Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
DISCUSSION ON TASK GROIJPDMFT REPORT .— Views and Differences of Opinion Hold position that current radiation standards are “upper limits. ‘‘ EP.4 \Till likely look only at risk of exposures rather than at the benefit- risk area. Expre:; sed concern that restrictions for control of exposures m;~y not be effecti~’e over the long term. Stated that use of 100TP of the genetic criteria is not justifiable. Urgetl use of Federal standards (I?RC) instead of ICRP guidance. &pressed concern that soil removal criteria for 23913:. may not be stringent enough. Cited need for more specific requirement for obtaining additional ir~-ormation on Pu le~iels in air. Had concern for verification of predicted doses and followup studies. Rejected use of D.NA radiltion criteria developed from consideration of past cleanup experience to development of recommendations. Stated a strong preference for their own criteria and need for no other guidance. Feel that they are too far along in their planning and it is too late to change the approach taken last year. Support radiation criteria based upon a review they have conducted of past AEC cleanup experience. Have selected numerical criteria taken primarily from Grand Junction uranium mill tailings experience. Reject Task Group “criteria based upon current radiation standards as being too low and too conservative. Support view that the cleanup objective must be to reduce external radiation exposures to a specified value. Support alternatives that will clean all island: down to a specified external gamma level with no other cleanup or restrictions required. Support the concept of “fallback positions” to be used if all necessary cleanup funds are not available. Hold that availability of mon;y will determine extent of cleanup. Reject the “as low as pr.~cticable” re-
Page 2
Have concern that Janet may not be returned. Support the Task Group’s approach to development of recommendations. Are hopeful of actions leading to return of people to Janet. Question when Janet can be returned if not now. Hold position that people will eventually return to Janet. See need for’more air sampling and investigation of exosurc from inhaled Pu. Cited need for information on 291 expos .re of the thyroid. Found the ‘Task Group draft a very satisfactory report. Supports use of current radiation standards and philosophy approach to criteria development using c:. eanup experience such as current effort for removal of mill tailings under and near structures i.n Grand Junction. Cannot support recommendation of cleanup alternatives wherein basic Federal radiation exposure standards would not be met. Supports position that both internal and e:cternal exposu:cs must be evaluated in considering cleanup alternatives. Cannot support concept of fall-back positions to be used if necessary funds for Cleiiliup to acceptable criteria are not available. Hold to position that recommended actions are only those known to be feasible and e~fective. Cannot support DNA recorrimendation of use of “clean beds” of soil for growing food on a contaminated island since this action involves many uncertainties and is unproven as to effectiveness. View cf remedial (cleanup) action is that once it is taken, the objective is to make substantial reduction in radioactivity levels, not to reduce le%-els to some specified value. Support approach of studying all alternatives for cleanup, but to recommend only a preferred set of actions that in the judgement of the Task Group will comply with the “as low as practicable” requirement. 13elieve that DNA has misinterpreted and is misusing .4EC cleanup experience in citi~lg this as a basis for choosing radiation exposure criteria. Observes that DNA uses a “worst case” approach to cleanup based upon posures. Believe that DNA recommendations cannot be successfully defended against criticism from those who are familiar with current Federal regulations and standards