DEPARTMENT

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20014

December 18, 1979

Irwin D.J. Bross, Ph.D.

Director of Biostatistics

Roswell Park Memorial Institute

666 Elm Street

Buffalo, New York 14263

Dear Dr. Bross:

Your letter to Dr. Fredrickson has arrived at a time when he is
out of the country and will not be returning for a number of weeks.
In his absence, I am acknowledging the receipt of your communication.
You may rest assured that I will call your letter to the attention of
Dr. Fredrickson soon after his return.

I have noted your concerns and can only give you my assurance that

we are committed to answer the request of Senator Kennedy in a fair
and equitable manner, consistent with the highest ethical and scientific

standards.

Sincerely,

allowe

Charles U. Lowe, M.D.

Special Assistant to the Director

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20014

December 6, 1979

Dr. Fred Leone

Executive Director

American Statistical Association

806 15th Street, N.W.

Suite 640

Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Dr. Leone:

I am authorized to instruct you to proceed with the study of the Bross-Land controversy which we have discussed. An outline of our understanding is attached.

You will hear directly from our fiscal agent, JRB Associates, Inc. to work out the details.

Please feel free to call upon me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Wowz

Charles U. Lowe, M.D.

Special Assistant to the Director

Attachment [omitted]

CC:

H.O. Hartley, President

Edgar M. Bisgyer, Managing Director

I am responding to your letter of November 23, 1979, on the subject of the so-called Tri-State Commission and the interest Utah, Arizona and Nevada have in the effects of fallout from the 1950's weapons tests. I believe Clark Heath conveyed to your office before the holidays the substance of my useful conversation with him. I believe you also were present at the time when Utah's Governor Matheson presented his view to Secretary Harris. In any case, let me summarize where we stand and what we would like to propose:

I. The Tri-State Commission was a mechanism suggested to us by
Dr. Guy Newell as a way to coordinate the interests of the
three states. The material you received from me was a contract/
grant hybrid, designed to respond to the request made of us.
I have no argument to make for that mechanism and, in fact,
prefer, and now plan to submit basic grant proposals directly
from our group at the University of Utah.

II.

III.

We are in the final stage of preparing such scientific
proposals which cover four areas: dosimetry, epidemiology
of childhood and adult cancer, birth and chromosomal defects,
and a records and indexing center. Our proposals are about
to be sent to a panel of outside consultants who have agreed
to work with us. We expect to have them back and ready for
submission to you within the next three to four weeks.

I sent penultimate drafts of our proposals to Dr. Sarn in
Arizona and Mr. Edmundson in Nevada so they could see what
we planned. I am prepared to try to coordinate these efforts
which was the purpose of the Tri-State Commission in the first
place. But I cannot guarantee that we, at the University of
Utah, will be entirely comfortable with incorporating every-
thing which may come from the other two states. I will know
more in two weeks.

IV. I have the impression from Dr. Heath that after receiving our
grant proposals, you would likely send them through his sub-
committee or one like it, and proceed in the traditional manner
to examine their merits.
from our point of view.
discuss with you and Dr.

This would be entirely satisfactory
Thereafter, we would be pleased to
Heath or others of your choosing any
criticisms or recommendations you might have about our proposals.

January 3, 1980
Page Two

The proposals cover seven years of study and are
comprehensive and costly.

Please let me know if our plans for submission make sense to you and are timely. The feasibility contract with CDC will run out in March, 1980, and I hope that before then we will have a decision as to how or whether we proceed.

Sincerely,

Chan Peterson

Chase N. Peterson, M.D.
Vice President

for Health Sciences

Office of the White House Press Secretary

THE WHITE HOUSE

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Today I am establishing this Nation's first comprehensive radioactive waste management program. My paramount objective in managing nuclear wastes is to protect the health and safety of all Americans, both now and in the future. I share this responsibility with elected officials at all levels of our government. Our citizens have a deep concern that the beneficial uses of nuclear technology, including the generation of electricity, not be allowed to imperil public health or safety now or in the future.

For more than 30 years, radioactive wastes have been generated by programs for national defense, by the commercial nuclear power program, and by a variety of medical, industrial and research activities. Yet past governmental efforts to manage radioactive wastes have not been technically adequate. Moreover, they have failed to involve successfully the States, local governments, and the public in policy or program decisions. My actions today lay the foundation for both a technically superior program and a full cooperative Federal-State partnership to ensure public confidence in a waste management program.

My program is consistent with the broad consensus that has evolved from the efforts of the Interagency Review Group on Radioactive Waste Management (IRG) which I established. The IRG findings and analysis were comprehensive, thorough and widely reviewed by public, industry and citizen groups, State and local governments, and members of the Congress. Evaluations of the scientific and technical analyses were obtained through a broad and rigorous peer review by the scientific community. The final recommendations benefited from and reflect this input.

My objective is to establish a comprehensive program for the management of all types of radioactive wastes. My policies and programs establish mechanisms to ensure that elected officials and the public fully participate in waste decisions, and direct Federal departments and agencies to implement a waste management strategy which is safe, technically sound, conservative, and open to continuous public review. This approach will help ensure that we will reach our the safe storage and disposal of all forms of

objective nuclear waste.

Our primary objective is to isolate existing and future radioactive waste from military and civilian activities from the biosphere and pose no significant threat to public health and safety. The responsibility for resolving military and civilian waste management problems shall not be deferred to future generations. The technical program must meet all relevant radiological protection criteria as well as all other applicable regulatory requirements. This effort must proceed regardless of future developments within the nuclear industry its future size, and resolution of specific fuel cycle and reactor design issues. The specific steps outlined below are each aimed at accomplishing this overall objective.

more