Special Contribution

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: A FORWARD LOOK, A BACKWARD LOOK F. J. Bradley” those who must grapple with ever more complex regulations. At the first Health Physics Conference held at Ohio State University (OSU), it was claimed we were going to do things differently. We were not going to accept radiation’s benefits without putting in place procedures to contain the risks. But, it seems to many today we may end up with neither the benefits nor the risks. How has it happened that we have such disillusionment? I would like to take a look back to the years 19541955 with the health physics profession in its infancy and examine how we got to Columbus, OH. I will review some problems of that day, e g , fallout, genetics, waste disposal and regulations, and how these have been addressed over the last 37 y.

Abstract-This paper summarizes how the problems of fallout, genetics, radioactive waste, and regulatory control of radiation were perceived by Dunning, Straub, Taylor, and others in 1955 at the inaugural meeting of the Health Physics Society. It was stated that health physicists had a great opportunity to resolve these problems and to avoid past mistakes. Throughout the 1950s, health physicists made major contributions to elucidating the fallout problem and contributed to its resolution, and it can be considered a success story. Waste disposal is not considered to be a success to date. A major difference has been the lack of political will to grapple with a perceived “no win” situation. The evolution of radiation limits is briefly traced over the past 37 y from voluntary standards to rigorously enforced regulations demanded by society. This paper speculates that the changing international scene makes the United States the pre-eminent nuclear power which will challenge future health physicists to maintain a balance between the control of radioactive material and its peaceful applications. Health Phys. 63(6):619-623; 1992 Key words: Health Physics Society; fallout; regulations;waste management

SEARCHING FOR A PROFESSION

We were searching for a profession. Approximately 250 persons assembled 37 y ago on the Ohio State University campus for a Conference on Health Physics. Some came to present information, some to acquire knowledge, others came-like myself-in search of a profession. I was part of the second class of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Fellows who assembled in Oak Ridge, TN, in September 1949. We came from all over the United States with diverse baccalaureate degreesin engineering, science, and biology. Some had been delayed in getting their degrees due to World War 11, so we were also diverse in age. Some were married and had children, so at the end of our training we were all in search ofjobs. But we had questions. What profession did we train for? Is there a future to this profession? Who would employ us? Dr. Elda Anderson acted as a one-person employment agency to relieve some of these concerns. In some ways, events beyond our control determined our future for several years. In September 1949, the Russians detonated their first atomic bomb and, in June 1950, the North Koreans invaded South Korea. The somnolent AEC was prodded by the military to vastly increase weapons production which opened up many opportunities for newly trained health physicists (HPs). Two trainees, L. Rogers and H. Cember, went to universities; four went to AEC installations, and one went to medical school. A. Brodsky went to the Naval

PROLOGUE

There was hope on 13 June 1955 at the start of the first open Health Physics Conference, hope in the new age. The Korean War had ended, there was a lull in the Cold War, and President Dwight D. Eisenhower had proclaimed an Atoms For Peace program. We could not divorce or isolate ourselves from these developments since we participated in the technology that was at the center of many world events of the time. On the legislative front, Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to make it easier for private industry to enter the nuclear business with the great hope of cheap nuclear power. Today, 22 June 1992, there is disappointment, frustration, and even gloom among many. Frustration for those who must dispose of radioactive waste and * 605 East 82nd Street, New York, NY 10028. Opening paper in the Plenary Session of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society, Columbus, OH, 22 June 1992. (Manuscript received 5 August 1992; revised manuscript received 24 August 1992, accepted 26 August 1992) 00 11-9078/92/$3.00/0 Copyright 0 1992 Health Physics Society 619

620

Health Physics

Research Lab and I went to Westinghouse and then to OSU in 1953. In 1954 I proposed a Health Physics Conference to Dr. Elda Anderson, and a Program Committee composed of “Doc” Emerson, M. Fair, L. Rogers, myself, and Dr. Anderson as chairperson was formed. This was an auspicious time for a change in direction in the nuclear field. The massive buildup in weaponry was in place, and atmospheric testing was continuing a pace; but something else was happening. There was a change in nuclear politics from war to peace. The time was ripe to determine whether we were in a field with a peaceful future or one destined to be tied to nuclear weapons. Health physics, as described by Dr. Karl Z. Morgan at the first meeting (Morgan 1955), was a field which served as a bridge between the various disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, and engineering. Dr. Frederick Heimberger, Vice President at OSU and the person to whom I reported, stated it succinctly to me in a letter in 1954: “. . . it seems to me that one of the limiting factors in use of radioactive materials is the human one and we might profitably put considerable emphasis upon this subject.” The evening before the conference began, K. Z. Morgan, E. E. Anderson, “Doc” Emerson, M. Fair, L. Rogers, H. Cember, and myself assembled in my campus office and discussed the potential for initiating a professional organization. Everyone present felt the time was ripe to start a professional organization and to determine whether what we were doing-assuring the safe use of radiation-was a viable field to stand on its own among many competing organizations and professions. Lauriston Taylor, an elder statesman in 1955 and 90 y old this month, in an impromptu talk entitled “Orphans in Wonderland” (Taylor 1955a), summed up the feelings of many attendees. He described how he started out as a physicist specializing in x-ray and radium measurements and protection, how he and other physicists in the field felt like orphans among radiologists. He stated: “. . . with imagination and enterprise, we can make this field of physics (he hated the term health physics) a real wonderland. We have within this organization an unparalleled opportunity to grow and develop to become an important part of our whole radiation physics program in this country. . .” Over the past 37 y what have we made of this opportunity? I would like to describe some of our past concerns and what we have made of them. FALLOUT AND GENETICS

In late 1954, Dr. Anderson sent out a questionnaire requesting respondents to select topics they would like to hear discussed at a Health Physics Conference. The most mentioned topic was fallout. In the late forties and early fifties, fallout generally was perceived as a localized problem from fission weap-

December 1992, Volume 63, Number 6

ons. With the detonation of a thermonuclear device in 1952 and subsequent atmospheric tests, it became a global problem and there was growing concern on the part of the public (Divine 1978). At the same time the genetic effect of radiation assumed greater significance. Herman Muller received the Nobel Prize for discovering the mutagenic effects of ionizing radiation on fruit flies and, as Taylor stated, it was only prudent to assume that ionizing radiation could have a similar effect on man. Dr. Gordon Dunning, speaking on fallout, noted that if one were to take the most pessimistic assumption of fallout exposure to the U.S. population up to that time, i.e., about 1 rem (10 mSv), then one might expect a 1.4 to 2.8% increase in the U.S. mutation rate from atmospheric testing, a sobering observation (Dunning 1955). In 1956, Taylor stated in an address entitled “Philosophy Underlying Radiation Protection” that the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) was recommending a limitation on occupational dose to 5 rem (50 mSv) per year, 0.5 rem (5 mSv) per year to a member of the public, and approximately one-third of this value to an entire population (Taylor 1957). (This was later adopted as a radiation protection guide by the Federal Radiation Council.) He raised the moral dilemma of radiation exposure which could affect future generations. The fallout controversy raged in spurts throughout the fifties with health physicists playing a major role in attempting to elucidate the problem and differentiate fact from fiction. I can recall Dr. Wright Langham over the decade giving reports on radiation exposures to the natives on Rongelap and other incidents, but late in the decade he stated: “. . . if the present rate of atmospheric testing continues, the level of fallout may soon reach dangerous levels.” Fallout was perceived as a national problem and our elected representatives were involved. Legislative hearings were held to clarify the issues (JCAE 1957). Scientists, politicians, and the public were involved and the problem was resolved. A treaty was signed with the Russians in 1963 banning atmospheric testing. Health physicists contributed by providing important objective data during the national debate. As far as a genetic problem is concerned, mother nature has apparently relieved some of our concerns. RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL

If fallout was a success story, radioactive waste disposal clearly is not. That radioactive waste disposal was perceived as an important and critical issue for health physicists in 1955 is attested to by its being the lead-off topic of the first session at the OSU Health Physics Conference. That it was perceived by the media of the day as an important topic is attested to by the front page article (Gapp 1955) of the 14 June 1955 edition of the Columbus Evening Dispatch. Paul Gapp stated in the lead sentence, “. . . disposal of radioactive

Historical perspective0 F. J. BRADLEY

‘garbage’ is getting to be a bigger problem all the time but so far scientists aren’t very womed about running out of dumping plans . . .” Several paragraphs discussed the feasibility of shooting waste via rockets into space, but Jack Healy of the Hanford Engineering Works scoffed at the idea, saying it would not be financially feasible. Dr. Conrad S. Straub (1955) led off the session with a paper describing the problem of high- and lowlevel radioactive waste disposal. He made the pithy observation that we are a long way from a consensus method for high level radioactive waste disposal and stated that geologists were in favor of ocean disposal and oceanographers were in favor of land disposal. Dr. Straub described the retention of high-level waste in tanks and control of low-level wastes in such a way that any release to the environment is done at levels less than maximum permissible concentration (MPC). He stated: “However, there may be some objection to the application of MPC values. There may be cries, even shouts, that these levels are unrealistic, that they are uneconomic, or that they place considerable burden on the producer or user of radioactive materials. . .” The method of disposal of contaminated solutions into soil was described. Dr. Straub stated: “. . . use of the soil for disposal of liquid waste has appeal since it is possible to accomplish two aims by such use: retention of some of the cations because of the exchange capacity of the soil, and dilution of the remaining activity by ground water. . .” Dr. Straub stated the underlying philosophy for these releases: “The atomic energy industry is unique in that many guides to control exposure were established in the early stages of the development of the industry by the Manhattan District as a result of some of the unfortunate experiences in use of radium. Here we have the unusual case of an industry setting up standards to control exposure to employees and to prevent damage to environment through release of radioactive waste materials . . .” Unfortunately, the perception-at least as projected by the media-is just the opposite. Headline writers have had a field day in the last few years with some of these practices. A Time Magazine article (Magnuson 1988) headlined “They Lied to Us” states that two billion gallons of low-level waste have been pumped into ponds, pits, and basins from 1944 to 1956, and 530,000 Ci of I3’Iwere released into the atmosphere by Hanford. The article goes on to state that some refer to a stretch near Hanford as “Death Mile” due to a cluster of cancers in the area. The Time Magazine article stated: “. . . Despite claims, there is no undisputed evidence that radioactive material released into the environment around Department of Energy (DOE) facilities has harmed anyone . . .” But a 1990 Government Accounting Office report (Rezendes 1990) states DOE now faces formidable environmental problems, specifically 3500 inactive waste sites need to be cleaned up, contaminated ground water at levels 1000 times drinking water standards, and some reten-

62 1

tion tanks at Hanford are leaking or suspected of leaking, among a list of seven unresolved problems at DOE sites. Clean up of these sites will cost over $100 billion. These stories have not made the resolution of our present day waste disposal problem any easier. Jack Healy has stated that the disposal of plutonium and 90Sr solution to cribs was done in the interest of production during the Cold War but, in hindsight, he would not recommend it. But past practices are not our only problem with respect to the “waste disposal morass,” as it is called by Frank Masse and J. Stelluto in a recent Health Physics Society Newsletter article (Masse and Stelluto 1992). To resolve the matter, regulations have been issued and health physicists have implemented the regulations with exposure levels that essentially eliminate public exposure. But the public has adopted a “not-in-my-back-yard” (NIMBY) attitude and our elected representatives usually will not grapple with the issue as they did with the fallout issue. We must maintain a steady course providing objective scientific information and we will get through the morass, but this is clearly not a health physics success story. REGULATIONS

Health physicists operate in a heavily regulated environment. Taylor emphasized at the OSU Conference that radiation protection problems were not new; they had been intensely studied since 1920 so the main difference was in magnitude and not in kind (Taylor 1955b). Taylor stated that in 1949, NCRP had recommended to not promulgate radiation standards into legislation and believed that better results could be obtained through education and voluntary compliance. But, Taylor added, as a result of public pressure, NCRP established a subcommittee in 1953 to study the problem of regulation of radiation exposure by legislative means. The basic intent was to ensure a maximum degree of uniformity between states in their radiation regulations. In 1955, California and New York were contemplating issuing regulations, as was the AEC. What troubled Taylor was the possibility of multiple, overlapping jurisdictions. At the state level this concern was met by Congress when it amended the Atomic Energy Act in 1959, permitting states with compatible regulations and programs to become Agreement States. Taylor cautioned at the time that radiation regulation, to be complete, must cover x-ray radiation as well. Summarizing the intent of the AEC to implement provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Robert Lowenstein, an AEC attorney, stated at the Conference: “. . . Since regulations are ‘laws’ in the area in which they apply, they must to the greatest extent be feasible, be simple, concise and unambiguous. They must be understandable, not only to the health physicist or lawyer, but to the health physicist and lawyer and also the licensees, the general public and courts. They must be understandable to people untrained in the field” (Lowenstein 1955).

622

Health Physics

With respect to the verbosity of regulations, I can recount my experience in the state of New York. The New York State radiation code was issued in 1955 and has grown from 20 pages to 96 pages today (State of New York 1955). And, despite the warning by Taylor to include all types of ionizing radiation, there are gaps in our regulations. The Atomic Energy Act does not cover naturally occurring and accelerator produced radioactive material (NARM), except source material. States have been struggling with this issue for years and have implemented, through the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, the Licensing State concept. This assures reciprocal recognition of licenses for products with NARM sources. For diffuse naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) found mainly in pipe scale in the oil and gas industry, there is no uniform regulatory framework arising from the fact that we have no agreed upon exempt concentration for 226Raand 228Ra. In theory, occupational exposure to ionizing radiation not covered by Atomic Energy Act is covered by the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act. Under this Act, the U.S. Department of Labor has promulgated ionizing radiation exposure standards (US. OSHA 1984). In practice, this agency has targeted industries with significant occupational hazards and, since no widespread occupational exposures or injuries are associated with the identified NARM or NORM or x-ray sources, there is little enforcement by this agency. On the other hand, a sister agency, U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, has been extremely effective in reducing, if not eliminating, the radon and thoron hazard in U.S. mines (US. MSHA 1981). Public exposure to x-rays and other electronic product radiation has been curtailed greatly through manufacturing standards issued as regulations pursuant to Public Law 90-602 (U.S. FDA 1988). In addition, suggested state regulations are available for promulgation by states (CRCPD 1991). Because there are a number of federal, state, and local jurisdictions promulgating radiation regulations, oversight and coordination would appear to be desirable, preferably by an outside, disinterested agency. In the furor over fallout, this was provided by the Federal Radiation Council which issued standards for implementation by other agencies. This Council lasted 10 y when its responsibility passed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970. EPA has issued standards for occupational exposures from internal emitters in Federal Guidance Report No. 11, now being implemented by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Part 20 (U.S. NRC 1991), but it has been less aggressive in the more controversial area of de minimis or Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) and decontamination standards. Finally, there is the Committee on Interagency Radiation and Policy Coordination (CIRRPC) which has not issued any standards or regulations, but it has issued a Compendium of Major

December 1992, Volume 63, Number 6

U.S. Radiation Standards and Guides (Mills et al. 1988). I would like to make a radical suggestion here. Although Taylor stated radiation regulations should not be written into legislation in 1955 and every professional agreed with him, I believe that at least de minimis and decontamination standards should be explicitly placed in legislation. The issues involved are not only scientific but also of public policy and perception. The Compendium (Mills et al. 1988) indicated that dramatically different standards arise, depending on the authorizing statute. In my opinion, the older limits should stand in a grandfather clause for past decontamination projects rather than to revisit them to enforce new reduced limits if no clear-cut public health and safety issue is involved. EPILOGUE Just as the year 1955 was a turning point, so today the world picture is dramatically changing. The Cold War is ended; the “evil empire” that justified so much is no more. The Nuclear Disarmament Treaty, signed with Russia in June 1992, is a momentous event. In essence, the Treaty makes the U.S. the pre-eminent nuclear power 10 y hence and, thereby, the world‘s nuclear policeman. The world will look to us for direction. Now health physicists, maybe even more so than 37 y ago, are at the center of this change. The large nuclear weapons complex must be cleaned up, and the radiation worker population, estimated at 1.6 million in 1985, is expanding. I believe the opportunities in the peaceful use of nuclear energy are great-if we can get our “act” together. The health physics profession that was organized in war 50 y ago, and formed into a Society 37 y ago, is alive and well today despite the problems and frustrations. G. Hoyt Whipple stated he left Ohio in 1955 with a warm feeling of accomplishment. I hope you will all leave Ohio at the end of this meeting with a similar sense of accomplishment.

Acknowledgements-I would like to thank all who reviewed this paper, especially Lester Rogers, Lauriston Taylor, and Edward Teller. The latter commented on the paper at the Plenary Session, stating that biologists he had spoken with believe there is great redundancy in DNA and this may be one reason for lack of observable genetic effects at low radiation doses.

REFERENCES Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD). Suggested state regulations for control of radiation. Frankfort, KY; 199 l. Devine, R. A. Blowing on the wind. Summary of public and private debates on fallout 1954-1960. New York Oxford University Press; 1978. Dunning, G . M. Fallout. Health Physics Conference. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University; 1955:175.

Historical perspective 0 F. J. BRADLEY

Gapp, R. Study disposal of atomic wastes. Columbus Evening Dispatch, June 14, 19521. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (JCAE), 85th U.S. Congress. The nature of radioactive fallout and its effects on man. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofice; 1957. Lowenstein, R. Legal aspects of control. Health Physics Conference. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University; 1955:112. Magnuson, Ed. They lied to us. Time Magazine, October 3 1, 1988:hO-65. Masse, F. J.; Stelluto, J. The LLW morass. Health Physics Society Newsletter 20: 1-3; 1992. Mills, W.-A.; Flack, D. S.; Arsenault, F. J.; Conti, E. F. With the assistance of Social Educational Research and Development, Inc. A compendium of major U.S. radiation protection standards and guides: Legal and technical facts. Oak Ridge, TN: Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination; ORAU 88/F- 1 1 1; 1988. Morgan, K. Z. Organization of health physicists. Health Physics Conference. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University; 195555. Rezendes, V. S. U.S. Congress: Testimony before Committee on Armed Services; GAO/T-RCED-90-47; 1990. State of New York, Industrial Code Rule 38, Ionizing Radia-

623

tion Protection. Originally promulgated 15 December 1955;Amended 1962, 1971, 1978, 1985 and 1991. Straub, C. S. Criteria for waste disposal. Health Physics Conference. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University; 1955:4. Taylor, L. S. Orphans in wonderland. Health Physics Conference. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University; 1955:1. Taylor, L. S. Radiation control legislation in the United States. Health Physics Conference. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University; 1955:96. Taylor, L. S. Philosophy underlying radiation protection. AJR 77:914; 1957. US. Food and Drug Administration. Code of federal regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 21 CFR 1000-1050; 1988. U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration. Code of federal regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofice; 30 CFR Part 59.5-37 to 57.5-47; 1981. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Code of federal regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 10 CFR Part 20; 1991. U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Code of federal regulations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Ofice; 29 CFR Part 1910.96 and 1910.97; 1984.

..

Historical perspective: a forward look, a backward look.

This paper summarizes how the problems of fallout, genetics, radioactive waste, and regulatory control of radiation were perceived by Dunning, Straub,...
141KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views