ML20205R615
| ML20205R615 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/22/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Merrifield J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| SECY-98-264-C, NUDOCS 9904230243 | |
| Download: ML20205R615 (1) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ -
/
UNITED STATES UD f @
[
NUCLEAR REGUt.ATORY COMMISSION
~
"s WASHINGTON, o.C,20555 E
z
%y
+/
See comments on SECY-98-264.
December 21, 1998
.f,i P)/
commissioner
&y
~
Edward McGaffighn, Mr. 1D2/99 COMJSM 98 002
>ee..................,..
RELEASED TO THE POR MEMORANDUM FOR: John C. Hoyle, Secretary g/
p US 10fti FROM:
Jeffrey S. Merrifield
- eeeeea........Md ~ ;
...,v.
SUBJECT:
FUNDING FOR POfAblUM IODif)E STOCKPILES I propose that the Commission reconsider its present policy to fund a supply of potassium iodide (KI) for "any State, or in some cases, local government, that se'ects the use of Kl as a supplemental protection measure for the general public." I have no intention of undermining the Commission's findings that the *use of Ki is a reasonable and prudent measure for specific local conditions," or that the " decision for local stockpiling and use of KI as a protective measure for the general public is left to the discretion of the State." See Staff Requirements -
COMSECY-98-016 - Federal Register Notice on Potassium lodide, Attachment (September 30, 1998). Indeed, I recognize that the Commission has revisited these issues many times in the f d past several years and it would be counterproductive to restart the entire process However, the issue of funding as discussed in the 'present draft policy is an area that bears reconsideration The present policy contemplates that the federal government, most likely the
[
NRC, will fund the purchase of Kl for every state that desires a stockpile.
V Although the relative cost of an individual pillis minimal, the cost of the overall policy is substantial, ranging from $1 - 53.25 million, which corresponds to roughly 10-30 FTE's, respectively. Under the NRC's present budget limitations, it is reasonable to expect that the Commission's decision to absorb the added expense of the present KI policy could lead to a reduction in FTE's or negatively affect agency programs. Further, despite suggestions that the cost for this program could be phased in over a period of years, it is highly unlikely that a state having determined that KI is necessary, will want to wait for one or more years to obtain their KI supplies. More likely, we will receive significant pressure from participating states, including their respective Congressional delegations, to provide the stockpiles immediately Thus, we have to be prepared to absorb these costs within a relatively short period of time.
I believe that the country needs useful, robust, pre-positioned stockpiles of Kl But. I question whether the present policy, including the plan for funding, achieves this result. It contemplates funding a stockpile for any state that desires to have one and does not provide funding for federal regional stockpiles for use by the general public Consequently, under the present plan there is no contingency in place to make Kl available to states which do not have a stockpile, but who elect at the last minute to use KI in the event of a radiological emergency, or for use in other unforseen orc @$8fices. Alternatively, it does not put a cap on the amount of KI tnat the country will accbmulate as whole, albeit stored at the state level The policy does not. for
(
example, provide an incentive for a state to minimtze stockpiling and expenses by sharing its Kl 9904230243 990122 di M " ( ()/4H -
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
)( yg fgy3D $
\\
_ _