ML20202F230
| ML20202F230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/24/1975 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-A-75-020, SECY-A-75-020-0, SECY-A-75-020-R, SECY-A-75-20, SECY-A-75-20-R, NUDOCS 9902030367 | |
| Download: ML20202F230 (152) | |
Text
,_
TO t N d \\
t JB 3
3 WNGAl.M Y
UettTED STATES March 24, 1975 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SECY-A-75-20 cADJUDICATORY ITEM
SUMMARY
SHEET
Subject:
As Low As Practicable Rulemaking Decision.
Discussion:
Attached for Commission review is a revised draft commission decision in the "As Low As Practicable" rulemaking proceeding.
An earlier draft -- SECY-A-75-14 -- was discussed at a Commission meeting on March 6, 1975.
The revised draft reflects changes discussed at that session and other changes considered necessary to hold the rule together.
Some minor editorial changes have been made and others are expected.
The following outline of changes is keyed to page numbers in the previous draft (SECY-A-75-14) to facilita E reference to copies you may have annotated.
1.
The requirement for augments deemed cost-effective on a $1000/ man-rem basis has been deleted.
Section II-2-D, page 22.
The p
g associated text at pages 66-84 has been j
replaced with new material, discussed below.
g t:
New language indicating our intention to con-e.
.i duct a study (rulemaking hearing) to determine i.!
an appropriate doller value of a man-rem for 8
all regulatory purposes has been added at page z
10.
7 i
fi a
2.
Throughout the text, and particularly at pages y
4-5 the language has been clarified to g
strengthen the emphasis on the fact that en P
Appendix I is not a radiation protection guide.
In this regard, footnote 1 on page 4 has been expanded to show specific ICRP protection dose
' limits.
3.
9D. pg,g The absence of the specific cost-benefit pro-vision results in an Appendix which (a) focuses (gg g
exclusively on the maximally exposed individual
, g ja g p g.go g g, g and (b) has no guarantee that reasonably demon-f strated technology will be utilized.
The
!D 03 M 'N' following changes were made to remedy this:
J
} 6c4 MfB kp3C 42n -Yil EE 9902030367 750324 PDR SECY A-75-020 R PDR
a -
.. ~. -. -. -
A e
T 2
(a) a 25 man-rem limit on total body dose l
from radioactive materials in all effluents from each light-water-cooled nuclear power-reactor to the population living within 50 miles of that reactor has been incorporated.
(b) the dose limitations for the nearest individual from liquid effluents have been l
reduced from 5 millirems to the total body and.15 millirems:to any organ to 1 millirem l
and 5 millirems respectively.
i One additional point, present in all drafts pre-sented to both the AEC and this Commission, has not been specifically addressed in our briefings.
Appendix I, if adopted as now written, is not manda-tory for any licensee.
It provides guidelines which, l
if met, provide conclusive proof that the "as low as practicable" requirements.are met.
Nonetheless, it expressly affords the opportunity for an applicant who can't (or won't) meet the guidelines, to prove that some other controls are "as low as practicable" for a particular case.
j scheduling:
For Commission consideration at an early adjudica-r tory session.
4
,/~
lif l
y uy H. C ingh
, III Assistant Solicitor i
7 y
~
~4 TABLE OF CONTENTS I
Summary and Statement of Considerations............
1
%I
- Appendix I.........................................
19 III Design Objectives..................................
34 IV Guides on Technical Specification for Limiting Conditions of Operation..........................
102 V
Implementation.....................................
112 l
9 24 Hu ?r Ibt-14 [ht'Zo Mj 00(, l CMcy FRG)
- h. 49-s-tu Fg39/43-r1CL/wC J
N t
~j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
l William A. Anders, Chairman _
l Marcus A. Rowden l
Edward A. Mason Victor Gilinsk3 j
f Richard T. Kennt
)
i In the Matter of
)
)
RULEMAKING HEARING
)
i
)
l NUMERICAL GUIDES FOR DESIGN OBJECTIVES
)
Docket No. RM-50-2 3
AND LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION
)
TO MEET THE CRITERION "AS LOW AS PRAC-
)
TICABLE" FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN
)
LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER
)
{
REACTOR EFFLUENTS
)
)
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
)
i CHAPTER I j
SUMMARY
AND STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATIONS l
t
Background
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission herewith announces its decision in the rulemaking proceeding concerning numerical
-guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as practicable" for 1
i radioactive-material in light-water-cooled nuclear power i
reactor effluents.
t i
f i
f t
I L
I qA" 2
On December 3, 1970, the Commission published new sections l
'50.34a and'50.36a l'n part 50 of its regulations, specifying l
design and operating. requirements for nuclear power reactors to keep levels of radioactivity in effluents "as low as practicable."
The amendments provided
[
qualitative guidance, but not numerical criteria, for deter-
. mining when design objectives and operations meet the specified requirements.
The Commission noted in the Statement of Considerations' accompanying the amendments the desirability of developing more definitive guidance.
The rule we announce-today'does that, providing criteria which, if met, provide one acceptable method of establishing compliance with the "as low as practicable". requirement of sections 50.34a and 50.36a.
On June'9,.1971, the Commission published in the Federal Register (36 F. R.11113) for public' comment proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 which would supplement sections 50.34a and 50.36a with a new Appendix I.
The proposed Appendix provided numerical guides for design objectives and technical specification requirements for limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors.
I 3
d 4
i
3 a
A subsequent notice, published on November 30, 1971 (36 F. R. 2275), announced a public rulemaking hearing on the proposed amendments.
The hearing began on January 20, 1972, before a hearing board consisting of Algie A. Wells, Esq.,
Chairman, Dr. John C. Geyer, and Dr. Walter Jordan.
The primary participants in the rulemaking hearing included the Commission's Regulatory Staff, a consolidated utility group, the consolidated National Intervenors, General Electric Company, and the State of Minnesota.
In addition, 18 persons or organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency, made limited appearances.
The hearing was suspended in May of 1972 pending preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement concerning the proposed rulemaking in implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
A Draft Environmental Statement was forwarded to the Council on Environmental Quality on Jan-uary 15, 1973, and circulated for comment to interested Federal agencies and members of the public, including the hearing participants.
Notice of public availability of the i
Statement and an invitation for comment were published in the Federal Register.
Comments on the Draft Environmental Statement were received, and a Final Environmental Statement l
was issued on July 26, 1973.
In November 1973, the public t
o t
4 hearing was resumed for consideration of the Environmental Statement.
The evidentiary hearing was concluded on Decem-ber 6, 1973, concluding statements of position were filed, and the entire record was forwarded to the Commission for decision.
The proceeding covered some 25 days of hearings, 4172 pages of hearing transcript, and thousands of pages of prepared written direct testimony and exhibits.
Oral argu-ments were heard by the Commission on June 6, 1974.
As the record developed during this rulemaking shows, there is a general consensus concerning the need to define "as low as practicc51e" with numerical criteria.
The major issues of controversy 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 considered the entire record and the views of those who participated in the rulemaking hearing in reaching the decision announced herein.
It should be emphasized that the Appendix I guides as here adopted by the Commission are not radiation protection standards.
The numerical guides of Appendix I which we announce today are a quantitative expression of the mean-ing of the requirement that radioactive material in effluents 1
- c.. -
1 g
released to unrestricted areas from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors'be kept "as low as practicable."
The Commission's radiation protection 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 Radiation," and remain unchanged by this Commission decision.1/
As in the il on j
case of parallel recommendations of the National Counc i
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP),
these'FRC standards which we have previously adopted give f
-I appropriate consideration to the overall requirements of health protection and the beneficial use of radiation and l
atomic energy.
The Commission believes that the record clearly indicates that any biological effects that might j
i f
Al The radiation protection guides established by the FRC l
for individual members of the public are 500 millirems per year.to the total body and bone marrow and 1500 The guide millirems per year to the thyroid and bone.
for average dose to the population is 5 rems in 30 years to the gonads (an annual average dose of 170 millirems per person averaged over the population).
These guides and recommendations apply to exposures j
from all sources other than medical procedures and natural. background.
j i
l l
I i
I I
Wf%
" ' N S
.s-
%4 8
e 6
occur-at the low levels of these standards have such low probability of occurrence _that they would escape detection by present-day methods of observation and. measurement.
The PRC provides ne specific radiation protection guides with respect to other organs of the body.
The ICRP recom-mends annual dose limits of 500 millirems to the total body, gonads, and red bone marrow; 3000 millirems to 'he skin, bone, and thyroid, except 1500 millirems to the thyroid of children up to 16' years of age; and 1500 millirems to other single organs.
The Commission has always subscribed to the general princi-ple that, within established radiation protection guides, radiation exposures to the public should be kept "as low-as practicable."
This precept-has been a central one in the i
field of radiation protection for many years.
The term "as
-low as practicable" is defined in the Commission's regula-tions [10 CFR 50.34a(a)] to mean "as low as is practicably achievable taking into account the state of technology, and the economics of improvements in relation to the benefits to the public health and safety and in relation to the utiliza-tion of atomic energy in the public interest."
i l
4 i
4 A
E 7
j i
t i
We note that during_the pendency of this rulemaking the International Commission on Radiological Protection, in ICRP Publication No. 22, has replaced the phrase "as low as practicable" with "as low as is reasonably achievable" in its recommendation on dose limitation.
Their recommendation has also been expanded to identify two specific considerations --
i economic and social -- that are to be taken into account in l
determining a level of exposure that may be considered "as i
low as is reasonably achievable."
Other considerations, l
such as ethical ones, are not excluded by this wording and may indeed be considered to be included by the adjective
" social."
The ICRP has clearly stated that the changed i
terminology does not reflect a change in the objectives of dose limitation, but rather a choice of language which "more closely describes its intentions."
See ICRP Publication 22, paragraphs 6, 7, and 20.
)
We endorse this attempt to make this basic concept of radia-f tion protection more understandable.
We are today direct-ing the Regulatory Staff to commence the task of substi-tuting the currently accepted phrasing -
"as low as reasonably achievable" -- for the older, less precise terminology in the many places throughout our regulations I
a
3 s.
8 i
and regulatory guides where it appears.
Today's decision, quantifying "as low as practicable", will not, of course, be affected by the forthcoming chance in terminology.
The principal changes from the proposed amendments published i
in the Federal Register on June 9, 1971, are as follows:
i 1.
Liquid Effluents The design objectives in the proposed rule for radioac-tive material in liquid effluents were based on:
(a) an annual release of not more than 5 curies, except tritium, (b) specified concentration limits on tritium and other radioa tive meterials released to the environment, and (c) a 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 an individual in an unrestricted area to not more than 5 millirems.
The design objective in Appendix I as adopted limits the total radioactivity released in liquid effluents from each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor to a level that maintains the annual dose or dose commitment from that reactor for any individual in an unrestricted area from all I
l l
l 1
t 9
pathways of exposure to not more than 1 millirem to the total body and 5 millirems to any organ.
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 environs of the reactor is provided by the additional limit upon total-body dose to the popula-tion within 50 miles of the reactor and by the provision i
i that the estimation of exposure be made with respect to such potential land and water use and food pathways as could actually exist during the term of plant operation.
2.
Gaseous Effluents The principal difference in the design objective in the Appendix adopted by the Commission dealing with external dose from radioactive material in gaseous effluents is the separate treatment of total-body dose and skin dose.
The proposed design objective limited both the annual total-body and the annual skin dose to 5 millirems, whereas the new design objective retains the annual total-body dose limit of 5 millirems per light-water reactor and increases the annual dose limit to the skin
~
i 10 to not more than 15 millirems per light-water reactor.
The design-objective annual dose to the skin has been increased from 5 millirems to 15 millirems on the basis of evidence in the Final Environmental Statement and the hearing record showing that it is not technically practi-cable to design and operate a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor with a limit on the annual skin dose from beta radiation of not more than 5 millirems.
It is noted by way of comparison 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 recom-mended by the International Commission on Radiological i
Protection.
3.
Radioactive Iodine and Particulate Matter The proposed design objective for radioactive iodine and radioactive material in particulate form released in I
gaseous effluents was expressed as a limit on the average j
I concentrations of radioiodines and radioactive material v
The l
in particulate form at or beyond the site boundary.
concentratinn 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 new Appendix I is expressed as the annual quantity of radioactive 1
11 iodine and radioactive material released which limits the-annual dose or dose commitment to any organ, including the thyroid, of any individual ir an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure to not more than 15 milli-rems per year per light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor.
In determining the annual dose or dose commit-ment, the applicant or licensee may evaluate 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 on the basis of evidence developed in the hearing which showed 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 exposure of human beings from 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
4
.., _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _... _... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _. _. ~.. _.
L 4,
. N --
i I
L dose comunitment from multi light-water-cooled reactor
-sites.should be less than the product of the number of l
reactors proposed for a site and the per-reactor design -
objective guides because there'are economies of scale l
due to.the use of common'radwaste systems for multi-reactor sites which are capable of reducing exposures..More appropriately we note the overall environmental impact L
of nuclear sites is a topic to be.specifically addressed in the energy-center study mand:ted by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974.
5.
Cost-Ben 9 fit Requirements We have considered incorporating a change from the l
l proposed Appendix I whic}i would have required that radwaste
-systems include all items of reasonably demonstrated technologica1' effectiveness which, when added to the l
system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, could effect reductions in dose to the general population at costs not in excess of a specified dollar per man-rem value.
We do not believe, however, i
that the hearing record will support a choice of a specific dollar value for the worth of a unit decrease in radiation exposure to the population.
We are, accordingly, 1
1 i'
k l
l l
'T
~
13-unable to insist'on explicit cost-benefit balancing as part'of the Appendix I which we are adopting.
l At the same time, we believe that when meaningful cost-benefit balances are possible, they should be used to define the limiting population dose from a light-water-cooled power reactor under the "as low as practicable" i
criterion.
Accordingly, we propose to conduct a further rulemaking to determine the appropriate monetary value for reduction of radiation doses to the general popula-tion.
When an accepted value is available we will consider cdrefully the incorporation of pertinent cost.
l 1
Notwithstanding the absence of an explicit cost-benefit l
balancing requirement, the record indicates a clear need i
for guidance which will ensure that the' average popula-l tion dose, as..well as the dose to the maximally exposed l
t individual near the site, is kept "as low as practicable."
[
~
'We have accordingly,' decided to. adopt 25 man-rem as the limit on total body dose from radioactive materials in all effluents from each light-water-cooled nuclear power j
reactor to the population living within 50 miles of that f
reactor, in order to ensure that available demonstrated technology will be used to minimize releases and obtain the necessary protection for potential future users of I
~the' environs.
l
i a
i l
14 l
i 6.
Licensee and Commission Action i
Revisions have been made in the guides for limiting con-ditions for operations with respect to when appropriate l
action must be taken to reduce release rates of radioac-tive material.
The proposed action levels providad that, if rates of release of quantities and concentra-tions in effluents actually experienced over any calendar 1
quarter indicate that annual rates of release were likely to exceed 2 times the design objectives, the licensee should take corrective action.
If such annual J
rates were likely to exceed a range of 4 to 8 times the design objectives, the Commission would take appropriate action to ensure that the release rates were reduced.
The provisions adopted require the licensee to initiate action if the average dose rate off-site during any calendar quarter from materials discharged to the j
atmosphere exceeds 10 millirems whole body per year or 30 millirems to the skin and any organ per year, or if the average dose rate offsite during any calendar quarter j
J from liquid effluents exceeds 2 millirems whole body per year or 10 millirems to the skin and any organ per year.
t i
Q 15 Existing Commission regulations (10 CFR 50.36a) have recognized the'need for licensees to be permitted flexi-f bility of operation compatible with considerations of health and safety to ensure that the public is provided a dependable source of power even under unusual operating conditions that may temporarily result in releases higher than the numerical guides for design Some flexibility of operation is believed objectives.
to be essential and warranted in view of the restrictive t
nature of the Appendix I guides and the fact that, even with this flexibility, it can be ensured that the average l
population exposure will still be a small fraction of The Commission doses from natural background radiation.
notes, however, that, in using this operational flexi-bility under temporary or short-term unusual operating conditions, the licensee must continue to exert his best 1
efforts to keep levels of radioactive material in efflu-ents within the numerical guides for design objectives.
In order to provide assurance that releases of radioactive materials are known, the Commission has expanded the surveillance and monitoring program beyond current requirements for licensees to report on the quantities of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted l
i
- 4 4aw N o
.wwwww w ce.
~---..z 16 areas.. It is expected that this expanded monitoring program will be used by licensees as a basis for initiating prompt and effective corrective action towards ensuring that the actual off-site exposures per reactor are compatible with the design objectives as i
adopted.
i These guides will continue to provide operating flexi-bility and at the same time ensure a positive system of control by 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 design objectives.
7.
Implementation The proposed Appendix I was silent on the method for implementation of the numerical guides.
The Commission believes, however, that Appendix I should guide the Commission staff and other interested persons in the use of appropriate calculational procedures for applying the numerical guides for design objectives.
Consequently, the provision adopted states that compliance with the guides on design objectives shall be demonstrated by 3
,n
....,. ~
s 17 calculational procedures based on models and data that will not substantially underestimate the actual exposure
-of an individual through appropriate pathways, 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 specific by Appendix I and reflects the need for the use of the best available experimental data as well as calculational models, in order to achieve increased accuracy and realism.
Strong incentives already exist for improving the calculational models used in establish-ing design objectives in view of the economic penalty associated with needless overdesign for conservatism.
Actual measurements and surveillance programs can provide data for improving these models.
It is recognized, however, that measurements of environmental exposures and quantities of radioactive materials in the environs are complicated by the very low concentrations that are encountered, compared to background, and by the fact that there are a number of variables in both time and space that affect concentratior..
Thus, the correlation of
~'
=.
+5' i
i 18 j
- the best measurements with the best calculations is tedious j
and difficult.
However, since calculational procedures must be employed.in implementing the design-objective guides of Appendix I, the Commission has adopted an implementation policy that encourages the improvement of calculation models and the use of the best data available.
The foregoing " Summary and Statement of Considerations" has briefly summarized the technical context of the issues pre-sented and outlined the changes made in Appendix I from the
)
i form in which it was originally proposed.
The text of Appendix I as adoptel follows in Section II of this opinion.
The three following. chapters of text set forth the record bases for the changes in greatly expanded detail.
These supple-mental explanatory chapters 3-5 will not be published in the Federal Register with the' text of Appendix I and the Summary and Statement of Considerations, but will be
' published in the April issue of Nulcear Regulatory Commission Issuances.
Copies are also available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717'H
- Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555.
U-
_. - ~
19 1
l t
CHAPTER II APPENDIX I Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and Sections 552 and 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the following amendments to Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of l
Federal Regulations, Part 50, are published as a document j
subject to codification to be effective on (30 days after publication in the Federal Register).
i i
1.
Section 50.34a of 10 CFR Part 50 is amended by adding j
the following sentence to the end of paragraph (a):
The guides set out in Appendix I provide (a) * *
- numerical guidance on design objectives for light-water-i cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the requirement that radioactive material in effluents released to un-restricted areas be kept as low as practicable.
These numerical guides for design objectives and liniting conditions for operation are not to be construed as radiation protection standards.
2.
Section 50.36a of 10 CFR Part 50 is amended by adding the following sentence at the end of paragraph (b):
I i
20 1
(b) * *
- The guides set out in Appendix I pro-vide numerical guidance on ihmiting conditions for i
operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the requirement that radioactive materials in effluents released to unrestricted areas be kept-as low as practicable.
3.
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 MEE7 i
THE CRITERION "AS LOW AS PRACTICABLE" FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR EFFLUENTS.
SECTION I.
INTRODUCTION' section 50.34 (a) provides that an application for a permit to construct a nuclear power reactor shall inciade 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, In the case of an including expected operational occurrences.
1
21 application filed on or after January 2, 1971, the application must also identify the design objectives, and the means to be employed, for keeping levels of radioactive material in efflu-ents to unrestricted areas as low as practicable.
Section 50.36a contains provisions designed to assure that releases of radioactive material from auclear power reactors to unrestricted areas during normal reactor operations, including expected operational occurrences, are kept as low as practicable.
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 indivi-duals as 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 operations conforming to the guidelines of this Appendix shall be deemed a conclusive showing of compliance with the "as low as practicable" requirements of 10 CFR Sections 50.34a and 50.36a.
Design objectives and ibniting conditions for operation
~
s 1
22 differing from the guidelines may also be used, subject to a case-by-case showing of a sufficient basis for the findings of "as low as practicable" required by sections 50.34a and 50.36a.
The guides presented in this Appendix are appropriate only for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors and not for i
other types of nuclear facilities.
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.
A.
The calculated annual total' quantity of all radioactive j
material above background $/ to be released from each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor in liquid A/
Here and elsewhere in this Appendix background rieans radioactive materials in the environment and ha the l
effluents from light-water-cooled power reactors not l
generated in, or attributable to, the reactors of which specific account is required in determining design objectives.
i G
l l
23 effluents to unrestricted areas will not result in an estimated annual dose or dose commitment for any indi-vidual in an unrestricted area from all pathways of exposure in excess of 1 millirem to the total body or 5 millirems to any organ.
B.l. The calculated annual total quantity of all radioactive 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 un-restricted areas in excess of 10 millirads for gamma radiation or 20 millirads for beta radiation.
- 2. Notwithstanding the guidance of paragraph B.1:
(a)
The Commission may specify, as guidance ou design objectives, a lower quantity of radioactise material above background in gaseous effluents to be released to the atmosphere if it appears that the use of the design objectives in paragraph B.1 is likely to I
result in an estimated annual external dose to any individual in an unrestricted area in excess of 5 millirems to the total body; and l
l t
c 24 (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 paragraph B.1 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.
C.
The calculated annual total quantity of all radioactive iodine and radioactive material in particulate form above background to be released from each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor in effluents to the atmo-sphere will not result in an estimated annual dose or 1
dose commitment for any individual in an unrestricted area j
from all pathways of exposure in excess of 15 millirems to any organ.
l
1 s
l i
i i
25 l
D.-
The calculated total quantity of radioactive material l
above background to be released annually from each light-water-cooled-power reactor in all effluents-to
{
unrestricted areas will not result in an estimated f
annual total-body dose in excess of 25 man-rem to the total population reasonably expected to be living f
within 50 miles of the reactor.
i i
SECTION III.
IMPLEMENTATION l
l A.l. Compliance with the guides on design objectives of Sec-f i
tion II shall be demonstrated by calculational procedures
}
based upon models and data such that the actual exposure
[
of'an individual through appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated, all uncertainties
[
being considered together.
Account shall be taken of t
the cumulative effect of all sources and pathways within' the plant contributing to the particular type of effluent i
i being considered.
For determination of design objectives in accordance with the guides of Section II the estimation of. exposure shall be made with respect to such potential i
land and water usage and food pathways as could actually l
t exist during the term of plant operation, provided that, if the requirements of paragraph B of Section III are i
f i
I I
26 fulfilled, the applicant shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of paragraph C of Section II with l
respect to radioactive iodine if estimations of exposure are made on the basis of such food pathways and individual receptors as actually exist at the time the plant is licensed.
- 2. The characteristics attributed to a hypothetical receptor for the purpose of estimating internal dose commitment shall take into account reasonable deviations of indi-vidual habits from the average.
The applicant may take account of any real phenomenon or factors actually affecting the estimate of radiation exposure, including 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 be exposed, and the effects of averaging exposures over times during whicn determining factors may fluctuate.
B.
If the applicant determines design objectives with re-spect to radioactive iodine on the basis of existing l
conditions and if potential changes in land and water i
~ - - _. _.. _. _ _ _ _ _ _,
e i
27 t
t
-usage and food pathways could result in exposures in excess of the guideline values of paragraph C of Section l
II, the applicant shall-provide reasonable assurance i
that a; monitoring and surveillance program will be per-j formed'to determine:
1.
.the quantities of radioactive iodine actually I
released to the atmosphere and deposited j
i relative to'those estimated in the determina-l tion of design objectives; i
2.
whether changes in land and water usage and foed pathways which would result in indivi-i dual exposures greater than originally I
f estimated have occurred; and-q t
3..
the content of radioactive iodine and foods 1
I involved in'the changes, if.and when they i
i occur.
SECTION IV.
GUIDES ON TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION FOR LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR I
POWER-REACTORS LICENSED'UNDER 10 CFR PART 50
'The guides on limiti:.g conditions for operation for light-l; water-cooled nuclear reactors set.forth below may be used by an applicant for a license to operate a light-water-cooled i
k i
i
~
r 28 p
nuclear power reactor as guidance in developing technical I
specifications 'under Section 50.36a(a) to keep levels of i
I radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas as l
l low as practicable.
l Section 50.36a(b) provides that licensees shall be guided by certain considerations in establishing and implementing i
operating procedures specified in technical specifications i
that take into account the need for operating flexibility and at the same time assure that the licensee will exert his l
best effort to keep levels of radioactive material in efflu-ents as low as practicable.
The guidance set forth below f
provides additional and more specific guidance to licensees in_this respect.
In using the guides set forth in this Section it is expected l
that the annual releases of radioactive material in effluents i
from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors can <jenerally be maintained within the levels set forth as numerical guides for design objectives in Section II.
At the same time, the licensee is permitted the flexibility of operation, compatible with considerations of health and l
safety, to assure that the public is provided a dependable 4
l
29' source-of power even under unusual operating conditions which may temporarily result.in' releases higher than such numerical guides for design objectives, but still within
. levels that assure that the' average population exposure is equivalent to small fractions of doses'from natural back-ground. radiation.
It is_ expected ~that'in using this opera-tional flexibility under unusual operating conditions, the
~1icensee will exert his best efforts to keep levels of radioactive material in effluents within the numerical guides for design objectives.
A.
If the quantity of radioactive material actually re-leased in effluents to unrestricted areas from a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor during any calendar quarter:is such that the resulting' radiation exposure, calculated on;the same basis as the respective design objective exposure, would exceed one-half the design objective annual exposure-derived pursuant to Sections-I and.III, the licensee shall:2/
-2/
Section. 50. 36a (2) requires'the licensee to submit certain reports to the Commission with regard to the quantities of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas.
It also provides that, on the
-basis of such reports and any additional information the Commission may obtain from.the licensee and others, l
the Commission may from time.to time require the licensee to take auch action as the Commission deems appropriate.
l I
o 30 1.
Make an investigation to identify the causes for such release rates; 2.
Define and initiate a program of corrective action; and 3.
Report these actions to the Commission within 30 days from the end of the quarter during which the release occurred.
B.
The licensee shall establish an appropriate surveillance and monitoring program to:
1.
Provide data on quantities of radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents to assure that the provisions of paragraph A are met; 2.
Provide data on measurable levels of radia-tion and radioactive materials in the environment to evaluate the' relationship between quantities of radioactive material released in effluents and resultant radiation doses to individuals from principal pathways of exposure; and 3.
Identify changes in the use of unrestricted areas (e.g., for agricultural purposes) to permit modifications in monitoring programs I
]
I 31 s
l for evaluating doses to individuals from t
. principal pathways of exposure.
I, i
If the data developed in the surveillance and monitoring
-C.
program described in paragraph B of this section and in paragraph B of Section III or-from other monitoring pro-
[
grams show that the relationship between the quantities of f
' radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the dose to individuals in unrestricted areas is significantly different from that assumed in the calculations used to determine design objectives pursuant to Section I and III, t
the Commission may 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 l
i
[
i p
The guides for design objectives and limiting conditions L
A.
)
for operation set forth in this Appendix shall be appli-l cable 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.
h l
i i
l F
l t
l.
r
3, 32 B.
For each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor con-structed pursuant to a permit for which application was filed prior to January 2, 1971:
1.
The holder of the permit or a license authorizing operation of the reactor shall, within a period of twelve months from (the effectiv'e date of this Appendix), file with the Commission:
(a) such information as is necessary to evaluate the means employ ~d for keeping levels of e
radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as practicable, including all such information as is required by Section
- 50. 34a (b) & (c) not already contained in his application; and (b) plans and proposed technical specifications J
developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted
]
1 areas during normal reactor operations, including expected operational occurrences, as low as practicable.
i
r 33 2.
In order to keep releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal reactor operations, including expected occurrences, as low.as practicable, the technical specifications included in any license authorizing operation of the reactor shall, within a period of 36 months from (the effective date of this Appendix), or by the date of issuance of such licenses, whichever.is later, require:
(a) that operating procedures for the control of effluents be established and followed and that equipment installed in radioactive waste systems be maintained and used, and (b) the submission of reports as required by section
- 50. 36 (a) (2).
The Commission may extend the period as may be deemed-necessary to allow for evaluation by the Commission.
3.
In establishing and implementing the operating pro-cedures described in paragraph B(2) of this section, the licensee shall be guided by the consideration
. stated in section 50.36a(b).
4 34 CHAPTER III GUIDES ON DESIGN OBJECTIVES
- Section 50.34a of 10 CFR Part 50 contains provisions to
. ensure 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.
The Appendix I.that we adopt provides specific guidance to licensees in this respect.
A.
The Rule Section II c Appendix I defines design objectives for effluents from light-water-cooled power reactors.
When used by an appli-cant for a permit to construct a light-water-cooled power reactor, these guides ensure compliance with the requirements of Section 50.34a of 10 CFR Part 50.
Four guides provide this insurances they set limits upon radiation doses or dose commitments to individuals in unrestricted areas from radio-active materials (1) in. liquid effluents, (2) in gaseous effluents, and (3) as radioiodine and particulate emissions, and (4) upon the total annual radiation dose that could be received by all the people within 50 miles of the reactor.
m
1 35.
The total quantity of all radioactive material above back-
. ground to be released each year in liquid effluents from each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor to unrestricted areas shall not result in an estimated annual dose or dose commitment for any individual in unrestricted areas in excess of 5 millirems to the total body or 15 millirems to any organ.
The calculated quantity of all radioactive material above background to be released to the atmosphere annually from i
each light-water-cooled nuclear reactor in gaseous effluents shall not result in an estimated annual air dose in excess of l'O millirads for gamma radiation and 20 millirads for beta l
radiation at any location near ground level which could be occupied by individuals in unrestricted areas.
The Commission may specify a smaller quantity of radioactive i
material to be released in gaseous effluents to the atmosphere i
if such smaller quantity appears necessary to prevent an annual external total-body dose in excess of 5 millirems to any individual in an unrestricted area.
Conversely, if the applicant can provide reasonable assurance that a larger quantity of emitted radioactivity.will not result in an estimated annual I
external dose to any individual in unrestricted areas in j
1 excess of 5 millirems to the total body or 15 millirems to t
l I
I
~
36 i
the skin, such larger quantity of emitted radioactivity may be deemed to meet-the requirements of "as low as practicable."
The calculated annual total quantity of all radioactive iodine and radioactive material in particulate form above background to be released to the atmosphere from each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor in effluents shall not result in an estimated annual dose or dose commitment from all pathways of exposure for any individual in unrestricted areas in excess of 15 millirems to any organ.
As described in more detail in Section V, that portion of the dose or dose commitment due to intake of radioactive material through food pathways may be evaluated at the locations where the food pathways actually exist.
In addition to these lLnits on liquid, gaseous, and radiciodine and particulate effluents, limits are set upon permissible doses to the general public.
The calculated total quantity of radio-active material above background that may be released from a light-water-cooled power reactor shall be such that it will not result in an estimated annual total-body dose in excess of 25 man-rem to the total population living within 50 miles of the reactor.
In calculation of the permissible releases and release rate reasonable allowance must be made for population increases within the 50 mile radium during the lifetime of the reactor.
~~xw A:
37 We believe these requirements ensure that radiation doses to near neighbors of light-water-cooled nuclear reactors will be limited to a small fraction of the doses permitted by the Federal Radiation Protection Guides and to well within the At the variation in natural background radiation levels.
same time, radiation doses to members of the population at large will be held to very low values.
B.
The Considerations Adoption of these design objectives for effluents from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors required that we make decisions on. variety of questions that, as the Hearing Record shows, were contested strongly by the several Hearing We describe these contesting views, discuss participants.
our assessment of the Record, and report our resolution under.
individual headings below.
Shall Quantity and concentration Limits be Included 1.
in Addition to Dosage Limits?
The Hearing Record shows an almost complete consensus that the basic purpose of the design-objective values is the limitation of radiation-dose levels to off-site members of However, in early stages of the Hearing, the the public.
[1?
38 Regulatory staff contended that these dose levels should be limited by placing limits on the quantities and concentrations of radioactive materials in effluents from light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.
The Regulatory staff modified this position during the course of the Hearing.
The version of Appendix I presented in the 2/ did not specify concentration
)
staff's concluding statement limits on tritium and other radioactive materials released to the environment, but it did include, in addition to limitations on doses to any individual in an unrestricted limits on the quantity of radioactive material (except
- area, tritium and dissolved gases) in liquid effluents and on the quantity of iodine that could be released.
The Regulatory staff's final position, i.e.,
that quantity limits, in addition to dose limits, should be required, was intended to remove the possibility that future land-use patterns in the neighborhood of reactor sites might be pre-The staff argued that dose limits alone could permit judiced.
releases of excessive quantities of radionuclides at sites where the environs were unpopulated at the time the reactor such releases might preclude future use of these was built; environs.
l 1/ Regulatory staff, Exhibit 1, Tab. 1, pp. 13-19.
2/ Tr., pp. 25-26.
3/ Regulatory staff, Concluding Statement of Position, Feb. 20, 1974.
i 4/ Ibid., pp. 50-53.
5/ Tr., pp. 343-344.
e--_
a 39 (GE) argued throughout the The General Electric Company f
(and concentrations) 6-9/ that specification of quantities
\\
hearing of radioactive materials released in effluents is unnecessary They insisted in view of the primacy of the dose limitation.
that such quantity limits protect no public interest and provide no significant saving of calculational effort in E!
demonstrating compliance with dose limits.2!
And they argued that quantity limits on radioactive materials in liquid effluents would jeopardize the advantages that a dose formu-lation alone would provide, namely, an as low as practicable regulation that encourages the applicant's choice of
( ALAP) a favorable site.
0,11/ consis-(CU) also argued The Consolidated Utility Group tently that quantity and concentration limits be omitted They took the positionbS!
- hat, t
though from Appendix I.
dose should be the primary basis for numerical guidance on they had no quarrel with the principle that quantity
- ALAP, limits on releases from specific plants might be needed.
They insisted,bS!
owever, that such quantity limits should h
6/ General Electric, Exhibit 1, Mar. 17, 1972, pp. 7-13.
1/ Tr., pp. 1435-36.
Jan. 21, 1974, p.
13.
8/ General Electric, Closing Statement, 14, 1974, pp. 43-48.
7/ General Electric, Reply, Mar.
ly/ConsolidatedUtilityGroup,StatementofPosition, Jan. 19, 1974, pp. 51-52.
17.
11/ Consolidated Utility Group, Reply, Mar. 7, 1974, p.
40 not be incorporated in the Rule and thereby be standardized for all light-water-cooled nuclear power plants without regard to the environmental factors and potential pathways associated with a particular site.
Instead, they strongly endorsed inciusion in the technical specifications of plant operating licenses of individual quantity limits set for each plant so as to achieve the dose objectives of Appendix I on the basis of actual site conditions and actual exposure pathways.
Both GEb ! and CUA2! argued strongly against the Regulatory staff's prop:ned limitSI of 1 curie of iodine-131 per reactor.
Both argued that the proposal had no foundation in the Record and that it was based solely on the belief that without such a quantity limit licensees would build and operate reactors which did not use readily available technology and which would, consequently, release large quantities of radioiodine at sites where no milk pathways exist within miles of the reactor.
Both CU and GE insisted that such an eventuality was not a realistic one.
12/ General Electric, Reply, Mar. 17, 1974, p. 46.
13/ Consolidated Utility Group, Reply, Mar. 7, 1974, p. 13.
l l
41 i
l The propriety of dose limits rather than quantity limits was strongly supported by Lauriston Taylor,14,15/ o behalf of the National Council on Radiation Protection, by Merril Eisenbud,b5! who made a limited appearance on behalf of the Atomic Industrial Forum, and by R. M. Hartman, 1! who made a limited appearance on behalf of Ebasco Services, Incorporated.
Dr. Radford,
! who testified on behalf of the Consolidated National Intervenors, also endorsed this position.
In bE! testified to addition, limited participant Andrew P. Hull his belief that the specification of release and concentration limits, over and above an overall exposure limit, is unwar-ranted and in many cases would lead to significant expendi-tures for protection against nonexistent or completely inconsequential risks.
The State of Minnesota, on the other hand, consistently 0-22/
argued that quantities and concentrations of emitted radioactive material should be minimized.
Although it is clear that Minnesota's intent is the protection of individuals, 14/ Tr., pp. 1737-38.
15/ Tr., pp. 2055-56.
16/ Tr., p. 88.
jl7 Tr., pp. 109-116.
H / National Intervenors, Exhibit 3, p. 2.
IT/ Andrew P. Hull (Limited Participant), Final Statement
~~
of Position, Feb. 11, 1974, p.
4.
20/ Tr., pp. 1778-79.
j7T State of Minnesota, Final Statement of Position, Feb. 1, 1974.
_z_z/ Oral Argument, Tr., pp. 159-160.
_.. _ _. ~ -..... _ _. _. _ -. _ _ -. _ _ _..., _. _.. _ _... _.. _ _ _.. _. -. _... _,
t -
l
~*
42 l
and especially those individuals near nuclear facilities, the language recommended in its final statement }/ suggests that l
2 Minnesota would give primary attention to quantities and l=
concentrations of' radioactive materials released.
l i
The overriding purpose of Appendix I is to establish limits on radiation doses to people.
We consider;this to be obvious and are pleased that the record shows essentially complete agreement'with this view.. Whether additional limits on
. quantities of emitted radioactive materials should be included is a more complex question.
We agree that the' Regulatory staff was correct in recommending removal of concentration limits for radioactive materials in 1
liquid effluents from its proposed Appendix I..
Since, however,
'many of the very low doses of Appendix I are not in themselves subject to accurate measurement, the quantities and concen-f c
trations of the radioactive materials must be measured, and doses must be inferred by calculations from these measure-
~
r This fact affords a basis for an argument for inclusion j
ments.
in Appendix I of limits on such quantities.
i i
23/ State of Minnesota, Final Statement of Position, Feb. 1, 1974,'pp. 21-22.
i k.
~
L' 1
l.:
1
~
s
'A 43 Not all the arguments against inclusion of such limits are 1!
persuasive.
We are not impressed, for example, by the GE claim that guides containing quantity limits will lead to substantial misunderstanding and confusion regarding compliance with effluent-emission criteria.
We do find persuasive, however, the arguments advanced by l
!! and CUBS! that the imposition of quantity limits in GE addition to dose limits could jeopardize the advantages that dose limitations alone would provide and might preclude a regulation which is fitted to the particular characteristics of individual plants and sites and which encourages the It is clear that the applicant's choice of a favorable site.
Regulatory staff recognized some validity in this argument when it indicated 1/ that the specified quantities and concen-trations are substantially more conservative than would be required to meet the dose-limiting criteria for manv sites.
We have, accordingly, adopted an Appendix I that specifies neither quantity nor concentration limits for the effluents As recommended from light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.
by CU,1S/ it seems reasonable to us that limits on quantities of emitted radioactive materials compatible with dose limits and the characteristics of specific sites might be incorporated in the technical specifications of the individual plant operating license.
n za 4
-Eg 44 t
Though we do not include quantity limits in Appendix I, we I that it is do agree with the Regulatory staff argument inadequate to. base parameters on uses of the environment only at the' time the reactor is designed and constructed.
We certainly wish to ensure that the rule cannot result in l
approval of designs of radwaste systems that do not use the rudimentary, readily available technology to reduce releases.
We are convinced that the nuclear industry has no intention 3
ES/ and cub / declare of doing_this, and we note that both GE that no such actions will be taken.
We consider it obvious, l
i however, that our responsibilities cannot be satisfied by an Appendix I that depends upon the continuing good intentions of another party.
Section III B of Appendix I requires-that the applicant determine whether changes in land and water use and food pathways occur during the reactor lifetime and that he be responsive to such changes.
This matter is elaborated under the section on Lnplementation below (pp. 113 -114 and 136-In addition, although we have not included quantity Ibnits, 137).
we believe that by the limit'upon purmissible total-body doses to the population within 50 miles of the reactor we have ensured l
that available demonstrated technology will be used.to minimize releases and have attained the necessary protection for potential future users of the environs.
w
rw-
~*
, -c _
d 45 Shall Primary Consideration Go to Neighboring Individuals 2.
or to the General Population?
.The Record contains considerable controversy on whether the design objectives should be based on radiation exposure of the population at large or on exposure of individuals who live near: light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.
It is abundantly clear that at radiation dose levels well below those described in existing' radiation standards (such the levels of risk to the health of an as those of FRC)
Accordingly, statistically signifi-individual are very small.
cant risks from very low levels of radiation can be calculated only for large population groups.
On the other hand, it is equally clear that the individual living near the light-water-cooled nuclear power plant is concerned about the risk to himself and to his family and has only a secondary interest in'the (obviously lower) average risk to the general population.
The Consolidated Utility Group (CU) argued that the controlling Lconsideration in establishing numerical dose objectives should
-be-radiation doses to_the general population'rather than to l
[
l
~
m 46 individuals.
They held 33/ that, although for regulatory simplicity it might be desirable for Appendix I to continue to express its design objectives in terms of off-site individuals, the choice of the individual dose objective and of the individual to whom it applies should reflect the paramount importance of the population dose objective and should not be more stringent than can be justified on a cost-benefit basis in terms of population dose reduction.
In spite of this contention, CU, apparently for the sake of regulatory simplicity, stated its recommendations on design However, CU would objectives in terms of dose to individuals.
make the individual dose compatible with a primary population dose objectives 5I and would specify35[ that the individual selected for dose calculation be one whose living and recrea-tional habits, including the source of his water and food i
and the quantity of his consumption of both, are representat ve l
of a significant number of individuals living in the genera vicinity of the plant.
21/ onsolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, CJan. 19, 1974, p. 9.
21/ Ibid., pp. 26-27.
24/ Ibid., p. 69.
l
l 47 l
Andrew P. Hull also favored primary consideration to total t
I population dose and subordination of individual dose limits 7
l In his view- / the available biological data 27 to that limit.
would not justify going beyond the specification of an overall i
l population limit, and, since the benefit of a nuclear power plant is the amount of electricity generated, this population dose limit ought to be specified with relation to plant capacity rather than on a per plant basis.
l Ebasco Services, Incorporated also argued that population dose should be recognized as an important factor in decisions 28/ stated for Ebasco that, R. M. Hartman--
regarding Appendix I.
in his opinion, AEC had gone too far in details for implementing r
l the dose limit to the nearest off-site individual and not fa l
l i
enough in considering the dose to a sizeable nearby populat on l
i group.
j (GE), on the other hand, would specify the General Electric The GE closing numerical guides for the nearest neighbors.
l l
$! suggested that the ALAP numerical guides be statement l
established in terms of dose-limiting objectives for thed equal nearest neighbors of light-water-cooled power reactor an r
1% of the present Federal Radiation Council Guides for the i
whole body and each body organ.
i 11, 1974, p. 4.
t (Limited Participant), Feb.
27/ Andrew P. Hull 111-114.
Jan. 21, 1974, p. 13.
l 28/ Tr., pp. General Electric, Closing Statement, l
]ji/
l I
i i^
l
r-o 48 The State of Minnesota clearly supports the position that individual dose levels and not the average doses to a large population should be the controlling factors.- /
30 Ir. this connection Minnesota also noted that, "in keeping with the American tradition of the importance of the individual, no one (and one might add, no one's offspring) should be required to assume a disproportionate amount of the risk."- /
30 The Regulatory staff has taken the position that, although average population exposure is important and should be minimized, primary attention must be given to limitations on the dose to individuals living in close proximity to the reactor site.
The Record shows that this position did not substantially J
change throughout the hearing.
During oral argument, Lester b! or the Regulatory staff:
f Rogers stated "I think the primary objective of the regulation is, number one, to reduce the exposures and the risk to individuals, actual individuals that exist at the present time near the site, to as low as practicable levels.
At the same time I think you must take into account the exposure to potential individuals, and by that I mean future users of the environment."
l
-~30/ State of Minnesota, Final Statement of Position, Feb.
1,
- 1974, pp. 12-17.
3L/ Regulatory staf f, Exhibit 1, Tab.
1, Jan.
7, 1972.
]@/ Regulatory staf f, Exhibit 1, Tab.
3, Jan. 7, 1972.
33/ Oral Argument, Tr., pp. 23-24.
l 1
49 L
We agree that radiation dose levels to the general population are important considerations and that these levels should be however, agree that specification kept to low values.
We do not, It of an average population dose level alone will suffice.
in general agreement with the position seems clear to us.that, of the Regulatory Staff and several other parties, Appendix Guide I must take into account those individuals who live near the light-water-cooled power reactor facility.
r It is axiomatic that, if the.near neighbors of a nuclear and consequently those maximally exposed to its
- plant, then the general emissions, 1 ceive low radiation doses, It does not necessarily public will receive very low doses.
follow, however, that such population doses will in all cases be as low as practicable.
A light-water-cooled nuclear (or even one employing l
power station in a very remote location tall stacks) might ensure adequately low doses to its neignbors t
yet permit higher than necessary doses to the general population.
We believe that the design-objective guides that we adopt The afford the needed and reasonable balance in this regard.
primary thrust of the numerical guides is the protection of near neighbors of the reactor.
At the same time, the limit upon permissible doses to the population living within 50 1
.pm 1
50 miles of the reactor ensures that, regardless of the reactor site characteristics, the general public is protected.
We are mindful of the position espoused by the State of i
Minnesota- / that no group of individuals should be expected 30 to assume a disproportionate amount of the radiation risk.
But.it must be obvious that such a situation, however desirable, i
can seldom be realized on earth.
Unless radioactive releases (or, for that matter potentially harmful materials from any nuclear or nonnuclear facility)-were completely eliminated, near neighbors of the facility would assume a disproportionate share of the risk.
We believe that the design-objective guides that w adopt do meet our responsibility to ensure that the r
- k to those individuals, disproportionate though
'it may be, is as low as practicable.
Shall the Limits Apply to Each Site or to Each Reactor?
3.
Whether the design-objective guides should be applied to each water-cooled nuclear reactor or to all such reactorr on a site is a fundamental question that provoked strongly contested and conflicting positions and for which the Record shows no agree-in brief, the following.
. ment.
The several arguments are, Throughout the Hearing, the Regulatory staff took the position that the design-objective guides should apply to doses from i
L
(
51
. effluents from all l gi ht-water-cooled power reactors at a J
34, 35/ The Regulatory staff position is based in part site.
on the argument that near neighbors of multi-reactor sites should not be' required to accept radiation dose levels higher than those required of near' neighbors of a single reactor.
The State of Minnesota, apparently on the ground that
"...no group of individuals should be expected to assume a dispro-portionate amount of the radiation risk" supported this position. 33/
Both the General Electric Company (GE) and the Consolidated Utility Group (CU) strongly recommended that the design-1 objective guiles limit doses from individual reactors at a They supported these recommendations by several arguments.
site.
$$! that a per-reactor. design-objective General Electric contended guide that'is as low as practicable for a single reactor will remain as low as practicable even if several reactors are congregated on a single site and that equipment augments l
unjustified on'a cost-benefit basis for a single reactor can never be justified on a> cost-benefit basis for multiple-reactor
$b! that the environmental j
Lfacilities.
Indeed, GE suggested and other advantages of multi-reacter siting indicate that more lenience should be allowed for per-reactor emissions from a f
34/ Regulatory - staff, Exhibit 1, Tab.1.
f Position,
.]@/ Regulatory staff,. Concluding Statement o Feb. 20, 1974, p. 61.
14, 1974, p. 33.
31/ General Electric, Reply, Mar.
i
..n
.-n
- n..
n-
w
~
l 52 multi-reactor facility since these advantages will offset any added per-reactor radiological detriment and the added lenience would encourage the desirable clustering of power-I generating installations.
General Electric contended further - / that per-reactor appli-37 cation of the guides is justified by the ALAP cost-benefit
~
that considerations that control Appendix I and argued the Regulatory staff has performed no cost-benefit analyses indicating the contrary.
l In its statement of position,Ab CU expressed its belief that f
there are strong economic and environmental reasons for l
encouraging maximum use of existing sites and for planning They and developing new sites for two or more reactor units.
i pointed out that obvious economic advantages lie in the shar ng I
in the sharing of facilities, and in of a large tract of land, the sharing of much of the expense of site investigation, and operating licensing, construction management, engineering, supervision and that environmental advantages flow from minimizing the inevitable environmental impacts associated with the development of new industrial sites.
i r
1974, p. 32.
General Electric, Reply, Mar. 14, l
f3 Tr., pp. 3479-80 and 3482.
j@/ Tr., pp. 3486-87.
f 42/ Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, l
Feb. 13, 1974, pp. 57-58.
1 f
i
.i.
53 3
The Consolidated Utility Group--/ insisted that, at the dose 40 levels contemplated in the proposed rule (particularly with respect to gaseous releases), the effect of a site limitation would be to discourage and possibly prevent multiple reactor units from being placed on a single site and that it would also work an unnecessary hardship on existing multi-unit stations, including several three-or four-unit stations now b
CU
'In a similar vein planned or under construction.
although the proposed limits on doses from pointed out that, r
liquid effluents may not prove unduly burdensome for multi-reactor sites, the limits on doses from noble gases and iodine may severely limit the number of reactors at a site unless stacks in come cases, radwaste augments that it considers
- and, unjustified on a cost-benefit basis are employed.
General Electric restated with added emphasis its position 42/ in the following f
and that of CU in its closing statement M
words:
"Both the Consolidated Utility Group and GE took the position in the ALAP hearings that the Appendix I numerical guides must make special allowance for I
multireactor installations at a single site in order to 41/ Consolidated Utility Group, Reply, Mar. 7,1974, pp. 21-25.Jan. 2 42/ General Electric, Closing Statement, l
o 0
54 preserve the overall environmental and economic advantages of minimizing the total number of power j
The FES analyses, even when carried generation sites.
out with a "best-estimate" dose evaluation, show that application of ALAP design objectives as overall site i
limits, regardless of the number of reactors present, l
may limit the number of units on a site below that l
number that may be desirable for environmental and Such a forced geographic distribution economic reasons.
of reactor sites of one or two units each will not reduc in total population radiation dose from LWR effluents; P
it could increase total population dose if the
- fact, distributed sites in toto have a lesser degree of local isolation than would the probably more favorable sites that would be selected for multi-unit use."
our examination of the rc-cord indicates that none o f
parties in this hearing directly addressed this question o ite whether_the limits should have a per-reactor or per-s 43/ (in their Consolidated National Intervenors -
basis.
since we cannot prove that radiation at any belief that, level is harmleos, we should permit no radiation releases at i
is all) would seem certainly to prefer whichever limitat on F
15, 1972.
Roisman to Algie A. Wells, et al., Feb.
43/ Anthony J.
l i
-l g 57 that allowing the nearest-neighbor dose resulting from a number of closely located light-water reactors, each meeting the regular single-reactor ALAP guides, to approach 4% of the Federal Radiation Protection Guides would still limit such doses to a small fraction of permissible dose and to a fraction of natural background exposure and would keep such doses within the variation in natural background radiation within the United States.
In addition, GE pointed out that such a limit also addresses the subject of total dose to individuals from nearby but separate sites, which was not covered in proposed Appendix I.
We note that, though much qualitative argument was presented, the Hearing Record contains little specific information that will permit evaluation of dose levels from emissions from sites containing several light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors.
1 The Regulatory staff prepared the Final Environmental Statement and did its cost calculations on the basis of sites containing In its concluding statement- /
49 the staff two reactors.
discussed the effects its recommended design-objective (per
]
site) doses would have on limiting the number of reactors per From these considerations the staff concluded 50/that site.
1 49/ Regulatory Staff, Concluding Statement of Position, Feb. 20, 1974, pp.84-131.
50/ Ibid., p. 62.
'8 p.
55 this would presumably imply a preference the more stringent; for a strict ihmit upon emissions from all reactors at a site.
SA/ limits based primarily on Andrew P. Hull, who advocated doses to the population at large and who has suggested 2 man-rems per megawatt (electric) as a limiting design objective, A similar seemed to favor essentially a per-reactor limitation.
observation may be made concerning the testimony of R. M. Hartman in a limited appearance for Ebasco Services, Incorporated, rho f
$E/ that 0.1 man-rem to the average individual per recommended 1000 megawatt (thermal) be employed as a limit on population dose.
The Consolid'ted Utility Group would apparently place no limit, on doses other than that obtained by the per-reactor Ibnit,
$5[ that the resulting I
from multi-reactor sites, but they insisted i
off-site dose to individuals living near multi-unit sites would still be a small fraction of Part 20 limits and of generally accepted radiation standards and would constitute a trivial incremental risk to the health of the individuals.
3 On the other hand, GE would, despite its arguments described t
above, place an additional limit on dose levels from a multiple 44/ Andrew P. Hull (Limited Participant), Final Statement of Position, Feb. 11, 1974, p. 4.
Tr., pp. 109-116.
45/ Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, Feb. 19, 1974, p. 16.
i 0
5
gws =-
T; 56 light-water-cooled nuclear reactor site.
In its closing 2!-GE' recommended the language:
statement "For-any combination of nuclear power. reactors on one site, on adjacent sites, or on nearby sites, the applicant or applicants shall, in addition, provide reasonable assurance that the total incremental' annual exposure (form either airborne or waterborne effluents) to any individual in unrestricted areas will not exceed four (4) percent of the Federal Radiation Projection Guides, as set forti. in Federal Radiation Council. Reports Numbers f
-1 and 2, May'13, 1960 and September 1961, for doses to the' total body or any organ."
In' support of that _ recommendation, GE argued 48/
that the recog-nition in 10 CFR Part 50.34a that "as low-as practicable" must Lbe definedL"in relation to the utilization of atomic energy l
in the public interest" requires allowance of slightly increased, but still trivial, exposures in order to' achieve a doubling or tripling of' electrical' output at a site and the other environ-mental-advantages of multiple-unit siting.
Further, GE noted l
.)
l j47 General Electric, Closing Statement, Jan. 21, 1974, p. 28.
p
._48/ Ibid., l pp. 28-29.
4 I
i 58 the design-objective doses for liquid and gaseous effluents, other than iodine, pose no practical limitations on the number of reactors per site.
The design-objective thyroid dose for iodine poses limitations on the number of reactors per site for those sites where milk is a pathway of exposure within 500 to 1000 meters of the site unless stacks or extensive in-plant iodine-removal equipment is used.
If stacks are used or if milk is not a pathway of exposure within 3000 or 4500 meters of the site, there appears to be no practical limitation on the number of reactors per site even with the iodine design objective.
With respect to liquid releases, CU stated:51/ "while neither we nor the staff have done the refined calculations necessary to establish the effect of multiple reactors on doses from liquid effluents, we would not expect that the proposed site lbmit on such doses would be a major factor in limiting the number of reactors per site."
However, CU argued that the situation for doses from iodine and noble gases is entirely different and pointed out that the staff's findings, which confirm the CU calculations,5 / show that for sites with a cow-milk-infant food pathway in close 51/ Consolidated Utility Group, Reply, Mar. 7, 1974, p. 22.
))) lbid., pp. 22-24.
aa. _: =-
r
(
l 3
ed
-6 I
59 Proximity to a 500-meter site boundary the site limits of l
15 millirems to the skin from noble gases and 15 millirems to the thyroid would be severely limiting.
They indicated 1
.that for such cases boiling-water reactors with all augments justifiable by their cost-benefit analysis would be limited i
to 2.per site by the. skin-dose limit and to zero by the thyroid-dose limit.
Pressurized-water reactors with augments
]
justified by cost-benefit analysis would not be appreciably j
limited (7 to 10 would be possible) by the skin-dose limit, i
but the thyroid-dose limit would permit no reactor to be i
built.
Adding 100-meter stacks, which do nothing to reduce doses to the general population, would permit 4 to 6 boiling-water reactors or 2 pressurized-water reactors to be built We are convinced that the grouping of light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors on well chosen _and suitable sites creates genuine advantages to the use of atomic energy in the public interest.
We'believe that Appendix I certainly should not discourage such a practice.
The Hearing Record seems to us to substantiate this view.
)
i i
We adopt, accordingly, an Appendix I that designates dose l
limits to near neighbors on a per-reactor basis alone.
The Hearing Record does not, we believe, provide quantitative l
i i
44-cN.*
.-4 60 I
l information that can substantiate the values that a per-site We are mindful that doses to the general j
limit should have.
f population will not be increased and that they may be minimized We are by grouping light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.
I also of the opinion that it will be at least several years before sites containing as many as'five light-water-cooled i
nuclear power plants are developed.
Consequently, we see no way that design-objective guides set'on a per-reactor basis can, in the near future, result in individual. exposures that are more j
Indeed, we believe l
than 5% of present-day radiation standards.-
i that, with the required inclusion'of all radwaste augments justified on cost-benefit basis and with the realization that several reactors cannot physically be placed so as to all r
en a minimum distance from the maximally exposed individual, the
)
actual doses received by individuals will be appreciably less l
than this small percentage.
5 1
Our decision based as it must be on the Record cannot include The ALAP Hearing properly did items not covered by that Record.
tiig
.not address the possibilities or the problems of sites con a n n many nuclear reactors along with other nuclear facilities or even It may be that many_ light-water-cooled nuclear power plants.
so-called nuclear power parks - or even sites that contain many light-water-cooled nuclear power plants - have special virtues
.;. =
s e
s y
A, 61 in the national nuclear economy.
We do not know.
By the time such multi-reactor sites are necessary or desirable, technologies not now known may be available for minimizing radioactive materials in effluents from them.
Again, we do not know.
It seems clear that such installations will require large and favorably situated sites and that such installations are several years, at least, in the future.
Meanwhile, much valuable expcrience will be gained concerning radioactive emissions from sites containing a few light-water-cooled nuclear plants.
It would seem to us that, in due course and when experience is available, the question of the desirability of a per-site limitation on emissions from multi-reactor sites should be examined.
4.
What Shall Be the Numerical Values of the Design-Objective Guides?
A superficial examination of the Record might suggest only minor disagreement over the numerical values of the design objectives.
A more detailed examination, however, leveals that this notion of minor disagreement is illusory.
In fact, the general similarity of the design-objective values recommended by the several parties tends to mask the considerable differences in the bases on which these values are suggested.
This is another question on which we have had to decide among conflicting views.
m 4
62 The proposed Appendix I limited the annual dose to any individual from radioactive materials in liquids, gases, and as radioiodine and particulate matter from all reactors on a. site to 5 millirems to the total body or to any organ.
55! that the design-objective General Electric (GE) recommended dose values for nearest neighbors of each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor be set at 1% of the FRC radiation protection guides.
They recommended specifically that the objectives should be 5 millirems per year for the total body, 15 millirems per year for the thyroid, and 30 millirems per year for the skin.
Consolidated Utility Group strongly urged bE/ the adoption of 1% of ICRP values for individuals in the general population, including ICRP values for organs other than the whole body.
They suggested that the individual thyroid-dose objective should be changed to 15 millirems for children and 30 millirems for adults and that the individual skin dose be changed to 30 millirems.
53/ Regulatory staf f, Exhibit 1, Tab.1./ Regulatory staf f, Concluding Statement of Position, p. 48. Jan. 21, 1974, 55/ General Electric, Closing Statement, pp. 13, 26 and 28. 56/ Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, Jan. 19, 1974, pp. 68-69.
r-U .s, 63 The State of Minnesota in its final statement appeared to endorse the proposed Appendix I position to limit the annual dose from all reactors at a site to 5 millirems to the total body or any organ. b Douglas LaFollette has also indicated his strong support of this position.5_8/ Several other aggestions were made. The Tennessee Valley Authority suggested _9/ that "the costs and consequences of 5 achieving 1% of Part 20 limits should be carefully balanced against the costs and consequences of achieving instead, for example, 10% of Part 20 limits." Merril Eisenbud suggested, on behalf of the Atomic Industrial Forum, the value 5 millirems to the whole body, gonads, or bone marrow and 15 millirems to all other organs.60,61/ Consolidated National Intervenors, b argued that no radioactive discharges should be permitted. At the other extreme, G. Hoyt Whipple6,64/ considered that numerical guidelines other than those given in 10 CFR Part 20 are 57/ State of Minnesota, Final Statement of Position, Feb. 1, 1974, pp. 8 and 17. 5_8/ Final Environmental Statement, WASH-1258, July 1973, 8 Vol. 3, p. 38. 59/ Ibid., p. 314. _60f Ibid., p. 96. 61 Tr., p. 86, Statement by Merril Eisenbud, p. 5. Anthony Z. Roseman to Algie A. Wells, et al., Feb. 15, 1972, p. 7. 6_3/ Final Environmental Statement, WASH-1258, July 1973, Vol. 3, p. 94. 64/ G. Hoyt Whipple, Testimony on the Proposed Appendix V to 10 CFR Part 50, Feb. 20, 1972. ) 4
64 unnecessary since the interpretation of 10 CFR Part 20 by the nuclear industry has resulted in performance so excellent that there is no need for further incentive. Andrew P. Hull, who was a limited participant throughout the Hearing, argued -5/that a boundary limit of 25 millirems per 6 year whole-body dose to individuals would be consistent with his proposal of 2000 man-rems per year limit for population dose from each 1000 megawatt (electric) reactor. The Regulatory Staff modified its original position as a result of the Hearing. In its concluding statement the Regulatory Staff agreed that the limiting dose to the thyroid should be changed from 5 to 15 millirems per year because as a practical matter the dose to a child's thyroid is controlling for purposes of design objectives and operational control and evidence developed in the Record shows that a design objective of 5 millirems per year is not practicable at this time, with respect to the state of technology and the costs of iodine-removal equipment, where milk cows graze in the near vicinity of the site. 1 bb! that the skin dose The Regulatory Staff also recommended due to external exposure from beta and gamma radiation released in gaseous effluents from all reactors on a site be changed 1974. Hull, Final Statement of Position, Jan. 30, 12/ Andrew P. 66/ Regulatory Staff, Concluding Statement of Position, Feb. 20, 1974, pp. 48 and 25-30. -- -------- ----.- -----.----------J
u, ~s 1 l '65 t from 5 to 15 millirems per. year because it is not practicable l to design to lheit the beta dose to 5 millirems per year. l \\ I The Regulatory staff continued to recommend that the design-j l objective dose from. radioactive materials in liquid effluents l l from all light-water-cooled nuclear' power reactors at a site be kept at 5 millirems per year to the total body or to any organ.52/ The staff argued that both CUBE / and GE5E! agree that this design objective is practicable for liquid effluents. l In its reply statement, however, CU insisted that it no longer j -agreed completely with that summation.2E/ CU indicated its agreement with that assessment for river sites, but it contended that a lakeshore and seacoast sites use of the staff's conser- ) i vative models, bases, and' cost estimates led to inclusion of ' augments over and above those justified by cost-benefit analysis in'some cases to meet the per site design objective dose of 5 mrem-per year to any organ. However, careful consiGeration of the testimony of Walton Rodger b indicates the maximum total body dose calculated for liquid effluents to be 0.53 mren for a PWR with cooling tower on a lakeshore. site; total body doses for all other cambinations were shown to be substantially i i 67 Ibid., p. 50. Tr., pp. 3996-98. General Electric, Closing Statement, Jan. 21, 1974, p.16. j75 Consolidated Utility Group, Reply, Mar. 7, 1974, pp. 15-17. _R_/ Tr., p. 3909, Additional Testimony of'Walton A. Rodger on Behalf of the Consolidated Utility Group, Nov. 9, 1973. 1 4 w w vY MT
s,_ { 2 I. ~f J i 66. 4 i i less than this figure.21/ In that same testimony, and using 'the' staff's conservative bases and models, no liquid effluents t from single reactors are shown to exceed J(and few approach) i the.value of 5 mrems to any organ of an individual. h i i Accordingly, we have-decided that the design-objective guides j 1 should limit the radioactive material that may be released in j i liquid effluents from a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor to that' annual total quantity which will result in an annual f dose to any individual in unrestricted areas'not in excess of 1 millirem to the total body and 5 millirems to any organ. For calculat on of such doses, it is assumed that rivers are 8 l .used as sources of drinking. water and that rivers or other i pertinent bodies of water.are used as sources of fish or other seafood unless positive evidence is provided to prove otherwise. i (as discussed in more detail under I The models also assume ' Implementation, Sec. V, this document) that near neighbors of f I 1 the light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor include individuals We believe l with habits differing significantly from the average. .that the Record indicates that for many, if not all, reactor 7 i j sites of this design objective can readily.be met. i l The design objective to control exposure from gaseous effluents 4 i has been expressed in terms of a limitation on the annual dose l i due to gansaa radiation or beta radiation from each reactor at or i
\\ 67 i l beyond the boundary of the site. This design objective, in effect, provides flexibility for considering site-related meteorology and the distance from the reactor to the site boundary, but it requires the assumption that people may live ) l just outside the site boundary. The specified dose rates of 10 millirads per year for gamma radiation and 20 millirads per year for beta radiation would normally be considered to lbnit doses to individuals in unrestricted areas to not more than 5 millirems to the total body and to less than 15 millirems to the skin. Provisions are made to decrease this annual dose if for a particular site there are special circumstances that i necessitate such a decrease to ensure that an individual in an unrestricted area shall not receive more than 5 millirems total-body exposure. Provision is made for an increase in this release rate if special site characteristics or circumstances indicate that such an increase will not lead to individual doses above 5 millirems per year to the total body or 15 millirems to the skin. We believe the record indicates that this design objective is practicable for individual light-water-cooled ) power reactors at essentially all sites. The design objective for radioiodine and radioactive material in particulate form was probably the most difficult issue in this proceeding. The design objective has been set to ensure that emission of radiciodine and radioactive material in particulate
W 68 form from each light-water-cooled > nuclear power reactor shall not_ result:in: an annual dose for any individual ~ in unrestricted areas from all pathways of exposure in excess of 15 millirems to any organ. For virtually all cases, the thyroid dose will be the only_ one' of real consequence from this source. As indicated in detail under Implementation (Sec. V, this document), the design-objective quantity is to be calculated at the location of the nearest milk cows 'that are actually present at the time of design and construction of the reactor. Future uses of the l environment with respect to food pathways will be protected by 6 1haiting conj.itions of operation that require monitoring and-surveillance programs designed to-identify changing land uses-l that may result in exposure of. individuals to iodine. Appro-priate control measures, including the modification of land uses,-would be required if monitoring programs during opera- ' tion indicate that the design-objective guide levels are being exceeded. s As a further requirement, the calculated total quantity of radio-active material above background to be released annually from each light-water-cooled power reactor in all ef fluents to unre-stricted_ areas must be such as to result in an estimated annual ' total-body fdose not in excess of 25 man-rem to the total popula-tion living within 50 miles of the reactor. Such a provision i. ur -W^ C'
i ~ 69 + (discussed in Section III-B-6, below) should ensure that selection of a very large or isolated site cannot justify j the release of large quantities of radioactive materials simply because no substantial individual doses would result. S. Should Cost-Benefit calculations Be Used to Set Population Dose Limits? Benefits to the general public from the generation of electricity by light-water-cooled nuclear power plants vs the associated costs are not germane to the decisions concerning Appendix I. The cost-benefit balance appropriate to decisions regarding Appendix I deals with the cost from installation (and use) of augments to sophisticated radwaste systems vs the benefits obtained through their use. Such balancing of cost and benefit requires that both sides of the balance be expressed in commensurate units. It is difficult, if not impossible, to escape the conclusion that these com-mensurate units should be units of money. The cost for addition and for operation of augments to the rad-waste system are generally expressed in dollars; to establish such costs is easy in principle and (as described in Section 5a below) is only moderately difficult in practice. Determination of the worth of each additional augment, in diminished radiation dosage to the general public, seems also to be relatively
70 straightforward (sse Section 5b, below). A recent and generally accepted evaluation 2S/ of the effects of ionizing It is radiation on large numbers of people is available. accordingly, possible to estimate in a straightforward way the small additional incidence of somatic and genetic effects .of exposing large numbers of people to vey low levels of Therefore, a monetary value for the effect of radiation. the somatic and genetic effects of radiation is the only missing'information necessary to strike the cost-benefit balance. .he Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are in the However, we, that the Hearing opinion, after careful consideration, Record will not support choice of a specific dollar value j for the worth of a unit decrease in radiation exposure to We are, accordingly, unable to insist that the population. cost-benefit consideration be a part of the guidance for the Appendix I which we adopt. On the other hand, we believe that, when meaningful cost-benefit balances are possible, they should be used to define l the limiting population dose from a light-water-cooled power l' Accordingly, reactor under as low as practicable criterion. National Science Foundation - National Radiation Council. The Effect'on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of 72/ Ionizing Radiation (The BEIR Report), Report of the Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, November 1972.
t i 71 we propose to conduct a further Rule Making [ Hearing] to determine the appropriate monetary value for reduction of radiation doses to the general population. When an accepted value is available we will consider carefully the incorpora- ] tion of pertient cost-benefit consideration in a variation of this Appendix I. a. What are the Monetary costs of Augments to Radwaste Systems? During the initial phase of the ALAP Hearing (prior to May 6, 73,74/ 1972), the Regulatory staff presented preliminary information concerning the costs of radwaste systems. Other information concerning c'sts of radwaste systems was also presented in this ! and to a limited extent initial phase of the Hearing by CU by GE.22! Walton Rodger, who presented what might fairly be called the only comprehensive formulation of costs 25/ and of annualized costs 25/ during this period, criticized 2S/ the staff's data. j73 Regulatorystaff, Exhibit 1, Tab. 2. 74/ Tr., pp. 536-590. 7_5/ Walton A. Rodger, Statement on. Behalf of the Consolidated Utility Group, Mar. 17, 1972, incorporated in Tr., pp. 1748-52. 7p/ Walton Rodger, Supplemental Statement on Behalf of the Consolidated Utility Group, Apr. 26, 1972, incorporated in Tr., p. 2753. j77 General Electric, Exhibit 3, Apr. 26, 1972, items 4 and 5. _7_8/ Walton A. Rodger, Statement on Behalf of the Consolidated l Utility Group, Mar. 17, 1972, p. 41. l t i
72 The Regulatory staff's publication of the Draft Environmental Statement,22! its consideration of the many diverse comments on this document, and its subsequent publication of the Final Environmental Statement $S! were important steps in providing a basis for proper costing of radwaste systems and for cost-benefit analyses. Comments on the Draft Environmental Statement showed, as might have been expected, some disagreement with the estimated cost of radwaste equipment. S! that Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., stated cost estimate in the Draft Environmental Statement seemed to be 1 generally lower than their experience would indicate. They showed a few specific examples in which the estimated costs appeared to be low by at least a factor of 3. In its comments on the Draft Environmental Statement,SS! CU had only minor criticisms of the estimated costs of individual items of radwaste equipment. However, CU argued stronglySS[ that the cost picture was badly distorted by the use in the Draft Environmental Statement and the Final Environmental Statement of a two-reactor site in which much of the radwaste equipment was shared between the two reactors. 737 h'otice of Availability of the Draft Eavironmental Statement -- was published in the Federal Register, Jan. 16, 1973, (38 i F.R. 1616). 80/ Final Environmental Statement, WASH-1258, July 1973. i ]T/ Final Environmental Statement, WASH-1258, Vol. 3, July 1973, pp. 311-312. l j82 Ibid., p. 243. _83/ Ibid., p. 244. 1
- - ~. - - - -... ~.. a 73 Moreover, after publication of the FES, CU insisted
- that, since costs iN1 the FES were nearly a factor.of 2 less than in the draft statement,.they.could no longer avoid taking issue with the staff's cost estimates.
After a detailed elaboration'of many points.on which they found the staff's b hat the FES cost' estimates dificient, CU. concluded t radwaste systems could not possibly,be built and operated' for less than twice the costs indicated and the more likely the. cost would'be three to four times that given in the FES. The Regulatory staff, on the other hand, continued to defend the cost estimates presented in the FES. .n its concluding statement / the staff pointed out that ohe CU data were based on " industrial experience" and included overtime and - other exceptional factors and that CU had included backfitting experience 87,88/ and.. optional redundant equipment. The staff argued _6/: that' none of these items should be included in the 8 cost of'radwaste systems for cost benefit analysis. The staff did include redundant components in costing the radwaste systems in the Draft Environmental Statement but, at least partly because of criticisms in comments on the j l 84/ Tr., p. 3909; Walton A. Rodger, additional testimony on l Behalf.of the Consolidated Utility Group, Nov. 19, 1973, l- . pp. 38-39. 8_5/ Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, Jan. l 5 1974, p. 36. . 8_6/ Regulatory staff, Concluding Statement of Position, Feb. 20, 1974, pp. 43-45. 87/ Tr., p. 3975. '8T j Tr., p. 3985. l y .r-m
74 a removed such redundancy "...which is not required for
- draft, meeting ALAP or licensing requirements and therefore should not be included in costs for meeting dose reduction in cost-benefit anlayses," from the systems evaluated in the FES.EE!
The Consolidated Utility Group took the position that redundant ES/ radwaste equipment is often necessary. They pointed out that it is not the practice of utilities to install such systems without the provision of adequate redundancy for safe and reliable operation nor is it likely in actual practice that NRC license conditions would permit them to do otherwise. After consideration of the several differences between the staff E1/ that there were and the CU estimates, the staff concluded no significant unexplained differences with respect to cost estimates. We, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, believe after considera-tion of the Record that the staff's cost estimates for construction and operation of radvaste systems may be slightly low but that they are quite unlikely to be in error by factors of 3 or 4. It seems to us that to the extent - and only to the extent - that equipment redundancy is required by the licensing process the cost of such redundant items should be 89/ Regulatory staff, Concluding Statement of Position, Feb. 20, 1974, pp. 44-45. 90/ Walton A. Rodger, Additional Testimony on Behalf of Consolidated Utility Group, Nov. 9, 1973, p. 49. 91/ Regulatory staff, Concluding Statement of Position, i Feb. 20, 1974, p. 45.
. _. _.. _ _. _. _. _. m._.. -. 'd.' 75 i included in the total costing of the system. It seems equally clear that the additional costs, if any, due to j increased attention to quality assurance should be included in the radwaste-system costs. It does not seem reasonable -to include costs of overtime or other special features that may have in specific instances contributed to higher than normal' costs of installation. On the other hand, the costs of operating the augmented equipment should be realistically estimatedt such estimates should include reasonable allowances for maintenance of equipment and for the increased work force and payroll based, insofar as is possible, on actual experience as this expc -lence exists or becomes available. In short, we the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, believe that the j Hearing Record shows that, with recognition of our opinions Lmmediately above, the costs of radwaste augments can be rea-sonably and fairly assessed and that one of the factors in the cost-benefit balance can be calculated in a sound manner. i b. How Should Cost-Benefit Balances Be Caluclated? The costs of installation and operation of radwaste systems were as indicated above, a matter of controversy, but an i even more fundamental difference of opinion existed (primarily j between the Regulatory staff and CU) and the manner in which cost-benefit-balancing was to be done. j i h i
_ _ _ ~ ~... _. _. _ _ _ _ _ _. _... j l 76 l 1 i The Regulatory-staff has,.in effect.added for each effluent j i type 1the several radwaste augments as a unit to the base-case dual light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor system. N From est mates of the cost of the radwaste augment package i I and of the resulting decrease in radiation exposure to the population, the staff obtained_a value in dollar cost per man-ram.of the resulting reduction'in population dose. ) i The major thrust of the CU argument against the staff's l l cost-benefit balances concerned the practice of adding the ) several radwaste augments.together as a unit to the base-case. l As Walton Rodger stated for CU: b "The thrust of the Testimony which we filed on November 9, 1973 was to break down into their component parts the cost-benefit analyses presented in the FES. The first purpose for doing this was to demonstrate that while l some augments to the gaseous and liquid radwaste systems j of PWR'and BWR are justified on a cost-benefit basis, i others are not. In fact may of the augments considered [ l in the FES result in the expenditures of incredibly { large numbers of dollars for every dollar of value l returned. The " lumped" approach used in the FES h cost-benefit. analyses-completely hides this fact." l I 9_2/ Tr., p. 3912; Walton A. Rodger, Summary of Additional Testimony dated Nov. 9, 1973, on Behalf of the Consolidated Utility Group, p. 1. t e r
77 In effect, Dr. Rodger used the Regulatory staff's dose cal-culational models and the staff's values for annual releases of radioactivity and annual costs for the radwaste augments and conducted the cost-benefit study by adding augments individually and sequentially to the liquid, the noble-gas, and the iodine and particulate radwaste systems. We, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission agree that by this technique of sequential cddition of the most effective radwaste augments (so that in effect each addition con-stitutes with the other augments already present a new base-case to which the next augment is to be added), the cost-benefit evaluation can show the true worth of each individual augment. If and when cost-benefit calculations can be added to Appendix I, we intend that the work of each augment be assessed by this procedure. c. Can the Monetary Value of Dose Reduction to the General Population be Determined? The Regulatory staff agreed that it was desirable to express the cost-benefit balance in dollars on both sides of the equation,E5[ but the staff has been most reluctant to assign a dollar value to the worth of reduction of radiation dose to the general population. The staff took the positionES/ fj/ Final Environmental Statement, WASH-1258, July 1973, Vol. 1, j p. 8-3. 94/ Ibid., pp. 8-2 and 8-3. i
78 + o that there is no agreement on monetary values for the reduc-tion of risk to human life or suffering or on how such values should be applied. They reason that it is not possible to reflect properly the worth of reduction of risk to human life in monetary terms since there are overriding moral values that cannot be quantified. E5! the several published esti-The staff cites in the Record mates of the monetary cost of radiation exposure of the public; these range from $10 to $980 per man-rem. No values have been suggested for dose to single organs, such as the thyroid. However, the relative risk of the dose to the thyroid compared to the total body would suggest a lower value for a man-thyroid-rem than for a man-rem. On the other hand, the staff holds that despite the inherent difficulties in the direct use of monetary values, it appears useful to express, to the extent practicable, both costs of reduction of risk and benefits to society from sucit reduction in monetary units as at least one of the factors to be con-sidered in arriving at judgments on reducing risk to as low as practicable limits. 9}/ Ibid., p. 83.
c, 79 In both the FES b and its concluding statement, b the staff does calculate, from its estimates of radwaste-system cost and the resultant reduction in population dose, values for cost per man-rem reduction. They do not, however, accept.or reject radwaste systems because of the cost of such reduction. It is clear from the Record that the staff would leave to I us, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the decision as to dollar value of man-rem reduction in popul3 tion dose and the i extent to which such a value would be given weight along with other considerations in the ALAP ruling. In contrast, the Consolidated Utility Group did choos 99-101/ a value for the worth of a man-rem. For CU, Walton Rodger 100/ stated "You may duck the issue all you want but in order to make a meaningful cost-benefit analysis you simply have to ' bite the bullet' and assign a value i.o a man-rem. We recognize that this isn't easily done, 96/ Final Environmental Statement, WASH-1258,, July 1973, Vol. 1, p.8-2. 97/ Regulatory staff, Concluding Statement of Position. H Tr., pp. 3472-73. j j99 Consolidated Utility Group, Exhibit 5, Walton A. Rodger, Additional Testimony on Behalf of the Consolidated Utility Group, Exhibit 9, 1973. 100/ Consolidated Utility Group, Exhibit 6, Summary of Additional Testimony dated Nov. 9, 1973, of Walton A. Rodger on Behalf of the Consolidated Utility Group, p. 2. 101/ Tr., pp. 3913-15.
80 e that there are great subjective factors involved, and that this is an area in which reasonable persons may reasonably disagree. Nonetheless, we chose a value. We chose $1000/ man-rem (and 1/3 of that for a man-thryoid-rem). The FES quotes a number of estimates for thio value ranging from $10 to $980 with most being in the range of $100 to $600. A very current new esthmate is $250. We deliberately chose a value above the range quoted for two reasons: (1) to be conservative in our assessment of the value of augments, (2) to make allowance for " overriding moral values" and other intangibles which are hard to quantify." As the Record makes clear these values of $1000 per man-rem and $333 per man-thyroid-rem represent no independent assessment. They were obtained by CU simply by taking a value sanewhat higher than the range of valuesEE/ suggested by the several studies cited. While generally accepting the cost-benefit analyses pre-sented by CU, GE seems to have made no recommendations for the worth of a man-rem. 102/ Tr., pp. 3944-45. 167/ Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, Jan. 19, 1974, p. 31.
o '~ 81 The State 'of Minnesota made no assignment or decision as to the worth of a man-rem.104/ - Minnesota has argued consistently that releases of radioactivity should be minimized but has not. tied this recammendation to the resultant dose effect nor has it made cost-benefit analyses in support of its recommendation's.104/. However, it seems clear from the Record that the State of Minnesota would put a very.high value on a-man-rem.105/ We, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, agree with the Regulatory staff and with CU that there are great subjective factors to be considere,: in any judgment of the worth of reduction of a man-rom in dose to the general population. We are also well aware-that a dollar figure for such worth is necessary - and is the only missing value --for the cost-benefit anlaysis that would provide a useful basis for decision concerning a portion of the guidance in Appendix I. We are, however, convinced that.the Hearing Record provides .an insufficient basis for a decision as to the monetary worth for reduction in radiation dosage to the population. 104/ Tr., pp. 3778-79. i IIT/ State of Minnesota, Final Statement of Position, ) Feb. 1, 1974, p. 14. l u I
v g2 I The' Hearing Record detailed previous estimates of such values, f and one party selected a value.100/ Little if any substantiation of the selected value'was_given. The Hearing Record, accordingly, provided no real evidence of its own for selection of such a monetary value. t i We are aware of-testimony that suggests that the choice of rad-waste-augments for light-water-cooled power reactors is only l i weakly dependent upon the value chosen for worth of a' man-rem l t . reduction to the population dose, and te believe that this testimony may very well be correct. And we are mindful that i this Append 2.: I applies only to effluents from light-water-i cooled power reactors and cannot . based as'it'is upon a f Record limited' to the subject - be construed to apply to reactors of another. type or to other facilities in the nuclear fuel cycle. But we are.also mindful that the choice I of a value for~the monetary worth of a man-rem reduction in population dose to the general.public cannot be reasonably claimed to apply only to a single class of nuclear facility. l l i We, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, are, therefore, con-l vinced that this (properly) limited record cannot be used l to establish an appropriate general value for the monetary worth of a man-rem' reduction in dose to the general population. l i E l i I
83 Since such a value would be most useful in ultimate gaanti-fication of the as low as practicable concept, we propose to hold, at any early date, a Rule Making Hearing to deter-i mine a suitable general value for such man-rem reduction j in dosage. Lacking such a value at present, we cannot and do not incorporate cost-benefit criteria in the Appendix I which - we now adopt. When such an accepted value is available, we intend to give serious consideration to inclusion of pertinent cost-benefit considerations in a variant of this Appendix I. 6. Shall the Design Objective Guides Include a LLeit on Population Dose? i Several parties argued during the Hearing that limits upon doses to the general public should be the controlling con-sideration in the design-objective guides for Appendix I. Andrew P. Hull, who argued that the available biological data would not justify going beyond specification of an overall population limit,22/ would subordinate individual dose limits to the total population dose limit. R. M. Hartman p/ argued, for Ebasco Services, Incorporated, that 2 population dose should be recognized as an bnportant factor i i t
84 in decisions regarding Appendix I. The Consolide+ad Utility group also argued that the controlling considera-tion in establishing numerical dose objectives should be radiation doses to the general population. They held II the choice of the individual dose objective should that not be more stringent than can be justified on a cost-benefit 4 basis in terms of population dose reduction. i The Regulatory staff took the position that, although average population exposure was important and should be minimized, primary attention must be given to individuals living, or potentially living, in close proximity to the reactor site.31,32,33/ However, the Regulatory staff held that limits upon doses to individuals alone could, in some cases, result in design of radwaste systems that did not use rudimentary l and readily available technology to reduce radioactive releases. The Regulatory staff would, therefore, place limits upon quanti-l ties of radionuclides that could be released,4,5/ in addition 3 to lbmits upon individual doses. l It is clear from Section III.B.2, above, that we, the Nuclear Regulatory. Commission, agree that Appendix I must provide suitable protection of individuals who live near the light-i water-cooled power reactor; for that we do not agree that
e' 85 l specification of an average population dose alone will - for most cases - suffice. We also agree that limiting overall doses to the population at large is important; specification of limiting doses to near neighbors of the reactor will not - in some cases - be sufficient to keep population doses as low as practicable.106/ j It is equally clear from Section III.B.5, immediately above, j that we agree with the principle that cost-balance evaluations should be used to define limiting doses from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to the population at large. We believe that lack of a suitable and agreed value for j monetary worth of a man-rem (and a man-thyroid-rem) reduc-tion in dose to the general population prevents, for the present, our use of firm cost-benefit analyses to limit I population dose. In its stead and after careful considera-tion, we have decided to adopt a 1Luit upon the permissible total-body dose from radioactive uaterials in all effluents from a light-water-cooled power reactor to the population living within 50 miles of that reactor. We do this, although no party to the hearing seems to have argued for such a limit in addition to limits to dosage for near neighbors, because we 106/ This Document, Section III.B.2, p. 46.
j ~ j 86 i I believe that such a lheit ' ensures that available technology ~ l 1 will be used to limit' releases even though the site may have no 'near neighbors. t The Hearing Record contains an abundance of information con-; cerning the radiation ~ dosage anticipated from all effluents l from light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors to the popula-tion'within 50 miles of such plants.80,92,107/ Details of f bases, models, and details of the calculation methods are j well documented. SI Essentially all of'this information f 108/ was developed for two-reactor stations on-standard sites 5 .at riverside, lakeshore,- and-seacoast locations with assumed f 09/ standard population distribution. Information was pre-t sented for both PWRs and BWRs with once-through cooling and { with cooling towers.and a wide. variety of radwaste systems. l ~ l r The Regulatory staff showed in the Final Environmental l Statement the result of such calculations.110/ In addition j ill/ they included in their Concluding Statement this infor-i mation plus the result of similar calculations for additional j l t 107/ Regulatory Staff, Concluding Statement of Position, Feb. 20, 1974. l 108/ Final: Environmental Statement, WhSH-1258, vol, 1, l p. 6.2, 6.19. l 10 Ibid,. pp. 620 and Annex 6C. Ibid., Section 7, pp. 7-1-65. / Regulatory Staff, Concluding Statement of Postion, l Feb. 20, 1975, pp. 84-131. l t f I i l 1 l
d 0* 87 cambinations of radwaste augments. It is clear from these results that for both BWRs and PWRs, with either cooling mode and at all standard sites, large total-body doses to the population within 50 miles can result if rudimentary radwaste systems are used to treat liquid effluents. Similarly, it is apparent that total-body doses to the population within 50 miles can result if rudimentary rad-waste systems are used to treat liquid effluents. Similarly, it is apparent that total-body doses to the population from the gaseous effluents are large for BWRs (and appre-ciable for PWRs) with poor radwaste systems. It is equally clear, however, that for each reactor type and location a variety of radwaste systems are available to reduce the total-body population doses from all effluents from a two-reactor station to values below, and in some cases markedly below, 5 man-rem per year. Some of the radwaste systems required to effect these large reductions in popula tion dosi are quite expensive, and it seems clear that a reasonable cost-benefit balance would not justify use of the more extreme measures. The Consolidated Utilit; Grt on the other hand, performed a detailed cost-benefit ana.3a1s for radwaste augments for l l 4 + l
y _.,. ... - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ~. _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ -. _ - _ _.. i ^ 88 l BWRs and PWRs with both cooling. modes and at all standard sites. Further study they used two reactor stations t [ and the same bases, models, and c&lculation procedures \\ used in the Final Environmental Statement.- / 80 This analysis indicated that with gaseous radwaste augments showing a i favorable cost-benefit ratio (that is, with one.or more dollars return -- at $1,000 per man-rem in dose reduction -- the total body population dose within 50 f per dollar spent) miles of a two-reactor station would be below 10 man-rem for In addition, this 'BWRs and below 5 man-rem for PWRs. analysis indicates, for two-reactor stations again, with i liquid radwaste augments with a favorable cost-benefit ratio that PWRs with once-through cooling on all standard sites l r and with cooling towers on river sites and BWRs with once-through cooling on river and lakeshore' sites and with cooling towers on river sites give less than.5 man-rem' total-body l Dr. Rodger's dose-to the population within 50 miles. -analysis also shows that the population dose for liquid f effluents-from PWRs with cooling towers on lakeshore i and seacoast sites and for BWRs with cooling towers on lakeshores sites and with either cooling mode on seacoast IIl2/ Tr., p. 3902; Walton ' A. Rodger, Additonal Testimony on Behalf of the Consolidated Utility Group, Nov. 9, 1973. j ~ i-; l l
89 sites _has even lower values when the same radwaste aug-ments are used, however, CU has argued that not all the augments are cost-benefit justified for these latter cases.?Sl We recognize that the cost-benefit calculationalll/ done with a figure of $1000 per man-rem may be appreciably affected by substitution of another dollar value and that, depending upon the magnitude of that value, either fewer or more radwaste augments might be required. The resulting dose to the population might, therefore, change in either direction. It is however our opinion, that calculated population doses from the modern light-water-cooled power reactors are so low that radwaste augments in addition to those indicated by this cost-benefit analysis will be difficult to justify. j We are also aware that some real reactor sites ma; differ considerably in meteorology in a total population and its distribution from these assumed as standards for these evaluations. We have, accordingly, decided to adopt 25 man-rem as a limit on total-body. dose from radioactive materials in all ef fluents from each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor to the L L_
e 90 We believe population living within 50 miles of that reactor. that the Record indicates that this value can be readily met for each reactor at essentially all sites and that for many, if not all, sites this value can be achieved with radwaste systems that will prove justifiable from cost-benefit considerations. We considered and rejected adoption of a lbnit upon the total thyroid dose to the population living within 50 miles of a We note that use of radwaste light-water-cooled power reactor. augments with a favorable cost-benefit ratio as suggested by Dr. Rodgerb2S! seems to lead to values well below 100 man-We believe, thyroid-rem for each two-reactor power station. that the thyroid dose to the near neighbor of the
- however, light-water-cooled power reactor will be the controlling limit in essentially all cases and that the population at be suitably protected.
large will, as a consequence, Shall Exceptions to the Design-Objective Guides 7. In its concluding statement the Regulatory staff introduced the recommendation that exceptions to the design-objective guides for liquid effluents 111/ and for radioiodine and radioactive 113/ Regulatory staff, Concluding Statement of Position, Feb. 20, 1974, pp. 26-27. ( 1 l
.;7.j,--,, ,Y d ' \\ 91 be allowed if certain " baseline 114/ -' materials in particulate orm--- l f tems in-plant control measures" were included in the radwaste-sys l } e design. I osed by For liquid effluents the design-objective guides prop l ~ i the staff stated that113/-- Lthe calculated annual total qu led nuclear of all radioactive material from all light-water-coo l in an annual dose power. reactors at a site.should not result n of an or dose' commitment'to the total body or to any orga of exposure-l individual in an unrestricted area from all pathways l total in excess of 5 millirems, and the calculated annua i i m and dissolved quantity of radioactive material, except tr t u light-water-cooled gases, should-not exceed 5 curies for each However, if the applicant had proposed reactor at a site. ral typical baseline in-plant control measures (of which seve the calculated annual total quantity l examples were listed), it for aach light-l could be permitted to exceed the 5-curie limd the design-o water-cooled nuclear power reactor provide t i l guide;for the dose limit was me. design-objective The staff has proposed no increase in'itsin-plant _ control (per site) dose level even if the baseline j We t system. measures are included'in the liquid-radwas e / i. 114/ Ibid., pp. 29-30. s ~ n L v-,,
i t i 92 ld certainly not l ibelieve that inclusion of such measures wou l L se in the (per reactor) design-objective I l justify an increa Accordingly, since we dose levels that:we have adopted. i bjective have not' included quantity limits in our des gn-o j 115/ we include no provision :for baseline in-plant i Appendix I that guides,--- control-measures for liquid effluents in the 1 l we adopt. l dioactive material l For emissions of radioactive iodine and ra l ception to the l in particulate form, the staff proposed that ex in-plant design-objective dose be allowed if the baseline 114/ te-system design. -- d f control measures were included.in the ra wasannu ) The staff recommended that the (per sitematerial in pai i l .from-radioiodine and radioact ve of an off-site should not exceed 15 millirems to any organl quantity of l l individual and that the calculated annual tota l d 1 curie for iodine-131 in gaseous effluents should not excee t i in-plant l If, the applicant had proposed basel ne l examples were listed), l each reactor. i i control measures (of.which several typ ca and radioactive l i he could be permitted releases of radioiod nein j i . material in particulate form 15 millirem dose l h i four times the quantity that would yield t e l i l to any organ of an off-site individua. i l 1 II.B.4. r .]_5/ This document, Section I 5 I J e 4 -r. o
~~..L ;.,:,=. -.
~-~-- - -
es 93 Both.GE and CU argued strongly against inclusion of such They claimed j baseline in-plant control measures in Appendix I. i that the. baseline-in-plant control measures aoproach is un-warranted since the ALAP record'shows that most of the 116-119/ " measures" are unjustifiable on a_ cost-benefit basis; that monitoring' data at operating light-water-cooled nuclear l power reactors show that most of these " measures" are unneces 1/ and that, should sary to meet the design objectives;120,12 augumentation for. building air ventilation releases be neces-sary, most of the " measures" would be technically and i 121/ economically ' inappropriate for reducing such emissions.-, b [ that, until the release.of the In' addition, GE argued the guides of proposed Regulatory staff's concluding statement, Appendix I and the alternative provisions proposed by other parties to the proceeding had been' drawn exclusively as The suggested incorporation of equip-performance standards.- in the underlying . ment criteria represented a fundamental change regulatory approach and would allow the staff to prescribe 14, 1974, pp. 22-23. 116/ General Electric, Reply,; Mar.- 1TT/ Walton A..Rodger, Additional-Testimony on Behalf of the l Consolidated Utility Group, Nov. 9, 1973, pp. 1-38. j
- ition,
-118/' Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of'Pos ~~~ Jan. 19, 1974, pp. 29-41. Consolidated Utility Group, Reply, ~~~ ' 1973. -11 Regulatory staff, Exhibit 24, Oct. / General. Electric, Exhibit 5, Nov. 9, 1973.14, 1974, p. 21. 177/ General Electric, Reply, Mar. l ) i
_.a.. " - - = - - p .z. 94 by intruding on specific effluent-treatment equipment--there ibility of the applicants -the traditional role and respons ~ t reference to the h and their' engineering consultants--wit ouf the equipment prescrib f l performance and cost-benefit status o f design-objective h We;are impressed with the argument that t ef rmance st .quides should be. drawn as per o f the public not, unless.necessary-for the protection ofor specific health and safety,-incorporate requirements i t We believe that the Record does not ind ca e equipment.- in-plant control measures - that installation of the baseline. i n obiective cuides and the consecuent relaxation of the des a -or desira on doses to. individuals - is necessary f ty. orotection of the public health and sa e b! that.PWR's and BWR's usina We note that CU has stated radwaste auaments h the assumotions in the FES and with t e hich we would iustifiable on a cost-benefit basis (and w oer year of i would release about 0.6 and 0.3 cur es Such releases of iodine-131 from reauire) iodine-131, resoectively. d to result in total a tvoical reactor site would be expecteid-rem to the populatio doses of about 60 and 30 man-thyro ll be reauired to Additional'radwaste auamentation may we via the milk l limit the thyroid dose to specific individua s 7, 1974, p. 12-13. ~123/ Consofidated Utility Group, Reply, Mar.
l t b 95 However, we pathway where cows graze close to a site. f our believe that, with the design-objective values o light-water-adopted Appendix I, the near neighbor of the t cted and cooled nuclear power reactors will be suitably pro e ld seldom, if that the baseline in-plant control measures wou Accordingly, we have not included ever, be necessary. I that we provisions for such measures in the Appendix adopt. Reactors Shall Limits Upon Direct Gamma Radiation From aEd As's'ociated Equipment Be Included?_ 8. ~~ ~~ Appendix I The State of Minnesota took the position that include the boundary-dose calculations should specifically from the reactor contributions from direct gamma radiation 125/ Consolidated National Inte'rvenors - 124/ site (gamma shine).- other th." that i also raised this point concerning radiat on ter-from radioactive materials in effluents from light-wa An early position of the cooled nuclear power reactors. 126/ also included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- t of Position, lz4/ Stade of Minnesota, Final Statemen Chapter II-E, Part 3, Feb. 1, 1974. Feb. 15, 1972, 125/ Anthony Rosiman to Algie Wells, et al., 8 July 1973, 126/ Final Environmental Statement, WASH-125,
- p. 6.
Vol. 3, pp. 263-264. i
96 ld be considered. suggestion that direct gamma radiation shouholds this The Environmental Protection Agency no longer "We recognize that the scope of the 127/ view;.it states:- - ffluents, and present rulemaking is limited to material eissue of direct and h that for this reason did not address t e We suggest indirect gamma radiation from onsite locations. f exposure through the Commission deal with this category odoses for such radiation. early issuance of limiting criteria for has shown the The Hearing Record reveals that experienced y to be highest radiation dose rate at the site boun ar from this source; generally less than 10 millirems per yeargligible levels I since the dose rate decreases rapidly to nethis source contr 128/ with distance from the site boundary, the population dose. only a fraction of a man-rem per year to l beginning with h This Hearing has been concerned from t eto the public from keeping "as low as practicable" the risksfrom light-wat t 129/ -radiactive materials in effluen s ified,- - Moreover, as the Regulatory staff test power reactors. include direct radiation proposed Appendix I was not intended to from the nuclear facility. 12, 1974, 122/ W. DERowe to L. Manning Muntzing, received f Position, 128/ Regulatory staff, Concluding Statement o
- p. 3.
Feb. 20, 1974, p. 65. ~~~ 129/ Tr., pp. 595-598.
97 We agree that such direct or scattered gamma radiation from h the turbine building and from waste storage tanks and ot er equipment containing radioactive material should continue to Such gamma be taken into account in the licensing process. radiation should be carefully controlled by proper design It and operation of the reactor and associated equipment. idance may be appropriate to issue in due course further gu from this radiation source, on levels "as low as practicable" t but we believe that such guidance should clearly be separa e from Appendix I. Will Increased Occupational Exposure to Radiation Favorable Ef fect of Appendix I? 9. Prejudi~e the the Atomic Industrial The Consolidated Utility Group (CU), and to a lesser extent the General Electric Forum (AIF), sed Company showed concern about the possible effect of propo Appendix I on occupational exposure. 13 n / in commenting on the Draft Environmental Statement, -- The AIF, tial deplored that statement's lack of consideration of poten h increases in occupational radiological exposures with t e the implementation of proposed Appendix I and suggested that ials neces-additional holdup and storage of radioactive mater osures. sary could result in substantial increases in on-site exp
- 1973, 13'Of Final Environmental Statement, WASH-1258, July Vol. 3, p. 98.
l l l
98 b$1! CU concluded that there In-its closing position statement, ff-site doses is a serious danger that the reduction in o than offset sought through proposed Appendix I will be more by an increase in occupational exposure. lt of " farfetched In objecting to equipment required as a resu 12 ! stated that assumptions," GE in'its closing statementnet increase in the such equipment could, in fact, produce a i i by increasing exposure of the human gene pool to rad at onof the .the doses to the employees d to a substantial These positions of CU and GE seem to be base [ 133,134/ concerning d extent on the testimony of Morton I. Gol manto augments to likely increases in occupational exposure due ce of such radwaste systems and of the relative importan sure to the radiation exposure compared to radiation expo12b!"Thus, In his testimony Dr. Goldman asserted population. f PositAon, Consofidated Utility Group, Statement o Docket RM-50.2, Jan. 19, 1974, p. 17. Docket RM-50-2, 131/ 115/ General Electric, Closing Statement,timony on Behalf ~~ Jan. 21, 1974, p. 34.
- 1), Occupational 133/ Morton I. Goldman, Additional Testhe Consolidi Exposure, Docket RM-50-2.
on Behalf of the ~~- 134/ Tr., pp. 3605-14 and 3999-4048. 135/ Morton I. Goldman, Additional Testimonyd 2, Docket RM-50 Consolidated Utility Group, Parts 1 an ~~~ t
e- - : a.:. ::, ? :: :.m=:: t - ~ ~ - ~ ' - u.. l, .99 ' j j tion considers 4 the International Commission for Radiation Protec l bout'10 times as that the occupational population dose may be a " and seems to l significant as that to the general public... belief that j base much of the thrust of his testimony on his I Dr. Goldman gave as the' basis for his view such is the' case. b 5!'of the International t i f an excerpt.from a publication i Commission for Radiation Protect on. 'T j Goldman has The Record 137/ seems to make clear that Dr. ragraphs of the misinterpreted the intent of.the pertinent pa tion document. j International Commission.for Radiation Protec ive increased r I l We believe that, without such a factor to gdata presented-3 1 .l do f: weight to occupational exposure, the i b ble impact of f not support the conclusion that the pro aill outweigh the proi Appendix'I on occupational exposure w l reduction of exposure to the population. l dix I on occupational l In assessing the probable impact of Append an analysis of dat exposure,'the Regulatory staff attempte They found that ldman. equivalent to that. presented by Dr. Go f the data and ~ no conclusions were warranted on the basis o i The staff sary. that.a more detailed. evaluation.was neces ~ 136/ ICRP Publ.ication 22, Paragraph 18. 1 IT7/ Tr., PP 4015-18.
4 100 by visiting 11 selected proceeded _to study occupational.exposurereviewing exp l t operating nuclear power p an s, rsonnel.11E! This study and holding: discussions with utility pe ste-treatment systems d suggested'that augmentation of_the ra wadix I might be to meet the objectives.of proposed Appenure by about 7%. 4 The expected to-increase occupational exposincrease in exposure observation that little if any of the The e significance. would be unavoidable-seems'of'even mor ff is that " implementation general conclusion of the Regulatory staincrease occupation of Appendix I need not significantly llenged in This conlusion seems not to be cha exposure".120! 1Ab! and GEbAb! to the concluding statement the replies by CU ff. of position of the Regulatory sta level of occupational h We continue to be concerned about t ed steps are being taken exposure in nuclear power plants, ans to levels that are "as to reduce the occupational exposureRegulatory G July low as practicable." ontrol information 1973, details the occupational-exposure c This applications. that should be provided.in license in the licensing process, information is now being reviewed ational Radiation ~118/ Charles A. Willis, A Study of _ the Occup tems at Nuclear Exposure Due to Radwaste Treatment Sys it 23. Power Plants, Docket RM-50-2, Exhibl dina Statement of P 131/ Regulatorv staf f, Conc uDocket RM-50-2, Feb. 20.
- p. Reply, Mar. 7, 1974.
64. liO/ Consolidated Utility Group,lil/ General Electric 1974.
mww. i 1 101 rocedures, and applicants are being asked to improve plans,.p l The SAR and designs where appropriate to reduce exposure. increase Standard Format document is being revised to l Thus, the import-emphasis on occuptional-exposure control..as low as practical tance of keeping occupational exposure ht is recognized,-and progress _is being made toward t a f However,1we believe that implementation of I objective. f occupational Appendix I is compatible with the reduction o if any, in s exposure, and we are convinced that increase, ~ ll. the levels of such exposures will be sma l E i I l l , y,-y.$ wy = w y...m.-y -a-- ? e 4 er---+-9--T t-e
W i 102 CHAPTER IV. GUIDES ON TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION of 10 CFR Part 50 provides that licensees Section 50.36a(b) shall be guided by certain considerations in establishing l and implementing operating procedures specified in technica specifications which take into account the need for operating flexibility and at the same time ensure that the licensee will exert his best efforts to keep levels of radioactive The Appendix materials in effluents as low as practicable. I that we adopt provides more specific guidance to licensees in this respect. A. The Rule Section IV of Appendix I specifies action levels for the If, for any individual light-water-cooled nuclear licensee. power reactor, the quantity of radioactive material actually released in effluents to unrestricted areas during any calendar quarter is such as to cause radiation exposure, calculated on the same basis as the design-objective exposure, which would exceed one-half the annual design-objective f exposure, the licensee shall make an investigation to identi y the causes of these high release rates, define and initiate a program of action to correct the situation, and report l these actions to the Commission with 30 days of the end l 1 l 1
103 On the basis of reports required of the calendar quarter. and Appendix I and any additional by Section 50.36a (2) from the licensee information that the Commission may obtain time require the and others, the Commission may from time todeems appropriate. i licensee to take such action as the Commiss on ill be based Should Commission action be appropriate, it w its action on upon a careful evaluation of the effects of the public need the health and safety of the public and on for power. the necessary These provisions will, we believe, ensure d nuclear power operating flexibility for light-water-coole diation exposures reactors and at the same time ensure that ra l ar reactors will to individuals in the vicinity of such nuc e itted by be at the most a small fraction of exposures perm present radiation protection standards. to conduct an appropriate The licensee is also required (1) ide data on f surveillance and monitoring program to provd in liquid and quantities of radioactive materials release f this gaseous effluents to ensure that the provisions o I to provide data on measurable levels (2) Appendix I are met, environment so h of radiation and radioactive materials in t e f radioactive that the relationship between quantities o individuals can materials released and radiation dosages to to identify changes in the use of be evaluated, and (3)
m3"An xe 104 grams for cyclucting / unrestricted areas co thct> monitoring pro ipal pathways of exposure i the doses to individuals from pr nc can be modified. if the data developed in the sur-It is further provided that, d above show the veillance and monitoring program describe tive materials relationship between quantities of radioaci iduals in unrestricted released in effluents and the dose to ind vh t as areas is significantly different from t a limits, the Commission i tions used to determine design-object ve l specifications defining can modify the quantities in the technicain the license that a the limiting conditions for operation If ower reactor. operation of the light-water-cooled nuclear p mined on the basis radioactive-iodine design objectives are detertor is licensed w of conditions existing at the time the reac illance and monitor-regard to future land use, an augmented surve ing program may be required. Discussion of Section IV of Appendix I B. Action Action Levels and Licensee and Commission dioactive materials in 1. We expect that the annual releases of ra d nuclear power reactors can effluents from light-water-coole t forth as numerical generally be maintained within the levels seIt is certa guides for design objectives. his best efforts licensee will, under all circumstances, exert in effluents from light-to keep levels of radioactive materials design-objective h water-cooled nuclear power reactors within t e
e C 105 i At the same time the licensee should, in our opin on, guides. t with be permitted some flexibility of operation, consisten sure sound considerations of public health and safety, to en e of power that the public is provided with a dependable sourctemporarily even under unusual conditions of operation that may lead to releases of radioactive materials higher then those specified as the design-objective guides. bL !that operating The Regulatory Staff has consistently argued, low flexibility is necessary, especially in view of the very i dix I. release levels inherent in the staff's versions of Appen the need As the Record shows, there is some disagreement as to for such operating flexibility and a diversity of opinion on I the formulation of guidelines in this regard. 2! at "the degree of th The Consolidated Utility Group has argued l ) proposed operating flexibility provided in (the original y ystem Appendix I is too restrictive and may threaten power s Similar arguments were presented by the Atomic reliability." E! e th Industrial Forum,b!the Gulf General Atomic Company, - Ebasco Services,7/and the American Bechtel Power Corporation,6/ i f bI egulatory staff, Exhibit 1, Tab. 1. R ?osition, pp. 32 and 2/ egulatory staff, Concluding Statement R b/ onsolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, p. 16. 68-70. C
- p. 6.
b! r., p. 86; Merril Eisenbud, Statement, I T NFinal Environmental Statement, p. 61. b/ inal Environmental Statement, pp. 91-92. F 'r. 1/ r. pp. 109-116. T
l -106 ~ Electric Power-Service: Corporation.S!On the other hand, ovisions Consolidated National Intervenors contended that no pr / for_ operating flexibility were necessary or desirable.S 1SI Moreover,:the: State of Minnesota in its-final statement J i argued that'there has been no showing by the utilities of a l need for operating flexibility,-that subh provisions for d that the . operating flexibility should be deleted, an ld be treated as . numerical guides for design objectives _ shou l Nevertheless, Minnesota maximum limits never to be exceeded. f recommended guidelines for limiting' conditions for operation. The. evidence shows that there will be variations in the i that performance.of fuel elements and radwaste equipment, these variations may, on a transient basis, result in levels of radioactivity in effluents which exceed the design-l l objective guide values,-and that operational flexibility, is l ~ ithin the very low-ranges of release rates involved, l w necessary if nuclear reactors are to have adequate relia-l I The arguments to the contrary bility as a source of power. j ~ Arguments of the several l l I are not supported in evidence. l parties that the' limiting conditions for operation would be f l S. Atomic E Letter from Robert S. Hunter to Secretary, U. 1972. Energy Commission, Feb. 22, 15, 1972. l bI Anthony Roisman.to Algie A. Wells et al.,.Feb. = l 10/' State of Minnesota, Final Statement of Position, pp. 4-5. l I' t E i i
..y _.-~. 7__.. __1 107 idelines too restrictive were specifically directed to the gu we have In our judgment the guideline: originally proposed. adopted are necessary and reasonable. Com-We decided to omit the proposed level for initiating to act mission action, since the Commission is already free the and a numerical guide at this point might suggest that J Commission would be inattentive to releases of smaller magnitude. Surveillance and Measurements in Operating Plants 2. wer Experience with operating light-water-cooled nuclear po was reactors and with measuring effluents from these plants i i l bases t recognized by the Commission as one of the substant a f 10 CFR Part on which the as low as practicable provisions o 11/ The quantitative 50 were proposed and adopted in 1970. of data that can be acquired in the future through programs in the measurement and surveillance in the plant as well a; ii nts as being environment have been noted by several part c pa prac-of special importance in implementing the "as low as ticable" policy and Appendix I. l d Quantitative measurement of radioactive materia i d to in effluents has always been required of persons l cense All 35 F.R. 5414 and 18387. u
108 Indeed, the amendments to operate nuclear power plants. 1970, require that all such Part 50, published December 3, licensees periodically report to the Commission "the quan-tity of each of the principal radionuclides released to d such unrestricted areas in liquid and in gaseous effluents...an other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation doses to the 2/ It is clear public resulting from effluent releases."1 that information derived from actual observation and meas-l part urement of environmental factors should be an essentia h of the data supplied to the Commission pursuant to paragrap
- 50. 36a (a) (2) cited above.
From the standpoint of ensuring control during reactor low operation, measurement of effluents and exposures at the Edward levels proposed in the Hearing Record are difficult. testifying for the Consolidated National Inter-P. Radford, venors, would prefer higher design-objective doses if thatble.13/ were necessary to make measurement of human dose practica This preference for measured confirmation of estimates was As discussed in Chapter V of shared by other participants. the incentives for improving calculational ) this document, f 1I 10 CFR 50.36a (a) (2). Radford, Testimony on Behalf of National Inter-2072; l 11! Edward P.National Intervenors, Exhibit 3, p. 3; Tr., p. l venors: l and Tr., p. 2077.
~ _~_ ~ 109 hing design models, which must necessarily be used in establis 14/ Measurements at objectives for each reactor, are strong.-- 15/ operating reactors are a means for making improvements. - f We are in sympathy with those who cite the virtues o h designing and operating effluent-control systems with t e bitrarily enlightenment of real experience rathbr than with ar Measured levels of conservative calculational models. in comparison environmental radioactivity are generally small i 16/ rates. - with values calculated from known or presumed release lto-Deviations of measured from calculated doses are not a Mea-ault of deficient calculational methods. gether a r( i f surements of environmental exposures and quantit es o d by the radioactive materials in the environs are complicate r background, very low concentrations encountered, compared to i g in and by the fact that a multitude of factors, many var n Thus the corre-time and space, affect the concentration. lation of the best of measurements with the best 17/ uulations is tedious and dif ficult. -
- p. 5; Consolidated General Electric, Closing Statement, Utility Group, S item 7.
11/
- p. 16; Lester Rogers, AbI Regulatory staff, Concluding Statement, Testimo 409.
36; 15! onsolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, P. General Electric, Reply, pp. 16-18. C h Final See the discussion of the iodine pathway study in t eR 1, 11! Environmental Statement,pp. 9-16 to 9-21; Regulatory s 3522-84. of this study at Tr., pp.
e 110 l We are not in the position of being able to avoid calcu a-i tional procedures in implementing the design-object ve i guidelines of Appendix I or to depend completely on mon tor-and environmental surveillance to indicate ing, measurement, Programs of measurement and compliance of operating plants. 1S/ however, we surveillance entail cost to the utilities; feasible are assured that surveillance and monitoring are 19/ for the more sensitive pathways to radiation exposure.--d to Studies to relate emissions and doses should be confin l to the radionuclides and pathways to human exposure like y be of practic'l value.SS/ The pathway of greatest concern is the radiciodine course The Commission from air to grass to cow to milk to child. f this and the Environmental Protection Agency made a study o in pathway, including a program of independent measurements 4 l r the vicinity of three operating light-water-cooled r.uc ea power plants. 1/ This study and further evidence in the 2 t Record show the practicability of making useful measuremen s in which pertaining to the radioiodine pathway in situations ibit 7, James M. Smith, Testimony for General Electric, Exh 1S/ pp. 12-21, and Regulatory staff, Exhibit 26.
- Smith,
- p. 41; James M.
AS! General Electric, Closing Statement, Testimony for Gen ibit 7. (Dr. Radford), pp. 2-3. SS/ National Intervenors, Exhibit 3 above. SE/ References related to Regulatory staff, Exhibit 24, P
[f:a=a;pj3c w:-- - ;;;-- ---=--_ _ l i i' l 111 22/ We have required, by - radiolodine presents a problem.- Appendix I, special surveillance measures for such situ-ations and'have. adopted an implementation policy that should encourage applicants to use the best data available in any (- r l Case. L l l i i i l 1 s t i l-l i l f I. 1. l ii 26. _22/ See for example Regulatory staff, Exh b t 4-I r L. c- .-l
s;t 112. CHAPTER V. f IMPLEMENTATION \\ l ) on-Two aspects in'the implementation of Appendix I were.c i The manner in which'the new rule 'sidered in the Hearing. in i is applied'to existing reactors and to other reactors This' matter, .i various' stages of. licensing is one problem. l d below including'the question of backfitting, is covere ] The other sense in under the heading " Applicability." idance which implementation was considered' concerns the gu d to given by.the. Commission to the Regulatory staff an h applicants 3, applying the numerical guidelines to t e This is discussed design objectives of a specific reactor. Appendix below under-the heading " Numerical Guidelines." i I incorporates these two matters in Section V, Effect ve l Dates, and Section III, Implementation,. respective y. A. Applicability
- 1. -
The Rule ditions The guides for design' objectives and limiting con for operation set forth in Appendix I shall be applicable f in any case in which an application was filed on or a ter t January 2, 1971, for a permit to construct a light-wa er-cooled nuclear power reactor. L
c., \\ i 113 For each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor con-structed pursuant to a permit for which application was filed prior to January 2, 1971: The holder of the permit or a license authorizing (a) operation of the reactor shall, within a period of (the ef fective date of this Appen,- twelve months from dix), file with the Commission: such information as is necessary to evaluate the (1) means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as including all such information as is practicable, rejuired by Section 50.34a not already contained in his application; and plans and proposed technical specifications de-(2) veloped for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal reactor operations, including expected operational occurrences, as low as practicable. The technical specifications included in any license (b) auth:rizing operation of the reactor shall, within a (the effective date period of thirty-six months from or by the date of issuance of such of this Appendix), i I I i
, m, I 114 i license, whichever is later, conform to the requ re-d that the' Commission ments of Section 50.36a; provide l ary to t may extend the period as may be deemed necess i allow for evaluation by the Commission. l Discussion of Applicability 10 CFR Part 50 2. The "as low as practicable" amendments to 1/ instituted new requirements l published on December 3, 1970, i to for:- information contained in applications for perm ts (a) ccnstruct nuclear power reactors; f to information contained in applications for licenses (b) operate such reactors; and includert in particular technical specifications to be -(c) i pro-each operating license with respect to operat ng cedures and reports to the Commission. i the manner These anendments contained no guidance concern ng ld be in which'the additional information in applications wou Con-oposal. l considered nor criteria for acceptance of a pr d d in establish-siderations by which licensees would be gui e f included in ing and implementing operating procedures to be i h mmendments. technical specifications were included in t e 1/ 35 F.R. 18387* 1
3 _.. 4 1 115 its The requirement that applications for construction perm identify design objectives and the means to be employed for keeping levels of radioactive material in effluents to d unrestricted areas "as low as practicable" applies, accor - ing to those amendments, to. cases in which applications 1971. Other provisions are filed on or after January 2, 1971. of the amendments became effective on January 2, 1 i i 's Neither the language of Section 50.34a nor the Comm ss on f l and statements of consideration incidental to the proposa adoption of this section suggest that the Commission intended that persons who already held licenses to operate be nuclear power reactors at the time of adoption would ii s required necessarily to conform to the specific prov s on In its original statement of consider-of Section 50.34a. ations, the Commission stated:^I in general, the "The commission believes that, releases of radioactivity in effluents from light-water-cooled power reactors now in operation have been within ranges that may be considered 'as low as practicable'." ticable" Rather, the formal imposition of the "as low as prac d requirement on all licensees in general was institute
- /
35 Fed. Reg. 5414.
116 Fur-through the adoption of sections 50.34a and 50.36a. d thermore, while section 50.36a does not explicitly exclu e preexisting licensees from its sphere of applicability, the specific requirements of this section all refer to specific actions that are required of applicants or licen-One of these is the. sees only under Section 50.34a. identification of design objectives, an action which would be untimely for a licensee whose plant is already operating Other and for which no further modification is planned. requirements of Section 50.34a are similar, but not iden-tical, to those to which all applicants' for permits to construct and licensees to operate nuclear reactors have conformed. It is desirable to provide clear guidance in Appendix I on the procedures by which persons who hold permits to con-struct or licenses to operate light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors, but to whom sections 50.34a and 50.36a may not strictly apply, may comply with the "as low as prac-Hence Section V of Appendix I ticablo" requirement. includes requirements which apply to such cases, to the end that all licenses for operating this type of reactor will in due time conform in substance to section 50.36a.
117 It should be noted that all licensees who may not other-wise be required to establish design objectives relative to radioactive materials in effluents must establish equivalent objectives with. respect to quantities of radio-active material released in effluents in order to comply with section V B 2 (b) of Appendix I. Appendix I as now adopted contains two types of guidance The first is pertaining to the amendments cited above. concerned with determination of " design objectives" and "means to be employed" that would be acceptable to the Commission.E/ The other is concerned with " limiting conditions for operation" to be included in technical specifications.E*/ The manner and timing for applying the additional guidelines of Appendix I to various cases are matters that stimulated considerable debate in the Hearing. '/ L The essence of the Regulatory staff's position is: the limiting conditions for operation de- ...that scribed in Section IV of Appendix I be applicable EI 10 CFR 50.34a(a). l E"I 10 CFR 50.36 (c) (2) and 50.36a. S/' Regulatory Staff, Concluding Statement, pp. 73-74. i
118 = .e d upon publiention to technical cpacifications include in any license authorizing operation of a light-water-to a cooled raclear power reactor constructed pursuant d on or construction permit for which application was file For all other operating licenses, after January 2, 1971. ides in technical specifications in conformity with the gu h Section IV should be developed within 24 months from t e effective date of Appendix I and included in any license power authorizing operation of a light-water-cooled nuclear The amendments to Part 50, Sections 50.34a and reactor. 50.36a requiring that levels of radioactivity in effluents [be kept as from light-water-ccoled nuclear power reactors low as practicablel have been in effect for more than three in years and substantial progress has been made by licensees It is the staff's view that augmenting radwaste systems. 24 months is a reasonable period of time to complete i I modifications that may be required to meet the Append x limiting conditions of operation to be included in technical specifications cf operating licenses." in its reply to this staff proposal, commented General Electric, l ts only on the merits of backfitting, that is augmenting of p an l already constructed or in operation with additional contro h equipment.SI They argued that the facts require that t e if they are to be consistent numerical guides of Appendix I, 34-35. S[ General Electric, Reply, pp.
m_. l 119 l with the basic standard,.must make special allowance for currently. operating plants and that guides and limits that are "as low as practicable" for plants that still exist only on paper must necessarily be lower.than " practicable" for plants that can install augmented effluent-treatment systems only on .a more costly backfit basis. The Consolidated Utility Group N also favored a case-by-case consideration of backfitting. .Although the backfitting issue arose over the part of proposed Appendix-I that dealt only with " limiting conditions for operation," it is clear that the implication of this part of' Appendix I would have been-that' persons holding licenses for~1ight-water-cooled-nuclear power plants now in operation would have been required to comply with the design-obje'ctive provisions as well', even if such compliance involved back - fitting E We note that the Record shows that some such licensees had already undertaken steps, including backfitting, to comply with proposed Appendix I, even though it was not an effective part of the Commission's regulations.M The Regulatory staff-agreed,.however, that backfitting should be considered on ~ a-case-by-case basis. b Y onsolidated Utilities, Reply, p. 25. C N Lester Rogers, Testimony for.the Regulatory staff, Tr., pp; 340-341. M Tr., P.;4147. 3591-92. E Lester Rogers, Testimony, Tr., pp. i I.. l
a 120 ) The Record clearly shows that the costs of augmenting an existing plant would generally be substantially greater in a than the cost of installing similar control equipment / Furthermore, the plant that is still being designed.8,9 information on the quantities of radioactive material in effluents of these plants indicates no need for any pre-cipitous action that would be applicable to all existing plants alike. b! These two factors led us to conclude idered that the licenses for existing plants snould be cons the As noted elsewhere in this opinion, case-by-case. design-objective guidelines of Appendix I do not preclude l from prosecuting his case on the fundamenta an applicant in Sections definition of the term "as low as practicable" Under the terms of Appendix I as 20.l(c) and 50.34a(a). presently adopted, a person holding a license to operate l an existing plant has, inherently, no less right to fol ow Hence, it is unnecessary and would be re-such a course. dundant to include any statement for this special case
- Likewise, specifically permitting a case-by-case evaluation.
in the detail suggested we consider it superfluous to state, by General Electric,b! the methods that would be permissible 1, pp. 3-4 and 3-5. E Final Environmental Statement, Vol.4 and 10. E! Regulatory staff, Exhibit 25, pp. b! egulatory staff, Exhibit 27. R 54-56. b! eneral Electric, Closing Statement, pp. G
r--~..,..-,-.7..-. [ 3 ---- i 121 l We agree as bases for establishing design objectives. i f design that it would be preferable to base evaluat ons o h reactor objectives on actual operating experience with t e i in question in cases where substantial relevant informat on has been accumulated during plant operations. in the The scheduling of compliance with Section 50.36a light of the new guidance of Appendix I is a further f d All matter for which varying resolutions were propose. ts parties considering this point in concluding statemen design objectives agreed that guidelines with respect to bothbe applicable, and limiting conditions for operation should lication as soon as effective, to all cases for which an app 2, for a constructiop permit was filed on or after January i lly For all other cases, the Regulatory staff orig na 1971. finally proposed a 36-month period for compliance and 2 13/ General Electric proposed proposed a 24-month period.1, 1$/ while the that 36 months be allowed for compliance; dline except Consolidated Utility Group would set no dea i r for a 12-month period within which holders of perm ts oion. i licensees would have to file plans with the Comm ss b! 36 FR'llll3. p. 35. -- Regulatory staff. Concluding Statement, 13/ pp. 54-57. 14/ General Electrf, Closing Statement, 15! Consolidated Ut.lity Group, Statement of Position i I
- -.m.-..; _ - '
=- 122 h re is In view of the facts already noted, namely that t e d by plants no hazard presently and generally being impose h ecific that were not licensed in accordance with t e sp h t it is guidelines of Appendix I, we have concluded t a d submission reasonable to allow 12 months for development an h for complete of plans for Commission approval and 36 mont s for any conformity of operating reactors, with allowance In arriving at these unusual delay for Commission review. idence from any time allowances, we have little factual ev The information in party as to the time actually needed. the actions the Regulatorv staff's concluding statement on i licensing of licensees to comply with "the staff's inter m f design objectives and guidelines" would have been o been undis-little value for this purpose, even if it had 15/ We believe, I puted or a part of the evidentiary record. f the however, that with official notice being taken o i tion to dates times actuclly clapsed from dates of appl cai d allowed for of issuance of permits and licenses the per o compliance is adequate. l Implementation of Numerical Guidelines B. 1. The Rule i itly include We have decided that Appendix I should expl cd to other Commission guidance to the Regulatory staff an 73 and Annex. Regulatory staff, Corcluding Statement, p.
1 9 'e 123 i interested persons with respect to the use of conservat ve or realistic calculational procedures in the application Accordingly, of the numerical guides for design objectives. Section III of Appendix I states that compliance with the guides on design objectives shall be demonstrated by cal. culational procedures based on models and data such that the actual exposure of an individual through appropriate pathways is unlikely to be substantially underestimated, Account all uncertainties being considered together. shall be taken of the cumulative effect of all sources and pathways witbin the plant contributing to the particular I For determination of type of effluent being considered. design objectives in accordance with the guides of Section the estimation of exposure shall be made II of Appendix I, with respect to such potential land and water use and food pathways as could actually exist during the term of plant operation, provided that, if special surveillance measures 1 the requirements of paragraph C of Section are carried out, f II with respect to radioactive iodine may be made on the basis of such food pathways and individual receptors as The actually exist at the time the plant is licensed. characteristics attributed to a hypothetical receptor for ~ the purpose of estimating internal dose commitment shall { take into account reasonable deviations of individual i l 1 i
-s o A '~ 124 t The applicant may take account ' habits from the average. of any real phenomena or factors actually affecting the r i estimate of radiation exposure,' including the characterist cs of the plant, modes of discharge of radioactive materials, l physical processes' tending to attenuate the quantity of radioactive material to which an individual would be exposed, and the effects of averaging exposures over times f during which determining factors may fluctuate, If the applicant determines design objectives with respect f to radioactive iodine on the basis of existing conditions and if-potential changes in land and water use and food pathways could result in exposures in excess of the guida-the applicant line values of,aragraph C of Section II, l shall provide reasonable assurance that a monitoring and i surveillance program will be performed to determine: 1 the quantities of radioactive iodine actually released (a) to the atmosphere and deposited relative to those estimated in the determination of design objectives; whether changes in land and water use and food path-(b) -ways which would result in individual exposures and greater than originally estimated have occurred; the content of radioactive iodine in foods involved (c) in the changes, if and when they occur. t F D I 6 L.
p; a 5 125-2. Discussion The numerical guidelines of Appendix I, when applied in accordance with the conditions specified therein, are a quantitative expression of the meaning of the requirements that radioactive material in effleunts released to unre-stricted areas from light-water-cooled nuclear power These. guidelines, reactors be kept as low ss practicable. particularly with respect to design objectives, are expressed as specific numerical limits for three types of The numerical aspects of this translation of f effluents. ~ standing alone, are the basic ru 2 of Section 50.34a, clearly a compromise of the rule in the sense that a quantitative level that might be precisely as low as practicable in one case would not necessarily be so in j The numerical guidelines were chosen on the another. basis that the Record shows these limits'to be practicably h l achievable for almost all cases to which we consider t em Furthermore, in view of the elements of applicable. conservatism and realism inherent in the evaluations presented in the Hearing, we believe the Record supports ikely the conclusion that the maximum individual exposure l to ensue from operation of nuclear power reactors in ll that no .conformance with Appendix I is sufficiently sma i
Q3 -s. f' 5 126 l i additional expense could be' justified for reducing the exposure of an individual further than required by Appendix I, it must be understood in discussing the matters of calcula-i tional conservatism and realism that Appendix I means, implicitly, that any facility that conforms to the numerical and other conditions thereof is acceptable without further l i question with respect to Section 50.34a. It is just as t essential that Appendix I be understood as not implying, conversely, that any facility not conforming is necessarily unacceptable. The numerical guidelines are, in this a conservative set of requirements and are indeed
- sense, based upon conservative evaluations.
The numerical guideline values were adopted in the light of numerous evaluations of typical nuclear plants at various types of sites. These evaluations, presented by i various parties, were based on calculations of radiation doses which generally could be understood as estimates of the level of exposure of individuals in the general public from hypotheticaA releases of radioactive material. l t Similar estimates will have to be made on a case-by-case i t basis by applicants for licenses for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors in order to establish appropriate f
n - e'
- 3 L
127 i design objectives. 'Thus the use of calculational procedures t based at least partially upon hypotheses is unavoidable. It is evident from the Record that numerical estimates of radiation exposure may vary widely, depending upon the f These assumptions involve. particular assumptions made. the selection of appropriate mathematical expressions of f natural' phenomena, including the assignment of numerical values to the parameters contained in the expressions. Inasmuch as results of calculations can vary widely, an issue has been raised by some participants as to how the numerical guilelines can be implemented in consonance with The necessity and importance the process of.their adoption. of adequate attention to numerical calculational procedures was aptly expressed by Hearing Board member Walter H. Jordan:b2/ "[t]he interpretation of Appendix I is almost going to be as important a. factor in which is practicable as the regulation itself." Some parties severely criticized the conservatism of the Regulatory staff and proposed that Appendix I include guidance on implementation in order to ensure that applicants have the opportunity to use reasonably realistic assumptions ll/ Ta., pp. 2547-48. I
=- . = -. 9 128 4 18-20/
- in their procedures for estimating radiation exposure The necessity of explicit guidance is suggested in the argument that the procedures used by the Regulatory staff for calculating doses show a predisposition to make unnec-The drsft Regulatory essarily conservative assumptions.
Guides circulated by the Directorate of Regulatory Standards with the staff's concluding statement reflect a tendency toward the use of unnecessarily conservative calculational The calculational methods described in the assumptions. Final Environmental Statement and in draft Regulatory S$! urthermore it f . Guides are opposed in some particulars; was also argued.that the staff has, in the course of reactor licensing actions, generally been quite conservative in its quantitative assessment of effluent controls. Particular areas of controversy shifted as the Hearing progressed.22/ It was not clear to participants whether or not models and assumptions used in the Final Environ-mental Statement were also intended by the Regulatory staf f AS[ General Electric, Closing Statement, pp. 26-45.
- Reply,
- p. 10.
10! Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, 13-14, 71, and A-4. pp. 4. 2p/ Andrew P. Hull, Finai Statement of Position, p. 11! Closing Statement of General Electric and Statement of Position by Consolidated Utility Group referenced above; see also Testimony in General Electric, Exhibits 6 and 7 110-127. and the Oral Argument, Tr., pp. 32/ Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, p. 44.
\\ 129 I to be applicable to the analysis of individual applications Examples for licenses in the implementation of Appendix I. of unnecessarily conservative implementation methods, as excessive they have been used in current licensing includes source-term assumptions with regard to radiciodine emissions; I neglect, with regard to such emissions, of their' chemical actual release points and modes, and expected plume
- form, behavior; overestimation of deposition rates and retention factors for radioiodine on forages; and postulation of r
nonexistent dairy cows and unrealistic milk-consumption patterns.22/ Following the filing of the Regulatory staff's concluding General Electric noted important improvements in statement, the staff's proposed Appendix I, including some dealing with calculational models; but GE noted that the staff's proposed Appendix I still failed to specify whether the cale21ational assumptions and models to be used in implementation are to i be established on a " conservative" basis or, as GE urged, on i the basis of best-estimates of the relevant physical phe-
- nomena.SSI The staff argued neither for nor against including guidance although in on calculational assumptions in Appendix I, S$! General Electric, Closing Statement, p. 5.
2A/ eneral Electric, Reply, pp. 2-3. G i e
e 4 130 testimony the staff's principal witness conceded that particularly critical points had been raised in the Hearing with respect to implementation and that at the time of issuance of Appendix I some specific understanding should be attained. E! We believe the evidence at hand cupports the decision that Appendix I should include Commission guidance.respecting the use of conservative or realistic calculational procedures in the application of the numerical guides for design objectives. We summarize below the matters involved in reaching this conclusion and in applying the guidelines in accordance with Commission intent. Calculational procedures used in the application of Appendix I for making the numerical estimates of radiation doses have been variously called by such terms as " calculational assump-tions and models," "models and input data," " assumptions and models," or simply "models." Such procedures require the skillful use of mathematical expressions characterizing It is evident that such expressions are natural phenomena. generally expected to yield quantitative results that are, at best, approximations to reality. Simpler models, for example, ones that would not embody any facility for taking S5/ Lester Rogers, Testimony, Tr., p. 3412.
qw - ~ - Ey J 131 into account differences in plant design, would not be expected to produce estimates as close to reality for a wide variety of designs as would more complex models. Calculational procedures used for dose estimations in essence describe, albeit approximately: sources of radioactive materials and the pathways (a) inside a plant by which such materials are released; the natural processes by which released material is (b) transported through the environs; and (c) the model receptor, i.e., a real or hypothetical in-dividual ultimately exposed to radiation. The selection of specific models for each of these three portions of the procedure involves two types of determina-one must select models and data that represent tions.
- First, For example, the the situation deemed to be important.
choice of a hypothetical receptor rather than an existing individual might reflect, in part, the intent to use the guidelines as a mechanism to provide for future changes in occupancy of areas near the site. The Regulatory staff properly identifies this as a means of expressing Regulatory intent.- / Second, models and data must be found which 26 represent the physical phenomena involved with some useful t 21/ Regulatory staff, Closing Statement, p. 52. l
k 132 s Conflicting views have been advanced, in evi-precision. on all portions of the calculational dence and in argument, 27-31/ procedures and for both types of selections. lidated It was observed by both General Electric and the Conso t on Utility Group that considerable progress toward agreemen h the models was made in the course of the Hearing, althoug f intent of the Regulatory staff in future implementation o i d in the numerical guidelines on a case-by-case basis rema ne 32/ doubt after the staff's concluding statement was filed.-- f the We believe we have developed a suitable resolution o Our resolut) differences for all practical purposes. . hods strongly favors the suggestions that calculational me f be realistic, which in turn has influenced our adoption o j tives. particular numerical guideline values for dose ob ec This resolution, thus, has been a strong factor in our those reconciliation of the differences among parties as to for, as one party stated:S2! "The evidence is clear values; 26-45. b2[ General Electric, Closing Statement, pp. SS! Ned R. Horton, Testimony, General Electric, Exhibit 6. James M. Smith, Testimony, General Electric, Exhibit 7. SE! SSI Oral Argument, Tr., pp. 110-127. S1! onsolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, Cpp. 13-14 and 71. 2. SS/ General Electric, Reply, p. 22I General Electric, Reply, p. 24.
4 i 3, i O 133 realistically applied, the dose objectives now pre-i
- that, sented in [the staff's proposed] Revised Appendix I can be met without reliance on exceptions or special provisions...."
The essence of our conclusions on how calculational pro-cedures should be used in determining design objectives is given in the five following points. An applicant should be free to use as realistic a modet for (1) characterizing natunt phenomena, including plant perfom1nce, as he considers useful. An applicant may take into account situations not adequately chameterized by such standardized i modets as may be available with respect to specific featurae of plant design, propoacd modes of plant operation, or local natumi environmental featurca which are not likely to change significantly during the term of plant ope n tion. General Electric noted several effects that should be recog-nized,E and we restate some of ti:em here to illus'. rate natural phenomena that might be partially or entirely neglected in standard models but could be properly con-sidered: radioisotopic composition of effluents; (a) radioactive decay of released nuclides prior to (b) exposure of the receptor; l pp. 28-32. E General Electric, Concluding Statement,
p s... u I 4 e 134 waterway flow and the associated diffusion and (c) dilution; removal of radioactive material from solution or (d) suspension in the water by sedimentation or other naturally occurring mechanisms or by water-treatment processes; exposure modes and occupancy or use factors; (e) (f) release conditions (to the atmosphere) including effluent stream buoy-elevation of release point, ancy and momentum, and building geometry; lo 31 meteorological and aerodynamic conditions (g) influencing airborne effluent plume dispersion; beta and gamma radiation energies for the radio-(h) isotopes released and the associated dose effects; chemical form and physi. cal behavior of the efflu-(i) ent constituents; (j) plume elevation, size, and depletion; (k) shielding effects; and other retention and (1) partitioning, filtration, depletion effects; deposition rates and velocities for the various (:m) chemical forms of released radioiodine on offsite vegetation, ground, and other surfaces, with l
- - - ~ - c; ,u
- g_
,6 135 appropriate apportionment to the vegetation of its capture fraction; and weathering and other loss factors for radiciodine (n) on grass and other vegetation. Clearly other natural phenomena must also be adequately taken-into account'in models used for determining design i objectives, but these are-sufficiently established in prac-i 4 tice that they need not be repeated here. Although both General Electric and the Consolidated Utility Group asserted that the Regulatory staff's intentions are-uncertain, staff testimony clearly shows that case-by-case consf.eration of. realistic models different from standard d models is an acceptable practice.22/ In their concluding statement the' staff quoted from the official Commission ~ 25! statement published with each Regulatory Guide: " Regulatory Guides are not substitutes for regulations Methods and and compliance with them is not required. 4 solutions different from those set out in the guides f will be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a l -permit or license by the Commission." 3391, 3411; Peter O. 25/ Lester Rogers, Testimony, Tr., pp. 3380. Strom, Tr., P. 3447; Earl H. Markee, Tr., i 83. Sk/ Regulatory staff, Concluding Statement, p. i j l'
W 6 136 The models last proposed by the Regulatory staff are different from the highly criticized versions used in the 38/ evaluations presented in the Final Environmental Statement.- Testimony of the staff indicates that the models used by the staff and described in Regulatory Guides will continue to change. b We believe Regulatory Guides to be useful; however, Regulatory Guide models should not be applied as a We norm to be abandoned at the. peril of the applicant. believe the testimony of staff witnesses in this Hearing might, by some reasonable persons, indeed be construed as indicating t1at the staff has been excessively zealous in applying Regulatory Guide models. We particularly expect all parties to licensing actions to which Appendix I applies to note both the potential utility of Regulatory Guides and their subordinate status relative to Commission regulations and opinions. Where selection of data ie strictly a mtter of interpreting (2) experimental evidence, both the applicant and the Regulatory staff should use prudent scientific expertise to setect those values which would be expected to yield estimates nearest the reat case. E!-Attachment to Concluding Statement of Position of the Regulatory staff. E! Regulatory staff, Exhibit 21. E! Lester Rogers, Tr., p. 3409.
~~ .m 137 The matter of how to deal with uncertainties in choosing data has been an implicit part of the evaluations made by participants in the Hearing. The data used by the staff in the evaluations presented in the Final Environmental State-ment were considered by General Electric and the Consoli-dated Utility Group to be overly conservative.40-43/ The staff has conceded that conservatisms existed and were being reevaluated continually.S4/ It is our judgment in consider-ation of the detailed discussions of the models and data in testimony, in closing statements, and in oral argument that specific modr is and data should not be standardized by incorporation in Appendix I, as proposed by the State of Minnesota.S5/ Neither do we intend to judge in this decision which of the many controversial parameter values would be particularly appropriate for use in implementing the design-objective guidelines. We believe that the opportunity to modify models and data as new experimental information comes 1 AS/ General Electric, Closing Statement, pp. 5 and 29-43. Ad! Ned R. Horton, Testimony, General Electric, Exhibit 6. S! Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, pp. 13-14 and 42-50. 33/ Walton A. Rodger, Testimony, Tr., 3909. bdI Lester Rogers, Testimony, Tr., pp. 3409, 3439-40, and 3460; l Earl H. Markee, Tr., pp. 3432-33, and John T. Collins, I l Tr., pp. 3449-52. --- State of Minnesota, Concluding Statement, p. 11. 4 5'/ i
O 4 138 to light could have substantial advantages over a rigid rule, which is a persuasive argument for permitting this matter to be dealt with by the preparation of Regulatory Guides and by case-by-case evaluations. If approximations implicit in a model can produce a deviation (3) from the true veault the direction of which is either uncer-tain or would tend to underestimate dosage or if available experimental information leaves a substantial range of un-certainty as to the best estimate of some parameter values, or both, data should be chosen so as to make it unlikely, with att uch deviatiene and uncertainties taken into account together, that the true dose vould be underestimated subetantially. Two potential sources of deviation from a realistic dose estimate are of concern here. One is the use, at an appli-cant's preference, of a simplified model, which necessitates, in good judgment, the use of some conservatism in setting design objectives. The other is the existence, in spite of the best efforts of all parties, of experimental uncertain-ties in parameter values. Mathematical models describing the various sequences of natural phenomena which relate releases of radioactive material to radiation dose vary in detail and complexity. This was frequently observed in the Hearing. Through cir-cumstances peculiar to his case, one applicant may be able
- - ~ - q-Cr a 4 139 l to present to the Regulatory staff adequate support for his proposal through the use of simple models and conservative parameter values, while another applicant cannot prove his case so easily. There is no regulatory necessit1 for per-forming the most realistic dose estimates that are tech-nologically achievable if a less complex and less expensive analysis can be made to demonstrate cotapliance with licensing 1 requirements. The use of the simpler procedure may, however, introduce a wider. range of uncertainty in estimated doses than a more complicated analysis. Hence the proper choice i of parameter "alues for a simple calculation might be more conservative than values' appropriate for a more precise calculation. i The matter of dealing with uncertain data was discussed at several points in the oral arguments.$5/ There was an apparent reluctance of participante to express in concise language a general definition of the degree of conservatism or realism considered appropriate or a precise definition of "best estimate." We also are reluctant to propound a precise general rule on this point because the situations presented vary too widely to permit us to do so.- The record shows i that the quality and quantity of experimental data are far $5/ Oral Argument, Tr., pp. 21, 35-40, 104-110, and 129-130.
n ?. d 140 a from uniform from casefto case, site to site, and phenomenon ) to phenomenon. The models described in the Hearing Record and the evidence and arguments advanced with regard to numerical estimation t of dose lead us to'the conclusion that one should try to where uncertainties exist, attain realistic estimates; but, one should choose calculational ptocedures that are unlikely We believe, fur-to produce substantial underestimates. thermore,'that it is in the best interest of the public to and to l make realistic estimates, even with uncertain data, depend upon the programs for improving models and data, particularly programs of in-plant measurements, to determine l / whether proper case-by-case design decisions were made.47 Surveillance and quantitative monitoring of effluents are additional guide-already required by existing regulations; I lines for collection of data for each operating plant necessary for this purpose are included in Appendix I. l pp. 60-61. $1/ Regulatory staff, Concluding Statement,
y... - i '1 ' ul i I (4) The modeta used in describing effluent releases should take l into account att reat sources and pathoays within the plant; and the estimated releases should be characteristic of the I expected average reterees over a long period of time, with ' account taken of normat operation and anticipated operational occurrences over the lifetime of the plant. 1 The record is free from significant controversy as to the general model of an operating plant which should be assumed l for the purpose of determining design objectives. The schedule of operation assumed by an applicant, if it turns i out to be unrealistic, may later impose some inconvenience or expense on him through the influence of. limiting conditions of operation adopted in accordance with Appendix I. This possibility is.one to which the applicant would normally be sensitive, but it would not diminish the protection of the i public from the effects of radioactive discharges. 1 (S) The modet of the exposed individual and the assumed characteristics of the environs with respect to human occupancy and to tand and vater use should be determined in each case in accordance uith the intent indicated betoo for each particular category of effluent for which design-objectivc guidelines are given. l (a) For design objectives affected by assumptions as to I consumption of cater or food (other than mith) produced in the environa, one should consider the modet individual 1 l l.
m - w o e 142 to be that hypothetical individual oho would be maximatty exposed with account taken only of such potential occupanoice and usages as could actually be realized during the tem of . plant operation. (b) For design objectives affected by exposure as a direct result of human occupancy (imersion exposure), the modet individual should be the hypothetical individual maximally exposed with account taken only of such potential occupancice, including the fraction of time an individual vould be expoecd, as could actuatty be realized during the term of plant opera' ion. We are persuaded by the evidence that, at most sites with realistic modeling of the natural phenomena affecting these exposure pathways, design objectives based on reasonable occupancy times and intake values could conform to guideline values at reasonable cost of control, even for a hypothetical receptor.EI The Consolidated Utility Group presented substantial evidence, as an extension of Regulatory staff evaluations presented in the Final Environmental Statement, to establish a level of effort they consider to be " justified on a cost-benefit basis." They concluded that in-plant controls for liquid effluents. augmented as justified on a cost-benefit basis in NI General Electric, Reply, p. 24.
r e n -- + ) 9 s.4 i -4 143 terms of population dose reduction would meet the individual whole-body dose objective of 5 millirems. b We note that the Consolidated Utility Group presented further conclusions, after the evidentiary hearing concluded, that certain lake-shore and seacoast situations would require unjustifiably costly augments to conform to the guidelines for liquid effluents if "the staff's conservative dose models" were used. N While we are not adopting their opinion as our own, this conclusion and the further conclusions of the Consolidated Utility Group in this same place b with respect to justifica' ion of noble-gas effluent controls, when con-sidered with the numerical guidelines of Appendix I now issued, point to a fortunate capacity to control effluents from the light-water-cooled reactors in most expected cir-cumstances on the basis of a hypothetical individual. We considered and rejected the pos:tibility of speci?ying that all design objectives be determined solely on,the basis of actual human occupancy at the time of plant design, as was proposed by the Consolidated Utility Group.5,2,/ To adopt guidelines that would generally leave all consideration of future use of the environs to post-licensing regulation b Regulatory staff, Statement of Position, p. 33. E Consclidated Utility Group, Reply, pp. 15-17. Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position,. items 2 and 3, pp. 33-34. b Consolidated Utility Group, Statement of Position, items 2 and 3, p. A-4. l
i en + 144 would be unwise in the instances where it has been clearly j shown that an accommodation of reasonable potential future uses can be accomplished at reasonable cost. This is the case for all effluents except radioactive iodines and par-ticulates released to the atmosphere. We believe the Record shows it would.be better in these instances to determine the design objectives with respect to potential future uses. This takes not only the economic balance into account but also the less tangible but equally important values of environmental quality and protection of the individual. We have taken into account the fact that the analyses that have led to such a general conclusion were basen on conserv-ative hypotheses. We are mindful, as already mentioned, j that numerical guidelines cannot coincide exactly with the effects of measures that are "as low as practicable" in Therefore, the Appendix I guidelines srould not every case. and do not prohibit an applicant for whom the guidelines are not practicable from proceeding on the basis of Section + 50.34a alone. We anticipate that some special circumstances may arise which would make it advantageous to the applicant to base his case on a cost-benefit analysis. Such circum-l stances may involve: currently operating reactors for which the cost-benefit status of equipment augments is highly site-dependent and differs subst.intially from that for k i
1 = 145 1 1 plants in the design stage; multi-reactor sites to which certain environmental and economic considerations not fully l explored in the Hearing may apply; or unique or highly unusual sites or reactor installations.E2/ We believe this option will provide adequate relief in such cases. The 1 record shows that licensees are generally willing to include a requirement that all in-plant control measures which can be justified by a cost-benefit analysis for a particular site be included.ES! There is substantial controversy in the Record on the proper assumptions rmspecting such factors as the location of the source of drinking water, the habitat of fish caught and consumed locally, and individual intake of water, fish, and other foods. Some of these assumptions, in our view, are in the realm of natural phenomenology and, therefore, should be dealt with in accordance with points 1-3 above. For example, dilution of effluents in receiving waters, fish habits, and normal. human intakes of food and water should be considered on the basis of scientifically evaluated experimental evidence. We do believe, however, that the particular habits of the hypothetical receptor should take into account a reasonable 52/ General Electric, Reply, pp. 23-24. 54/ -- Consolidated Utility Group, Reply, p. 10. ( I
346 4 and real departure of the habits of some people from the We would not think it reasonable, on the other average. hand, to assume such bizarre characteristics as those c>f a hypothetical gardener who receives all his fresh vegetables from a hypothetical fence-post garden and consumes them immediately upon harvesting without washing or other pro-cessing, as was assumed for some of the evaluations of the Final Environmental Statement. N! Such extreme assumptions have served their purpose in simplifying the evaluations involved in reaching a decision on Appendix I but would not be appropriate in case-by-case implementation of the guidelines. With realistic calcula-tional models, food chains, and occupancy taken into account, we believe the Record shows that one should and can account for persons who are not average, even in a local sense. (c) For design objectives relative to thyroid doce as af-fected by conewnption of mith, the iodine pathway through the envinne of a plant and the characteristice of the modet receptor should be escentially as they actually exist at the time of licensing. i There was strong agreement among participants throughout l much of the Hearing that the iodine pathway leading to thyroid exposure through consumption of milk would be the l S/ Tr., pp. 3402-03 and 3429-30.
1 k L ,v l 4' l 147 i most difficult one to accommodate in the context of orig-l inally proposed numerical guidelines for establishing design objectives. At _this time it is sti.11 an exceptional case. The estimated economic costs of instituting in-plant controls of iodine emissions are high enough to change the overall balance of the decision in favor of requiring that only actually existing food pathways need to be taken into account. Of course, this does not deny to any applicant who considers it practicable the privilege of assuming more conservative hypothetical pathways and thus avoiding the task of keeping up in detail with future changes in the environs. Many elements of conservative estimates of radiation exposure discussed in points 1 to 4 above were of serious concern to the parties only with respect to the iodine-milk-thyroid pathway. The implementation guidance respecting attainment of more realistic estimates will permit many plants to conform to the thyroid-dosage guidelines irrespective of whether a real or hypothetical environmental pathway is the basis of design objectives. Nevertheless, on the basis of present knowledge of'the entire pathway from in-plant source to receptor, there would be many plants that could not meet the numerical guideline on the basis of a hypothetical food pathway to an individual without in-plant controlc the cost
u. y 148 e of which outweighs the incremental benefit to the population at large. In adopting this guideline for radioactive iodines and particulates discharged into the atmosphere, we have con-sidered the following special questions: Is every individual adequately protected from excessive exposure? Is individual freedom of access and use of unrestricted areas assured? Is the likely cost of implementation in this way less than that of providing additional in-plant controls at the outset? Is the possible curtailment of future productivity of the environs justifiable? The Record. supports an affirmative answer to each of these questions. Individual protection of real persons from radioactive iod.ine is no less than that provided from other effluents. Special requirements for surveillance are included before significant exposure can occur, any important to detect, changes in land use. If such changes were to occur, the not the member of the public, would be obligated
- licensee, to take appropriate action, namely, to control emissions or other elements of the exposure pathway in such a way as to maintain individual exposures in conformance with design-objective guidelines.
Thus an individual would be free of any infringement upon his rights to use the environs.
mm .=...a.- 'i O,. 149 The practicability of deferring some controls until real necessity is imminent is evident from the evaluations of the Regulatory staff, General Electric, and the Consolidated Utility Group. Such a course was recommended in the closing statements of these three parties. General Electric expresses the principal arguments in one place as follows:55/ "In the extremely rare instance where, after licensing, plans are developed and actions are taken to bring about such production and consumption patterns, doses as large as those predicted by the staff will, in all probability, still not result because the design mar-gins customarily built into LWR equipment will normally cause actual emissions to remain below their design basis values.... Even if doses exceeding the numerical guides should result, reasonable and inexpensive steps would almost certainly be available at that time to reduce such exposures without the necessity of expen-sive equipment augmentation such as that which the staff's approach would mandate in each instance during initial plant construction." Furthermore the evidence shows that with additional experi-ence and data from operating plants the most likely result Eb/ General Electric, Closing Statement, p. 35. See also further argument on pp. 39-41. <}}