ML19309H427
| ML19309H427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/24/1980 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Ribicoff A SENATE, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309H428 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005130221 | |
| Download: ML19309H427 (3) | |
Text
80'0513011I R
t' e
pua UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
2 E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5.m #
April 24, 1980
- .+
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Ai,raham Ribicoff Chairman Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter responds to your request for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's views regarding S.1938, the " Federal Padiation Protection Management Act of 1979." Title I of the proposed bill would establish a Federal Council on Radiation Protection (the " Council"), which would among other things advise the President with respect to radiation matters affecting health and safety, review the authority of any Federal agency to regulate in areas concerned with radiation, and identify research needed to assess risks to human health from radiation exposure. Title II would establish the Conference on Federal Research into the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (Conference), which would advise the President with respect to related Federal research activi-ties, formulate an annual Federal agenda for such research, and recommend review standards and information dissemination procedures.
The aims of S.1938 are similar to the aims of Executive Order 12194 of February 21, 1980 and the Presidential Memorandum issued on the same date.
Accordingly, we think consideration of S.1938 should focus on a comparison with the President's Order and Memorandum.
E.0. 12194 established the Radia-tion Policy Council and assigned to it functions similar to those to be per-formed by the S.1938 Council. The President's Memorandum established the Interagency Radiation Research Committee to coordinate Federal research on biological effects of ionizing radiation. Thus there have now been estab-lished by Presidential action two advisory groups analogous to those which S.1938 would create -- one to coordinate Federal radiation policy and the second to review Federal radiation research efforts.
There appears to be little difference between the level of membership on these bodies as provided for in S.1938 and the Executive Order.
S. 1938 would designate agency heads or their designees as representatives. The Executive Order provides for representation by agency heads or their desig-nees at the equivalent rank of Assistant Secretary or higher. We believe that the Assistant Secretary level is consistent with creating a good working atmosphere while still maintaining sufficient authority to put radiation pro-tection decisions into operation.
The Federal agencies to be represented on the Council and the Conference created by S.1938 differ only slightly from the membership of the groups created by the Presidential actions.
Representation by members of the F
The Honorable Abraham Ribicoff 2
public, which S.1938 would provide for, could be useful.
Neither of the groups established by the Executive Order or Presidential Memorandum has public representation.
S.1938 provides subpoena power for both the Council and the Conference. We believe this authority could be useful, at least for the Council, to assure increased cooperation on the part of witnesses. The Conference, being pri-marily a research review group, should not need subpoena power.
In any event, a problem calling for exercise of the subpoena power might well be suffi-ciently serious to be bandled by the Council. The Executive Order does not authorize subpoena power.
Section 105(2)(A) of S.1938 contains language which could be misleading.
This section requires that within a year of enactment of the Act the Federal Council on Radiation Protection shall prepare and transmit to the Congress a report that:
" sets forth a plan which--(A) provides for the phased reduction, to the maximum extent and within the shortest period practicable, of occupationally related radiation exposure to workers in applicable occupations and of radiation exposure from medical and other resources to the public,"
The requirement that occupational and medical radiation exposure be reduced "to the maximum extent practicable" should be qualified to take into account that such exposures involve expected benefits which must be weighed against the potential hazards. We suggest that additional qualifying language be included as follows:
"(A) provides for the phased reduction, to the maximum extent and within the shortest period practicable, takino into account the expected benefits associated with the exposure,...."
One of the more important differences between S.1938 and Executive Order 12194 is their handling of the former Federal Radiation Council (FRC) func-tions, for which the Environmental Protection Agency currently has respon-sibility.
S.1938 would transfer the FRC functions to the Federal Council on Radiation Protection. The Executive Order leaves the FRC functions with EPA but specifies that these functions shall be reviewed by the Council. This action follows more closely the recommendations of the Interagency Task Force on the Effects of Ionizing Radiation (the "Libassi" Committee) than does S. 1938.
However, the Task Force recognized that most Federal agency com-ments favored reconstitution of the FRC or creation of a separate but similar agency and recommended that any Policy Council that is formed should decide how to allocate former FRC responsibilities. We would support any arrange-ment that would assure more effective performance of FRC functions. There-fore, we will make recommendations on improving the FRC functions to the Federal Radiation Policy Council.
In general, we believe that there is merit i
l in recreating an interagency coordinati'g body, similar to the former FRC but
The Honorable Abraham Ribicoff 3
with expanded functions and better-defined procedures for addressing agency concerns and providing for increased public participation.
S. 1938 would provide a significant step in this direction.
Although S.1938 appears to offer some advantages, we believe on bala7P,c that the Committee should wait until there has been an opportunity to judge the effectiveness of the Presidentially established Radiation Policy Council and Interagency Radiation Research Committee rather than go ahead now with action on S. 1938.
If experience with these bodies indicates that a need for legislative action remains, suggestions for refining or modifying the present version of S.1938 will be more soundly based.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Sin erely, L
/
John F. Ahearne i
,