Re: Safety Questioned at Nuclear Plant -Reply -Reply -Reply-Reply

[Charles Willis <CAW@nrc.gov>]

Claude,

One could always quibble about the word "appease" but the Appendix I values
were developed in indirect response to "public" outcry led by John Gofman and
Art Tamplin.  The Appendix I values were in direct response to the concerns of the
nuclear industry.  Does that sound odd?

In the 1960s, Part 20 included a population dose limit of 170 mrem annually.  It had
no meaning for nuclear power plants because the dose declines so rapidly with
distance from the plant.  It was seen as a possible constraint on "plowshare" 
activities and possibly color TV.  Nevertheless, activists led by Gofman and
Tamplin, postulated that nuclear power was giving or would give population doses
of this magnitude, i.e. 30 or 40 million person-rem annually.    Even with BEIR-V
risk factors, to say nothing of the higher risk factors assumed by Gofman and
Tamplin, this corresponds to over 10,000 cancer deaths annually.  There was a
significant public response (after all, those were the flaming 60s).  The AEC
responded in 1970 by removing the population dose limit and adding the
requirement that releases from nuclear power plants be ALARA (actually, "as low
as practicable" was the buz word at that time).  That more or less ended the public
outcry but it left utilities, vendors and A/E firms in a quandary; a definite criterion
was needed for design.  For five years the appropriate criteria for ALARA was
debated and several voluminous reports were published, public meeting were held,
etc.  In 1975, the NRC promulgated Appendix I.  The principal staff members who
developed the values contended that the values were chosen because the industry
claimed they could be met.  There was no real attempt at "optimization."   I suspect
that the boom in nuclear power at the time was so great that there seemed little
likelihood of the ALARA criteria having a significant effect on the industry.  Times
and conditions change.

Charlie Willis
caw@nrc.gov