ML20129J306
| ML20129J306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/02/1976 |
| From: | Minogue R NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Karen Chapman, Rusche D, Volgenau E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129J281 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-309 NUDOCS 8507220452 | |
| Download: ML20129J306 (2) | |
Text
_..
- ,3-.
,g ey m,,m a,nu; u. c m,-.-
u s
($
o i
' NDY 2 '. !Bic v
D. C. Ru:che, Director, Office of Huclear Reactor Regulation
' X. R. Chapman, Director. Office of fluclear ;!aterial Safaty 5 Safeguards E. Volqcnau, Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcer.ent S. Levine, Director, Office of i:uclear Regulatory Rescarch
, J.. A. Harris,. Director, Office of Public Affairs
' STAFF REVIEd 0F 14A;iCUSD, STEWART, XMEALE PAPER Enclosed for your infor=ation is a comorandu:n of :fovceber 16, 1976,
. rep 6rting the conclusions of a technical review by staff from SD, RES, and EDO of the recent popor by !!ancuso, et al. The paper describes an analysis of the causes of rmrtality of for cr we,rhers at Hanford Laboratory.
. Tho'0ffice of Standards Davelop=ent has revier d the staff repor'.
He aCree with the staff reviewers' conclusiens that the paper by Mancuso, et al, does not warrant regulatory action at this tics to
. change citiieFthe cose liniting regulations of 10 CFR or the cathods
. of analysis of radiation effects now in use by i:RC staff. There is
' continued assurance that activitics licansed in accord witn the cur-rent regulations provido protection of the health and safety of the
., public and radiation worker:.
I am asking the Offica of Public Affairs to consider preparation of c press announcement describing the conclusions of this f!RC staff revicw. Such an announcement ecy be warranted as follcu-up on the
- press interest and coverage of the Hancuso report in late Oc~tober.
~
' Dr. Michael Parsont of SD coordinated the~ staff review of the Mancuso report. He is available to aid your staff representatives in preparation for hearing or other activities where the report is likely to be a contested issue.
Further actions in this field which should be considered are:
c A.
The data from the AEC !!aalth and Mortality Study should be carefully analy:cd to dotemine whether or not there are any discernible radiological health effects in e.ployces.of nuclear power plants and other installati.pns F?.ndling radio-o activa r:aturials.
This is of tho highest priority.
~
B507220452 850524
^-
I
!2
~'
o..
1
-e.
e.
~
B.
Any other partinent 'Jata in addition to those of the AEC I!calth and Mort.ality Study should also be analyzed to acclify tne above analysis.
C.
If possibic, establish fred: the analysis of t!nse data, esti!.utes of risks of radiation exposure resulting from
- licensed operations under present rsJiation protection standards.
D.
Establish an ongoing !!RC prdgram in radiation epidemiology for the p.urposes given above which also can serve as a resource for responding to questions on the ctiology of
~
radiological effects.
Consideration should be given to the possible need for E.
epidemiological study of workers employed in !:RC licensed, J
activitics.
I will be speaking with the Office of :{uclear Regulatory Research within the next few weeks to initiate for:c.ulation of a plan of action for !!P.C efforts along these lines.
's Robert 3. P.inogue Director
. 0ffice of Stan::ards Cavalopmant
Enclosure:
I As stated.
i r'
cc: ~1.ee V. Gossick, EDO Chaircan Rowden Comissionar ::asen Corr.issioner Gilinsky Co::cissioner Y.ennedy 2
=
O e
4 s
--