Text

Transcript of 880314 Briefing on Status of Efforts to Develop De Minimis Policy in Washington,Dc.Pp 1-59.Related Documentation Encl
	ML20148C463
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/14/1988
From:	; NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	;
References
	REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8803220397
	Download: ML20148C463 (69)
	v • d • e

MNWNNNN@$6SMWGVIVWWdW(VWWGVSVi((VcVW;VgyW;yggygygyggggggg g TPAt!SMITTAl. T0:

[

Occument Control Desk, 016 Phillips

l

~-

j ADVANCE 0 COPY TO:

The Public Document Rocm 3 //7/PP b

OATE:

/

i

[

FROM:

SECY Correspondence & Records Branch h

Q Attached are copies of a Connission meeting transcript and related meeting M

f document (s).

They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and h

[

placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or A

1:

required.

2 Heeting

Title:

hu L / v -d L L lM) /;f

& &j}h~

E

/) &

(L bbt]W Le e

Meeting Date:

J//M/r[

Open [

Closed i

i C

M t

[

ltem Description *:

Copies Advanced DCS G

'8 s

to PDR Copy E

33 bc

1. TRANSCRIPT 1

1 l

tJ //du~mM g

V E

2. A+_ - FF-4 9 2

/

a:

A-a

=

a

=w 4.

k R

a s.

4Q 6.

g i

8

POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.

3 C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY gi papers.

8803220397 880314 PDR

~

.7 dM l

l bYhY Yl YIlYI l

YbYbYb bYlYl lhb $ IYs b$l $lkb

^

@R9N$L_

s I'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Title:

Briefing on the Status of Efforts to Develop a De Minimis Policy i

Location:

Washingttn, D.

C.

Date:

Monday, March 14, 1908

/

Pages:

1 - 59 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950 m.

.l 1

D 1.S C LA I MER 2

3 4

5 6

This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the 7

United States Nuclear Regu l a t ory Ccons i ss i on held on S

In the Commission's office at 1717 H Street, 9

N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation.

This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or edited,.and it may contain 12 inaccuracies.

13 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational p u r p o s e,s.

As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informan record of decision of the 16 matters discussed.

Expressions of cpinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs, No 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in 19 any proceeding 4 a the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 21 authorl=e.

22 l

23 i

24 25 1

s s

1-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' t

2 NUCL2AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

4 PUBLIC MEETING 5

6 Briefing on the Status of 7

Efforts to Develop a De Minimis Policy 8

9 1717 H Street, NW 10 Room 1130 11 Washington, D.C.

12 Monday, March 14, 1988 13 The Commission met in public session, pursuant to 14 notice, at 2:00 p.m.,

the Honorable Lando W.

Zech, Jr.,

15 Chairman of the Commission, presiding.

16 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:

17 Lando W.

Zech, Jr., Chairman 18 Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner 19 Frederick M.

Bernthal, Commissioner 20 Thomas M.

Roberts, Commissioner 21 Kenneth M.

Carr, Commissioner 22 STAFF SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:

23 S.

Chilk, SECY 24 W.

Parler, OGC 25 V.

Stello, EDO

s s

2 1

R.

Bernero

( ~.

2 T. Speis 3

W.' Lahs 4

3.

Morris 5

B.

Alexander 6

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 s

21 22 23 24 25

v s

3 1

P R O C E E D I N G'S p,

2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

3 The Commission will be briefed today by the office'of 4

Research and Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

5 The subject of the briefing is the status of their 6

activities to define the potential use of de minimis and below 7

regulatory concern concepts in the NRC's radiation protection 8

policies and regulations.

9 The Commission has requested that the Staff develop a 10 proposed policy statement that would identify the level of' 11 radiation risk below which government regulation becomes 12 unwarranted.

13 This policy statement should be consistent with all 14 existing government standards related to the protection of the 15 public from radiation hazards.

The Commission had previously 16 requested that the Staff provide advice on how existing and 17 proposed de minimis below regulatory concern and residual 18 radioactivity standards are related.

19 Recently the Commission approved, with modifications, 20 a proposed final rule on decommissioning of nuclear activities, l

21 nuclear facilities which will require that decommissioned l

22 facilities'be decontaminated to an acceptable level.

23 I would be interested in hearing the status of 24 activities to revise and update the agency's guidance in this 25-area.

i

s s

4 1

Lastly, there is interest in this subject by several

(^

2 government agencies, other domestic organizations, and a number 3

of foreign organizations.

4 Time permitting, it would be worthwhile to have a 5

brief summary of activities by other organizations in this 6

area.

~

~~

7 I would like to point out that this is an information 8

meeting, and no formal Commission vote is anticipated this 9

afternoon.

10 Do any of'my fellow Commissioners have any opening 11 comments to make?

If not, Mr. Stello, you may proceed.

12 MR. STELLO:

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

13 Let me start by introducing those at the table with 14 me here today.

On my far right is Mr. Bernero from NMSS, the 15 deputy of that office.

To my iminediate right is Mr. Speis, who 16 is -- Dr. Speis, who is the deputy of our' Office of Research.

17 To my immediate left, Mr. Lahs, who will be making the 18 presentation this morning from Research.

And immediately to 19 his left, Bill Morris from our Office of Research.

20 We do this afternoon want to tell you about our plans 21 to bring together a symposium to discuss the complex questions 22 related to issues of setting dose levels at a. point where I 23 think you would characterize them as de minimis or below 24 regulatory concern.

25 We have been working hard to bring international

~

s j

5 1

communities and various governments together to have a 2

discussion in this very important area.

And you have already 3

correctly pointed out that there are others in the federal 4

government of the United States who will participate with us in 5

having this discussion.

6 You also are aware that we sent you a paper giving 7

you an outline of the concepts involved a couple of weeks ago, 8'

and that paper is the basis upon which the briefing this 9

afternoon will be based.

And if I can, I will ask Mr. Lahs to 10 proceed with the presentation.

11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, thank you very much.

You 12 pay proceed.

13 MR. LAHS:

As the Chairman has indicated, the purpose 14 of my presentation today is really to initiate our direct 15 response to your request made 16 the staff requirements memos 16 dated back on February 5th and November 24th of last year.

17 In so doing, I am going to be presenting the status 18 report, in which I am going to be discussing the below 19 regulatory concern de minimis risk concepts and their potential 20 uses in the development of radiation protection policies and 21 regulations.

I am going to be specifically focusing on the 22 question which you raised on the efforts to use these concepts 23 to try to develop a proposed Commission policy that would 24 identify a level of radiation risk below which the government l

25

' regulation becomes either limited or unwarranted.

s s

6 In the November SRM, you also requested ~a near term 1

2 status report.

As Mr. Stello has indicated, we have submitted 3

a Commission paper in response to your request, and my 4

intention today is to discuss and elaborate on the major points 5

raised in that paper.

6 As the next slide shows, please --

7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Before you go to the next slide, are 8

you going to talk to us about some of the criteria that you 9

have used in making these judgments?

10 MR. LAHS:

Yes, I am going to be mentioning it.

11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

That's fine.

12 MR. LAHS:

Could I have the next slide, please.

You got it backwards.

There you go.

Okay, the topics I'd like to discuss, first of all, 15 is the radiation protection framework and the terms and 16 concepts associated with potential regulatory cut-offs.

17 Second, I would like to get into some discussion of 18 some policy development considerations, and discuss these in 19 light of current NRC, EPA,.and international activities, and 20 actually I would like to refer to current activities in 21 discussing both these first two items, to give you some idea of 22 the magnitude of some of the cut-off levels that are being 23 proposed both nationally and internationally.

24 Third, a brief discussion of our plans for an 25 international symposium which Vic Stello referred to.

7 l

And finally, a discussion of the preliminary resource

(,,\\

.2 estimates not only for development of the broad policy, which 3

you asked for, but also some specific policies which are in the 4

works.

5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

In the Commission paper that you 6

provided, you talked about interagency working group.

7 MR. LAHS:

Yes, sir.

0 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Can you tell us a little bit about 9

what's going on in that group?

10 MR. LAHS:

Essentially --

11' CHAIRMAN ZECH:

As you go through?

12 MR. LAHS:

Okay, yes.

13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Or at the appropriate time.. I'd just 14 like to know.

I think it's true that we do have an interagency 15 working group, and I'd just like to hear what is taking place 16 as far as that group is concerned.

17 MR. LAHS:

Okay.

Maybe that would be good to take 18 up.

There's a viewgraph here on authorities and people 19 involved in setting the de minimis and below regulatory concern 20 standards.

Maybe if I could defer it to that time.

21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

That's fine, as long as you cover it.

l 22 I think it's important we have that going on, and I would.like l

23 to hear about it, and I think my fellow Commissioners would be l

24 interested in that, too.

All right, let's go.

25 1m. LAHS:

Starting with the first topic on the L

~~

C B

s 1

slide.

That first topic -- you know, at first it looks'like

/

2 it's fairly unimportarit, but because of the w'ide differences in 3

interpretations given to terms, especially those terms 4

associated with regulatory cut-off concepts and specificcily 5

the term de minimis.

I think I can assure you that an 6

appreciation of the radiation protection framework and a 7

consistent and c'ommon definition of the de minimis and below 8

regulatory concern concepts is really vital to coherent 9

di'scussion and understanding of policy options which you may 10 have.

11 The current framework for radiation protection 12 consists of three fundamental principles:

13 The first of these is whether particular usage of 14 radioactive material is justified.

That is, whether there is 15 some benefit to be gained by use of radioactive materials.

16 Can I have the next slide, please.

17 The second principle involves dose limits which 18 essentially' establish the boundary between allowable and i

19 unacceptable exposures to individuals.

These limits are 20 contained in 10 CFR Part 20 and provide the adequate protection l

21 required for public health and safety.

22 Within that range of potential acceptab]s xposures

~

23

-- in other words, below the line on this figure, exposures are 24 further limited by application of the third principle, the 25 ALARA principle, as low as reasonably achievable.

l

p uuu ~

L 9

)

f c, _'

1 Also, though, within that' region below these basic 2

dost. limits are other limits imposed by both NRC and EPA which 3

fur.her restrict dose levels for some licensees such as nuclear i

4 power plants and nuclear fuel cycle facilities.

5 Examples here are things like the EPA's uranium fuel 6

cycle standard and the Clean Air Act and even our own Appendix 7

I.

8 At the lower end of tha ALARA region of doses, as 9

we're getting now into the middle'of the figure, the concept of 10 regulatory cut-offs comes into play.

The first one we run into 11 is what we have called below regulatory concern or BRC.

BRC, 12 in our minds, connotes a level of risk or dose that may be 13 considered small from a regulatory standpoint.

Individual and 14 collective doses essentially that warrant only limited 15 government attention, taking into account the cost of further 16 regulation and the likelihood that such regulation would 17 significantly alter the resulting doses.

s 18 If certain specific BRC source or exposures -- I'm 19 sorry, if a source of exposure could be considered as a 20 candidate for reduced regulatory requirements, if certain 21 specific BRC conditions are met, and the best way to describe 22 this is to think of examples with regard to disposal of certain 23 low level waste streams.

You had a policy statement which you 24 issued back in August

'86, which was followed by an advanced 25 notice in December of that year, addressing the issue of f

=

c 10 1,

disposal of certain low level radioactively contaminated' waste 2

streams.

3 And in those documents, you suggested that those 4

waste streams might be disposed of ac sites other than low 5

level waste sites, if the individual doses associated with 6

disposal were no more than a few millirem per year.

7 Now it turns out that EPA is developing generally 8

applicable environmental standards for land disposal of low 9

level radioactive waste which includes a 4 millirem per year 10 individual dose criterion for the BRC waste streams.

11 Internationally, both EPA and ourselves are not too 12 far out of step because, for example, the Atomic Energy Board 13 of Canada, in also dealing with waste streams that they would 14 like to designate as being below regulatory concerns,-are 15 suggesting a 5 millirem per year number.

16 This BRC approach that I mentioned in terms of waste 17 streams --

18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Excuse me.

Have any other countries 19 put a number on it like that, do you know?

20 MR. LAHS:

Let's see, the United Kingdom, I believe, 21 has a number of, I believe it's 5 millirem per year, and then 22 to account for multiple sources, I believe they divide by 10 23 and get down to a half millirem per year.

So they're all in 24 the same ball park.

25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

So something around 5 or below?

O 11 1

MR. LAHS:

Yes, for the waste streams.

" s, 2

CHAIRMAN ZECH:

For the waste stream.

All right.

3 Thank you.

4 MR. LAHS:

But the point is the BRC approach can also 5

be considered to respond, for example, to your request on March 6

2nd directing the Staff to develop interim guidance'for 7

residual levels of radioactive contamination on lands or 8

structures which could be released for unrestricted use 9

following decommissioning.

Now I am going to get into a little 10 more detail on that effort in the resource part of my 11 presentation.

12 Finally, at the bottom of the figure is the region of 13 dose levels that would be low enough for the assumed risk to be 14 considered as tri.via'l by the individual, and that's what we 15 have designated to be the de minimis or negligible individual 16 risk level.

17 As a concept, the negligible risk level can be 18 considered one in which no regulatory activity is required.

To 19 give you some feeling'again for what others contider a de 20 minimis risk, the National Council on Radiation Protection uses 21 the phrase annual negligible individual risk level, and refers 22 to this as the boundary below which the risk is dismissed from 23 consideration.

24 Nationally, the Food and Drug Administration and the 25 Environmental Protection Agency define a de minimis risk as i

_ __j

0 O

12 1

risk of one cancer per 100,000 to 1 million lifetimes.

Now f",

2 that translates into an annual fatality risk which generally we 3

tend t'o deal with here on the order of about 10 to the minus 4

7th or 10 to the minus 8th.

So we're talking about small 5

numbers.

6 okay, I should mention, to give you again a feeling' 7

for the numbers, that when we talk about the Part 20 limits, we 8

are talking about the upper limits, we are talking about

~

9 individual doses in rodghly the 100 millirem per year range.

10 The supplementary standards'are generally in the 25 millirem 11 per year range, except for Appendix I, which is down 10 or 5, 12 depending on what interpretation you want to make.

13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

As a. matter of curiosity, 14 when other agencies, EPA or whoever, arrive at these 15 spectacularly low numbers, do they assume a linear hypothesis 16 as well?

Because they certainly don't test large populations 17 for reaction to substances at that level.

18 MR. LAHS:

I believe when they are talking about the 19 toxic substances, I don't believe -- and the Food and Drug 20 Administration has an applicable linear hypothesis.

With EPA, 21 I believe they do use it, but I might stand corrected on that, l

22 if anybody knows anything.

23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I can't see how else they 24 would do it, quite frankly.

l 25 MR. ALEXANDER:

Ye's, the EPA's radiation standards 1

w o

13 1

are based on the linear --

O 2

COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

No, I'm not talking about 3

radiation.

I am talking about all the other stuff --

4 MR. PARLER:

Mr. Chairman?

5 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Yes.

6 MR. PARLER:

Could someone identify the gentleman?

7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Yes, please, thank you.

Would you 8

identify yourself, please, for the reporter?

9 MR. ALEXANDER:

R.E Alexander, Office of Research.

10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Thank you.

11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Yes, my question was not 12 about radiation, although I assume that yours was a more when yore talking about FDA things, for 13 generic issue, u

14 example.

What do they do about things like toxic substances?

15 MR. LAHS:

The number I referred --

16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Are they in your hypothesis?

17 MR. LAHS:

The -- I believe that's correct, because 18 the number I was referring to was a -- came from a Superfund 19 determination and some number that applies to toxic waste, not 20 necessarily radioactivity.

But I'd like ho double-check that 21 for you.

l l

22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

The number I don't -- it is 23 whatever you say it is, but I'm curious as to how they arrived 24 at that policy.

25' CHAIRMAN ZECH:

What's the top of your chart, basic

14 1

regula, tory dose limit?

Can you talk about that for just a

(~%,

2 minute?

And then below that somewhere, I guess, could you talk 3

about what do we get living here in the Washington, D.C. area?

4 What do they get living in different parts of the country?

5 Just'to put some perspective on.the numbers.

6 MR. LAHS:

As I mentioned, the basic regulatory 7

standard in Part 20.is essentially, or will become 100, roughly 8

100 MR per year to the individual, year in and year out, with I 9

believe a maximum of 500 -- and again, Bob Alexander can 10 correct me if I'm a little off on the numbers.

Background in 11 Washington, I would suspect is, if you count radon, is probably 12 on the order of something a little less than 200, and the 13 background over the country I guess varies from 100 to 300 MR 14 per year, plus or minus 20 percent or so.

15 CHAIRMAN ZECH-Good.

16 MR. ALEXANDER:

I didn't hear the upper range you 17 gave.

l 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

I said to 500.

l 19 MR. ALEXANDER:

Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

100 to 500 throughout our country, 21 depending on where you live?

22 MR. LAHS:

Yes.

23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Where is the highest radiation levels 24 in our country, just as far as the --

25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

In your basement.

15 1

(Laughter.]

(~T 2

MR. LAHS:

In terms of cities, I would suspect it's 3

something like Denver.

4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Yes.

Why?

5 MR. LAHS:

Because of the --

6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

The altitude, I guess, right?

7 MR. LAHS:

Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

I imagine.

Is that right?

9 MR. LAHS:

Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Okay.

All right, that's fine.

MR. LAHS:

Okay.

Let me --

11 12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Let me just make the point 13.

here that the canonical number for average radiation dose is 14 simply -- was recently nearly doubled from the single influence 15-of radon, as you know.

It's up to 300 or something like that.

16 MR. STELLO:

I just asked Bob, and he just told me l

17 the number was -- average in the country now, including radon, 18 is 300 millirem per year average.

19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Including radon?

l 20 MR. STELLO:

Yes.

1 21 MR. LAHS:

200 roughly, from radon.

22 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

What kind of a dose would you get if 23 you flew an airplane from New York to Los Angeles?

24 MR. LAHS:

I think it's a few millirem, but I'm not 25 sure.

I'd have to double-check.

You mean --

l 4

16 l'

CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Just say one trip.

2 MR. ALEXANDER:

5 millirem.

3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

5 millirem.

So if you did a number 4

of trips a year, it would be five times how many number of 5

trips you made a year; right?

6 MR. LAHS:

That's right.

7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

It would add to your yearly dose.

Do 8

the airlines keep track of their pilots and attendants?

Do you 9

know?

10 MR. LAHS:

I don't believe so, no.

11 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Is there any concern about that?

12 MR. ALEXANDER:

Yes,.they are investigating now the 13

' necessity for monitoring the radiation doses of the flight 14 crews and establishing a criteria,, occupational dose criteria 15 for them.

But those have not yet been adopted or enforced.

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

17 MR. STELLO:

One other interesting number -- I have 18 asked Mr. Alexander to join us at the table -- if I remember 19 right, the average exposure at our nuclear plants is averaging 20 I think it's on the order of half a millirem i

year, living 21 in the vicinity of a nuclear plant now?

The average?

22 MR. ALEXANDER:

Oh, no,,for the people who live 23 within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant, the average annual 24 radiation dose is 7 microrem per year.

25 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

What about 10 miles?

17 1

MR. ALEXANDER:

I'm sorry, Commissioner, the only 2

number I have in mind right now is the average out to 50 miles.

3 I don't know what it is to 10 miles.

4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

It seems like that's probably 5

a more pertinent number, for a variety of reasons.

6 MR. LAHS:

If I could go on then, before we leave

~

7 this framework slide, I would like to make one last point 8

regarding what we called in the Commission paper de facto BRC 9

levels that are currently in NRC regulations.

I think a bridf 10 discussion of these exemptions may illustrate a consistency in 11 the release standards that may not be immediately obvious, 12 because the exemptions are often specified in terms of 13 radionuclide quantity concentrations, and the relationship to 14 individual or population dose is not always specifically called 15 out.

16 Examples of these de facto levels include things like 17 exempt quantities and concentrations of various materials --

18 materials in various consumer and industrial products which 19 show up in Part 30, exempt concentrations of tritium and 20 carbon-14 in animal carcases and scintillation fluids requiring 21 disposal which appear in Part 20, and exempt quantities of 22 soluble or dispersable radioactive material for release into 23 sal.4tary sewer systems which also appears in Part 20.

24 The part I am trying to make here is that it was 25

'often possible for these exemptions and a lot of exemptions on

18 1

consumer products to be based on practical requirements or 2

needs for the radioactive material associated with a specific 3

source or practice.

4 As a result, the estimated individual doses which 5

could potentially be associated with exposure to some of these 6

practices and sources can be in the microrem range.

A 7

magnitude of individual dose that we have just got done 8

discussing, which we probably can justifiably argue is in the 9

negligible risk area.

I 10 So what's happened in a sense is that you've made --

11 at least in my mind you're making BRC determinations, but 12 because of the practicality.of the situation, many times in our 13 regulation that shows up as a limit which is really a 14 negligible individual risk level, in my mind.

15 These exemptions were promulgated by previous 16 Commissions, not because they were always entirely risk-free, 17 but because either as I mentioned before, the degree of risk 18 was too small to justify the burden of additional regulatory 19 constraints, or else little, if anything, would be gained in 20 terms of risk reduction by the addition of regulatery contfols.

21 There's another important point.

You may also be 22 aware that limited regulatory controls are often associated 23 with some of these BRC levels.

Something the name "below 24 regulatory concern" doesn't necessarily imply, especially to 25 people not familiar with the concept.

19 1

For' example, when we were t'alking about disposal of

(

2 the waste streams, where you can dispose of those waste streams 3

is going to be limited, probably to sanitary landfills or to 4

incineration.

5 Licensees may be required to perform radiological 6

surveys, maintain exposure records, and be subject to NRC 7

inspections for compliance.

8 In summary, then, the risk associated with specific 9

BRC levels may -- and I want to emphasize may -- be what most 10 people would consider trivial.

But once the conditions for 11 definition of BRC levels are defined and incorporated into 12 practice, through either license conditions or into our 13 regulations, additional measures taken by the licensees or the 14 public to further reduce risk would be essentially entirely 15 voluntary.

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

When those decisions were made, are 17 you aware, was there any attempt at consistency?

Was there any.

18 attempt to bring them together?

Any attempt to look at all of 19 them as.a whole, rather than each one individually?

20 MR. LAHS:

I think the one thing they had in common 21 was that they all had justification of practice, was a major 22 factor.

As far as -- like I say, you could look at something 23 like allowable amounts of material say in a smoke detector, and 24 people have done calculations in looking at what individual 25 exposures could result from americium-241.

You might come up e

n-

20 1

with the number of 9 microrem, and people have actually figured i

f b.

2 out population doses from smoke detectors.

From some other 3

consumerhroduct, it could be something much higher or lower.

4 And the reason being because the standards were essentially set 5

in most cases based on essentially what was needed.

6 In other words, there was not a consistency in dose 7

level, although there was a consistency in establishing the 8

levels in the regulations, because it was based on the --

9 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

But a determination had to be made 10 that it was certainly not a health hazard or hazardous to the 11 human being - -

12 MR. LAHS:

Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Is that -- I'm sure that --

14 MR. LAHS:

Well, obviously when we're talking 15 microrems or --

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Yes, but I mean below that, as far as 17 you know, apparently there was not any attempt to look at the 18 whole of these various specific items?

19 MR. LAHS:

I believe that's correct.

Bob, do you 20 have anything -- Bob Bernero?

21 MR. BERNERO:

No.

22 MR. LAHS:

Okay.

I think that's right.

23 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

Fine.

Thank you.

24 MR. STELLO:

The answer is they were not.

25 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, proceed.

Thank you.

21 1

MR. LAHS:

Okay, at this point I'd like to discuss 2

some technically oriented policy development considerations on 3

the next slide, please.

4 We just got done discussing that from the Staff's 5

viewpoint, there are at least two different types of low level 6

regulatory cut-offs, one which we call below regulatory 7

concern, and one which we call negligible risk, or de minimis 8

risk.

9 Okay, the first item coming down, and it says if BRC 10 cut-offs are to be established, one of the first questions we'd 11 have to address is whether generic or source or activity-12 specific cut-offs should be developed.

13 Now if we go the generic route, you say, well, how-14 could I defend such a number?

Well, you might do just what you 15 were doing earlier.

You'd say, well, maybe you could defend 16 the number based on some small fraction of background, some 17 small fraction of variation background; the number of flights

'18 you take across the country in a year.

In other words, you 19 have to use those sort of comparative arguments to justify a 20 generic number.

21 The latter approach, by being -- because of the fact 22 that it is source-specific, would definitely allow the 23 possibility of using value impact or cost risk aversion 24 arguments which implies at least a qualitative consideration of 25 potential population doses associated with individual practices

22 1

or activities.

And it's that approach, in fact, which EPA is

(,, _,

2 using in trying to come up with their number for the disposal 3

of waste streams.

4 The second bullet.

One should also consider how to 5

characterize cut-off levels.

We've mentioned you could 6

characterize them in terms of risk, individual dose, population

~

7 dose, quantities, concentrations, or combinations of thosa.

8 parameters.

The reason that's important is that for any 9

regulatory cut-off policy to be useful, it has to be 10' implementable.

This suggests that even if cut-offs can bc 11 defined in terms of individual or population doses, somewhere 12 along the line, these doses have to be translated into 13 measurables.

I mean if you're decommissioning this room, you 14 have to translate that into what's going to be allowed on the 15 surface of these walls, or what the concentration is going to 16 be on the particular waste stream that you're going to allow to 17 go into the landfill.

18 This then brings up the, I guess, familiar regulatory 19 issue of conslutent modeling.

That is the regulatory agency l

20 then has to assure itself that a consistent and proper level of j

21 realism er conservatism is used in translating these measurable 22 levels of radioactivity into estimates of individual or 23 population doses.

24 Okay, the third consideration applies probably to the 25 development of either BRC or negligible risk levels, and

~

23 1

relates to how one deals with the issue of potential exposures

(__b 2

to multiple sources, and again you can again think about 3

dispose of the waste streams, that if I tell you that disposal 4

of a particular waste stream should not lead to a:. individual 5

dose greater than 4 MR per year, and it's going to go to a 6

certain particular landfill.

The question, though, is how do 7

we assure ourselves that more than one waste stream is not

'8 coming into that landfill, or from exposure to consumer 9

products.

Somewhere along the line we have to make a judgment 10 how many consumer products an individual can be exposed to.

11 The fourth item really again is tied into whether e

12 we're going to be doing source-specific or generic 13 determinations in terms of BRC levels, because if we do the 14 source specific, it will bring population dose into the 15 derivation of those levels, and implies that we'd be doing some 16 sort of a cost-risk trade-off.

So you get into what again is 17 the appropriate _ number to convert a manrem into dollars.

18 Finally, the fifth consideration arises if the BRC 19 levels or in fact de minimis levels are converted into fatality 20 or cancer risks.

Here if these sorts of determinations or 21 conversions are made, the Commission essentially would be 22 establishing, or maybe a better word would be reinforcing what 23 is really probably a questionable practice of extrapolating the 24 use of risk coefficients down to dose levels, where their use 25 is really naturally supported by other data.

I

24 1

And then finally the last item is ment'ioned 'because 2

of the choice of negligible risk level, as'we have already 3

mentioned it, in our minds, anyway, as more of a subjective 4

judgment which is going to be somewhat difficult, I think, to 5

quantify.

6 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Why do you call those 7

technically?~

8 MR. LAHS:

Well, the next viewgraph.

9 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Well, but you said that last one 10 is subjective down there.

There's nothing technical about that 11 last bullet you just explained.

12 MR. LAHS:

Well, I guess that's a matter of 13 interpretation.

I guess you're right.

It could come over into 14 the next chart in terms of the -- I guess I see it as -- it's a 15 judgment, we're saying, by the individual, but it becomes a 16 technical issue in the sense that the Staff then has to somehow 17 make a judgment on what most reasonable individuals would 18 consider an individual risk level.

19 Okay.

The next viewgraph is an attempt to identify 20 the major authorities and regulations which are likely to have 21 a significant impact on the development of regulatory cut-off 22 policies, and the point which I've made before, and which is 23 reemphasized here, is that there are really a number of 24 significant players in the regulatory cut-off game, and rany 25 have already established or are establishing collective dose or

35 1

individual risk cut-offs for their specific purposes, and as a j

2 result, if we in the Commission are going to establish and l

3 implement a Commission BRC negligible risk policy, the logic of 4

that policy and the levels which are set will have to be 5

understood, defended, or put into conte.** in light of these 6

other cut-off levels, and radiation protection policies, mainly 7

those put out by EPA.

8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

What standard did EPA apply when they 9

established the radiation level in the Safe Drinking Water Act 10 and the clean Air Act?

'll MR. LAHS:

That essentially is a 4 millirem per year 12 value.

13 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

4 millirem per year, thet's what they 14 used.

15 MR. LAHS:

For the individual dose limit.

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

And they considered that then --

17 MR. LAHS:

Before treatment, that's right.

18 CHAIRMAN 2ECH:

Before treatment, safe drinking water 19 levels, and for air also?

20 MR. LAHS:

For air, I believe it's 25 millirem per 21 year.

22

. COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Yes, I think the question 23 then is how did they decide on those numbers?

24 MR. EERNERO:

May I '. nte rj ect, Bill?

One of the 25 difficul' ties we have is the EPA standards are fragmented, and

26 they are subject to change, and we are in active'di.-logue with 1

2 EPA right now because their -- what we call the fuel. cycle 3

standard, where they chose 25 for the fuel cycle, they are 4

looking at low level waste standards now, and they may go down 5

to something more like 4 millirem per year for that, and that 6

has sort or a domino effect, because if you judge that to be 7

appropriately at 4, they may reconsider these others.

8 They had a big hearing back in the mid '70s, the same 9

time we had an Appendix I hearing, and it looked at the 10 technology of the fuel cycle, what the different doses were 11 from.

It looked at epidemiology by what biological effects 12 could be inferred, but basically did a long risk-benefit, cost-13 benefit sort of analysis in choosing those standards.

And now, 14 you know, they are always subject to that revision.

15 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

And we are working with them closely 16 now on this?

l 17 MR. BERNERO:

Yes, we are.

We have direct dealings 18 with EPA on a regular basis, and also through what is called 19 the CIRRPC Ccmmittee, the interagency committee.

l 20 CHAIPMAN ZECH:

Okay, thank you.

21 COMMISSIONER CARR:

I don't understand why we've got l

l 22 more of a problem than they had.

23 MR. LAHS:

Well, in fact, they had the same problem, 24 and that's one of the reasons --

25 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Only they solved theirs.

l-l l

27 1

MR. LAHS:

They haven't yet, but for example, in

/,., \\

2

' terms of the BRC waste streams, the -- I believe they would 3

have -- and this may be putting some words in their mouth, I 4

believe they could have justified a somewhat higher number, but 5

they chose the 4 millirem per year value --

6 COMMISSIONER CARR:

For whatever the reason, they 7

picked one.

8 MR. LAHS:

Yes. Oh, that's correct.

Then you're 9

correct.

I see what you're saying.

10 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Bob just referred to the key, 11 though, and that's a "long cost-benefit or risk-benefit

~

12 analysis."

What did they use for that analysis?

I mean there 13 really is a figure of merit hidden somewhere in that, which 14 presumably is expressed in terms similar to the ones that we 15 use here.

What did they use?

16 MR. LAHS:

Right.

They traded off the ravings in not 17 having to send waste streams to the low level waste sites 18 against increased -- in this case it would be increased 19 different levels of population exposure.

20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Yes, but what was the 21 populaticn exposure criterion?

Was it -- how many dollars per 22 rem avoided, or whatever, million dollars per human life, or 23 however you want to express it?

l 24 MR. LAHS:

I believe they used the same numbers we 25 did, about $1000 per manrem, but again I'd like to check that

28 o

1 out for you and come back to you.

2 CdAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, let's proceed.

3 MR. ALEXANDER:

That's the one point I think that 4

Senator Bernthal --

5 (Laughter.)

6 MR. ALEXANDER:

-- Commissioner Bernthal --

7 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I'm not sure whether that's a 8

promotion.'

9 (Laughter.]

10 MR. ALEXANDER:

Promotion was intended, Commissioner.

11 The point I wanted to make was that neither the EPA 12 nor the NRC has the benefit of recommendations from the NCRP or 13 the ICRP in making these decisions.

Agencies like ours normally have such recommendations for setting the upper' limits 14 15 on exposure, but when you get to the low levels of trying to 16 decide where to discontinue regulation, we're on our own.

17 COMMISSIONER CARR:

That ought to make it easier to l

18 work.

19 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, let's proceed.

20 MR. LAHS:

All right.

Then I'd like to, I guess, now 21 discuss some more, I guess, nuts and bolts type items.

The 22 first having to do with Staff efforts relative to the 23 international symposium's regulatory authorities on the use of i

24 these regulatory cut-off concepts; and second, complete the l

l 25 presentation of'the Staff's reviews regarding preliminary l

2

29 1

resource estimates associated with the development of various i

2 regulatory cut-off policies.

3 On the former, the Staff has initiated efforts to 4

convene a symposium because of the obvious international 5

implications of the Commission's desire to identify this level 6

of radiation risk below which government regulation becomes 7

limited or unwarranted.

8 We had initially planned for a meeting-on September 9

20th to 22nd of this year, but it appears there's a conflict 10 overseas, so it may have to be delayed either one week or into, 11 I believe its the second week of October, so tha,t's still 12 being worked out,'ta) be held here in Washington.

The meeting 13 will be. held by us in cooperation with the Nuclear Energy 14 Agency.

Letters have already been exchanged.

In fact, George 15 sent a letter to Klaus Stadte, and we have received a favorable l

l 16 reply late last month.

l 17 Dick Cunningham of NMSS will be attending a joint 18 committee of Radiation Protection and Public Health, a CNSI 19 Bureau meeting tomorrow, and is carrying with him NRC's 20 suggestions for a symposium agenda.

21 As you can get from this briefing, we are still in 22 the process of developing an NRC position which could serve as 23 the focal point for symposium discussion.

24 On the help side, we have a contract with the Oak 25 Ridge Associated Universities to provide us technical

30 1

assistance to both formulate and conduct and summarize the'

(^x 2

symposium.

~

3 COMMISSIONER CARR:- Now Research has got the lead on 4

this, haven't they?

5 MR. LAHS:

Yes.

6 COMMISSIONER CARR:

And have they got the lead in the 7

symposium, too?

8 MR. LAHS:

Yes.*

I thought the first question had to 9

do with the symposium.

You were talking about the policy 10 statement?

11

' COMMISSIONER CARR:

I guess I'm talking about all of 12 it, but they aren't IREP to the symposium?

13 MR. LAHS:

Well, I think the representation at the

~

14 symposium will be -- you know, will be somebody pretty high 15 level, so it might be Vic Stello or could be somebody high up 16 in NMSS or --

17 MR. STELLO:

If you're asking who's responsible for 18 19 COMMISSIONER CARR:

I'm asking why we don't send the 20 guy who's got the responsibility to take charge of the program 21 and march off.

22 MR. STELLO:

Research is doing that.

The reason Dick 23 Cunningham is over there for a different purpose, he is the 24 chairman of a particular long-standing committee on radiation 25 protection, the internati'nal committee, and he is going to o

31 1

introduce this subject to that committee, which he is a 2

standing member of.

3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I guess I'm -- it always is 4

deflating to see how long it's going to take to do.nything 5

around here, but I'm just looking at the proposed schedules 6

here.

Is there really so little in the record or in the 7

Commission's various utterances over the years with, one hopes, 8

supporting data to deal with various problems?

Do we not have 9

some long standing sense around here of starting out from the 10 fundamental here, which really is the kind of thing we're 11 speaking about a few minutes ago, the value, like it or not, 12 that you attach to a human life?

Do we have to start all over 13 from scratch again in this area, or --

14 MR. LAHS:

No, I don't think we're starting over from 15 scratch.

Let me get into this, and I can tell you what's gone 16 through our thinking in coming up with these schedules and the 17 resources and, as you know, the problem -- some of these 18 problems have been on the books for like 10 years, I guess.

19 MR. PARLER:

About 28, sir.

20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Yes.

As long as the General 21 Counsel's been here.

22

[ Laughter.)

23 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Could I ask one question?

What l

l 24 do we hope to get out of that symposium?

25 MR. LAHS:

Well, k guess the best we could hope to l

I

r 2

32 1

get out of the symposium, if we got a general consensus 2

internationally on the need to develop both below regulatory 3

concern and negligible risk levels --

4 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Oh, you can get that, surely, the 5

need -- I mean, what I would hope is somebody go over there 6

with a straw man and get an agreement on what to come out with.

7 MR. LAHS:

Well, when you say that, I think you'll 8

find that the -- overseas, from the material that I've read, 9

anyway, that everything they are doing in terms of what they 10 call unfortunately setting de minimis risk levels is really 11 what we call below regulatory concern.

The reason I 'say that 12 is because justification of practice is always a presumption, 13 when they are talking about this subject.

14 Here we are going to be talking about the possibility 15 where justification of practice is -- I don't say there is 16 none, but certainly it's questionable or very hard to quantify.

17 I'm thinking along things like some of the consumer products.

18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Well, maybe we can agree 19 fairly quickly that de minimis is the wrong word to use; that 20 there is no point at which risk is zero.

I think that's an 21 easy assumption to start out from, and we can then start 22 talking about below regulatory concern with some rational basis 23 for it, and Lord knows we've been -- we've been ad-hoccing 24 rational bases for various actions for years around here.

And 25 I guess I am just surprised that we sort of start all over

33 1

again reinventing the wheel, in fact.

I 2

MR. SPEIS:

I think at this symposium we will discuss 3

substantial questions like the form and the framework of these

~4 levels.

So we will have our positions and put them on the 5

table, and hopefully we can get some consensus.

So that's the 6

objective, basically, you know.

They are not going to dictate 7

to us, but we will do our homework and put on the table what we 8

think makes sense, and you know, with a good dialogue with our 9

counterparts in the other parts of the world, come up to some 10 understanding.

11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

And this symposium will 12 happen next fall, you say?

13 MR. SPEIS:

Yes.

You know, in the summer, it's very 14 difficult to get all these people from all of the countries 15 together in Europe.

16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

What would be wrong with this 17 agency consulting with'the ACRS, perhaps consulting with our 18 own expert staff, with other agencies, and at least taking the 19 step of putting an advanced notice out on the street in the i

l 20 meantime?

Anything wrong with that?

21 MR. LAHS:

Well, a lot of that is being done.

I mean 22

-- and let me tell you the formulation just of this information l

l 23 paper, there was considerable involvement with NMSS and NRR and 24 Research.

l 25 MR. STELLO:

Let me suggest that one of the things

34 1

that I hope we will be able to do is to provide for the

\\

2 Commission for endorsement of carrying to that particular 3

meeting, just as Commissioner Carr said, a straw man proposal 4

to raise as a possible mechanism to establish some numbers 5

finally, and framework.- I hope that we can have that.

6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Yes, I think that's a good 7

idea, except that I would hope the proposal is a little better 8

than a straw man.

I mean it should reflect the fundamental 9

precepts we have used around here for years, and that's why I 10 sort of wonder whether why you can't proceed from that thesis 11 to a fairl'y -- an advanced not' ice of proposed rulemaking, for 12 example, should not be a straw man.

One hopes that one puts 13 something on the street that reflects a reasoned judgment in 14 the agency, and I would.think by.now that we have already had 15 such a thing.

16 MR. STELLO:

Well, we realize we already have $1000 17 per manrem.

18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I know.

19 MR. STELLO:

As a requirement now.

How that can be 20 used to produce a number to suggest here is where you will t

21 establish below regulatory concern in all of the areas that we 22 are responsible for regulating, is not easy.

i l

23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Well, no, that doesn't 24 translate immediately, I agree, but --

25 MR. LAHS:

Well, look up there, you have an advanced l

t l

y O-35 0

1 notice of proposed rule out on the waste streams, for example,

(,,'

2 so you have already issued --

3 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

That's out already.

4 MR. LAHS:

Right.

Something is already out on the 5

specific source.

I guess one of the bigger questions is, is 6

that the way you want to continue, or you know, do you --

7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

It might be intereshing for the 8

Commission to receive any comments you have received on that-9 advanced notice in a summary form.

It might be very helpfdl 10 for us to see what's come in so far.

11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

But I have no problem at all 12 dropping the concept of de minimis.

I was told when I was in 13 Italy that it was improper Latin, anyway, so we ought to just 14 forget about it.

I think really what we are talking about here 15 is below regulatory concern.

I'm not interested in arguing 16 whether sometaing is -- can or cannot in principle be a de

~

17 minimis level.

18 MR. LAHS:

Okay.

But the following question is would 19 you match up something like a consumer product, like the 20 gemstone issue against the NRC level?

Or are you thinking of 21 lower levels?

22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I think so, yes.

23 MR. LAHS:

Okay.

Well, that's --

24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

And get away from this 25 frivolous concern standard, which is a separate issue, but

36 1

frivolous application, I guess, for frivolous use, which is an

(

2 impossible standard.

3 COMMISSIONER CARR:

The line here we have got now 4

drawn at 5 MR?

5 MR. LAHS:

It's supposed to be 5, something in that 6

area.

7 COMMISSIONER CARR:

What's wrong with that?

That's a 8

good line.

I'll buy that.

9 MR. LAHS:

I'll look forward to your comment on that.

10 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Well, I mean, what's left, you 11 know?

I mean --

12 MR. LAHS:

Those are the numbers that are being 13 considered, that's right.

14 MR. ALEXANDER:

Commissioner, we want to be careful.

15 For example, if you take the Commission's safety goals and 16 translate that into a generic BRC level, it comes out about 15 17 or 16 millirems per year.

So if that would be a preferable, 18 more reasonable number to use, one providing further distance 19 from the negligible level, we'd like the opportunity to study 20 that and make a presentation to you to that effect.

21 COMMISSIONER CARR:

I don't understand.What you just 22 said.

23 MR. ALEXANDER:

I just said -- what I'm saying is 24 that a level higher than 5 millirems per year might be a more 25 reasonable' number --

37 1

COMMISSIONER CARR:

Okay,' pick it out.

I mean what's 2

-- what are we -- how long is it going to take us to decide 3

that number?

4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Three years.

5 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Well, it's taken more than that.

6 I got papers hers that go back to when, you know.

7 MR. MORRIS:

I think that one of the things that we 8

are recognizing here is that we won't be doing this, the 9

Commission will not be making this decision in a vacuum.

EPA 10 will be making decisions about comparable levels of --

11 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Well, they made theirs in a 12 vacuum.

13 MR. MORRIS:

And foreign nations will be making other 14 decisions, having other positions, and it was our intent to 15 bring as much of that information to light on this issue as we 16 can through the mechanism of the international symposium, and 17 recognizing what the EPA is going to be doing as it tries to 18 deal with a court decision on how to use -- whether or not and 19 in what circumstances it may use cost-benefit analysis in 20 establishing standards.

So the point that we make is that 21 there's a lot of dynamics that are going on.

22 We would agree that we could, in principle, set forth 23 a standard such as what you just mentioned.

24 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Some number.

25 MR. MORRIS:

And that would be the thing that we

38 I

would propose to do in our document that we prepare before the 2

international symposium.

So we will get that for you.

3 And the other thing I would point out is there are a 4

number of activities going on in terms of specific BRC levels, 5

the work we will be doing on BRC waste streams for reactors, 6

and we have intended also to develop a BRC level for 7

decommissioned lands and structures.

8 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Will you talk about decommissioning a 9

little bit?

You haven't talked about that, I don't think, and 10 that might relate to what we're talking about now because, you 11 know, the residual activity matter in decommissioning has been 12 considered --

13 MR. LAHS:

That will be the third item down here on 14 this last slide.

15

. CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

16 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Well, I don't get the warm 17 feeling that we are going to get through.

I mean, all those 18 words you gave me -- all the things you can think about that we 19 have still got to do, and what we have got to consider --

20 MR. MORRIS:

Think of it in terms of two different 21 kinds of things that are going on.

One is a set of specific 22 activities that we are engaged in to deal with specific waste 23 streams or specific activities.

24 COMMISSIONER CARR:

That's only one option.

You 25 don't have to go that way.

1 39 1-

' ER. MORRIS:

That's correbt.

We could --

2 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Okay..

.s.

3' MR. MORRIS:

-- could back out of that and try 'tx) 4 come up with a generic policy.

5 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL:

That's right, and I think 6

that's what the Commission was asking for, is it not?

I 7

thought that was the general gist of the SRM that we wrote on 8

this gemstone thing.

9 MR. MORRIS:

But remember Bill's point earlier, that 10 having a policy on what dose level you want to reach, 5 11 millirem, does not provide you with a measurable quantity that 12 you can use in practice very easily, such as the contamination 13 levels for land or for structures.

Those levels have to be 14 evolved from the models that you build for decommissioning, and 15 for the --

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

But as far as the gems were concerned 17 18 COMMISSIONER CARR:

When you say not measurable, do 19 you mean not measurable by what?

Instrumentation?

20 MR. MORRIS:

No, contamination levels of lands or 21 structures could be measured by instrumentation.

Dose levels 22 that individuals would encounter would be the result of not 23 only those contamination levels, but a model for how the 24 population would be receiving that dose.

So setting the dose 25 level doesn't get the agency to where it eventually is going to

_______---___-a

we 40 1

have to go in terms of determining measurable quantities.

2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

No, but when you provided us the 3

gemstone business, I think, as I recall, you provided us a 4

paper that showed the anticipated radiation levels expected 5

from those, and you provided them in picocuries or something, 6

but if you could do that for that particular item, I think what

~

7 the Commission is trying to get at is -- and that was useful, 8

but we're trying to come up with a number that we can all agree 9

that will be below regulatory concerns, and if you could do it 10 for the gemstones issue, if you can do it for decommissioning 11 certain things, if you can do it for other things, then we're 12 wondering what's the big problem.

13 MR. LAHS:

Well, as you're saying, for multiple 14 exposures, for example, from more than one source becomes a 15 problem; how are you going to handle that.

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, fine.

17 COMMISSIONER CARR:

I'm not sure --

18 MR. LAHS:

What Bill was trying to mention was, for 19 example, even though I tell you that this room is contaminated 20 and I'm going to allow you to decontaminate this room to a 21 level which I will say will not lead to a maximum individual s

22 dose greater than -- let's take the number 10 millirem per 23 year.

Whether you go generic or source-specific, somebody 24 along the line has got to translate that into what am I going 25 to allow in terms of curies per centimeter or per meter squared

41 1

on that wall.

I 2

COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

But that's --

3 COMMISSIONER CARR:

That's simple.

Are you going to 4

allow that person in there 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, 365 days a year?

5 MR. LAHS:

That's the sort of modeling you have --

6 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Then it's easy to figure out the 7

number.

' 8 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

I guess I think that we 9

should not get hung up on problems that'are secondary, or 10 problems of implementation.

It is the same problem that we --

11 as you know, you have gone through more than we, I would say, 12 with respect to the extraordinary nuclear currents criteria, 13 measurement vs. dose, and that kind of stuff.

Of course, in 14 every individual case you're going to have modeling problems.

15 There will be a specific set of difficulties in applying a 16 generic standard for every single case, but that's always going 17 to be there.

It just seems to me that starting with a generic 18 standard is already going to be of tremendous regulatory 19 assistance to us, in separating the wheat from the chaff.

Then i

20 at least you only have to prove that you're meeting.the 21 standard instead of sort of ad hoc'ing it case by case, as we 22 go along, like we've been doing for 27 years, is it?

i.

23 MR. PARLER:

A long time, yes, sir, since the early 24

'60s.

I I

25 COMMISSIONER CARR:

That's all I have.

r 42 1

CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All'right.

All right, proceed.

2 MR. STELLO:

I'm not sure Commissioner Carr got an 3

answer to the question.

Let me see if I've got the question, 4

because I think it deserves one.

5 Are you looking for when will the Staff provide you 6

with a recommended number that can be used to characterize it 7

as below regulatory concern --

8 COMMISSIONER CARR:

De minimis is below that.

You 9

can forget de minimis.

Just give me the BRC number, and I 10 don't have to worry about anything else.

11 MR. STELLO:

The answer to the question is we want to 12 have that number that will have the backing, in a preliminary 13 sense, as a reasonable basis, along with a lot of other baggage 14 with it, to carry into the meeting that we are going to go to 15 this fall.

So the answer to your question is it will be before 16 this fall.

That's what we are hoping to have to take into the 17 meeting with us.

That means that's go'ng to be what we think 18 is -- again characterize it as a preliminary view of the 19 Commission, because it will have to make a final decision some 20 time later.

That will require us to work with DOE, with EPA, 21 as partners.

22 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Yes, I guess that's what I don't 23 understand.

If we don't have to depend on them for any 24

. numbers, and the international community is only going to 25 listen and critique and kibitz --

--__-____-_-_-__-_______-________-__________a

43 1

MR. STELLO:

Oh, no, they're coming ~~

(>

2 COMMISSIONER CARR:

-- why can't we just do it 3

ourselves?

4 MR. STELLO:

I don't think you practically can 5

because there is dual responsibilities of regulating --

6 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Well, EPA did it.

7 MR. STELLO:

Well, yes, we're dealing with Part 20 as 8

well, but I think when you finally settle down, I think you're 9

going to have to have a particular pol. icy that will guide all 10 of.the agencies that have responsibilities for this activity in 11 the country.

12 COMMISSIONER CARR:

Well, who's the lead agency?

13 MR. STFT ):

I think we think we are, and that we're 14 going to --

15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Well, maybe we ought to lead.

16 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:

You might get some argument 17 from other people.

18 COMMISSIONER CARR:

I thought EPA was the lead 19 agency.

l 20 MR. STELLO:

Well, we're taking the lead in trying to 21 get the answers, how's that.

22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

If you have a set of 23 expectations or a position as you go into that symposium, have 24 you asked yourself precisely what it is that would change that 25 as a result of the symposium, what kinds of things would happen

44 1

at the symposium that would lead you to change those' numbers or f _ T, 2

assessments or positions, and try to come in some way at what 3

the issues are?

The thing I have trouble with in this 4

presentation, and the whole problem is, I don't quite 5

understand what the issues are.

It seems to me that they're 6

not very clear and transparently obvious to me what it is that 7

you don't know, what it is you have to find out, and what 8

decisions have to really be made.

And if that could all be 9

sorted out some way so that one can see where the uncertainties 10 are or what decisions have to be resolved, either through 11 further study or just somebody makes a decision, it's not 12 clear.

13 I mean, after all, I hope we are not going to come 14 out of that symposium with a result that simply is determined 15 by how many people voted one way versus voted another way, and 16 if that's the case, then you know, why do it that way.

17 So I'm just really uncomfortable with what I don't 18 understand to be the issues that are an impediment to your 19 coming to something right now.

Is it a lack of data, a lack of 20 understanding, a lack of agreement on some principles that you 21 can't establish or haven't been able to establish one way or 22 the other by some scientific means or what?

What is it?

What 23 is it that is holding up grabbing ahold of this thing and 24 moving ahead with it?

What has changed over the last 28 years 25 that have taken us from a state of ignorance to a state of less

45 1

ignorance where we are today?

And where are we?. I don'tLsee

, (,

2 it in a framework that I can understand at the moment.

)

1 3

MR. LAHS:

Well, again, I think the big issue is here 4

is your -- you're a regulatory agency and you're trying to set 5

a threshold below which you're saying you're not going to be 6

concerned any more.

That in itself is quite a task.

And, in 7

fact, like I say, if you look at the international -- what the 8

international people are doing, you might not be too happy with 9

the members there.

They're talking about 1 millirem per year.

10 The question is --

11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:

Well, happy or unhappy with the 12 numbers, that's a different question.

The question is what 13 kind of principles are going to guide you?

Are you guided by 14 whether people are happy or unhappy with the numbers, or are wo 15 guided by something that we think is a little more solid?

16 MR. LAHS:

Okay.

Well, we said if you're going 17 generically, you're going to have to make your arguments based 18 on comparisons with things like background, comparisons with 19 variations in background.

So somebody is going to have to pick 20 the numbers, like you did in the safety goal, a tenth of a 21 percent.

Now was that the right number?

I mean those are the 22 things you have been arguing about.

23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Well, but I think 24 Commissioner Rogers' point is a very good one, that you aren't 25 going to arrive at the answer by taking a vote, and --

46 1

MR. LAHS:

No, I don't think we intend to,take a 2

vote.

3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

The international community 4

may well these days be driven by corsiderations that are not 5

groun'ded purely in the science.

6 MR. ALEXANDER:

I trank I might be able to shed a 7

little bit of light on Commisaloner Rogers' question, and also 8

on Commissioner Zech's question, by giving you a very brief 9

report on the interagency committee's work toward establishing 10 criteria for decommissioning facilities and structures.

11 The EPA considers itself to be the responsible agency 12 for establishing environmental radioactivity criteria.

I 13 believe most of us agree with that.

So they have formed, more

~

14 than two years ago, an interagency committee to arrive at 15 radiological criteria for walking away from these facilities, 16 leaving them safe.

17 We worked -- I was the, or am the NRC representative 18 on that committee.

We worked for about a year pretty hard, and 19 were, I think, making a lot of progress, and now it's been

{

20 about 15 months since that committee has met.

So with that 2.'.

sort of priority being established by the EPA, who is the 22 recognized agency for establishing radioactivity criteria 23 levels, I think -- I'm not making an excuse for our staff, but 24 the fact is that there isn't any government agency in 25 Washington rig'ht now really pushing this issue.

I

47 1

COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

What about us?

2 MR. STELLO:

Except us.

3 MR. ALEXANDER:

We're here.

4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

No, really, I'm not being 5

facetious.

I really think that on this subject in particular, 6

certainly it was true five years ago -- well, let me'go back a 7

few more years, perhaps, but up until very recently, most 8

people looked to the NRC for leadership and guidance, and I 9

think that is still substantially true, in this area.

And so 10 it just seems to me that whether or not we end up being a 11 little bit out of sync with the rest of the world 10 years 12 later when they're finally able to arrive at some consensus 13 doesn't really matter all that much.

14 What.may matter a lot more is that this agency take a 15' leadership role because I suspect that that may itself mean a 16 great deal to what the rest of the world finally decides in 17 this area.

18 MR. ALEXANDER:

Well, my experience, which is rather 19 long, is that in the area of health physics, once anyone with 20 any authority at all adopts a number of any kind, from then on, 21 that's the stone tablet number that is used throughout the 22 world.

23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Well, I think there is some 24 truth in that, but that doesn't mean that you should shrink 25 from chiseling something in the stone until everybody agrees on

48 1

what should be done, or we'll be waiting another 28 years if we'

('

2 do that.

3 COMMISSIONER CARR:

I think what he is saying is we 4

ought to go ahead and be Moses and chisel it in stone and get 5

it over with.

6 (Laughter.)

7 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

I think one thing we haven't talked 8

about very much, that I'm aware of, and I think my colleagues 9

a r. e, too, is there's a great deal of thought also thats 10 complicating the problem -- I'm sure it's complicated it for 11 the Staff -- on the whole subject of low level radiation and 12 how dangerous is it.

That's been discussed, I think, for many, 13 many years, maybe as long as this whole subject has been 14 discussed, and I guess there's not really a consensus amongst 15 the scientists, as far as I know.

16 Would anybody care to comment on that, very briefly?

17 MR. ALEXANDER:

I'd like to.

18 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Please.

19 MR. ALEXANDER:

Back in the '50s -- and I was around 20 then, too -- when we were originally establishing our criteria 21 in order to allow progress to take place in applications of 22 nuclear energy, this linear nonthreshold hypotheais was 23 adopted.

And it has been a very useful hypothesis, allowing us 24 to set levels for which we felt workers could be exposed 25 safely, and through which' the public could be protected

49 i

1 adequately while we proceeded toward what we thought would be 2

best for people around the world.

3 Now we are working at a much lower level of radiation 4

exposure where the statistics completely break down, so that 5

the data base substantiating risk at levels like 5 millirems 6

per year, 25 millirems per year, is very waak.

So one of the 7

difficulties that I think Commissioner Rogers was searching for 8

is in using the linear nonthreshold, this great line, down to 9

zero in establishing below regulatory concern levels, brings us i

10 face to face with making a probabilistic determination, much as 11 you did in setting the safety goals, saying let's back up this 12 line from zero to some reasonable point and say that below this 13 point, people should be allowed to govern themselves, and we'll 14 step out of the picture.

15 When you start trying to determine a probability, 16 then everyone becomes an expert, and it is very difficult to 17; arrive, Commissioner, at a scientific consensus to come to a 18 group of people like yourselves and say this is the consensus 19 of opinion in the scientific community, that the probability 20 should be X, and that the annual dose associated with that

~

21 probability is Y.

We are simply not at that point.

l 22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Do you think we ever will be?

l l

23 I mean I don't think there's any basis to believe that we will 24 ever be at a consensus on that issue, at least not in our 1

I l

25 lifetime.

I t

50

(

COMMISSIONER CARR:

The point is --

1 2

CHAIRMAN ZECH:

And the point is, when we get there, 3

what we want to do is to find a level that would be at least 4

reasonable, and so something that we could approach in a very 5

conservative manner.

What we are saying, if you don't have the 6

exact answer, perhaps there is something that common sense 7

would dictate would be a conservative approach that would be 8

acceptable.

9 So even if you can't come up with thecexact answer, I 10 think what we are trying to say is -- and I appreciate, I 11 really do, that this has gone on for many, many years, and wo 12 don't expect you to solve it at the table today; I don't think 13 any of us expect you to do that.

But we do feel perhaps that 14 if you can't come to the exact answer and we don't see that 15 we're going to get the exact answer any time soon, perhaps we

-u have just pointed out, in the low level 16 know enough now, at s

17 field, perhaps we know enough now ta put a band on something 18 that we feel very comfortable with.

19 MR. ALEXANDER:

Some of us feel that this decision is 20 a policy decision.

21 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Well, that's what we're here for.

22 MR. ALEXANDER:

A probability decision is a policy 23 decision.

24 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

But that's what we're here for.

But 25 on the other hand, we base our policy decisions on our best

)

1 l

51 a

judgment, all the analysis we can assemble from various peer 1

2 groups, as well as our own staff, and so we want to make sure 3

that the policy decision we make is a good one.

4 On the other hand, it is a policy decision.

Some 5

time it just has to be made.

That's what we're here for.

And 6

we are willing to accept that respencibility.

We are just 7

asking you to giva us, you know, your best analysis, your best 8

recommendations, and we will make the decision.

9 MR. ALEXANDER:

I believe you have already gone 10 through the deliberations.

1.1 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

So do I.

12 MR. ALEXANDER:

When you set the safety goal 13 applicable to effluents, you made that policy decision.

That 14 was a very big decision.

Comes out at about 15 millirem per 15 year.

16 CHA!RMAN ZECH:

And then you will have to tell us 17 perhaps whether there's any reason for us in the things we're 18 talking about to go anything less than that.

19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:

Let me give an example of a 20 certain amount of leadership and courage, I guess, that was 21 simply required and the EPA stepped up to it, and made a 22 decision, they made a decision which did not hold up over the 23 long run, as wel'1 as I would hope a conservative decision that 24 we might make might hold up over the long run, and that was 25 with respect to lead.

52 1

They set certain tolerance limits for lead, I guess 2

in the blood, some years ago, because everybody knew that lead 3

had certain hazards.

It was not so clear whether there was a 4

de minimis level for sure, let alone one below regulatory 5

concern,'and in fact they have now had to go back and are 6

seriously considering lowering that limit, as I understand it, 7

because of the latest epidemiological results.

8 So it just seems to me that it's better to begin and 9

to step out and make your best effort, and I'm relatively 10 confident that we have a far better data base on radiation and 11 its effects than they had to' start out with on lead.

It's 12 better to make a beginning and be~ conservative enough so you're 13 not put in the position of having to lower it, but perhaps can 14 relax it later on.

That's clearly ^the better way to be in a 15 position to go.

16 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

Could we have a response, and then 17 Commissioner Carr has a --

18 MR. ALEXANDER:

Can I answer Commissioner Carr's 19 question with regard to where the statistics break down?

20 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right, go ahead.

21 MR. ALEXANDER:

It will just take a moment.

The 22 National Academy of Sciences provided risk coefficients for us 23 to use for doses greater than 10 rems, or for annual doses 24 greater than 1 rem per year.

In their report they simply said 25 with regard to your question that -- this is not a direct

53 1

quote, but parnphrasing -- we do not know whether there are

(__ b

~

2 radiation risks at doses less than 100 milliremn per year or 3

not.

So to my mind, that's where the statistics break down, 4

and I have become concerned about public exposures when they 5

reach that level.

6 COMMISSIONER CARR:

At 100 uillirem?

7 MR. ALEXANDER:

Yes-8 COMMISSIONER CARR:

So if you want to be 9

conservative, you could take an order of magnitude and say-10 10 millirem, we could pick the number.

11 MR. ALEXANDER: Yes.

12 COMMISSIONER CARRi Which isn't far from 15 which, 13 you know, is close to the safety goal.

14 MR. ALEXANDER:

We did --

15 COMMISSIONER CARR:

That will be about as good data 16 as we will get for quite a few years.

17 MR. ALEXANDER:

We don't actually measure at that 18 level.

We just calculate.

So those are essentially the same 19 numbers.

20 COMMISSIONER CARR:

That's all.

21 MR. STELLO:

Mr. Chairman, I think this meeting has 22 suggested that you want something very soon.

I hope that the 23 process that we are about, we can continue it.

But we will 24 provide you with a paper with a number and a proposed rationale 25 as best we know it to you, and I will commit to a date as soon A

54 1

as I have some time to raise that question.

(._

2 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

All right.

Fine.

3 MR. STELLO:

We will do it.

4 CHAIRMAN ZECH:

ML20148C463

Text

Title:

Title:

Navigation menu

Search