ML19340E330
| ML19340E330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/08/1980 |
| From: | Sege G NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE) |
| References | |
| FRN-45FR71023, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8101140054 | |
| Download: ML19340E330 (2) | |
Text
8
/
'su~
(45 Ff 9./023
+ / "'h 'o, s
UNITED STATES E
5 OCH3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
I C *C WASHINGTON, D. C. 206S6
,q
.;g.[$. 9 Ga) >L S
.VRc pt 37JC DChr,i,rW Roo
- 3 :f ee :eemr December 8, 1980 2.mi g r. :eme,y
,Q 9tV:3
/,Q \\s Q.:'e.
ua MEMORANDUM FOR: File N
- g 1
George Sege [ [
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION WITH DIANA SIDEBOTHAM AND CORNELIA ISELIN, OF NECNP, CONCERNING NRC SAFETY GOAL Ms. Sidebotham and Ms. Iselin, of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, were interviewed on November 17, 1980, by Edward Hanrahan and George Sege, to gain the benefit of their preliminary thoughts and views.
The discussion was exploratory, intended to convey current thoughts, rather than any established NECHP or personal positions.
The following are highlights of views expressed by the interviewees:
. The following should be among the considerations included in a safety goal:
Policy on safety-cost tradeoffs, which should be permissible only after a prescribed minimum safety level is met. Cost, however, should not bar retrofit.
i Retrofit should be given paramount consideration.
Effect on individuals as well as on society, with special consideration of people near the plant.
There should be no broad-area averaging of effects, since that would cater to industry, rather then heed the individual.
Full disclosure of safety-related information -- the bad as well as the good.
The whole fuel cycle, since the reactor is only the "tip of the iceberg."
However, covering reactors first and the fuel cycle later is satisfactory, as long as the fuel cycle is throughout kept clearly in mind.
Hazards to workers. This is increasingly important as a growing number of workers increases the risk to the gene pool.
. Compensation for extra risk for populations near nuclear plants would not be an appropriate arrangement, partly because the exposure is involuntary and partly because of genetic effects.
In view of the latter, compensation would focus on the present without the future (of future generations) in mind.
810114co W
.. Asked for views on what degree of safety they would consider clearly acceptable, the interviewees responded that they could not identify any such level short of prohibition of nuclear plants. The system and people were thought too complicated. While equipment improvements may be pos-sible, clearly acceptable safety for a nuclear power plant would be contingent on change in human beings.
The human element was viewed as even more important than technological issues, including data gaps in connection with an " infant" technology.
Nuclear power should be accepted only if there were no other way to go. But there are alternatives, notably the alternative of paring down.
. Conservatism which turns out not to be conservative in light of new developments and information reduces confidence.
. The Commission's project to develop a safety goal was viewed with favor.
Trying to establish a safety goal is a step in the right direction.
. The interviewees were more inclined to a qualitative goal than a quantitative one, because of gaps in knowledge -- and also because one should recognize realms in which engineering limits are not appropriate and which, instead, demand qualitative standards.
. Risks regulated by other agencies bear no relation to nuclear risks --
with the possible exception of toxic wastes.
The following suggestions were made concerning conduct of the safety-goal project:
. Consideration should be given to inclusion of a broad spectrum of articulate nuclear critics, including persons known to hold extreme views.
. Consideration should be given to broadening the range of expertise brought to bear, by including strong representation of health physics, as well as inclusion of persons with insurance, medicine, and labor backgrounds.
It would be useful to include labor arbitrators at workshops to assist in efforts towards amiable discussions and compromise.
. Conce'rn was expressed that there is nothing actively being generated in the safety-goal area by nuclear critics -- perhaps because they are dis-persed, perhaps because they are generally short on funds. Perhaps consultation among NECNP and other groups critical of the nuclear power industry might lead to an appropriate contract proposal to the NRC from some appropriate source representing such a viewpoint.
i
.. ~.._
.,