ML22230A077
| ML22230A077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/16/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780216 | |
| Download: ML22230A077 (42) | |
Text
~EIUR TO SECRETARfAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULAiORY COMMISSION J IN THE MATTER OF:
POLICY SESSION 78-9 DOLLAR PER MAN-REM RULEMAKING P1ace - Washington, D. C.
Cate - Thursday, 16 February 1978 Pages 1 - 38 Telephone:
(202) 3.47-3700 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Officia.J Reporters 44-4 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NAT:ONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. IN; THE MATTER OF:
POLICY SESSION. 78-9 DOLLAR PER MAN-REM RULEMAKING Pf ace - Washington, D. C.
Cate - Thursday, 16 Febr.uary 1978 Pages *1 - 38 Telephone:
(202) 3-47-3700 ACE
- FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficiaJRepor:en
. *44,.4. North, Capitci Street Washington, D.C. 20001
.-.-~.=* ~(;i .. '
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United Stctes Nuclear Regulatory Commission held .on February* 16, 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This* transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies The transcript is intended solely for general i nformati ona l purposes.
As pro_v-ided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decfsion of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg~m1ent conta*ined herein, except as the Commission r:iay authorize.
(
CR 6424 dav 1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- 4 5
POLICY SESSION 78-9 6
7 8
DOLLAR PER MAN-REM RULEMAKING 9
10 11 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
12 Washington, D.C.
13 Thursday, February 16, 1978 14 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m.
15 BEFORE:
16 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 17 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 18 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 19 RICHARDT. l.q!:NNEDY, Commissioner 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
2
~ 6424 P R:,:o .C E E D I N G S OFF. *------- ----
~ 4 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The Commission needs to move KW_ .L 3 fairly promptly forward to the next item.
4 The next item is a 78-63 paper, dollar per man-rem discussion. I s see Mr. Minogue has moved to the center table. You're having 6 a big morning today. That ~-s efficiency; as long as you've 7 got to make that long trip, you may as well come in with 8 several.
9 Please go ahead.
10 MR. MINOGUE: Mr. Cha:i.l:man, there are three issues addressed 11 in this paper that relate to the rulemaking the Canmission ordered sane 12 years ago regarding the setting of a dollar per man-rem* figure to be used in 13 cost-benefit analyses.
14 (Slide.)
15 These three issues are identified on the first vu-16 graph: first, the need for that rulemaking as it relates to hand 17 ling of the effluents from reactors; second, the need for that 18 .rulemaking as it relates to the fuel cycle, quite a separable 19 -issue ;-and___last, the EPA role in such a rulemaking procedure.
20 Before I get into a brief discussion of each of 21
- these alternatives -- second Vugraph please.
22 (Slide.)
23 I want to reiterate a very basic concept that one 24 should bear in mind in talking about this issue. When we Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 talk about dose-reduction, whether it relates to the
3 dkw 2 exposure of the public or occupational exposures, consistently
.2 -we have to think in terms of the dose to individuals and the 3 dose to populations, to large numbers of-individuals.
4 This follows particularly*from the so-called linear s _-hypothesis, in,_which it's assumed; for purposes of public 6 health protection, that exposures at all levels are harmful, 7 and therefore, exposures of large numbers of people, even 8 at very low levels, is in itself harmful. So that throughout 9 the discussion we'll be. talking_about individual doses and 10 population doses, the so-called man-rem doses,.
I ** 11 (Slide.)
12 Let me ask you to bear with me, and give you a 13 little-history as to how we got where we are, because I 14 think it's important to understand the current Staff attitude 15 to recognize the extent to which we've been racking and re-16 racking* this same issue for a good many years.
17 Prior to 1970 in the licensing. process, the limits 18* that were set on effluents from reactors -- and I'm speaking 19 now tothe first issue which is the reactor issue -- the limits 20 were pased on part 20, which listed a lot of concentration 21 and individual dose limits.
22 The net effect -- and I'm really oversimplying this 23 was that there was a whole body dose limit of about 170 24 millirem, and in actual practice, it was significantly better Ace-Fe.feral Reporters, Inc.
25 than that.
4 dkw 3 *rt was not formalized in any way. It was done by 2 voluntary action, by industry and by case-by-case analysis.
3 Trends developed in the late sixties which caused 4 concern both within the Staff and outside the Staff. And in 5 1970 the then-Atomic Energy Commission acted to formally 6 establish the principle of a law in the regulations to provide 7 what we were discussing in the previous paper, a sort of 8 enabling legislation to enable the Staff to get considerably 9 tougher with_ licensees and.applicants regarding these effluents.
10 The next need that presented itself was a very 11 difficult issue, and that was how to quantify the law. The 12 law is -- the concept is great, but you have to enforce it or
.e 13 implement it in the real world in some way, and that always 14 regarded -- this is a prop here just to show the volume of 15 material under the present rule required to quantify the 16 procedural mechanisms by which you apply a law.
17 A number of laternatives considered by the Staff 18 ranging from defining and specifying specific types of 19 equipment, running to curie limits on discharges to population 20 dose limits to concentration limits and so on. Out of all 21 that shook down a few alternatives which were proposed by the 22 Staff and moved by the Commission into a reul-making procedure 23 which went on for several years and brought very extensive 24 public input -- next Vugraph --
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc, 25 (Slide.)
5
.dkw 4 which resulted in the present NRC regulation, 2 the so-called Appendix I regulation, -which was a rule-making 3 whi~h established individual dose objectives, which established 4 a procedure for cost-benefit analysis as related to population 5 dose, hence the need for a dollar-per-man ram figure.
I . 6 Just about the time that package of stuff came about 7 it is called a package; I was just waving it around -- EPA 8 began action on the uranium fuel cycle standards, 40 CFR 190, 9 which, in terms -- let's go to the next Vugraph --
10 (Slide.)
11 I'm sorry. I'll try to cut this a little short.
12 Let me jump ahead two Vugraphs --
13 (Slide.)
14 in the interests of time.
15 In terms of the actual effect of 40 CFR 190, 16 compared to Appendix I, you get substantially the same 17 result. The EPA criteria for most sites are slightly less 18 conservative than the NRC criteria. If we did not implement 19 the individual dose limits, which we are currently still doing, 20 the difference is small in any case. I wouldn't want to make 21 too big a deal out of it.
22 In a sense, this isn't surprising, because EPA 23 based their analysis on a sort of generic ALARA determination.
24 They took the data base that had been developed by Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 contractors, and of course the case review and NRC review,
6 dkw 5 1 and used it to establish an assessment of the technology 2 and- its capabilities *.*
3 The numbers came out about the same as what we
-- 4 5
were doing, which should beno great surprise.
But it does mean that one could regard the EPA 6 regulations as being a sort of generic quantif.action as low 7 as reasonably achievable as it would relate to population 8 exposures.
9 And if you take it that way, then you don't really 10 need to do the cost-benefit analysis in individual cases*.
11 Another way of looking at this that gets the same 12 conclusion is that it is a practical matter in actual case
- 13 14 15 review what determines this individual dose, and not the population dose.
So it's the same answer, but we come at it by 16 two entirely differently grounds.
17 Let me go on and talk about the fuel cycle 18 effluents.*
19 (Slide.)
20 This is a much tougher and more complex question.
21 Here we have a problem that although the basic unit operations 22 involved in the processing treatment of effluents from fuel
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
cycle plants are well unqerstood, their commercial application in fuel facilities is an area where we have experience from 25 very limited to none at all. It makes it very difficult to
7 dkw 6 establish a good technological base for the cost-benefit 2 determinations.
3 In one of the many*iterations of this subject in 4 the various commissions over the years, we were directed to s issue a series of* reports that* defined the --effluent 6 treatment technologies as they were best understood, taking 7 into account not just limited commerciai experience but the 8 experience in many military-type facilities.
9 This Vugraph lists these reports. They've all 10 been completed, and theyive been issued. And all of them 11 were used in some way, either in final form or in draft form, 12 by EPA in their generic determination . of effluent limits.
13 The next Vugraph --
14 (Slide.)
15 -- discusses briefly the uranium fuel cycle standard 16 that EPA has developed. To a great extent it speaks for 17 itself. There are a lot of loose ends in this process; not 18 all are listed in this Vugraph.
19 Treatment of the long wave radio nuclildes; 20 transuranics, iodine 129 and so on; radon 222., .not' listed here, 21 is a very critical issue that bears on some of the mil 22 issues, and tritium.
23 So there is ongoing now an EPA effort to broaden 24 the scope of. the 40 CFR 190 to cover all of the isotopes Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 involves in handling the fuel cycle questions.
8 dkw 7 All I might add with that reference to any cost-2 benefit determination or dollar-per-man-ram figure, although 3 again in fairness, there is consistently throughout the 4 EPA process, they way they're coming at this, you get an 5 effective ALARA determination. They're really trying to make 6 that kind of assessment. They're just not quantifying it that 7 way.
8 Let me go on to the next Vugraph.
9 (Slide.)
10 Last* ..:year a new actor entered the scene, the 11 Clean Air Act, which was passed, I believe, in September, 12 mandates several things that have_a significant impact on
-13 what I've been discussing up to this point.
14 First, they require the administrator of the 15 _EPA, by late '79, to make a determination whether the 16 emissions of radioactive materials would cause or contribute 17 to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to 18 endanger public health.
19 My own personal view is, it's difficult for me 20 to imagine that they could not make such a determination.
21 Irr.rany event, if that finding is affirmed, then 22 EPA is directed under this* law to work with the NRC and 23 establish some regulatory framework for the implementation 24 of the law. Staff has been working very closely with EPA Ace-Federal Reponers, Inc.
25 over the last few months, and it's an ongoing effort to define
9 dkw 8 1 some understanding as to how we might proceed with some sort 2 of delegation by EPA to the NRC of its responsibilities under 3 this Act.
4 There's no dispute throughout these discussions 5 regarding the adequacy of the Appendix I limits or the 6 40 CPR 190 limits. There's a consensus that they do represent
- 7. an appropriate level of limitation of the discharges from B these plants.
9 So what we're talking about here relates to some 10 procedural questions. Key ones: all of the work that this 11 Staff has done over the years has taken into account the 12 complex pathways by which released radiation can affect 13 people.
14 Unfortunately, the law sees two biased views:
15 air, and everything else. And these are two completely separate 16 things. And unfortunately, the radioactive material doesn't 17 see that artifical boundary.
18 All the artificial analysis methods, everything 19 that the Staff has done in the past, look at crossing of 20 this boundary by individual isotopes, 21 The other problem ~s the unclear relationship 22 between the end product of whatever allocation or assignment 23 or delegation maybe is the better work, of EPA responsibilities 24 is made to NRC; the extent to which the states will or will not Ace-Federal Reponers, Inc.
25 accept this is not clear at this point.
10 dkw 9 So there's another complicating factor that we have 2 on our hands.
3 So if I could sort of recap what I've tried to cover 4 very briefly on the fuel cycle question. I've tried to touch 5 on the uncertainty of technology, which makes any monetary 6 base highly uncertain; I've tried to emphasize the fact that 7 we've really reached the point where we're churning a public 8 health problem.
9 I think we should move on to other issues. God 10 knows, we have plenty of them. We're racking and re-racking 11 the same material eight. different ways.
12 And last, I think to some extent the action of the 13 Cl~an Air Act, and the complications it has introduced, almost 14 makes the whole issue moot. It's beginning to be so derivative 15 to go back through several tiers of subsequent action to the 16 Appendix I ru1e-making proceeding. It almost seems to be a 17 wasted effort.
18 Let me go to the EPA ?articipation issue, the third 19 issue.
20 (Slide.)
21 Here there was agreement reached between Mr.
22 Ruschi and Strilo, both principals no longer in the picture, 23 some time ago, that EPA would join with us in the publication of 24 a request for public comments on a proceeding leading to the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 establishment of a dollar-per-man-ram figure.
11 dk:w 10 1 No further commitment was made by EPA at that 2 time. WE had discussions. We recently got from the
,_ 3 4
Commission a request to explore this matter further with EPA. That exploration went very quickly, because the 5 reaction was highly negative.
6 I think I could fairly categorize Mr. Rowe's 7 reaction to me, that it's an issue of_ priorities. From 8 where he sits, he's got critical problems of the radioactive 9 waste problems; issues regarding medical X-rays and getting 10 guidance on that; and it's now out. The President signed 11 it within the last few days.
12 The very critical issue that has us bothered, as
- 13 14 15 well as occupational exposure, and the need to take into account recent work which has indicated or has raised some questions regarding the present practices of the standards, 16 in that context of things they just don't regard this as a 17 high priority issue.
18 It was made quite clear to me that they're not 19 prepared to allocate large blocs of resources to playing 20 any sort of lead role in this proceeding.
21 I have said all these negative things. I really 22 should make a few comments-- I don't think I need the next 23 Vugraph -- before I discuss the recommendations and the 24 technical support work.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 It is fair to admit that there are some
12 dkw 11 peripheral activities where such figures could be useful: in 2 the value-impact assessments the Staff does for particular 3 regulatory decisions; for handling things like that.
4 For example, *there was one that was recently identi-5 fied by NRR. So I'm not trying to pretend that a number like 6 this has no value whatsoever. I'm really trying to say that 7 I don't see that i t has any value in the context.of an a application, in Appendix I, or in any comparable regulation 9 that might be put up for fuel cycle facilities.
10 So let's skip the recommendations and go to the 11 one on the tech. assistance.
12 .:(Slide.)
-- 13 14 15 Before I get to the .recommendations, reflectipg what I just said, we would not propose to terminate or to not go forward with the support contracts that were reviewed with 16 the Commission some time ago, but rather, to redirect them, 17 to put more emphasis.
18 There were three proposed originally. The first 19 spoke to actual cost, directly quantifiable cost, either 20 for health treatment or for other indirect costs, but things 21 that you could quantify.
22 The second, Task 2, spoke to the expenditures in I
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
other areas, public expenditures, to take care of health costs from other things that were adverse.
25 And. last was a sort of psychological assessment
13 dkw 12 1 of the role of risk-:'.':perception.
2 What we would plan to do, if the Commission acts 3 favorably on our recommendations, is to not go forward with 4 the sec~nd two of.these, and to redirect the first one, to put
\
5 much more emphasis on actual, direct costs, toward the point 6 of finding a data base that would then be available to the
~ licensing reviewers and people doing value-impact assessment a for their use in wrestling with the specific issues, not as 9 someting that would apply in any sort of appendix item.
' end #4 10 11 12 13 14
\
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reponers, Inc.
25
~. 05. I 14 3/Jt/ Let me go to the recommendation slide.
(JV.
- 2 3
4 (Slide.>
WeJre making two recommendations.
. First, we believe that the commi.ss ion should 5 _ formally tell the .world that we are not going to proc.eed with 6 the dollar-per-man rem proceeding.
7 GOMMLSSIONER KENNEDY: What is the present status 8 _ of that proceeding?
9 MR. MINOGUE.: The status is that a notice at the JO time of Appendix I was issued~ ,what is the date?
.J 1 MR. PETERSON: May 5, 1975
- 12 MR. MINDGUE: The commLssion .first _directed, the 13 sta.ff in that proceeding to develop such a figure. They used 14 an interim figure of $1000-per-man rem, which, incidentally, 15 is not a bad choi_c.e. ItJs a pretty guess. They said use the 16 interim for no.w, but go into a rulemaking mode to develop a 17 be..tt.er figur.e. It didn-'t come to us as instructions to do 18 this as a crash project~ but to do it in some deliberate way.
l9 At that tim.e and, I_ think, as a separate action, 20 the commission issued. a notic..e of .a rulemaking proceeding, 21 and thi! Cnol ice is on the record. We-'re on record as saying 22 that .we are doing such a proceeding.
23
- COMMLSSI ON KENNEDY: That was with $ I 000?
24 MR. MINOGUE: It may b.e in the rul.e itself. I know 25 we are forma.lly on record, and we should formally say that
86.05.2 15 pv .we-'re nDt going to do it.
- 2 3
4 The other r.ecommendation that we are making --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
do, vis-a-vis the $10.00?
Excuse me. Whatidoes that 5 MR. MINOGUE: At the present, it ,would say that we 6 .would keep using it to the extent that we are now using it.
7 CO MMI SSI ONER KENNEDY: To the extent that *1 t is 8 useful, it,gets used. Then you use that number.
9 MR. MINOGUE: Now, .we .might we ..11 propose that 10 Appendix I be modified to eliminate the requirement to do JJ that _cost-benefit determination, but we .would not propose a 12 _ decision on that.today. We think that decision should be 13 made after the ongoing ,work. The staff is working very 14 closely .with EPA on detailed imp! ementing regulations to 15 implement 40 CFR 190.
16 Mr. Vollmer, who is here, i~ the chairman of that 17 group, . and the resul tis ofI that .effort should be factored in.
18 As .that shakes out, it would be clear whether .we ought to 19 1 eave Appendix I as it stands, to do this analysis, Dr to 20 eliminate it .completely.
21 I ~ouldnJt propose a decision on that at'this.time.
22 So, in effect.., then, in the interim, we would k.eep 23 doing Mhat. we have been doing, doing the $IQOO-man rem and 24 using the analys.is on this, even though it do.es not determine 25 in spe£ific cases.
86.05.3 )6 pv ThatJs all I have, Mr. Chairman.
- 2 3
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let~s s..ee.
from OPE supporting.
Thank you.
We have papers .from OGC opposing, and 5 COMM! SSIONER KENNEDY: Let me note, as long as .we 6 have brought them up, that I have read neither of them. I 7 didnJt,receive th.em until 6:30 last night, but I appreciate 8 your sending them, in any event. And if I ever get time, I 9 .wi.11 r.ead them.
JO CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: About th~ee minutes apiece,
.11 gentlemen. The e.ssence of the arguments.
12 Do you want to go?
13 MR. SLAGGIE.: The OGC as such does not propose 14 what the staff is proposing. We*-'re directly opposing the J5 ... idea of dropping this rulemaking.
1.6 What ,our paper a ttempt.ed to do was to ca.11 17 attention to a number of issues that .we. think are very 18 important, that, .would have been a draft in the rul emaking, 19 anci ,what w.e think would continue to need to be a draft.
20 What we wanted to do was to direct the commissionJs 2 J attention to their question which they should in turn pass
.22 on to the staff to make clear how these issues will be 23 addr~~sed, if the dollar-per-man rem concept is dropped.
2-4 Another point we wanted to make in nur paper is 25 that we .fe.el that, even though currently the EPA standards
86.05.4 17 fv may be equal ones in the.ir immediate e_ffect to what the
- 2 3
4 commission would require if we wer.e to impose a do.llar-p.er-man rem rul.e as what Appendix I establishes, that. this .would first of all n.ot nece-ssarily. al.ways be the case, as technology 5 ~hanges and improves. And secondly, that the dollar-par-man 6 rem concept embodies a form of analysis and a mode of 7 decisionmaking and an approach to the entire problem which is 8 not really built into merely setting up standards. But Mhen 9 EPA set up these standards, they represent as one specific 10 cost-benefit analysis based on today-'s technology and Jj furthermore, as we understand it, based on the notion that 12 doses .would be calculated only out to a very limited time in 13 the future. Isn't that correct?
1-4 MR. MINOGUE.: I don"t believe that-'s correct,. They 15 have an ongoing eff-ert on the long-lived isotopes. I wouldn-'t 16 .. think that~s fair to characterize -
17 MR. SLAGGIE-= The OGC is parti.cularly concerned 18 about a problem we think is going to be coming up very 19 shortly, again, on the concept of uranium mi.lling. But perhaps 20 elsewhere,. where the commission will have to confront what it
- 21 .wants to say about the significance of doses over a very long 22 period of time, low doses, but over a long period of time to
- 23 24 25 large populations.
It s.eems to OGC that the dollar--p.er-rnan rem c.oncept is at least a clear-cut way of approaching the problem of how
18 you intend to evaluate the significanc.e of long-term doses 2 and ,what, you propose to do about it if we use that concept.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.: Do you s.eriously suggest that 4 .a number, however c.ar,e.fully derived, $632.17 derived from 5 agonizing analysis in the year of our Lord 1978, is to be 6 multiplied by the world population over h~ndreds of thousands 7 of years in order to make a determination like that? ThatJs 8 absurd.
9 MR. SLAGGIE,: What l-'m seriously asking is: Ho.w 10 do you propose to make a determination like that? And I J1 believe that the man rem approach, the do.llar.:..per-man rem 12 approach is a useful tool in generally considering the L3 problem.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: The background of that may be 15 of intere,st. in the analysis, but could you use that number?
16 And then to multiply on out to infinity over a very large 17 population and very large and definite spans of time is 18 absurd.
19 MR. SLAGGIE: But how far one does int.end to 20 multiply - I would say that cutting off at l~O years and 21 perhaps to cut it off at a particular unlimited population 22 is equally absurd.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But that argument is not one 24 *hich is proposed for the treatment of the longer-term 25 problem. ItJs proposed as.a way to define the shorter-term
86.05.6 19 pv problem. and to dis.tinguish it from the longer-term problem.
- 2 3
4 So, to cite it as an argument that you-'re not going to treat the longer-term problem, I find pecu~iar.
We.ll, .what the objections which appeared to arise 5 in this paper s.eemed., then to me to deal .with what might ever 6 subsequently be done .with Appendix I and so on, at a time 7 when it-'s a li tUe clearer how these clean air things are 8 going to .work out and how the 40 CFR 190 matter is worked out.
9 You. think that?
10 MR. SLAGGIE:: Yes.
J l CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good. It.,s not an objection t.o 12 the recommendation-before the house.
13 MR. MINOGUE: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment.
14 There was another point embedded in the OGC remarks 15 that !._think ..deser.ves a hearing. The approach that EPA' s 16 standards used does not have the same element of enforcing 17 the improved technology that the ALARA approach does, so that 18 the comment which was implicit is a fair comment.
19 However, the basic authority and responsibility for 20 s.e-tting down the. adequate environmental standards rests with 21 EPA, and I don.,t .. think that issue needs to get ~folded into 22 .. this dollar-per-man rem question.
- 23 24 25 CHAJRMAN HENDRIE: Precisely. One faces it when
.one contemplates eventual changes to Appendix I, when we see a little clear.er how the negotiations go and ~hether there-'s
3-6. 05. 7 20 pv any further legislation.
- 2 3
4 MR. MINOGUE.: W.e have other ways, also, of forcing improvements i_n t.echnology .where .we think the public heal th intere-st ,.questions mandat.e this, as, for example, some of the 5 data on the effects of lo.w-level raoiation may indicate a 6 tougher a.ttitude toward forcing technology. There are other 7 ways of doing;_this.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Do you want to make a comment, 9 Al?
JO MR. KENNEKE.:- I suggest, in response to Bob's JI lat.est comment, that those very ways are the way.s _that led 12 to the 3-year hearing on ALARA and the do.llar-per-man rem 13 notion that the commission cam.e up with c;lS a .way of solving 14 the impasse, came about because of that. I would merely 15 suggest that where any action the commission would take ,with 16 regard to the-staff-'s current proposal about dropping the 17 rulemaking would lead the public to think that you-'re moving 18 away from the use of do.11 ar-p.er-man rem as a c.onc ept in the 19 course of your policy judgments, particularly the fuel cycle.
20 That,..would be a mistake, in our view. We feel that Bob's carmmt that 21 $10.00 is not a bad choice is a good one and that therefore 22 you could rest on the value that you use de But you *intended to 23 use the idea of dollars-per-man rem as one addi~;uqnal tool that is very 2-4 .useful to you and you ought not to give any indication that 25 you-'re moving away from it.
86.05.8 21 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That seems to be very 2 sensitiv_e, and it can easily be taken care of in whatever 3 determination or rule.making might fo.llow.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There is, at the present time, 5 in reviewing cases, that the applicants, in fact, have to do 6 the Appendix I work through those individual analyses. Does 7 the st a.ff have to review and cont irm and so on?
8 MR. MINOGUE: Yes, sir, they do do that. ItJs one 9 of the viewgraphs I skipp.ed in the interest of time.
10 The figure that I have been given is that itJs Jl estimated to rsquire from 1-1/2 to 2 man-years per site on 12 the part of the applicants, .and a quarter of a man-year per 13 case Dn the part of the staff to do this analysis.
14 (Slide.)
15 The Appendix I cost-benefit analysis - thatJs the 16 figure that was furnished to me through Vienna.
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: TheyJ 11 be doing that 18 .any.way.
19 MR. PETERSON: Those numbers are over and above 20 effor+/- nec.essary to show compliance .with the design 21 objectives. This is related just to the cost-benefit.
22 C.OMMISSIONEH KENNEDY: Okay. This is to the 23 $10.00-per-:man rem ALARA computations.
24 MR. MINOGUE: That .we do right now. And we're not 25 proposing to stop doing thst, at least pending the resolution
36.05.9 22
. of the details of implementation~
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: These are true computations 3 that are required to satisfy ind~viduals?
4 MR. MINOGUE: Yes, sir. Exactly.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Yes. It-'s worth a couple of 6 hundred thousand doJ.lars to produce a result. which you say 7 in 29 cases where it *as used there was no change in the 8 equipment supply.
9 MR. MINOGUE: Yes.
JO MR. KENNEKE: Common sense .would argue that Jl we- adjust our staff practice in regard to that. If the 12 experience is such that we do not come out with~useful
.e 13 results, there is no reason to insist on it. ItJs a matter 14 of guidance.
15 MR. MINOGUE: That wasn*'t self-evident at the 16 beginning. It-' s after you've .done a numb.er of cases. For one 17 thing, initially m.os:t applicants avail themselves of an option 18 that they .had up until June 1976 to use what the sta.ff had 19 proposed, which didnJt involve this analysis.
20 I really feel that this matter of what they ought 21 to do or not do in individual cases is best resolved in the 22 cont.ext .of how we implement 40 CFR 190, and that effort is 23 actively ongoing, and J_think - correct me on the date but 2-4 I believe it-'s a year from .now or less at which that matter 25 will have been resolved betw.een us and EPA and ther.e wi 11 be
86.05. l 0 23 p an agr..eement on the .exact . . specifics of how we implement
- 2 3
4 40 CFR 190 and what if any changes in our rules should be required.
I also think it"s fair to add that EPA has given 5 some .weight in their determination to what we do under 6 Appendix I. They regard it as a very good approach. They 7 have said to me on a number of occasions that they regard 8 the Appendix I process - and .they didn"t say J'exc.ept for 9 the cost-bane.fit analysis*" - as being the right and 10 constructive .way to come at these issues in indi v,udual cases.
Jl CHAIRMAN HENDRIE= But, at any rate, the 12 recommendation .before the house do.es not contemplate removing 13 the need for those analyses.
14 MR. MINOGUE.: Yes, sir. That"s correct. Yes, sir.
15 MR. TRUBATCH.: The recommendation freezes the 16 do--1lar *value. LetJ s take it one step back.
17 When the commi5sion adopted this dollar value, it 18 .was adopted without a g.ood, ad.equate technical basis. It was 19 just the highest of all the numhers proposed. And now we are
.20 saying, with no further backup, that that is the number we 21 ,wi.11 now ;stick with. At the same time, we know that the 22 occupational dose exposure is in flux, and the general
- 23 24 25 population dose exposur.e has been taken as arbitrary, half of the occupational dose exposure.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I think that., s quite incorrect,
8.6.05 * .J 1 24 pl 1 not simply factually incorrect.
- 2 3
4 Would some,body, care to speak to the point?
Jake or Bi.11?
MR. PETERSON: 1.,.11 take it, if I may.
5
- The ..occupat-ional exposure is the primary 6 consideration for the low.er population exposure. It was not 7 individual risk, as it Mas genetic. It was a larger genetic 8 pool.
9 MR. TRUBATCH.: What.,s the difference?
JO MR. PETERSON: The di.fference is a .factor of 1o*
- 11 MR. MINOGUE.: That is not co.rrect. The average 12 .occupational exposure .of the employ.ees that are rea-1ly at 13 risk runs around 7/10 of a rem per year *. And the average 14 exposure of individuals in the population from the operation 15 of a reactor is .05 millirem per year.
-16 MR. TRUBATCH.: We-'re talking about the dose limit 17 as set. The EPA file on environmental state.ments comes right 18 out and says .that the original FRCB limit of 5,00 millirems 19 ~as taken as 1/10 of the occupational dose limit.
20 MR. PETERSON: Wasn.,t that the other way around?
- 2) MR. TRUBATCH: If the ..occupational dose limit comes 22 down, it-' s inconceivable to m.e that we won.,t have to rethink 23 the general population dose limit.
MR. KENNEKE-: Now, you-'re talking individual dose 25 limits.
86.05.12 25 pv MR. MINOGUE.: What you--'re saying is not correct.
- 2 3
4 It--'s Just not factuaily correct.
C0MMI.SSI0NER GILINSKY1 . W.hat is factua.lly correct?
MR. MINOGUE;: The individual limit is not 1/10 of 5 the present FRC guidance o.ccupational exposure limit, .which 6 is 5 .rem per year. 1/1 0 of that is '5/ l 0 rem per year, and 7 that is not the individual limit for member*s of the general 8 population.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And in particular, the statement to that if the 5 rem per year were reduced to a half rem per JJ year, that would immediately compel a reconsideration of the 12 indi¥idual dose limits for the general population.
13 MR. MINOGUE: I don--'t _think that *foJ.lows.
14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It just does not follow.
J5 MR. MINOGUE.: 1*think that reexamination has, in a 16 sense, already been done. It was a concern about the 17 unc.ertainties --
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: In enormous detail, I might say.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:: What is the significance of 20 the half rem per year? Wh.at is .that a limit for?
21 MR. MINOGUE:: A half rem - the old FRC guidance,
-22 *- which has been set aside by 40 CFR 190, .was a half rem per 2.3 year to the public, with a factor in it that made it 24 effectively 170. Let me stick to the same terms - .17 rem 25 per year. That limit has no standing and has had none since
36.ft3 26 the .early J?Os.
- It sti.11 exists in FRC guides someplace.
- 2 3
4 When I talk about the limits, IJm talking about what the present regulations require.
is not a factor of 10.
There, the dif_ference 5 MR. KENNEKE.: 40 CFR J 90, though, Bob, is a narrow 6 spectrum. It doesnJt cover situations beyond that spectrum.
7 So, .5 sti.11 is applicable in appropriate situation.
8 MR. MINOGUE: I stand c*orrect.ed on that. ThatJs 9 right~ Df course, EPA is currently reexamining this whole JO _ question with an eye toward rulemaking later this year or JI next year.
12 There is on the books some very stale FRC guidance 13 .which, as a practical matter, is not foll owed by our sta_tf, 14 which us.es a much, much more con;servative basis. That 15 guidance is certainly in question, because of these recent 16 bits of data, and is being ~eexamined. And !Jm quite sure 17 that EPA -.will make modifications in that guidance. TheyJre 18 actively working on this now. They expect their technical 19 analysis to be complete in June or thereabouts, and the 20 rulemaking,_which would be through the FRC rule, which means 21 it~s .for comment to other agencies and _then to the President 22 for approval, late this year or early next year.
- 23 2-4 25 MR. KENNEKE: There is a sense, however, in which the two thoughts run together. Any thought of. changing individual limits ...wi.11 inevitably raise questions as to how
)
86.05. l-4 27 r that . wi.11 affect population exposure, that is man rems.
- 2 3
4 MR. MINOGUE:
MR. KENNEKE:
Yes.
And that inevitably brings in the question of w.hat it would cost to reduce the limits. And 5 you have a situation where youJll have to compare 6 alternatives. It .will be in terms of the fairness of the 7 risk to an individual within a given population, the impact 8 to us in economic terms and in terms of exposures, of 9 spreading that risk around and conceivably increasing the 10 total exposure., the total numbers o.f biological e.ffects.
Jl I would come back again to say that*'s a very g.ood 12 example of why I believe you have to keep in your hip pocket 1-3 . this idea of a translating factor, a conversion factor between 14 biological risk on the one hand, and economic costs on the 15 other, if for no other reason than to settle issues. Even if 16 it-'s only imprecis,e, it-'s a way of diviqing the .world. That-'s 17 not zero and not infinite.
18 COMMLSSIONER KENNEDY: That seems to me to make 19 eminent sense. But that do.esn-'t lead.one to conclude that we 20 ought to go ahead with a rulemaking, but simply keep on the 21 shelf 22 MR. KENNEKE: Oh, I agree, in that sense, yes.
23 That-'s p.recisely -
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: They-'ve been good enough for 25 the purpose.
36.05.15 28 r MR. KENNEKE: Exactly right.
- 2 3
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
MR. KENNEKE.: Right.
reaffirm your use of the idea.
It was conservative, indeed.
But I believe you should 5 MR. PE.TERSON.1 The proposed continuation of some 6 of the technical support will provide perhaps a be~ter basis 7 for our numb.er, although, in our opinion, .it wouldn-'t *be 8 sufficient to substantiate a full rulemaking.
9 MR. MINOGUE.: I agree with what Mr. Kenneke has JO been saying in the last few minutes *
.I I CHAJRMAN HENDRIE.: Now, if we were go to in_this 12 direction, there would be .what -- an order pub! ished? What 1.3 would .we do?
14 MR. MINOGUE: We .would draft something.
15 MR. SLAGGIE: Suspend the rulemaking. I dont-' see 16 any problem. A simple order.
17 CHAIRMAN\ HENDRIE: And_ the language which would be 18 used there needs to reflect the sort of considerations that 19 have been discussed here.
20 MR. SLAGGIE.: It should be.
21 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Not just approving abandon_ment 22 of the c.oncept, but rather a considered judgment that the
- 23 2-4 25 value of a further refinement of_the kilobuck per man rem number is simply not warranted on the basis of 30-odd cases, the experience in 30-odd cases, the assorted ongoing
6.05.16 29
"(~'/
l development.s which may give rise to more substantive sortis PV
- 2 3
4 of adjustments.
COMM! SSIONER BRADFORD:
- Obviously, the rulemaking are we then tied indefinitely to the $ l 000 figure?
5 MR. MINOGUEl Well, we .would be, barring some 6 action by the commission. But what I would contemplate is 7 when. this task force complete*s the w.ork of the EPA, we would 8 come to the commission proposing appropriate rule changes to 9 _reflect the final agreement thatJs worked up between the two 10 agencies as to how we would implement 40 CFR 190. That might
.J ] well recol'l!Ilend dropping. this specific determination from 12 Appendix I.
. 13 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And substituting a 14 different numb.er, or just dropping it?
15 MR. MINOGUE.: Just dropping it complete 1 y, on the 16 basis that the individual dose experiences, the individual 17 doses determined that itJs not a constructive use of the JS manpower and is not nec.essary because of the incremental 19 protection that the EPA standard gives as regards population 20 :dose with some of the specific limit..s they ha-ve on various
- l#5 21 isotopes.
22
- 23 24 25
30 I-'m l.ooking to the future. It is an ,ongoing 2 effort. 1-'m not sure *hat that group will conclude.
3 MR. KENNEKE: Let me ask you a question.
4 Is the rule specific now that the analys,is must 5 be.J?E:I'fonned,, or can it be interpreted now that it might be 6 optional in the sense that i f it might gain something, it 7 might be optional?
8 MR. MINOGUE.: I think it"s a must.
9 MR. KARST: I-'m sorry - may I comment on that?
10 I think there"s ~ clause in the appendix on our J l ruling that says regardless of the stipulati.on, regardl.ass 12 of the cost-benefit situation, you can still do something 13 else if you want to.
14 Ther.e-'s a paragraph in there which is sort of an 15 escape clause.
16 MR. KENNEKE: I would hope there ,would be a way 17 to interpret_ this thing in. *-terms of the --- the nonsense of 18 going +/-hrough calculatio~s, at least, that don-'t produce 19 anything -- and.find a way to inter~ret it properly for the 20 interim.
21 MR. PETERSON.: *1 think in light of Mr. Kenneke"s 22 suggestion, I think .we might consider something. That stLll 23 leaves us the option though of perhaps requiring it in a 24 csrtain case but generally does not require it for most 25 license applications.
24.06.2 31 MR. KENNEKE: Simply properly interpreted.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Watch out.
3 MR. KENNEKE: I don-~t like instant rule making.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: .I think it becomes more a 5 substantive question and one with more subtle aspects as a 6 fairly simple decision before the House, and although I 7 hate to se.e this churning of the wheels which s..eems in 8 all cases so far, some 29, not to havE affected the design 9 outcome, at least .both we and the industry people now have 10 substantial practice in how to spin those wheels. And I Jl think we ought to think a li~tle further and read that 12 paragraph with some care.before we start putting in language 13 and saying, never mind doing that anymor.e.
14 I think I-'d prefer to stick this morning to a 15 simple ~reposition that it seems just needless and inefficient 16 to go forward with the rule .making till we find the 17 $1000-per-man REM number at this time in view of the past 18 experience and the ongoing developments Mith regard to 40 CFR 1.9 190, the Clean Air Act amendments, and the working out of 20 those details with EPA.
21 Further discussion?
22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: You-'re not ruling out one 23 further statement on the order that we will be continuing to 24 use, when appropriate, the $1000 -
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: No. I think the statement has
24.06.3 32 to r.eflect the fact that in deciding that this rule making
- 2 3
4 would not be a ~se+/-ul thing to do for_this purpose, we are not .casting out any of these conc.epts. A.11 right?
matters are left to future consideration sometime down the Those 5 line.
6 COMM! SSI ONER BRADFORD:: The only other question 7 that I _had is, the OTC paper does note that following at 8 least th.e staff recommendations as written and proposed, it 9 .would in some ways expose us to adverse action in the 10 courts. Now, does this modified form carry the same risks, J] in your opinion, or is that oot naw aproblem?
12 MR. SLAGGIE~ You are suggesting adverse action
)_J in the court?
14 COMMISSIONER BRAQFORD.: No, you suggested adverse 15 action; I' rn quoting. May.be the first tiling we have to do is understan:::1 16 better how that would cane about. The last page of your memo - is whether 17 such a dec.ision is made openly and could be supported.
18 MR. SLAGGIE~ With regard to the general 19 population, long-term dosage, that, of course, is not 20 directly what weJre doing here. This is something we felt, 21 in our memo, about the general approach, was something that 22 .was related to it. And I would have to stand by our 23 statement that if the Commission were at this point really 24 to state that long-term doses beyond LOO years need not be 25 considered. I donJt believe that there is sufficient
- 24. 06. 4 33 support for that. But I don-"t s.ee that that relates 2 directly to what weJre doing with regard to_this $IQOO rule.
3 MR. KENNEKE: ThereJs another facet. I hestitate 4 to get -into the prior rliscussion, at least at that moment.
5 Part of_the difficulty is distinguishing between the 6 calculation of the man-rems as opposed to the value you place 7 on man-rems.
8 But the basic question indeed involves a value 9 judgment to some degree, and that is, how far into the 10 future do you calculate the man-rems?
J1 But quite aside from that is the question of what 12 pries you put on a given man-rem.
1.3 So I_ think 0GCJs point is more a question .of your cal-14 cu.ration *of the man-rems rather than the value on man-rems, 15 altho.ugh I agree, in this case there is some degree of mixing 16 o.f the two. A value judgment. Do I count the cost in future tenns 17 or ..count it here in the present?
18 MR. SLAGGIE: The points -wi 11 be entwined when we 19 eventua.lly make a firm decision as to .how far out in the 20 future we want to calculate these man-rems, and then we 21 decide what we will require to be done about that.
22 MR. KENNEKE.: I donJt believe youJve worsened 23 the situation to hold dollars per man-rem in your rule and 24 in your policy-making judgments. I believe you would make the 25 . problem worse if you were to take it out.
4.06.5 34 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where are these other 2 matters being discussed?
3 MR~ KENNEKE.: Well, mill tailings, thatJs going 4 to comB to a head.
5 MR. SLAGGIE.: I think there will be a rnaJor 6 paper from this staff very shortly, if itJs not come up here 7 already, that will address some of the problems associated 8 with the. long-term radiation from miil tailings.
9 MR. KENNEKE: The subject of ,occupational doses 10 is coming slowly. ,
Jl COMM1-SS10NER GILINSKY: But -1s it going to 12 discuss the question of ho.w far one ought to go as opposed l3 to simply calculating the answer?
14 MR. KENNEKE.: You mean the mi..11 tailings question?
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes.
16 MR. KENNEKE.: I would hope that that .Lssue will 17 be coming to a head and that y_ou yourselves wi.11 take very 18 much intD that. Chairman HendrieJ~ reaction is one point 19 of view. There are reactions ,that are quite the .opposite.
20 And it is a policy issue that-'s going to have to be de~ided 21 at some point - before very long, I would hope *.
22 MR. MINOGUE: There is .a difference in timing, 23 though. I. think the nccupational exposure issue on.which 24 we-'re working very actively is not coming up quite as s..oon 25 as this other issue on the long-term effects of operating,
24.06.6 35 such as mills. The earliest I could hope to be at the 2 Commission with a solid package on D£cupational exposure 3 would be mid Apr.il, and I think thatJs optimistic. ThereJs 4 a great deal or work we have to do.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Are you talking about a 6 discount rate +/-or future man-rems?
7 MR. MINOGUE: No. As a matter of fact, the 8 rule-making p.roc.eeding weJve been discussing here today, I 9 think, would have given no light at all as to the cnst of a 10 man-rem in the year 2500. I just donJt think it would have J1 spoken to that at all.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY.: What I asked was a 13 question of how far you could go and be covered. I:~id you say that?
14 MR. MINOGUE: Yes, but in a different context.
15 I think the staff has baen focusing on an issue, which we 16 all agree has to be faced squarely, which is the. long-term 17 effects, but that issue is being focused in a different 18 context than what we 1 ve been discussing here today.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: When would that be coming 20 before us?
21 MR. MINOGUE: I donJt,have the lead on that paper.
22 I do say IJm embarrassed, not for the first time 23 in my life. ItJs very far along. I know l"ve been involved 24 in a lot of discussions on this. I think weJre talking a 25 paper that would be to you within the next few weeks, as I
24.06.7 36 understand.
2 MR._ PETERSON: We have the same problem on the 3 staff with the diversions.
4 MR. MINOGUE.: There., s a sharp difference of 5 opinion within the staff on these questions of how you handl.e 6 these long-term doses. This is not an easy question. EPA 7 has trouble with it, too. It-" s very difficult to know how 8 to handle_.this.
9 COMMISS.IONER GILLINSKY: There isn.,t any one way 10 of how to do it. It.,s a value judgment.
Jl MR. MINOGUE: Now, the others*- you have 12 -0ccupat-ional exposure. There you have an oddity, because
- L3 14 15 what we do right now under ALARA gives us a dollar man-rem figure that far.exceeds $1000. Industry estimates run up to*
$30- or $40,000, and I don-'t.think they.,re exaggerated.
16 So in a sense -- I/m not advocatLng backing aff 17 what we.,ve been doing, but the dollar cost of the measures 18 required in the present ALARA program to industry to reducE 19 occupational exposure, with particular emphasis on the 20 man-rem, the total exposures rather than the exposures of 21 individuals, is very, very high.
22 MR. KENNEKE: I only want to say one thing, Bob.
23 To say that we are using this is a little bit 24 misleading. Industry uses it, quite aside from what we would 25 require. The fact that they are independent economic costs
24.06.8 37 of reducing exposures justifies their going ahead without 2 regulatory requirements. ItJs a little bit different.
3 What if their costs were only SIDO p.er man-rem: we would 4 have th.e $ I ODO-per-man-rem figure to f a.11 back on. That 5 requires we go further,.which is a technology-forcing idea.
6 MR. MINOGUE: I agree .with that.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.: Further discuss ion?
8 (No response.)
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.: Let m.e propose then a vote to 10 you and see i£ we~re ready with the decision *
.I I What I .would propose is that we dire ct that an 12 order be prepared which, as I, have said previously, having 13 searched out the transcript, would announce that weJre not 14 going to go ahead .with the rule-making on do..llars per 15 man-rem which was announced in connection with the 16 Appendix I publication. It will note the reasons for.this, 17 which are that we now have a rather large body of experience 18 with.this and find that it has not be controlling on the 19 installed _equipment in any case thus far, that staffJs 20 judgment is that the present dollar-per-man-rem value is, 21 while not supported with any precision by detailed studies, 22 is nevertheless not a bad general number, that there are 23 other. things going on in connection with the implementation 24 of 40 CFR 190 that suggest that over the near term there 25 would bs appropriate occasions indeed to make adjustments,
-4.06.9 38 and note in particular that in deciding not to do this 2 rule .making now, that .we are not backing away or revoking 3 the sort of principles that underl1e the present Appendix I 4 language.
5 Those in favor?
6 LetJs see if I can produce enough votes.
7 <Chorus of ayes.>
8 CHAJRMAN HENDRIE~ So ordered.
9 Peter, the .others have been out. Could you and I JO get a minute and a half? They are not going to go far.
JJ (Whereupon, at JJ.:40 a.m., the hearing in the
-6 12 above-entitled matter was adjourned.)
13 14 15 16
.17 JS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25