ML20202G050
| ML20202G050 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/28/1976 |
| From: | Strauss P NRC |
| To: | Anders, Gilinsky, Kennedy, Mason, Rowden, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9902040259 | |
| Download: ML20202G050 (15) | |
Text
_ _ . . _ _ _ _. .- - _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . - _ . . _ _
W ,Y Y \ 0b $.
- jM p% *4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSit y '
E D E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20665 i
- JAti 2.i gl3 ]v
. s. 1 k.\ 8
- I MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Anders
%,44 g
{
Commissioner Gilinsky -
s Commissioner Kennedy y Commissioner Mason g j
e Commissioner Rowden g b!
FROM: PeterStrauss[s ' S=$
Ben Huberman
SUBJECT:
RULEMAKING PROCEEDING ON DOLLARS PER MAN-REM p{9l*s gh (SECY-75-679)
Following the staff presentation on the proposed rulemaking on the dollar values of reductions in radiation exposures -- to be used for cost-benefit analyses of LWR effluent treatment systems -- you requested us to clarify l the issues and to reco= mend how to proceed. This memorandum responds to J your request.
l 1
We discuss the issues under two main headings -- scope and implementation. l As a basis for our discussion, we enclose a copy of Chapter III, Section B.5 of your ALAP decision, which contains your instructions on the rule-making proceeding.
I. RULEMAKING SCOPE The issue of scope derives in large measure from differences in interpreta-tion of your Appendix I decision. Although the staff presentation gave a different impression, it seems to us that your guidance was very clear as
! to what you wanted. The matter of scope can be examined from several perspectives:
l
-- What is to be excluded?
The Commission decision established the framework of cost-benefit balances for effluent controls, and the balance of costs and benefits for LWR's was accomplished, f You apparently intended to exclude from the rulemaking any of the rad-waste system costs and actual effectiveness in reducing man-l -
rem exposure. The decision expresses confidence that, without need for further proceedings, "it is possible to estimate in a i
straightforward and almost certainly conservative way the benefits -
to the public health obtained by decreasing the radiation doses (, ,
to the population." What the rulemaking was to address is the s '
i f 1 i C
CONTACT:
Al Kenneke (OPE) 1 634-1541
! 9902040259 760128 .*
! PDR COMMS MtCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR j .
- ~
To The Commission -
2- l benefits of exposure reduction, which you considered independent '
of the causes of exposure. "The casting of these benefits into monetary terms -- as the dollar value of decreasing by a total-body man-rem and by a man-thyroid-rem (or other essentially equivalent quantities), the dosage to the. population -- is, therefore,-the only missing information required to strike the >
cost-benefit balance."
'"Accordingly, we propose to conduct a rulemaking hearing to determine the appropriate monetary value for reduction of radiation doses to
'the general population. . When better values (or other appropriate criteria) for the worth of a total-body man-rem and a man-thyroid- ;
rem are established and adopted they shall be used in the cost-benefit analyses required by this appendix."- Thus, the Appendix I decision on LWR's is closed; when new numbers are developed through rulemaking, the staff is instructed simply to substitute them for the $1000 values. ,
--- What is necessary?
The decision states that "The Commission proposes to conduct a rulemaking hearing to
' establish appropriate monetary values for the worth of reduction of radiation doses to the population and, in the interim, selects a conservative value for the worth of that reduction (subject to demonstration in particular cases that a lower value should be used."
Clearly the context was the use of such values in implementing Appendix I ,
for LWR's:
"The hearing record will not support an unambiguous choice of .
a specific dollar value for the worth of a unit decrease in l radiation exposure to the population. On the other hand, we believe that cost-benefit balances should be used to define the limiting population dose from a light-water-cooled power reactor ;
under the as low as practicable criterion." l ThefALAP decision characterized the staff's view as being that it ;
was "not possible to reflect properly the worth of reduction of risk i l
to~ human life in monetary terms since there are overriding moral values j that'cannot be quantified." The' decision noted Walton Rodger based !
his suggestion of $1000 per man-rem (total-body) on a deliberate choice i l
of a value above.the range of values suggested by others "for two l
, reasons: (1) to be conservative in our assessment of the value of aug-ments, (2) to make allowance for ' overriding moral values' and other
, intangibles which are hard to quantify.'! The decision'then stated,
. .. .-. u_ ..- _. . .
- i. .5
f .
l To The Commission l "We agree with the Regulatory Staff and with CU (Rodger) that there are great subjective factors to be considered in any judgment of the worth of reduction of a man-rem in dose to the general popula-tion." But the decision then goes on to indicate its belief that I
e a dollar figure is desirable and necessary; e the ALAP record was an insufficient basis to choose a figure; and a the Commission's interim value of $1000 for both total-body i and thyroid was conservative.
The decision concludes by stating, "We emphasize that these are conservative outer limit figures and are accepted for use as such... j It may well be that final values for the vorth of these quantities l will be smaller."
Thus, one can infer that while you believed that some allowance should ;
be made for " subjective f actors", nevertheless you felt your interim I values were probably beyond a realistic accounting of such factors.
What is desirable?
No clear limitation was placed on scope as to the extent of discussion necessary to determine such benefits, i.e. , whether the rulemaking need extend beyond total-body and thyroid exposures.
For LWR purposes, only total-body and thyroid exposures are significant, but the decision notes that, while Appendix 1 applies only to LUR effluents, the dollars / man-rem figures are not applicable "to only a single class of nuclear facility."
i Ultimately, the Commission has to face the question of how best to extend the ALARA principles -- elucidated in the Appendix I decision on LWR effluents -- to other areas. In particular, they are applicable to total-body and thyroid exposures from other elements of the fuel cycle. And the principles (if not the numbers) are applicable to exposure of organs other than the thyroid, which -- for some fuel cycle situations -- may be more significant than total-body or thyroid exposures.
gg +-9 e
- M = a
F l Li To The Commission l
[
Also, recall that the basic criticism that NRC had of the EPA fuel cycle standards was that EPA failed to draw a careful cost-benefit balance. The specifics of our co=ments to them are yet to be resolved but common values for the benefits of exposure reduction would be an important element in any ultimate meeting of the minds. j l
We understand the objections to extending the rulemaking beyond total-body and thyroid exposures to be the following: (1) considering a broader range of issues would introduce delay and complexity; (2) for some non-LWR effluents, like krypton-85, most total-body man-rems from exposure would accrue at distances beyond 50 miles,. limiting the degree to which domestic controls will limit impacts; (3) the fuel cycle can result in significant exposures not just of the total-body and thyroid, but of other specific organs, such as bone and lung. As we discuss further below, the first of these factors presents a legitimate consideration, but its resolution is unclear; delay may not be very harmful, and complexity is inescapable. The second objection again confuses the problem of determining the benefits of exposure reduction (the function of the rulemaking as we understand it) with the costs of doing so. Though the costs of reducing krypton-85 exposures by a given degree (both economic costs and geopolitical costs) may be different from the costs of reducing, e.g., iodine-131 exposures of the thyroid, j the benefit to be gained per unit of man-rem reduction of a given type of exposure would still be the same. The third objecticn does, to some extent, reflect back to the first. Putting aside, however, the added time and sophistication required to consider additional specific j organs of the body, the response is the same as to objection (2). I Although the " critical organ" depends on the specific nuclides involved in the exposure, the effects of exposure can be considered to be 4 independent of source considerations.
In any event, we don't think it is realistic to expect that the proceedings can be limited to total-body and thyroid exposures. A major aspect of the proceeding will be dealing with the "value" of success in e.g.,
avoiding cancer or limiting life-shortening. Biological effects in general are likely to be the principal matters raised and discussed during the hearing.
When are benefit values needed?
The Commission is on record that it will have a rulemaking to determine :
i less conservative dollar / man-rem values. On the one hand, the use of higher-than-necessary dollar / man-rem values may result in over-spending on radwaste systems in LWR's and could be construed as inconsistent with
. the Commission's principles of efficiency and effectiveness. If NRC is l to proceed on an accelerated basis in decision-making, presumably the rulemaking scope will have to be restricted to defining radiation reduction
- benefit values for only total-body and thyroid exposures (i.e., applicable to LWR effluents.)
f
E. .
To The Commission -
5- l On the other hand, if the use of the current dollar per man-rem i values are not creating problems in practice, NRC could enlarge
'the scope of rulemaking to include determination of benefit >
values for various organs, extending the applicability of benefit values to rad-waste systems for fuel cycle facilities.
t
' Ben Rusche made it. clear that the $1000 interim valve gives him l a satisfactory basis for dealing with current licenstag cases and I thus the lack of rulemaking is not keeping him from meeting schedules.-
i
! For the host of fuel cycle issues to be decided by future cost- i benefit balances, the dollar per man-rem figure is the " missing l link", as the Commission noted in its Appendix I decision. Sooner l or later, the problem of need for " Appendices X, Y and Z" for fuel l cycle facilities will be brought to the fore, and in the interest j of effective decision-making, it would be beneficial to provide j the " link" before getting into the kind of argument that took place 1 l during the Appendix I hearings. ]
l ,
l On balance,'we believe you can and should take the time -- perhaps a fcw months -- to get further input from the staff on the subject of scope. One element of their input should be analysis of the timing j pressures for benefit numbers for use by NRC staff in LWR case- 1 j _w ork and in connection with the EPA fuel cycle standards and NRC l decisions on specific fuel cycle issues.
l
-- Conclusions on Scope e We think it would be unrealistic to expect -- and unproductive to require -- the discussion to be limited to the benefits of avoiding total-body and thyroid exposure.
e What use you eventually make of such information is a separate matter.
e There is no LWR scheduling pressure to move ahead quickly. You have t.ime to get further staff analysis, including input from outside NRC.
II. IMPLEMENTATION Two aspects of procedure connected with the ALAP follow-on rulemaking action
- warrant your attention now. The first procedural question concerns the use i
of technical consultants by the Commission; the second, the possibility of I joint action with EPA.
r I
1 ' j i
i-t
~
.,, . . , . ,. ... .. ,. -- .,v, =~ w "-
~- -
=.. l To Th2 Commission l
)
- 1. Commission's Use of Technical Consultants !
During the course of the' ALAP rulemaking proceeding, the AEC ,
Commissioners found it advisable to have their own technical l consultants in dealing with the voluminous record that was being j established.- Later, you brought in additional consultants to 1 supplement the work of those hired by AEC. In short, you (and the l AEC before you) found the use of independent consultants an essential i element in reaching a decision that would bring the ALAP proceeding '
j to a decisive and effective conclusion.
In approaching the scope and implementation of the dollar per man-rem rtalemaking, we believe there are already signs thcc indicate it might be advisable to have available to you competent opinion that is independent of the staff. If you accide to go this way,-we believe it would be better to bring the consultants in from the beginning, rather than in'the middle, so that you might be better able to control the direction of the hearing and its rate of progress.
For example, if this were done at the formative stage, you would have ]
the benefit of independent opinion on the original scope of the hearing. ]
The range of qualifications of the ' consul' ants necessary would overlap, but not be identical, with those used in'the Appendix 1 hearing, because of the differences in scope we described earlier. l l
l For ex' parte reasons, the staff would not be a useful scurce of l
_ consultants. You might use the technical staff available in OPE, j
[
l but we believe you should have people'with a full-time and long-term ,
l interest in the specialized areas required for this rulemaking. These l.
people would always be fully inforced on the subject at hand and 3 capable of giving you real-world perspective. j l
Consultants would be useful to you in two areas of expertise: (a) health !
effects of radiation exposure and (b) monetizing the value of injuries I and deaths avoided. You will recall that Dr. Douglas Grahn of Argonne ,
National Laboratory, Dr. George Casarett from the University of Rochester and Mr. Richard Foster from PNL were consultants to you in making.the decision on ALAP, and they may be of assistance in the present 1 I
case. In- addition, you may wish to consider an individual from among those referenced in the Appendix I hearing who has given special thought !
to the subject of benefit values. These individuals would include, for example, Dr. Leonard Sagn of Stanford University.
t f e
y l'
- 1. ,
?
1. -
__ . .,,2
-, .m.
To Tha Commission 2. Possibility of Joint Action with EPA l
The earlier OSD paper considered the possibility of future joint action by NRC and EPA. It did not, however, treat our past experiences in dealin; with F?A wcll. Tha pros and cons li,sted below suggest matters which ought to be considered before a decision is made to undertake joint NRC-EPA action:
-- Pr_os:
e Avoidance of duplicative rulemaking in the radiation standards area. Through its rulemaking proceeding, NRC may establish benefit values which are subsequently adopted by EPA.
e Since eventually we will need fuel cycle ALAR' guidance, it is useful to resolve now any controversy between the agencies about the fuel cycle standards, e NRC rulemaking assists EPA's efforts to develop a censistent methodology for use by Federal agencies. Joint NRC-EPA action could improve this aspect of interagency coordination.
-- Cons:
e The poor experience of jurisdictional disputes with EPA.
1 e Procedural inefficiency in conducting a co-sponsored meeting.
In any case the actual areas of overlap should be carefully explored in order to detcrmine whether duplication of effort by NRC and EPA would, in reality, be a serious problem warranting these inefficiencies.
e EPA legal responsibilities in this area differ from those of NFC. EPA's clear responsibility for " generally applicable environmental standards" does not foreclose NRC from coming up with " appropriate general values" for the benefit of exposure l reduction, as it did in Appendix 1, provided NRC application of such values is limited to NRC-licensed activities.
l i The advantages and disadvantages of co-sponsorship of a public meeting l with EPA should be more carefully considered than has thus far been the case. This effort, carried out in part through cpen discussions with EPA, may provide a more factual basis on which to make a decision on this issue, and should be made in parallel with staff's explanation of the scope of issues on the technical level with the expert consultants.
Also relevant will be the experience gained from participation in EPA's upcoming hearings on their propos ed fuel cycle standards (SECY-76-26).
l
~
I To The Commission l
)
III.
SUMMARY
AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO PROCEED With respect to scope we believe the ALAP decision is cicar that the future rulemaking e exclude considerations of costs and effectiveness of systems to control effluents, e should focus on determining less conservative values for the benefits of exposure reduction, and e need not be limited to total-body and thyroid exposure.
We recommend that you indicate these views to the staff. We believe it would be difficult to limit the hearing to total-body thyroid considerations and that future fuel cycle decisions will ultimately require such information.
If you agree, we recommend that you indicate that this is your present 1 inclination barring further, more decisive, arguments from the staff to the i i
contrary, and hence the staff should so prepare, With respect to implementation steps, we believe there is merit in having your own technical consultants from the start. If that is your wish, the I staff should be asked to provide a list of possible candidates who might be l i
available for such an undertaking.
While the ultimate need to reach an accommodation with EPA on fuel cycle standards is a cogent argument for undertaking a joint NRC/ EPA venture, we believe that further information and discussion is required for Commission decision. We recommend that the staff provide an impre ed basis for decision, based on the results of communication with EPA on relevant issues to sound them out on their openness to moving in a direction more consistent with your Appendix I philosophy on cost-benefit analysis. One
- source of insight will be the experience to be gained by NRC participation in the for'hcoming EPA hearings on their fuel cycle standards.
l l We have prepared a draft memo to the EDO for your consideration which high-l lights the suggestions made above. Please give Al Kenneke your concurrence or comments by February 2, 1976.
Enclosures:
- 1. Commission ALAP decision, April, 1975, Chapter II, Section B.5
- 2. Draft Memo to Staff cc: Samuel Chilk
= . - . . . . . . . . . . , . . , .
-~ ~ . - ~ __
"~-~
WET l - L uW mA Ws.and e
"' M -
I bjective is practicable for indied.ial brht-water cooled #
- c3 rtiaNy all sites. . ,, g.
he design-ikjective guide for limits upo.1 indni. hut dos 3. es (n..
iodme and radioactive material in p.trttculte foran proba d' ",
n "* L N"' ^'# 'h'[ "" *Ch C*' B'"'II' E"I"3'i""'a tincity diflault ind most strontl y contested iune m fins ,ide,ng ,n j In its 'oncluding statement *
- the Regn!,,to,y gragt Fet"mP/nde[th.n & A Moxe of benehu topumer the reneral pubhc from the "a plants with the assosi.etc.' s generatut is not of s L toid should be set at 15 mdhrerx. n g -a . gge, heuc tit balance hnutmg de ' to th^ J ~
by hcht tow.itcisookd nutlearthe deensor:s routerning out Appendix 1 lhe cost contluded th t a design taijective of 5 nuffnems pri scar , m,e p,,g g,c i ,;e a
punane from e n.%d remiJmg AppendixI deMs with ti.e wrsus the approprute to des ho ma.., nerds to sophisticated sadwaste sy stena y
Consideting the state of tethnelocy and the coas ..t 3.,gn, ge g.4 ubere nnik cows rve in dose proxutnty to lln* ite, %.dfon p..d v,' 8 in g on.n Lind mep of
-vadwaue that Iwo-renfor s itions utth etther PW ks .., hw M g g g
- hC"0"" "bi "ed thion h then use.and for operation of an augment to ihs istified on tus tose is nero h , , s i mo py, g ,s .d i .dy t he . 4 im A buen ts and the rJd4aste augments si,, n ,nj ,j , ,c3 below) is man rern and D33 g t m.in th) tout utml 3,:Me sery 1-i h ,
s)uem n psuet Mly espicued in doHars, to estahhsh M90 meHrremiyeJr for M Rs ,tnd 85tl andluem/) e f or 13R R ,6 su de We i aies dered iii t in p,.n tn e. Cds ulauen of the deoe. c tu radiat>on f rom
.inwu a,,, a . m, gran tow rtidk miJnt pat say when the bu 3 o n, lqq onh tuo&i.0(tv shttnadtd ne to the pop'dation tuihn. 50 nuk used and when cows pm I close to the it'i meter sue b. e n., g.] an .iupne nt alw seeins to Dr. Rodrer's testoneny show that se,y e9, sue Jwmmts wo .,y ad Invin of i the dul.li i) tend wlxte na s ., ,
M iem M,,hd.w1 ia or ,pe et < ,, of toninng to appro.ssh 15 tmHuems! year ' Wm to the site. A sc ent .o.d sens e dly auepicJ evMustamd u n d D de Re@n As indicated under Implen utain , trhipter it. the am en ,J,3 m.,,ee h s ah ai n'n h AoWe It n auonhngly phstble to etunate in a le ar n .h of the neatest mdt s on que I m d 1 n uoipuen! A 51 deturnt. h pubite quantity is to I.e uistdated at tht actuMly presetit at the f tme oflyens ir el the rea.t.u . M a i on .c.pm e u urg hil qwaid and Annut s eitemfy consetv.itne way the f no bJsss fot insressing the bout * - -Wu obpatise d we to a.'V oT in in>'n health obt.,ine.t by dneentn3 as the dollJr tMus et des tenutg by a bm suth ut.ite bsein ab.o t i s ni.fi n m , pg, l of thty l cm;tia mio inotu tasy tctms hen cv sutidly equivdent radaomihne and radniactate mater dow w dl be the only one ., g p.g g tot A bs w i) nun icm and by ;a man thytoid sem (ur utn. sheteloie. the culy stu year. I or eittu. ally aH caws, t! t hy r** .p , j do ye to the gupuhtion l>we sei . w e la not kn l en the avud , o ' 4"annt se the conscipiens e isont this sourte. e the wst-benelit balanse. ord evidente to gmtsfy redudog i .c desirn obl o se I nut Welase..nt.ndueh.cI into,nurton sciputed to shue .ne of the opmeon, atter uref ul ow the desrn objective to er are that run ini of ta.hotodme .md r Mn.xou i j matenalin particubte hn innh eath h,ht wat ns nokst nn..lc n p. wet ira,,
N ""t suppoit an unamhmuous thuice ut a spehe population, the the other da tene in r.ohatmn expowre to t d to & tine the hmitmg shM1 not result in an annat dose to the thy. I for any inadu.d m an 08 d ""'t unn:stricted area fror all pathw ap of cy.su,e n ex " of li matue m we beheve that out benetit bM.mtes should be huse s low as popubnon dee trom a licht-water-cooled powerheanng reactor under a thw.iys wdl be pintested d t a valemakmc I uf ore u es of the e' tronment with resp 3 I to food i ; LIC O'tceton. Accordingly, we pmpose to con us er.pn,e mon oimad wmu hation doses to by hmitmg condo un of operat,on Hut P8 AI'i d to hfentefy thangmg b td nws thJf m t inuh m cy.une of e
to deteinane the ap; rornate monetary value for requctum ut sc programs designe the sno.hto .gion for the worth of 8 h .'
iridnufuMs to e. one. Appropsute mntrol mcaones insin.l- ,' theMfputsat population.VMues (or other appropriate criteiia)bh.hed n., mon ng, en bcttet ofland mes.* iuhl be reouped if momtoenn p wr.nn'.dinnn..
- total body matt rem .md a ruan thytotd rem are esia . C that the desjr i+bjestne runde leseis are hti y cuce&d, a
! As a fu 1her requirement,in additiott to the desernehjetthc rt des dunbed '
rada aste systenis shAl inslude aH strun ul reaunohty n. .nonciatcJ t he i flat on Pupida-absoe, I ,, g g , . g3n, mal Hewersh Cmmat tt. Itepurs of the -s g, . g for a fa vorable tou-tienefit r.<tio clint ved inins xi or ,
in ' . 9, ,,yg
- "=$ "- "
f technopy that carttota! NW and thyroid dose to the population wittun Su mdes . o.m. et of A.f we i wthe m e o-s Icwh of umums Ra.lunoa tihe bt i Sut e pmn on willensure that selectnm of a scry faire amt twbted sete . er a a,com-artee - ihe' ' t mai i nvuonment.d Sistement.W A$tt-1258. ha!y. t si where the ricarest mdh cows are ta, away cannot p.nidy the ,cicase urI.uge .
' O 311 s 310 .
,mm. .=we S
.. r
. . . . ._ .~~ ., ~ . . .
I
?.
- A ppendh I. Censohdated I'dron Company of New Yoik. Inc., state.i* ' that the cost
' nu le. as an nt i n r asur e ,,
irt stion $< esimute in the Dratt i nutimmental Statement seemed to he renerally lowee I beluw. than meu npenena woubl in&am hey sbW a few pu mm@ M
- these values can be used in the intenm to transhte into doit shkh the Minand cous appeaica to be low by at least a factor of 3.
value of a tadmaste augment's tentubuenm it. the d " a n n as einn nu on the Uran Ennnnunental Stawwm ' W 'W onh man-thytoid-rem per year to the popubtum within 50 so d " '" """"' '"' "'
this way the worth its dottJrs pet ) ear on be est ibtnhed I i u nu aspied sinmgh* ' that the cmt pisure was badly
$ j ! equtnent Hoscei, did.nted by die use in the Dialt Lusonmental SaknN ad de Dnd when exh is ridded to the rad *.nte setem se. i t
- o I dimmtdang mustetary worth. 3 nu'"'"neni.d Statanent of a two-reas. tor site in whkh inusi, of the radwaste I we intend that udw.nte an;micut -. neirss.nv to saint il J'""
l
"" "4"P'". ni m med Nurm die two acastors. " * ' ' " '"
! maunmm dmes tu mihvidu,ds wdi b l " " " " M"* ' d " # ' P 'M" *""" "' "'#
mill be teqmred when. and only she ,91 II *"" *
- Af ter e deladed a"nsmaheed sost ofits instalbtion m.unbuiac and og ti ,- tung avoid talmy twue widi the Statrs cost estmutet ~
' UY "
O " ' " " " " ' " * " > D"""*"" l be g
& Itinct Are the M.mrtary 0.sts of .truememt to ' ekin icnb < U tondnk 1" that the I15 radaaste systems cotd> out pmsib y hhraste Sprems, bmit .:nd opesated for leu than twice the (mts mdwated an I that more hLely j the sost wondd be tlace in tour imws that pven in the I~l %.
I Dtumg the initbl bse I of the Al .\P lle.nmg (pnos to May t. ;W2 L the u, aq.ubroe3 .st erf. on the other h nd. continue 1
- defend the wst
'I Regubtory Staf f presented piefmun.ny mionmt;on" " <,,nu.ngg ,,,
'"""d* InescukJ su die i IS. In su oindudmg staiennent" the Statf pointed of Jdwaste setems. Other Stotuution nannmnr. emts of udu.nte w tems was alw presnited m this imtui pluw of dw he.ning by Ct R' and to a uut that the Ctl dau were hned on "mduquial expeu. m e" and instudeJ ou1 tune and othet eu eptiosul factors and that CU lud m taJed batLtutmg knuted extent h3 Gl?' Wahon Podge. w h , p,cwnted w hat meht truly be alled the eidy tompretwnuve finnmbin n os .mts" n! of annuEred o ws" expe'kure"
- and opinmal redundant eympment. he Suit argued" that none og dew item .ho.dd be mchtded in the cost of raaste sptems for dunne afds pernid.oriikk d" ttw siall s tata. .
cmt bencht analph. t he Regubtory Staf f s pubhainm of the Dutt emnomaenul Suttment t he Stati dat ins tude stdundant compiments in costmg it.e radwaste systems Its omwleration of the many dnetse com.nsnts en this doonnent and its ,
i" d'r D'an I nvinnunemal 9aienwnt but.at lost partly im .re of snikums in d for subsequent pubhcation ut the I:nul Lumunmental St.itement"* scie impuitant 'l C**"C"'5 "tt the diatt. renuwed sm.h redundanty " . .wbu h n not requue i
, steps in presidmg a bnis for proper ememg of rad
- ave suterns .md nir meeting Al.AP or hatmng requirements and therefore should not be included in cost-betwfit analyses. Co,timents on the Draf t I uvuonmental Statement showed costs for mectmr. dme seduction in cost benefit analyses." from the systems as merbt have been expected. some dhapeement with the estunatcJ cost of evaluated in de i i W 4 vadwnte equipment.
i i 1 .
i
- lb ot.om y Suf f. I stniet f . Tatt 2.
- i i wut 1 men.eimcot.d Statement.w ASil-1258. Vol. 3.3 mly 197 t. PP Ill-3I 3-j " Tr , pp. 5 4590. *
"%Jinm A. Rodrev. 5utement en B. halt of tin Coina.le.tated Undny Croup, Star. 3 7, *st44.P.243. .
- lbid . p 244 f I 1972. sm oerorated ia it . rP 1748 52
" I r.. p. 3909. W.auon A. R deer. addHhwial resumony on hh d h c,n,hdate j "n tion a A Rodpe. Sorriemenul Sutament i=s Alutt I ttw Conwtiaaied Uphty ,
Group. Art.26.1972.mcomoested an Tr.. p. 2753 Utitity Gewp.Nav. 14. 8973- rP 3't-3'- g-3 Wouwhdate t Utihis Ge.iur. Sistemcat of Pusumn.Jan.1974. p j .
"Generallicetm.Lshetst 3. Apr. 26,1972,esems 4 and 5.
"Ratton A. Rodger. Sistement on ticlutt of the Comohdated Unhty Crotrp. Wr.17,
- "Rept4 tory Suit.romiudmg Starement of Position,Fett 20.4974.PP.4 -
' " : r., p 397 5. e 1972.7 41. * !
"%ise of Austahnhty of the Deau I nsmmmental Statemene we pubhJ.ed the *
" It..p.1985.
Fe&er R cancer, Jan. 16.1973 08 rR.1616). *
- Rervtatory S:418.Condvamg Sawinent of Posba. ME Wg*
- 44_g)*
' 313 t 312 ,
e
- 9 e e.e.
_ _ _ _ _ _ __. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . - . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ m__.__-_____m___ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
m.
- -- y-- -.- ws w a ,.,_ __
4 i The Co solidated Utihty Greup t.* A ific positiori flut redundant radw, sic The thrust of the Testimony which ws hied on Novemt>o 9.1973 was to equipment t often necessary. They pumted nut'* that it k e the f tstilitres to install such syste-is w: tin,ut the provnion of ad.~ '"'#""" "" * "'"'" #" **
- i et * '"CY en the F E S. The first inntiose for doing this was to desano Nte that white for safe and re{iAte tycration not is it . . cly in actual prame t!ut biense -
in R *nd BWR conditions would permit them to do otherwne. 5"'#"""""'""*"W"5" - #" * *#"
g Alter omsideration of the several dif tctemes between the St.nli and the gly estimates, the Staff concludeJ" th,t Ihe,e c.e no sig'mn,,n,t uncy,g nnca amnenn unutenst m the F ES result m the expenditurn ut corredebly la nuno n <d don.n tur mey dons M value reNow W une, j
, dif ferences wath iespeci to cmt estunates l* We t chete af ter Consideration of the inont that the St.t!Ts tost estinuto for omtrtkfiun and operation of radw.sste s)sferns m y be shybely low but that in clicct. Ib. IMei used the Regulatoty Stalf's dose uh ol.itmnal models they are qmte unhLcly to be in error b3 las f or . ot' J os d. It sceim to us that en .md the Statti uhics t..i aimual iricases ut sad ioastiuty and mm it (osts for the the e stent and ordy to the este,it tlut eqmpmust ted*mdat.t) e retpmed by radute aupnents an t omducted the mst.benetit study by a 1.tmg augments j the htenung prosess the mst of suth rednudant itcms should be inshole I m the in.hvkluety mo! miuenially to the liquid. the noble pas. av d she i xfine and 3 total cinting of the sptem. It seems cipulh slear th.it tl.c ad.htn.md oint J p.n t wul e e r.is:w .nte u sicim.. .
any. due to inercJsed attention to <1uila) avutance slmuld be tat hsded m the we ap.ee th by iln technique of seqtwntial additiun of A na+st ef fective radw aste-system costs. It does rio' scun reasim hle to milnde (og s of .neunne ; radwetc .mpwnts (w th tt in ellett exh add:tt m consu,ac with the other
, or other special featmes slut may h ue m spm itw instames o,ntot.uted to aurniend ahudy preent .i new b.nerase to whith the rh. At v. ment is to be j hither than nornut (mts of insidatmn. On the other f.au.l. iirc o,us of a.htedt. the ..,t benchi tvahutom can show the true woith or exh indnedual operating the augnwnstd equipment shooli be scalnin.dly c amaic.!; su, h adrm. ni that is th. .tcoci c in total body man rem and in m.n thyruid-eem estenates should molude reasonat !e all..wan. n b. m nntenan. c of c.pnemera l *hi.h thc augmem t, nestwmsible. The sost benetit cak ulato.us req ~ ired by and for the na,ened work forte and 1*. spoil b.n.d. naula .n is possible. on Appendn i should in.tude awesuent of the worth of cas h agment by flus a j actual e spenence as llns e sperience e en m bei eines audafde. prn came i
b II.nc Shoull Gnt it ~ refit Ithm cs lie Cal. s.l.ec.I' < t ;m rhe 31snmer t uhw of Ike Relucriem to the r;. n. r.r: l'qn:nn lk IMa mtvi' j
j -
lhe sous of inw atbtnin and "reut'on .d radm uc .wems w e,e as indhated Ac. a nutter of contr.ntr9; but an evcit nunc f un famental t he Regul.aoey Sutt riced flut it was desnalde to exp t r ibe sost-beneht j ; ditferense of crinmt* emted ipetmanly between the Rcruidos) Saast and rgy hatan. e m .h.!t n on t.. th so lo of the equation. but tb 'statt has bdn on ,the mannet ut whish i.nt herrfat %!.im nq w as to le done, tel%t ont to n g n a d dier uh.e to se worth of reductiam et i .lutum Jose to T he Recuhtmy Stati los. in ettett, adde.t to, each etthwnt type the Soet, the teneal popubtmn t he Seats tool the luition" tlut ilne n no agiccinent
, r.*dwaste angnients as a umt to the b.tse ( nr aul brht watu . m.ted nmic,, on mon eso s dno h i ihe redmium of n A to imman hie oi miteiing or on power reJclor system.'" I rom estinutcs of the imt of the f.nlunre au-ment hoss sn b uhim anM 1 e apphol. T he) eenon tlut it is noi g, able to rettett g
i patkare ath! of the resubmg decrease m r4 hatmn esposme to Sc popubtion, Pt"I'eth ibe w uth et reduction of ink to human hfe in mom tary terms smee
{ the %tati obtamed a vahie m dollar ont p r in.m scut of 1he aesullmr, rednstmn . thae oc osconhng ins J uluo that i annot be quantified.
, in populatnvi duse. t he Statt (9es m the secord" the deveral pubbsh6d enmates of the 1 he maior thrust of the CU a'rmnent acamst the Staf t's ont benern ,
mooclai) ." f of f adi an.n esposme of the pubhc;these sann h-ia $10 to $nso g balanies concerned the piatt:te of a.f.hng the sesei I udw.ete augments - ive an. ecm No sal.u , hee tren surrested for dose to sus L organs sixb as
- together as a umt to the basc<ase. As Walton hdrer stated t n Clf? 2 the thpoid flowotr. ihe rebtne nsk of the dose to the thp%I compared to
.' the intal hmly unght wrr.e4 a lower value for a man.thytool sem than for a In.td rein j *'Ealton A ItoJpr. AJJitherut Teshmim, on th halt of OsmmteJated 11telity Group,
- Nc. 9.1973.p 49 f *
- ltegetatory 5'af f. ComleJms Sutement et rem-i. l eh. 20.19 74. p 4 5- *i t m.i t muoament,i si ieuwns. wAsti 125tl. kly 1973.Vol 3. P I* 3 -
- Tr p 3912. Watron A. Itodger, Summuy et AJJinoeul lemm.my tatut Nov. 9 *
- gt , pgg.2 and 6 3 1973,on Behalf of the Cernehdated Utahty Grave, r. t. *
- tant , y a 3 I
i 314 315 1
4 G
s- e
- ~ . - . _ . .
. n...
i
'" #d '*d ' h# ' '" "' ' h ? '"'d d"'# h*i '" '"I b"JY' #'*"
On the other hand, the Statt Imkl> ifut despne the int,e,ent ditlicuhies m "'h
teo mmen.1, d tsy I f(C and ICRP.
the ducct use of etwnetary values, it appears n.elut to cyneg to 0,e mcm Whde renes.dly accerung the cost-benefit anal)ses presented by CU. GI, i practicable, both cests of redudion of this and be, Mas to s.,4. (m my reduction irt menetary imits as at lent one "I the factens to be conudered m wenn to have inade no recunuuendatbns for die winde M a nun win.
e N $i Ac ot %nnmaa made no ampnment or deson as to @ wine d a arnring at jndgments on redusing thL to as low as inacticable hnuts ' ' ' "
- In both the (~l.h" and its tutitInding u.itement /' the Statt does u e m us """*"' """"' ' '"' ' T"#d "" "
should be um'"nued but et has not tied stus reemumendatbm to the rewhant estnuates of rad *astemtem cost and the ersultant re h.,en.n in p,. pan,,n
, dme cuest mn hu it node sost-beneht anAms m uTP nt os ns in nnnwnda.
dW. values for cost pei man-rem redutti. n. i hey do not, howese,, ,,me,y n, ' II"C'C' + d * *' 'Icar tiom the recond that the State et Simn. .of a l reject f adwaste sptems became of the wst ,.i mi h seibmin.
It es clear from the retord" that the Stad would IcJte to us the deconm as
- M'W # '"' ' '"# # "'
% a% with the Mrs.nlatory Statt and with OU dut there ase rieal to dollar value of man rem veductum m porniatu n dose .,nd the estai in uha l #'C"* " nn s to be onsideved in an> tudgment nt the worth of rotnctum of j such a salue wont t tw riven weiths al.mr unh
- al.ra coinidetan..ns m die \1 tp ruimg.
a mm iem in ihm to lhe renet al urntition %e are Aw well awaw f.nthat dn* a dollai t
- f nue los sn. h w utt h is anu aW and n de only nussing value In omtr.ist. the Consot, lated l'tdit y Geenp dhi s home"
- a s.dier hn de N"' """M I ""' # ' "'# "i ' ' " ' * ##""""*" "E
' "" ' C "d " '"" I wetth of a man-rchi I or 041 %Iton it idro statul'" e guetwi on the runt.m c m \ppcuda 1.
You may clot h the iwue 13 you w een bm ,o ..e.t.., to na nic .nmta "C*"' # ""Y " '"'
1 1 tmt Ite.nefit analyus you simply tuve to "h,'e flw t,oit.;t" .m.: an,.p,3 g,, b" d d* '"" as to die anonA y woede for reistuin ni r adunon &we k"
to a man rem We recoynire th, t stos Wt e.e .ly a..n , that o.c.e 9,g
'" the popolanon.
subjecteve f actors envows, nq o,a ,,ys ,s e .nia 6 en h % ma "I ""O
- tWsons may reavuuhly tiesupee No.wthe ..ss, w.. ter c ,, var. we Re k " E W" d ""M"' P'*N P"Wd N"""
"I'""" "" " " '
'"""U""""'"I'"'""**P'" # Uf* *5 '" " "
r ,,,gs,
$1000/ man rem (and '/, of that for a inan t'aysved reud . TI.c n s .tu..re.. a woe pm met One ot the p.nndpants'"' selcsted a salue of $100ts per g numbe of estmutes for this value v.inom;t trom sto n, mm wah n,,,,
'"i A bi ly man icm .md .nintrant) set the worth of a man-thy niid tem at une treing m the rainy of $1og to $gg A *r 'u'"St ne'v e ann.nc eC"su W d'nd ot dut s Aue.1 he beanng wsoW. awndmpy, contuns no m&nse W m dehbevately chose a value above the ta we quoted for twe.,4w g.s
- i t to t,, ,
of these quanWes conwesate,e in our amsment of t he v.do" of ewn ier adng monduv no for en
.m ,m. , q . !!) su main, g We d'c unndtnt thai Ap; endn I apphes only to ctthwnis tiem In ht w ahr-
- attowance for **ove,nding moral va r ues",nl othw mtan.pbl... wn h .uc n...a hawd n it is on a seson! **
mot,.1 mulear e m e, ie uroes and sannot
- tu guantity, lumbd be mustennito ipph to sca(tors ut uthen t) pes os to other 1.iofdies
! m the nns te n t uri spic liut we aie also unndf ul tlut the str.ise of a uhte les i As the retord makes clear i n a ?i o n thesc *Aun of $10 tat per total huJy man-rem and SD3 per snan thyroid-rem represent no in.ferendent wcwment, g,. m,. net,n v w,n th of a nun sem redustb-n in tupulathm dme to the rene ~l They were ohtamed by Pil simply by 1.Amg a vane sonohat lyher di n h p h v e,n be n.n..n.,g a m a w 4 to o A 4 tirh.. M .it me hher rang of vahics" for the worth of a tota 1 f ody m.nt um surysted by the seseral Iaot n We .nc 1hricto c omunced d at ihn 8 nep il) lunns ; in.nd . nn i
i l n-c.t to c a,bk.h appiy.iate yencial ulnes fet the nunctity wotth of a j e inan tem issloction in tot Abody or un' a snan th}rohl-rem otran dose to the population.
Nmnd and inmninpuous dun be We unW of h pnees M y "I m 1 I n.u mmniat Statemein. w A5it-t 25n. Nila973.Vol.I.p.a : * "ther ewntully equisAent taiteria) are clearly needed for uh..uate quantilwa-I "Ryutatory Statt.runshatmp Statement ne roser .a tion of the as low as piasticable concept. Accordmply. weluopose to monate a j "T*.rr 147173
- " Can afiscJ te - Group. INtnbei 5. Watn.n A stmt er. f Mib,xmat f es,memy on $ luf ther tulem.iLing to au cttain the monetary worth of redu tion su radratwn Behair us ,,w w .u, t.nhty Gump. Isbit4 9.t971 ,
'" tom u<d l'id,iy Gnmp, talahn 6. %mm.,es of MJmnc..I t esamem data
- Nov. 9.197 3 a,4 % sitan A. ItoJger en !k tuH of the t ..nA14tcJ thshey Gomp p. 2_
"' Tr.. rP. ~ 9 8 3 15. ' " I s . PP B 7 7 8-79
', "' Tr . rp 3944 4 5. ' %aw on Mmwa. i nta biemcat oI Pusitten. l eb I.1974. P 84.
' '"Convintated tJtdaty Geoup. Statemena nt l'asition. f an. 19.1974.p.3t.
e 317 i 316 em e
, egy.
O
_ - . . -__..z-__---____ - - . - _ - _ _ . _ . _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _--._a-----_---_---___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ - _ - _ - - _ _-s
s' s;
- . .- . - - . - . ____.m.
e
.- o o .e . . m 9
4 at doses to the gwputation.I" When such betles estabhtlied salnes become diwhed pn bould not eueed % unes t fot each hght water o=4-:d ieacto ire u'e II'me$ci. 't the apph. ant lud psoposed bawhne in plant miniol me' ,
g avadable for adoption, we intend that they t e n%ed in the tost benetit aiutpes -
tot al tetiniecd in fint Appendit 1. k u hit it seural typical etunples were hsted). the talculated anini it -watcr t y t..ul.1 be petmitted to eweed the 5-cutie lunet for e wh I.
Me inwfule, since afie record cannot provide tism 5 uid.inu a f.. wooh ed a .i the dose 4"J'N omt nutleat imet leador provided the designobiettive F""te total body nian tem we believe it is the bettet omne to ,etepg g,,f the intrum q,, ,{
petr[M Aq' tpg*(jlh.d lgegeg,ga f g et, g l,gy g gy pg gAggyp g ,ggyc 9 p, p l soc 6d melevel
- vtun rem nt tot.ll body dose to the popul4 pin. ']h. V H tm g.,p j mi i%.N m in dquebjettive (p it tan be a'rned slut the worth of fedusing the ibyn,h! tio.c lis a even d the b v.1me in plani ionin.1 measures are mduded in ty. hv+1 vadwnte a
l InJHtb)tobltent 4% sniallet, l log g gg.g , g ggp gyg gg,g gg gel ntMl!!k t#nI (8th!.nRC ss st e nt W4 bl TeIIkilIIh bt'84nli't MIlll WfEMIIc\ WI'nfJ Cf 'JI'd
- I' 'I IIIIflf untrase m tle et reast.nl deen objestne dose leva ut w : hoe adopted upon tins pant. In this contest me l'.ne ancpted, a% an mtemn tur.oine, the g 0, g ,gg g lggg y v tH riy, HKC v< g A\c t bt itk udt,d qU3ngigy tnH v
%J!tte b!Othl per tytjpg llty ggqd ggggg g,,7 pg,, p,, ggg ,gg g gg, t u cd q ,p ) q j b aIJlh i* Ne ("t1pII.t%l/c th st (lnese Jte gustset t'.elne ing{eg htt)lt l t" tit e s as,d Jte ["tidr s ,' % c tth itta . no { loV1'h i-1 fot ba% cline in attl cotd tsd 4nt'asu'Cs (of gg ,gg gg gg ,cg g, \ g gg ,g g,. aj,, g .
altt*pIcd for nW J% % nth, .tg get jot tjg bebyg. [g gnay gpgl gg gg,,9 g g 3 o, , m,.ns of ,,dm n ns. nishne and re s.htne mateis.d m particulate the month el these quantilits adi f>e sm illet Con + tent uith the f orecong., as an ugeinn n,c iune and unf t! inon. w g.
toim. th 9m prop's..d 'Kod .ui e v eption o the deugn obsc ti.c dose be j j ni. ! i lmt m the 1
values of t.8hre uHerta tan be est thsbed. we b.ne decnted that bloort pet albms d et the lutwhne in ant s ont to measuies were taiIn ast. q s.tren d. uen[ "' l he tJlf te mlnethled that tbt* IpCe "llel dtunn 3!
it8I.II bt"I) ntatt it Bli afM1 $lt1t10 peg gn ggg glgy nigd f ellt l'f sth \1 h, wet g ah tg3 at
- 4,,,p g,ggg g g.to
- Midin doW nrI f M 'un St* tn.d ell el t38 pJith n n
- Ili A rilJ% k'E' t!t 9thenst# Jted b) (lte ,s pgde. jegg to b . .qqgg d.[g gg 3 py,g gt,g ,, , t r \h ctf no, eu,t-d ti mdhrenn P any inr [ of an uitmte mdivid.e d and that the be med m the rcquned uat henefit t atames led .Il In ptwous ellI4Ptos 'htndd nI
, caI g nI nted .entPt sl tettJI 4pl. "hty est P I e s ecd i t m or t ot r.h h er a t ur . I the app c uit h wl propne t b.i . nne m plant 6 % full I stoptiom to the flesir.n Objettite Gnutes lie
/ toidiot taca .uies (of wins i, sr [tal t)pn.d t .unples were h*h he toukt be A lett if itadwastc Spletm Contain *ltawhne ln Plant ContrSNh. nner(? .
/ p..smoted set .ncs of runoi. nie and r.cheattn nutenal m p.uttsulate torm m r s ved tour timn the qi .ntity that woob! }ictd the
\
q.untit e s that sh.t not
. gli ffi t;o% l n. to st,tjetnc9tt ' the Regn}3ggg y g,,g g n eduicd lbe te(pen ' I5 nothicm d.c.e to any . iran a t an of f mie m.hvnlua mend.etun that euep, ns to the deden ubjet the - .n tog h,Iuhl eHluenh' * ' l llot h t.1 .m.t t If .nrncd u tently ar.amt inshnion < ' sth h b ewhne in plant t
2nd 14 '8 f tdb'h %Itnt* Jtad f.h 4
stige ggiateggal gi.g,lh IIIaqe lor m I
I c at] owed l a
wood me.sunes i Appen.hs 1. ~1 hey dauued that the tm me m i l mt c<mtrol tf Letf Jftl ,~bJWittle tu pI.htel cont op peg *, g g.,e e,g* }ge,}p,) y,y g h ' A'9 U NO" tue.nutt e s .ippo .
. h 1% nttw.ettansed Stnte thC dlMP ti*cOf d 4 l%# s IbJI SnOSI "g Splents t! curt, the "en aun. o .are unptstati ahle tats a t ost-benetit b.asn/ ', , , , k*s.t,t multiturmg
/
g I of b.guhl ellluents !! upn d;cttne 3 .let popose.1 by tlie N att l.sted data at e1 f atti.s hght #aten -studed tu ?'ai pomes teactors Show th,lt
.I are muletew.try to meet Uc desn'n objes'ttWs/ '
' 'most aftd of th31 tItc tah itlJ!c . titnial total epianta g et3 ,.I,o,g g ne ,p , ten d f oun ;.lt g, ..
e 4
hrht m alet tie 4-d iphIcat pou er teatti.tg at a stro shon ,of seudt un a" anunal that. , wi1 aormcutatum for bmidny air vem non sclea e;be twessat) mmt s' -
, .wd mem s ' mudd be technkally and ecunonus lly map, ro-duse or dyfountutencnt sie the total bod) e, so ang o,pn f an en.hvi.In d m j , e g.., '
,gg l an Ittkled area from all pithw ag 5 t,( egpe.une en eggew ,,j s . t{ne.m,3g4 ' pi ite for te bn uiv "s n le cimunoon.
(
, y n' (dntah d alnnial total quantil) of tasltoas tn e ns. den.i t, e w ert in. n and i .
- * * % . ti..n it 1 a.i ibn hyt es . ab.** e
't ul i Ir* "85. R'Tl la' 1 IT- D
- *
- R c att an are thst the N3n- nat At adtmy el S. ors n N oson i Huan h t ..um ,I n B h.dr of st>e Cons..fidated titdtty Adw.s y ( ..ne.ewth e un 141.*rm at IJto h of lonenny H tuin.as n . m ents s**..ly iar a'hl .
U'""t' N"' E I H 3 II' I ' N deocl .gsng ochod._4.ets toe tmtet.enL. tent sul so l f or at nieun msoli en.. s .ts.tuws .
- 8 t bew.li.t.itvd Ubbty t.o.up. Sutement of Posinon, Jan. 19.1974 rp 29,43.
i e s powtc it is smhte that enfonn.etson on emmrtM s.sim toe the moetti el sc.t%1 son us 'Conv.lutatol Utdny 4 onp. Esply. Wt I.1974. I'p. 64.
radv%on dow. as mell as uwini metho tolory, may t*e provokt by thw um.ly He tet.nury Sult* I shi bit 24. WI.197 3.
f
.. I th. 20. I C4 pit 264 7. r
- ', '.' It crehw y Suf t, b, .mhuriar Suters.cm ne t'..so * *
- Gens ut i Ininc.1 shd44 5. N*. 9.1913.
. f t.sd . pp 29 JU.
- 319 318 i .
. . _ . . . - - . . - _ m-_..._____m. m.m.m._ _ _ . _m.___._.___._._ .
ENCLOSURE 2 p Kf4 -
- 'lNITED STATES 41 AUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIMlOs DRAFT 3
) , j WASHINGTON, D. c. 20555 l
- Nhf:)i fjl a ?-
i MEMORANDUM FOR: Lee V. Gossick -
FROM: Samuel Chilk ,
SUBJECT:
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE TO THE STAFF ON PROCEEDING WITH
~
THE DOLLAR / MAN-REM RULEMAKING ACTION This memorandum contains Commission guidance to the staff as a follow-on to SECY-75-679. The issues of rulemaking scope and involvement with EPA need more adequate treatment by the staff, before we can make a final decision on the various aspects of rulemaking. For this reason, the Commission would like to have the staf f's views on the following: i Rulemaking Scope The Commission believes the ALAP decision was clear that the future rulemaking ,
i a must exclude considerations of costs and effectiveness of systems f to control effluents, e should focus on determining less casservative values for the benefits of exposure reduction, and e need not be limited to total-body and thyroid exposure.
In this light, the objections raised at the briefing on SECY-75-679 to any extension of the rule-making beyond total body and thyroid exposures do not seem to be relevant to- the problem of determining the benefits :
l of exposure reduction, but to determining the costs, which would not be the subject of the rulemaking. Therefore, since the ALAP decision clearly stated that the principles (if not the numbers) are applicable l l
to exposure of organs other than the thyroid -- which may, for some fuel j cycle situations, be more significant than total-body or thyroid I exposure -- the staf f should address the question of when (not whether) to extend the ALARA principles -- elucidated in the Appendix I decision l
l-l j on LWR' effluents -- to other elements of the fuel cycle. Further, the !
staff should discuss whether it.is realistic to expect that the proceeding can be limited to only the health effects of whole-body
- and. thyroid exposures, rather than such ef fects generally and the
. "value" of avoidance of deaths or health ef fects (e.g. , cancer), which values are applicable regardless of the organ exposed or the type of exposure.
i I
f p F^ 489 N*
,@. *q- d y ** *# * **=W W eg w ee+ 1p
i
[p.
l
\ l l
Lee V. Gossick l 1
I I
1 The staff should consider also the rel'ationship of scope to timing of i rulemaking action. If NRC must proceed on an accelerated basis in decision-making, presumably the rulemaking scope will have to be restricted to defining radiation reduction benefit values for only total-body and thyroid exposures (i.e., applicable to LWR effluents).
! On the other hand, if use of the current dollar per man-rem values are j not creating problems in practice -- schedule delays or significant i over-spending on radwaste systems -- perhaps NRC may enlarge the scope of rulemaking to include determination of benefit values for various i organs, and thus provide a basis for later ALARA decisions on radwaste ;
systems for fuel cycle facilities.
Possible NRC/ EPA Joint Proceeding The Commission feels it does not yet have an adequate basis for deciding whether a joint proceeding with EPA, rather than an independent i NRC action, should be undertaken. Thus, the staff should provide a l full discussion of the desirability of joint action by NRC and EPA, including pros and cons of direct NRC involvement with EPA.
In this regard, substantial consideration should be given to the j ultimate impact of joint NRC/ EPA action on the larger question of ;
ALARA fuel cycle standards. The staff should base its discussion I on the results both of past experience and current ef forts to communicate with the EPA staff, concerning both SRC's comments on the EPA fuel cycle standards and other matters relevant to the present subject. ,
NRC participation in the forthcoming EPA hearings should be particularly l rele' ant. The staff should attempt to provide as factual a basis as possible for the Commission to make a judgment on the probability of success of any joint venture. Please provide the responses called for above by February 22, 1976.
cc: Chairman Anders i Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy
! Commissioner Mason Commissioner Rowden l I
Peter Strauss Ben Huberman l
t .
l 4
l l
1
-