ML19319B021

Advises of Problems W/Epa Review of Oconee Des.Forwards Des & Draft EPA Comments.W/O Encl

ML19319B021
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	01/14/1972
From:	Muntzing L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Doub, Ramey US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 8001031063
Download: ML19319B021 (3)

Text

_ _ - _ _ - - _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _.. - _ _ _ _

.,,p n, n n w,,... - -

kh f x!

f

~

&9dh,2(.4 Mg y & W h R;&t% M ih y f ;I$$$5 8 0-9 70 V

bf]M$2fIbiOilb So-Q 87

' JAN 14 1972

+

Commissioner Ramey Commissioner ~Doub EPA. REVIEW 0F OC010EE ORAFT DVIR0lrENTAL STATEMENT The purpose of this meno is to advise you of problems we have encountered with EPA's review of " - Oconee draft environmental statement.

On December 13. 1971, we issued the draft environmental statement propand for Oconee (Duke Power Company) and called for connents from federal agencies and others by January 17. 1972 In view of EPA's major role we arranged for Les Rogers and staff to review and discuss EPA's draft comments in advance. We have had a j

number of meetings resulting in many improvements. We are now at the stage where there remain several-issues which require discussion and Msolution between AEC & EPA at a higher level. CEQ has arranged a meeting with both agencies.for 2:00 p.m. on January 18 1972, at CEQ Headquartars. At this time Gordon Mcdonald (art possibly Russell Train) of CEQ and Deputy Administrator Fri of EPA plan to attend thit meeting. I plan to attend with my staff.

Attached for your-infomation is a working (draft of EPA's corments as of the and of the day January 12. 1972 a copy of the Oconee Enviroemental~ 5tatement is 'also attached for your ready reference).

We have identified the following four, major areas of rencern:

/

1.

EPA is requesting a large amount of additional detailed information. In general we question the practical value of such infomation at this time but we recocnize the incentives to seek additional detailed. data. We plan to try to comply but the basic probles is the extent of effort and time that will be requimd from the limited resources available and the tight time schedsle~ facing us. In addition, we can for-see this extent of affort being required for all future

. projects. The basic problem, as we see it, is the need to x

D *

• lD '

• lD {llll f

.w N

w M2UL n

y 8001031 C)[]

w --

p

~.-a. - :., n-.,,.,. -..

~.,,..-.,g.m.-n n n _,

l f}

_p

.c t,

i -

Comissioner Ramey

~

Comissioner Doub -

p 14 g d$fferentiate between dealing with too much data, including extraneous data, and dealing with meaningful data that can ce considered in addressing substantive issues.

(Examples - see page 1 (par 1) 12-13.15-16.18-19 of the attached) 2.

EPA is taking the position that there is a need to consider

' alternatives to conditions which are in compliance with AEC rules and guidelines.. Specifically (see pages 1 (par 2). 4, 26-27). they believe that although the applicant's planned mode of operation indicates compliance with our proposed "as low as practicable" limits, there is a need to consider alter-natives which could result in effluent conditions less than the "as low as practicable" limits.

m In principle' we believe it is inappropriate for EPA to ask AEC to explore and set conditions beyond standards that have been established by the AEC. Such action will eliminate the effectiveness of our rule making procedures. In the specific case of the proposed "as low as practicable" rule it should be considered as a generic problem and treated as such by EPA at this time.

l 3.

EPA's position includes the need for quantifying probabilities for all classes of accidents including estimating probabilities and consequences of class 9 accidents. (See pages 1.(par 3).

7, 25 (per 2). 27 (bottom) and 28 of attaclwent).

The accident analysis is presently in the rule making process.

The proposed rule has been issued for coment and it should be treated as a generic problem by EPA. It should be realized that we are proceeding in-parallel by processing licensing applications and establishing rules at the same time. We have discussed the accident analyses qualitatively in the Oconee statement and believe additional critique by EPA of this generic problem should be made when comenting on the pmposed rule 'and not in individual cases.

4.

On the subject of transportation of radioactive materials

--there appear to be two issues which art generic in nature (see page 2). One is similar to the accident analysis problem discussed'above. There is indication of-the need to discuss quantitatively probabilities and consequences of all class of accidents. The other relates to the need for including specific shipping routes. We have sought to w ac.__

I.

QO f e o j\\\\ o J L 1 A Ir h l

t

Q..; ~

~

(

_3.

.y y J yp.)g

~..

,m +;y

, ~ :

,s

.m w,

- #g

, m-s 3y!

CGInissioner Ra ey -

x -

s Commissioner Doub 3-

~ JAN ~141972

~ -

have EPA consider tnese matters with us on a generic basis, t

our appmach in this area is that safety in transportation should not depend upon any particular routing and that safety reliance should be based on container requirements to with-stand accident. conditions.- Our intent is to issue a special topical report on overall transportation considerations and to use,it asia basis for our treatment of the subject in each of the envimamental reviews..

W. Dircks CEQ staff has been.following the recent course of eventz closely and has been-keeping his' management informed. CEQ is con-carned about the requests' for additional-data by EPA (and also by Dept. of Interior) at. this late date. - Agreement had been reached in September 1971 that each agency was to review'all available information (e.gG applicant's' envimnaental repott) in' advance of receipt of the AEC's draft envimamental-statement and ' provide -

comments within tue months-to AEC'identi"ying pmbles areas and areas requiring additional data.' The Agencies have. violated this

_ agreement.

i I as prepared to-discuss this antter with you further at your convenience.-

(signed) LManning Muntnng

^

.w-i t Manning Muntzing s

, J _ Director of Regulation g

Enclosures:

.#.0, M

~

s

1. Working Draft of EPA's! Ccuments. ' ; '

~'

2. :Oconee Draft Environmental Sta.trasan.t "t

• i DISTRIBUTION:;

. L.

,~

.3 Docket File-i'

^

i DR Reading -

- x.-

~

l DREP Reading n-REP Files 1.

s

(

LM4untzingi DR-A

.EJDioch, DR

~ " ~

LRogers. REP-DM e

l A. Giambusso

.S..

3g g n

(

t x

i N

\\

DREP_ b DREP,

ODR.

e

\\

G A-c%4)}$Pl )Wl

$G.i4WA5013L3. Roc _ art Lt.tgg y

g l

I.. I/.14/22__...-... I/ /M 1/ldn2..-.._

Aav.9-53) ABCM 0240 :

e u s covesenuant asemm=UFFICE. 197f-486.488 hws s mm -

mr

-u-

-w

-