4. Establishment of improved review procedures for the advancement of individuals in the Professional Research series 5. Continuing and serious consideration to be given by the University for the improvement of employees grievance procedures, with particular reference to the interests of the non-senate academic employees. Since the date of the contract extension, continuing review by DBM staff of the research program at this laboratory and recommendations made have resulted in the strengthening of a number of its activities, and they include the following: Drs. J. F. Mead and G. V. Taplin have been appointed assistant directors of the laboratory to assist Dr. O. R. Lunt, Director, in planning and policy matters. This administrative change has had a salutary effect on the laboratory's staff and program. The director and assistant directors have recently made plans for or actually inaugurated changes in research responsibilities that should strengthen the laboratory's research effort, especially in the biochemistry and nuclear medicine programs. These changes relate to the advancement of promising young scientists to independent research status and the more effective utilization of the talents of other investigators. In addition, it should be noted that one young investigator received a special FTE appointment with the university on July 1, 1969, and two others have been recommended for similar appointments. Recently completed plans for the purchase and installation of a cyclotron for the production of clinically useful radionuclides should significantly advance the laboratory's effort in nuclear medicine. The University is making a substantial financial contribution toward this important program development by providing space and supporting facilities for the cyclotron. We are also pleased to report that with the adoption of this contract modification and the extension of the contract period, the University has essentially met all of the additional conditions to the satisfaction of the AEC. For example, forward strides have been made in the award of FTE positions and in a program for the establishment of tenure positions. In addition, through a series of reviews, a number of the laboratory's well-qualified scientific employees have been awarded commensurate salary advancements. Also, the University by Regents action last July added the In-Residence staff to the Academic Senate, which effectively tripled the number of laboratory staff members entitled to these rights and privileges. During the past month, a committee appointed by the Director, Division of Biology and Medicine, consisting of members of the Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine and outside consultants, conducted a thorough review of the research program at this laboratory as required by the contract amendment. The report of this committee has not yet been received, but we are confident it will provide important information relative to the present strength of the laboratory and useful guidance for its future programming and direction. (JCAE questions on the biology and medicine program and AEC's answers follow :) Mr. EDWARD J. BAUSER, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Executive Director, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEAR MR. BAUSER: This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1970, requesting additional information related to the Biology and Medicine Program. Enclosed are answers to the questions which are to be published in the record of the fiscal year 1971 authorization hearings. Cordially, (Signed) GLENN T. SEABORG, Chairman. RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FOR THE BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE PROGRAM REQUESTED IN THE ENCLOSURE TO MR. BAUSER'S LETTER OF MARCH 27, 1970 1. Question. A príncipal justification for building the Janus reactor facility at Argonne National Laboratory was the need to conduct long-term, low-level radiation studies referred to as "late effects experiments." The Division of Biology and Medicine's statement for the record comments that "the neutron to gamma ratio (in the low flux room) is not satisfactory for the late effects experiments." Please elaborate upon this remark including cost and time schedule for any modifications which may be contemplated for the purpose of improving the neutron to the gamma ratio. When, if at all, will these modifications be made? 1. Answer. The original concept of the Janus program was to compare systematically high and low dose-rates of fission-spectrum neutrons for relative biological effectiveness (RBE) in mammals. The reactor was designed to allow this comparison with sufficient numbers of experimental animals to detect any sig. nificant difference. Inherent in the whole concept was and is the necessity that relative neutron flux, therefore dose rate, should be the only variable in the experiment. As a consequence the neutron energy spectrum and neutron to gamma-ray dose ratio must be the same in both the high and low flux rooms. The high-flux room had so many problems associated with it that it could not be used. Moreover, the neutron energy spectrum and neutron to gamma-ray dose ratio was not the same in both rooms. A study indicated that the high-flux room could be modified to provide ideal exposure conditions for high dose-rate studies. Moreover, low dose rates could be obtained by merely reducing the power of the reactor; thus, the planned experiments could be done under conditions where the neutron energy spectrum and neutron to gamma ray dose rate would be identical. It was thus decided to abandon the low-flux room and modify only the high flux room. These modifications are essentially finished and satisfactory from a safety point of view and the neutron spectrometry and dosimetry are scheduled to begin in April. The present thinking about the future of the low-flux room is as follows: It is not known whether the RBE for mice and other mammals changes over the neutron energy range of 1.2 to 0.2 Mev. A determination of any RBE change with energy over this range can be made by systematically degrading the neutron beam in the high-flux room. Such a determination cannot be made elsewhere. In fact, it could not have been made in the low-flux room even if it had been modified. This will comprise an important and early experiment in the Janus program. Should no change in RBE be found over this energy range, it is possible to modify the low-flux room to reduce the gamma-ray to neutron dose ratio to approximately that of the high-flux room. This can be accomplished by adding an additional 4 inches of lead either inside or outside of the concrete face of the reactor shield in the room. Further reduction of the gammaray component can be made by applying a coat of gadolinium paint to the internal wall surfaces of the room. Such modifications are estimated to cost less than $30,000 and will entail no appreciable shut-down time. No modification of the low-flux room will be made until such time as the biological experiment indicates the plausibility of doing so, possibly in two or three years. 2. Question. The DBM statement makes the point that “all modifications (to Janus) have been made and the facility is awaiting final safety approval and licensing." It will be recalled that inadequate safety review priority was cited as a principal reason for serious delay in the early life of this project. Please provide further detail on the present status of the safety review and the procedural steps that lie ahead prior to granting final operating approval. 2. Answer. The Janus Reactor has been operational for over two months and has been approved and licensed for full-power operation since March 3, 1970. The physical measurements are on schedule and it is expected that the first late effects experiments can begin in June 1970. 3. Question. The DBM statement mentions briefly plans to extend studies under the University of Pittsburgh contract of lifetime health and mortality experience of AEC and AEC contractor employees to include possibly Rocky Flats, Mound, and Los Alamos Laboratories. This study concerns effects on humans from lowlevel chronic exposure to ionizing radiation. As such, it is a possible source of highly relevant information bearing on the question of permissible exposure levels. Is this study being extended to larger populations as rapidly as would be scientifically justified or is it hampered in any manner by budgetary limitations! 3. Answer. The "Study of Lifetime Health and Mortality Experience of AEC and AEC Contractor Employees" is being conducted by Dr. T. Mancuso, University of Pittsburgh, on the populations at Oak Ridge and Richland. It is expected that it will take another year to complete this phase of the study at which time a determination will be made as to the extent and character of the subsequent work. For accomplishing the above immediate objectives, current funds are adequate. It is considered prudent to await the results of the above scientific appraisal prior to effectuating the extension. As the results warrant, it is planned to extend initially the study to Rocky Flats, Mound Laboratory and Los Alamos Labora tory in an orderly fashion. A tentative estimate to start this extended work is $300,000 for fiscal year 1972. Attention is invited to the fact that related studies such as the uranium and plutonium registries, and the follow up on individuals exposed to radium and mesothorium are continuing. (Subsequent to the receipt of the AEC responses to the JCAE inquiry on matters discussed in the fiscal year 1970 authorization report, the committee requested certain followup information on the biology and medicine program. Correspondence on this matter follows:) Mr. ROBERT E. HOLLINGSWORTH, CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, General Manager, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, DEAR MR. HOLLINGSWORTH: Your letter of February 13, 1970, discussed the actions taken by AEC on the recommendations included in the General Accounting Office's April 16, 1969, report to the Joint Committee on administration and management of the biology and medicine research program. In general, the actions taken appear to represent a commendable response to the GAO recommendations. The Committee has a question, however, concerning one of the matters discussed in your letter. In commenting on the GAO recommendation that the laboratories periodically report actual costs to the Division of Biology and Medicine at the research area level, you stated in your letter that even though most laboratories maintain cost information on this basis at present, additional staff may be required to provide this information to DBM in a number of instances. During the 1970 House Appropriations Committee hearings (p. 568), a reference was made to the question of whether the benefits that would accrue to AEC in its day-to-day management activities would warrant the burden of that additional accounting. The GAO report stated that DBM had advised GAO that, with the exception of Brookhaven, each of the 27 laboratories performing biomedical research for AEC accumulates costs by research area. The GAO recommendation, therefore, appears to have been predicated upon the premise that the needed information was already available and that significant additional costs would not be involved in merely communicating it to DBM. Please advise the Committee as to (1) the laboratories at which additional staff would be needed to comply with the GAO recommendation, (2) the nature of the staffing needs, and (3) the reasons that additional staff would be required in those cases where cost data is already being accumulated by research area. The Committee would appreciate receiving your response by April 7, 1970, so that it can be included in the hearing record. Sincerely yours, Mr. EDWARD J. BAUSER, EDWARD J. BAUSER, Executive Director. U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION, Executive Director, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States. DEAR MR. BAUSER: This is in response to your letter of March 26, 1970, in which you requested further information relative to the General Accounting Office's report to the Joint Committee on administration and management of the biology and medicine research program, with particular reference to the periodic reporting of actual costs at the research area level by the laboratories to the Division of Biology and Medicine. Response to the three questions specifically raised by you necessitated referral directly to the laboratories involved, which we are now doing. We do not foresee that this information will be available by your deadline date of April 7, 1970, but will transmit it to you promptly after receipt. Upon reflection, it is currently our considered judgment that the trial plan for semiannual cost reporting at the research area level, as outlined in our letter to you of February 12, 1970, would have a minimal impact on staffing, if any at all. It is hoped that the information provided above will serve your purpose pending the receipt of the laboratories' reports. Sincerely, R. E. HOLLINGSWORTH, General Manager. (Whereupon, at 2:25 p.m., Tuesday, March 3, 1970, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., on Thursday, March 5, 1970.) AEC AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION, FISCAL YEAR 1971 THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1970 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY, Washington, D.C. The Joint Committee met at 2 p.m., pursuant to recess, in room S-407, the Capitol, Hon. Melvin Price presiding. Present: Representatives Price, Aspinall, Young, Hosmer, Anderson, and May; and Senators Anderson, Gore, Bennett, and Curtis. Also present: Edward J. Bauser, executive director; George F. Murphy, Jr., deputy director; James B. Graham, assistant director; John Reich, special counsel; Col. Seymour Shwiller, technical consultant; Gerald G. Fain, professional staff member; Roger L. Sperry, GAO consultant. Representative PRICE. The committee will be in order. We are meeting this afternoon to continue hearings on the AEC authorization bill for fiscal year 1971. Today's testimony will be on the AEC's peaceful uses of nuclear explosives program, the so-called Plowshare program. Our first witness this afternoon is Mr. John Kelly, Director of the AEC's Plowshare program. He will be followed by Dr. Michael May, Director of the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory-Livermore. The fiscal year 1971 request for authorization for the Plowshare program is $8 million for operating expenses. This is a decrease of $6.5 million from the fiscal year 1970 operating estimate. Basically, the decrease is obtained by the elimination of excavation experiments from the fiscal 1971 budget. It is interesting to note that the AEC Plowshare Division's original request was $36.1 million. The AEC's estimate to the Bureau of the Budget was $22.9 million, and the estimate to Congress, as I just mentioned, was $8 million. Without objection, I would like to place an exchange of letters between the Joint Committee and the Departments of State and Defense concerning the fiscal year 1971 budget for the Plowshare program and its impact on international regulations and concerning the nuclear excavation-research program and the fiscal year 1971 budget. (The documents referred to follow :) |