ML19208C678

Endorses Secretary J Califano 790802 Recommendations Re Rept of Interagency Task Force on Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation.Forwards Califano 790802 Recommendations on Radiation Exposure

ML19208C678
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/14/1979
From:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Carter J PRESIDENT OF U.S. & EXECUTIVE OFFICES
References
NUDOCS 7909270220
Download: ML19208C678 (17)

Text

h UNITED STATES E " )y j,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,,- j; WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%, '. y, f

(.

o^ "

August 14, 1979 c'

CHAIRMAN The President The White House Washington, D. C.

20500

Dear Mr. President:

On August 2,1979, Secretary Califano sent to you his recommendations en the report prepared by the Interagency Task Force on the Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation.

I endorse his recommendations and assure you that this agency will cooperate fully with you and the other agencies in bringing these recom-mendations to reality.

Respectfully,p W

L eph M. Hendrie o

s 0

g @*O g-

~

7 @0;92,70 -

1049 104

L i

~

l i

f l

L g

'7 "**797 m 12 *

• * *{

• "',f e

I,.-.

,..,. n,

7. '7I I*

Y,7C7 Y 3S7".'I

.3Y '*.5

(

..,,.,s.,x..,..,..

s, i

l l

W!NI973%?.R "LEL's7 F-I V T ' '." '4"'J"7 ".

-N.

I

e. 7 %

-.=y, o J 1

I i

i k

a i

=.,u-

-.t.

.m.r n,e,.,.. -

v.<,,=,,=..,,..

f I

i 6

i

~

h l

1 t r++ *

. em,.i,, -

+--+

.-w -

e, i

{

9.59 W U8 133 D SIC'I *iCC9EDI 9"""

EClE?blY l #.5 5 ~O5%

+

l l

GY:

I ?.7) o 1 T'IE9 0'sY l '. N'!"

~")

+

s-I

[

+,,

.,,,etc,

.e

, i +

--+,-v-e 4

,g f

w-

%"T*SI 97.7359TE"):

c

=n= nm.=c:

, s c,.,,,.

< s,, c,.am.

< > <nt,.

M

~

l k

l l

l IH]L l

1049 105 L

I

i- [.%.

T y c s cc a tra a r or M c A tt s. c o u c Atio N, A N O W c L F A R C h :L,,

wa s H s w o v o w. o. c. a o a o s

, AUG 2 1979 F.E.v.CRANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT C

FROM The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfar l

SUSJECT:

Radiation Exposure Inquiry

}

r In a memorandum that you initialed, Messrs. Eizenstat and Breezinski asked me in May 1978 to work with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator of Veterans' Af fairs to coordinate formulation of a program on the health effects of ionicing radiation.

Subs equen tly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of. Labor were added to the addressees of the White House request.

This memorandum responds to your assignment.

It is the last me=orandum I will send to you as Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare.

These recommendations and the attached report represent more than 15 months of hard work by people in this Decartment and throuchout the Governmen' I make the recommendations contained in this memorandum on the basis of my profound concern that the Government pro tec t the i

blic health in the area of low level radiation as e f fectively s ibl e.

I make these recommendations w.ithout any atic stake in the outcome.

asked that the program include:

i

'c ;,

.F 3.

c.

cA research program to determine the ef fects of

-adiation on human populations exposed to it;

((*

~~

A public information program to inform people who j

might have been affected and the general public e

about Federal agency activities; c'A plan for ensuring that persons adversely affected i

3 by radiation exposure receive the care and benefits

r.

to which they may be or should be entitled;

?

t..

1. i o Recommendations on steos to be taken to reduce

.- I l radiation exposure in 'the future.

, N3

.+g 3

s Om o

c o

o11 o a

~

(70 16 f o E ut s

e i2~

JD49,1,0.n 6

=

., =

2-To carry out this dir'ec tive, I established an Interagency Task Force on the Health Ef fects of Ionizing Radiation, chaired by the General Counsel of !!EN.

The Task Force included a high level of ficial from ach of seven agencies:

HD7, the Department e

of Defense (DoD), the Depar t;nent of Energy ( doc), the Depar tmen t of Labor (dol), the Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Veterans Adminis-tration (VA).

3 The Task Force conducted its proceedings openly, consulting with interested members of Congress and their staffs, scientists representing dif ferent viewpoints on radiation, public interest and environmental groups, representatives of the nuclear power industry and cf the medical professions, State agencies, labor unio ns, and veterans' organi ations.

The Task Force addressed only ionizing radiation for a variety of reasons :

The agencies involved with non-ioni=ing radiation are quite different; and a. task force establishe:5 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy is addressing n=n-ioniz i ng radiation.

The Task Force issued its final report in June anc made several c.ajcr findings :

o There is inadecuate coordination amonc Federal agencies.

The Task Force found that coordination of radiation protection and research activities anong the fif teen Fede ral agencies engaged in radiation use, study, and control has been a_d hoc and inadecuate.

In addition, there are both overlaps and gaps in staturcry authorities.

These problems contribute to the public perception that the government has f ailed to address radiction issues in an ef fec tive and credible way.

o doe currently dominates research into the' health ef fects of raciation.

Research into the health ef fects of ionicing radiation is dominated by Doc, an agency which is respensible for developing nuclear weapons and promoting cud developing energy sources that can involve some exposure to

~

\\

my a l _1_ Lhj UUb 1049 107

~

y = 2...

... = z m

.=

=

radiation.

Although numerous agencies have research needs in this area,- doe conducts or supports more than 60 percent of researci on the biological ef fects of ionizing radiation and more than 75 percent of the portion dealing with the ef fects on humans.

i o Additional research is needed.

3 I

While more is known about the ef fects of ionizing i

radiation than is known about the %ffects of most o.ther environmental and occupational hazards, there remain l

serious gaps in our knowledge about low-dose ef fe-ts of I

radiation.

In addition, improved access to records is

~

necessary to f acilitate epidemiologic research.

E E

o Great dif ficulties exist in resolving radiation-rel a te d!

E claims.

4 A number of persons are seeking care and benefits for 4

injuries that may have resulted f rom radiation exposures,

yet most progra:ns do not have criteria for deciding i

radiation-related claims.

The major barrier' to resolving claims is the difficulty in distinguishing cancer and other injuries that may be radiation-related from thos e i

that are not.

o The createst opportunity at present to reduce expos ure to raciation lies in ontrolling unnecessary mecica_L anc dental exposures.

{

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) es t f=ta tes that a f

substantial number of exposures of medical and dental i

patients to radiation are unnecessary and can be el iminated.

This is significant, s'ince more than 9 0 t

percent of all exposure to man-made radiation cou;es from i

medical and dental sources.

F o There is a lack of rel,iable public information.

{

Many people are concerned about radiation but do not have ready sources of information to answer questions.

These findings led' the Task Force to recommend the establishment i

of a comprehensive and coordinated program on the health e f f ects i

of ionizing radiation.

It recommended changes in the ins ti t u-i tional framework for handling both of the govern =ent's two major i

activities: the setting of radiation protection standards and the Task orce i

the carrying out of research.

In addition, improve Federal [ oversight recom:cended many specific changes to LI T [6) VTG

' f f /3

=

bULAW_Ut/Ab d.OAblN m

.. zz..+

e

=

=r

-4 E

of the public's health and, safety with respect to ioni=ing E

radiation.

Members df the Task Force unanimously approved the 5

final report and its reccmmendations and submitted it to me and M

to the heads of other Task Force agencies.

With two exceptions, described below, I am recc= mending that you Z

adopt the Task Force's recommendations.

~

c Following are the broad-based institutic: gal changes. that I

=-

recommend in the Federal government's program on the health'

?

effects of ionizing radiation:

=

ii 5

o Establish a radiation policy council which would be:

responsiole for acvising on croac r adiation protection h

policy, chaired by EPA.

(This differs f rom tne Tassk Force recommencation tnat the chair be appointed by you from y

among the agencies represented on the committee.)

R E

o Establish an interacency research committee to coordi-

[

nate research sctivities with respect to the nealtn p

effects of ioni Ing radiation, chal_ red by the Natio:nal e

Institutes of Healtn (NIH).

.=

o Shift the balance of funding and management of research in

{

tnis area frcm doe to HIH anc otner agencies tnar nave t

healtn-related missions.

(This differs froc: the Tasic Force's recommendation, as described on p.

7.)

{

o Improve the capacity of Federal comcensation procra ms to resolve claims of persons wno celleve tnelr in3uries to be 1

tne result of radiation exposure.

You have estacusbed an it-Interagency task force to stucy the compensation issue,

[

which should consider this Task Force's recommendat: ions.

E V

The following sections describe in more detail and seek your 3

approval of these recommendations af f ecting institutional b

ar.rangements and others concerning programmatic improveme nts.

I.

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

g.

E In one of its most important and difficult tasks, the Taslk Force f

examined ways to improve the coordination ar d credibility of the

!*i Federal government's handling of issues relating to the use, F

study, and control of ionizing radiation.

The Task Forcet is recommended changes in the organization and coordination cof 5

Federal radiation protection and research activities.

E M

~

=;

w JJp,A@fP lD e

,, b, yi. y/

o

=

0 o u'u d w au m\\ l l

g

=

1049 109 r

-3

-=. : - : -..

n ::

e e

U

?

=

b-A.

Radiation'Eolicv Council

@m The Federal Government is both a major user (e.c., medical

[

x-rays, radiation therapy, weapons production) and a r

regulator (e.g., power generation) of sources of radia-2 tion.

One of the mos.t important issues considered by -

4 the Task Force was how to coordinate the activities of the Federal agencies involved to ensur,e that workers arJd,the 5

general public are adequately protected from unnec'essary

. t exposure to radiation.

E E5 EPA, the agency charged with providing gtiidance to

![

Federal agencies on basic exposure limits, has over the years given a ' low priority to its responsibilities to ik provide radiation guidance.

Recently, EPA has moved to p.

increase significantly its commitment to these 2

activities.

The scope of EPA's authority is ambiguous in

f s or.e areas, however, leading some other. agencies to M.

dispute its authority to provide guidance to them in W

their areas of responsibility.

The Task Ebrce considered i

two methods for coordinating radiation activities - a II lead agency approach and an interagency radiation council.

E G

.h.

I support -- and I urge you to adopt -- the Task Force's 5

recommendations to coordinate overall Federal radiation G

policy:

~-

=

o That a radiation policy council be stablished to be M

comprised of high level of ficials frem all Federal 5

agencies with major regulatory, operational, and F_

research responsibilities in the field of radiation.

M It should be terminated automatically af ter f our

.?.

years unless the President decides otherwise.

F g

o The ccancil should:

p=

E

-- Advise on the formulation of broad radiation 5

protection policy; g

EI

-- Coordinate Federal activities related to

[

radiation use and control; M

N--

-- Resolve problems of jurisdiction among the "re agencies and recommend legislation to fill K

gaps in authority; E-z 22 a

=.

~

Lf u

l Ei ss t pqqq 7 pr c

.b A M..... d n....

-.... -. _... _1049 110 [

N

n

=

Ensure effective liaison with the States and the Congress; E

Provide a. forum for public participation and

[

comment.

7

==

o One of the council's first tasks should be a

.to con?.uct a review of the, guidance authority p

now exercised by EPA and thF statutory '

.c

=

authorities of other agencies to determine

[

the appropriate scope of guidance, how the ft setting of guidance can be i=p rove d, and how s

its implementation can be reviewed' to assure appropriate modifications in the future.

o The council shculd be responsible for ensuring 3

that the major recommendations of the Task 2

Force on reduction of exposure and public infor-

.(

mation are implemented as soon as possible.

sW The council would centrelize responsibility to review

=

policy developcent on radiation-related issues and encourage coo.rdinatica among the many agencies with releva n t authorities.

Since the sources and uses of radiation are varied, it is difficult for a single agen cy 7

to provide 1 adership in all areas.

The establishment of such a counci' is supported by =ost groups and individuals E

concerned wita radiation protection.

I believe that EPA should remain as lead agency in 2

establishing guidance authority bearing on. radiation pro-i tection and recom=end that you appoint EPA ~ to chair the fi policy council.

The policy council should have a small 4

budget and immediate staff of 3-4 persons.

EPA is proba-2 bly the appropriate agency to provide the staf f and budget r

support as needed.

=

Decision it:

.g o

Establish council as overall advisory and coordinating h

body as described.

E m.

yes no z

o Appoint EPA to chair the council.

E

=

T:

yes no

~

1049 111

-s

.=

O

~

3.

Interacency Research Committee

~

IIhile research.on the. health effects of ionizing radiation l

has been concentrated largely in doe, numerous agencies have research needs in this area.

The Congress has recognized the need to broaden the research ef fort in this I

area by directing several different agencies to expand their research activities:

i 5

• e o HEIT has been directed to establish a comprehensiva E

program of research into the biological ef fects of

?

low-level ionizing radiation and to review exist _ing Federal agency research programs; o ImC and, EPA, in consultation with HE% have been

(

directed to conduct preliminary studies of epidemi-ologic research into the health ef fects of low level t-ionizing radiation and to report to the Congress on P

the feasibility of options for, study.

=

The Task Force recommended that steps be taken to

[

improve c urdination of the research ef fort on the health ef fects of low-level radiation and to ensure i;

that different agencies'. research needs were met.

I L

support the following Task Force reccamendat3cns to T

accomplish these goals:

o An interagency radiation research committee should

[

be established, chaired by the national Institutes of Health and including representatives from all

. major research and regulatory agencies.

o The interagency committee would be directed to per-form the following functions:

-- Assure that the Federal government conducts E

a comprehensive research program on the 2

biological ef fects of ionizing radiation;.

E i

-- Establish appropriate research priorities i

and coordinate agency research programs;

{

-- Ensure that the research needs of regulatory h

agencies will be addressed, by research i

agencies as well as by the regulatory agene.ies themselve s ;

F-

~

=

4

• d p.

~ ~l D

r D

]

)

]0

=.

"FQ T Q

. 1049 112

= a m k m.

-s-Identify a'ppropriate agencies to fund research, according to guidelines developed by the committee; Review agency budgets and reporr to the Office of Management and Budget and to the President on the adequacy of support for radiation research;

-- Develop criteria for re[earch manag'sments #

~

following a review hy the National Academy of Sciences of Federal research management practices in this area; Resicv the status of on-going research projects;

-- Nnsure prompt d'.ssemination of research results and promote the exchange of substantive ideas among scientists employed By Federal agencies.

-- Provide a point of contact to groups and individuals outside government who are concerned with radiation research issues and seek their advice, consultation, and participation in the work of the co==ittee.

In addition, the chair of the committee would be directed to consult regularly with. the chair of the policy c ou nc il.

Finally, I recommend that you require that the Director of NIH/ Chair of the committee provide a separate report which describes whether suf ficient research is being undertaken with respect to the health eff ects cf ionizing radiation and, if not, what addi tional research is needed.

Decision o Establish an interagency research co=r:littee, as desc ribed.

yes no

~

o Appoint NIH to chair the committee.

yes no Dr l

D

& [I

\\ n )r u

a S JJ gmWly M 1049 113

-rg*pjbO2tr&db3=~

~ ~ ~ ~

- = -

r e

N E $

=-

o Require that the Director of HIH/ Chair of the h

committee.provid.e a separate report to CMB and the Presi' dent.

I F

yes no

-i

+

.5 -

. E

-2 C.

Agency Research Roles u5 The Task Force mercbers agreed that the research roles E

of health and regulatory agencies should be increased in 6

relation to the role of doe.

It considered recommending

[.

either increasing the future radiation research b udg ets E

of Nill and other research agencies, wi thou t inc reasing di doc's or trans ferring a pcrtion of CoE's budget to those 5

agencies.

E E

However, it was not able to agree on either approach.

5 As a compromise, it recommended that:

if

--.=

o NIH assume a lead role in funding research.

{C o Cther health-oriented agencies like EI'A, FDA, the

=-

Ce' iter for Disease Control, and the i<atio:nal Science f

Foundation expand their research roles in! this area.

{::

o The research committee review existing,1 ograms and f

proposed research agenda, determine sii:. ther it is E

appropriate to transfer portions of Cc_ *"s research 5

budget to other agencies, and, if transfer is appro-

, priate, recommend which projects to transfer.

E_

m My recommendation goes beyond the Task Force's on this is-

.E sue.

I teel strongly tnat tne major responsica.L ity for

{

researen into tne nealtn efiects of low-1evel radiation i

shoulc be claced on an acency which has heal th-related re-

'=

search as its primary responslollity.

The crecilollity of 5

{5 government-supcortec research in this area will be com-promised if tne ma3or source of f uncing contin ues to be tne agency responsicle for cevelocing nuclear weapons and 5-ceveloping anc promotinu energy sources th a t result in 5

=

ractation exposure.

==

5 55 h

~

5

~

5 7Pm D

3.

9 n

J.J i(;.O ij ib

{

=..

l o

[in g f,FD l l ndf

=-

=

}'

w I

g I

=-

-.. =.;.__ =n..[ O. 4.9.+[..} k. - _._

5

=

10 -

The inherently schizophrenic nature of this dual mission has already damaged the credibility of the gove rnment 's effort to pro'tect the public health; indeed there are re-sponsible scientists who believe it has dm.,ged the public health itself.

I believe that the balance of resiiurces shcul'd be shitted from doe to NIH and other health-related agencies over the next 2-3 fiscal years.

A gradual building up of other agencies' research budgets, without shif ting resources from doe, would take too long and, in view. of the other research priorities these agencies have, there is sozae question about whether a large increase pr f-nrily in this one area of.research would be justified.

Other agencies disagree with this position DoD opposes any shift in funding. doe and EPA believe that the research comnittee should consider this issue, without i

prejudgment of whether or not any transfer should occur.

The view of these agencies is that management of scientific studies in this field requires consideraMe specialized expertise as well as rapport with scientists and institutions that have performed this type of research j

in the past. They believe that doe now possesses th is expertise and these connections, whereas it wil.l take NIH and others considerable time to develop them.

I believe that research funding could be shif ted without losing valuable scientific expertise.

The national Labs,

for. example, would continue undoubtedly to perform much of

[

the radiation research regardless of wnere -the funding and supervision were housed.

I i

HEW has a strong interest in radiation reseac ch,

particularly since it is responsible for he.lping ensure public safety in the area of medical x-rays.

It is true

[

that HEW has not played as strong a role in the past; as it

[

'could have with respect to research in this area, but that is changing.

The Director of NIH has established an Interagency Committee on Research into the Health Ef fects j

E I.

?

i B

(i,J

~

2 i

(

s

')

L1 L 7

g m

^ ?

[,T ? ?

~

e UU M uu.lnRa 1049 115

-===_7 7 *= 7

......e.

e e

e

_ 11 _

of Ionicing Radiation, which includes representatives from all of the radiation-related agencies.

Tha t Committee is conducting a comprehensive review of radiation research and has already begun' coordinating research efforts in some areas, including followup studies of the accident at Three M.ile Island and.a study of residents c3cwnwind from the Nevada atomic bomb test site.

In addition, NIH is assuming greatcr responsibility ind this area by enlarging significantly its own research effort on ionizing radiation.

Decision o Shift a significant portion of researeb funding and management from CoZ to NIH and other health and regulatory agencies over the course of the next 2-3 fiscal years, no yes If yes, how should it be accomplished?

Shift a significant portion of research funding and management from DcE to NIH and' other health and regulatory agencies over the course o# the next 2-3 fiscal ysars.

(Recommended)

Increase research budgets of health and

~

regulatory agencies, leaving CoE's as i t.

is.

NIH assume a lead role; other health oriented agencies like EPA, FCA, CDC, and NSF expand research roles; research committee reviews existing prcgrams and the research agenda and determines which, if any, portions of doe's budget should be transferred to other agencies.

Other D.

Care and Benefits You have recently established a task force to study compensation of persons who may have developed '

radiation-related illnesses as a result cf exposure to nuclear weapons tests, particularly civilians res iding oeoM TMl@13AL C Ub=.= =

1 uu m aluuua

- -~

i:;

=

m.

downuind from: test si'tes.

In addition, the-task force 5

will look at questions concerning compensation of

~J.

workers and veterans that were raised by th is Task

?

Force.

I recommend that the compensation t.ask force 5

also consider' carefully the recommendationsa of this

[

Task Force on care and benefits as it f ormc lates its own s...

re comme ndations.

~

=

2 Decision N.

E B.

?

o Direct the compensation task force to c:onsider the

((

care and benefits recommendations of t3he E

Interagency Task Force on the Health P*fects of.-.

1 Ionizing Radiation.

[#

yes no

.~~

E II.

PRCGRAMMATIC IMPROVEMENTS

[

=i In addition to these important ins titutional changes, the Task

[

Force made, and I support, a number of other signfificant E

recommendations to improve the Federal government".s programs in p

the health effects of ionizing radiation.

se s:

While the following is not a comprehensive list off Tash Force 5

re comme ndations, I believe these are the recommen=Satio:ns tha" F

call for Presidential direction.

Many of these, and others that Ei are not included on this list, can be considered and implemented E

by the policy council once you have made decisio==s on the basic policy issues.*

E4 c:.

A.

Records and Privacy

{

h The Administration's " Privacy of Researcher:s Re cords Ac t, " if enac.ted, will significantly improve access g

to necessary Federal records, wi th safeguar:5s to E

pr ote ct the privacy of. individuals.

In addEdi tion, TI the Task Force recommended certain other ste ps that F

can be taken within HEW to improve such access and I have directed the appropriate HEW componentrs to implement M

them.

E O

m:

y 2

"The Task Force report, containing its recommenda-tions. is 7

attached.

y Jc "n.-

1049 117 2* ::

m&ce wa a:..as. e r

=

===-

. =.

=.= = = ~~..-~

=.g

, y{U]"{ fjg']~~~~

" ~ ' ' " - " ~

]

13 -

llouever, one importa,nt obstacle remains in this area.

The Internallevenue Code, with one limi ted excep-tion, prohibits IRS or SSA from disclosing return information for research purposes.

In some cases, researchers '. access to this inf ormation could be crucial to the success of a research project because of the time, expense, and risk of f ailure i n re. lying exclusively on decentralized local resources for the' identification and location of stpudy subjects.

The Task Force recommended the following action which I support:

o The Department of the Treasury and the Sec-e tary of

~

Health, Education, and Welf are should prepare a legislative proposal to amend the Internal Revenue Code to au thor i::e the Internal Revenue Servi ce and the Social Security Administration to disclose return information that is necessary for epidemio-logic research with appropriate safeguards to protect the privacy of individuals whose records

~

are disclosed.

Decision o Direct the Departments of Treasury and TIDT to consider the need for a legislative proposa.1 to amend the Internal Revenue Code as described and to develop a proposal, if needed.

I yes no i

5 B.

Reduction of Excesure 7

Half of radiation exposure is from man-mt ue sources The most significant exposure from man-made sources occurs during purposef ul exposure of medical and dental patients 5

to radiation for diagnosis of disease.

The Task Force i.

recommended that the following measures be taken to reduce

. exposure primarily from these sources:

i o Each potential opportunity for radiation exposure reduction should be reviewed in terms of its E

feasibility,-cost, and the risks and benefits it

[

would provide to society.

r b (N()

5 ri(R 1 Ta '

Y W 1049 118 l6 L.!*b J' J' J Ub B"u\\ a

\\

~

==

- - -...:_......-==:------

9

?

- 14 o A program shguld be undertaken to recuce radiation exposure from medical sources.

i; 5

o Federal a~gencies should undertake on full and open

[

review of existing exposure standards.

g

=

o Iluman exposure and environmental monitoring should g

be expanded and better measuYement techriology,

developed.

t E

o State radiation control programs should be strengthened to help them to take on more responsibility for exposure reduction.

I recommend that the policy council consider these, h

and other recommendations of the Task Force on

[

exposure reduction and where appropriate, develop j.

recommendations for implementing them.

._lp Decision E

5 o Refer Task force recommendations on exposure

-g reduction to the policy council.

~

yes no

+-

~

C.

Public Information Information programs should be developed for the 5

following target audiences, adapted to their needs 5

and using appropriate channels of communication.

I o Health care personnel and patients y.

o Workers exposed to radiation or. the job i

+

o Persons exposed 'as' a result of atmospheric nu cle ar

~

te s ts o Those who live near facilities using radioactive materials J.

f-o The general pu'blic M

I recommend that the policy council consider what type of

[

public information programs should be developed for each i:

of these group's and to recommend steps to imnle}.e n t such

{

programs.

M f

D 0

f e, lo n..

Nm o rg e 1049 119 W].IS@@r mdeni.m7=ac es..==.v.

a OhE EE19 1

=

s.:==

=

?:':

=6 T.. - - - -

d --

+n Decision

-Thi i.."..

o Refer Task Ecrce recommendations on public

.2:5 information to the policy council.

53 e.=f.

yes no EE

=.

===-

im mm s.-7

/

1

=

'VW.

&\\,

h~5 sos ph A. Califa o, Jr#

f4M V

.z 4~=

e h

'55 db

==1

~

= W

_ = _ -

-T. : ?

="..&

J

==._:

• • e

-e g

.es.e_

5.U i=1

.e d

.:: 6 L :=;

s=.=

V.5..

~

EE;

%?=:

fEi-E.Ei

• NE5E 1

h." :-*

or k==B,

-=

o := -i i-i:=d I,

uf D

E Ei, D

. r.) t,jt:

q-

=

7,5--

U s v Js

t. ;. _

Q

7 p3 i

7"*

F IL 1

-9<

iu J G A Judda 1049

i

s..,

l

..=2.-.:

-. I

~ t i.'i

_..