US radiation safety limits not based on science-GAO

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

US radiation safety limits not based on science-GAO

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - A disagreement between 
federal agencies over what level of radiation exposure is safe for 
humans was not based on scientific evidence and could cost 
taxpayers billions in unnecessary spending, said a congressional 
study released on Friday. 

The study, by the General Accounting Office (GAO), raised 
questions about what standards should be used when cleaning up 
decommissioned nuclear power plants and weapons facilities as 
well as building the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste 
storage site in Nevada. 

Current standards assume there is no safe level for radiation 
exposure, but many scientists say that radiation is harmless below 
a certain threshold, the report found. 

Research on low-level radiation is ongoing. Current standards of 
acceptable radiation exposure are based on extrapolations from 
studies on much higher doses. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which oversees the 
nation's nuclear power plants, says exposure should not exceed 25 
millirem per year, while the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) has set a standard of 15 millirem, with ground water levels 
not to exceed 4 millirem. 

The difference between the two levels is relatively small. A routine 
chest X-ray contains 6 millirem, and Americans are exposed to an 
average of 300 millirem each year, the report found. 

Dosages above 30,000 millirem are known to cause cancer, and 
levels of 400,000 millirem, associated with an atomic bomb 
explosion, can cause death in days or weeks. 

Although the difference between the NRC and EPA standards is 
small, it could mean millions of dollars in cleanup costs. 

The Nevada Test Site, where atomic bombs were detonated for 
more than four decades, would cost $131 million to clean up to the 
NRC's standards. It would cost $240 million to clean the site to 
meet the EPA's 15 millirem level, and more than $1 billion to 
approach 4 millirem. 

"The question is, is it justified to spend the money if you're not sure 
there's going to be some benefit derived from spending that 
money?" said Wayne Fitzgerald, lead investigator on the report. 

Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, said Congress 
should force the two agencies to come up with a uniform standard 
or give responsibility to one agency. 

Domenici said the cost to achieve the EPA's 4 millirem level may 
be prohibitive. 

"The more we look at it, the more we're going to come to the 
conclusion that it's absolutely irrational," Domenici said. 

A bill that would limit the EPA's authority to issue radiation 
standards was vetoed by President Bill Clinton in April. An attempt 
to override the veto failed by one vote in the Senate in May. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle					Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100   				    	
Director, Technical				Extension 2306 				     	
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division		Fax:(714) 668-3149 	                   		    
ICN Biomedicals, Inc.				E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 				                           
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  		E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com          	          
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html