Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation, 35870-35872 [2015-15441]

Download as PDF 35870 Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 120 Tuesday, June 23, 2015 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 20 [Docket Nos. PRM–20–28, PRM–20–29, and PRM–20–30; NRC–2015–0057] Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for comment. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its ‘‘Standards for Protection Against Radiation’’ regulations and change the basis of those regulations from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The radiation hormesis model provides that exposure of the human body to low levels of ionizing radiation is beneficial and protects the human body against deleterious effects of high levels of radiation. Whereas, the LNT model provides that radiation is always considered harmful, there is no safety threshold, and biological damage caused by ionizing radiation (essentially the cancer risk) is directly proportional to the amount of radiation exposure to the human body (response linearity). The petitions were submitted by Carol S. Marcus, Mark L. Miller, and Mohan Doss (the petitioners), dated February 9, 2015, February 13, 2015, and February 24, 2015, respectively. These petitions were docketed by the NRC on February 20, 2015, February 27, 2015, and March 16, 2015, and have been assigned Docket Numbers. PRM–20–28, PRM– 20–29, and PRM–20–30, respectively. The NRC is examining the issues raised in these petitions to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public comments on these petitions for rulemaking. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 Submit comments by September 8, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2015–0057. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at 301–415–1677. • Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301– 415–1101. • Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. • Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: 301–415–1677. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–3781, email: Solomon.Sahle@ nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DATES: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– 0057 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this action by any of the following methods: PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 • Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2015–0057. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2015– 0057 in the subject line of your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https:// www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. II. The Petitioners On February 9, 2015, Dr. Carol S. Marcus, a Professor of Radiation Oncology, of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology (Nuclear Medicine), and of Radiological Sciences at the David E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California-Los Angeles, filed a petition for rulemaking with the Commission, PRM–20–28 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15051A503). Dr. Marcus was a member of the NRC’s Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes from 1990 to 1994. The petitioner indicated that ‘‘[t]here has never been scientifically valid support for this LNT hypothesis since its use was recommended by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR I)/Genetics Panel in 1956’’ and that ‘‘[t]he costs of complying with these LNT based regulations are enormous.’’ On February 13, 2015, Mr. Mark L. Miller, a Certified Health Physicist, filed a petition for rulemaking with the Commission, PRM–20–29 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15057A349). The petitioner indicated that ‘‘[t]here has never been scientifically valid support for this LNT hypothesis’’ and that ‘‘[t]he costs of complying with these LNTbased regulations are incalculable.’’ In addition, the petitioner suggests that the use of the LNT hypothesis has ‘‘led to persistent radiophobia [radiationphobia].’’ On February 24, 2015, Dr. Mohan Doss, filed a petition for rulemaking with the Commission, PRM–20–30 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15075A200). Dr. Doss filed this petition on behalf of Scientist for Accurate Radiation Information, whose mission is to ‘‘help prevent unnecessary, radiation-phobiarelated deaths, morbidity, and injuries associated with distrust of radiomedical diagnostics/therapies and from nuclear/radiological emergencies through countering phobia-promoting misinformation spread by alarmists via the news and other media including journal publications.’’ mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS III. The Petition The petitioners request that the NRC amend part 20 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Standards for Protection Against Radiation,’’ based on new science and evidence that contradicts the LNT hypothesis and request that the NRC greatly simplify and change 10 CFR part 20 to take into account the ‘‘vast literature demonstrating no effects or protective effects at relatively low doses of radiation.’’ The NRC has determined that the petitions met the threshold sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under § 2.802, ‘‘Petition for rulemaking,’’ and the petitions have been docketed as PRM–20–28, PRM–20– 29, and PRM–20–30. VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 IV. Discussion of the Petitions A. PRM–20–28 The petitioner, Dr. Carol S. Marcus, requests that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 20 that are based on the LNT hypothesis. The petitioner states that ‘‘[t]his ultrasimplistic concept assumes that all radiation absorbed doses, no matter how small, have a finite probability of causing a fatal cancer.’’ The petitioner further indicates that the ‘‘[u]se of the LNT assumption enables regulators to feel justified in ratcheting down permissible worker and public radiation levels, either through actual dose limits or use of the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ (ALARA) principle, giving the illusion that they are making everyone safer (and creating ever increasing workload for themselves and their licensees).’’ However, the petitioner suggests that ‘‘there has never been scientifically valid support for this LNT hypothesis since its use was recommended by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR I)/Genetics Panel in 1956’’ and that the ‘‘costs of complying with these LNT based regulations are enormous.’’ The petitioner suggests that there is ‘‘vast literature’’ that demonstrates that low doses of radiation have no deleterious effect, and some studies even suggest that low doses of radiation may have protective effects. The petitioner writes, ‘‘[t]he literature showing protective effects supports the concept of hormesis, in which low levels of potentially stressful agents, such as toxins, other chemicals, ionizing radiation, etc., protect against the deleterious effects that high levels of these stressors produce and result in beneficial effects (e.g., lower cancer rates).’’ On May 16, 2015, the petitioner submitted an additional reference to the NRC providing technical information supporting her requests.1 The petitioner recommends the following changes to 10 CFR part 20: (1) Worker doses should remain at present levels, with allowance of up to 100 mSv (10 rem) effective dose per year if the doses are chronic. (2) ALARA should be removed entirely from the regulations. The petitioner argues that ‘‘it makes no sense to decrease radiation doses that are not only harmless but may be hormetic.’’ 1 Siegel, Jeffry A., and Welsh, James S.: Does Imaging Technology Cause Cancer? Debunking the Linear No-Threshold Model of Radiation Carcinogenesis. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment 1533034615578011, first published on March 30, 2015 doi:10.1177/1533034615578011. PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 35871 (3) Public doses should be raised to worker doses. The petitioner notes that ‘‘these low doses may be hormetic. The petitioner goes on to ask, ‘‘why deprive the public of the benefits of low dose radiation?’’ (4) End differential doses to pregnant women, embryos and fetuses, and children under 18 years of age. B. PRM–20–29 Similarly, the petitioner, Mr. Mark L. Miller, requests that the NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 20 that are based on the LNT hypothesis. The petitioner used much of the same information used in Dr. Marcus’ petition for rulemaking. However, Mr. Miller only requests that the following changes be made to 10 CFR part 20: (1) Worker doses should remain at present levels, with allowance of up to 100 mSv (10 rem) effective dose per year if the doses are chronic. (2) ALARA should be removed entirely from the regulations. The petitioner argues that ‘‘it makes no sense to decrease radiation doses that are not only harmless but may be hormetic.’’ (3) Public doses should be raised to worker doses. The petitioner notes that ‘‘these low doses may be hormetic. The petitioner states, ‘‘[l]ow-dose limits for the public perpetuates radiophobia.’’ C. PRM–20–30 The petition for rulemaking was submitted by Dr. Mohan Doss, on behalf of Scientist for Accurate Radiation Information, and ‘‘supports and supplements’’ petition PRM–20–28. This petitioner provides additional information suggesting that ‘‘low-dose radiation reduces cancer risk’’ (i.e., has a hormetic [beneficial] effect) and suggests that the ‘‘LNT model is no longer justifiable.’’ The petitioner further states that the use of the LNT hypothesis in the NRC’s regulations has ‘‘had a major detrimental effect on public health, since they have prevented the study of LDR [low-dose radiation] for controlling aging-related diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, etc. in spite of studies showing the promise of LDR for the diseases.’’ The petitioner suggests that ‘‘urgency of action on this petition’’ is necessary because ‘‘any potential future accident involving release of radioactive materials in the USA would likely result in panic evacuation because of the LNT—model-based cancer fears and concerns, resulting in considerable casualties and economic damage such as have occurred in Fukushima.’’ The petitioner further suggests that the ‘‘recognition of a threshold dose by NRC would obviate E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1 35872 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / Proposed Rules the need for such panic evacuations, associated casualties, and economic harm’’ when radiation is released in the environment. For additional information, see the filed petitions for rulemaking in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15051A503, ML15057A349, and ML15075A200. V. Conclusion The NRC will examine the issues raised in PRM–20–28, PRM–20–29, and PRM–20–30 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC is requesting public comments on these petitions for rulemaking. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of June, 2015. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. 2015–15441 Filed 6–22–15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 72 [NRC–2015–0067] RIN 3150–AJ58 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Holtec International HI–STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, Certificate of Compliance No. 1040, Amendment No. 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its spent fuel storage regulations by revising the Holtec International, Inc. (Holtec), HI–STORM (Holtec International Storage Module) Underground Maximum Capacity (UMAX) Canister Storage System listing within the ‘‘List of approved spent fuel storage casks’’ to add Amendment No. 1 to Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1040. Amendment No. 1 provides a seismically enhanced version of the HI– STORM UMAX Canister Storage System, identified as the ‘‘Most Severe Earthquake (MSE)’’ version that could be used in areas with higher seismic demands than those analyzed previously. Amendment No. 1 also includes minor physical design changes to help ensure structural integrity of the amended system. These are the addition of a hold-down system to the closure lid; replacing the fill material in the interstitial spaces between the cavity mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:48 Jun 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 enclosure containers (CECs) surrounding the casks with plain concrete with a minimum comprehensive strength of 3000 psi concrete; strengthening the multipurpose canister (MPC) guides; and engineering the guides’ nominal gap with the MPC to be tighter than the original HI–STORM UMAX Canister Storage System design. DATES: Submit comments by July 23, 2015. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2015–0067. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: (301) 415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact us at (301) 415–1677. • Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415–1101. • Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. • Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal workdays; telephone: (301) 415–1677. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone: (301) 415–3781; email: Solomon.Sahle@ nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2015– 0067 when contacting the NRC about PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this action by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2015–0067. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may access publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, (301) 415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section. • NRC’s PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2015– 0067 in the subject line of your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https:// www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS. II. Procedural Background This proposed rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment No. 1 to CoC No. 1040 and does not include other aspects of the Holtec HI–STORM UMAX Canister Storage System. Because the NRC considers this action noncontroversial and routine, the NRC is publishing this proposed rule E:\FR\FM\23JNP1.SGM 23JNP1

Agencies

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35870-35872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15441]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 120 / Tuesday, June 23, 2015 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 35870]]



NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 20

[Docket Nos. PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30; NRC-2015-0057]


Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against 
Radiation

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; notice of docketing and request for 
comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received 
three petitions for rulemaking (PRM) requesting that the NRC amend its 
``Standards for Protection Against Radiation'' regulations and change 
the basis of those regulations from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model 
of radiation protection to the radiation hormesis model. The radiation 
hormesis model provides that exposure of the human body to low levels 
of ionizing radiation is beneficial and protects the human body against 
deleterious effects of high levels of radiation. Whereas, the LNT model 
provides that radiation is always considered harmful, there is no 
safety threshold, and biological damage caused by ionizing radiation 
(essentially the cancer risk) is directly proportional to the amount of 
radiation exposure to the human body (response linearity). The 
petitions were submitted by Carol S. Marcus, Mark L. Miller, and Mohan 
Doss (the petitioners), dated February 9, 2015, February 13, 2015, and 
February 24, 2015, respectively. These petitions were docketed by the 
NRC on February 20, 2015, February 27, 2015, and March 16, 2015, and 
have been assigned Docket Numbers. PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30, 
respectively. The NRC is examining the issues raised in these petitions 
to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. The NRC 
is requesting public comments on these petitions for rulemaking.

DATES: Submit comments by September 8, 2015. Comments received after 
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC 
is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before 
this date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods 
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting 
comments on a specific subject):
     Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0057. Address 
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact 
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 
this document.
     Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do 
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact 
us at 301-415-1677.
     Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission at 301-415-1101.
     Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and 
Adjudications Staff.
     Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal 
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting 
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Solomon Sahle, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3781, email: 
Solomon.Sahle@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 when contacting the NRC 
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain 
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the 
following methods:
     Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2015-0057.
     NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the 
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and 
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, 
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The 
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available 
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.
     NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public 
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2015-0057 in the subject line of your 
comment submission.
    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact 
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your 
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into 
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove 
identifying or contact information.
    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons 
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to 
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be 
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should 
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to 
remove such information before making the comment submissions available 
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

II. The Petitioners

    On February 9, 2015, Dr. Carol S. Marcus, a Professor of Radiation 
Oncology, of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology (Nuclear Medicine), and 
of Radiological Sciences at the David

[[Page 35871]]

Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California-Los Angeles, 
filed a petition for rulemaking with the Commission, PRM-20-28 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML15051A503). Dr. Marcus was a member of the NRC's 
Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes from 1990 to 1994. 
The petitioner indicated that ``[t]here has never been scientifically 
valid support for this LNT hypothesis since its use was recommended by 
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects 
of Atomic Radiation (BEAR I)/Genetics Panel in 1956'' and that ``[t]he 
costs of complying with these LNT based regulations are enormous.''
    On February 13, 2015, Mr. Mark L. Miller, a Certified Health 
Physicist, filed a petition for rulemaking with the Commission, PRM-20-
29 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15057A349). The petitioner indicated that 
``[t]here has never been scientifically valid support for this LNT 
hypothesis'' and that ``[t]he costs of complying with these LNT-based 
regulations are incalculable.'' In addition, the petitioner suggests 
that the use of the LNT hypothesis has ``led to persistent radiophobia 
[radiation-phobia].''
    On February 24, 2015, Dr. Mohan Doss, filed a petition for 
rulemaking with the Commission, PRM-20-30 (ADAMS Accession No. 
ML15075A200). Dr. Doss filed this petition on behalf of Scientist for 
Accurate Radiation Information, whose mission is to ``help prevent 
unnecessary, radiation-phobia-related deaths, morbidity, and injuries 
associated with distrust of radio-medical diagnostics/therapies and 
from nuclear/radiological emergencies through countering phobia-
promoting misinformation spread by alarmists via the news and other 
media including journal publications.''

III. The Petition

    The petitioners request that the NRC amend part 20 of title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Standards for Protection 
Against Radiation,'' based on new science and evidence that contradicts 
the LNT hypothesis and request that the NRC greatly simplify and change 
10 CFR part 20 to take into account the ``vast literature demonstrating 
no effects or protective effects at relatively low doses of 
radiation.'' The NRC has determined that the petitions met the 
threshold sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under 
Sec.  2.802, ``Petition for rulemaking,'' and the petitions have been 
docketed as PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and PRM-20-30.

IV. Discussion of the Petitions

A. PRM-20-28

    The petitioner, Dr. Carol S. Marcus, requests that the NRC amend 
its regulations in 10 CFR part 20 that are based on the LNT hypothesis. 
The petitioner states that ``[t]his ultra-simplistic concept assumes 
that all radiation absorbed doses, no matter how small, have a finite 
probability of causing a fatal cancer.'' The petitioner further 
indicates that the ``[u]se of the LNT assumption enables regulators to 
feel justified in ratcheting down permissible worker and public 
radiation levels, either through actual dose limits or use of the `as 
low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA) principle, giving the illusion 
that they are making everyone safer (and creating ever increasing 
workload for themselves and their licensees).'' However, the petitioner 
suggests that ``there has never been scientifically valid support for 
this LNT hypothesis since its use was recommended by the U.S. National 
Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation 
(BEAR I)/Genetics Panel in 1956'' and that the ``costs of complying 
with these LNT based regulations are enormous.''
    The petitioner suggests that there is ``vast literature'' that 
demonstrates that low doses of radiation have no deleterious effect, 
and some studies even suggest that low doses of radiation may have 
protective effects. The petitioner writes, ``[t]he literature showing 
protective effects supports the concept of hormesis, in which low 
levels of potentially stressful agents, such as toxins, other 
chemicals, ionizing radiation, etc., protect against the deleterious 
effects that high levels of these stressors produce and result in 
beneficial effects (e.g., lower cancer rates).'' On May 16, 2015, the 
petitioner submitted an additional reference to the NRC providing 
technical information supporting her requests.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Siegel, Jeffry A., and Welsh, James S.: Does Imaging 
Technology Cause Cancer? Debunking the Linear No-Threshold Model of 
Radiation Carcinogenesis. Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment 
1533034615578011, first published on March 30, 2015 doi:10.1177/
1533034615578011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner recommends the following changes to 10 CFR part 20:
    (1) Worker doses should remain at present levels, with allowance of 
up to 100 mSv (10 rem) effective dose per year if the doses are 
chronic.
    (2) ALARA should be removed entirely from the regulations. The 
petitioner argues that ``it makes no sense to decrease radiation doses 
that are not only harmless but may be hormetic.''
    (3) Public doses should be raised to worker doses. The petitioner 
notes that ``these low doses may be hormetic. The petitioner goes on to 
ask, ``why deprive the public of the benefits of low dose radiation?''
    (4) End differential doses to pregnant women, embryos and fetuses, 
and children under 18 years of age.

B. PRM-20-29

    Similarly, the petitioner, Mr. Mark L. Miller, requests that the 
NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR part 20 that are based on the LNT 
hypothesis. The petitioner used much of the same information used in 
Dr. Marcus' petition for rulemaking. However, Mr. Miller only requests 
that the following changes be made to 10 CFR part 20:
    (1) Worker doses should remain at present levels, with allowance of 
up to 100 mSv (10 rem) effective dose per year if the doses are 
chronic.
    (2) ALARA should be removed entirely from the regulations. The 
petitioner argues that ``it makes no sense to decrease radiation doses 
that are not only harmless but may be hormetic.''
    (3) Public doses should be raised to worker doses. The petitioner 
notes that ``these low doses may be hormetic. The petitioner states, 
``[l]ow-dose limits for the public perpetuates radiophobia.''

C. PRM-20-30

    The petition for rulemaking was submitted by Dr. Mohan Doss, on 
behalf of Scientist for Accurate Radiation Information, and ``supports 
and supplements'' petition PRM-20-28. This petitioner provides 
additional information suggesting that ``low-dose radiation reduces 
cancer risk'' (i.e., has a hormetic [beneficial] effect) and suggests 
that the ``LNT model is no longer justifiable.'' The petitioner further 
states that the use of the LNT hypothesis in the NRC's regulations has 
``had a major detrimental effect on public health, since they have 
prevented the study of LDR [low-dose radiation] for controlling aging-
related diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's 
disease, etc. in spite of studies showing the promise of LDR for the 
diseases.'' The petitioner suggests that ``urgency of action on this 
petition'' is necessary because ``any potential future accident 
involving release of radioactive materials in the USA would likely 
result in panic evacuation because of the LNT--model-based cancer fears 
and concerns, resulting in considerable casualties and economic damage 
such as have occurred in Fukushima.'' The petitioner further suggests 
that the ``recognition of a threshold dose by NRC would obviate

[[Page 35872]]

the need for such panic evacuations, associated casualties, and 
economic harm'' when radiation is released in the environment.
    For additional information, see the filed petitions for rulemaking 
in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15051A503, ML15057A349, and 
ML15075A200.

V. Conclusion

    The NRC will examine the issues raised in PRM-20-28, PRM-20-29, and 
PRM-20-30 to determine whether they should be considered in rulemaking. 
The NRC is requesting public comments on these petitions for 
rulemaking.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of June, 2015.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2015-15441 Filed 6-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.