[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (Monday, March 13, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13385-13388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6069]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 20

[Docket No. PRM-20-23]


Steve Gannis, Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition 
for rulemaking (PRM-20-23) from Steve Gannis. The petition is being 
denied on the basis that the proposed action is not necessary because: 
current public dose limits adequately protect the health and safety of 
the public; the requirement that doses are as low as is reasonably 
achievable (ALARA) provides an ample margin of safety; and the proposed 
1 mrem/yr limit is not supported by the recommendations of the 
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), the 
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), or 
Presidential guidance.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking, the public comments 
received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for 
public inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L 
Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charleen T. Raddatz, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear [[Page 13386]] Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6215.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Petition

    By letter dated January 8, 1994, Mr. Steve Gannis filed a petition 
for rulemaking with the NRC. The petitioner requested that the NRC 
reduce the limit for radiation dose to members of the public from the 
current 100 mrem/yr to 1 mrem/yr.
    As a basis for the requested action, the petitioner cited the NRC 
policy statement on radiation doses that should be considered ``Below 
Regulatory Concern'' (BRC)(issued July 3, 1990; FR 27522, and withdrawn 
August 24, 1993; 58 FR 44610). Table 1 (July 3, 1990; 55 FR 27527 and 
55 FR 27232) of that policy statement shows that if a person received 
the maximum allowable dose every year of the average 70-year life-span, 
he or she would have an additional 1 in 285 chance of death from cancer 
as a result of that dose. The petitioner further contends that non-
fatal cancers would result at the same rate.

Public Comments on the Petition: Summary and Analysis

    On April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17746), the NRC published a notice of the 
receipt of a petition for rulemaking in the Federal Register. 
Interested persons were invited to submit written comments concerning 
the petition by June 28, 1994. The NRC received 34 letters of comment 
from 30 individuals in response to the notice. Two commenters submitted 
addenda to their comments which were docketed separately. These are 
summarized in Table 1. Table 1.

                                 Table 1                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Comments                   Category                    For     Against
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6...........  Individuals...........................         4         2
5...........  Radiation Protection Professional       ........         5
               Organizations Representatives.                           
12..........  Environmental Group Representatives...        11         1
7...........  NRC Licensee Representatives..........  ........         7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments in Favor of the Petition

    Several commenters in favor of the petition gave no reasons for 
their support. These commenters only repeated the position in the 
petition. One commenter believed that no more than 2.5 mrem/yr limit 
was reasonable. One commenter said that only a zero dose limit was 
acceptable. Another commenter said that having reviewed the application 
for a low-level waste storage facility, it is evident that 1 mrem/yr is 
achievable for that facility and, therefore, reasonable for all 
facilities under NRC jurisdiction. Many of those who commented in 
support of the petition stated that they were appalled that NRC would 
condone the thousands of unnecessary deaths caused each year by doses 
to members of the public from exposure to NRC-licensed material.

NRC Response

    None of the commenters in favor of the petition presented any 
information that was convincing concerning the need for a lower dose 
limit for members of the public. Annual doses to members of the public 
from natural and man-made sources are summarized in Table 2 (from NCRP 
Reports, Numbers 92, 93, 94, and 95).

                                 Table 2                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Average annual dose
                       Source                       --------------------
                                                       in mSv     mrem  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naturally occurring radon..........................     2.0        200.0
Other naturally occurring..........................     1.0        100.0
All occupational exposures.........................     0.009        0.9
Nuclear fuel cycle.................................     0.0005       0.1
Other consumer products............................     0.1         10.0
Diagnostic medical x-rays..........................     0.39        39.0
Nuclear medicine...................................     0.14        14.0
                                                    --------------------
      Total........................................     3.64       364.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inspection data since 1982 shows that effluents and direct 
radiation dose rates continue to decline. As doses to members of the 
public are calculated from these, it is reasonable to assume that 
public doses have continued to decline as well.
    While those who live nearest to NRC-licensed facilities are in 
principle allowed to receive up to the limit of 100 mrem/yr, most 
receive only a small fraction of this. The reason for this is that 
ALARA programs in place to supplement the dose limit result in a system 
of dose control which achieves doses significantly below the limit. As 
a consequence of this approach, the average dose to most members of the 
public from NRC-licensed facilities is well below 1 mrem/yr. Naturally 
occurring radioactivity is responsible for an average of 300 mrem/yr. 
In some areas, the dose from naturally occurring radioactivity is 
considerably higher (up to 900 mrem/yr according to NCRP Report No. 
93). The ICRP, in its 1990 recommendations on dose limits in Report 
Number 60, confirmed that there is no new biological evidence that 
suggests that there should be a reduction in the limit for members of 
the public. The ICRP recommendation for dose to members of the public 
is 100 mrem/yr with certain provisions for deviations up to 500 mrem/
yr. The NCRP reached the same conclusions in Report Number 116.
    One commenter stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
limit for members of the public is only 10 mrem/yr. Therefore, the NRC 
limit of 100 mrem/yr does not protect the health and safety of the 
public. However, 10 mrem/yr is the EPA Clean Air Act limit for dose 
from a single pathway of exposure; namely, the dose a member of the 
public might receive from airborne releases of radioactive material 
from a facility. Members of the public might receive doses from other 
pathways as well, including radioactive material in food, water, on the 
ground, and in the soil, and direct radiation from the facility in 
which the radioactive material is stored or used. Presidential Guidance 
to Federal Agencies on dose limits for Public Exposure (May 18, 1960; 
25 FR 4402), signed by former President Eisenhower, recommends a value 
of 500 mrem/yr for all pathways. This guidance is currently under 
consideration for revision and is expected to be revised to 100 mrem/yr 
from all pathways (see proposed revision published December 23, 1994 
(59 FR 66414). NRC's limit of 100 mrem/yr from all pathways, from 
licensed and unlicensed sources, under the control of the licensee, 
including the [[Page 13387]] provision that any dose must be as low as 
is reasonably achievable, has the effect of being at least as 
protective as EPA regulations. In a survey conducted by the EPA to 
determine if NRC licensees were releasing radioactive materials to the 
environment in excess of EPA Clean Air Act limits, the EPA found that 
none of the NRC licensees surveyed had airborne effluents resulting in 
doses greater than 10 mrem/yr and the vast majority resulted in doses 
less than 1 mrem/yr to the member of the public likely to receive the 
highest dose.

Comments Opposed to the Petition

    Commenters opposed to the petition presented a variety of reasons 
for their opposition. Most commenters stated that some current uses of 
radioactive materials could not continue under a 1 mrem/yr limit for 
members of the public. Further, some of the commenters stated that it 
would be impossible to demonstrate compliance with a limit so low that 
it could not be measured. Many commenters stated that there would be no 
significant increase in the protection of public health and safety. 
Other commenters concluded that the lower limit would result in a 
significant decrease in protection of the health and safety of the 
public. Some commenters came to this conclusion based on the estimated 
risks from effluents, waste, and radiation dose from alternate methods 
for production of electric power (e.g., coal, oil). Other commenters 
based the conclusion on the increased risk from surgical procedures and 
alternate chemical treatments for patients now treated with radioactive 
materials. Some commenters argued that economic considerations would 
preclude certain uses of radioactive material such as some medical 
uses. Therefore, the mortality risk from certain cancers would be much 
higher without the use of radioactive materials in treatment. 
Radioactive treatments performed to reduce pain and suffering in the 
last months of life for many cancer patients would also have to be 
stopped.
    Many commenters opposed to the petition believed that the risk was 
exaggerated in the petition. They stated that the risk estimate 
referenced by the petitioner assumed that every individual would 
receive the maximum allowable dose every year of his or her life. Some 
commenters believed it inappropriate to use the conservative linear 
non-threshold model to extrapolate from doses between a few thousand 
mrem and millions of mrem, delivered in a fraction of a second, to the 
100 mrem/yr limit. They believed it unreasonable to give no 
consideration to possible repair mechanisms or to the existence of any 
tolerance to radiation dose. Further, commenters contended that 
licensees must demonstrate compliance with the limit for members of the 
public by assuming that a member of the public is present at the 
location of highest dose rate, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The 
commenter therefore concluded that the actual risk is much smaller than 
the petitioner believes.
    Most commenters opposed to the petition cited the recent 
recommendations of both the ICRP and the NCRP. Both organizations 
recommend that dose to members of the public not exceed 500 mrem in any 
one year and not average more than 100 mrem/yr. NCRP states that a dose 
of 500 mrem in a year is not especially hazardous if the same group 
does not receive that dose year after year.
    One commenter compared 1 mrem/yr exposure to common radiation 
sources. Some of the examples given were: (1) Flying from New York City 
to Los Angeles exposes each passenger and crew member to 5 mrem; (2) a 
one week Colorado ski trip raises your annual exposure by 11 mrem; and 
(3) sleeping in bed with another person exposes each person to 0.1 
mrem/yr from exposure to radioactive material in the other person's 
body. This commenter argued that radiation is the most studied hazard 
agent on earth. This commenter stated that after 99 years and billions 
of research dollars, no statistically significant negative effects of 
low levels of radiation have been shown in well controlled studies, and 
in fact, some studies suggest that there may be benefits from chronic, 
low level radiation exposure, possibly because, by stimulating enzyme 
production, the organism is protected from damage by stronger radiation 
and toxic chemicals. This commenter's argument is based, in part, on 
the observation that background radiation levels in Colorado are about 
twice that of the rest of the United States, yet cancer rates are tied 
for the third lowest in the nation.

NRC Response

    For the reasons stated as the basis for the denial, the NRC agrees 
with those commenters who were opposed to the petition.

Reasons for Denial

    The NRC has considered the petition, the public comments received, 
and other related information and has concluded that the issues raised 
by the petition are insufficient to justify rulemaking to reduce the 
limit for members of the public. The following is a discussion of the 
details of that conclusion.
    The primary concern of the petition is the perception that the 100 
mrem/yr limit for radiation exposure from radioactive sources under the 
control of NRC licensees poses an unacceptable risk to the population 
of the United States. In 1994, the ICRP Main Commission fully discussed 
the issue of dose limits for members of the public together with the 
statements to the 1994 United Nations Scientific Committee on the 
Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). The ICRP confirmed that there 
was no new biological evidence that suggested that there should be a 
revision to the cancer risk estimates in ICRP Publication 60 and no 
reason to revise the recommendation that the average dose over a five 
year period not exceed 100 mrem/yr for members of the public (allowing 
for infrequent exposures up to 500 mrem/yr). The NCRP examined the 
UNSCEAR 1988 report, the report by the National Academy of Sciences/
National Research Council Committee on the Biological Effects of 
Ionizing Radiation (BEIR V) (NAS/NRC, 1990), and the recommendations of 
the ICRP and issued recommendations that United States regulatory 
agencies establish limits for exposure to man-made radiation sources by 
members of the public to an annual average not to exceed 100 mrem/yr 
with allowances for infrequent exposures up to 500 mrem/yr.
    The petitioner contends that the NRC limit of 100 mrem/yr doubles 
the average background radiation dose to which members of the public 
are exposed. In fact, the NRC system of dose control includes the ALARA 
concept that doses should be controlled below the dose limits and to 
levels which are as low as reasonably achievable. As a consequence, the 
actual doses from licensed activities are only a very small fraction of 
the annual background dose to members of the public which averages 300 
mrem/yr in the United States.
    The petitioner states that ``Federal Government standards on how 
much cancer can be caused among the public by cancer-causing pollutants 
and contaminants generally permit, at most, approximately 1 cancer per 
million people.'' However, the EPA National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS); Radionuclides (54FR51655) states 
that ``a principle that accompanies these numerical goals is that the 
state of art of risk assessment does not enable numerical risk 
estimates to be made with comparable confidence. Therefore, judgment 
must be used in [[Page 13388]] deciding how numerical risk estimates 
are considered with respect to these goals.'' The NESHAPS standard for 
emissions of radioactive material from NRC licensed facilities is 10 
mrem/yr for the air effluent release pathway alone. While the results 
of the 1993 reports to EPA have not been provided to NRC, a survey of 
NRC licensed facility air emissions performed by EPA in 1992 revealed 
that no NRC licensed facility surveyed exceeded that value. Almost all 
of the facilities surveyed in 1992 had air effluents which resulted in 
doses an order of magnitude lower for the maximally exposed 
individuals.
    Taking these considerations into account, with respect to reducing 
the radiation dose limit to members of the public from 100 mrem/yr to 1 
mrem/yr, the petition fails to recognize the net effect of the NRC's 
system of dose control and the role played by the dose limit and ALARA 
programs.
    When these are taken into account, NRC's judgment is that the 
public is adequately protected, the health risks from NRC licensed 
activities are low, and no change in basic radiation protection 
standards, as petitioner suggests, is warranted.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of March, 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
James M. Taylor,
Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. 95-6069 Filed 3-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P