Question 11: Do you favor the reestablishment of the Federal Radiation
Council? If so, why?

Answer:

Question 12:

Answer:

The creation of a contemporary FRC, with membership on the
Council being distributed among equals, and not with one
agency singled out to oversee and direct the activities of
the other members, cannot but have many advantages for the
public and foster greater cooperation among Federal agencies
concerned with radiation health protection. We believe that
the old FRC served a useful purpose by providing a focal
point within the Executive Branch for interagency exchange
of information regarding radiation protection activities,
thereby helping to avoid redundancy in Federal radiation
programs; it also provided a forum for constructive inter-
agency debate regarding needed research and standards,
and identification of appropriate agencies to deal with such
needs.

If the Congress should reestablish the Federal Radiation
Council, what authorities and responsibilities do you
believe that Council should have?

We would suggest that, should the Federal Radiation Council
be reinstituted, it should be structured in a fashion similar
to its predecessor, i.e., a peer relationship among all
Council members, and that it retain its general function of
coordinating Federal radiation protection activities and
advising the President with respect to all such radiation
matters. We believe it would be in the best interest of
government efficiency and effectiveness if the scope of the
Council's function were sufficiently broadened to cover all
forms of radiation. FRC should be authorized to review the
need for radiation protection standards and to advise Federal
agencies on the necessary research, including bioeffects, to
arrive at the standards. FRC should also be authorized to
review proposed standards to ensure scientific validity,
consistency with Federal regulatory policy, and that its
advisory and oversight roles are not ignored. Finally, the
Council should be charged with the task of preparing an
annual report which would facilitate the review and under-
standing of Federal agency authorities and programs in the
various radiation areas.

Question 13:

Answer:

Question 14:

Answer:

Question 15:

Answer:

If Congress should choose to strengthen the EPA, so that it can better carry out its FRC function, what specific provisions would you recommend for that purpose?

As indicated in question 12, we feel that it is preferable for the FRC to be reinstated with a peer relationship among the agencies involved rather than strengthen the FRC function as presently vested in EPA.

Are you aware of problems with the operation of the former Federal Radiation Council? If so, what were those problems? What suggestions would you make to avoid duplicating those problems if Congress chose to vest this responsibility for Federal radiation protection coordination in an organization like the old FRC?

We have no direct knowledge nor have we been privy to any
operational difficulties of the former FRC. We are indirectly
aware of a problem that arose regarding the formulation of
standards related to uranium miners. However, in view of our
lack of specific details concerning this issue, we believe
that we are in no position to offer recommendations on how to
avoid similar occurrences in the future.

If Congress chose to create a coordinating council to be
responsible for radiation protection coordination, what
would be the appropriate place within the Federal govern-
ment for this organization?

As discussed in my response to question 6, the Commissioner
of the Food and Drug Administration recommended in his
January 20, 1978, letter to Senator Ribicoff that such an
entity should be placed in the Office for Science and Tech-
nology Policy, Executive Office of the President.

In response to your May 19 request, I am enclosing answers to the questions on radiation from the Subcommittee. Since these answers have not yet received approval from the Office of Management and Budget, I have been authorized to send them to you directly. Thus, they reflect professional judgment rather than Departmental policy.

Sincerely yours,

Edward Baier

Deputy Director

Enclosures

Response to Questions for Mr. Edward J. Baier of NIOSH following testimony (on April 19, 1978) before the Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations

1. What do you believe is the appropriate role for EPA in occupational health and safety?

Under Reorganization Plan Number 3 of 1970, the President dissolved the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) and transferred to EPA responsibility for radiation aspects of source, by-product, and special nuclear material. Also in Reorganization Plan No. 3 the following areas were specifically retained within DHEW: occupational health and safety, medical X-ray, and consumer electronic products.

Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-596), NIOSH was given specific responsibility to develop recommended standards for exposure to a broad range of occupational hazards, including ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

Thus, we do not see the need for statutory authority for any specific radiation occupational safety and health responsibilities within EPA. Rather they have (and are the only agency which has) the specific responsibility in the area of environmental ionizing radiation control.

2. Why has N10SII failed and refused to participate in the EPA-sponsored work group on occupational radiation guidance?

Enclosed is a copy of the 1974 letter to EPA from the Secretary of HEW which describes in detail the facts, events, and reasons for our actions. Mr. Villforth of the Food and Drug Administration's Bureau of Radiological Health (BRH) also commented on this issue in response to a question from Congressman Ryan at the Radiation hearing on April 19. The situation for occupational health and safety aspects of radiation was similar to that described by Mr. Villforth for medical radiation.

3. Does NIOSH believe that occupational radiation standards should be changed?

There is a need to reexamine the existing Federal non-ionizing radiation guidelines for occupational exposure because of new data on biocffects of the various forms of non-ionizing radiation. Also, NIOSH is reviewing existing data for health cffects relating to certain occupational ionizing radiation exposures. For example, the Center for Disease Control's Bureau of Epidemiology and NIOSH are currently investigating apparent low-level exposure to nuclear radiation from the "Smoky" explosion and that received by nuclear submarine repair workers. Findings from these studies may indicate a need to change existing ionizing radiation standards for worker groups.

4.

Is NIOSH working on possible changes in occupational radiation standards? Yes. In 1979, we plan to complete a criteria dócument on radio-frequency (RF) and microwave radiation. The document will include a recommended occupational safety and health standard. Also we have scheduled criteria documents addressing infrared radiation, ultrasonic radiation, and the industrial processes of welding and brazing, foundries, and printing, all of which have radiation exposure aspects.

5.

!

In your testimony you indicate that you will be working on radiofrequency, microwave radiation, infrared radiation, and ultrasonic radiation and that you hope "EPA has some parallel interest in this and will work closely with us in the development."

8.

b.

c.

Why isn't EPA working with you on these matters now?

Have you invited EPA to participate in that work?

What have you done to avoid duplication of your work with
EPA's work in this regard?

NIOSH has a close working relationship with EPA in areas such as toxic substances regulation, energy related research, pesticides, noise and air quality. In the radiation area, there is considerable interaction between the scientific staffs of NIOSH and EPA. Our Cincinnati and Rockville staffs have exchanged radiation-related information with EPA personnel at Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Silver Spring, Maryland, and Las Vegas, Nevada, in areas where their respective expertise and mutual scientific interests exist. EPA has been invited to review our radiofrequency and microwave radiation criteria document. We are reviewing an EPA proposal to conduct microwave bio-research in support of the orbiting solar-collector satellite. Our staff has also accepted the invitation to participate in the preparation and review of EPA's planned environmental standard for radio-frequency/microwave radiation.

We have frequently shared information pertaining to the monitoring of environmental and occupational radio-frequency and microwave radiation fields and on radiation emissions from video display terminals. Our scientific staffs are working together on the BENER (Biological Effects of Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation) Committee of the Electromagnetic Radiation Management Advisory Committee (ERMAC), which was formerly under the Office of Telecommunications Policy, Executive Office of the President. Our biological research in the radio-frequency/microwave area is primarily concerned with that portion of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum below 300 megahertz (MHz) and the EPA research is primarily concerned with frequencies above 300 MHz. To our knowledge EPA, in the non-ionizing radiation area, does not have a biological research effort or standards development responsibility in any area other than the radio