TrilliamThermo Technologies of Status 10/31/99 1. High · Milestones /Key Activities Completed Since Last Report- Include the ... The Council of ScientificSociety Presidents thanks

TrilliamThermo TechnologiesJw@y Id3?&s

SummaryofPmjetX Statusas d10/31/99

1. Hightemperature reii-actory to be marketed under the name G-5,TriHiamThermo Technologies Grant # DE - FG36-99W10396

2. Milestones /Key Activities Completed Since Last Report- Include thefoilowing as appropriate:a) Describe the technical progress fhr the perio~ with mqying imtkitks and discnss

the actions taken to meet the project deadlines

1. Conducted test with Steel Industry2s Braun Intertech cxmqkted f~ur tests requested by Steel & Petroleum

Industries3. Beta Test m Progress m ammercial Kiln a iinal repmt on this test will be

available by the end of the year4. Ordered new high temperature test blocks and electrodes5. Made slight formula modifications which appear to greatly increase wear&

strength darackristks6. Establishing protocols & complete advanced lahoratm-y testing of revised

fornuila of G-5 Initiai test resnks ihould he available for Demniber report

b) Provide an explanation of any technical dMknkies emxmntered.

1. We have had a problem with the amount of calcium in one of thecommercially available raw materials we were using. This resulted in lowerstrength and potential contamination m some applications.

2. The test box we designed would not allow us to heat test the materialabove 2430 degrees F. whkh has limited our ability to test our material atpmpmed operating temperatures of 3(MMdegrees F to 5(MO degrees F

c) Explain the steps taken to resolve these difficulties,

1. We have altered the fbrnmla for G-5 b a di-akrminate compound ratherthan an Aluminate componnd and this has resided in a much better productwith lower thermal condmtivity, better strength and lower calcium “Meed-

Ollt”

2. We have altered the design and method ~f cxmstructing the test boxeswhich should eliminate the heat flnx probiems and allow internal heating to

DISCLAIMER

This report was,.prepared as an account of work sponsoredby an agency of the United States Government. Neitherthe United States Government nor any agency thereof, norany of their employees, make any warranty, express orimplied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility forthe accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of anyinformation, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, orrepresents that its use would not infringe privately ownedrights. Reference herein to any specific commercialproduct, process, or service by trade name, trademark,manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constituteor imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring bythe United States Government or any agency thereof. Theviews and opinions of authors expressed herein do notnecessarily state or reflect those of the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegiblein electronic image products. Images areproduced from the best available original

document.

SEP-2B-1999 14:17 US DEPT OF ENERGY 630 252 2206 P.05

.The Council of Scientific Society Presidents thanks all those who contributed to the success of this

project (see page 20 for listing). Special thanks me due to those listed below:

SPonsollsThe Council of Scientific Society Preaidems

The Johnson Foundation

American Chemical Society

American Nuclear Society

BNFL, hlC.

Canadian Nucbr Society

Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology

Eleetric Power Research Institute

Health Physics Society

Nuclear Energy Institute

United %ates Department of Energy

United States Environmental Protection Agencv

United States Nuclear Regulato~ Commission

Dr. Roger O. McCiekm Dr. Marrin A. AppleConferenceCo-chaiTnnfi confirm co-choirProgramComnkree (3&

Dr. E. (M de Planque Ek. Curris C, Harris

Dr. Kenneth L Mossman L. Manning Muntzing

Dr. Genevieve S. Roessler Dr. Leonard Sagan

Dr. Warren K. Sinclair Dr.Chris G. WhipPle

Marzin A. Apple (r) Roger 0. McC[eI1anand Roger Ctarke

,. .

—.

SEP-2B-1999 14:17 US DEPT OF ENERGY-

63EI 252 22E16 P.06-

Inmoduction . . . . . . . . . -- ------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3

The Win~preadConfetence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

FutureInitiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8“

Appendix A: Conduct oftheConference and Conference Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...9

Appendix B:ScienceIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...11

AppendixC: Public Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...13

AppendixD:Legal/Regulatory Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Appendix EBackgmundLt teratute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...19

Conference Attendees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . ...-.-20

.

SEP-2B-1999 14:17 US DEPT OF ENERGY

ItmommonThe selection of appropriate levels for control

of occupational and enviTorimentat radiationexposures isacomplexsnatter. Everyone isexposed to low levels of radiation from natural

sources. Further, there isadesire to realizebenefits associated with the use of manyradiation tech.nologies that can give rise toradiation exposures.

The issue is especially vexing because the

principal health effect of radiation exposure,

cancer, occurs at high prevalence in the genemlpopulation, and there are limitations on out

ability to detect small excess cancer risksattributable to low-level radiation exposures.This necessitates the use of models toextrapolate born exposure levels at whichexcess risks can be detected COthe lower leveIsof exposure of regulatory concern. The

selection of a particular extrapolation modelincludes both scientific and policyconsiderations. Selection of a dose level forconcrol of risk involves both policy andregulatory considerations and may includeconsideration of risks horn other factors.

The prima~ goal of this Wingspread

Conference was to explore various approaches

for bringing together scientific information,policy judgments, and legislative needs relatedto zhe control of health risks from low-level

radiation exposures. An underlying premise ofthe conference was that the establishment ofnational policy on this important issue could befacilitated by improved dialogue among [eadersfrom three communities sciencises, policymakers, and legislators. Accordingly, the

conference was organ ized as a workingdiscussion group so chaca level ofunderstanding could be built among theparticipants chat takes account of scientificuncertainty yet at~owsfor the development ofessential policy and regulations.

630 252 2206 P.07

The organizem of the conference invited leadersfrom the scientific, policy, and legislativecommunities to participate in this consensus-

building process. Some individuals werepurposefully selected for participation becausethey have been articulate proponents of

particular viewpoints. Other individuals havebeen selected because of their breadth of

knowledge and experience and the absence ofan advocacy position on radiation matters.

Conference discussions on the conflicting viewson the health risks of low-level ionizing

radiation focused on the following questions asa basis for exploring the complexinterrelationships among science, public policyand regulatory decision-making

10

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.8.

9.

What is our eumnt understanding of theItealthrisks of hwdeve[ ionizing rdiation?WI@ additional research might resolve major

difftiences?How can sciencebetter assist @mre policydiscussions?What is the cwwnt public poliq contentand context?

Wuzr is rhe existingIegisfarivej%mework?What potential Iegiskttivechurtgesmight

be eflective?How are cwmmt regt.datiom implemented?

How should regtdatiom be &ve/oped in

the fimre?Are tkre akernative paradigms &r protecting

In addressing these questions, it became.abundantly clear to all participants chat we

could only scracch the surface in a two and

one-half day meeting. The proposed conferencerecommendations reflect a consensus aboutwhat is known akuc health risks of low-levelionizing radiation exposure, deficiencies in ourcurrent scientific knowledge base, deficienciesin the regulatory decision-making process, and

SEP-28-1999 14:18 US DEPT OF ENERGY 630 252 2206 P.08

r;

the need to harmonize nuclear regulations andimprovecommunication with the generalpublic. Future conferences will focus onstrategies to implement the recommendationsof this conference.

This final report contains three sections and

five appendices. The first section serves as anIntroduction and reviews the goals of the

conference. The second section entitled ‘TheWingspread Conference Accords on Cancer

Risks from Exposure to Low-Level Radiation” isthe major section of the report and highligh~

the conference recommendations. The final

section dKusses initiatives for the hture and inparticularimplementationof therecommendationsproposedat thisconference.AppendicesA-E provide supportinginformationabout the conduct of theconference, the conference program, summaries

of scientific, public policy and legal/regulato~discussions, and a list of puldishetl papers andreports considered by participants during

deliberations. A list of the individuals~ ,,

,?participating in the conference maybe foundat the end of this report.

SEP-28-1999 14:18 US DEPT OF ENERGY 63EI 252 22E16

w

P.09

w

T#Emwmlmcmwmllcumsaiama msmomuwmmmww-umnnmllou

All living things, including human populations,are constantly exposed to low4evei radiationfrom naturally occurring radiormclides and from

outer space. Hutnanactivity mayinffuence. thelevel of tdation from naturally ocwrrifig

sources to which people are exposed. People

are also exposed to additional radiation fromman-made sources that have associated benefits

and costs.

Soon after rhe discovery of x-~ays, it wasrecognized that radiation could produce adverse

heakh effects and that it was necessary tocontrol radiation exposures COminimize healtheffects. Substantial research has beenconducted during the past half cenruq to better

understand how radiation affects the body.This research has included studies at all levels

of biological organization from molecules tocells to whole mammals to populations of

animals and people and has identified anincrease in cancer incidence as a dominant lateeffect of radiation exposure at levels below

those producing acute effecu.

The research findings, especially those made on

human populations, have been used to establishradiation protection standards and regulations.The methods used to establish the standardsand regulations and the actual level of the

standards and regulations have sometimes beencontroversial some individuals have argued

that the standards are excessively stringent andresulr in increased financial costs associated

with obtaining desired benefits of the use ofradiation technologies such as medicalapplications and nuclear power. Orherindividuals are of the opinion that the radiationstandards and regulations are appropriately

conservative, while others argue for even more

stringent standards.

[n recognition of thi5 coritroversy, the Councilof Scientific Society Presidents and The

Johnson Foundation convened a conferenceentitled “Creating a Strategy for Science-BasedNational Policy Addressing Conflicting V[ewson the Health Risks of Low-Level “Ionizing

Radiation.” The conference was convened atthe Wingspread Conference Center, Racine,Wisconsin, July 31.August 3, 1997. The

participants included 50 scientists and policy-

makers from academic, governmental andprivate organizations in the United States,

Canada, Japan, Austria, and England. Specialamenrion was directed to inviting individualswith a range of viewpoitw and variedbackgrounds in academic training and workexperience. During the conference, theparticipants sought LObuild a workingconsensus on a science. based, responsible

regulatory approach for low4evel ionizing

radiation. In a closing session, the participarmreached general accord on the pointspresented below.

●

●

A substantial body of scientific evidencedemonstrates statistically significantincreases in cancez incidence for acutewhole-body exposures of adults to ionizing

radiation at doses of about 100 miihsieverts(10 rem) and greater. The incidence ofcancer above the background cancerincidence increases with increasing

radiation dose. Various factors such as thedose rate, at which the radiation dose is

deiivered, different kinds of radiation,gender, and the ag~ at exposure influencethe precise nature of rhe relationship.

between dose and cancer incidence.,

A ~jor factor influencing the detecrion of

an excess of cancer induced by rdation isthe high incidence of cancer from al! causes

in populations in countries like the UnitedStares. Based on historical records,about one-third of the population wiildevelop cancer and one-fifth to one-fourth

SEP–28-1999 14:19 US DEPT OF ENERGY

f

of the population will die of cancer from

all causes.

● Theinability toquancify bydirectobservation therelarionship betweenradiation exposute and cancer at the lowestlevels of radiation exposure that are ofconcern requires extrapolation fromexposure-cancer incidence relationships athigher levels to the lower levels. The

relationship observed at the higher levels is

typically used to extrapolate down to zeroexposure without any thr&hold but usingan a[lowarice for dose and dose rate effects.Some individuals have suggested that thisapproach overestimates cancer risk, whileuthers suggest that it may underestimatecancer risk at low levels of exposure.

“ There is substantial optimism that research

on molecular and cellular mechanisms of

carcinogenesis carI lead to anunderstanding of the process of induction’of cancer by radiation. it may also be usedto identify potential molecular markers ofradiation- induced cancer. There ispotential for using such markers of cancerto characterize exposure-cancer marker

res~nse relationships at low levels ofexposure, thereby reducing uncertainty inthe science used co make regulatory

decisions on low-level radiation.*

● A critical need exists to continueepidemiological studies of key poprdationssuch as the Japanese A-bomb survivors andnuclear industry workers. Further study of

these populations will provide data toimprove characterization of risks of low-Ievel radiation exposure. A comparison of

cancer risk estimates derived from studies ofthe A-bomb survivors exposed at very highdose rates with those derived from thestudy of nuclear industry workers, medical

630 252 2206 P. 10~

personnel, and ocher workers exposed at

much lower dose rates wiU help clarifydifferences in cancer risk related to *

differences in dose rate. There also is

need to be open to the potential ofidentifying radiation-induced adversehealth effects other than cancer as well as

beneficial effects.

G There was agreement that the

establishment of specific occupational andenvironmental radiation exposure limits

should involve both the incorporation ofthe best available scientific information

and POIICYjudgments. The individualregulatcny agencies operate under multiplestatutes rha[ differ in their requirements forachieving safety and the extent to which

implementation costs are considered in

establishing regulations. The variousregulatory agencies also vary in theirimplementation of these statutes.

c There is increased recognition thatcomparative risk assessment is a powerfultool for risk communication and prioritysetting. Congress apparently is veryinterested in the use of this tool for risk-

based decision-making. There is a need for

the development of a consistentmethodology for assessing and comparing

risks from various radiation and other toxicsources and the creation of an institutionalprocess for setting priorities and allocatingresources based on the real risk to publichealth and safety.

● There is great merit. in harmonizing theseveraf sramtes concerned with regulationof radiation and the approaches used by the

several agencies to regulate radiation.There also is a need m harmonize theapproaches used for radiation with thoseused for dealing with other toxicants.

SEP-2B-1999 14:19 US DEPT OF ENERGY

w

More consistentuse ofrisk-based decision-

making, including bcnefkcost,ri sk-betiefir,and costleffectiveness analysis, wouldbe beneficial.

● There is a conrinued need to improvecommunication with the general publicabout health risks from radiation exposure.

in communicating risks, there is a need coclearly distinguish between risk estimates

derived hm epidemiological observationsand risks estimated for lower levels ofexposure based on extrapolation.Special effort should be made co

communicate the uncertainty associatedwith any risk ewimaces.

~ There is a need to establish a Presidential-Congressional Commission to review

existing legislation and regulatory pmcticesacross all govemrnenc agencies involved inthe control of radiation hazards. The goalof the Commission should be torecommend potential improvements in

legislation and regulatoV practices. Theinvolvement of the highest levels of thefederal government is required becausemultiple government agencies are involved,

the costs associated with regulatorycompliance may be very large, and there issignificant public concern for adversehealth impacts of radiation.

630 252 2206 P.11

v

“ There is a need to identify opportunitiesand approaches for accelerating andincreasing the efficiency of acquisition anduse of information on the health risks oflow Ievel radiation exposure. This needcan be addressed by establishing a

rnukstakeholder committee wirhrepresentatives from the researchcommunity, government, and other

stakeholder groups. Tle committee wouldconsider oppotwmities for enhancing

epidemiological studies already in progressas well as potential new studies. Oneresponsibility would be co reach consensuson approaches to the anzdysis of key datasets thereby enhancing buy-in of the resulmof the analyses. A second responsibilitywould be to assure that the rapidlydeveloping new molecular biology

techniques are applied to obtainingimportant new information through theintensive study of human populations thathave had significant radiation exposure.

aiuauassmuslw acInm--RmlaDat mItas7

SEP-2B–1999 14:19 U!5 l)EPT OF ENERGY 63EI 252 22Et6 P.12

T w

II},. recommendati~ offered at the

wingspread conference represent initiativesih;ltcari betaken intoscientific and pubiic~t,dicy arenas to resolve important scientific,

~t.gllliitt)~, Lq$slativeandpublicpol icyissuesr~.j;mxlco health risks of low-leve~ radiation

~~posure. The ‘Wingspread recommendations

~“XII~ placed in *ree broad =tegoria (1)1{’..e,wchInitiatives, (2) Riik Assessment and

t:,m~rnunications, and (3) Coordimcion ofli,.g~datory Programs.

licsearch Initiatives

c:, m(erence participants identified severalr,.s~tttch needs including epidemiologicrd

atdicsof nuclear workersand otherp )~wlu[ionsexposed to low-level ~diation, andtltt>[~’cuIarbioIo~studi=. l-kwshodd such,t,tdies & funded? Which agencies (e.g. DOE,Ni :1) should support the research? How much

tiitding wi~lbe required? what is the Iikehhoodihm such research will answer critical scientificptddic policy questions regarding the health~i&>of low-level ionizing radiation? The,, u&*rence participants suggest the

,.,.1.Alishment of a rnultistakeholder committee~,,.i,!dress research questions. Who shouId the,.,,IWNitme report to? HOWshould it be

~irmwred?

Risk Assessmen@isk Communication]liiliatives:I%LSW&spread ConfmenCerecognized the

IWCJw improve risk communications with the! ~wblic and to develop a consistent methodology

/

(;,r .]~essing and comparing risks from various

r.uli~@ical and orher toxic sources. What,“rilNta should be used to prioritize risk? Should

4 .t mukistakeholdercommittee be established to

t

w priorities and skate resources for.,,~lltrol[ing particular tisks?

Coordination of Regulatory PrOgranwThe nuciearregulatoryprogram of the UnitedStatesinvolves several federaf agerrcies and “

departments. This difhe organizational schemehas led to overlapping and conflictingregulations and, in some instances, gaps in

regulatory coverage, The Conferencerecommends the establishment of a

Presidential-Congressional Commission toaddress these probIems and better coordinate

iregulations. Should this be a White HouseCommission with umbre[la authority over

.%

regulato~ agencies? What enabling legislation

will be needed to give the commission

appropriate authority and “teeth?” Who shouldrkreCommission report to and how will it

be funded?

These three broad areas cou}d adequaceiysetve as ropical areas for a subsequentWhtgspread conference.

SEP-28-1999 14:2EI US DEPT OF ENERGY 63EI 252 22t36 P. 13w

WPEU911W C8ilD9CTQfTIIECOMElUiiCEAUDCOWEREHCEPR06RM

Conduct of the Conference

The conference was organized to promote theexchange of information and discussion among

the participants. This was done through bothplenary and breakout group sessions. Allindividuals were urged co statetheirpersonalknowledge and opinions and to listen carefullym the input provided by other participants.The level of discourse expected requiredputting aside past Polemic or uncornp~omisingstatements and being very open, iistening,

questioning, weighing and seeking objective

and thoughtful evaluation of eve~ viewpoint.Facilitators who did not have professionalinterest in the subjecc material led panel and

breakout group discussions.

Several weeks before the conference, allparticipants were requested by the Progtam

Cotnmirtee to provide short position papers ontheir views of heaith risks of low-levei ionizing

radiation and related public policy matters. Theparticipants’ submissions represented a richcollection of views on che scientific and policyimplications of the low-level health effectsquestion. The coketed statements weredistributed to the participants for their review

prior to the conference.

Conference Program

The technical portion of the program began on

Friday, August 1, 1997, and concluded at noonon Sunday, August 3, 1997. All sessionsanddiscussionswezeheld at the WingspreadCotierence Center in Racine, WI.

Introduction Goals of the Conference

(Roger O. McClellan)

Session L Integrating Science and Policy(Chai~ Roger O. McClellan)Integrating Science and Policy to Estabhsh RiskRegulations that Proteet Human Health(Bernard D. Goldstein)

Session 11:The Science Base

(Chair Genevieve Roessle~ Moderator:Susan Wkhire)Health Effects of low level Rad@ion(WNiam J. Sehull)

Radiation Proteetiori Guidance andRegulations (Roger Cla&e)Current Concepts of Cancer (Curtis C. Harris)Quantitative Risk Assessment (Roy Albert)

Session Ilk Panel Dkeussion-ls the Linear,No-Threshoid Dose-Response RelationshipAppropriate for Regulating Low-Dose

Radiation?(Chaic Kenneth L. h40sstnarq ModeratocDebra L, Nudelman)Panelists Warren Sinc[air, Richard j. Vetter,Myron Pollycove, Rudi H. Nussbaum, and

Richard V Osborne

Breakout Group Questions1. Wh/stdoweknow&su curuer~kutlow

doses and &se ra~s j%rn Ituntun dies?From studies of kdwraqny animais? FYom

sttuiies using ceikdur and m&cu&r systems?

aquRB8sm,Itsssumaaa6 lfmsass- D

SEP–28-1999 14:20 US DEPT OF ENERGY 63El 252 22I36 P.14

r“ c,,

..

L ~rme&klim’fiof&ectobsmvatioaof excess cancer risk fkmn radiation exposureand the beginningof extrapolation breed onra&obio&ical &my ad knowiedgeofcancer biology?

3. What more eat we expectf%m fiturescientificinquiryasregardscancerriskuclowdose(s) md dose ra~(s)?

Samsa!f, MJlm 2,1$$1

Session IV Context for Development of Policy

(Chair: Chris Whipplq Moderator:Frank Landy)The Public’sPerceptionsof Risk(Neil Weinstein)Should Economic Considerations Matter?(John W. Baum; Margaret N. Maxey)Comparative Risk Considerations(George M. Gray)

Breakout Groups Questions

1. What does dte public expeccfrom 7egtdarioningeneral? What does dte public expect j%nradkztion regulations?

2. Should cost be u considerationin

&vefoping regtdatims? In developingradiation regulations?

Session V: Panel Discussion-Needs of

Legislators

(Chaix Martin Apple; ModeratorSusan Wiltshire) -Panelists: Douglas Walgren, Peter Lyons,

David Goldscon

Session W: Panel Discussion-Perspective ofthe Regulators(Chair: E. Gail de Planque: ModeratocSusan Wihshire)

Panelists: Greta Joy Dicus,

Lawrence G. Weinstock, William P. Dornsife.

Breakout Group Questions1. }s the presens fegisiationappropriatefix

regulatoryaction? If not, what changesareneeded in the kgisfation?

2. h the prewnt kgisfation appropriatelyirnpbn.enteri? If noc, whzt changes are neededin the irn#ernenrationprocess?

3. Are the ctmem regadationsapprofniate? 1/ not,what changesare needed?

sunday,Augwsi3,1997

Session VII: Synthesis-What Can We

GeneralIy Agree On and Where Do We GoFrom Here?

(Chaic L. Manning Muntzing Moderato~Debra L. Nudeknan)

Topics Include:1.2.

3.

4.5.6.7.

8.

our scientific knowledge nowhow science might better inform

future discussionsche current policy content

existing legislationpotential legislative changesmrrenc regulatory- implemencarionhow regulations might be developed in

the futurealtemarive paradigms for protecting

public health

SEP-28-1999 14:2B US DEPT OF ENERGY

e,,

APPEHBIItk SSIEKCEiSSUES

Ionizing radiation is a well-known humancarcinogen. During the past 50 years, numerous

epidemiological studies of human populationsexposed to radiation for medical, occupational

or military purposes have been conducted.From these studies, che Iowest dose associatedwith a statistically significant radiogenic risk is

about 100 mi!hsievert (10 rem)*. Thk minimaldose level is not known with certainty and maybe either as high at 200-300 millisievert (20-30rem) or as low as 10 millisievert (1 rem) based

on cancer in children foi!owing in utero

radiation exposure. It should be emphasized

rhat these are not threshold values.

Human radiogenic health effects (primarilycancer) are difficult to observe at low doses andlow dose rates because of che ksrge backgroundr-m of cancer and the probability of radiationeffects is small. Further, radiogenic cancerscannot be distinguished at this time from

cancers produced by other. carcinogens. Varioushost and environmental factors, including age,

gender, genetic factors, life style factors (e.g.,smoking, alcohol, diet ) may modify cancer risk.

The extent m which these factors influenceradiogenic cancer risk, particularly at low doseand low dose rates, is not known.

The incidence and mortality data from theJapanese survivors of che atomic bombings arethe most imporunc source of information on

human health ef%ets of ionizing radiationdoses in excess of abotrc 200 milhsievert (20rem) provide stacisrically significant andscienrificaily convincing evidence of cancerinduction, Below 100 millisievert (10 rem),evidence for radiogenic cancer risk is uncercain.

630 252 2206 P.15

e ...

occupational and medical exposures provideadditional data on humans particularly ac low

doses. For instance, a statistically significant

correlation has been reported between

childhood cancer and radiation doses in ttteroas low as 10 miIligray (1 rad). Comparisonsdradiationrisksderivedfrom [he survivorsof theatomicbomb@s (radiationdeliveredachighdose rate)and fromstudiesof oecupacionalormedicalexposures (protracted or fractionatedexposures) provide some evidence for a dose-

rate ef%ct.

Animal radiobioiogy studies have provided

important information about the shape of thedose response curve for radiationeareinogencsis. Such studies have also beenuseful in elucidating rhe role of host factors andmechanisms of carcinogenesis, dose-rate effecu,and effects of LET (linear energy transfer).

Cellular and molecular studies have beenimportant “inunderstanding the moleculaq

genetic and cellular basis of carcinogenesis.Such studies have ako been useful in further

tmderscandirtg the nature of DNA repair.Double-stranded DNA breaks Ieading tomutations in cancer-related genes appear to becritically important in carcinogenesis; repair ofthese breaks is not completely erro~ free.

The high dose-rate exposures in rhe JapaneseLife Span Study provide an upper limit onradiogenic cancer risk. Study of nuclear u~ilityworkers and Russian populations (e.g., Mayak,Techa River) who are exposed ro prcmacced

radiation are important in clarifying risk ofradiaciost delivered at low dose race in che range

* ILxiiarionUnits: \ rad is 100ergslgramofmdiationabsorbeddoseand I I&Zyis 1 jouk/ki&ram of rodiucionabsorhd dose, ! Gray isabow 100rals.

Sincea$ha and gumrnaridiacion have dijjirent hicdogicfdejfecriverws, fm exumple,theinterrwkd cornnumitykuodoptedqualiq focwr cowecrioww showdtediffinmccs.The two unb usedwhenradiationquuky differencesoreuccounwdfor areSievercsantirem (100 rem = i Sietmrt).{SeeRaalrerimrionfor jimher explanation.}

maImsm81mu tclwem$aasat@r#k3 n

US DEPT OF ENERGY

t .

e;wuntered environmencalb andtwcupmiortaliy. Rridiogeniccancer risks derived

fitxn study of these Popuhti- =n be used COR.fiw. time and dose-rate effectiveness factors

({3DREF) to modify risk estimar- basedon the

jqx~new survivordata.

The study of the Japanesesurvivorsof thewmic bomb should ~ continued- Alt~ghthe Life Span Study (LSS) has been of limited

ttsc(hlnes in quantifying rti ac doses lowerrhm about 100 milliGray (10 rem),

;Ipproximarcly 50 pe~cent of the Japanese$llrvivom are still alive and continued study ~f

IIWSCsurvivors will darifi the appropriateness,>(curwnc ~iskprojection models,staeiscicalUiwenaintiesin risk!and he im~o~~ce of we;*I1JgenderashOS~d~Ke~in~* Ofr~k

$mdics in molecular biolo~ and molecular@Itw}iologY wilI be fruifil in defining theMACCUIWpathogenesis of radiation-induced

cxnccr and identifyfig indi~id~a~ wirh ~inht’rltd predisposition for cancer. BothCt’lkdar or molecular biomarkers may be usefirl

w iodicatots of mdiation dose and effects. Such

630 252 2206 P.16

studies may a&soidentify radiation-specific

mutations in cancer-related genes.

Characterizing such tnurations will be -enormously useful in determining directlyradiationrisksat low dosesand dose rates.Molecular biology investigations (includingstudies of human diseases with repairdeficiencies and aberrations in cell cycleconttols) will a{so be useful in clarifying our

understanding of the early events incarcinogenesis and the nature of DNA repair asa modifier of radiogenic risk. The human

gertome projeec and related advances inbiomedical research may lead to opportunitiesfor identifying individuals who have increasedsusceptibility co radiation- indwed genetic

diseases including cancer.

Although cancer has been identified as themajor late-occurring health effect of ex~reco ionizing radiation at levels below those

producing acute effects, fkther scientific snidiesshcxdd be conducted on health effec= otherthan cancer, and on stimtdatory or beneficialeffects such as adaptive responses,

1 SEP-28-1999 14:21 US DEPT OF ENERGY 63Et 252 22E16 P. 17

f~

APPEmltkPmlitl P$UOYISSUES

TIM roles of policy makers and regtdattm intoday’s complex wciety are extraordinarily

difficult ortes. Equally difficult istherole of the

scientist whose results must inform theprocecmts of the public health and theenvironment. To make matters worse, thesecwo groups rare!y have the opportunity to

engage each other in straightfonvard dialogueconcerning their ~espective problems andconstraints and when they do they often fiidthey speak different languages. The challengeof designing radiation protection programs for

the public in light of the uncertainties in the

health effects of radiation ac environmentallevels is a perfect example of rhe problem.This conference offered a unique opportunity toexplore a mechanism for finding a bridgebetween the scierwific community and thepolicy makers and offers a remplate foraddressing similar issues.

This conference attempted to explore the issueat hand in a much more global context,

namely, how, in times of limited resources, canhuman life and health best be protected in theoverall sense. This of course was a tall order

since, in the larger sense, all thtngs that impacthuman health, including such diverse factors asthe availability of heahh care. the safety ofrransporration and the effects of pollucarm inrhe environment need to be considered. In theideal world, all people would be protected fTorn

a~l hazards. In the real world, ideally, limitedresources would be directed where they would

do che most good. An example presented tothe participants of the disparities in the

expenditure of funds for heaIth protection isshown in Table 1 fpuge 15).

To provide background, presentations weremade and dmussions he~d on the public’s

perception of risk, economic considerationsand comparative risk considerations. In this

context, the participants then addressed thefoliowing public policy issues

h present kgi.darionappropriatefarregulutmyaction?What changesare needed in I@dacion?

h f.b &gtSkZROll UppTO@’hdY impkntemd?What clumgesare needed in theint(dernenrarionprocess?

Are the cun-entreguhions appro~re?Whut changes are needed?

The group basically concluded that Iegisk+tionis this area is chaotic, with gaps,

inconsistencies, dual regulation and differingdeg~eesof specificity. In addition, the systemisbasicallyad hoe withdispersedcongressiomloversightand a kickof prima~ responsibility.The participantsrecommendedthat thecongressionalphilosophicalapproachneeded cobe changedand thathannonuation is neededamong the federalagencies.

hi terms of implementation, there was

essentially unanimous agreement chat seriousquestions exist as co whether the present

{legislationis appropriately implemented.Participmws recommended that implementationneeded to better take into account m@enefltanalysis, risk analysis and new scientificinformation. Again the group reiterated theneed for better harmonization and more

coordinated congressional oversight. Questionswere raised as to the extent current regulationswere achieving the objectives intended by

Congress. In this area they obsetved thatregulations are nonmnifotm among and within

agencies and do not always efflcierttlyimplement the recommendations of thescientific community. Regulatory auchori~ isspread among rnult ipIe agencies redting inboth gaps andoverlaps, regulations that maybe

often overly restrictive without associated

SEP-213-1999 14:21 US DEPT OF ENERGY

~630 252 2206 P.18

x

public heahh benefit, andmoney!ming spent Specific proposals for addressingthe aboveorI cleaning up ro excessively [ow levels relarive issues are covered in the accords. AS these

to natural background. proposais are implemented, there will be need -

to explore the issues in much more detail thanwas possible at the conference.

SEP-28-1999 14:22 US DEPT OF ENERGY 6Z43 252 2206 P.191~ >~

~meleral patjmm 617 6.8 (b) 11,000(o) 4.34(b) 4.04(d,!..-..-———. . .—-.. .—-,. .-— —k CfNEkmssollyufglwfe 1790 Assumedtobeo 25.1 14,000“’”–- [6) 4.15

itiwio~ 3898 20 141 41,300 3.95 4.62mitigation+10 yeorsmitlgah>. ..,”..-,..-—-...,------,.,..,....—.-.-..-—.-. —..-......,“....,,.,,. -—..—.—.— . . .. ... ...-..-.—-..... .. .,,,,. .-----..—-.-.-..,.,,....,.......Ink RASS10yems 1684 10 70 47,500 4.02 4.68mitigation+ ]0 yeaswosure—-——— .—., ... ,,.,.—.-. —... -.,.-..,. ,.,.,,,,,,,. ,,.,,,.,..,,.,,,.,..,.,-..-.—,- ... . . .>,,,.,. . ,.-.,,.,.,.,.,.,,.,. . . .........,,...-..—. ...._..-,., .... .. ..--—- .—.~ rrlfetectofswell upglode 176 /is5umedtob60 ____..._Y.!!!!!!!.... ..!!!! .....2!L.._10,,...,.,..,..,,,,,,,,,”,.,,F.,.....---.—_ ....,--,,.,,.,,,... .. .....—-....—...,...,.,-,...——#41R3hrks drnw~-, ............--!_. ............ “o -.-..,-,,.-,,.,,,,,.,,!;!?-___-- ....!!!!. !.........?E--..=.. . .....__..!"!_-. _..-..MomMdots10yewsm3i@ors ‘1021 10 70 78,400 423 .-..,,..”.,,.”.,.,.- .— -.——__...—— ——. ... ... .8&wSit@remerhim 1o1.3

................ ...... ...... . .. ...............?......... .-_–:.... .....?_.__.

kwmedtobeo 74100,000yeumofexpsure. .-_. ,-------- ., ,., ..,,----------- . .. . . .,,NW tiwfi~- OIKite 191.6 hsumedsobeo- ?55,% 860,000 “ (d) 5.93withnouwermoqaredtoBornwell

-4$’ ““6 -“”i ““ 9’”M0 ‘o ‘“”to hvirotofe.. .. .—.... ...-..- . .._-.-— .-.,-.,----,,... ,....,--- ._-,.--___”. Ah..- -...-.—._._. .- ,...,.,... ..

W.ii Assd~laO.-a.-,-.-,.-

33 l,67tMO0 (d) 6.22 “

effectivedoseequivht... ,,,.,. ...-—-...-.,,,,,,.,,...,.-.-,—.—— —— —-- _______________ .,...,.,,,-,...-. —_ _-.,,_-,...,-,—— -—._._ .,E&wsitefemediotiotl m ksuosedtobeO 74 3,200.000 (II 6.5110,000yem of expwte...- . . . ... .. ... . .. .. . ..... .,.,,,,.,.,,,.-.. ... ,,.-,.,.-,,,_._,.._._-... ,,.,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,___ .,-..-,.,-...-.__,.,..-,,.. .... .... . .. . . .. ... ,,,..,..,-----Patientrekse criteria[Ah2) 18.4 Asumedto tkao 63.6 3,450,000 (d) —6.54<I IIO*{30MOUI<0.0$m5vk! @ lm,,,.,,...,,...,,.... ,._-, ..._,,.. .. ....... .. .,.,.-..,-....-_____ .-,----- .......~.,.. .-.-____,... ,_-,,--_,_-_-....,...-._-__.__.,..URWdiscounted 94.b %? 32% 4,400,000 6.18 6.64—R&w site remedfare000yewsofeqwwe

16.5 hmled tobeo 74 4.5oo,ouo (6) 6.65

Clrrrrrorrxbsideremediition, .,........Y----------------- ,.,,,,,,,,..!:!?.........-..e-!?!..... ,>,..,.,?!:!--.....-..-!.!!!!?.... ....-...._-l!!..... ,.,,,.67r___&yy undiscounted 94.6 314 713 10.860,000 6.66 7.04,.,,,.--...— _,_. _.. _.. _ - ..-----,.,,.- .. .———— .-_ .-,,----Potientrekaseaiteria(MI) 1m5Y 9.3

——— ... .. . ..-.-— —_.ksumed10beO

(Immm)htitikqtitQ’, I 45,800,000 (d) 7.66

—— .... .8WRdemmisskningdisposal 0.0014 ““- AsslJnldtobeo ii.6 16,!00,000,000 (d] .10.2oRsiteWM2 mm mrrporedto Ewirawe.,.—.--..,-,,_...,...,,,.-.,- —-. ”...— —.. .. ... . ——.,. -.. .-...——. --”- —-.W/R +xOnrr9idhrirrjsd@asol 0.0014 Anumedtobeo 255.8 183,mo,o@,Mo (d) 11.2bonsitemoth2 m cow comiwdm Bomwel

Thepfeferfed0s mostreannabkoptionisinboldandundettirnedo) kswnesthoitheregulatedctmnmi costsamzero,whilevISlikelytheseaxiswm mud grearerthanthenqolatar’scask he actualCRAis

Ihl?probablyot lest onOIrhof mogn. greatel.die h CR41isotM ooeunitgmtei.b) _A[rn# >>ACregu d~t ~ ~~SO ~ =4~1/2 [AI/@eg)d) AssumingtbotA(lq* t th Pi,osdekted,oppraar.hesinfiniy

la

SEP-28-1999 14:22 US DEPT OF ENERGY

APPEMIBXD lEMuuEGulsTouYlssuE$

The U.S. Federal government has severalagencies and departments with regulatoryresponsibilities for radiation. These agencies

operate under dtfferent laws that may result inconflicting, duplicative or overlappingregtdations. For insmnce, Nuclear Regularity

Commission regulations limit exposure of the

unborn child of a worker to 500 millirembutexposu;esof membersof the generalpublic arerestrictedto 100 millirem per year. The

Environmental Protection Agency, NuclearRegulatory Commission and Department ofEnergy have all issued duplicative limits onpublic exposure to radiation.

The ‘wingspread Accords” on cancer risk from

exposure to low-level radiation contain thefdbwing sraritment

There is greatmeritin harmonizingthe severalmatures Coruemedwith regdaticmOfradiaionandtheappmchesusdb ythesevdqtpciestore-gukdiation. There aisoisaneedtoharmonizethe@roaches usedfor radiationwiththose usedfor deah~ M* OthRtoxicant$.More coruistemuseof risk-based&cision-

making,iTWMirtgbmej%wst, @AerIeflt, and

cost-effectivenessanalysis,QVOUMbehm#ciaL

Consistent with this concept is a report by theUS General Accounting Ofke, enritled“Nuclear Health and Safety Consensus on

Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public IsLacking,” dated September 1994 (GAO/RCED-

94-190). The GAO Report notes that for manyyears federal agencies have deveIoped radiationprotection standards co protect the public fromradiation exposure. For this reason, the GAOwas asked by the Senate Committee onGovernment /UFairs to examine theconsistency of federal agencies’ tadiationstandards. The GAO Report reached thefollowing conclusion

6302522206 P.20

T

Difjimnces exist in the limits on )w7nanexposureto radiationset byfederalagencies,

raising questions abouttheprecision,mdibikty, and overaileffecthenessof federalradiation standards and guidelinesin projecting

public health. T&n together, the mdiarkmstunckwdsthat have beendevelopedreflectalack of overall inremgency consensus on howmuch mdiat.ionrisk m Ae public isacceptable.

Bea.mse the standards have differentregulatq

appbztions and are bud on diffmentteclmicidmechodkgies, theescimaredrisk tothepubl icthatareassociat edwiththesewmdards and guidekes vary considerably.

OveTthe years, agencieshave not qeed oncaktkion methodsand radiationprotectionstmtegies w suppwr Aeir regulationsandgwidtdines. /% iIresult, agenciesmay engagem time-consumingdisagreementson whichprotectionlevelsare appropriateand at whatcosfi, and regulatorsmay haved#Wty inassessingclearlythe oved healthimpactsandcost-e#ktivene5s of theirradiation standards.

Difererues in mdiationhits and risks,caktdationmedttxls,and prouxtivestrarqiesrefkct thehistoricaltackof a unij%dfederal

framework fm protecting thepublicfiommdiationexposure. Historically,interapcy

combinationof radiationprotectionpolicy,pri~”pally throughthe EnvironmertdProtection Agency (EPA) and the presidential

(sic-exectu@ hunch) Committee onhreragenq RA”on Resszm#tand PoiicyCoordination, has &eenineffiit.ive. l%+consumingand potentially costly dualmguh.km of nuckxzrlicenseeshas &en anissuebetweenEPA and the NuclearReguhrny Commission (NRC), and

standardsfor major sources of radiationhavebeen lackingjor yeaTsbecauseinteragencydisagremenr have &&syedthe completion ofregukstions. EPA and NRC have recently

SEP-28-1999 14:22 US DEPT OF ENERGY

begun an t@3rt to “hannomzem char respectwecukdation rnedwdologiesand protectivestrategies in order to avoid &@licativeregukuitm. h remains to be seen wktkr thiseffort W-iibe susm”%edandbroadenedto inducieeffectiveparticipationby orb agencies...

The following table from the GAO Report

indicates the differences in federal radiationexposure limits (page 18).

The GAO Report states that the differences in

radiation exposure Iimits are in part due to lackof agreement on technical assumptions

underlying various standa;ds. Thus, there havebeen diflerenr calculation methods leading to

the differing limits. In addition, there are

different strategies that agencies have used for

630 252 22EK P.21

radiation standards and these tw have resultedin different limits. Finally, there has been alack of a unified framework for federal radiationprotection and therefore agencies have gone

their own way in radiation protection.

While the report encouraged increased

cooperation among federal agencies, it alsorecognized that this has not been successfid in

the paw. Therefore, the GAO states thatCongressional reconsiderat~n of the merits ofthe present federal interagency framework forformulating and coordinating radiationprocecticm policy maybe warranted.

Other tabies in the GAC) Report deal with

fderal radiation exposure limits and withcomparative radiation risks.

SEP-28-1999 14:23 IX DEPT OF ENERGY

9.

.,

ToW 2. Oiffering!ederal!imitsonpubliirodiahnexposum(U5GAORepart140.GAO/RCED-94MO)

630 252 2206 P.22

mimsatedLWhe RisksmldardorGuideliao/Agowy lilsdl of PsomatuseCuxor Beet&

Gouesafpuklklladf/NRC 0.1mm/yr lin300

low-levelwash@t 0.025mm/yT 1in1,000

Isdoesrodan/fPA ‘--.—... ..—

4 pitawesperx(oncenlrnliofl Ikni$ lin40

Unsdsms”rwfTallkqs/EPA--- ._,.,,.,.,....-...—

Rodium‘— 5 pkmlk?sp IJmm““’—”” lins($-....,. . ,.,,..-—— — . . . ......- —-. -”,-. ... ——.— .__..., .—

Radon 20@*@pm*~ lin14,00@setondmlsaselah

-——- . .. . ,., -..,--- —._. -.., ,-. -. —... . .. . . ----- .-—...——— —-—.—--.,-. . .. . ..Umniurrrhi @/EPA 0.025mrm/yl. 1 in 1,000

SpewH/ tmswank waste dispsaf/EPA

Anpathwy 0.015rem,lyr 1 in 2,000

Gmundvmtw 0.004lem/yr. i m7,000-#,- .,,.,,..-—.

conlOiflment.. —.-— —.. . .—

1,ooodeadlsin 10,000yems 1in36,0iW

fit paLhr/Ef!4-..--—. —

0.01mns/yr. 1 in3,000

fkkddagwater/EPA@pesed}———.,... . ,,,,,. ..-..,,.,-,— ,,-—..,. -,,!.,,,,...,.-,.,,.-—— —— ....,.-.,-.-,-, ..

Rodium“ 20 picomtiesperIi?eftoncenlnstbnIiit 1 in 14,000

Radon 300picomliesPeJliterWlmnlrMonIirss# I in 5,000

Betu/phod 0.004mm/yr, I m7,000

—%plhmdshn/IPA-. ——--. —-—

Riskmwgaatsd 1 in ls,oooto

w rolti~ 1 in 1,500,00CJ

0)

b)d

d]

e)

f)

!$

lsaoemes$smee’esof ~oememm

SEP-28-1999 14:23 US DEPT OF ENERGY. 63i3 252 22Ei6 P.23

APIWBIXE BACK6ROU~UTEWIHIE

Thefollowing pub!ished papers and repotm prov!de important background information conces-rmg

issues explored at the WingspreadConference.

Abelson, P.H. 1994. Risk assessmentof low levelexposures.Science265:1507.

Academie des Sciences (France), 1997. ProblemsAssociatedwith the Effects of Low Doses of IortisingRadiations. Report No. 38 of the French Academyof Sciences. Paris:Lavoisier.

Adviso~ Commirtee on Radlologieal Ptvceccion(ACRP). 1996. BiologicalEflects of Low DosesofRadiation at LowDose Rare.ACRP.18. Otzawa,Qnada Atomic Energy control Board of Canada.

Cardis,E., Gilbert, E., Car@nter, L., Howe, G.,Kate, L, Am-strong, B., Baa], V., Cow-per,G.,Douglas, A., Fix, J., Fry,S., Kaldor.J., Lave, C.,Salmon, L., Smith, P., WI&, G. and WIggs, L.[1995). “Effects of low doses and low dose rates ofexternal ionizing radiation: Cancer mortaiiry amongnuclear industry workers in dwee countries,” Ro&t.Res. 142, 117-132.

Domsife, W. P. and Bhactacha~a, A. 1998. ARisk Based Methodology for Assessing the Efficacyand Priorities for the Control of Various RadiacicmSources, Heoidr Physics, 74:190-215.

Goldman, M. 1996. Cancer risk ef low levelexposure. Science 271:1821 .1S22.

International Commission on RadiologicalProtection(ICRP). 1990. 1990 Recommendationsof the International Commission on R~iologiealProtection. lCRP Publication 60, Oxford:Pergmon Press.

. . . Mills, W. A., Flack, D.S., Arserdt, EJ., and Conti,

:1E.151989. A Compendium of Major U.S. RadiationProtection Standards and Guidw. Legal andTechnical Facts. Oak Ridge Associated UniversitiesReport OWU 88/F.l 11. Oak Ridge, TN: OakRidge Associated Universities, Inc.

Mossmarr,K. L., M. Goldman, E Masse, et al. 1996.Radiation risk in perspective. The Health physics!%ciery’sNewdetrer XXIV(3k 3.

National Council on Radiarion Protection and~easuremems (NCRP). 1993. Risk I%irnaresforRadiation Protection. NCRP Report 115.Bethesda, MD: National Council on RadiationProtection and Measurements.

National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB).1995. Risk of Radiation-khtced Cancer at LowDoses and Low Dose Rates for Radiation ProtectionPurposes. Documents of the NRPB, Volume 6(1).(Xilton, Didcoc. Oxort: NRPB.

National Research Council. 1990. Health E#ectsof Exposure to LowLevelsof bnizing RadiationBEIRV Report. Washington DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Fhsssbaum,R-H. and Kohnlein. 1994. lncorssisrenciesend open questions repdii iowk health Meetsof ioniring radiation. ErrviromnenudHealthPerspectkm102 [8): 656467.

Pierce, D.A., Shimizu, Y.,Preston, D.L., Vaeth, M.and Mabuchi, K. Studies of Mortality of AtomicBomb Survivors. Report 12. Part 1. Cancer 1950-1990. Rut&t. Res. 146,1-27, 1996.

Pollycove, M. 1997. The rise and h}] of the linearno-threshold theory of radiation carcirtogenesis.Nuclear News 40(7): 34-37.

Ra&e. O.G.. “’Introduction to Internal RadiationDosimetry”, pp. 1-26 (Chapter 1) in IntendRdiutiorrDosirnq (0.G. Raabe, Ed.), MedicalPhysics Publishing, Madison, WI (1994).

Rrxkwell, T. 1997. What’s wrong with beingcautious? P.htckarNews 40(?): 28.32.

Sinclair, W.K. “Epidetniologieal Studies andRadiation Protection. The Porential Value of a hkwStudy at US. Nuclear Power Plants.” Erwiron. lndi20,611-617,1994.

Sinclair, W.K. National Councit on RadiationProtection and Measurements (NCRP). 1997.Uncertainties in Fatal Cancer Risk Estimates Usedin Radiation Protection. NCRP Report 126,Bethesda. MD: National Council on RadiationProtection and Measurements.

United Nations %iertrific Committee on the Effectsof Amtnic Radiation. 1994. Sources and EtYectsofIonihg Radiatiom UNSCEAR 1994 Report to theGeneral Assembly with Annexes. New York:UN.

Unired States General Accounting CMiCC. 1994.Nuclear Heakh and Safe~. Consensus onAcceptable RrsdiarionRisk to the Public is Lacking.GAO ReportGAO/RCED-94-190.Washington,DC GeneralAccounting Mice.

SEP-28-1999 14:24 US DEPT OF ENERGY.

9).

.,

630 252 2206 P.24

Or.CutriaC.HatrisNBtioM!Gmer ktatitutcBcrhcada, MD

Dr.MyrorIPollYcoveUS Wdear ReplatIw Gmtmiasion

Rcdrvilk, MD

Dr.Dak L. Ptaamn~s&i:EFFR=ar& l%mdacion

or.RoyAbmtRIvemityd Cincinnmicinctrmati, OH DL Dwid Hoa[

Medical University d %ur.h CarolinaCharleston, SC

Or.Jcmnrc Puckinu.S. Environmental Pmtcctmn &OCYWadiiiagtom DC

Dr.Madn A. AP#CCmmcil of Sciemiftc SocieW PmaidcmaWdthgwn. !X Dr. LaekaKheifeu

Ekctzic Power Research lmtittitePaloAlto,CA

h. GmwieveS.RoesslerPmkor Errrentu.vUrivemiry of Rods

Hylk, MNDCJolm $, Ba.mBtookha.cn National MOmUJWUp!on, NY Dr. Frank}. bd

~&cQcQk and .k.cciata Inc.,

th.Leonard SaganEiecrtic Power Research hiatiturePalo Alro, @Mr. Ralph Hccdle

Nuckac EJIergy[twmmWazhingm, lx Mr. joel 0. Wcnau

U.S. 14uckar Regulatory QrmmiiionWaah{~on, DC

IX, William ]. !&IdUni.en.ity of Texw at Hou&nHomon.mm. Buren G. Bmneu

United Nariom %entific &rmniuee on&t EffecrsofAtomic Wdi@WM

Vienna. Ausrna

Dr, Pc- LyonsStare u. s. Cotwrea$W8ah@On, DC

Dr. Richard SctlowBrookhaven Nationalbk-atoq

Upton, NYDc Srevm BrownRii of Radiition and Chemical~=~ds (RZC2)

DC Maiganx MaxeyUniversity of Texa? M AustinAustin, TX

Dr. Warren K. SinclairNarional Councd cm Radiation

Protecticm and McnsuremcrmBe&s& MDD. hgu O.McClekn

Chemicalhduatry Institute of ToximhR~h Triangle Pa?ir,NC

m Roger 1+ ClarkeFbtiOM~Radiilosical proWCCiOP kud

b, Unimd Kingdom

WYDr. James SmIrhCentcm for Diaca5c Conuol

Atknra GADC Michael A. McMmaminUMDhlJ-RobertWood]Amon

MedicalS&cdPiacrmnmy,Nj

Mr. WIllhttt M. MillerVitgirriaDepartment of ASIXUkUR

and Conmlmet SemiasRichmond,VA

Dr. E. Gail de PlanqueFomrerQnmniatimtcrU-S. Nuclear Regulatory ChnrnmionPorornac,MD

Dr. Atthur UptonEnvironmental and Ckcupmiond Health

%iancs ltwiruteP&cawsy, NJ

The Honorable Grera Joy DicusCamnhari6netU.S. Nuclear R@afotY Corn-IonWa5hingt0n, DC

Dr. Richard J. VetterMayo ChicRocker, MN

Dr.Kmncrh L. MosmanArimna Stare UniversityTempt, AZ

MCWilliam P.DomaifePetuuy]vanie Drpartmenr of

Envimnmcntal PmteetionHamiabq(, PA

Thc Honorable Doug Walgran~%l--nM;~bet of Congres

DLJamesMuckerhetde%hCC8&,p&mCChK h$thitC Dr. Neil Weinstein

M (2Jl~, RIJrgemUnivem@NcwBmrmvi&Nj

Dc. Marvin GoldmrmU&em:: of CalifOmia at Davi3

Mr. L. Manning Munrz.ingMorgan,bwiE & BC4ut LLPWediingmn, DC

Mr. Luwmncc G. wcirs(ockU.S. Environmerd Projection AgencyW~hingmn, DC

&. Bmnard D. GokteinUMDNJ.Roberr Wood }oh’Kon

Medical SchcdP-mvaY, NJ Ms. Debra L. NIuMmmn. ~.

RES3LW Inc.wa6hi@cq DC

Dr. C%risG. WhippleIG KuiscrOakland, CA

Dr. Dad GokistomseaUs. COIWWWarhiionr cc

Dr.JohnGmhamAmetian Nuclear &ckcyGmerrwoodWkge, CO

Dr. Rudi H. Nussbaum~& Sea: Unlvemiq

Dr. Richatd V. OsborneAtorttlcEnergy of &nada LimiradChalk River, Gnmrio, Csnada

m. swanW&&e~Ka&&e&&ciaws, Irrc

Or. Paul L. ZiemerPurdue Unhmr5iryWm Lafayette, IN

Dc George M. Gnryklarwd School d Public Healthslxton. MA Dr.CadPaperiello

u.S. I&clew ReguJamvGtnmkmooWathingmn, DC

TOTRL P. 24