ML20154D290
| ML20154D290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/05/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8805190132 | |
| Download: ML20154D290 (214) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
BRIEFING ON NATURALLY-0CCURRING AND ACCELERATOR-PRODUCE 0 RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS
)
Location: ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND Date: THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1988 Pages: 1-52 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington. D.C. 20006 (202) 293 3950 88R"?8a?! oo "5 PT9.7 PDR
- DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on May 5, 1988 in tne Commission's office at One i
White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been rev'iewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational 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 determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any i statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
1 1
- 1 i
4 l
l l I . l
+
l l
.= . .
i a l'
s i- 1 5 l l 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA t l
! 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
i
! 3 *** '
i !
f l
4 BRIEFING ON NATURALLY-0CCURRING AND )
' 1 5 ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS :
1
! 6 *** j 2
7 PUBLIC MEETING ;
i
} c *** i l
I
- 9 Nuclear Regulatory commission i f
j 10 one White Flint North l i 11 Rockville, Maryland 1 i j 12 i 1
! 13 THURSDAY, KAY 5, 1988 i
j 14 i i l 2
15 The commission met in open session, pursuant to 16 notice, at 10:00 a.m. , the Honorable LANDO W. 2ECH, Chairman of
) 17 the Commission, presiding.
i
{ 18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENTt 1
i 1 19 LANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of the commission
)
j 20 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission l 21 KENNETH CARR, Member of the Commission l
7 22 KENNETH ROGERS, Member of the Commission 1
! 23 1
1 e J
l 25 l,
l 1
l
2 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
2 3 S. CHILK 4 V. STELLO 5 G. AUSTIN 6 C. KAMMERER 7 C. HARDIN 8 W. PARKER 9 B. BERNERO 10 A. YOUNG 11 T. STRONG 12 W. DORNSIFE ,
13 :
14 ,.
15 16 17 l 10 19 20 21 22 23 I o
- 24 25 l; i
c 3
1 P R O C E I: DINGS 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
3 The purpose of today's meeting is for the NRC staff to brief 4 the commission on their review of naturally-occurring and 5 accelerator-produced radioactive materials, NARM, and the basis 6 for their recommendations in NRC's paper SECY 88-64.
7 This review was initiated in part, as a result of the 8 Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors' request that 9 the NRC seek legislative authority to regulate NARM. The 10 Commission will also hear from Alvin Young, Chairman of the 11 Committee on Interagency Radiation Research, and Terry Strong, 12 Charles Hardin, and William Dornsife of the Conference of 13 Radiation Control Program Directors. We appreciate very much 14 your participation with us today.
15 This is an information briefing this morning. I 16 believe the meeting will be of assistance to the Commission in 17 our understanding the NARM issues better, as well as in making 18 any decisions that may be forthcoming. I understand that 19 copies of the slides are available at the entrance to the 20 meeting room.
21 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 22 comments before we begin?
23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, I'd like to anke a
( 24 comment or two.
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Excuse me for interrupting. Let me
4 l
~ 1 just say, Commissioner Foberts will not be with us this 2 morning. Mr. Bernthal, please.
3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I don't often make comments, i
4 but I do want to make a comment on this one before we begin. I 5 think this a terribly important area, one ths.t has represented j l
6 a gap in regulatory oversight for years. Nobody has picked up 7 on that gap. If you go through the rnther sad history of this G whole issue -- my staff summarized it for me, and I'm sure the 9 rest of my colleagues have similar summaries.
10 The history began in 1946, and I won't go through it 11 all in detail, but there have been fits and starts and attempts i l
12 over the years, to bring this area under some sort of unifirl l 13 oversight, whether federal, state -- in principal, I suppose it 14 could be anything, but whatever it could be, it never has i
15 happened. I l
16 I'd like to congratulate our staff, first of all, on l 17 what I think was an absolutely first-rate job, an excellent l l
18 ,
paper, a very well written history and review of the status of l 19 this issue. I think that that will provide the basis for the 20 Commission, perhaps after I'm gone, but I would hope to reach a 21 substantive conclusion, and finally become the focal point for 22 some action in this area.
23 I just want to read one quotation here, because I 24 think it's terribly important and sets the stage for what I
(
25 would hope is going to be some careful Commission attention in
5 1 the months ahead, and that is the letter that the Commission 2 received last summer from the Conference of Radiation Control l
And in that letter, the Conference restated l 3 Program Directors.
4 the problem. And I'm quoting from the letter now, "The issue, 1 5 simply stated, is that NARM radioactive material is not 6 adequately or uniformly regulated in the United States, and as 7 a result, has the potential for significant exposure to the 8 public and for contamination of the environment. unquote.
9 So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that's why we're 10 here this morning. And I certainly look forward to hearing 11 what educational material we can on this issue, and then to 12 seeing what this agency finally, after having committed and 13 thought it would do so in the past, finally now might go ahead 14 and do about this issue. That's all I wanted to say, l
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Any other l 16 comments? If not, Mr. Stello, would you proceed, please?
17 MR. STELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I'll turn 18 to General Austin in a moment, and you'll notice we all are l
19 sitting at the table because I think, Mr. Young and others who 20 came with us today, are going to have a great deal to offer, to 21 help the Commission decide what it ought to do on this matter.
22 What is before the Commission is very simple, and l 23 that's an area where we are not now authorized and otherwise 24 directed by law, to regulate in the area of NARM. The
(
25 question, I think, that's clearly before the Commission is,
l
.' . \
1 6
l l
1 what ought the Commission do about it? And as you will see in l 1
2 a moment when we get to what we recommend doing -- we recommend 3 the Commission do, is to have this matter referred to Mr. Young 4 and his Committee, for them to sort it out.
5 Because it is, indeed, very, very complicated, and it 6 has enormous implications for our agency and for our precious 7 few resources, if we do undertake the activity. It's an issue 8 we must go through very carefully in sorting out where we come 9 out, because not only when we need legislation, we will need to 10 augment substantially, the resources that we have available to 11 do the job.
12 With that, let me ask John to begin, and then we will i
13 just continue going directly up to John next, and open it up 14 for any questions the Commission might have.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I thank you very much. Proceed.
16 MR. AUSTIN: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. The issue 17 of NARM regulation is very cid and very complex. This 18 presentation is primarily to refresh your memories of what is i
19 in the reports, and the presentation itself should not be taken 20 as a substitute all of the material that is in the report.
21 NARM is the collective term for naturally-occurring i
22 and accelerator-produced radioactive materials. The NARM 23 universe is immense. NARM is found in the environment, in
{~ 24 homes, in the workplace, in consumer products, and in medical 25 institutions. Radium-226, Radon-222, and Polonium-210 are 1
.- l 7
1 1 significant sources of exposures of the public.
2 Radium is found in tailings of the mineral extraction 3 industries, and some of the tailings can contain radium in ;
4 concentrations in excess of our remedial action levels for 5 uranium mill tailings. Radium can be concentrated in the 1 6 resins in water purification plants to very high levels.
7 That's the naturally occurring side of NARM.
8 On the other side, there are thousands of cyclotrons 9 and accelerators in use, for example, in medical institutions 10 and in the semi-conductor industries. Carbon-11, Oxygen-15, 11 Indium-11, Iodine-123, are examples of radionuclides that are 12 produced solely through cyclotrons.
13 With regard to problems with NARM, in October 1987, 14 ' the Conference of Padiation Control Program Directors requested 15 all of the states to describe their problems with NARM over the 16 past 5 years. About 20 states responded. From my review of 17 those responses, I saw no clear trend of actual harm to the 18 public from discrete sources of NARM. They reported a few 19 conta:aination incidents. One commentor said that radium turns 20 up out of nowhere -- in bank vaults, in attics, and in 21 laboratory drawers.
22 It's important to recognize that NARM exposures are a ;
1 23 subset of ionizing radiation exposures. So, if I could have
( 24 the second vu-graph.
25 (Slide.)
8 1 The second vu-graph is as pie chart of the sources of 2 radiation exposures to the public. This indicates that on 3 average, natural sources of radiation contribute about 82 4 percent of the total dose per year. Man-made sources account 5 for the other 18 percent.
6 I'd like to call your attention to the upper part of 7 the pie. On the internal sources of radiation exposure, they 8 account for 11 percent of the total. That comes from 9 Potassium-40, Lead-210, Polonium-210, primarily from the l
10 ingestion of leafy vegetables; radium nuclides are concentrated 11 in some foodstuffs. For example, brazil nuts can have radium j 12 concentrations equivalent to that of our standard for remedial i
13 action, and uranium mill tailings.
I 14 So it is these naturally radionuclides which i 15 contribute a significant source.
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So eating a brazil nut is 17 worse than eating one of those irradiated gemstones that we've 18 been worried about.
b9 MR. AUSTIN: Yes, sir.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's very interesting.
21 MR. AUSTIN: We all have heard recently about radon 22 in basements. The National Council on Radiation Protection and 23 Measurements estimates that radon contributes about 55 percent 24 of the annual dose to the public. That 55 percent is 200 rems.
25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Sorry to interrupt again. I
/
9
, 1 can't resist pointing out for the record here, that that 55 2 percent was a quantity that nobody knew about just a very few 3 years ago. Nobody worried about it till very recently. I know 4 we knew about radon, but we didn't worry about it till very 5 recently.
6 The nuclear fuel cycle here, I believe says, one 7 tenth of one percent. So, 55 percent is an area that we simply 8 were unaware of, and didn't concern ourselves with until a very 9 few years ago. The record should show that.
10 MR. STELLO: Commissioner Bernthal, I guess I ought 11 to explain, Mr. Dornsife and I are both here, reminiscent of 12 the time of TMI when we had whole-body counts up there, and 13 created a problem for the state of Pennsylvania because of 14 radon. We did whole-body counts and found no one had anything 15 in their bodies from the accident at TMI, but had to explain --
16 I think it was about 30 people -- and the state of Pennsylvania 17 had an enormous task on their hands -- how come all these 18 people had radioactivity in their bodies from the radon in 19 their homes?
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You could have been 10 years 21 ahead of your time.
22 MR. AUSTIN: It was the first feel of the radon 23 problem we eventually found.
( 24 MR. STELLO: It was very significant at the time, 25 trying to explain it in the environment of TMI.
i
,' , 1 10 1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: The fact is, that did not l
2 come into the public attention, and the fact that we're all 3 testing in basements now, only began to happen really within 4 the last year or so. That's my point. But, go ahead, John, 5 sorry to interrupt.
6 MR. AUSTIN: It is a very interesting topic, because 7 this country is spending over a $1 billion to stabilize uranium 8 mill tailings on the basis of calculations of statistical 9 deaths. And then when one looks at this source, radon, in the 10 homes, which may be causing 5-25,000 deaths per year, the 11 question does come up, should the Federal Government as a 12 whole, spend that billion dollars in the homes, through tax 13 breaks or whatever, and take on tailings at some other time, or 14 to put it in perspective.
15 On the man-made side, medical x-rays contribute 11 16 percent of the total dose. Nuclear medicine is about one third 17 that of medical x-rays.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I also want to supply one l l
19 more small piece of context here, which shouldn't be lost. And ;
1 20 that is that the EPA's estimate, I believe, for the cancer 21 deaths caused by this radon problem -- assuming of course, you 22 believe the linear hypothesis, but that's what everybody cites 23 -- and the EPA's estimate of 5-20,000 deaths per year, is in l
24 the same ballpark as the deaths estimated from latont cancers !
l 25 for the entire population exposed to the Chernobyl event for
_ _ .-. __._ . _ _ _ ..I
l l
11 1 the next 70 years -- for the lifetime of all of that I
2 population. '
3 So, in one year, we expect in this country from radon 4 in basements, roughly the same number of deaths as are being 5 attributed to the entire exposure from the Chernobyl event in !
6 the Soviet Union. And I think that indicates the magnitude of 7 the problem.
8 MR. AUSTIN: Consumer products produce about three r 9 percent of the total dose. There it is building materials or 10 water supplies result in doses to the public. Water supplies ,
11 evolve radon, which is then breathed and gives the dose to the 12 person.
13 Tobacco can be a very significant source of radiation 14 exposure because of Polonium-210 and that radionuclide is of 15 interest later in the presentation.
16 The purpose of this part is to put NARM in 17 perspective of all the other contributors to the potential for 18 cancer from radiation exposure.
19 (Slide.)
20 on the next viewgraph, the question occasionally 21 arises -- I think Commissioner Bernthal asked it back in l 22 July -- as to why NRC regulates Iodine-131 and not Iodine-123 23 in the medical institutions. The direct and short answer to
- 24 that question is history. So we performed the review of the 25 legislative history of some but not all acts addressing l
l l
l 12
_ 1 ionizing radiation in general and NARM in particular. It is 2 important to recognize that the Federal Government does not 3 create an authority to regulate public health and welfare; 4 rather, the Federal Government preempts the states' rights to l 5 do so. The states can and many do regulate NARM.
6 Historically, it appears that Congress has looked to 7 the states as having the primary responsibility for protecting l 8 the public from NARM. Historically, Congress has kept NRC's 9 activities and responsibilities linked to the neutron chain 10 reaction. We regulate Iodine-131 because it comes from nuclear i
11 reactors, but we do not regulate Iodine-123, because that comes 12 from cyclotrons. Telerium-124, which is a naturally occurring l 13 stable isotope is bombarded with protons and two neutrons come 14 off and you have Iodine-123. No neutron chain reaction l
15 involved.
16 I should point out that Iodine-123 is replacing 17 Iodine-131 in medical procedures because the Iodine-123 results j 18 in a lower dose to the patient, so the physicians are naturally 19 going to be decreasing the dose to the patient.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Are we sure that it isn't 21 also because they don't have to worry so much about NRC 22 regulation and oversight in some of these areas with 1 l
23 accelerator-produced materials? j I
( 24 MR. AUSTIN: In my many calls around the country 25 trying to get information on problems, some suggest that
l 13 1 1
1 regulation does have a bearing en the route they go. Linear )
2 accelerators are replacing Cobalt-60, but keep in mind that the l I
3 linear accelerator is much more versatile than Cobalt-60.
4 We regulate industrial uses of Polonium-210 becauso 5 it is obtained from neutron bombardment of Bismuth-210. We do 6 not regulate Polonium-210 in tobacco because it gets there I 7 naturally. So there are many dichotomies about what isotopes l 8 we regulate and what ones we don't. ,
l 9 With respect to Congress' preemption of states' l
10 rights over NARM, EPA has been given jurisdiction over NARM in l
11 the environment. With respect to radon and radon in the home, ;
1 12 the EPA Department of Housing and Urban Development, the '
1 13 Department of Health and Human Services all have interest in 14 and jurisdiction over NARM. Consumer Product Safety Commissicn 15 has jurisdiction over NARM in consumer products. The l l
16 Department of Labor has jurisdiction over NARM in the 17 workplace, and of course the Department of Health and Human i 18 Services has jurisdiction over NARM in the medical I l
19 institutions. Many other departments have interest in the 20 exposures to ionizing radiation and to NARM.
21 Back in the '70s, the Bureau of Radiological Health 22 had the primary responsibility for protecting the public health 23 and safety from sources of radiation, but that department --
(
, 24 that bureau was split up and many of its activities were given l
25 to other Federal agencies, and that raised the question as to
14
. 1 how to integrate all these Federal programs.
2 In 1981 Senator Glenn proposed legislation to create l 3 a lead agency having responsibility over ionizing radiation.
4 The Administration responded that legislation was not necessary 5 and in 1984 the President formed the Committee on Interagency 6 Radiation Research and Policy Coordination to carry out that j 1
7 integrating function.
8 (Slide.] l 9 The next viewgraph is a description of CIRRPC and its 10 executive committee. What I would like to do is call to your 11 attention the top box on that viewgraph. If that box looks 12 cluttered, it is, because the landscape of Federal involvement 13 in ionizing radiation is very cluttered. There are 18 agencies 14 represented on CIRRPC and their activitics are being 15 coordinated by CIRRPC. The second message on this viewgraph is 16 that there is a lot of jurisdiction over ionizing radiation 17 already out there. ,
18 NRC is represented in CIRRPC by Denny Ross and Bob 19 Bernero.
20 (Slide.]
21 on the next viewgraph, we looked into what the states 22 have been doing with respect to NARM. In 1977, the conference 23 of Radiation Control Program Directors, that is composed of i 24 representatives from all 50 states, some large municipalities 25 and a few territories, published suggested state regulations
15 1 for controlling NARM. Ten years later, all 29 agreement states 2 had licensing programs for discrete sources of NARM. Four non-3 agreement states also had licensing programs for NARM. Of the 4 remainder, 2 states have voluntary or partial licensing 5 programs, 14 states have registration programs and one state 6 had no program at all. For a perspective on this latter state, 7 Dr. Carol Marcus, who participated in the recent commission 8 meeting on the medical use of isotopes and who has read the 9 NARM report, recently wrote to me, stating that this one state, 10 Montana, had a total of 6 physicians and 15 technologists in 11 The Society of Nuclear Med.icine in the entire state, observing 12 that it is not really big business in Montana. So that one 13 state not having a program -- one needs to look behind that and 14 what would one do, giving such a low level of activity in that 15 state.
16 So this 1987 level indicates that there is increasing 17 activities by the states to control NARM hazards. Nonetheless, 18 in August of 1987 the Conference of Radiation Control Program 19 Directcrs once again urged that the NRC seek legislative 20 authority over NARM.
21 (Slide.)
22 On the next viewgraph we posed the question how 23 should one decide this issue. I postulated 8 sub-issues in the
( 24 form of questions, the answers to which would provide a better 25 basis for making the overall decision on whether to seek
I 16
. 1 legislative authority.
2 The first question is, is there a national problem 3 with NARM? Radon clearly is a national problem, but other 4 agencies are working on that problem. Radium disposal is a 5 problem, but EPA is developing a regulation on defining low-6 level waste, which would include NARM in its definition. Utah 7 recently approved a site for burial of NARM waste.
8 Are there integrated controls over NARM? The answer 9 is no, but that is true also for controls over ionizing 10 radiation exposures in general.
11 Would NRC regulation overlap other agencies' 12 jurisdiction? Yes, it would. Many agencies already have I
13 jurisdiction.
14 Are the state controls adequate? From my review of 15 the August, 1987 request of the states on dealing with problems 16 with NARM, I concluded that the state controls are not i
l 17 inadequate. l i
18 Is NARM a Federal, state or professional 19 responsibility? In some cases, it is a Federal responsibility.
l 20 In some cases, it is a state responsibility, and within the l
1 21 medical institution there is a natural self-interest to handle 1 22 the radiopharmaceuticals produced by cyclotrons in a very i 1
23 careful manner. Lawsuits, loss of practice is involved, so i
( 24 there is a professional interest in doing the right thing with 25 cyclotron-produced radiopharmaceuticals.
l
- ,a 1 17 1 Has Congress looked to the NRC for NARM regulation?
2 The answer there is no. Congress has kept NRC, and before j 3 AEC's, jurisdiction linked to the neutron chain reaction and ;
I 4 has never wavered from that.
5 What are the rescurce implications? They could be 1
6 enormous. In just looking at the universe of NARM, it could !
7 involve tens of full-time equivalents. )
8 Would NRC responsibility for NARM change the nature 9 of NRC? Yes, it would. It would break our historic link to l l
10 the neutron chain reaction and it would likely get the Agency j 11 involved in regulating the use of cyclotrons and accelerators.
I 12 Those machines must work right to get the correct radionuclide.
13 They must be maintained to keep from dosing the employees and 14 users, and we do not have expertise in cyclotron designs or j 15 use.
16 From the evaluation of these questions, we developed 17 five options for the Commission.
18 [ Slide.)
19 The first is status quo. Tne second was to go ahead l
20 and seek legislative authority to regulate NARM.
21 The next two were subsets of the first. Seek l l
22 authority over radium disposal only, or seek authority over 23 cyclotron-produced radionuclides for medical use only.
( 24 And the last option was, refer the issue to the l
25 Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy l
l
,' e 18 1 Coordination.
2 The report, the NUREG-1310, addresses the pros and 3 cons of each of these options. Our eva1uation of those leads 4 to two recommendations to the Commission, and that's on the 5 next Vu-graph, Vu-graph 8.
6 (Slide.)
7 The first recommendation is, refer the issue of NARM 8 regulation to the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research l 9 and Policy Coordination for the purpose of integrating the NARM l l
10 hazards into the other federal programs and other federal l'a agencies' jurisdictions to ensure that the most significant l l
12 hazards are being addressed, without undue attention to lesser l l
13 hazards.
14 And the second recommendation is to inform the 15 governors that NRC has referred the NARM regulation issue to 16 CIRRPC for resolution.
17 That concludes the staff presentation.
18 KR. STELLO: Mr. Chairman, at this time what I 19 propose is, as I've already noted, to introduce Mr. Al Young 20 who has got a presentation for the Commission. But, if I may, 21 I would ask Carl Kammerer to introduce the others who are here 22 at the table with us. Then, at your pleasure, we can go 23 directly to Mr. Young and the others on questions of the ataff 24 on our presentation.
(
25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. We'll go through as you
19 1 recommend, and then we'll come back for questions. But before 2 we go on, I'd like to ask Mr. Austin, would you repeat again 3 the recommendations.
4 MR. AUSTIN: The first recommendation is that, in the 5 context of the NARM set of material, never being regulated by 6 the Federal Government as a class, refer that to the Committee 7 on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination for 8 the purposes of integrating any hazards associated with NARM 9 that are not now being overseen by some federal agency.
10 Integrate that into the over-all federal program on protecting 11 the public from ionizing radiation. They are the integrating 12 committee.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, good. And then also 14 inform the governors.
l 15 MR. AUSTIN: Inform the governors that there is this 16 NARM issue. We have been asked by the Conference, representing ]
1 17 the states, to seek legislative authority from the governors, 18 and that we have referred this matter to a committee to 19 integrate it within all the other programs.
l 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much. We l
21 appreciate it. Now, Mr. Kammerer?
22 MR. KAMMERER: Mr. Chairman and members of the 23 Commission, it gives me great pleasure to welcome the three
( 24 gentlemen representing the Conference today.
25 On my immediate left is chuck Hardin, the Executive
20
. 1 Secretary for the Conference. He formerly was the Director cf 2 the Kentucky program.
3 Skipping over one, Bill Dornsife from the State of 4 Pennsylvania, and he's the Chairman who pulled that report 5 together that you have in front of you.
6 And Terry Strong, the Chairman of the Radiation 7 Conference and Director of Radiation Control for the State of 8 Washington.
9 We'll go to Mr. Young.
10 MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I'm the 11 Chairman of the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and 12 Policy Coordination. That's a mouthful. We have the acronym 13 Chirpic or Sirpic, CIRRPC, one of many government acronyms.
14 And I'll throw another one at you. CIRRPC is a 15 committee of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, l
16 Engineering, and Technology of the Executive Office of the 17 President. The Council was known as Fixit, F-C-C-S-E-T. ,
l 18 What is the CIRRPC program? In May, 1984, the Office 19 of Science and Technology Policy, at the direction of the 20 President's Science Adviser and the Director of OSTP, Dr.
21 George Keyworth, we organized the CIRRPC program because there 22 were some needs out there that were obviously not being met.
23 Although the Federal Governuent had a very effective
( 24 committee to address radiation research issues, that committee !
l 25 was separate from a committee that was used to direct policy
a 21 1 related to radiation matters.
2 Now, the Radiation Research Committee met frequently.
3 It was under the direction of Dr. Wyngaarden out at the 4 National Institutes of Health, and was viewed by many of the 5 agencies, quote, as an NIH committee.
6 On the other hand, the policy body had not met in 2 7 years, and was located within the Office of Science and 8 Technology Policy. Obviously, the issues related to radiation 9 research were considered separate from policy. As a 10 consequence, I don't think we accomplished very much for quite 11 a period of time.
12 The fact that all of the agencies were going their 13 individual ways in radiation research and policy issues 14 certainly pointed out that the Federal Government was doing a 15 poor job of coordination.
16 Hence, Dr. Keyworth established, under the Federal 17 Coordinating Council, the committee. We established it in May 18 of 1984. It was tasked immediately with 3 things: to 19 coordinate radiation matters between agencies, to provide 20 advice on the formulation of radiation policy, and to review 21 the radiation agendas of the federal agencies.
22 Were we, as a nation, proceeding in the right 23 direction? We were concerned about the nuclear option for the 24 country, and we felt that there had to be some getting together 25 by the federal agencies in a coordinated plan.
l .
.' =
22
- 1 We are now 4 years into the program. We have 18 2 agencies that cooperate. Fourteen of those are research 3 agencies. The other agencies, in fact, have programmatic 4 responsibilities.
5 A good example is the office of Manacement and 6 Budget. Clearly, a very important agency to all of us, those 7 of us who have federal budgets. And, by bringing OMB to the 8 table along with the other agencies, it had a great deal of 9 benefit to be derived for us.
10 I must tell you that only recently did we become 11 aware of your Nuclear Regulatory Report No. 1310 on NARM. I 12 have had numerous conversations with Mr. Austin, then, in the 13 last month or so.
14 The report has not been thoroughly reviewed by the 15 CIRRPC-member agencies. You should be aware of that. We have 16 not had an opportunity yet to have a detailed review of that 17 report.
18 The report has been made available to our Executive 19 Committee. Mr. Austin showed you a slide of that Executive 20 Committee, consisting of members from 6 different federal 21 agencies. We have all looked at that. We have looked at the 22 recommendations in that report.
23 Let me, befora I offer to accept that recommendation,
( 24 if it were to come our way, let me give you some ideas about 25 how we handle projects within the Committee.
.' =
23
. 1 I would point out that the studies to date have been 2 either identified as of general interest to members or are 3 issues that have been initiated by individual members. All of 4 the projects that the CIRRPC takes on, then, are either issues 5 that have wide interest by all of the agencies -- radiation 6 standards are a good example -- or have been referred to us by 7 a specific agency.
8 The Environmental Protection Agency was very 9 concerned over the research agenda for non-ionizing radiation.
10 The Department of Energy has been very concerned over the 11 neutron quality factor.
12 Now, what sort of a research agenda should we have 13 for the issue of neutrons, of biological effectiveness? So, 14 individual agencies have conc to us, and then there were areas 15 that were very broad within the CIRRPC organization that we 16 felt were important to put out on the table and explore.
17 Most of the studies have been conducted by our 18 Science Panel. The Science Panel meets monthly.
19 In addition to the Science Panel, we have active at 20 this time 6 subpanels. We have more than 60 scientists at any 21 one month meeting on issues of radiation right now. We 22 coordinate those through our CIRRPC office, and we have a 23 technical support contract with Oak Ridge-associated
(
24 universities that helps provide the continuity and the staff to 25 oversee that these activities are constantly moving forward.
i 24 l
1 Our biggost concern is when one takes on an issue, if 2 that issue can be resolved, we then get out and work hard at ,
3 trying to get resolution, trying to develop a consensus within 4 the scientific body and within the policy body of our 5 organization.
6 We have 2 major bodies. We have a science panel with 7 scientists from 14 federal agencies, and we have policy 8 representation, an Assistant Secretary or very high level 9 individuals within the federal agencies, that sit on our policy 10 body. The policy body normally meets quarterly or 2 or 3 times 11 a year, depending on how many issues we have to bring before 12 the policy body.
13 But the point I'm trying to make is, when we take on 14 an issue, we try to resolve that icaue in a timely nanner.
15 When we find an issue cannot be resolved in a timely manner, 16 there's either a very good scientific reason -- we don't have 17 enough basic research to resolve that issue -- or there simply 18 can be no consensus within the policy arena.
19 We have had issues that we have not been able to 20 resolve in a timely manner. We've simply had to refer them 21 back to the agency with an apology that this is not the time.
22 This is an issue that simply is too difficult at this point and 23 for a variety of reasons it cannot be resolved.
[ 24 So, I'm hinting to you that, if we were to take an 25 issue on like NARM, we would give it our best shot. But I
25 i
i can't promise you that all issues can be resolved successfully 2 in the Federal Government. Clearly, there are some very ;
l 3 difficult issues to work with. !
4 We have taken an issue like radon. We divided indoor 5 radon into two component parts.
6 First, what were the scientific issues related to 1
7 exposure to indoor radon? How good are the scientific data, I I
8 the epidemiologic databases on which to make decisions?
9 We critically reviewed those. We interfaced with the 10 National Academy of Science, as they continued to work on BIER-11 IV at the time.
12 Then we took the scientific database, once developed, 13 and asked the question, what are the policy implications. We 14 then turned to a policy body of CIRRPC, a policy subpanel, and 15 asked them to explore, then, the policy implications by the 15 a various federal 'gencies. Five agencies had major programs 17 with regard to indoor radon.
18 The good news is that, in fact, we've developed a 19 federally coordinated position on what this nation will do on 20 indoor radon. That report is now being printed, and will be 21 distributed very shortly.
22 We've taken a look at radiation measurements, 23 records, and control. The neutron quality factor. We have i 24 taken a look at the pre-disaster planning for human health 25 offects research. Non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation
26 l
1 risk assessment.
l 2 We've developed a compendium of radiation protection !
3 standards and guides that will be released very soon, that 4 talks about what we consider 28 major standards. What are the 5 scientific and technical bases? What are the legal bases for 6 those standards? If we're going to address those differences j 7 that occur in federal agencies, we have to have a thorough 8 understanding of the bases of those.
9 And we've taken a look at international activities.
10 We've even completed a project with the National Council on 11 Radiation Protection on the U.S. population radiation exposure 12 assessment. And I'm pleased to see that you cited that report 1 i
13 that we played a major role in with regard to NCRP.
l 14 Okay. CIRRPC activities related to NARM. I've !
15 already suggested to you that many of the issues that CIRRPC 16 has been working on and has been resolving are issues, in fact, 17 that deal with federal radiation policy; mutually consistent 18 coordinated radiation regulations and standards, and, 19 particularly, those involving multiple federal agencies and 20 jurisdictions.
21 So, NARM is certainly an issue that could come before 22 the Committee.
23 We have established science, tried for consistent I l
24 approaches among agencies, and we've tasked our ORAU, or Oak
(
25 Ridge Associated University Technical Support Contractor, to j i
l I
27 s 1 continue to develop and work on this Radiation Protection 2 Standards and Guides. These last 2 efforts are essential to 3 understanding the basis and relationship between standards, 4 clearly an issun that would have to be addressed with regard to 5 NARM.
6 If we undertook the NARM program, we do believe it 7 would be consistent then with our charter. I would, however, 8 point out to you, that we would like to see that be a task
~
9 given to us by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But 10 specifically, we would like to have it detailed as to what you 11 would expect. The recommendation that occurs in your report, 12 brings in the broader issue of ionizing radiation. I would 13 hope that you would not expect that broader issue to be 14 addresed.
15 So we would need to have a specific request from you, 16 limiting the charge. And I think that could be done. The 17 response by CIRRPC would relate then to the level of effort 18 that would be required, and how that requect fits into our 19 future plans for regulatory review. Clearly, I think it would. l 20 We would take on the task, I believe, in a very timely manner.
21 I would tell you, that in order to accept the task, 22 we in fact, turn to the other federal agencies, and to the 23 policy body of CIRRPC, with the task spelled out in detail. We 24 would identify a sub-panel. We would ask the policy body to
('
25 approve that task to be undertaken, because that task will
, , . , , , - - --- ,_,, , -- . , - ---n--- , - . - , - - - - --,n - , - , , -
l 1
e e 1 28 1 require financial resources. CIRRPC operates through the l 2 contribution of resources from 14 federal agencies. Our l
3 research budget, approaches $1.5 to 1.8 million a year. l 4 So that is where we would get the resources -- from 5 all of the federal agencies, to undertake the task. It would l
6 not be something that would be funded by NRC to the CIRRPC 1
7 program.
8 Mr. Chairman, I think I've given an overview on that j 9 whole thing. I brought 2 reports with me, just to show you l l
10 What CIRRPC has been doing. I've given you our third annual i 11 report. Obviously a fourth one is now in preparation. We're )
12 coming rapidly to the end of our year. And I've also given a 13 report out on the Identification of Federal Radiation Issues, 14 to show you that when we made a survey of the federal agencies, 15 clearly there were some agencies that had concerns that related 16 'to the NARM issues.
1 17 That concludes my remarks. !
i 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. I appreciate 19 it.
20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHA1: Let me just make a comment 21 here, if it's needed, as to why there is some concern on the 1
22 Commission at least, with this issue, and why I would hope that )
i 23 CIRRPC would undertake the issue to try and reach some sort of l
( 24 resolution, and a resolution that I would hope would have a 25 certain continuity through the change in Administrations at the 1
l 29
_ 1 end of this year.
2 The impetus, at least for me, and I suspect for other 3 members of this commission, to come to grips with this issue, 4 of course, is partly rooted in the history -- that we aren't 5 the first ones that have looked at this and seen that there 6 needs to be some order set to what appears to ba at least a 7 small corner of chaos in the oversight of potentially dangerous 8 materials. But I'm reminded of the rather stranuous criticism i
9 that this agency was subjected to through no particular fau3t 10 of our own, I would say, in connection with an incident at the 11 Sequoyah Fuel Cycle Processing Facility down in Oklahoma a year 12 or so ago.
( 13 Well, the analogy isn't perfect. But there, somewhat 14 as here, it was cicar that in connection with our 15 responsibility for what happened to be a uranium compound, 16 although the uranium material itself was not particularly 17 dangerous, the chemical compound was particularly dangerous. l 18 And in fact, that was the source of some deaths on 19 that plant site. And it was also clear that exactly who was 20 responsible for the chemical part of the hazard there -- we )
l 21 were, in a way, but whether the expertise was here, and whether l 22 we had carried that responsibility out in the same way that EPA 23 or other agencies more familiar with chemical hazards might 24 have carried out, that was not so clear, it seemed to me at the
(
25 time.
30
, 1 So that at least was one issue where, in connection 2 with the more natural responsibility of this agency under its 3 statutory authority, we realized that there was -- these aren't 4 my words even, tncy're words of members of Congress -- that 5 there was a regulatory gap, apparently. Or I believe they were 6 the Chairman's words at one point, in fact. ,
7 Well, that's part of the reason, at least for me, why 8 we developed a new sensitivity, perhaps to this area that has 9 kind of festered in this agency now for 10 years or more. I ;
10 just wanted to lend that little bit of comment.
i 11 MR. YOUNG: Let me comment. I think your point is 12 well taken. NARM is an issue that just isn't NRC.
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I understand.
14 MR. YOUNG: It is an issue that has to be looked at I 15 by tiie Environmental Protection Agency, by the Department of 16 Energy, by the Departuent of Defense, by Health and Human 17 Services.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: And neither was this issue in 19 Oklahoma.
20 KR. YOUNG: Exactly, exactly. And clearly, that's 21 the advantage of the CIRRPC program. I think you would be very 22 pleased to see that agencies are sitting around the table at 23 these meetings and talking with each others. We've gotten 24 beyond the turf battle.
[ Now we can begin to interact, and 25 that's what's been happening. I think this is the success of
31 1 the CIRRPC program, is that we're working as a rederal 2 Governk9nt in trying to resolve issues.
3 I would point out, that as we took on the radon 4 issue, we realized its importance to the states. And we, in 5 fact, invited a representative of the Conference of Radiation
~
6 Control Program Directors to join with us on redon 7 deliberations. And that individual contributed greatly to the 8 preparation of our report on radon. ;
9 So here's an example of where, in fact, we have in 10 the past interfaced with the Control Conference. i 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Can we proceed?
12 Mr. Kammerer, who's going to be next?
1 13 MR. KAMMERER: Mr. Strong.
14 MR. STRONG: I want to thank you for scheduling this 15 meeting in part, at our request, at a time when it will occur, 16 just immediately prior to cur annual meeting. The proceedings 17 here, we'll take back with us and we appreciate that very much.
18 We have a document to leave with you today, 19 describing what we say, and what we have to say, and some other 20 details, and we'd like that to become part of the record. And 21 if I could, let me enter into the discussion that just went on j 22 here.
23 CIRRPC may or may not be the solution. The concern, 24 I think that we have, is that we don't want to shuffle it once 25 too often. Everybody's responsibility is nobody's
32
, 1 responsibility. And we're here becaune we think it's a 2 significant issue, and one more shuffle may not be what the 3 issue needs.
4 our purpor.e in being here today is to share our 5 concern for this issue as a significant potential public health 6 problem. We want to reaffirm for you, our position on the NARM 7 situation, and we want to comment on your document, NUREG-1310.
8 Basically our position is that we believe there should be a 9 uniform nationwide regulatory overview, oversi,c.t of the NARM 10 issue. And we're talking about discrete NARM sources, not the 11 universe of NARM, not yet anyway.
12 It's the discrete sources of NARM that we have 13 concern about. And we believe that the Nuclear Regulatory 14 Commission is the proper agency to do that. And we believe 15 that because you have the expertise. You have the mechanism.
16 You have the experience of regulating the uses of radioactive !
I 17 materials in places where discrete sources of NARM are in use l l
18 now. !
19 And for these reasons, I think it becomes appropriate 20 for you. And with that out of the way, I want to turn to ;
1 21 Chuck, for him to describe for you, exactly who the conference i
22 is, and how we do our work. l l
23 MR. HARDIU: Thank you, Terry. The organization l 1
( 24 called the Conference, was formed in 1968, as a result of 25 several state radiation control directors getting together and l
33 1 realizing that non-uniformity in other areas of radiation was :
2 existing in the United States. It was formed then, for the 3 primary purpose, so that a common forum could exist, where 4 states could coordinate technical and administrative 5 information between themselves, as well as a coordinating point 6 for states to talk with the Federal Government.
7 Currently there are 430 members of the organization, 8 made up of, and the voting members are the program directors of 9 each of the respective states, the District of Columbia, and 10 Puerto Rico. Of these members, the primary work is performed 11 through a variety of committees and taskforces that have been 12 established for a given issue or given program. A listing of 13 these committees and taskforces are in the handout document, 14 which you may look at your leisure.
15 The Conference is controlled, policywise, by an 16 executive board, which is made up of 7 state persons that 17 alternate on basically a 3-year cycle through the election of 18 the membership.
19 This issue of NARM has been on the foreground of the 20 Conference for many years -- from its very beginning as a 21 matter of fact. I think the history will show that it's been
. 22 an issue with the states since the mid to early 60's. And we
~
23 still continue to support the position that it is still a major
, { 24 issue. And I would like to re-emphasize Mr. Strong's comment 25 that our major concern is discrete sources -- emphasizing j
34 1 discrete sources, not the major universe, big world of NARM 2 that's been discussed here so far. It's discrete sources that 3 are a major concern.
4 MR. STRONG: Because of who we are, who we represent, 5 I don't think that I am being presumptuous or that we are being 6 presumptuous, when we remind you that the states, the agreement 7 states, regulate 65 percent of the use of licensed radioactive 8 materials. So, we come with some background. The 29 agreement 9 states who essentially reculate the discrete sources of NARM 10 now in the same way that they do the other radioactive 11 materials. And I qualify "essentially," because I think if we 12 did an in-depth study, you might find that it's not exactly the 13 same.
14 I know in my state, we end up with issues that, in 15 our normal course of events when we are stuck, we call you. We 16 call our counterparts in your agency. And you don't regulate 17 NARM. There isn't really somebody to call when we get stuck.
18 That's in the 29 states, In the other 21, there are 4 states 19 that have really very good programs where they are licensing l l
20 and registering. There are 5 more states where they are doing 21 some registration, and some inspection.
22 And you get down to the bottom 12 states, and I think 23 maybe that begins to be our bottom line. Although the whole 24 issue needs to be looked at, there are 12 states where really,
(
25 the issue is not well controlled at all. They happen to be
35 1 non-acreement states, these 12 that we're talking about, but 2 essentially there is a very, very weak program of regulation in 3 those states.
4 And what we're talking about here, is the federal 5 oversight, the federal reviews, somebody, some one place where 6 the dollar stops -- the buck stops here. That kind of 7 oversight is what you're talking about.
8 I've got some specific examples, and I think they've 9 been covered as we've gone around the table, about 10 inconsistencies. And we can come back and talk about those f
11 kinds of inconsistencies and the specific examples that I had -
12 cited. But I think that I would go straight to Bill now, and ;
13 ask him to look at your document, compare that with our 14 docunent and describe the specifics about your report, 15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Proceed.
16 MR. DORNSIFE: I think the first point I'd like to t
17 make is that about 10 years ago, the NRC staff organized a 18 taskforce that looked in detail at the NARM issue. It was .
1 19 documented in NUREG-0301. The results and conclusions of that 20 report are as valid today as they were then. And the 21 recommendation then was that there is a potential health and 22 safety problem because discrete NARM is not consistently 23 regulaced. And they recommended that NRC pick up the ball and 24 provide that oversight, and it be included under the Atomic I
(
25 Energy Act.
I
O O
+
j.
36 i
1 The report also indicated that there are about 60 2 accelerator-produced isotopes that are in general use in ;
1 3 medical practice. It should be noted that about two thirds of 4 those isotopes also could be produced in a reactor. So you 5 could have side by side, an isotope that's accelerator-6 produced, and an isotope that's produced in a reactor -- one 7 regulated, one not. We at least have some indication that 8 people are using accelerator-produced isotopes to avoid 9 regulation.
10 No doubt about it, discrete radium sources are the I 11 most significant from a health and safety standpoint. Because !
12 as you well know, radium has a very long half-life. It's very 13 similar in toxicity, in fact some think it's even more toxic 14 than transuranic elements. The big problem though, 15 particularly when you're dealing wich sealed sources is, the 16 daughter product of radium is radon. And if you have a leaking j 17 source, the gas leaks out and causes a real, real bad 1
18 contamination problem. l 19 NUREG-0301 indicated that since 1910, it's estimated J l l
20 that about 2,000 Curies of radium were either imported into, or !
21 mhnufactured in the United States. From our records, we can 22 probably account for maybe 200 Curies being disposed of in 23 commercial sites. The conference did a survey in 1984, which i
( 24 could identify about 130 Curies that are either licensed or 4
25 registered in those states that have those programs. So that d
37 1 leaves about 1600 Curies that for the most part, are somewhat 2 unaccounted for.
3 I think it's also important to note that in disposal 4 of source material, eventually radium becomes a dominant risk 5 when you dispose of source material. It eventually decays to 6 radium, and that becomes by far the dominant risk. It even 7 dominates the risk of transuranic disposal, eventually. So you 8 have a NARM problem even in the middle of a waste disposal, 9 eventually.
10 One of the real big concerns though, I think, is that 11 because of the inconsistent regulatory scheme, there really is 12 no uniform way of reporting NARM incidence. So, we really have 13 no idea if there, indeed, is a true health and safety problem 14 out there. Also, there is no way to share information, and 4
15 there is no way to have lessons learned for the use of NARM's.
i 16 So, that system is not in place, and I think one agency having 17 authority and establishing national standards would help 18 immensely from that standpoint.
19 We really believe. that the inconsistent regulation 20 that currently exists and because of that, the non-uniform 21 national standards do create potential health and safety 22 problems. I'll give you some examples.
't 23 In many place there is insufficient regulatory
( 24 control over the design, the quality control, and distribution 25 of NARM-source to the manufacturers of NARM sources. Generally
38 s 1 licensed NARM sources -- these are things that are available 2 for consumer use. They may not be receiving adequate review to f 3 determine whether, indeed, they are creating health and safety 4 problems because of their use.
5 A large part of this unaccounted-for NARM, the 6 radium, went into the manufacture of instruments and devices 7 for the military. These were manufactured under conditions --
8 probably the regulatory conditions were not necessarily up to 9 par, and their use was not really controlled. And these 10 instruments and devices are showing up all over the place and 11 creating, in somo cases, some real severe potential health and 12 safety problems to the public.
I 13 Also, there seems to be cropping up, new sources of i 14 discrete NARM. And remember, we're emphasizing discrete, not 15 the diffuse NARM. These are things like ion exchange resins 16 that are used to clean up ground water that is contaminated by 17 radium. We recently found some pipes used in oil and gas 18 production that have a scale that is a very high concentration 19 of radium. Because of the non-uniformity, it's very dif ficult 20 to control the use and eventual disposal of these materials.
21 This situation also creates interstate commerce l
22 problems, as you can well imagine, when these non-regulated 23 sources cross state or even international boundaries, it 24 creates real problems with the use and control.
25 In fact, some states have gone as far as to deny
39 1 reciprocity, because some states de not have, in their opinion, 2 adequate regulatory programs. So, it really creates some 3 interstate commerce problems, also.
4 I think our major problem, now, as was indicated, 5 with the NUREG-1310 document is the fact that it considers the 5 entire universe of NARM. We are talking about a very small 7 part of that, discrete NARM.
8 I think, because we are really talking about that 9 very discrete part of it, the budget and the resource drain on 10 NRC to take the lead is going to be minimal.
11 We also believe that those agreement states and non-12 agreement states, that currently do have adequate licensing i
13 programs, will continue. In fact, we proposed a grandfathering 14 method to get those states under an agreement program. So, 15 we're really not infringing upon States Rights.
16 I think one of our major problems, again, with the 17 NUREG-1310, is that the staff didn't include specifically our 18 recommendation. I mean, we recommend specifically that NRC 19 look at regulation of discrete NARM, and that was not even one 20 of the considerations, one of the recommendations.
21 Although it's true, as stated in NUREG-1310, the 22 Federal Government does have, in fact, too many agencies have, 23 regulatory authority over the use and disposal of NARM. That's 24 what creates the problem. There is no one lead agency, like we 25 have in the regulation of byproduct materials.
- - - , , - - - , -m -
40
^
. 1 And what it tends to do is create confusion among the
- 2 users and the various agencies as to who is going to take the I
! 3 lead. And that's, I think, one of the real major problems.
4 We feel, because the health and safety risks involved
- S with regulating this discrete NARM are very similar to the 6 health and safety risks involved with regulating byproduct 7 materials, NRC should be, in fact, the lead agency.
3 8 We also agree that disposal of NARM, particularly, 9 radium, is one of the major problems. I sit on the Low-level 10 Waste Forum. If you're not familiar with it, it's a group of 11 state and Cr,mpact folks that talk about issues of mutual 12 concern with solving the low-level waste problem.
4 13 One of the problems we always come back to is NARM. l 1 14 As UUREG-1310 points out, the Conference has tried to do sor.o 15 things to facilitate disposal of NARM. We have developed a 16 program that indeed is trying to facilitate disposal of NARM.
l j 17 However, at best, this program is a temporary one, t
I 18 and it's a stopgap measure. There are a lot of other very 19 important issues that the program does not address.
20 As was mentioned, EPA is proposing to regulate t he l l
l 21 disposal of discrete NARM sources. Now, EPA is doing that 1
i 22 specifically at the request of.the states. We felt we could at i 23 least get that part of the problem solved.
1 . ,
l ( 24 If you're not already aware of it, the proposed l 25 regulations -- and it should be coming out this summer -- say
1 41 1 that discrete NARM, the way they intend on regulating NARM, is 2 to regulate under TSCA. But they're going to propose that NARM '
3 sources be disposed of in facilities that are licensed under 4 the Atomic Energy Act.
5 So, basically, whether the staff and NRC likes it or 6 not, they're going to be taking over regulatory control because 7 of the way EPA is implementing that requirement.
8 I think, also contrary to NUREG-1310, the 2 nanocurie 9 per gram limit that EPA is proposing in their standards is not 10 a below-regulatory-concern limit. What it is is a cutoff limit 11 between discrete and diffuse NARM, and NRC could use a similar 12 limit to define what they would regulate the use of.
l 13 It's my opinion anyway that the diffuse NARM, which l 14 is very similar to uraniun mill tailings, is probably more 15 appropriately regulated under RCRA-type standards.
16 Another point that I think it is important to note, 17 and this is an issue that comes up on the Forum frequently, is 18 trat NARM is not included in the definition of low-level waste 19 under the Low-level Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. In l 20 fact, the reason it's not included is that some of the 21 Congressmen wanted to broaden the definition from discrete to 22 include the entira universe of NARM.
23 And, since that would have included a lot of high-( 24 volume low-activity waste and it's really not suitable for the 25 kind of disposal facilities we're developing, they dropped the
42 l 1 issue. That's t.he real reason it's not in there. l 2 Probably one of the bigger concerns, though, that the ;
l 3
3 states have concerning disposal of NARM is the fact that, 4 because NARM is not included in the Policy Act, there is no l
5 responsibility for disposal of greater than Class C NARM. And ]
l 6 you recognize, particularly, these radium discrete sources, if I 7 you look at the source all by itself, these sources will, for 8 the most part, be greater than Class C.
9 Basically, I think, the tack that I would like to see 10 followed there is, if NRC does indeed take responsibility for 11 regulating discrete radium sources, they will have to develop a 12 greater than Class C limit for these materials.
13 As you are aware, NRC is also proposing a rule that 14 would redefiric high-level waste. And as you are probably also i
15 aware, the states and most commenters requested that NARM 16 specifically be included in that rule.
I 17 If NRC indeed adopts the position that anything 18 greater than class C is high-level waste, then, in fact, !
19 greater than Class C NARM will be a federal disposal i
20 responsibility and satisfy the major concern that states have.
21 I appreciate the opportunity, and thank you very 22 much.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. l
?
( 24 MR. STRONGt Chuck has a couple of words, and then 25 I've got a closing shot.
43 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Proceed, please.
2 MR. HARDIN: My only comment additionally is relative 3 to the status of the states and their management of the NARM 4 issue. By a recent telephone survey I did last week, I j 5 determined that many states, even though it appears they have a I
6 good program of registration, when you go down and look deeply I
7 into what they are doing, specifically their inspection l 8 enforcement program, you'll find they are extremely weak. ,
I 9 And even though it appears so, by the I 10 misunderstanding of registration, they are not. And that is 11 covered in this document we will hand to you on the status of 12 the states.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you.
l 14 MR. DORNSIFE: Could I just add socething, Chuck, 1 15 from the technical standpoint?
16 MR. HARDIN: Sure.
17 MR. DORNSIFE: I think one point -- and I should have 18 made it when I went through -- was the fact that you should 19 recognize that in those non-agreement states that are not 20 regulating the use of UARM, the NRC does regulate byproduct 21 material use. There is only a handful of NARM-only users out 22 there.
23 So, I think it's almost unconscionable to me to have 24 an inspector go in and see NARM use here and byproduct use 25 here, and not even look at that NARM use. So, from that
44 1 standpoint, we really don't see it as a real drain on !
e 2 resources. ,
3 MR. STRONG: In winding up, I'd like to recognize (
4 the, I guess it's yeoman duty that John did in putting this 5 report together for you in such a short time and in such a 6 complete way. And we don't really blame him that he didn't endt 7 up with the right conclusion.
8 (Laughter.]
9 MR. STRONG: We're good bureaucrats, too, and we (
10 understand that issues of budget and resources and politics 11 would influence the way the report is sent to you.
- 12 While we can understand that, we would come back and l
13 deal with the issue, which is the potential for public health ,
14 and environmental problems that exists out there.
4 15 We believe that all of the possibilities for the 16 Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do something now were not 17 exhausted, and we look at maybe some examples there.
18 We think that, if you wanted to, if you made the j i
l 19 decision to do something about the issue, that you probably 1 20 could, if you determined that you wanted to.
21 If you can't agree, we believe that maybe getting the l 22 issue back to Congress is the way to go, and let Congress make l
i 23 a decision, rather than do the bureaucratic shuffle on it, andi
(
24 we think that that would be better. '
l l
i 25 If that is something that you can't do, then it would l l
l
, 49 ;
, 1 be our intention to continue to deal with the issue. Maybe i 2 there is a solution, working with EPA and with NRC, a l 3 delegation of responsibility. But we would like to go back to 4 Congress, continue to try to get it there. ,
1 5 And I guess I want to leave a question with you. If 6 we were able to get it on the agenda in Congress, and given the 7 resources and the authority for NRC, would your position still 8 be the same as John has sort of laid it out? Would you fight 9 the issue, being delegated the responsibility, if the resources 10 and the authority were given to you?
! 11 Chairman Zech, I've met you twice before, and this 12 morning in your office was the third time. And on each of 13 those occasions you have indicated that you were recognizing
.4 the preeminent responsibility of government to protect the 15 public health and safety.
l 16 As you spoke to us, you were saying that the NRC was t i
i 17 going to be there to help. I want to remind you of that, and 18 ask, on behalf of the conference and, I think, the states, that 19 you do look hard at this and that we do get something moving on 20 the issue. !
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think we have helped in the past.
- 22 Certainly, it's my impression that we've done that, and 1
23 certainly, within the law of what we can do, we would certainly 1
24 want to assist in the future, no matter how the ultimate !
- l 25 decision comes out.
s
46 1 So, we are responsible for public health and safety l 2 within a statutory understanding. But, no matter what, I think i 3 we have and we would continue to assist. And so, that's my 4 intent.
5 MR. STRONG: Yes, sir, and we appreciate that very 4
6 much.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And I think that my colleagues feel 8 the same way. We want to solve the problem, or help solve the 9 eventual problem. Sat, in any case, we're going to continue to 10 assist as best we can. s Il Does that conclude?
12 MR. STRONG: Yes. This concludes our presentation.
13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much.
]
l 14 We'll have questicns by both Commissioners. Connissioner 15 Bernthal?
16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me just ask one l
l 17 straightforward question here before I get into some other l 18 details. Do I take your presentation collectively to imply 4 19 that the agreement states, generally speaking, still see, if i
i 20 they ever saw, still see the regulation of NARM by the NRC as 1
21 being necessary and/or desirable? I J 22 And, Carl, you might want to comment on this, as 23 well.
I
( 24 Or, do your comments not represent at this point any 25 polling of the agreement states as such?
J
47 1 MR. HARDIN: The position paper that wo have on the 2 issue was a vote of our entire membership. That does include 3 agreement states.
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So, this, in effect, 5 represents the agreement state position. And was that a fairly 6 unanimous position, or were there minority views expressed, or 7 where are we on that?
8 MR. HARDIN: When this position was taken in '85, it 9 was the great majority of the membership. There were some who 10 disagreed with the position, some of which were both agreement 11 and non-agreement states. But the great majority of the 12 organization agreed with the position and voted on it, 13 including agreement states.
14 MR. STRONG: The agreement states, as a group, when 15 they meet each fall, have almost traditionally voted on this 16 issue, asking the NRC to look at this. And, again, the vast 17 majority have voted for it.
18 COMMISSIONP' BERNTHAL: So, we have the extraordinary 19 circumstance here of states themselves asking the Federal 20 Government to apply some uniform protection and regulatory 21 standards that currently they perceive don't exist. Is that a 22 fair statement?
23 MR. STRONG: Yes.
( 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. Thank you.
25 I want to get back a little bit to some of the points
48 1 that you raised in your presentation, John. I understand you 2 were primarily responsible or one of the principal workers on 3 this paper. And, again, I want to congratulate you on what I 4 think was an outstanding job.
5 I, too, have some concerns with the conclusions that 6 you've reached. And let ne say at the outset that I share the 7 concern about the NRC. In fact, it made ne sit up and tako 8 notice when you mentioned the possible NRC regulation of 9 cyclotrons and accelerators.
10 I used to operate a cyclotron in my research for many 11 years -- the Rolls-Royce of cyclotrons, in fact -- at Michigan 12 State University.
13 The thought of the NRC coming through that facility, 14 which vsa a research facility, regolating everything that wo 15 did, sent a chill down my spine, to tell you truth, because I l
16 was involved in basic research and I was not particularly of 17 the opinion that I wasn't quito capable of determining my 18 health and safety needs as I operated that facility. I 19 So, I'm very sensitive to that point. In fact, it l l
20 seems clear from that mero comment that we would need to look 21 very carefully at how we would approach that kind of 1
22 regulation.
23 But I think there has been suggested here a possible 24 alternative. In fact, one that, it was correctly pointed out, 25 did not appear in your list of recommendations. And that was i
l
i !
, .' i 49 1 that we look, rather, at discrete NARM.
2 Now, discrete is perhaps not so easily defined. But 3 for want of a better term, that means accelerator or naturally- i 4 produced material, I guess, that's in one place as a source, or
! 5 at least is easily identified. That may not be so easy from a !
6 regulatory standpoint.
7 And it brings to mind the question of whether, for i
8 example, in a cyclotron facility the NRC could be in a j 9 position, not of regulating every aspect of the use and 10 operation of that facility, as we do with reactors,ifow, for 11 example, but rather, if that facility is being used for 12 production of a material in radiopharmaceuticals or in the j 13 medical field. Whether we don't pick up our responsibilities i
14 somehow at the docr, or perhaps in a defined area of the 15 facility, j 16 Would you comment generally on why that did not 1
17 appear in your list of recommendations? l 1 l 18 MR. AUSTIN: There is a medical procedure called l
19 positron emission tomography, and it involves cyclotron-1 20 produced radiopharmaceuticals. The radionuclides tend to have 1 21 half lives of a few minutes to hours, so they are produced on-i 22 site.
4 23 What the physician does is use the cyclotron to 24 develop a beam of protons which goes into a hot chemical lab --
25 they call it the black box -- where the appropriate chemicals
50 1 must be valved in. Then, with the product they process it a ;
- 2 little bit more. And then it goes out that port and quickly 3 into the patient, because of the half life.
4 They all must work as a syster or the patient will j 5 not receive the right isotope or the right dose. So, they are 6 fundamentally linked. So, I couldn't see a way one could back 7 either to the exit port or just the patient, because the unit 8 has to work as a system. If anything goes wrong --
l 9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, if you'll forgive me, I 10 think you picked a straw man. I agree with the single caso i 11 that you mentioned. That is an unusual circumstance, though.
12 In many cases -- in fact, I would say the majority of 4
i 13 commercial applications here, as you know better than I by now, 14 I'm sure. There are a nur.ber of facilitics that are high-boan 15 intensity cyclotrons, for example, that are dedicated to 16 producing radioactive materials where the patient is not ;
17 literally hooked up to the machine.
18 In the case you mentioned, I agree with you. But the 19 vast majority of such facilities is a different matter, it j 20 seems to me. l
)
1 21 MR. BERNERO: Bob Bernero from the Office of Nuclear
! 1
, 22 Material Safety and Safeguards. l 23 There's a spectrum of suboptions. One could define J 24 discrete NARM is radium only, radium of some concentration J
25 level. Or, one can broaden it into other longer-lived
51 1 isotopes, and set some sort of hazard index for it.
2 There is a whole spectrum of such subcptions. But '
l 3 when the study was done, it's a slippery slope, and that's the 4 thing. We're outside the traditional, the logical, the 5 apparently-logical role of the NRC as the Congress has viewed 4 I 6 it. <
7 And we're going down, because of analogy, we're going 8 down a slope that says: Well, I'll take this discrete source, )
i 9 and then this one and this one and this one. And there's no i
10 logical truncation of it. That's the sort of thing you run ;
11 into.
i 12 MR. AUSTIN: Commissioner Bernthal, I'd have to add i
that, while the PET modality may not be the dominant procedure 13 j 14 in hospitals involving cyclotrans, as Mr. Bornero was pointing i
l 15 out --
i 16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: In hospitals involving l
17 cyclotrons it may be a very important one. I'm saying, l 18 generally, with cyclotrons, though, it's a minor element, I 19 would say.
}
] 20 MR. AUSTIN: But it would be there. ;
l i 21 COMMI3SIONER BERNTHAL: Certainly. ;
l
- 22 MR. AUSTIN
- And the Food and Drug Administration is !
23 now wrestling with whether they are going to regulate this j
. 24 procedure. They have not decided whether it's a device or a
- 25 d rug . And the preliminary signals coming out are that they l l
4 4
i 1 . . l 4 .
1 52 i
l ,
1 prefer neither.
j 2 So, it is possible that, if we were to get into this, l
3 we would then have to rule on the safety and efficacy of these i
4 radiopharmaceuticals. So, not only would we need cyclotron i i
) 5 people, we would need medical people to advise us. !
I l
! 6 COMMISSIONER BERHTHAL: Well, let me make a l l i j 7 suggestion. I don't want to get off into a tangent too much
]
8 here, but it would seem to me that the analogy with X-ray 1
i 9 equipment, for example, in a hospital should be very clear.
- - 10 And perhaps not entirely clean, but fairly clean.
11 When you have a dedicated facility in a hospital, 12 it's usually in the hospital because you're talking about 13 short-life materials. You need the beam on target where the 14 target might litorally be the patient, or at least you're 15 carrying out a procedure of the type you described, where it's 16 an integral part of the equipment.
17 And there, it seems to me, it's entirely logical that 18 FDA, much as it regulates the X-ray generating equipment, would 19 have jurisdiction over that.
20 But the vast majority of these accelerator-produced 21 isotopes are longer-lived. They're produced resotely. Perhaps ,
1 22 not that remotely in the case of some of the shorter-lived 23 ones, but that's the vast majority of the material.
24 And it seems to me there may be a logical and legally 25 defensible line that can be drawn. So, I would urge that that ;
l 4
53 s 1 at least be taken under consideration.
2 Someone here mentioned the point of the side-by-side 3 problem, where you walk into a facility, a hospital, for 4 example. The agreement state does perhaps. And in the one 5 case they see something that the NRC has jurisdiction over 6 i;ecause it happens to be produced in a reactor. And right next 7 to it, a different isotope of iodine that happens to be 8 produced in an accelerator at some remote site.
9 That just doesn't make any sense, it seems to me.
10 And that's the other side of the easy calls. You've picked a 11 difficult call, and I agree it would not be so easily defined 12 in regulation.
13 MR. BERNERO: But that same logic would have us look 14 to en X-ray machine to regulate.
15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: pardon me?
16 MR. BERNERO: That same logic could draw us to 17 regulate or consider regulation of X-ray machines.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: What logic?
19 MR. BERNERO: Of saying it's side-by-side. Because 20 many hospitals have cobalt-60 teletherapy and X-ray machines in 21 the same department.
22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, no, I don't agree with 23 that. I don't buy that, Bob. You could say that.
24 But what I'm asking is, can you draw some reasonable 25 line legally where our responsibility might pick up and where
54 1 it might leave off. And the X-ray machine is a very easy one.
2 That's not proven difficult for us to tell that X-ray machines 3 ain't us. That has been no problem.
4 How, John brought up an iss'.4 in an area that's a 5 little more difficult, it seems to me. And I'm sure there will !
6 be gray borderline cases, but probably not many. I don't think l
7 it's so impossible.
8 COMMISSIONER CARR: Can I interrupt a minute? It 9 seems to me like those on/off machines are pretty simple.
i 10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's right. i 11 COMMISSIONER CARR: If you don't have an off machine 12 on a picce of radioactivity, then somobody ought to be looking i .
13 after it.
14 MR. AUSTIN: They are a little more cceplicated to l l
15 operate than are the cobalt-60 machines.
16 COMMISSIONER CARR: But when they're off, are they !
17 still hazardousi 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No. Minimal.
19 COMMISSIONER CARR: And the cobalt-60 is. That's the l
20 big difference.
1 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes. I 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Can we proceed? )
I 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me ask one more question, l
{
24 John, and that is in respect to your estimate of the magnitude j 25 of the problem. While we all recognize that radon may be the l
l 4
55 1 biggest problem of all now, we've only really recognized that 2 for a year or two in this country. That doesn't mean that we 3 can't do better in some other areas, as well.
4 I'm a little concerned about the estimate that -- I 5 believe it's 1 percent of all misadministrations are indicated 6 to be NARM misadministrations. Can you give us some sense of 7 why you think that that statistic is reliable, when the only 8 reports that we're likely to receive would be of a NARM isotope 9 that might have been applied in error, when one of our 10 regulated isotopes was supposed to have been applied, for 11 example?
12 MR. AUSTIN: Yes. It is a backwards way of getting 13 data. I think the regulation says that, if a patient is to 14 receiva NARM, but vinds up rocciving a byproduct, that is a 15 misadministration of byproduct material. The inverse of that 16 is not reportable.
17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALt Right.
18 MR. AUSTIN: The data are scanty on the 19 misadministrations of NARM radiopharmaceuticals, because 20 there's no federal agency that has the reporting requirements.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's my point, yes.
22 MR. AUSTIN: One percent. It could be 5 percent. If 23 you took in the inverse of that which is being reported, it 24 might be 2 percent. But, even there, it's not clear how 25 accurate all of the data are, even under our reporting system.
l .
. c i .
} 96 f s 1 There's a judgment call on every one of the misadministrations. i I When I took that data and translated it into a cost-3 benefit analysis, that suggested -- it was very imprecise -- l j 4 but suggested that it would cost $10 billion per averted death, {
'l 5 if we went after and were very, very successful in preventing 6 misadministrations of NARM radiopharmaceuticals. '
7 I thought that that number was so high that, even if 8 I'm off by a factor of 100, it still did not appear cost-l 9 '
beneficial.
10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, if you're off by a 11 factor of even 10, you would not be inconsistent with the I
j 12 standard that the EPA, for example, has frequently applied to 13 the value of a human life.
B j But that's a separate question.
14 MR. AUSTIN: Ten billion.
e 15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL Ten billion, yes.
I 16 understand. And some of the regulations that our government 17 has promulgated -- not in this agency, but in others -- have l 18 gone substantially above.
1 19 What is it we have, 10 million or something like 20 that? Between a million and 10 million. I used to say a l
j 1
21 million, but now I've inflated it and I say 10 million. I'm 22 not sure what's right any more. a
- 23 But, let me ask one question, again, about the
, 24 statistic. How many medical administrations, not 25 misadministrations, how many medical radiopharmaceutical 4
l.
1 l
57 i l s 1 administrations are NARM, as opposed to our staff?
) 2 MR. AUSTIN: I could not find that number. ;
1
! 3 COMMISSIONER DERNTHAL: You see, that's an important l 4 number, too. Otherwise, the statistic is meaningless.
5 MR. AUSTIN: It is an important number. We did visit 6 NIH, and I asked that question. Is it more likely to mix up l l 7 radiopharmaceuticals that are byproduct than it is cyclotron- l I
produced?
8 l l 9 And the head of the department responded that he felt 1
j 10 it was easier to mix up byproduct radiopharmaceuticals than j 11 cyclotrons, because they're coming from differeret placen.
4 f 12 The byproduct is coming through shipments through the 13 doors. Here's the box, and here they are. The cyclotron-i f i 14 produced radlepharracouticals, which generally had a short half l 15 life, minutes to hours, were handled differently in the 16 pharmacy. l 17 For example, you do not store a 10-minute half life l 18 radiopharmaceutical on the shelf for a couple of days and have j
j 19 it get mixed up with something else. He thought. It was his I
I 20 gut feeling that's how it would be, i
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Again, it's pretty hazy j i
j 22 stuff, because I can assure you I used to order a lot of
- 23 radiopharmaceutical materials, and, believe me, most of the j ( 24 carrier-free stuff came in a box through the door, and it was
! 25 cyclotron-produced.
! \
k
- 5 58 1 MR. DORNSIFE: Mr. Bernthal, if it helps any, in 2 Pennsylvania we are not an agreement state, but we do license 3 and inspect NARM. We have about 1,000 NRC licenses for 4 byproduct material, and about 300 NARM licenses. Only about 6 5 or so of those are NARM-only licenses.
6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Maybe we can get better 1 7 numbers on that. I have more questions, but I think I'm going 8 to defer and give my colleagues a crack at some of this, I 9 think, for a while.
10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Carr?
11 COMMISSIONER CARR: Yes, I've got a question for the I
12 staff, and perhaps Mr. Young. What would you expect as the )
I 13 product from CIRRPC, and when would you expect it?
^
14 MR. AUSTIN: If I could address the product. I think 15 one thing that needs to be done early on is to get a better 16 feel for what the problem is with NARM. ,
l 17 Some reported problems with NARM involve a truck i
18 running over a radium source that did not crack. Therefore, no )
l 19 contamination, no dose to anyone. You don't create a federal 20 program for that situation.
21 So, I think there needs to be a better search for 22 problems with NARM, problems of the kind that would get 23 congressional interest in some legislation.
24 Given a gcod feel for what the actual problem is with 25 NARM, then I think CIRRPC could look to see which agencies
- 1 59 1 correctly have jurisdiction over that particular probleta, and 2 ask the agency to integrate it into its over-all programs.
3 And, if it turns out there is a significant problem 4 not being addressed at the federal level because of a gap in 5 mandates to the various agencies, then CIRRPC could recommend 6 that an appropriate agency go and seek that legislative 7 authority.
8 That would be the product I would hope for. The 9 schedule perhaps Dr. Young would like to address.
10 MR. STELLO: Well, maybe I would add another l 11 dimension to it. I would expect, and if it were to come to 12 pass, that the NRC were to seek legislation to regulate some of 13 this, whatever that is, that's one of the answers we'll get l
14 back.
l I
15 Regulate what? Would that be a parallel set of 16 requirements that would come out to give us authority that EPA l 17 now has and take it away from them? There are major policy l 18 questions.
l 19 COMMISSIONER CARR: Well, your in-going position is l 20 that we don't even know if there's a problem, so you want them 21 to define the problem. And, then, if there is a problem, to 22 find the extent of the problem and come back with a proposed 23 solution.
24 MR. AUSTIN: Commissioner, from my review over a 3-25 month period in search of the problem, I didn't see a problem
= ,
60 1 that rose to the level that it ought to be the next target of 2 congressional action.
3 The Conference here today says they, out there, see a 4 problem. I could have tried to pursue more and more of what 5 the problem is, but then, when I read the legislative history 6 that says Congress has historically turned its head away from 7 NRC on this issue of NARM --
8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Have we ever tried very hard 9 to get the Congress to at least address just the one small 10 corner of the problem that one of our state representatives )
11 mentioned?
I 12 MR. AUSTIN: Commissioner Bernthal, there was one 4
13 case, but the history goes back farther. In the late '30s and 14 through the '40s, cyclotrons were in extensive use in medical 15 institutions and in universities.
16 In fact, they were the preferred source of 17 radionuclides, because the byproduct material coming out of the !
18 weapons program would not give you the isotope you asked for.
i 19 It would give you 5. So, they were contaminated. l 20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It's still true, to some 21 extent.
I 22 MR. AUSTIN: So, the cyclotron business was alive and i l
23 well. Radium was known to be killing people. l I
( 24 In 1959, when Congress established the Agreement l 1
25 State Program, the Joint Committee wrote that the Committee has i
l l
a 4 61 1 rewcitten this legislation to make sure that the IEC 2 jurisdiction does not go into areas such as radium or other 3 sources of ionizing radiation, because that is the 4 responsibility of the states and other federal agencies.
5 So, it was explicit in '59. It came up in our Low-6 level Waste Amendments Act of 1985, where the Commission asked 7 the Congress to include NARM in a definition of low-level 8 waste. And it didn't survive, for the reason, I think, there 9 was some confusion over what is NARM.
10 Are we talking about one-fifth the State of Florida's 11 tailings from the phosphate industry? Or, where do you draw 12 the line? And everyone just went --
13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: It sounds like we never gave 14 them a good recomr.er.2ation.
15 COMMISSIONER CARR: The fact remains that we haven't 16 submitted any legislation request.
17 MR. AUSTIN: No.
18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I certainly never have had 19 the sense that they are hostile or unresponsive. I just don't 20 think they've been given much to respond to up to now.
21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Carr?
22 COMMISSIONER CARR: You owe me an answer there on 23 timeframe, and what you expect the product to be.
24 MR. AUSTIN: Yes, Commissioner Carr. I would have to 25 insist that the task that you want us to be about be as
62 1 specific as it can possibly be. Without a specific task, the 2 timing is very unsure.
3 But, clearly, one of the things that we can do is 4 bring the agencies together and ask: what are they doing, how 5 well are they communicating, what are their plans. And that's 6 what we've been doing on a number of issues, and that can be 7 done effectively.
8 Typically, an issue comes before us, and we set a 9 time limit of a year to get out and try to do something about 10 that issue. Now, we haven't always made it in a year. We've 11 slid in some cases'to two years. But that's the kind of 12 timeframe that we aim for.
13 You have too many job changes in the Federal 14 Government always occurring. So, you don't want to have en 15 issue too long in front of a policy body. You may have to go 16 through 2 or 3 different policy bodies.
17 But that's what we're trying to do. We tried to set 18 a time limit on this thing of a year, and that's our goal.
19 Now, we haven't always made it, but in some cases we have.
l 20 I would say -- and I recognize we're going through a ;
21 transition here very shortly and there will be some policy 22 changes, policy membership, individuals, that we can expect to 23 see changes through this next year.
24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's for sure.
25 COMMISSIONER CARR: Well, my other question, I guess,
63 1 is for Mr. Strong. You implied that we could do something 2 vithout legislation. Have you got a few concrete suggestions?
3 MR. STRONG: I don't pretend to be your attorney, 4 COMMISSIONER CARR: Well, we've got one down chere 5 that will help.
6 MR. STRONG: Right. He'll straighten me out. I 7 think you could grandfather in some existing programs. You 8 could do some things in the Agreement State Programs that exist '
9 now.
10 You could phase in a program of your cwn, perhaps, 11 without costing you extensive manpower and resources. You 12 could phase it in Glowly. You could phase it in fast.
13 COMMISSIONER CARR: I'm concerned about do we have )
14 the authority to do that.
15 MR. STRONG: Well, I'm not the attorney, but I think 16 that, where there is a vacuum, something needs to be done. I 17 think that Congress didn't say in the statutes that you 18 couldn't do it. Maybe in the history they said that.
19 I don't know. Chuck, are there other things?
20 MR. DORNSIFE: Well, maybe I can add one thing that 21 may indeed happen. When EPA was responsive to the states in 22 regulating disposal of NARM under their upcoming low-level 23 waste standards, they looked at TSCA to do that.
< 24 And under TSCA they felt that they could not only 25 regulate disposal, but also use. And they probably would have
64 1 also delegated the responsibility for regulating the use to NRC 2 as part of their standards.
3 And, as you are aware, EPA generally-applicable 4 standards are applicable to everybody.
1 5 MR. AUSTIN: Commissioner Carr, the staff, including 6 the lawyers, are interacting with EPA on the extent to which 7 everyone is in agreement as to what TSCA says they can do to 8 us, if we don't already have authority. And that's still being 9 worked out.
10 On the other, what we could do, absent legislation, 11 to assist the disposal of discrete radium sources, this agency 12 could identify a range of concentrations of radium that we deem 13 to be suitable and those which we deem to be not suitable for 14 our sites. And then say, if the state doesn't mind, if EPA 15 doesn't mind, we don't mind.
16 But we would not be abic to say radium in that 17 concentration must go there. We can say we have no objection.
18 COMMISSIONER CARR: That takes care of waste 19 disposal.
20 MR. AUSTIN: Yes. But if we had --
21 COMMISSIONER CARR: That's one part of the problem.
22 MR. AUSTIN: That's one part of it. EPA can do the 23 regulation of the water purification plant under TSCA because 24 of the radium loading on the resins.
25 They can require manifests to be generated. They can
65 I 1 watch that truck go all the way to the low-level waste site.
2 And then we just watch them move it in-3 MR. DORNSIFE: If I could maybe offer another 4 perspective. I think, if EPA standards really do say that this 5 discrete NARM has to be disposed of and the facility licensed 6 under the Atomic Energy Act, then I think it's incumbent upon 7 NRC staff to determine, indeed, what concentrations are l
l 8 acceptable for near-surface disposal. That's not something ;
9 they're going -- If the good guys are going to do it, they 10 have to do it.
11 COMMISSIONER CARR: Can they stick something under l j
12 the Atomic Energy Act that's not already there? l l
13 MR. PARLER: Maybe, Mr. Chairman, I should comment.
1 14 CHAIPSJW ZECH: Please. Go ahead. l 15 MR. PARLER: My answer would be no. And I would hope 16 that would be the answer of any of those that will be my 1
17 successors until the Congress acts. The Congress, since 1946, 18 has limited the jurisdiction of this agency and its predecessor 19 to those materials and facilities which are spelled out and l
20 defined in Section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act. '
21 Basically, as far as the materials are concerned, 1
22 they are byproduct materials that have been produced by the 23 fission process. That's basically the kind of things that you
' 1 24 are talking about here this morning.
25 The only exception to that was in the Uranium Mill l
l A
66 1 Tailings Act of some years ago, whore the definition of 2 byproduct material was expanded to include some of the 3 potential hazards from mill tailings. So, the Congress 4 approached that problem very specifically, very sharply.
5 It is certainly not a part of my legal reasoning to 6 approach a problem like this to say, simply because the agency 7 is not prohibited from doing something, that it can step in and 8 do something, even though there might otherwise be a vacuum.
9 our authority -- and this is not just my position --
10 but everybody that has been involved in this from the beginning 11 have taken the position that our regulatory authority is 12 specifically as laid out in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as 13 amended.
14 In the Xerr-McGee Sequoyah problem that has been 15 mentioned here, we have also taken the position that, if a 1 i
16 nonradiological hazard is produced as a part of something that '
17 we regulate, then perhaps our jurisdiction could be expanded to 18 cover that. l l
19 And also in areas, such as that where it might appear 20 to others that might otherwise have jurisdiction that this 21 agency was taking care of the problem, we should clear the air 22 as much as possible. l 23 But at least since I've been involved in the
- 24 regulatory agency activity, there has been little doubt in the 25 minds of either the lawyers or the policy-makers that this
i
. . l 67 1 agency and its predecessor do not have the cuthority to 2 license, to regulate, or to do anything with regard to these 3 kinds of materials that we're talking about here this morning, 4 those that have the NARM label.
5 Now, cooperating, exchanging information, talking 6 with EPA or FDA or whatever about approaches to problems, et 7 cetera, we can do that.
8 My remarks are strictly limited to what this agency l
9 has the authority to do as a regulatory agency. And that l
10 authority is limited to those things that are defined in the 11 Atomic Energy Act of 1954. That's my view.
i 12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much. Commissioner l l
13 Carr, anything else? Commissioner Rogers?
14 MR. DORNSIFE: If I could just pake one connent.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes, go ahead.
16 MR. DORNSIFE: That being the case, as you are well 17 aware, Part 20 has limits on the release of radium and other 18 NARM isotopes. In addition, 10 CFR Part 61 talks about certain 19 types of radium that can go to a low-level waste disposal 20 facility.
21 So, I guess my question is, under what authority can 22 NRC set release limits on those isotopes?
23 MR. AUSTIN: In my research I include a little 24 discussion of that. In some cases, we adopted international 25 standards. For example, in transportation. And, by adopting
68 1 it, we incorporated radium, because the international standard 2 had radium in it.
3 On the Part 20 release limits on radium, I was unable 4 to learn how we did that. As I said, it pops up everywhere.
5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Perhaps we should look into that.
6 MR. PARLER: The answer to Part 20 would probably be 7 for the same reason as the answer that you give. Part 20 0 historically follcwed in the wake of the international 9 standards on radiation protection.
10 MR. AUSTIN: That, and possibly that where you have 11 uranium you have radium. And, if you're releasing uranium, one 12 would be releasing radium. It may be a combination of those 1
)
13 two.
14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Comnissioner Rogers?
15 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. On this question of !
16 referring the issue of NARM to CIRRPC, your recommendation 17 reads: For the purposes of developing an integrated policy in
, 18 agency assignments on NARM, in particular, and ionizing 19 radiation in general, in those situations where agency 20 jurisdictions overlap --
21 It looks as if that's a very limiting kind of view 22 that you're asking CIRRPC to take. It's just to sort out those 23 situations where there's an overlap.
24 Is that really what we're considering here in the way 25 of a recommendation?
c 69 1 MR. AUSTIN: Well, it may have evolved into two t
2 thoughts in one recommendation: integrating NARM into other l 3 federal agencies, and to integrate those federal agencies' l
4 activities, where there is joint jurisdiction.
5 One of the concerns that I developed 'in the course of l l
6 researching what are the problems is that you were faced with 7 this situation where the physician on a cobalt-60 device can 8 severely overdose a patient. This agency could issue an order 9 barring that physician from ever using the cobalt-60 machine !
10 again.
11 That same physician could walk down the hallway, get ,
12 on a linear accelerator that does the same thing as the cobalt-13 60, and severely overdose patient after patient after patient.
14 And there is no federal requirement to report that to any 15 agency. And that just didn't make sense. ;
16 I can give you many examples. But in many respects, l 17 we regulate the nuclear medicine institutions in fundamentally 18 different ways than does the Department of Health and Human ;
19 Services, even when we are talking about the same risk, the 20 risk of cancer from ionizing radiation. And it just didn't i
21 seem to make sense that you would have such different programs. i 22 MR. STELLO: I think that the issue of broadening the 23 subject to include ionizing radiation in general will get us to
( 24 the point where you get hopeless. We're not going to get 25 anywhere.
l
70 1 I concluded that we ought not to even raise that 2 issue, but just stay with NARM. We ought to work out 3 specifically the kind of a charter we want to send over to 4 CIRRPC so it's clear to them and clear to us. I don't think we 5 have done that yet, and we need to.
6 But I clearly have concluded that with the whole idea 7 of raising up the general subject of ionizing radiation, we're 8 not going to get anywhere. We have got to get it sharpened and 9 to get beyond NARM. I think we're getting hopeless.
10 So, I think what we need to do is work that out with 11 Dr. Young, and sit down and sharpen up this recommendation. We 12 haven't done that yet. We need to do that.
/
~ l 13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I think that's a very important l 14 point to cone out here, because the recommendation says 15 ionizing radiation.
16 MR. STELLO: And I've concluded since then that I 17 think it is just too broad a subject to raise. It's just too 18 much to take on in one task, and I don't think we can get 19 there. So, we want to sharpen it up.
20 Mr. Young has already made that point, and I concur j 21 completely. It is to sharpen it precisely what it is we would 22 like them to look at, and we need to work that out, and we 23 haven't.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: The other question relates to 25 this statement that I think I heard you make, Mr. Strong, that
71 1 irspection and enforcement is a problem at the states' level 2 right now with NARM situations. The question is how would we 3 be dealing with that in any way.
4 I take it that this included the agreement states 5 that we already have agreements with. So that, this referral 6 of this problem to CIRRPC wouldn't deal with that at all, as 7 far as I can see. Because we're talking about just the federal 8 agency jurisdictions, and their study and recommendations would 9 not deal with anything at the state level.
10 MR. STRONG: That's right.
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: So, that's a separate issue 12 that doesn't look as if it's being addressed here.
13 MR. STRONG: I think what we're saying is that it 14 would be appropriate for the NRC to have a series of guidelines 15 and evaluation criteria of state programs for discrete sources 16 of NARM in the same way that it has a series of guidelines and 17 evaluation criteria for the other radioactive materials that we 18 license as agreement states. It would be the same kind of 19 oversight.
20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, in that connection then, 21 I have a question for Dr. Young. How do you see your 22 committee *s activities as they relate to things that go on in 23 the states in this way? Do you just take, you know -- is that 24 a blind side of your view?
25 MR. YOUNG: Clearly, our charge is to look at the
- . - - -- - , ,, - , - , - - , , . , . . , - , , . - , - - -c---.
72
~ 1 federal role.
2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I understand.
3 MR. YOUNG: But in this case, as we did with radon, I 4 know we would extend an invitation for the states to come in 5 and work with us. I think that's how we would get the broader 6 view.
7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me just ask to the Conference of 8 Radiation Control Program Directors and the representatives 9 with us today and representing the states. You heard the staff 10 recommeadation that we go to CIRRPC, and you've said you 11 disagree with it. Have you -- why do you disagree with it 12 really? In other words, to me, it looks like we have a 13 national problem. Certainly, we federal officials responsible 14 in the area of nuclear natorials and byproduct materials, have 15 a great interest in this. And we want to do what we can to 16 help within our statutory boundaries.
17 And it looks like it needs to be coordinated.
18 There's no question about it. It's a national problem, it 19 looks to me like. It's come to the attention -- although it's 20 an old problem, it's only recently become more focused.
21 Certainly somebody has to take charge. I think that's what 22 we're talking about. Somebody has to take charge. I think 23 that's what you're saying too, and that's what we're all 24 saying, I believe.
25 I would certainly agree with that. But I guess my
73 1 question really is to the Cc,ference representatives. You're 2 asking NRC to involve ourselves, and I think you can recognize 3 our interest, our concern, our desire to assist where we can, 4 again within our statutory authority. We could provide 5 assistance and guidance, and we'll continue to do that. We 6 want to work with you. We want to help you solve the problem, 7 but you can see a little bit, I think, the problem we have here 8 in this agency.
9 And then you hear recommendations from our staff that ,
10 it be forwarded to the Federal Government. It seems to me that l 11 that's a sensible way to go, because if it's a national 12 problem, it ought to be that way. It seems to me that you 13 should be able to work out with the Federal Government 14 representative, the CIRRPC representative, Dr. Young and his 15 people, that you'd want to be involved in solving this problem.
16 So I guess my question is, why you feel that -- why 17 do you resist that, or do you resist it?
18 MR. STRONG: Let me try to answer, and I think Mr. l 19 Hardin has a comment that might pertain, too.
20 We think you are the logical agency. You have the 21 structure. l 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Why then, if they result in that as a 23 conclusion, a recommendation to us, and then give us the i 24 resources, go to Congress, get legislation -- that then 25 certainly we would carry out the law.
I J
, c' 74 1 MR. STRONG: Sure, but more important, is that -- or 2 perhaps more important, is that we come here today and we get 3 something started. It's more important that some federal 4 agency, that somebody take charge, than maybe it is that the 5 NRC be the agency.
6 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, that's how I feel too. And 7 whether it be us or somebody, somebody should take charge.
8 That's the prime point. And we have that same interest.
9 MR. STRONG: If it becomes the consensus that it 10 ought to go to CIRRPC, and the states become participants in 11 that solving exercise, and that's as far as we can get, that's 12 the best we can do; obviously you're not going to launch your
~
13 reguletory program tomorrow in response to our request today. !
14 And we'll tako everything we can get, and that's --
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, that's important I think, to l 1
16 recognize that we really do have the same goal, and that is to 17 solve this problem.
18 MR. STRONG: Yes.
19 MR. YOUNG: Mr. Commissioner, as you and I both know, 20 committees never take charge of anything. What I'm implying, 21 is that if in fact, NRC sends the request to us, our response 22 ic going to be back to NRC. We're saying that the issue has 23 been raised by you. You are the agency that has focused the f 24 issue, and from our perspective, you're the one in charge.
25 What we're going to do is, we're going to come back and give
4 .
75
_.. 1 you a series of recommendations that we think will help resolvc I
2 that particular issue. '
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That's what we need.
1 4 MR. YOUNG: So, from my perspective, the committee 5 will not be in charge. We're just going to try help resolve a 6 problem, but we're going to turn back to you with the final 7 report.
8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That's fine. But the point is, the 9 problem should be looked at, at least in my judgement, from a 10 federal level -- the national level, if you will, with 11 participation from the states. And they should be heard out.
12 And their concerns should be part of your conclusions and t'
13 recommendations. And if you recommend, for example, that --
14 you know, you just can't give the problem back to us, and make 15 it go away.
16 MR. YOUNG: Exactly.
l 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It looks like if you give it back to 18 us, you're going to have to recommend legislation be proposed -
19 - something like that, in order for us to be involved it, if 20 that's what you think should be. Or you may conclude that EPA 21 should take charge, or something. But in any case, you're 22 going to have to give us some kind of recommendations that will j 23 solve the problem, rather than just keep talking about it, like 24 has gone on for so long.
25 KR. YOUNG: one of the strong factors that we have
76 1 for us going, is that the agencies that are key in funding, sit 2 on CIRRPC. So when we take a look at what it's going to take 3 to solve that problem, there's a budgetary component. And when 4 OMB signs off on that recommendation, in a way what you've got, 5 is you've got their recognition that that is in fact, a 6 budgetary issue.
7 We may not cay how big those dollars may be, to solve 8 a particular problem, but the mechanism we have of going after 9 we've come to a conclusion of bringing that through a 10 consensus-building process with those agencies; that's what 11 makes it a very powerful document. Because then you've got a 12 document that you can present in front, for Presidential 13 consideration of our budget development, and in front of the 14 Congress for policy consideration.
15 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, I think we should keep in mind i
16 --
17 MR. YOUNG: But we would work back through you to do l i
18 that.
l 19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That's fine. What we should keep in 20 mind is what we're trying to do though, which is to get 21 somebody to take charge of a national problem.
22 MR. YOUNG: Yes.
23 CHAIRMAN ZECli: And we want to help do that.
l 24 MR. YOUNG: Sure.
l 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me just before we wind up here
77 )
1 shortly, but I would like to, John Austin. compliment you on 2 the fine job you've done too, as my colleagues have done. I 3 think it's an excellent piece of work, and I think that you as 4 well as the state people who are here with us today, and Dr.
5 Young, all of you should be congratulated on putting forth a 6 very professional product.
7 Was there a comment over here?
8 MR. HARDIN: Yes, I have one over here. I was trying 9 to help in the answer to your question -- why do we disagree 10 with the report? The bottom line is that out there in this 11 world there is radioactive material called NARM being used in 12 the exact same fashion as byproduct material.
I 13 One of the nost serious comments made by one of our 14 representatives during my survey was, that they were in a 15 meeting in which a major manufacturer of both byproduct and j 16 NARM and made the following statement: because the NRC's so 17 tightly regulates us in the manufacture of byproduct material, 18 we're very strong with that manufacturer, but we don't put as 19 much attention to NARM.
20 I think our interest is, that the public deserves, 21 when radioactive material is sitting here being used 22 identically the same way, that it should be regulated the same 23 way. And we feel, the states feel, that you have the mechanism 24 set up to do it. We know NRC has a good, strong regulatory 25 program, and I suppose where we disagree ist regardless of what l
- - _ _ . .=_
78 l
_ 1 would come out of CIRRPC -- maybe still the states feel you l 2 guys are the ones that have got the expertise, and ought to be 3 doing it.
4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Sure, well we appreciate those 5 comments, and I think we appreciate the confidence you're 6 showing in the NRC, to be involved in something like this. You 7 also heard the general counsel's comments, telling us we have a
\
8 boundary, a statutory boundary that we must stay within. And 9 therefore, it looks perhaps like if we would get designated to 10 take charge, that we would need to have some kind of 11 legislative relief to do so.
12 I think having said all that though, we're looking
~
13 for someone to take charge. This Commission does care. That's 14 why we're here today. We want to assist, within the boundaries 15 of our legal constraints, and we will continue to assist and 16 help you in any way.
17 But I would really hope that, depending on what does 18 come out of this, that you would continue to work with the 19 federal organizations, as well as with the NRC and others to 20 help us. We've got to remember, it's a national problem.
21 We're all American citizens, no matter where we are sitting, or 22 what side of the table, or from which federal or state 23 government; we're trying to solve something that involves our
~
24 fellow citizens and their health, and it's a very serious 25 issue.
79 1 So we should put aside as much bureaucracy as we can, 2 in my judgment, and try to work together to come up with a 3 mutually satisfactory solution. -
4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I have one or two things. I 5 don't want to prolong this, because I know we're all eager to 6 get out of here. But, I want to try and answer, in part, the 7 question the Chairman asked a minute ago, on behalf of the 8 representatives from the states, if I may.
9 I think I understand what is troubling the states, 10 because it troubles me a little bit, and I'm sure Al is acutely 11 aware of the fact that, his body will go into some sort of 12 unknown state, as of next Novemoer. He will begin losing 4
13 people. And let's face it, there is a real question here of 14 continuity on a natter that at this late stage, gets referred 15 to CIRRPC. And Al, you're enough of a realist to understand 16 that as well as I am.
17 And the thing therefore, that troubles me, and I 18 think we all ought to be concerned about is, is the fact that 19 1979 -- that's 9 years ago now, almost to the day, the 20 Commission issued a rather strong statement indicating its 21 belief that this was a serious problem, referred it to the U.S.
22 Radiation Policy Council, which proceeded to meet its demise 23 before any action on NARM was ever taken.
[ 24 That's what concerns me, and I would point out, 25 however, that while the rest of you may dissolve into the
._m. -_-_ _.-o _._- m._. - , . - - - . . . . , , _ _ _ - _.,_, -
.,,. .,_..-,,.--._.#- _ - - , - , - - - - r_~ ,
80 1 sunset, the Commission will go on even after I leave. So this 2 body will still be here, and I would hope that this body might 3 provide the forum for the continuity. So the concern is, do we 4 have any assurance that we aren't going to do the same thing ,
5 here that we did 9 years ago? I think that's the up-front 6 question that certainly is a legitimate one.
7 I have one question which I don't want solicit an 8 answer for right now at this late stage, but perhaps OGC could 9 pick up on this. My understanding is that the NARM 10 contribution to waste is perhaps one of the biggest problems 11 here. EPA has a contemplated rule-making that I also 12 understand may require that NARM waste be disposed of in NRC I' '
13 regulated facilities.
14 And the question for OGC then is, what sort of legal 15 basis the NRC may have for imposing Part 61 requirements on 16 those wastes, if we eventually have to dispose of them in our 17 facilities. l i
18 MR. PARLER: I think the question's already been 19 answered by one of the gentlemen -- asked or raised by one of 20 the gentlemen at the table -- the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'm just asking for -- maybe i 22 you can do it off the top of your head, but --
23 MR. PARLER: I'm not going to answer something like l l
24 off the top of uy head. It requires thought. I will be 25 delighted to undertake the issue, give the Commission a 4 ,
81
.. 1 memorandum, i.e. in writing. Generally speaking, however, I 2 will say, consistent with what I have said earlier, if any 3 other agency or department at the federal level or the state 4 level, can tell this agency how to go about conducting it's 5 regulatory program, I would think that that certainly is 6 something that would have to be carefully thought out.
7 Particularly if outsiders could have, through some 8 other device, such as the Toxic Substances Control Act or 9 whatever, add to this agency's jurisdiction without this 10 agency's say. That presents all sorts of probicas. So that's '
l l
11 why I would like to give the question careful attention, and 1 J
12 I'll give you the response in writing, along with your 13 colleagues.
14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, that's really all. I 15 would just close with my comment here that -- or close my 16 comments by pointing out again, that the people closest to the 17 problem here are the states who seem to think there is a 18 problem. It wouldn't be the first time the folks in Washington 19 who are far away from any of these problems, may not perceive 20 realities quite the same way that the states do, so I think we 21 ought to listen to them very carefully.
22 And I would urge, too, that we avoid the global 23 solution syndrome here. Sometimes attacking these specific 24 identifiable trouble spots can be a lot easier and save a lot 25 of time and be a good 95 percent solution. And I think again
82 1 our state representatives have pointed a few of those areas 2 out. That's all. Thank you very much -- a very good briefing.
3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Any other comments? Well, let me 4 thank all of you for a very informative and very valuable 5 briefing. We appreciate it very much. We stand adjourned.
6 (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the briefing was 7 concluded.]
8 ;
1 9
10 11 ,
12 13 i
14 l
15 16 17 1
18 19 20
' 1 21 22 23
( 24 25
\
l
. . . .- . . . . - _- - . - .-l
CEATIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER i
This is to certify that the attached events i of a meeting of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
TITLE OF MEETING: Briefing on Naturally-Occuring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C. l DATE OF MEETING: Thursday, May 5, 1988 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said ,
transcription is accurate and com? l ete, to the best l of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events. l 4
d4Rits H12 Meg t
i f
i ,
l i i
t i
Ann Riley
- Associates, Ltd. ,
a i I t
i l
r i
I +
i i
i I 6
h
! e
SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE: BRIEF!tlG Of4 NATURALLY OCCURR!tlG AND ACCELERATOR-PRODUCED RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS SCHEDULED: 10:00 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1988 (OPEN)
DURATION: APPROX 1-1/2 HRS l
PARTICIPANTS: NRC 20 MINS
- ROBERT BERNERO, NMSC
- JOHN AUSTIN, PHD, NMSS COMMITTEE ON INTERAGENCY RADIATION RESEARCH AND 10 M:NS POLICY COORDINATION (CIRRPC) !
- A.L. YouN , PHD, CHAIRMAN, CIRRPC l CONFERENCE OF RADIATION C0fiTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS 20 M:NS l ICRCPD1 l
- T.R. STRONG, CHAIRMAN OF CRCPD AND DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF RADIATION PROTECTION STATE OF WASHINGTON
- CHARLES M. HARDIN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF CRCPD
- WILLIAM P. DORilSIFE CHAIRMAN OF CRCPD AD HOC GROUP ON NARM AND CHIEF OF DIVISION OF NUCLEAR SAFETY BUREAU OF RADIATION PROTECTION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
,r,
= -,-4~ , , , - - . - - - , y-mm._,, .., - . ~_-7 . ,,,,- ,, y -------,-,,- - - . - -
=
l
\atura y Occurring and Acce erator 3 roc uced Racioactive Vateria s -
1987 9eview Manuscript Completed: January 1988 Date Published: March 1988 John H. Austin Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i
,..~...,
e . . . . . ~f l
i l
INTRODUCTION
- DEFINITION OF NARM
- SOURCES Af1D USES OF NARM
- PPCBLEMS AND INCIDENTS WITH NARM
- REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SOME BUT NOT ALL ACTS ADDRESS!!iG RADIATION I f1 GENERAL AND NARM IN PARTICULAR i
l 1
4 SOURCESOF
$ S INTERNAL 11 %
TERRESTRIAL 8%
'._fh
- : ?-
Dg,Q ME01 CAL x rays 11%
M l[gc]i gbg NUCLEAR COSMIC
,a MEDICtNE 4%
% ,4 ,.
8% 1.-
c',
?- -
CONSUMER PROcuCTS 3%
- , ,- Q,,
OTHER 41%
Occupationai Fatiout < 0.3%
Nuclear uel Cycle 0.1%
RADON Miscellaneous 0.1%
\
55%
1 17 0
eg 82 %
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NARM
- STATES HAVE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY ,
- NPC LINKED TO NEUTRON CHA!N REACTION '
l
- REVIEbED OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES MANDATES
'NARM IN THE ENVIRONMENT - EPA
- NARM IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS - CPSC
- NARM IN WORKPLACE - DOL
- NAPM IN MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS - HHS
- DEPAPTMENTS OF APGRICULTURE, COMMERCE, ENERGY, THE INTEP10R, STATE ANN TRANSPORTATION l
'CIRRPC l'
1 3
'OMMITTEE ON INTERAGlENCY RADIATION RESEAR(!Bi AND POLICY COORDINATION (CERRPC)
U S DA/DO E/DO D/DO C/H H S/H U D/ DOI /DOJ/DO L/ DOT EPA / FEM A/N ASA/N RC/VA/O M B/ DOS /N SC r
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
~
Chairman A.L. Young, OSTP Vice Chairman J.C. Potter, EPA Executive Secretary R.L. Brittigan, DOD Science Chairman - R.S. Caswell, DOC Science Vice Chairman M. Rosenstein, HHS Science Executive Secretary L.B. Hobson, VA Technical Assistance Director B.W. Church, DOE /NV e
THE STATES AND NARM
'IN 1987 THE 29 A/S HAD LICENSING PROGRAMS U NON-A/S HAD LICENSING PROGRAMS 2 NON-A/S HAD VOLUNTARY OP PARTIAL LICENSING 14 NON-A/S HAD REGISTRATION 1 l'ON-A/S HAD NO PROGRAM
- lNCREASING STATE ACTIVITY l
l l
l 1
5
a THE ISSUES REGARDING NRC AND NARM
- lS THERE A f4AT10NAL PROBLEM?
'ARE THERE INTEGRATED CONTROLS?
'WOULD NRC REGULATION OVERLAP OTHER AGENCIES?
'ARE STATE CONTROLS ADEQUATE?
'IS NARM A FEDERAL, STATE OR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY?
'HAS CONGRESS LOOAED TO NRC FOR NARM REGULATICri?
'WFAT AFE RESOURCE ItoP L ! C AT 10N e ?
- WOULD NRC RESPONSIBILITY FOR NARM CHANGE THE flATUPE OF NRC?
i<
6
A
- O_PTIONS
' STATUS QUO
' SEEK AUTHORITY TO REGULATE NARM
' SEEK AUTHORITY OVER RADIUM DISPOSAL
' SEEK AUTHORITY OVER CYCLOTRON-PRODUCED RADIONUCLIDES FOR MEDICAL USE Of!LY
' REFER ISSUE TO COMMITTEE ON INTERAGEPCY EADIATION RESEARCH AND POLICY COORDINATION i
1 l
1 l
l l
i
,,' 7 fLECOMMENDATIONS
' REFER THE ISSUE OF NARM REGULATION TO COMMITTEE ON INTERAGENCY RADIATION RESEAPCH AND POLICY COORDINATION
'IrlFCRM GOVERNORS NRC HAS REFERRED NARM REGULATION TO CIRRPC l
3
\atura y Occurring anc Acce erator-Proc uced Radioactive V ateria s -
1987 Review Manuscript Comoteted: January 1988 Date Pub!ished: March 1988 John H. Austin e Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20565 s . * * . .. . ,
' e
INTRODUCTION
- DEFlfl! TION OF NARM
' SOURCES AND USES OF NARM
'PPCBLEf1S AND INCIDENTS WITH NARM ,
- REVIEWED LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF SOME BUT NOT ALL ACTS ADDREFSING RADIATION lll GEf4ERAL AND NARM IN PARTICULAR i
l l
1 I
l 1
_ _- - - - ~ - _. -
SOURCES OF RADIATION EXPOSURE INTERNAL 11 %
! TERRESTRIAL
- 8% -
MEDICAL X rays 11%
l l 130 NUCLEAR l COSMIC MEDICINE 4%
! 8% QI j
CONSUMER k#ff PRODUCTS 3%
i OTHER <1%
l Occupational 0.3%
Fallout 4
<0.3%
' RADON Nuclear Fuel Cycle 0.1%
55% Miscellaneous 0.1%
l
%0 1 4 4( 62 %
e i
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NARM ;
- STATES HAVE PRIMARY
- RESPONSIBILITY
- NRC LINKED TO NEUTR0fl CHAIN REACTION
- REVIEFED OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES MANDATES *
'NARM IN THE ENVIRONMENT - EPA i
- NARM IN CONSUMER PRODUCTS - CPSC
- NARM IN WORKPLACE - DOL
- NARM IN MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS - HHS -
- DEPAPTMENTS OF ARGRICULTURE, COMMERCE, ENERGY, THE INTERIOR,-STATE AND i
TRANSPORTATION j 'CIRRPC l .l i
~ $bh D 1- >,a ~ an -> cpn @ l l
I3\ h n!"' S .ad--
i 1
j i 3
)
i
i COMMITTEE ON INTERAGENCY RADIATION RESEARCF AND POLICY COORDINATION j
(CIRRPC) j -
1 US DA/DO E/DO D/ DOC /H H S/H U D/ dol /DOJ/ DOL / DOT
! EPA / FEM A/ NASA /NRC/VA/OMB/ DOS /NSC .
l /
&& gese" EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
~
j Chairman A.L. Young, OSTP
! Vice Chairman - J.C. Potter, EPA Executive Secretary R.L. Brittigan, DOD ~
Science Chairman R.S. Caswell, DOC '
Science Vice Chairman M. Rosenstein, HHS Science Executive Secretary L.B. Hobson, VA Technical Assistance Director ,8.W. Church, DOE /NV a
4 THE STATES AND NARM IN 1977, CRCPD PUBLISHED SUGGESTED STATE REGULATI0t1S FOR CONTROLLillG NARM IN 1987 THE 29 A/S HAD LICEilSING ,
PROGRAMS Il NON-A/S HAD LICENSIflG PROGRAMS 2 t10N-A/S HAD VOLUNTARY OP PARTIAL LICENSit4G 14 NON-A/S HAD REGISTRATION
- 1 flott-A/S HAD NO PROGRAM - }A lf; CREASING STATE ACTIVITY i
l l
l l
5 i
1
.- - . . . - - . - . = . _ _ . _ _ _ .
l i . :
6 l [
- I i
i h
THE ISSUES REGARDING NRC AND NARM i
'IS THERE A NATIONAL PROBLEM? i
'ARE THERE INTEGRA' LED CONTROLS? Mo !
'WOULD NRC REGULATION OVERLAP OTHER j , j AGENCIES? / i
'. IS ARE STATE CONTROLS ADEQUATE?- er merc NARM A FEDERAL, STATE OR i
, PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY? ~ c M 8 FN s MC (
' 'HAS CONGRESS LOOKED TO NRC FOR l NARM REGULATION? ~ N#
'WHAT ARE RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS? - #M* M " !
'WOULD NRC RESPONSIBILITY FOR NARM !
CHANGE THE NATUPE OF NRC? - yes i g asm he* !
(A s g- eF NGON M a
CAA-tu
~kEGMMTE CYC Lo rRt.;M.S
)'
l 1
i l
1 i
j i
i 6 i
t OPTIONS
- STATUS QUO
- SEEK AUTHORITY TO REGULATE NARM
- SEEK AUTHORITY OVER RADIUM DISPO3AL ,
- SEEK AUTHORITY OVER CYCLOTRON-PRODUCED RADIONUCLIDES FOR MEDICAL USE Of!LY
- REFER ISSUE TO COMMITTEE ON INTERAGEtiCY RADIATION RESEARCH AND POLICY C00RDINAT10tl f
r 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
' REFER THE ISSUE OF NARM REGULATI0tt TO COMMITTEE Oil ItJTERAGEtJCY RADI AT!0ft RESEAPCH AND POLICY C00RDitlAT10t4 ,
'IrlFORM GOVERflORs NRC HAS REFERRED NARM REGULATIOff TO CIRRPC l
l l
1 I
I 1
I 9
O ORAU 87/J 78 I
CIRRPC THIRD ANNUAL REPORT June 30,1987 Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination l
Alsin L. Young, Chairman Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executise Office of the President !
I Washington, DC 20506
___ ___ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __,_..___m_ _ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ -- . _v
COMAllTTEE ON INTERAGENCY RADIATION RESEARCil AND POLICY COORDINATION Third Annual Report July 1,1986 to June 30,1987
- 1. INTRODUCTION This is the third annual report of the Committee on tute CIRRPC and its scientific component, desig-Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordi- nated as the Science Panel. There are 18 CIRRPC nation (CIRRPC). CIRRPC was chartered April 9, member agencies at this time, with 14 agencies hav-1984 under the Federal Coordinating Council for ing representatives on the Science Panel.
Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) and reports to the Office of Science and Technology A listing of the Executive Committee members, Poh,ey (OSTP), Executive Office of the President. agencies' representatives, science panel members and its overall charge is to coordinate radiation matters se ence and policy panel participants are contained between agencies, evabiate radiation research, and in section IV.A. CIRRPC's reporting and organiza-provide advice on the formulation of radiation pol- tional structure and Oak Ridge Associated Universi-
'CF' ties (ORAU) technical assistance staff is contained in section IV,B.
Subcabinet ud senior policy level representatives and senior scientists from member agencies consti. l l
- 11.
SUMMARY
During its third year CIRRPC issued two reports of of the international system of units for radiation national importance and addressed 12 issues, six of quantities and measurements, issued in December which will be discussed in reports scheduled for 1986, and the report identifying the radiation expo-issuance within the first several months of its fourth sure issues associated with the exposure to radon year of operation.
naturally occurring in houses and buildings, issued in The two reports issued during CIRRPC's third year August 1986.
are the report on the guidance for U.S. policy on use l
1
a RADON The report of the Science Panel on "Radon Protection and 11ealth Effects," was developed by _, , , u , a u"' ,tt'"' Jf "" ,e the Science Subpanel chaired by Dr. Aurel Goodwin of the Department of Labor (DOL), and recom- :t d:::;"lll,ll,';;"/ll,l1; mended: llll//: ' ' " " " " ' " ' " "
.....,"u....n..a..- .
- a. an accelerated research program to assess ;;',";;l l:;";;;", '!,"",'! ,t*
health risks from indoor radon exposures that ,'*,",","","*","',,',',';*,,,,,, ,
l would include: epidemiological studies of : ',"::) !:;";;;", '.'."/.',%;; j exposed populations, with consideration of ' *',"",""," f,','," ,',"l"n , , , ,
,, , j smoking histories; testing of risk projection '"""*""a8"" t models using occupational exposure and health ' " " " " " " " " " " " " " " '
data; and basic studies of mechanisms involved UlE ' " " " ' " " ' " " " '
[
in radiation induced lung cancer, including " * * " " ' " " " " " ' " '
i better definition of cells at risk. UAtNa!'u' J A '""""""
[
t
- b. a federal consensus be obtained on remedial ;
action levels for controlling indoor radon expo. j sure, including development of design guides for j
new housing, l.OOKING AllEAD ;
r
- e. a Federal program should be initiated for in the next several months, subpanels will submit I development of predictive methods of potential draft reports on major radiation issues either to the radon hazards of building sites, !
Science Panel or the CIRRPC Policy Panel for {
- d. a national indoor radon survey needs to be con. review and approval. The subjects addressed by j ducted as soon as possible, and these subpanels are:
e, assistance to st5te and local governments and to
- Policy recommendations of the Subpanel on j the building industry for applying remedial Indoor Radon (M r. Raymond G. Kammer, j measures to existing structures and criteria for National Bureau of Standards (NBS), Chair- ;
new building design and construction, man]; j
- Application of the Nill Report on the Radioepi-SI .ilETRIC UNITS [
demiological Tables to veterans' compensation i The report of the Policy Subpanel on SI Metric (Dr. J. W. Thiessen, DOE, Chairman);
f Radiation Units, chaired by Dr. David Goldman of
- Review of the agricultural and ecological effects !
the Department of Energy (DOE), [formerly of the of nuclear war as postulated in the SCOPE 28 I Department of Commerce, (DOC)], recognized that the use of the International Systern of Units (SI) for Report [Dr. William 11. Tallent, Department of I Agriculture (USDA), Chairman]; and !
radiological quantitics is increasmg internationally, l
but not currently accepted in the U.S. The recom-
- The neutron quality factor [Mr. David Janes, !
mendation of the report was that it be U.S. policy to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), l use dual radiation units in federal activities. Chairman]. f i
l i
l I
l l
_ - _ . ..-_ - - _ - _ - . - . - -- - - - .__ - - - _ - . .-- . . . - -l
n O
l 4
3 ,
I Several projects under the direction of the ORAU hionitored Retrievable Storage Technical Support Staff will also result in reports carly in the next year of operation. These are: Extension of the Price Anderson Act .
Food Irradiation l
- A report by the National Council on Radiation Radiation Research Reorganization Act Protection and hicasurements (NCRP) on the Radon Health Effects radiation exposure to the U.S. population:
High Level Waste Repositories An overview of the Federal Government's radia.
tion research agenda: Atomic Veterans <
- Nuclear Protections and Safety Act of 1987 A compendium of legal and technical facts con- '
tained in the major U.S. radiation standards and guides for protection of workers and the public. BRIEFINGS AND MEETINGS 1 In addition, CIRRPC has underway several studies During the past year there were 70 meetings, includ- i either by subpanels or contract which will result in ing meetings of the CIRRPC members, the reports in the next year of operation or beyond. Executive Committee, the Science Panel and the .
These are: Science and Pohey Subpanels. In addition, there was a number of briefings, either presented by or
- The BEIR V report by the National Research attended by CIRRPC personnef. Among these were:
Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sci-ences (NAS) on the biological effects of' low lev.
- A briefing on CIRRPC activities for h!r. Don cis of ionizing radiation on populations: Ofte, Deputy Director for Defense Programs, l
- DOE: Ms. Mary Walker, Assistant Secretary for '
The development of a research program that will Environment, Safety and Health, DOE: and Mr.
provide a basis for more precisely determining the biological effectiveness of neutron radiation James Vaughn, Acting Assistant Secretary for ;
Nuclear Energy, DOE, on July 16.1086:
[Dr. Bruce Wachholz, National Cancer Institute ,
(NCl), Science Subpanel Chairman]; A similar brWing for the then newly appointed ;
A report addressing the question of advance Assistant Secretary for N',; clear Energy, DOE, l Mr. David Rossin on August 16,1986:
planning of health effects research following a !
major nuclear accident (Mr. Charles
- M. A briefing on the 51 Metric Unit Report for Dr. ,
Eisenhauer, NBS, Science Subpanel Chairman); Bruce Merrifield, the Assistant Secretary for and Productivity. Technology and Innovation, DOC, on December 8,1986; A report on the research needs in health effects !
of non ionizing radiation [Dr. Ross Adey, A briefing for Dr. Delbert Bunch, Deputy Assis-Veterans Administration (VA), Chairman). tant Secretary for Safety Health and Quality ,
Assurance, DOE, on CIRRPC activities on Janu-ary 16,1987; LEGISLATIVE MONITORING
- A similar briefing for Dr. Robert Barker, Assis.
Periodically the Executive Committee is briefed on tant to the Secretary of Defense for Atomic the Congressional activities related to radiation Mrgy, Depanment of Defense W ). on matters which may be of interest to the member e uary M, H87, and agencies. During the past year, legislative briefings
- A briefing of the White House Science Council pertained to the following topics:
on CIRRPC activities on March 19,1987.
i i
4 , ,
i During the last quarter of the reporting year the on radiation issues of concern to the agencies and l Executive Comm!ttee began the second round of enable CIRRPC to more fully exercise its responsi- i visits to the member agencies since CIRRPC's bility for coordination. :
founding in htay of 1984. Sleetings with the Federal
- ?mergency Stanagement Agency (FENIA), NRC PERSONNEL Cil ANGES and EPA staffs concerning radiation matters were in August 1986, Dr. Percival D. NicCormack of the held in . April and with ifealth and liuman Services National Aeronautics and Space Administration (IlllS) ,ni htay 1987. Visits to the remainder of the (NASA) accepted the position of Executive Secre-agencies will be scheduled during the summer and tary of the Science Panel, replacing Dr. Lawrence B.
fall of 1987. These meetings provide a valuable llobson, VA.
opportunity for informal exchanges of information Ill. OPERATIONS USE OF PROBABILITY OF CAUSATION duction of the probability of causation methodology SIETil0DOLOGY IN RADIATION into compensation decisions.
COMPENSATION in February 1985 CIRRPC undcrtook an effort at the request of the VA to examine how the National RADON Institutes of 11ealth (Nill) Report on CIRRPC Science Panet Report-Radioepidemiological Tables might be used in adju- Radon Protection and llealth dicating veterans' claims of radiation injury. Based Effects on decisional criteria published by the VA, In August 1986, the Science Panel Report was for-CIRRPC's Science Wanel adopted as a statement of warded to Dr. Richard Johnson, Acting Director of its task the following question: the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The
-To what extent can the Nill Report be used credi- rep rt n ted that the recommended actions (see 11.
bly to assist in adjudicating a seteran's claim of Summary) e uld be accomplished with continued radiation injury in a manner that satisfies the 'no e per tion and coordination among the Federal reasonable possibility' and the 'at least as likely as agencies, and noted that CIRRPC will continue to not' criteria stated by the VA and that is consistent f 11 w developments.
with the VA's ' reasonable doubt policy' acting in the claimant's favor?" To meet this objective, the Sci- P licy Subpanel on Indoor Radon ence Panel is preparing a listing of radiogenic can- As a follow up to the Science Panel's actisities on eers applicable to such claims and using the NIli indoor radon. a Policy Subpanel was formed in probability of causation methodology to develop a December 1986. The charges to the Subpanel were screening procedure for selecting only those cases to resiew the recommendations of the Science Panel having some reasonable degree of merit for con- report, and to determine the nient to which they sideration. A report of its findings is expected to be are being addressed by the various Federal agencies, published by CIRRPC in late 1987. A follow up The Subpanel was also asked to note those areas report is being developed by a CIRRPC subpanel that were not being addressed, or areas where there that will address policy implications on various seg. were unnecessary dup!ications. The Subpanel was ments of society and Federal programs by the intro- also to review recent additions to the Superfund Act,
5 and determine if additional work was indicated (ICRP). but is consistent with the positions taken by beyond those items identified in the Science Panel most national governments, report. Mr. Ray Kammer, DOC, was selected as chairman for the Subpanel.
IllGil LET RADIATION Since February 1987, monthly meetings have been The charter of the Science Subpanel on liigh LET Mld at which the various Federal programs have Radiation was approved by the Science Panel on been considered against the recommendations of the December 9,1985. Responsibilities of this Subpanel i Science Panel report and the requirements of the include: maintaining an awareness of relevant resiew Superfund Amendments. A draft report is expected a. J sssessment activities being carried out by to be circulated for CIRRPC member agency review in August 1987. national and international organizations addressing Iligh LET radiation research and/or protection ismes: sening as an information focus and coordina-RADIATION MEASL'REN1ENTS, RECORDS, tion point for Federal agencies with respect to AND CONTROL liigh LET research activitier identifying liigh LLT The Policy Subpanel on Metrication of Radiation research needs; and reviewing proposed agency Units completed a report in December 1986. The research agendas related to liigh LET radiation, as report was forwarded by Dr. Alvin L. Yot.ng to Dr. requested by CiRRPC.
William R. Graham, the Science Advisor to the On July L 1986 CIRRPC received modification of President, who in turn transmitted the report with its recommendation (see !! Summary) on the use of Si an earlier request from DOE to revb its proposed units to DOC, the Federal agency responsible for the research pisn to establish relative biological effec- 1 Federal Governmenn programs on metrication. Dr. tiveness (RBE) factors for neutrons. The modiDed '
Graham requested that ClRRPC be advised of request asked the Science Panel to develop a concep-actions taken by the Federal agencies in response to tual plan for research into neutron biological effee-tiveness and to explore alternative methods for coor- l the efforts of DOC.
dinating this effort as an interagency / international research activity. In response to this request, the NEUTRON QUALITY FACTOR IN Subpanel drafted a charge for a task group and RADI \ TION PROTECTION assembled a group of consultants, i
including !
The 5.ience sunnans on w tific n Basis for Radia- represent tives fr m the European community to tion Protection Standards has been examining the address this issue, inclusion of the European scien-issue of increasing the quality factor for neutrons by tific e mmumty in planning the research program a factor of two for purposes of radiation protection. was specifically requested by DOE because of the To assist in this evaluation a meeting of the Sub- excellent research m this area being conducted by panel and other Science Panel members was held in European investigators. I October 1986 with a group of independent scientists The first joint meeting of the Subpanel and task with expertise in this area of interest. A summary of group was held June 18-19, 1987. The major por-the meeting including documents presented by the ,
tion of the meeting was spent discussing operational. t participants, has been completed and will be regulatory, and research needs with those Federal included in the Subpanel's final report on this issue, agencies which have major responsibilities and pro-The findings of the Subpanel do not support a grams that are impacted by the uncertainties in and change in the quality factor at this time. This action is contrary to the interim recommendation of the lack of scientific data on the health effects of human exposure to neutrons. The report of the task group is I international Commission on Radiological Protection expected in mid 1988.
i
6 NON lONIZING RADIATION IONIZING RADIATION RISK
^ ^
The Science Subpanel on the Future Research Needs in Health Related Effects of Non Ionizing At the direction of the CIRRPC Executive Commit-Radiation reviewed the comments on the draft tee, the Science Panel developed, and subsequently report recched from the Science Panel members. On approved, a work statement for a Subpanel on Ioniz-the basis of those comments, additional expertise has ing Radiation Risk Assessment in response to the been added to the Subpanel in the area of epidemio. Department of Defense's request to assist in the logical studies. Dr. Charlotte Silverman has agreed development of a coordinated Federal position on to serve in this capacity. risk assessment and, if appropriate, risk manage.
ment. The work statement renects extensive Science
\1 embers of the Subranel met with Dr. Randall Panel discussion on the need for a Federal consensus Caswell (NBS) and Dr. Starsin Rosenstein (llHS) n the use of analyses assembled by authoritative to resiew the nature of the comments; it was agreed rg nizations. The initial action of the Subpanel will to have a consultant categorize the comments in inv he the upcoming report from the National arder to determine how they may best be treated in Academy of Sciences / National Research Council the subsequent rewrite of the rep $rt.
(NAS/NRC), -The Effects en Peru!ations of Inter-n lly Deposited Alpha-Emitting Radionuclides:
PRE DISASTER Pl.ANNING FOR llUNIAN 1987, also known as BEIR IV.
ilETI.Til EFFECTS RESEARCil
.\n ad hoe group, appointed by the Science Panel, under the chairmanship of Dr. Frank llassler, REVIEW OF SCOPE 28 VOI.UNIE 11 Department of Transportation (DOT), considered The Scientific Committee on Problems of the whether or not it was desirable to establish a formal Environment (SCOPE), a part of the International Science Subpanel to address the issue of whether Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), released a plans should be in place to gather information in the two volume report The Environmental Consequences
.nent of a nuclear accident. The purpose would be t g .Vuclear li'ar, in September 1985. Volume I of ihage information pn human health effects which the report concentrated on phuical and atmospheric ught otherwise be lost. effects, whereas Volume il ciamined ecological and
\s a resul ef the group's recommendations, a Sci- aprieultural effects. An acute" rhase insching dras.
ce Subranel was established, under the chairman- tie reduction in light and temperature lasting for mp of Str. Charles Eisenhauer, DOC, to evaluate days to weeks, and a chronie' phase with slowly ne desirability and feasibility of deseloping the clearing skies and gradual recosery of warmth, last-capability to study human health effects of nuclear ing for a year or longer. are assumed in the disasters. SCOPE 25 analysis. The SCOPE 28 authers con-The Subpanel was approved by Dr. Young on cluded that agricultural production would be so dis-rupted that many of the acute phase sursivors would starch 24, 1987. The charges to the Subpanel starve during the chconic phase.
dde determination of where gaps exist in our Medge of human health effects of ionizing radia. The agricultural implications of the SCOPE.:S on. and where information might be collected that report were sufficiently serious that an independent s ul help fill those gaps. The Subpanel has resiewed esaluation of Volume 11 was deemed imperative.
ne scenarios and types of nuclear disasters which Accordingly. OSTP and CIRRPC asked USDA to ase been examined, and is reviewing the emergency form an ad hoe committee to conduct the review.
xedures in place among the Federal agencies to The charge to the committee was to review Volume etermine the best mechanisms by which procedures II, which is based on the scenario described in s uid be modified to call for the colle: tion of sital Volume I. That is, a 6000 megatan,12,000 warhead health information, eschange occurred, striking the targets described in
) i 1
e !
j 7 i J
4 i Volume 1, with the amount of smeke and dust gen- U.S. POPULATION RADIATION EXPOSURE ,
erated and lofted into the atmosphere consistent with ASSESSNIENT l j the magnitude of the exchange. The major, but not The CIRRPC sponsored draft report of the NCRP l exclusise, emphasis of the review is to be the evalua- Scientific Committec #48 entitled -Exposure of the tion of the models and assumptions used to calculate Population in the United States to lonizing Radia- :
j the effects on crop production under conditions of tion
- was received by ORAU on September 30. l l reduced temperature and solar radiation. This revie" 1986, in accordance with ORAU's purchase order !
is expected to be completed and published in late agreements. The report summarites more detailed 1987, assessments of the major natural and man made ,
j sources of exposure being prepared by various '
COMPENDIUS10F RADIATION NCRP committees, blajor source categories are:
- PROTECTION STANDARDS AND GUIDES natural radioactivity, consumer products, nuclear '
, Tasked by CIRRPC, OR AU is preparing a compila. fuel cycle, medical and dental sources, occupationa!
tion of majer U.S. radiation protection standards sources, and miscellaneous envirenmental sources. -
and guides applicable to workers and the general The draft report was subsequently revised to incer. ,
public. Legal and technical facts on requirements porate comments received by NCRP during reviews !
are summarized for over twenty such standards by both CIRRPC and NCRP members. The final j based on their publication in the Federal Register, report is expected to be availabh by fall 1987. ;
included in the compendium are Federai Guides on l
Radiation Protection approved by Presidential signa. BEIR V REPORT i ture and standards promulgated, or proposed, by the i The contract between ORAU and the NAS/NRC EPA, NRC, Occupational Safety and Health for BEIR V, an update of the comprehensive BEIR Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health !!! report on the somatic and genetic risks to popu- '
Administration (htSHA) and the Food and DruS lations due to low levels of ionizing radiation, f Administration (FDA). The report will include pro- became effective July 1,1986. l tection requirements and notation of other standards that are somewhat related to a given standard. The When completed, the BEIR V report will include final ORAU report is expected to be submitted to among its new findings those following reassessment ,
CIRRPC in early 1955. of the dosimetry for the survivors of the atomie i weapons detonated during World War !! and a !
mnmary sn e I rep rt on e INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES l effects of internally deposited a'pha emitting radio-The report entitled -CIRRPC hjember Agency Par- nuclides. The findings reported are expected to be in I ticipation in International Radiation Activities.* a form suitable for use in making health risk assess-completed in June 1986, was updated in May 1957. ments, assigning share values for radiation as a l The report contains the names of Federal agency causative disease agent, and formulating radiation personnel assigned liaison roles to international exposure control decisions. Like previous BEIR organizations. reports, it is expected that the BEIR V report will Both the Science Panel and the Subpanel on Pre- be both an important scientific document used in Disaster Planning have been briefed by participants developing U.S. policy on radiation protection and a in international meetings related to post Chernobyl much referenced social document used, for example, studies on health effects. This information is specifi- in the U.S. court system.
cally related to the assignment of the Pre Disaster The NAS/NRC held a public meeting on the proj-Subpanel in identifying areas where opportunities to cet in March 1987 to obtain scientific information gain knowledge might have been missed. and advice. The Committee of NAS, established to
8 -
prepare the BEIR V Report, has met quarterly to research promsals; and 3) prepare periodic sum.
discuss the outline and content of the report, to iden. maries of F deral radiation research. in response to l tify new animal and human data bases, and to dis. the third recommendation, the Science Panel cuss new concepts in radiobiology since the 1980 directed preparation of an oserview of radiation ,
BEIR !!! report. The final report is expected at the research on a comparatise FY 1981 and FY 1985 end of 19;8. basis. The FY 1981 data and the research categories were extracted from the November 1982 draft report FEDERAL RADIATION RESEARCll AGENDA of the Interagency Radiation Research Committee's The recommendations of the Ad lloc Subpanel on Subcommittee on Radiation Research Strategy llow To Address the Radiation Research Agenda Implementation, which will be published as an were adopted by the Science Panel at its September appendis to the CIRRPC report. The FY 1985 data l 16,1985 meeting. These recommendations were: 1) fr m 11 the Federal agencies have been categorized acc rding to the needs identified in the Strategy l be alert to agency reviews and act on agensy requests concerning research agendas; 2) act on Report and reviewed for completeness of the data agency requests to critique specific radiation base. A final report is scheduled for early 1988.
l i
1 l
I l
l l
! i l
l
- 1 1
i l
l
9 IV. A, CIRRPC NIEMBER AGENCIES AND REPRESENTATIVES Policy and Science Subpanel Participants ORAU Technical Assistance Staff Executlie Committee Member Agency Representatlies Chairman Ikpartment of Agriemiture Dr. .'.lvin L. Young Dr. blary E. Caner Office of Science and Technology Dr. James W. Glosser, alt.
Policy Dr. Jane F. Rolens Executive Office of the President Dr. Ronald Engel, alt.
Vice Cha!rman Department of Commerce hit. J. Craig Potter h!r. Raymond G. Kammer Environmental Protection Agency Dr. Randall S. Caswell(and alternate to Policy Panel)
Esecuthe Secretary htr. Charles 51. Eisenhauer, alt!
Mr. Robert L. Brittigan his. h!ary Anne Dewese Department of Defense his. Anita Walker Chairman, Science Panel Department of Defense Dr. Randall S. Cassell Dr. Robert B. Barker Department of Commerce LTG John L. Pickett, alt.
Dr. Lawrence S. .\tyers. Jr.
Vice Chairman, Science Panel Dr. David Auton Dr. .\tanin Rosenstein CPT Bruce R. West Department of licalth & liuman Sersices Department of Energ)
Dr. James F. Decker, alt.
Esecutlie Secretar), Science Panel Dr. Charles Del.isi Dr. Percival D. .\lcCormack Dr. J. il'. Thiessen, alt.
National Aeronautics & Space htr. Delmar D hia) hew Administration Dr. George Jordy Technical Assistance Director Department of Ilealth & Iluman hit. Bruce W. Church Services Department of Energy htr. John C. Villforth Nevada Operations Office Dr. Starvin Rosenstein, alt.
Dr. Gilbert if'. Bect<
Dr. Bruce li'achhol:. alt, his. Jeannine T. Lewis Department of flousing and Urban Development hir. Richard 11. Broun
.\fr. James .\ filler hath s (knote Saence knelnmN rs
o i
l '
l l 10 'j i
Department of Interior Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Str. James F. Devine Dr. Denwood F. Ross Dr. Clement F. Shearer, alt. Str. Robert Bernaro, alt.
l
.\fr. Allan B. Tanner Air. Robert E. Alexander :
Dr. Donald A. Cool, alt. i Department of Justice Str. William Forehand Str. Robert L. Willmore Dr. Judith Foulke Str. Jeffrey Axelrad, alt. j
.\tr. Ralph 11. Johnson, alt. Office of Stanagement & Budget j
, Str. John 11. Carley ;
l Department of Laboe his. Wendy L. Gramm, alt. .
l Str. Robert Copeland
! De. Aurel Goodwin (and alternate Veterans Administration to Policy Panel) Str. Donald L. Ivers ;
Dr. 5heldon R. Weiner bir. Robert E. Coy, alt.
.\1r. William R. Reise Dr. Arthur D. Graham Dr. W. Ross Adiy alt.
Department of State hir. John Beegle Dr. Charles St. Newstead i National Security Council I Department of Transportation (no formal rep esentative) j his. 51. Cynthia Douglass i Dr. Frank #assler Science Subpanel on Future '
h!r Dabney A. Townes Research Needs in lienith Related i Dr. Jeffrey hiclntyre Effects of Non lonliing i Radiation !
Emironmental Protection Agency Dr. W. Ross Adey, VA (Chairman) l 517. J. Craig Potter htr. David E. Janes, EPA i Str. Sheldon hie > cts, alt. Dr. Elliot Postow, DOD l
.4/e. David E. Jones
- Dr. Sto'is L. Shore, litiS !
Ntr. Ray Cunningham Dr. Charlotte Silverman, litiS i Dr. Gordon Burley his. Janet licaler. DOC Federal Emergency Stanagement !
Science Subpanel on Pre Disaster j Agency Planning Foe 11uman llealth Str. David htcLoughlin )
Effects Research Str. Richard Krimm '
htr. Charles 51. Eisenhauer, DOC (Chairman) I
.\fr. George C. Meyer Dr. Thomas 51acVittie, DOD Me. Carl R. Siebentritt. /r., alt. l Dr. Robert Young. DOD Str. Starshall E. Sanders Dr. Robert Goldsmith, DOE Ntr. William Wark l Ntr. Robert Wilkerson. FEht A i hir, liarold T. Peterson. NRC I National Aeronautics & Space Administration Dr. Daniel Weiss Ntr. Lesen B. Gray 1 Str. Robert !!. Thompson, alt. I 515. Virginia Buettner 515. Stargaret Vactor 1
- _--. -- _ -a
e i
11 i Science Subpanel on Scientific Policy Subpanel on Indoor Radon I Basis for Radiation Protection Mr. Raymond G. Kammer, DOC (Chairman) '
Standards Mr. Carl J. Schafer, DOD Mr. David E. Janes, EPA (Chairman) LTC Dennis F. Naugle, DOD l Mr. Robert E. Alexander, NRC Dr. J.W. Thiessen, DOE Mr. Elmer H. Eisenhower, DOC !
Mr. Richard H. Broun, HUD l Dr. Robert G. Thomas, DOE Mr. Ralph H. Johnson, DOJ CPT David George, DOD Mr. Sheldon Meyers, EPA Mr. Kenneth L Groves, Los Alamos Mr. Brian Mannix, OMB National Laboratories Policy Subpanel on Science Subpanel on Radioepidemiological Tables Radioepidemiological Tables Mr. Robert L. Brittigan, DOD Dr. J.W. Theissen, DOE (Chairman) ( Acting Chairman)
Mr. Robert E. Alexander, NRC Mr. Richard J. Riseberg, HHS Dr. Lawrence S. Myers, Jr., DOD Mr. Richard Staufenberger, DOL Dr. Bruce W. Wachholz, HHS Mr. Robert L. Willmore, DOJ Dr. Ethel Gilbert, Battelle Pacifi: Northwest Laboratories Policy Subpanel on SI Metric ,
Dr. Peter G. Groer, Oak Ridge Radiation Units Associated Universities "Report Completed" Dr. David T. Goldman, DOE (Chairman)
Science Subpanel on High-LET CDR R. Thomas Bell, DOD Radiatloa Mr. Charles W. Burrows, DOD Dr. Bruce W. Wachholz, HHS (Chairman) Mr. Robert W. Poe, DOE Dr. J. Joseph Coyne, DOC Mr. Richard Rawl, DOT Dr. Lawrence S. Myers, Jr., DOD Mr. Wendell Carriker, DOT Dr. D. Stuart Nachtwey, NASA Dr. Gordon Burley, EPA Dr. James Walker, EPA Science Subpanel on Radon Mr. Carl R. Siebentritt, FEMA Protection and Health Effects Mr. Harry Sonneman, NASA "Report Completed" Mr. Richard Weinstein, NASA Dr. Aurel Goodwin, DOL (Chairman) Mr. Karl R. Goller, NRC Dr. Ronald P. Colle, DOC Mr. Robert E. Alexander NRC Mr. Wayne M. Lowder, DOE Dr. Frank E. Lundin, HHS Mr. James L. Christopulos, HUD Mr. Allan B. Tanner, DOI Dr. Neal S. Nelson, EPA Mr. Ralph M. Wilde, NRC i
]
,o 12 l
Task Group on Biological .
Ad Hoc Reilew Group for SCOPE 28:
Effectiteness of Research Needs Volume 11 Related to Neutron Radiation 1 Dr. George W. Casarett, (Chairman) Dr. Wiliam H. Tallent, USDA/ARS, l School of hiedicine and Dentistry (Chairman) j University of Rochester i Dr. Ray D. Jackson, USDA/ARS ;
Dr. Leslie A. Braoy !
Biology and Physics Department Dr. C. Allen Jones, USDA/ARS Battelle Pacific Northwest i Laboratory Dr. James W. Jones ,
Professor of Agricultural Dr. Johannes J. Broerse Engineering ,
Radiobiological Institute TNO University of Florida ;
The Netherlands l Dr. Ernest C. Kung '
Dc. Nfortimer Elkind Department of Atmospheric Department of Radiology and SCences , ,
Radiation Biology Um.versity of hfissouri Colorado State University Dr. Dale N. hioss Dr. Dudley Goodhead Department of Crop Science Niedical Research Council Oregon State University United Kingdom Dr. Norman Rosenberg Dr. Nancy L. Oleinick Resources for the Future School of Afedicine Case Western University Dr. Elise Rose Dr. Gerritt Hoogenboom Agriculture Engineering Department i University of Florida 1
I
4 e
IV. Organization and Reporting Structures B. CIRRPC Organization EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP)
FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY (FCCSET)
P COMMITTEE ON INTERAGENCY RADIATION RESEARCH AND POLICY COORDINATION (CIRRPC) l l
l ORAU Technical Assistance Staff l Program Director !
Senior Administrative Officer Senior Technical Adiisor !
Anthony 11. Ewing Edward E. Cour William A. Mills Executine Secretary Programmer Terry M. Cabauatan Technical Analyst !
Steven E. Kopp David S. Smith Program Assistant Office Assistant l Technical Specialist Claire Suen Sabine Y. Gossart Diane S. Flack l Receptionist Secretaries Sandra J. Nessel Lisa Beaver Mei Lee Strom
f
- . . ~ .
t .u, ew,ecer-
' Jgyny t
, y. m . -:
.. g y:.. CIRRPC
< m.2,6>irw-REPORT ON IDENTIFICATION
. ?$)
. i ,f,v,.wii 4.,
- zM".'; .
. #e.yp ,
QF FEDERAL Fbn; wiu-RADIATION ISSUES
. . . ~ . . . . . . . ~ ~ . . - ~ . -
liXWFBDERAL COORDIN TING COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY r March 1986 J
Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination 1 1
Office of Science and Technology Pohey 1
Executive Office of the President j Washington, D.C. 20506 '
l l
{
1
ORAU 87/J 78 CIRRPC THIRD ANNUAL REPORT June 30,1987 I
Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination Alvin L. Young, Chairman Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President Washington, DC 20506
IV. Organization and Reporting Structures B. CIRRPC Organization EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP) l FEDERAL COORDINATING COUNCIL '
FOR SCIENCE. ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY (FCCSET)
'e COMMITTEE ON INTERAGENCY RADIATION RESEARCH ,
AND POLICY COORDINATION (CIRRPC)
ORAU Technical Assistance Staff Program Director Senior Administratise Officer Senior Technical Adilsor Anthony 11. Ewing Edward E. Cour William A. Mills Executlie Secretary Programmer Terry M. Cabauatan Technical Analyst Steven E. Kopp David S. Smith Program Assistant Office Assistant Technical Specialist Claire Suen Sabine Y. Gossart Diane S. Flack Receptionist Secretaries Sandra J. Nessel Lisa Beaver Mei Lee Strom
1 i i-l :
l ;
I I
l CIRRPC !
i REPORT ON IDENTIFICATION t OF i i
FEDERAL RADIATION ISSUES !
TO THE FEDERAL COORDINATING i COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE, ENGINEERING
- I AND TECHNOLOGY ,
l March 1986 )
l i
i Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President Washington, D.C. 20506
l
, Table of Contents 1
Page 1
- 1. Introduction ?
II. Issues Development 1 Ill. Listing of issues 1 IV. Definition and Aggregation of Radiation Issues 2 Federal Radiation Policy, Regulations and Standards 2 Radiation Compensation 2 Radon 3 Non-Ionizing Radiation *3 High LET Radiation 3
{
Food Irradiation 4 Radioactive Wastes 4 Radiation Measurements, Records and Control 4 Public Information and Education 5 Emcrgency Preparedness and Clean Up Standards 5 I l
V I)isposition of issues by CIRRPC 5 l
Federal Radiation Policy, Regulations and Standards 5 I Radiation Compensation 5 I Radon 6 Non-Ionizing Radiation 6 High LET Radiation 6 VI. Summary 7 Vll. References 8 Figure 1 9 Figure 2 10 i
a li i
I. Introduction The Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC) was established on April 9,1984 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) under the authority of the Federal Coor-dinating Council for Science. Engineering and Technology (FCCSET), as shown in Figure 1. It is chaired by OSTP.
CIRRPC membership consist 3 of those agencies having specific iesponsibilities or interest in radiation research and/or policy.
CIRRPC has two elements: the Committee itself, consisting of subcabinet and senior policy level represen-tatives, and a Science Panel, consisting of senior radiation scientists from the respective member agencies. The t,tructure and membership of CIRRPC is shown in Figure 2. It was decided at the inception of CIRRPC to iden-tify the radiation issues of concern to the Federal agencies, Congress, and professional societies faced with radia-tion policy or scientific issues. It was felt that a current list of national radiation issues should be assembled so that CIRRPC could concentrate on these issues and the dividends from CIRRPC's '
resources could be max-imized at the earliest possible time.
II. Issues Development At the first meeting of CIRRPC on Stay 25, 1984, each of the member agencies was requested to identify current radiation issues of concern to them. A similar request was also sent to appropriate congressional com-mittee chairmen and members. National professional organizations concerned with radiation matters also responded.
In December 1984, the CIRRPC Executive Committee began a series of meetings with senior staff of each member agency. Specific matters affecting agencies' programs were brought to light, problem areas identified and invaluable perspectives gained into the major issues affecting Federal government operations, upon which CIRRPC must focus its attention.
I Since the Congress and national professional societies provided their input quite independently from those '
of the Federal agencies, a further cross section of opinion was achieved.
A number of Federal agencies, congressional respondents and professional societies have emphasized that 3
the broad U.S. policies, regulations and standards that provide the overall umbrella for national radiation protec-tion have not been systematically reviewed and updated since 1960, and that this is urgently needed. The Federal Radiation Council was disestablished in 1970, and this resulted in a loss of effectiveness in coordinating Federal policy on radiation issues The Congress noted this lack of coordination and cohesiveness among the Federal agencies in poliev making and standards-setting and supported CIRRPC's efforts in this regard.
III. Listing of Issues Ten national radiation issues were identified as follows:
- Federal Radiation Policy. Regulations and Standards
- Radiation Compensation
- Non lonizing Radiation
- High LET Radiation
- Food Irradiation
- Radioactive Wastes
- Radiation Steasurements, Records and Control
- Public Information and Education
- Emergency Preparedness and Clean Up Standards l
1 j l
- l IV. Definition and Aggregation of Radiation Issues The preceding list of issues results from the aggregation of 34 specific issues into 10 major topics. Diverse j I, ' icy, research, management and science issues were cited by the respondents and these are integrated into the i
IC ,les.
't he purpose of this section is to list the composition of the 10 issues.
Federal Radiation Policy, Regulations and Standards This issue includes the following elements or was expressed in the following ways:
- Need for consistent Federal radiation policies;
- Need for mutually consistent and coordinated radiation regulations and standards, particularly those inwolving multiple Federal agencies and jurisdictions;
- Establishment of radiation levels below regulatory concern (de minimis);
- Coordination of U.S. policies and positions on radiation issues at international policy meetings;
- Updating of U.S. radiation policy, regulations and review of existing standards (particularly revi-sions of 10 CFR Part 20 and FRC Report No.1);
- Clarification of As inw As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) policy;
- Need for scientifically-based standards;
- "Umbrella" dose limits, age averaging, dose commitments, in utem standards and collective doses; and
- Introduction of a risk based standards system, stanuardized radiation risk estimation and comparability with other risks.
Radiation Compensation Compensation procedures for radiation injury have profound policy, legal and scientific implications. It is of primary interest to the Justice Department in adjudicating radiation injury claims of all types. The Veterans Administration is interested in the applicability of the Radioepidemiological Tables (for estimating the probabili-ty of causation of radiogenic cancers) to the many veterans' radiation injury claims related to low level radiation exposure. The Defense Department is concerned over the possible operational impact of occupational exposure of military personneleThe Interior Department is interested because of claims arising from exposure of native Americans and residents of the Pacific Trust Territories. The Department of Health and lluman Services, which was assigned the task of preparing Radioepidemiological Tables by the Congress, is concerned over the appropriate use of the tables. The Labor Department and Nuclear Regulatory Commission also have an interest in this issue from the standpoint of worker exposures.
The Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee held joint hearings on this subject in 1985. Those individuals alleging injury from radiation exposure and others such as professional societies, insurance groups, environmen-tal groups, the medical community and the nuclear industry are also vitally interested in this issue.
This issue includes the following elements or was expressed in the following ways:
- Development of Radioepidemiological Tables, estimating the probability of causation of radiogenic cancers and their application;
- Applicability of input derived from Japanese nuclear bomb survivors, medically exposed popula-tions, animal studies and cell / tissue research;
- Inw level radiation effects;
- Risk assessment models, methodologies and risk coefficients for various types of radiation at various human sites;
- Cancer inductions from external exposure and internally deposited radionuclides;
- Relating the biological effects of different types of radiation to one another;
- Genetic and hereditary effects; and
- Life shortening considerations.
2
Radon The primary national interest in radon is currently focused on indoor radon, although outdoor radon has received Federal and state attention for more than a decade as it relates to urarium mill tailings and residues from mining, milling and processing of phosphate and other natural ores in the United States. There are specific populations which Federal agencies and Congress are concerned about, including: native Americans, uranium and other underground miners and residents near active and inactive uranium and phosphate mills. Recently.
national attention has focused on indoor radon exposures in certain eastern U.S. states, such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where levels in houses are found to exceed levels used by the Federal government to clean up misused uranium mill tailings.
Inhalation of naturally occurring radon progeny results in a significant contribution to the average radiation dose to the overall U.S. population.
Radon exposure has been suggested as a significant contributor to the rate of lung cancer in the U.S.,83%
of which is attributed to smoking.
This issue includes the following elements or was expressed in the following ways Improved measurement techniques for absorbed doses from radon progeny, lung models and stan-dard instruments.
Determination of the magnitude of health risks from the inhalation of radon progeny through epidemiological studies
- Improved state of knowledge of rac'on abatement measures; Need to inform the public in an authoritative and accurate way on the hazards from radon progeny and appropriate mitigating methods; and ,
Need for a national radon agreement to determine average exposures and high dose areas in the U.S.
Non-Ionizing Radiation The issue of non ionizing radiation exposure as a potential public health hazard was raised by a number of Federal agencies and national organizations. The extensive and increasing use of equipment that generate various frequencies of non-ionizing radiation in telecommunications, electrical power generation, defense consumer products and medical practice may be increasing exposure levels to non-ionizing radiation. The magnitude of this increased exposure of the U.S. population and any health consequences are not well known. This issue in-cludes the nature and degree of exposure in the workplace, the home and in the environment.
This issue includes the following elements or was expressed in the following ways:
Radiofrequency radiation effects, including those from radiowaves, radar and ultra high frequency radiation,
- Laser radiation effects;
- l'ltrasound effects; and Effects from high electrical and magnetic fields.
Iligh LET Radiation The biological effects of high linear energy transfer (LET) radiation, such as neutrons, alpha particles, pro-tons and heavy nuclei, are not as well known as those of low linear energy transfer radiation such as x rays.
gamma rays and beta radiation.
This issue includes the following elements or was expressed in the following ways:
- Neutron quality factors and relative biological effectiveness;
- Absorbed doso;
- Dosimetry;
- Dose response relationships at low doses and at the molecular, cell, tissue, organ and organism leveh and
- The effects of internally deposited radionuclides.
3
Food Irradiation The need for alternative treatment methods for disinfestation of food commodities arises primarily from the banning of carcinogenic or mutagenic chemical fumigants and other chemicals used for pathogen and pest control. Pressures on U.S. food processors, exporters and importers to evolve an alternative solution to chemical treatment have increased. There is a Federal rulemaking pending on using food irradiation in the United States and several petitions have been granted by the Food and Drug Administration for food irradiation. Several bills
.tdvocating food irradiation have been introduced in Congress and congressional interest and funding for food irradiation has undergone a marked increase in Fiscal Year '86.
This issue includes the following elements:
- The efficacy and safety of irradiated foods regarding nutrition, pest control, pathogen reduction, shelf life extension and unique radiolytic products;
- Labelling of irradiated foods;
- Employee training and public education;
- Dosimetry
- Food inspection;
- Plant design and radiation source supply;
- Regulatory issues - 3 tate, national and international;
- Interagency coordination; and
- Petitioning, rulemaking and clearance of irradiated foods.
Radioactive Wastes >
The radioactive waste issue transcends the nuclear energy, national security and nuclear medicine sectors of our society. The issue has two components: control of large quantities of low level waste in which the con-centration of radionuclides is relatively low (such as power reactor "trash," mill tallings and nuclear medicine "effluent") and control and disposal of relatively small quantities of high level waste that have significantly higher concentrations (such as defense waste from reprocessing and spent fuel elements from nuclear power reactors).
The two components require significantly different considerations in treatment, form, disposal sites, packaging and transportation and sta:e and Federal jurisdictions and responsibilities.
This issue includes the following elements or was expressed in the following ways:
- Storage and processing;
- Packaging of radioactive wastes;
- Transportation of radioactive wastes;
- Di3posal of radioactive wastes - regional low level waste disposal sites and high level national wa3te repositories:
- Regional low level waste compacts among states;
- Accelerator induced low level wastes;
- Disposition of mixed chemical and low level radioactive wastes; and
- Waste at levels below regulatory concern.
Radiation Measurements, Records and Control The Federal agencies and professional societies have cited the need for accurate radiation measurements in the workplace. hospital and environment; quality control and calibration of dosimetric instruments; more comprehensive recording ofindividual radiation exposures and a better means to control occupational radiation i e s pos u re.
This inue includes the following elements or was expressed in the following ways-
- Need for better dosimetry and more sensitive instruments to measure high LET radiation (neutron l and alpha particles), particularly as such measurements are used to determine absorbed doses;
- Transportation accidents involving radioactive material;
- Need for a national occupational exposure registry;
- Need to improve record keeping of collective and individual doses, especially dose histories for
.i
l individuals exposed in the workplace, home and hospital The measurement and recording of mixed radiation (high and low LET, external and internal) to organs, the whole body and extremities;
- Internal dose assessment models and model validation; Need for consistent and accurate radiation measurements, quality assurance system for dosimetric instruments and a standard means of instrument calibnuion; and Review of the Federal philosophy of radiation control, with regard to implementing a risk based system.
Public Informa: ion and Education This issue has two distinct components. The first is the inadequacy of communications and interactions between the Federal agencies, the scientific community, the public and the various segments of the media on ,
ionizing and non ionizing radiation. The second component concerns the reduced flow of scientists trained in radiation from academe to the Federal and industrial sectors.
This issue includes the following elements or was expressed in the following ways:
Need for a coherent and coordinated Federal public information policy on radiation; Need for consensus by radiation scientists and their peers; Need to enhance public confidence in Federal and state authorities in radiation matters; Support of academe in the education and training of radiation scientists; and Need to reverse the loss of radiation scientists to government and industry.
Emergency Preparedness and Clean-Up Standards The degree of preparedness of the Federal and state sectors to deal with radiation emergency situations is ofinterest to a number of Federal agencies. Among other topics, it includes the need for more detailed emergen-cy guidelines and standards. '
This issue includes the following elements or was expressed in the following ways:
Emergency situations involving nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons and accidents involving s various other types of nuclear facilities and materials; Responses to transportation accidents involving radioactive materials;
- Clean up and evacuation criteria; Overall emergency personnel training and readiness of manpower and equipment: !
Terrorist activities involving radioactive material;
- )
Coordination of international, Federal, state and local jurisdictions on emergency actions and Public interactions and media interfaces.
I V. Disposition of Issues l by CIRRPC i Federal Radiation Policy, Regulations and Standards In February,1985, CIRRPC formed a Science Subpanel on the subject chaired by the Environmental Protec-tion Agency. The Subpanel focused its attention primarily on the issue of whether or not the recommendation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, for a two fold increase in the neutron quality fac-tor, has a compelling scientific basis for its adoption. It is expected that the Subpanel will focus next on the scientific merit of using the concept of collective dose in radiation protection.
Radiation Compensation On November 8,1984, the President's Science Advisor transmitted the CIRRPC Science Panel Report No.
1 on the "VA Health Assessment of Veterans with Military Service at Sites of Temporarily Augmented lonizing Radiation"' to the Administrator of Veterans Affairs. The report concluded, "that it is highly unlikely that new 5
. - - - - - . . - - - - - --~
l
l or useful information regarding the health effects of radiation would result from the proposed epidemiological study of veterans exposed to radiation during military operations in Japan or at nuclear weapons tests." I on January 25,1985, the Science Advisor forwarded to the Secretary of the Department of Ilealth and lluman Services (11115), the Science Panet Report on the draft Report of the National Institutes of Ilealth (Nill) Ad Hoc Working Group to Develop Radioepidemiological Tables. CIRRPC Science Panel Report No. 22 concluded that the "report of the Ad Hoc Working Group is an excellent and scientifically responsible document which pro-vides probabilities of causation on the basis of the current knowledge on radiation carcinogenesis in man." llowever, the CIRRPC Science Panel went on to observe "that there are several aspects of the report that require attention to define more clearly the limitations of the tables. An improved discussion of the uncertainties inherent to the PC Iprobability of causation of radiogenic cancer) calculation and guidance concerning application of the radioepidemiological tables to high LET radiations and internally deposited radionuclides are particularly im-portant." In closing, the Panel advised that "To the extent that the Panel's concerns cannot be adequately ad-dressed by the present Ad Hoc Working Group, it is suggested that they be considered by any future working group established to update the tables."
in its final report of January 4,1985, HHS took into consideration many of the comments of the CIRRPC 5cience Panel. CIRRPC Science Panel Report No. 35 reviewed the final HHS report. On June 11, 1985. CIRRPC presented testimony before theJoint Hearing of the Senate l2bor and Human Resources Committee and the Sub-tommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.4 The testimony, which was coordinated with CIRRPC's member agencies, represented the official position of the Execut:re Branch on the !!H5 report. The far reaching consequences of the application of the HHS report touches virtually all of the CIRRPC member agencies. The testimony expressed caution on the application of the tables and recommended further refinement, research and reduction of the uncertainties in the calculations.
The Administrator of Veterans Affairs has asked CIRRPC's guidance on the applicability of the Radioepidemiological Tables to rulemaking pursuant to Public Law 98 542 concerning radiation exposure com-pensation of veterans.
Radon The CIRRPC Executive Committee established a Science Subpanel on radon protection problems and health ef fects. The Subpanel charter was presented to CIRRPC in June,1985, with the Department of I; abor chairing the Subpanel. The Suhpanel will develop a Federal consensus on scientific issues regarding mvironment.d radon exposure, with particular emphasis on the magnitude of health risks the assessment of national exposures, and the state of knowledge regarding radon abatement measures. A report is being prepared for release in the spring of 1986 and will concentrate on the indoor radon problem.
The Chairman of ClRRPC met with the Conference on Radiation Control Program .\lanagers on May 20, 1985 to disco the radon problem. The Conference is composed of radiation control officials of the state agen-cies dealing with ediation matters.
Non Ionizing Radiation In response to a request from EPA, a Science Subpanel was formed on April 25,1985, under the chairman-ship of the Veterans Administration to review existing research programs on radiofrequency health effects and to define appropriate research. A draft report on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation was submitted to CIRRPC's Sciente Panel in February.1986 and the final report is scheduled to be issued in the spring of 1986.
High LET Radiation In February,1985. CIRRPC took up the issue of high lintar energy transfer radiation, under the Chairman-ship of the Department of Health and lluman Services. This Subpanel's task includes: monitoring of ongoing tientific assessments of such groups as National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP), Na-tional Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council's Committee on the Biological Effects of lonizing Radiation (BEIR), and International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP). The Department of Energy sub-mitted a "Multiagency Research Plan for Resolving Problems Associated with low Irvel Exposure to Neutrons" to CIRRPC for review.
6
Food Irradiation, Radioactive Wastes, Radiation Measurements, Hecords and Control, Public Infor-mation and Education and Emergency Preparedness and Clean up Standards CIRRPC has not taken up these five issues since no requests to explore these issues have been received from Federal agencies. However, a proposed Congressional bill has a provision that CIRRPC coordinate Federal food irradiation activities.
In addition to the above activities, CIRRPC formed policy subpanels on Si Metric Units and Radio-epidemiological Tables.
VI. Summary CIRRPC has identified the major radiation issues of concern in the United States. It has taken action on five of the 10 issues as requested by Federal agencies.5 a
7
VII. References
- 1. CIRHPC Science Panel Report No.1 "VA Ilealth Assessment of Veterans With .\lilitary Service at Sites of Temporarily Augmented lonizing Radiation," September 7,1984.
- 2. CIRRPC Science Panet Report No. 2 "CIRRPC Scientific Report on the Draft Report of the Ad lioc Working Group to Develop Radioepidemiological Tables," November 6,1984.
3 CIRRPC Science Panel Report No. 3 " CIRRPC Scientific Report on the Report of the Ad lloc Working Group to Develop Radioepidemiological Tables," June 1,1985.
- 4. CIRRPC Testimony before the Committee on Labor and liuman Resources and Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, " llearings on Report of the National Institutes of Ilealth Ad floc Working Group to Develop Radioepidemiological Tables" June 11, 1985.
- 5. "First Annual Report - Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination," June 30, 1985.
s l
8
. i Figure 1 - CIRRPC's Location in Executive Branch l
1 l
1 l
Executive Office of the President Science Advisor to the President Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
Federal Coordinating Council for Science. Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) a l
Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC)
Chairman - OS r >
Members - Policy Representatives from 18 Federal Agencies 1
1 9
Figure 2 - CIRRPC's Organizational Structure Chairman - OSTP Vice Chairman - EPA Executive Secretary - DOD 5! embers - Policy Reps 18 Agencies
- DoslDoDj Doll Doll Docl Dog Dog m15l UsDA NA5A l EPA l VAl NRClNSC loMBl Doj l FEMA [ lit?D -
S.I. Sletric Units Radioepidemiological Policy Subpanel Tables Policy Subpanel CIRRPC Science Panel Chairman - DOC Vice Chairman - 1111S Executive Secretary - VA 5fembers - Science Reps.14 Agencies Radioepidemiological Scientific Basis Tables for Radiation Subpanel Protection Standards Subpanel I I Radon Ptotection liigh LET Research Agenda ,
and 11ealth Radiation f r Radiofrequency llealth Effects {
Effects Subpanel Subpanel Subpanel j l
s i
I l
l 10
E
, e ->
.,,..+,,... a A. - w. ~
w -
.x *
.. cc .,i..,.. . . . ;. . . , ,,. m
' e. ,.,,, ,* "._:
_ - . ,- f g: o 2 .- - ... _;.. . ' ' '. ; ~g, . j., 4'n. .% :. , Y'
, ' . _ . .t
- .,,f..
n ,- * . .s K . . j.y, - s, g . . . ,
.c.... ..g,r, 4_
,..c g...-
e k .~ > -??., . .
. . ~ ;. O - Wi '-."
T J< --
J.-
s ~
- , -6 (:.;
..y :.
p,g;. .. ) y* A -, .,Y .
.g o 7 ; -
l i . , .g. ' c' D. p: .
, ~_ . .
-:s ;..
. y&.s.6 - .! , 4-
~- *
~ '~~'~., -
.L w . ~
m s+ ' " '; 's ~ >
-: n l. .. ', -
'., j[ ?, ~ % j[. . . M, 4 ]Q. g ,. **[ c
- .ID '
~~
h
- * .y n . .
.'s.
':~ .:-
' - a - * = -
~ . -
.J
- 1 fi ... .
.) O
.~
Q .;- l fi.k Is' . ' l .jll {,hsQ4,np/ fk :7.,-)h4%' ige),_)p}.g,) Lj}'p jj ;. [A- N ' '.%:[,3,,,j,'2, ,*n,,,
n
~
- ,% - 4 .. : r t '. 4 <>. : w,,$ . , : - M . . q' .g . g. g) .s.6 . .; "..4 <,, f .iq w r y ,, .xs r, f . p % *. .49%.;,4 " -.
/k .
NY
. - _ g- -
.I ?
- s.' 'el. i.y,x g.q:-, - .g-.
n's.c%.NQirW. .; . .
gti.* ' r. .9A .,
.,.,.. ;: p _. .
Q ;?:$. R & *$^*MV
' ^'
gr. ' . h.;a , h ,
- .y : : 3 -- ~ -.
- g. ;. . . . . . . . -
INFORMATION ON CRCPD POSITION ; '[ ' . ,8
]
'c- E .* ,[..
^ w- .k;
., t,27. y,4 "5
. . ^
6 k vs.r. . . s. ,
ON NARN REClJ1.AT I ON -
^
9.
N.: - : .'-.,,..
~t ._ ~ . , 7 i.J $# Prepared for 1*% .s , - '. -
<< ;,.. .. y.
9 n L 0.S. Nuc lea r Re8u lator7 Counn i s s i on ,a .. . .
4.. u 2.yf?;
$.W.
...g
.I' ,$!
- ,'M 1 E IW 0, ; . '
H Y S' 1988
$dQf ' Qf .
${C. #@h;;4$K. :y'l:(4:
,4. , . v,A Td%.6$.,@..,: ,. -l.CY2%$ .
h-Q? %>A ^ (
, yfdM ~. '.. C ,
que .. . .
.x : 1 94 . . .
). .
.y ,, .
. ....; .. . - _. .q, _ . , g . 4 .
- 14. .z.. . . , . + 4w , =
- e. ,. ....-*f'.
~
.j . . . . . . .~ :
y- ., ~...
< m_ _
. g gu
7 g
' . ;h;s&_ .%-Q 3 . 3":'L f
^^
f.1 ~ ; " . %r ',,- '
,, /y - g.
h&
- f.f&,$.VQ:&' *,$I.lA:} r, y . .
4% 6fewwh_%'s.4 e \
&kp,3%+:q,.2;lr-l'4:&;.'
' r
& % ^$_ g* d '
'in%.Q:)l&; &y. p'
' ~
n M&MI$
n g%uw w % d k,%_g' % L.2 n$$$en n P nE M M M xm%a %3(% W[?
n M $ g% .
M 3 R+
mus#w:x%.g%n
$ nUe .
2
$yhf((!l
. :r c.
lfY. .w w e w g&
fijff .wl}s } .
,, - . =
' ~
(p . .
J -i 4
.s . g]
'4 ,( ??, I. 4 . , ../k^
I. , . ^ .-
~
I *'
l
'a lf,hf N' u.,
$_,':# . !f h , ..
,g Y ' -
?, i$ S ^N ? ffh6~
g . . A A l';v." .- .
s a s .
7 _g n _ $n. a! L v e m( _. s . .n. a $ n@ p ,Q .w :. n;,. ,
_ x . g. . n ._ . , ... .,v. . -
. - :m:w ~; y w : .
- n. .. : .
- .f . - p , y ; a
e Statement to the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission by the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors May 5, 1988 I am T. R. Strong, Chief of the Office of Radiation Protection fc,r the state of Washington and Chairman of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. I and my 51 counterparts in the states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico, make up the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors.
Our purpose in being here is to ccanent on your staff document NUREG-1310 on Naturally Occurring and Accelerator Proauced Radioactive Materials ;
(NARM): and to reaffirin the position of the Conference with regard to NARM:
We believe there should be uniform nationwide regulation of discrete sources of naturally occurring and act.elerator produced materials: we believe the Nuclear Regulatory Coctnission .ts the appropriate agency at the federal level to provide for sudh a unifwn regulatory program.
l with me today are Bill Dornsife, our mcet:- from Pennsylvania, and Charles Hardin. E:<ecutive Secretary of the Confere -
Because of sto we are, we believe we arr. not being presumptuous sten we remind you that:
-- Under the authority granted by Congress to the Cortnission , the 29 Agreement States license and regulate 65 percent of the uses of radioactive nuterials in the United States (leaving NRC only 35 percent).
-- These 29 Agreement States regulate NARM using more or less the ;
criteria they and the NRC have developed to regulate all radioactive
- nnterials.
j -- Four of the 21 non-Agreement States (Deleware, New Jersey, j Pennsylvania, and Virginia) have NARM licensing programs, and of the '
remaining 1'7 , twelve states sho perhaps are most in need of a regulatory program, exercise little or no NARM control activity. The Conference's "Licensing State Program" sets criteria, evalautes prograins , and recognizes those states stich meet the criteria as NARM licensing states. But no non-Agreement State, stere it would be nest appropriate, participates in our voluntary program. It is these 12 states about stctn we are cost concerned and sho represent a potential significant public heleth issue.
4 l
l l
Your staff report in hTREG-1310 does not reccanend that the Ccanission assume or seek authority for the regulation of NARM. 'Ihe Conference takes this opportunity to disagree with your staff report'.
First, we believe it is inconsistent for you to not regulate naturally occurring radionuclides:
You now regulate many radionuclides produced in cyclotrons or reactors and stich are in ccanon usage in nuclear medicine. At the same time.
there are at least eight radionuclides, also in cccTx>n usage in nuclear medicine but which are produced in accelerators: you do not regulate these: carbon 11, nitrogen 13, oxygen 15, cobalt 57, gallium 67, indium 111, iodine 123, and thallium 201. Both groups of radionuclides, used side by side in nuclear medicine, represent potential humn exposure and environmental contamination issues; yet they are not regulated equally. It is an inconsistent policy. (As an aside, STRD3-1310 also states that the nuclear medicine business is over-regulated; we seriously disagree with that conclusion.)
You mde a significant regulatory response to generally licensed static eliminators manufactured by the 3-M Company when these devices were discovered to be leaking polonium 210. Even when found in l consumer products, the potential for humn exposure and/or adverse :
health impacts was very minimal. At the same time, yo do not regulate naturally occurring radium stich is still used in redicine.
I represents a significant disposal problem, and is a potential for human exposure far in excess of any that might be represented by the polonium in static eliminators. We think your actions have been inconsistent.
t
-- 'Ahile you do not regulate radium, you have apparently recognized that
} it represents a disposal problem because you have issued nonbinding guidance on how an individual who finds him elf in possession of naturally occurring radionuclides might proceed to adequately dispose j of such mterials (as published by the NRC in the Federal Register, ,
Volume 46, Number 205, October 23, 1981). Mbile you have recognized I the problem "informily", you still decline to take the next step- '
regulation by rule.
i
'nhile we think it is an inappropriate position to take, we understand shy j your staff is suggesting NRC send the issue to CIRRpC and why they have not proposed to go directly to Congress. We are good bureaucrats, too; we understand the issues of budget, resources, politics, and your concern for J
the potential negative consequences of inviting Congress to open up the Atcede Energy Act. 'Ahile we understand why you might have taken this position, we also think this public health issue is being given the bureaucratic treatment, and ask that you consider these points:
1 We do not believe STREG-1310 exhausts the possibilities for exa rdning how NRC might effectively regulate NARM under its existing authority.
. I i
J
i 4
l We think you can, and if you wanted to, could, begin to regulate the discrete sources of NAR\t now, without additional authority from Congress.
If you cannot do this, we think you must take the issue to Congress.
if not to ask for authority for NRC to regulate NAR\t, then at least to begin full discussion of the issue with Congress.
If you cannot take the NAR\f issue to Congress, then we will continue to search for a mechanis:n which will allow us to take it to Congress. In that event, what will the NRC's position be? Will you oppose Congress delegating responsibility for NARAt to you (assuming, of course. that adequate authority and resources are provided to you to do the job)?
I have met with Chairman Zeck twice (in September 1986 when the Conference's Executive Board met with him and in October 1987 at the Agrec<nent States Meeting in Louisville). On both occasions he clearly indicated that if the states have an issue which they cannot resolve without help. Admiral Zeck (if not the entire Ccmnission?) would ccce to our rescue. I believe the NAR\1 issue nuets the criteria he set. The preeminant responsibility of government is clearly to protect the public health and we believe you should move rapidly on this issue. It certainly involves radioactivity and it definitely has potential public health ir:plications .
i l
- l l
l l
1 3
l s
l
~ l l
l l
l Introduction There are a variety of radioactive materials which can be found in nature, and any materials can be made radioactive threugh nuclear bombardment by high energy particles from accelerators. These Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive Materials (NARM) represent a potential public health risk equal to, and in many cases, greater than, radioactive materials which are produced in the fission process. Some radionuclides are produced on a commercial scale both in accelerators and in reactors.
The types and energies of radiation emitted from NARM are similar to those of By-product materials. The radioactive decay process is similar with NARM and By-product materials. The biological effecte from exposure to NARM are similar to By-product materials. Methods used to measure and detect NARM are similar as for By-product material.
NARM and By-Product material are similar, in their radiation characteristics, i.e. alpha, beta and gamma emissions. There are two major cifferences between NARM and By-product material, which are:
- 1. The manner by which they are prcduced, and
- 2. The manner by which they are regulated Their manner of production has been previously discussed.
In regard to the manner by which they are regulated, various studies conducted by both the NRC and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., have concluded that the regulation of NARM in the United States is not uniform, fragmented, and in some cases, totally absent.
Congress, through the enactment of the Atomic Energy Act, provided for the very strong regulation and control of By-product, Source, and Special Nuclear Meaterials. However, at the time of the passage of the Atomic Energy Act in 1954, the major focus and attention of Congress was to assure the public health I and safety in the peaceful use of the "new" radioactive material. j In 1954, very little accelerator produced radioactive material was in use and little concern was given to radioactive materials in nature, except of course, ores containing uranium and thorium, which through processing, could be used as fuel for reactors and l nuclear weapons. As a result, the Atomic Energy Act only l addressed those types of radioactive materials, therefore NARM i was excluded in the 1954 Act. !
The consequence of NARM's omission from the Atomic Energy Act is the absence of an adequate and uniform national control or ,
this material. The only regulation and*:ontrol of NARM has been l in certain state and local governments but the degree and level of control among these states has been verv inconsistent. The ,
i l
b
- l 1
l I
protection of the health and safe:y of the public from exposure to NARM has and continues to be .t a substantially louer level i then that for By-Product materials of comparable hazard. i 1
i 1
l l
1 1
l l
I j
l l
l l
?
e Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.
The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc.
(CRCPD), is an organization made up of the radiation control staff of each state, the District et Columbia, Puerto Rico, and certain metropolitan areas.
The CRCPD was formed in 1968, and incorporated in the State of Arkansas in 1975. Prior to 1951, all administrative duties were managed by officers of the organization. ,In February of 1981, the CRCPD employed a full time Executive Secretary to manage the day to day operations. With the establishment of the Office of Executive Secretary (CES), a permanent office was located in Frankfort, Kentucky.
The current membership of the CRCPD is 430 members. There are five classifications of membership. These 6.r e Members, who are the directors of the respective radiation control programs; Asscciate Members, who are the staff of the Members; Emeritus Members, who are past members or Associate Members; Foreign Members, who are personnel responsible for radiation control outside the United States; and Special Members, who are radiation control personnel from Indian Tribes and U.S. Territories. The "Members" are the voting membership of the organization. There are 52 voting members, with DC and Puerto Rico being the two in addition to the fifty states.
The organization is controlled by an Executive Board, made up of seven individuals from the membership. The current Board membership is as follows:
Chairman: T.R. Strong (Washington)
Chairman-Elect: Charles Tedford (Arizona),
Past-Chairman: John Eure (Iowa)
Treasurer: Michael Mobley (Tennessee)
Member-At-Large: Robert Hallisey (Massachusetts)
Member-At-Large: James Hickey (Rhode Island)
Member-At-Large: Robert Funderburg (Louisiana)
The major financing of the CRCPD is through a Cooperative Agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although the FDA administers (and contributes funding to) the Cooperative Agreement, other funding is provided by three additional federal I agencies, under interagency agreements with FDA. These other )
federal agencies are the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the '
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Each of these supporting agencies has a i Liaison that sits on the Board, and attends all Board meetings. 1 These federal Liaisons provide technical input and guidance relative to the issues under consideratyn.
l l
1
The goals and Objectives of the CRCPD, as stated in the By-Laws are:
- 1. to promote raciological health in all aspects and phases,
- 2. to encourage and promote cooperative enforcement programs with federal agencies and between related enforcement agencies within each state,
- 3. to encourage the interchange of experience among radiation control programs, 4 to collect and make accessible to the membership of the Conference such information and data as might be of assistance to them in the proper fulfillment of their duties,
- 5. to promote and foster uniformity of radiation control laws and regulations,
- 6. to encourage and support programs which will contribute to radiation control for all,
- 7. to assist the membership in their technical work and development, and
- 8. to exercise leadership with radiation control professionals and consumers in radiation control development and action.
The major technical issues of the CRCPD cre addressed by various technical Committees and/or Task Forces. The attachment is a listing of the current working groups, their membership, and charges.
For additional information o,n the CRCPD, please contact:
Charles M. Hardin, Executive Secretary 71 Fountain Place Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 Phone: 502/227-4543
?
^ .
CONFERENCE OF RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS, INC.
COMMITTEES / TASK FORCES AND CHARGES DECEMBER 10,.1987 t
E-1 Environmental Nuclear Council
- 1. To assure that the conceots and ideas of the CRCPD membership are being properly addressed by the various task forces and _
committees.
- 2. To provide coordination and guidance to the committees / task forces as liaison for the Executive Board.
~
E-2 Committee en Evaluation and Distribution of Radioactive Sources and Devices not Manufactured under the Atomic Energy Act (NARM)
- 1. To assist and encourage the NRC in the transfer of information contained in the CRCPD Radioactive Materials Reference Manual (RMRM) to the NRC Sealed Source and Device Registry, and to maintain the RMRM for use by the states until such transfer ', ,
occurs.
Milestone:The goal for the final date of completing the transfer of information f rom the RMRM to the NRC Registry is December 31, 1988.
- 2. Promote the use of the guides by states for the inspection o f
- manuf acturers and distributors of NARM products, and the criteria for granting of extended leak test intervals for sealed sources
. containing NARM. Annually monitor and review NARM guides and i make needed amendments. Re po r t to the Executive Board bi$nnually .
on the status of the use of such guides by the states. 0
- 3. Provide technical assistance and consultation to the Suggested ,
- State Regulations for the Control of Radiation, Part "N" group to I develop suggested regulations in the NORM area. )
E-3 Task F6rce oh 'Criiehii'f6E' AdidOdid'Ridi5ildh'ddh6261'Pf66f 56"l Radioactive Materials (TERMINATED)
E-4 Co mm i t t e e o 6 ' Na iO hil ' Rad i65 c d iv i s " C6565mi h5 6155 /6556 mm155166 i hg ' ihd Decontamination Problems NORM Activities / Oil & Gas Production ,
- 1. Provide assistance to the CRCPD, individaal states and Federal agencies in scoping the problem of contamination by Naturally-Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM).
- 2. Assist in developing appropriate radiation protection guidance and criteria.
- 3. Assess the impact of NORM contamination.
- 4. Serve as mechanism for state / Federal interaction in the area of NORM. .
- 5. Continue to review and recommend gew guidance on soil l
contamination.
- 6. Identify processing areas where potential NORM contamination
could occur in oil and gas production / processing operations.
7, Pro v id e recommendations on environmental and operational criteria. .
- 8. Identif y physical / chemical properties of NORM contamination in oil and gas pro d uc t io n/p ro ce s s i ng o pe r a t io n s .
- 9. Provide options / alternatives for disposal of NORM waste f rom oil and gas production / processing operations. .
- 10. To prepare an upda ted report , for Executive Board aporoval, which icantifies an inventory of types of NORM sources their magnitude i in terms o f volume o f material involved, their geographical ;
d is t r ibu t io n , and an estimate of the po tential individual and i population exposure (person-Rem) involved.
NORM Regulations
- 11. In conjunction with the NARM Committee, provide technical assistance, advice and recommendations to the SSRCR, Part "N," in ,
the development of NORM Regulations.
Decommissioning and Decontamination Problems
- 12. Review draft Federal Register Notices, and major support documents relating to decommissioning and decontamination ,
facilities, and provide comment to appropriate Federal agencies '
regardino these documents. ,
- 13. Review Federal Register Notices regarding decommissioning and l decontamination f acilities, and provide comments regarding these !
documents to the Executive Board. I
- 14. The Committee Chairman, or his designated alternate, ( to be )
approved by the CRCPD Chairman), will represent the CRCPD on the )
Federal Interagency Working Group on Decommissioning and !
j De co n t amin a t io n . 1 E-5 Committee oh' L64-15 vel ' Radid5ctlO5 'Wis ti' A56ag5556t Charge to be developed.
, E-6 Committe5 '6n' Emdhgind 'R55p6655 "P15ddihg ,
j 1. To address the technical issues regarding any radiological 4
emergency plenning or response. Included in these issues, but I
not limited to , are such matters as instrumentation, dose asaessment or projections and/or calculations, protective drugs, I decontamination, environmental analysis, and radiological team j
- equipment in general. The Committee is to provide l recommendations on the technology and approaches to the various l technical problems in emergency response and planning.
E-7 Commit tie 'on ' c15a6 ' Air' A6t J
j 1. To survey the states to determine interest of assuming delegation for implementing the radionuclide emissions component of the Clean Air Act.
Mile s to ne : Survey to 'ime completed and,a report of results by the 1988 l
Annual Meeting. .
l 1
! I
' i
b
- 1. The Committee should investigate the progress of NRC on the update of 10 CFR 20 to determine the impact o f contempla ted changes on current air standards.
Milestone: no t applicaole. '
- 3. To develop a draf t, document for guidance to states on procedures to follow in apply ing for , and assum,ing delega tion o f , implemen-ting provisions of the Clean Air Act relating to radionuclide emis s io ns .
Mile s to ne : 4th quarter of 1988.
- 4. The Committee shall assist EPA in the develop.t s.* - of criteria for state assumption of the Clean Air Act authority for the regu-lation of radionuclides.
Mile s to ne : no t applicable.
E-8 Committee oh Uf 56i0m'Taili6g5 'Chitsfis A40160' f60' A6EiO4'56d'i656Eivs Impoundments
- 1. To review EPA's _. 41 standards for the conduct of the Uranium Mill Tailings .ial Action Program for the inactive mill, the disposal and vic4aity sites (40 CFR 192) upon their availability, and provide technical comments and recommendations to the Executive Board .
- 2. To review any NRC regulation and/or DOE implementation plan based on an EPA standard, and provide comments and recommendations to the Executive Board for their action.
E-9 Committei_cn High-16 vel Radi6 active ' Waste (TERMINATED)
E-10 Ta s k ' Fo rce ' o 6 ' Cr i se sia ' fd h 'id E 50iid ' Rid i 5 t l5 5 ' C5 5 t r51 ' Pr5g h55' '
Environmental Monito ring and Surveillance (TERMINATED) t E-ll Commistie oh ' D4c65mi55ichih6 ' 56d ' B5656Eisihiil6 A (TERMINATED / Combined witn E-4.)
E112 Com5itise 'on Th565p6htisi66 'EdO65Eidh J
- 1. To review applicable Federal transportation regulations and other available literature as appropriate, for both high and low-level radioactive shipments, and develop a document (s) or other training packages to 'be utilized by state radiation control programs and/or for training of others regarding transportation regula t io ns . The document (s) should include inspection procedures and sample forms for data collection and evaluation. ,
l 2. To cevelop a guidance document on the risk of transporting radioactive materials which can be used by state radiation programs for informing the public and other interested parties of i
such risks.
j E-13 Committee on Rad 6n'P611c9
i 2. lo develop criteria which can be used by states in assessing the
- potential for radon in structuredE in their respective states.
- 3. To identify radon measurement needs in state programs, specify 1
g__ __
- h i
kind of measurement equipment needed and recommend methods for .
making radon' measurements. l
- 4. To develop criteria for guidelines for procedures to correct the prcblems when radon is discovered in structures.
, 5. To develop recommended guidelines for dealing with the'public on !
the radon issue.
- 6. To develop regulation requirements versus non-regulatory requirements as related to radon exposure. .
- 7. Regarding radon issues , meet and/or communicate with ORP, and the !
Of fice of Research and Development, CRCPD concerns, and to l determine the following:
- a. what their specific products are that are on line, ,
- b. what directions they are planning to go for the next 12-24 [
months , and 3 i
- c. what problems they foresee. t The Committee is to communicate back to the Executive Board on a !
quarterly basis results of the above communications. [
E-14 Committee on Bonding knd "Surst ,,
i
- 1. To review the CRCPD document entitled "Task Force Report,on ~ '
, Bonding and Perpetual care of Nuclear Licensed Activities,"
January 20, 1975, and other appropriate documents, to determine the need for current and update guidance to the states relative '
to bonding and surety requirements.
- 2. If new guidance is needed on bonding and surety requirements, as determined from charge #1, to develop such guidance for the i states, t
- E-15 T5sk' Fo h66 '6n
- Pr66Ed0hss 'Msh051'i'Ridi656tivs AiE5hidl5 ,
a l To be developed by Task Force. j
- E-16 Cri te f ia ' f 6 t ' Adiq0hi4 ' R5d i diid 6 ' Co 6 th61' #fddE5m'i Rid 66 Develop a document on what constitutes an adequate radiation control !
! program for radon, to be paralleled to other criteria documents currently published by CRCPD.
l Milestone:the document be produced in first' draft and be made
- available at the 1988 Annual Meeting and final draf t be produced no later than the end of the 1988 year. li l
H-1 Hsili6g ' Ahis 'C606611 I t
- 1. To assure that the concepts and ideas of the CRCPD membership are 3 1 being properly addressed by the various committees and task i
! forces. i i
- 2. To provide coordination and guidance to the committees / task i forces as liaison for the Executive Board. [
H-2 T5sk F6h65 '6n'Critihii' f6h' Ad5q0iid'Ridl5Eid6 C66Ef61'Pf66fim'1 ~
No nio ni z ing (TERMINATED) i J
! i
, i l
4 ,
i f
i H-3 Commit tes '6 6 'Msd ical' Pisc tice To promote the safe and ef ficacious use of medical and dental x-ray '
f procedures by: i
- 1. updating a survey of state programs to determine the extent of state, county, city, etc., required administrative and occupational x-ray procedures;
- 2. eliciting support of the radiation control agencies in a national program to reduce the number of unproductive administratively required x-ray examinations;
- 3. encouraging the radiation control agencies to provide technical suppo r t to groups promo ting consumer / patient education in radiological health;
- 4. to provide radiation control agencies with a CRCPD contact and ,
clearinghouse for problems related to the use of radiologic a procedures; 1
- 5. developing and disseminating to state radiation control programs,
, an informational package on optimum techniques for conducting radiographic scoliosis examinations and to promote dissemination of that information to appropriate professional and consumer groups; ,
- 6. investigating medical users of radium including nasopharyngeal '
a pplica to rs ; and
- 7 developing guidance in the area of ef ficacy of high-tech imaging modalities, l
t 4
'9-4 d655iii44 ' 66
- Niii660id 6 ' t05165 E id 6 '6 f ' i; AiO 'if 56di ' ( stiti i
- 1. To develop a system whereby states may collect survey data f rom diagnostic radiological procedures consistent with their needs.
] 2. To encourage and assist states in analysis and use of that data.
- 3. To provide methods for determination of problem areas during ~
- f acility inspections.
- 4. To evaluate, on a continuing basis, the system and methods developed, and to make modifications as appropriate to meet changing states needs. i
. 5. In coordination with the Task Force on Quality Assurance, review
- and update a manual of survey procedures and protocol to be used
- in the uniform evaluation of diagnostic x-ray f acilities, that t d
can be used as a "standard" for such evaluation. ;
Task Forc5 'o6' Cred66tiali6g ' Pf6gf 55' f60' A1114d 'R651Eh"6pihiE665
~
H-5 (TERMINATED) l H-6 Co mm i t t s 5 ' 66 ' T r a l d i 6g ' 56d ' C65m6616561665
- li '
! The Committee on Training and Communications shall: !
i 1. receive, evaluate and summarize reports f rom Regional Training ,
j Committees and identify training needs that must be aoproached on i
- a national level;
- 2. evaluate whether training is an appropriate solution to the ,
j stated problem, and if so , determjne the most cost-ef fe tive mode of training to be employed; . !
- 3. working with other agencies and organizations, develop and 4
. . . _ _.,_-,,,__-,-.__.,,,....,___._,.,-_______,_m_ _ _ , , . , _ _ _ . . , . . _ _ _ .
catalogue a list .of training options as well as a list of ;
resources for training or f unding, and provide these to the l Regional Training Committees;
- 4. working with other agencies and organizations, develop necessary training not otherwise provided;
- 5. evaluate the training proposed for the Regional Training ;
Meetings; i
- 6. recommend to the Chairman of the CRCPD whether or not to approve the Regional Training Meetings and the number o f CRCPD-sponso red attendees;
- 7. serve as a reviewing body for proposed training packages and public information documents, as requested; and
- 8. make recommendations regarding the structure and f unction o f the I Regional Training Committees.
- 9. to prepare a glossary of radiation protection principles and terms which can be used by the states in communicating with the news media.
H-7 Co mm i t te e o r Ouality Assurahce in'Didonostic'Xi rs
! l l 1. Determine the elements of diagnostic x-ray technique that impact i image quality and patient e x po su re in adult and pediatric exams l to aid facilities in maintaining minimal patient exposure and l consistent high quality diagnostic images, i
- 2. Recommend and develop information usef ul to states in implementing a quality assurance progra....
l
- 3. In coordination with the Committee on NEXT, review and upd a te a i l
manual of survey procedures and pro tocol to be used in the I uniform evaluation of diagnostic x-ray f acilities, that can be l used as a "standard" for such evaluation. l H-8 Co mmi t te e ' 6 6 ' N6 h id h i:160 ' R5d i 5 t id h l
l 1. To provide a mechanism for ef fective state / Federal control of l
nonionizing radiation producing products and/or devices.
- 2. To define the role of Radiation Control Agencies in action l programs designed to adequately protect the public's health f rom
, the use of these products or devices.
) 3. To devise and/or develop recommended procedures to insure timely l action, especially in the area of laser light shows and l suntanning products.
- 4. To develop recommended radiof requency levels around specific i source environments (siting criteria).
- 5. Review proposed standards or changes in existing regulations fo r effectiveness, practicality, and impact on state rad ia t io n I control programs.
- 6. Provide a focus for the exchange of information and a mechanism for updating skills of state personnel through CRCPD-sponsored seminars, meetings, etc., to insure the maximum efficient utilization of resources.
H-9 Committee on ' Ionising Rad ia t i6 h ' Tns rap 9
- 1. a that must be addressed to Identif safe, assure y radiological ef ficient health issu$sf operation- radiation therapy l
l
4 - i 4 ;
l in s talla t io ns . This includes calibration, quality assurance and operation of units, as well as installation design.
- 2. Develop a recommended inspection program that is cos t-ef f ect fve and appropriate _ for the average state radiological health program, preferably placing demands on the f acility to make tests and keep records. ,
- 3. Provide recommendations to the CRCPD committees working on the '
therapy aspects of the suggested State Regulations, and other ,
committees or task forces as appropriate. Consideration should '
be given to recommending consolidation of all radiation therapy ,
regulations in one part of the SSRCR.
- 4. Develop criteria that can be used to evaluate the adequacy of a state radiation control program for therapy installations.
Consider mechanisms that will help to ensure compatibility among Federal and state programs in the enforcement of radiation protection r,tandards and regulations.
NOTE: Charge #4 has not been implemented, but will be implemented upon recommendation of the Committee Chairperson.
- 5. Address "Site Specific Therapy" by the following activities:
- a. Establish the purpose and scope of the project. Site-specific therapy refers to radionuclides (of ten Iod ine-131) tagged to monoclonal antibodies in large quantities
- (hundreds of millicuries per dose) .
- b. Identify the drug kits approved by FDA for production and use for site-specific therapy.
- c. Establish parameters for manuf acturing kits including, but no t limited to , air flows , decontamination, filter
- integrity, biochemical / radiochemical in te ra c t io ns . -
- d. Establish training criteria for physicians and techni- l cians.
, e. Establish patient health physics (dose criteria) co n s id e- i 1 ra tio ns . (Hospitals and/or clinics)
I
- f. Project future use (kits, manufa:turing, etc.).
- g. Establish rules for site-specific therapy.
H-10 Committs6 '66 ' 00slifi64ti66s ' f6f '866;$E5E6 'X1 Gi}" thipici6f 5
- 1. To develop a guide for state use in the implementation of the criteria for non-state inspectors, as previously developed by the '
Co mmit tee .
SR-1 Suggested Stats Rsgulati6ns'C606cil
- l. To develop long range plans for the various working groups.
- 2. To assure that technical review is performed for the proposed suggested regulations. !
- 3. To assure that each part is properly coordinated, and does not conflict, with other parts of the suggested regulations.
SR-TR SSRCR - Tsch61csl' RiviEw'C6mmliiss i
- 1. To annually review and update existing CRCPD Suggested State Regul ations for Control of RadiaQon.
- 2. To recommend to the CRCPD, chaageB in the existing model l
r i
l
~
l t l '
regula t io n s .
- 3. To develop new regulations deemed necessary because af new technical developments or Federal requirements.
- 4. To strive for compatibility with pertinent Federal regulations during the processes o f updating , char.ging , or developing new regula t io n s .
SR-A SSRCR - Part ~ A' (Gen 5ral Provisions)
- 1. To annually review and update existing CRCPD Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation.
- 2. To recommend to the CRCPD, changes in the existing model reg ul a t io n s .
- 3. To develop new regulations deemed necessary because of new technical developments or Federal requirements.
- 4. To strive for compatibility with pertinent Federal regulations during the processes o f updating , changing, or developing new reg u la t io ns .
SR-B SSRCR'- P5rt ' B ' ( R5c is tra t id n '6 f ' R5d isiid 5 ' A5551555 ', ' F5b ili t i5 5 ' 55d services)
- 1. To annually review and update existing CRCPD Suggested State Reg u la t io n s for Control of Radiation.
- 2. To recommend to the CRCPD, changes in the existing model reg ul a t io ns .
- 3. To develop new regulations deemed necessary because o f new technical developments or Federal requirements.
- 4. To strive for compatibility with pertinent Federal regula tions during the processes o f updating , changing , or developing new reg ula t io n s .
SR-C SSRCR'- ' P5f t' C' { Lib 5nsina 'o f ' A5did56Eiv5 ' A565hi31}
- 1. To annually review and update existing CRCPD Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation.
- 2. To recommend to the CRCPD, changes in the existing model l regulations. l
- 3. To develop new regulations deemed necessary because of new l technical developments or Federal requirements. l
- 4. To strive for compatibility with pertinent Federal regulations during the processes o f updating , changing, or developing new ,
regula t io n s .
SR-D/ SSRCR - 'P5hi'D~ (St5nd5rd5' fds Ps6t56 tid 6 ' A651556' A5dl5 tid 5} 7
~377J Part J ( No t ice s , Ins t ruc t io ns , and Re po r ts to Wo r ke r s : Insp55 tid 55}
- 1. To consider the addition of a new regulation which would require the use of personnel dosimeters which hLve been certified under the NVLAP criteria.
- 2. To annually review and update existing CRCPD Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation.
- 3. To recommend to the CRCPD, changes in the existing model reg ul a t io ns .
- 4. To develop new regulations deemed #necessary because of new i _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
t' .
6 i !
2 technical developments or Federal requirements.
i 5. To strive for compatibility with pertinent Federal regulations ,
, during the processes of updating, changing, or developing new-i . regulations .
- 6. To include the draf ting of a regulation pertaining to removal of '
warning labels f rom empty containers which formally contain l
radioactive materials.
i SR-E/ SSRCR - Part E (Radiation Saf ety Requirements for 16dO5tri51 SR-W Ope ra t io n s ) / Pa r t W (Well Logg ing )
- 1. The development of model regulations for "Radiation Safety Requirements for Industrial Operations." !
- 2. To develop model regulations for radiation safety requirements .
for wireline service operations and subsurf ace tracer studies. !
i t SSRdn'i'P5hi'P'{X-ravs'id'ih5'A551156'Ahi5I SR-F
- l. .'To annually review and update existing CRCPD Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation.
] 2. To recommend to the CRCPD, changes in the existing model regul a t io ns .
- 3. To develop new regulations deemed necessary because of new l technical developments or Federal requirements. '
4 To strive for compatibility with pertinent Federal regulations during the processes of updating, changing, or developing new reg ula t io ns , i SR-G/ $$RCR - Part G ( Use s ' 6 f ' S5515d ' R5d i656 t iv5 ' $606655 ' ib ' ih5 ' A551156 !
! SR-L Arts)/Part L (Nuclear Medicine)
- 1. To annually review and update existing CRCPD Suggested State I
) Regulations for Control of Radiation.
j 2. To recommend to the CRCpD, changes in the existing model reg ula t io n s .
- 3. To develop new regulations deemed necessary because of new technical developments or Federal requirements. .
- 4. To strive for compatibility with pertinent Federal regulations ,
during the processes of updating, changing, or developing new ,
regulations. -
- 5. To provide review and comment to NRC on proposed amendments to 10 :
CFR 35. '
- 6. To participate and contribute in the development of NRC Program for Regulation of Misadministration in Nuclear Medicine.
4 SR-H S$RCN' ~ P5rt ' H'( kad istid6' $5f 5E '$5q0if 5m46E5 ' f66' Adi19E16i1~.t1E59 Equipment) l 4 1. To annually review and update existing CRCPD Suggested State !
j Regulations for Control o f Radiation. l j 2. To recommend to the CRCPD, changes in the existing model i
{ reg u.\ a t io n s ,
i 3. To develop new regulations deemed necessary because of new technical developments or Federahprequirements.
- 4. To strive for compatibility with ' pertinent Federal regulations
)
) !
i l i
,2- ,
during the processes of updating, changing, or developing new regul a tio ns .
,R-2 SSRCR - Par t ' I ' ( Rad ia t io d ' $ 5 f E t 'R54uiEdmEdi5'fdE'P5Edid15 Ac ce le ra to r s )
- 1. To annually review and update existing CRCPD Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation.
- 2. To recommend to the CRCPD, changes in the existing model reg ula t io ns .
- 3. To develop new regulations deemed necessary because of _ new technical developments or Federal requiremsats.
- 4. To strive for compatibility with pertinent Federal regulations during the processes of updating, changing, or developing new regula t io ns .
SR-J SSRCR - Part J (Combined with SSRCR - Part D)
Committee od ' Suggested St5ts'RE6015tidh5" fdE'thE
- CdhiEdl'd f'R5di5tidh SR-X :
(Radiopharmacy) (TERMINATED) i I
$R't SSRCR'- Part'L'($06155E' AEdidih51 (TERMINATED / Combined with SSRCR - [
Part G) l SR-M $SRCR - Part ~ M ' ( Low-levsl Radiod6tivd '955sil !
- 1. To annually review and update existing CRCPD Suggested State [
Regula t io ns for Control of Radiation. !
- 2. To recommend to the CRCPD, changes in the existing model ,
5 regulations as related to low-level waste, such regulations must 4 be compatible with 10 CFR 61. !
- 3. To develop new regulations deemed necessary because of new I technical developments or Federal requirements. {
- 4. To strive for compatibility with pertine'nt Federal regulatyions i during the processes of updating, changing, or developing new !
reg ula t io ns .
Co mment : Where appropriate, the subcommittee should consult with !
the CRCPD Committee on Radioactive Waste Management !
(E-5) for assistance. j
$Ri$ S$sCR' '#5Ei' A'($6RS'R56015Eidhil ;
i
- 1. To develop suggested State Regulations for the Control of l Radiation in the area of "Naturally Occurring Radioactive ;
Materials." Where appropriate, the sub-committee should obtain j technical assistance from the CRCPD Committee on Natural i Ra d io a c t iv i ty Co n t am i n a t io n/ De co n t ami n a t io n a nd De co mm i s s io n i ng l Problems (E-4), and the Committee on Evaluation and Distribution j of Radioactive Sources and Devices not Manuf actured Under the l Atomic Energy Act (E-2), i SR'T $$RCR'- Pare'T' (TE5h5pdfi5tidhl I i
- 1. To review applicable Federal and state radioactive material !
transportation regulations, inclyding those for high-level waste j
- - --- = -- -
. n and low-level waste shipments.
- 2. To develop model regulations on transportation deemed necessary.
- 3. To strive for compatibility with pertinent Federal regulations during the processes of updating, changing, or* developing new regula t io ns . ,
- 4. To consider the new Colorado legislation on transportation, with ;
the suggestion that similar information be incorporated into l Suggested State Regulations, r
SR-U SSRCR - Part U (Uranium Mills and Tailinds) :
- 1. To develop Part U regulations relative to uranium mills and
. tailings for inclusion in the SSRCR's. ,
SRON S$RCR'i'Paf t 'W'(9511
- L6g6ihjl (Combined under SSRCR-Part E. )
S A-it s06645isd 'siii6'R46614ti665 ' f 6 h'ih4 'd66Ef61 ^6 f ' $56idiid 6' { $$kdk) volume II - Nonionizing
- 1. To review, expand, and update the Suggested State Regulations fo'r the Control of Radiation (SSRCR), Volume II, Nonionizing Radiation (ultraviolet radiation, especially suntanning booths, and mercury vapor lamps) .
- 2. To review and comment on the ANSI Laser Standard.
4 GC General Council 1.
To assure that the concepts and ideas of the CRCPD membership are
, being properly addressed by the various committees and task forces. ;
i 2. To provide coordination and guidance to the committees / task force l
as liaison for the Executive Board. !
! G-1 16AC (TERMINATED)
G-2 C6mmittee on Idnizihd'Mii50ismshi5 A. Ionizing Measurements '
j 1. Publication of the revision < " a report prepared under I previous contract to NBS , en .tled "Ionizing Radiation Measurement Criteria for Regulatory Purposes." Inclusion of .
1 basic measurement assurance concepts in the revised report. !
- 2. Revision of criteria for operation of the pilot regional calibration laboratories under development in Illinois, South Carolina, and Washington. These criteria will include a ;
specific description of periodic interactions with NBS, and will be applied to future additional laboratories for this type.
- 3. Preparation of recommended terminology for the measurement of i j ionizing radiation, for use in the next adition of the :
! Suggested State Regulations for Control of Radiation. '
- 4. Revisiod of the "Directory of Commercial Calibration Services ,
. for Ionizing Radiation SurveypInstruments," which was !
prepared under the previous contract to NBS. i i
______________-__-__.____________k
. b
- 5. To demonstrate and document the methods utilized in the f measurement process o f ionizing radiation. :
B. Liaison with Interagency Committee on occupational Radiation Protection Measurements
- 1. Represent and coordinate state concerns in the areas of i personnel monitoring, bioassay measurements, and survey instrument performance, and liaison with an Interagency Committee on Occupational Radiation Protection Measurements.
C. Calibration Laboratory Review
- 1. Review and evaluate regional ionizing radiation calibration laboratories using established criteria for the operation of such laboratories. If such evaluation indicates that the laboratories meet the performance standards of the established criteria, then CRCPD will issue a letter of accreditation to the laboratories.
~
D. Liaison with Health Physics Committee
- 1. To represent the CRCPD on the Health Physics Committee fo'r the purpose of establishing criteria for the accreditation of calibration laboratories in the private sector. ,
G-3 C6mmisdee 66'Ddhichisinc'Radidiid6' A5550E555665 (TERMINATED)
J-4 Committee 'o6' Rad 66' A5556E5s5665 (TERMINATED)
G-S pee 56nn51' Dosim5th ' 'Lisisd6'id
- 0BS 'i665656566 '#dlidY'Cds516655 !
j ( Combined under G-2.) '
s G-6 Li51666';'naci'10'ers'30;'40;'56d'70
- 1. To provide review and comment to NRC on proposed amendments to 10 CFR 30, 40, and 70.
I G-7 Llil566';'Assii'cddsitiE5'43
- 1. To represent the CRCPD on all matters pertaining to the development of standards addressed by the American National Standards Institute, Committee 43 (equipment for non-medical radiation applications),
j G-8 Li5 i566 ';' NRe i ' 10 'cPR' 20
- 1. To actively participate in the development of, as well as the 1
review and comment to NRC on proposed amendments to 10 CPR 20.
7 G-9 ComsisiE5"66 ' R55610E id 65
- 1. The Executive Board shall establish a Resolutions Committee >
consisting of the two most immedi te past CRCPD Chairpersons.
The Executive Board shall identi. one of the members as a P l
I F
.=;._.
Chairperson.
- 2. No proposed resolution will be considered by the Executive Board unless such proposal has been reviewed by the Resolutions Co mmi t te e .
- 3. All proposed resolutions shall be submitted to the Resolutions '
l Committee which shall review the proposal for consistency with the Constitution and By-laws of the CRCPD, and with established 4
policy of the Executive Board.
- 4. Any member desiring to propose a resolution for consideration prior to the CRCPD Annual Business Meeting shall submit such y proposal, with a brief background statement as to the purpose therefore, to the Chairperson of the Resolutions Committee not later than 60 days prior to the Annual Meeting.
- 5. The Resolutions Committee shall review the format, content and objectives of the proposed resolution for consistency with the overall objectives of the CRCPD.
- 6. At least 30 days prior to the Annual Meeting, the Chairperson of 4 the Resolutions Committee shall provide comments and
! recommendations to the member (s) proposing the resolution. A
. copy of the proposal and committee comments and recommendations .
shall also be sent to the Executive Board at least 30 days prior :
to the Annual Meeting, t
- 7. Af ter consideration of the Resciutions Committee's recommendations and comments, the originator (s) of the resolution shall provide the Chairperson of the Resolutions Committee with at least 60 copieL ^* the final proposal not later than 15 days prior to the Annual Meeting. The Chairperson of the Resolutions Committee shall make the proposed resolution available tu members '
of the CRCPD prior to the Annual Meeting.
G-10 'C6msittie '66 ' Asiidi ' $51566166
- 1. The Awards Selection Committee shall review nominations submitted by any member of the CRC 9D, its employees, or other interested persons, and from such review make recommendations to the Executive Board.
NOTE: The name(s) of any candidate as recommended by the Awards 4
Selection Committee shall be made to the Executive Board prior to January 1 of each year in which an award is to be I presented. I i
G-ll Ad ' R6 c ' Cos51 st55 '66 ' R5015s'6 f ' 10 'cFR' 3 $ ( TERMINATED)
G-12 Ad ' H6c' C6m51tE55 '66
- R50150'o f '$tii5 ' $ tie 05 ' 055 616665165 (TERMINATED)
G-13 Lidison' ' A5esi656'c611565'6 f'Rididl66
, 1. To provide liaison for the CRCPD with the American College of
) Rad io logy .
G-14 ^d ' Hoc 'Comsitt55'o5'iPi'6cdO6 Asid651'$x6650hi'siihdiidi (TERMINATED)
G-1$ Liils66 ' ' EPAi ' N6 61661s idd ' 90blid ' $xp65665
) 1. To represent the CRCPD on the EPA' working group on the l
, i
. .- =- - . - - . .
! ./
, l development of guide? mes for public exposure to nonionizing rad ia t io n .
s-16 Calibr tion Laborator9 'Rsview'd6m51tiEE (Combined under G-2. ) :
i G-17 Liais66 ' Am4ri65n ' Assd615si66'6 f ' P6 51615Ei'16
- A4dI6164 * ( AAPA) >
- 1. To represent the CRCPD on the AAPM Task Force to develop ueasuremont and evaluation protocol for diagnostic medical :
radiograph and fluoroscopic and dental radiographic systems ,
t G-18 C6msitteE^o6'Publi6"thf6fm56166 i
- 1. To provide guidance in the development of public information ,
programs for states, when requested , and to provide tes timony to
- state legislatures and others, also upon request.
I G-19 Liaison - Association of State' add 'T4rrit6fi51'ss51t6'6f fi6665 (ASTHO): Food Ir rad ia t ion ;
{
- 1. To represent the CRCPD on A9THO's Committee on Food Irrad ia t io n . '
G-20 Co mm i t t 46 ' 6 n ' L ies 65166 's is i6 ' bi51665 E i 66 )
- 1. To develop criteria which can be used to make final determination ,
1 of a non-Agreement State's program for the control and regulation of NARM, for designation as a "Licensing State."
- 2. To perform surveys, using the established criteria, of those non- !
Agreement States which have requested final determination as a ,
j "Licensing State" for the control and regulation of NARM.
- 3. For Agreement States, to review data and information, as required ;
by the adopted policy, for final designation as a "Licensing l State" for the control and regulation of NARM. ,
3
- 4. To recommend to the Executive Board , those states, either i
Agreement or non-Agreement, which should be designated as i 4
"Licensing State" for the control and regulation of NARM. i
- 5. Quarterly update the Conference membership on the status of CRCPD ;
Recognized NARM Licensing States. j i
G-21 Liiis66'r J6ihi'comsi45166 66' A6604diiiiid6'6f'R6i51Eili-(3 CAR 1 )
G122 Liai566 M*A$$ti'C196 l
! 1. To serve as the CRCPD liaison with the ANSI C-95 Committee which !
i is responsible for establishing safety standards and/or guides fo r nonionizing radiation .
l G-23 C6mmitts6 ~6n' biti' Assig46666 .
- 1. To describe existing state and Federal computer resources by- '
! a. compiling an inventory of computer systens, including hardware '
i and software
- b. identifying sof tware of general utility and interestr and I c. identifying system requirement.
j 2. To determine requirements for so$eware exchange by:
i i ,
l .-
I
a determining compatibility of available public domain sof tware;
- b. suggesting standards to f acilitate transfer ability of programs and data; and
- c. identifying alternate hardware and operating systems compatible with suggested standard.
- 3. To serve as CRCPD clearinghouse for program exchange.
G-24 State Program Staf f Retention
- 1. Determine the various costs to states as a result of elevated staff turn-over rates, including monitoring and quality of staf f co n s id e ra t io ns .
- 2. Determine the reasons for such turn-over and suggested adjustments or corrections, including the conduct of salary surveys and instability of programs (administration and f unding) .
- 3. During development of items one and two , input and participation shall be sought through the General Council Chairman ( the CRCPD Chairman-Elect) from the National Conference of State Leg isla to rs , the National Governors' Association, and other appropriate entities.
012$ 8 11505 ' A5vi5i66'C6551EE64 (TERMINATED) da26 Ass 1Eh'sh95iss'C65hiEi55'i* L151566 (Combined under G-2.)
0;27 66 &di Eis s '66 's AC ' A6 r46546 E 's Ei E45
- 1. To provide liaision and communication between the CRCPD and the Association of NRC Agreement States. '
0228 liil566'!" Ahs 1656'd61146s *6f
- Aidi5il"$$pil5i
- 1. To represent the CRCPD as the liaison to the American College of Medical Physics.
l l
9 l
l History of NARM Issue The need to uniformally regulate Naturally Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive Material (NARM) has been identified by various states, especially those states wnich have agreements with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The need for uniform control of NARM was identified by several states in the mid 60's.
In 1974, the issue was formaliced by a request of the Agreement States to the NRC fthen AEC) to bring NARM under jurisdiction of the Commission.
In 1975, members of the Executive Board of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD), met with SRC Commissioners, and in that meeting identified the problems associated with NARM, and requested the NRC to take appropriate action to place SARM under the Commission's jurisdiction.
At the Annual Meeting of the CRCPD in May of 1955, the membership adopted a formal position on the NARM issue. This formal position, which included suggested wording for amending the Atomic Energy Act to allow NRC control of NARM, was submitted to the NRC immediately following the 1985 meeting. A copy of this "Position Paper" adopted May 20, 1955, is shown on Attachment 1.
Since the adoption of this formal position paper, the Executive Board appointed a special Ad Hoc Committee to revise the position paper :o reflect more current views as such were obtained, or changes in federal actions were taken. The latest revision of this position paper was August, 1987, which was transmitted to Harold Denton, under cover letter dated August 26, 1987, from Conference Chairman T.R.
Strong. This revised position paper is shown in the "CRCPD NARM Position Section" of this document.
The response to these recommendations by NRC. are reflected in NUREG-1310.
One significant action taken regarding the NARM issue, nas the institution of a program by CRCPD to recognize those states which have an adequate program to regulate and control NARM. This program, which was adopted by CRCPD in August of 1983, provides a mechanism for any state, either Agreement or Non-Agreement, to be recognized by the CRCPD, as having a program which is adequate to protect the public health and safety from exposure of radiation from NARM discrete sources. To receive such recognition, the state must request recognition, and must meet the criteria approved by the Executive Boarc. See the Attachment 2 for this criteria.
Although this mechanism has been in place for almost five years, only twelve states have been so recognized by the CRCPD, and all of i these are NRC Agreement States, Since the program is voluntary, it
- l 1
l l
l
appears that ~ ss states wilt nt request CRCPD reco ni-1
. t herefore, this mechanism <s f it^<n t pr duce the desired ubifor$
regulation of NARM, as intebded.
9 l l
l l
I c
Attachment 1 POSITION ?A?ZR on NRC REGULATORY CONTROL of NA?N
Introduction:
The Atomic dnergy Act of 195e, as amencec, autnoricas the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to control the manufccture, transfer, import, export, use and disposal cf specifically identified radioactive materials. These radioactive materials are Byproduct, Source, and Special Nuclear Materials in quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. The Act does not provide for the regulatory control of Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Procuced
-Radioactive Material (NARM).
NARM has the same type radiation emissions as the radioactive materials identified in the Atomic Energy Act, and poses a similar threat .to the public health and safety.
Due to these similar radiation characteristics and the potential threat to the public health and safety, NARM should be controlled in a similar manner as radioactive ma terials regulated by.the Atomic Energy Act.
Characteristics of NARM:
For clarification, the radioactive materials under censideration by this paper, and the materials proposed to be added to the Atomic Energy Act, are discreet sources, and are not Ontended to include diffuse sources of NARM, such as pnosphate residues and slag.
One example of a radioactive material in the category called "NARM" includes radium, which has a relatively long half-life.(1600 years), and because of its radiation emissions and deposition in the bone of the body, represents one of the largest potential. public health impacts due to its use and biological effects.
NARM is used in cvery state in the U.S. in the areas of medicine (diagnostic nuclear medicine imaging whete the NARM radienuclide is injected into a patient and in therapeutic epplications in the. treatment of cancerous tumors where Mutt sealed sources are used to creat the tumor). NARM is used in industry (incorporated as an integral part of gauges which are used as level indicators and measyring devices) and in the acadenic fields (used in University teaching programs in such' fields as physics, biology and medicine).
Radioactive waste disposal is associated with the use of NAnM. Radioactive wastes generated from the use of
- d toccttve ma ter t als identtite- a tne Acentc Cnacgy Ac: a: 2
- n; rolled by this same Ac iceever, wastes generacea oy
- c.e use of NARM are not c ont roi .ec cy :na Act New low-level radioac tive easte burial sites itti ce
- ened tn :ne future Some of : nase sites may be in stc:e s
- regulated by the Nuclea r Regula:ory Commt s s t o n. I: .s
. perattve cnat cne proper disposal of HARM be ansurec tn crcer :na the puolic be protected.
Present Control of NARM-Several states have es tabitshed programs for :he contrei c f N A RM . These programs vary in their degree of regulatory responsibility and control.
The Atomic Energy Act provides for states to assume certain regula:ory control of radioactive materials specified in the Act. Twenty-seven s tates have Agreements with the NRC for the control of certain radicactive materials , as allowed under the Act. The NUREG-0976 document, dated 10/84, and prepared by the staf f of the Off ce of State Programs, NRC, c:ncludes that these NRC Agreement States regulate and control NARM in the same manner as materials identtfied in tne Atomic Energy Act.
However, NUREG-0976 concludes that states which have not entered into an Agreement with the NRC, have differing regulatory authority and control over NARM. Of the t w e n t y.-
three non-NRC Agreement States, the NUREG document states tnat five states have a NARM licensing program, two states have voluntary or partial licensing programs, and sixteen states have at least an initial registration requirement for NARM.
In addition, NUREG-0976 indicates that fourteen non-NRC Agreement States have inspection programs, four states conduct partial inspections, and five states do not conducc NARM inspections.
The NUREG document further states , "f ragmenta ry centrols, or in some jurisdictions a total lack of control over NARM, pose a potential threat to public health and safety."
NARM and RCRA:
The EPA, under The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exempts material covered under the Atomic Energy Act. However, the EPA's control over IARM, since it is not covered in the Atomic Energy Act is uncertain. CPA has not developed standards rela ti ve to NARM for waste burial sites.
Unless a clear agreement or Memoranda of Understanding is developed between d1RC and EPA, a dual Federal regulatory
cu;nc e:c;. c: .ou _ eve; ractce::t ce was ta si:es woulc a..se.
Tae rac;cac Lve Tatet.al ccvered .n the Acc tc Energy A::
acute fall under the NRC autacrit;. and NAW! uculc f al_ unde: .
lJA au:nori:y.
S;nce SRC and E?A have c;fferant regulatory approcenes
- the design of burial sites , si:e operators and aaste genercccrs wcutc .ce .racec with the poten:Lal or. having :o meet :he regulatory s tandards of :wo dif f eren: Fecerai agenc es.
- As the situacion now e :.: s t s , it ts uncer:ain how
- ne tuo f 2deral agencies will ce:1 with cne potential dual regula:::n ir non-NRC Agreemen: S:ctes WJJi and CERCLA The Congress has provided au:horization to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to "clean-up" areas centaminated by hazardous sutstance. This authority is provided under the Hazardous Substance Response Trust Fund, es:ablished under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensa: en and Liabi!ity Ac: (CERCEA) of 1980. Iome areas and f acilities which have bien contaminated with NARM have received funding for "cleanup:' under this Act.
A c.uestion has been raised, that if the Atomic Energy Act is amended to include NA?a, wculd such amendment affect er res:rict the use of CERCLA funcs for NAN 1 contaminated areas or facilities. Therefore, to clarify this c,u e s tio n , a new section is proposed to the Act which would . allow the continuation of such funding for NARM contaminated areas and facilities.
Other Studies and Opinions:
In addition to the position of NRC staff regarding the need foi better regulation. of NARM, as ref.erenced above, other organizations and groups have taken similar positions.
(1) The NRC Agreement States, following their October 1974 meeting recommended that NRC should bring NARM under its regulatory authority.
(2) The Conf erence of Radiation Control Program Director s ,
Inc. (CRC?D), in a May 8, 1975 letter to then Commissioner Kennedy, stressed the need for NARM to be regulated at the Feoeral level.
(3) A Task Force established by NRC in 1976 to study the NARM issue, recommanded that NRC, seek legisla tive authority to regulate NAuM.
(4) The National Governors' Association, in its publication, The Agreement State Program: A State Pe rs p e'e t ive , dated January 1963, states, "The A t o:n i.c
Ene:gy Act should be amented to au:?.t nze u.e regu_ation of radioactive materials not presently affected ty the ac t , tha: ts, natura_ly occurring anc ,
a:teierator-precuced radioc:tive ma:er:.al (NARM)
(5) A Survey of the s tates by the NRC (SUREG-09M) shewed tnat all twenty-seven Agreement $::tes, and si::teer of One twenty-three Non-Agreement States, supported th2 regulation of NARM by NF.C. Of the remaining seven, only four were opposed tt NRC regulating NARM, with twc undecided, and one with ne reply.
(l' At the Oc tober 19 5c meeting of the NRC Agreement Sca:es, a resolution was acopted whica called upon the NRC :o include NARM under the Atomic Energy Act (see attached f or copy of resolution) .
C01EEF2NCE POSITION The Conference of Radiatica Control Program Directors ,
Inc., (CRCPD) has evaluated the NAD! situition in the United States and has concluded that the use of SAP 11 is commonplace and w:.despread throughout the country, and that the degree Of centrcl ever NAPdi is cu: te varied and frarmented. This fragmentary control of -NAFi! creates confus:.on on the part of the users and was te generators, and creates a real potential for excessive radiation exoosure to both tne radiation werker and the general public.
~
3ased on the information contained in this paper, the members cf the CRCPD, recommend that the Congress of the United States amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to authorize the Nuclear . Regulatory Commissien to regulate and control discrete sources of Naturally Occurring and Accelerator-Produced RadioacEive Material (NARM) in a similar manner as other radioactive material identified in the Act.
The members of the Conference further conclude that there are some non-NRC Agreement state radiation control programs for the regulation and control of NARM that are adequately protecting the puolic.
Based on this conclusion, we recommend that should che Act be amended to' authorice URC to regulate NARM, NRC must esecblish procedures to maintain the continuation of a SARM regulatory program in a non-NRC Agreement State that has demonstrcted compatible regulatory authority and centrol of NARM.
- In addition, since the twenty-seven NRC Agreement st es control and regulate NARM in the same manner as material l currently identified in the Atomic Ener;;y Act , the NRC n ,s. o - a n c <ra a m o m h e. r s recuest NRC to establish crocedures
I
- 1
)
- o maintain :he concinuacion cf NA!'.h regulatory authoric; anc control immedia tely f ollo*..;ing cmendmenc o f :ne Ac t .
Finally, the members of tne Ccnfarence recommenc a prcposed amendment to the Atcmic Energy Ac t , and further recommend that the Executive Boarc transmic chis .cro.cose:.
amendment to the National Governors' Association (NCA), ._:n
- he reauest that the SGA adop: this proposed amendment.
I: is further recommended that :na NGA take the necessary <
action to have Congress cons:. der cne mroposed e
amenoment, and that che CRC?D provide assistance ,:here necessary- to . provide sPcnsorship.
Adopted May 20, 1985 m u y ,ff / ,/n sxecutive Secretary 9
. m .J nv .%
SL,VVte .
..om,
- . i b . ,.
t i for The ATCMIC ENERGi ACT of 195C to AUTHORIZE the U.S. AJCLEAR REGULATCP,Y CC.vMISSION to REGULATE NATURALLi-CCCURRING .- & ACCELE?ATCR-?RCDUCED RADIOACTIVE
- e. .
.n
.a.n i e .s t . .L ( ,,, n, ,v. )
wouldThe f c11:ving au:hort:e the sugges U.S. Nuc ted changes tn the Accmic Energy Act le a r .t.egula to ry Ctmmi s s ion to regula:e anc control Naturally Occurring & Accele rator-
? cducec Radtoactive radioactiUe Racerialau material currently (NARM) norizedinbya the sImtlar Act.manner as Note:
3tacketed to word or words indicate the word (s) be deleted. are indicate new wordUnderlined (s) are ;o be added.
word or words ,
- 1. Ref- Chapter 2, Section 11 e.
Adc a new (3) wa th the following wording:
e.
The term "byproduct ma:erial" means (1) any racioactive material (except special nuclear material) yielded in or made radioactive by exposure to the radiation incident er utilizing special' nuclear material,:o the process of producing tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or the [and) (2) concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed
'and primarily for its source material content, (3) naturally occurrine or accelerator-produced racioactive material (NARM) that is producec, or concentratec ror the uce or its racioactive prcperttes.
- 2. Ref: Chapter 2, Section 11 Add a new definition to read as follows, then re-alphabetize appropriately:
The term "naturally occurring radioactive material" means a material or suostance that is racioactive as it exists in nature.
- 3. Ref- Chapter 2,Section II Add a new definition to read as follows, then realphabetize appropriately:
9 The term "accelerator-croduced radioactive material" means a material or suostance mace radioac tive by exposuie to the raciacien c: a particle accelerator.
L .le f Cn0pt2r 1 deC; ion 11 -
AdC t new ceELC;:Lon ~ o re&c as rol_;ws, ; hen r2alphabetice appropria t ely
!?,e t e rm " 2r tic'.c accele ra tor" mean anv mcenine C;;acic or ;;Celerating electrCns, DrOcCns, c2u;2 rons , C; oCner ChargeC pari.;ies in a vacuum, an of CisCnsrgin; Che resultan: ;artlCuiaCE or o;ner ractation n:o a mecium at energ es usuat_y an e::ce s s c: t MeV.
- 5. F.ef Chapter Ic Add a new Section to read as follows, then re-number a.c.c r oc ri a t e l,v :
The Comnission shall, on January 1, 1992, assume reguia*.ory responstollity tor tne regulation anc centrol ot cyprocutt materials as cerined in Section 11 e (3) an: snalt oy tnis cate nave es taolishec rules, regulations, anc stancarcs to govern ne possession and use or cyorocuct macertals as defined in Section il e (;).
Prior to January 1. 1992 any reference made to cypr:cuct materiais ,. wnen a spect:Lc type or cyorocuct ma ertais ts not mentienec, snail mean cyoreduct materiais as cerinec in Section il e (1) anc (2). On January 1, 1992 anc :nercarter, any re:erences mace to oyproduct matertals, wnen a spectric type or oyprocuct materials is not mentionec, snall mean oyprocuct T,aterials as defined in See:Lon li e (1), (2) anc (3) i
- 6. Ref: Chapter 19, Section 274b. (
Add a new sub-item (3) with the following wording, and re-numbering as appropriate. .
- b. Except as provided in subsection c.,
the Commission is authorized to enter into agreements with the Governor of any State providing for discontinuance of the regulatory authority of the Commissionu 'nder chapters 6, 7, and 8, and section 161 of this Act, with respect to any one
~
or more of the following materials within the State-(1) byproduct materiafs as defined in section 11 e . (1); -
l (2) byprcduct mater:.c_3 as cef;nec tn section 11 e. (2),
(3) byt$cduct ma tericis ts def nsd in Sec::.cn LL e (3),
( ( 31 ) 4; source materials f (i)) 5 special nuclear materials in cuantities Ect sufficient ce form a c r i t :. t c l r,a s s .
7, 2ef' Chapter 19, Secticn 2 a Add a new subsection to reac as full.ows, and re-alonabetize as appropriate.
The Commission shall on January 1,1992 assume responstbtlity f or tne regulation anc control of byproduct materials as tcenttrtec in suosection b (3) o: Section 274. No agreement pursuant to cycrocuct materials as tcentitiec in suosection b (3) or Section 274 snali cecome errective orter to January 1, 1992.
Agreements entered into crior to January 1, 1992 cursuant to byprocuct matertais as tcentirted in sucsection b (1) or Section 4 74 snail as c:
January 1, 1992 De ceemec to also incluce byproduct materials as tcentitiec in subsection b (3) c: Section 274 unless tne Commission cetermines to the contrary basec on public health ano sarety considerations, or unless the State wnten has entered into sucn an agreement prior to January 1, 1992 cetermines tnat Lt coes not cestre regulat6ry authority over byprocuct materials as idenciried in suosection b (3)of section 274 The Commission shall establish a procedure to maintain tne continuation oc regulatory autnority for tnose materials identtriec in subsect ron b (3) or section 274 in a state wnten nas not entereo into an agreement prtoc to January 1, 1992.
i
- 8. Ref: Chapter 19, Se.c tion 2 74 Add a new subsection to read as follows, and re-alphabetize as appropriate.
Agreements entered into oursufnt to subsection b i snali not exclude states : rom being ettgtble ror the assertton c: ciaims agains; the Mazarcous i Suostance desponse Trust fund estaolisneo under 1
the Comorehenstve Environce::tal Res3onse CompensaClon anci L t a c t i t .; --
n- -
. a. b bs .,v,_ i o _4 S '"' C ' 1 Claims raiaCd Co any C~ .-*recs.o. .- - c i S .nC I'ucac
~
CCS agreemenCs 1
t F
I i
t f
)
9 I
1 i
I *(
4 i P
o l
. [
i i i
AttacPnent 2 CRCPD LS-4 Rev. 4/28/97 Approved by the Executive Board 5/16/87 REVISED CR!TERIA f or FINAL DESIGNATION as a CRCPD RECOGNIZED NARM LICENSING STATE
( Ef f ective January 1, 1987)
- 1. The licensing agency must have legislative authority to regulate and control NARM.
- 2. The licensing agency must have adopted regulations that are compatiole with those contained .in the Suggested State Regulations for the Control of Radia tion (SSRCR) that specifically address areas relating t o N A RM . Those sections of the SSRCR, which are mandatory for final designation are:
Section A.1 Secticn A.2 as identified:
- "Accelerator-produced material" "Act"
- "Agency" "Airborne radioactive material"
- "Airborne radioactivity area" "Calendar quarter" "Calibration"
" C F R" "Curie ~
" Do s e "
" Dese ccamitment"
- "Exposure", and appropriate footnote "Exposure rate" "Healing arts" "High radiation area" "Human use" "Individual" "Inspection" "Interlock" "License" "Licensee"
- "Licansing State"*
"Major processor"
- "NARM" "Natural radioactivity" ;
- "Occupational dose" 1
$ l
- The current definition of Licensing State, in SSRCR, will be revised ,
to emcompass this program, i 1
"Particle accelerator" "Person" "Personnel monitoring equipment" "Pharmacist" "Physician" "Rad" "Radiation" "Radiation area" "Radiation safety officer" "Radioactive material" "Radioactivity"
" Reg is t ran t" "Registration"
- "Regulations of the U.S. De p a r tme n t of Transportation"
" Rem" , and appropriate footnote "Research and development" "Restricted area" "Roentgen" "Sealed source" "Source of radiation" "Special form" (as used in SSRCR D.207)
- "Survey" "Test"
- "Tnese regulatione" "Transport group"*
- "Unrestricted area" "Waste handling licensee" "Worker" Section A.3(a)
Section A.4 Section A.5 Section A.6 Section A.7 Section A.S Section A.9 Section A.10(a)
Section A.ll Section A.12 Part A, Appendix A,* limited to those radionuclides listed in Attachment LS-4 Part A, Appendix B*
Section C.1, and appropriate parts of appropriate footno~ce Section C.4(a) and (b)
Section C 4(c)(1)(i)(h)
Section C.4(c)(2)(ii)
Section C.4(c)( 3)(1) and (iii) l Section C.20 Section C.22(d), including the associated footnote l
Section C.22(f; Section C.22(g )( 3) and (4)
- Regulations of RAM transportation whicbWeonform with the draft of i SSRCR-Part T satisfy these requirements.
L
Section C.22(g)(5)(i), as pertaining to radium-226 Section C.22(g)(5)(ii)(b)
Section C.22(g)(5)(iii)~through (v)
Section C.22(g)(6), as pertaining to radium-:26 Section C. 22(h)(1)(ii) , (iii), and (v), including the associated footnotes Section C.22(h)(2)
Section C.22(h)( 3)(1)(b) and (c) -
Sec t ion C. 2 2( h) ( 3 ) ( ii)~throug h (v)
Section C.22(h)(4) and (5)
Section C.22(i)(1)(ii) and (iv), including associated footnote Section C.22(i)(2)
Section C.22(i)( 3)(1) through (iv)
Section C.22(i)(4)(i)
Section C.22(i)(4)(ii)(b)
Section C.22(i)(5) and T6)
Section C.24 Section C.25(a) through (d)
Section C.26, except reference to by-product materials Section C.28(a) through (c), except reference to by-product materials, and except for footnote on page C38 Section C.28(d)(1)(i) and (ii)
Section C.28(d )(1)(iii)(a) , (b), and (i)(2), including appropriate footnote Section C.29(d)(2) and (3)
Section C. 28(d )( 4 )(1) through (iii)
Section C. 28(d )( 4 )( iv)(a) through (c), and (e)
~
Section C.28( f )
Section C.28(g)(1) and (2)(ii)
Section C.28(h)(1) and (2)(ii)
Section C.28(h,(3) and (4)(ii)
Section C.28(h)(5), except reference to ty-product materials section C.28(j) through (1), including appropriate footnote section C.30 Section C.31 Section C.32 Section C.33 Section C.34 Section C.35 Section C 37 Section C.40(a) and (b)(1), (3), (4), and (5), with appropriate
. footnote Section C.40(c) and (d)
Section C.50 Section C.90(b)
Section C.100*
Section C.101*
Section C.102,* with appropriate footnotes Section C.103*
- Regulations of RAM transportation which conform with the draft of SSRCR-Part T satisfy these requirements 1p
. l Part C, Appendix A, limited to t'ase radionuclides listed in Attachment LS-4 Part C, Appendix B, limited to those radionuclides listed in Attachment LS-4 Part C, Appendix C, limited to tnose radionuclidis listed in Attachment LS-4 Section D.1 Section D.101 tnrough D.10', and all appropriate footnotes -
S*rtion C.201 through D.207, and all appropriate footnotes, out not including reference to by-product materials Section D.301 through D.305, except reterence to by-pr: duct materials Section D.401 ntough D.403, and appropriatu footnotes Part D, Appendix A, limited to those radionu:lides Itsted in Attachment LS-4 Part D, Appendix B, Limited to those radionuclides listed in Attacnment LS-4 Section G.1 Section G.2 for "Brachytherapy" Section G.3 Section J.1 Section J.11 Section J.13 through J.17 Section W.1 ti. rough W.4 Section W.101 thrcugh W.104 Section W.105(a) through (d)
Section W.105(e)(2) through (5)
Fect10n W 106 tntough W.110 ,
Section W.201 tnrough W.203 Section W.301 through W.304 Section W.401 tnrcugn W.403 Section W.501 Section W, Appendix A -
There are no recommended sections of the SSRCR's for consideration in final designation as a Licensing State.
30 The licensing agency should have a radiation control program which is compatible with the criteria contained in the document, "Criteria f or Adequate Radiation Control Program - Radioactive Materials,* published by the CRCPD in November, 1982.
- 4. If a NRC Ag reement State, a copy of the letter from the last review of the program by the NRC wh.ch states that the radiation control licensing program is adequate to protect tne public health and safety, must be submitted.
- 5. If a NRC non-Agreement State, the radiation control program must meet the requirements for a comprehensive radiation regulation and control prcgram contained in the CRCPD document, "Basic Criteria for Site Evaluation of a Radiation Control Program to Regulate and Control NARM." The determination of meeting this basic criteria will be obtained by an on-site visitgand evaluation by the Licensing State Peview Committee.
- 6. A written statement by the health officer, or equivalent agency head, that the radiation control program under consideration meets the requirements 41, 2, and 3 and is adequate to protect the public health and safety from exposure to NARM radiations.
1 l
l Attachment LS-4 ;
Rev. 4/28/87 Approve'd by the ,
Executive Board 5/16/87
'4 RADIONUCLIDES that must be SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED in REGULATIONS-of CRCPD RECOGNIZED LICENSING STATE-Element Radionuclide(s) .
Actinium Ac-227, Ac-228 Arsenic As-73 Beryllium Be-7 Bismuth Bi-210, Bi-212 Carbon C-14 Cesium Cs-131 Cobalt Co-57, Co-58 Fluorine ,
~
l Gold Au-195 Hydrogen , H-3 Iodine I-123, I-124, I-125, I-126 Iridium Ir-190 s
- Lead Pb-203, Pb-210, Pb-212 Magnesium Mg-28 l Manganese. Mn-52 Mercury Hg-197 l Phosphorus P-32 Platinum Pt-193m Polonium Po-210 Praseod ymium 9 Pr-143 o
4
~p q- -
.,r, , ,- --,,-,-.,.--r-,,- -
- - , ,- ,n. ,, - - - .r- .-.-,. , _ , , , , , - , ,-e, --,--,...e r,..-w, .,,,,,,n,,w. ,--.,r.-n-,-,--------,--,---..,..+m.--
l
~
l I
Protactinium Pa-231 Radium Ra-223, Ra-224, Ra-226, Ra-228 1
Radon Rn-220, Rn-222 l Rhenium Re-187 l Rub id ium Rb-87 l l
Samarium Sm-147 1 1
Sodium Na-22 i
Strontium Sr-87m 1 1
Sulfur S-35 Technetium Tc-97m Thallium T1-201 l
Yttrium Y-87/Sr-87, Y-88 l 1
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
9 7%
CRCPD LS-5 Rev. 4/28/87 Approved by the Executive Board 5/16/87 BASIC CRITERIA for SITE EVALUATION of a RADIATION CONTROL PROGRAM to REGULATE and CONTROL NARM The following criteria will be applied during the site visit and evaluation of the radiat5cn control program of a state, ueually a NRC non-Agreement State, for the determination that the program meets the general policy statements for the protection of the public. health and safety from'the possession and use of NARM within the state.
The results of,the findings during a site visit shall be one component, but not the only factor, in determining the final designation of a state as a "CRCPD Recognized NARM Licensing State."
See CRCPD LS-4, effective January 1, 1987 for the other requirements.
As a result of the findings of a site review, the Site Review Team will make one of the following determinations:
- 1. the state's radiation control program is adequate to protect the public health and safety, as related to NARM; or
- 2. the state's radiation control program is inadequate to protect the public health ar.d safety, as related to NARM.
A program may be adequate to protect the public health and safety, although in need of improvement in specific areas. In some cases, the Site Review Team may be unable to make a finding at the time of the site visit because of unresolved items or inadequate information necessitating a follow-up site visit, or through additional correspondence with the state under consideration. If the unresolved items cannot be settled within a reasonable time, the Site Review Team may make a third determination:
- 3. the Site Review Team is unable to make a finding due to unresolved items or inadequate information.
Certain aspects of a program are critical to the protection of the public health and safety from NARM. For example, a state does not have qualified personnel, fails to take adequate licensing actions, or has no inspection program, would not be considered to have a program adequate to protect the public health and safety.
Two separate categories shall be used in the basic criteria for program adequacy. Category I items are those items which shall be properly in place to meet the general policy statements. Category II items are recommended items which should Te in place, but are not mandatory to meet the general policy statements.
I
Category I indicators are:
- Legal Authority
, - Status and Compatibility of Regulations
- Quality of Emergency Planning
- Technical Quality of Licensing Actions
- Adequacy of Product Evaluations
- Status of Inspection Program
- Inspection Frequency
- Inspector's Performance
- Response to Actual and Alleged Incidents
- Enforcements Procedures Category II indicators are:
- Updating of Regulations
- Location of Radiation Control Program Within State Organization
- Internal Organization of Rad ia t ion Control Program Legal Assistance
- Technical Advisory Committee
- Budget
- Laboratory Support
- Administrative Procecure
- Management Office Equipment and Support Services
- Public Information Cualifications of Technical Staff
- Staffing Level
- Staff Supervision
- Training Staff Continuity
- Licensing Procedures
- Inspection Procedures Inspection Reports Independent Measurements If all Category I items are found to be adequate, then this will indicate that the program is adequate to protect the public health and safety.
For those Category II deficient items, the state will be informed of the finding, and requested to correct these deficient items, but such deficient items will not constitute a reason to deny final designation.
9
, s' Categories I. Enabling Leg isla t io6 Category I A state shall have enabling legislation essentially in conformity with the Council of State Governments "Suggested State Legislation", 1983 edition, Volume 42. Such legislative authority shall include authority to promulgate regulations to license, inspect, and enforce NARM.
NOTE: For NRC Agreement States, legislative authority previously accepted by the NRC will be accepted by the Site Review Team.
Category II The State should have legislative authority to(1) set licensing l fees, (2) formulate requirements for surety arrangements, (3) issue civil penalties, and (4) appoint advisory c'ommittees .
II. "Regulations .
Category I a l
The state shall have promulgated regulations which meet the specific sections of the "Suggested State Regulations for the Control of Radiation" (SSRCR) - Volume II, Ionizing, item 2 of CRCPD LS-4, effective January 1, 1987.
I Category II l All regulations should be reviewed every three years with l revisions adopted within one year thereafter. l III. 'Pr6 gram'ordanizatio6 Category II
- l. The Radiation Control Program (RCP) responsible for the regulations and control of NARM should be identifiable unit within the state organization.
- 2. Where regulatory responsibilities are divided between state (and other governmental) agencies, clear, written understandings should exist as to the division of responsibilities and requirements for coordination.
- 3. The RCP director should have access to appropriate levels of j agency management. !
- 4. Technical committees, federal agencies, and other resource l organizations should be used to extend staff capabilities for unique or technically complex problems.
l l
_ _ _ . _ _ ._ ~ -. _ . . - _ _ . _ _ _
l
- 5. Legal staff should be identified to assist the RCP or procedures should exist to obtain legal assistance expeditiously. Legal staff should be knowledgeable regarding the RCP program, statutes, and regulations.
IV. ~ Program Planning Category II The activities of a RCP should be guided by a written overall plan which follows the planning procedures contained in the CRCPD Publication 82-2,Section III, page 4. The plan should have measurable indices such as number of inspections performed, etc.
V; ' Management Category II
- 1. The RCP management should periodically assess workload trends, resources and changes in legislative and regulatory responsibilities to forecast needs for increased staff, equipment, services and fundings.
- 2. Program management should perform periodic reviews of selected license cases handled by each reviewer and document the results. Complex licenses (major manufacturers, large scope Type A Broad, etc., should receive second party review).
VI. '$taffina'L6 vel Category I The RCP shall be staffed with sufficient trained personnel.
As a guide in determining the sufficiency of trained personnel, personnel requirements for licensing, inspection, and enforcement of NARM licenses should be 1.0 to 1.5 full-time equivalents ( FTE) per 100 licenses. For small programs, at least two persons should be assigned responsibility for licensing activities to ensure continuous program coverage and continuity in the event of sickness, promotion, etc.
De f in i t ion : full-time equivalent (FTE) - For NARM licensing requirement, one FTE means a technically trained individual who spends 100% of
, his/her work time in licensing, inspection, and enforcement of NARM licenses. An individual may only spend part of their working time in licensing activities, and in such cases, the percent of,one FTE would be applied.
Category II Staff turnover should be minimized by combination of opportunities for training, promotion, and competitive salaries. Salary levels should be adequate to recruit and retain persons of appropriate professional and technical qualifications. Salaries should be comparable to similar health physics employment in the surrounding geographical area .
VII. Personnel Category II Professional Staff
- 1. Radioactive materials program licensing, inspection and enforcement staff should be experienced. Requirements for training and experience will be different for each state depending upon the types of licenses administered by the state. The following guidance may be used to develop a description of positions:
- a. Supervisor - Senior Level Entry level qualifications should include:
- i. a four year degree in science or engineering and supplemental college level training in health physics and public administration; ii. specific training in licensir.g, inspection and enforcement of radioactive materials licensees; and iii. at least four years of experience serving in a professional health physics position; or eight years of equivalent training and experience in other civilian or military employment in radioactive materials, plus a record of progressive management responsibility within the position,
- b. Senior Level - Professional / Technical Entry level qualifications should include:
- 1. a four year degree in science or engineering and course training in basic health physics; ii. specific training in licensing, inspection and enforcement of radioactive materials licensees; and iii. at least one year progressive experience in the role of a Junior Level Professional / Technical: or eight years as a health physics technical in cther governmental, civilian or military employment to radioactive materials.
9 0
-. - . ~. . - -. . _ . - . _.
- c. Nunior Level - Professional / Technical Entry level qualifications should include:
- 1. college level training'in mathematics, physics, and chemistry; ii. two years of progressive training in radiation protection; and iii. specific training-in inspection and enforcement of ,
. radioactive materials licensees; or equivalent.
training and experience in other government civilian, or military training.
- 2. The supervisor should be part of the management team.
- 3. Each employee should have an accurate, and up-to-date ,
description of the position, detailing specific responsibilities and tasks.
- 4. It should be possible for any professional or technical employee to progress via a career ladder through the various ;
levels up to and. including Director of the Radiation Control ;
Agency. ,
- 5. An organizational structure that supports promotion from I within and salary levels adequate to retain persons of 3 appropriate qualifications should be the policy of the agency .
to minimize staff turnover and maintain continuity.
a ,
- 6. Personnel requirements for licensing, inspection and l enforcement of radioactive materials licenses should be 1.0 to i 1.5 full-timerpoivalentsper100 licenses. Additional staff would be required for.
- a. A major radioactive materials manufacturing facility. !
- b. A major milling / processing facility. l
- c. A low-level commercial waste disposal area,
- d. Key emergency response activities. l i
Training
- 1. Training should be included in the program plan. This
, training should encompass initial and on-going training ;
necessary to maintain technical competence and maintcin the i interest and involvement of new and experience staff. At >
least 5% of program time should be allocated to training and/or cross training.
- 2. Training should be planned as available from universities, federal agencies, private companies, etc., to broaden the capability of the staff and to keep personnel informed of '
current developments in the control of hazards related~to radioactive materials, 9
t I
. 1
. l 1
I I
- 3. The radioactive materials program should have a planned policy I of cycling all professional and technical staff through a variety of training and retraining to periodically update and reinforce previous knowledge.
- 4. State should use training aids available from federal agencies and develop a comprehensive referenge library on radioactive materials and licensing.
- 5. Interstate training agreements and exchange of information is desirable to utilize state training staff.
VIII. ' Licensing Category I
- 1. The radioactive materials programs shall license users of radioactive materials in accordance with Part C of the SSRCR.
The program shall obtain information about the proposed use of radioactive materials, facilities and equipment, training of personnel, radiation safety officer, and operating and emergency procedures appropriace for determining that the licensee can operate safely in compliance with rules and license conditions. Pre-license visits for major licensing actions should be considered.
- 2. Licenses shall be clear, complete, and accurate as to radionuclides, forms, quantities, authorized uses, and permissive or restrictive conditions.
- 3. The RCP shall have procedures for reviewing licenses, at least ,
every five years, prior to renewal to assure that supporting .
information in the file reflects the current scope of the l licensed program.
)
- 4. Radiation control program evaluation of manufacturer's or distributor's data on sealed sources and devices shall follow I the guides contained 'in "Guides for Naturally-occurring and Accelerator-produced Radioactive Materials ( N A RM ) " , HHS Publication FDA 81-8025, June 1981, prepared by the CRCPD.
Such evaluations shall be adopted to the format contained in NRC Reg. Guide 10.10, "Guide for the Preparation of Applications for Radiation Safety Evaluation and Registry of l Cevices Containing Radioactive Materials ," March 1987.
NOTE: It is anticipated that all approved sources and devices, including NARM, will be formally recognized in the NRC "Registry of Radioactive Sealed Sources and De v ice s " . ,
l 9
Category II
- 1. Radioactive materials programs should adopt and use licensing
~
guides, checklists, and policy memoranda in issuing licenses' to assure technical quality and uniformity in the licensing program. NRC Guides, American National Standards Institute standards, and the CRCpD, "Radioactive Materials Reference Manual (RMRM) are appropriate for reference.
- 2. The radiation control program should have internal licensing guides, checklist and policy memoranda. Licenses applicants (including applicants for renewal) should ce furnished copies of appropriate guides and regulatory position. The compliance status of licensees should be considered in licensing actions.
. Radioactive material evaluation sheets, service licenses, and licenses authorizing distribution to general licensees and persons exempt from licensing should be prepared and distributed on a timely basis.
Standard license conditions should be used to expedite and provide uniformity in the licensing process.
Files should be maintained in an orderly fashion to allow fast ,
accurate retrieval of information and documentation of ;
discussions and visits.
Appropriate copies of rules, laws, guides and forms should be printed and made available to each licensee or prospective licensee.
IX. ' Inspection Category I
- 1. The radiation control program shall maintain an inspection ,
program adequate to assess license compliance with state !
regulations and license conditions.
- 2. The radiation control program shall maintain statistics which )
are adequate to permit program management to assess the status of the inspection program on a periodic basis. Information showing the number of inspections conducted, the number overdue, the length of time overdue, and the priority categories shall be readily available.
- 3. The radiation control program shall conduct at least annual inspection planning to specify the number of inspections to be performed, make assignments to senior versus junior staff, make assignments to regions, if appropriate, identify special needs, and prepare periodic status reports.
- 4. The radiation control program shall establish an inspection priority schedule. The specificWfrequency of inspections
shall be based upon the potential hazards of licensed operations , e .g . , major processors , broad licensees , and industrial radiographers shall ce inspected approximately annually, while smaller or less hazardous operations may be inspected less frequently. The minimum inspection frequency shall be consistent with Table A of CRCPD Publication 81-2, "Criteria for Adequate Radiation Control Programs (Radioactive Materials)", November 1982.
- 5. Inspectors shall Ae competent to evaluate health and safety problems and to determine compliance with state regulations.
Inspectors must demonstrate to supervision an understanding of regulations, inspection guides, and policies prior to independently conducting inspections.
Category II
- 1. The compliance supervisor should conduct annual field evaluations of each inspector to access performance and assure application of appropriate and consistent policies.
- 2. Administrative procedures for conducting inspections should be developed. These procedures should include:
- a. Inspection guides and checklists to maintain uniform compliance procedures. (It is receraended that NRC Agreement State Guides be used as reference in the development of such guides.)
- b. A written policy should establish protocol.for announced inspections (announced inspections should not occur except under extenuating circumstances), unannounced inspections, follow-up inspections, exit interviews, notification of violations, and obtaining agreements with licensees on scheduling of corrections.'
- c. Procedures should be available for mai'ntaining a sequential record of licensees' compliance history to enable early identifica. ion of patterns of repetitive violations,
- d. Inspection reports should be uniform and adequately describe:
- 1. scope of inspections; ii. complete substantiation of all items of noncompliance; iii. scope of licensees' safety programs; iv. number and type of inspector's independent measurements; and
- v. follow-up of previous violaticqc.
- e. A reporting system for clearly identifying the need for license changes based on inspections, especially in those states that have separate licensing and inspection staff.
9
X. 'R5disti6n M6asuring~C5p5bilit Category I -
- 1. The radiation control program radiation measuring instrumentation, or the availability of such instrumentation, shall have the full scope and range to measure the activities of all licenses. Such instruments shall be calibrated at intervals not greater than that required of licensees.
- 2. The radiation control program shall have the capability, in-nouse, or readily available through established procedures, for laboratory support to conduct bicassays, analyze environmental samples, analyze samples collected by inspectors, etc., on a priority established by the RCP. Such laboratory shall have a program for assuring quality control.
Category II The inspection program should include confirmatory measurements and be sufficient in number and type to ensure the licensee's control of NARM and to validate the licensee's field survey measurements.
XI. Enf6rcss5nt Category I Enforcement procedures shall be established to provide a substantial deterrent to licensee noncompliance with regulatory '
requirements. These procedures shall reflect: 1) methodology for han,dling escalated enforcement cases of varying degrees, 2) methodology for tne modification, suspension, or revocation of licenses; and 3) impoundment of NARM.
Category II
- 1. Provisions should be available for levying of monetary penalties.
- 2. Administrative enforcement procedures should specify that enforcement letters be issued within thirty days following inspections and should employ appropriate regulatory language clearly specifying all items of noncompliance and health and safety matters identified during the inspection and referencing the appropriate regulation or license condition being violated. Enforcement letters should specify the time period for the licensee to respond indicating corrective actions and actions taken to prevent recurrence (normally 20-30 days). The inspector and compliance supervisor should review licensee responses.
9
s
. Xtt. 1661d66t'R55p6655 Category I
- 1. A general response plan shall be written to enable.the state to promptly respond to on-site NARM incidents, NARM
, transportation accidents, or other NARM accidents and/or incidents.
- 2. Administrative procedures for incident response shall require
-that:
- a. Inquiries shall be promptly made te evaluate the need for .
on-site investigations.
- b. on-site investigations shall be promptly made of incidents requiring reporting to the Agency in less than thirty days. (SSRCR D.403 equivalent) .
7
- c. For those incidents not requiring reporting to the Agency in less than thirty days, investigations shall be made during the next scheduled inspection.
- d. Investigations shall include indepth reviews of circumstances and shall be completed on a high priority basis. When appropriate, investigations should include reenactments and time-study measurements (normally within a few days). Investigations (or inspection) results shall ,
be documented and enforcement action taken when appropriate.
- e. State licensees shall be notified of pertinent information about any incident which could be relevant to other licensed operations (e.g., equipment failure, improper ,
operating procedures),
- f. Information on incidents involving failure of equipment t shall be provided to the agency responsible for evaluation of the device for an assessment of possible generic deficiency. .
- g. The RCP shall have access to medical consultants when needed to diagnose or treat radiation injuries. The RCP shall use other technical consultants for special problems 1 when needed, i
i a
1
)
l
)
i
_ - _ _ _ . _ . - _-- _ ..-, _ , _ _ _. _ _. ._-.. _.~. - , m_ . , , _ _ . - . ~ _
.,m Attachment 2 May 5, 1988 LICENSING STATE STATUS .
Page 1 STATE NO REQ PROV EXP PROV EXT F CONSID F DENIED F GRANT Alabama x Alcoka x 8
Arizona x Arkansas x CA LA Co. x l l
CA: Orange Co. x ,
1 CA S. Diego Co. x < ,
1 CA St. Ind Re1 x CA* State Health x a
- olorado x a
Connecticut x l'
Dolevare x Dist. of Col. x i l
Florida x 1
Goorgia Hith. x Howc11 x s
Idaho x Illinois x Indiana x Iowa x Kansas x i
Kontucky x ouisiana x 9
1 Maine x Mcryland x
Page E STATE NO REQ PROV EXP PROV EXT F CONSID F DENIED F GRANT
..acacchusetts x ,
Michigan x Minnosota x M1ccissippi x Micoeuri x Montona x Nobreska x Noveda x Now Hampshire x Now Jersey x Nov Mexico x North Carolina x Morth Dakota x NY City Hith. x J
NY Envir. x ,
NY Health x NY Labor x Ohio x ,
Oklahoma x
, Oregon x l Ponnaylvania x Puerto Rico x Rhodo Island x South Carolina x
, South Dakota x annossee x l
?
Touca x Utah x e
Vormont x l
~
)
l
. I Page '
STATE NO REQ PROV EXP PROV EXT F CONSID F DENIED F GRANT
/irginia x j .
Wcchington x
Wost Virginia x Wicconsin x Wyoming x NO REQ =
No request for designation received.
PROV EXP =
Provisional designation status expired.
PROV EXT =
Provisional designation status extended. '
F CONSID =
Final designation under consideration.
F DENIED =
Final designation request denied.
F GRANTED = Final designation as a "CRCPD Recognized NARM Licensing State" granted. '
, ,- , .- c_ - , - - - . - - - - - - - - , . - - - , . . ,_..-,-------,----.e.. -
m= , ,v
o NARM Status in the States The regulation and control of Naturally Occurring and Accelerator Produced Radioactive Material (NARM) in the United States is not uniformally performed. Of the twenty-nine states which have Agreements with the NRC, all manage NARM in a similar manner as By-product material. Of the non-Agreement states, the regulation and control of NARM is generally very poor. Of the twenty-one non-Agreement States, four license the use of NARM (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). Of the remaining seventeen states, all but one (Montana), register NARM.
Of the sixteen that register, four have a program that is similar to licensing, in that an application is required, and the training and experience of the user and the radiation safety program is considered prior to the issuance of a registration certificate. The remaining twelve states register NARM similar to the registration of x-ray machines, i.e., the user simply advises the agency of the possession of the NARM source, then a certificate of registration is issued.
Of the twenty-one non-Agreement states, six have no regulations adopted that address NARM.
The major problem in the regulation and contro) of NARM in these non-Agreement states is in the area of inspection and enforcement of radiation protection standards. Based on information from a telephone survey of the non-Agreement states, during the week of April 25, 1988, nine states were given a very poor rating relative to their inspection and enforcement program. Some states indicated they have never inspected NARM users, while others indicated inspections were very rare, in many cases at intervals exceeding six years or more. For many states, the NARM inspection program is tied to their x-ray inspection program, so the priority of NARM inspection is based on the x-ray machine priorities. Of the remaining twelve states, three have poor inspection / enforcement programs, leaving only nine with good to excellent programs. In summary, of the twenty-one non-Agreement states, nine have good to l excellent inspection programs, but twelve have poor to very poor ;
programs. In these twelve states public health and safety is being i compromised. Strong regulation and control are needed in these I twelve states.
Several states indicated that even if they had a strong inspection program, they had "no teeth" in their regulations to require compliance.
During the recent survey of the non-Agreement states, the question was again asked if their states would have any objections to NRC regulation of NARM within their state. Of the twenty-one non-Agreement states, only one indicayd objection. This single
objection was based on the feeling that the SRC would probably not do any better job than that state was doing to regulate and control NARM.
The one condition of no objections from the surveyed states was, that those states which do have a good to excellent NARM regulatory program, that they would be allowed to continue their state control under some type agreement with the NRC. Some favorable comments regarding NRC regulation of NARM were:
- 1. "I would welcome NRC control."
- 2. "I certainly wish they would."
- 3. "Has been needed for a long time."
The attachment shows the results of the survey conducted during the week of April 25th.
9
W Attachment RESULTS OF TELEPHONE SURVEY OF NON-AGREEMENT STATES DURING WEEK OF APRIL 25, 1988 LEGISLATIVE ADOPTED AUTHORITY REGULATIONS TO TO INSPECTION ENFORCEHENT )
REGULATE REGUTATE LICENSE REGISTER PROGRAM PROGRAM l STATE NASM NARM NARM NARM RATING
- RATINC* '
Alaska Yes Yes No Yes Very Poor Very Poor Connecticut Yes No No Yes Very Poor Very Poor Delaware Yes Yes Yes No Good Good l l
Eavali Yes No No Yes Very Poor Very Poor l Indiana Yes Yes No Yes Very Poor Very Poor ,
1 Maine Yes Yes No Yes Excellent Excellent Massachusetts Yes No No Yes Very Poor Very Poor Michigan Yes Yes No Yes Poor Poor M4 nesota Yes Yes No Yes Very Poor Very Poor Missouri Yes Yes No Yes Excellent E xc e lle'n t Montana Yes Yes No No Very Poor Very Poor Nnv Jersey Yes Yes Yes No Excellent Excellent Ohio Yes Yes No Yes Excellent Execlient Oklahor.s Yes Yes No Yes Good Good Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes No Excellent Excellent South Dtkota Yes No No Yes Very Poor Very Poor Varmont Yes No No Yes Poor Poor Virginic Yes Yes Yes No Excellent Excellent W2st Virginia Yes Yes No Yes Poor Poor Wicconcin Yes Yes No Yes Good Good Wyoming Yes No No Yes Very Poor Very Poor Iotale 21 Yes 15 Yes 4 Yes 16 Yes CNOTE: The rating was arbitrarily given by the Executive Secretary based on the frequency of inspection and level of enforcement. As stated on the next page, there are a variety of reasons why state programs have ranked poor to very poor. Additionally, cithough the inspection / enforcement program may rank poor to very poor, other components of these state's NARM activities are%,ood to excellent, as identified.
r 1
l l
1 1
e General Statements I on State's Regulation of NARM The previous table has identified twelve states which have a poor to very poor rating for their inspection / enforcement prczrams. The major cause for these ratings is a lack of resoure.es to ~ perform the needed service, not a lack of concern on the part of the radiation control programs. Many, if not most, state radiation control programs
~hese dGties have limited resources to perform a multitude of duties.
include radiation protection activities in x-ray, environmental monitoring and surveillance, emergency response to radiati:n accidents or incidents, radon in homes, and for many states, protection services in the nonionizing area.
Most of the states with poor to very poor ratings, will respond to NARM accidents, and in some states, such as Minnesota, SARM sources that are frequently used, are inspected frequently.
Also, for some states, such as Massachusetts, although the users of NARM are not frequently inspected, newly manufactured NARN! sources are evaluated in a timely manner.
1 I
l 9 l 1
4 1
4 J
< t 1=
CONFERENCE OF RA DIA TION CONTROL PROGRAM DIRECTORS. INC.
..a August 26, l@HCENED AUG 31 L
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Governmental and Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 t Oear Mr. Denton:
The purpose of this letter is to formally share with you and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the position of the Conference of Radiation Program Directors on naturally occurring and accellerator produced radioacive material (NARM).
The issue, simply stated, is that NARM radioactive material is not adequately or uniformly regulated in the United States, and as a result, '
has the cotential for significant exposure to the public and for contamination of the environment.
The concern for nonuniform control of NARM has been voiced by state ;
radiation control directors since the early 1960's and has been brought to the attention of the NRC on many occasions over the last severai ,
- years. This same concern has been expressed by the Agreement States, as a group, and by the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors,
- inc. (CRCPO), which represents both Agreement and non-Agreement states. ,
Let me also draw your attention to the June 26, 1987, letter to Samuel 1 Chalk from Warren Sinclair, President of NCRP, in which Mr. Chalk <
specifically addresses the NARM issue. A copy is enclosed. I The most recent action on the NARM issu,a takett by the Conference is the adoption of a "Position Paper on NRC Regulatory Control of NARM," which was approved by the membership at our 1985 annual meeting. The 1985 position has been updated to reflect current concerns.
A copy of our position paper is enclosed.
The Conference strongly urges the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to begin the appropriate actions necessary to regulate this hazardous radioactive material in the states which are not currently regulating NARM. It is 4
our belief that because (1) there is no single federal agency where uniform guidance on NARM is provided and that (2) in some states there is no control of NARM, the resulting potential for public health j exposure and environmental contamination presents an intolerable ;
- situation. We believe a uniform regu atory program operated by the NRC '
1 l
1
Harold R. Denton August 26, 1937 Page Too is the best solution. The details of our rationale for NRC control of NARM is clearly described in our position paper, The Conference is developing a compilation of recent incidents involving NARM ahich we will share with you as soon as possible. In the meantime, a e believe the position paper adequately describes the need for NRC action.
The Conference is ready and willing to present its position to the Ccmmission as the NARM issue is considered, Please do not hesitate to conta:t me at (206) 753-3465 or Chuck Hardin, our Executive Secretary, at (502) 227 a543.
Sin ely, T.}n.//r, St.org /
Chairman TRS/dt Enclosure 9
o.
Revised August 24, 1987 CONFED1CE OF RADIATION COtrIROL PRCCPRI DIRECICRS POSITION PAP E ON tac REGUIATCRY Cot (IROL OF tGPJ4 Intrcductiva The Atcmic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, authorizes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cccmission (tac) to control the tranufacture, transfer, ' import, export, use and disposal cf radicactive raterials classified as byproduct, source and special nuclear materials. 'Ihe Act does not provide for the regulatory centrol by the tEC of naturally cccurring and accelerater prcduced
. radioactive raterial (!GPJ4). This 1954 decision to exclude tGRM was based en the fact that controlling the radioactive materials associated with weapons develognent was the nation's only significant concern. Even when the use of R W1 became acre videspread, this cmission was never corrected. Reference 1 (see page 15) has a more ccmplete legislative history on why NAPJ4 was never included under the Atcmic Energy Act.
t.
9
Page 2 Revised 8/24/87 tWJ4 represents the same types of public health and safety risks, and in fact includes scrce of the identical radionuclides, which are regulated by the tiRC '
under the Attrnic Energy Act. Due to these similar characteristics, and in ,
order to ensure the adequate protection of the public health and safety, the Conference of Radiation Centrol Program Directors believe ?WJ4 should be controlled in the same way other radioactive m terials are regulated under the Atomic Energy Act.
Characteristics and Use of tW.M i
Most cecron substances contain smll quantities of naturally occurring radio- -
4 active m terials. For clarification, the radicactive materials proposed to be added the the at$thority granted by the Atcmic Diergy Act would (1) te those
- 1. .
m terials either concentrated in nature as a result of man's activities or deliberately concentrated for their radioactive properties; or (2) discrete sources. Diffuse sources such as phosphate residues,' nonuranium cres, and slags are not intended to be included. The tac would be required to detennine which materials pose a potential threat to public health and safety and which should therefore be covered under the Act.
l l I
The nest cermen exa.?ple of tMi is Radium-226. Radium is considered to be ene of the most hazardous of all radionuclides for at least two reasons: it has a 1600 year half-life and it decays to the radicactive gas Raden-222. Radium also has one of the lowest allowable concentrations of any radienuclide in water. Ithasbeenestimatedthatabout20greentofallradioactivematerial I
1 l
Page 3 Revised 8/24/67 users possess Radium sources. Between 1912 and 1961, nearly 2,000 grams (2000 curies) of Radium were prccessed in, or imported into, the United States. A recent survey of all state radiation centrol programs identified about 130 curies of Radium currently registered. Since less than 200 curies have been disposed in licensed disposal facilities, this may indeed be a significant i
public health and safety probles, due largely to the inconsistent regulatien of tGPN. Because Radium is the most ccrmen tORM and presents the greatest of potential probles, it vill receive most of the attentien in the discussion that follows.
There are numerous other radionuclides considered to be NAPH (see Reference i for specific examples), !URM is used in every state in the United States. In ,
the areas of redicine, tGPH is used for applications such as diagnostic nuclear nedicine imaging where the radionuclide is injected into the patient, and in therapeutic applications where sealed sources are used to treat cancerous i
tumirs. !GPH is tued in industry for things like integral parts of gauges, in I devices for various measuranents, and in the academic field for various research and teaching applications. There is currently estinuted to be about 10,000 users and possessors of NAPN in the United States. The use of Radium in most applications appears to be declining, thus creating a disposal problem to l i
be discussed later. At the same time, it appears that the use of accelerater-prcduced radienuclides is growing. !
i i
~
Page 4 Revised 8/24/67
.Present Control of ?W H The regulation of tWR is fragmented, nonuniform, and incomplete at both the '
federal and state levels. Absent a federal randate, rest states have established sre sort of program for the control of INM. However, these prcgrams vary greatly in their degree of regulatory responsibility and control, i The Atomic Energy Act provides for states af ter they qualify to assure regula-tory centrol for radioactive materials specified in the Act. Twenty-eight states have agrements with the tac for full regulatory control of certain ;
radicactive raterials as allowed under the act. Ihese tac Agrement States regulate and centrol ?MM in the same way they do for Atcraic Energy Act raterials fer which they have regulatory responsibility and authority.
Those states which have not entered into agrements with the tac have widely differing regulatory authority and control over 14APR,2 and this is where the '
rajor problera lies. Of the twenty-two non-tac Agreenent States, only five have a NAPR licensing program. Of the remainder, two states have voluntary or partial licensing program, while 15 have very limited initial registration 4
requirments. At the same time, the interstate transportation of tW N is covered by unifonn U.S. CCI regulations.
l 1 In the area of tWN inspections, the regulatory picture is semestat better2, In non-!aC Agrement States, fourteen have inspection programs while four
, states conduct partial inspections. Five states conduct no tM R inspections.
9 4
-~
4 Page 5 Revised 8/24/87 l
The Conference of Radiation Control Progra n Directors (CP.CPD) has attepted to correct this nonuniform regulatory control situation at the state level by develeping a "tGPJi Licensing State" qualification program. Bis program is intended to provide a thorough review cf tORM regalatory control in teth Agrescent and Non-Agreenent States using consistent review criteria. It is assu ed that a state which has been certified as a "Licensing State" has a prcgram cccpatible with the requirments of an NRC agrement. Because of this program, and to alleviate the concerns of some states which would not other.lise support the position, it is recenrended that an amendment to the Atcraic Energ9 Act provide for reccgnition of the tGPJi regul.atory programs in those non-
~
Agrement States which do not vant to enter into a full agrement. It would be desirable to provide for a mechanism for these states to continue this adegaate pregram without the additional administrative burden of applying for tac
~
Agreenent State status.
)
The lack of uniform licensing and regulatory centrol at both the federal and state level has led to a variety of probles which present both potential and real public health and safety threats. Scene of these problerts are described as follows.
There have been ntrnerous incident reports dealing with tGPJ4. Most have involved Radium sources. Frcrn 1966 to 1969 the Federal Bureau of Radiological Health conducted a veluntary program to dec=ent tGpd4 incidents in the states. During this pericd, there vas an average of h
9
st 4
Page 6 Revised 8/24/87 twenty-nine incide'ts n per year involvd.ng Radium alone, most of which involved loss of the materiali . Because of nonunifem regulations, this is believed to be an und$restimate of the prob 1 m. In nere recent years, the frequency appears to be decreasing. H0vever, with- i out unifom regulations and the unifem rep:rting systm which this would require, the real threat and impact to public health and safety ,
cannot be detemined.
4 As with Atcmic Energy k:t materials, there have also been misadmin-istrations of IMM radiophamaceutical" However, these events are not being captured in any national incident reporting systErn, and lessons learned are not adequately shared.
The nenunifom state-testate regulation of tGRM creates interstate c: amerce probler s. If a manufacturer in a state with an adequate tGSM regulatcry program ships tMM sources to a state not regulating ,
tGRM, or vice versa, centrol over how this source vill be used can be lost. This has lead some states to deny reciprocal regula*r y agrements to states not designated as "Licensing States".
Where tGRM sealed sources and devices containing tG3M are manufac-tared in er distributed frcra states Vithout adequate tGRM centrol j programs, such sources and devices (which can include medical !
l sources) probably have not uadergono a regulatory review fer adequacy )
{ cf radiation safety design and $ acturing controls.
1 I
i I
l l
,- +
4 Page 7 Revised 8/24/87 o
4 tac regulations allow for the distribution to the public of very
+
srall quantities of radioactive raterials contained in consurer prcducts, such as smoke detectors. Rese raterials are called "generally licensed", (i.e., no "specific" license is required), and an evaluation must be performed to show that this general distributien vill not result in risks to health and safety. Products that include WS.M ray not receive adequate evaluation and these consumer prcducts ray create health and safety problars.
DJe to the lack of adequate regulatory CCntrol, Various instrurents*
and devices containing radium have been ranufactured in the past for the military without any distribution limitations or rarkings.
Such devices have been found in numerous instances in the public's possession and may have caused,significant radiatien exposures.
In ncn-Agree:ent States with WRi inspection programs, about 70 percent of the NARM users are also licensed by the tac to possess and use raterial 2. Bis requires both State and tEC inspectors to inspect the sane facility, in many cases duplicating efforts and vasting already limited resources.
n uring the proper disposal of NARM is prcbably the greatest and a :t visible prcble.m that has been exacerbated by nonuniform regulation.
9 j
Page 8 Revised 8/24/87 Disposal of Mo.4 Since rest accelerater prcduced radienuclides have relatively shcrt half-lives.
they are typically stored on-site for decay and do not present a dispcsal problem. The exceptiens to this may be accelerater targets and other ccm-penents: however, nonuniferm reporting requirments again rake data gathering difficult. Therefore, the focus of this section vill be on naturally occurring radienuclides, particularly R-dium. It should be noted that the preposed Super Collider is esticated to separate frca 10,000 to 40,000 cubic feet of LLRW annually, which will be classified as R:.M.
One of the najer probles with disposal is that although states have made a strong case for it, tRR.M was not included as a low-level radioactive vaste covered by the bv-Level. Radioactive Waste Policy Mentents Act of 1985. Like mixed wastes, this raterial was lef t as an orphan vaste stream. As a result, it is very uncertain hev it will be properly disposed. tiote that ncne of the Ccepact regions has included }UM as a low-level vaste for which it must be responsible.
s Secause Radium is censidered by many to be as toxic as transuranic raterials, it is currently very difficult to dispcse in a licensed low-level radioactive vaste disposal site. The Birnwell site vill not accept any discrete Radium sources. The Hanferd site has imposed limits for disposal of Radium rcre stringent than are these fer transuranics. Although the Eeatty sita vill 9
. s Page 9 Revised 8/24/87 -
accept Radim, other problers beycnd the scope of this paper have limited such disposals. Inclusion of KW4 under the Atomic Energy Act would require that the NRC include Radium in its vaste classification systan. Such classifica-tion would lead to the setting of unifonn standards for acceptance of Radium at the disposal sites. It would also serve to establish a Class C lihit for Radium which would specify the assignment of responsibility, either s* ate or federal government, for disposal.
It should be noted that the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors is in the prccess of establishing a disposal rechanism for discrete Radium sources. It is hoped that through this program rany Radium sources, now being stored because disposal is difficult, can be properly disposed.
It should also be noted that forced Raditrn storage creates other radiological hazards. Unwanted or unneeded Radium must be stored if disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive vaste sito is difficult, inpractical, or tcc expensive.
Storage requires adequate shielding and proper security. In addition, Radium sources frequently leak and beccre contaminated.
In addition to sealed sources, there are other discrete Radium centaminated vaste which will probably be generated in increasing quantities and require safe disposal. These include clean-up resins frcm drinking vater supplies centaminated with Radium, and scale on piping used for oil and gas collection and transmissien which has been discovered to trap relatively large concentra-
?
Page 10 .
Revised 8/24/87 tions of Radium. Unifom regulation of tMJi vill provide assurance that these sources and others will t:e properly controlled and safely dispesed in the future.
tN N and RCRA The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exmpts traterials stich are covered under the Atcmic Energy Act. The Environnental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to regulate t#N under RGA but has not proposed re7alations to do so. It is strongly believed that discrete tNJi sources should not be re7alated under RCRA because (1) this would not provide for the up-front centrol of its use, and (2) it would not adequately solve the dispcsal problers. Diffuse tW N, such as phosphate residues, nenuranium cres and slags.
is probably rcre appropriately regulated under RCRA.
It is strongly believed that tac dispesal regulations are much trere appropriate for discrete tWN %?.ste than are RCRA disposal regulations. If discrete tM N is not included under the Atcmic hergy Act, then it would probably eventually ccme under the control of RmA. Not only would this create a dual regulatory prcblen at these disposal sites which currently accept tM N, it vould also create a dual regulatory problan in those Agreenent States which regulate tNN under regulations which NRC represents to be compatible with radioactive raterials covered by agreenents with tac. This would lead to a situation similar to the one which currently exists with mixed sutes. 1 9
Page 11 Revised 8/24/87 to? A and CBCLA 1 The Cengress has provided authorization to the U.S. Envirorcental Protection Agency to "clean-up" areas contaminated by harardous substances. This autnerity is provided by the Hazardous Substances Respcase Trust Fund, established under the Ccq:rehens'ive Envircreental Response Cmpensation and Liability Act (CECM) of 1980. Sane areas and facilities which have been i contaminated with flV.M have received funding for "clean-up" under this Act.
A question has been raised: If the Atanic Energy Act is a: rended to include #*
1 iMM vould such amentent affe:t or restrict the use of CmCM funds for ?GP.M i contaminated areas or facilities? To clarify the issue, a new section is -
- proposed in CERCLA which would allow the centinuation of such funding for tGPJ4 centaminated areas and facilities.
Other Studies and Opiniens l
i over the past several years other organizations and groups have taken the !
position that ?MM should be included under tEC regulatory control. j l
j The tac Agrement States, following their October 1974 meeting,
! recemnended that lEC bring tGF.M under its regulatory centrol, j
i l '
9 1
1 1
Page 12 j Revised 8/24/87 l -
The Cor.ference of Radiation Control Program Directors in a Pay 8
] 1975. letter to the then tGC Ccranissioner Kennedy, stressed the need ,
i for ?MM to be regulated at the federal level.
A task force established in 1976 by tac to study the tWJ4 issue reccrtrended that tEC seek legislative authority to regulate NARM.
-t The National Governors' Asscciation, in its publication, The Acras ent State Procrain: A Sttte Perspective, dated January-1983,3 ;
~
states, "The Atcrnic Energy Act should be amended to authorize the
{. regulation of radioactive materials not presently affected by the !
Act, that is, naturally-cccurring and accelerater-produced radioactive material (tWJ4)." !
I A'1984 survey (NLTtE-0976) of the states by tac showed that all the -
a (then) twenty-seven Agreenent States and sixteen of the twenty-three l nonagreerent states supported the regulation of IMM by lEC. Of the ;
1 >
i rernaining seven, only four were opposed to tRC regulating iMM with two undecided and one with no reply. i 1
4 At the October 1984 meeting of the NRC A.,m nt States, a resolution !
i
) was again adopted which called upon the IEC to include NARM under the l Atctnic Energy Act. ;
- i 1 h j O !
f h
a ;
e 9
Page 13 Revised 8/24/87
. i In May 1985, the Conference of Radiation Centrol Program Directors again adopted a position that tGAM should be included under the Atcmic Energy Act control.
i j -
At the October 1986 meeting of the Agresmnt States, the attending ,
i states again advecated inclusion of res;cnsibility to regulate tWJ4 in the Atcmic Energy Act.
Cenference Position ne Conference of Radiation Control Prcgram Directors has evaluated the !MJ4 issue in the United States and has observed that the use of tGRM is cccron and videspread throughout the country and that the centrol of tGAM is varied and fragmented. ne resulting nonuniform centrol of tWJ4 creates confusien en the part of users and vaste generators, and creates a pctential for excessive radiation exposure to both radiation werkers and the general public.
Based on the information contained in this paper and in a 1985 Ccnference 4
resolution, the Conference reccomends that the Atcmic Energy Act of 1954 be 4
arended to authori:e the Nuclear Regulato.9./ Comission to regulate discrete sources of naturally-occurring and accelerater-produced radioactive raterials l l in the same way it is autherized to regulate other radioactive material 4 identified in the act.
3 ;
4
N Page 14 i Revised 8/24/67 ;
1 The Conference Concludes that there are sre nOn-?GC Agre< rent State radiatico centrol prcgrams adequately protecting the public through the regulation and control of tbW1. Since the twenty-eight Agrement States centrol and regulate tNN in the sa:re ranner as raterial currently identified in the Atcr.ic Dergy i Act, the tGC Agrement State rmters recmrend that ?GC establish precedures to raintain the centinuation of tNR regulatcry authcrity and centrol irrediately following a entent of the Act, i
Suggested language a ending the Atcric Dergy Act is attached to this Position Paper.
1 I
I l
l l
l 1
1 1
i i
l Y
Comments on NUREG-1310 The following comments represent those, primarily of the Executive Board of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD), although the program directors of other states, not on the Executive Board, contributed some comments.
General Comments
- 1. Mr. Austin is to be complimented on a very thorough and comprehensive report on the NARM issue. He appears to have considered all the ramifications of SRC regulation of NARM.
- 2. The document references the " CRCPD Position Paper on NRC Regulatory Control of NARM," but it would appear the rationale contained in this position paper was not thoroughly considered.
- 3. The referenced position paper appears to be the main stimulus for the study reported in SUREG-1310. If this is true, then NUREG-1310 expanded the scope of inquiry substantially beyond the issue identified in our position paper. As stated in the position paper, the CRCFD recommends, "the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 be amended to authorize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rezulate discrete sources of naturallv-occurring and accelerator-procuced radiacactive material's" (emphasis added). The paper specifically, and clearly, identified "discrete" sources. NUREG-1310 addressed diffuse sources, radiation producing machines, radon and other sources that are beyond the scope of the CRCPD position paper. This is not necessarily a criticism, but appears to "muddy up" the central issue.
It should be emphasized that the major concecn of the CRCPD is the non-uniform regulation of DISCRETE NARM SOURCES.
Specific Comments
- 1. Ref: Executive Summary, page vil, 1st paragraph, which gives rationale for Congress never seeking to expand the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) to cover NARM.
Comment:
There is no indication, at least to the CRCPD, that Congress has recently considered and declined to amend the AEA to include NARM. Therefore, would Congress, today, if requested, continue to exclude NARM from the AEA?
As stated in NUREG-1310 , of page 15, it is the responsibility of the federal government to promote the general welfare and specifically to protect the
,e i
9 e
citizens of the United States where risks have been identified. The Federal government has several precedental actions to show .they can, and will, "step in" and provide the needed services. Examples are the provisions of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, which specifically mandate a Federal agency to regulate and control identified hazardous pollutants.
- 2. Ref: Executive Summary, page vii, 4th paragraph, 2nd Sentence.
Comment:
We fully support the statement indicating that any effort to control NARM calls for an integrated program to ensure that the dominate hazards are appropriately addressed. When any group of radioisotopes, selected on administrative, rather than physical or biological considerations, is poorly regulated or even ignored in some states, one cannot deny t. hat such material may be the dominant hazard in that state.
- 3. Ref: Executive Summary, page vii, 4th paragraph, 4th Sentence.
Comment:
Although available data may indicate that significant NARM exposures to the public are rare, many states do not adequately inspect, or even solicit repor:4 on NARM incidences, and some states even ignore SARM. There are not sufficient reliable data frem these states to conclude whether exposures are occurring or not.
- 4. Ref: Executive Summary, page viii, 1st paragraph.
Comment:
Although Congress has given certain NARM responsibilities to several federal agencies, it would appear that none of these agencies have sufficient interest in regulating the use of NARM, judging by the lack of progress since the passage of the referenced legislation. Also, the CRCPD believes the NRC is the federal agency having the most experience, the most complete regulations, the best established licensing procedures and the most thorough inspection program for discrete sources of radiation. To develop a NARM licensing program in an agency other than the NRC would require substantial duplication of already existing capabilities in the NRC. The major objective of the CRCPD recommendation is f NARM to be licensed and regulated in a similar mannT"r as byproduct material.
e O
- 5. Ref: Executive Summary, page viii, 3rd paragraph.
Comment:
We cannot agree totally with the comment that the j states are increasing the amount cf attention given to l NARM. Although most states do inspect NARM. the actual inspection frequency, in at least twelve states, is rare, many times exceeding six years or more for any particular source. For some states, although they do inspect, their enforcement program is weak, due to "no teeth" in their regulations. Using the inspection and enforcement criteria of the NRC for bypreduct materials, these programs would be rejected as being inadequate for the public health and safety.
- 6. Ref: Executive Summary, page ix, 2nd paragraph.
Comment:
It is stated that the NRC can facilitate the regulation of radium disposal by specifying acceptable and unacceptable c c,nc ent ra t ions of radium for disposal.
Under what authority can NRC specifv such limits?
Assuming that authority does exist for setting such concentrations for radium, why can't this same authority be used to meet the recommendation of the CRCPD regarding discrete NARM sources?
- 7. Ref: Page 1, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence.
Comment: -
We cannot agree that the issue is "whether the Federal Government should preempt the authority that the states already have." This may be an issue, but certainly not the issue. The issue Ts that NARM should be uniformally regulated and controlled in the United States, and it is not.
If the NRC would obtain authority to regulate NARM, a program similar to the present NRC-State Agreement Program could be established for NARM, thus allowing I those states with adequate NARM programs to continue I the regulation of such material. This NARM Agreement l Program would no more preempt the. states than the
{
existing Atomic Energy Act already does.
?
s
- 8. Ref: Page 2, 3rd paragraph, Sch line.
Comment:
The reference to whether Federal control of NARM should be the next target for Congress in reducing radiation exposure implies that only cne target should be addressed by Congress. Cannot Congress have multiple targets regarding radiation protection?
- 9. Ref: Page 3, 2nd paragraph.
Comment:
As stated previously, if the CRCPD position paper on NARM stimulated the NUREG-1310 document, why confuse the main issue of regulating discrete NARM source? vith issues involving cobalt teletherapy units and x-ray devices. We don't want to imply that these two radiation sources don't need adequate radiation control, but they tend to lead the reader from the basic issue.
- 10. Ref: Page 3, 3rd paragraph, line 5 thru 10 Comment:
An analogy is used to shew the dichotomy of Federal regulation of the use of a cobalt-60 unit, when an x-ray therapy machine, standing beside the cobalt unit have no Federal regulation. It is stated that this is equal to NRC regulation of byprcduct material used in I nuclear medicine, but not regulating NARM used in nuclear medicine, ,
l One major difference in the two comparisons is that !
most all states have a strong x-ray program, but twelve !
( 2 47.) do not have a strong NARM program.
l Also, one might take the position "Do two wrongs make a '
i
. right?"
1 Lastly, the necessary actions to regulate a cobolt unit when compaced to machine produced radiation is substantially different. The regulatory actions for byproduct and NARM are the same.
0
~
o 43 9
- 11. Ref: Page 9, 1st praragraph under 4.1, lines 3-6.
Comment:
The statement in the SUREG-1310 document, that the number and severity of radium incidents cannot be determined since the Federal Government has never had authority to control radium possession, supports the need for Federal control.
- 12. Ref: Page 11, item 4.2.
Comment:
It appears that several statements in the NUREG document are based on information from the October 22, 1987, survey of the States by CRCPD. It should be pointed out, as stated in the report, that only 17
( 347. ) states responded to the survey. This is a rather low response rate to make any accurate judgements o r.
NARM incidents in the United States.
- 13. Ref: Page 39, item 8.
Comment:
Five options are listed. It is strongly reccmmended that for option (2), that the words "discrete sources" be added before the word "SARM".
? '
1
MAWd%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%d6W6d%W$ddf%fffd%gf g g gg g gi g TPAHSMITTAL TO:
Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips j ADVANCED COPY TO: The Public Document Roem
! DATE: J/9 /f f' ,
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch
! FROM:
3 Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting i, document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and j- placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or required, a Meeting
Title:
N / ht 1 N c k U<< M 6 h <,* < /Atd- >-
( a k a nd~s~ & a.oum) g%
! Meeting Date:
6[/J{/PP Open / Closed k
i .
i E
Item Description *: Copies g Advanced DCS ', 8 to POR Copy I
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 1 G) &c bLlui LL.u:ukts i %-
MO< mouaMJ I 2 . " L < c "L t s ,, - / 3/0
- 3. (' / 20 f 6 Nt < A be->e < <-d
/
/
/
/
q /b-,w b hwx 30, /0 / ?
- 4. (? / K's? / T 0x X' en . h s E. / / ?
c'f j; jt < sk b d hat <J -J ::1 n
~
S.' Ynh & M(?/d 0Nhi,) _
l l ef DMdsn A3, s7/s -/f'[' -
\
- (
/ l
- 6. __
l l
- POR is advanced cne copy of each document, two of each SECY paper. 3 C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, withcut SECY g papers. :;
l3
-' 3)
II II l I ili l l lhi i\
_