Page 18 - Nuclear Plant Journal Digital Edition: January - February 2013
Basic HTML Version
Looking
at the
Long-Term
Future
By William Magwood, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
William Magwood
William D. Magwood, IV was sworn
in as a Commissioner of the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC)
on April 1, 2010, to
an initial term ending
on June 30, 2010,
and a reappointment
term ending June 30,
2015.
Mr. Magwood has a
career in the nuclear
field and in public
service. He was the
longest-serving head
of the United States’
civilian nuclear
technology program,
serving two Presidents
and five Secretaries of Energy.
Mr. Magwood served seven years as the
Director of Nuclear Energy with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), where
he was the senior nuclear technology
official in the United States Government
and the senior nuclear technology policy
advisor to the Secretary of Energy.
Mr. Magwood holds a B.S. degree in
physics and a B.A. degree in English
from Carnegie-Mellon University. He
also holds a Master of Fine Arts degree
from the University of Pittsburgh.
An interview by Newal Agnihotri,
Editor of Nuclear Plant Journal at
the American Nuclear Society Winter
Meeting in San Diego, California on
November 13, 2012.
1.
What is US NRC’s position on the
impact of low-dose radiation on the
evacuees affected due to Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear accident?
We do not have a position on the im-
pacts that low-dose radiation might have
had on evacuees as a result of the acci-
dent at Fukushima Daiichi. Obviously,
this is a matter that Japanese authorities
are investigating aggressively. That said,
here in the U.S., the discussion about the
health implications of
low-dose radiation is
ongoing. For exam-
ple, the Commission
has received a recom-
mendation from the
NRC staff to consider
changes to our regula-
tions in 10 CFR Part
20, which are the rules
establishing
safety
limits for radiation
exposure – particu-
larly work exposure.
The staff has recom-
mended the reduc-
tion of the maximum
exposure for workers from 5 rems to 2
rems per year – which is a significant
change. That has led to considerable con-
versation within the Commission and the
ACRS about whether that makes sense
and whether there is a technical basis for
such a change. I think that this is an is-
sue in which the Commission will engage
as we try to formulate a position on that
proposal from the staff.
There’s a lot of scientific evidence
which has been around for quite some
time that appears to indicate that there is
little danger from low-dose radiation. For
example, there is a recent MIT study on
mice that looked at DNA effects. When
I was with the Department of Energy,
Congress appropriated money to the
Office of Science to review the effects of
low-dose radiation and they concluded
that low doses of radiation didn’t have
health significant impacts. There is a lot
of scientific evidence that has raised this
question and I think it’s a question worth
exploring further.
Right now the health physics
community, as reflected by organizations
such as the ICRP, remains committed
to the linear no-threshold model, which
assumes that any radiation can have
health effects. Whether the reliance to
this model will be seriously challenged in
the community in the near future, I don’t
know.
I’m looking forward to hearing
from the experts in the health physics
community about this debate, because the
issue keeps coming back. It never goes
away entirely and it’s very important that
we get it right.
2.
What is US NRC’s involvement in
helping Japan with the recovery work at
Fukushima Da-ichi?
We’re cooperating with other
countries through the multilateral
processes that were established after
the accident. We’re cooperating through
the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency
and through the International Atomic
Energy Agency. There are also, certainly,
bilateral conversations that are taking
place – such as our cooperation with
the Japanese nuclear safety regulator
and our participation in the US/Japan
commission that is co-chaired by Deputy
Secretary of Energy Poneman. I don’t
believe, however, that there is a focused
program to provide assistance from
NRC to Japanese authorities. That being
said, whenever there is an issue or our
Japanese colleagues have a question or
want advice, the NRC is always available.
There’s a lot of dialogue that takes place,
but I wouldn’t say that there’s a formal
program associated with the recovery at
this point. I think the Japanese believe
they have the situation in hand and they’re
making a lot of good progress. Whenever
they need input from the NRC, we are
happy to provide it.
18
Nuclear Plant Journal, January-February 2013
