Quiero saber acerca de...

45930

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Proposed Rules
finding means that the Commission or the NRC staff, if appropriate, has determined that a given requirement is the minimum necessary for public health and safety. Applicable case law holds that adequate protection findings are made without regard to cost. In this regard, the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit stated that Section 182a of the Act commands the NRC to ensure that any use or production of nuclear materials provides adequate protection to the health or safety of the public. 42 U.S.C. 2232a. In setting or enforcing the standard of adequate protection that this section requires, the Commission may not consider the economic costs of safety measures. The Commission must determine, regardless of costs, the precautionary measures necessary to provide adequate protection to the public; the Commission then must impose those measures, again regardless of costs, on all holders of or applicants for operating licenses.88

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

The NRC is mandated under the AEA
to impose requirements that it determines to be necessary for adequate protection of public health and safety regardless of cost. As set forth earlier in this document, the consensus of the various international and domestic authoritative scientific advisory bodies, as well as the NCI, NIOSH, and EPA, is that the LNT model should remain the basis for radiological protection regulations. Based upon these external organizations recommendations, the recommendation of the ACMUI, and the professional and technical judgment of the NRC, those regulations that are based upon the LNT model remain necessary for adequate protection.
Therefore, the NRC will continue to use the LNT model as the basis for its current radiation protection regulations in 10 CFR part 20.
IV. Public Comments on the Petition On June 23, 2015, the NRC published in the Federal Register a notice of docketing of the three petitions, and requested public comment with the comment period ending on September 8, 2015.89 On August 21, 2015, the NRC
extended the comment period to November 19, 2015, to allow more time for members of the public to develop and submit their comments.90 The NRC
received over 3,200 comment find that the utilization or production of special nuclear material will be in accord with the common defense and security and will provide adequate protection to the health and safety of the public.
42 U.S.C. 2232a.
88 Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 824 F.2d 108, 114 D.C. Cir. 1987.
89 80 FR 35870.
90 80 FR 50804.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:34 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

submissions, with 635 of those comment submissions being unique, including comments from certified health physicists, nuclear medical professionals, other scientific professionals, scientific associations, Federal agencies, and concerned citizens.
In determining the appropriate response to the petitions, the NRC
carefully reviewed the public comments. To simplify the analysis, the NRC grouped all comment letters into two main groups: Those that opposed the petitions and those that supported them. A description of the comments in both groups and the NRCs responses are provided as follows.
Comments Opposed to the Petitions Comments: There were 535 unique comment submissions that opposed the petitioners recommendation to discontinue use of the LNT model as a basis for the NRCs radiation protection regulations. Some of these commenters stated that the petitioners did not provide sufficient evidence to support changing the technical basis regarding radiation exposure from the LNT model to the hormesis concept. One commenter stated that the proposal to increase allowable public radiation doses to the same as those of nuclear industry workers neglects the fact that the workers made a voluntary choice to work in the nuclear industry, and thus be subject to accompanying exposure to radiation, whereas the general public did not make that choice. Another commenter stated that the LNT model is satisfactory and that there is no substantial science upon which to base any change to the current 10 CFR part 20 public and occupational dose limits.
One commenter stated that no threshold exists because every organisms adaptive response varies considerably, with the very young being the most vulnerable. Another commenter stated that the existing standard needs to be retained, or at least, retained unless and until an undeniable and clear preponderance of the evidence indicates that the existing standard definitely should be replaced by some specific alternative.
Response: The NRC agrees that the petitions should be denied. The NRCs rationale is set forth earlier in this document. Therefore, the NRC will not amend its radiation protection regulations in response to the petitioners requests.
Comments Supporting the Petitions There were 100 unique comment submissions that agreed with the petitioners. These commenters provided
PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

varied responses, and so to simplify the analysis and address each type of comment, the NRC grouped the comments by subject and separated them into subject areas. A review of the comments and the NRCs responses follow.
Comments Supporting the Petitions General Comments; Assertions That NRC Regulations Lead to Unjustified Fear of Radiation by Authorities and the Public Comment: The NRC received several comments that expressed support for the petitions without providing a specific rationale.
Response: These comments expressed support for the petitions in general terms and did not provide any further rationale or explanation for why the petitions should be considered for rulemaking. Therefore, no detailed response is being provided separate from the justification presented above for the NRCs denial of the petitions.
Comment: The NRC received a comment that supports the petitions based on the commenters experiences working in the radiation protection field. The commenter concludes that, outside of individuals with experience in a nuclear facility, most individuals do not have proper authority or experience to appropriately determine proper radiation protection practices.
Response: The NRC interprets this comment to mean that those who lack experience working in a nuclear facility cannot properly understand radiation protection principles. The NRC
disagrees with this comment. The NRCs radiation protection regulations, policies, and guidance are informed by operational experience, the findings and recommendations of national and international authoritative scientific advisory bodies, and academic and government research.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the LNT model and the ALARA concept create an unjustified fear of radiation exposure that could lead to authorities directing mass evacuations in the event of a major nuclear incident. The commenters expressed concern that such a mass evacuation would result in casualties, some of which may be caused by mass panic, and also result in significant socioeconomic costs.
Response: The NRC disagrees with this comment. The appropriate Federal, State, and local decision-makers take many factors into account when deciding to recommend or order an evacuation, including the size and nature of the incident and the potential impacts on affected communities. With
E:FRFM17AUP1.SGM

17AUP1