Use of benefit-cost analysis in establishing Federal radiation protection standards: a review

This paper complements other work which has evaluated the cost impacts of radiation standards on the nuclear industry. It focuses on the approaches to valuation of the health and safety benefits of radiation standards and the actual and appropriate processes of benefit-cost comparison. A brief historical review of the rationale(s) for the levels of radiation standards prior to 1970 is given. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) established numerical design objectives for light water reactors (LWRs). The process of establishing these numerical design criteria below the radiation protection standards set in 10 CFR 20 is reviewed. EPA's 40 CFR 190 environmental standards for the uranium fuel cycle have lower values than NRC's radiation protection standards in 10 CFR 20. The task of allocating EPA's 40 CFR 190 standards to the various portions of the fuel cycle was left to the implementing agency, NRC. So whether or not EPA's standards for the uranium fuel cycle are more stringent for LWRs than NRC's numerical design objectives depends on how EPA's standards are implemented by NRC. In setting the numerical levels in Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 and 40 CFR 190 NRC and EPA, respectively, focused on the costs of compliance with various levels of radiation control. A major portion of the paper is devoted to a review and critique of the available methods for valuing health and safety benefits. All current approaches try to estimate a constant value of life and use this to vaue the expected number of lives saved. This paper argues that it is more appropriate to seek a value of a reduction in risks to health and life that varies with the extent of these risks. Additional research to do this is recommended. (DC)