ML25196A449
| ML25196A449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/14/1975 |
| From: | Kerr W Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Muntzing L US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) |
| References | |
| Download: ML25196A449 (1) | |
Text
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. zos,s January 14, 1975 L. Manning Muntzing Director of Regulation U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.
20545
Dear Mr. Muntzing:
Several nuclear power plants recently considered or currently under review by the ACRS will be located in states which heretofore have not been the site of a commercial nuclear electric generating station.
Examples are the Summit Nuclear Power Station in Delaware, Grand Gulf Nuclear Power Units 1 and 2 in Mississippi, and the Waterford and the River Bend Nuclear Power Stations in Louisiana.
In its review of such plants, one of the items considered by the Committee is the capability of appropriate State regulatory agencies to monitor the facility under normal conditions and to respond with emergency action in case of a major environmental release of radioactive materials.
In the examples cited, however, the latest published information (DHEW Publication FDA 75-8006) indicates that the total funds spent on environmental radiation surveillance activities during Fiscal Year 1973 in the three States cited were less than $6,000.
Although hopefully each of these States is now developing a comprehensive environmental surveillance program, the Committee has no factual information to confirm this.
In fact, published data show that the total funds being devoted nationwide to environmental radiation surveillance at the State level have decreased during recent years.
Since we are sure you share our belief that surveillance programs are an essential part of the spectrum of activities necessary for the demonstration of safe operation of nuclear plants, we wanted to bring this potential problem to your attention and to encourage you to take whatever action you believe is appropriate to assist in promoting the development of a comprehensive environmental surveillance capability in all States, and most especially those in which commercial nuclear power plants are being built for the first time.
Attachments:
See Page 2 Sincerely yours,
/s/ W. Kerr W. Kerr Chairman 2091
L. Manning Muntzing Attachments:
Pages 39 and 41 from the U. S. Dept. of HEW, 11 Rpt of State & Local Radiological Health Programs, Fiscal Year 197311 January 14, 1975
Reference:
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 11 Report of State and Local Radiological Health Programs, Fiscal Year 1973 11 DHEW Publication (FDA) 75-0086 (July, 1974).
2092
39 Table 1, - Total Expenditures 8 for State and Local Radiological Health Activities by Program Area and State, Fiscal Year 1973 Buie X-ray Other State Total Pla."\\l\\ing Survey Environmental Radioactive Electronir Radiological and and Surveillance Hateriala Producu Health Ad-,,inistration Control Activities Total
$8,276, 7
$1,366.3
$2,5e5.6
$1,49 3,6
$1,512.4
$363.4
$739,9 Alabama 181.0 27,2 61,3 37.3 44.7 3,1 7.6 Alaska 3,3 3,3 o.o o.o o.o 0.0 o.o Arizona 179,9 13,5 45,0 9.0 39,4 5.6 67.3 Arkansas 127,5 12,8 38,3 25.5 38,3 6.4 6.4 California N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R N/R Colorado 510,8 52.6 46.9 78.9 86.9 13,'..'
231.8 Connecticut 96,7 11.6 59,9 13.5 6.8 2.<i 2.4 Delaware 20,7 3.1 12,4 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 District of Colsie 82,0 19,9 20.3 22,3 6.4 7.1 6.0 Florida 396,4 79,3
- 79. 3 79.3 99,l 39.6 19.8 Georgia 413,2 41,3 103,3 103.3 103.3 41.3 20.7 Hewaii 24,0 3.6 9.6 1.2 3.6 6.0 o.o Idaho 40,2 6.0 10.1 2.. 0 18.1 2.8 1.2 Illinoi 293,3 55.7 184.8 17.6 8.8 2.9 23,5 Indiana 41,0 10,3 18.5 4.1 2,1 2.l 4.1 Iowa 39,5 3,9 13,8
- 19. 7 l,2 o.~
o.o Kansas 114,5 17.2 40.l 17.2 28.6 5.7 5.7 Kentuc.ky 107. 7 21.5 30.2 21.5 25.9 3,2 5.4 Louisiana 158, 7 15.9 47.6
- 3,2 71,4 4.8 15.9 Kaina 27,6 0.7 9.0 12, 7 2.2 0.7 2.2 Kaeyland 259,6 23.4 80,5 90.9 62.3 2.6 o.o MassachuHtte 250.0 27,5 85,0 82.S 40.0 12.5 2.5 Michigan N/R N/R N/R N/R K/R N/R N/R Minnesota 56,9 5.l 18.2 31.9 0.6 0,6 0,6 Mississippi 69.7 13.9 31.3 0.3 23,0 0.3
- o. 7 Miuouri 92.2 36,9 36.9 4.6 4.6 1.8 7.4 Monta.'la 19,8 7,0 9.2 1.6 1.0 1.0 o.o Nebraska 6.6 6.8 21.5 9.1 12,4 1.1 5.7 Nevade.
N/R N/R N/R N/R K/R N/R N/R New Hampshire 50.l 8,4 12,8 17.2 10.1 1.6 o.o New Jersey 400.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 80,0 60.0 20.0 New Mexico 94.9 20.9 33,l 9.6 7.9 1.2 22.3 New York 1,588.3 254.6 642.4 246.0 266.9 53.9 124,5 Korth Carolina 186,9 31,8 102.8 28.0 18.7 o.o 5.6 North Dakota 27,2 3,5 9.6 3,8 9.8 0,5 o.o Ohio 175,6 40.4 101,8 7,0 7.0 3,5 15.8 Oklahoma 116,3 26.7 58.2 17,4 11.6 2.3 o.o Oregon 184,1 37.0
'46.3 52.3 31.4 0.0 10.0 Pennsylvania 439. 7 85.5 179,l 66.0 84.7 4.4 20.0 Rhode Ia.land 65.8 19,8 17.5 16.2 1.6 5.7 4.9 South Carolina 233,6 35,0 23,4 116.8 49.l 7.0 2.3 South Dakota 20,6 3,1 14.4 1.0 0.0 2.1 o.o Tenneuu 194.0 50.4 50.4 3.9 35.9 3.9 48.5 Taxes 243,7 24,4
- 48. 7 24.4 114.6 24.4 7.3 Utah 38,0 5.3 14,1 4.4 1.8 4.4 8.0 Vermont 60,0 18,0 211.8 6.0 1.8 1.2 4.2 Virginia 77,0 15.4 27.0 27.0
~9 1.9 1.9 Vaahin&tOII 148..5 34,2 52.0 37,l 21.3 3.0 o.o Vue Vir1i11ia 34.2 2,8 29.3 0.3 i.o 0.5 0.2 Vbcon in 143,3 20,1 94.6 21.5 1.4 4.3 1.4 Wyollina 19.3 9,7 0.6 5,8 1.2 1.5 Puerto Rico 69, 7 17,4 20,9 10,.5 l,'l.5 7.0 J.5 Yirgia ll*dl 2,9 1,9 0.6 o.o
,t.J o.o 0.1 a
In thousands of dollars.
2093
Table 3. - FadioloRical Health Personne1 8 Man Equivalence by Program Area and State, Fiscal Year 1973 lade Plalllliftl I-ray Sun&J l!aYir-ntal Stat.
Total and and Sur,e11lanc*
Mainitratloe.
Control Total 514.08 63,29 182.99 110,88 Alab...
12.so 1.zo 4.55 3.90 Alatk.a
.10
.10 0
0 Arisona 6.40 1.os 2.85
.so Arkan**
10.so 2.00 z.oo 1.so Callfonla11 Sl.20 2.34 2Z.S3 7.57 Colorado 16.20 1,65 1.65 3.15 Connecticut 6.15
,65 2.15 2.so Delavar*
2.00
.20 1.40
.20 Dltrlct of Col...,S.a S,88 1,43 1.45 1.60 florlda 23.20 1.1s 7.10 7.30 Georgia u.os 1.os 4.80
,.oo BavaU Z.05
.,2
,52
.22 Idaho z.oo
,20
.ss
.10 Iiiiooi 24.00 1.80 18.40 1.20 Indian 3.00
,45 1.20 1.10 Iovt 3,32
.4S
.99 1.75
&an**
6,32 1,20 Z,1S
.83 lentuclty 8,40 1,45 2.15 2.00 Louliaoa 6.30
,60 1.95
,10 Mlna 1.as
.os
.60
.as Mrylod 11,75
.30 4.10
,.oo Ka achuett 10.25 1.10 3,10 3, 75 Michigan 8,60 1,19 3.52 2,83 Kione ota 10,50
.75
- 3. 70 S.55 Mll ltippS.
4.28
.89 1,94
,15 M1our1 J.90
.85 1,95
.45 Montana
,90
,JS
,JO
.10 Nebraauc 6,18
.38 2.0S
,85 Hevadab 2.00 N/R N/R N/R llev Haap1hira 3,33
.JJ 1,40 1,05 Nev Jer1e7 18.00 1,90 5,15 7,40 Nev Mexico 6.18 i.n 1.50
,70 Kev York 62,JO 11.20 16,25 11,70 llorth Carolina 18,06
.81 6, 75 4.30 Nortb Doltota
- 1. 70
.22
.54
.52 Ohio 11,55 1.55 7,25
.60 Oklahou 7,10 1.20 3.68 1.32 Oreaon 14,50 1.60 3,50 3,65 Penn1:,1Yania 22.29 4,49 8.26 3.54 lhode ldaad J.32
.12
.65 1.47 South Carolina 13.45
,90 2,05 1,30 South Dakota 1,30 1,00
.10
.os Tenne ***
12.51 2.00 J.05
.60 Utah 1.90
.30
.80
.25 Yenoat 5.33
.98 1.20 2.15 Ylrg1n1a 4.41
.76 l,SS
.95 Vaahin1ton 7,65 1.10 3.50 1.50 Ven Vir11n1a 3.50 1.00 2,25
.05 V11cooa1n 6.00
.60 3,90 1.35 V:,Olllng 1,07
.34
.09
.31 ruerto lico 7.25 1.05 J.60 1.,2
,1ra1D Illanda
.10
,06
.oz 0
- 1u1udaa rederlll pera-1 on loa to Stataa.
~1172 data.
laoladH lb... full UM per-1 fr* UD1ftH1t7 of hllraka, 2094 l.adioactln lloa1onh1n1 Material*
lladiatlDD 96.25 16.69 z.so
.11 0
0 1,30
.so 4.00
.so 16.21
.45 2.80
.60
.45
.20
.os
.10
.Sl
,. 75 2.os
,.oo
,2[;.
.42
.47
.95
,lS
.so
.10
,OS
.OS
.07
.03
.92
,20 2.00
,30 2.55
.20
.15
.OS
,.os
,20 1.70
.so
.so
.o.
0 0
1.04
.16
.30
.11
.05
.10 1.10
.52 N/R N/R
.so
,OS 1,30 1.55
,30 0
14,10 1,90 1,35 0
.40
.02
.48
.31
.82
.08 4.10 0
4,48
.32
.06
.22 1,80
,22 0
.15 4.06
.25 7.30 2.00
.10
,25
.15
.15
.35
,lS 1,50
.OS
.13
,07 0
.02
,11
,11
.21
,45
,01 0
41 Other ladiolo1lcal He.al th Act1Yitiea 41.98
.Z4 0
.20
.so 2.10 6.35
.20
.OS
.43
.25 0
0
.OS 2.00
.15
.03
.42
.50
.90
.lS
.10
.10
.55
.so
.10
.24 0
.58 N/R 0
,70 1.85 7.15
'4.85 0
1.36 0
1,65 1.20
,20
.18 0
3,00 1,40
.20
.10
.65 0
0
.13
.11
.55
.01