ML20148G918
| ML20148G918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/02/1978 |
| From: | Ahearne J, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 7811130295 | |
| Download: ML20148G918 (37) | |
Text
', c.
j NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
r iN THE MATTER QF:
COMMISSION MEETING BRIEFING ON DISCUSSIONS WITH HEW ON HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW-LEVEL' RADIATION STUDY AND BRIEFING ON STATUS OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDER-STANDING WITH EPA
- ~
Wasaington, D. C.
Date.
Thursday, November 2, 1978 pag,
1 - 36 s
Teseocene:
("00)*.47 3700
'i ACI TEDE2.LL RI?ORTIES. INC.
~
~'
OtjicklReponen
.t U. Norm C =it=i Streef Msningen, 0.0 20C01 -
> g g 11 13.0 AcfS.
. NATICNWICE COVERACE CAlLY
-i
x...~
- -i.'
1 r
l~
CRH87 L I
b
. 1 1
j 1
DISCLAIMER i
1 This iscan unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission held on h rsday. Nov. 2,-1978 in the Comission's offices at 1717 H Street, N.
W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
Thi s. transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended. solely for general informa'tfonal purposes.
As provided by 10' CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.. Expressions of opinion in this transcript-do not necessarily reflect final detenninations or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Comission in-any proceeding as the result.of or addressed to any statement or argument contained herein, except.as the Comission may-authorize.
e
- e y
i h
L 5
s.
i la i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- 1187 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EJ all 3
4 COMMISSION MEETING 5
6 BRIEFING ON DISCUSSIONS WITH HEW ON HEALTH EFFECTS OF LOW-LEVEL RADIATION STUDY AND BRIEFING ON STATUS OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDER-7 STANDING WITH EPA 8
~
9 Room 1130 1717 E Street, N. W.
10 Washington, D. C.
11 Thursday, November 2, 1978 i
12 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m I
13 BEFORE :
14 JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 15 RICHARD T. KENNEDY, Commissioner 16 JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner 17 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 18 ALSO PRESENT:
I 19 H.
SHAPAR I
20 R. MINOGUE 21 W.
DIRCKS l
l
- 22 K. GOLLER 23 L.
GOSSICK 24-1
- .m. Fee trd Reporters, Inc.
-25 i
r i-f:
m
2 1
PROCEEDINGS 1187 ej all 2
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We are in order, I won't ask 3
you to come to order.
4 The item now is some discussion of several related 5
matters.
They have to do with various low level radiation studies 6
both in the sense of looking at radiation effects, and in the 7
sense of organizational matters within the government.
8 I guess a central theme here is, some time ago, HEW, 9
and notably their general counsel, Mr. I1 bassi, was asked 10 to pull together, to see what the government was doing and try 11 to get us all organized in connection with several questions on 12 low level radiation.
And our staff has been attending the meetings; 13 of that ongoing effort.
It seemed high time, and Commissioner 14 Ahearne, in particular, thought it would be useful if we heard 15 from the staff about that effort.
I have been hearing about it ommission as a whdle l 16 on a weekly basis at staff meetings, but the c l
l 17 has not, and I thought it would be useful to hear a report on l
18 that, what's going on and so on, allow some discussion, and 19 perhaps to some extent you can see how the Commissioners feel 20 about it, and that may be useful guidance.
I 21 There is a related matter on which we have to take I
22 some action, and that is that we are mandated under the law to i
23 carry out with EPA, a phase'l of the study on low level j
l 24 radiation matters.
The phase 1 is primarily that we and EPA n.Fecycl Reporter 1, Inc.
~
25 are to see how best one might define and scope what would l
3 4
+
I be a fairly wide ranging and long term epidemiological study 2
and we are mandated by the law to come to a formal agree-3 ment with EPA on what we are going to do about this phase 1 4
pa.rt of the study by November 18, or thereabouts.
5 So it is one of the things we will talk about this 6
morning, is the status of the discussions with EPA, and a 7
draft memorandum of understanding which, as I say, we need to 8
get in place here in a couple of weeks.
9 With that background, let me stop talking, and get l
10 on to the staff.
11 MR. GOSSICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If we may, 12 I think we best lead off with a discussion of the memorandum 13 of understanding.
Mr. Dircks has been working with EPA folks, 14 and I will ask him to describe that, and Mr. Go._ler will take 15 the other part of the discussion.
16 MR. DIRCKS:
Mr. Chairman, as you know, Section 5 17 of the Act required the cooperation between EPA, and NRC to i
18 develop the preliminary planning study.
j i
19 The Bill has not been signed yet, and --
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, so, let's see, we have got 21 30 days, but it hasn't begun to run yet?
22 MR. DIRCKS:
There are other dates in the Bill I 23 might just refresh your memory on, within 30 days af ter the i
24 enactment of the Bill, we are to enter into the memorandum of w.;:.c wei neconm, inc.
25; understanding delineating our respective responsibilities to l
l i
4 I
carry out this preliminary planning study.
2 By April 1, both agencies are required --
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could I ask Bill, does 4
EPA and NRC, is HEW in any way mentioned?
My recollection is 5
that it --
6 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes, they are.
And where both agencies are cautioned to keep them very much in mind as we go into this 7
8 thing, and consult with them frequently.
I should also mention, 9
that in the HEW authorization Act of 1978-79, they do talk about 10 a two-year effort, I believe, in HEW, to assess federal research k
11 in this area, and they specifically mentioned the NRC/ EPA 12 effort, and HEW was to build on our assessment of our needs 13 and EPA's needs in doing their own assessment, so there are 14 several intertwining respcnsibilities here.
15 MR. MINOGUE:
There is also a subset of HEW, the 16 Bureau of Radiological Health, which has some regulatory 17 responsibility, and the Committee staff has also made it clear 18 that they also want them involved in some direct way in this 19 process as a quasi-regulatory agency.
20 MR. DIRCKS:
And I might mention again, in the HEW
{
21 authorization, in this two-year research assessment effort, 22 that HEW is supposed to do, they want the National Academy of 23 Science to participate in this too, so there are several threads 24 running'through this fabric, and also, in our --
l
{-
- w. Fee tral Reporters, Inc, 25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY :
In speaking of HEW, we are I
5 1
taking into account the National Institutes of Health, which is 24 probably the greatest embodiment of the greatest epidemiological 3
effort that there is.
4 MR. DIRCKS:
Yes.
And, more than that, we are 5
cautioned to keep in mind what is going on in other scientific 6
and technical organizations, both inside and outside the Federal 7
Government, so it's a job we have to keep a lot of eyes on.
8 So, beyond that memorandum of under-9 standing, by April 1, both agencies are required to report to 10 Congress assessing our mutual capabilities and research needs 11 in the area of health effects of low level radiation.
12 And finally, by September 30, both agencies, after 13 consultation with HEW, are required to report again to the 14 Congress with a study of options for federal research efforts 15 in the area of health effects of low level ionizing radiation.
j 16 And, I did mention in the accompanying report, they stressed 17 the need for cooperation,both inside and outside stressing HEW.
18 Even before the passage of the Bill, members of 19 B6b Minogue's staff had been discussing this general topic, 20 among others, with EPA's Office of Radiation Programs.
The f
21 Bill was passed, I believe, on the 19th of October, and on the 22 24th of October, we sat down with EPA to meet with them and 23 sketch out a general framework, a memorandum of understanding.
i 24 Bob's people had already provided the basic raw materials for
..mJea tral Reporters, Inc.
~
25 such a memo.
I l
l
6 1
We met with the representatives of the Assistant 2
Administrator for Air and Waste Management.
In that meeting 3
was Ed Turck, who is program support man for Dave Hawkins, 4
who is the Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Manage-S ment. EPA would like to keep this at that level, the Assistant 6
. Administrator's level, which I think is an encouraging sign, 7
because they are very serious and sincere about proceeding 8
with this memo.
9 They also had people from their research program, 10 so they intend to carry out the effort, using the two 11 Assistant Administrators' programs.
12 From our side, we had people from the Office 13 of Standards Development, and from our research program at 14 the meeting.
We sketched out a basic document at that meeting 15 on the 24th, and yesterday, the two agencies met again, aul I I
16 am pleased to say we have reached agreement on a memorandum 17 of understanding at the staff level that the two agencies feel i
18 would solve our needs.
19 I think it is*important to note that in the mean-20 time we have discussed it in very brief outline form with 21 members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, and 22 of course, they don't want to be in a position of signing off 23 on_anything, but they don't have major objections to this, i
2d COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you plan on sketching it i'
m Fee was Reporters, Inc.'
25 for us' l'
7 1
MR. DIRCKS:
Oh, yes.
In fact, we intend to get 2
this down to you next week in the normal form that we send 3
.it down.
We didn't want to send down a document that we 4
felt would raise' objections on the part of outside groups.
We 5
want to make sure we have a document that' we feel all sides 6
can' live with.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What if we can't?
8 MR. DIRCKS:
Then we will go back and negotiate 9
another document.
10 The document itself will be down to you next week.
11 It is a relatively simple document, I can run through the basic 12 elements if you want me to.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it would be useful to 14 tick them off.
15 MR. DIRCKS:
It has about five or six major points.
16 The first point is that it establishes a five-member scientific 17 and technical review group, made up of representatives of EPA, l
18 NRC, and'a representative of HEW.
The chairman of the scientifilc, 19 technical review group would be nominated by the EPA.
20 We have'a mechanism there where NRC would nominate l 21 a program manager to be responsible for the administration of l
22 the feasibility and planning studies, and for.the submission 23 of the technical reports that the review group produces.
l 24 The second item in the memo of understanding is
- x. Fee,,w neaanen. toc.
l 25
.that we have a mechanism to solve, resolve conflicting points i,
t i
g 8
1 that may arise on the scientific review.
That would be referred 2
to Bob Minogue, and Dave Hawkins, who is the Assistant Administra-3 tor of EPA.
4 A third major point is that the memo requires the 5
two agencies to consult with other scientific and technical 6
organizations doing work in this area.
7 We stress the point that the staffs of NRC and EPA 8
vill be utilized in the preparation and work scopes, technical 9
and administrative management, technical and administrative l
10 management of the studies, and preparation of the report.
We 11 don't intend to. defer to contractors on that point.
12 The $500,000 that we have outlined for contractual 13 studies will be used for outside assistance in the prepara-14 tion of the report, but as I said, the reports themselves will 15 be the responsibility of the two agencies.
I might note on i
i-i 16 this point, that under our authorization Bill, we are establishing 17 a $500,000 contractual fund; EPA right now has indicated that 18 they don't have the money available, but that is a matter I l
l 19 think that we didn't want to negotiate in this memorandum of 20 understanding, and it may be taken up at a later date; where 21 they get their money from.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it obvious that more 23 than $500,000 is needed?
24 MR. DIRCKS:
Right now, it's not obvious.
We have ainFee wal Recomn, inc.
e 25
$650,000 in the Bill.
i i
I L
9 i
I I
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is that authorizdd, or 2
appropriated?
3 MR. DIRCKS:
Authorized, not appropriated.
i 4
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is any appropriated?
m-l 5
MR. DIRCKS:
Only within the General Accounting 6
Office.
7 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And that has to be done in 8
smaller pieces than some relatively small number also, other-9 wise it has to go back to the committees for approval, for 10 reprogramming.
11 MR. DIRCKS:
That's correct.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I just want to get a little 13 clearer on the last couple of items.
The $500K is contract, 14 travel -- this is not government staff salary, and benefits?
15 MR. DIRCKS:
That's right.
16 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So it's primarily contract, 17 but may also cover some travel expenses.
18 MR. DIRCKS:
We are asking for about $150,000 in 19 salaries and personnel expenses, on top of the $500,000.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
For us, and there will be other j
21 moneys in it in the sense represented by the salaries of other 22 government employees in other agencies.
23 MR. DIRCKS:
That's right.
24 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, second, the provision whic m Fa tral Recetters, Inc.
25 says'that the staffs of the two agencies will be used here, do
e 5
10 1
that again?
I can remember some early discussion of this 2
study, and our belief that if we were to have a major role in 3
it that it weald be necessary for us to contract out for much J
of the major portion of the professional manpower that would have -
5 to go into it, just because we didn't have that kind of people 6
available.
7 MR. MYMOGUE:
That is still what is contemplated.
8 To me, the significance of the working of the commitment 9
of EPA resources is just that, it's a commitment on their part 10 to make the manpower available.
That does involve some budgetary 11 burden.
12 The main body of money for the outside support 13 though is consistent with the figure we discussed with the 14 Commission last May.
15 COMMISSIONER AEEARNE:
Maybe I don't understand 16 number 4.
Way don't you repeat number 4.
17 FUt. DIRCKS:
It specifically says NRC and EPA 18 scientific and technical staffs will be utilized for the pre-l 19 l
paration of work scopes, technical and administrative management 20 l
studies, and preparation of necessary reports to Congress.
I 21 What we meant there, is that we are not going 22 to have a contractor prepare the reports to the Congress.
23 That is the federal agency responsibility, and we are not j
24
...fc2 rei neporters, Inc.
going to try to defer that to a contractor.
~
25 Okay, the final point is that both agencies will i
l
11 1
prepare the report, will jointly prepare the results of 2
assessments and needs.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
The joint report.
4 MR. DIRCKS:
The way it has been set up is that Lee 5
would sign for NRC, and the Assistant Administrator for Air 6
and Waste Radiation would sign for EPA, and the Assistant 7
Administrator for Research would sign for EPA.
Like you, the 8
two Assistant Administrators have not seen the document, so, 9
if they find major fault with ib, we will hear from them, too.
10 But, as I said, we will have this typed in final 11 draft form, and submitted to you next week.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, presumably you will be 13 checking around town, Committee staffs will be interested in 14 it, the other agencies we have to coordinate with it will be 15 interested in it, and so on.
So, you may not be able to 16 include all that coordination, the results of all that coordina-17 tion in the paper, but when we sit down to discuss it --
18 MR. DIRCKS:
I think we will have enough to warn 19 you of any major icebergs up ahead.
20 MR. MINOGUE:
Although there has been no coordina-21 tion on this specific MOU, there was a meeting in the offices 22 of the Committee, which involved HEW and BRH, EPA, and ourselvesl 23 which discussed some of the technical procedural difficulties, 24 so there has been some degree of coordination with the other m Fec test Reporters, Inc.
Y 25 agencies, particularly HEW, the various elements in HEW.
l i
12
-1 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Should we schedule a meeuing on 2
this, rather than run a consent item?
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I want to look at it.
4 I'm only thinking of the speed with which things can be done.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
First of all, we need to have 6
the pap'er so we can see what the words say.
,I think we ought 7
to schedule a me,eting, because it gives us a chance to hear 8
last minute reports from the staff, and to discuss, and make 9
any adjustments we want to make, so, we will try to work it in.
10 MR. MINOGUE:
There is an element of urgency here, 11 of course, in that the end dates are fixed by the law, regardles:s 12 of when it's signed.
And we need to set up a framework within 13 which we can get started, the major contractor who will do e
14 most of the work on this, and may well be, at this point, 15 another government agency.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Which one?
17 MR. MINOGUE :
The CDC, which is an element of HEW 18 which has very substantial body of epidemiological expertise.
19 It's their business.
I 20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Are there other comments on this 21 element of the
-- why don't we go ahead, then, and hear about l
22 the HEW effort to' pull together a number of things, and in whichi 23 this study of ours with EPA is one ongoing element.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
At some point will we describe P
si-Fac :r:A Reporters, Inc, 25 a little bit-about what we see our role to be given the fact i
i
.i e
13 1
the low level radiation exposures from nuclear related 2
activities is a miniscule portion of the low level radiation 3
to the population, and most of that actually is arising out of 4
medical treatment, with which we have little relationship.
5 MR. MINOGUE:
Okay, that is the epidemiological 6
study we have there, and the best place where you are liable 7
to get some data, and I think it is of particular significance 8
here.
We tried to base -- as for the ways the tri-state 9
study you have, the data quickly gets into the situation where 10 you don't know what the physical condition is, and that data 11 turns into garbage very quickly.
12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, now we have the memorandum
.j 13 of understanding, is that it?
14 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you 15 have already indicated, you requested the briefing on the inter-i 16 agency study of the health effects of ionizing radiation.
'17 This was a very timely request, because the status of this 18 effort is just now reaching a point where major policy issues 19 are being developed.
20 If I could have the first slide, plase?
21 1
(Slide.)
22 This effort, as you recall, was initiated by a 23 May 9, 1978 White House memo to the agencies indicated.
A copy ;
24 sm 7. cec Reconm. ine, of the White House memo itself is attached to the handhout which?yc; 25 i
1 have.
The memo assigned 3EW lead responsibility in the effort, j i
i i
14 1
and Mr. Peter Libassi, General Counsel of HEW, was.in turn 2
assigned leadership role in that effort.
3 The NRC, as an independent regulatory agency, is 4
not mentioned in the White House memo.
However, Mr. Libassi S
personally contacted the Chairman, and invited NRC participa-6 tion shortly after its receipt.
I might add that Mr. Libassi 7
asked me to mention to the Commission that he would be happy 8
to meet with them and brief them on the interagency study 9
at any time.
10 If I could have the next slide, please?
11 (Slide.)
12 The White House memo directed certain specific effodts 13 and the actual words in the memo are, "that a study or series 14 of studies which would determine the effects of radiation expostre 15 on participants in nuclear tests, including members of the 16 armed forces and civilian personnel, workers at at nuclear 17 facilities, and projects, and other persons as indicated.
A l
18 public information program to inform persons who might have been 19 affected, and the general public about the steps being taken, 20 and the conduct of these studies.
Three, a plan for ensuring 21 that persons adversely affected by radiatien exposure receive 22 the care and benefits to which they may be or should be 23 entitled, and,four, recommendations on steps which can be taken 24 to reduce the incidence of adverse radiation exposure of this
.w Fcr wel Reporters, Inc.
25 type in the future."
I i
i
15 i
1 If I could have the next slide, please?
2 (Slide.)
3 HEW implemented the studies by establishing the 4
work groups indicated.
Each work group had representatives 5
from several federal agencies, as appropriate.
The NRC was 6
represented on all work groups.
I believe that in most casen, 7
a representatives from the work groups is in the audience, and 8
can help answer any detailed questions that the Commission 9
might have on that group's activiteis.
10 It was originally intended to combine the products 11 from each of these work groups, plus that from a seventh
'12 summary group, into a single integrated report.
More recently, 13 it has been decided to publish the work papers from each of the 14 groups individually, and to prepare a summary report for sub-15 mission to the White House.
16 If I could have the next slide, please?
17 (Slide.)
18 This slide inicates the findings of the first work 19 group which actually combined two efforts on scientific informah l
20 tion.
The paper provides an excellent, and possibly unique 21 compilation and summary of radiation effects research performed,!
22 and in progress.
It was prepared by a very distinguished group 23 of scientists, who participated in its preparation, so the major; i
24 conclusions of the group are indicated on this slide.
m Fec wa RecotterN. imi.
?
n 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could I ask, is this 1
I s
-16 c
i:
,z 1
particular. work group the one'that addressed the issue of where-2
'should government research be coordinated?
l 3
MR. GOLLER:
No.
This work group did not, as I 4
will be. indicating, that is an effort that is still to come
~ l 5
.in the summary paper, and will be included in the report to j
6 the' White House.
\\
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You will be addressing 8
this later this morning?
i 9
MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir.
10 If I could have the next slide, please?
11 (Slide.)
12 The recommendations of the work groupsl and 2 13 on scientific information are indicated on this slide.
14 Note that the primary recommendation of this group 15 is to pursue epidemiological studies in human populations exposed 16 to. ionizing radiation.
The paper acknowledges that severe 17 methodological limitations may exist in such an effort, and that 18
-such studies may not provide conclusive risk estimates, but 19 should improve understanding of the risk boundaries.
20 This means the paper also recommends that adeauate l
21.
data _ systems be developed now, to permit better epidemiologicaN 22 studies in the' future.
It is significant to note that this 1
23 group made no effort to evaluate or prioritize the recom-l 2$
Emended research. efforts, or to recommend who should perform them.
s Fee ni neoarms. Inc.
- 25 Recommendations in that regard.will be incorporated in the i
I k?
17 1
sdmmary paper.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEAFNE:
Is this paper finished?
3 MR. GOLLER:
A final draft has been completed, and 4
is currently being circulated to all the participating agencies 5
for comment.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNEr Being circulated, do you mean
~1 7
that it is now out, or that you will shortly get a copy?
8 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir, we have a copy.
Of course, 9
we have had a copy all-along, and we have been very active I
10 participants in its development.
II COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do these papers give agency 12 views?
13 MR. GOLLER:
They do not give independent agencf 14 views.
It was an effort made to develop a consensus in each 15 case, and one we could agree upon.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So, there is no attribu-17 tion, for example, of the NRC position in the paper?
18 MR. GOLLER:
At this point, I don't believe that i
I9 there are any occasions in any of the papers where that type of l
20 wording is present.
21 MR. MINOGUE:
The intent, of course, was as these j
l 22 papers are commented on in a more formal way by the agencies, l
23 such things might be developed, and might then be included in 24 the package, but because of the time scale on this, much of the cuJec tr l Reporters, Inc.
-25 day in, day out work of the groups is handled at the staff i
I 6
a
18 1
level without any implications in committing the agency, so 2
we really have formally yet to review these things.
But we 3
have had a lot of' input, as Mr. Goller said.
4
'MR. GOLLER:
I!cxt niide, please.
5 (Slide.)
6 The next working paper which is numbered 3,;because 7
the first two efforts were combined into' a single work group, 8
is on public information.
This work group paper has not been 9
completed to the same extent as the others, and certain NRC 10 staff comments have not been resolved.
For example, in the 11 specific education programs to be focused on indicated in the 12 slide, we feel that this should include medical technicians 13 and patients.
Also,as showr..on the next slide --
14 (Slide.)
15
-- an important NRC comment is that we believe that any public 16 information program should 'se based on the final recommendations,
17 and detailed programmatic events, in other work papers, and 18 in the report to the White House.
I 19 To this extent, we feel this effort may have been 20 initiated too early, and requires a feedback from the other 21 work papers.
In any case, the recommendations indicate in the i'
22 early draft of this paper, are indicated on this slide.
23 If I could have the next slide, please?
.24 (Slide.)
em-Fee tral Reporters, Inc.
25 Work paper 4 is on records and privacy.
An important I
i
19 1
1 consideration here are the legal restrictions, access to data, 2
in performing any research, and particularly, epidemiological 3
studies.
This paper brings the privacy considerations out, and 4
points out that these could be major obstacles to the performance 5
of e,idemiological studies.
i 6
The Chairman, and other NRC representatives have 7
discussed this matter previously with the House Subcommittee 8
on the Environment and the Atmosphere.
The Brown sub-4 9
committee, in June of this year, I am sure, recogni::ed the dif-10 ficulty of this matter.
II Again, this paper also recommends that it would be 12 very desirable to start now to improve the record keeping so 13 that better studies can be performed in the future.
14 If I could have the next slide?
15 (Slide.)
16 This slide lists the major recommendations of I7 work paper 4 on records and privacy.
Note that most of these 18 recommendations involve legislation which will probably be l'
very difficult to obtain due.to reluctance to telax protection of individuals privacy.
Other methods of achieving access to f
20 I
21 data for these purposes may, therefore, have to be found, and 22 these possibilities do exist which mig individuals
)
anonymity.
24 (Slide.)
)
t.Foc tral Reporters, Inc.
f-25 The next sl4.de shows the considerations in work I
a
20 i
paper 5 on care and benefits.
This paper brings out the fact 2
that there have been relatively little compensation benefits 3
and services to date directly attributable to low level 4
radiation effects.
A major problem in this regard is the long 5
latent period; 20 to 30 years before the effects are realized 6
after the receipt of the radiation.
7 The care and benefits aspects of this study are 8
a very important part of the program to some of the participating' 9
agencies, such as DOD, and the Veterans Administration, but 10 less so, to the NRC.
11 The next slide --
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could I ask a question -- so, 13 that you have the survey number, nature and result of claims 14 and lawsuits.
In this work paper do they go back over previous 15 history cases that have come up?
16 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir, they did.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And you say that is of no l
18 interest to us?
19 MR. GOLLER:
I wouldn't say no interest, but I 20 would say it is of lesser interest to us than some of the 21 other work papers, and of less interest than some of the other 22 agencies, which would be directly involved in adr.inistering 23 such benefits and services.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is that the only point, aJac.Fai Recorrors, Inc.
t-25 that we don't pay the. claims?
l t
l
21 1
MR. MINOGUE:
I think what Mr. Goller was trying 2
to bring ou' was that it is a relatively less important matter 3
to NRC; it is not without importance, but it is a central 4
issue to DOD because of the very large number of people 5
who were involved and exposed in weapons test programs.
There are a growing number 'f claims being lodged, and it has a o
6 7
relationship to the exposure of workers in shipyards to 8
asbestos, which is an area that involves substantially larger 9
numbers of people, and there is some interrelationship.
All 10 that Carl was going to say'was that this matter, which is 11 enormously important to some of the other participants, is 12 relatively less important to NRC, but not that it has no 13 significance.
14 MR. SHAPAR:
NRC itself may"be involved in claims 15 in connection with the Price Anderson responsibilities.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was just wondering, to 17 try to understand as you track back, at the link, which now, 18 it is DOE and NRC.
If you track back to the AEC, and back 19 in time, which features, which plans, which facilities would 20 if, there was a subsequent claim, would be our responsibility, 21 versus someone else's?
22 MR. MINOGUE:
But between those two agencies, that 23 could be a very complex question.
24 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What about it, is it
{
..~,,....,.m.
~
25 Price Anderson and our responsibilities under Price Anderson i
22 r
1 that might wrap us up in those claims?
2 MR. SEAPAR:
Q there is a claim under licensing, 3
Price Anderson will be furnishing the money, perhaps in connec-4 tion with claims that are submitted, so government money 5
which is administered may be involved in the Price Anderson 6
regieme, if the claims should reach the requisite amount.
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It has to be a pretty whopping --
8 MR. SEAPAR:
We have the underlying base of insurance 9
overriden by the new thesis, but there is still a residual 10 amount of government indemnity that overrides that.
11 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
It is still a substantial amount, 12 but you have to get up above S150 million before you begin to 13 get in that --
14 MR. SHAPAR:
It's more than that.
15 MR. MINOGUE:
There is a big and important dif-16 ference between the two situations; one of the problems in 17 determining the liability questions in most of the programs 18 is the lack of dosimetry, or the poor dosimetry.
By and large l
19 that is just not applicable to NRC licensed activities.
The 20 way that gets resolved, either by the Veterans Administration, l
21 or by the courts, could possibly go on the presumption of large 22 exposures where there is no real' dosimetry.
I don't think i
23 there is any analogous situation in the license industry; by 24
'and large, we have always required careful dosimetry, so there oi Fecard Reoorters, Inc.
~
25 is a record of what people have received.
I i
a i
j 23' I
i 1
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:. It seems to me, John,_with regard 2
to which facilities and events would flow.to NRC versus DOE, 3
looking back at common ancestry in the nuclear field:under the 4
Atomic Energy Commission, I think I would be surprised if any.
5
. of that 'came. out way, flowed down to us, because I don' t think i
6 the regulatory staff operates that way.
)
1 7
_MR. MINOGUE:
The problem is that a lot of this ex-1 8
posure occurred during the 50s.
And during that period is the 9
time the regulatory staff was beginning to be formulated as 10 an independent entity.
There was a long period in there where 11 lines ~weren't very clear.
i 12 By the 60s, the regulatory staff was functioning 13 almost'like an independent group.
14 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But I mu3d think that much 15 of this does go back to the 50s, and I thin.' -- we've got a comment 16 MR. DORI AN :
I'm Tom Dorian, and
'm with ELD, and '
17 I have worked on this report.
Two claims were filed with NRC 18 under matters that issues that happened under AEC, and these 19 claims were sent over to DOE and have been resolved by DOE.
20 As far as we know to date, there are no other claims pending 21 and any future claims would probably be filed with DOE.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
You say there are no claims 23 pending.. That seems to imply.that if a claim has been filed 24 and?a decision rendered,'that the study is not looking at that? ;
- n.Fectrol Reconen, Inc.
b 25 MR. DORIAN:
I don't understand the question.
I 1'l l
.24 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Well, there were claims 2
filed in the 50s and 60s which went to court, and the court 3
decided against the claimant on the basis of the then known 4
.information.
There is a lot more known now.
-1 5
MR. DORIAN:
Right.
We didn't go back in the group 6
to lo'ok at previous claims.
All the claims that had been filed 7
by everybody in the past years.
We looked at principal claims; 8
ones that might set some precedents in the future.
9
.(Slide.)
10 MR. GOLLER:
This slide presents the recommenda-11 tions of work paper 5 on care and benefits.
12 The paper throughout develops the major problems 13 of compensation and benefits associated with the long latency 14 period of any health effects of low level ionizing radiation.
15 As is indicated in the work paper, important precedents are 16 being set by other industrial pollutants with long term latent 17 effects, such as the asbestos problem.
Indications are that l
18 these other areas will be trail blazing in setting the path l
19 for development of this type of work for radiation.
20 (Slide.)
l 21 The next slide, on work paper 6, on regulation, is, 22 of course, of particular-interest to the NRC, md NRC representa-23 tives were major contributors to its development.
Therefore, 24 although this paper is not quite complete, there are no un-m Fecard Reporters, Inc.
f 25 resolved NRC staff comments on its present form.
{
l
25 1
One of the points that are brought out in this 2
paper, the contribution of various sources of radiation to 3
the general population, exposure.
And it puts-these into good 4
perspective, as the next slide shows.
5 (Slide.)
6 This slide is a table which with more details, y
appears in the work paper,a nd you will note that the 8
population exposure due to medical and dental are clearly shown 9
as being a major source of manmade radiation, comprising more 10 than 90 percent thereof.
Also, that the amount due to nuclear li
' energy is very significantly lower.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And of the medical and 13 dental, a high percentage is diagnostic X-ray?
14 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir.
15 The next slide - '
16 (Slide.)
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The range of, in 2000 on 18 the nuclear energy, why is the range so large?
19 MR. GOLLER:
That is due to the uncertainty of 20 extrapolating that many years in those areas.
Uncertainty as I
l I
21 to what. extent coal-fired plants will be providing electric 22 production at that time --
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What has that got to do 24 with the range?
Are you saying that the range represents a m.s.o <.i secon.n,inc.
p 25 possible-range of nuclear plants' i
I i
26-i MR. GOLLER:
Well, indirectly, the range is --
g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
There is a range on nuclear 2
)
3 plants to the year 2000 from.2 to
.7, a range of 3-1/2.
I am wondering what is making that big range?
3 MR. GOLLER:
Will Kreger, could you help me on that?
l 5
MR. KREGER:
The range that was used by the Committee 6
i for the year 2000 was based on information tihat they had 7
originally that there might be anywhere from 300 to 1000 reactors g
actually operating by the year 2000.
I have sent them a letter 9
10 ust in the last two weeks suggesting that they change that 11 number to a projected 300 in the year 2000 and not use'a range "D al1*
12 VOICE:
Which would then show the figure 0.2, 13 i
approximately.
jj MR. KREGER:
That may be changed slightly too.
15 I can remember.
We changed the first number, if you remember 16 yesterday, the first number, the year 1978 was D2 instead of.05,j j7 18 and their number was also based on a wrong assumption about 39 megawatts effective in the year 1978, but that number was 20 changed to.02 on the basis of 51,000 megawatts electric.
Use 21 300 reactors at approximately 800 megawatts electric each, you would have to multiply the. 02 by that ra tio.
g 23 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is it.02 or 0.2?
24 MR. KREGER:
- Well, 300 would be about six times I
x.s. w.e n.:m n m,inc.
l' I
25 the d2, or.12, would be the number for the year 2000, l
i l
i I
b
27 d
1 approximately.12.
2 MR. MINOGUE:
It is, of course, cumulative from 3
the fuel processing, the tailings problem adds up.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I suspected the range was 5
a very high number.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, there are some other 7
things that contribute to that range.
What we do about tailing l
8 stabilization, and what is done about fission product gases 9
and spent fuel, that is, do we reprocess, and let
_w all out, 10 or reprocess and catch the krypton, or if we keep the spent 11 fuel, and let what comes out the leakers come out, can 12 make a very substantial dose.
This dose commitment has more 13 to do with those numbers than it has with the normal operating 14 effluence from plants.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Except that I think Bill just
]
- 16 said that the main driving was that they were based on ongoing k
17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, I'm prepared to say that l'
18 surely represents an upper bound.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
i'm not.
I think the upper 20 bound is lower than that.
21 MR. MINOGUE:
If these numbers are based just on 22 the number of plants, that's clearly not an adequate basis,
. 23 because these other factors have to be taken into account.
24 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Even if you knew that the m Fac3fet Reporters, Inc.
f.
'25 l number of plants was precise 7.y 317 in the year 2000, you would j
i
28 I
still have.a fair slop in these numbers because of uncertainty q-2 I'm more interested in the coal fired ones.
That's a factor 3
of 30, John.
4 MR. KREGER:
That is based on a factor of 30 differdncei
~ l 5
in the uranium content of western coal versus eastern coal.
6 It's primarily radon from.the uranium content in the coal fly 7'
ash.
8 CHAIRMAN AHEARNE:
I guess I'll let EPA and DOE 9
worry about coal numbers, and I'll try to concentrate on nuclear, j
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What about the medical Il and dental?
Why is that multiplied by 4 between '78 and 20007 12 Are people going to have a lot more X-rays, and fewer teeth?
13 MR. KREGER:
The m6 dical people, the Bureau of 14 Radiolcgical Health people that contributed to that part of 15 the report said that the rate of use of medical and dental 16 X-rays is rising very rapidly in the year
'78, so they used 17 a rising curve to get the number for the year 2000.
18 MR. MINOGUE:
In the briefing I gave the Commission 19 several months ago on occupational exposure, that same thing l
20 came out.
We had'some figures on the number of medical uses 21 of radioactive material, and it really is a growth industry.
22 The curve is sharply up now from the last four or five years.
23 Whether it'is appropriate to carry it through the year 2000, 24 I don't know.
I defer to the people at HEW.
co FocWCl Reporte s, Inc.
{
25 CRAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Before you go on, footnote 3 on l
0 f
I
[
29 l
1 that slide we have had so much fun with, is that 100 man 2
mu.3irems per' year, per capita?
Otherwise, I'm going underground.
l 3
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
One last, consumer products 4
disappear entirely.
That would suggest that smoke detectors 5
are on their way out.
i 6
MR. GOLLER:
The dash in that indication is due 7
to uncertainty and therefore no estimates have been made.
There 8
is a big question mark on extrapolating that far.
9 (Slide.)
10 Okay, the next slide presents the conclusions and 11 recommendations of work paper 6 on regulation, and I want to 12 call particular attention to the two conclusions indicated that 13 significant further reductions in dose due to the general public
- 14 due to nuclear energy, probably not available.
That some 15 significant reduction in occupational doses in the nuclear f
16 industry are possible by the rigorous application of ALARA.
l 17 This is, of course, is completely consistent with the NRC I
18 approaches with the application of ALARA.
l 19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is the last one there an 20 HEW --
21 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, sir.
I would like to add that i
22 I vas interested in that myself, as I read that, andIinitiallyl l
23 would have expected it to refer to the synergistic effects 24 of smoking and radiation, but it is correctly indicated, and ce.FeoerCl Reporters, Inc.
25 it has to do with the naturally occurring polonium 210, which
)'
l Iw...
.. =
i 30 j
apparent 1y' collects in the tobacco leaves, and has recently 2
been found to be a significant source of radiation to smokers.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If Secretary Califano really 4
wants to make, really wants to stamp out smoking, why, he will 5
move for us to license that -- that will put a stop to smoking.
6 Karl, you have never smoked, I detected a certain glee in this 7
conclusion, sort of a reciprocal of the dismay down there with 8
old man chimney, Shapar.
9 MR. GOLLER:
If I could have the next and last to slide.
l 11 (Slide.)
i 12 On this slide, I want to particularly note that 13 the summary report referred to earlier which will be prepared i
14 for the White House, will not only summarize the contents of 15 all the work papers which we have geen discussing, but it 16 will also provide overall conclusions and recommendations, 17 including the specific methods for accomplishing the four j
l 18 efforts indicated.
l 19 Indications based on conversations with the HEW
]
20 participants in this program are that they will recommend that 21 these functions be accomplished by interagency committeed, 22 probably under a major umbrella, interagency council on low 23 level radiation.
As indicated, the report to the White House l
R 24 will also be made available to all participating agencies for 7
- nfeceral Aeoorters, Inc, to happen in l
j 25 comment, and Mr. Libassi currently expects that i
31 h
1 December, ar.d with the receipt and incorporation of any comments 2
received, he hopes to submit this report to the White House 3
early in January of '79.
4 MR. MINOGUE:
It is of interest that one of the 5
things that he is focusing on here is also very much a matter 6
before both the House and Senate Government Operations Committees, 7
and that 15 how to restructure the Federal Radiation Council 8
functions.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I was going to ask how that was 10 coming out.
What is the drift of thought in the working groups 11 here on that.
12 MR. MINOGUE:
The working groups haven't addressed 13 that.
This will be done as part of the summary report and 14 submitted to the other agencies for comment.
The discussions 15 I have had with Mr. Libassi would suggest to me that he is 16 thinking in terms of some sort of interagency reconstitution l
l 17 of FRC other than the present set up, where EPA has that role.
l l
18 I might add, that I have got recently from the Senate Government 19 Opearations Committee a compilation of a large number of comments.
i 20 They have gotten many, many different interests in it.
There I
i 21 appears to be a general dissatisfaction with EPA's performance 22 on this.
They have only used it once, on the medical X-rays.
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Have we taken a position?
l 24 I noticed in one of your staff notes a couple weeks ago, you m.Fecwst Reporters, Inc.
~
25.
were mentioning you had discussed with Libassi.
l I
32 g...
1 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes, we took a position on the FRC l
2 matter in conjunction with hearings held by the House Govern-3 ment Operations Committee back in June, and I gave the 4
testimony,'but'it went up to the Commission, and fundamentally 5
the position was that we felt it was desirable to centralize 6
the function in an agency like EPA, but that it would work 7
either way.
There are some problems with an FRC interagency 8
compact, because you tend to' drift --
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me see if I -- am I clear 10 then, that you represented to Libassi that the NRC's position 11 is that we would prefer to be in an agency like EPA?
12 MR. MINOGUE:
No, I really put it more in terms of 13 this is the position we took in June, but that the situation 14 was dynamic and a lot of new factors were being brought out, 15 not just by this effort, but by some of the activities of 16 Senator Ribicoff's committee, and it wasn't all that clear what i
17 our position would be at this time.
But I did summarize the 18 position as of June.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Did he ask for what, was he 20 concerned with what our position might be now?
21 MR. MINOGUE:
It was pretty clear to him, I don't 22 think this would be likely to change if -- it could work either 23 way.
Both ways have problems. The fact that it has not worked t
1 v
24 with EPA doing it as presently constituted, we are already t
w.F.cwei n.conm, inc.
4 25 on the record as saying.that it is unfortunate, itjusthasnotl i
'i
{
I
33 1
worked.
They have chosen not to exercise that role.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Another similar issue which 3
you mentioned in your notes was the location for coordination 4
of research.
5 MR. MINOGUE:
Yes.
We have no position on that.
6 That's one of the issues that I expect we will come back to, 7
as this begins to jell, we will come back to the Commission 8
for interaction and guidance.
That's a very complex question, 9
because the expertise and the problems run across the board in 10 a very large number of government agencies; it doesn't lend 11 itself to saying here is this one agency, and they do the whole 12 thing, and once you say that, you have got a very complex 13 coordination problem on your hands, and on in which we hava 14 had no interface on with the Commissi~on.
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
In this jelling, which, I 16 guess would have to occur before the surmary report went out, 17 how do you propose to do that?
l 18 MR. MINOGUE:
I think the first step is to see what 1
19 Mr. Libassi comes up with.
He clearly is thinking in terms of 20 some kind of interagency established coordinating body.
This 21 raises -- the questions we focus on would be the problems of 22 who gets the budgetary support, who runs the contractors, who 23 settles disputes, and so on.
It is kind of premature to second l l
24 guess what he is going to come up with.
. n Fac wel Reporters, Inc.
i 25 MR. GOLLER:
I think further on that point, we have !
l
34
-1 already had some opportunity for some discussion on this.
2 For example, as a result of these discussions, we clarified 3
the relationship, but nevertheless the separability between the 4
coordination of research and the FRC function.
I don't think 5
that was always the case; I think we have been successful in 6
developing that.with him, and we expect to have at least one 7
other discussion with him personally, on the two remaining 8
work papers which are still not complete, and it is his 9
practice to meet personally with each of the participating 10 agencies to get his input on these work papers, and he has 11 already said that he expects'to have such a meeting on the two 12 remaining work papers.
13 Those will provide another opportunity to discuss 14 the contents di the summary report with hun.
I 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you know whether he intends 16 to have that kind of a metting on the summary report?
17 MR. GOLLER:
He has not declared himself on this l
l 18 yet.
I rather think that he does not intend to do that.
I 19 I will say thct the matter of obtaining commentary 20 on this entire effort is also somewhat in a state of flux with )
I 21 him at this moment.
At one point, he intended to obtain ratherj 22 widespread dissemination and solicitation of comments.
I think 23 upon further consideration, he has changed his mind on that.
24 MR. MINOGUE:
Excuse me, that is to the public.
m.v.c wa necomn, sne.
f 25 In any event, he plans to get comment from other government l
l 4
35 j
agencies involved.
2 I would like to say in all of thsse discussions
~
3 we have had over the course of the summer, I sense a rec 1 4
commitment to give all affected groups, parties, and so on, 5
particularly within the government, a chance to have their 6
say, and make their concerns known. -There is no element of 7
railroading here that I have seen; it is a very open.
I think 8
that is one reason the quality of the product is looking pretty 9
_ good, because he has made that kind of effort to get a very 10 broad input from everybody that has got something to contribute.
11 MR. GOLLER:
To a great extent that is indicated 12 by his intent to brief any organization that steps forward and 13 expresses an interest in t'his effort..,He stated to me recently 14 that he intends to do exactly that.
15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think we have, parts of this 16 is very close to our primary business.
When might that be 17 most usefully done considering the progress that he is making?
l l
18 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I would suggest that we 1
19 relay back acceptance of his offer, and let him suggest when 20 would be most appropriate, and if our people feel it is too I
21 late, we can try to accelerate that.
22 MR. GOLLER:
I think that would be a wise procedure, 23 but for planning purposes, I think this might occur early to
'24 mid-December.
1
{
-a Featrd Reporters, Inc.
25 CEAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay, why don't you carry that
lt 36 3
i 1
message back to Mr. Libassi, that we would like to hear from 2
him, and we will leave it to him to set the date for our planning
{
t 3
purposes.
It would be halpful if he could spot it a week or 4
two ahead, because our schedule tends to be set a couple of 5
weeks ahead.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Is it possible to get 7
copies of the draft work papers when you get them?
8 MR. GOLLER:
Yes, it certainly is.
i 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I'd appreciate it.
i 10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You have got the 1 and 2 papers 11 now?
12 MR. GOLLER:
We have three working papers in what 13 we call final draft form.
A fourth, which is the one on regu-14 lation, is in near final form, which I think would be appro-15 priate to forward.
The one on public information is not nearly 16 in final.
l 17 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Other comments?
I think the discussion here has been very useful, and I thank you very much,
18 i
19 for an informative briefing, and I think it has been a very 20 useful discussion.
21 (Whereupon, at 12:00 noon, the meeting was adjourned'.) l 22 23 l'
24 m.Fectrd Rsoorters, Inc.
f, 25 i
l c
. i\\