<mods xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.3" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-3.xsd" ID="P0b002ee1803794df">
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States Government Publishing Office</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">publisher</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">pbl</roleTerm>
</role>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">distributor</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">dst</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="corporate">
 <namePart>United States</namePart>
 <namePart>Government Accountability Office</namePart>
 <namePart>Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division</namePart>
 <role>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
  <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="code">aut</roleTerm>
</role>
 <description>Government Organization</description>
</name>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<genre authority="marcgt">government publication</genre>
<language>
 <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</language>
<extension>
 <collectionCode>GAOREPORTS</collectionCode>
 <category>Legislative Agency Publications</category>
 <waisDatabaseName>gao</waisDatabaseName>
 <branch>legislative</branch>
 <dateIngested>2010-08-12</dateIngested>
</extension>
<originInfo>
 <publisher>U.S. Government Printing Office</publisher>
 <dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000-07-18</dateIssued>
 <issuance>monographic</issuance>
</originInfo>
<physicalDescription>
 <note type="source content type">deposited</note>
 <digitalOrigin>born digital</digitalOrigin>
</physicalDescription>
<classification authority="sudocs">GA 1.13:T-RCED-00-252</classification>
<identifier type="uri">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-00-252</identifier>
<identifier type="local">P0b002ee1803794df</identifier>
<identifier type="former package identifier">f:rc00252t</identifier>
<recordInfo>
 <recordContentSource authority="marcorg">DGPO</recordContentSource>
 <recordCreationDate encoding="w3cdtf">2010-08-12</recordCreationDate>
 <recordChangeDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011-03-23</recordChangeDate>
 <recordIdentifier source="DGPO">GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-00-252</recordIdentifier>
 <recordOrigin>machine generated</recordOrigin>
 <languageOfCataloging>
  <languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm>
</languageOfCataloging>
</recordInfo>
<accessCondition type="GPO scope determination">fdlp</accessCondition>
<extension>
 <docClass>REPORT</docClass>
 <accessId>GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-00-252</accessId>
 <reportNumber>T-RCED-00-252</reportNumber>
 <subject>Radiation safety</subject>
 <subject>Nuclear waste disposal</subject>
 <subject>Safety standards</subject>
 <subject>Environmental research</subject>
 <subject>Cost analysis</subject>
 <subject>Standards evaluation</subject>
 <subject>Radiation exposure hazards</subject>
 <subject>Environmental monitoring</subject>
 <subject>Interagency relations</subject>
 <subject>Hazardous substances</subject>
 <identifier>Yucca Mountain (NV)</identifier>
 <identifier>Superfund Program</identifier>
 <type>Testimony</type>
 <seriesAbbrev>RCED</seriesAbbrev>
</extension>
<titleInfo>
 <title>Radiation Standards: Scientific Basis Inconclusive, and</title>
</titleInfo>
<abstract>Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the regulatory
standards used to protect the public from the risks of low-level nuclear
radiation, focusing on: (1) whether current radiation standards have a
well-verified scientific basis; (2) whether the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have come
closer to agreeing on exposure limits (how much radiation people can be
safely exposed to) in the safety standards; and (3) how implementing
these standards and limits may affect the costs of nuclear waste cleanup
and disposal activities.&lt;p/&gt;GAO noted that: (1) U.S. radiation standards for public protection lack
a conclusively verified scientific basis, according to a consensus of
recognized scientists; (2) below certain radiation exposure levels, the
effects of radiation are unproven, despite many years of research
efforts; (3) evidence of these effects is especially lacking at
regulated public exposure levels--levels of 100 millirem a year and
below from human-generated sources; (4) at these levels, scientists and
regulators assume radiation effects according to what is commonly known
as the &quot;linear no threshold hypothesis,&quot; or model; (5) according to this
model, even the smallest radiation exposure carries a cancer risk, and
risks double as the exposure doubles; (6) research into low-level
radiation effects continues, including studies attempting to
statistically correlate natural background radiation levels in the
United States and around the world with local cancer rates; (7) lacking
conclusive evidence of low-level radiation effects, U.S. regulators have
in recent years set sometimes differing exposure limits; (8) in
particular, EPA and NRC appear no closer to agreeing on exposure limits
today than in 1994; (9) the two agencies continue to favor different
policies and regulatory approaches for various nuclear cleanup and waste
disposal applications, especially those relating to groundwater
protection; (10) the disagreement involves EPA- and NRC-preferred
protection levels that are both well below the range where radiation
effects have been conclusively verified; (11) in this regard, the
disagreement essentially involves policy judgments and has complicated
efforts to clean up facilities, as well as planning for the prospective
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, high-level waste repository; (12) costs of
implementing radiation protection standards at nuclear cleanup and waste
disposal facilities vary from site to site; (13) long-term overall costs
could be immense, although these costs have not been comprehensively
estimated; (14) an indication of the potential costs is that agencies,
especially the Department of Energy, expect to fund hundreds of billions
of dollars in nuclear cleanup and waste disposal projects over many
years in the future; (15) differences in the costs of the EPA and NRC
regulatory approaches to radiation protection have not been
comprehensively estimated; (16) however, agency analyses indicate that
more restrictive radiation standards cost more to implement, as might be
expected; and (17) these analyses also generally show accelerating costs
to achieve the most restrictive protection levels.</abstract>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="HTML rendition" access="raw object">https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-00-252/html/GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-00-252.htm</url>
</location>
<identifier type="preferred citation">GAO/T-RCED-00-252</identifier>
<location>
 <url displayLabel="Content Detail" access="object in context">https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GAOREPORTS-T-RCED-00-252</url>
</location>
<note>Testimony</note>
<extension>
 <searchTitle>GAO/T-RCED-00-252; Radiation Standards: Scientific Basis Inconclusive, and;
            </searchTitle>
</extension>
<subject>
 <topic>Radiation safety</topic>
 <topic>Nuclear waste disposal</topic>
 <topic>Safety standards</topic>
 <topic>Environmental research</topic>
 <topic>Cost analysis</topic>
 <topic>Standards evaluation</topic>
 <topic>Radiation exposure hazards</topic>
 <topic>Environmental monitoring</topic>
 <topic>Interagency relations</topic>
 <topic>Hazardous substances</topic>
 <topic>Yucca Mountain (NV)</topic>
 <topic>Superfund Program</topic>
</subject>
</mods>