United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment
Home > NRC Library > Document Collections > ACNW > Meeting Transcripts > 1999 > 115th Meeting - December 16, 1999

115th ACNW Meeting U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 16, 1999

                       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
                  ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE
                                  ***
      MEETING:  115TH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)


                             Nuclear Regulatory Commission
                             Two White Flint North
                             Conference Room 2B3
                             Rockville, Maryland

                                                     Thursday, December 16, 1999

         The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:37 a.m.

     MEMBERS PRESENT:
         JOHN GARRICK, Chairman, ACNW
         GEORGE HORNBERGER, Vice Chairman, ACNW
         RAY WYMER, Member, ACNW
     .                         P R O C E E D I N G S
                                                      [8:37 a.m.]
         MR. GARRICK:  Good morning.  The meeting will now come to
     order.  This is the third day -- it seems like forever.  This is the
     third day of the 115th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear
     Waste.  The entire meeting will be open to the public.  Today the
     committee will meet with John Greeves, Director of the Division of Waste
     Management, to discuss items of mutual interest, and review a proposed
     rule on radiological assessment for clearance of equipment and materials
     from nuclear facilities, and will continue our activity of preparing
     ACNW reports.
         Richard Major is the designated federal official for the
     initial portion of today's meeting.  This meeting is being conducted in
     accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
         We have received no written statements or requests to make
     oral statements from members of the public regarding today's session.
     Should anyone wish to do so, please make your wishes known to one of the
     committee's staff.  It is requested that each speaker use one of the
     microphones, identify himself or herself and speak with sufficient
     clarity and volume so that he or she can be readily heard.
         One of the highlights of our meeting is the frequent visit
     of the Director of the Division of Waste Management, John, and we are
     anxious to have you give us an update on what is going on.
         MR. GREEVES:  Good morning.  I like that, highlights of the
     meeting, that is good.  Actually, I think it has probably been maybe two
     or three meetings since I met with you and that is, in part, a function
     of the treadmill that I and Bill, and others, are on, so I think it is
     timely that I have been able to get back and meet with you.  You met
     with Bill Kane last time and he enjoyed that and is looking forward to
     coming back, so I think that is a healthy process.  So we will try and
     work that out, and I think that is a good communication.
         This has been a tough week for us also.  I don't know
     whether you are aware, but we have had two retirements that affect this
     arena.  First, on Tuesday, John Schumeier, we had a little celebration
     for him, and then yesterday Malcolm Knapp had his retirement luncheon.
     So it has been a  bit of a stretch.
         What I would like to do this morning, as we have done in the
     past, is kind of go over a series of items that are high on my radar
     screen, and they will include the DOE Yucca Mountain Draft Environmental
     Impact Statement; some discussion on defense-in-depth multiple barriers;
     the development of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan; where we are in Part
     63, in terms of our review of comments; a little bit on the siting
     guidelines, our interface with DOE on that; the decommissioning area,
     including rubblization; some efforts on Savannah River and West Valley.
     So it is a pretty full set of topics.
         It actually matches up I think quite nicely with most of you
     presented yesterday.  I will give you some feedback, I was very pleased
     with your presentation yesterday.  There was just one problem area, and
     it was more mine than yours.  I will explain when I get there.
         But, Dr. Garrick, I think over the past year, we have kind
     of come together on focus on these issues.  We talked a little bit about
     your program plan at the beginning of the year.  I was a little bit
     concerned about the breadth and, you know, the need to focus on issues.
     And my sense is that we are actually ending up focusing on the same set
     of issues, so I am really pleased with how things have come together
     over the year.
         And just kind of example is the set of slides that you
     showed at the end of the things that you are actually currently
     formulating, your risk communication topic.  I have to tell you, I
     wasn't too excited about the committee looking into that originally, I
     expressed some of those concerns.  But I have come around.  You guys are
     making some good progress on this, and you have gotten some good
     feedback from the stakeholders.  We are turning up our gain in this
     area.  I just wasn't sure was this an item for the committee, and I have
     got to tell you, I have turned around on that.  You guys have done some
     good progress.  I think it is going to be a good synergistic effect
     between what we have to do on risk communication and what you are doing.
     So I look forward to that.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah, I just want to comment on that, because
     we knew we were moving in the face of some criticism when we undertook
     the topic.  And, on the other hand, we also made the point that if there
     is institutions within the NRC that ought to be looking outside the box,
     it ought to be the Advisory Committees.
         We have been greatly supported and stimulated in this whole
     process by the staff and, in particular, Lynn.  The research effort that
     was performed on the topic of risk communication was one of the best I
     have seen.  So we had a lot of help.  And we are also encouraged by what
     we have seen happen within the staff and the Commission on this topic.
     And we are especially pleased that you are on board now.
         MR. GREEVES:  I think I am on board on risk communication.
     The question is how to achieve that and how to focus it.  I think the
     tension we had earlier in the year was I was alarmed at the number of
     areas that you were looking into.  I need your help.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah.
         MR. GREEVES:  And I try and come to these meetings and
     portray to you, these are the areas that are on my radar screen.  And
     risk communication clearly is an issue with us, with you.  And I just
     early on wasn't of the mind that -- can I afford to have the committee
     looking at this issue when I need their help on something else?  And, as
     I said, I have come around.  So I think we have come a lot closer
     together in terms of what the focus issues are.  And if at all possible,
     I will try and give you some real time feedback as you go through your
     planning the next time around.  Time is an issue with me, but it is
     important that we communicate.
         So, as I said, it came out, in terms of the topics, I think
     right where it needed to.
         MR. LARKINS:  Can I make a comment?
         MR. GARRICK:  Sure.
         MR. LARKINS:  I think one of the reasons it was successful,
     because there was a lot of interaction.  I think your staff was very
     helpful.  I think it would be beneficial also that after the committee
     develops its report in this area, they get some feedback, your
     observations, your thoughts on how we implement, or if not implement,
     address some of the observations and recommendations that the committee
     is coming up with.
         MR. GREEVES:  Are you speaking about the risk communication
     topic --
         MR. LARKINS:  Yes.
         MR. GREEVES:  -- or the planning for --
         MR. LARKINS:  Risk communication.
         MR. GREEVES:  Yeah.  We, in our own right, I think you have
     observed this, that Bill Reamer and company have been out there over the
     last year aggressively trying to perfect our own techniques.  We had Dr.
     Covello come in and spend a lot of time with us in terms of training,
     and that is one of the things we need to do.  We haven't done as good a
     job in years past and we should and we are working on.  And, as I said,
     I got a lot out of your briefing yesterday.  I think the Commission did,
     too.  So, clearly, we will, you know, have some feedback loops with you
     on this topic, both in meetings like this and one-on-one, as we have
     chances to meet.  So it is definitely a topic area.
         I am not going read through the other ones, but I would just
     -- my comment is that, as I said, I think that the ones you have
     targeted for writing your letters, including defense-in-depth, the
     rubblization, decommissioning issue, that is where we need our help, so
     I am pleased with that focus.
         MR. LARKINS:  John, I think it would be helpful also, as we
     go into the planning phase for the ACNW for the coming year, if you have
     some observations or recommendations for anything that may be left off
     of the list, or things that you see are revising focus or changing
     direction on.
         MR. GREEVES:  My natural penchant is not to add things to
     your list.  But duly noted about feedback.  And, frankly, it seems like
     a mechanism that worked well in the past.  I know Mike Bell was able to
     go out with you and sit during your sessions and I felt like there was a
     real payoff when I was able to have one of the key branch chiefs sit
     with you.  Mike is not with us anymore, he has gone on, but I think we
     will try and find and a way.  Personally, I would like to do it, it is
     just the demands on my time are such that it is hard to schedule that.
     So we look to see if we can one of the -- you know, maybe Bill, and most
     of the work in your arena runs through Bill's shop, potentially sit in
     on that planning meeting.  So thanks for the invitation and, a minimum,
     we will give you feedback on it.
         The first topic I mentioned was the DOE Draft Environmental
     Impact Statement.  The staff did brief the committee in June and then
     again in November, so we have had some good ongoing dialogue in this
     area.  We do welcome the committee comments in this area.
         You are quite familiar with the fact that we have to get a
     paper up to the Commission and we are drafting a set of comments.  And I
     think it was actually useful for the staff to make a presentation to you
     the last time around, because it gave visibility to what the staff was
     thinking.  So we have gotten a little bit of feedback on that.
         I think some were surprised at the extent of our comments.
     I hope they view it as a genuine effort that we want to constructively
     improve that product.  I think you can look at the number of comments we
     had, the nature of the comments, and you might say, well, gee, that is
     critical.  Well, it is not meant to be critical, it is meant to be
     constructive, because, as you know, we are to adopt that EIS to the
     extent practicable, and we want to be good.  So it is in all our best
     interests to give DOE feedback so that they can improve upon that draft
     with time.
         I would invite the committee, if you can find a way to get
     to us, even as we are drafting our own comments for the Commission, it
     is my understanding that you preparing something.  There isn't a lot of
     time.  The Commission -- Bill, help me out with the dates, but I believe
     the Commission owes its comments, is it February?
         MR. LARKINS:  February.
         MR. GREEVES:  Right.  So there is not a lot of time between
     the time they get our comment draft and then they have to sent out
     comments.  So you and your staff are working with us, and anything we
     can do to be efficient about that, I think would help the Commission.
         We did make some comments about DOE's efforts in looking at
     a number of sites.  I think some people were concerned that maybe we
     thought they should be looking at all of the reactor sites.  There are
     more efficient ways to evaluate that environmental impact.  We know that
     each of these sites had its own environment assessment, so DOE ought to
     be able to take advantage of that material.  The business about five
     hypothetical sites representing all of those was a bit of a concern
     item, which the staff brief you on.
         And I understand that you, in you own right, had some
     concerns about the no action alternative.  Whatever your thoughts are on
     that subject, as I said, we would appreciate hearing those, and to the
     extent we can, -- we are not trying to steal thunder in the process, but
     I think we all owe the Commission, as best we can, timely input so they
     can make up their own mind for this February date.
         One of the things I know you mentioned yesterday was the
     transportation issue, and we, too, recognize that that is a significant
     issue in terms of many of the other stakeholders, and it is a question
     of how to express that and bring the DEIS up to a level that gives that
     the attention that it deserves.  As you mentioned yesterday, winning
     public confidence is an issue and each of these vehicles, the Draft EIS,
     our own review plan, et cetera, these are opportunities to show the
     public that we are looking at these issues.
         So I will just sort of end with we are on track to get our
     comments up to the Commission early in January, and we would appreciate
     anything you could do to help supplement that process.  Unless there is
     other dialogue needed on that, I will move on to the next topic.
         Defense-in-depth, multiple barriers, Dr. Levenson, I believe
     you made a number of comments on this, and I can relate with, in
     particular, one of the ones that you made about the need for a different
     definition of defense-in-depth for a reactor versus a repository, and we
     do need to make that, at least in this business, the repository
     business, crystal clear.  What do we mean by defense-in-depth?
         There is a need to show some quantification of the
     performance of individual barriers.  We do have responsibility to
     provide some guidance.  How we expect, coming out of Part 63, DOE would
     be demonstrating that, and it is not that easy a task.  It is not
     something we have done before and we look to the committee to help us in
     that process.  I think it is going to be a little bit iterative.
         We would appreciate any comments you have on the staff
     proposal in this area.  I know we have briefed you a couple of times on
     this topic, and I think that, over time, it needs to play itself out in
     our review plan.
         We endorse the concept of allowing DOE some flexibility in
     demonstrating these multiple barriers, but I think we need to
     collectively make it transparent to the other stakeholders.
         As we finalize our technical positions in this process, we
     will also be responding to comments on Part 63 and providing technical
     guidance in the Yucca Mountain Review Plan, so I think a lot of these
     issues will be linked to our response to comments on Part 63.
         I didn't -- if anybody on the committee has any further
     comments on defense-in-depth or multiple barriers, I would be happy to
     take them out now.  But I was pleased with the presentation that you
     provided to the Commission yesterday.  I think we are in alignment on
     this topic.
         MR. GARRICK:  And you are aware that there is a working
     group session on defense-in-depth in January, January 13-14th.
         MR. GREEVES:  Is that the joint meeting?
         MR. GARRICK:  Yes.
         MR. GREEVES:  Yes.
         MR. GARRICK:  And it is jointly with the ACRS.  And we are
     expecting to get some good outside input in that session as well.
         MR. GREEVES:  And we will, you know, attend and participate
     to the level appropriate.  But we are finding that those meetings are
     helpful, because you really do have to think about this differently than
     a reactor.  It is not an active system, as Dr. Levenson said yesterday,
     it is a passive system and it is more -- and it is geologic in time.
         So it takes a little bit of different thinking and we are
     pleased that you are looking at it.  As I said, I was appreciative of
     the comments, and I think the Commission was yesterday, too.  They were
     quite pleased with the role you are playing on that topic.
         MR. LARSON:  Do you have a target date?  You said you felt
     you had to get guidance DOE and make it transparent to the stakeholders
     as to what the staff meant by defense-in-depth.  Do you have a target
     date for the staff to come up with a position on it, roughly?
         MR. GREEVES:  I would ask Bill to help me out, but I think
     the ultimate is the review plan.  We have got to get information built
     into the Yucca Mountain Review Plan.  And I am going to go over that
     next in terms of time schedule.
         But, Bill, do you know that?
         MR. REAMER:  Well, right, the review plan, but the review
     plan has to fit within the regulatory Part 63 structure.  So we are
     scheduled to do Part 63 cases coming, decisions on defense-in-depth.
     And I think in January is kind of the month where we have got a lot to
     do.  Hopefully, when we have our working group presentation, we will
     have progressed a little bit more from where we were in November and we
     will make that clear to you.
         We really don't have very much time beyond January.  January
     is our date to get, to get it done.
         MR. GREEVES:  I will just march into the review plan topic
     if that is okay.  And the committee has commented to us in the past that
     it should be a risk-informed, performance-based approach focusing on DOE
     strategy.  I think the committee is familiar with the fact that DOE has
     a repository safety strategy.  In fact, we are meeting with them today,
     our quarterly meeting, and we are getting some insights to that
     document, that it is under revision and internal review.  So I think we
     all look forward to seeing that product.
         I think in January is the schedule.  And so all of these
     things are feeding into our Yucca Mountain Review Plan, and I believe
     Christiana briefed the committee on this topic.  So any comments you
     have, either informally or formally, would be appreciated on that.  Our
     schedule is to make the review plan available to the Commission.  I
     think it is the end of March, right, Bill?
         MR. REAMER:  When we submit Draft Final Part 63, that is the
     postclosure portion of it.
         MR. GREEVES:  And with a target of going out for public the
     end of September.  So we will keep you and your staff informed of this
     process and I appreciate any feedback as we move along.
         As Part 63 in particular, as you are fully aware and we do
     have comments on that.  Our gaol is require DOE to provide a performance
     assessment with sufficient clarity to determine the relationship of all
     of the modules within the repository system.  One of the key questions
     we are trying to make sure is included in this regulation is the
     definition of what constitutes sufficient supporting data, acceptable
     modules, abstractions and acceptable expression of parameter
     uncertainty.
         We have been looking at the engineering designs that are
     needed by DOE to fulfill those goals, and what the steps are in the
     licensing process to lead to this initial submission for a final
     repository.  All of this needs to be consistent with the Part 63.
         I don't know whether you have -- Bill Kane made comments
     about this, but he is looking for a consistent evaluation of things like
     the preclosure issue, that is another area that we need to provide some
     additional emphasis on.  And it really makes me look back and want to
     get the repository safety strategy that DOE is developing.  We have seen
     some early pieces of this, and I think the tie between Part 63 and these
     efforts is important.
         We did make a presentation on our efforts on Part 63 in
     November, and this is one of the areas we understand you are writing a
     letter on, so we look forward to your comments on that.
         I am just about done with high level waste issues.  Unless
     you have got something you want to take up, I will probably turn to
     decommissioning next.
         MR. REAMER:  John, do you want to jump to the 963 guideline?
         MR. GREEVES:  Yeah.  In fact, yeah, I wanted Bill to cover
     that.  Why don't you cover that for me Bill?
         MR. REAMER:  Okay.  I think we have interacted with the
     staff on this, but we published their amendments to their siting
     guidelines.  These are the measures that they would apply at the site
     recommendation stage in making the recommendation on the site to the
     President, the amendments that they are proposing, that they proposed at
     the end of November, or they couched as designed to bring better
     alignment between their siting guidelines and the proposed Part 63 and
     the EPA proposed Part 197.
         The siting guidelines, DOE siting guidelines are out for
     public comment.  The public comments are due February 14.  I may have
     misspoke on the DEIS comments, but I think they are due February 9, and
     Part 963 comments that are due February 14, that is a very tight public
     comment period and it wouldn't surprise me if there were requests to DOE
     to extend that due date on the siting guidelines, but I don't know.  I
     don't want to speculate what requests or what DOE will do.
         We are working on providing the Commission staff level
     comments in a Commission paper that would be submitted early in January.
     The Commission, you may recall, is in a little different role with
     respect to these DOE proposals in that, by statute, the Commission is to
     concur in the DOE siting guidelines.  This was accomplished in 1984 with
     the original siting guidelines, but those siting guidelines call for
     Commission concurrence in any amendment to the guidelines.  So DOE
     intends to come to the Commission when they have completed their review
     of public comments and have a draft final siting guidelines, they will
     ask the Commission's concurrence.
         I don't have very good dates to give you on this, but I
     would say roughly in the timeframe of perhaps as early as April or May,
     we might request Commission concurrence, because the concurrence process
     will take some time, perhaps more in the summertime.  But as we get more
     information and more concrete information, we will make sure that your
     staff is aware.  The most immediate deadline we face is the requirement
     for staff level comments February 14.
         MR. GREEVES:  Okay.  I think that finishes up the high level
     waste issues.  We will move on to decommissioning unless you have some
     questions.
         Decommissioning, again, I was pleased with the presentation
     yesterday.  I think you did a good job of covering the full spectrum.
     There was one area I wasn't comfortable with, it is really my issue, not
     yours, the rubblization topic.  We have been working very hard on
     putting together a paper to present this to the Commission and we have
     been unsuccessful in getting it through the system so far.  So I much
     would have preferred that the Commission had our paper in advance, but I
     was actually -- I think you hit on the issues that you can expect to see
     in our paper, and I would invite you to read it once we get it through
     the system, and give us some feedback.
         Usually, we have a paper up topside by the time you come in
     and you have had a chance to review it.  So this is an emerging issue in
     some ways, and a fast-moving product, so.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  Is there any chance that you could share it
     with us in a pre-decisional phase?
         MR. GREEVES:  I don't see why not.  Yeah.  We have done that
     before.  In fact, Pat, will you take a note to share the draft that we
     have now.  We have done that with you in the past.
         MR. LARKINS:  John, you are aware the committee is in the
     process of doing a report on rubblization.
         MR. GREEVES:  Well, then you very much need at least our
     draft letter.
         MR. LARKINS:  I was going to say, it might be even useful if
     someone on the staff were around when the committee was working on that,
     so that they could provide comments.
         MR. GREEVES:  Okay.
         MR. LARKINS:  Okay.
         MR. GREEVES:  Good.  And the comments that you made to the
     Commission I think are lining up with what I had.  In some ways, I was
     probably thinking that we were having connection with you, because I
     think you are coming out just about where we are when you see the paper.
         It is an emerging issue.  I think it is frequently
     misunderstood by a lot of people.  So, and I am learning, every time I
     go to a meeting I learn a little bit of a new element.  I think your
     bottom line was let's take one of these on and look at it before we make
     any precipitous decisions, and that is pretty much where the staff is in
     the process.
         So, other than my frustration in getting the paper up, it
     was a good briefing, and I will look forward to, you know, your report
     and interacting with you on this.  And Pat will give you a copy of the
     paper as it exists now.  When you get it, you will see that we have had
     a number of comments from other stakeholders.  We have got an
     environmental group set of comments, NEI comments.  You already have --
     Pat is saying you already have those.  And we got a set of EPA comments
     early this week, so I believe those have been delivered to you and your
     staff.  So this is an area that is I think high on both our radar
     screens, and I think that is appropriate.
         There is a number of issues associated with the license
     termination plan that you commented on.  One of them was the use of the
     DandD code, and I see the staff did make you aware of the six cases that
     we worked on recently, which I think were a quite useful test.  The use
     of the DandD code, I thought I detected yesterday trying to use it on a
     complicated site.  I won't be surprised that it doesn't work on a
     complicated site.
         We have actually used it a couple of -- it has limitations.
     You can only stretch that code so far.  And I would look forward to the
     staff coming back and giving you some examples of where you had to go to
     a more sophisticated approach, and we can show you some of those
     examples in future meetings.  So we have pretty well stretched that code
     in terms of what it is useful for and defined, I think over time, what
     it is not useful for.
         MR. LARKINS:  I think that would be very useful.  Can I go
     back to rubblization for a quick second?
         MR. GREEVES:  Sure.
         MR. LARKINS:  You had raised -- well, you had mentioned that
     EPA had provided some comments.  That was an area we saw maybe some
     potential conflict again in terms of what type of standard you would
     have to clean up to.  And I was just wondering if you see a closer level
     of coordination here than other areas.
         MR. GREEVES:  I will share with you that I am working with
     EPA in decommissioning in general.  I am trying to develop a set of
     protocols where, on these sites, we can work together and minimize the
     amount of issues associated with it.  The standard is above my head, as
     you probably recognize, but the mechanics of working on a site is not,
     and we really, for good government, ought to work together.  And I am
     seeing some inroads on that.
         The difficulties we may have at individual sites I think can
     be worked out.  The EPA has a role on these sites in terms of RECRA
     issues, and if they come up a reason for not having, you can call it
     rubblization, you can call it a burial, a construction demolition
     burial, whatever it is, if RECRA or state requirement don't allow that
     to happen in your state, that's fine, but that isn't a conflict with our
     evaluations.  Our evaluations go to the radioactive material in the
     license termination rule.
         And I think we can work these issues, and EPA has said in a
     number of presentations that the vast majority of the sites, they don't
     think are going to -- there is a problem with a rule, it is going to
     meet their standards as well as ours.  There is probably a handful of
     them are going to be a challenge for both of us, and I am working at my
     level within EPA to try and identify what those sites are and see if we
     can even work our way through the difficult sites.  So, over time, we
     will bring a couple of those back to you and demonstrate them.
         I am trying to not have this issue of EPA-NRC difficulty be
     a highlight, I would like to show some progress in this area, and I am a
     bit optimistic at it.  I have attention at senior level over at EPA and
     we are going to work on this.  And I will bring some of those examples
     back to you in future managements.  There is a couple of them that are
     going to be a test, and we are just going to work our way through them.
         MR. LEVENSON:  Let me ask a question.  Do you have a site
     that, after clean-up, meets both your and EPA guidelines for
     radioactivity contamination for unrestricted release, et cetera, but
     there remain significant amounts of RECRA materials on the site?  Would
     that interfere with license termination?
         MR. GREEVES:  It would interfere with NRC's license
     termination.  In fact, we have a number of sites that have a RECRA
     permit and an NRC permit.  So I have examples of what you are talking
     about.  And, no, I think we could terminate the license, as long as the
     radioactive portion if cleaned up.
         And, Dr. Levenson, we haven't had a chance to visit much,
     but I would suggest that, as the other committees know, we have met with
     new numbers, and I could probably sit down and show you a couple of
     these sites where we currently have a RECRA permitting actio.  Sequoyah
     Fuels is one, EPA is on that site.  They have a RECRA action going on at
     Sequoyah Fuels, along with our radiation action.  So a clean answer to
     your question is I think we could terminate our license and there could
     still be an ongoing RECRA action.
         I think we both would like to clean them up at the same
     time.  There is another site, Anafest, down in Erwin, Tennessee, that
     you may be seeing the future, where there is also activity with EPA.  In
     fact, I was down there a week ago, and EPA is looking at the chemicals.
     We are looking, and the state.  We and the state are looking at the
     radioactive materials.  And it is one of the more difficult sites that I
     may look forward to someday coming back and showing you, for a number of
     reasons, one of which is the DandD code may not help us there, it is a
     bit more complicated.
         So, I hope I have answered your question, but we could
     terminate a site as long as the radioactive material was addressed to
     satisfy our regulations.
         I am looking over my notes here.  We have moved around a
     little bit.  You have some comments in one of our previous meetings
     about NEI and EPRI not developing a generic approach.  This business, if
     you call it rubblization, it has pretty much emerged to all of us pretty
     quickly, so that is why, like I say, my preferred approach is to --
     let's get a case and walk through it.  In fact, frankly we don't have a
     case on the table yet.
         Maine Yankee has led us to believe that they would be using
     this approach, but they literally don't have a license termination plan
     in my lap in terms of a licensing action.  So I would look forward to
     walking through one of those cases.
         The committee also asked a question about 20.2002 approvals.
     That is a different approach than license termination plan.  That is an
     approach to address radioactive material, and some of the licensees are
     looking at that, but it is a distinctly different licensing action than
     the license termination plan.
         We met with Big Rock Point last week and they talked about
     an approach using a 20.2002, so if you are interested in seeing how that
     works as they bring that in, that may be an example we could bring to
     the committee.
         One of the tough issues, as you will see in our paper, and
     you mentioned yesterday, is how to demonstrate 25 millirem plus ALARA,
     that is a challenge.  So we would look for the committee's comments on
     that.
         I am pleased that you are following the research studies on
     how to measure volumetric contamination.  That is going to be an
     important topic for lots of reasons, including materials release.
         I did have one question.  On your slide on rubblization, you
     made a notation that the distinction between restricted and unrestricted
     was a big fuzzy.  I think the Commission ran out of time yesterday, I
     think they would have probably liked to have gone into that a little
     further.  I wasn't quite sure what was behind that.
         I believe, Dr. Wymer, you presented this.  Could you give me
     a little more background?  What is the issue of the fuzzy between
     restricted and unrestricted?  I would like to think it is unfuzzy.  The
     utilities as a group all tell us they are going for unrestricted
     release, and I think that is to their credit.  But what is the fuzzy
     context?
         MR. WYMER:  It wasn't really obvious how you would
     demonstrate that, in fact, you could really release the site for
     unrestricted use because of the residual radioactivity that might be in
     there.  And it sort of gets back to the whole issue of how, in fact, do
     you measure the residual radioactivity, and can you determine it
     accurately.  Do you do it by calculation and inference from the
     knowledge of what has happened in the past that might activate the
     materials?  Or do you do it from core sampling, or do you do it by some
     combination of those and an averaging of the contamination across the
     bulk volume, as opposed to spot points where the radiation might be
     higher?
         So the whole idea of determining that it is truly
     unrestricted in the actual tight definition of what unrestricted means,
     as opposed to restricted, it is not clear how you do that, how you
     determine that.
         MR. GREEVES:  Well, it is pretty clear to me.  Maybe we need
     to talk some more.
         MR. WYMER:  We do.
         MR. GREEVES:  The rules are there.  They lay out -- I am not
     trying to say that subparty is simple, but in terms of restricted versus
     unrestricted, it is pretty straightforward.  The rule gave us a measure,
     a performance measure, 25 millirem.  Of course, you can't measure that
     physically, you have to do a calculation.  So what we are doing is we
     are evaluating a number of sites and the licensee typically will come in
     and say, I want to go for unrestricted release and here is how I have
     cleaned this site up.  This is what is left.  I have done these
     calculations, I have done the core sampling.  Here is how I have done
     the averaging or not done the averaging, and I have done a performance
     assessment.  I have used your code, I have used DandD.  And the answer
     is less than 25 millirem.
         So the licensee says to the Commission, I want an
     unrestricted release termination.  And that is the process, and I
     believe the staff provided you some information on six cases that we did
     recently.  They pretty much went along that line.  There was a certain
     amount of contamination left.  The staff used the DandD code, among
     others, to evaluate those sites, and my understanding is five of the six
     ended up, we saw it pretty much the same way that the licensee did.
         So, we are -- our experience is that we can make a
     determination of license termination with unrestricted release for these
     cases.  It takes work, you do have to understand, you know, with core
     sampling, things like that, what are averaging approaches.  But we make
     our own independent calculations and if the answer is less than 25
     millirem, it is unrestricted release.
         MR. GARRICK:  I think, John, --
         MR. GREEVES:  Just a minute, Patty, we will get to you.
         MR. GARRICK:  -- the issue is not so much the numbers, I
     think the numbers are pretty clear and we understand what compliance is,
     but the degree of confidence one has in the numbers.
         MR. WYMER:  That is the point.
         MR. GARRICK:  And the supporting evidence for that.  I think
     that is what Ray was --
         MR. WYMER:  That is the whole point.
         MR. GREEVES:  This is probably something we should talk
     about in more length in a meeting like this, than --
         MR. WYMER:  I think it is clear that if you can meet the
     requirements that are in the regulations, if you can really be confident
     that they have met, why, sure, then you can distinguish.  But it was the
     whole idea of how do you gain that kind of confidence in this kind of a
     situation.
         MR. GREEVES:  Well, all I can tell you is we are releasing
     sites all the time.  So I know we targeted a handful here recently to
     work on, as much to demonstrate the use of the DandD code as anything
     else.
         MR. WYMER:  Well, this was in the context of rubblization,
     though.  I know you are --
         MR. GREEVES:  Okay.  So your concern was in the context of
     rubblization.  Yeah.  Right.  Okay.
         MR. WYMER:  Yeah, this was in that part of the presentation
     was where I made that --
         MR. GREEVES:  And I think together we are going to be able
     to walk through one of these.  This is a big enough issue that we are
     going to come back and brief you.  If Maine Yankee comes in with a
     proposal, we are going to come back, give you a presentation.  I think
     we will be able to walk through this together.
         MR. WYMER:  Yeah, I very much want to.  That comment about
     "fuzzy" was in the part of the presentation of rubblization.
         MR. GREEVES:  Okay.  Good.  Pat, did you want to make a --
         MS. SANTIAGO:  I just wanted to say that I --
         MR. GREEVES:  Could you identify yourself, Pat?
         MS. SANTIAGO:  -- brought copies of those six sites and the
     members haven't seen them yet.  So, hopefully, in the next month or so,
     we will get a chance to look at the evaluations that were done on the
     six sites.
         MR. GREEVES:  Okay.  And if you would identify yourself,
     Pat, for the record.
         MS. SANTIAGO:  Pat Santiago.
         MR. GREEVES:  Okay.  Enough on that.  And I think we are
     going to --
         MR. GARRICK:  Enough rubbish.
         MR. GREEVES:  We are going to work through this one
     together.
         I will sort of finish up with the Savannah River tank
     closure.  We have been working on this project.  We briefed the
     committee in November and I believe that this paper has gone up, I am
     told yesterday, so, hopefully, we will get you that paper also.  You are
     on the normal distribution on these things.  But, Pat, would you make
     sure they get a copy of that paper?
         I think this is one that I would invite you to take a look
     at closely.  You are familiar with Savannah River, and this is a pretty
     big issue down there, the closure of these tanks.  We are actually
     working in terms of providing recommendations to DOE.  It is my
     understanding we don't have legal authority over these tanks.  I am not
     a lawyer or OGC, but I think the comments that we put together and sent
     up the Commission likely will apply elsewhere, so I would ask you to
     take a look at that and let us know what your views are.  Possibly, the
     Commission would be interested in that process also.
         I will remind you that, in parallel, we have got the West
     Valley effort going on, and I know you have followed that.  The staff
     now is on the hook to present the policy, draft policy statement up at
     West Valley on the 5th of January.  And I would encourage the committee
     to send a member to that meeting.  I am sure there will be a transcript,
     but if any of you are able to sit through that, or possibly your staff,
     it is, again, another site that I think is high on the radar screen.  So
     I would encourage you to see if you could participate and listen to that
     dialogue up there.  If one of the four of you --
         MR. LARSON:  A lovely spot in early January, John.
         MR. GREEVES:  Well, timing is --
         MR. LARSON:  Everything.
         MR. GREEVES:  Staff has to go.
         MR. LARSON:  What is your date or timing on, -- you know,
     you said you wanted the committee perhaps to look at the Savannah River
     tank thing.  I mean you send it up the Commission, but is there a timing
     sequence that goes with that?
         MR. GREEVES:  We owe the department comments on that.  So we
     have sent our comments.  We have provided a paper for the Commission,
     and once the Commission gets back to us, then we would be providing
     comments.  But I see these as comments that affect a lot of other sites.
     There is tanks at Idaho, there is tanks out at Hanford, West Valley, and
     any time you make a position in one of these areas, it affects the
     others.  So I would invite your attention to the topic.
         MR. LEVENSON:  John, I have a question for you.  Because I
     chair the academy committee on the cesium tank issue at Savannah River,
     is it appropriate for me to recuse myself on this issue if it comes to
     the committee, or is that not necessary?
         MR. GARRICK:  Let's look at it when we get it.
         MS. SANTIAGO:  Just to note again, this is Pat Santiago,
     comments on the draft policy are due February 1, 2000, and I just
     recently gave you copies of the Federal Register Notice that announced
     that.
         MR. GREEVES:  Clarify which one you are talking about.
         MS. SANTIAGO:  West Valley.
         MR. GREEVES:  Oh, yeah.  Okay.  Just one more significant
     item that has occurred in the decommissioning area, we put out a Federal
     Register Notice on December 3rd listing the soil surface values for
     clean-up, and the committee has that.  The Commission gave us a two year
     run to get our guidance in place on these.  I would like to have had
     these things in place sooner, but they are starting to play out now and
     we are getting some real time use of the tools at the six sites we
     mentioned earlier.  And getting this table in place, I think is a
     benefit to a number of licensees.
         It is not going to help everybody.  These numbers are
     conservative.  We peeled away some of that conservatism that is built
     into the code.  But the table I think is going to help a number of
     licensees that have a single nuclide and already are cleaned up this
     level, it will help them in the termination process.  If they want to do
     something else, they have the flexibility to use the code on a
     site-specific basis or come in with a more sophisticated approach.  So I
     will just bring that to the committee's attention.
         And with that, I think we are pretty much through the topics
     that I wanted to present this morning.
         MR. GARRICK:  Okay.  Thanks, John.
         As you know, each year we take a look at the issues that are
     before us and attempt to prioritize those in some systematic and
     deliberate fashion.  And when William Kane met with us in November, he
     was able to give us some insights as to what the priorities were in the
     materials area and identified them at a pretty high level, such as Yucca
     Mountain, low level waste, particularly the branch technical position on
     performance assessment, site decommissioning, transportation, control of
     solid materials.  Those were the examples of some of the things that he
     identified.
         Given that we may not have another shot at you before our
     planning exercise, anything that you could add to this, provide us with
     additional insight, would be greatly appreciated, so that our source
     material for planning is as current as possible.  We would greatly
     appreciate the -- it is obvious that a lot of these issues are very
     dynamic, and what is important in January may not be very important in
     June, because of the timeliness factor.  But that notwithstanding, if
     there is any amplification that you could provide of the list and the
     topics that we received from Kane, we would welcome that.
         MR. GREEVES:  Yes, I will do that.  I try and use these
     sessions to give you my personal views on what they are.
         MR. GARRICK:  Right.
         MR. GREEVES:  I will comment, I am very familiar with this
     list.  We worked on pieces of this list.  At a top level, it is the
     right list.  The one I am a little concerned about is the transportation
     issue.  I need to get together with Bill Brocken and figure out ways for
     us to elevate that in terms of making that more transparent to our
     stakeholders.  And I would encourage you to think about that one also.
     It is not one that we have done a lot with.  I personally haven't done a
     lot with it.  We worry about containers, we worry about handling stuff
     on the receiving end, but the actual transportation I think is an area
     that certainly isn't my strength.  And so I think Bill Kane was right to
     put it on the list and invite you to be thinking about that also.  And
     you mentioned it in a Commission meeting, it is on your list.
         So, but as you go through your planning for your priority
     meeting, I will revisit with your staff, if I can't be there myself, and
     go over about the level of detail that I do in these meetings, because
     when I come to these meetings, I really bring to you my worry beads,
     what it is I think is significant.  What it is that is in the country's
     best interest to put its resources onto.  And those resources are
     limited.
         The branch technical position in low level was is an
     important piece.  It is not as important as the others on that list, for
     example.  It is important.  The Commission gave us a challenge to get
     that done, but as you know, there isn't much going on in low level waste
     in this country at the present time.  It is important, however, from a
     performance assessment context, because the backbone of how we do
     performance assessment, a lot of it lies in that branch technical
     position that the committee has looked at over time.
         So, yes, I will, over time, give you some more feedback and
     we will use the various mechanisms available to us to give you some
     sense of priority.  Dr. Garrick, as you know, we are not bashful.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah.
         MR. GREEVES:  We let you know what we think about
     priorities.  I think that is healthy.
         MR. GARRICK:  Given that there is not much going on in low
     level waste, is that, in itself, a concern?
         MR. GREEVES:  It is definitely a concern, but I think it is
     above my head.  I think it is a concern, you know, for Congress, the
     states.  We had a meeting this week on entombment and there is lots of
     interest on entombment.  And why is there lots of interest on
     entombment?  Because people are not confident there is going to be a
     repository in their region to take their wastes.
         So, yes, it is a concern.  My view is it is above my head.
     I think you know the GAO did a report for the Hill on this, and you will
     hear things about Barnwell just like I do.  There is a recommendation
     that Barnwell join -- and what are they calling it, the Atlanta Compact?
     Guess what that is going to do if that happens, if Barnwell joins with
     New Jersey and Connecticut and forms a compact and says nobody else can
     go to Barnwell?  That will create a bit of a stir.
         So, but it seems like weekly I get these things.  I just
     don't know what direction it is going to go in.  So I can take it too
     serious until something definitive happens.  It is an issue, but it is
     just over my head, that is all, and I am not sure there is anything the
     committee -- it is your call, but so far I would prefer you to direct
     your efforts on Yucca Mountain, the decommissioning program, and new
     transportation topic.
         Control of solid materials is a big issue.  To try and go
     off and work on the low level waste issue with who knows what impact,
     that is not my call.  I wouldn't do that, and I am not doing that.  I
     frequently get asked to come down and talk to groups about where things
     are in terms of safety.
         As far as safety, we have a safe situation at the present
     time.  The State of Michigan went some five years without the ability to
     dispose of waste.  We can safely deal with the issue for a period of
     time.
         MR. WYMER:  John, you haven't mentioned clearance.  Where
     does that stand?
         MR. GREEVES:  That is control of solid material.
         MR. WYMER:  That is control of solid material.
         MR. GREEVES:  Yeah, in fact, you have got a briefing today
     on that, right?
         MR. WYMER:  Yeah.
         MR. GREEVES:  That is a hot button, and Bill Kane was right
     to have that on his list.
         MR. GARRICK:  Any other comments, questions from the
     committee?
         [No response.]
         MR. GARRICK:  We are right on schedule.  Thank you very
     much.
         MR. GREEVES:  Thank you for your time.  A pleasure.
         MR. GARRICK:  Our agenda calls for a short break now, and
     then we will enter into the topic of discussion, clearance rules.
         [Recess.]
         MR. GARRICK:  Let's come to order.  We are now going to hear
     about the radiological assessment for clearance of equipment and
     materials from nuclear facilities.  I would ask the team to introduce
     themselves, and also the committee member that will lead the discussion
     on this topic will be Dr. Wymer.
         MR. WYMER:  Maybe we should start.
         MR. CARDILE:  Okay.  Thank you very much.  My name is Frank
     Cardile.  I will be leading the briefing.  Let me just mention that we
     brief you earlier this year.  Can you hear me, folks?  Okay.  We just
     got back from the public meeting in Chicago where we had to speak very
     clearly, but I am not sure what the right way to do it here is.
         We briefed you earlier this year on our efforts and I wanted
     to come back again now to give you an update on where we stand and the
     status of our efforts.  We wanted to provide you an opportunity to give
     us your comments and suggestions on the issues paper, particularly with
     regard to the alternatives that we are thinking about and the method of
     analysis that we are using to support these alternatives.
         We want to give you some specific details on NUREG-1640,
     which is an important part of the technical basis for this effort.  And
     we also want to provide you a summary of the comments that we received
     from the four public meetings that we just held.
         As I mentioned, I am Frank Cardile, I am the chair of the
     working group on this effort.  I have with me Tony Huffert, on my left.
     I am -- by the way, I am in the Office of Industrial and Medical Nuclear
     Safety in the Regulations Guidance Branch.  We are the branch that
     develops these various regulations.  Tony Huffert is also in NMSS in the
     Division of Waste Management and he has the lead on the coordination of
     technical basis development, including soil analysis, and also has the
     lead on coordination of Regulatory Guide.
         To my right, we have Giorgio Gnugnoli, also from NMSS, in
     the Division of Waste Management.  He is the lead on the Environmental
     Impact Statement and regulatory analysis development.
         We also have Robert Meck, who should be joining us
     momentarily.  He is the project manager on NUREG-1640 and also is PM on
     further development of cost analysis to support -- cost and dose
     analysis to support the Environmental Impact Statement.
         This working group that we have to work on this, as you can
     see, is made up of two divisions at NMSS and also Research.  We also
     have representatives from the state programs, from NRR, and from OGC.
         Well, getting to the point of what we are here about today,
     I will go on to the next slide.  And I might mention that we are talking
     about today, what we are presenting today is some of what we have gone
     out and told people in the four public meetings, and presented to them
     and heard their comments about, although it is a somewhat abbreviated
     version, to be more direct and to the point of getting your comments.
         The rationale, as we went out and talked to people about why
     NRC is examining its approach for controlling solid materials with small
     amounts of radioactivity is that there are materials, solid materials at
     licensed facilities that will need some form of disposition.  These
     materials range from having large amounts of radioactivity to no
     activity at all.  All of this material will ultimately need to be
     disposed of by some safe means.
         The principal question that we are asking in this effort is
     whether all material, in particular, material with small amounts of
     radioactivity should be buried in a licensed low level waste disposal
     site, or, alternatively, is there a safe way to reuse or recycle some of
     these materials if the radioactivity levels are low enough?
         Although there are standards for disposing of material with
     large amounts of radioactivity at licensed burial sites, there are
     currently no generally applicable NRC regulations for control of most of
     these materials with small amounts of radioactivity.  Nonetheless,
     licensees are still coming in to NRC to seek release of materials when
     they are obsolete or when the equipment that they are in is obsolete or
     no longer usable, or when the facility is being shut down or
     decommissioned.
         In the absence of standard on acceptable levels, NRC has
     developed guidance as to acceptable levels that can be used by both NRC
     staff and licensees in looking at this material.  And, therefore,
     currently decisions are being made on a case-by-case basis with regard
     to these materials.
         Although this guidance that we use is considered safe, the
     lack of criteria creates inconsistent release levels and, therefore,
     non-uniform levels of protection.  In order to try to address these
     limitations, NRC is considering all the issues in an open public forum
     and is looking at a full analysis of health and environmental impacts,
     evaluating related cost benefit impacts and also looking at the
     capability of instruments to detect levels -- the levels being
     considered.
         To address these issues that I have just mentioned, and this
     is to kind of bring you up to date as to where we are today, in June of
     1998 the Commission issued direction to the staff to develop a
     dose-based regulation on control of solid materials using an enhanced
     participatory rulemaking process.  In June of 1999, which was I think
     shortly after we briefed you, I think it was April of this year, the
     Commission approved publication of an issues paper that lays out several
     alternative courses of action, and announces a scoping process for
     environmental considerations.
         As part of that directive, or as part of that process, NRC
     held a series of public meetings this past fall to solicit early impact
     input from various interested parties.  And recently, in September of
     1999, the Commission issued further direction to the staff to proceed
     with the enhanced process as currently scheduled, and then prepare a
     paper and a briefing to the Commission in March of 2000, and this is our
     next major milestone.
         To get to that point, the staff, the working group that you
     see here today will be preparing a paper to present to the Commission in
     March.  It will be holding, obviously, several working group meetings to
     discuss that paper.  It is planned that some of these working group
     meetings will be open to the public and also drafts of documents that we
     prepare will be put on our web site and available for public review.
         The Commission also -- well, let me just back up.  The
     content of this paper that we are to deliver to the Commission in March,
     the Commission directed us that the content would include the results of
     the public meetings that we have just gone through, the status of the
     technical basis supporting this effort, and our recommendations on
     whether to proceed with rulemaking or to take some other action.
         The Commission directive, for your information, also
     directed the staff that if the Commission, in March, based on their
     review of our paper, decided to go ahead with the rule, the staff would
     prepare a preliminary Generic Environmental Impact Statement and hold
     additional public meetings on that preliminary EIS.  And this would be
     an added step in addition to that normally conducted where you would
     prepare a Draft EIS for public comment.
         On the -- I just want to give you a little bit of
     information.  The issues paper, as I mentioned, was issued for public
     comment in June, on June 30th of 1999.  It was on the Federal Register
     Notice, and we have also placed it on the NRC web site.  The web site
     address is listed up here.  We also have access by list server, so that
     we can put out information to the public where they can get updated
     information about where we stand.
         The web site address will give information and has
     information right now on the meeting agendas, on the transcripts of the
     meetings we have just held, on the summaries of the meetings that we
     have held.  There are, I think right now three summaries for the first
     three meetings.  They are about five or six page abbreviated versions of
     the transcripts, giving you the highlights of the meetings.
         The web site also has the list of public comments, written
     and e-mailed public comments that we have received on the efforts so
     far.  The web site also has a full version of NUREG-1640 and it is
     planned that other documents that we develop in the months ahead will
     also be placed on the web site for public review.
         I have mentioned that we have held four public meetings.
     They are listed up on the slide.  And I will get into what we learned
     and what we heard at those meetings in a few moments.
         Getting to the issues paper itself, and developing some of
     the information about what we would like to talk with you about today,
     basically, the issues paper outlines several possible alternatives that
     the Commission could take.  One of those alternatives is to not conduct
     a rulemaking at all, but to -- underneath that, we could continue with
     this, our current case-by-case approach.
         NRC uses various approaches for that.  Specifically, we use
     Regulatory Guide 1.86 and NRR also uses what they refer to as their "no
     detectable" policy.  Alternatively, we could establish -- or we could do
     a more formalized Regulatory Guide to update Regulatory Guide 1.86.  Or,
     alternatively to that, we could do a rulemaking.
         Specifically, we could do several things.  One possibility
     is to not permit release of materials from radioactive areas.  Or we
     could establish restrictions limiting release of solid materials to
     certain authorized users.  Or we could set acceptable dose levels which
     must be met before materials can be cleared for unrestricted use.
         If we can move on to the next slide, and what I am going to
     ask Tony to do here is let me kind of get at this flow sheet a little
     bit, and see if you can hear me.
         The best way to perhaps talk about the -- let me see if I
     can slide this without turning the thing off.  We used this approach at
     the public meeting we just held in Chicago, and that is to just kind of
     use the pointer a little bit to talk about what we are talking about
     here.
         Of course, the solid materials that we are talking about,
     let me see if we can -- that's fine.  The solid materials that w are
     talking about are generated at the variety of NRC licensed facilities,
     everything from nuclear power plants, university reactors, hospital
     laboratories, industrial laboratories, fuel cycle facilities.  This
     material can either be in areas that are -- where material is handled
     and processed in radioactive areas, or the material can be in unaffected
     clean areas, for example, ventilation ducts in the control building of a
     power plant, or fencing in a power plant, chairs and furniture and other
     familiar in administrative offices at hospital laboratories.  So there
     are two basic areas which we can identify.
         None of this material, of course, leaves an NRC facility
     without some form of survey, either it is monitored with instrumentation
     to detect the radioactivity levels, or, based on administrative or
     historical knowledge of the material, it can be released based on that
     information.
         The three possible alternatives that NRC has sort of laid
     out, and that it has laid out in its issues paper are shown here.  One
     would be for the material in radioactive areas, based on the knowledge
     of where it is located, namely, administrative knowledge of historical
     location, and have that material go directly to low level waste.  For
     example, tanks or pipes in the auxiliary building of the power reactor,
     based on that, based on the fact of its location, could be sent to low
     level waste without a consideration of what possible radiation level it
     had.
         The rationale, and the rationale that has been presented to
     us by various commenters is that this allows for isolation of this
     material and reduces public concerns over possible use of this material
     in non-licensed uses, or in consumer uses.
         This option is what we have referred to as prohibition and
     that, obviously, from some of the comments we received has been fairly
     strong.
         A question open for discussion is, how much of the material,
     if any, from the unaffected areas should also follow this path?  And I
     will get into that, some of the comments we received on that from
     various parties, including the nuclear industry.
         A second alternative would be to set a dose limit in the
     regulation by which the material was surveyed and if it met an
     acceptable level, it would be cleared for unrestricted use and then
     could be used in either a recycle process or it could be used directly,
     for example, with trucks or tanks -- or not tanks, but trucks or
     equipment or tools that can be used directly in some further use.  Or
     the material, if it is cleared for unrestricted use, could just find its
     way directly to a landfill.  Of course, material below this level would
     go to -- or, I'm sorry, material above any dose level that we set would
     go directly to low level waste.
         Of course, many of the people -- the licensed control would
     end at the survey points, so none of the people, none of the people
     using the material in any of these uses would be licensed by NRC,
     including scrap dealers, steel manufacturers, concrete manufacturers,
     and, of course, general members of the public who use that, use the
     material.
         The compromise between these two approaches is to restrict
     the use of the material to some authorized use.  In this alternative,
     material would be monitored and would wind up in a restricted use.  The
     questions that have been raised to the public meetings is that they
     could -- the material could either wind up in a licensed restricted use,
     namely, that the material could be used in shielded casks or in shipping
     casks or in shield blocks which are a part of the licensed community.
     The material could also wind up in an unlicensed restricted use.  For
     example, if there was some way for the material to get from the facility
     into bridge girders, and that, obviously, the advantage of that type of
     restricted use is that it would be -- make some productive use of this
     material, but it would be in a usage that was less apt to be more --
     where public exposure would be direct.
         A major issue -- or an issue raised in the meetings is
     whether the people who are involved in building or in processing the
     material to get these unlicensed use should somehow be licensed.  For
     example, should the people -- should the scrap dealers who receive the
     material be licensed?  Should the steel manufacturers be licensed?
     Because there has to be some way to assure that the material that is
     going to this restricted use does not somehow wind up in an unrestricted
     use.
         Let me go ahead and turn this back over to you.
         In considering these different alternatives, the NRC has
     various decision-making factors that it will be using in the months
     ahead.  These include human health and environmental impacts.
     Obviously, primary to us is what is the potential dose to an individual.
     Another item in our decision-making process will be potential cumulative
     or aggregate doses to an individual from the material.  That is, if we
     set a dose to an individual, but there is a potential that that
     individual can be exposed to multiple sources of products that have been
     made from this material, do these doses add up to greater than the
     individual dose that we have set?
         In addition, we would be looking at potential aggregate or
     cumulative doses to different population groups.  We would also look at
     non-radiological impacts.  This would include, for example, the impacts
     on mining and processing of -- the impacts that mining -- I'm sorry --
     the impacts that mining and processing of new metals to replace metals
     that are sent to low level waste, what impacts would they have?
         We would also be doing a cost benefit analysis.  We will be
     looking at the ability to measure radioactivity at low dose levels, and
     we will considering international, national and state standards in these
     areas.
         To help us with this decision-making, NRC is already moving,
     or the staff is already moving in the development of contract support to
     help us with the analyses needed to support these decision-making
     processes.  These include, as I just mentioned, the evaluation of
     environmental impacts, the inventory of material that are the different
     facilities.  This is something that is currently not that well
     established in our database and we need to know that to know more about
     what are possible aggregate doses.
         We will be looking at collective doses, we are looking at
     the potential for multiple exposures to individuals to more than one
     product.  And we will be looking at the costs and benefits of the
     alternatives.  And, as I mentioned, we also have contract support to
     look at the ability to survey at low dose levels.
         I haven't mentioned it, but the issues paper talked about
     possible dose levels around a millirem, and also the European community
     and the IAEA has been looking at doses in the range of about a millirem.
     So, that being one alternative that we could look at, we need to look at
     the ability to survey at those levels, or above or below.
         We have also issued draft NUREG-1640 for public comment, and
     that document looks at, as Bob Meck will get into a minute, that looks
     at metals and concrete.  To supplement that information, we are also
     looking at potential soil reuse or recycle, and at the moment we have
     got a contract with USDA to help us with soil use characterization.
         With that, or at this point, I will turn it over to Bob Meck
     who will give you some more information about NUREG-1640.
         MR. MECK:  Good morning, I'm Bob Meck and I am in the Office
     of Nuclear Regulatory Research.  And the first point, let's go ahead and
     just step through these quickly.
         NUREG-1640 is, of course, not a rule.  Some people in the
     public have been confused about that, but rather it is a calculational
     tool to convert doses from various regulatory alternatives to
     concentrations of radionuclides, and those concentrations are expressed
     both in becquerels per gram and becquerels per square centimeter.
         Go to the next two bullets -- okay, to the next bullet.  All
     right, keep going.  All right.  The design of the report is to identify
     the dose conversion factor for the critical group and, of course, the
     next question is, what is the critical group?  And we didn't know at the
     outset of this exercise what the critical group was, and so the answer
     is, what is the critical group?  It depends.  And it depends on the
     radionuclide, it depends on the material that is involved, and it
     depends on the behavior of people in the processes that are associated
     with those materials.
         So what we did is we surveyed the most abundant materials
     that we thought might come out of nuclear power plants and selected
     steel, both carbon steel and stainless steel are lumped together in our
     analysis, aluminum, copper and concrete.
         The next bullet.  And in terms of the scenarios, we looked
     at a total -- over these four materials, a total of 79 scenarios.  We
     encompassed not only the initial fate of these materials out of a
     licensed facility, but also the byproducts that may occur.  Of course,
     with melting, for example, of metal there is not only the metal product,
     but there is slag, back house dust, there is air effluents, and we
     followed those out in those 79 scenarios, too.  And also included,
     alternately, disposal in a landfill.
         Next.  We looked at 85, examined on a case-by-case or
     nuclide-by-nuclide basis, 85 radionuclides, and these were taken, these
     were chosen from a survey of manifests from low level waste and then
     supplemented from those radionuclides that the Environmental Protection
     Agency analyzed, and also those from the European Commission, so that we
     had an ability to compare all of the radionuclides, at least initially,
     from those three sources.
         Next slide.  To identify the critical group, and to come up
     with these conversion factors, we used a probabilistic approach, it is
     the Monte Carlo method, because, you know, in each of these processes,
     it is unrealistic to say that a scrap truck driver, for example, has a
     definite number of hours to -- in which they transport.  And so we used
     distributions for virtually all of the parameters, and used the paradigm
     that the average of the conversion parameter would be representative of
     the average member of the critical group.  There is a subtle difference
     between the average member of the critical group and the average dose to
     the critical group, but I think we can defend that.
         For cobalt-60 and steel, this is the result of a 500 sample
     run on this conversion factor, and they are presented in microsieverts
     per year per becquerel per square centimeter.  And, basically, this
     turned out to be the critical group for steel and cobalt-60, and it is
     the person who transports the scrap from the licensee to the scrap yard.
         You can see on this that we also displayed the 5 percent, 50
     percent and 95 percent values for the dose conversion factors -- or they
     are not dose conversion factors, but rather conversion concentration,
     dose to concentration factors.  And when I looked at this, I asked the
     contractor to run it with 10,000 samples to see, because this looks like
     it is really spread out.  And we ran it with 10,000 samples, it came out
     to be a normal like distribution, and the mean that came out that larger
     sampling only differed in the third decimal place.  And, so, preliminary
     studies and other studies lead us to believe that the 500 sampling
     determinations of the mean of the factors is adequate.
         MR. GARRICK:  Now, where did you get the means, or where did
     you get the samples?
         MR. MECK:  All right.  The sample, what we did was we laid
     out equations for the scenarios, on a normalized basis.  We would say we
     will have, for example, one becquerel on a square centimeter of a
     surface of scrap.  And then we said, well, how much of that scrap then
     could reasonably be in a load of scrap?  And so there is a range of
     that, so that is a distribution.
         For the amount of time that it took that driver to get from
     the generator to the scrap yard and get -- that was also a variable
     parameter.  And so there was a range of that.  And, for example, those
     -- and so on throughout the equations.  And, so, basically, the
     equations were using Monte Carlo techniques, randomly picked from the
     distributions of the parameters.
         Now, on those parameters, this is where to some extent
     judgment comes into play in terms of these kinds of calculations, and we
     are quite careful in the report to document how we came -- what the
     basis of those parameters were.  For example, the truck driver
     occupation time was derived from information we got from the Bureau of
     Labor Statistics.  And, you know, if it turned out that we needed
     personal communication for somebody in a steel mill, those were formally
     documented in a quality control program.
         Not only was the nature and rationale for the distributions,
     and the ranges on those distributions, but there was an evaluation of
     the quality of the data in the report, and there were six levels of
     quality.  And so one could go through the report and say, well, this is
     how confident we are of how good -- what the quality of the input is.
     And so even though judgment is involved in laying out these equations,
     we tried to be as transparent as possible and to justify why those were
     used.
         If we could go to the next one, the next five are the top
     five radionuclides for this clearance of steel with cobalt-60.  The next
     one we looked at was inside an automobile.  This we thought of something
     like maybe perhaps a truck at a mining operation was contaminated on the
     -- well, it wouldn't actually be a mining operation for cobalt-60, but
     for this radionuclide, it was contaminated, we assumed it was
     contaminated with cobalt-60.
         Go on to the next one, please.  A small mass close to the
     body, this would be a metal consumer product.
         Go to the next one.  Reuse of equipment, a large piece of
     equipment that -- you know, a pump or something, or a large industrial
     piece of equipment, contaminated with cobalt-60.  And at the scrap yard,
     this was what the scrap handler would get cutting and manipulating the
     scrap.
         And, so, in this particular case, the critical group was
     clearly distinct from the next four highest.
         Go on to the next slide, if there is one.  One of the things
     that we did in the report, it is in Chapter 2 of the first volume, is to
     say, if we were to, for purposes of comparison, compare the results of
     these conversion factors with the European communion -- community or the
     International Atomic Energy Agency, and we also have comparison figures
     with Reg. Guide 1.86 and the Environment Protection Agency results, what
     would we get?
         So I picked a few radionuclides that are generally of
     interest to group like these and made a comparison.  And in these
     ratios, in the second or the third and fourth columns, rather, it is
     important simply to look at the exponents, and when you see a negative
     exponent, it means that the values that NUREG-1640 came up with are more
     restrictive than the comparison value, for example, the EC or the IAEA.
     And, so, although we are more restrictive, in most of the cases there,
     it is usually within a factor of 10.  And given that there is markedly
     different approaches in arriving at the values from the European
     Commission and the IAEA, a factor of 10 is probably remarkable
     agreement.
         There are a few notable exceptions where it is more than a
     factor of 10, cobalt-60 and the EC value, and cesium-137.  Recently I
     was at the IAEA and, as a consultant to them, and working together with
     two people who are actually putting together the EC numbers.  And it
     became apparent to me that the reasons for this kind of a difference is,
     one, that they did not add pathways in their derivation of numbers and
     to compensate for that, they imposed judgment calls in determining their
     parameters.  And then there was an indication that there was a -- the
     overall, I am trying to think of a diplomatic way of putting this, the
     group -- 31 groups, when they saw the numbers, provided some expert
     judgment and readjusted some of those numbers from the calculations.  So
     I think this was -- those two factors would account for why there was
     more than a factor of 10 between them.
         Shall we go on to the next slide?  Is that it?  Okay.
         I have brought a poster that basically presents the same
     kinds of information and I will be happy to answer questions, either
     one-on-one after the session or now.
         MR. CARDILE:  Okay.  Thanks, Bob.  We just want to turn now
     for a few minutes --
         MR. LEVENSON:  Excuse me.  Let me ask one question.  I
     understand how you convert from material to dos for something like
     cobalt and steel, but how did you do it for those isotopes where it
     includes inhalation and ingestion?  What kind of assumptions did you
     make, and how consistent were they in overestimating?
         MR. MECK:  Okay.  We did account for ingestion and
     inhalation pathways, and the -- I am trying to think of how to get to
     the crux of your question.
         MR. LEVENSON:  Let me give you the context of my question.
         MR. MECK:  Yeah.
         MR. LEVENSON:  I was recently involved in a review of
     something where that was done and it turned out that, when you looked at
     what was buried in the model, the assumption had been made that the
     average ingestion of milk was about 50 times the national average for
     drinking milk, et cetera.  And so you can get the wrong isotopes being
     important.  I just wondered --
         MR. MECK:  Right.  Right.  One of the design objectives was
     to be realistic.  And so when we were picking parameters, and realistic,
     the standard for realistic was American life and industry as it exists
     today.  And so we tried to go out and represent from whatever data
     sources that we could find that were appropriate, that are in existence
     today.  Certainly, the parameters are all listed in one of the
     appendices and we, you know, made a diligent effort, if we saw some
     numbers or some surprises that we didn't expect, to go back and
     reexamine and say, was there conservatism that we didn't intend?
         One of the nuclides that we examined three times, and still
     became -- and still was outstanding in terms of a surprisingly high
     conversion factor, was neptunium-237.  And I would be pleased if
     somebody could point out where the flaws were that -- but our results
     have it that, you know, the combination of some strong gamma emitters,
     and also the internal doses, in combination, make it a fairly radiotoxic
     nuclide.
         MR. LEVENSON:  That doesn't surprise me.  Neptunium-237
     quite often comes out the high one.
         MR. MECK:  Yeah.
         MR. LEVENSON:  I have one other question and that is, in
     this whole program, have you determined the background?  That is
     probably most important for concrete, but it is not inconsequential for
     the metals.  I know that, for instance, in the '50s, this was a serious
     problem for anybody wanting to build low level radiation measuring
     equipment, because the airplanes scrapped at the end of World War II,
     nobody removed radium dials, and they all went into the scrap channels.
         I know that some years ago when I was responsible for
     building some counting rooms in Idaho, we discovered we had to ship
     aggregate in from out of state because the thorium in all of the natural
     rocks and sands in the state are very high.  And it seems to me this
     could be fairly important if you are talking about low levels.  How are
     you going to differentiate between natural activities and what might be
     man-made?  Has that been looked into as a basic question?
         MR. MECK:  Yes.  Yes, indeed.  In a follow-on contract, one
     of the tasks is to establish or to provide as much information as we can
     get on the background levels of each of these metals and concrete in
     industry as it exists today.  To give somewhat of a jump start to that
     effort, we have been able to get some data from the steel industry as
     personal communication and also Japan.  I have got some data from Japan
     which I am very pleased to have gotten, about background levels.
         But, as it turns out, it is very difficult to find those
     data in existence, and there is a limited provision in the present
     contract to investigate what those background levels are.  But to take a
     real survey is going to be a daunting task.  As you said, the experience
     of the Navy at Mayer Island was they could determine different pours of
     concrete for different buildings because of the background of naturally
     occurring radionuclides differed depending on the source of the cement
     and the aggregate.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  I have a follow-on question to the one that
     John Garrick posed to you.  So I understand that you have your list of
     parameters, and some of them, as you described, for example, driving
     statistics for time for truck drivers, you have a pretty good actuarial
     basis from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  For some others I suspect
     you don't have a very strong actuarial basis at all.
         MR. MECK:  Right.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  I am curious, just your gut level feeling,
     what proportion of the parameters sort of all into the category of not
     having a very good actuarial or theoretical basis, and how did you
     handle those in terms of the uncertainties in the parameters?
         MR. MECK:  Right.  The quality of the data that we had
     ranged from, gee, you know, we have a direct source and it is
     unimpeachable, you know, like, I don't know, the speed of light or
     something in a vacuum, down to, gee, we have no idea.  And I think there
     were six categories of data, one being the most solid and six being we
     have no idea.  And I would say that -- this is off the top of my head,
     that most of them came out at about a four.  A lot of them came out
     around four.  And at one extreme, where we had the no idea, we tried to
     establish a realistic, but not overly conservative range to control
     uncertainty, but the distribution was uniform, because we had no -- you
     know, we really had no idea, well, what would be a most probable value.
         MR. GARRICK:  So all you did was establish the end
     conditions?
         MR. MECK:  Yeah.  And then sample from that range uniformly.
         And so, certainly, you know, some of the scenarios and some
     of the radionuclides had very large uncertainties, and, not
     surprisingly, those were the ones with the most parameters and the most
     complex pathways.  And so we did -- you know, we did, I think what we
     could in terms of, okay, we have -- we quantified that and, you know,
     said this is how well we know this, and, you know, this is the paradigm
     we used.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah.  The problem with that is that sometimes
     experience indicates, for the category of "no idea," people tend to
     incorporate tighter bounds in the analysis than for the cases where they
     do have data.  And that, how you establish these bounds is very
     critical, because if you have no idea, then that is the whole ball game.
         MR. MECK:  Right.  We put the basis for the range, you know,
     establishing those ranges in the report, and the report is published as
     a draft for comment.  And we are actively soliciting those kinds of
     comments, and eager to get them.
         MR. CARDILE:  Okay.  Let me just give you a couple of
     minutes to give you a little bit of a summary of what we have heard over
     the past three or four months at the public meetings.  We held, as I
     mentioned, four meetings, one here in the NRC auditorium on November 1st
     and 2nd, and the other three, in San Francisco, Atlanta and about a week
     ago in Chicago.
         We had pretty good attendance at the meeting for a variety
     of representations.  We had licensee and licensee organizations.  We had
     the Health Physics Society and the medical community reps at a couple of
     the meetings.  We had literally EPA, DOE, and state NRC representation
     at all the meetings.  We had travel government representation I believe
     at two of the meetings.
         We had at pretty much all the meetings very active and vocal
     and interesting representation by the scrap and recycling companies, and
     the steel manufacturers, who had some definite views on the subject.  I
     will get into that in a moment.
         We had representation also from sanitary waste facilities.
         The citizens group representation, what we had invited, did
     not attend the San Francisco or Atlanta meetings, although they did
     deliver statements to the meeting, and in writing, explaining why they
     did not attend.  However, we did have some citizens group representation
     at the Rockville meeting and also at the Chicago meeting.
         What we heard, the next, I guess three slides talk a little
     bit about what we heard at these meetings.  From a broad standpoint,
     with regard to the rulemaking, we pretty much heard that it would
     useful, primarily from the license community, but it would be useful to
     have a national standard that was technically defensible and readily
     implemented, or could be readily implemented, and that this would
     provide a consistent approach.  This was seen as a good thing.
         We heard at several of the meetings, or most of the
     meetings, that we -- as Bob mentioned, as Bob has just mentioned, we
     have looked at steel, aluminum, copper and concrete, and NUREG-1640, and
     we also have an analysis ongoing for soil.  We also heard in these
     meetings that we should be looking at the various other materials that
     go in and out of licensed facilities on a day-to-day basis, including
     trash, other metals.  At the Chicago meeting we talked about lead and
     nickel.
         There was, at several of the meetings, remarks that because
     DOE generally adopts NRC standards eventually, that we should also
     consider DOE materials in our rulemaking at this time.
         We also talked about reusable items that should be used --
     should be addressed in the analysis and in the rulemaking.
         Going on the next slide, with regard to alternatives for
     control of solid materials, we mentioned, as you recall, that the issues
     paper lays out three broad rulemaking alternatives, prohibition, a
     restricted use and an unrestricted use, where the material is cleared.
         The steel industry and the scrap representatives, as I
     mentioned, had some pretty consistent, strong opposition to unrestricted
     use where the material could wind up in consumer products.  Their
     indication is that there is a pretty strong potential economic impact on
     them if there is a perceived problem amongst their consumers, and this
     perceived problem then turns around on them as to not being able to sell
     their products.  So they were basically concerned that the problem of
     what to do with this material should not be shifted from the licensed
     generators to them.
         They indicated to us that they have installed detectors at
     the steel mill facilities.  These detectors were installed to deal with
     the orphan source problem, but they indicate that these detectors are
     very sensitive and getting more sensitive, that they can detect levels
     like the millirem or so that we may be talking about here, and that
     they, in fact, without getting into the specifics, there would be
     potential likelihood, if NRC did put out a rule, that they -- that the
     steel facilities would reject loads of material coming from a licensed
     nuclear facility.
         The citizens groups who did attend also opposed release of
     the solid materials.  They had -- the concerns that they expressed were
     with regard to health effects from unnecessary risks of this material in
     consumer products.  And they indicated that they felt that the material
     should be isolated from the public use.
         There was some concern about how, by these groups, that the
     process had been prejudged, that we had already made up our mind.
         Nuclear industry groups and licensees who attended, we had
     various licensees, not only power reactor licensees, but we had medical
     community licensees, and, most recently, in Chicago, a university
     licensee who also handles not only the university reactor, but the
     medical research aspects at the university.  They primarily felt that it
     was reasonable and rationale to proceed with a dose-based standard, that
     doses and the risks from any standard that we are talking about in the
     area of about a millirem are low and that NCRP, ICRP, and EPA have
     indicated that risks at one millirem level are trivial and could be
     considered negligible.
         These groups also pointed out that disposing of very low
     dose material would be very -- could be very costly if you dispose of
     them at low level waste.  This could have a big impact on some of the
     smaller licensees, like I mentioned the medical licensees, and that this
     made no sense from a cost benefit standpoint.
         We also heard some other suggestions about these
     alternatives.  In particular, with regard to restricted use, while it
     seemed like a good idea, and initially in a couple of the earlier
     meetings, I think one -- it was noted that, gee, this seems like a good
     idea, put all this stuff in bridge girders.  But we ended up, perhaps it
     was discussed, the more it was clear that there might be issues or
     problems with regard to whether, as I mentioned on that flow diagram
     earlier, whether you could -- the institutional controls in non-licensed
     restricted uses could be established well enough to assure that they
     didn't wind up in an unrestricted or cleared use, and, therefore, at the
     most recent Chicago meeting, it was mentioned that perhaps restricted
     use should take the form of only -- or of limiting the material to
     staying the nuclear community.
         Other alternatives that were suggested in the meetings, over
     the course of the four meetings, included retaining Regulatory Guide
     1.86, or, as I mentioned earlier, modifying it, adopting the ANSI
     Standard N13.12, which I believe was issued, and I can check, we can
     talk about this some more, it was issued earlier this fall.  This
     standard has criteria for clearance of materials and the NRC is bound by
     the 1996 law or act that requires federal agencies to take into account
     and to use consensus standards where they are appropriate.
         Another suggestion for alternatives suggested was to
     recapture the material that has already been released under our existing
     case-by-case approach.
         We also heard some other alternatives, possibly segregating
     the requirements that we establish by material type.  I mentioned that
     there is a variety of materials that we are talking about, and perhaps
     there is a way to do this on a material-by-material basis.  And there
     was also a suggestion that perhaps, this is along the lines of
     restricted use, that there be a dedicated smelter or manufacturer for
     handling this material.
         And, of course, we talked quite a bit in all the meetings
     about the different measurement and instrumentation methods and the
     issues and problems associated with establishing methods that are going
     to ensure that the materials meet the standard.
         That concludes our slides.  We invite your comments about
     the different alternatives, further comments about Bob's and about
     NUREG-1640, or about the other approaches we are planning on using.
         MR. WYMER:  This is clearly a very complicated issue, a very
     difficult issue.  It is like a lot of these issues where there is at
     least as strong a perception, a component by the public, as there is a
     true technical basis for trying to make decisions.
         One of the things that comes to mind is that if 25 millirem
     per year is truly a safe standard to protect human health and the
     environment, then why drop down to 1 millirem per year in this case, if
     this is to be a dose regulated standard?  I can think of a number of
     reasons myself, but I would like to hear your comments on that.
         MR. CARDILE:  Well, it is certainly something that we are
     having to deal with.  If you recall, the statement of considerations to
     the license termination rule that establish a 25 millirem, it talked
     about -- one of the principal aspects of establishing that value at that
     level was the fact that, from a potential for multiple exposure or where
     people could potentially be exposed, 25 millirem seemed like an
     appropriate fraction of the overall 100 millirem criteria.
         We also supported that with a cost benefit analysis, et
     cetera.  But a large component of that analysis -- of that evaluation
     had to do with that this was the appropriate fraction of 100, that that
     particular path and potential opportunity for exposure should be set at.
         The issues associated with releasing metal and recycling
     metal and various materials and having them go out into a variety of
     different sources, unlike a license termination rule where you have one
     site, or a site, now you have a different potential for exposure.  And
     that is certainly, and I think the issues paper mentions it, that is a
     point of consideration.  But we have to -- you know, we have to go
     beyond that, I guess, in this effort, and determine, well, what are
     appropriate levels for this type of consideration?
         MR. MECK:  If I can add to what Frank said, the sites and
     buildings are a situation where you are there and you can't be at
     another site and building at the same time.  On the other hand, in the
     cases of materials, one can accumulate multiple sources of it, so that
     is one consideration.
         Another consideration which I think is worthy to keep in the
     fore, is that from the international trade point of view, the EC has
     already recommended and required its member states to put into their
     legislation by the end of May 2000 this trivial dose level, 10
     microsieverts per year, one millirem year, and consistency for
     trans-boundary shipments and import-export considerations is a factor
     also I think.
         MR. WYMER:  John, do you have any --
         MR. GARRICK:  Well, you are right, Ray, it is an interesting
     problem and it precipitates a lot of questions.  And I think the
     question that was asked earlier about background is an extremely
     important one.
         Do you have good information, for example, on the difference
     between radiation levels of products that result from recycling versus
     products that come from raw material?  I would guess that a lot of very
     low levels of radioactive material have found their way into the recycle
     facilities.
         MR. MECK:  There is some experience, but it is usually not
     the direct kind of experience that we are looking for.  There are those
     two pieces of data that we have been able to dig out, one from the
     Japanese and one from the steel industry.  But the variation, I think,
     in terms of background that one might expect in metal products, or in
     slag, or in back house dust could be quite great.  And I think you have
     to go up, you know, several orders of magnitude, say, to get an idea of
     what the variation might be.
         I did hear an anecdote about the Mexican steel that was
     former into table legs and that those concentrations were not uniform
     because there was a continuous dilution in the process that goes on so
     that the -- when the source went through and the first legs that were
     molded, or the steel that came out, you know, close to that time, had a
     higher concentration than that that came out later in the process.  And
     so we could expect some sort of, you know, outright variation, even if
     we knew that there was radioactivity in the material, depending upon the
     dilution.  And so it certainly does add to the uncertainty of the whole
     analysis.
         MR. CARDILE:  If I can just add to that, one example that
     you brought up earlier was concrete.  It is my understanding that the
     EPA encourages the recycling of coal ash into that product, and that
     boosts the dose up to about 10 millirem.
         MR. GARRICK:  Right.
         MR. CARDILE:  As compared to what you would be getting from
     the natural variability.
         MR. WYMER:  Specifically exempted.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yes.
         MR. CARDILE:  Yes.
         MR. LEVENSON:  John, as a follow-on to your question, it
     isn't clear to me that recycled stuff is necessarily higher because of
     the high uranium-thorium content of some coals.
         MR. GARRICK:  Right.
         MR. LEVENSON:  There are some small foundries that use coke
     as a reducing agent and might well have fairly high natural
     radioactivity in new virgin steel.  So, it seems to me the whole
     question of background, particularly concrete with the coal ash being an
     acceptable -- I mean how are you going to measure whether the concrete
     is 1 MR if the background is 10, from the constituents?  You have to
     have the background, it seems to me.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yes.  Yes.  I think that is --
         MR. MECK:  One of the things that would be welcome input is
     recognizing that background is an important factor to consider.  What is
     the quantity and quality of data the NRC needs to establish this?  This
     could, you know, at one extreme be a very expensive enterprise.  And, on
     the other hand, keeping the objectives in mind, you know, what does the
     NRC need in terms of the quantity and quality of data and over what
     range of radionuclides?  So, I think, we could appreciate some feedback
     on that.
         MR. GARRICK:  One of the things --
         MR. LEVENSON:  Before we leave that point, we did have a
     concrete representative at the Chicago meeting, and we pointed out this
     about the coal -- fly ash in the concrete, and I believe he wasn't
     really aware of it, or hadn't really focused on that.  And so that --
     that just is background to this discussion, is that --
         MR. GARRICK:  Well, one of the problems that exists here is
     that, on the one hand, radiation is one of the easiest things to measure
     on the planet at low levels.  On the other hand, you are not able to
     take advantage of that, in that, I doubt if the public that you
     interacted with had an appreciation of the difference between the levels
     that you were talking about and the levels at which medical history has
     indicated that there is detectable damage.
         One of the unfortunate things is that the way this is
     presented sometimes, it is almost as if it is damaging at any level, and
     that comes about because of the LNP hypothesis.  When, in fact, if you
     attempted to do the same thing to other toxic and hazardous materials,
     you would find the difference between these levels to be profoundly
     different.  That is between the level at which you have detectable
     damage or environmental impact, and the level at which -- the levels
     that you can measure.
         So, I think that -- and the NRC is always up against the
     problem because if they present a lot of information on what experience
     indicates to be damaging and what these measurements are -- the levels
     at which these measurements are made, they can be accused of promotion
     and developing, trying to develop an interest in something.
         But the problem here is education, it is not promotion in
     most cases, it is simply education.  And I am curious about whether in
     your public meetings there was an appreciation of what these levels
     really mean in terms of consequences, number one.  And, number two, I am
     also very curious if, in your public meetings, the information --
     whatever information you presented on cost benefit, and whether there
     was any appreciation of that.
         MR. CARDILE:  Yeah, as a matter of fact, we did make a real
     conscious effort, we prepared several slides.  The slides that we
     brought here today were all the material we presented.  Some of it was
     for the purpose exactly of what you are just talking about.  We had the
     slides that had a chart or a bar chart indicating the level of this
     material compared to, you know, background, compared to the fly -- coal
     ash, compared to what you might get just traveling back and forth on a
     airline flight from east to west.
         One of the medical representatives at the Rockville meeting
     went into a fairly -- two of them actually went into fairly lengthy
     discussions about, you know, these are the levels where, you know, these
     high levels of dose are where you get radiation effects and we see no
     radiation effects at the lower levels that we are talking about, you
     know, none of them we are talking about here.
         We presented the information and heard this comment at all
     the meetings.  We noted the comparison to the NCRP standard -- or
     finding that these levels around a millirem are negligible.  So we did
     do that.  However, the public reaction that we got was nevertheless
     negative, and the steel industry reaction that we got was also negative
     in the sense that they said -- I don't think they listened, you know, to
     the presentation of the information, that I think we did a fairly good
     job of going up to the point that you are talking about, presenting the
     information, indicating these are the levels, this is the comparison to
     other levels.
         And nevertheless, the conversation -- and I think the
     license community would, you know, as part of their discussion, mention
     that these are levels that are, you know, very low, very low risk.  But
     the response that we generally got was, yes, but the public conception
     is that -- or public perception, that word was used a lot, the
     perception is that this is radiation.  And with the steel industry it
     was very -- it was kind of an economic discussion.  It was that people
     won't buy these products.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yes.
         MR. CARDILE:  And this is going to have a big economic
     impact on us.  And so that is -- that was -- so, in answer your
     question, yes, we did make that effort, and it is difficult to --
         MR. GARRICK:  Well, let me try to be a little --
         MR. MECK:  Could I add to that a little bit?
         MR. GARRICK:  Yes.
         MR. MECK:  You know, certainly that was our experience.  And
     I think we need to go a little further in terms of education than simply
     presenting a comparison of risks, because I, for example, understand the
     small risk, but I, too, am unwilling to take even the smallest of risk
     unless I perceive a potential, at least a potential for a benefit.  Why
     should I take a risk if there is no potential for benefit?  We need to
     talk about that, but yet the NRC as a regulator is not in a good
     position to promote the uses for its licensees.  On the other hand, it
     is, as I understand it, our responsibility to enable licensees to
     perform their businesses so that society as a whole can reap a benefit
     from that.  So that is somewhat of a dilemma when we are presenting to
     the public.
         Another aspect to that, to the benefit, there was some
     attempt to present benefits, but I think we in, at the decommissioning
     area, for example, it may be somewhat likened to asking people at an
     amusement park to pay upon exiting.  And so it is not that appealing
     once you have had your benefit.
         MR. CARDILE:  I might only add to that is that the
     licensees, in particular at the last Chicago meeting, that
     representatives from the licensed community did make a fairly strong
     discussion of, both from the nuclear power industry and from the
     university medical community, that the benefit is the power that is
     being generated and also the medical research that is being done, and et
     cetera, et cetera.  So it was a fairly good, or a fairly lengthy
     discussion of what the benefits that people are getting, and that this
     is part of that product that is being provided.  And to some degree, the
     response from the steel industry was, as Bob just mentioned, yes, we
     hear you, we appreciate those benefits, but now it is time to take these
     products and put them in low level waste.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah.  Well, all I am really getting at is the
     quality of the information is presented with respect to things like
     risk, costs and benefits.  And if that quality is there, and the
     citizens vote accordingly, then that is the way it is.  But I have
     observed that too often in these kind of issues, because of restrictions
     on scope of activities and responsibility, the full case is not very
     well presented.  And I was curious about that.
         Now, a couple of things I just wanted to say.  As far as
     making decisions about the various alternatives that you have, it seems
     to me that you have two or three important takeoff points for doing
     that.  You have, for example, the experience with liquids and gases, and
     the standards of Part 20 relative to them, and that is a substantial
     experience base and at least gives you some sort of a risk baseline in
     terms of what is already considered acceptable.
         The other thing that you have that seems to me to be a very
     information base if it is analyzed and systematically considered is the
     experience you have on the case-by-case licensing evaluations.  You have
     done a lot of work in that area.  And then, of course, a third, given
     that Part 20 does apply to non-solids, and given that you have these
     case-by-case analyses, it is clear that you have a substantial amount of
     experience in achieving a certain end state with respect to the disposal
     of solids, and that gives you some sort of a basis for doing a
     risk-informed analysis and making comparisons.  So at least you, it
     seems to me, you would be able to establish some bounds or some limits
     within which precedents already exist.
         I don't know how much you consider what you have done as
     having done that, but it seems that, in the three scenarios that you
     have, that one could do a pretty comprehensive job of evaluating those
     against a pretty strong experience base, because radiation doesn't care
     whether it is in liquid form or gas form, or what-have-you.  And this
     agency's principal concern has to do with radiological threats.  So I
     was just curious how much of the existing experience base has really
     been employed in developing the case for evaluating each of these, say,
     three scenarios.
         MR. CARDILE:  Well, I will answer that in two ways.  One is
     to, I guess, to some degree back up and remind everyone where we are in
     this process and that is that we are not even in rulemaking yet.  The
     effort that we have just gone through to hold these public meetings is
     part of pre-rulemaking effort to solicit early public input.  We have
     held those meetings.  We have a public comment period on the issues
     paper and the issues in the issues paper, it ends on December 22nd.
         From there, we are preparing a Commission paper in March of
     2000 and have the Commission briefing in March of 2000, at which time we
     will give them somewhat of a discussion like we have had here today,
     talk about what we heard at the public meetings, what we heard in the
     written comments.  I think we have already received over a hundred
     letters and e-mails on this, on the issues paper.  Talk to them about
     where we stand on our technical database development and make some broad
     recommendations on how to proceed, rulemaking or not.
         So, I guess to get to your question, we haven't got perhaps
     as far as really honing in on which -- or how to narrow these down.
     Obviously, the things you mentioned are things that we will be
     considering as we prepare this March paper, and then as we move beyond
     the March paper.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah, my point is I like the way you have
     approached this with the public, because, too often, the way we deal
     with the public is we say this is the way we are going to solve this
     problem, we hope you like it.  You are offering alternatives.  And now
     the question is, what is the analysis -- what analysis, what form is the
     analysis for those various alternatives?
         One of the things that strikes me that is needed is a body
     that is not restricted by a regulatory requirement or what-have-you,
     that really is only focused on generating information for the public
     that is comprehensible on the costs, risks and benefits of different
     alternatives of solving these kinds of problems.  And every time we
     start burrowing in on this, we find that the analysis is restricted, not
     because it is not known how to do it, but because of the authority or
     the fear of promotion, or some other reason.
         But what causes me some pain is that the public does not
     seem to be getting an uninhibited, unrestricted consideration of
     different alternatives against a set of attributes that they can
     associate with an accept.  And so we end up trying to make decisions on
     the basis of what our authorities are and on very limited -- limited
     applications of the sciences that are available to us to do a good job
     of these things.
         And I don't know what the answer is there, but it sounds
     like here we go again.
         MR. GNUGNOLI:  I guess this is a light answer to that.  One
     of the comments from our last meeting, an individual held up an old
     NUREG document and said, hey, this kind of stuff was done before, and
     you could look at the equations and read through the document and
     understand it.  Well, that was because it was a purely deterministic
     calculation.  He lambasted the 1640 report and said, you can't
     understand a damn thing about this.  That is because he didn't
     understand what Monte Carlo sampling analysis was.
         The minute we introduced this, in effect, black box of
     probabilistic operations and calculations, they immediately said, ah,
     this is the government hiding something and making it darker for people
     to understand.  This document is horrible to read, you can't understand
     a thing about it.
         And the problem is that your average person walking down the
     street may understand multiplication, division, subtraction and addition
     and such, but the minute you start bringing in these kinds of
     distribution analyses, they say, ah, this is basically mirrors and wires
     and strings again.
         So we got a fairly negative response, and it was, in effect,
     an accusation of the quality of the document, which was I thought
     somewhat ill-informed.  But we couldn't explain to that individual,
     there was no common language to explain to that individual what was
     going on there.  We would have needed that individual to take a few
     probability courses before we could even start talking.  And I think
     this is a very common feeling on the part of the public.
         MR. GARRICK:  Well, the first thing you would explain is
     that Monte Carlo is not magic, it is just a method of doing
     probabilistic arithmetic, that the basic knowledge, -- and Monte Carlo
     doesn't generate basic knowledge, the input has to come from the
     experience base.  And sometimes I feel that we technical people keep
     shooting ourselves in the foot because we use these terms as if they are
     the source of our probabilities.  They are not.  They are the mechanisms
     by which we manipulate information to get our probabilities, but the
     important thing here is the information, and that is what the emphasis
     should be on.
         MR. CARDILE:  Maybe, as you say, here we go again.  It may
     be that a more broad approach needs to be taken by a group like NAS,
     NCRP, even the licensees or the agency, --
         MR. GARRICK:  Oh, I agree.  Yes.
         MR. CARDILE:  -- in that if the public already knew in some
     format, that, all right, here is a dose -- here is what dose level risks
     are.  One millirem is very low, you know, a hundred millirem -- what
     these different things meant.  That when a group like us went out to the
     public meetings and said, all right, we are talking about a clearance
     rule at about a millirem, they wouldn't be, you know, --
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah.  You are talking about this piece of the
     problem.
         MR. CARDILE:  Yeah.  We are talking about this piece of the
     problem.  And we have all been -- we would be walking into an
     environment where people said, oh, okay, where do we understand that
     already.  We know where you fit in and this is probably okay.  This
     format, this clearance format shouldn't be the format of educating the
     public about the health effects of radiation, that should be taken up by
     perhaps larger groups, so that when this effort goes forward, people
     say, okay, we see where that fits into the overall aspect of this.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah, I understand and I appreciate what the
     limitations are, but I also occasionally put on my citizen's hat and
     say, if I were in their position, would I vote differently than what I
     am hearing they are voting?  And probably I wouldn't.  And the reason I
     wouldn't is because I am not hearing the rest of the story.  And if I
     heard the rest of the story, I might vote differently, and that is kind
     of my point.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  I have a question related to your
     alternatives.  The third alternative listed says, "Does not permit
     release of materials that had been in an area where radioactive material
     was used or stored."  On the face of that, that sounds like a very
     extreme kind of statement to me.  And does it mean exactly what it says?
     Would this have the kind of impact that I could envision on hospitals
     and university laboratories?
         MR. CARDILE:  That was exactly the comment we got in the
     public meetings.  What --
         MR. GARRICK:  Good public citizen.
         MR. CARDILE:  From some of the -- especially the smaller
     licensees who handle hospitals or work in hospitals, et cetera.  When we
     prepared the issues paper earlier this year, we were thinking in terms
     of -- well, in terms of, for example, an auxiliary building in a power
     plant where you might say, all right, the tanks, the pipes, the pumps in
     the auxiliary building, because of the fact of their location, they
     handle, they process radioactive fluids, would go to low level waste.
     You wouldn't check the level against some value.
         The same principle would hold for the smaller licensees
     perhaps in that if you had rooms that were specifically -- or could
     hold, if you had rooms that were specifically working with material
     versus other rooms where, you know, weighing rooms or non-rad labs, that
     might be the differentiation.  But --
         MR. HORNBERGER:  Everything that ever was in a scintillation
     counting lab would go to low level waste, is that what that means?
         MR. CARDILE:  That is what it could potentially mean.
     Because it could have a level, it had been exposed to radioactive
     material and it would be, all right, if it is in this area where it was
     exposed to radioactivity, it would go there.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  My concern about -- to me, that strikes me
     as an extraordinarily severe, extreme position, right.  And the concern
     that I would have in putting forth such options, perhaps to use the
     amusement park analogy, if you set out zero, 10 cents or one dollar for
     exit fees, with the full knowledge that if it is zero, then all of the
     amusement park, even parts of the amusement park that the general public
     doesn't want to see closed, would be severely affected.  It doesn't seem
     to me to be reasonable to hold up such an extreme position as a
     possibility when it strikes me that it isn't a possibility.
         MR. CARDILE:  Well, I think we were thinking in terms of
     perhaps narrowing down what segment of a facility that you are talking
     about would really be affected.  I mean this wasn't a rulemaking course.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  I know.
         MR. CARDILE:  This was just venting our ideas.  And we were
     looking for people to say, well, no, that is not going to work at that
     level, maybe it would work at a smaller level, or smaller area, and this
     is, you know, the ideas and we have certainly got them.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  I understand where you are going.  My
     concern is setting, or the potential for setting expectations that can't
     be fulfilled.  I think that we make a mistake, for example, if we ever
     talk about zero risk waste disposal facilities.
         MR. GNUGNOLI:  One of the even more severe suggestions that
     have been made at a number of these meetings, that not only should we
     prohibit materials from going anywhere except a low level waste site,
     was to actually go back and recapture all the materials that have been
     released using the non-detection policy or the Reg. Guide 1.86.  So, in
     effect, that wasn't something we proposed, but actually had been
     proposed a number of times in the meetings.
         Again, public meetings being what they are, we had to put
     that down on the list.  But, you know, one would hope that we get into
     the cost benefit analysis, that that would -- that, let's say the more
     severe suggestions could possibly fall by the wayside.  But it wasn't
     necessarily anything that we tried to suggest.  They have topped us on
     that one actually.
         MR. LEVENSON:  If I might follow up on George's question for
     a minute, if I interpret the way it is written, that every time a
     security guard walks through any of these buildings, he can't take his
     gun out with him, it has to go to a low level waste burial site.  And
     any visitor and any employee can't talk out his clothes or his watch.
         MR. GNUGNOLI:  Or we would have to reprocess all the taxis
     that come and deliver people to the front door.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  That's right.  I am not going into my
     scintillation counting lab anymore.
         MR. WYMER:  Any further?
         MR. LEVENSON:  Yeah, I have a couple.  The example you gave
     for cobalt and steel, you converted from a surface dose to an effect, et
     cetera, and that is okay for -- in relatively reasonable, not too
     difficult to do for things like metal.  But what do you do about
     concrete?  Surface, do you think that -- would you go from just surface
     dose on concrete, or it isn't so clear?  Because you might have beta
     emitters soaked into the concrete that it is so clear how accurately a
     surface dose.  Has that been looked at?
         And the second half of the question is, on concrete, would
     you differentiate between unrestricted unrestricted reuse and
     rubblization material that might be buried on site?
         MR. MECK:  The report addresses both surface and volumetric
     radioactivity distributed in concrete.  And, of course, there have to be
     some assumptions about what does surface mean.  I don't recall actually
     off the top of my head what we -- you know, whether it was a centimeter
     or a millimeter that we talked about that.
         MR. LEVENSON:  Oh, I don't want to get into the detail.
     Basically, my question is --
         MR. MECK:  But we did analyze both cases.  And in the case
     of concrete, most of the scenarios had to do with it actually being
     crushed and rubblized and then used, for example, in a roadbed or
     actually going directly to a landfill or being used for fill, that sort
     of thing.  The scenarios weren't as complex as they were for, say,
     melting where you have byproducts and partitioning of radionuclides
     going to, you know, the byproducts or the metal product.  So --
         MR. HORNBERGER:  I had a question just for clarification, my
     own edification.  I mean I understand the market for steel and aluminum
     and copper recycling.  Is there a big market for concrete recycling?
         MR. MECK:  There is a market there.  It is used as
     aggregate.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  For roadbed.
         MR. MECK:  For, you know, for kind of subsequent concrete.
         MR. GARRICK:  Used for concrete.
         MR. MECK:  And it is used for fill.  Yeah, it is used for
     fill.  That is about it.
         MR. LEVENSON:  George, in the U.K., when they DandD'd their
     big gaseous diffusion plant, the original estimate was a huge number for
     disposal of the concrete, till they changed the ground rules and set it
     up that any contractor could come, and if he loaded it, he could have it
     for free, and it all disappeared, a huge amount of concrete.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  But, I guess, I mean I can understand fill
     and things like that, because I know it is used for that.  But is that
     the use?
         MR. LEVENSON:  It is used as aggregate in roadbeds.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  So it is for aggregate in roadbeds.
         MR. HUFFERT:  In the Chicago meeting, we had a
     representative from Prone Cement Company and he provided us some general
     numbers on what it is worth.  The bottom line was that it did not have a
     national worth, it just had a local worth, because it wasn't worth
     transporting it beyond several miles for its use because it could be
     made very cheaply.
         MR. LEVENSON:  I have one other question.  I think that, you
     know, whether it is 1 MR per year, or 2 or 5, health effect is going to
     be zero in any case, but there is potentially a non-health effect.  I
     wondered whether you had had representatives from the photographic
     industry help you determine at what level of contamination the cameras
     start giving you fogged pictures or holders for X-ray film introduce
     problems, that sort of thing.  Has that been explored?
         MR. WYMER:  And is that a concern of the NRC?
         MR. GNUGNOLI:  That is one of our examples we give in the
     cost benefit analysis, that there are sort of, you know, victims of this
     process who really had no investment, or wouldn't normally be considered
     stakeholders.  So, film-makers, camera makers and folks who have
     electronic equipment that might also be affected, that will be one of
     the things investigated in the cost benefit analysis.  And, you know, we
     would have to get an handle on the amount of retooling that would have
     to go on in those kinds of industries should the dose limits be
     sufficiently high to cause that kind of effect.  Although we haven't had
     anybody show up at the meetings to represent that sector of society,
     though.
         MR. LEVENSON:  Do they know that the meetings are going on?
         MR. MECK:  If I could add to that, the Environmental
     Protection Agency, when it investigated sensitive industries, found that
     those industries have already established specifications for their feed
     stocks and sources for materials, and they are all, you know, certainly
     already aware that they do have a sensitive industry and have
     accommodated for that already.
         MR. WYMER:  It does seem though some consideration, if you
     go into a rulemaking, ought to be given to -- I am sure you have thought
     about it, too, the half-life of these materials.  There is a big
     difference between cobalt and thorium and uranium, for example.
     Cobalt-60 will be gone after a while and drops quite rapidly in about
     five years, a half-life.  And you have got thousands, or millions of
     years with thorium and uranium.
         MR. HUFFERT:  We explored that at the workshops with a
     restricted use scenario.  We actually asked people if they should have a
     table of radionuclides put together based on half-life.  Can we have
     restricted use based on half-life?  Could it be on some other physical
     property, for example, maybe all the alpha emitters and beta emitters
     segregated from the gamma emitters?
         So we brought this to the attention of the participants and
     we got comments.
         MR. WYMER:  Okay.  You don't have any opinions?
         MR. HUFFERT:  They had opinions, we are just gathering them
     right now.  That is the stage that we are at right now.
         MR. WYMER:  Okay.  Any other questions?  We have a little
     time if anybody wants to philosophize.
         MR. GNUGNOLI:  I might make one comments about, let's say,
     some of the opposition.  Where we might have thought that the argument
     would have been whether one millirem or 10 millirems would be safe or
     not, a number of environmentalist groups pointed out the fact that if we
     could trust you to implement a system that would keep the material at
     that level, that would be great.  So then they recited the situations at
     Paducah and on and on.  They said this is what we are really talking
     about, that the only way we can really control you and the government is
     to basically have a prohibition so you can't do this kind of thing,
     because we can't trust you, we can't trust that you are going to do the
     right thing.
         So that was, that is kind of hard to fight with education
     because past history may actually support their position more than one
     that might be more enlightened.
         MR. WYMER:  They don't believe in the Second Law of
     Thermodynamics.
         MR. GNUGNOLI:  Exactly.  That's right.
         MR. GARRICK:  They don't believe in laws it sounds like.
         MR. LEVENSON:  Was part of your answer that Paducah wasn't a
     licensed facility?
         MR. WYMER:  Somehow that doesn't strike --
         MR. GNUGNOLI:  It wasn't always logically based, so it --
     but, you know, the point was it was hard to fault them on the fact that
     the government hasn't behaved well in the past in some of these areas,
     so.
         MR. GARRICK:  But it sounds like the only information that
     they really considered, at least a lot of the public, was the radiation
     levels, that the cost benefit information was not a significant factor
     in their opinions.  And I can partly understand that because the cost
     benefit analysis is extremely limited.  It is not really cost benefit.
         MR. WYMER:  Who does it benefit?
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah.
         MR. GNUGNOLI:  The point is in order to do the cost benefit,
     you have to start by characterizing the amount of harm versus the amount
     of benefit.  Well, they are just -- they are already mistrusting us in
     terms of our capability of assessing the harm.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yes.
         MR. GNUGNOLI:  They are saying you will say it is this, but
     it really may be higher.  So the first step in the cost benefit has
     already, you know, been compromised in their eyes.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  And just for the record, I would point out
     to you also, I mean my colleagues here have talked about these low level
     doses as being zero, absolutely zero risk, as being a foregone -- a done
     deal.  And I think we wall know that that is -- we don't have universal
     acceptance on that view.
         MR. GARRICK:  Well, that is true, as long as the LNT is in
     force.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  But we don't have universal acceptance that
     the LNT is inappropriate.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yes.  Right.
         MR. CARDILE:  Which makes the comment, we can point out the
     levels of exposure that we are talking about and how they compare to
     other things like flying across country, but the comment in response to
     that is, that is all interesting, but we don't want, as Bob Meck
     mentioned, we don't want this additional risk.  I will take the extra
     dose of a medical X-ray or flying across country, but I don't want this
     risk.
         MR. GNUGNOLI:  In effect, that is the volunteerism aspect
     that comes in.  I can choose whether to get on a plane or not, but if
     you determine ahead of time that all the cooking materials I will be
     using and the tools I will be using, against my will, won't be labeled,
     I won't know, that is unacceptable.  So, in effect, the volunteerism is
     always going to play a role in this one, especially hard.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah, and everything points to an irrational
     conclusion here.
         MR. WYMER:  Everything points to education.
         MR. LARSON:  In the past you had some Congressional interest
     in similar activities.  I assume there has been some on this issue.
         MR. HUFFERT:  We have had two inquiries from Congress, one
     in August and one in October.  We received 45 questions from Mr. Dingel,
     Markey and Klink, and there has been a very large effort on the staff's
     part to respond to those in a timely fashion.  The Office of State
     Programs is heading that up with representatives from OGC and NMSS, and
     we are not only responding to those questions, but we are also trying to
     put the doses in perspective, and we have been working on that.
         MR. LARSON:  There is no timeframe for submission?
         MR. HUFFERT:  I thought we were going to try to reply to
     that this week, but please don't take my word on it since I am not
     responsible for it.
         MR. CARDILE:  I just want to mention that, I will just add
     to that, is that the letter that we got from Congressman Dingel and
     Markey and Klink were focused on the agreement state licensing issue
     with Tennessee and MSC Corporation, and only -- not only, but
     peripherally on this effort.  So there wasn't Congressional questions
     specifically sent in on this, on the work we are doing here.
         MR. HUFFERT:  That is true, but, also, we had an ABC News
     interview with Dr. Knapp as a result of that.  There was an article in
     some fairly major publications on this whole subject.  So the
     Congressional interest has, in Tennessee, has spawned into other areas.
         MR. WYMER:  Are there any other questions or comments?
         MR. GARRICK:  You have a tough job and I hope we can be
     helpful.  It is not easy, what you are trying to do, especially when --
         MR. WYMER:  But it is very important.
         MR. GARRICK:  Yeah.  Especially when you can't tell the
     whole story.
         MR. CARDILE:  I will just add that this web site that we put
     up there, that you have a copy of the address, it is pretty good, and we
     try to keep it pretty much up to date.  And, for example, the highlights
     from the Chicago meeting, or a full discussion, will probably get posted
     this week.  But there are highlights on there from the previous
     meetings, and any future documents that we prepare will also be placed
     on that web site, as well as, like I say, right now, about 80 of the
     public comment letters.
         There is also a list server which you can subscribe to and I
     don't have the directions on here, but I think they are pretty -- I can
     get them to the staff as to how to subscribe to the list server.
         So far I haven't seen any other inputs from anyone else,
     other than myself, on the list server, and all I -- what I have done so
     far is direct people to the web site, saying this information, you know,
     this new piece of information is on the web site, the agenda is on the
     web site, the meeting highlights are on the web site.  But it is
     intended to be a discussion tool, but so far it hasn't been used
     greatly.  But this web site is kept up to date and has quite a bit of
     information on it.
         MR. WYMER:  Well, if there is nothing else, I am sure we can
     use whatever time we can pick up here this morning.  We certainly
     appreciate your presentations.  We are going to be following this with a
     great deal of interest.  And I, in particular, am going to be following
     it, since that is my assignment on the committee.  And thank you very
     much and good luck.
         MR. HORNBERGER:  I will point out to you that we picked up
     two minutes.
         [Laughter.]
         MR. WYMER:  Three.  Four.
         [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the meeting was concluded.]
Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, January 27, 2014