US radiation safety limits not based on science

["Michael C. Baker" <mcbaker@lanl.gov>]

US radiation safety limits not based on science - GAO

USA : July 17, 2000

WASHINGTON - 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.

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.

Story by Andy Sullivan
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

__________________________
Michael C. Baker

Environmental Technology Group
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Mail Stop J594
Los Alamos, NM 87545

mcbaker@lanl.gov

(505) 667-7334 (phone)
(505) 665-8346 (fax)
(505) 996-3519 (pager)
__________________________


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html