ML19241A359

Transcript of Testimony of RB Minogue at 790508 Hearings Before Subcommittee on Energy,Nuclear Proliferation & Federal Svc of Committee on Governmental Affairs Re Research & Regulatory Issues of Radiation Protection

ML19241A359
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	05/08/1979
From:	Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
To:
Shared Package
ML19224D154	List: ML19224D153 ML19224D155 ML19224D156 ML19224D157 ML19224D158 ML19241A359
References
FOIA-81-77 ACRS-SM-0130, ACRS-SM-130, NUDOCS 7907110010
Download: ML19241A359 (15)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:'f_; ^:L . 7;. : ... 2 wA...... .~ y. ..... ~.. _,.. ..s TESTIMONY OF ROBERT B. MIN 0GUE TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION, ~' AND FEDERAL SERVICES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS May 8, 1979 My name is Robert Minogue. I am the Director of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Office of Standards Development. Among the functions of this office is the responsibility for developing radiation protection ,[ standards for the activities regulated by the NRC. I am also the Comission's representative on the Interagency Task Force on Ionizing Radiation chaired by Mr. Peter Libassi, General Counsel of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. NRC staff members participated extensively in the activities of each of the sub-groups of the Task Forc e. We believe that the seven draft reports issued for public comment provide a thorough and comprehensive examination of the a principal issues concerned with Federal activities in the area of 5 , Q. ionizing radiation. Tod1y I would like to describe the responsibilities of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission for setting radiation protect.~.. standards and discuss possible mechanisms for improving the coordination of Federal radiation protectice activities. The Nuclear Regulatory

h Commission has a legislative mandate to protect public health and b

safety for activities that involve the production, use, or disposal q 9 '71l# 0 _,.7.. m...., .. =.... .;., 3 ya_.u,..... -

^ '6, * [ ~ .i. .s;. .y-a..' o s v : 3 ',W A re'.'*; .... c o.. .~,s w. ~~ 1/ 2/ of source materials -, special nuclear materials , or byproduct 3/ materials This mandate arises frcm the authorities of the 4/ Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Ener gy Reorganiz.'.- 5/ tion Act of 1974, as amended The Energy Reorganization Act trans-ferred these authorities to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and abolished the fomer Atomic Energy Comission (AEC). The Atomic Energy Act authorizes the Commission to establish such standards and instructions / to govern the possession and use of these materials as the Commission 6/ deems necessary or desirable to protect health'~. The Energy Reorganization Act also provided NRC with authority for ,k conducting confimatory research activities necessary to support its regulatory functions. The Interagency Task Force on Ionizing Radiation specifically recognized the importance of meeting the information needs c of regulatory agencies in planning a comprehensive program of radiation resea rch. In addition to having these fundamental research needs addressed, the NRC also needs to retain its own capability for perfoming confimatory research and technical support activities to address -3 1/ Source materials are natural uranium and thorium ores and their r -{ concentrates i 2/ Special nuclear materials include uranium enriched in uranium-235, f uranium-233, and plutonium ~ 3/ Byproduct materials include radioactive materials which are produced in conjunction with the use of special nuclear materials or which result frca the production of source materials 4/ The Atcmic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, P.L. 83-703 (68 Stat. 260 03. 919 et seq.) 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. = 1 5/ The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, P.L. 93-438 (88 Stat. 1233 et seq.) 42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq. 6/ Chapter 14, Section 161, paragraph b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended y',*' .n.,

=

a.._==. o,= -,e p o,s;g.. - . - <. - ~

s... x,

., y. .s

I..[ .., b h :c d M.c...._...,.. . b -B.. I /

bO.. U..h.

specific regulatory infomation needs. AEC's standard-setting authorities were modified by Reorganization Plan 7/ No. 3 of 1970' ~" which transferred the authority for setting generally applicable environmental radiation standards from the fomer Atemic Energy Commission to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition to establishing and enforcing its own standards, the NRC retains the responsi-bility for enforcing, for activities it regulates, the generally applicable environmental standaros established by EPA. The radiation standards

• established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its predecessor, the AEC, control both occupational radiation exposure and exposure of members of the public from licensed operationr.

9 ~ Tnese standards follow the Fr feral rt i1.-tion guidance prepared by the fomer Federal Radiation Council and the Environmental Protection Agency. Within the context of existing Federal radiation guidance, NRC has the responsibility of eliminating unnecessary radiation exposures and g ensuring that every effort is made to keep radiatiaii exposures within ,} the Federal Radiation Protection Guides, and as far below these guides as is practicable. The NRC regulations, regulatory guides for licensees } on acceptable methods of ccmplying with these regulations, a.1d regulatory ( actiers such as ifcensing and inspection and enforcement have embodied NRC's philosophy of keeping radiation exposures "as low as is reasonably \\ achievable" (ALARA) which is consistent with this Federal guidance. S 7/ Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, Section 2 (6). ,2 6 0 ,u,; g These standarus are contained in our regulations in Part 20 of Title 10 of the Ccde of Federal Regulations.

a.,. :. n,..,.,...

,j._

.s'em.N$l;~$'.'.;%.a;..,.en.f- .;l l.-

y y:..

~~,....w. . $l. .. '

• A D. &.$.;

t. .,i ~ ~ - The NRC's authorities for setting radiation protectico standards are intensive rather than extensive. By this I mean that they apply to a limite'd range of radiation-producing activities. The NRC's standard-setting authnrities ipply to commercial nuclear energy and most of the nuclear fuel cycle and to peaceful applications of sourte, byproduct, a'nd special nuclear materials. These activitives comprise only a small portion of the total number of sources of ionizing radiation and contri-8/ bute only a small fraction, less than 10 percent , of the estimated i total radiation exposure received by the U.S. population.

However, p

many of the activities that NRC regulates have the potential for causing larger significant individual and population radiation doses. The number of sourtes of ionizing radiation is a principal factor to consider in improving the coordination of Federal radiation research and radiation protection activities. Two of the principal sources of radiation exposure are naturally-occurrir.g radioactive material and cosmic radiation. These natural radiation sources comprise the major single contribution to radiation exposure of the U.S. population. They ,L not only irradiate the entire U.S. population but also may result 7 in significant increases in radiation exposure to certain segments ,f. 8_/ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radiological Oulity of the Environment in the United States,1977 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report EPA 520/1-77-009 (September,1977) Chapter 1. supplemented by NRC data. Natural background radiation accounts for approximately one-half of the total radiation dose and medical 1 and dental radiology for 36 cercent, together totaling apprcximately '.~ 85% of the total dose. Technologically enhanced natural radicactivity (phosphate mining, etc.) contributes over 7%. NRC licensed activities contribute about 8.5t of the total U.S. population dose and radio-phamaceutical use accounts for about 97% of this centribution. y], Nuclear power, its fuel cycle, and occupational exposures together cv.ribute less than 0.3% of the total radiation dose received by the U.S. population. 260 DM-- ~

~' ~.;, ~ ~ . w.. 2.%.k.'w.. .*h L. : .n.-.* :. -: " :. h. :. a '.-:. :. ..i of the population such as people living at high altitudes, aircraft crews, and members ^f the general population residing in brick and stone buildings or workers engaged in underground mining or phosphate production activities. In addition to enhancing exposure to natural radiation. man F s also created numerous sources of ionizing radiation. These sources rr.nge from electronic products such as X. ray machines, television receiver, and particle accelerators to radioactive materials produced in nuclear reactors and radioactive fallout frem atmospheric nuclear tests. Radiation is widely used in the practf(e of medicine. This diversity of radiation sourtes exceeds the scope of authority O of any single Federal agency. As recognized by the Comnittee's Study on Federal Regulation , there are Faderal agencies that have resportibility for radiation protection mv/ activities. The nrber of agencies with such responsibilities is, in part, a consequence of the diversity and pervasiveness of the sources of ionizing radiation. Reorganizations and new environmental and health protection legislation enacted since the late 1960's have also resulted in proliferation of radiation protection responsibilities. In a few cases, this has created areas of overlapping agency authorities resulting in some duplication of efforts', in gaps in and non-aniform protection of the public, and in the ineffective allocation of resources. To the a.*r ' ) extent pennitted by the diversity of radiation sources and agency mandates, scoe consolidation, better coordination, and a clearer delineation of the responsioilities of various Federal agencies would { lead toward more uniform and effective protection for all segments s 1/ Ccmmittee on Governdental Affairs, United States Senate, Study on Federal Regulation, Vol. 5, Section E., Senate Dccument No. 95-91 (December 1977) pp. 325-339. 260 03;a ,,.;. j. 7,, g.,g y y 7.

r...;. 7. -. 7,.,..,...

s

.)) * .~ ,, ' ^ ,[ '. ~. v-. ,..,,1,' * ~ > A '" ' * ~;~ [ M' f .a'.. ehe. % :.*.+. ' '. A ':-: -.. r ee. ' ' ' ^ ~ ^ ' a. . ~. of the population. Radiation protection responsibilities reside in a number of Federal agencies for a variety of reasons. Often radiation is a small i component of a larger public health or safety issue for which the agency is responsible, e.g. transportation, safety and efficacy of ~ drugs, or environmental pollution. Radiation protection must be achieved in a way that does not compromise other aspects of public health and safety. Therefore, we do not believe it is feasible to combine into a single agency all responsibility for radiation prctection. This would preclude examiniiig some public health and safety issues as a whole. However, we believe improvements can be c a made in radiation protection by better coordination among agencies. I do not plan to devote much time to exploring the various options for achieving improved coordination of Federal radiation protection activities. These options have been explored in detail in the Committee's S*up 9/ on Federal Regulation, in the public responses to the Committee's request for public input on the study--10/and in the draft report of the Interagency Task Force on Ionizing Radiation dealing with Institutional a i 2/ Arrangements Rather than summarizing and repeating the material in ? these resorts, I wculd like to focus my remarks upon one alternative in particular, that of reconstituting a body similar in organization and function to the fomer Federal Radiation Council (FRC). 10,/ Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, Federal Regulation of Radiation Health and Safety: Organizatienal Problems and Possible Remedies, Committee Print (August 1978) ]/ Draft Recort of the Interagency Task Force on Ionizing Radiation on Institutional Arrangements (April 17,1979) 260 036 =. .....n..

'. '...l, .l

• g.

.. u o. u: J, w.. ~ .' : :j :.+ -. s-; :~.' ~ x_ The Federal Radiation Council (FRC) provided a mechanism which enabled the President to issue radiation protection guidance to Federal agencies. This guidance, which reflected the best scientific knowledge as well as national policy considerations, proviced a common basis for Federal agencies to develcp radiation protection standards. The FRC also provideo' a forum for Federal agencies to coordinate their radiation protection activities, assess problems, and establish priorities. l(. It served as a mechanism for consultation among standard-setters, the agencies .l-with responsibility for implementing these standards, and radiation user agencies. These exchanges helped ensure that the basic standards would be

7. '.

practical to implement and enforce. Consulcation and coordination among agencies E has not been effectiva since the demise of the FRC as was noted in the Committee's --10/ report. Another factor supporting re-creation of the FRC is that until recently, the Environmental Protection Agency has not been active in implementing I, its FRC role. Although radiation protection issues may be too broad for a single agency ~ 10/ .-} to coce with adequately ~, a reconstitc. FRC could serve to coordinate and integrate radiation protection activities. For example, it could prcy 'ie ' $[ a forum for inter-agency assessment of how to apply in Federal activities the 7 information in the recently issued National Academy of Sciences report, "The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiations", with its dissenting minority view. In addition, a reconstituted FRC has administrative c. advantages in that it would have only a small central staff and would not ? create an additional large and expensive bureaucratic structure. By relying .y upon the collective expertise available from participating agencies, such O b. !) ~. .>>:s y ...m ~ .e e. ~ e - s~~-

. L ' _,, c ' ' 4l,;~;. .-i is.O D&k:.+..~ <,~t % O' ..~'.. i. '. '. ' ~ " " L.

• N = -

~:.

.. v ../ s .~ ~ an organization could augment the limits of expertise and breadth available 1. in a single agency. The organization and operating procedures of the fomer FRC would need some modifications in order to be fully effective in today's society. The

f..:

original FRC had limited functions: to advise the President on radiation matters, to reccmend propond Federal guidance to the President, and to 12/13/ q coordinate Federal-State interactions on radiation matters The FRC did not have authority for any general oversight of agency's implementation of Federal guidance, an effective mechanism for resolving interagency disputes, or mechanisms for ensuring adequate public participation in its deliberations.

3 Although the FRC guidance, once it was approved and issued by the President, was generally accepted by Federal agencies and reflected in their regulations

+ 14/ .,. 1 and activities, the FRC did not have authority to compel adoption of the I-guidance or to ensure adequate implementation by all agencies. The authority for ensuring adequate implementation resulted primarily frcm the fact that the membership of the FRC consisted of agency heads and Cabinet secretaries . ":t who had authority for ensu.4ing adoption of the guidance within their own ~ agencies or departments. I believe that sue limited role for overseeing y the implementation and enforcement of Federal guidance should be added to the x 12/ Execu.tve Orde" 10831, Establishing the Federal Radiat. ion Council ,a (1959) 7 _13/ Section 274h. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, which was enacted in Public Law 86-373 (1959). 3 14/ Testimony of Elmer 8. Staats, Deputy Director of che Bureau of the Budget, in Radiation Protection Criteria and St andards: Their Bases .l, and Uses, Hearings before the Special Suaccmmittee on Radiation of the Joint Ccemittee on Atemic Energy, Congress of the United SttMs, Eignt-sixth Congress (1960) pp. 98-105. n n 7.., ~ k

• I.
• % [ E

$0i#,N

• 7
• ,e

.#% - sup '. 8.

• A p

~ .e = . y.g.- ~ . a.a..u.:-ulw. u. 2t ' w.a. 2:: 2L- 3.

' ":.h.... L-:2: ^

~. 9-existing FRC authorities and that t'11s would strengthen the role of a reconstituted FRC. A reconstituted Federal Radiation Council should have mechanisms for resolving differences and concerns raised by affected agencies. The r; Council should permit the views of all agencies to be aired without requiring unanimity on decisions so that one or a few agencies could not create an impass or block Council actions. One way of achieving this goal would be to provide for a majority vote in decision-making together with dn opportunity for dissenting agencies to made their views ~ ~ known to the President, but with a clear mandate in the charter of the the Council to move expeditiously even when unanimity is lacking. The Chainnanship of a reconstituted FRC could be either assigned permanently, rotated among the mer.bers, or be an individual designated by the President. 4 If an agency is to serve as permanent chair, I believe that the agency in this role should be a regulatory agency or health resesrch agency, ideally one involved with a broad range of public health concerr;, rather than a user agency. t 2[- The old Federal Radiation Council operated in a different era than the ' ('. present " government in the sunshine" :licate. There were few, if any, J_ provisions for keeping the public, industry, State agencies, or other Interested parties aware of the issues under consideration, progress being made, or the basis for decision-making. A primary modification ,3 to the operating procedures of the fonner FRC would be to ensure that there are mechanisms for providing public input into the deliberations not only in the formulation of proposed Federal guidance before it is f. 260 039 . p.,,

y; ~z m;;.y_yq. v - --.

_ w 3 p 3.c;.',.

.-.- ~

.,c. c,.*:= .L,. J,.U .1.;.Y./.M... . 4..... a. 'i_v : I. 5 m.- j Ji.3..i'...C.. ;. i submitted to the. President, but also in determining priorities for s Council action. Procedures should be instituted that would not only provide to the public infomation on the basis for decision-making .2 but also include provisions for obtaining comments or input from the public, the States, radiation workers and labor unicas, industry, and other interested parties prior to th' issuance of guidance or Other major actions taken by the Council. In summation, I believe that there is considerable merit in re-creating an interagency coordinating Council, similar to the former Federal ~ Radiation Council, but with expanded functions and better defined - 7 procedures for addressing agency concerns and providing for increased .. = public participation. Such a Council could provide means for improved coordination of the acquisition, analysis, and dissemination of data on radiation doses, environmental radioactivity levels, and the potential }. health consequences of low-level radiation exposure. In addition, the Council could provide a more centralized focus for information exchange with national and international scientific organizations. Such a central focus would simplify Congressional and public oversight of . s_ Federal radiation protection activities. I would also hope that such .j. } an organization would lead to the accelerated development of Federal radiation guidelines, in increased public confidence in Federal radiation 7 protection activities, in more efficient and more effective use of 4 agency resources, and in more uniform and more comprehensive protection y of public health and the environmant from the hazards of radiation. J- ,.y f '2()O O b b .4

.....m..-.~..g.,_......,,.;.,.,.x._

~.. - ...a a '# Jp.,7 1} \\ w I4 h*., r. "j 4 ,2 ? #' m ;%C:b 6' h yp.i

J

\\ %m' v'* hl m. - m =.,,,. s , jGl L ~~. h* s ( > + - \\.%i'.**kINFM. 4 h k h$ '.N

5

...-.~. - n ;. - ~,-- w. : s, ,s u < I ' em c.e.m-s+.m ; r.- . tia ' ..w. C,;- *., =:, ' h *.- } G g , y:M38' b h, 'i .s a. ** -- ,.m. a' - s. %-. s.a..,... :n,..-{7, 4 e g. y

v. -

g ~f. 5. ;.- g.) { \\.,p+ =. w 4 a s ,c I s J.[MlC,1 i;ek.M t6 " g,*.' )A s 1

• • g1

.g . e.:, t'!%%2 } .i.f. %3 O hd[7 'N. WM.", '.:.-42.f t v t.$-

u..y.- ;.y.:.~.o s. _

.e s r.. e t, R g c. <. w - -a - z 9 '!fj! a hhYh fD t. f s:td %.jty.,& <^2'~r' f,fS =* M.M.=.K- - h =>& 2 h[4]- - + v _.. A *~~~ iTQ i' .a ,i[ M2 =-n. T '31 7

• < ** I. -%.'.'*..

jf - '.

$g< Y _.fQ}, h h_ ff .se m eic 5' m

1. '5b$1,

.h; g }At l' I' h,Sf f., f., A . * %.. ~ t! y, 0 US-e$-i.is //" 'lgy2*" a .!. T.!ve (' ?r"' //lQ ..ax.r f"=s.c 2.2: g.Vw.;I 5 re 'l ~ a!.. i t t, in y -. -a ~ w@, vv: 71 C.G..j' h i ~ 21

b o

(; i a w2 y t 'n e u c-e M MJ !)p@ [ N, { C' the;a mNp c 1. om Y 2 2,T ny s%[T.% -.m

.v e -

~ m

== v.( wmo ~'.,fc../E I (~7 y l,, f,t t-

~;J e

= g-c num e M m y p ~; ~ ~~ ~O mm =m t 5 Y s.z QT pi \\ ?[ hr s: }L j =. ,lq $ 'h/ Ji 0 h $,4 UN d'% i TE 5 =. u m < m f. vs a 1 m.a = m h , 5'.l. - h k h .,4 *L A Q.f ~ L;c in .y -m .,d4 8s;2 m p

• ~ f

/ f&m 'Buf ^ >j.,,5 ~m lJ " e.~'L~ {, ~f ~G ~~~ ~ W -. ~G li Qm s" <p i / ~ l ~ i, 'A 7 ,? e \\,)s ' ~~ if '+'- / A Ei w s m \\ x A, 4 i&n i'9,9 (J 4 ; m. ,s, 1 jil q /_nv?.4 1- 's 5 %g \\ p:5 2 $?5?55?.$5 iWq g ~s r=7 g ~ ) __4:23S-4%stl

.11 9

'M~ M A iM" ,f f , 1, i i .2;RG w 2 +:.$l-1 / p

19 e x G i a \\/ u a 5 = ^w 2 9 Jl E H'E \\ a8t n t ,\\ bz cc = L_J m (% ', e,9"f-99 ' I

~

u s l ~ l S l / lh\\ l a 5 g en z =se i 8 =.as =328 I \\ EG m.i! e 2-tSin. R 3=

=== e = us e = e22 - 3=L* 3

szs=

= en 3 4 succ< 3 a ,? e 260 042

O' HORill HilW ~ ~~ ~~ HHE / l ilW IlE [' '..'\\ N I s \\/ )) N. WilW f' 's ElJE ' LEDAH01 156 l llARRISBURG R[ADillG x \\ N N 4 941 w W l CARLl5L M i u~L E o s gio w}D 'I

• L ANC A5

.p-7\\ n / 9Il 30 W5W s. 40 ESE Figure 3-3. Location of lietropolitan -'\\ / Edison Dosimetry Sites ' / 50 Outside of a five-flile / itadius for the period tiarch 28 through April 6,1979. ,W y se i 55W 55E 5

.. =... 22 m m = = W W E f W. =- 8 ? = = -= = 5 / ~ ^5 5 1 5J j / 2 u 3 r, 1:e a, r oc. a= m w g# \\ g \\e ..,h i e I 3 o i I \\ T i -a / CN E N / 3 O 'l /9 x5 a 3 323 a = = w .m saz - .8 2*n 9 uD =

s<

'G.E E s i! asa a o85b

• a e

=a 22*=

y eice s= 3 5 20,= 3 2k m G d< u n = en a =

== a5 a a 15 5 5 260 044 2 e

O' IJORTil I;HW ~// ~ ~~~ ~ IINE y ./ \\ l NW l 'p g, ', NE /. .\\ \\ \\ WHW \\ 7' ENE N i +5, 'hFDAll0li i lllARRISliURG lt[A0lHG N 3h \\ { y N Y{ .N \\ / 3)g,g y/' W EAIRISt.E g a / A \\ b~b K IO f,j\\' N)b / /fd 9 y syf. ~

• LANCA5 x

20 / L" s-4 # / YORK / 30 x x W5W \\ \\ 40 ESE s s s figure 3-5. tocation of Nuclear Regulatory / Consalssion Dosimetry Sites Out - ,,/ / 50 s side of a Five-Hile Radius for N _ /' / tiie Period March 31 through A iril 7. l [ sE SW \\ ~. / l ?, s T SSW ' 55E 5 '}}