ML20202G055
| ML20202G055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/16/1978 |
| From: | Kelley J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Bradford, Gilinsky, Hendrie, Kennedy, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9902040261 | |
| Download: ML20202G055 (4) | |
Text
~
\\.s \\
E sil8 y*
- i l
ME7.;RAUDUM For.:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner 0111nsky Commissioner Kennedy Commissioner Bradford James L. Kelley, Deputy General Counsel From:
OGC Comments on SECY 78-63 --
Subject:
DOLLAR-PER-MAN-REM RULEMAKING Reco:.;menda tion :
OGC believes that the EPA radiation standards of 40 CFR 190 are not an adequate substituve for ALARA deter-minations under Appendix I.
Discussion:
In SECY 78-63 the Office of Standards Developnents (OSD) recommends the cancel-lation of the previously promised rule-making croceeding to redetermine the dollar-per-man-rem figure in 10 CFR 50 App. I 3ec. II.D.
Instead, OSD proposes that the MRC rely solely on the radiation standards recently promulgtted by the EnviroT-ntal Protection Agency (EPA) in 40 Ci'R 1.' ?.
CSD asserts that the EFA limit
- lll substantially satisfy the HEC '- as 10, as rea s onab1;. achievable
( ALl.., A ) colicy for recucing population radiation exposure.
After exanining the Final Environr. ental Statement (FES) produced by the EPA in support of 40 CFR 190 it is au-epinion that abandoning the dollar-per-man-rem concept in favor of reliance on only the EPA dose litits tould be tantamount to an abandonment of the ALARA concept as applied to the general population.
We think that such a major policy change requires extensive consideration by the Commission, and needs better support than the analysis in SECY 78-63 provides.
Contacts:
Sheldon L. Trubatch, 000 h%ME y
E. Leo Slaggie, OGC 25'4-8037 16Eb7V m afx bG)c,L,A W Mb9%
v th M tb \\kl %
% 9. H -oat
?
9902040261 780216 L% 38)%
PDR COMMS NRCC ConRESPONDENCE PDR A&lMk
1 r.
l 2
l Use of the EPA standards dces not provide a fully equivalent alternative to cost-benefit analysis for achieving the i
population protection goals set out by the Commission in the ALARA rulemaking.
I I
The EPA dose lim'.ts were set by consider-ing the cost effectiveness of radiation reduction equipment now available, the
]
health effects of radiation as predicted in the BEIR-I report, and a reasonableness criterion of $500,000 per radiation-induced health effect for expenditures which reduce radiation doses to the general public.
Thus, the EPA standards were arrived at by a generalized cost-benefit analysis conducted by EPA at a particular point in time.
The NRC dollar-per-man-rem rulemaking by contrast looked to the development of an individualized method for future decisionmaking for each project where difficult questions of population dose significance must repeatedly be confronted.
Thus, NRC re?iance on only the EPA standards would be in effect an adoption of the EPA's cost-benefit analysis with the loss of flexibility and insight which the dollar-per-man-rem program ought to provide.
Even if the EPA ctandards were equivalent to ALARA in the present state of the art, they are not an adequate substitute for the cost-benefit analysis method of Appendix I for inplementing the policy goals of ALARA.
Appendix I implements ALARA by requiring an automatic reduction in radiation dose to the population as the cost of radiation control equipment drops below the $1,000 per-man-rem level.
Giving up this approach in favor of the EPA standards would freeze into the regulations the cost-benefit analysis based on present equipment cost contrary to the aims of ALARA.
Thus, any reduction j
l
~. -
e.
I i
3 i
P I
- inithe cost of additional radiation l
control equipment which satisfies the dollar-per-man-rem rule but is unneces.
l i
' sary-for compliance with the EPA standards f
would'not automatically lead to a reduction in population dose because there would be no compulsion to buy such equipment.
i Thus in OGC's view, availability of the EPA ~ standards does not eliminate the-need for the kind of analysis which would be addressed by a dollar-per-man-l 9
rem rulemaking.
A commitment nowLto standards based on the BEIR-Icreport's j
estimate of radiological hazard and on the present estimate of the~ socially acceptable expenditure to. reduce radia-tion hazards would be premature.. We l
believe the rulemaking would' provide
[
~
i opportunity for.the reconsideration of dose effects and a - re-evaluation of society's willingness to buy protection from radiation.
Thic re-examination 11s l
especially important now that'the'occupa-
- tional dose limits,.which are-the basis fortthe general. population dose limits, have come into question.
If the rule-
. making is to be-dropped, the staff should make lear to the Commission how
- and where these concerns will be addressed.2 Moreover, it is not clear that the EPA standards rest on an adequate cost-benefit. analysis even in terms of presently available technology.
A particularly serious failing of the EPA radiation i
standards, in our view, is that they underestimate the cost of radiation exposure.
In calculating the radiation effectsLof long lived radionuclides the EPA arbitrarily cuts off at one hundred years the time period during.which they o
j are considered to contribute to human expo,sure.
To adopt these standards as the final and complete embodiment of the i
See for example, recent testimony by Dr. Radford,
!~
~
3 Chairnan of the'BEI3 Committee at the Rogers Committee s
l 1
i
'~~'E
~
~
,p.
~~
74-t
's t
E I
Commission's policy on. population doses would in effect be to decide that longer l
tern doses are not significant.
Whether i
1 such a' decision, if made openly, could be. supported sufficiently to survive a challenge in the courts is a matter OGC finds open to doubt.2 A particularly appropriate context for.the study needed to support a sound decision on the significance of long term effects would appear to be the dollar-per-man-rem rulemaking the staff wants to abandon.
We think the staff needs to clarify how they propose to deal with thin important question if the dollar-per-man-rem concept is dropped.
A dollar-per-man-rem rulemaking could also consider these j
long term effects by estimating the long i
term cost of present radiation releases.
The Commission should also consider the effects that the staff's proposal will have on the occupational exposure appli-cation of ALARA.
Will the. acceptance of the present cost-benefit analysis as satisfying ALARA for the general popula-tion'also imply that the present cost-benefit balance is sufficient to satisfy ALARA for occupational exposure for the i
foreseeable future?
fl a
4 ll/
J'mes L. Kelley
((Cj9 a
Deputy General Counsel The Commission may shortly have to confront the long-term 2
dose question in responding to a motion filed February 13, 1978'for a stay of the initial decision in the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 operating license proceeding.
Docket No.
50-320.
i cc:
OPE (2)
[
SECY (2)~
-