ML20202D592
| ML20202D592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/20/1975 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-A-75-010, SECY-A-75-010-R, SECY-A-75-10, SECY-A-75-10-R, NUDOCS 9902020041 | |
| Download: ML20202D592 (30) | |
Text
.
y' s
~ ~,-- %
-f ) }. g ' i q 3.,,:6,6\\ *., 1 v~*
--~-
DFR@gwgtss10N NUCLEAR red'ULAiORY.to
-~
February 20,19 ADJUDICATORY ITEM M
sEcy-A-7s-10 COPY NO.-
LIMITED DISTRIBUTIONINFORMATION
SUMMARY
SHEET
Subject:
As Low as Practicable rulemaking proceeding.
To inform thE Commission of the progress to date
Purpose:
in preparing a draft commission decision.
Discussion _:
Following discussions with Chairman Anders and l
the available Commissioners on February 14, 1975, arrangements were made for Dr. Douglas Grahn, Argonne National Laboratory, to work with the technical consultant group advising on the ALAP l
Dr. Grahn and I met with the other decision.
consultants (Messrs. Bibb, Bryan and Grimes) in Oak Ridge on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.
Prior to the meeting Dr. Grahn was able to review (at least briefly) the previous drafts of the
' LAP decisions, including the several different versions of the " summary" or introductory portion.
It was recognized by all that Dr. Grahn could not familiarize himself with the' entire record of this He was, proceeding in the available time frame.
however, conversant enough with the record and the issues to participate in discussion and revision of the summary document.
Every effort was made to apprise him fully of those specific issues where differences of opinion had been noted in the past.
The summary was rewritten during our two day stay in Oak Ridge.
All four technical consultants sub-scribe to the summary as now formulated, believing that it is supported by the record and accurately W y ti N - 1 reflects the changes made from the originally pro-That 2cfiblE_ _
_ posed rule together with their rationale.
tws@ALI6hQ((n/meus summary, together with the text of the proposed 14 J M E d t o % L l' rule is attached for the Commission's preliminary review.
pen.4 M gh-Ils C
6% WI3 Three additional chapters of text, explaining in I
Mg detail the record basis for the proposed rule, are 6,
undergoing technical review and should be completed not later than February 28, 1975.
They will then U
-(l5ht.k.s) a 9902020041 750220 s
PDR SECY
?
75-010A R PDR
'"l LIMITED DISTRIBUTION' fETIM Al IP'" 09 V
4
- .i 2
be circulated, and appropriate Commission' briefings and working sessions will be scheduled.
uy H. Cun ngham, III Assistant Solicitor
Attachment:
Draft Decision Chapters I and II I
Summary-II Text of~ Rule 4
R 4
d '
y
.t'
'[
...n
~
' J+.
^
l A
i TABLE OF CONTENTS J
'i' 1
I. Summary'....................................................
(Attached)
Text of the Rule.......................................... 15 II (Attached)
III Design objectives i
.(Revised" draft expected'2/28)
Guides on Technical Specification for Limiting Conditions IV l
of Operation l
(Revised draft expected 2/28/75) 4 V
Implementation (Revised draf t expected 2/28/75)
L L
l l
l
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. RM-50-2 NUMERICAL GUIDES FOR DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND LIMITING CONDITIONS OPERATION TO MEET THE CRITERION " AS LOW AS PRACTICABLE" FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS OPINION OF THE COMMISSION I.
SUMMARY
, Background Tha Nuclear Regulatory Commission herewith announces its deci-sion in the rulemaking proceedings concerning numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to moet the criterion "as low as practicable."
the Commission published in the Federal On December 3, 1970, Rngister (35 Fed. Reg. 18385) amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 that specified design and operating requirements for nuclear power reactors to keep levels of radioactivity in ef fluents "cs low as practicable."
The amendments provided qualitative for determining chen guidance, but not numerical criteria, dssign objectives and operations meet the specified require-The Commission noted in the Statement of Considerations ments.
to the amendments the desirability of developing more definitive guidance in connection with the amendment.
the Commission published in the Federal On June 9, 1971, R qister (36 Fed. Reg. 11113) for public comment proposed i
s I
I 2
z.msndments to 10 CFR Part 50 which would supplement the regula-tion with a new Appendix I.
The proposed Appendix provided numerical guides for design objectives and technical specifica-tion requirements for limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors.
Pursuant to a subsequent rederal Register _ notice, published on L
November 30, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 2275), a public rulemaking hearing
- 1972, on the proposed amendments was held, beginning on January 20, before a hearing board consisting of Algie A. Wells, Esq., Chairman, Dr. John C. Geyer, and Dr. Walter Jordan.
The primary participants i
in the rulemaking hearing included the Commission's Regulatory staff, a consolidated utility group, Consolidated National Inter-In vanors, General Electric Company, and the State of Minnesota.
addition, 18 persons or organizations, including the Environmental l
Protection Agency, made limited appearances.
The hearing was suspended in May of 1972 pending preparation of l
I cn Environmental Statement concerning the proposed rulemaking in implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
l l
l A Draft Environmental Statement was forwarded to the Council on I
l Environmental Quality on January 15, 1973, and circulated for comment to interested Federal agencies and members of the public, including the hearing participants.
Notice of public availability
3 3
of the Statement and an invitation for comment was published in the Federal Register.
Comments on the Draft Statement were received, and a Final Environmental Statement was issued on July 26, 1973.
In November 1973, the public hearing was resumed, for consideration of the Environmental Statement.
The eviden-tiary hearing was concluded on December 6, 1973, and concluding Statements of Position were subsequently filed.
The proceeding covered some 25 days of hearings, 4,172 pages of hearing trans-cript, and thousands of pages of prepared written direct testimony and exhibits.
Additionally, oral arguments were heard by the Com-mission on June 6, 1974.
As the record developed during this rulemaking shows, there is a 3
general consensus concerning the need for defining "as low as practicable" with numerical criteria.
The major issues of contro-versy involved the feasibility of achieving the proposed numerical criteria and the cost of compliance with and the perceived benefits of the criteria.
The Commission has carefully consid; red the entire record and the views of those who participated in the rule-making hearing in reaching the decisions involved with this rule.
It should be emphasized that the Appendix I guides as here adopted by the Commission are not radiation standards.
Th.e Commission's radiation standards, which are based on recommendations of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC), as approved by the President, are contained in 10 CFR Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against I
4 1/
~
Ratlation," and remain unchanged by this Commission decision.
As in the case of the parallel recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement and the Inter-national Commission on Radiological Protection, these FRC and AEC standards give appropriate consideration to the overall requirements of health protection and the beneficial use of radiation and atomic energy.
The Commission believes that the record clearly indicates that any biological effects that might occur at the low levels of these standards do so with such low probability as to escape detection by present day methods of observation and measurement.
The Commission has always subscribed to the general principle that, within established radiation protection guides, radiation exposures to the public should be kept "as low as practicable."
This general principle has been a central one in the field of radiation protection for many years.
The term "as low as practicable" is defined in the Commission's regulations [10 CFR
- 50. 34a (a) ] to mean "as low as is practicably achievable taking into account the state of technology, and the economics of 1/ The radiation protection guides established by the FRC for individual members of the public are 500 millirems per year to the total body and bone marrow, and 1500 millirems per year to the thyroid and bone.
The guide for average dose to the population is 5 rems in 30 years to the gonads (an annual average does of 170 millirems per person averaged over the population).
These guides and recommendations apply to exposures from all sources )ther than medical pro-cedures and natural background.
5 e
ir rovements in relation to benefits to the public health and ca'ety in relation to the utilization of atomic energy in the pablic interest."
The numerical guides of Appendix I which we announce today are a quantitative expression of the meaning of
'the requirement that radioactive material in effluents released to unrestricted areas from light-water-cooled nulcear power reactors be.kept "as low as practicable."
We note that the International Commission on Radiological Pro-tection in ICRP Publication No. 22, has replaced the phrase "as low as. practicable" with "as low as is reasonably achievable."
Their recommendation has also been expanded to identify two specific considerations -- economic and social -- that are to be taken into acco"nt in determining a level of exposure'that may be considered "as low as is reasonably achievable."
Other con-siderations, such as ethical ones, are not excluded by this word-ing and may indeed be considered to be included by the adjective l
" social."
We endorse this attempt to make this basic concept of radiation protection more understandable and believe the rule which we announce today to be consistent with the "as low as is reasonably achievable" concept.
i
.The principal changes from the proposed amendments published in othe Federal _ Register on June 9, 1971, are as follows:
1.
Liquid Effluents The design objectives in the proposed rule for radioactive material in liquid effluents were based on:
(a) an annual
f.
1 CORRECTED PAGE' 6
(REVISED 2/21/75) release of 5 curies, except tritium, (b) specified concen-tration limits on tritium and other: radioactive materials released to the enviornment, and (c) the provision for increasing or decreasing the design objective quantities and concentrations for specific. sites subject to keeping annual doses to the total body or any organ of the indivi-
'1 dual in an unrestricted area to not more than 5 millirems.
The design objective in the adopted amendments limits the total quantity of.all radioactive material released in liquid effluents from each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor to a level that maintains the annual dose or dose commitment for any individual in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure to not more than 5 millirems to the total body, 15 millirems to any organ.
j i
The adopted design-objective guides contain.no limits upon quantities of radioactive material to be released since the record shows that such limits have little if any independent significance.
Protection of future users of the near environc of the reactor is provided by the additional require-ment that all augments with a favorable cost benefit balance be included in the radwaste system and the provision that the estimation of exposure shall be made with respect to such potential land and water usage and food pathways as could actually exist during the term of plant operation.
L
4 1
7 2.
Gaseous Effluents The principal difference in the design objective in the amendments adopted by the Commission dealing with external dose from radioactive material in gaseous effluents is the separate treatment of total-body dose from skin dose.
Whereas the proposed design objective limited andual dose to both-the total body and the skin to 5 millirems, the new design objective limits the annual total-body dose to 5 millirems per light-water reactor and increases the annual dose to the skin to not more than 15 millirems per light-The design objective annual dose to the skin water reactor.
has been'_ncreased from 5 millirems to 15 millirems as a result of the evidence in the Final Environmental Stetement and the rulemaking hearing showing that it is not technically practicable to design and operate a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor with an annual skin dose from beta radiation limit of not more than 5 millirems.
It is noted that an annual dose to the skin of 15 millirems is one-half of one percent of the radiation dose. limits for a member of the public recommended by the International Commission on Radiological protection (ICRP).
3.
Radioactive Iodine and Particulate Matter The proposed design objective for radioactive iodine and radioactive material in particulate form released in gaseous
1 o..
8 j
effluents was expressed as a limit on the average concen-1 trations'of radioiodines and radioactive material in
' particulate form at or beyond the site boundary.
The con-centration values were designed to limit the annual dose to the thyroid or other organs to not more than 5 millirems.
The design objective in the amendments set out below is expressed as.the annual ~ quantity of radioactive iodine and.
radioactive material released in particulate form that limits i
the annual. dose or dose commitment to any organ including 1
the thyroid of any individual in an unrestricted. area-from all pathways of exposure to not more than 15. millirems per O
year per tight-water-cooled nuclear power reactor.
In deter-2 mining the quantity based on the annual dose or dose commit-ment, the portion due to intake of radioactive material via.
the food pathways may be evaluated at the locations where the food pathways actually exist.
The design-objective annual dose for radioactive iodine has been increased from 5 to 15 millirems as a result of evidence developed in the hearing showing that the previous design-objective annual dose of 5 millirems per year for doses to the thyroid from the milk pathway was not practicable.
4.
Per Site vs Per Reactor From the foregoing it is clear that the Commission's policy is to minimize the. radiation expasure of human beings from
+
l 9
the effluents of light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors.
We have chosen to express the design objectives on a per light-water-cooled-nuclear-power-reactor basis rather than on a site basis, as was originally proposed.
While no site limits are being adopted, it is expected that the dose com-mitment from multi-light-water-cooled reactor sites should be less than the product of the numbers of reactors proposed for a site and the per reactor design objective guides for the reason that there are economies of scale due to the utilization of common radwaste systems for multi-plant sites which are capable of reducing exposures.
More appropriately we note tne overall environmental impact of nuclear sites is a topic to be specifically addressed in the energy center study mandated by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
5.
Cost-Benefit Requirements In addition to the numerical design objective gsides described in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, our decision re-quires that radwaste systems include all items of reasonably demonstrated technological effectiveness that, when added to the system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, can effect reductions in dose to the general population at costs per man-rem not in excess of $1000 or l
$333 per man-thyroid-rem.
. ~ _ _... _ -
- _.. -. -. ~ -.
- f. -
l-t f,.
(..
I-10 L
This requirement envisions that'a cost-benefit analysis 4
will be doneLtofdetermine what specific augments should i'
I be included on each plant.
The problem in. striking a proper cost-benefit balance is l
l the difficulty of expressing-both costs and benefits in
-Nevertheless there has been general
-commensurate units.
~
recognition by1the various parties of the need to quantify risks in monetary terms and an acceptance of the procedure
)
llar value.
whereby~each man-rem of exposure is assigned a do
)
1 Even if the dollars-per-rem approach is judged an. appropriate i
cost-benefit analysis, a further. difficulty arises i
basis fo, The in trying to ascertain the specific value per man-rem.
Commission recognizes that there is no consensus regarding
'i Cost-benefit studies what'might be-termed an optimum value.
identified in the record suggested values that ranged from In order to allow for intangibles, l
=$30 to $980 per man-rem.
J we feel confident that a reasonable value lies between $200 We further note that for light-
.and $1500 per man-rem.
water-cooled power reactors the cost-benefit analysis is not in view
' highly sensitive to values between $500 and $1500, ofiother-factors influencing the conclusion, such as the apportionment of c'>sts among design objectives, some of which are not related to minimizing exposure to the off-site population.
1
.. - ~..
- -... -... -. -.. -.. _.. -. -... -. ~. _...,
.r P
CORRECTED PAGE 11 (REVISED - 2/ 21/ 7 5)
'6.
. Licensee'and Commission Action Revisions.have been made in-the guides for limiting condi-tions for operations.with respect to when appropriate action must be taken'to reduce release rates of radioactive if The proposed action levels provided that, material.
q
-rates-of release of quantities and concentrations in effluents actually experienced over any calendar quarter indicate that annual rates of release were'likely to exceed 2 times the design objectives, the licensee should take cor-rective action, and'if such annual rates more likely to 9
exceed a range of 4-8 times the design objectives, the Com-mission would take appropriate action to assure that the release rates were reduced.
The provisions adopted require the licensee to' initiate action if the average dose rate of f-site during any calendar quarter exceed 10 millirems whole body per year, or 30 millirems to the skin and any organ per year.
i.
AI
' Existing Commission regulations (10 CFR 50.36a) have recog-t nized the'need for licensess to be permitted flexibility of operation, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to assure that the public is provided a dependable
.- _ ~. _
D
p 1
12 I-t
' sourceLof power even under usual operating conditions which may: temporarily result in releases higher than numerical Some flexibility of opera-guides for design objectives.
tionlis' believed to be essential and warranted in view of
'the restrictive nature of the Appendix I guides and the
' fact that, even with this flexibility, it can be assured-q 1
that the. average population exposure will still be a small The fraction of. doses from natural background radiation.
l Commission notes, however, that in using this operational flexibility under temporary or short term unusual operating L
conditions, the licensee'must continue to exert his best keep levels of radioactive material in effluents efforts t' within the numerical guides for design objectives.
In order to provide assurance that releases of radioactive materials are known, the surveillance and monitoring program i-t-
~ has been expanded beyond current requirements for licensees to report on the quantities of the principal ra/.ionuclides It is expected that this released to unrestricted areas.
l' expanded monitoring program will be used as a basis by licensees to initiate prompt and effective corrective l ^
i action towards assuring that the actual off site exposures f.
I I
per reactor 1are compatible with the design objectives as
- ~
adopted.
J m---
,,c, w
v-w-
-,,-w,
13 These guides will continue to provide operating flexibility and at the same time assure a positivo system of control by f
- a. graded scale of action first by the licensee and second by the Commission, if the need arises, to reduce the release of radioactive material should the rates of release actually experienced substantially exceed the desired objec-tives.
The' proposed Appendix I was silent on the method of imple-
~
The Commission believes, mentation of the numerical guides.
however, that Appendix I should express guidance to the Commission staff and to other interested persons with respect to the use of appropriate calculational procedures in the application of the numerical guides for design objec-Consequently, the provision adopted states that tives.
compliance with the guides on design objectives shall be demonstrated by calculational procedures based upon models and data such that the actual exposure of an individual through appropriate pathways is not likely to be substan-tially underestimated, all uncertainties being considered together.
Quantitative measurement of radioactive materials released in effluents from licensed light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors is required by the amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 published December 3,-1970.
This requirement is made more i
L L
y I
[
~
14 specific by Appendix I and reflects the need for the use l
of the best available experimental data as well as calcula-tional models, in order to achieve increased accuracy and realism.
Strong incentives already exist for improving the calculational models used in establishing design objectives in view of the economic penaltv associated with needless I
overdesign for conservatism.
Actual measurements and sur-veillance programs can provide data for improving calcula-tional models although it is recognized that measurements of environmental exposures and quantities of radioactive materials in the environs are complicated by the very low concentra ions that are encountered, compared to background, and by the fact that a number of variables in both time and space, effect and concentration.
Thus, the correlation of the best of measurements with the best of calculations is tedious and difficult.
However, since calculational pro-cedures must be employed in implementing the design objective guides of Appendix I, the Commission has adopted an imple-mentation policy that encourages the improvement of calcula-tion models and the use of the best data available.
l The foregoing has briefly summarized the technical context of the issues presented and the changes introduced.
The changes and the reasons for them are set out in detail in the sections which follow the rule.
15 j
II.
TEXT OF THE RULE Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Sec-i tions 552 and 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the following amendments to Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50, are published as a document subject to coficication to be effective on (30 days after publication in the Federal Register).
Section 50.34a of 10 CFR Part 50 is amended by adding the A.
following sentence to the end of paragraph (a):
j i
(a) * *
- The guides set out in Appendix I provide numerical guidance on design objectives for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the requirement f
that radioactive material in effluents released to unrestricted areas be kept as low as practicable.
These numerical guides for design objectives and limiting con-ditions for operation are not to be construed as radiation l
protection standards.
I Section 50.36a of 10 CFR Part 50 is amended by adding the B.
i following sentence at the end of paragraph (b) :
(b) * *
- The guides set out in Appendix I provide 1
numerical guidance on limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to meet i
the requirement that radioactive materials in effluents l
1 l
1 1
i l
i
l 16
. released'to unrestricted areas be kept as low as
- practicable.
LC. 'A'new' Appendix I is added to 10 CFR Part 50 to. read as follows:
' APPENDIX I - NUMERICAL GUIDES FOR DESIGN OBJECTIVES AND
. LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION TO MEET THE CRITERION "AS LOW AS PRACTICABLE" FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIGHT-WATER-COOLED 4
NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EFFLUENTS.
'SECTION I.
INTRODUCTION Section 50.34(a) provides that an application for a permit to j
construct a: nuclear power reactor shall include a description of the' preliminary design.of equipment to be installed to maintain control over radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents produced during normal reactor operations, including expected i
In the case of an applicatian filed on operational occurrences.
or after. January 2, 1971, the application must also identify the designobjectives,andthemeanstobeemployed,forkeeping
- levels ~of radioactive material in effluents to unrestricted areas
-as low?as practicable.
Section~50.36a contains provisions designed to assure that releases of radioactive material from nuclear power reactors to
. unrestricted areas during normal reactor operations, including expected operational occurrences, are kept as low as practicable.
17 This Appendix provides. numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to assist applicants for, and holders of, licenses for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors in meeting the requirements of Sections 50.34a and 50.36a by assuring that the radiation exposure to individuals os a result of radioactive material in effluents released from these facilities to unrestricted areas be kept as low as practicable.
Design objectives and limiting conditions for operation conforming to the guidelines of this Appendix shall be c
deemed to r ply with the as low as practicable requirements of 10 CFR Sec' -ons 50.34a and 50.36a.
The guides presented in this Appendix are ap topriate only for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors and not for other types of nuclear facilities.
a.
SECTION II.
GUIDES ON DESIGN OBJECTIVES FOR LIGHT-WATER-
/
COOLED NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS LICENSED UNDER 10 CFR PART 50 The guides on design objectives set forth in this section may be used by an applicant for a permit to construct a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor as guidance in meeting the requirements of 50.34a(a).
The applicant shall provide reasonable assurance that the following design objectives will be met.
14.
The calculahed annual. total quantity of all radioactive i
2/
material above background to be released from each light-
~
2/ Here and elsewhere in-this Appendix background means radioactive materials iir the environment and in the effluents from light-water cooled power reactors not generated in, or attributable to, the reactors of which specific account is required in determining design objectives.
18
-water-cooled nuclear power reactor in liquid effluents to unrestricted areas will not result in an estimated j
j annual dose or dose commitment for any individual in unrestricted areas from all pathways of exposure in excess of 5 millirems to the total body or 15 millirems to any. organ.
The calculated annual total quantity of all radioactive B. 1.
4 material above background to be released from each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor in gaseous effluents to the atmosphere will not result in an estimated annual air dose at any location near ground level which could be occupied by individuals in unrestricted areas in excess of 10 millirads for gamma radiation or 20 millirads for beta radiation.
Notwithstanding the guidance of subparagraph B.1 above:
I 2.
The Commission may specify, as guidance on design (a)
I objectives, a lower quantity of radioactive material above background in gaseous ef fluents to be released to the atmosphere if it appears that the use of the 1
design objectives in that subparagraph is likely to result,in an estimated annual external dose to any individual in unrestricted areas in excess of 5 milli-rems to the total body; and s
a
4 19 (b)
Design objectives based upon a higher quantity of radioactive material above background in gaseous effluents to be released to the atmosphere than the quantity specified in that subparagraph will be deemed to meet the requirements for keeping levels of radioactive material in gaseous effluents as low as practicable if the applicant provides reasonable assurance that the proposed higher quantity will not result in an estimated annual external dose to any individual in unrestricted areas in excess of 5 milli-rems to the total body or 15 millirems to the skin.
calculated annual total quantity of all radioactive C.
The iodine and radioactive material in particulate form above background to be released from each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor in effluents to the atmos-phere will not result in an estimated annual dose or dose commitment for any individual in unrestricted areas from all pathways of exposure in excess of 15 millirems to any organ.
In addition to the provisions of paragraphs A, B, and D.
C above, the applicant shall include in the radwaste system all items of reasonably demonstrated technclogy that, when added to the system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, can effect reductions in dose to the general population for costs (in 1974 dollars) not in excess of $1000 per man-rem i
.0 or of $333 per man-thyroid-rem.
l SECTION III.
IMPLEMENTATION A. 1.
Compliance with the guides on design objectives of Section II shall be demonstrated by calculational procedures based upon models and data such that the actual exposure of an individual through aopropriate pathways in unlikely to be substantially underestimated, all uncertainties being considered together.
Account shail be taken of the cumulative effect of all sources I
and pathways within the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent being considered.
For determination of design objec-tives in accordance with the guides of Section II the estimation of exposure shril be made with respect to such potential land and water usage and food pathways as could actually exist during the term of plant operation, provided that, if the requirements of l
paragraph B of Section III are fulfilled, the applicant shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of paragraph C of Section II with respect to radioactive iodine if estimations of i
exposure are made on the basis of such food pathways and individual i
l receptors as actually exist at the time the plant is licensed.
l 2.
The characteristics attributed to a hypothetical receptor
(
for the purpose of estimating internal dose commitment shall take into account reasonable deviations of individual habits from the cverage.
The applicant may take account of any real phenomenon or factors actually affecting the estite. ate of radiation exposure,
m
._ _ ~ _._. - _ _ _...
~. _. _ _ _ _ _..
21
.in :1uding the characteristics of the plant, modes of discharge of radioactive materials, physical processes tending to attenuate
'the' quantity of radioactive material to which an individual would
-ba exposed, and the effects of averaging exposures over times during which determining factors may fluctuate.
If the applicant determines design objectives with respect to B.
radioactive. iodine on the basis of existing conditions and if potential changes in land and water usage and food pathways could result in exposures in excess of the guideline values of para-graph C of Section II, the applicant shall provide reasonable assurance that a monitoring and surveillance program will be per-formed to determine:
(1) the quantities of radioactive iodine actually released to.the atmosphere and deposited rela-tive to those estimated in the determination of design objectives; (2) whether changes in land and water usage and food pathways which would result in individual exposures greater than originally estimated have occurred; and (3) the content of radioactive iodine in foods involved in the changes, if and when they occur.
I
-)
w
=
L~.
.4 l
GUIDES ON TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIMITING
_S.F.TION IV.
1 JONDITIONS FOR OPERATION FOR LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS LICENSED UNDER 10 CFR PART 50
'The guides on' limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear reactors set forth below may be used by an appli-cant for a license'to operate a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor as guidance in developing technical specifications under
, s Section 50.36a(a) to keep levels of radioactive materials in offluents to unrestricted areas as low as practicable.
i Section 50.36a(b) provides that licensees shall be guided by cer-tain considerations in establishing and implementing operating procedures specified in technical specifications that take into account the need for operating flexibility and at the same time assure that the licensee will exert his best effort to keep levels The of radioactive material in effluents as low as practicable.
guidance set forth below provides additional and more specific guidance to licensees in this respect.
In using the guides set forth in this Section it is expected that the annual releases of radioactive material in effluents from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors can generally be main-tained within'the levels set forth as numerical guides for design objectives in Section II.
I 1
I
23 j
At the same time, the licensee is permitted the flexibility of operation, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to assure that the public is provided a dependable source of power even under unusual operating conditions which may tempor-L arily result in releases higher than such numerical guides for l
design objectives, but still within levels that assure that the I
cverage population exposure is equivalent to small fractions of doses from natural background radiation.
It is expected that in using this operational flexibility under unusual operating condi-tions,2 the licensee will exert his best efforts to keep levels l
of radioactive material in effluents within the numerical guides for design objectives.
l If the quantity of radioactive material actually released in A.
effluents to unrestricted areas from a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor during any calendar quarter is such that the result-ing radiation exposure, calculated on the same basis as the respec-tive design objective exposure, would exceed one-half the design objective annual exposure derived pursuant to Sections II and III, 1/
the licensee shall:
E/
ection 50.36a (2) requires the licensee to submit certain Sreports to the Commission with regard to the quantities of the It l
principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas.
also provides that, on the basis of such reports and any addi '
tional information the Commission may obtain from the licensee t
l and others, the Commission may from time to time require the l
licensee to take such action as the Commission deems appro-priate.
Sho tid Commission action be appropriate, it will be l
l based upon a careful evaluation of the effects of its action on the health and safety of the public and on the public need I
for power.
l l.
l
-., -. - - ~. - -...--
1 (a)
Make'an investigation to identify the causes for
~
such release rates; l
(b)'
Define and initiate a program of corrective action; and-l p
(c)
Report these: actions to the Commission within 30 q
_ days from the end of_the quarter during which the L
release occurred.
l
. B.
The licensee shall establish ~an appropriate surveillance and.
' monitoring program-to:
-(l)
Provide data on quantities of radioactive material released-in liquid and gaseous effluents to assure that the provisions-of paragraph A are met; h
(2)
Provide data on measurable levels of radiation and radioactive' materials in the environment to evalu-ate the relationship between quantities of radio-active material released in effluents and o
resultant-radiation doses to individuals from principal pathways of exposure; and (3)
Identify changes in the use of. unrestricted areas i
-(e.g.,.for. agricultural purposes) to permit modifi-cations in monitoring programs for. evaluating doses
-to individuals from principal pathways of exposure.
?-
l C.. LIf the data developed in the surveillance and monitoring pro-grams described in paragraph B of this section and in paragraph B of-Section III or from other monitoring programs show that the l
l s
l.-
l l
25 relationship between the quantities of radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the dose to indi-viduals in unrestricted areas is significantly different from
.that assumed in the' calculations used to determ ne design i
the Commission may objectives pursuant to Sections II and III, modify the quantities in the technical specifications defining the limiting conditions for operation in a license authorizing operation of a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor.
SECTION V.
EFFECTIVE DATES The guides for design objectives and limi' ting conditions for A.
operation set forth in this Appendix shall be applicable in any case in which an application was filed on or after January 2, 1971, for a-permit to construct a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor.
For each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor constructed B.
pursuant to a permit for which application was filed prior to January 2, 1971:
1 The holder of the permit or a license authorizing (1) operation of the. reactor shall, within a period of twelve months from (the effective date of this Appendix), file with the Commission:
(a) such information as is necessary to evaluate i
the means employed for keeping levels of t.
26 radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas as-low as practicable,-including all such informa-tion as is required by Section 50.34a not.already 1
-contained in his. application; and (b) plans.and proposed technical specifications developed'for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during i
normal reactor operations, including expected operational occurrences, as low as practicable.
(2)
The technical specifications included in any license authorizing operation of the reactor shall, within a fperiod of thirty-six months from (the effective date of this Appendix), or by' the date of issuance of such license, whichever is later, conform to the require-ments of Section 50.36a; provided that the Commission may extend the period as'may be deemed necessary to l
allow for evaluation by the Commission.
j 4
i
- ~. -
CTHCHAL USE ONLY j DISTRIBUTION COPY NO.
Secretary 1,16-23
' Chairman Anders 2,24-25 Commissioner Rowden 3
Commissioner' Mason 4,26 Commissioner Gilinsky 5
Commissioner Kennedy 6
-Solicitor 7-11 ALAP Consultants 12-15 I
.h 0
l~
ACCUenAU U T@@ AMit v
_