ML19224D158
| ML19224D158 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1979 |
| From: | Clusen R ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19224D154 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-SM-0130, ACRS-SM-130, NUDOCS 7907110009 | |
| Download: ML19224D158 (12) | |
Text
..
.T_.
- -,e' c
z.
,. m,-.g a..u y;s
.~:
- c. -- ;.
- ~ ~'"~
. 5.
r
.s.
STATEMENT BY RUTH C. CLUSEN i -
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENT
' I DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY e.
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND FEDERAL SERVICES 0F THE SENATE GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CCP'lilTTEE
']
MAY 8, 1979
~
?
h
\\,\\ ',
()
s
\\
I
-5
\\
i' 260 Ol'/
s 1
a
.I 9
7 90711CC 4
S
,*, o gg o p %
_P*
e
","S.,
a-M%
.* f ) <
- H*-
- b M*t
- 8
- e
-W
y
.g,.,
Q ':
- i,.. ~c i".. li;.2.x x..,,. i. =
~
....T.:::
~
The Department of Energy is pleased to ear as a member of this s
panel to discuss the draft Report on Institutional Aspects of the nation's low level radiation research and protection programs.
I will address the three major segments of the paper - research and its coordination, radiation protection and standard setting, and finally
}
the desirability of an overall coordination mechanism for a..
the health, safety, and environmental aspects of the national radiation program.
It is important to note that the Task Force recommendations are pre-liminary and should not be taken to prejudge any final Acministration proposals.
RESEARCH Let me discuss research first.
The issues before this Subcommittee today concern the ways in which research into the effects of low-level ionizing radiation will be done in the future to ensure a thorough and comprehensive program to discover and specify the human and environmental effects of radiation-related technology.
Such studies must be pursued vigorously, must be fully open to public view, and must be conducted in a timely manner by the best qualified scientists of the nation. Studies by all agencies must r
be coordinated to ensure a focus on the most important unresolved issues, to prevent unnecessary duplicatiun of efforts when resources are limited and to yield results which can be used to make technology
[
as safe as possible, as well as to provide information to the regulatory agencies for the formulation and refinement of health and safety protection standards.
$%/ ljd ULU
..... ~...
-: t g.
^..,
- ^,.,
'L C.:
.a.c..-,..<~...-.-
~
.-:e
~ *.=__,
--^w.=.K
~
~-
The report on Institutional Arrangements has only been out for public comment since April 16, and the Department of Energy has not yet completely formulated its response to this important aspect of the White House directed study.
The task force has dealt with four major issues:
A.
A clear definition of all radiation hazard problems, whether from natural or man-made sources, and the establishment of priorities for their resolution by a process that involves both the public and the Federal Government;
.a B.
A clear delineation of responsibility for the development of research approaches aimed at resolution of each of these problems by one or more specific Federal agencies; C.
A system for resolving interagency problems so as to facilitate effective coordination of bota the research programs and the progress toward resolution of problems among the agencies; and 3
D.
A method for tir.ly reporting to the public, the President and q
, 'y the Congress on progress in solving research problems plus a
,)
clear statament of any major obstacles preventing their timely
't resol ution.
7 260 02 l
.....v,.,v,...m,.,.,,
-w.
.,... ~.., -
~
e','..",K
_-j,'., ' '..
... a.
~
d
~
[
- j'.'
/. 4 -/[;'..e. u,.. (-/. '.T - w.
{ '..,L...'. * '
J.:- L..
.9..x.
~..
The preamble of the section on research states that ionizing radiation research should use all available resources and all
[
possible approaches "to reduce the scope of uncertainty in estimates of risk of injury from radiation and to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms of radiation injury and biological repair."
As early as the mid 1950s, HEW was charged with monitoring radiation in the air, water, milk and other food products. This function was broadened in '959 to include questio,*s of public health as affected
' c, by fallout from nuclear weapons.
7
[
The draft report raises a number of " Issues for Resolution" with respect to the proposed Radiation Research Committee. These include methods for the assignment of resear:h responsibility to various Federal agencies and Departments, systems for conflict resolution, and means for ensuring that regulatory agency research needs are met. Other relevant issues that are discussed under the heading of Committee functions are determinations of criteria for research management, mechanisms for reviewing research project status, and techniques for involving the public in Committee
'il deliberations.
.i.
In Public Law 95-622, the Congress directed the Secretary of Health,
~
Education and Welfare to undertake a comprehensive review of Federal 0
research 01 the biological effects of ionizing radiation. That study is now underway, under the direction of the Director of the
.h National Institutes of Health, Dr. Donald Fredrickson. As specified 260 022
.~,
- (..
+..,. <,:. w : L A.c...-. -.. ~ ~.:~ ~. ~ 7
~ ~>
8 in the floor sta+ement of one of the co-sponsors of the provision (Representative George E. Brown, Jr., of California CR H 13575, October 14,1978) the review is to include:
a review of program goals, conduct and management, a review of scientific peer review, review of the responsiveness to public health and safety needs, h
including the needs of regulatory agencies or departments, and an assessment of the options for future direction such research.
DOE's involvement in radiation research has had a broad statutory
-[
basis since 1946.
It has included a broad spectrum of biological effects, ranging from effects on man to fundamental studies on the interaction of radiation with biological molecules. This research has been aimed at better understanding the processes by which radiation damages biological materials, the nature of the damage, and possible means to prevent or reverse the damage once it has occured.
3 Historically, epidemiological studies have not been a major segment of the DOE programs, except for support of the Radiation Effects
)
Research Foundation in Japan.
Instead, they have been largely within
}-
the purview of other Federal agencies. We have undertaken some large studies of DOE and DOE contractor employees in an attempt to learn whether the standards promulgated by the government were adequate to protect the health of the workers in our facilities.
'[60 0 2. U
,.,......,..,.i.~~u.~,:
..s-
~
~
.....~..'. ^.
Q'
.... -* n:.:n.
- c.,.a. ; :-
.. - L..,~ :.. '
L...s..%-:.
^
We have also initiated se. dies on uranium miners (smokers and nonsmokers), on radiun dial painters, on persons exposed to the therapeutic use of thorotrast which contains thorium, and other special g,
groups of individuals exposed to known levels of radiation which seemed to offer a more concrete basis for relating the dose to effects in man.
The results of such s'udies have been published in the foremost scientific journals of the world and have been used both by those favorir,g the use of atomic energy and those opposed to its use. The results have been
[
used by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, c
1 the National Conmittee on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the National Academy of Sciences Advisory Committer Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency in the development of their guidelines and standards.
The DOE laboratories that conducted much of this research have been i
open to -ill Federal agencies for their separate support or for joint support. Furthermore, we in the Office of Environment have urged that
't scientist in these laboratoriec ;e encouraged to publish their work in peer review journals. We have sought out the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency to determine their research needs in attempts to direct our programs to assist them y
while at the same time obtaining results to help guide the Department's own operations toward minimum exposures. We have actively sought joint support and management of some of our major programs.
e 260 02?
- .?
..b.
.a i-
'5.. ':
- -. ::.,.... & &..-L a...; w... -. "..,
?' :..- L..:
x.
In summary Mr. Chairman, I believe that the DOE scientists Adminis-tering our healtn and environmental programs have been diligent in their efforts to lay before the decision makers at all times the best that the scientific community could offer regarding assessment of hazards.
I would like to spend one minute on the question rais:a in the draft report concerning a possible conflict of interest within D0E.
-t The Assistant Secretary for Environment has been made responsible within the Department for ensuring that environmental, health and safety considerations were introduced early into the decision making process on energy sources and that they were tracked throughout the 3
energy development process to commercialization.
It was recognized for the ASEV to discharge that responsibility, there was a need for a strong, independent health, environmental and safety research Y
program closely coupled w:th each developing technology in o 'er to
~
provide an early resolution to possible hazards. More precise and fuller informatica thus gained can be used to modify energy production processes to yield an environmentally acceptable energy source.
1.,;
Therefore, environmental iss"es and research are linked to each stage of decision and policy formation and energy technology development.
'?
$7 This strategy is both preventative and economical.
It assures that 1
environmental issues will be recognized, researched, and dealt with as early and as objectively as possible. Additionally, it assures that technology development will factor into the engineering process s
.?
the controls necessary to provide health and environmental protection.
260 025
.. m.
v..,.
x,., q w.. v.
. p r. - + -
-w - _-
.. ~...... -,.
3.
-e.,
~
.L
- ~.'.~_.-
+ :,.,- 2,n.-z a.. :..
. r - -
.... ~. /.
- u :. c ~. +
While the environmental, health, and safety R&D and assessa?nt are closely coupled to the energy develo;r,ent process, their conduct and evaluations are carried out independently of the technology developers.
Thus, warnings cannot be erased nor prot,lems ignored only to be discovered later.
^
RADIATION PROTECTION Let me turn now to the subject of radiation protection goals and standard setting, jurisdictional responsibilities, and related alternative action. As aptly stated in the draft Report on Instit9-tional Arrangements, the overall goal of radiation protection is to
" ensure adequate protection of workers, the general public and the environment from excessive exposure." An alternative term could be "any unwarranted exposure," in the context of the worker, the public, and the environment. The latter term connates the avoidance of any exposure unless there are valid reasons for accepting 5
ft.
The Report advances several general elements to be considered in 3
1 more effectively achieving this goal.
In brief, these include the need C
to:
T.
- Improve effectiveness through enhanced coordination and
~
further clarification of responsibilities,
- Establish authority to act when jurisdictional divisions are r
- unclear,
- Exchange ideas among agencies, and 4
- Establish a closer working relationship with the pr:vate 260 026
~ ~ 3 u- ~. e;.
,.,...y(..-.., y;m. g,
.w a
- ~~L'"?
r' : *- n.~ '
.~-'
> ~-
- - ;-i. '
a:
. w.
~~
.b.
~
.- l *
.)
E.
, '- 'e
- ey
_y
.. ~
- ; ~.
sector by promoting the participation of environmental and conswr.er groups, industry, professional societies, labor unions, and technical committees such as NCRP, ICRP and IAEA in the interagency coordination process.
,-'~
The need for considering these elements in a structuring of any new institutional arrangements is essential. These arrangements must not only assure active participation of each Federal Agency with jurisdic-
~
tion in this area but there must also be assurance that mechanism will
.i include more active participatinn by the private sector. One of the more salient ber.! fits is, of course, enhancement of public confidence.
Is there a general need to reunnk functions, responsibilities, and
[
possible solutions within the Federal government? The report conclu;es that present provisions for establishing radiation protection policy are inadequate.
In practice, guidance authority in the radiation protection area can best be termed " ambiguous" and insufficient resources have been devoted to this responsibility even though g
the problem is by nc means new. Similar findings wecc niade in 1957 during extensive hearings by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and again in 1959, prior to the establishnent of the Federal Radiation
..~
Council (FRC), in a study by Dr. Robert Cutler of the Bureau of the Budget.
'f (Dr. Cutler studied the problem in an effort to find a solution that would be acceptable to the Federal agencies and be credible to the public.)
Clearly the draft Institutional Arrangements Report parallels those same
~
concerns and provides a realistic assessment of the situation.
-?
260 027
~..,. -.,....,.n.,..a,,.-s....~..,.
~
- ~,. ~,
,3, 3--,
.. ?
x*
.r,.
- .f.
- v... -.. + r k 'k. 2
..w. w.. r - :- '.
- .' a ~ ~ w-
.c 9-Mr. Chairman, your letter (1) dated August 15,1978, to the
~
Honorable Walter F. Mondale most appropriately states the problem, and I quote in part:
The effectiveness of Federal programs to protect the public from radiation hazards is clearly a matter of wide spread concern." At present, radiation health and safety is a particularly complex and varied field
~5 involving a large number of Federal departments, : omissions and agencies. The public rightfully expect; an orchestrated Federal approach to these hazards.
Your letter to the Vice President transmitted the opinions and coments
- l...' '
expressed by a wide variety of informed groups and individuals in the Drivate sector. Two basic mechanisms have been proposed as alternatives
.. s for improving interagency coordination leadership and public input.
The concept of a lead agency and an interagency radiation protection committee was presented. The report further addresses possible methods for resolving issues that such mechanisms could not
~
themselves resolve.
- j s
1,'.
The lead agency approach could simply perpetuate current probleas, p
particularly with regard to coordination and leadership on issuance i
of radiation protection guidelines. The other approach has the
~
3 260 028 (1) Comittee Print - Federal Regulation of Health and Safety:
Organizational Problems and Possible Remedies - Prepared by Comittee on Governmer,tal Affairs, U.S. Senate - August 1978.
c...
.. - -,.....,,.,,,.. -,. -.. ~.
~.... -
r
' ' 3'.n.....a',-:::G,,*
3. ~ _.'
-j.,,
...c=.+..<~:......
v.--:
.(.
~..
c-
' < : = ';-
following positive significant features:
1.
It provides a br)ad base for development of Federal policy on radiation exposure.
2.
It biings to bear all of the resources of the relevant Federal agencies, and
~
3.
It provides for the anticipation and early coordination of actions and issues.
Such an interagency committee would have to have certain basic character-istics.
It would have to encourage active, high-level participation of the departments and agencies affected by its decision.
It would
.~ -
need to have adequate resources -- both financial and personnel -- to conduct 4
the studies it considers necessary.
It would have to assure opportunities for participation by the public, including professional societies, labor unior.3, industry, environmental groups, and state and local government agencies. And it would have to establish effective methods for requesting and receiving the assistance of the nation's scientific and technical community, stressing the inclusion of credible, independent participants.
]
And finally, it would need to provide a mechanism for resolving interagency disagreements.
.t
}'(
OVERALL C0 ORDINATION
~
.l The draft Institutional Arrangement Report also discusses the need
~
for an additional body to provide coordination and leadership for
~.
all Federal radiation research protection policy.
The Report's view that radiation research and protection activities should be y
linked is a sound one. However, rather than establishing a radiation
</(
f 9(!
O I'
~.
..-.....- -...,,..~.
v.-..~~
-.-~..w.
.,e
~
~
w -
y..
r.
.u.
- ~ 'i. - : c - --
' "=-
'^
~ -
11 Coordinating Council that cou1J hamper policy-making by Introducing an extra layer of decision-making, another approach might be to place the research activities and the radiation protection activities under separate comittees and let these comittees be required to coordinate through liaison and consultation. The functional responsibilities proposed for the Council concerning radiation protection policy and
. J.
issues would logically be part of the charge of the Interagency Radiation Protection Committee.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.
I will be pleased to
.~
respond to any questi ns you nay have.
. ~
4 64.
.4-Uk e
d e
. SD en a
3 f.
^W IE
-i
[ l i
e
-~
7 260 030 O
.., -., go.. w r ~ s..w i. ~ ~ -- T ~.~ ~ ~ n <
- ~*~~
.