Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
With the in it i go rigbt on to the cc n side ration of li:(it,ation i n environmental e qo sure of radioactive m te rials released by install at i cns.Dr. Bugher, would you Lant t o mite in tr c duct cr J rerrierks %fore Dr.Cl atl s starts ? I \.:as told that it i s very desirable that all. of the rer irks on this subject be preserved for posterity, BUGW?: This po ble m cf waste disposal is one that is very fundamentzl t o GUT operation..It is a subject which has been under discuss i ox now for about tvo yeers and I t!iink. this Corlriitteo has Ssing going a row dt3t3e various projects coxe t o feel great varia tic n of co ditions GJ ~ ~ c : ?inust be net at the different waste cover ail in flex i5ili ty to x eet the rpqilirements of y:ractical ed ri in is tra tic n and. yet be ac cns is tent Q7e of policy with which t:e c2n live. cozes to xia tter s of healt'. 2nd safety and so tk at th l reis in a sense a discussion Ire get into the other find. thetis the tend en q to within a discussion here not only as to t ke policy but as t o t5e nethods we shculd ex$oy .in bringing it to an operative level, and CY. Claus will carry on whre Cr. Icestern left the im tter at the last meeting End would like to have vigorous BEST COPY AVAILABLE CLAUS: T3.sy ol icy, as Dr. -augher has sai6, has been in process of qe ration for c ever al years--there have been quite - ' a nxnter of var ims d xff s,xost of vhich have been considered e t ore t ize dr another by t?is Cormittee. Lzst xontl? atthe
Page 2
previous ineeting a ?raft vas considere6 but there were several kugs i n it which seened atthe tine should be el ii in a ted before this thing cones toa head but inthe meantine Gr. i:estern and I vent upto see Dr.Fail la and \:e discuseed the subject for the best part of one day. t ke health physicists in Berkeley last week and ve spent an hour o r more It again came up atthe meEting o f discussing t5e subject at that the. was presented to the Committee last ninth. been revised on-t.he basis of the discussion with people fron Reactor Peveiopnent ina manner which i s intended t o riakc it a little easier to get the policy past t h e Iieactcr Cevelo1:ner.t Zivisi.cn because, of course, it. h a s t.o meet the app-oval of all the1.i visions and the C-c.neral ~ 2 ~ a ~ e ra swell 'as the people in the field as well as this cornnittee. This cirsft is quite a different one than It is basically the sane but has I think the psv ims draft vas a little nore scholarly in presentation kat it took three pages to get dom to t'ne root of the paragraph what we're talking about. This particular draft vas arrznged. For the benefit of the people here uho have not Seen exposed to this thing Over the period of the last several years I thbnk I n;i.ght point out very h rie fw what it says. The PurTose, or" course, isto h2ve a specific policy on which t o base the various wy s and means of d is rosing of atomic waste i n our different operations. ??e have hEid a hit-and-miss procedure over the past several years and it has becoxe more and more neceseary to state def in it,ely the basis on which tnese \ariaus determinations can be made for each organization. policy starts outwit5 paragraFh land says, " Effective with the issuance of Ynis bulletin it is the Folic y of C SAX to lirnit the release of radioactive waste m te rials froR each of its install at ims in such a nanfier that the uptake of
Page 3
r akio active materials fron by persons living in the environment of t5e installations will not result in levels of body contact greater than IC$ of the rm5mux per in is sib le levels recomsnded inthe I(ationa1 meau of Standards 3andbook 52, but it becomes quite involved vhen one attemp% t o aFply it to all the var icus That sounds likea si-!ple enough stv te sent situations which car. arise. Previous attempts to set up this policy were inhibit e2 by the reason of the fact w e had nothing definite to depend upon, We had to select a huxber out of t5inair. Cne of the earlier drafts said re should lhit such exposures ir. the en v iron m nt to 3$ of the levels then in Since then the N3S Han??-ook 52 has been issued with the list of some 70 Isotopes giving the reccjrr,men?.ed rraximn per n is sib le levels of bo2.y content of these by the eq ert s in t3e field and ~ : eczr, refer to that. the exposure of the persons in the en vi rome nt to le,of the levels given there. I n Part 11 of t3is policy %:e attempt to tells one thing z but vhy this was Er rive c So b e now have sonething definite in the literature genera ilya c cert ed So we attempt to lhit at an8 scme definitions of the terms. point out that in or6er to limit the body content of persons to 1% of tke TIE ? not going t o go into that except to -ilaxi::um permissible levels one basto have some administrative methoc! by which he cim do that, and t ke only way convenient t c do it is to lin it the cc n cent ration of radio is ot qes in the air snd crater and food suF plies to 10% of the level recormended i n the N3S Xiendkook, these levels being such tk at if taken overa 1ifetirr.e would build up tothe recomiended permissible body level. Therefore, i n theolry, all that is nec es ~ z r yt o do isto observe them nc entr at i cns of the isotopes in air and water and food by suitable moRitoring nethods and averaging over a reasonable period of time which mount in most cases to about 13 peeks,
Page 4
it i s possible t o be reasonably inthe environment will acquire a body content of radio iso to Fes greater than 10% for the value recommended by t h e Bureau. originally had intended. but there are som ny other aspects io it that ve get into as follov-u%s of the issuance of such a bulletin and I vou-:d hope the Conmittee will express itself fully on several different areas. -base2 it upon and the Fanner i n v.-hich they have keen exp esse d. This thing &comes mch xzore involved than we Not cnly in them nner of carrying cut such a policy 0112i s the question of the concent we have worthwhile t o go throug?h this an? do a great axount of edit i rg because it vi11 zrokahlj. have t o be chenged i n xiriy uajrs before it gets to the Legal Division and the other Divisi cns of the Co mission. There are,hever the less, certa-in places where it is des j - r able to eq res s an idea in one vay o r tincther. several cases the ex cress iona e it exists here is sac'*! a s to give ir. F'aiUa the shudders. Ee has suggested soxe varia ti cns ani; t.3at tne of a n expression will be followed throEg3 ihr e there be certain chenges in for r mtc r not1 The second are:: that we should tiecuss is the ef i Pct which tae is man ce of such a policy ray have on our labor rel a tic n ship within AEC. Gust as an exmp1.e of tl:is, if t:e issue this ste ten ent as applying on'y 10% rriiximn Fern - is sib le levels tothe pcoTle inthe environment, then vorirers myget around t o t5.e point of claiming that pts them into an entirely C if fc rent category. Dr. Farker Taint a ics that this5s going to force us to define irradiation workers and thereupon thela3or groups take5is up and denand. extra hazard pay. a little extra added attraction to the policy that ue had net ccnsidered the first thought about. and sme of the legal aspect c. The third Erea is tk em nner in vhicl- this should be issued
Page 5
should we issue it simply a s an PZC recomendsEiorl, and what would be t h e results i f it finds its trby into the Federal Register, as a b - ost certainly it will in some fc rz or other &fore very long. All of these ideas,Iam sure, involved in the other. I,% WOG ? ~ .a r pre cia te copious comiients on all of these FAILIA: The need for this mom from the fact tb at there has beeon considerable exaggeration in allowing adj i ' i ional safety factors by the cont rz ctor. principles they van t to be on the safe &?e, s o %?at the expense t o the AEC i s quite appreciable, and I think tLe people in the Si vision of Biology and Yedicine feel that EoxethSng should be cone toy event the spending of large sw.s of morey when .it is not nsc ess ary fort5ess fe ty cf the r,eo$le around the plant and that is $?e = i n reason for wanting something of the sort. has g com up the contractors have a ten?ency t o Iear. b2clward.s aid tk ere fore anytjiing that is \titter, nos i5ll take the for x of forbidding the contract cr frog doing certain things t.hEt ke thinks are desirat-3e fro5the h cal th and szfety point of view. Therefore, v kat ever is mitten wit!: the t intent is ping.to be contrary to established facts.in these safety co&s because inall sar'et;. codes one gives minimum re qi i rex ents,les ving it up tothe employer t o neet those requirements i n afiy vay thet he sees fit. Usually it occurs to do more t.han the inininun requirements, bat here,the form that this vould h veto take Kould be the op Fc site. ana that,in m- e stir ration, sounds b&, i f it should cone out. There t:ould be The cc n tract cr now does not ?me t o take sc many precautions, arath bad impression ifthe hEC wants the cont rectors to assuine the attitude that they shouldn ' t take so ring precautions. From the Fub li c relations point
Page 6
of view thetis abd situation, when, e specie ll yat this ti - e vhen with the 'mmb test in I;'eve.da there is a consider zb lea aou nt of red io ect iv it y there and ifthe newspapers get hold of that an it his too they nay s&y there has beEn a relative change in t ke attitude of t5e i.EC and make a n i-rprescion on the rublic. That is the cnlj. object ic nI have tothe whole thing and Iam trying to avoid white that the contractor now i s urged not to take so many pre cz ut ions. There are ekposure t5e human may occur. That les ves a lot of leewzy and you z re limiting the contractor to make his sum ey s orson it orl ngt of it the point? think its desira.32e tcdo it some icay else for one rnason or another. In the next to the point at which exposure the hunlan may occur. lf mi ting the cc n tractor to do less than perhaps he would L-ant t o do and i + hile In other i-:cr$s, you are t?ie intent is zl right, you dcn ' t \:ant hin; t o go t o extremes. STliK%N: Your objection is that the language sounds rrfindstoq-? FAILLA: Yes, !;e is lix it ed. Thr-,ughcut this > & de thing the intent is to limit the cc n tractor frox doing things that he might think are 6esirabl.e >ut re think Ere not. Therefore, i t ' s got t o be criticized if t ketone of the public to v z rd the EX should chsnge. This cculd be one of the things that could be Fickef up. This is the first the such a 'safety code was rutin. The XEC has a very high oiini.cn i n t'le n'ln6s of e v ~ qbody ,'Xg3ly cons ile red as being partial, etc., o r looking after the heal tn cf t>e Feoplb of the country, not 6oing anything to injure anybody, have been ve,y good in the distribution of iso to Fes and hasa very good reputation. \!e do not rrant t o 60 my thing to cause sme people t o
Page 7
thing t.o exploit these rights. had soize quest i cns and re ser v gti cns on t"e c rz ft as presented at t5e last meeting no Ratter how ycl:j ye vise it, if t;Te in tey t 5,s t o Iixit t?e cc n tractor from it could be shifted a little bit so tis t o 7,ake it alit.t ! e less rrzindatoq arda little ncre pe miss ik, that the la np z ge here sl?oulc! be p emissive an6 not asn5etc:rg or at lee st that it shculd have no t sint Dfx md at or p ?Jl,nlications. 2ureau iast week the question arose as to Cn he tue are doing torch ce t!;c cGst 1 have no object i cn tc th z t kind of rev is lc n and state - be perfectly agreeable to all of us. Vell it seem t o Y,C that t:?is i s very ir0rtar.tad before any s pci fic Is everyone Egreeci I rould like to say ;ust a work to that if i my. ihe reason fcir trying
Page 8
people has 5ee2 tkt radiation health protection in k5C practice has been alto get ' i ert oost rir gent and. of course extremely expensive, t ? a t as lmg8s \.:e 3ave 2erm is sib le I.evsls tkere i s EO eei13e i n tf-e cc n tractor cofitinulng to Crow inc re safety factor after a,qotk,?r ett rex en & owe q ense, a26 it i s the kusiness cf the a6c ii tic nal s s fe ty factors aren ct thr%min at greet exp%se t ct the taxpayers. K evert tele as it ' s one vhich i s going t o becoze
Page 9
Foss i bil it y of exposure …
The text continues in the original scan (23 pages).