Representatives of the general public, the industry, professional groups, and State and Federal agencies, all questioned whether EPA had jurisdiction. It was argued that EPA's proposed standard was wasteful, unnecessary, and a conflicting duplication of existing authority. It was also challenged as not being technically supportable, reasonable, or capable of being implemented.

On the basis of hearings and comments received, EPA made changes in the standard which deleted the transportation area of the uranium fuel cycle, extended the time period for implementation, and allowed the various regulatory agencies discretion in granting variances from the standard.

The final uranium fuel cycle standard was issued on January 13,

1977.

When the standard is fully effective in 1983, it will establish new criteria for exposure to the public and limit for the first time the quantities of long-lived radioactive materials entering the environ

ment.

Additional fuel cycle areas not currently covered by the standard, but ones which should be further addressed by EPA include the critical areas of mining uranium ore, transporting radioactive materials, and finally disposing of radioactive wastes.

EPA's attempts in developing public health radiation protection guidance for occupational and medical areas have similarly experienced considerable difficulties and delays in getting complete cooperation from the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare.

Both the Labor Department and HEW declined to participate formally in interagency working groups chaired by EPA, stating that EPA's efforts were a duplication of their X-ray protection and occupational safety and health authorities. Their position was that EPA did not have a role in Federal guidelines for medical or occupational radiation.

However, following a January 1977 agreement, a joint guidance document was finally issued by EPA and HEW on February 1, 1978, dealing with radiation protection guidance to Federal agencies for diagnostic X-rays. The occupational issue with Labor has not been resolved and no guidance has been issued.

EPA is also currently evaluating the need for protection standards for environmental nonionizing radiation exposures. Significant sources producing nonionizing radiation include radio and television broadcast antennas, radars, satellite communications systems, and microwave ovens. EPA will decide shortly on whether protection standards are needed for nonionizing radiation and will develop Federal guidance by April 1979, if it is determined necessary.

Although EPA is continuing its efforts on nonionizing radiation, this subject is also controversial. HEW officials question whether EPA can issue nonionizing radiation guidance, stating that existing EPA authority applies only to nuclear materials.

Radiation protection issues continue to become more important. For example, in 1972 the National Academy of Sciences stated that medical diagnostic radiology accounts for at least 90 percent of the total manmade radiation dose to which the U.S. population is exposed. The Academy cited estimates that improved technical and

educational methods could result in a 50-percent reduction of the "genetically significant dose."

EPA also estimated that of the over 22,000 yearly potential health effects of leukemia, other forms of cancer, and serious genetic disorders and diseases which could be caused by radiation, approximately 8,000 were attributed to radiation in the healing arts.

EPA believes that as many as 3,000 cases per year could be prevented by eliminating excessive or unnecessary exposure to medical X-rays. EPA singled out X-rays as a radiation source in which a major, further reduction in existing levels of exposure was possible. Similarly, EPA states that approximately 1 million American workers may be potentially exposed to ionizing radiation. People who are exposed to radiation on the job, for example, include physicians, X-ray technicians, nuclear powerplant operators, uranium miners, and fire alarm makers. It is important to know how many are exposed to how much radiation, and what effect exposure has on them. EPA believes that the adequacy of existing guidelines, which were written in 1960, should be reassessed.

More recently the subject of nonionizing radiation has also become a national concern because the population is receiving measurably increased exposures. EPA believes that the potential danger from nonionizing radiation has risen dramatically since 1945, when levels were very low. EPA estimates that radiofrequency and microwave sources alone are increasing by 15 percent annually.

Exposures to the population are becoming a major concern because the harmful environmental levels are not known, and the number of sources is rapidly increasing. The health effects of such exposures even at low levels have become controversial. Currently, there is no official U.S. environmental public health standard for exposure to nonionizing radiation sources, because research programs have not yet developed sufficient data to establish environmental standards for microwave and other nonionizing frequencies.

In testimony presented earlier this year on the adequacy of EPA's budgetary and manpower resources in carrying out its mission, we reported that the radiation program is sparsely funded and received very low priority in EPA. EPA's radiation program had an annual average budget authority over the past 3 years of about $5.7 million, and an average of 220 positions. There has been a gradual decrease in funding over the years from a high of $8.8 million in fiscal year 1972. EPA generally received from the Congress the amounts requested from OMB in fiscal years 1976 and 1977. In fiscal year 1978, however, EPA's $7.8 million request to OMB was cut to $5.6 million, and the Congress funded that amount.

A total of $11.3 million is requested for fiscal year 1979. An increase of $5.5 million is to be used primarily to determine the appropriate regulatory method for controlling airborne radioactive pollutants as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977.

As a result of low funding and low priority, morale in the Agency's radiation program is low, and most EPA officials interviewed pointed to inadequacies in staffing, data, laboratory support, or research as reasons for not being able to do an effective job.

The adequacy of radiation standards is being questioned by some experts in the field of low level radiation research. Studies indicate

that the current standards may be far too high to insure public safety. Demands are increasing for a more prudent public health policy and for reducing the sources of radiation exposures. All such studies are under close scrutiny by both opponents and proponents of more stringent radiation protection.

It is imperative that the responsible Federal agencies be adequately mandated and supported to assure credibility in radiation protection. EPA is specifically charged with a responsibility to know how present guidance is working, what effect various changes would have, and what additional guidance is necessary. According to some experts, however, EPA currently has neither the scientific leadership nor the expertise to adequately perform its guidance role.

Although EPA has provided interpretations and reaffirmations of existing guidance in areas involving exposures to uranium miners, fallout incidents, and aircraft contamination and exposures to people traveling on aircraft carrying radioactive shipments, the only new formal guidance issued by EPA was the joint EPA/HEW X-ray guidance issued in February 1978.

The EPA Administrator should provide the radiation program with sufficient support to do its job. Also EPA should reexamine its monitoring efforts and develop the capability to provide accurate and complete information on radiation dangers, coordinate its inhouse research with that of the other agencies and with other groups and develop a comprehensive assessment of the scope and need for standards and guidance based on an explicit time and priority determination of potential risks.

To overcome the apparent controversies regarding the role of EPA in developing standards and Federal guidance for exposure to radiation, the Congress should define more clearly the Agency's role as the Federal overseer of radiation protection, outline the scope of radiation dangers to be addressed by the Agency and require timely development of the necessary standards and guidance and periodic advisement of the Agency's progress in meeting its radiation protection goals.

EPA recognized the problems in operating a national radiation protection program and agreed with us that congressional clarification of its authorities would be valuable.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we believe the difficulties EPA has experienced in carrying out its specific authorities and in staffing and funding its radiation activities will continue to impact on its ability to insure radiation protection.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We will be glad to respond to your questions.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Kindness?

Mr. KINDNESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late this morning and having to leave early. I wonder if I might submit, subject to the review of the chairman, a statement that generally indicates that we are aimed in the same direction in this inquiry.

Mr. RYAN. Without objection, the statement will be inserted into the record at this point in its entirety.

[Mr. Kindness' prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS N. KINDNESS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Radiation protection is an important and timely issue for consideration by this subcommittee.

Each of us is increasingly exposed to radiation from a surprising variety of sources. While the exact effects of all radiation on people is unknown, modern science now recognizes that all radiation exposure poses some risk of health hazard and that the risk of hazard increases with additional exposure to radiation. Likewise, we know that it is not possible, nor desirable, to eliminate all radiation contact. Some radiation exposure, for example, for medical purposes, etc., can be very beneficial. The government has attempted to balance the positive use of radiation with prevention of hazardous or excess exposure. The mere fact that so many government agencies are charged with responsibility for radiation protection is proof that we have long recognized the health risks accompanying radiation use.

The General Accounting Office has prepared a report summarizing the need for Congressional oversight in the field of radiation protection. This study discusses the federal coordinating role asserted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. From GAO's findings it is easy to determine that there is a need for improved coordination and cooperation within the Federal Government effort to protect the public from excess radiation exposure.

It is appropriate for the Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee to examine the structure and efficiency of our radiation protection programs.

The Subcommittee's inquiry should focus on the effectiveness of current radiation protection programs, the adequacy of present program coordination, the level of resources necessary to assure efficient radiation protection and methods for improving government radiation protection efforts.

For us to attempt to decide what level of radiation exposure is too much would be inappropriate. Also, trying to determine what sources of radiation are excessively hazardous should be outside the scope of this investigation. Those questions are best left today to the scientists.

The issues before the Subcommittee are whether the Federal Government is organized effectively to provide adequate radiation protection and if the resources being used for this purpose are both sufficient and wisely spent.

I share Chairman Ryan's view that this issue is too important for us to tolerate bureaucratic "turf fighting". We need to assure that the government provides a coordinated, balanced and effective program of radiation protection for the American people.

I would like to commend the Chairman for bringing this matter to the attention of the Subcommittee. I look forward to working with the Chairman and the members of the Subcommittee in a spirit of cooperation to examine the government's radiation protection programs. It is my hope that working together, we can conduct an objective, comprehensive and thorough study of this important subject.

Mr. KINDNESS. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I will be carefully reviewing what is brought forth here today along with the rest of the subcommittee. I do present my apologies for having to go to the Rules Committee in 5 minutes.

I think this most important subject does require careful scrutiny, particularly with a view toward determining what governmental mechanisms can be improved in order to achieve the sort of results that are going to be best in terms of the major role that the Federal Government must play in this whole picture.

Thank you.

Mr. RYAN. Mr. Stangeland?

Mr. STANGELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions at this time.

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. I have a few.

First of all, I would like to suggest that, as part of the report that comes from these hearings, the subcommittee staff work with EPA, GAO and the full committee staff to draft some recommendations in line with GAO's comments this morning. A timely document could assist EPA and give them the guidance they say they need.

Mr. ESCHWEGE. We will be glad to work with you on this.

Mr. RYAN. For my own edification, and for the benefit of other members, would you explain to me what nonionizing is as opposed to ionizing radiation.

Mr. ESCHWEGE. Ionized radiation is usually the type of radiation that we think of when we talk about nuclear reactors-uranium and so forth. I'm giving you a layman's interpretation too.

Nonionizing radiation emits from television broadcasting sys

tems

Mr. RYAN. I understand that, but maybe we need a lesson in physics. I remember vaguely-too many years ago a physics course I was required to take. In that course we learned something about that, but I don't know what it means.

Mr. ESCHWEGE. In terms of physics, maybe Mr. Wells can shed some light.

Mr. WELLS. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I can answer in terms of physics. I can certainly give a description that was given to me in general laymen's terms.

I would like to put it in the perspective of essentially the amount of energy that exists.

For instance, at the low side of energy, in terms of power density, are your nonionizing radiation forces and as this energy increases it gets into the ionizing area which is essentially much stronger and has much greater potential for adverse health impacts.

Mr. RYAN. We keep talking about the distinction, but we don't say what it is. We also have a science panel here and we will wait until they get here and have them tell us.

Can you tell us anything more from your point of view about the radiation program and why it is so sparsely funded and has such a low priority?

Mr. ESCHWEGE. Yes, sir. The radiation program, as I referred to in my statement, was transferred by the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 when EPA took over the functions of the former Federal Radiation Council. EPA never received, in its own statute, a specific mandate on what it is to do, unlike the mandate they received, for instance, for the Clean Air Act and the Water Pollution Control Act. They don't have a statute of their own, really. And it is because of this mandate that was taken over from another body of the Government that there was a lot of confusion as to how much authority EPA really had and a number of the agencies have legitimate authority in the radiation area such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, and so on.

HEW continuously got into controversy with EPA as to the authority

Mr. RYAN. Whose turf is whose.

Mr. ESCHWEGE. That's about as plain as you can define it. This, of course, meant within EPA, when they went through their budget