My Comment to the NRC in favor of abandoning LNT and ALARA for rule making

Comment on the petition

Recently, three distinguished scientists have filed an NRC petition, asking the NRC to re-visit the radiation protection rule-making which is based on the Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumption, and the consequent ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) rules.

I posted about this yesterday, also.

Here's the petition in the Federal Register. The comment period is open until September 8, so you have a few days to file your comment.  Please comment.

Update: The comment period is now open until November 19.  (Yes, it surprised me, also.  See the third page of this pdf.)

My Own Comment to the NRC

I support these petitions to base radiation protection on science, not on the assumed linear relationship between harm and dose.

There are very few biological systems that have linear responses between levels of dose.  For example, selenium is both a dreadful poison and an element necessary for life and reproduction.   The effect depends on the dose.  It is not a linear straight-line relationship in which selenium is always harmful but gets more harmful as the dose gets higher.  At low levels selenium is beneficial.  At high doses, it is harmful.

Similarly, the effect of radiation on biological systems is not straightforward.  People living in the mountains, or on granite bedrock, have no more cancer or birth defects than people living with less background radiation.  There is some evidence that radiation is beneficial at low doses: for example, recent experiments in which low doses of radiation extend the life of fruit flies.

(Fruit flies are often used for experiments on genetics.  Example of recent work: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-weak-doses-prolong-life-female.html   )

Whether or not this type of effect (hormesis) is present for humans is still unclear, in my opinion. But it is clear that, at normal background levels at least, a little more radiation does no harm. The linear-no-threshold hypothesis is unproven, useless, and unreasonable.

What the linear non-threshold assumption (for that is all that it is) has done is simply add to expense and anxiety. It leads to ALARA, which is very bad rule-making.

Imagine that all regulations were based on ALARA.  Let's say my town water supply meets all the criteria for purity that such water supplies must meet.  I could go to my select board and insist that they lower the concentration of a certain contaminant by 50%.  They would say that the town supply met all the requirements for water purity.  I would respond that they are being unREASONABLE.  With an ALARA-regulated water supply, if they CAN lower the concentration REASONABLY (and I get to decide what is reasonable), they are required to do so!  It doesn't matter that the water is already safe to drink.  If they were just willing to spend more money, it could be even…well, not safer, but certainly more expensive water!

In short, ALARA must be rescinded.  The very word "reasonable" is unreasonable.  "Reasonable" according to whom?  How much money is it "reasonable" to spend to achieve yet-lower results? And whose money gets spent this way?

Society has many problems and limited resources to address these problems.  I recently read an article showing that NOx (nitrogen oxides produced in combustion processes, and a precursor of ozone and smog) can hide out in soot deposits and re-emerge later, in a more virulently active form.  Perhaps cleaning the soot from city buildings might make city air more wholesome! http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33970233

We have many real gains in public health available, if we can spend the money.

Spending money on radiation ALARA (make it lower and lower and lower) is completely unreasonable.  Unless you are prepared to decide to evacuate Denver for its high background radiation, I hope you will stop insisting on regulation according to LNT and ALARA.

Linear No Threshold: Comment to the NRC

Filing a Petition to the NRC for Reasonable Radiation Rules.

I am a member of S.A.R.I., Scientist for Accurate Radiation Information.  Recently, three distinguished members of SARI have filed an NRC petition, asking the NRC to re-visit the radiation protection rule making which is based on the Linear No Threshold (LNT) assumption, and the consequent ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) rules.  These rules force the nuclear industry (and any other industry using radiation) to assume that ANY radiation is harmful, and protection against radiation must be constantly increased.

Here's the petition in the Federal Register. The comment period is open until September 8, so you have a few days to file your comment.

Update: The comment period is now open until November 19.  (Yes, it surprised me, also.  See the third page of this pdf.)

The Problem with ALARA

Sunrise in Denver

Due to LNT and ALARA, you can't say: the radiation here is so low that the radiation is not a problem.  Since LNT and ALARA claims that all radiation is harmful, it's a constantly escalating fight against any radiation.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence that radiation at the standard background level matters in terms of cancer or birth defects. There is not more cancer in areas with high background radiation (such as Denver) and less cancer in areas with low background radiation (such as the Mississippi Delta).  As a matter of fact, the situation is rather the opposite.  People in Denver tend to be healthier and live longer and so forth.  However, that is more likely to be due to socioeconomic factors than background radiation factors.

There is some evidence that low doses of radiation are protective. This is called hormesis. From what I have read, I have come to think that low levels of radiation are protective, by a sort of vaccination effect. I am also aware that this idea is very controversial.  I am not a biologist, so I don't like to get into the weeds on this.

However, it is completely clear to me that the relationship between cancer and radiation is not linear, or we would have to evacuate Denver posthaste!

Here's a reasonable drawing of the possible shapes of a low-dose radiation effect curve:

• linear response is curve B 
• hormesis protection is curve D, 
• low-dose radiation is worse-than expected is curve A
• low-dose radiation is not-as-bad-as expected is curve C  

As far as I can tell, nobody knows which of these curves is correct.  A and B are least likely to be correct. All the curves agree at high dose, and the effects are very hard to measure at low dose.

From Lawrence Berkeley Lab
Different hypothesis for radiation dose response

The Comments

I will post my own comment as a separate blog post tomorrow.

Please comment if you can.  Here's the link, and then you have to follow the "submit a formal comment" button.  

It took me a while to comment, because I kept thinking---well, I'm not a biologist etc etc. But just look at the opponent comments!  As you can imagine, a lot of the opposition comments are barely one step above: "Are you frigging crazy!  All radiation is dangerous!"

I decided I could comment.  I figured I could do a little better than that.

Some more background

Petitioners:

The three people who submitted petitions to the NRC are:

Dr. Carol S. Marcus, Professor of Radiation Oncology at UCLA
Mark L. Miller, Certified Health Physicist
Dr. Mohan Doss, Associate Professor at Fox Chase Cancer Center

Rod Adams post:

Rod Adams post on pro-nuclear people receiving flak on this (because we are over the target).

NIRS Firing Flak at Pro-Nuclear Fanatics

A couple of random articles I found, plus a link to the S.A.R.I. website, which has more articles

Drosophila Melanogaster

Fruit Fly article the first: Weak radiation doses prolong life in fruit fly females

Fruit fly article the second: Low doses not linear response

(A friend wrote me that he didn't LIKE fruit flies, so what's with the fruit flies?  My answer is one type of fruit fly is frequently used for genetics experiments, and has been for at least fifty years.)

S.A.R.I. http://radiationeffects.org

The Problems with "Reasonable" Regulation: Guest post by Chris Staubus

Chris Staubus

The Problem with "Reasonable" Regulations.  Guest Post by Chris Staubus.

Meredith Angwin’s post has hit on a concept being used by regulators in areas beyond nuclear power.  Many would think it is “reasonable” to use “best available technology” for such things as cooling water intakes to prevent harm to fish populations and for carbon capture to prevent release of carbon to avoid the impacts of man-made global warming.  There is a much longer list of where “reasonable” is the foundation for regulatory regimes.

Why does “reasonable” seem so pervasive?  It is because it is the battle of emotions over science.  If you are against “reasonable” you are by definition “unreasonable” – emotion.  If regulation is set at a numeric limit –science – many can’t even enter the conversation because of lack of education or lack of interest to delve into the basis for the limit.  One can create a lot more social impact for change by arguing with “emotion” than with science.  More people can join in the argument for “reasonable” than there are scientists, engineers and technologists to refute “reasonable.” By the example Meredith Angwin points out, it is obvious “reasonable” leads to “unreasonable.”

“Reasonable” is also driven by regulators: they never want to regulate less.  So as they regulate more, where  can they push?  They can look at what is “reasonable” or at the state of the art for “best available technology.”  This is a continuous process never ceasing from generation to generation of regulators.  Each batch of regulators wants to do something for their cause of safety, protection of people or environment.

However, once the “reasonable” train leaves the station, the end of the line is “unreasonable.”

Reviewing the Regulatory Environment

A couple points about what has happened to the regulatory environment in our industry.

1. The Frog 

Industry and society need to prevent being slowly boiled like a frog.  If you put a frog in boiling water he will jump out.  He recognizes the danger.  If you put the frog in lukewarm water and slowly increase the heat he doesn’t recognize the problem until it is too late.  This is what has happened in the nuclear power industry.  In the early years our education system didn’t help most in society to understand nuclear power, opening up the regulator and industry to focus on safety at any cost.  After all, that would be “reasonable.”  Now as the heat has been turned-up we are about cooked, because the regulatory burden to get a plant licensed, its cost in time and money along with the additional cost to build and operate have taken an economic power source and has made it significantly less competitive.  Some hope this trend will lead to its extinction.

Our takeaway –
Especially with industries with long asset lifecycles, even small changes in the regulatory regime will suck the lifeblood out of viable products and services.

2.  Excess Regulation Everywhere
        
As consumers and voters, we  need to be alert to how the regulatory environment is changing for foundational industries in this country.  The EPA is changing its regulations, using clean air and clean water acts  as a basis.  What will this potentially do to the daily services and products we consume?  Is there anyone that doesn’t think regulating carbon emissions won’t cost them in their electric bills, fuel or even food bills?  When a utility must pick-up the tab for putting in new cooling towers or new intake structures in response to EPA 316b requirements, this is going to hit their customers in the pocket book.  That means not only homes, but businesses that use power in the production of their goods and services may leave the region or the country seeking lower cost inputs.  What is the cost to society for the loss of those jobs?

Other areas to consider are close to home:  water management, storm water regulations, and property use. Basically, we have to think about the consequences in every case where there are permits, fees and regulations that are being changed.  It is difficult to imagine a regulatory envelope getting smaller.

Our takeaway –
We need to think long term and hold our governments accountable for regulation that is more than just “reasonable.”  As scientists, engineers and technologists we can’t be silent, passive and inert.  We have a voice.

3.  Innovation versus Regulation
        
Major innovation has never been driven by regulation.  In fact regulation tends to hamper innovation.  So one can say society is actually poorer for regulation that inhibits innovation.  At best regulation has created innovations at the margins to protect existing business and revenue streams.  It has not created innovations that have advanced people’s standard of living.  Hence, we are poorer with heavy regulation as a society.  Concerning innovation, regulation is on the par with central planning which is driven by central planners or in this case regulators.  This is not to criticize individuals doing sound jobs.

Success in regulation, by definition, imposes limits.  It places limits to prevent doing too much of something.  This creates a culture that limits.

Our takeaway –
Whenever there is change in the regulatory regime, society must fully understand its implications and think about what yet-to-be-created innovation may be blocked by this regulatory regime or government policy.

Unreasonable Effects on Society

Society will definitely be poorer when regulators pursue “reasonable.”  We must seriously consider how to push back against this emotional gambit.  It seems evident arguing with facts has limited effectiveness.


-----

About this guest post

Chris Staubus holds a BS in Marine Engineering and an MBA.  He has nearly four decades in the power and utility industries.  He is currently  the General Manager for an engineering consulting firm which supports operating nuclear power plants and nuclear new builds, domestically and internationally.

My recent post, Protecting Against Nothing, the Failings of ALARA, compared the ever-more-stringent requirements of "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA)  with the more straightforward concept used in drinking water regulation. For drinking water, the question is not "what is achievable" or "what is reasonable."  Drinking water has to meet threshold benchmarks (no more than so many ppm of this ion).  This is a better, more simple way to achieve and assess safety.

In response to that post, Chris Staubus sent me a thoughtful email, and he gave me permission to use his email as a guest post.

Plant Site Boundary Radiation Measurements and More Unreasoning ALARA

Measuring Low Level Radiation At the Site Boundary

The NRC requires careful control of the maximum radiation dose at the site boundary of a nuclear power plant.  For a non-specialist like myself, the NRC document 10 CFR Part 20 is not easy to interpret.  Plus, power plants in Vermont must meet even more stringent state requirements.  To explain the situation, I will quote a  Vermont Department of Health press release on site monitoring at Vermont Yankee:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission limits radiation doses for the general public to 100 millirem per year. The limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is 25 millirem per year from radioactivity in water, air and soil. The Vermont Department of Health limits are more restrictive – 20 millirem per year.

In other words, the plant-caused radiation at the site boundary in Vermont must be less than 20 millirems above background radiation, total, per year. Indeed, the radiation at Vermont Yankee plant boundary is at a such a low level that it  cannot be measured easily and reliably, except by specialists.

Detecting 20 millirems per year over the background level of around 300 millirems per year: this is not easy.

Measurements disagree

Predictably, at the low levels of radiation required by Vermont,  measurements are difficult and results can conflict.  Sure enough, Entergy measurements and Vermont Department of Health measurements disagreed.  Basically, low levels of radiation release have to be measured by specialists in measuring low-level radiation.

To resolve the conflict between the Entergy measurements and the Vermont measurements, Entergy engaged Oak Ridge Affiliated Universities (ORAU) to do a third set of measurements.  ORAU has a group that specializes in radiation measurements. The local opponent groups objected to this choice.

The opponents' main accusation was that ORAU was part of the industry and could not be trusted.  Another accusation was that hiring ORAU was a way to fool Vermont citizens into thinking that Entergy had hired Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  (ORAU is basically part of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It's complicated, and has to do with the difficulty the government has in hiring temporary employees, graduate students, etc. )

Meanwhile, the opponents objections to ORAU and the measurements were not mild-mannered. There were shouted accusations.  I saw a man from VPIRG completely blindside an Entergy employee at a public meeting. The Entergy man on the panel had no idea that the contract with ORAU was going to lead to shouted accusations of being a liar.  It was a sad sight.

However, the Entergy measurements were correct.

But finally, the whole thing was over. The measurements were reviewed, and the Vermont Department of Health issued a final report on the boundary measurements. Here's a quote from the Vermont Department of Health report:

The report concludes that the measurement methodology used by the Vermont Department of Health since 1973 was less accurate than current methods used by Vermont Yankee.

And yes, here's another quote from the same report:

At no time has the dosage from the Vermont Yankee plant posed a measurable risk to public health.

Vermont Yankee was in compliance with Vermont's strict radiation protection laws.

ALARA strikes again

A great deal of money and energy was spent on the boundary-line dose issue, and nuclear opponents took every opportunity to humiliate people from Entergy about the measurements and the contractor.   But what did it all mean?  What was accomplished?

• Was anybody protected from harm by these repeated measurements of the very small amounts of radiation? No. 
• Was a great deal of money spent on these measurements? Yes. 
• Do ALARA and LNT encourage the fear of the least little bit of radiation, and do they imply that we must constantly strive to reduce even tiny amounts of radiation? Yes.
• Must we strive to reduce amounts of radiation that are actually so low they are hard to measure? Yes.
• Do ALARA and LNT help our country have reliable, affordable electricity? No.

I encourage my readers to share their own ALARA stories.

Tritium: An example of Unreasoning ALARA

Unreasoning ALARA: The need for examples

In Protecting Against Nothing: The Failings of ALARA, I described the ALARA strategy (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) for radiation safety.  This strategy is based upon the idea that there is no safe level of radiation, so radiation protection must constantly attempt to "do better."   The words "reasonably achievable" can be interpreted in unreasonable and expensive ways.

In contrast, protection from contaminants in drinking water is regulated on the basis of drinking water standards: concentrations of harmful substances are kept lower than agreed-upon values.  This is a better and more cost-effective strategy than the ever-more-expensive strategy of ALARA.

I would like to give some examples here. The need for examples was raised (in rather insulting phrasing) in a comment on an earlier post by Howard Shaffer. This is my understanding of what the questioner actually meant to ask:

"You have explained how ' reasonably' achievable could be misused in a regulatory context.  But can you give examples of where ALARA has actually been misused, examples of where excessive radiation protection measures have led to unnecessary costs? I want examples of the supposed excess costs of ALARA in terms of day-to-day operations. This isn't a question about accident prevention costs."

In a few posts, I will describe examples of the unreasonable costs of ALARA at Vermont Yankee.  These are cases in which Vermont Yankee had to go to great expense about radiation protection or paying for elaborate radiation measurements---for trivial amounts of radiation. The levels of radiation had no possible public health consequences.

Today's example: tritium.

Tritium and the Zero-Discharge Plant

Vermont Yankee is a zero-discharge plant.  No tritium must leave the plant boundaries. Why is this?  There is nothing wrong with small discharges of tritium. Canadian plants legally release thousands of curies of tritium per year.

So, Vermont Yankee had a leak in a pipe. The pipe was in a concrete conduit, but eventually, some tritium found its way out of the conduit and into the soil and water.

The small leak was a huge problem for the plant. It cost the plant a great deal of trouble and expense to find, fix and "remediate" this leak, even though the leak released less than a curie of tritium. Meanwhile, the plant gathered a great deal of negative publicity for having had the leak.

In contrast, exit signs containing about ten curies of tritium can be shipped through the mail (or at least they could be at the time that Howard Shaffer bought his tritium sign about three years ago).

In further contrast, Canadian plants are allowed to discharge thousands of curies of tritium per year.  There are no health effects in Canada from these discharges.

Though I posted extensively on tritium, Rod Adams has the best post on the subject. 

http://atomicinsights.com/how-much-tritium-leaked-from-vermont-yankee-before-the-leak-was-stopped/

Adams compares the Vermont Yankee leak with the tritium levels just north of the border.  Vermont Yankee's leak was less than one curie of tritium, while Canadian plants routinely discharge over 5000 curies of tritium a year.

Remediation 

Vermont Yankee found and fixed the leak within a few weeks.

Then,  Vermont Yankee began "remediation."  They pumped groundwater and disposed of it as radiologically contaminated. By doing so, they captured most of the tritium.

Meanwhile, famous hydrological engineers (such as Governor Shumlin) asked Vermont Yankee to pump even more groundwater, for further safety.  Vermont Yankee agreed to pump more.  I don't know how much they spent on pumping, but I suspect the amount was non-trivial.

All for less tritium than is held by a single exit sign.

ALARA Plumbs Some New Depths

As low as reasonably achievable reached some new depths with the great Vermont Yankee tritium scare story.  Of course, a plant should fix a leak if it has one.  Even if nothing but super-pure water is leaking, you fix leaks.  But the remediation?  All the pumping? Large amounts of money and time were devoted to protecting the public from---trivial amounts of radioactivity.

It is often thus with ALARA.  More to follow.

Protecting Against Nothing: The Failings of ALARA

Partial list of EPA drinking water regulations

ALARA and Reason

In Howard Shaffer's recent guest post: "No Safe Dose" Is Bad Science,  Shaffer described the questionable science behind the Linear Non Threshold (LNT) standard for radiation protection.  In my introductory remarks for his post, I wrote this sentence:

"Protecting" against very low levels of radiation increases the cost of nuclear plants, but the LNT (Linear Non Threshold) model says we must protect against any level of radiation, no matter how small.

An anonymous commenter asked a question about this statement.  He didn't ask directly about LNT.  He asked about LNT's daughter:  ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). LNT claims that no radiation dose is safe,  and ALARA claims that we must continually attempt to decrease the amount of any radiation dose.

So, back to the commenter's question.   I had claimed that LNT forces us to protect against "any level of radiation," and he asked:

How would you reconcile that statement with the actual U.S. regulatory regime, which relies on the As Low As Reasonably Achievable approach? (Emphasis in the original statement.)

Mineral Water

"Reasonable" is Unreasonable

My answer (edited a bit from the original that I posted).

The term "reasonable" is intrinsically unreasonable. How is reasonable defined? By whom is it defined?

Here's a simplified example of the difference between "reasonable" levels and a threshold level. My town water meets threshold limits for safety. My town provides town water and it sends residents the analysis results for their water. I am proud to say that our town has an excellent municipal water department. The water is safe to drink: all ions and all contaminants are below the EPA levels that define safety for those materials. 

Let's say the EPA safety limit for "A" is 10 parts per million (ppm).  Let's say, in the town water, "A" is at the level of 5 ppm. 

The water is safe. 

Town water and threshold limits

The water is safe, and people can't go to the town select board and insist that new water treatment methods are available and therefore must be acquired by the town.  They can't insist that the town needs to lower the level of "A" from half the EPA safety limit to a quarter of the limit. People can't force the town to upgrade its water system just because those people believe that the new lower limit is "reasonably" achievable. Once the  town water has met  its threshold for safety, further water treatment is not required.

That's the difference between a threshold level--and the unreasonable term "reasonable." 

• A threshold is a number. A system (water supply, power plant) can do a measurement and prove that it meets the criteria. 
• In contrast, the term "reasonable" is open to endless expensive interpretations.

---------

Note: The commenter then asked a second question.  I will answer it in a separate post.