The federal approach -to radiation issues n e Committee on Interagency Rudiation Research and Policy Coordination addresses these issues
Alvin L. Young V.S. Department of Agriculture Wnshington, D.C. 20250 George I? Dix Lbmminee on Interagency Radiation Research
and Policy Coordination Wnshin,?ton, D. C. 20036
Formal interagency coordination action on radiation issues began with the creation of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) in 1959 “to advise the President with respect to radiation matters.” The FRC then consisted of representatives of six federal agencies. When EPA was created in 1970, the FRC was abolished and many of its functions were transferred to EPA. Today representatives from those six agencies as well as 12 others comprise the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC). After FRC’s demise, several shortlived efforts were initiated in order to coordinate radiation maners among federal agencies of the executive branch. These included, but were not limited to, the formation of the Interagency Task Force on the Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation (1978), the Interagency Radiation Research Committee (1980). and the Radiation Policy Council (1980)( I ) . These efforts failed to establish effective interagency coordination. Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) wrote a letter to George A. Keyworth U, the president’s science adviser, in which Glenn cited “the anarchy that existed at the time with respect to the setting of [radiation] standards
I’ /
This article not subject to U.S. copyright. Published 1988 American Chemical Society
Environ. Sci. Technol.. Vol. 22,No. 7 , 1988 733
9
regulations, and standards radiation compensation
records, and control emergency preparedness B cleanup standards focd irradiation
and policy.’’ CIRRPC was established on April 9, 1984, by Keyworth under the authority of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) (Figure 1). CIRRPC is made up of two components. The first is a policy committee that consists of subcabinet level and senior policy level representatives; it identifies, sets priorities for, and seeks resolution of federal radiation issues by acting on requests from the president’s science adviser and federal agencies. The second is a science panel that consists of senior radiation scientists from each member agency. CIRRPC acts as a coordinator, clearinghouse, and evaluator of the federal research effort on designated radiation research projects; it coordinates radiation policy among agencies, resolves policy conflicts, and advises on the formulation of broad radiation policy. CIRRPC’s membershh currentlv consists of 18 agencies th’at have skcific responsibilities or interests in radiation research or policy. Its structure and membership are shown in Figure 2. The chairman of the committee reports to the director of the president’s Office of Science and Technoloev -, Policv (OSTP). The scope of CIRRPC’s activities on radiation policy and research coordination is illustrated in Figure 3. CIRRPC conducts some activities in the area of nonionizing radiation that comes from radio, television, microwaves, and radar emissions; these emissions comprise the middle to lower ranges of photon energy, wavelength, and frequency. Most of CIRRPC’S activities, however, deal with the higher end of the spectrum, in which higher energy or ionizing radiation can break molecular 734 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 22,No. 7, 1988
bonds. This radiation includes X-rays, gamma rays, and laser photons. It also comprises nonphotonic radiation such as neutrons and alpha particles (helium nuclei) as well as heavy nuclei, which are high linear energy transfer forms of radiation that can damage biological systems. CIRRPC’s mandate is to coordinate radiation matters between agencies, evaluate radiation research, and furnish advice on the formulation of radiation policy. Thus at its first meeting, on May 25, 1984, CIRRPC requested that first each of its member agencies, and later appropriate congressional committee chairmen and members (including Sen. Glenn) be asked to identify the radiation issues of importance to them. National professional organizations interested in radiation matters received similar requests and responded. In December 1984 the CIRRPC executive committee organized a series of meetings with representatives of the senior staff of each member agency. These officials discussed specific matters affecting their agenci programs, identified problem areas, and provided valuable insights into the majbr issues that affect the federal government operations of interest to CIRRPC. Moreover, because Congress and national professional societies later provided their recommendations independently from those of the federal agencies, a representative cross section of national political and technical opinion also was obtained. One view common to several federal agencies, congressional respondents, and professional societies was that the broad U.S. policies, regulations, and standards that form the basis for national radiation protection standards have not been systematically re-
viewed and updated since 1960. This, the officials agreed, was urgently needed.
Federal radiation policy The radiation issue concerns the need for consistent federal radiation policies, regulations, and standards that reflect the best available science and are not driven solely by political considerations or constituencies. One of CIRRPC’s primary thrusts has been to help determine the current ionizing radiation dose to the US. population from all sources. In 1985 the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), consisting of the most prominent US.radiation scientists, reconsidered its overall effort in this area and, with CIRRPC’S support, undertook to evaluate and report on the radiation exposure from all sources to the US. population (3). A second thrust was to request that the National Academy of Sciences review the effects of low levels of ionizing radiation on the US. population. This study is a continuation of the series of studies on the biological effeclc of ionizing radiation known as the “BEIR” studies (4-7). This current effort, identified as BEIR V, will be completed in early 1989. CIRRPC asked its member agencies to comment on EPA’s internal draft, “Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies for Occupational Exposure,” for the Office of Management and Budget before its final issuance in March 1987. This new guidance document replaces the federal radiation worker guidance published in 1960 (8). CIRRPC has compiled fact sheets on federal radiation protection standards as well as guides that describe the legal,
now expired, provided indemnity of up to $7 billion for nuclear power plants; Congress is now debating raising that limit to $70 billion. To keep all agencies informed of federal participation in international organizations, CIRRPC issued a report, “Member Agency Participation in International Radiation Activities,” in 1986 and updated it in 1987 (9). In the report, several agencies had commented that it was difficult to identify the individuals who represent the United States at various international meetings and that U S . representatives often were unable to present unified U S . positions on radiation. The report lists the international organizations in which member agencies participate, their assigned personnel, and information on international meetings on radiation.
scientific, and technical bases for the standards. These fact sheets are expected to be useful in clarifying the rationale behind federal radiation standards and guides. Another method for keeping the member agencies informed is a concerted effort to monitor Congressional legislation on radiation and related top-
ics. Quarterly and annual reports are issued to provide a comprehensive up date of Congressional action. This has been especially beneficial because Congress and the administration have worked on such crucial issues as the selection of a high-level nuclear waste repository and on efforts to reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. That law,
Radiation compensation Compensation procedures for injury caused by radiation have profound policy, legal, and scientific implications that must be taken into account by federal agencies that adjudicate or award compensation for radiation injury claims. The Senate Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Committee of Environment and Public Works and the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee held joint hearings on compensation for radiation-caused injuries in 1985. CIRRPC participated in these hearings. Individuals claiming injury from radiation exposure and other interested parties such as jurists, profes-
x-raaiati d radiation
I
in Hz (cycles per s
Environ. Sci. Technrrl.. Wl. 22,NO.7. 1988 735
Using radioepidemi
roid nine Years later at age 24.
R = F(D).T(Y).K(A,S
0.0535 x 2 =
sional societies, insurance companies, environmental groups, the medical community, and the nuclear industry also had vital interests in this issue. The Senate subcommittee had assigned to the Department of Health and Human Services the task of developing radioepidemiological tables, or probability of causation (PC) tables, to estimate the probability of causation of radiogenic cancer for various organs or sites of the human body. The Veterans Administration (VA) is especially interested in the applicability of the radioepidemiological tables to veterans’ claims for injuries alleged to have resulted from radiation exposure. In 1985 the VA and the departments of Justice, Defense, and Energy were faced with more than $20 billion in potential claims from veterans and civilians exposed to radiation from early atmospheric nuclear weapons tests in Nevada and the Pacific. Radioepidemiological tables use the individual‘s radiation dose to a particular organ or site and the individual’s characteristics such as sex, age, occupation, and personal habits as inputs to PC equations. A sample computation of an individual’s PC of radiogenic cancer for the thyroid gland is shown in the box above. The CIRRPC Science Subpanel on Radioepidemiological Tables has reviewed conditions and uncertainties for which the PC tables may be applicable. One possible use is as a prejudicial screening method based upon estimated radiogenic cancer probabilities (10).A CIRRPC Policy Subpanel is consider736 Environ. Sci. Technol., Val. 22. No. 7, 1988
ing the potential impact upon government, industry, and courts if the PC Tables are adopted by the judiciary for adjudication radiation claims. It is particularly important to clearly define limitations of the tables-especially the uncertainties inherent to the PC calculation-as well as to provide guidance concerning application of the PC tables to high linear energy transfer (LET) radiations and internally deposited radionuclides. The subpanel also is considering the potential impacts on federal activities and responsibilities resulting from the use of the PC tables in injury compensation cases. Final reports are expected to be available in early 1988.
Radon A keen national interest currently is focused on indoor radon in U.S. homes and workplaces. For a decade, outdoor radon has been the concern of the government; more than $1 billion has been committed for the cleanup of uranium mill tailings and residues from mining, milling, and processing of uranium, phosphate, and metal ores in the United States. Federal agencies and Congress have been concerned about specific populations, including native Americans, uranium miners, other underground miners, and residents of areas near active and inactive uranium and phosphate mills. A great deal of national concern is concentrated on indoor radon exposures in eastern states such as Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. There, radon concentrations in houses have been found to exceed both federal indoor remedial
action levels and outdoor levels that are comparable to those used by the federal government to trigger remedial actions on uranium mill tailings and uranium residues. The NCRP has estimated the average annual effective dose equivalent to individuals in the U.S. population to be 360 millirem (3.6 millisieverts). Of this amount, 200 millirem (2 millisieverts), or 55%, comes from exposure to radon and its decay products, exclusive of the lung dose from smoking. For the 50 million U S . smokers there is an additional exposure to radon daughter products in tobacco, which may yield an effective dose equivalent to 1300 millirem (13 millisievert) for the average smoker. Figure 4 shows the percentage contribution of various radiation sources to the total average effective dose equivalent to the U S . population. CIRRPC established a Science Subpanel on Radon Protection Problems and Health Effects in February 1985 and published its report in August 1986 (ZI). The purpose was to develop a federal consensus on scientific issues regarding environmental radon exposure, with particular emphasis on the magnitude of health risks, the assessment of national exposures, and the state of knowledge regarding abatement measures. The subpanel identified five important issues on indoor radon that require attention: the adequacy of estimates of health risk ascribable to indoor radon exposure; the basis for standards and guidance for remedial actions; the ability to predict high indoor radon levels; the extent to which U S . population exposures are known; and guidance on remedial and mitigation measures. In an effort to formalize radon policy, officialsof CIRRPC’s member agencies gave briefings on indoor radon to the president’s science adviser on May 8, 1986. The science panel report had been released, but the acceptance of its recommendations depended on the development of a CIRRPC policy report and on adequate funding for research by federal agencies. The report, completed in January 1988, concluded that federal agencies were indeed addressing the problems of indoor radon identified in the science panel report and were being responsive to state and local needs.
Nonionizing radiation The issue of nonionizing radiation exposure as a potential public health hazard has been raised by a number of federal agencies and national organiza-
tions. The extensive and increasing use of equipment and consumer products that generate various frequencies of nonionizing radiation in telecommunication?., electrical power generation, defense, and medical practice may be causing the levels of exposure of the population to nonionizing radiation sources to increase. The magnitude of this additional exposure and potential health consequences are not well known in the workplace, the home, or the environment. Nonionizing radiation is in the middle to lower range of the radiation frequencies shown in Figure 3. Radiofrequency radiation effects, including those from microwaves, radar, and ultrahigh-frequency radiations came to the forefront several years ago when the U.S. embassy in Moscow was subjected to intense tluences of this type of radiation, as was reported extensively in the national media. More recently, the protection of workers and research-
ers from laser radiation and the possible nonthermal effects of nonionizing radiation have evoked interest (12). More is known about the biological effects of ionizing radiation than about the effects of nonionizing radiation and associated phenomena such as magnetic fields on humans.
High-LETradiation The biological effects of high-LET radiation such as neutrons, alpha particles, protons, and heavy nuclei are not as well understood as those of low-LET radiation such as X-rays and gamma rays. Areas of interest to federal agencies that conduct high-LET radiation research include space flight, medical treatment, high-energy physics, and industrial and military activities. HighLET radiation studies are important to researchers and workers exposed to neutrons as well as to persons in the United States who are exposed to alpha particle-emitting radon daughters.
FIGURE 4
Contributionof radiation sources to effectiveW Terrestrial
Medical X-rays
8% CasmK:
8%
\ "
11%
Nuclear medicine
~
3
Consumer ~
pmducts 3
%
-Other < 1% Occupational 0.3% Fallout ~0.3% Nuclear
Y
fuel cycle 0.1%
Miscellaneous 0.1% Man-made 18% 0 Natural 82%
TABLE 1
Names and quantities of ionizing radiation QuantIl y
Cunent ""It
SI ""It
Specla1name for SI unit and symbal
Exposure
roentgen(R)
C'kg'
-
Absorbed dose
rad (rd)
and symbol
Dose
equivalent Activity
rmntgen
equivalent man (rem) curie (Ci)
(%
The Science Subpanel on High-LET Radiation was established in December 1985 to keep abreast of relevant review and assessment activities wried out by the national and international organizations that address high-LET radiation research or protection issues. The subpanel serves as an information focus and coordination point for federal agencies concerned with high-LET research activities, and it identifies directions in which high-LET research should go. The subpanel also reviews proposed agency research agendas related to high-LET radiation, as requested by CIRRPC member agencies. In response to a request from the Department of Energy, the subpanel assembled a task group to review the department's proposed research plan for establishing relative biological effectiveness factors for neutrons (relative to the effects of X-rays or gamma rays). The task group, which includes members of the European scientific community, met this spring to develop plans for a research program aimed at prcviding a basis for more precise determination of the biological effectiveness of neutron radiation. Such research will emphasize the determination of endpoints relevant to the protection of human health. The task group's objectives include the evaluation of information and uncertainties associated with the biological effectiveness of neutron radiation and the organization of a multidisciplinary research program to MITOW the identified research gaps and to reduce the uncertainties. Such a task requires defining the scientific questions to which answers are needed, the critical uncertainties that prevent agreement, and the research approaches that will address these questions and uncertainties. The task group's report is expected in mid-1988. The Subpanel on the Scientific Basis for Radiation Protection Standards has examined the International Commission on Radiological Protection's (ICRF') Publication 26 on Radiation Protection to identify those scientific issues and recommendations that might warrant evaluation of its scientific basis (13). A number of issues have been identified, but the initial topic addressed was the recommended change in the quality factor for neutrons by an increase of a factor of 2. The subpanel's report summarizes supporting experimental research; analyzes the available data on leukemia, genetic effects, breast tumors, and lung tumors; and tentatively concludes that the scientific basis for increasing the quality factor for neutrons is not yet definitive. These conclusions are consistent with those reached by equivalent panels in Canada Envimn. Sci. Technol., MI. 22, No. 7, 198B 737
structure characteristic of U.S. reactors. The Chernobyl accident, however, caused 31 known fatalities and reRadiation measurements leased a large amount of harmful Federal agencies and professional so- fission products, measured in tens of cieties have cited the need for accurate millions of curies, to the atmosphere. radiation measurements in the work- These materials contaminated hundreds place, hospital, and environment. They of square kilometers of the Ukraine as have explained the necessity of quality well as foodstuffs and water supplies control and calibration of dosimetric in- (15). The Chernobyl reactor did not struments, more comprehensive re- have the containment vessel and other cording of individual radiation expo- safety features that are required by the sures, U S . radiation measurement Nuclear Regulatory Commission for all units consistent with those used world- U S . reactors. The emergency preparedness plans wide, and a better means to control occupational radiation exposure. and posture of the Shoreham Nuclear One salient example of the need to Power Station on Long Island, N.Y., b o w an individual’s total radiation and the Seabrook Station in New dose history is seen in the radioepide- Hampshire are subjects of controversy miological tables discussed earlier. For widely reported in the national media. instance, if the individual’s workplace This controversy has led to proposals in dose is not entered in the PC equation Congress that indemnification under but the individual’s medical diagnostic the Price-Anderson Act for nuclear acor therapeutic dose is entered, or vice cidents by utilities be raised from a versa, this would lead to an erroneous level of $700 million to a maximum of PC estimate. One of the nation’s radio- $7 billion. CIRRPC has become intergenic cancer experts, who also is a ested in supporting amendments to the CIRRPC Science Panel member, has Price-Anderson Act at the request of made a good case for a national occupa- Science Adviser George Keyworth. tional exposure registry. It is estimated that there are 930,000 U.S. workers Food irradiation Alternative methods are needed for who wear radiation dosimeter badges. The CIRRPC Subpanel on Metrica- the removal of pests and pathogens tion, established in January 1985, has from food, primarily because many published its report, “SI Metric Radia- carcinogenic or mutagenic chemical fution Units” (14). A comparison of Ra- migants and other chemicals used for diation Units is shown in Table 1. pathogen and pest control have been The subpanel’s recommendation to banned. This has induced Congress to CIRRPC for U S . policy on the use of increase federal funding for food irradimetric radiation units is as follows: Be- ation. Congress has provided funds cause the use of the International Sys- through fiscal year 1988 for food irraditem of Units (SI) for radiological quan- ation demonstration projects in Alaska, tities is increasing internationally but is Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Oklahoma, and not currently widely accepted in the Washington. States and regional develUnited States, and because current opment authorities participate in these U.S. policy is to plan for the increasing projects under cooperative agreements voluntary use of SI units domestically, with the U S . Department of Energy. Food irradiation is the first major it is recommended that it be U S . policy to use dual radiation units in federal new technique for food processing and activities. It is recognized, however, preservation that has been developed that the use of dual units is undesirable during the past two decades. In 1986 in certain operational situationsbecause the U S . Food and Drug Administraof economy or safety. In such situa- tion promulgated regulatory guidelines, tions, agencies may adopt the system of one of which requires the labeling of units that best meets their needs. The irradiated food (16). Figure 5 shows the president’s science adviser transmitted logo for irradiated foods required by CIRRPC’s report to the Department of FDA. The University of Washington MediCommerce for action on Dec. 31, cal Center was the first to prepare irra1986. diated food for cancer patients who Emergency preparedness have impaired immune systems. This Officials of federal and state agencies procedure prevents life-threatening and of electric utilities have come to bacterial or viral infections. Irradiated recognize the need for more detailed food also is routinely fed to astronauts emergency guidelines and standards, when they are in space (17). More recently, food irradiation has especially in the aftermath of two major mishaps. Despite its seriousness, the been approved by the U S . Department Three Mile Island accident resulted in of Agriculture for use in controlling the no fatalities, and harmful radionuclides worms, found in pork, that cause trichiwere trapped in the reactor containment nosis. Regulations still are being develand the United Kingdom and by the European Nuclear Energy Agency.
738 Environ. Sci. Technol., Voi. 22, NO.7 , 1988
LaDei require0 DY r u A lor irradiated foods
OurCF:
U S. F m d and Drug Administration
oped, but limitations exist. One such limitation involves doses. Doses are not to exceed 100,000 rd (1000 gy) to inhibit the growth and maturation of pests and pathogens and to extend shelf lives of fresh foods. Doses are not to exceed 3 million rd (30,000 gy) to destroy pests and microorganisms in dry or dehydrated aromatic vegetable substances such as spices or herbs. Food irradiation also has been suggested for controlling salmonella and campylobacter contamination of some fresh U S . poultry products. Large-scale food processing with radiation has not been carried out as r a p idly in the United States as it has been overseas, where 28 countries have a p proved some applications of food irradiation. Yet a number of commodities-primarily medical goods-are routinely irradiated in the United States (seebox at right). Although CIRRPC is not actively involved in this national issue, several agencies have shown interest in CIRRpc’s potential contributions. Radioactive waste The nuclear energy, nuclear medicine, and national defense sectors of the U S . economy generate high- and lowlevel wastes. At issue are the disposal of wastes in which the concentration of radionuclides is relatively low-such as laboratory and power reactor trash and mill tailings-and the control, transportation, and storage of materials that have significantly higher radionuclide concentrations. The latter are found in defense wastes and will make up thousands of tons of spent fuel elements from more than 100 U S . nuclear power plants. The two types of wastes require significantly different methods of treatment, disposal, packaging, and transportation. The issue of siting a national high-level waste repository is of major concern to the authorities and public in the states of Nevada, Texas, and Washington; Congress has tabled several bills on the subject. A significant and costly problem to the consumer is low-level hospital wastes generated by nuclear medical
roaucts irraaiatea
in the United States andages eakers, bottles, and containers ‘ladderirrigation sets ‘lankets slwdagar and plasma k x l lancets #onejoints
one wax
iottle corks and nipples #wineserum ,rushes ‘urn ointments and pads ataract removal instruments :atheternand collars :ollection kits and systems :onon balls and swabs lialysis units lffiposable thermometers m o r sets lressings lectrodes
aboratorv animal beddino and diel
procedures. Few disposal sites are open in the United ’States to receive this waste. The high costs of packaging, shipping, and disposal are passed on to patients, to health insurance companies, and, ultimately, to the consumer.
Public information The issue of public information has two distinct components. The first is the inadequacy of communications and interactions among federal agencies, the scientific community, the public, and the various segments of the media regarding ionizing and nonionizing radiation. The second has to do with the difficulty of recruiting trained nuclear scientists and health physicists from academe to the federal and industrial sectors. CIRRPC has expressed concern over the lack of trained radiation scientists for both government and industry, but the commiaee has not been requested to become involved in informing the public. During its three-year existence, however, CIRRF’C has actively addressed six of the 10 most critical radiation issues facing the nation. Its charter dictates that it can take up issues only when so requested by a federal agency or by the president’s science adviser, and its resources allow it to focus productively only upon selected issues at any given time. Still, CIRRF’C has accomplished the objectives set forth in its charter and has brought a coordinated federal presence to bear in mdiation matters.
ences: Washington, D.C., 1977. (6) “BEIR 111 ’; National Academy Press: Washington, D.C.. 1980. (7) ”BEiR i V ; National Aeademv Press: Washington. D.C., 1988. (8) “Radiation Protection Guide for Federal Aeencies”: Federal Radiation Council: Wishington; D.C., 1960. (9) Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination: Member Agency Participation in Interwtional Rodiotion Activities, 2nd ed.; Oak Ridge Associated Universities: Washington. D.C., 1987; DE-87013668, (IO) Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Polic Coordination; “Review of the Report of t i e National Institutes of Health Ad Hoc Working Group to Develop Radioepidemiological Tables”; Science Panel Rewrt No. 2 and 3: Oak Ridce Asso(I1) Committee on Interagency Radiation
Research and Policy Coordination; “Radon Protection and Health Effects”; Science Panel Report No. 4; 1 9 8 6 Oak Ridge Associated Universities: Washington, D.C., 1986; PB86-210192. (12) National Research Council: “Non-thermal Effects of Non-ionirine Radiation”; Board on Radiation Effects Risearch, Corn: mission on Life Sciences, National Research Council: Washineton. D.C.. 1 9 8 6 DD. 5-7. (13) InternationaiCommission on RidiologicaI Proteclrun. “Recommendations of the international Commmton of Radiolo ical Pro1977 tection’‘ Pereamon Elmslord. N (14) Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination: “SI Metric Radiation Units”; Oak Ridge Associated Universities: Washington. D.C., 1986: PB87-199386. (15) “Health and Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident”; U S . Department of Energy, Ofice of Energy Research: Washington, D.C., 1987; DOEIER-0332. (16) Fed. Regist. 1986.51, 13376-99. (17) “Food for Space Flight”; Educational Publications, NASA: Washington. D.C.. 1982; NF-1336.82.
&.
Acknowledgments T h e work described in this report has been carried out by the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Polic Co ordination (CIRRF’C). The ClRRPdlsudff consists of Anthony Ewing, William Mills, Diane Flack, and David Smith, who have been particular1 helpful in assisting in the preparation of Xis article. This article has been reviewed for suitability as an ES&T feature by Leonard D. Hamilton, Brwkhaven National Laboratory, Upton, N.Y. 11973; and by D. W. Moeller, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass. 021 15.
References (I) ”Progress Report and Preliminary 1981-
83 Agenda”; U S . Radiation Policy Council: Washington, D.C., 1980; pp. 1-11; RPC8O-oOl . (2) ,Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination. “Report on Identification of Federal Radiation Issues”; Oak Ridge Associated Universities: Washington. D.C., 1986. (3) “Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States”; NCRP Report No. 93; National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Bethesda, Md., 1987; p. 55. (4) “BEIR 1”; National Academy of Sciences: Washington;D.C., 1972. ( 5 ) “BEIR 11”; National Academy of Sci-
AIvin L. Young (I), a commissioned U.S. Air Force ogcer, was assigned to the Ogce of Science and Technology Policy in 1984 as the senior olicy analyst for life sciences. He h o d a Ph.D. in environmental science from Kansas State University Young has been chairman of the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC)since its inception. George I! (r), a technical consultant for Oak Ridge Associated Universities, has sewed as staff adviser to CIRRPC since its inception. He holds a de ree in ph sical sciences from the Johns hopkins d i v e r sity and has 36 years of experience in the feld of atomic energy He retiredfrom the Department ofEnergy in 1981 as director of the division of operational and environmental safety ~
Environ. Sci. Technol.. Val. 22, NO.7, 1988 739
