ML20202E017

Staff Requirements Memo on 790118 Affirmation Session 79-1 Re SECY-78-614, NRC Regulation of Medical Uses of Byproduct Matl

ML20202E017
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/22/1979
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Bickwit L, Gossick L, Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-78-614-C, NUDOCS 9902020213
Download: ML20202E017 (17)

Text

. _ . _ _ . .__ . . . . . . _ ,_._ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _

ftm2 "4 s UNITED STATES

.' / 9'og h ; LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO' LM WASHINGTON, D C, 20555 -

e

%, '...../ January 22, 1979 OF'FICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: Lee V. Gossick, Executiv- 2 rector for Operations Leonard Bickwit, Ger_ral Counsel 1 Carlton Kammerer, Director, Congressional l' Affairs Joseph J. Fouchard, Director, Public Affairs I i FROM: Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta d .

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFF ] ATION SESSION 79-1, 3:50 P.M., THURSDAr, JANUARY 18, l 1979, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM,  !

D. C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)

I. SECY-78-614 - NRC Regulation of the Medical Uses of Byproduct Material (CONSENT CALENAR ITEM)

The Commission, by a vote of 4-0,* approved publication in the Federal Register of the final statement of general policy regarding NRC's future role in regulating the medical uses of radioisotopes.

(SD) (SUSPENSE: January 26, 1979)  ;

i l

In taking this action, the Commission requested that:

1. the staff prepare a quarterly report of efforts to develop a cooperation relationship with other i concerned Federal agencies, in particular the Food and Drug-Administration;, I (SD) (SUSPENSE: March 29, 1979)

[ 2. all medical licensees and the appropriate Congressional committees be informed; 1 (SD/OCA)  !

3. a public announcement be issued upon filing of the policy statement with the Office of the Federal l L Register.

l . (OPA) l l

l Although not in attendance, Commissioner Gilinsky had previously indicated his approval of this item.

9902020213 790122 "

o t PDR 10CFR l PT9.7 PDR I

l' ei.

l

M l e f;; s l

., .V -

II.

SECY-78-615 - Eff ective Amendmen t e .0 CFR Part 35  ;

go change Cc.diticnr :: Gra;; 2. ~.; censes (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM) l The Commission, by a ' . of 4-0,* approved publication of the subject finr' _ ale in the Federal Register, as amended by their onments .

(SD) (SUSP dSE: January 31, 1979) l In taking this action, the Commission requested that:

1. the final rule become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register; {

2.

all medical licensees and the appropriate Congressional committees be informed; (SD/OCA)

3. a.public announcement be issued upon filing of the final rule with the Office of the Federal Register.

(OPA)

III. SECY-78-415A - Elimination of the 5(N-18) Dose-Averaging Formula (CONSENT CALENADAR ITEM)

The Commission, by a vote of 4-0,** approved publication of a noticeHof proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 19 and 20, as revised by the addition of a specific request for public comment limits.

on the removal of quarterly dose (SD) '(SUSPENSE: January 29, 1979) l In taking this action, the Commission requested that: l

1. ~a 60 day public comment period be established; t

2. the appropriate Ccngressicnal committees be informed; (OCA) '

l

3. a public announcement be issued upon filing of the final rule with the Office of the Federal Register; i I

(OPA) r I

4. GAO review of the record-keeping and reporting )

requirements be obtained prior to making this rule effective.

(SD) l

;;h cu gt not i r. attendance, Ccamissioner Gilinsky had l

re". it us ly Oc ted thiE i!C

.;;htugh not in attendcre WithOut Ob:eCtiOn.

' ~. Ericner OilinIh'; had pre'._Co51y indicated his E F F ; ~ '.'L a Of th15 iter l

l 44 .

Ltv.

' '- 5 o

_3_

i

• I

, IV. F' -A-79-4 - In the Matter of South Carolina' Electric L ,, m Gas, et al -(Operating License) (CONSENT. CALENDAR-ITEM)

' The Commission, by a' vote of 4-0,* approved an Order in

' .the sub ect matter.

(O C) (SUSPENSE: January' 23,~1979)

The' Commission, by a vote of 3-1,** agreed to allow the staff an~ additional.10 days.to comment on the~ applicant's 4

t response.: l (ELD) (SUSPENSE: March 24, 1979) cc:

Chairman Hendrie Commissioner'Gilinsky i Commissioner. Kennedy Commissioner Bradford )

. Commissioner Ahearne )

j Director, Policy Evaluation CONTACT: l Bill; White- (SECY) }

41410

.i Although not'in attendance, Commissioner Gilinsky had previo.usly indicated his approval of this item.

• Commissioner Bradford dissenting. Commissioner Gilinsky l

.had previously indicated his approval of providing the staff an additional 10 days.  ;

l i

k l

f.

l

, i l,

n g

d  !

II. SECY-80 Eff- .e Amendments of 10 CFR Part 35 to Require Re)orting of Misadministre .. of Byproduct Material (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM) 2

! The Comm;ssion, by a vote of 5-0 _/ (Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford concurring in part as noted):

1. approved the proposed Notice of Effective Rulemaking and the draft public announcement as modified by the attached. The Notice shall become effective 180 days from its date of publication, and the public announce-ment will be issued when the Notice is filed with the Office of the Federal Register; (SD/0PA) (SECY Suspense: 4/25/80) l The Commission requested:

2. that all affected licensees and the appropriate Congressional committees be informed of this action; (staff is requested to modify the letter to Congress to reflect chanaes made in the FRN.)

(SD/0CA) (SECY Suspense: 4/25/80)

3. that clearance of ihe recordkeeping requirements by the GA0 be obtained prior to the effective date of the Notice; (50) (SECY Suspense: 11/5/80)

4. that staff reexamine this rule after it has been in place for 3 years or if a health agency plans to deal with this problem as part of the President's proposal on health records; (SD)

5. that staff investigate the. merit of implementing further controls to preserve misadministration records in the event that a licensee terminates his license. Specifically, the staff should consider a scheme whereby in the event of a license termination, control of the licensee's misadministration records would be assumed by (a) the licensee's successor, if applicable; (b) a state bod or (c) NRC or HEW, if neither (a) or (b) are y offeasible.

radiological (SD) health; l In this regard, the staff should consider the relative merits of implementing these measures administratively as opposed to amending the present rule.

Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford would require reporting of the name as a separate part of the misadministration report as originally proposed by the staff, and would provide the misadministration report to the patient if it were requested by the patient.

2/ Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 5841, provides

, that action of the Comission shall be determined by a " majority vote of P(g

- the members present." Commissioner Gilinsky was not present at this Affinnation Session. Had he been presert, he would have voted with the N n

b]

'g',g majority, but would have required the reporting of the name as a separate

)y part of the misadministration report as originally proposed by the staff, O

/ and providing the misadministration report to the patient if it were '

)% requested by the patient. Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission yd is 4-0,

1 N l 1

February 9, 1972 l

L.M.M.

Re our discussion of 10 days ago I have prepared a  ;

draft of our EPA interface problems, in three parts: i

1. The group in EPA where the problems seem to originate.

2. The factors which seem to give rise to these overlaps.

3. A listing of overlap problems.

The nine pages are trore than I had intended. By taking longer, I could shorten it somewhat, but I {

wanted to provide you with some of the background, i Perhaps this can be used for plarning an approach  !

to resolution.

1

( cliff Q$h ,Ls ~ Ak b

&~

- kr r W,Q %g O

'}'{ LQo$ 4 As _

%QQ94) 2-~... .

~ :ri t sGj.

&, Aa bg~~9 ~

'{CQ5},l~Q)cc-M.& vd m. ,

._ . ,. _ .- Nh- ,

MH a 5 3-2 4 EPA dw 1996 - Ea. n , }6,t ,

,. Alf2(- 7LLsk 5 .

g 4* 6

3 l

. . l f

FEB 9 1972 i

i l

l L. Manning Muntzing, Director of Regulation  !

EPA OVERLAPS AND DUPLICATIONS OF AEC FUNCTIONS

1. Focal Points of EPA's Overlapping and Duplicating Functions l Four groups in the EPA organization are focal points of programs which

. overlap and duplicate radiological functions of AEC in a significant way (see Enclosures 1 and 2). All of'the staff members involved were fornerly in the PHS-Bureau of Radiological Health. Two of these groups contribute the major part of EPA's basic motivation to aggression and generate most of the duplicating functions, d

These groups are (1) the Division of Surveillance and Inspection under l Charles Weaver and (2) the Technology Assessment Division under Dave  ;

Harward; both are under W. Mills (formerly Joe Lieberman), Deputy Assistant Administrator for Radiation Programs, who reports to David Dominick, Assistant Administrator for Categorical Programs. These two i centers also provide nativation and initiation of recormendations and l requirements which, at least in part, induce the other two centers into l their duplicating ambitions. These latter two are (3) the ten inde- l pendent EPA Field Offices which report directly to Mr. Ruckelshaus and I (4) the EPA analytical laboratory in Cincinnati which similarly is semi-independent, reporting directly to Mr. Greenfeld, Assistant Administrator for Fesearch, but thus far with little guidance from that ,

office.

2. Factors Contributing to EPA's Overlap into Areas of AEC Responsibility

a. The Presidential Order establishing EPA clearly defined one of EPA's principal radiological roles as that of establishing " generally applicable environmental (radiological) standards" beyond the 4 boundaries of licensed facilities, with AEC remaining fully and

, solely responsible for radiological surveillance control of the licensed facilities.

l

\

7 1

wk >w s n

,a , ,en

2 This interface boundary appeared to be fully established shor" after EPA's fomation through EPA's unsuccessful attempt te Mm the right of issuing as their own the new radiological r .aidards developed by AEC for control of effluents from licenrJ plants.#.

Nevertheless, EPA in mluctant to accept its unglamorous role of environmental radiological nonitoring msponsibilities beyond the site boundaries where the levels in most instances are so low as to be undetectable. Instead, they seek at every opportunity a larger role within the licensed plants, either directly or through the states.

. 4 ,-

e' b. EPA has seized upon the NEPA provision that affords all agencies

,', having " authority or expertise" an opportunity to conment on draft L

'>/ Environmental Statements to furnish conments on proposed nuclear facility license applications in areas of technology which under the Atomic Energy Act are reserved exclusively to the AEC.

Q.* ?

c. EPA has used their inherited PHS function of " advising the states on matters relating to public health" as justifications for building up staff competence in several areas directly duplicating those of AEC and even in amas of activity which the states cannot perform without transgressing AEC's licensing functions prohibited to the states.

d. Traditional PHS enmity toward and jealousy of AEC's pm dominant radiological role has accented EPA efforts to build up a duplicatory role. Over the years frca the beginning of AEC, PHS has exhibited a steady anbition to sham AEC's role in radiological control of nuclear facilities. The forner Bureau of Radiological Health on the basis of their traditional role of " advising the states in public health matters" built up an organization of several hundred tech-nicians, extensive laboratories, training schools in the radiological "When in 1969 AEC (after brief consultation with EPA) worked out the "as low as practicable rule" for controlling effluents from reactors, EPA suddenly, at the last moment, claimed the prerogative of issuing the rule instead of AEC on the basis that they were "the environmental authority." AEC insisted on its prerogative to publish the rule since it related to the control of reactor effluents--an AEC responsibility. The issue was resolved by con-ferences at the highest levels in the two agencies, with AEC issuing the rules and with EPA subsequently issuing a statement maffirming existing FRC guidance as the current " generally applicable environmental radiological i standards" unless and until EPA should issue new ones. AEC agreed that if EPA should establish different generally applicable environnental standards, AEC would adjust its reactor effluent contml standanis to confom to EPA standards in offsite areas.

3 field, which exceeded in number th" _ che entire AEC regulatory staff. This " advising the state .. as carried out whether the states wanted or used the adr w and often was on a basis contrary #

to AEC policies. EPA . ofter encouraged the states toward challenging AEC's " preemption" which neither PHS nor EPA (until recently) ventured to do directly,(E. C. Tsivoglou, an ex-PHSer, was instrunental in initiating Minnesota's challenge). Cantinuation of this tradition is reflected not only in various EPA overlap aggressions, particularly by Weaver and Harwood, but trore explicitly, as an exarrple, in the words.of Merril Eisenbud, the long-time and perhaps principal con- '

sultant advisor of EPA in radiological areas, in the Conclusion of a speech to be given February 3,1972, to IEEE (Enclosure 3 hereto).

e. EPA representatives in the past (some in the very recent past##) have cortmented publicly on what they term "AEC's lack of public credibility" and have stated several times that one of their functions is to help establish " credibility" of the AEC by duplicating and corroborating AEC's effluent and environmental tronitoring and AEC's judgment in licensing specifications in, for exanple, "the waste handling plant systems."

f. EPA, still new and " unshaken down," is a huge, sprawling conglomerate of assorted groups from many sources which as yet has not been con-solidated into a coherent organization. Many of the groups, not yet having received policy guidance frce above, simply follow their prior practices (biases) and intuitions. It ic quite likely that upper

' levels of EPA management are not aware of many of EPA's overlaps into AEC areas, and are even less aware .of what AEC's areas of responsi-bility really are. After all, for EPA management, radiological matters are of relatively small concern to EPA coinpared to their responsibilities in other environmental fields, since AEC has a major direct respon-sibility-in this field, and EPA's radiological staff appear to have been left largely to their own devices. When challenged at the working level on duplication, EPA's staff frequently remarks that

" upper levels must tell us" if we are to take another direction, but .they "have not done so."

3.' Specific Areas of Duplications and Overlap

a. Relating to NEPA Statements

.(1) In commenting on NEPA statements, EPA has greatly broadened the scope of their claims to technical expertise on the basis T5everal memos have been written to the Conmission on this problem.

1. 1. E.G., an oral report on this was given to the Corm 11ssion on May 17,1971.

4

-3 w i e wg y --- e- ---- e- c - I

-Tw

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

A l

th~ ..ey are obliged to' provide AEC with " expert advice" in 4ety and licensing areas which are under the Atomic Energy Act exclusively in the area of AEC's technical responsibility and authority and in areas where AEC has its highest technical ccupetence.

i

' Examples: )

l They challenge whether the AEC analysis and evaluation i of the waste reactor handling systems are adequately l done--and whether they in fact met AEC's own rules, i

% Whether AEC's analysis and evaluation of reactor accidents

( ,

( and adequacy of emergency safety systems are acceptably done--the very heart of AEC responsibility and technical expertise.

EPA takes issue on the basis of public safety with AEC and DCff policies on Transportation, the two agencies

[ )M N -

3 s '\e / having basic responsibility for safety in the public l AT j a> / ~ carriage of radioactive materials.

/ p EPA, to build up its competence to duplicate' the AEC's safety

's /V

[p[,y,f2) e -

analysis and evaluation program, is rapidly expanding the size

9) of its staff in those areas--even to the extent of hiring away

'k '[

from AEC an increasing number of skilled personnel to perform for EPA the same jobs they had.formerly done for AEC. Thus EPA, i ,.

gj d

weakens AEC but also still lacks inherit technical depth and J gQ 4 ' insight and raises many superficial or already considered issues.

(3) EPA, to obtain data on internal reactor systems in order to c,[ assist them in corrmenting to AEC on these systems, and after ,

unsuccessful efforts to obtain design specifications and performance records directly frm reactor manufacturer and AEC licensees, appealed to AEC to force manufacturers and utilities (on the basis of AEC licensing authority) to furnish such infor-mation to EPA. This would have greatly complicated and confused the licensing process--and AEC declined the request.

b. On Advising the States EPA's " advising the states" on matters relating to public health frequently would take the state into duplicatory or conflicting positions with respect to AEC licensing; policies and into activities

~

5 expressly " preempted to AEC" by the Atomic Energy Statute (Section 274).

Examples:

(1) EPA proposed that state representatives along with an EPA representative and "an industry representative" participate with AEC in licensing inspection of mactor facilities.

This is an exclusive AEC responsibility. AEC declined this proposal-but it, apparently, is not dead.

(2) EPA field offices, upon advice and encouragement from EPA headquarters, have scheduled several meetings with licensees and with states to discuss advance planning for radiological accidents, an activity in which the AEC (along with joint efforts of OEP) is heavily involved through its license requirements on licensees. AEC also through its deployed Radiological Emergency Teams and its focal role in IRAP (Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan) plays a key role in case an emergency should arise. EPA, however, in its advisory meetings with states has featured obsolete recom-mendations developed by EPA which are contrary and in conflict with AEC requirements imposed on licensees (and OEP planning) and result in confusion to licensee and appear to cast EPA in a role of licensing authority over AEC licensees. EPA meetings to advise the states along these lines have been carried out after strong recarmendations by AEC and OEP as being premature and based on inaccurate and inadequate information.

_6PA headquarters (staff members) though admitting lack of familiarity with emergency procedures in general insist that they have a functional role to advise the states in this area and have encouraged field offices in this advising role (in ,

which field offices also have no canpetence17. Expansion of i EPA headquarters staff and acquisition of technical competence in this field are in progress. This will lead to duplication of AEC's strong functional role and technical canpetence and to increasing conflicts in recorrendations to the states unless duplication can be minimized and ccmplementary roles established.

(3) As an example of EPA advice to a state in direct conflict with AEC policies, an EPA field office advised a state (an Agreement State) on procedures and policies on burial of low level radio-active wastes which are extensively at vargiance with those specified by AEC. 'Ihe Agreemnt State, hcuever, could not

H l 6 l

follow EPA mcmmendations without violation of Section 274 which requires empatibility of state regulations with those of AEC. EPA, however, has not advised AEC directly of any difference of opinion with mspect to AEC low level burial policy.

c.

Monitoring l l

Though the Presidential Onler that established EPA and the AEC-EPA I confrontation on standards shortly thereafter seemd to have clearly l confirmed AEC's undiminished authority and responsibility for l " establishing generally applicable environmental standards for p1> i tection of the general environment fmn radioactive materials" and j for radiological monitoring in the general environment, EPA has not adhered to this understanding.

(1) When AEC, pursuant to its reactor licensing and surveillance responsibilities, undertook in consultation with EPA to publish a guide on the effluent and environmental monitoring and reporting expected of AEC licensees, EPA proposed unexpectedly, as the guide was being completed, that it be divided into two parts, with AEC publishing the effluent monitoring part and EPA I the environmental tronitoring part. AEC declined on the basis of the unnecessary canplication and confusions that would result from AEC applying to and enforcing on its licensees rules published by another agency. Hence, AEC has proceeded to issue its effluent and environmental ronitoring and reporting gaides for licensees.

EPA, in the meantime, however, is also preparing an environmental handbook, which up to present drafts is considerably different and more voluminous than AEC's and also purports to be applicable to AEC licensees. This is a matter yet to be resolved.

(2) In response to generally rising interest of states in being informed on effluents and environmental effects of power plants (and upon the suggestion of Corrissioner Ramy), AEC has established pilot contracts with five states (and seven nure are now being implemented) for joint AEC-state collaboration in independent tronitoring of licensee's effluent and environ-mental monitoring programs.. . ( A function normally carried out in the past by Compliance--inspection). EPA participates in planning the audit-monitoring programs in each contract and was assured a copy of all data obtained.

P 1

i .

! 7 I l

Initially, however, key EPA nenbers reacted .ongly against AEC contracts with states, claiming this as dA premgative and considering this an AEC intrusion in' uneir domain. They attempted to persuade the same ste.Js (at least one) to contract I also with EPA, for additional reinbursenent, to furnish the AEC- ,

state data directly to EPA. 'Ihey later nodified their contract l with states to avoid nest of the areas covered by AEC-state l contracts though sone overlap in EPA's subsequently written contracts still exists.

(3) AEC licensees are required to report sunmaries of effluent and environnental nonitoring data to AEC at six-nonth intervals.

'Ihese data are regularly made available to EPA (and are published).

EPA, however, through their field offices frequently contacts licensees' staff, and even licensee nonitoring subcontractors, and "by arm twisting" obtain copies of the licensee data before it is reported to AEC-in same cases even before the licensee himself sees it. Several licensees have protested to AEC about this practice.

(4) The Director's Office of Refuse Act Programs, EPA, has issued instructions to regional offices (menorandum dated December 6, 1971) indicating that rather detailed information concerning releases of radioactivity and nonitoring programs of AEC licensees will be required by EPA of the licensees directly.

'Ihe remorandum also indicates that reporting requirements may be imposed on AEC licensees. This clearly represents duplicatory regulatory requirenents by two Federal agencies and, in our opinion, cannot be justified.

This matter was discussed with CEQ who agrees that duplication is not warranted. This has also been discussed with EPA's staff where a suggestion was made that a neetdag with the Director, Office of Refuse Act Programs, should be held to resolve the matters.

(5) For nore than two years, well before formation of EPA, AEC has used an ARMS aircraft in its radiological surveillance of licensed sites to obtain radiological " thumb print" profiles of the sites prior to operation. Subsequent scans after operation begins on plume patterns and possible changes in ground radio-logical profiles are valuable assets in surveillance of licensed facilities. (The aircraft also is identified as a vital resource l

8 available to the . Radiological Emergency Assistance Teams for use in c- sr radioactivity accidents.) Beginning in recent mor __, EPA has also obtained an instrumented aircraft (reportwy in major part at AEC expense) and is now carrying out similar scans of AEC-licensed reactor sites.

(6) EPA's proposed regulation 18 CFR Part 618 designates any anount of radioactive material "as a hazardous substance" and, in consequence, imposes a requirement that AEC licensees must l report "all" releases of radioactive materials to the Coast Guard. Again, this is a duplicatory regulatory requirenent by a second Federal agency. The matter has been discussed with EPA with suggestions for revision of the mgulations, but the matter is not yet resolved.

d. Radiological Research Excensive radiological laboratory facilities built by Bureau of Radiological Health and now under the EPA Division of Research lay a variety of broad claims to the necessity for their having responsibility for radiological monitoring programs in the environ-nent, with which AEC agrees--though AEC may also require some  !

environmental data as a part of its surveillance of licensed plants-and within the site boundaries and buildup of licensed fhcilities, with which AEC has serious problems. EPA's monitoring program within facilities cannot be carried out without direct duplication of licensee and AEC programs and without involving confusion imple-mentaticr1 of parallel regulatory demands on licensees. We believe this must be avoided. A complicating factor is EPA's use of states as their agents in research which further compHeates the " preemption" and licensing authority picture.

In late 1971 EPA and state involvement (Cincinnati Laboratory) in licensed plants was becoming excessive. I intervened when an extensive and elaborate EPA program was proposed for Oyster Creek-where we already had a special neasurenents program under way.

After numerous meetings, and considerable controversy, it was arranged that AEC would do in-plant, crisite measurements and furnish results to EPA; EPA and the state would do the environmental offsite neasurements. AEC would make all arrangements with the licensee. EPA agreed to this, for this instance only, with major reluctance, while maintaining their "right" and intention to set up programs at other 14.censee plants without AEC involvement. We l

l

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

9 believe there may be valid research interests of EPA to be satisfied, which possibly might involve licensed plants, but such interests  :

should be coordinated with whatever AEC regulatory, AEC GM research, and other interests may also be involved-with minimum duplication of total effort. . {

1.

4. Sumary

)

In sumary, as matters am now proceeding between AEC and EPA, some

. present amas of overlap and duplication of effort could grow into serious areas of conflict, needless expenditure of noney and manpower and confusion in the licensing process.

The problems have their origin in an uneasy relationship between PHS-Bureau of Radiological Health and the AEC, which befom fornation of EPA was on a generally stabilized basis because of the rather clear definition of Ibnctions provided by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

Passage of the NEPA Act. of 1969, since fortnation of EPA, has seemed, at least to them, to provide EPA with functional latitude in radio-

. logical matters previously desired but not available which should now be resolved at a high level between the two agencies. In this way recruiting of AEC personnel, duplicatory buildup of staff, rival ccm-petition for states' collaboration, and dual claims to control i authority over nuclear licensee can be channeled into complementary l and constmetive effcrts.

• A qi 1 Cliffo K. Be& ck Deputy Director of Regulation for Compliance, Safeguards, and Materials

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/encls:

M. R. Hcifman, OGC E. J. Bloch, DR C. L. Henderson, DR

. L. Rogers, REP l-I

!~

l --- ._ ,_ _ _

a n i

4 > = -- g :_ e c. c. G 2 g: A g.

g5 C. W.@5o  : . c -. s x - c. =:- ;; 3.. - . -, v- - g _. __ :-

= ~ r_ .,

._- c....E.. m : t,3 a

o 5 .-u

- < p 32..$. . p.

e _. :r .n u

't 0 u

1. .n a o .-

a

,s. - o o ;; = - r. :_ m. c 2. C :': 0 -  :: 5c i U '

W*$,.x E3303 5o - .Y. 5' O. oa 5. ~ g o o c 2 e- o

• g C- 8 --' n,'

o& g a :- E O . 5 p3 3 c.

Ti =E. c. 0 g un {E E. :. & w 380028 -

b5N 3 f 5' .U h a eh$ O aE $

.,EE..Yb~35.y3'94E- 53E

• hbhh 5Eg5 :r n[ji$ $.9 E-bc$h~#52"- 3 k 5.

E- (..-3 "5 "** F sg@~)3  !* m 4 E > :s s -3< 353 eo < - :2. ---

!I!# k n

N!

m . ~

k.gb# k 5 !! $c."s !" 3 04eI!$5.

04 a 3 ;; ::. e o %

• a EaE5sh n.

o. o o

! n s NA a 3d!I

-og*3 .a g

n - ( *o w-- o-e - 3. c u *C U E @ > E n E FJ o5oso y N 5 a}n- Ev"w?

g r ? ! s 9 3 _E E E 984 EMMEn? M 1

. .. ... ,e. .. . ,u-.,-. . . . - . . . . , - ._. - . . - - . ..--. - - -- e~~~~---~~- #~

i 1

- I, 'w '

.%y1D 1 1

' - ~

' Emimi:auki Pmbdion Apac"r Administrator r

Deputy Administrator g Staff Omen .

_e,

• * * .  %

• eweb.

g 4+ 4 ee $.. .a . d 1 4

. , . . . .* y

. s Office of ONice of -

Office of Omco of Pub!nc Affairs Congressional A' fairs Equal Opportunity intemational Affairs , g y

I t i eF J.-

. .. .,, . .L .

• f

. pg ppw(

4-Asst. Administrator Asst. Administrator Asst. Administrator - Asst. Admin strator ./

Asst. Admin:strator for for Research ,

for for Enforcement , Media Programs for Categorical Programs & Monitoring .

Planning & Management & General Counsel ,  ; 4

. . l.....

pM~IA{

+. . .-

-~. % .y * -.

A. %., &. s s d**

Adm nYtration - p ,A En er nt Air rkrams 7 .

,.._-.. . . . . ....m . . . . . . .. . . .

' ' . . . . Office of -..

Omco of Office of Omce of Omco of

• Watar Programa Radiation - g, g, si she

• Audit Resources Mst. General Counsel . Programs k. -- k4 -

--- - 4 - --

. 4

+

.. . . . * .. . . . . . . . {,  %

ONue of . .

". Solid Waste Mst. Programs s' M4 ) 4

, Redonal. .Oliiq

_ m.

N- g N'

' ** %w ,

q% .

A Region 4. : Recion til ' [ rec l on IV Re ton VI Region Vil R ica VilIT . SanRe ion IX krancisce ~ Region Region Il Seat 8eX

~ -

Kansas City. nver -

.t"- Soston - New Yorie ' Philadelphia -( Atlanta [. De C een goV' . aMas

• .. z.. v.

. (. ,s.

- - - - - - - - - - . -- _ . , _ _ , , _ . _ _ , _ y _ _ _

s kt*

assista.: a.us.istaat..  % s asC+ E  ! $sngled h, s.. .ssea.c. a me.ar..s.. WdfI. Obli 's h l,, 1,, ,,g 3 [g ,'

)

_ - . - - - - e.._, J h* \

4 (Is w I 8 -

.ar.iv assista.: .tr.tv assrsia.s

(.

.se.sv assisia.:

,,,,,,3,,,,,,

W .<, t,a k .

a.e,.sai .a f ..

t.. .nssaat, i

h s a.ui..sinat..

u..es..t.s I ec r .s au es avi .s I  ! I I t_ i I I i 1 I i I I j lj vusiusese tu.rt'wt f.i..

es.t rise t E.rt ..u. Tat 8.at's's c...si.asi.. sa c..i.us s p..s.nu ta...anas at [ tainam. sat saas sa

,,visi.. a.. s.reos ma ms .,s aa nw.s 8.s .s.s m a sa.c.

i.. r..s.an.

.n.s.isi.c. si..is.s. .svisi..

.a ., s.,t i s j i, ,_, . ,,,,,,,. a ...i..sm..

,.e.,. t ia.s

,_,,, . s,.. . s.. .

i 1 I -

eraa va j- m. t s ls.ai.av sessia s. i ,,,,,,,

a susces v .mase.

a c..,a.nc.as, l. .sc.,..ma u s.n.rs c nar e i ..asc.

• an w. it ss.i.a.c.

.ss - t.a..aan.at ize .. ma s s,. ,

, 2 1

.a c.isi.rasive s n.s..pt.e aa.c s ..aec.

_. .t ,-

i

, , m. mm, i' am . I ~ u.... ,,,a.a. ....a.. ... nam t,

._ L" ,'t".,;.;.,'.t. 'ta'a'

, , ,A, -

==. - ~~.l -

=.a.'"

"ll." - a-a.a u-3 .

c I,,., . .. . . ,,

s ,. . . a.., .a .a.~. -

m ..so..a..

- .a . . .a. i. ,a. ,. .a. . , m ., .a.a..

.i .- .m.s

, . ..a... . .a ..........a. . ,s. , s

.... m..a... .u,. m.m. m...m.....

.. ....a.,,,

. --.i.= u ..a....u .i .-..

....i

.aa- .a.s., li ... . a . , - a -

....a.

. . . m. ,.

i

. . .m.i

> '***"'8" "a. m-

.o. .r) I ,u...... . . .c.,i.u..

s scn 1_ . , i . ,.

ma.s s ...

... ,o.i ........

.o .. .:. ...

i, s.,,,

M e

N

= ,

1 e

e a D ,we

.mi e.

_~

e. _ e.

,_m_ m _ . _ - . _ __m___.m__-__

e 4 3es -.

'I" d ?b L g . hl th '

' p&l{'$ CENERAL SAFETY CONSIDEHATIONS

% 1 most cases less than 17.of the amounts pesmitted by An examination of 27 experience would seem to indicate that oas been fully prudent AEC standards, and the pubhe. health sids, though finite, are so small as to be more than offset by even in disciming

• comihihties Congress bestowed.

the most modest of the benents of incicasing man's on it in * .n und safety held. Iloweyei,it is clear '

available electrical resources, th.e ,.ogment is not shared by'm3hy peoptell'or i as lifoEbly related to'iLiais~6ther"ihan the l excellent safety record it 'has shiev' edin th'e nuclear CONCLUSIONS p wa d, We Alic d es n i h^aic tiiilhiili depee of From the (meping it is pMsible to diaw e- en j

public confhg necessgjTor s, moo,th[d~ elop.

conclusions which const tute the thesis of this presen. M"" 1ing indusay. Here  !

tation and which mdicate that, ahhough the record of '"#"E . .[ _.diA'"#"I l

'C'"'""5 " S'.d 1@y gap thaiEis.noIlce_n,cfosed~~'

_ after {

the AEC has been a good one from the point of view of 15 ye rs f debate:

a the p0TilicTsTtfi'oTri5a'I712iigei~in the picient *** **'1 regulatory system are hemg d-'iman d ed to continue to l g

lessen differencesletEen~~publiFa~iiiilides arid ~the unusual A significant factor inofthe dual responsibility thecredibility AEC for both gap is the f '

AEC that are sgot completely resolved after 15 development of civilian nuclear power and protectmn b ycars o~ialiii5st continuous debate. of the public health. Although_1 personally believe that  :

The Al!C reculations are substantially compatible the AEC has an excellent record of accompInt$ent m with the recommendations of ICIU' and NCRP. Atore. Foih'iiicas and has retained a high degree of objectivity i i l

the

. over, thegboth scientifically ~and philosophically in facing its responsibiiItics for h'eathi~aiidTafety,O

~

compatible with evaluationsj the state of our jiublic isMt'fUlfy conymced that this is so. For ~

l knowledge of radiation effects that have been under. reasonTbeli&F'itWuld be in the putilie interest to i

taken from time to time by other national and begin_ active consideratmo of the ihTa~isW whi21l

~

~~~ the international bodies, including the United Nations regu!atory__~responsibiiIties oTthe ATCT:in bc tr'ans. l Scientific Committee on the tiffects of Atomic Radia. ferrWt5 sorne other agency oi govcinment or shared tion, our National Academy of Sciences,s and the wal .1hegonly m this way canTiiiO~tGEre the . '

• 2 ~

British hledical Reacatch Council.' 7 ptiblic that the present apfarent conflict of missions is !

The AEC recubtions hw -hM in a safety not operating to its detriment. llowever, a transfer of ' .

record that is unsurpassed for any major industry, in regulatory responsibihty cannot be accomplished '

the 27 years that have passed since the first reactor easily. The AEC has wc!!. developed reculatory ' 'f went critical in December 1942, there has been ample machinery of a type that does not exist in any other t time to evaluate the basic adequacy of the systems of branch of government. Although in theory it would be control that have been derived. possible to transfer this orEIzation in roto to another

~

~

Although there are ambiguities, inconsistencies, agency, this would not be wise because interagency [I and perhaps even deficiencies in the AEC regulations transfe' li'alEays disruptive of Aorale and we'rkina*

for permissible discharges to the environment,jjley.jtrg err;c;e, g , -

adequate to protect the nuhlic health. The standards newly created Environmema! /~

As a compromise ccintam enormous built in conservatism. _

Protection Administration (EPAT should be given a The present system of AEC regulation, which puts more prominent role -in--the regulatory program. The major emphasis on the maxitnum permissible concen. .

EPA ~fSili..nh.e an t he ACC slyould promulgate the trations of radionuclides in air and drinking water, numerical standards of peimi sible t expos.ure. The AEC.

'sjonid be chany.e_d in favor of specifyine the maximum whirrtrhtghly dEWifoped capabihty to evaluate reactor permissible da Jy_jmake from all sources. This is the desipiif, sii5iild contmue to consider applicajions for ,

me'iliEid used by the Federal Radiation Council andj,s, new reactors and should continue to monitor construe-preferab!c because it automatically takes into consid.

crEolisueli factors as multiple sources of exposure tion and operation to assure comphance with the terms ,

of the license, llowever, the EPA. in collaboratwn and ecological factors, with the yays.shottid.undertantlie resp 5nsiisity of Although neither NCRP nor AEC is sactosanet, , p f effluent monitoong and ecological _ sunciliance. fly considerable weight must be given to the fact that the l

ponderous procedures nf these orf.ani/ations have 'sharin'gits present statutory regulatory authority woh produced a set of regulations that are workable,and the EPA in this way, the credibihty gap that now costs 1 that have successfully piotected the pubbe health for between AEC and many segments of the pubhe can '

more than a quarter of a century. hopefully EciisedT s NUCLc AR S AF E TY, Vol. 12. No. 1. J an.- F e t,. 1971 6

i 22