ML20202D430

Requests Opportunity for Discussion with Commission of Alternate Procedures That Might Be Followed in Resolving AEC Interface Issues with EPA

ML20202D430
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/09/1973
From:	Gossick L, Muntzing L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
SECY-R-650, SECY-R-650-R, NUDOCS 9902010394
Download: ML20202D430 (8)

Text

..

(

~

PFFICIAL USE ONl"

1. " cow FECY-R h O March 9, 1973

\\[

/

o V

POLICY SESSION ITEM To:

The Commissioners

Subject:

CURRENT STATUS OF AEC-EPA INTERFACE RELATIONSHIP Requirement:

To obtain Commission guidance on further efforts directed toward resolving AEC interface issues with EPA.

Discussion:

Following an earlier meeting with the Commission

-(Policy session SECY R-484) and a subsequent

g meeting arranged by General Counsel, M. Hoffmann.

with EPA officials, EPA's claim to onsite opera-tional inspection, enforcement role for AEC licensees was apparently satisfactorily resolved g,,23+)e6 O [J (SECYR-497).

However, more recently, the claim li g p ;,, h to an onsite surveillance-inspection role has been d

reasserted.

gf. i h eJ A 2f^7 b t4 In the meantime, EPA has interjected a pervasive 43i-TIO demand for the AEC to deal broadly with Class 9 4, /g 4 accidents and their consequences in a number of g

AEC activities in which EPA claims surveillance or duplicatory roles with AEC. The status of these two interface areas is described in the attached memo.

Recommendation:

Opportunity for discussion with the Commission of alternate procedures that might be followed in resolving this problem is requested.

Scheduling:

For consideration at an early Policy Session.

b N

L. Manning Muntzing

_ Director of Regulatio

$ Mr. Muntzing does consider this item to

Contact:

be of an urgent nature, since environmental Clifford K. Beck statements are being held up as a result of unresolved issues between ourselves and EPA. We ask that the item be scheduled for the March 15 meeting.

hi/

She f

b s ','

y 43 MB4

/f/J.

OFFICIAL U Te Assistant Direc tor R-650 R PDR

OFFHCHAL USE ONF'

'l ll%.

l r

DISTRIBUTION NO. OF COPIES Secretary 11

Chairman Ray 6

Commissioner. Ramey

.2 Commissioner Larson 2

i Commissioner Doub.

2 l

Commissioner -

2-i General Manager 1

Deputy Gen Mgr

'1' t

. Exec Asst to Gen Mgr 2

General Counsel 4

Controller 1

i Information Services 1

Ofc of Plan & Anal 3

Congressional Relations 1

'l Asst Gen Mgr.for Admin.

1 Asst Gen Mgr for Env & Safety 1

Environmental Affairs.-

1 Operational Safety 2

. Waste Mgmt & Trans 1

' Director of Regulation-1 Deputy Dir of Reg 1

1 l

' Asst Dir of Reg 3

Director, Off of Admin-Reg l

Dimetor, Off of Gov't Liaison-Reg 8

Director, Off of Prog Analysis-Reg 1

f Director, Off of Tech Advisor-Reg-1 Director of Regulatory Standards 3

Director of Regulatory Operations 1

Dir.,' Off of Operations Eval, RO 1

2 t

Director of Licensing-.

1 Dep Dir for Reactor Projects, L 1

' Dep Dir for Tech Review,- L Dep Dir for Fuels & Materials, L-1 Chm, Off of Antitrust & Indemnity, L 1

. Chm, Off of Plans & Schedules, L 1

- Asst Gen Counsel for L&R 1

O i

l I-OFFHCHAL USE ONLY

l -

UNITED STATES

' 4,.5.)

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545

\\

March 9, 1r l-Chairman Ray Commissioner Ramey Commissioner Larson Commissioner Doub THRU: Director of Regulation CURRENT STATUS OF AEC-EPA INTERFACE RELATIONSHIP

. a.a In earlier documents (Policy ' Session SECY R-484, Information Report SECY R-497), the Commission was advised of certain difficulties in AEC interface with EPA and steps taken to resolve these.

i One problem, namely, EPA's claim to an onsite operational, inspection, enforcement role for AEC licensees was thought to have been satisfactorily resolved, but now has been reasserted by EPA.

In another area, EPA has interjected a pervasive demand for the AEC to deal broadly with Class 9 accidents and their consequences in a number of AEC activities in which EPA claims surveillance or duplicatory roles with AEC.

The status of these two interface areas is discussed below.

1.

Resolution of the REG-EPA Interface at Licensed Facilities; Then Reassertion of an Operational Onsite Role In July 1972, EPA was claiming an in-plant onsite measurement-inspection role with an additional suggestion of an effluent standard enforcement role. AEC, in following the Presidential Directive on Reorganization Plan No. 3, held that EPA had a primary responsibility for " establishing generally applicable environmental standards... applicable to the general environment outside the boundaries of..." licensed facilities, but insisted that EPA had no onsite surveillance, inspection, or enforcement authority.

AEC agreed that EPA had a responsibility to compile from all available sources an annual assessment of the overall exposure of the general population to radioactivity.

Following a discussion of this issue with the Commission (June 23, 1972, SECY R-484) and pursuant to a meeting with EPA officials arranged by Mr. Hoffmann, which coincidentally was accompanied by favorable change in leadership in the EPA Office of Radiation Programs, an agreement was reached on what appeared to be an acceptable working relationship on this issue.

Commissica 2

EPA withdr' all claims for inspection, monitoring, and enforcement roles "'

..n the licensed facilities and site areas. They embarked on a r-

.ve cost-risk-benefit stydy of atomic energy from which, by 1975, F _f hope to generate a framework of " generally applicable radioactivity standards." AEC in recognition of EPA's obligation to make annual assessment of population exposures agreed to provide EPA with all plant effluent and environrental data submitted by licensees (in accord with AEC guides, concurred in by EPA) and all corroborative data obtained by AEC independently and State audit-measurements of licensee programs.

In addition, to assist EPA in its annual population exposure assessment, AEC agreed that for facilities lacking established applicable " pathway models" (expected to be relatively few), AEC would obtain or ask the licensee to supply EPA data on effluents released and applicable concurrent meteoro-logical data to assist in establishing " pathway models."

EPA has just now submitted for AEC comment its initial proposal fo, pathway model studies.

There has not been time to study this proposal.

In the meantime, EPA has reasserted a claim of authority and need for onsite in-plant surveillance and inspections of licensed facilities with-out recourse to AEC where in their opinion situations merit such measures.

They express no general intention or expectation of exercising such authority except in unusual circumstances, but state the likely necessity of occasional inspections to " demonstrate their right" and ' keep critics off their backs."

The question presented by this issue is whether as a matter of procedure, principle, and efficiency in the Federal Government there is any justifi-cation for a responsible Federal Agency such as the AEC to be monitored and double-checked in implementation of its responsibility by another Agency and whether duplicative regulatory efforts should be directed at licensees by two Government agencies.

2.

The Issue of Class 9 Accidents In more than half dozen separate communications in recent weeks, EPA has in one way or another publicly injected into an AEC proceeding a demand that the risks and consequences of accidents in the Class 9 range be factored into the proceedings.

A sweeping draft EPA summary proposal (March 5, 1973) provides insight into EPA's planned efforts in this direction.

It begins:

"Within its

.. -. -=

)

i r

.., i on 3

" broad environmental mandate the EPA has a major responsibility to determite the environmental risk significance of environmental pollutants, including radiation that may enter the environment by either normal operations or as a consequence of accidents and incidents...."

...by virtue'of the functions transferred to EPA via Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970."

)

Continuing later in the draft, EPA says it "has developed a strategy for dealing with the issue of environmental risks..." which requires heavy involvements of EPA and AEC (with EPA to be fully cognizant and involved in appropriate technical evaluations and methods development efforts...")

in four broad areas:

1.

" Development of methods for assessing the environmental risk of accidents (accident consequences as a function of accident probability)."

2.

" Development leading to application of criteria for judgments con-cerning risks in tenns of costs, benefits, and general societal values."

3.

" Assessment of adequacy of Reactor Siting Criteria and development of new Siting Criteria if needed (based on 1 and 2 above)."

4.

" Adequate emergency preparedness to help minimize the environmental and hedith consequences of reactor accidents, if they should occur."

Subsequently EPA notes that "...this proposal calls for the following:

"a.

AEC to provide EPA with detailed information concernina the progress of the AEC study on quantitative risk assessment of accidents (Rasmussen Study, underway) (3/73).

b.

EPA to provide AEC with an initial assessment on format and accuracy requirements for quantitative risk assessment methods, along with an assessment of approaches which appear valid. (6/73)

AEC to issue report on generic risk of LWR accidents, based on l~

c.

l the P.asmussen study which is underway (9/73).

1 d.

EPA to provide AEC consnents on the adequacy of data base assumptions, judgments and completeness of the AEC LWR accident risk generic study (11/73).

p a

e e

Commission 4

"e.

AEC to complete a methods development program for LWR accident quantitative risk assessment suitable for case-by-case use i-environmental statements by 9/74.

f.

EPA to provide AEC with input and comments on effort te) above, as effort proceeds -(see Implementation section below).

9 Similar quantitative risk assessment methods development and generic studies for HTGR's and LMFBR's completed by AEC (6/75 and 6/76, respectively) with similar EPA inputs and comments."

In separate actions EPA has projected their intention to assume a dominant role in the issue of Class 9 accidents as follows:

1.

Requested on several occasions that they be admitted to an operational i

role in the Rasnossen study.

-2.

Made repeated references to their need for AEC input data to their cost-risk-benefit development of " generally applicable environmental standards. "

3.

Declined to concur in AEC's Environmental Impact Statement of the ECCS rulemaking proceeding because statements on Class 9 accidents are inappropriately supported and the public-is deprived of "...a quantified perspective on the risks being taken relative to this J

category. "

4. - Raised the issue of reactor accidents in commenting on Environmental Impact Statements for individual licensing cases.

5.

Requested that AEC as " Lead Agency" in advising the states on Emergency Preparedness, initiate a task force to define risks (based on the Rasmussen study) that will "... ultimately permit definition of an accident level which will assure adequate... emergency preparedness" and that in the interim will dictate emergency preparedness geared to an accident level which "... covers the uncertainty of our present understanding."

l Comment I

In theoretical principle there should be recognized some merit and justifi-l cation for EPA's insistence that the risks and consequences of accidents in the upper ranges af consequences, and hopefully in the lower range of l

probability, be injected into the operational picture.

In practical fact.

4 I

f

Commission 5

\\

as EPA well knows, the effort AEC has launched f-aablishment of a quantitative base for risk evaluation will nc' ar fruit for many months and possibly for more than a year or so, une absence of such data any injection of these accidents into atter. o cost-benefit (or other) con-siderations will either be largely on che basis cf consequences alone without the counterbalance of probabilities--which would yield the WASH-740 profile. Or, alternately, the discussion would be based on subjectively detennined probability values so poorly defined as to raise a credibility question on the whole discussion.

For these reasons, it would appear to be evidence of questionable judgment for EPA to force this issue into the arena of public debate until we have developed the basis on which reasonable evaluations can be carried out.

Alternatives In this situation there appears to be three alternatives AEC might pursue:

1.

Seek the intervention of OMB in curtailing the role EPA has assumed for j

itself (with meagre justification) in its massive intrusion into areas of AEC's primary responsibility.

2.

Accept EPA's proposal; invite their participation into the Rasmussen study and conversely assign AEC staff to furnish contributions to EPA's massive cost-risk-benefit effort to define " generally applicable environmental standards." On this basis of EPA involvement, they perhaps would cease to press for early Class 9 accident discussions, but what courses they might otherwise pursue would be somewhat unpredictable.

3.

Delay EPA's involvement in the Rasmussen study until a phase had been reached wherein an initial first cut of quantitative risk assessment had been reached, with EPA's being in the meantime persuaded by one j

means or another to restrain their ardor for public discussion one-sided risk-consequences discussions. Thereafter, EPA and AEC would reassess where each agency then stood and the direction each should take.

/

kf

/k.

Cl[ ford

. Beck,'-O rector Office of Government Liaison -

Regulation cc:

Secretary (2)

General Counsel (2)

General Manager (2)

~.. _. _.. _ _ _... _ _ _.. _ _ _. - _ -. _... _ _ _

bCC: ll"UDtZi"O Lc E.1DloCh l

IVCnSSiCE L

w t i E73 Moowden CKRPCk L

.1Fnlearv

[DDpnges FrKruesi Chairman Ray Counissione~ m.ey Cameissie u Larson Commis*foner Doub g9 01 THRU: Director of Reguia n

AD0!TIONAL INFORmTION ON EPA-AEC INTERFACE As requested in Commission March 15 action on SECY R-650, enclosed a n u

the following aww==nts:

l l

1.

Letter'of February 18,1972, from Donald T. Oakley, EPA, transmitting the " Proposed Inspection Program for the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant in Monticello, Minnesota," with attached draft copy of an

" Inspection Program Concept."

2 Letter of April 20,1972, from William A. Mills, EPA, to Clifford K.

Beck, AEC.

3.

Letter of January 31,1973, from Dr. Dominick, EPA, to General Counsel Hofftmann masserting EPA's onsite authority at licensed facilities.

4.

EPA "Drset Proposal for Coordinated AEC/ EPA Efforts to Resolve Issues Concerning the Enviremmental Risk of Reactor Accidents" - Unofficial, handcarried (March 1973); not for distribution or attribution.

S.

Letter of February 16,1973, from Sheldon moyers, EPA, to Lester Rogers, relating to EPA's pressing AEC on accidents.

8.

Letter of October 3,1972, from Sheldon Meyers, EPA, to Mr. Montrino relating to EPA's pressing AEC on accidents.

l 7.

Letter of February 14, 1973, frau W. D. Rowe, EPA, to C..K. Beck l

relating to EPA's pressing AEC on accidents.

1J u-f Jrigma $4gn,J Of/C. k. Sect Clifford K. Beck, Director Office of Government Liaison -

L Regulation Encloswres:

qg 3 7.q EP4 As stated Adl,im-%'/.%-

cc w/encls:

hsW h6f OFFICE >

.- h --

• ]-

b

@b D

f SURNAME >

I

-- - '~

[

,(/ k DATE >

'" '"" * * * # 8 Forn AEC-31, (Rev. 9-D) AECM 0240

..