Figure 4. Figure 10. Percentage of Employees Receiving External Doses Greater than 1 1965 1970 1975 Year 1980 1982 Total Collective Dose Equivalent for All DOE/DOE Contractor Employees EMPLOYEE RADIATION EXPOSURE Chairman HATFIELD. Let me take this in reverse order, Mr. Collins, if I could, and pick up on a couple points Mr. Mares has raised. Looking at your chart relating to employee exposure doses of radiation, I believe that correlates to page 6 of your testimony, as I read this chart, it appears to me first of all, let me ask you, why is there this time lag on data that we don't have any data now for 2 years? I believe you say the last available data was in 1982. Mr. MARES. I think that is the last day we have complete, full-year data. We do keep data on a more current basis than that, and I would be pleased to provide you the last full part of 1983 that we have. [The information follows:] RADIATION EXPOSURE DATA The most recent set of complete data on DOE and DOE contractor employee radiation exposures available is for 1982. A copy of the report presenting that data will be provided to the subcommittee. Our contractors are required to submit the site data for 1983 by March 31, 1984. The 1983 report will be published several months after that date following compilation, validation, and interpretation of the submitted data. Chairman HATFIELD. It appears from this chart, if I am looking at it correctly, that the exposure dose has been on a slight increase since 1981 after having been on a fairly even line of decrease from 1965. Could you comment? Mr. MARES. Are you looking at the chart which is headed, "Employee Exposure Doses Greater than 2 Rem"? Chairman HATFIELD. Right; those lines show me a slight increase from 1981 to 1982, and you haven't had any new data since 1982. Why the increase after a period from 1965 where there has been a general dimunition? Mr. MARES. Mr. Chairman, let's look first of all at the percent of the total monitored employees that are receiving in excess of that level. It does, in fact, show a slight percentage increase. I believe that there is some slight increase in the monitored employees, but the more precise location-by-location reason for that change is not in my hands at this moment. I would prefer to answer it for the record. Chairman HATFIELD. Could you supply that for the record? Mr. MARES. My understanding, from reviewing with the operations offices, is that the general trend to reduce the amount of exposure to our people continues and although that chart acknowledges a percent increase, that does not indicate in our view either lack of attention to this or that we are not being successful in our general efforts. I would prefer to look into it further and respond. [The information follows:] DOE EMPLOYEE RADIATION EXPOSURE The slight increase in 1982 in total radiation dose received by DOE-monitored employees is due to changes and increases in operations in the defense-related activities involving radioactive materials. This same explanation reflects the reason for the slight increase in the percentage of DOE employees receiving radiation exposures greater than 1 and 2 rem. Chairman HATFIELD. The line not only interests me, but your last sentence in that particular paragraph, you make a comparative analysis thereby saying the 1.6 represents-and that is the 1982 figure-the 1.6, I assume, represents a better than 50-percent improvement compared to DOE's latest 5-year annual average. Well, you take that 5-year annual average and that goes back to 1973, and if you look at that 1973 figure, it was down and then it went up slightly in 1973 with a sharp decline around 1976, sliding through 1977, then a continued downturn from 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981. Then it appears that around January 1981, it starts on an increase, about January 20, and I wish you would supply for the record, and also tell me whether or not that was a time when we had a decrease in the budget for this program. I don't want to be too blunt about this. Mr. MARES. I don't think there is a correlation between the amount of funding for this program, and the safety record of the Department, because this program is only a very small part of the total amount of funds or personnel that are spent on safety matters within the Department. Each of the program areas spends money on personnel, as well as facilities, to ensure that they are being operated in a safe and healthy fashion. Our Office's function is to provide technical assistance to those offices so that they have the benefit of the latest technology and techniques. We interchange information around our full system as well as to provide an oversight on the procedures and processes that are being used by the various offices so that we can assure the Secretary that we are, in fact, operating our facilities in a safe and healthy fashion. As I say, the amount of exposure that our people are getting compared to the civilian reactors shows they are substantially better off than what the workforce receives in the civilian reactor. I think it is a record that the Department can be quite proud of in spite of the fact this particular chart would show the percent either greater than 1 or 2 rem, both of which numbers are less than the workplace standard, which is an international standard that we adopted. None of our people received as high as that 5 rems. Chairman HATFIELD. Well, the bottom line is I am sure it does interest you for the first time in a 5-year span, it appears in January 1982, it starts an increase. I would think it interests you as well as it interests me, and I would like to have perhaps a more detailed analysis for the record. Mr. MARES. Your interest, for sure, is my interest, Mr. Chairman. [The information follows:] TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN PREPARED STATEMENT I would like to correct for the record that the DOE employee radiation exposures above 1 rem do not decrease 50 percent in the 5-year period, but rather 5 percent. This was an error. However, radiation exposures, in fact, have decreased several fold during the last 15 years and, with minor exception, the decline was steady. NUCLEAR SAFETY REQUEST Chairman HATFIELD. Another thing I wanted to followup on is, I note that you have a $5 million increase in your fiscal year 1985 request over 1984 for nuclear safety and maybe there is a correlation here. I don't know. I would like to know basically, though, what the breakdown of that $5 million increase is over the 1984 level. You can supply that for the record, if you will. Under your general budget request for nuclear safety, as I say, it shows an increase over the current year. Mr. MARES. In broad terms, part of the increase is to assist us to extend our capabilities in the radiation survey and atmospheric monitoring capability and another portion deals with instrumentation so that you can detect varying types of radiation at lower levels. It is funding for technical assistance or advances in its broadest sense, that would be available to the Department's vast range of facilities to assist us in continuing a very outstanding record. I will be happy to be more precise. [The information follows:] Chairman HATFIELD. Secretary Collins, let's take a look at the trend line in the solar request. I note for the first time in 3 years-well, after 3 years, I should say-after 3 years of a decline in budget requests for solar and renewable activities that there is a leveling off of that decline from 1984 to 1985. 1985 is not quite the level of 1984, but it certainly does show a change of that trend line, leveling off from a rather sharp decline. First of all, would you like to comment on that particular observation? Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I think this is consistent with Secretary Hodel's feelings, and what I have promised the members of this committee during the confirmation process. I heard that the members of this committee wished to see a budget proposal more in line with your views so that we play a more viable role in determining the research priorities of the Energy Department. I would like to say not only is that trend line correct, certainly relative to appropriations, but also it is about 75 percent greater than our 1984 request. We are very pleased with that. Chairman HATFIELD. I commend you and the Secretary for this responsiveness to this committee's often-stated belief that we should be doing more in this area to reduce that dependency we have on fossil fuel generally, and particularly that which is imported from the Middle East. Would you make any estimate as to what this may offer for the future in terms of the next 3 years, in the next 2 years? Mr. COLLINS. I believe that the President and the administration are hopeful that a well-supported program will result from our closer working relationship with the Congress. If that works out well, and I hope that it will, we should have a very strong research program from which the private sector can pursue further development. Chairman HATFIELD. So that means that it will continue this trend line, this trend line will continue upward. Mr. COLLINS. This is an infant industry. It certainly is a varying field because we make breakthroughs we don't expect, while progress lags in some areas. And in such an infant industry, I think we may have new concepts that may be worthy of support in the budget. I think it is a very fluid situation, but I feel very confident that we have addressed most of the research opportunities which currently have been identified in the renewables field. I hope we can continue along that path. RENEWABLE ENERGY FUTURE PROSPECTS Chairman HATFIELD. You will know better after November, too, how much we continue on what path. Secretary Collins, you are familiar, I am sure, with PG&E. I think it is the largest utility in the country today. They recently announced that through planning of about 2,300 megawatts, I believe from 300 cogeneration renewable energy projects that they expect to utilize that source to provide their projected needs, at least in the foreseeable fu ture. California has attractive incentives for such renewables, as you well know. Do you think that these statistics are encouraging and would there be any opportunity to, as you see it, for this to be applied on a broader base than just California, say, in the next 5 to 10 years? How do you assess the possibility of solar renewables providing a major source of the increased need nationally as well as in California? Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the use of renewable energy will be growing. It will be increasing and for a variety of reasons. The American public has a great affinity for these types of energy sources for these resource technologies because of environmental, safety, and health, as well as energy-related reasons. I think it is the wave of the future that is now underway in California. When the Secretary and I went to the Renewable Energy Technologies Symposium and International Exposition which was conducted there last year, we visited many projects, and talked with people who are taking a leading role in transferring this technology within industry. |