FW: DOMENICI SPEECH: RADIATION

["Charp, Paul" <pac4@cdc.gov>]

the following text was forwarded to me and I thought it might be of interest
to the group

Paul A. Charp, Ph.D.
Senior Health Physicist
CDC/ATSDR
1600 Clifton Rd (E-56)
Atlanta, GA 30333
(404)639-6004   fax  6075


Subject:  DOMENICI SPEECH: RADIATION


_________________________________________________________________
Pete V. Domenici
United States Senator
(Delivered by Dr. Peter Lyons for Domenici)

Current Developments in Nuclear Energy and Radiation Policy


Plenary Session Address
Gordon Research Conference
Nuclear Waste and Energy

July 16, 2000
Colby-Sawyer College
New London, New Hampshire

I  appreciate  the  invitation  to  participate with you today as you start
this
important conference.  As you well know, the subjects that you are exploring
are
very  high on my list of personal interests.  Unfortunately, the pace of
actions
in the Senate precludes my attendance.

It's been an interesting year for nuclear energy.  For that matter, it's
been an
interesting  year  to test our national energy policy - or more specifically
our
absence  of  a  national  energy  policy.  As stark evidence of that fact,
we've
experienced  tremendous swings in prices for oil-based products over the
last 18
months,  gyrations  that  underscore  our dependence on foreign sources for
this
precious  commodity  and  for  energy  resources  in general.  These events
have
significantly  raised  the  public's  awareness  of  the  importance  of
stable,
predictable  baseload  sources  of  low  cost  electricity, which nuclear
energy
supplies.

Nuclear  energy  has risen to the challenge of providing for our nation's
energy
needs  with  superb performance.  Last year, it produced about 22 percent of
our
nation's  electricity.   The  average unit capability factor for the nation,
the
factor  that  measures  the  percentage of maximum electricity generation
that a
plant  is  capable  of  supplying,  rose  to 88.7 percent in 1999.   It was
62.7
percent in 1980.

Safety  of  U.S.  plants  remains  excellent,  the number of unplanned
automatic
shutdowns,  or  scrams,  was  zero  for the third year in a row.  The
industry's
safety  accident  rate  has  dropped  from  2.1  lost-time accidents per
200,000
worker-hours  in  1980  to  0.34 in 1999 -- compared to the rate for all of
U.S.
private  industry  of  2.9 in 1998.  Another impressive statistic is that
96% of
the U.S. nuclear power plants were available more than 95 percent of the
time.

There's  still  more positive news for nuclear energy.  We've now seen the
first
license renewals for nuclear power plants, an immensely important milestone.

It's important from many perspectives:
!  it demonstrates a long term future for nuclear energy,
!  it demonstrates that a rejuvenated NRC is responding to complex issues
within a reasonable time frame, and
!  it continues the environmental benefits of nuclear energy by avoiding
replacement of aging plants with fossil fueled- plants.

There's bad news too.  We've had our share of disappointments in the
legislative
arena  as the Administration again blocked all progress toward expedited
nuclear
waste  disposition  schedules.  Their actions seriously undermine the
optimism I
have for the future of  nuclear energy in the United States.

On  the  one  hand,  Yucca  Mountain  work  continues  to advance the
scientific
understanding of this location.  I am hearing somewhat higher confidence
that it
may  be  possible  from  a scientific perspective to certify that site as a
high
level  waste  repository.  But  on  the  other  hand, I've seen no hint that
the
opposition in Nevada is going to be swayed by any amount of scientific
evidence.
Between  Nevada  opposition  and scientific questions, I seriously doubt
that we
are going to see Yucca Mountain in operation by the advertised 2010 date.

Even  if  Yucca  Mountain is operating in 2010, many utilities are desperate
for
storage  now.   Some plants are running out of storage space, and face
premature
closure  of  their facilities.  Such closures would only force their
replacement
by other sources capable of generating such large amounts of base load
power.

That forces the utilities to use more fossil-fueled plants, which only
increases
environmental concerns and the risk of price fluctuations.

We  need  solutions  as soon as possible for nuclear waste, and Congress did
its
best  this  year  to  provide  leadership  in this key area.  Senate bill
S.1287
developed  by  Senator Frank Murkowski provided a solution by creating an
"early
receipt  facility" near Yucca Mountain that could have begun to receive
waste in
2007.   But  even  after that bill passed both Houses by significant
margins, it
was  vetoed by the President.  A veto over-ride vote in the Senate failed by
one
slim  vote.  Thus, the Administration succeeded for yet another year in
stopping
all progress toward earlier solutions.

I  remain  puzzled and alarmed how an Administration that claims to be
concerned
with  issues  like  greenhouse  gas emissions and environmental pollution
can so
completely  turn  its  back  on  solving  the  largest  roadblock  to
effective
utilization  of  nuclear  power  96  a  credible  long-term solution for
nuclear
wastes.

Senate  bill  1287  had one entire title that I authored.  Title III
required an
Office  of  Spent  Nuclear  Fuel  Research to be set up within the
Department of
Energy's  Office  of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology.  It required
that we
explore  alternative  advanced  solutions  for  spent fuel, solutions that
might
enable  future  generations to decide that it is their best interests to
utilize
the  tremendous residual energy in spent fuel or to minimize the toxicity of
the
final waste form emplaced in a repository through reprocessing and
transmutation.  Title III, of course, died with the rest of S.1287 with the
President's veto.

One  of  the  key issues underlying all aspects of nuclear technologies
involves
the  radiation  standards  that  are  utilized.  I've been concerned for
several
years that we have an abysmally poor understanding of these effects, and
that we
may be using standards that are both very costly and very poorly determined.

I'm concerned that our poor understanding of these effects may be leading us
to
use radiation protection standards that incorrectly represent risks and
drive
the costs unnecessarily high.

As   you   all   know,   radiation   standards   are  now  determined  with
the
Linear-No-Threshold,  or  LNT,  model.     That  model  is  based only on
linear
extrapolations  from a small set of very high dose and dose rate exposures,
like
those  from  atomic  bomb  victims.   For  a whole host of reasons, the
American
taxpayers  deserve  to  know  if  that  model is accurate.  The applications
and
implications  of  the  LNT model, and the uncertainties inherent in it, are
just
far too large for it to continue to be used without more complete
understanding.

If these standards overestimate risks, they force us to divert funds from
other,
potentially  more  worthy,  national  goals.   Alternatively,  if  the
standards
underestimate  risks,  we need to invest still more in cleanup activities.
Many
companies'  profits  from these cleanup contracts are enhanced by the use of
the
LNT  model,  which  unfortunately  tends  to  build a constituency with a
vested
interest in maintaining the LNT model.

Many scientists seriously question whether the LNT model is valid.  They
suggest
that  data  support  a model wherein benefits are derived from moderate
doses of
radiation, perhaps by stimulating cellular repair mechanisms within the
body.

In this view, the constant exposure to natural backgrounds has required the
body
to develop a suite of repair mechanisms.

These  concerns led me to start a program in the Department of Energy in
1999 to
explore the cellular and molecular bases for radiation protection standards.
My
goal  was  to  better  understand radiation effects at low doses and to use
this
knowledge to lead to more credible radiation protection standards.

I'm pleased that this program is now well into its second year, and is
funding a
wide  range  of  projects  that  should  provide  improved  confidence in
future
standards.  Funding for this program remains a challenge, however.

The  Energy  and  Water Appropriations bill for the current year, provides
$18.2
million for this program.  The Department's own program plan for next year
calls
for $22.5 million.  But unfortunately, the Administration only suggested
funding
this  program  at $11.7 Million next year, a far cry both from the current
level
and from their needs.   In a few minutes, I'll discuss how the Senate Energy
and
Water Appropriations bill for the 2001 fiscal year treats this program.

In  fact, it is my commitments as chairman of the Senate subcommittee
developing
this bill that is one of the roadblocks to my attendance with you here
today.

My concerns on radiation standards led me to request that the General
Accounting
Office  review  a  wide  range  of  related  issues.  My request to the
nation's
Comptroller  General,  David  Walker, went out on July 15, 1999.  I'm
pleased to
report  to  you  that the GAO has completed their study, which I released to
the
public two days ago.

In my request to the GAO, I asked them a series of questions:

*    How  have  radiation  standards  changed  since  1994? Is a consensus
being
approached,  and  what  has  resulted  from the recommendations in your
previous
report in 1994?

*    What were the bases for setting the radiation protection limits, and
how is
the linear-no-threshold hypothesis used in setting these limits?

*    If  differences  exist  between  agencies' standards, what is the
impact of
these differences?

*    Provide,  from  available  data,  information on the variance in
background
radiation  among  locations  in  the  United  States  and around the world.
Are
differences  in  cancer  rates  among  these locations related to
differences in
background radiation levels?

*   What are the costs of complying with current radiation protection
regulations, and how, if at all, would these costs be affected if radiation
standards were substantially relaxed?

The  title  chosen by the GAO provides a good clue to its evaluations,
Radiation
Standards Scientific Basis Inconclusive and EPA and NRC Disagreement
Continues.

The  conclusions of the report won't be very surprising to this audience. As
the
title   indicates,  they  found  the  scientific  basis  for  current
radiation
regulations is inconclusive, with more work needed.  They note strong
scientific
consensus  supporting  the  low  dose radiation effects studies that I
initiated
within the Department of Energy.

The report discussed the assumptions on which the LNT model is based.

Consistent  with  several recent conferences, they noted that there is
simply no
conclusive  evidence  for  any  radiation-induced  effects on human health
below
5,000 to 10,000 millirems.  And they re-stated the extremely weak
endorsement of
the  LNT  model by groups like that National Academy of Science's fifth
study of
the  Biological  Effects  of Ionizing Radiation, or BEIR V, which noted that
the
"linear model is not inconsistent with available research data."

The  report  noted the continuing differences between the EPA and NRC
approaches
to  radiation  standards,  after  8  years of trying to come to agreement.
They
noted that this dual regulation by the two entities:

*   Complicates cleanup and decommissioning processes,
*   Causes duplication of effort and regulatory delays,
*   Adds to facilities' compliance costs, and
*   Raises public questions about the safety of cleanup levels.

They  evaluated  the two agencies' standards for Yucca Mountain, and quoted
many
technical  groups,  including  the National Academy of Sciences and the NRC,
who
have  stated  that  EPA has not provided a technical rationale for its
approach,
has not done analysis of benefits and costs, has not provided proposals that
are
scientifically  supported,  and has proposed standards that provide little
or no
public health benefit.

I've  frequently  noted  that the nation should depend on the bipartisan,
highly
technically  qualified  experts  of the NRC for guidance pertaining to
radiation
policy,  and  not on the politically driven agendas of the EPA.  This GAO
report
certainly reinforces my views.

The report did not fully quantify cost differentials between alternative
cleanup
standards,  but  provided  examples  of  the  large cost multipliers for the
few
projects that have been evaluated for cleanup to various radiation dose
levels.

They  noted, for example, up to a factor of 7 in costs between cleanup of a
site
to  100  vs.  15  millirems.   And  they noted that the baselines on which
these
multipliers  may  be applied are gigantic, over $200 billion for the DOE
complex
and at least $40 billion for civilian nuclear power plants.

The  report  reviewed  82  separate  studies of cancer incidence for
populations
living  in areas with different background levels.  They could find little
or no
evidence  of  elevated cancer risks from high natural backgrounds, and
concluded
that  cancer  risks  from exposures of a few hundred millirems annually are
very
small  or nonexistent.  This supports one conclusion of the report that both
the
NRC and the EPA regulatory levels are so low that the benefits to the public
may
not be clearly demonstrated.

It  will be next year before Congress can fully assess this excellent GAO
report
and  consider  actions.   The most obvious action may be to evaluate
legislative
approaches  to  either  force  EPA  and  NRC  to define one standard or give
the
responsibility to one agency.

Let  me  turn  from  radiation  standards  to nuclear energy.  My
Appropriations
subcommittee  on  Energy  and  Water Development completed its markup just
three
days  ago,  and  the full Appropriations committee will consider actions on
this
bill in two days.  I am very proud of the progress in the Senate bill.

Let  me  give you some examples of the content of this bill.  The Nuclear
Energy
Research  Initiative  has  been  in existence for only two years, it's
funded at
$22.4  million in the current year.  The Senate mark raised the funding for
next
year to $41.5 million and included several new charges to the Initiative.

One  charge  asked  that they specifically study reactor-based transmutation
for
nuclear  waste  within the expanded NERI program.  Another charge set aside
$4.5
million  for  a  serious  review  of  Gen  IV  reactors, with the goal of
future
commercial  deployment.   The bill defines a Gen IV reactor as one that
will, to
the  extent possible, have the following characteristics: superior
economics, no
possibility  of  a  core melt-down and/or no requirement for a public
evacuation
plan, substantially reduced production of high level waste, highly
proliferation
resistant fuel and waste, and substantially improved thermal efficiency.

Three  additional  research areas are highlighted within NERI in this bill.
Each
of  these  three  is  recommended  for  a $1 million investment.  One
involves a
detailed  assessment  to analyze changes needed in existing Advanced Light
Water
Reactor,  or  ALWR, designs for them to be viable in the U.S. marketplace
within
the next 5 to 10 years.

Another  area  will explore the opportunities to develop and exploit the
modular
helium  reactor  technology  for commercial applications.  This study is
coupled
with  the  continued  funding  of this reactor in the joint United
States-Russia
program exploring this reactor for plutonium disposition.

And  the  third  research  area  will  focus on the feasibility of small
modular
reactors  that  may  be attractive for remote communities.  Such a reactor
would
have  to  be  inherently  safe,  cost  effective,  have design features to
deter
sabotage  or  efforts  to  divert  nuclear  materials,  have  infrequent
re-fuel
requirements,  and  be  largely  factory-constructed  and  deliverable to
remote
sites.

The  low  dose radiation effects program that I highlighted earlier is
funded at
$20.1 million, far more than the $11.7 million proposed by the
Administration. I
was  disappointed  that  the  Administration's  proposal  was barely half of
the
funding that the Department had identified to keep this vital program on
track.

In the materials disposition account, as I just noted, I've encouraged
funding
of the high temperature, helium gas-cooled reactor for possible use in
disposition of weapons-grade plutonium.  That funding is doubled for next
year
to $10 million.  I understand that this program is attracting considerable
interest within Russia and from other nations as well.

In  that  same  account,  I  included  strong  guidance to explore  thorium
fuel
assemblies.   Such  assemblies, when coupled to either plutonium or uranium
seed
fuels,  may  offer  an  extremely  attractive  approach  to  not  only
plutonium
disposition but also to civilian power.  Both of these reactor types should
also
be  evaluated as part of the NERI Gen IV study, where I anticipate that they
may
fare extremely well against the criteria I cited.

Accelerator-driven  transmutation  of  waste  is  another  area  in  which
I've
encouraged  research.  This approach may enable dramatic changes in the
toxicity
of   the  final  waste  forms  placed  in  a  repository.   There's
significant
international   interest   in   this   option,   as  well  as  in
reactor-based
transmutation.   Last year, $4 million was used to create a technology road
map,
and $9 million this year served to start progress on that road map.


For  next year, I've proposed that two key programs be combined, the
Accelerator
Transmutation  of  Waste  and  the  Accelerator  Production of Tritium, into
one
Advanced  Accelerator Applications, or AAA, program.  Both these programs
depend
on high current accelerators, although obviously their end goals are
different.

By  combining  the  programs  within the Nuclear Energy office, but with
partial
funding  from  Defense  Programs,  we  can  realize  efficiencies for the
common
elements,  while  enabling  both programs to pursue the specialized
technologies
that  they  need  for  their  separate  missions.   There  are  some  other
very
attractive  ideas  for use of an intense neutron source, which AAA will
explore,
in a wide range of advanced nuclear energy and material science
applications.

The  total  AAA program is funded at $60 million in the Senate mark, well a
bove
the  Administration's proposals, which were zero for ATW and $19 million for
APT
96 both of these Administration's proposals are incomprehensible in light of
the
potential impact of these programs.

Many  other  areas  in  this Senate bill impact aspects of your conference.
For
example,   I've repeatedly emphasized the need to make progress in both
military
and civilian areas of nuclear technologies.   Nuclear energy can not realize
its
potential  unless  the  military  clouds associated with nuclear issues are
well
controlled.   This  forces  careful  consideration  of nuclear
non-proliferation
issues.

Several key non-proliferation programs are singled out for special
consideration
in  the  Energy  and  Water  Development  bill.   The  key  program  to
prevent
proliferation  of  materials,  the  Materials  Protection Control and
Accounting
effort,  is  significantly  enhanced,  with an increase of $30 million over
last
year.   These  new resources should allow the MPC&A program to address
important
new  opportunities  for  better  control  of  new and spent fuel at Russian
Navy
sites.

Programs  to  prevent  "brain  drain" of weapons scientists are also boosted
for
next year.  The Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention is funded at $2
million
above  the  budget  request.  And the Nuclear Cities Initiative received a
major
boost,  from $7.5 million this year, and a $17.5 million Administration
request,
to $30 million for next year.

In addition to this funding, I've worked to set the stage for a dramatic new
era
of  progress  in  the Nuclear Cities Initiative with new guidance in the
Defense
Authorization  bill.  This language couples increased funding for nuclear
cities
to   a  requirement  that  the  Russians  develop  a  plan  for  downsizing
and
restructuring these cities that includes transparent, verifiable milestones.
We
need  to  insure  that the production capacity of these cities, as well as
their
large number of weapon scientists, do not drive future global instabilities.

I  want  to  conclude  tonight by challenging many of you who are attending
this
Gordon   Conference.    Your   technical  leadership  is  essential  if
nuclear
technologies are to realize their full potential to benefit mankind.    You
have
the  expertise  to  develop  new  approaches  to  some of the roadblocks
erected
against  nuclear  technology.   You  will be some of the ones supporting the
new
programs  that  I've  outlined.   And  you  have  the  technical
credentials to
challenge   irrational   or   scientifically  incorrect  notions  about
nuclear
technologies.

My  challenge  is  to  continue to provide leadership on a national level
toward
realization  of the full positive impacts of these technologies.  With your
help
on technical progress, I look forward to dramatic advances in the coming
years.










************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html