ML20198Q414
| ML20198Q414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/05/1997 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9711120204 | |
| Download: ML20198Q414 (107) | |
Text
- --- - - -
3 3 NA_
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
BRIEFING ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO A PETITION FOR RULEMAKING RELATING TO l USE OF POTASSIUM IODIDE (KI)
FOLLOWING SEVERE ACCIDENT AT A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PUBLIC MEETING Loution: Rockville, Marylaud Date: Wednesday, November 5,1997 Pages: 1 - 81 (, i/)
7j
!!Ill[Illl[llljlUll]IE!lll
- was PT9.7
'7tta$
PDR l- -
f
+th6(ifuJtp> {_de'
/d 1
(1 1 i
ggf1 U
l*
l DISCLAIMER This'ir an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on November 5, 1997 in the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.- This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CPR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
)
j . <
! 8 jo 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA !
2 -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -i j 3 ***
J 4 BRIEFING ON
- i
- 5 !
i PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO A PETITION FOR 6
l RULEMAKING RELATING TO USE OF POTASSIUM IODIDE (KI) 7 FOLLOWING SEVERE ACCIDENT AT A j 8 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
- 9 ***
! 3 N
j 10 PUBLIC MEETING
) 11 *s.
t i 12 Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
j 13
, Commission Hearing Room
! 14 l-11555 Reckville Pike j 15 Rockville, Maryland i 16 Wednesday, November 5, 1997
, 17 i 18 The Commission met in open session, pursuant-to ~ '
19 notice, at 9:30 a.m., the Honorable SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, j 20 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
4 21 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
2 E 22 SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, Chairman of the Commission 23 GRETA J. DICUS, Member of the CommisJion t
. -24 ' EDWARD McGAFFIGAN, JR., Member of the Conmission
(
- . 25 NILS J. DIAZ, Member of the Commission
'4 j
4 i
ANN-RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters -
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C, 20005 (202) 842-0034
.. _ . _ _ _ _ . - _.-_._ _.. _ _ _ _ ._..-._ _ _._ _ _ _ _ . . _ . ~ . _ -
- i 2
1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE: '
2 JOHN C. HOYLE, Secretary 3 KAREN D. CYR, General Counsel 4 PETER CRANE 5 BILL McNUTT 6 MEGS HEPLER 7 IHOR HUSAR 8 JOSEPH CALLAN 9 MECHANICAL KNAPP 10 FRANY, MIRAGLIA 11 THOMAS !GRTIN 12 FRANK CONGEL 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
3 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
(9:35 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Good morning, ladies and 4 gentlemen.
This morning we will be briefed by the Federal 5
Emergency Management Agency, Mr. Peter Crane and the NRC 6
Staff regarding the Staff's propoced resolution of 7
Mr. Crane's petition for rulemaking relating to the use of 8
potassium iodine following a severe accident at a nuclear 9
power plant, as well as on the existing policy with respect 10 to stockpiling of potassium iodine.
11 Before we begin, I would like to especially thank 12 Mr. Hepler and Mr. McNutt, the representatives from FEMA for 13 agreeing to make themselves available for this briefing on a 14 very short notice.
And so I understal.J that the 15 representatives from FEMA will be making the first 16 presentation.
So I would ask them to please come forward, 17 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: And, Chairman, I would 18 like to have Mr. Frank Congel from our office of AEOD 19 introduce the FEMA members. He has worked with them over 20 the years.
21 CRATRMAN JACKSON: Mr. Congel, would you step to 22 the microphone and do that?
23 MR. CONGEL: Thank you, Chairman. And good 24 morning, Commissioners.
25 I am very pleased to have our representatives from ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
4 1 FEMA this morning. Leading the group is, as you said * '
2 earlier, Mr. Megs Hepler. Megs is the director of the 3 Exercises Division and the Preparedness Training and 4 Exercise Directorate of FEMA. He also serves as the Chair 5 of the FRPCC, the Federal Radiological Preparedness 6 Coordinating Committee and, in *. hat capacity, has worked 7 long and hard with us on the issue of KI policy and is 8 uniquely qualified to give you the overview f rom FEMA 9 perspective, so I am very delighted to have them here.
10 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: 1 hank you for coming.
11 Mr. Hepler, would you introduce your colleagues, 12 please?
13 MR. HEPLER: Thank you, Frank.
14 Good morning, Chairman Jackson and Comhaissioners.
15 I also want to thank you for ir.viting FEMA to appear here 16 this n.orning at the meeting.
17 I would like to introduce the FEMA staff at the 18 table with me. On my right is Mr. William McNutt. He is a 19 senior policy advisor in FEMA's State and Local Preparedness 20 Division. To my left is Mr. Ihor Husar, who is the chief of 21 the State and Local Regulatory Evaluation and Assessment 22 Branch in the Exercises Division.
23 Joining us also from FCMA are Ms. Elaine Chan from 24 our Office of General Counsel, Ms. Nancy Goldstein from our 25 exercis9s Division. And Mr. Marcus Weisch from our State ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005
'(202) 842-0034
_ _ _ _ _ . _ . _________._.._._____m. _
i 5
4 1 and Local Preparedness Division.
2 '
I am appearing before the Commission this morning 3 on behalf of Ms. Kay C. Goss, the A..sociate Director for the 4 Preparedness Training and Exercises Directorate. Ms. Goss 5
was called out of town on other business at tht last minute r
6 and is unable to be with us here this morning but Kay did 7
want me to express her appreciation to all of you for ,
8 inviting FEMA to appear to discuss the roles and 9
responsibilities of FEMA and the FRPCC in the development of 10 the draft revision of the potassium iodide policy.
11 I have been assigned as the FRPCC chairman since 12 January 1995 because the operational aspects of FEMA's 13 Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program or the REP 14 Program fall under the purview of my division, the Exercises 15 Division. And, as you know, the REP program is responsible 16 for overseeing the offsite radiological emergency planning 17 and preparedness activities of state and local governments 18 and Indian tribal nations around the commercial nuclear 19 power plants.
20 First, I would like to provide some background 21 information on the FRPCC. The FRPCC was established in 1982 22 under Title 44 CFR Part 351 to coordinate all federal 23 responsibilities for assisting state and local governments 24 in emergency preparedness activities for peacetime 25 radiological emergencies. The 351 rule also specifies the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
. Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
6 1 federal departments and agencies t'.at are members of the
- 2 FRPCC and the responsibilities of these t' _rtments and 3 agencies. In fact, there are currently 15 departments and 4 agencies that are members of the FRPCC.
5 The regulation also authorizes the establishment 6 of subcommittees to support the FRPCC. These subcommittees 7 have been established to examine specific issues or areas of 8 concern in radiological emergency planning and preparedness.
9 At the present time, we have six standing subcommittees on 10 the FRPCC: Training, Off-Sice Instrumentation, 11 Transportation Accidents, Federal Response Exercises and 12 Environment, Food and Health and there are two ad hoc 13 subcommittees one of which is the Potacsium Iodide 14 Subcommittee.
15 The initial federal policy as formulated by the 16 FRPCC on the predistribution or stockpiling of potassium 17 iodide around nuclear power plant sites for use as a 18 thyroidal blocking agent by the general public was published 19 in the Federal Register in 1985. Now, the 1985 federal 20 policy stipulated that such a use of potassium iodide is the 21 prerogative of the states and its use should not be 22 federally required.
23 In 1989, the American Thyroid Association 24 requested the FRPCC to reexamine its 1985 policy. So in 25 response to that request, the FRPCC requested the Department 7001 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
7
+ 1 of Health and Human Services, as the agency on the FRPCC 2
with major responsibility in this area, to revi." both the 3
i medical and clinical _ status of the use of potassium iodide.- '
4 In 1990, the HHS recommended to the FRPCC that, 5
one,' the FR -- that the FRPCC 1985 federal policy not be 6
changed since there was no compelling evidence to support a 7 change. HHS also recommended that existing stores of 8
potassium iodide be inventoried and that-the FRPCC establish 9 a working group of appropriate FRPCC departments and 1
10 agencies to address the issue of stockpiling.
11 Now, the FRPCC Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Potassium 12 Iodide was formed in February 1991 in response to the HHS 13 recommendation and this ad hoc subcommittee was charged with 14 two responsibilitios:
Reexamining the 1985 federal policy 15 on the distributton of potassium iodide and, two, 16 considering the-merits of.the federal government's-purchase 17 and stockpi?S g of potassium iodide for use by the general 18 public.
19 In carrying out the charge, the ad hoc 20 subcommittee examined scientific aspects of potassium iodide 21 as well as the relationship between the timely 22 administratior of the drug and its effectiveness. The 23 subcommittee examined the NRC's cost / benefit analysis-and 24 the-subcommittee also conducted, through the Conference of 25 Radiation Control-Program Directors, the CRCPD, a survey to 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 4
8 1 ascertain the points of view of the states iurolved.
- Now, as a result of the review and the data that 2
3 was collected, this ad-hoc subcommittee-rocommended in 4 September 1994 that no change be made to the potassium 5- iodide policy and that the federal government not purchase 6 and stockpile potassium iodide for the general public.
7 On December 5, 1994, the full FRPCC adopted the 8 report and recommendations of this' subcommittee and was in 9
the process of preparing to reaffirm the 1985 federal policy 10 when the September 1995 petition.for rulemaking was filed 11 with the NRC and a copy provided to FEMA.
12 In reviewing the petition for rulemaking, FEMA, as 13 chair of the FRPCC, determined tnat a prudent course - of -
14 action would be to hold up on reaffirming the 1985 federal I F- policy pending consideration of the information that was 16 presented in the petition. This decision was made-in case 17 there was any new information presented in the petition that-18 could potentially affect-the policy.
19 During this same time frame, the NRC published a 20 synopsis of the petition and-invited the public to review 21 and comment on the petition. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee-on 22 Potassium Iodide was reconvened in December 1995 and the 23 full FRPCC-was provided a copy of the petition for review at 24- that time.
25 The reconvened subcommittee was charged with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. j Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
9 1
reviewing the information that was prc'rided to FEMA and 2-information that had been provided to other federal agencies 3
including the petition for rulemaking, reviewing the 4
comments received by the NRC on the petition and evaluating 5
any relevant new information pertaining to this issue.
6 Mr. William McNutt, who I introduced, was 7
designated as the chairman of the reconvened ad hoc 8
subcommittee and other members were assigned o the 9 subcommittee from the NRC, the Department of Veterans 10 Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers 11 for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration.
12 In order to ensure a full and balanced review of 13 this issue, the subcommittee conducted a public meeting in 14 June 1996 to which the commentors on the petition and other 15 interested members of the public were invited to attend and 16 make presentations. Representatives from state governments, 17 the CRCPD, the nuclear utilities, the Nuclear Utility Trade 18 Association and public interest groups as well as a 19 university professor and the Petitioner presented their 20 comments at this June 1996 public meeting.
21 Upon considering the information presented at the 22 meeting, the subcommittee concluded that there was no 23 compelling new information that seriously challenged the 24 basis for the 1985 federal policy. However, the 25 subcommittee did come up with three recommendations.
1
..NN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
p.
10 1
.One, without changing the federal policy and '
2 without interfering in the states' prerogative to make its 3 .own decision on using potassium iodide for the general 4
public, the federal government should purchase a stockpile 5
of KI for any state wishing to include it as a supplemental 6 protective action for the general public. The language in 7 the 1985 federal policy should be softened to be more 8 flexible and balanced. That was the second recommendation.
9 And the third recommendation was local jurisdictions wishing 10 to incorporate the use of potassium iodide in their 11 protective actions should consult with their state officials 12 and be aware that a choice to use potassium iodide would 13 entail the assumption of responsibility for developing plans 14 for its distribution.
15 In October 1996, the full FRPCC unanimously
, 16 approved the ad hoc subcommittee's recommendations. In 17 addition, in June 1997, as you know, you voted three to two 18 to support the FRPCC's recommendation. The June 1997 19 Commission vote also acknowledged'the availability of 20 federal medicinal stockpiles that include potassium iodide 21 under the Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Terrorism 22 Preparedness Program that is being implemented throughout 23 the federal government. The terrorism preparedness program 24 was established pursuant to the June 1995 Presidential 25 Decision Directive PDD-39 and, as a result of, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
_. .._ _ .-_ _ _ _._ _ _~. _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
11 1
Nunn-Lugar-Domenici legislation directing federal agencies 2
to reduce vulnerabilities to nuclear, biological and ,
e 3 chemical terrorism threats.
4 The plans are to have medicinal stockpiles located 5 in 27 metropolitan areas throughout the nation and in three 6 national stockpiles in the eastern, central and western 7 portions of the United States. Medicinal stockpiles have 8
already been established in Washington, D.C.; Denver, 9 Colorado; Los Angeles, California and Durham, North 10 Carolina.
11 So where do we stand today with the FRPCC's draft 12 revised policy? A draft Federal Register notice which 13 embodies the FRPCC recommendations has been prepared. The 14 notice specifies that if a state chooses to select potassium 15 iodide as a supplemental protective action for the public, 16 it can notify FEMA and request NRC-funding for its purchase.
17 For those states that do opt to include the use of potassium 18 iodide for the general public as a supplemental protective 19 measure, FEMA's evaluation will be limited to the 20 decisionmaking process only and we view this as an important
-21 part of our responsibility in ensuring the public's health 22 and safety.
.23 Since the full FRPCC membership vote in October 24 1996, FEMA has.been working with the NRC staff to develop 25 the Federal Register notice announcing the revised policy.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 I
12 1 At the present time, we are waiting for the-final NRC
- 2 concurrence on the wording of the notice. Once Tnt receive 3 the NRC's concurrence, we intend to fulfili our commitment 4 to the rest of the PRPCC members by circulating the final 5 draft notice to the full FRPCC membership for their final 6 review and final concurrence. We have indicated to the 7 FRPCC members-all along that this would be the process that 8 we would follow in completing the Federal Register notice.
9 And at this time, once we receive the concurrence, 10 we do not anticipate any major obstacles to finalizing the 11 notice. '
12 Once this Federal Register notice is published, 13 there will still be some implementation steps that will need 14 to be taken. For example, we expect to have to consult with 15 the Department of Health and Human Services to help design a 16 public information program on using potassium iodide for 17 those states that might opt to incorporate it as a 18 supplemental protective measure. FEMA and NRC will need to 19 _ develop procedures for addressing state requests for 20 funding. For examp".e, which states will be eligible for 21 receiving the potassium iodide. -Will it be the 10-nile EPZ 22 ;apulation or the 50-mile EPZ population and what 23 administrative mechanisms might need- to be est ablished to 24' process these requests. Also, the development of any
~25 additional guidance for evaluating the state decisionmaking ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. . . ~.. - - .-= - - . _ - .-..-._-.-.- - .~. . - . - - - . - . . . - .
13 l'
process for using KI might need to be taken.
2 In closing, I would like to acknowledge the 3 contributions of those public groups-and individuals who 4- provided very thoughtful and sincere comments and made 5
presentations at our June 1996 public meeting. I also want 6
to emphasize the importance that FEMA and the FRPCC placed 7
on maintaining the integrity and the credibility of our 8
deliberations and recommendations on this issue. I am very 9- proud of the way the FRPCC and FEMA have conducted this 10 review. I have only the highest regard and respect for the 11 professionalism and conscientiousness of the individuals who 12 have been involved and the seriousness with which they have 13 carried out their responsibilities.
14 And I can tell you it has been a privilege for me 15 to be associated with these individuals and I do want to 16 commend them for their dedication to this effort to ensure 17 public health and safety.
18 That concludes my remarks this morning and, again, 19 Chairman Jackson, I thank you for inviting FEMA to appear.
20 THE COURT: Thank you.
21 Will you be submitting your statement for the
-22 record?
23 MR. HEPLER: -Yes.
p 24- -THE COURT: Thank you.
25 We will just go down the line.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
3 Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 j (202) 842-0034
14 i
1 Commissioner Dicus? '
2 COMMISSIONER DICUS: On the evaluation of the 3 decisionmaking process by a state that chooses to stockpile 4 KI for use by the public, two points. Are you -- are you 5 talking about evaluating -- that this would be something 6 they would need to put into their off-site plans end that 7 would be evaluated and how it stands in the plan, I suppose, 8 by the RAC and, number two, would it become an exercise 9 objective for score in an evaluated exercise?
10 MR. HEPLER: We do currently evaluate the 11 decisienmaking process on potassium iodide for emergency 12 workers and institutionalized persons. So we would just 13 expand that to include the decision for the use by the 14 public and it would probably become another small aspect of 15 the exercise.
16 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay, another question, then 17 are you -- for states that have chosen to stockpile but not 18 predistribr a, are you looking at their plans for 19 distribution should it be necessary?
20 MR. HEPLER: We would expect them to incorporate 21 the program in their plans but we do not have any intention 22 to embark on a detailed evaluation on the distribution 23 effort.
24 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Okay. And then for those 25 states that choose not to stockpile for the use by the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 j
Washington, D.C. 20005 j (202) 842-0034
15 1-public but because of an instant, be it at a power plant or 2 a foreign incident that impacts the states, which has 3 happened before, or another kind of incident at a 4
radiopharmaceuticals supply house, for example, and then 5
chooses to have KI, what -- what planning process do you 6 have in place to get the KI from a central location to the 7 state and distributed? Where are you in your planning 8 process with that?
9 MR. HEPLER: I'm not aware -- I don't believe we 10 have a planning process for that eventuality.
11 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So therefore, how are you 12 getting it from the stockpiles to where it might be desired?
13 You don't have that as part of your own plan?
14 MR. HEPLER: No.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Dia ?
16 COMMISSIONER DIAZ. I was trying to get from your 17 presentation, I think it is policy and issues and history is 18 laid out but I haven't heard a specific opinion if RCCP had 19 evaluated the technical merits of itself. Is potassium 20 iodide an effective thyroid blocker that would actually 21 prevent the ingestion and potential damage to the thyroid of 22 radioisotopes that has been released into the air?
23 MR. HEPLER: In :he Federal Register notice, we do 24 acknowledge the fact that it is an effective thyroid 25 blocking drug.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
I 16 1 Bill, did you want to expand on that? '
2 MR. McNUTT: It is and it is considered safe and 3' effective.
4 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Safe and effective.
5- MR. HEPLER: The actual notice does discuss that 6 point.
7 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: And so the key issue is 8 whether KI complements the issues of evacuation and 9 sheltering in a cost-effective manner? Is that on what your 10 decision is based?
11 MR. HEPLER: Yes, we believe it is a supplemental 12 measure to evacuation and sheltering.
13 COMMISSIONER CIAZ: Supplemental or --
14 MR. HEPLER: It could complement but it is 15 supplementary. We still view evacuation and sheltering as 16 the primary preferred protective measures.
17 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan?
19 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I have several questions 20 so bear with me for a minute.
21 Following up on Commissioner Dicus, I was hoping 22 you were going to have a different answer to her last 23 question, namely the planning process for the three national 24 sites and the 27 local sites. Presumably, there is a 25 ' planning process in another part of FEMA, naybe with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
17 1
military uniforms on, that looks at what happens in a CPW 2
emergency in CPW and is going to be able to deliver whatever l i
3 is necessary in that event. Is that the caset 1
4 MR. HEPLER: Well, the entire terrorism 5
preparedness program is currently evolving. It is a fairly 6
new effort in the federal government and there are, like I 7
said, other federal agencies involved and other components 8
of FEMA that are involved in that effort and I just can't 9
answer that question at this point on detailed planning for 10 distribution of KI if there should be a terrorist incident.
11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The policy states on 12 page 4 the stockpiles would be available on an ad hoc basis 13 in the event of an accident at a commercial nuclear power 14 plant and I am trying to figure out, I was recently involved is in an exercise. You know, we always push these exercises to 16 places where they are - through artificial means where 17 there is a significant release and then you have to think 18 about whether KI is appropriate and in that case we, on an 19 ad hoc basis, we asked the state again, do you want it? And 20 they declined.
21 But if, god forbid, there were an accident in 22 North Carolina today and Durham is right there, we 23 have -- we would have to -- ad hoc really means ad hoc. We 24 do it on the spot, ask the state again, if the plant looks 25 bad enough, there's iodine in it, do you need it, is that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
18 1 the intention'at the moment? - *
-2 Does that mean that when we have these exercises 3 which we run and you participate in, we should start 4 building that into the ad hoc ~decisionmaking in the 5 exercise? You know, have a check point, you know, we think 6 we could get to you within X hours some potassium iodide T
7 from one of these 31, 30 locations, do.you want it?
8 MR. HEPLER: That might be an interesting aspect 9 to add into the exercises in the future.
10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Is there a problem -- I 11 come out of the defense sector. Are these locations where 12 the antidotes are all located classified locations? Because 13 you don't want terrorists to be able-target them?
14 MR. HEPLER: No, they are mainly going to be in 15 the larger metropolitan areas.
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: But the exact location 17 is not classified?
18 MR. HEPLER: Exactly where the stockpile or the 19 drug cache is stored itself?
20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFlGAN: Right.
- 21. MR. HEPLER: I-can't answer that; I don't knew.
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Okay. I suspect it will 23 be because of the. obvious needs for security, from itself 24 being targeted.
25 I just suggest that you really do think through ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
19
. 1 _w hat I see as two parallel streams here. I suspect that 2
this -- because of the proliferation danger, that the l 3 military is going to take very seriously -- the CIA just 4
doubled the size of its proliferation center according to 5 the newspaper yesterday. They are. going to take very 6
serioucly this CBW and NCBW threat and is going to put in 7
j place plans. It will probably be the National Guard in each l
8 state that will be the natural place for them to work with.
i 9 i And it is a different set of officials from the officials
! 10 that you normally work with and getting those two parallel
- 11 tracks to intersect at appropriate points I think would be
- j. 12 very useful,
)i ' 13 MR. HEPLER: In fact, that's already been 14 recognized as an issue that needs to-be dealt with in this
, 15 whole preparedness program, getting the states and the I.
1 16 locals and the federal entities all dealing with each other i
17 and singing from the same sheet of music.
I 18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN; The issue of no new i
i- 19 j information, I'm not going to beat that horse very hard but 20 did your subcommittee look at the decisions made by other i
t 21 nations? I mean, we are fast becoming an outlier in not 22 building this in as a protective measure. Other nations in 23 Europe, as.a general measure, have. And was there any 24 consideration given to the international decisionmaking that 25 has been made?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
l 30 if .I know that we've softened our policy and I
~2 welcome that.
3 MR. HEPLER: Bill, do you want to address that as 4 subcommittee chair?
5 MR. McNUTT: Sure. We considered what other 6
nations were doing as well as the aftermath of Chernobyl.
7 But the differences are around our commercial power plants 8
we have quite comprehensive emergency planning and that, in 9
concert with the states' preferred and primary protective 10 action of evacuation, we -- you know, we took all of this 11 into account.
12 I would like to go back a little bit to the issue 13 of planning in general. During the deliberations of the 14 second subcommittee, the report was issued in September of 15 '94. The subcommittee determined that a ctockpile would not 16 be in the best interests of the states. The states in an 17 overwhelming response to our survey stated that evacuation 18 was the best and the whole body of protective action.
19 However, the subcommittee did say, it-did state 20 that in the event that a state would opt to use potassium 21 iodide for the general public, there would need to be a 22 stockpile at least close to the EPZ where the drug would be 23 distributed or, perhaps, even distributed into the homes.
24 So we recognize that planning is an essential part.
25 One of the problems that the states stated in ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0024
21 1
opposition to the drug was the logistical problems in the 2 distribution.
3 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Let me just --
I was 4
listening very carefully to your statement and looking at 5
the Federal Regicter notice simultaneously and there were a 6
couple of edits that you made as you were going along.
7 There is the word supplemental, where you made a change from 8
the previous policy and decided to incorporate KI as a i 9 supplemental protective measure. You said " supplemental,"
v 10 it's not in the page 3 of the draft and probably -- it is in .
t 11 other places.
}
12 But I think anybody, Peter Crane has only 13 advocated this and the American Thyroid Association as a f 14 supplement to evacuation and they believe a complement, 15 because you could put it at the centers and get people to 16 more willingly come to the centers.
17 i Again, following up on Commissioner Dicus' first "
18 couple questions, when you read your statement you said that 19 this would not be subjectEto FEMA evaluation and the notice- i i
20 says : federal evaluation and I think Commissioner Dicus has i 21 already gotten to the point that this would be evaluated in 22 exercise as a small matter but it would-be evaluated in 23 exercises.
24 There is also a rule that we have, Part 50, that 25 says a nuclear power reactor licensee may make changes to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
22 1
their plans without Commission approval only if the changes
- 2
.do_not decrease effectiveness of the plans and the plans-as 3 changed continue to meet the standards of 5047 (b) .
4 There-is a question there. I mean, one of the 5
arguments on the logistical side that have been used against 6
this that Mr. Crane may address and has addressed previously 7 is that this complicates other aspects of the evacuation 9 plan. He doesn't believe that and I guess you all now don't 9 believe that or else you wouldn't be able to state that this 10 is a -- you know, sort of blanket that there won't be any 11 federal evaluation of the change because if there -- if it 12 could be, if the evacuation could get complicated or other 13 -aspects could get complicated, then this would kick in and 14 then there would be an NRC evaluation if the licensees 15 change.
16 So I am just trying to probe on this. When you 17 spoke, you said_ FEMA. Did you mean federal? And if you 18 meant federal, is it a blanket judgment that we are making 19 that this is now a supplemental measure that can only be 20 constructive?
21- MR. HEPLER: When I say FEMA evaluation, I mean
- 22. FEMA's evaluation as being in charge of the FRPCC and the 23 regional assistance committee members so, in essence, I'm 24 saying federal evaluation.
25 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: What about -- are_you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court-Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 ,
23-
. 1-making a blanket judgment that, as a supplemental measure 2
this can only be constructive so that this 50.54 (q) doesn't 3
kick in which I just read to you that nuclear power licensee 4 may make changes to these plans only with Commission 5
approval -- without Commission approval only if the changes 6 do not decrease the effectiveness? So we are making a
$ 7 blanket judgment that the incorporation of KI does not l
i 8 decrease effectiveness?
t j 9 COMMISSIONER DICUS: But doesn't that apply to the
.t
- 10 licensees and not to the off-site authority?
! 11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right, but will our.
12 licensees if it's in the plan have tc incorporate? I mean, 13 it's a change. Do they have to incorporace-it into their a
- 14 overall plans?
- 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSCN
- Why don't we---
16 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: We can wait for the
! 17 staff. That may be an unfair question to ask you. We'll 18 ask it of the third panel, perhaps.
i 19 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Are there'any other 20 questions?
j 21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I think that was the 22' heart of it.
1 23 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thank you very much, 24 Mr. Hepler, and thank you again for coming out. And I hope 4 25 that your intention is to remain through the balance of the
- ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
- 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. - - , w--...- - - -- , , . - , ,
. . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . . . - . _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ . _ ~ _ _
24 i
1 meetings?
- 4 2 MR. HEPLER: It is. Thank you.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you very much.
4 Next, the commission will hear from Mr. Peter i
5 Crane who is appearing bcfore us as a private citizen und as i
- 6 the Petitioner for a rulemaking.
i 7
- Mr. Crane, please.
8 MR CRANE: Good morning. I'm Peter Crane. I 9 very much appreciate the opportunity to address the 10 Commission.
I am here as a private citizen. The statement 2
a 11 made is one I prepared at home in my spare time with my own j 12 materials and so forth.. And I am just like any.other member 13 of the public for this purpose and that means not --
that 14 means working off information that is publicly available, t
- 15 not stuff that has come to me in my capacity as an NRC 16 employee.
] 17 I apologize for the lateness of the written 18 statement. It only occurred to me at about 4:30 this
- 19. morning that I.really ought to have a' written statement. So 9
i 20 if you see glitches in it, I hope you will be forgiving.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: You are submitting it for the 22 record?
J 23 MR. CRANE: Yes, I am.
- 24. I apologize. I went running into Staples at five j- 25 of 9:00 saying, there is a 9:30 meeting, please give me i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-a
25 4 1 copies. -And I don't have -- I had 20' copies. It is not l
]_
i 2 enough for everybody and I apologize. I think SECY has
, 3 already one so - this-is the first Commission -- the first r
~
4 Commission meeting on KI in 14 years and I do think it is i
4 5 overdue, i
- 6 Pocassium iodide is -- oh, excuse me. Let me back
{ 7 up a second. I just want to say something in praise of 8 FEMA. I have been tremendously impressed by FEMA's handling l
n-9 of this issue. It has been a real privilege getting to know 10 Bill McNutt who has been chairman of the ad hoc
! 11 subcommittee. The openness, the open-mindedness with which I
. 12 FEMA has apprcached this, the seriousness and 13 responsibility, they are really coming to grips with.the l
14 issues has been, I think, admirable. I think the public
, 15 meeting they had in '96, June of '96 under Mr. McNutt's
- 16 leadership is really a great example of what
- 17 Commission -- whht government decirionmaking ought to be 18 like and isn't always like. And that included letting 19 people get up and speak from the floor who had things to a
20 say, which I'm afraid I'm go ng to come back to in a less 21 prsitive context. Because one of the people they heard from 22 was Dr. Jacob-Robbins of NIH who is one of the world's 23- foremost spec!alists in radiation-caused thyroid cancer on
- 24 several continents. And the American Thyroid Association 25 asked to have 15 minutes for Dr. Robbins to speak on behalf i
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 a
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
w- --wy* - aN g w.--- r m -.. -.e-.---t m- w --e .- +rww.- ,ye
26 1
- of-the ATA and not on behalf of the covernment and that was 2 turned down and I think that's - I think the Commission's 3 decisionmaking is impoverished by that; decision and I think 4 it's quite regiattable and a little sad.
5 Well what potassium iodide is all about. It is 6 thyroid cancer. It is preventing thyroid cancer especially 7 in children and we know that it is aggressive, we know that 8 it has a way of spreading to the lymph nodes. The NRC on 9 July 1 issued a press release that announced the
- 10. availability of KI to the public but it never used the word j 11 " cancer" and, to me, that's like announcing Sabin vaccine.
12 without mentioning polio, It's not the way to get the word !
13 out. I 14 The draft Federal Register notice that went to the l
15 Commission in June, that mentions the word cancer once and 16 it's buried. It's page 8 of a 13-page draft. Moreover, the 17 notice never says this is a reasonable and prudent measure t-18 and states would be well advised to adopt it. Well, if it l 19 isn't reasonable and prudent, why are you buying it? .And if 20 it is-reasonable and prudent, why not say so and say so out l
l 21 -loud so the states understand what the issues are, because l 22 far too many states don't.
23 At the FEMA meeting, as Mr. McNutt will remember,
! 24- there.was a state official who came in and gave us one of l.
25 the reasons -- two state officials, one of the reasons not i
L l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 1 Court Reporters ,
1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 1
- Washington, D.C. 20005 I l (202) 842-0034 i
27
.- 1 to stockpile, that it wasn't life -- that loss of the 2 thyroid is not life threatening. Well, the loss of a breast 3
isn't life threatening either but the crncer that causes you 4
to lose your thyroid or breast can kill you and, thank 5 goodness it is only rarely f atal but it can be. Senator 6
Harkin of Iowa lost a brother to thyroid cancer last year 7
and speaking as someone who has had thyroid cancer, it can 8
be a very nasty illness even when you don't die of it.
l 9 Well, ve got to watch my time.
10 The states are beginning to catch on. They've had
, 11 public meetings. There was one in Maine last December and 12 they decided ' heir Radiation Advisory Commission decided 13 the same day unanimously to adopt stockpiling and the 14 governor accepted that recommendation. Ohio had a meeting 15 last week. New York State is going to have one in Albany on 16 the 23ni. I spoke at the first two. I have asked to speak 17 at the third. Obviously, this is annual leave. I am on 18 annual leave today, by the way.
19 At the meeting in Ohio, I made the point that what 20 do you -- what happens when you don't have KI. Well, the 21 picture -- in Beloruss, Russia and Ukraine, you've got a 22 huge upsurge of childhood thyroid cancer and it is 23 aggressive-in children.
More aggressive in children than in 24 adults. You see the pictures. What the locals refer to
.25 bitterly as the "Beloruss necklace" is a scar that goes from ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
28 1 . ear to ear. Well, the NRC representative at the Ohio '
2 meeting pointed out that that was because of the inadequacy 3
of medical care in the former Soviet Union.
4 So we can take some comfort that if Americad kids 5
ever get thyroid cancer because there was no KI for them, 6 they will have smaller scars. I would prefer to have no
( 7 scars.
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Do you want to ask a question?
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: On this point.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Sure.
11 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I have heard it argued 12 that in the Ukraine and Beloruss, it was not the respiratory 13 pathway, it was an ingestion pathway that the children that 14 got the children, the cancer, and that that wouldn't happen 15 in this country. You know, the evacuation will take care of 16 the respiration and that ingestion is what, indeed is 17 killing or forcing people to lose thyroids in the Ukraine 18 and Beloruss. Butfwe, you know, would presumably not allow 19 anybody to ingest any of the food that was contaminated by 20 an iodine release. So do you have a response to that-21 argument?
22 MR. CRANE: It is;certainly true and, again, 23 Dr. Robbins:can speak to this better than I, that the major 24 problem seems to be the milk pathway. Radiciodine deposit 25 on the grass, the cows eat the grass, people eat the milk ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
29
. 1 and there's also agricultural problems. But I don't think 2
you can discount the~ inhalation pathway either and there is 3
an EPA document from '92 and I could -- it would take me a 4 moment to give you the citation.
5 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: You can provide it for the 6 record.
7 MR. CRANE: Okay. That talks a lot about the 8
inhilation pathway and the danger that people will be 9 exposed during evacuation because according to this 10 automobiles give you only_about 10 percent protection. And 11 that document says that the iodine dose to the thyroid may 12 be the driving decision point on whether you have to 13 evacuate or not and there may be circumstances in which 14 sheltering with -- sheltering would be preferable but you 15 can't because the iodine, the dose to the thyroid, would 16 drive the decision.
17 In that case. having KI on hand could make a 18 significant difference and the greatest danger of all as 19 this -- as this EPA report goes into is to the -- to the 20 foetus of the pregnant woman. And the EPA report says that, 21 and again they are not. advocating this, but they report it 22 as being in the literature that if you have a dose above 10
.23 rads to a pregnant woman, especially I think it is between 24 the tenth and fifteenth weeks of pregnancy, that in Sweden 25 they recommend therapeutic abortion just ar a prophylactic ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters
, 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
.- - . _ _. _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ _ - . . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . . _.m _ _ . _ _. ._. _ _ >
30 1 -measure. '
2 Now, the -- I have emphasized all along that I saw 3 KI as a complement. I have compared it to the lifeboats on 4 a ferry. We start from the proposition that ferry boats 5 don't have accidents very often and that if you do have an 6
accident that it's better to be evacuated in a lifeboat.
7 But just in case things go wrong, and things do go wrong, 8 it's better to be safe than sorry and life jackets are --
9 and KI are a very, very cheap insurance policy. How cheap?
10 So cheap that the NRC staff has estimated that f.or a typical 11 plant, $1,100 would cover everybody within a five-mile 12 radius of the plant. They've estimated 100,000 to several 13 hundred thousand for the entire country. They've also 14 estimated that it would be -- and this was in '94 -- it 15 would be cheaper to buy a national stockpile of KI than to 16 go on studying whether to do-so, which I think is the 17 definition of a no-brainer.
18 You know, I feel very strongly that we have 19 not -- we, the government, and forgive the we's because I've 20 worked here for 22 years and it's easy to slip into that, 21 that the government has not met its responsibility to the
-22 states. We are now in a situation where there is KI on hand 23 to protect the sharks at Sea World but'not the children who 24 come to see them. This sounds unbelievable but it's true.
25 We have stockpiling in only three states. One of ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 s
.,_ _ - - ..-.- .,m y - . . . -
31
- . 1 them in Tennessee.- And the eight-year-old daughter-of the 2 director-of Tennessee's program found out that sharks need
- 3 KI for their health and she persuaded her father that when 4
the KI is out of date, and it's a five-year-shelf life, it-5 should be given to Sea World where it goes into the shark 6 tank, which I think is great. It was all written up in 7 National Geographic World. If any of you have small 8 children, ask them for their back issues of National
- 9 Geographic World.
- 10 Now, my petition had two major basics. One was 1
11 that new information, especially the Chernobyl information, d
j 12 makes it very clear that this is something that we ought to a
13 do. But I had another basis, which was just as important, 14 which was that the existing policy on KI was flawed from the 2
- 15 start. And it was flawed by misinformation that was given 16 -to the Commission and to the public and that was at that 17 last Commission meeting of 14 years ago.
18 The transcript of that is a public document and i
j 19 you can see the then commissioners, especially Chairman 20 Palladino, wrestling with the fact that they've been told i 21 for years that this is a cheap, sensible measure and 22 Chairman Palladino says, you know, it's only 20 cents.
. If I l -23 survive an accident because of this, I'm going to think L
24 that's 20 cents well spent. And the briefer says, surviving L 25 is not the issue, it is averting an illness. It-is a AJM RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20005 (202)- 842-0034
32 relatively minor operation, it involves a few-days off.
l 1
- f 2 I once quoted that "few days off" to a doctor at 3 NIH who was himself a thyroid cancer patient and he turned r
f-4 purple and he said, they should have one, and then i
5 immediately went back to being a very professional doctor.
- 6 In fact, it turned out only later that'they were 7 .alking about benign nodules. They were talking 8' about -- they used -- they never talked about cancer.
5' 9 Now, last year at the FEMA meeting, I said is 10 there anyone in this room, a two-hour meeting, a two-hour 11 briefing _back in '83. I said, is there anyone in this room 12- who thinks you can have an honest discussion of the merits 13' of potassium iodide without talking about cancer. Well, the 14 room was silent.
15 Now, I must say, it disappointed me no end when 16 the commission put out its press release -- maybe I 17 mentioned that already. .I got up too early this morning.
18 That the press release of July 1 never mentioned. cancer, i
19 that the draft Federal Register notice in the June paper 20 mentions cancer only once at page 8 of the 13-page draft. f 21 Well, I filed a different professional opinion in 22 1989 and-I talked about that misinformation issue. And it ]
23 was given to a DPO committee and the DPO committee simply 24 refused to touch it. And the. director of Research said, 1 l
25 yes,-when i pointed that out to him. Yes. And he bumped l
l l
I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 i
l
. . - - - . ~ - - . - - . - . _ . . . . - - - . - , . - - - - - - . _ -
- 4 33
',.. 1 the DPO report for not having dealt with the issue. It- !
2 never did get dealt with, i
3-So I thought-when I filed the rulemaking petition 4
in '95 that the staff, as you know, dealt with my DPO for 5
five years before coming up with an answer that basically l' 6 endorsed it.
l But that died on a two-to-two vote of the
- 7 commissioners. So I thought, well,- when I file a rulemaking 3
petition they are going to have to confront this issue of-9 misinformation because if any -- if for-no other reason the 10 lawyers aren't going to let them get away with leaving it j 11 untouched, i
12 Well, you don't see a word about that in the paper 13 that purports to be an analysis of the petition and of the t
14 comments and I got that paper, I waited, I insisted on 1.
15 getting it only through channels. I got it Friday. I 16 thought I was going to spend my weekend having to analyze.
17 it. I look at the paper and I think, this is the best?
18 This is 26 months of study.?. This, you know?
19 CRAIRMAN. JACKSON: Mr. Crane, we-have your 20 petition. But I would-like you to do two things for-us.
21 One is L. state for the record what you believe the 22 misinformation is. And then, secondly, to reiterate-for the 23 record exactly what you'are asking of.the Commission in the 24 petition. '
25- MR. CRANE: Okay. Okay.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
4 34-1 First, for the record, the misinformation
- 2 consisted of presenting the consequences of radiation caused 3 thyroid disease in a way that made it seem trivial. Their 4
contention was that it was more cost effective to let the 5 disease happen, to.take the_ chance of an accident, let it 6 happen and cure it after the fact than to spend even a small 7 amount, pennies, on preventien that took the adage about an 8 ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure and turned 9 it on its head.
10 Now, that might be a reasonable approach if the 11 illness were trivial. So it was represented as trivial.
12 They talked about nodules but they didn't say beneign 13 nodules. And 40 percent of those nodules can be estimated 14 to be cancerous. And of those cancers, between 5 and 10 15 percent are likely to be fatal. Well, that's a very high 16 cure rate.
17 We have 1,200 deaths from thyroid cancer every 18 year out of about 16,000 new cases. But those 1,200 --
19 MR. CRANE: The record was later correct ed ac to 20 the Commission, bat it was not corrected to the public, and 21 when the Commission went out with a policy statement in 1985 22 that said not worthwhile, I think it was doing a terrible 23 disservice, and I think it was a productlof that
-24 misinformation.
25 Now, what would I like the Commission to do?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
35
. 1 I would like the Commission, first of all, to 2
state loud ano clear that stockpiling potassium iodide is a <
3 reasonable and prudent measure, that it is a back-up !
4 provision that can give additional protection and that can I 5
help prevent children, especially children, from developing 6
thyroid cancer or other thyroid diseases, including i
7 hypothyroidism, in the event of a major nuclear accident. '
8 I don't want to alarm people about major nuclear 9
accidents, because they are very Unlikely. Our plants are 10 basically safe. Accidents are highly ikely.
Our plants 11 are well-huilt; our plants are well-run.
12 Nobody should take me as, for some, you know, mole 13 as"i nuke who is trying to exaggerate the dangers of nuclear 14 ouergy. I'm not.
15 So, first of all, I would like to have a clear if statement, because I think, if you say to the states you J'
would be foolish not to have this, instead of sending them 18 15 years of messages that pay you would be foalish to have
, 19 this, the states will fall into line quickly.
70 You should have sn9n how quickly Maine -- Maine 21 did their homework, the Maine Radiation Advisory Commission.
?3 They read the literature.
. 23 They read Norman & Wolf's paper on the Polish i 24 experience, because the Poles gave out 18 million doses.
26 They had two people hospitalized briefly for side-effects, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
i Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 4
36 1
both of whom had known iodine allergies and took it in spite * '
2 of being warned not to.
That's the best data we have on 3 side-effects.
4 Has anybody -- does any of the staff papers you've 5 gotten in the last few months talk about Norman & Wolf and 6 the Polish data? I don't think so.
7 And you know, the Maine people, they got on the 8 phone to a Dr. Bigas at Maine Medical who's a 9
thyroidologist, and I think if you asked them, they would 10 have expressed a lot of disappointment about the fact that 11 -- that they had to get this information from sources other 12 than the Federal Government.
13 So, I have asked that the Commission clarify by 14 rule change the provision in its rules that says a range of 15 protective actions must be developed.
16 Now, where did I get this language about including 17 evacuation, sheltering, and use of stable iodine? Why 18 didn't I say potassium iodide?
19 Because I was taking the language verbatim from 20 FEMA's Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan, and 21 that plan, which was issued in proposed form in '94 and in 22 final form in '96, has great procedures for making the 23 decision on when to give out potassium iodide.
24 You're going to have an inter-agency group that's 25 formed. They're going to make recommendations to the lead ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 v aw-k -+-r-.-di-+r n --- ---mr yr- airmr' r e- y --
---M
j i
- . I 1
37
.. 1 agency. The lead agency is going to make recommendations to 1
2 the states. 1
- 3 And as I pointed out to FEMA, the only problem i
1 4 with this wonderful procedural setup is that there's not 1
! 5 going to be any KI to give out, at least there wasn't when I ,
6 wrote to them.
[
l 7 So, I thought that this was a formal way of ,
j 8 getting recognition.
A 9
j Now, none of that suggests that KI is the equal of i
- 10 evacuation. ,
j 11 I think I've tried to stress in everything I've i
12 said, everything I've written, that the preferred method in 13 an emergency is to evacuate people, get them away, because 14 potassium iodide is not a panacea, it only protects one i j 15 organ, an important organ, to be sure, but it's just one, I I
r i 16
.i whereas evacuation, if you can do it, protects everything, j 17 but we all know-that evacuation is not always feasible, and 4
18- you-know, what I'm saying is hardly radical.
l, 2
- 19. It's recommended by the World Health Organization. :
1 20 The World Health Organization said stockpile in schools,
]
1 21 firehouses, hospitals. ,
i 4
22 There are international basic safety standards to i
3 23 -which we are a aignatory that call for evacuation, 24 sheltering, and_ potassium iodide as part of evacuation
'a .
25 plans.
i-i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
L _ Court Reporters l 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 i Washington, D.C. 20005 U
.(202) 842-0034
- _ - . - - . _ _ . _ _ . _ - ._ _ _.__--.___---._- - --.- ~_- - -
l 38 1 Has the staff ever told you about the
- 2 international basic safety standards, what they have to say 3 about KI? I'm not aware that they have.
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: What would change as a 5 consequence of your petition from the existing, slightly ;
6 changed policy that is being discussed in the Federal 7 Register notice?
8 What is that is fundamentally different in what 9 you're asking from the policy that the Commission voted 10 earlier this year?
11 MR. CRANE: That it would require that 12 consideration of potassium iodide be given in the 13 formulation of emergency plans.
14 Now, this may sound like a major concession on my 15 part, but I would not ram potassium iodide down the throat 16 of a state that emphatically rejected it. I did say 17 consideration should be given.
18 If that meant that a state said we have looked at 19 potassium iodide, and for the following reasons, we think it 20 is inappropriate to the situation in our state, I would live 21 with that, because I appreciate the role of the states in 22 emergency planning, and I don't really want to see that 23 usurped unnecessarily.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: is that consistent with your 25 petition?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
39 1 MR CRANE: Yes, it is. This point may be 2 ambiguous as you read my petition, but this is consistent 3 with my petition.
4 But the petition is definitely coupled with issue 5 a policy statement that makes clear that this is, in the 6 opinion of the NRC, a reasonable and prudent measure, and I 7
think if you do that and especially if it's free, you're not 8 going to have states fighting it, you're going to have 9 states wanting to do it.
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. So, let me make sure I 11 understand, 12 So . hat the two pieces that I hear you saying are 13 that you want a statement by the Commission along the lines 14 that you elaborated, and the second is that you want the '
15 Commission to require consideration -- consideration of KI 16 be given in emergency plans that the state develops.
17 MR. CRANE: That's right. I want more than a 18 statement. I want more than a press release. I want a 19 statement of policy -- ,
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I understood that, that you '
21 want a statement of policy from the Nuclear Regulatory 22 Commission. We're not the United States Government. We're 23 an agency of the United States Government.
i 24 MR CRANE: Fair enough. Although the FRPCC's 25 role in this is such that policy has been coming from the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
_ _ _ _ - - _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l 40 i
1 Federal Govarnment generally.
- l 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Are you ready to address scme I 3 questions from the commissioners?
l 4 MR. CRANE: I certainly am.
5 !
CRAIRMAN JACKSON: I should say other questionis.
6 MR. CRANE: Let me do one thing first.
7 I said earlier that -- you know, how much I think 8 it would have been y ed %c hear from Dr. Robbins, and I am 9 going to give you the >,ppsrtunity to hear from Dr. Robbina 10 after all, because he wrote an excellent letter to FEMA, 11 very short, very pithy, in 1996, and I have to say it didn't 12 take him 26 months to prepare it.
13 Number one, the Chernobyl experience has shown us 14 that thyroid cancer is, indeed, a major result of a large 15 reactor nccident even when evacuation is carried out.
16 Number two, the Polish experience has shown us 17 that large-scale deployment of KI is safe.
18 Three, the Three Mile Island experience has shown 19 us that it is not easy to obtain a good supply of KI in an 20 emergency.
21 Four, the shelf life of properly packaged KI is 22 extremely long.
23 Five, the advantage of having a supply on-hand for 24 immediate use far outweighs its moderate cost.
25 -Six, the problems attendant on pre-distribution 1001 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i 41 1
l are immaterial for the matter of creating a stockpile. !
2 \
Seven, no one questions the ability of KI to 3 protect the thyroid from radioiodine.
4 Eight, even though KI administration before any 5
exposure is ideal, the Chernobyl experience also has shown 6
l us that the exposure can continue for days. Institution of 7
KI blockage at any time in this period is beneficial.
8 I know you're going to want questions, but if I 9
could just sort of sum up kind of briefly that one of the 10 Maine people was quoted in the paper,_one of the Maine 11 commission members.
12 He said, knowing what we know, I would rather, 10 13 years from now, explain why we erred on the side of caution.
14 I'm sorry.
Ten years from now, if we have a release, I 15 would rather say that we erred on the side of conservatism, 16 knowing what we know.
17 And I think that's the crux of the issue, knowing 18 what we know.
19 Twenty years ago, at the time of Three Mile 20 Island, we were only beginning to know. The presider.t's
-21 conmission wanted us to stockpile then; we said we would.
22 We reneged on that promise.
23-
'But if there's another accident, God forbid,.not 24 that it's likely, I can hardly imagine what people will say, 25 and this mess that we are-in ---and it is a mess -- was so ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 042-0034
42 1
avoidable, becaus. I think the NRC staff had it absolutely '
2 right three years ago.
3 They advised the Commission in 1994 -- and I quote 4 -
"It appears prudent to stockpile KI for limited 5
populations located close to the operating nuclear power 6 plants. This option represents an inter-office consensus 7 and is recommended by the NRC staff. While NRC encourages 8
the stockpiling of KI, the decision to stockpile, 9
distribute, and use KI would be the responsibility of the 10 individual states." And I think that was an excellent 11 statement.
12 Unfortunately, the Commission deadlocked two to 13 two, and that policy died, and now the staff ia taking a 14 different position.
15 So, I'd like to end by quoting Leo Tolstoy. In 16 1896, he described his proposal, which he said had never 17 been tried but was absolutely sure to work, for solving the 18 problems of government.
19 He said to be honest, not to lie, to act and speak 20 so that your motives for action are understandable to your 2
loving seven-year-old son, to act so that your son doesn't 22 say, Papa, why did you say that then but now say and do 23 something quite different?
24 Thank you.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Thank you.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
43
- i. 1 CommissjJner Dicus, a
2 4
COMMISSIONER DICUS: No questions.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Dia::.
- 4 COMMISSIONER DIAZ
- So, let me go back to the 5 bottom line.
- 6 You are really proposing that the Commission 7
considers putting out its public statement or a rule that
) B establishes that, on our belief of the Commission, if we do i
l' i
9 that, that that is a prudent measure to take in the case of l 10 an accident to help to compensate for the potential. health 11 1
effects of an accident, and that's just as far as you go as 4
12 far -- you know, what the position of the Commission is as 13 far as policy, and second, that, you know, the Commission 14 would support stockpiling so that the states will make the 15 decision of whether to use it or not. Is that correct?
16 MR. CRANE: That is correct.
17 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: -Okay. Thank you.
18 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: That's slightly different than 19 what your second point was a minute ago, 20- MR. CRANE: Well, in addition -- I mean I don't 21 think I was changing my tune.
22 In addition, I would see a rule change that would 23 provide that, when we say in the 16 planning standards _-- _
24 and one of those planning standards is a range of protective 25 actions have been developed that a specific rule change be ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--_.__._______.___m _ _ . - _ _ _ .
i 4
44 1
1 incorporated using the language taken out of FEMA's Federal * '
2 _ Radiological Emergency Response Plan to indicate that that 3 range of protective actions refers to three things --
4 evacuation, sheltering, and potassium iodide, and I would 5 like to see clarification which could readily be done in the 6
statement of considerations for such a rule that what we are 7 talking about is that states give consideration to each of
- 8 these and make a reasoned decision based on the advice that t 9 they've got from the NRC, 10 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: So, in a certain sense, it's 11 just adding some definition to what the Commission just 12 voted on as far as what potassium iodide is as a protective 13 --
j 14 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It's actually a rulemaking that 15 you're asking for, which would be a requirement that the 16 consideration of evacuation, sheltering, and KI be
- 17. explicitly considered-as part of-states'-emergency plan. I 18 mean that's what you indicated to me a few minutes ago.
19 MR. CRANE: Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
- 21 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I'm trying to understand that 22 the rulemaking is not significantly different from what the 23 Commission already voted on except that it adds for the 24 definition to it.
25 You know, it defines that it is a prudent measure ANN.RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street,-N.W., Suite 300-Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
45 1
and it defines that it should be considered in the range of 2
actions and it defines that still the state should be the i 1
3 ones to decide. I 4 MR. CRANE: The Commission decision that was 5 reached on June 30th is ambiguous. The Commission wisely 6
said in its staff requirements memorandum that the decision 7
it was making on June 30th was not a decision on the 8 petition for ruiemaking.
9 So, you could have that Commission decision and go 10 either way on the petition for rulemaking. It's not 11 inconsistent with it. It's not a necessary follow-on from 12 it.
13 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: But I was trying to say that a 14 rulemaking is not inconsistent with the previous position of 15 the Commission but it just adds definition to it.
16 MR CRANE: It is not inconsistent.
17 I have to say that it is inconsistent with the 18 tone of the Federal Register notice that was proposed to the 19 Commission in that_ paper, but that Federal Register notice 20 has not yet gone out, and that Federal Register notice would 21 have made-clear that there would be no rule change.
22 So, the fact that the Commission, in its staff 23 requirements memo, said we are not making a judgement on 24 whether there was a rule change was a sign that they had not 25 bought, lock, stock, and barrel, the Federal Register ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. {
Court Reporters '
1250 I. Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
46 1 notice. -
2 So, I think there is time for the Commission to 3 massage that Federal Register notice if it so chooses.
4 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Okay. Thank you.
5 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner McGaffigan.
6 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Let me explore a couple 7 of things with you.
8 In terms of massaging the Federal Register notice, 9 it strikes me that, on page three of the notice -- I don't 10 know whether you've gotten it -- they say that they have 11 decided to soften the Federal position and then they say 12 that they're going to reword a certain part of the previous 13 policy to state it is not required but may be selected as a 14 protective measure at the option of the state.
15 What you're proposing, essentially, is the words 16 " reasonable and prudent" be inserted before " protective" at 17 that point. You're proposing more than that, but that's one 18 thing you're proposing.
19 MR. CRANE: That's one thing.
20 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Do you take any comfort 21 in -- I know from having read some of your previous stuff --
22 the question I asked earlier of FEMA and I'll ask of the 23 staff in a few minutes -- the sort of blanket judgement that 24 this -- that it's implicit or explicit in this notice that 25 there will not be Federal review of any state decision to ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 l
l
47-1 add this as essentially one of the arguments _I know you've 2
been arguing against for years, is that KI poses logistical 3 problems and therefore could detract from evacuation and 4
therefore we shouldn't do it, there's an implicit or 5
explicit-recognition in here that that argument is bogus.
6 Do you take any comfort in that?
l j 7 MR. CRANE: Well, I certainly took comfort from
_8 what you said. I'm not sure that that was necessary fully 9 in the minds of the authors who put that in, buc I think j
1 10 it's a sound logical inference from what's there.
j 11 COMMISSIONER McGAPFIGAN: It's a sound logical 12 inference from what's there.
l 13 MR. CRANE: Yes.
4 14 i
COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: In terms of the 27 plus 15 3 or e sites around the country -- I get ray arithmetic wrong i
16 -- given your advocacy for KI, do you have any
- 17 recommendations for us with regard to, if these sites are 18 going to be available, any better planning we need to do to i
1 19 take advantage of them on the ad hoc basis?
20 The policy says, on an ad hoc basis, in the event 4
i 21 of an accident, these stockpiles would be available.
l 22 From your experience, what should we be thinking i
j 23 about in terms of planning for the use of_these stockpiles?
- 24 MR. CRANE
- Well, I must say I'm troubled about 4 25- this, because you know, yes, some KI is better than no KI, 1
i s
50R1 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
! Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 t
, . < * - . - , . < - - . , . . <-----i..- . =--w . s.--+-.r e-*w,*3- ----r->,- -----,er-. *--->-e.-<r e-w-,,x-e 1--,,e e- e-,e w..,,..i-4,-- w -- w e -,,,m- -+ < m eem ,e -
48
- 1. so the recognition of stockpiles in 27 cities is a good
- 2 thing. We're better off than we were a year ago.
3 It seems to me, however, that if you want to 4
4 acknowledge that it's a good thing for a radiological ,
5 emergency causod by terrorism that_it's a good thing for a ,
6 radiological emergency caused by nuclear power plant 7 accident, as well. -
8 The problem is we're talking about a medicine that 9 is time-critical and that's dirt-cheap, we're talking $1,100 10 a reactor, and I mean this is a medicine that is better if. -
11 you take it before the accident than after, it's better if 12 you take it one hour after than.two hours, two hours than 13 three hours, and so on, and with every moment counting and I
14 the cost peanuts, why would you want.to have to bring the .
15 stuff from Columbus, Ohio, to Cleveland to the Perry plant 16 when you could have it in the Paynesville, Ohio, fire 17 station?
18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I'm afraid we have to 19 take our progresses step by step in this area.
20 Could you just clarify the 1994 staff 21 recommendation that you site in your statement? Was there a 22 rule change that was soing to accompany that?
23 MR. CRANE: No. No.
24 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: That's why I asked you 25 the original question. I mean sticking the words ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,ED.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
-r-y- - +y9>- 7 -- y,q,,,wy , ,y-ey,yyyyy yyy w 9rw y<g y gwcw r w-q.--y- ,---.Ad g =ar>y-w+'gp9
- m% y yppW'-g+nyey g gy-t -i wyy- ygyq-e---iegw-g -w ry u my --q.9,y- s-e-ppw---g-7arswe ses--
49 1
" reasonable" and " prudent" into this policy statement -- and 2
maybe there would be some conforming changes that would have 3 to be made -- without having a rule change that would 4
require a formal process in each state to consider this, 5
would that, in and of itself, make significant progress, or 6
in 1994, if the staff was just talking about a policy 7
statement that said it appears prudent to stockpile KI for 8
limited populations located close to operating nuclear power 9
plants and there was no rule change, why was that going to 10 give you comfort if the Commission had not deadlocked then?
11 MR. CRANE: Because I thought that that really 12 would have done the job, it would have made stockpiling a 13 reality. I've said all along -- and people around here have 14 heard me -- that I was more interested in achieving the 15 result than the particular means.
16 The reason I chose a rulemaking option -- I'll be 17 quite candid with you -- is that I wanted to make sure that, 18 if the Commission did not do what I considered to be the 19 right thing, that it would come down in a form that would 20 give rise to judicial review, but I would have been happy 21 with the 1994 outcome,-I would have considered that that had 22 done the job.
23 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: You have the Federal 24 Register notice --
25 !!R. CRANE: Yes.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
50 f 1 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
i
-- of the draft that 2 FEMA has. I 3
I'd be interested in, for the record, any changes 4
-- I think you have to be careful -- changes that you ;
5 consider might be within the confines of the policy that was I G voted to by a three-two vote, but I personally -- an 7
adjective before " protective" strikes me as something that's 8
in the art of arguing about here, because I also thought 9 that the policy decision was a little bit ambiguous.
10 So, we have to decide how much of an endorsement 11 that we want to give to the states, but if you have any
- 12 other thoughts-as to what could go into the Federal Register 13 notice that would make progress, maybe not as much as you'd 14 like, I'd be interested.
15 MR. CRANE: Well, I could give you a very quick 16 rundown, because there are so many arguments, so many 17 frivolous --
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Could you provide it in 19 writing? ,
20 MR. CRANE: Oh, sure. Okay.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: And it should not just go to 22- Commissioner McGaffigan.
23 MR. CRANE: Oh, absolutely.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: It should go to the Commission.
- 25. MR. CRANE: I know that, i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-
-- . _ - _ - _ - - - - . I-. . - . . - . . . - . - . . . . _ . . . . - - . _ - - - - . .
\.
51
- s. 1 I think we have to correct the record. I think, 2
when people say there's no new data challenging existing 3 policy, that's nonsense. We've got lots of new data.
We've 4
l got lots of new data on health effects, we've g:: data on 5 the safety of KI.
6-When states are unde r the impression that -loss of 7
the thyroid is not life-threatening, we've got to correct 8 them.
9 When we say that it's not cost-effective, well, 10 that cost-effective -- cost-effectiveness is a fine 11 approach, cost-effective analysis, cost-benefit analysis a 12 fine approach, but you've got to use it with reason when 13 you're talking about health measures.
14 You probably know that the way it was used by the 15 staff in the '80s was to say, well, if we balance the cost 16 of the pills against the cost of treating the disease, ve 17 find that it's cheaper to treat the disease, so let's let 18 the disease happ.n and cure it.
19 That makes no sense, 3nd I think we have got to 20 clear the board of this notion hoout cost-benefit analysis.
21 Even so, you note, probably, that when the staff 22 re-did its cost-benefit analysis several years ago, they 23 said.that, for the population within five miles, it was down i 24 to a ratio of two to one and with an error band of two 25 orders of magnitude.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washir aton, D.C. 20005 (102) 842-0034
52 1
So, for all we know, it is cost-effective, by '
2 their calculations, by as much as 50 to 1.
3 I think we ought to put to rest the notion that it 4 could complicate evacuation.
5 We ought to put to rest the notion that there is a 6 high risk of serious side-effects. I mean has the staff 7 ever told you about their analysis in this NUREG where they 8 talk about 38 million doses without an adverse reaction, or 9 is that news to you all?
10 COMMISSIONER DICUS: That's not news to me.
11 MR. CRANE: Okay.
12 The logistics of distribution need study. They 13 certainly do.
14 There are problems of logistics, but I think the 15 answer to that is the one that Dr. Robbins gave from the 16 floor at FEMA, which is you can make the decision in 17 principle that this makes sense, that it's a reasonable and 18 prudent measure, and then you work out the logistics. We've 19 got enough smarts in this Government to come up with the 20 logistics of how best to get it to people.
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I had a recent 22 discussion with a state official, and for the first time the 23 argument was thrown out to me that it wasn't the iodine that 24 might have a health effect, it was the potassium that might 1
25 have a health effect, and I said to this particular person, I
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD. l Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
53
). 1 gosh, maybe we need to make sure people don't eat bananas '
2 either.
3 If a persc' has been told by their doctor not to 4
eat a banana, then they shou?.dn't take the potassium iodide, 5 but have you ever heard previously or in any of these 6 meetings that you've been involved in for 15 years that the !
7 potassium is a health problem, because a state official 8 throw that out at me, and that was news to me.
9 MR. CRANE: Certainly news to me. I don't want to 10 hog the floor more than I already have, but on the issue of 11 allergies -- you know, people who are allergic to iodine, in 12 general, know it, because they're allergic to seafood.
13 On the back of this statement, I stuck the label 14 from our iodized salt, which lists potassium iodide as the 15 agent that's used to iodize it. So, a lot of us may have 16 taken it within the last 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, whether we knew it or 17 not.
18 And as this document also makes clear -- this 19 comes out of the World Health Organization recommendations 20 -- allergic reactions are much less likely in children, 21 infants and children, it's more likely in adults, and that 22 that weighs in favor of giving it to children even when you 23 have -- in an emergency situation -- even when you haven't 24 done a screening, because after all, there are risks that 25 -you're going to get hives, you can get pimples, you can get ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
54 1 -- in absolutely extreme cases, serious allergic reactions '
2 are possible, but we see from Poland and from this data 3 about the 38 million -- and that comes out of cough 4 medicine, because they put KI in cough medicine -- that the 5 risks of thyroid cancer are just so much greater, 6 That was what the Food and Drug Administration 7 said in '78, that the risks of thyroid cancer and all that 8 goes with it just outweigh the risks on tha other side.
9 CHAIRMAN JACXSON: Commission Diaz?
10 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: The only thing that I can 11 think of that some people might be taking potassium-sparing 12 diuretics, and as you elevate the amount of potassium, they 13 could get a reaction. There's not a permanent effect. The 14 level of potassium goes down very rapidly.
15 MR. CRANE: Can I have one tiny final word?
16 Everything we know about emergencies says plan, 17 don't do it ad hoc.
18 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think we will now hear from 19 the NRC staff.
20 Thank you, Mr. Crane, and if you would sabmit the 21 information that the commissioners asked for.
22 MR. CALLAN: Good morning, Chairman and 23 Commissioners. The staff will be briefing the Commission on 24 the staff options for resolving the petition relating to 25 potassium iodide.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. . . , - . . .- . . . ~ - - . ._ -- - . . . - , - -
55 1
I joi. this morning with Frank Miraglia, Deputy 2
Director of the Office of NRR, and Mel Knapp, who is going 3
to be the principle presenter, who is the Acting Director of 4 the Office of Researchi Tim Martin, who is the Director of 5 the Office of AE0B;-and Frank Congel, who is a Division 6 Director under Tim.
7 Mel?
8 MR. KNAPP Thr.nk you.
9 What I proporn is to very, very briefly review the 10 paper, and then we will be available for your questions. In 11 fact, we can proceed directly to the second slide. Many of 12- the things I'm going to say I think-have already been 13 visited in this meeting.
14 The first would be to summarize the petition.
15 It is asked that we alter 50.47(b) (10) to be 10 consistent-with the material that is provided here in 17 italics.
18 You would add the words, " including sheltering, 19 evacuation, and prophylactic use of iodine have been 20 developed for the plume pathway EPZ for emergency workers 21 and the public," and as-he said just a few moments ago, he 22 would have the Commission issue a policy statement saying 23 . essentially that KI stockpiling is a sensible and prudent 24~ measure necessary to assure that the drug will be available 25 in the event of a major accidenc.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,.D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- _ - _ - . . - . - ~ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - . - - . - . .
56 1 We received that petition in September of '95. In 2 November of '95, we put it out in the Federal Register for 3 public comment.
4 We received 63 comments, 28 were in favor, and 5 that includes environmental groups, members of the public, 6 the American Thyroid Association, as has been mentioned this 7
morning, and there were 35 opposed from utilities, utility 8 organizationa, nine states, two state universities, a member 9 of the public, and a letter signed by a number of health 10 physicists.
11 These comments are, to a degree, captured in the 12 six comments that characterize the favorable views and the 13 six that characterize opposing views in enclosure one to the 14 SECY paper, 15 In the paper, as you know, the staff has provided 16 three options for the Commirsion's consideration: to grant 17 the petition as requested, to include rulemaking; to deny 18 the petition but to develop guidance to address planning for 19 KI distribution for states that include KI for the general 20 public in their planning basisi and to deny the petitic7 but
-21 pursue modification of regulations to require lic6 EI s to 22 address planning for KI distribution for states that include 23 KI for the general public in their planning basis.
24 With respect to the options, there are some pros 25 and cons which the staff identified.
ANN RILEY & ASSC..ATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- - - - - - --. =_ _ - - - - - - . - . -
57 1
'In granting the petition as requested, a few of 2 the pros would be that this would establish a uniform 3
Federal policy on KI -- this was identified by Peter as a --
4 or let's put it this way, when you look at his petition and 5 his views that the policy at the time of the petition were 6
not uniform, this would have provided uniformity, and it 7
would ensure that emergency plans addressed prophylactic use 8 of KI.
9 Amcng the cons that the staff identified are that 10 this would not, in the staff's view, be consistent with the 11 June '97 SRM and proposed FRPCC recommendations that states 12 should have the option of using XI, and I would note at this 13 point that some of the comments we have here reflects our 14 understanding of the petition as received, and we obviously 15 learned from the discussion this morning a bit more perhaps, 16 and we would also note that, as the rule change, as we would 17 understand it, that licensees and states would be required 18 to incorporate all three protective actions into emergency 19 plans.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: If the Commission granted the 21 petition as requested, what impact would that have on 22 operating reactor licensees?
23 MR. KNAPP: I'd be more comfortable if the folks 24 from AOED were to comment on that.
25 MR. MIRAGLIA: In terms of making it a requirement ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
58 1 that would require revisions of the plan, I think more
- 2 importantly we'd be saying that the licensees would have to 3 prepare without having the state involved, taking the option 4 away from the state.
5 The proposed. rule that we talk about in option 6 three would be saying licensees would have to plan if-u 7 state chose to use the option.
8 The proposal in the rule would be to make the rule 9 that it's necessary, those three things are necessary in the 10 plan, and so, in terms of how the petition is worded, it 11 would require that XI be considered in emergency plans 12 a3sent a decision from the state.
13 MR. CALLAN: Chairman, I would like Tim Martin to 14 provide his perspective.
15 MR. MARTIN: Commissioner, there is another issue 16 there.
17 As worded, I would read the proposed-rule change 18 to require that -- not only that the three protective 19 actions be considered but that they be required to be 20- developed.
21 I know that at least one site there is a portion 22 -where sheltering is not deemed feasible. That could lead to
- 23 litigation saying that it does not meet the rule and would 24 require possibly an exemption for that particular site.
25 The verbiage vnt heard from the petitioner today ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034 D g ?y_--f-g: *W'May7i+- ,-g,-w -g- Mr---el---- ---
r--9EE g*1g'-'w v
-myewymM'y-mye-m$=m-r-1-e9--y--wyye*w v vwe qw m me- p-r ww==- w m m--^-e=s--+-- tvo-- N -wmar-weeere -eaem ew +nama+Wa+t w w me- -weww-- ar,-
i.
59
,, 1
--he-was really seeking that it be considered. That's a 2
milder language, and if the language was " considered," I 3
think we can demonstrate in each case that the sheltering 4
and evacuation have been considered, and I think the states 5
would definitely have the ability to consider.
6 I think the second part asking on the policy 7
statement -- we've heard today and we've heard from the 8
Federal Radiological Coordinating Committee that nimply 9
stockpiling -- if your decision is to make it available to ;
10 i the general public, stockpiling by itself is not sufficient. '
11 You must plan and have a system to distribute in a 12 very timely manner to make it effective, and with those 13 kinds of modifications, then some of the problems with the 14 proposal might be resolved.
15 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
16 MR. CALLAN: Chairman, I'd like to reinforce that 17 point-just briefly, because we had some side-bar discunsions 18 during the presentation this morning about this.
19.
What we heard this morning was emphasis on 20 consideration of the three mechanisms.
21 The petition, as Mel read it this morning, just 22 now, says that the range of protective actions will be 23 developed, and the distinction between developing them and 24 considering them is, I think, pivotal to the staff's 25 -perspective.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington,. D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
60 1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay. Thank you.
- 2 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The logical question j
-3 that that leads to is, if the petition had read, a range of \
l 4 protection actions including consideration of sheltering, {
5 evacuation, and prophylactic use if iodine, maybe put in "as 6 appropriate," have been developed for the plume, would the 7 staff's view have been different?
8 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Should have been considered. ,
9 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Well --
10 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I'm just going-on what the 11 petitioner said this morning, i 12 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Right. Picking up on 13- what he said, which t agree is different from the words ,
14 here, you're making the point that that is different.
15 I'm asking the question, if it had been stated in ;
16 this other way, including censideration of sheltering, 17 evacuation, and prophylactic use of iodine, as appropriate, 18 would the staff's position possibly-have changed?
19 MR. MARTIN: It would certainly have muted one of 20 the cons that we saw there. I still'think this is very much 21 a state issue.
22 - As we examine the pros ano cons, we don't feel 23 strongly either way,-and it almost--- it's a policy decision ~
- l24 - at that point, because I don't think that we have found 25 anything that says you must have KI pre-positioned and ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202). 842-0034 h
Db'**tWW1 -W*y ga w hw g y
68
. 1 distributed.
2 We want the people out, we want them evacuated so 3 they don't get exposed to it, we want people to avoid 4
ingesting food that was contaminated, so it's the plume 5
passage that is of concern to us.
6 We recognize that there are difficulties in 7 distribution, not insurmountable. We are smart people, I 8 agree with Peter. If a decision is made by the states to do 9 it, there are smart people there, they could figure out a 10 way to do it.
11 So, we don't see a r:rong motivation in either 12 direction, and if it's the Commission's decision that, yes, 13 we ought to make it available, the staff will march off and 14 support you.
15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
16 Go-ahead.
! 17 MR. MIRAGLIA: May I make an observation?
18 CRAIRMAN JACKSON: Please.
19 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think the key that we need to 20 focus on is planning. If KI is selected by a state, there 21 has to be appropriate planning to make sure it's there and 22 available for distribution and use.
23 So, it's a key, it's a supplement, and if it's 24 chosen to be used, the key is the plan, and I think the 25 policy statement that we've talked to in the past, that FEMA ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
62 1 has alluded to, indicates that that's an important part of
- 2 the process.
3 If it's used and you have an infrastructure 4 developed, it needs to be considered in the plan, and the 5 decision-making process needs to be understood. So, I think 6 che key is the planning aspect.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, t 8 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: That is exactly why I 9 asked that series of questions earlier, and I'll give you
-10 the chance to talk about it.
11 The statement now and the statement several months 12 ago included in it the draft FEMA statement, these 13 stockpiles, the 30 sites, would be available on an ad hoc 14 basis in the event of an accident at a commercial nuclear 15 power plant.
16 We heard that there is no planning currently 17 underway for how that ad hoc decision -- I mean I think it 18 has to be a pre-planned decision. You give the state -- you 19 know, one of the arguments used is that we don't need to do 20 this because it's remote.
21 But we now have a plume with iodine in it headed 22 towards a population.
23 Do you give the state, which has previously 24 decided not to stockpile KI, knowing it's second-best, 25 knowing it would have been better to have it there at the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250-I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
- j. - i s 63
[ 1
- site.-- dofyou give them-a second chance at that point to
- - t i
try to get XI there from one of these 30 locations, and do .
3 we have to exercise that, do we have to plan it, do we have
- 4. to tell sverybody that there will be an ad hoc exercise S
I that, in some ways, intrudes on the plans as they exist at '
- 6 s
the moment and possibly, you could argue, might make those j 7 plans less effective?
j 8 i
But suddenly, we have a real situation, we have a 9 plume, which, God forbid, nont of us want, and there's 2
I 10 iodine in the plume. What do we do then?
.11 I.
MR. MIRAGLIA:- As I understand the policy a
- 12 i
statement that was adopted, there is stockpiling of KI being >
- . 13 done for other purposes, and as I heard from FEMA, it needs 14
'4 i
to be a rationalization of the policy that we're talking ,
j 15
- about here with respect to the commercial nuclear power i 16 plants and those aspects and those stockpiles, and there
(!
17 needs to be that kind of activity.
3- 18 But as'I understood the policy statement that's i
19
' being adopted, if.a state chooses to'use KI, then they would i 20 have to do the planning such that you would. void those kinds
[
21 lof issues, so you avoid the ad hoc kinds of circumstance,
, 22 and that it!s a decision up front that's-planned for.and the '
23 states and the locals know what to do,-when to do, and how i.
24 the decision process it made.
- - 25 .That's not to say-that ad hoc kinds of measures i
l l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD, Court Reporters l- 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20005 i
(202) 842-0034 f.
- . . . _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _,r_ - - _ _ _ _ , , _ _ .m,m., - - - . - _ . -. __ , . - . - . .
64 1 for the terrorist -- anti-terrorism kind of thing -- it has- '
2 a different kind of environment to it-that there is not room 3 for that, and it was just recognizing a sourci 4ei a cache 4 of stockpiled KI that could be used and made avellable to 4
5 states who choose to use it in their planning processes, is 6 how I understood it.
7 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: I agree entirely it's 8
better to plan in advance, but the policy, as I understand, 9 that the Federal Government is going to put out is these 10 stockpiles would be available on an ad hoc basis in the 11 . event of an accident at a commercial nuclear power plant, ;
12 and I think taat that ad hoc can't be quite as ad hoc as it 13 appears to be at the moment.
14 I think it has to ut -- that it is a rational 15 decision that would have to be made in the event of a real 16 accident, and therefore,uit may be ad hoc, namely 17 non-planned in advance and in the emergency plan, but I
-18 would think that we have to exercise how we would make the 19 ad hoc decision in each case and know where the nearest 20 stockpile is and what the nutner of hours it would be to get 21 there and what the logistics of that might be, it's a-22 logical aspect of the policy, but it sounds like that's 23 details to be worked out later at Che moment.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Information that presumably 25 should be provided.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034-
__._ _ _._ __..-_ _. -.~._.__.___ ____.___ _
t- . ,
- 65.
p
. -1 Dr. Knapp, please. continue, I 2 MR..KNAPP: .All right.
3
- Returning to option two, among the other pros of 4
this particular option was that we felt that this option j-5- would identify at least some of the concerns thac'the 6 petitioner raised and that no NRC or FEMA review of a-7 -state's decision would be required.
8 On the other hand, we recognize that this would l 9 notLresolve-the petition in the specific manner requested.-
i-10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
4 Can I ask the question I 1
11 asked earlier? Our regulations, 50.54 (q) -- are we making a
! 12 blanket judgement at this point that this can only be
- 13 i-constructive and, therefore, the review under 50.54 (q) is 14 not required?
15 MR. CALLAN: First of all, I want to thank you for 16 telegraphing the question. We had a half-an-hour to prepare
- 17. an answer. But since you gave it to us, I want to ask Frank 18 Congel to provide an answer, 19 MR. CONGEL: The way.it is right now, off-site 20 plans aren' t directly accountable under 50.54 (q) .
21 The on-site plans that are the-licensee's 22 responsibility refer to having an acceptable-off-site plan, 23 and as a result of FEMA's review with, of course, other-24 Federal assistance, including-the NRC, the exercises are' 25 reviewed every other year and a determination is-made that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD..
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
66 I
-(
1 there_is reasonable assurance that the public health and
- I 2 safety is protected.
3 Within the context of making that determination, 4
there are many variables, and those variables are not 5 subject to the 50.54 (q) type of determination.
6 I can make as an example the basic evacuation 7
scheme that we like to see is at least what we call the 8 keyhole, two n;iles out, 360 degrees, and downwind out to 9
five-miles, and the way individual states carry it out range 10 from that to 360 degrees at five miles and some are 360 11 degrees at 10 miles.
12 There are no determinations made if a state then 13 changes from 10 back to 5.
It all is done in the context of 14 the overall evaluation.
15 Only if there was a direct effect on the licensee 16 plan that impacted them directly would that determination 17 have to be made.
18 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The heart of this -- and 19 I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it --
seems to be 20 -the definition of the word " plan," licensees shall maintain 21 in effect emergency plans which meet the standards of 22 50.47(b), and you're telling me the plan does not encompass 23 this sort of thing, the licensee's plan does not encompass 24 this sort of thing.
25 MR. CONGEL: In that level of detail, yes, sir, i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
67
.- -li COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Okay.
2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Please go on.
3 MR. KNAPP: All right.
4 To move on to option three, in this option we 5 would deny the petition but pursue modification of 6
regulations to require that licensees address planning for 7 KI distribution, again for states that include KI for the 8 general public in their planning basis, and this is similar 9
to option two except that it does incorporate this_ concept 10 in rulemaking.
11 Principle advantages would be it is consistent 12 with the current and proposed Federal policy, retains the 13 state's prerogative as to whether they choose to use KI, but 14 we do.think it's possible that, to have a rulemaking like 15 this, there will be interest from a variety of parties and 16 the rulemaking could be protracted.
17 In consideration of the three options, the staff 18 has provided a position, and that is that we would favor 19 option two for the reasons that it's consistent with the 20 policy as endorsed by the Commission in June, that it 21 reflects the willingness of the Federal Government to 22 provide a stockpile of KI and guidance'for its distribution 23 but that it is directed to only those states that include KI 24 for members of the ps ,lic in their planning basis.
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Further questions? Commission ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
f8 1 Dicus?- '
2 COMMISSIONER DICUS: If we were-to go with option 3- -three, do we have the resources in the budget to do the 4 rulemaking?
5 MR. KNAPP: No, ma'am. I believe the staff paper 6
indicates that that was not within the context and would 7 require reexamination of resources.
8 COMMISSIONER DICUS: Second question or request, 9 maybe, for the record.
10 As you know, in response to the activities that 11 occurred in 1994, a NUREG document was to be put together 12 for states and local governments to use describing KI and 13 the process and decision-making if they chose to use it, and 14- as staff recognized, as you let us know recently, that had 15 never occurred, which we are aware of, the NUREG document 16 was never written, and you suggested it wasn't necessary 17 anymore, and I think you also know I came back and said yes, 18 it is.
19 -It is very important that state'and local 20
. governments have a concise document put together with many 21 of the things we have been talking about, the information 22 that's available to them, and I just would like to know 23 where we are with doing that.
-24 Does_anyone have an answer?
25 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Nobody has an answer?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
4 .
69
. 1 MR. CONGEL: I'm very familiar with the 2
interactions that took place regarding the NUREG document.
3 There are two components that we're doing.
4 First of all, as a result of the June 30th SRM, we 5
are providing various forums whereby we're discussing, for i 6
- example, the all agreement statement meeting, the reg info 7
conference in April, we-plan to discuss the KI policy and a where we are.
9 In terms of putting together a package where 10 everything is together and hopefully in a coherent sense, as 11 a result of our conversations, I will consult up the line, 4
, 12 and I presume we intend to do it.
1
. 13 I would like 'n do it, of course, after we've 4
11 4 reached a final resolution on this issue.
i 15 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Was there any explicit 16 instruction to the staff in the SRM based on the summer i
17 decision of the Commission'to develop those guidance
- 18 documents?
19 MR. CONGEL: No, ma'am.
20 . CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay.
4 21 Commissioner Diaz.
22 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: Since the question has been 4
23 . asked, will it be possible, when the Commission receives the 24 information from the staff on this, to consider what will be 25 the particular effects of the changes proposed by the i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
- Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
70 1 petitioner to the original rulemaking?
- 2 I don't know whether it is legal or not, but if it 3 were possible to provide an option in which the word 4 " consider" would be in the petition --
5 MR. CALLAN: Let me. clarify something, because 6 there's some ambiguity here.
7 What I understand, Commissioner Diaz, that you're 8 asking -- and I'll just read it the way I think you're 9 proposing -- a range of protective actions, including 10 sheltering, evacuation, and use of iodine have been 11 considered for emergency workers.
12 I think Commissioner McGaffigan had words more to 13 the effect of have been -- consideration --
14 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Including consideration 15 of sheltering, evacuation, and prophylactic $.se of potassium 16 iodide, as appropriate, have been developed, a range of 17 protective actions have been developed which can include any 18 or all of the above, as appropriate.
19 MR. CALLAN: Without the " development" in there, I 20 think if we just considered -- which is what the petitioner 21- had focused on this morning -- I think that's probably --
22 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The " developed" is in 23 the current reg, as I understand it, and what he's adding is 24 the words " including sheltering, evacuation, and 25 prophylactic use."
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I-Street, N.W., Suite 300
~
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 8'42-0034
71 1
So, what he is trying to do is take the existing 2
regulation in 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (10) and the underlying words 3 -- and I'm looking at page two of the SECY -- are the 4
addition that he was proposing, and in order not to change a 5 whole lot of v'rds, I suggested working only within the 6 language -- because you want the actions developed. I mean 7 that's what the current reg is.
8 So, including consideration of sheltering, 9 evccuation, and prophylactic use of iodine, t apnropriate, 10 then continue with the reg as it exists at t r. ..nen t -- I 11 don't know whether that would do what Peter Crane-wants.
12 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think that I want to make an 13 over-arching-comment.
14 I think that, before we can try to sit here and 15 individually try to suggest strongly or instruct the staff 16 to do anything, the Commission has to decide how it wants to 17 resolve the questions relative -- the options relative to 18 the existing petition, whether it wants to consider some 19 slight revision in that, as suggested by the petitioner this 20 morning, or whether it wants to feel that it can address or 21 come to some concurrence relative to some amplification of 22 what's in the existing-policy.
23 Then, on that basis, if there is some additional 24 follow-on work that the staff needs to do in terms of 25 development of guidance or anything else, then it is ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. ~ . _ _ . . __._ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .
t 1
72 1
appropriate based on that base to ask them to do it,-and so,
- 2 I think --
l 3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
4 We can't send them off down 4 several parallel paths before the Commission itself has made
) 5 its fundamental policy decisions on where it wants to go in 6 this, and so I think we can't wordsmith here at the table.
7 We can't have them develop guidance on policy that we l
- 8 haven't decided yet.
l 9 I think what we wanted was to have a complete 10 airing, which we are obviously in the process of doing, of
- 11 all the thoughts of all the members of the Commission as i
- 12 well as the various interested parties.
13 Commissioner Dicus, you had a comment.
14 COMMISSIONER DIAZ: I, of course, agree. This is 4
j 15 why I was putting it as a question. Would the Staff answer j 16 the question whether changes to the actual petition would I
17 result in a different position from the Staff and in that 18 respect -- that's.the question--- not going and doing what 19 the Chairman did, period.
20 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Commissioner Dicus.
21- COMMISSIONER DICUS: This is a theoretical 22 question but if down the road for whatever reason the 23 language would change to this very what I call permissive 24 language, consideration of -- et cetera, would that not also 25 in putting shelter and evacuation and the use of iodine, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W.. Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
73
'1 4 .
would that.also not open up the door for aLstate to go back 2-and reconsider all their planning and perhaps decide notLto 3
do evacuations, for example, because then is it permissive, 4 very permissive on what they are going to do.
5 Does anyone want to --
6 MR. MARTIM. I think the issue there is the 7
requirement would still be to develop _a range of protective 8 actions.
9 That would still'be a requirement, but the 10 consideration would be --
11 COMMIS0IONER DICUS: They would still have to 12 develop a range of protective actions but they certainly 13 could go back and rewrite plans on what they are currently 14 doing.
15 MR. MIRAGLIA: An observation would be that 16 whether that language is-in the rule versus a policy 17 statement. If it was put in a rule, there may be other 18 implications that need to really be fully evaluated.
19 COMMISSIONER DICUS: I think that is probabij
- 20 true.
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think perhaps we can get some 22-concurrence from the Commission since we are all here as-to 23 whether we at least want the Commission -- I mean want the 24 Staff to consider _what its position would be if we can get 25 from the petitioner a distinct, succinct statement in terms ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
74-1 of his somewhat revised statement, to have the Staff
- 2 consider what the effect would be in terms of.their pros and 3 cons -- if he wants to submit a revision to his petition, as 4 stated today.
5 MR. CALLAN: Be happy to do so.
6 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, and you can do this 7 within the week?
8 MR. CALLAN: Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Okay, and therefore the Staff 10 can give its additiont.1 feedback to the Commission. Is it 11 appropriate within a week of that or two weeks of that, so 12 that by the end of the month we can have this revisited --
13 just to add it to what you have already done.
14 MR. CALLAN: Mel, you'll be the action officer, so 15 why don't you answer that?
16 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Can you do that within two 17 weeks of the time, so within three weeks of now?
18 MR. KNAPP: We will do our best. Candidly, 19 - because there are many offices involved and a number of 20 views --
21 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: So we can get you to come 22 back --
23 MR, KNAPP: About three weeks, yes.
24 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- but we can agree that ---
25 MR. KNAPP: You certainly can in the near term.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, NW., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
75 i
1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: --
that-we will have that.
. 2 occur, that process.
3
- COMMISSIONER DICUS: And we will not --
4 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
4 And we will not take action on 5 the existing petition until that occurs, okay?
6 MR. CALLAN: Very good.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON:
i All right. We all understand
- 8 then, f
! 9 All right. I think it is time to end this I- 10 meeting.
1 11 COMMISSIONER.McGAFFIGAN: I have several 12 questions. I haven't had my chance.
13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Oh, you didn't have? I thought j- 14 that is what you were doing. Okay. Fine, 15 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN:
1 Just one comment on the-l 16 issue that Commissioner Dicus raised, the potential for a l 17 I
rule change having unforeseen consequences.
j 18 As I read,the rule -- I know our practice has been.
19 to rtquire evacuation, but as I read the rule at the moment 20 it ;ays "A range of protective actions have been developed t- 21- for the plume exposure pathway for emergency workers and the 22 public."
23 That is all that is required'in the rule. I
,24 suspect there is a Reg Guide out there or something, 25 somewhere that says in every instance in this country you ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300
' Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
__ m -. . - .m a.eA %-p.% ., E -%
76 1 will have an evacuation plan, so I am not sure --
- 2 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Your Staff member is saying no.
3 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Is that no? Well, maybe 4
't we don't. Maybe it just de facto turned out that everybody 5 has required evacuation, but let me ask a couple questions.
6 Can the Staff explain --
7 MR. CONGEL: Excuse me. Just let me address that, 8
please, because we have NUREG 0654 that has the planning 9
standards listed and the essential elements in each of those 10 planning standards that are reviewed as part of the offsite 11 evaluation and clearly evacuation is up there as one of the 12 principal things.
13 In addition, we have Supplement 3 to NUREG 0654, 14 which is a compilation of about 20 years' worth of severe 15 accident studies that indicate that the overwhelming 16 protective action that is the most effective in protecting 17 people from doses at all is early effective evacuation, so 18 it is certainly well defined what the fundamental 19 requirement is here, and that is why we are dealing with 20 this other aspect in terms of supplement.
21 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: Okay. Let me ask the 22 question -- a suggestion that I am making for Peter Crane 23 listening to the testimony this taorning, would the Staff 24 object to the words " reasonable and prudent" being put in 25 the sentence --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
. _ . . .. _ . . . . _ - . - - _ . . ~ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . -
77 1
CHAIRMAN JACKSON: I think what I am trying to get 2
them to do is to in fact consider that. I think we can 3 decide and pass to-them questions.
4 1 I don't think it is fair to them to ask them to 5- sit here today and to answer that question, and so I have no.
- 6 a
objection, and I don't think any of the colleagues do, of 7 our putting the question to them --
l 8
l COMMISSIGNER McGAFFIGAN: Okay, i 9 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: -- but I don't believe that --
4 10 COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: The question will be
- t. 11 "Should the words ' reasonable' and ' prudent' be put in the i
1 12 statement."
s i
13 Listening to Peter earlier, there were two bases i
14 for his pet!. tion.
15 One was that there were changes, as he described 16 it. I haven't read the full petition. I am taking it at 17 his word that one was there had been changes since the 18 policy was adopted, and we have discussed that.
19 The other was.that the Commission acted on bad 20 information in its initial policy and obviously the claim is 21 that there's been bad information since.
22 Do you have any response-to that bases for -- I l 23 think it is fair-to say that if that was a basis highlighted 24 in his petition that that isn't addressed in the SECY paper 25 at the moment.
I J
j ANN AILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C- 20005 .
(202) 842-0034
l 78 1 You are a whole new team practically, but do you '
2 have any discussion of this matter? The only person at the 3 table with that kind of corporate memory is Tim and Frank.
4 MR. MARTIN: I became aware of -- as a result of a 5 Peter Crane letter to the FEMA that in the SECY paper we 6 provided you in June of this year where we attempted to 7 describe the background of the KI policy we misrepresented 8 one of-the bases upon which che ad hoc subcommittee for KI 9 based their recommendation not to change *he policy and not 10 to stockpile.
11 That particular was one of five and it was the i 12 fifth one that said that there is a lack of support by the 4
13 primary Federal regulatory agency, and then in parentheses 14 said FEMA. Clearly FEMA is not the primary Federal 15 regulatory agency, and it could be read to imply that FEMA 16 did not support it.
17 I will let FEMA speak for themselves. It was NRC, 18 if you go back and read-the actual report of that 19 subcommittee,_although they don't label it as NRC, the clear
~
20 context and what my staff tells me, it was NRC that was what 21 was their fifth basis for their conclusions.
22 Now that one I am aware of, and let the record so 23 state that we made an error there, but F.ank --
24 MR. CONGEL: Well, I was not involved in the early 25 determination of the KI policy, so at least you can say ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
79
. .1 everybody sitting'here'is a' fresh group.
2.
I became involved with it probably at.about the 3
time of the filing of the DPV in 1988-89 timeframe and have 4 been involved since.
5 In any-case, some of the considerations that Peter 6
brought up, historical ones, I just simply don't have an 7 answer for.
8 What I do have.though is the fact that the 9
considerations that he brought up have been subject to 10 discussion in many different forums and as we all know, 11 sitting around-the table, this is not an easy issue to find 12 a resolution to, and if it was we wouldn't be, We would 13 have had an answer already.
14 But the many things ranging from the experience at 15 Chernobyl to the American Thyroid Association's statements 16 to nll of the other history you heard, they have resulted in 17 much dialogue, both within the Staff and outside of the
.18 Staff and I would just like to point out that what we have 19 in papers presented from the June Commission paper to the 20 petition response does reflect that, and if it turned out 21 that there was a clear determination of one way or the 22 other, we would have presented that, but there are 23 equivocations and some of.the information --
24 Just as one example, there are no new data to .
25 change the-dose factors that we use for thyroid right now, i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
#,, ,,,---y -
e 80 1 The same-dose per microcurie inhalad nr ingestedLthat we use
- 2- today is virtually identical to what we'used in the early 4 3 '80s.
4 The situation with Chernobyl and Eastern Europe is ,
5 the subject of intense study right now and the bases for the i
6 observed thyroid cancers are being studied. There is not a 7 determination yet that indicates that something happened j
8 there that undermines the data basis we have right now. We 9 have heard that and that is just one example, j 10 I only want to point out that the Staff here has I-1 11 spent a substantial amount of time in trying to be fair, l- 12 objective and_open in all cases,-and this is where we are.
1 j 13 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: One last question.
- 14- COMMISSIONER McGAFFIGAN: One last question. The t
- h. 15 change from the Staff position _in 1994 to the Staff position
{ 16 at present, is that simply the change in Staff that has q 17 occurred, in a sense, or I guess is that a fair -- this a
4 18 group has a different view from whomever was in your set of i
-19 positions in 1994 when the different recommendation that 20 _ Peter cited was made to the Commission?
21 Let me ask Frank again.
He's the only continuity.
I-22 MR. CONGEL: I would say that that is a very good 23 representation. The group of managers sitting here now with 24 of course the additional information of the NBC data 25 resulted in the proposal that we put forth. The NBC info, ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
91 1-of course, wasn't available and it, of course, predated the 2 tragedy in Oklahoma City.
3 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: That's enough because --
4 MR. MIRAGLIA: -- participated in '94 but as read 5
versus the statement or policy that the Commission adopted 6 in June of this year, I didn't see substantive differences.
7 CHAIRMAN JACKSON: Right. Okay, I think we are 8- going to close this meeting and so I wish to thank Mr. Crane
~
9 and Mr. Hepler and his colleagues from FEMA and the NRC 10 Staff for their presentations.
11 You know, it is important whatever the decision or 12 any revision of decision that may occur to have a full and 13 robust and open discussion on these issues and it is also 14 important to clear the air and I think we have had some 15 opportunity to do that.
16 The information-gained today and that has been 17 asked for will be helpful to the entire Commission as we 18 make the decision on the Staff's proposed options for 19 resolving Mr. Crane's petition or any potential amendment of 20 it as suggested today.
.21 So, with that, I am hdjourning the meeting.
22 -[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m.,.the meeting was 23 concluded.]
24 25 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1250 I Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842-0034
i CERTIFICATE s
~
This is to certify that the attached description of a meeting 1 of the U.S. Nuclear Regul'atory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO A
. PETITION FOR RULEMAKING RELATING TO USE OF POTASSIUM IODIDE (KI)
FOLLOWING SEVERE ACCIDENT AT A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PUBLIC MEETING PLACE OF MEETING: Rockville, Maryland DATE OF MEETING: Wednesday, November.5, 1997
- was held as herein appears, is a true and accurate record of the meeting, and-that-this.is the original transcript thereof.
l taken stenographically by me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court
- reporting company 1
Transcriber: Chris Cutchall Reporter: Jan Delmonte
4-he44.4*e.L.nh4M,4.*MA44
.mshem 4.M M .seesapa.am ma L.h w.a mm_.Nw w a s s->,a_ea,.._A,a. mas,-mam.a ma m.a a mm m a m m ameear w w ,. - ww%ga_--- - - - - . - - - - - . - ---
J i
i Z
3 O I, .
a.
I W D E
\
kNo 0* S$.
- h. m t ZE
! s COMM's sf
>p ~6 dN m A0 6) W
+ .J Q 1 w Q @g &'
t y -
- e #4
\
w n 0; <$ '6
-a cp
'? ui i
5
- #*v4 +u U~
%u. *u
?, gog -
e lk 4.
4 '
A rf Ub cl 21, P u 6
- % m (*3
.L: P: X. $ >
\ O O i &5.s.v.ts E3~Z s
\
i g g <
t O~ ~a *f \
L me
.o
.=
OW w (E
\
W i
- llC
\
V
\
i W i
l 1
f l
1
SUMMARY
.OF PEilliON e Petitioner requested -
- Revise 10 CFR Part 50.47(b)(10) to read "A range of protective actions including sheltering, evacuation, and prophylactic use of iodine, have been developed . . . for emergency !
workers and the public."
- Issue a policy statement declaring that KI stockpiling is a sensible and prudent measure, necessary to assure that the drug will be available in the event of a major accident.
2 l
. . j
l l
l l
l l
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
e 63 comment letters received i
, e 28 in favor - 5 environmental groups,22 members l
of public, American Thyroid Association l
l e 35 opposed - 20 utilities,9 States,2 utility organizations,2 State universities,1 ~ member of ,
public,1 letter signed by 12 health physicists 3
1 l
STAFF PROVIDED THREE OPTIONS '
- Grant petition as requested e Deny petition, but develop guidance to address planning for KI distribution for States that include KI for the general public in their planning basis
- Deny petition, but pursue modification of regulations to require licensees to address planning for Ki distribution for States that include K1 for the general public in their planning basis 4
. y
OPTION 1 - GRANT PETITION AS REQUESTED
- Pros:
- Would establish uniform Federal policy on KI
- Would ensure plans address use of Kl
- Principal cons:
- Would contradict June 1997 SRM and proposed FRPCC recommendations that States should 4
have option of using Kl
- Licensees and States would be required to incorporate all three protective actions into j emergency plans 5
i OPTION 2 - DENY PETITION, BUT DEVELOP GUIDANCE TO ADDRESS PLANNING FOR KI DISTRIBUTION FOR STATES THAT INCLUDE KI FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN THEIR PLANNING BASIS e Pros:
- Consistent with June SRM endorsing draft i FRDCC policy i
- Addresses some of petitioner's concerns !
- No NRC or FEMA review of a State's decision '
required e Con:
- Does not resolve petition in the manner requested i
i
.l ,
. OPTION 3 - DENY PETITION, BUT PURSUE MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS TO REQUIRE LICENSEES TO ADDRESS PLANNING FOR Kl DISTRIBUTION FOR STATES THAT lNCLUDE KI FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN THEIR PLANNING BASIS e Principal pros:
- Consistent with current and proposed Federal policy
- Retains States' prerogative on use of Kl !
- Principal con:
- Rulemaking may be protracted i
7
STAFF POSITION:
l Staff favors Option 2 because it is consistent with j proposed Federal policy as endorsed by the l
Commission, reflects the willingness of the Federal Government to provide a stockpile of KI and guidance for its distribution, but only for those states that include K1 for members of the public in their planning basis.
I f
FEMA AND FEDERAL RADIOLOGICAL PREPAREDNESS ,.
l COORDINATING COMMITTEE
% (FRPCC) RESPONSIBILITIESINKI "
DELIBERATIONS i
l y? O. Megs Hepler, HI ,i 1
l Chairman, FRPCC November 5,1997 :
l
INTRODUCTION i
a.
FEMA's Radiological Emergency m,z l
7 I? I Preparedness (REP) Program falls under the 4
Exercises Division L
e .
l
&ji i
?-l!
Director of the Exercises Division is the [!
l Chairman of the FRPCC i
fdk i[NN? . .
ys . Igj i
FRPCC-BACKGROUND '
Established in 1982 under 44 CFR 351
'd Coordinat<:s all Federal responsibilities for gl assisting State and local governments in ,
emergency planning for peacetime radiological emergencies et i
Fifteen departments and agencies are members Six standing subcommittees Two ad hoc subcommittees, including the KI subcommittee
.: M =98& i 1_----- _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -
I FRPCCROLEINKI Initial Federal policy on KI, formulated by FRPCC, published in Federal Register in 1985 r l > Use of KI by general public is prerogative of <
! States d
. .:s-i In 1989, ATA asked FRPCC to reexamine its l:
- position
- FRPCC then asked HHS to review medical and clinical status S$3$ Y32 }dn
i i[{-$_ %g;iC' I i i
l HHSRECOMMENDATIONS In 1990, HHS recommended to FRPCC :
w"~
that:
4 4
, ,3 FRPCC 1985 policy not be changed
- Existing stores ofKI be inventoried l FRPCC establish a working group 1
l$?[ ~$$$-
we ,s:
i
- 1 v1 FRPCCAD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
! ;. FRPCC Ad Hoc Subcommittee on KI, formed in 4 February 1991, charged with:
[
Reexamining 1985 policy i
, Considering merits of Federal Government purchasing '
! y and stockpiling KI for use by the general public 1 Ad Hoc Subcommittee then: I Examined scientific aspects of KI Examined NRC's cost-benefit analysis Conducted, through CRCPD, a survey of the States
. i..
i ,
- y 1
SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS y September 1994, Subcommittee recommended:
> No change in KI policy <
Federal Government not purchase and stockpile KI gj December 5,1994, full FRPCC adopted ,
Subcommittee recommendations September 1995, Petition for Rulemaking filed t
s a --------
I -. 9 PETITIONFOR RULEMAKING In response to Petit: ion, FRPCC delayed .
^
is reaffirmation of 1985 policy NRC published synopsis for comment l isi
. Ad Hoc Subcommittee on KI was reconvened #
in December 1995 and charged to: .
Review information, including Petition Review comments on Petition Evaluate new information AAA NkSIS$ $biNihi- ._
e_
l SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
.. Subcommittee conducted public meeting, ;, ,
-4 June 1996 1
> Commenters on Petition and other members i of the public invited to make presentations
- 1 Attendees included representatives from States, CRCPD, utilities, and public interest groups, plus a university professor and the petitioner. =
,$ ;: /
i l
i 1
SUBCOMMITTEE '
i RECOMMENDATIONS Subcommittee concluded there was no challenge to 1985 policy 3
- D but recommended
- Federal Government purchase stockpile of KI for any State svishing to d
- use it as supplemental protective action for general public d Language in 1985 policy be softened d 3 Localjurisdictions desiring KI should first consult with their State 3 October 1996, full FRPCC approved Subcommittee's recommendations i
' June 1997, NRC Commissioners voted 3-2 to support FRPCC's recommendations l
i i_e
i w ag; i
i NBCSTOCKPILE 4
NRC Commissioners also recognized V availability ofKIin NBC stockpiles "
l Stockpiles initially located in 27 areas l
, throughout the nation and 3 national 4
- stockpiles in Eastern, Central, and Western o United' States 4
Already established in Washington, D.C.,
Denver, Los Angeles, and Durham, NC '
4 w %
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE w
Draft Federal Register notice of the FRPCC
% recommendation has been prepared Notice specifies that a State choosing KI as a
, supplemental protective action can request funding ,
. .? FEMA's evaluation is limited to decisionmaking a process FEMA is waiting for NRC concurrence Then full FRPCC membership will review anc give l final concurrence E
I
- IMPLEMENTATIONSTEPS '
i I
After Federal Register notice, steps must be ..-
) , taken, e.g., development of:
Suitable information program for KI use i
h Procedures for addressing State requests for
- funding T'
- Guidance for evaluating State decisionmaking j aspects i
- -