should be set up to discuss this issue.
He also suggested that comparative studies be
i 8
carried out on KI stockpiling, over-the-counter sale of KI, etc., to evaluate public perception of and reaction to the use of KI.
R. Muller, consultant, said that sometimes a medium dose of KI might be less conservative than a somewhat higher dose because of the so-called Wolff-Chaikoff Effect, and that the required blocking dose of KI apparently varies geographically considerably.
In the U.S., because of the potassium iodate additives in bread, and the additions.of potassium iodide to table salt, less KI would be required to block the thyroid than in the Federal Republic of Germany, which is. considered to be in an area of iodine deficiency.
3.
B. Shieien (FDA) described FDA's current position re use of KI.
He emphasized that FDA is responsible for certifying the safety and effi-
~
cacy of KI as a drug, whereas its stockpiling and distribution should be a decision for NRC and FEMA.
Although alternative thyroid blocking agents have been studied, Dr. Shleien said that KI is considered the most advantageous because of its degree of blocking achieved, the rapidity of onset and duration of the blocking effect, the safety of the drug, and its availability under present FDA regulations.
Dr.
Shleien said that in late 1979 (post TMI accident), New Drug Applica-tions (NDAs) for KI were approved.
Further, FDA proposed recommenda-tions on KI and announced its availability in the Federal Register Notice in June 1981.
Based on comments received, the final recommenda-tions now include:
use of KI when the projected dose to the thyroid exceeds 25 rem; 130 mg/ day for adults and children, and 65 mg/ day for infants (same as NCRP #55); KI be distributed just before or immediately after the
9 exposures; inform the public of the limitations of using K1 (e.g., it blocks uptake of radioiodine but not other radioactive materials, and it does not block whole body external exposures), etc.
Dr. Shleien stated that the the shelf-life of K1 is determined by the manufacturers, not by FDA.
- 4. D. Becker ( American Thyroid Association) discussed the use of KI from the medical standpoint.
He stated that the significance of small thyroid cancers found at surgery is often unclear because of the frequent occurrence of small occult papillary thyroid cancers in individuals who appear clinically without thyroid abnormalilties.
Such occult cancers are found at autopsies with considerable frequency (ranging from 5 to 25 percent) in individuals other-wise considered to be normal.
Regarding the time period between administration of KI and the onset of its effect, Dr. Becker referred to some Russian studies that used radioactive tracers.
These studies show that block-ing can be almost 100% effective if the blocking agent is given 16 or j
18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> before the tracer is given.
The effect reduces torw50% if the l
blocking agent is given three hours after the tracer is given.
He men-tioned, however, that if the blocking, agent was given one day (24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />) ahead of time, its rapid excretion causes its effectiveness to be reduced to ae80%.
He reiterated the recommendations of the American Thyroid Association that a) data be obtained on radioiodine effects; b) a central registry on the side effects of KI be established; c) K1 be manufactured and stockpiled but not predistributed; d) the l
threshold for instituting iodine blockade be increased to 100 rads for adults, and 50 rads for children.
10
- 5. R. Krimm (FEMA) said that FEMA had begun development of a national plan for distribution of KI, and would present the plan to Congressman Markey's Subcommittee by mid-September 1982.
He added that representa-tives from the Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee (FRPCC) and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors are assisting FEMA with the plan development.
In addition to uncertainties on the size and duration of the radiciodine source term, Mr. Krimm felt that the role of ad hoc respiratory protection in the national plan must also be considered.
Presently K1 is available in 14-tablet bottles.
Mr. Krimm said that FEMA is interested in improving the shelf-life and packaging of K1 to make its distribution more effective.
Regarding NRC's earlier suggestion that K1 only be used for sites where evacuation cannot be accomplished within four hours, Mr. Krimm said that FEMA is considering this suggestion but sheltering should also be considered in developing the plan. He added that FEMA would be interested in specific proposals t
from the State and local governments regarding distribution of K1 to the public in the 10-mile EPZ within a reasonable time.
- 6. E. Fowinkle (Tennessee Department of Public Health) discussed the State of Tennessee's decision to make K! available for optional use by the residents living within five miles from the Sequoyah nuclear power plant.
I He described the background of the State's interest and involvement in nuclear emergency planning 3nd preparedness, how the above decision for l
distributing K1 had been reached, its implementation, and the evaluation l
of the distribution process.
He said that each family within the five-l l
mile radius had been given 14 KI tablets (130 mg each) which are stored t
11 in a dark amber childproof container along with the manufacturer's instruc-tional insert.
This " starter dose" was considered to be enough to begin protec-tive medication, yet not a sufficient quantity to cause serious consequences should an individual accidentally take an overdose (i.e., up to 14 tablets).
In addition, a one-page instruction on when to administer KI was prepared and used for discussion with the residents.
The State Health Department held a one-day training session for the home visitors (distributors) prior to the actual distribution that took place between 11/16/81 and 12/11/81.
Approximately 59% of the total families within the five-mile radius (i.e., 3516 out of 5591) received K1 tablets.
The remainder were not home at the time of the visit and never went to the makeup distribution centers.
Mr. Fowinkle felt that the overall response to the project was very positive.
About 175-200 man-days were expended in the home visits, costing roughly $25,000.00.
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) supplied the 10,000 vials of KI which had cost slightly under $10,000.00.
The childproof bottles cost $1,271.00, and Red Cross volunteers inserted I
the tablets into the bottles.
He said that the cost of predistributing l
K1 could be affected by variables such as size of population to be reached, method of distribution, training needed, etc., and thus is l
site-specific.
i
- 7. A. Godwin of Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors described its task force's recommended national plan for the KI distributions.
He l
stated that the decision to use KI should be up to the state and local authorities, and that the plan does not advise them on when to use Kl.
He said that this plan covers recommendations regarding the amount of K1
12 that should be nationally or regionally stockpiled, and the use of K1 by emergency workers, immobile populations and the general public when the decision to use K1 has been made by the appropriate officials.
He stated that Alabama plans to store KI in County Health Centers, and distribute them at reception centers.
He added that $350,000.00 is being spent this year in that state on nuclear energency planning and drills.
111. In closing the meeting, Dr. Moeller thanked the participants for their presentations on the current status of the KI issue.
Although no further action is required of the Subcommittees at the present, he stated that the Subcommittees would follow up on this issue with interest. The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
l l
NOTE:
A complete transcript of the meeting is available in the NRC's l
Puiblic Document Room at 1717 H St., N.W., Washington, DC, 20555, or can be obtained at cost from Alderson Reporting, 400 Virginia Ave., S.W., Washington, DC (202)554-2345.
(
-.s Federal Register / Vol. 47. No.107 / Thursday. June 3.1982 / Notices 212..'
v Arkansas. A copy ofitems (2) and (3) present, may excharige preliminary
. cumbir) and respor.se letters are free on may be obtained upon request considered during the balance of the views regarding matters to be wntten request to Pubhc inquiries Sec.t;on.
addressed to the U.S. Nuclear N1tionalTransportation Safety
Deard,
meeting.
Wesbr ston. D C. 2o594.
Reguleory Commission. Washington, The Subcommittee will then hear D.C.10555, Attention: Director of presentations by and hold discussions H. R:y Smith. Ir, F;derdRegisterLiaison Officer.
Uce nsing.
with representatives of the Cleveland Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day Electric illuminating Company.NRC jine 3.1982.
pa ou susa rma-az ass.=3 of May.1982.
Staff, their consultants. and other For the Nuclear Regulatory Comraission.
interested persons regarding this review.
- *"GCODE******
Rubert A. Clark, Further information regarding topics T
NUCLEAR REGULATORY Chief, op@ercting Reacto.5 smach No.1L to be discussed, whether the meeting hmn ensing has been cance!!ed or rescheduled. the
"'M!AISSION pso o ive r*4 4. amen..I Chairman's ruling on requests for the awwo cooe 75mes.es (Docact No. 54 3641 opportunity to present oral statements and the time a!!otted therefor can be Ark nsas Power & Ught Co.; issuance Advisory Committee on Reactor obtained by a prepaid telephone call to Cf Amendment to Facility Operating Safeguards Subcommittee on Perry the cognizant Designated Federal Uc:nse Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2; Employee. Mr. Gary Quittschreiber or the Staff Engineer.Mr. Anthony The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Meeting Commission (the Commission 1 has The ACRS Subcommittee on Perry Cappucci(telephone 202/634-3287) issued Amendment No. 32 to Facility Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 will between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p m.. e.d.t.
I have determined. in accordance with Opirating Ucense No. NPF-4 issued to hold a meeting on June 28 and 29,1982 Subsection 10(d) of the Federal Arkansas Power and Ught Company at the Marriott Inn. 4277 West 150th Advisory Committee Act, that it may be (the Ucensee), which revised the Technical Specifications for operation of Street. Cleveland, OH.The necessary to close some portions of t!ua Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit No. 2 Subcommittee will review the meeting to protect proprietary and 1 c;ted in Pope County. Arkansas.The application of the Cleveland Electric Industnal Security information. The cmendment is effective within 30 days Illuminating Company, et al. for an authority for such closure is Esemption Operating License for Units 1 and 2.
af its date of issuance.
Notice of this meeting was pubbshed (4) to the Sunshine Act. 5 U.S.C.
The amendment modifies the AND-2 552b(c)(4).
Appendix A Technical Specihcations May 19.
dealing with the penalty applied to the in accordance with the procedures Datd May 27.1982.
c:lculation of the departure from outlined in the Federal Register on John C. Hoyle, nucleate boihng ratio (DNBR) to account September 30.1981 (46 FR 47903), oral or Advisory Committee Management Offic written statements may be presented by for rod bowing.
members of the public, recordmgs will tra om. es-nes me o-a-a s e ne The application for the amendment complies with the standards and be permitted only during those portions munio coca rswei as requirements of the Atonut Energy Act of the meeting when a transcnpt is being _
of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the kept, and questions may be asked only 1 Commission's rules and regulations The b3 members of the Subcommittee.its Advisory Committee on Reactor Commission has made appropriate consultants. and Staff. Persons desiring Safeguards Subcommittee on Reactor findings as required by the Act and the to make oral statements should notifty Radiological Ef fects; Meeting Commission's rules and regulations in 10 the Cognizant Federal Employ ee as far The ACRS Subcommittee on Reactor CFR Chapter I. which are set forth in the in ads ance as practicab*e so that Radiological Effects will hold a meeting license amendment Prior pubhc notice appropriate strangements can be made on June 23.1982 in Rnom 1046.1717 H cf the amendment was not required to allow the necessary time during the Street. NW. Washington. DC. The since the amendment does not involve a meeting for such statements.
Subcommittee will hsten to The entire meeting will be open to presentations, and discuss NRC sign facant hazards consideration.The public attendance except for those R rt20 Commission has determined that the sessions during which the Subcommittee
{pos re{sj{n o]
8 issuance of the amendment willnot finds it necessary to discuss proprietary Radiation", and the use of Potassium result in any significant environmental and Industrial Security information. One I dide (KI) for thyroid blocking in the Impact and that pursuant to 10 CFR or more closed sessions may be event of a radiation accident.
51.5(dl(4) an ensironmental impact necessary to discuss such information.
In accordance with the procedures statement or negative declaration and ensitonmental impact appraisal need (SUNSli1NE ACT EXEMPliON 4).To outlined in the Federal Register on not be prepared in connection with the extent practicable, these closed September 30,1981 (4ti FR 47903), oral or sessions will be held so as to minimize written statements may be presented by inuance of the amendment.
inconvenience to members of the public members of the public, recordings will for further details with respect to this section. see (1) the licensce's application in attendance.
be permitted only during those portions dated March 5.1982 as supp!cmented The agenda for subject meeting shall of the meeting when a transcript is being 2nday.fune 23,19SJ-2:30p m. until kept, and questions may be asked only be as follows:
May 3.1982 (2) Amendn ent No. 32 to by members of the Subcommittee. Its Lit ense No. hpF-e. and (3) the the conclusion ofbusiness.
consultants, and Staff. Persons desiring Comrnission's related Safety Evaluation.
Tuesday, fune 29.1932--o.30 a.m. until to make oral statements should notify All of these itcms are available for public inspcction at the Commission's the conclusion ofbusiness.
the Designated Federal Employee as far During the initial portion of the in adsance as particable so that Pubbc Document Room.1717 H Street.
meeting, the Subcommittee, along with appropriate arrangements can be made N W., W shington. D C. and at the any of is consultants who may be Aik.nsas Tech Unisersity. Russellville,
. ~ _,,, sw.g.,,,
~ ~ ~
Federal Regitler / Vol. 47, No.107 / Thursday. June 3,1982 / Notices 24239 I
to s!!ow the necessary time during the During Thursday afternoon at the unsold balance of the shares of meeting for such statements.
approximately 3.30 p.m., and Friday common stock heretofore authorized by The entire meeting will be open to afternoon, at approximately 1:15 p.m the Commission for issuance to said public attendance.
fifteen minutes will be devoted to Trustee. The price to the Trustee of such The subject meeting will be divided comments from the floor on the subject shares on any date of sale will be the into two sessions as follows:
of any of the agenda items, limited to average of the high and low sales price Wednesday. June 23,1982.
three minutes per comment. Written of AEP's common stock on the New 8.30 o.m.-22:30p.m.-NRC proposed suggestions and comments will be York Stock Exchange on such date, but revision to to CFR Part 20.
accepted for the reccrd from those who in no event less than the par value 1:30p m. untilthe conclusion of I
are unable to speak because of the thereof.
business-Use of KI fc,r thyroid blocking constraints of time and.* rom those The amended declaration and any in the, event of a radiation accident.
unable to attend the meeting.
further amendments thereto are Dunng the initial portion of each Records shall be kep( on all available for public inspection through session. the Subcommittee, along with Commission proceedings and will be the Commission's Office of Public any of its consultants who may be as ailable for public inspection at the Reference. Interested persons wishing to present, will exchange preliminary Commission office, located in Suite 555, comment or request a hearing should views regarding matters to be 2000 K Street, N.W., Washington D.C.
submit their views in writing by June 25, considered during the balance of the 20006.
1982. to the Secretary Securities and session.
For further information. contact Exchange Commission, Washington, The Subcommittee wd, ! then hear Andrew Barness. Public Information D C. 20549, and serve a copy on the presentations by and hold discussions Officer, at (202) 65M051, declarant at the address specified with respresentatives of the NRC Staff A!nander M. Capron, above. Proof of service (by affidavit or, its consultants, and other interested Taecutive Darctor.
in case of an attorney at law, by
[rfl er infor n res d$g topics pw.".e e P' D * '* 'U '* e n j certificate) should be filed with the t
c umava request. Any request for a hearing shall to be discussed whether the meeting identify specifically the issues of fact or has been cancelled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, opportunity to present oral statements and the time a!!otted therefor can be SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE if ordered, and will receive a copy of COMMISSION any notice or order issued in this matter, obtained by a prepaid teiephone call to After said date, the declaration, as now the cognizant Designated Federal
[Releass No. 22514; 7M126]
amended or as it may be further Employee. Mr. John McKinley or the amended, may be permitted to become Staff Engineer, Ms. R. C. Tang American Electric Power Co.,Inc ;
diective*
(telephone 202/634-1414) between 815 Proposed issuance and Sale of I
a.m and 5 00 p.m., e.s.t.
Common Stock to Trustee for System For the Commission, by the Division of Dated May 27,1982 Employees Savings Plan rpora Regulation, pursuant to delegated 1
John C. Ho3 e, May 27,1962.
g g y;g.
Adsisory Committee Management Officer.
American Electric Power Company, y,4 vm a:-msa ra.d e-a-a.: a u am) inc. ("AEP"),180 East Broad Street, sumo coos moe s
, Columbus. Ohio 43215. a registered bolding company, has filed with this
_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ Commission a post. effective amendment PCES10ENT'S COMM:SS'ON FOR THE to its declaration in this proceeding Wease No.12449, H2M STUDY OF ETHICAL PROBLEMS IN pursuant to Sections 6(a) and 7 of the MEDICINE AND BIOMEDICAL AND Public Utility Holding Company Act of Cash Account Fund,Inc.; Filing of UEHAVlOFIAL RESEARCH 1935 ("Act") and Rule 50(e)(5)
Application prrimulgated thereunder.
l Pebt.'c Meeting By ordcrs in this proceeding dated May 27,1982, Notice is hereby given pursuant to April 25.1978. April 27,1979. June 24.
Notice is hereby given that Cash Section 1Cla)(2) of ihe Federe! AJsisory 1980, and June 30,1981 (HCAR Nos.
Account Fund,Inc. (the " Applicant"),
l Co;rmitfees Act, that the twent).first 20516,21022,21639, and 22112). AEP was 120 South LaSa!!e Street, Chicago,IL l
raceting of the President's Commission authorized to issue and sell, from time to 60603, registered under the Investment
[
for the Study of Ethical Problems in time through June 30,1982, up to Company Act of 1940 ("Act") as an l
Medicine and Diomedical and 1.800.000 shares of its authorized open.end. diversified, management Ikhnioral Research will be held in the unissued common stock, SG.50 par value, investment company, filed an Conference Center of the One to Bankers Trust Company, the Trustee application on April 12,1982, for an fc,r the AEP S stem Empir)ees Sasings order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act t
Washiagton Circle llotel, One 3
l Wa shirgton Circle. N.W., Washington, Plan ("Saings Plan"). Through May 15, exempting it from the provisions of l
D C. from 9 00 a m. to 5 00 p m. on 1982, a total of 1.647,669 of such shares Section 2(a)(41) of the Act and Ru'es Thm sday. lune 10.1982 and from 9 00 had been sold to the Trustee for a total 2a4 and 22c-1 under the Act to the a m to 5 no p m. on Friday. jure 11,1982, price of $30,058.948,leavir.g a balance of extent necessary to permit Applicant to The mmtirg will be open to the 152.331 shares.
compute its net asset value per share
[ ublic, sul' ject to limitations of as ai?able AEP now proposes to issue and sell to using the amortized cost method of spce. The agenda will include, among the Sasirgs Plan Trustee, from time to valuing portfolio securities. All l
other thin 2s. testimony and Commission time through June 30,1985. up to an interested persons are referred to the dthberation on decisions about life-additional 2,000.000 shares ofits application on file with the Commission i
sustaining treatment authorized unissued common stock, plus for a statement of the representations l
TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR JUNE 23, 1982 MEETING ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND SITE EVALUATION
~
Room 1046,1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
AM Reactor Radiological Effects Subcommittee 8:30 A.M.
Opening Statement - Dr. Dade W. Hoeller, Chairman 8:45 A.M.
NRC Staff Presentation on Proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 20 (W. Mill s, R. Baker, W. Cool, - NRC/RES) 10:45 A.M.
BREAK ***
11:00 A.M.
Comments on NRC Proposed Revision to 10 CFR Part 20 (Dr. Sheldon Weiner, OSHA) 11 :30 A.M.
Subcommittee discussion 12:00 Noon LUNCH PM Site Evaluation Subcommittee 1 :00 P.M.
Opening Statement - Dr. Dade W. Moeller, Chairman Presentations on use of KI for Thyroid Blocking in the Event of a Radiation Accident:
1 :15 P.M.
NRC - (E. Williams, NRC/EPDB) 1:45 P.M.
NCRP - (E. Saenger, Chairman, NCRP ad hoc Committee on thyroid blocking) 2:15 P.M.
FDA - (B. Shleien) 2:45 P.M.
American Thyroid Association (D. Becker) 3:15 P.M.-
BREAK 3:30 P.M.
3:30 P.M. - FEMA (R. Krimm) 4:00 P.M. - Conference of State Radiation Control Program Directors (A. Godwin) 4:30 P.M. - Tennessee Department of Public Health (E. Fowinkle) 5:00 P.M. - Subcommittee discussion S:30 P.M. - ADJOURN W
l MEETING DATE:
JUNE 23.1982 REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS & SITE EVALUATION SUB00W.1TTEE HEETING:
ROOM 1046,1717 H St. NW Washington, D.C.
LOCATION: _
ATTENDANCE LIST _
~
.A' EASE
..g l
AF F ill Al luN.
hhh h/nk 1
A h-('t is
?.
/e
'/
' 3.
AAA &
//
$W s
~}14lltA/'
Nf Y
s.
//
//
6.
f/
f/
NM 7.
l l'
kMA 9t/
8.
L2h w
I M
eh!6h 10.
4+18 11, f(.' ~ ? C ** ^' - C '.s.) '.' lE 2
. g 7,
't /_/ _-
,a.
~ '
- ~! f. *I.
V
-[\\lhf~ ((
{!
r_ r //,
- }5, meirm.)onvnudpa.ee lis.
n ve:uu Den. er cB6c4/cs H/-
17.
5 tk=. t bef> h/glenA Atthur Gnn g
.])el,t. ef Laivh /Ma'4 n.
'Perte '3. Mnnes xAs -se 40wm %~r 13.
(hk
$k 2).
%coea +~~ Na,,s e n
~Bea.we 1 79..v,7<- (l, o.
o E'
W b!Y81Mb
//t h g{ (Letcn1J, VR C l ZE~
23.
Itm Le 4Geonu
%A- -
~
MEETING DATE:
JUNE 23,1982 REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS & SITE EVALUATION
- 5UBCOW.1TTEE HEETING
ROOM 1046.1717 H St. NW. Washington, D.C.
LOCAT10N: _
_f 4 ATTENDANCE LIST lPLE E"
' TRI NT Ar r iL IM 10h I'D-
- mdtc, Ac N W ekk
,i tt dix % ~
n kuu
- E.
hadlsv' AC$S &J k
E.
h'es/h l r.
M4 f/
4 AA k %/s AcM M L
t
~~
w n
8] ' l1/dV %'
A'N C/.DE i
3 AcR s Fe lh,...
'%_ LK-pr c / r s-1.
. % u. c<: n a s.
nwa h.h j
un q av.s) w a 4
r Of
.h 6*
. f% 9 M s' % f M
6.
_D e nt<1 1 J -y-
/I C /M 7.
3 tk e f,... l b _,1.v -.. q
~
s n. ~..
es s~. ~
A u lm V
s, In a
/1 h A J r i% k s.
fdu,wA &Ga k PR ;IFIA m.
m v %J Ame< %h Asmak n.
5 m. cno 5. im u pts /n e'
>2,
?L Sh n. f. Cl /Ur Emb o r..a ; -,
%< a a d (mld x
San h M
I g g.
S L cu // [ d < I Nc
& B05CC Se<uns i
26, 51~e e Iv'illlams AN6 GYf 7,7.
$2D@ /l4ehtW' SU&W[Y 28-0hcles 0(Jer s%t gjefg4, 29 b
Nd'C - IE f
30.
@ ob r D. /-),75 De-f,,+ 5g,sou $
1 1
11 W u s/ m n.--
(
)
dETING DATE: _
JUNE 23,1982 REACTOR RADIOLOGICAL EFFECTS & SITE EVALVATION SUSCOW.1TTLE HEETING: _
ROOM 1046,1717 H St. NW, Washington, D.C.
LOCATION:.
ATTENDANCE LIST
~
~
A, E A S E W3tM.
i f u u w oa s
' G) h i.9 % w u e Rtimk 4xan df % >o wh,. g <.,; r #a nn.,
Beoat La 6y
.Ste ve W7//,'a na MU 5 Carn h is c r X CA s a FEMA FEhA
%,cc w. K osi n fi,<e, Q./. n A !<
lb/ / Adl" NN'
.,i, s n-~ 4 b!;
W !Il 4,.,
r ; i i m a u -
Cl,,les 4%,
Sk k VAbkr 7
- p. L). Wgt Ddnl1 E2so u 7
?.
1-1.
3.
'd_
'5-
, 6.
- 7. ___
, B2
' 9. _
l
'0.
'1.
'_?.
~
=_
.