A Summary Perspective on NRC’s Implicit and Explicit Use of De Minimis Risk Concepts in Regulating for Radiological Protection in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

  • Miller B. Spangler
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Risk Analysis book series (CIRA, volume 2)


There is a growing recognition of the desirability in public policy making regarding a cutoff standard of insignificant risk to base this on reference values of common use that roughly characterize the levels of individual risk that are regarded as sufficiently negligible not to merit additional personal expenditures to reduce them further. According to Clarke of the U.K. National Radiological Protection Board, there is a widely held view that few people would commit their own resources to reduce an annual risk of death of 1 chance in 100,000 and that even fewer would take action at a chance of 1 in 1 million per year of exposure to a given hazard.1


Nuclear Regulatory Commission Risk Concept Safety Goal Mill Tailing Societal Risk 
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.
    R. H. Clarke, “Radiological Protection Aspects of Exemption Levels in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” Seminar on Interface Questions in Nuclear Health and Safety, sponsored by the’ OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris (April 16–18, 1985 ).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Richard Wilson, “Commentary: Risks and Their Acceptability,” Science, Technology, and Human Values, 9, 2, 11–22 (Spring 1984 ).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. E. Baker, W. S. Cool, and W. A. Mills, “NRC Draft Revision of 10 CFR Part 20. Cut-off Level for Regulatory Concern (De Minimis),” p. 17, (1983).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. H. Clarke and A. Fleishman, “The Establishment of De Minimis Radioactive Wastes,” IRPA 6th Congress, West Berlin (May 1984).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C. B. Meinhold, “Criteria for a De Minimis Level,” Symposium of the U.S. Health Physics Society, New Orleans (June 3–8, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ICRP, Radiation Protection: Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (New York: Pergamon Press, 1977), ICRP Publication No. 26.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Beninson and B. Lindell, `Bases and Trends in Radiation Protection Policy,“ Seminar on Interface Questions in Nuclear Health and Safety, sponsored by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, Paris (April 16–18, 1985 ).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leonard Bickwit, Jr., “Adequate Protection of the Health and Safety of the Public,” Memorandum to the Commissioners from the NRC Office of General Counsel (October 18, 1979 ).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    USNRC, Press Release No. 75–108 (April 30, 1975).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    USNRC, Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28, 1979 accident Three Mile Island and Nuclear Station, Unit 2,NUREG-0683, Supplement No. 1 (October 1984, p. 3.6).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    EPA, Environmental Radiation Protection Requirements for Normal Operations of Activities in the Uranium Fuel Cycle,Environmental Impact Statement for establishing 40 CFR 190, EPA 520/4–76–016, Vol. 1 (November 1976).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    USNRC, “Proposed Revision of 10 CFR Part 20, `Standards for Protection Against Radiation,’ ” SECY85–147-Part I (April 22, 1985 ).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. B. Spangler, “The Need for De Minimis Risk Standards in Regulatory Decisionmaking: An Individual or a Societal Risk Concept?” in Environmental Health Risks: Assessment and Management, R. S. McColl, ed. ( University of Waterloo Press, Ontario, Canada 1987 ).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robert B. Minogue, Memorandum for Commissioner Asselstine on “Relationship Between Proposed Revision to 10 CFR Part 20 and EPA Radiation Protection Standards ” (August 26, 1985 ).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guy H. Cunningham, III, “The De Minimis Concept in Radiation Protection,” A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Nuclear Safety Research Association of Japan, Tokyo (June 16, 1983 ).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    USNRC, Plan for Reevaluation of NRC Policy on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities,NUREG-0436, Revision 1 (December 1978).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    USAEC, “Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors,” Regulatory Guide 1.86, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (June 1974).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. S. Crump, “Statistical Aspects of Linear Extrapolation,” Chapter 29 in Health Risk Analysis, C. R. Richmond, P. J. Walsh, and E. D. Copenhaver, eds. ( Gatlinberg, Tenn., October 1980 ), 381–392.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Academy of Sciences, The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, Report of the Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR III, National Academy of Sciences (July 1980).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Otto White, Jr. and J. E. Brower, eds., Workshop on Problem Areas Associated with Developing Carcinogen Guidelines, BNL 51779, Center for Assessment of Chemical and Physical Hazards, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N. Y. (June 1984).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. B. Fleishman, “The Significance of Small Doses of Radiation to Members of the Public,” National Radiological Protection Board, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, United Kingdom (March 1985).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    USNRC, Final Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium Mining, NUREG-0706, 3 Vols., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (September 1980).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller B. Spangler, “The Assessment of Background Data for NRC Safety Goal Evaluation,” Draft report prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (April 24, 1985 ).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    H. T. Peterson, Jr., “Regulatory Implications of Radiation Dose-Effect Relationships,” Health Physics 47 (3): 345–359, (September 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Kato and W. J. Schull, “Studies of the Mortality of A-Bomb Survivors, Part I., Cancer Mortality,” Radiation Research 90, 395–432 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. MacLean and P. Brown, eds., Energy and the Future,Rowman and Littlefield, (Totowa, N. J., 1983):Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. B. Spangler, “An International Perspective on Risk and Equity Issues Associated with the Coal and Nuclear Fuel Options,” Journal of Public and International Affairs 5 (1): 101–121, (Winter 1984 ).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. B. Spangler, “Policy Issues Related to Worst Case Risk Analyses and the Establishment of Acceptable Standards of De Minimis Risk,” in Uncertainties in Risk Assessment and Management, V. Covello, A. Moghissi, and V. T. T. Uppuluri, eds. ( Plenum, N. Y. 1987 ).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    R. J. Mattson et al., “Concepts, Problems, and Issues in Developing Safety Goals and Objectives for Commercial Nuclear Power,” Nuclear Safety 21(6): 703–716, (November-December, 1980).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    USNRC, Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plant Operations,NUREG-0880, Rev. 1 (May 1983).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    M. Rogovin et al., Three Mile Island: A Report to the Commissioners and to the Public, NUREG/CR1250, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (January 1980).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    J. G. Kemeny et al., Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island: The Need for Change: The legacy of TMI, GPO (October 1979).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J. M. Hendrie, “Nuclear Safety and the Regulation of Nuclear Technology,” Remarks by NRC Commissioner Hendrie before the First Texas Symposium on Energy,The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Tex. (July 9, 1980). Available from NRC Public Document Room as S-12–80.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    USNRC, NRC Action Plan Developed as a Result of the TMI-2 Accident,NUREG-0660, Vols, 1 and 2, Rev. 1 (August 1980).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    USNRC, Clarification of the TMI Action Plan Requirements,NUREG-0737 (November 1980).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    C. Starr, R. Rudman, and C. Whipple, “Philosophical Basis for Risk Analysis,” in Annual Review of Energy 1, J. M. Hollander and M. K. Simmons, eds., Annual Reviews, Inc., (Palo Alto, Calif, 1976 ).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Richard Wilson, Letter to Samuel Chilk, Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “RE: Proposed policy on safety goals for nuclear power plants (45 FR 71023),” dated May 17, 1982.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff, and S. Lichtenstein, “Rating the Risks,” Environment 21, (3): 14–39, (April 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miller B. Spangler
    • 1
  1. 1.Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationNuclear Regulatory CommissionUSA

Personalised recommendations