The Feasibility of Establishing a De Minimis Level of Radiation Dose and a Regulatory Cutoff Policy for Nuclear Regulation

  • Joyce P. Davis
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis book series (CIRA, volume 2)


This report discusses the feasibility of a de minimis policy for radiation exposure guidance and regulation. This policy would establish a threshold below which regulation of radiation sources, practices, or exposures would be deliberately and specifically curtailed. While a similar policy would probably be appropriate for other environmental agents (e.g., chemical carcinogens), discussion of that aspect of the subject is outside the scope of this report.


Dose Rate Natural Background Regulatory Application Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Concern 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. Eisenbud, “The Concept of De Minimis’ Dose” (NCRP meeting April 2, 1980, see reference 32).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. H. Whipple, “A Practical Threshold for Radiation ” (June 10, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Harris, “Radiation Levels Safe Enough to Exempt” (Unpublished manuscript, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    NCRP Report 64, “The Influence of Dose and its Distribution in Time (Dose Rate) on Dose-Response Relationships for Low LET Radiation,” NCRP (1980).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    NUREG/CR-1174, “A Study to Determine the Feasibility of Conducting Epidemiologic Investigations of the Health Effects of Low-Level Ionizing Radiation,” Phase 1, Equifax (1980).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. P. Bond, “Responses to the Low-Level Radiation Controversy” (AIF conference, 4–7 October, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. D. Luckey, “Hormesis with Ionizing Radiation” CRC Press, Florida (1978).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. J. Hickey et al., “Low Level Ionizing Radiation and Human Mortality: Multi-Regional Epidemiological Studies,” Health Physics 40 625–641 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    L. Sagan “Some Thoughts on Dose-Response, Hormesis and All That,” Nuclear News, October 1981, p. 80.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Los Alamos National Laboratory News Release “Rocky Flats Mortality Study Results Mean Less Worry for Plutonium Workers” (October 15, 1981).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. J. Hickey, “Hormesis” (Letter), Nuclear News, November 1981, December 1981.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. D. Luckey, “Hormesis” (Letter), Nuclear News, December 1981.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. J. Hickey et al., “Low-Level Ionizing Radiation and Human Mortality,” Health Physics 40 625 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. W. Baum, “Population Heterogeneity and Radiation Induced Cancer,” Health Physics 40 625 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    E. P. Radford, “Statement Concerning the Current Versionof Cancer Risk Assessment in the Report of the BEIR III Committee” (BEIR III Report) (1981).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 1980“ (BEIR III) National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H. H. Rossi, “Separate Statement-Critique of BEIR III” (BEIR III Report) (1981).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. L. Cohen, “Proposals on Use of BEIR III Report in Environmental Assessments,” Health Physics 41 769 (1981).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Evans, “Radium in Man,” Health Physics 27 497 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    N. A. Frigerio et al., “The Argonne Radiologie Impact Program, Part I, Carcinogenic Hazard from Low-Level Low-Rate Radiation,” ANL/ES-26 Part I (September 1973).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    U.S. Radiation Protection Council, “Report of the Task Force on Radon in Structures,” RPC-80–002 (August 1980).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    N.I.H. Publication No. 80–2087, p. 111 (1980).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. Battist et al., “Population Dose and Health Impact of the Accident at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,” NUREG-0558, (May 1979).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. H. Rossi, “What are the Limits of ALARA,” Health Physics 39 370–371 (1980).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. H. Rossi, “Reply to Drs. Beninson and Lindell,” Health Physics 41 685–686 (1981).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. A. M. Webb and A. S. McLean, “Insignificant Levels of Dose: A Practical Suggestion for Decision Making,” NRPD-R62, National Radiological Protection Board (April 1977).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    H. L. Adler and A. M. Weinberg, “An Approach to Setting Radiation Standards,” Health Physics 34 719720 (1978).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    A. M. Weinberg, “Energy Policy and Mathematics,” ORAU-IEA-79–8 (0) (1979).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perceptions of Risk,“ Proceedings of the 15th Annual Meeting of NCRP, March 1979 (CRP Proceedings No. 1).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection,“ ICRP Publication 26 (1977).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Implications of Commission Recommendations That Doses Be Kept as Low as Readily Achievable,“ ICRP Report 22 (1973).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Quantitative Risk in Standards Setting,“ Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of NCRP, April 1980 (NCRP Proceedings No.2).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Report to the American Physical Society by the Study Group on Nuclear Fuel Cycles and Waste Management,“ 50 Reviews of Modern Physics, No. 1, Part II (January 1978).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    National Research Council, Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, “Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,” Washington, D.C., BEIR I (1972).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Public Law 830703 “The Atomic Energy Act of 1954,” as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011, et seq.).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Public Law 95–604 “Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978” (42 U.S.C. 7901).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Public Law 91–190 “National Environmental Policy Act of 1979.”Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    In the Matter of Uranium Mill Licensing Requirements, CLI-81–9, 13 NRC 460 (1981).Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    NUREG-0757, “Radon Releases from Uranium Mining and Milling and Their Calculated Health Effects,” U.S. N.R.C. (February 1981).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    NUREG-0706, “Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Milling,” USNRC (September 1980).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp. vs. NRC, CA NO. 80–2043 (9th Cir., June 1981 ), Brief Amicus Curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    LBP-78–25, 8NRC87 (July 14, 1978).Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Co., et al., ALAB- 640 13NRC 487 (1981).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    ALAB-640 Dissent, citing ALAB-5098, 8 NRC at 684.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    ALAB-175 (1974); ALAB-161 (1973).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    NRC, “Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes; Availability of Preliminary Regulations” (10CFR Part 61), Federal Register 45 13105–13106 (February 28, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    U.S. Radiation Policy Council “Progress Report and Preliminary 1981–83 Agenda” (RPC-80–001) (September 30, 1980).Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Biomedical Waste Disposal,“ Amendments to 10CFR20, Federal Register 46 16230, (March 11, 1981).Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Value/Impact Statement of Amendments to 10CFR20 for Disposal of Biomedical Wastes,“ U.S. NRC (March 2, (1981).Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Federal Register 45,pp. 71761–71762, 1980.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Disposal or On-Site Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past Operations“ (Notice for Comment) Federal Register 46 52061 (October 23, 1981).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    NUREG/CR-2082, “Monitoring for Compliance with Decommissioning Termination Survey Criteria” (ORNL/HASRD- 95) (1981).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Communication from S. Harris, EEI.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    W. A. Rodger et al., “De Minimus (sic) Concentrations of Radionuclides in Solid Wastes,” prepared for AIF NESP, (AIF/NESP-016) (April 1978).Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    C. Comar, “Risk: A Pragmatic De Minimis Approach” Science 203 4378 (January 26, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    C. A. Willis and F. J. Congel, “Status of NRC Radiological Effluent Technical Specification Activities” (AIF Conference 4–7 October, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Peshlakai v. Duncan, 476 F. Supp. 1247 (D.D.C. 1979 ).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    G. Voelz and A. Valentine, “The Karen Silkwood Case,” ANS Meeting November 1981. On December 11, 1981, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit rejected the jury award of damages for injuries and said the claim should have been brought under State Workers Compensation Law.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    See NUREG-0739.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Concurring and Dissenting Opinions in “Benzene Case,” Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO vs. American Petroleum Institute, 442 US 938.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Report of the President’s Commission on the Three Mile Island Accident (1979).Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    NUREG-0436, Rev. 1, “Plan for Reevaluation of NRC Policy on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilites” (1978).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Regulatory Guide 1 86, “Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors,” USNRC (June 1974).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Report of the Inter-Agency Task Force on Compensation for Radiation-Related Illnesses (February 1, 1981).Google Scholar
  65. The Applications of Cost-Benefit Analysis to the Radiological Protection of the Public,“ National Radiological Protection Board (UK) (March 1980).Google Scholar
  66. Brookhaven National Laboratory, “Low Level Radiation Effects-Fact Book” (Draft).Google Scholar
  67. CFR51 Appendix A, “Narrative Explanation of Table S-3, Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data” (proposed rule)Federal Register 46 15154–15157 (March 4, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  68. J. J. Cohen, “Indicators of Possible Beneficial Effects of Low-Level Radiation,” ANS Meeting (ANS Transactions) (November 1981).Google Scholar
  69. Department of Energy Regulations 10CFR712, “Grand Junction Remedial Action Criteria.”Google Scholar
  70. DOE/EIS-0046F, Final Environmental Impact Statement, “Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste,” U.S. Dept. of Energy (October 1980).Google Scholar
  71. EPA, “Part 190—Environmental Radiation Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,” Federal Register 42 2858 (January 13, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  72. EPA, “Part 192—Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings,” Federal Register 42 27367 (April 22, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  73. EPA, “Persons Exposed to Transuranium Elements in the Environment,” Proposed Federal Radiation Protection Guidance on Dose Limits, Federal Register 42 609–56 (November 30, 1977 ).Google Scholar
  74. EPA, “Proposed Disposal Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites; Proposed Rule and Extension of Comment Period,” Federal Register 46 25–56 (January 9, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  75. Estimates of Ionizing Radiation doses in the United States 1960–2000,“ ORP/CSD 72–1, U.S. EPA. ”Guidelines Pertinent to the Development of Decommissioning Criteria for Sites Contaminated with Radioactive Material“ (August 1978).Google Scholar
  76. Impact Statement on 10CFR Part 61 Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Wastes,“ U.S.N.R.C. (September 1981).Google Scholar
  77. In Re Philadelphia Electric Company, Docket No. 50–277, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Licensees’Google Scholar
  78. Response to NRC Staff Motion for Leave to Include Health Effects Findings“ (July 18, 1980). ”Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,“ Federal Register 46 51–776 (October 22Google Scholar
  79. Federal Register 46 38081 (July 24, 1981) (Proposed Regulations).Google Scholar
  80. B. Lindell and D. Beninson “ALARA Defines Its Own Limit,” Health Physics 41 685–686 (1981).Google Scholar
  81. Low Level Ionizing Radiation,“ Hearings before the House Committee in Science and Technology, 96th Congress, 1st Session (June 1979).Google Scholar
  82. NCRP Report No. 43, “Review of the Current State of Radiation Protection Philosophy” (January, 1975). NCRP Report No. 45, “Natural Background in the United States” (1975).Google Scholar
  83. NCRP Report No. 50, “Environmental Radiation Measurements” (December 1976 ).Google Scholar
  84. NRC, “Exemption of Technetium-99 and Low-Enriched Uranium vs. Residual Contamination in Smelted Alloys,” 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, 70, and 150, Proposed Rule, Federal Register 45 70874 (October 27, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  85. NUREG-0586, “Summary of Preliminary Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities” (Preliminary Draft).Google Scholar
  86. NUREG-0613, “Residual Radioactivity Limits for Decommissioning” (Draft Report) (1979).Google Scholar
  87. NUREG-0782 Draft Environmental Impact Statement on 10CFR Part 61, “Licensing Requirements for LandGoogle Scholar
  88. Disposal of Radioactive Wastes;“ Volume 2–Main Report; Volume 4–Appendix N, ”Analysis of ExistingGoogle Scholar
  89. Recommendations, Regulations and Guides“ (1981).Google Scholar
  90. NUREG/CR-0573, C. C. Travis et al., “A Radiological Assessment of Radon-222 Released from Uranium Mills and Other Natural and Technology Enhanced Sources.”Google Scholar
  91. NUREG/CR-0671, A. H. Schilling et al.. Schilling et al., “Decommissioning Commercial Nuclear Facilities: A Review and Analysis of Current Regulations” (1979).Google Scholar
  92. NUREG/CR-2226, L. Lave and T. Romer, “A Survey of Safety Levels in Federal Regulation” (1981). D. Oakley, “Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States,” ORP SID 72–1 (EPA).Google Scholar
  93. Radiological Quality of the Environment in the United States, 1977“ (EPA 520/1–77–009).Google Scholar
  94. P. F. Ricci amp; L. S. Molton, “Risk and Benefit in Environmental Law,” Science 214 1096 (December 4, 1981). P. Slovic et al., “Informing the Public About the Risks from Ionizing Radiation” Health Physics 41 589–598Google Scholar
  95. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Applicant’s Memorandum on Radon Emissions and in Support of the De Minimis Approach” (April 9, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  96. Use of Uranium Mill Tailings for Construction Purposes,“ Hearings before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 92nd Congress, 1st Session (1971).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joyce P. Davis
    • 1
  1. 1.General Physics CorporationColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations