Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday February 10–13,...

L LW Forum c/o Afton Associates, Inc. • 403 East Capitol Street • Washington, D.C. 20003(202)547-2620 • FAX (202)547-1668 • E-MAIL [email protected] • INTERNET http://www.afton.com/llwforum

Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, FridayFebruary 10–13, 1998San Diego, California

L LW Fo ru mMeeting Report

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum met in San Diego, California, onFebruary 10–13, 1998. Twenty-four Forum Participants, Alternate ForumParticipants, and meeting designees representing 19 compacts, hoststates, and unaffiliated states participated.

Additional information was provided by 19 resource people from,variously, the States of California, Colorado, and Utah; the NationalGovernors’ Association; the Department of the Army; EPA; DOE andDOE’s National Low-Level Waste Management Program; NRC; the ElectricPower Research Institute and the Nuclear Energy Institute; US Ecology,Chem-Nuclear Systems, Envirocare of Utah, and Waste ControlSpecialists (represented by Egan and Associates); and RocketdynePropulsion and Power.

Also in attendance, as observers, were six other state and compactofficials; a staff person from DOE’s National Low-Level WasteManagement Program; one NRC headquarters staff person; and sevenrepresentatives of other interested parties, including a regionalgenerators’ organization, two generators, one California anti-nucleargroup, and two private companies.

A report on the meeting follows.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting ReportTuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday—February 10-13, 1998

Editor, Cynthia Norris; Associate Editor, Holmes BrownContributing Writers: Todd Lovinger, Cynthia Norris, Laura Scheele, M. A. Shaker

Project Manager: Rick GeddenAttendance: Janice Euell

Layout and Design: M. A. Shaker

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum

c/o Afton Associates, Inc.

403 East Capitol Street

Washington, DC 20003

VOICE (202)547-2620

FAX (202)547-1668

E-MAIL [email protected]

INTERNET h t t p : / / w w w. a f t o n . c o m / l l w f o ru m

LLW

FORUM

Prepared by Afton Associates, Inc. for the LLW Forum under State of Washington Department of Ecology Contract Number C9700071through a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy.

Table of ContentsNew Developments in States and Compacts . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Plans for Continued Operation of Barnwell . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Closure of the Beatty LLRW Facility and Transfer of the

License to the State of Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Army Waste Management: New Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Utility Decommissioning: Impact on LLRW Disposal Ne e d s .3Radiation Exposure and Health: Current Studies . . . . . . . . .4DOE Use of Commercial Disposal Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Regulatory Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Executive Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6LLW Forum Business Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7National Conference of State Legislatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Viewing LLRW Management from a State Legislator’s

Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Waste Manifesting and Tracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9DOE Low-Level Waste Management Program . . . . . . . . . .10Function and Role of the Compact System . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Role of the LLW Forum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Agenda Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11ResolutionsApproving the 1997 Financial Report [Number 98.2.1(a)] . . . . . . . . .6To Continue Operations After 12/31/99 [Number 98.2.1(b)] . . . . . .6To Seek Funding for 2000–2002 from DOE [Number 98.2.1(c)] . . . .6On Distribution of LLW Forum Materials to the Public

[Number 98.2.1(d)] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6To Adopt the 1998 LLW Forum Budget [Number 98.2.1(e)] . . . . . . .7To Thank Gregg Larson for His Dedicated Service as

Forum Convenor [Number 98.2.2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9To Recommend Adoption of a Memorandum of Understanding

on the Generation of Residual Waste [Number 98.2.3] . . . . . . . .11On Commercial LLRW Disposal Data [Number 98.2.4] . . . . . . . . .12To Request Commercial Mixed Waste Final Work Report

[Number 98.2.5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Remarks by NRC Commissioner Dicus . . . . . . . . .Supplement

As a result of a decision made unanimously by LLW ForumParticipants in May 1997, the Low-Level Radioactive WasteForum Meeting Report for each meeting is now printed in asingle version and distributed as a document accompanyingLLW Notes. The meeting report includes a condensedattendance list. An expanded list including full titles isdistributed to the Executive Committee and to the State ofWashington contract officer, and is available on request toother Forum Participants.

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report isdistributed by Afton Associates, Inc. to those who receiveLLW Notes.

Recipients may reproduce and distribute the Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report as they see fit, butsections must be reproduced in their entirety and with fullattribution.

This document is available atwww.afton.com/llwforum

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum is an associationof state and compact representatives, appointed bygovernors and compact commissions, established tofacilitate state and compact implementation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 and the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985and to promote the objectives of low-level radioactive wasteregional compacts. The LLW Forum provides anopportunity for state and compact officials to shareinformation with one another and to exchange views withofficials of federal agencies and other interested parties.

Key to AbbreviationsCode of Federal Regulations CFRU.S. Department of Energy DOEU.S. Department of Transportation DOTU.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPAU.S. General Accounting Office GAOU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRCnaturally-occurring and accelerator-

produced radioactive materials NARMnaturally-occurring radioactive materials NORM

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report continued

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report • February 10–13, 1998 3

New Developments in States and Compacts

Forum Participants reported on recent events. Mattersdiscussed included

• the nature and cause of differences between theSoutheast Compact Commission and the State ofNorth Carolina regarding funding for developmentof a regional low-level radioactive waste disposalfacility;

• the decision by the State of New Jersey to suspend itscurrent siting process;

• litigation by the California Department of HealthSe rvices and US Ecology concerning the state’sefforts to purchase federal land in Ward Valley,California, for use in siting a low-level radioactivewaste disposal facility;

• the Central Midwest Commission’s decision to signthe In t e r regional Access Agreement for Wa s t eManagement;

• the State of Ut a h’s processes for (1) re n ew i n gEnvirocare of Utah’s radioactive material license and(2) considering an application by LaidlawEnvironmental Services for a low-level radioactivewaste disposal facility; and

• public hearings held by the State of Nebraska on twodraft documents analyzing US Ec o l o g y’s licenseapplication for a low-level radioactive waste disposalfacility.

Plans for Continued Operation of BarnwellGeorge Antonucci of Chem-Nuclear Sy s t e m ssummarized revisions in Chem-Nuclear’s long-termplan to meet the State of South Carolina’s revenueexpectations and to assure extended access to Barnwell.

Closure of the Beatty LLRW Facility andTransfer of the License to the State ofNevada

Rich Paton of US Ecology reported on the company’stransfer of the radioactive material license for the closedlow-level radioactive waste disposal facility at Beatty,Nevada, to the Nevada Bureau of Health ProtectionServices.

Army Waste Management: New Activities

Tritium Re c yc l i n g Stephen Mapley of the U.S.Department of the Army reported on the tritiumrecycling pilot project that the Army and LawrenceLivermore National Laboratory are jointly sponsoring.

Transfer of the Formerly Utilized Sites RemedialAction Program (FUSRAP) to the Army Corps ofEngineers Mapley discussed the transfer of FUSRAPfrom DOE to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Utility Decommissioning: Impact on LLRWDisposal Needs

Status of DOE Hi g h - L e vel Ra d i o a c t i ve Wa s t eDisposal Program Martin Letourneau of DOE’sOffice of Waste Management reported on the status ofDOE’s work at the proposed Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste repository in Nevada.

Implications of Recent Court Rulings Paul Genoa ofthe Nuclear Energy Institute gave a report on recentcourt rulings concerning DOE’s responsibility to takespent fuel by the January 1998 statutorily mandateddeadline. Genoa’s presentation included a summary ofDOE’s alleged obligations, a review of prior courtdecisions, an analysis of the federal gove r n m e n t’sreaction to the court decision, and a description ofrecent petitions to the court addressing this issue.

Letourneau then read a prepared statement on DOE’sobligation to accept spent fuel by the January 1998deadline, reiterating the department’s commitment todispose of the nation’s spent fuel, but only after acomplete study and analysis of the proposed site.

Potential Federal Legislation Todd Lov i n g e r,LLW Forum Congressional Liaison, reported on thestatus of H.R. 1270 and S. 104, the House and Senateversions of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Inaddition, Lovinger discussed related bills introducedduring the last two Congresses.

Private Initiative for Spent Fuel Storage in UtahGenoa reported on the utility perspective concerning aprivate initiative to construct an above-ground facilityfor the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel on aNative American reservation in Tooele County, Utah.Using slides, Genoa provided a history of the project,discussed current activities, explained the tribal leaseagreement, and commented upon concerns raised byopposition groups and the U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.

William Sinclair of the Utah Division of RadiationControl provided the State of Utah’s perspective on thep roposal, explaining the basis for the Gove r n o r’sopposition. Sinclair reviewed a list of the Governor’sconcerns and the issues involved. He also reported onseveral bills that have been introduced in the legislaturethat address the proposal.

James Kennedy of NRC ’s Division of Wa s t eManagement reported on a prehearing conference thatNRC is conducting on the application to construct thefacility.

Proposal for Reactor Component Disposal atHanford Michael Garner of the Northwest Compactand the State of Washington discussed a proposal todispose of a reactor component at the commercialdisposal facility at Hanford.

Panel Discussion: Disposal Needs and Timing PaulGenoa, Carol Ho r n i b rook of the Electric Powe rResearch Institute, and William Sinclair discussed

• utility decommissioning schedules;

• projected volumes and classes of decommissioningwaste; and

• projected disposal needs in comparison with existinglow-level radioactive waste capacity.

Following the panel presentations, Forum Participantsand panelists discussed the impact of utilitydecommissioning on low - l e vel radioactive wastedisposal needs.


4 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report • February 10–13, 1998

Radiation Exposure and Health: Current Studies

Overview and International Research Efforts NRCCommissioner Greta Dicus discussed the relationshipbetween radiation exposure and health effects andreported on international research efforts in this area.(The full text of her re m a rks is included in asupplement to the meeting report.)

Following Commissioner Dicus’ presentation, she andForum Participants discussed the topics addressed inher re m a rks. Fo rum Pa rticipants thanked theCommissioner for the continuing participation ofJames Kennedy of NRC at LLW Forum meetings.

Case Study: The Rocketdyne Facility Larry Bilick ofthe California Public Health Institute explained therole of the California Department of Health Services inthe study of Rocketdyne facility workers.

Philip Rutherford of Rocketdyne discussed the findingsof the study and a review of the study.

Forum Participants and panelists engaged in a lengthydiscussion of the points raised by both speakers.

DOE Use of Commercial Disposal FacilitiesRecent Court Rulings and Related DOE ActivitiesTodd Lov i n g e r, LLW Fo rum Legal ClearinghouseDirector, reported on a U.S. district court’s issuance ofa preliminary injunction against DOE concerning thea w a rd of new contracts for low - l e vel or mixe dradioactive waste disposal services. He also providedinformation on DOE’s review of potential options forprocurement strategies to increase competition for thedisposal of department waste by private contractors.

Implications of Court Rulings and DOE ActionsThe following individuals discussed the implications ofWaste Control Specialists, LLC v. U.S. Department ofEnergy and potential DOE procurement strategies:

• Tom Curtis of the National Governors’ Association,

• James Kennedy of NRC,

• Martin Letourneau of DOE,

• Ken Alkema of Envirocare of Utah, and

• Martin Malsch of Egan and Associates, representingWaste Control Specialists.



The panelists addressed

• means to increase competition for DOE wastedisposal services and the benefits and drawbacksthereof;

• the impact of such competition on DOEprocurement and cleanup activities;

• whether or not DOE can delegate its regulatoryauthority;

• the impact of the potential outcomes in WasteControl Specialists on NRC external regulation ofDOE facilities; and

• state authority to regulate DOE.

Discussion followed during which Forum Participantsand Alternate Forum Participants commented uponstate and compact authorities over waste managementfacilities, the time frame for the the pilot project forexternal regulation of DOE, and the process forrelicensing the Envirocare of Utah facility.

Regulatory IssuesRamp Cleanup: A Case Study of the Implementa-tion of EPA’s Standards Leonard Slosky of the RockyMountain Compact provided background informationon the Ramp facility.

Chuck Mattson of the State of Colorado and RichardGraham of EPA Region 8 discussed the cooperativeeffort by the state health department and EPA Region 8to ensure timely and effective cleanup and removal ofhazardous, radioactive and mixed wastes from Rampfacility grounds.

Commercial Mixed Waste Management Ken Henryof DOE’s National Low-Level Waste ManagementProgram provided a report on the mixed waste studythat the LLW Forum had requested.

Ronald Gingerich of Connecticut explained howindividual Forum Participants had tracked the status ofthe mixed waste study since the October 1997 meetingof the LLW Forum. He then outlined some options forfuture action by the LLW Forum pertaining to mixedwaste. Forum Participants discussed the next steps forthe LLW Fo rum pertaining to mixed wastemanagement. (See resolution on mixed wastemanagement, page 13.)

Issuance of EPA’s Title VI Guidance forEnvironmental Complaints Michael Hogan of NewJersey reported on:

• a recent ruling in the case of Chester ResidentsC o n c e rned for Quality Living v. Pe n n s y l va n i aDe p a rtment of En v i ronmental Pro t e c t i o n and theimplications of the ruling for the concept ofenvironmental justice;

• the activities of the Environmental Council of theStates (ECOS) related to the issuance of EPA’sguidance for interpreting environmental justiceusing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; and

• specific issues of interest to state agencies regardingthe Title VI guidance.

Pete Baldridge of California discussed

• the process that EPA used to develop the Title VIguidance;

• the lack of state involvement in the development ofthe Title VI guidance;

• the fact that EPA states in the guidance thatadherence to EPA-developed policies and regulationsdoes not constitute compliance with the Title VIguidance; and

• the non-applicability of the guidance to EPA.

NRC-DOE Pilot Project on External RegulationJames Kennedy of NRC reported upon the status of thepilot project for external regulation of DOE by NRC.

Assured Isolation Peer Review Meeting RonaldGingerich reported on a January 1998 meeting on theassured isolation concept for long-term management oflow-level radioactive waste. He explained that a draftguide addressing topics discussed at the meeting shouldbe available in March 1998.

Funding After December 21, 1999Number 98.2.1 (c)

Adopted on February 12, 1998

Resolved, That the LLW Forum seek fundingfor the next LLW Forum grant cycle from theU.S. Department of Energy.

Unanimously approved.

1998 Budget M. A. Shaker reviewed the 1998proposed budget, to which the Executive Committeehad given preliminary approval in December 1997. Shenoted that this is the second calendar year in which theLLW Forum is operating under a flat budget with noallowance for inflation.

In the context of the 1998 budget, Gregg Larsondiscussed the LLW Fo ru m’s pending request thatD O E ’s National Low - L e vel Radioactive Wa s t eManagement Program to reproduce printed materialsfor the LLW Fo rum Ou t reach Project. Afterconsiderable discussion, on a motion by LeonardSl o s k y, seconded by Kathryn Haynes, Fo ru mParticipants unanimously approvaed a plan to cut costsand more efficiently distribute LLW Forum materials.

Distribution of LLW Forum Materials toMembers of the Public

Number 98.2.1 (d)Adopted on February 12, 1998

Resolved, That the Forum Convenor notify theU.S. Department of Energy’s National Low-Level Waste Program of the LLW Forum’sintent to place LLW Notes on the LLW Forum’sWorld Wide Web page and to provide a singlecopy of the publication in camera–re a d yformat to DOE’s National Low-Level WasteManagement Program (Program) at the IdahoNational Engineering and En v i ro n m e n t a lLaboratory to distribute as they deem fit.

Resolved, That to ensure continued publicaccess to archival LLW Forum publications, theForum Convenor request that the Programcontinue to provide copies of LLW Forumpublications to the National Te c h n i c a lInformation Service (NTIS).

Resolved, That the Forum Convenor requestthat the De p a rtment notify those personscurrently on the LLW Forum/DOE OutreachProject List of these facts.

Executive Session

1997 Financial Re p o rt M. A. Sh a k e r, Fo ru mManagement Advisor, reported that the LLW Forumended the year on budget. Forum Participants agreed tothe following motion.

1997 Financial ReportNumber 98.2.1(a)


Resolved, That, upon the recommendation ofthe Fo rum Exe c u t i ve Committee, theLLW Forum accept the Fourth Quarter 1997Financial Report.

LLW Forum Future Funding Forum ConvenorGregg Larson reported that the Executive Committeehad re v i ewed the prospects for continuingorganizational funding after December 1999 and hadrecommended discussion of the following three issues:

• whether there is a need for the LLW Forum after1999,

• if there is a need, how the LLW Forum should befunded after 1999, and

• what entity would be able to serve as the grantee forsuch funding.

Re g a rding the third issue, Larson notified Fo ru mParticipants that the State of Washington is currentlyconsidering whether or not to continue as grantee forthe LLW Forum at the end of the current grant cycle.

Following discussion, Janice Deshais moved that theLLW Forum continue in existence beyond calendaryear 1999 and secure funding from the U.S.Department of Energy. Kathryn Haynes seconded themotion. After discussion, Deshais and Haynes agreedto divide the question at the request of Steve Moeller.The following two motions were then passed.

Operation After December 31, 1999Number 98.2.1 (b)


Resolved, That the LLW Forum continue itsoperations beyond December 31, 1999.

Approved by all parties with an abstentionfrom the representative from Nebraska.



The resolution was subsequently transmitted to DOEby letter dated February 25 from Kathryn Haynes,Fo rum Conve n o r, to Mike LaFre n i e re, Pro g r a mManager, National Low-Level Waste Program, IdahoOperations Office, DOE. The following are excerptsfrom the letter.

As you know, the LLW Forum has been workingcooperatively on a public outreach project withthe De p a rtment and its National Low - L e ve lWaste Management Program at INEEL sinceApril 1994. At that time, the Program agreed tohandle the distribution portion of the OutreachProject, but asked that the LLW Forum provideprinted materials as needed. The LLW Forumconcurred, but reserved the right to reexamine itsdecision if increased requests for materials resultedin significantly higher costs.

In 1997, due to budget constraints, we requestedthat the Program, as part of its public outreachfunction, assume responsibility for reproducingL LW Fo rum materials needed for publicdistribution. The Department turned down ourrequest.

Therefore, both as a cost-saving measure and toi n c rease the availability of LLW Fo ru mpublications to members of the public, theLLW Forum has unanimously agreed to a policychange—to put all appropriate LLW Fo ru mpublications on the World Wide Web. We willimplement the new policy immediately with theupcoming re p o rt on the Fe b ru a ry 1998LLW Forum meeting…

In a related matter, the LLW Forum does requestthat the Program continue to provide a singlecopy of LLW Forum publications to the NationalTechnical Information Service (NTIS) so that thepublic can continue to have access to archivalLLW Forum material.

Since the spring of 1994, staff of the NationalNLLWMP at INEEL have reliably and cordiallycooperated on this joint project. The LLW Forumwould like to thank the staff for their efforts and,in particular, would like to commend Donna Lakefor her work on this project.



Discussion then moved to consideration of anExecutive Committee proposal to meet with officials atDOE and NRC and other agencies in Washington,D.C. in the spring as feasible. This long-standingLLW Forum activity was canceled in 1997 to saveresources. Shaker suggested that the savings from thestreamlining of the Outreach Project might be appliedto the spring meeting if the group decided to moveforward with the Executive Committee proposal.

Following discussion, the group agreed to instruct thestaff to schedule such meetings if possible. Then, on amotion by A. Eugene Crump, seconded by EdwardFord, the LLW Forum approved the following motion.

1998 LLW Forum BudgetNumber 98.2.1 (e)


Resolved, That, on the recommendation of theForum Executive Committee, the LLW ForumCalendar Year 1998 Budget be approved with amovement of $8,986 from the Outreach Projectto the Executive Committee.

LLW Forum Business SessionStaff Report M. A. Shaker reported that in 1997LLW Forum staff

• a n s we red hundreds of specific requests forinformation from state, compact and federal agencyofficials;

• faxed or mailed information on an individual basisover 400 times;

• forwarded Internet postings or news articles over 600times;

• provided other information via e-mail over 200times;

• p rovided background or referral information tonational and regional press over 100 times andreferred those press contacts to Forum Participantsfor further information;

• provided liaison with other groups such as theNational Gove r n o r s’ Association, the We s t e r nGovernors’ Association, the Southern Governors’Association, the Host State Technical CoordinatingCommittee (TCC), the Conference of Radiation

Control Program Directors (CRCPD), the NationalConference of State Legislatures, the EnvironmentalCouncil of the States (ECOS), the Na t i o n a lEn v i ronmental Justice Ad v i s o ry Committee(NEJAC), the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), andthe Health Physics Society;

• held an annual meeting and two other regularmeetings as well as a briefing for Governors’ staffworking in Washington, D.C.;

• published nine issues of LLW Notes (totaling over300 pages) including a special extra edition inDecember about the U.S. Department of Energy’suse of commercial low - l e vel radioactive wastedisposal facilities;

• published two issues of the Summary Report: Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Activities in theStates and Compacts including a summary chart;

• published three LLW Forum Meeting Reports; and

• faxed out 32 New Flashes and 68 informationalmemos to disseminate information that needed to beprovided quickly.

1999 LLW Forum Meeting Locations M. A. Shakerannounced the results of the meeting location strawballot. Following discussion, Edward Ford moved

to plan to have three meetings for the nextcalendar year with consideration being given tomaking the second meeting a seminar orworkshop.

Don Womeldorf seconded the motion, which passed.



Election of Convenor On the nomination by theExecutive Committee, the LLW Forum unanimouslyapproved the election of

Kathryn Haynes of the Southeast Compact tobe Forum Convenor for calendar year 1998.

Election of Exe c u t i ve Committee On thenomination by the Exe c u t i ve Committee, theLLW Forum unanimously approved the election of thefollowing individuals to serve as members of the ForumExecutive Committee for calendar year 1998:

Janice Deshais (Northeast Compact)

Lee Mathews (Texas)

Leonard Slosky (Rocky Mountain Compact)

Thor Strong (Michigan)

Don Womeldorf (Southwestern Compact)

The committee includes an ex officio member,

Jeff Breckel (Washington)

Election of Alternate Convenor On the nominationby the Exe c u t i ve Committee, the LLW Fo ru munanimously approved the election of

Janice Deshais to be Fo rum Altern a t eConvenor for calendar year 1998.

Exe c u t i ve Committee Proposal to Change theLLW Forum Statement of Principals The ExecutiveCommittee then recommended extending the pool ofpossible members of the Exe c u t i ve Committee toinclude Alternate Fo rum Pa rticipants. Afterconsiderable discussion, Forum Participants

i n s t ructed LLW Fo rum staff to study theimplications of the proposal and to place it on theagenda of the Executive Committee and possiblythe LLW Forum for discussion at the May 1998meeting.

Recognition of Contributions of William DornsifeOn behalf of the Executive Committee, Gregg Larsonformally thanked William Dornsife for hiscontributions to the work of the committee and of theLLW Forum since the inception of the organization.Forum Participants joined in wishing William Dornsifewell in his future endeavors.

LLW Forum meetings will be held in 1999 in

San Diego, California FebruarySouthwestern Compact/California

Portland, Maine May/JuneTexas Compact

Annapolis, Maryland OctoberAppalachian Compact

Viewing LLRW Management from a StateLegislator’s Perspective

Experiences of Fo rmer State Legislators C a ro lAmick of Massachusetts, Edward Ford of the CentralMidwest Compact, and Stanley York of the MidwestCompact described their responsibilities andinvolvement in controversial issues when serving in thestate legislatures for Massachusetts, Kentucky, andWisconsin, respectively.

Working Effectively with State Legislatures Basedon their experiences, the panelists provided analysis ofthe legislative decision-making process and offeredadvice on pro d u c t i ve ways to interact with statelegislators.

Waste Manifesting and TrackingConsideration of Draft Agreement for the UniformApplication of Manifesting Pro c e d u re s To d dLovinger summarized changes to the draft InterstateAgreement for the Uniform Application of ManifestingPro c e d u re s that we re suggested during an earliercaucus. Forum Participants then discussed the mostcurrent draft of the agreement. They also discussed theprocess for endorsement of the agreement by the fullLLW Forum and for states and compacts to becomesignatories.

Don Wo m e l d o rf moved that the agreement beendorsed by the full LLW Forum. Carl Lischeskeseconded the motion. After discussion, Janice Deshaisoffered a substitute to Womeldorf ’s motion, which wasaccepted by Womeldorf. The full text of Deshais’motion was then read into the record. Kevin McCarthymoved that the motion be tabled. Katherine Haynesseconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

The motion was removed from the table later in themeeting and passed unanimously. (See page 12.)

Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste DisposalData Don Womeldorf introduced a resolution oncommercial low-level radioactive waste disposal data.The motion was seconded by A. Eugene Crump.Following discussion, Janice Deshais moved to tablethe resolution. Carl Lischeske seconded the motion,which passed unanimously.

The motion was removed from the table later in themeeting and passed unanimously. (See page 12.)



Recognition of the Contributions of Gregg Larsonas Fo rum Conve n o r On a motion by Do nWomeldorf, seconded by Edward Ford, the followingresolution was passed unanimously.

Resolution to Thank Gregg Larson forHis Dedicated Service as LLW Forum

ConvenorNumber 98.2.2


Whereas, Gregg Larson has faithfully served asLLW Forum Convenor since taking over the gavelfrom Jerry Griepentrog in January 1993; and

Whereas, he diligently and effectively has carriedout the obligations of this position includingchairing LLW Fo rum meetings, chairingExe c u t i ve Committee meetings, managingfinancial affairs, and handling correspondence andsupporting all other LLW Forum endeavors; and

Whereas, he now hands the gavel to KathrynHaynes; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the LLW Forum thanks GreggLarson for his dedicated service to the LLWForum and national low-level radioactive wastemanagement efforts.

Resolved, That the LLW Forum is confidentthat he will be outstandingly successful indealing with whatever challenges the futuremay hold for him.

National Conference of State Legislatures Recent and Upcoming Activities of the LLRWWorking Group Cynthia Norris, the LLW Forum’sliaison with the National Conference of St a t eL e g i s l a t u res (NCSL), summarized discussions andpresentations that took place at the November 1997meeting of NCSL’s Low - L e vel Radioactive Wa s t eWorking Group. She noted that the working group’snext meeting is scheduled for April 1998.

Revised Policy on Radioactive Waste ManagementNorris reported on a substantially changed policy onradioactive waste management that was adopted byNCSL’s Assembly on Federal Issues in November 1997.(See LLW Notes, Winter 1997, pp. 12–13.)

DOE Low-Level Waste Management Program

Status of FY ’98 Projects and Expenditures KenHe n ry of DOE’s National Low - L e vel Wa s t eManagement Program, referred Forum Participants andAlternates to a meeting document entitled “Status ofTechnical Assistance Ac t i v i t i e s” and gave a slidep resentation on the National Low - L e vel Wa s t eManagement Pro g r a m’s FY ’98 projects andexpenditures. Discussion followed.

Process for Obtaining State and Compact Input reProjects for FY ’98 and FY ’99 Mike LaFrenierereviewed the planning process for FY ’98 and FY ’99and the process for setting priorities. Fo ru mParticipants and Alternates provided input on theprocess.

How the National Program fits into DOE’s 2006Pl a n — Technical Su p p o rt to the States and theLLW Forum Grant to the State of WashingtonLaFreniere provided information on DOE’s 2006 planand its potential impact on the low-level radioactivewaste program. He cautioned Forum Participants andAlternates about shrinking budgets and escalating costs.

Discussion followed with Forum Participants.



Function and Role of the Compact System

Forum Participants and Alternate Forum Participantse xchanged views on the following questions. Toencourage full participation in the discussion, leadspeakers were determined by lottery as each questionwas addressed.

• What are states’ continuing responsibilities under thefederal act and respective state laws?

• What are compacts’ continuing re s p o n s i b i l i t i e sunder their compact legislation?

• Since 1985, what changes have there been in theenvironment in which compacts must fulfill theirresponsibilities?

How have these changes affected their ability tofulfill these responsibilities?

What has stayed the same?

• Which compact functions should be emphasized?

• Is there a role for compacts that are not siting afacility? If so, what is it?

• Are compact facilities at an economic advantage ord i s a d vantage in comparison with non-compactcommercial facilities?

• What kind of planning should be done to ensurethat planned new regional facilities can be operatedeconomically?

Does the report by F. Gregory Hayden concerningeconomics of the compact system affect yo u rplanning?

• Should the compact system be changed? If so, how?



Role of the LLW Forum

Forum Participants and Alternate Forum Participantsdiscussed the continuing role of the LLW Forum inlow-level radioactive waste management and disposalpolicy. During the discussion, shaped by a series ofquestions, Forum Participants agreed that

• the services of the LLW Forum will be needed for theforeseeable future;

• LLW Forum services are an essential component ofthe assistance provided to states and compacts byDOE and have been given the highest priority forcontinued DOE assistance, with states and compactscontributing staff time, as well as travel costs, forForum Participants and other state/compact experts;

• the LLW Forum should continue to focus mainly onsharing information and facilitating communicationamong states, compacts and federal agencies;

Resolution to Recommend Adoption ofA Memorandum of Understanding on Generation of Residual Waste

(Number 98.2.3)Adopted on February 13, 1998

Whereas, At its fall 1992 meeting, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum passed a resolutionrecommending that the compacts and unaffiliated states enter into a certain Interregional Access Agreementfor Waste Management, dated as of October 23, 1992 (the “Original Agreement”), relating to the transferof low-level radioactive waste between compact regions and unaffiliated states for the purpose ofmanagement; and

Whereas, On March 27, 1995, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a final rule at 50 Fed. Reg.15649 et. seq, entitled Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting (the “UniformManifest Rule”), relating to the transfer of low-level radioactive waste that is ultimately intended for disposalat a land disposal facility; and

Whereas, The Uniform Manifest Rule and related commentary by the staff of the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission contain certain recommendations (the “NRC Recommendations”), relating to the persons towhom low-level radioactive waste resulting from decontamination and incineration activities should beattributed; and

Whereas, The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum desires to recommend that compacts and unaffiliatedstates adopt common understandings with respect to decontamination and incineration waste; therefore, beit

Resolved, That the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum recommends that the compacts andunaffiliated states individually sign on to the attached Interstate Agreement for the UniformApplication of Manifesting Procedures.

• the LLW Forum’s current operating practices shouldnot be altered;

• the LLW Forum should continue to act by consensusw h e n e ver possible and by majority rule whennecessary;

• the LLW Forum’s method of reaching agreement onpolicy recommendations has worked well and shouldcontinue to be used; and

• the LLW Fo rum should continue to facilitatediscussion among all concerned parties about thefuture of the commercial low-level radioactive wastesystem.

Agenda PlanningCynthia Norris, Forum Program Director, announcedthe results of the voting for May 1998 meeting topics.



Resolution on Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Data(Number 98.2.4)


Whereas, On February 15, 1996, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum unanimously passed a resolutionto request the National Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program to include low-level radioactivewaste disposal data from Envirocare of Utah in the national Manifest Information Management System(MIMS), the data to be presented so as to identify commercial low-level radioactive waste; and

Whereas, In March 1996, this motion was transmitted to DOE’s National Low-Level Waste Program; and

Whereas, In August 1996, the LLW Forum communicated directly with Envirocare to request that thecompany cooperate with DOE to provide the information in the format requested; and

Whereas, It is the LLW Forum’s understanding that DOE is about to conclude an agreement with thecompany to provide the information requested in the format requested; and

Whereas, The data from the MIMS system continue to be used by individuals to analyze functioning of thecommercial low-level radioactive waste system; therefore, be it

Resolved, That, in the event that the information is so provided, the LLW Forum thanks DOE’sNational Low-Level Waste Management Program and Envirocare for their response to the request.

Resolved, That in the future the National Low-Level Waste Management Program ensure that anylow-level radioactive waste, as defined by Public Law 99-240, being disposed of at any facilityaccepting that type of waste be included in the national Manifest Information Management System(MIMS). This should be done in such a way that these commercial low-level radioactive wastes arepresented distinctly from other low-level radioactive waste disposed of at that facility.

Resolved, That the LLW Forum instruct the Forum Convenor to communicate these resolutions to theU.S. Department of Energy’s National Low-Level Waste Program.



Resolution on Request for Commercial Mixed Waste Final Work Report(Number 98.2.5)


Whereas, The LLW Forum, through its Regulatory Issues Discussion Group (Formerly the CommercialMixed Waste Working Group) has been working since 1989 to help identify solutions for the treatment anddisposal of commercial mixed waste; and

Whereas, The LLW Forum’s Regulatory Issues Discussion Group conducted a survey of a limited sample ofcommercial mixed waste generators; and

Whereas, The LLW Forum requested that the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Low-Level WasteManagement Program, in cooperation with Forum Participants and Alternate Forum participants, refine thecommercial mixed radioactive waste data resulting from the survey to remove uncertainties; and

Whereas, The LLW Forum in May 1997 put the proposed mixed waste pilot project on hold pendingfurther information from the National Low-Level Waste Management Program; and;

Whereas, The National Low-Level Waste Management Program has reported back to the LLW Forumconcerning the commercial mixed radioactive waste data; and

Whereas, Forum Participants recognize the value of the information related to currently availablecommercial mixed waste treatment capacity that the National Low-Level Waste Management Program hascompiled; therefore be it

Resolved, That the LLW Forum requests that the U.S. Department of Energy direct its National Low-Level Waste Management Program, in cooperation with Forum Participants and Alternate ForumParticipants, to produce as the final product resulting from the mixed waste survey and datarefinement activities a list of commercial mixed waste treatment companies and each company’scurrently available mixed waste treatment capacity.

Resolved, That the LLW Forum requests that the U.S. Department of Energy distribute the finalproduct to to state radiation control officials, low-level radioactive waste management officials, andForum Participants and Alternate Forum Participants.

Resolved, That the LLW Forum keep the commercial mixed waste pilot project on hold unless anduntil a need to reactivate the pilot project is identified.

Resolved, That the LLW Forum discuss developments in commercial mixed waste management on anannual basis to maintain expertise and familiarity on the issues.



Southeast CompactKathryn Haynes Participant

Alternate Forum Convenor(1/98)

Forum Convenor (2/98)

Southwestern CompactDon Womeldorf Participant

CaliforniaCarl Lischeske Participant

Pete Baldridge meeting designee

District of ColumbiaNorma Stewart Participant

Phillip Sumner Alternate 1

Carmen Johnson Alternate 2

MassachusettsCarol Amick Alternate 1

New YorkJack Spath meeting designee

Rhode IslandTerrence Tehan Participant

Resource PersonsEnvirocare of Utah, Inc.

Kenneth Alkema

Chem-Nuclear Systems, L.L.C.George Antonucci

CaliforniaLarry Bilick

National Governors’ AssociationTom Curtis

Appalachian CompactMarc Tenan Participant

Central CompactA. Eugene Crump Alternate 1

NebraskaSteve Moeller Alternate 2

Central Midwest CompactEdward Ford Participant

Central Midwest CompactMarcia Marr Alternate 1

IllinoisTom Carlisle meeting designee

Midwest CompactStanley York Alternate 1

Gregg Larson ParticipantForum Convenor (1/98)

Northeast CompactJanice Deshais Participant

Alternate Forum Convenor(2/98)

ConnecticutKevin McCarthy Participant

Alternate 1 NortheastCompact

Ronald Gingerich Alternate 1

New JerseyMichael Hogan Participant

Northwest CompactMichael Garner

Rocky Mountain CompactLeonard Slosky Participant

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting • February 10–13, 1998 • San Diego, California

Attendance

LLW Forum Participants, Alternate Participants and Meeting Designees



ConnecticutCharles Walsh

New JerseyRick McGoey

Jim Shissias

North CarolinaSteven Rose

CaliforniaRuss Huck

Federal Agency and Commission OfficialsAdvisory Committee on Nuclear Waste/NRC

Howard Larson

DOE/Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory

Sandra Birk

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionJoel Lubenau

Other Interested PartiesAppalachian Compact Users of Radioactive Isotopes

John Vincenti

Committee to Bridge the GapShannon HartJoseph Lyou

AmerenUENeal Slaten

Southern California Edison CompanyEric Goldin

Yankee Atomic Electric CompanyWilliam Riethle

LLW Forum StaffAfton Associates, Inc.

Holmes BrownJanice EuellTodd LovingerCynthia NorrisLaura ScheeleM. A. Shaker

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGreta Dicus

Nuclear Energy InstitutePaul Genoa

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRichard Graham

DOE/Idaho National Engineering andEnvironmental Laboratory

Ken Henry

Electric Power Research InstituteCarol Hornibrook

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionJames Kennedy

U.S. Department of EnergyMike LaFreniere

Martin Letourneau

Egan and Associates, P.C. (representing WasteControl Specialists)

Martin Malsch

U.S. Department of the ArmyStephen Mapley

ColoradoChuck Mattson

U.S. EcologyRich Paton

U.S. Department of EnergyTerry Plummer

Rocketdyne Propulsion and PowerPhil Rutherford

UtahWilliam Sinclair

Other Officials: Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Compacts, Their Affiliates MemberStates, and Host States

NebraskaRick Becker

Unaffiliated StatesDistrict of ColumbiaMassachusettsMichiganNew HampshireNew YorkPuerto RicoRhode IslandSouth Carolina •

Northeast CompactConnecticut *New Jersey *

Southeast CompactAlabamaFloridaGeorgiaMississippiNorth Carolina * TennesseeVirginia

Southwestern CompactArizonaCalifornia * North DakotaSouth Dakota

Northwest CompactAlaskaHawaiiIdahoMontanaOregonUtahWashington * •Wyoming

Rocky Mountain CompactColoradoNevadaNew Mexico

Northwest accepts RockyMountain waste as agreedbetween compacts.

Texas CompactMaineTexas * Vermont

The compact has been passedby all three states and awaitsconsent by the U.S. Congress.

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum includes a representative from eachregional compact, each designated future host state of a compact *, each statewith a currently operating facility •, and each unaffiliated state.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Membership

HI

AK

TX

ME

WV MD

PA

DE

CentralMidwest

Midwest

OHIN

MO

IA

WI

MN

MI

TN

VA

SCGAALMS

FLSoutheast

DC

CA

SD

ND

NJ

MA

LA

AROK

KS

NE

NV

CO

NM

RockyMountain

MT

ID

OR

WA

WY

UT

PR

NY

NH

RI

Central

Northeast

Appalachian

Southwestern

KY

IL

NC

Texas

TexasNorthwest

AZ

CT

VT

Graphic by Afton Associates, Inc. for the LLW Forum. July 1997.

Appalachian CompactDelawareMarylandPennsylvania * West Virginia

Central CompactArkansasKansasLouisianaNebraska * Oklahoma

Central Midwest CompactIllinois * Kentucky

Midwest CompactIndianaIowaMinnesotaMissouriOhioWisconsin

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report Supplement

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report • February 10–13, 1998 S-I

Introduction

Let me start by expressing my appreciation for beinginvited to participate in this meeting. Low - l e ve lradioactive waste disposal continues to be a majorNational issue and the Low-Level [Radioactive] WasteFo rum provides an excellent vehicle for focussingattention on current issues.

As many of you are well aware, my experience includesserving first, as member of the Central Interstate Low-Level Waste Compact Commission, and then as itsChairman. Thus, upon becoming an NRCCommissioner, I had the opportunity to view low levelradioactive waste issues from the State and Compactperspective and now I view the issues from a Nationaland even international perspective.

However, in my remarks today, I will not focus onspecific waste issues but rather on an overarching issuewith implications for decisions re g a rding wastegeneration, management and disposal. T h i soverarching issue is the health effects of exposure to lowdoses of radiation or low dose rates and the associatedconcerns regarding standards setting and regulatorydecisions.

Most discussions of radiation health effects will includecomments about the basic model underlying mostradiation protection standards–the linear, non-t h reshold (LNT) theory. Mo re specifically, thecomments may center on the controversy surroundingthe theory.

So, this morning, in keeping with the overall purpose ofthis panel, I would like to speak briefly about thecontroversy over the linear, non-threshold theory forradiation health effects, in particular, why there is acontroversy, and what could be done to help resolve thecontroversy.

As you know, the bulk of our knowledge about humanradiation health effect that forms the basis for radiationprotection standards is derived from studies of thesurvivors of the atomic bombs that struck Hiroshimaand Nagasaki. Other human population groups thathave provided significant data on radiation healtheffects are certain medical patient groups. It is largelythe result of these human studies coupled with researchon radiation effects on animals and cells that have ledto the adoption on the linear, non-threshold (LNT)theory to describe radiation health effects at the lowdoses and dose rates normally encountered by radiationworkers and the public. The strict application of thattheory at these low levels is being challenged. Thereasons for the challenge are complex. In the opinion ofsome, the strict application of the LNT theory has leadto unnecessarily conserva t i ve radiation pro t e c t i o nstandards particularly for specific purposes such as thedecontamination and decommissioning of licensedfacilities. As we will see, there is scientific uncertaintyabout radiation health effects at these low levels. Thus,one way of obtaining relief from radiation protectionstandards that are viewed as unnecessarily restrictive oroverly conserva t i ve, is to challenge the theoryunderlying the standards.

IAEA International Conference on Low LevelRadiation

This issue has attained international attention. TheInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and theWorld Health Organization (WHO) sponsored aninternational conference which was held last Novemberin Seville, Spain. The conference title was, "Low Dosesof Ionizing Radiation: Biological Effects andRegulatory Control." More than 600 persons registeredfor this meeting and I would like to share someobservations from it that I believe you will find arerelevant to this panel's topic. It was the first time thatscientists and regulators have met to jointly discuss theissue.

Remarks by Greta Joy DicusCommissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

at the Panel on Radiation Health Effects, Winter Meeting of the LLW ForumSan Diego, California

February 11, 1998

The conference was also held in cooperation with theUnited Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects ofAtomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). In its firstannouncement of the meeting the sponsors stated:

The levels and biological effects resulting fromexposure to ionizing radiation are continuouslyreviewed by [UNSCEAR]. Since its creation in1928, the International Commission onRadiological Protection (ICRP) has publishedrecommendations on protection against ionizingradiation. These recommendations have served asthe basis for national, regional and internationalsafety standards on this matter, including thosedeveloped by the IAEA and the WHO...

The biological estimates of health effects of lowdoses of ionizing radiation and the regulatoryapproach to the control of low level radiationexposure have both been much debated duringrecent times....The time there f o re seemsappropriate to take stock of these new advances[in knowledge] and to identify areas towardswhich new or greater research and developmenteffort might best be directed.

The Seville conference featured two backgro u n dsessions for reports on developments and findings inthe radiation protection field and ten fora on specificaspects of radiation effects and control measures. Aspecial session entitled, "From the Scientific Evidenceto Radiation Protection" was interspersed in the foraand provided a transition from sessions on biologicaleffects to those addressing regulatory control. Theschedule concluded with a round table on regulatorycontrol and scientific research, a conference summarysession and closing of the conference. The conferencewas opened by Hans Blix, IAEA Director General whonoted that this was the last IAEA conference he wouldopen prior to his retirement and by Dr. HiroshiNakajima, WHO Director General.

A variety of views were expressed during the course ofthis conference but the discussions did not lead toputting to bed the current controversies over thea p p ropriateness of using the linear, non-thre s h o l d( L N T) model that underlies present ICRPrecommendations and regulatory radiation protectionprograms. U.S. trade press articles, to a great degree,captured the spirit of the debates. (See Nucleonics Week,November 20 & 27 and December 4 1997 and InsideNRC, Nov. 24 1997.)


S-II Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report • February 10–13, 1998

In a nutshell, there are uncertainties about the radiationhealth effects that are associated with the radiation doseand dose rate levels that we regulate. With the possibleexception of fetal radiation effects, radiation healtheffects in humans at these low levels have not beendemonstrated. The critical assumption made forcreating a radiation protection system is that there is alinear, non-threshold relationship between radiationand health effects at low doses and dose rates. There issome evidence of a threshold and possibly for hormesisfor selected biological media and radiation effects. Butsuch evidence, frankly, must become overwhelmingand be demonstrated in humans before there will beserious consideration to moving away from the currentLNT assumptions that underlie the present radiationprotection framework. Further, while their views arenot widely accepted, there are also scientists whobelieve that there is evidence that radiation healtheffects at low doses and dose rates are underestimatedby the LNT assumption.

While no consensus was reached at the end of theSeville conference, the prevailing view was probablybest expressed by Dr. Sheldon Wolff of the RadiationEffects Research Foundation who said in the closingsession that data on hormesis effects must beconvincingly positive before changes to theoriesunderlying radiation protection re c o m m e n d a t i o n scould be made, otherwise, "we are dealing withreligion, not science." The comment drew applausefrom many in the audience.

With Dr. Wolff's statement in mind, I would like tocite part of my introductory remarks for the conferencesummary session:

The effects of ionizing radiation on human healthcan be described as perhaps one of the moststudied and better understood health effectsrelationships from a scientific point of view. Yet,there is still much more to be learned and there issome dispute about what we know in the scientificc o m m u n i t y. It has also proven to be ve rychallenging to translate our knowledge into are g u l a t o ry framew o rk to protect public andworker health and the environment. This is themain issue ... Increasing our knowledge aboutradiation health effects through well designed anddirected research is our most promising path toultimately increase public and political confidencein our radiological protection standards andregulatory frameworks.


Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report • February 10–13, 1998 S-III

Joint U.S.–Russia Radiation Health EffectsResearchAfter becoming an NRC Commissioner, I wasappointed as the NRC's representative to the JointC o o rdinating Committee for Radiation Ef f e c t sRe s e a rch (JCCRER), a U.S.–Russian endeavor toc o o rdinate joint gove r n m e n t - s p o n s o red radiationhealth effects research. While this research will includeboth U.S. and Russian populations, it is primarilyfocussed on workers and populations in the southernUrals area of Russia where the Russian nuclear weaponsmanufacturing center, Mayak is located. As a result ofearly operational practices and some accidents atMayak, workers at the plant and populations aroundthe site were exposed to unusually large amounts ofradiation and radioactive materials. In many cases, thedoses were comparable to those received by survivors ofthe Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings. Asignificant difference is that the exposures of the Mayakworkers and populations were protracted—in manycases extending over many years—in contrast to thedoses received by atom bomb survivors. Thus, there isa unique opportunity to not only gain additionalinsights into radiation health effects by studying theMayak groups but to also learn more about radiationhealth effects at protracted exposure rates.

In addition, many of the workers and significantnumbers of the surrounding population ingestedradioactive materials in amounts large enough to resultin significant internal doses and, in some cases,radiation health effects not seen in western radiationworkers. For some workers, both internal and externaldoses were significant. The worker population, incontrast to US radiation worker populations, includes alarge number of women as well as men. These areexamples of other aspects that have the potential toprovide further insights into radiation health effects inhumans.

Underlying this are the extensive health records for theworkers maintained by the Russian government sincethe beginning of operations of the Mayak plant. Healthrecords also exist for many members of the surroundingpopulation who were exposed to radiation as a result ofoperations and accidents at the Mayak complex. Whiledose reconstruction will be a challenge, especially forthe population, it is feasible.

As you can see, the research opportunity is a great one.In the U.S. the DOE, NRC, EPA, DOD and NASA

are joined in the JCCRER effort and work has begun.The unique research opportunities in the southernUrals area of Russia were repeatedly mentioned at theSeville conference.

It is for this reason that I am a strong supporter of theJCCRER research effort. Research is clearly needed tobetter describe radiation health effects particularly atthe radiation levels subject to regulatory effort. Inaddition to human studies, molecular studies promiseto shed further light.

Future DirectionsThe National Research Council was asked recentlywhether sufficient new data exist to warrant areassessment of health risks resulting from exposure tolow levels of radiation. On January 21, 1998, Dr.Richard B. Setlow, Chairman of the Committee onHealth Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of IonizingRadiation (otherwise known as BIER VII, Phase 1)responded to this request in a letter to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. In that letter, hestated:

In the Committee's judgment, information thathas come available since publication of the 1990Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of IonizingRadiation (BIER V) makes this an opportune timeto proceed with ... a comprehensive reanalysis ofhealth risks associated with low levels of ionizingradiations. Such a study should begin as soon aspossible and is expected to take about 36 monthsto complete.

This is a significant development which will bef o l l owed closely by eve ryone with an interest inradiation protection.

Such studies are essential to address the problem facingthe regulators and the regulated community on how totranslate our knowledge of radiation health effects intoa regulatory framework that is protective of workers,the public and the environment and, at the same time,takes into account the uncertainties about thatknowledge and the resulting need to make assumptionsto construct a radiation protection system. T h eproblem is further complicated by the fact that many ofthe recommended dose limits and constraint levels thatare thus derived are comparable to or smaller thanbackground radiation levels. This takes on specialimportance in the context of developing standards fordecontamination and decommissioning of licensedfacilities, including those for waste disposal.

As Roger Clarke, Di rector of the UK Na t i o n a lRadiological Protection Board and Chairman of theICRP put it in a recent opinion letter to a scientificjournal:

The real issue to be decided between scientists,regulators and the public is not a threshold for riskbut the acceptability of risk. They should joinf o rces to determine acceptability in differe n tcircumstances—in work and public environmentsand under normal and accident conditions.

At the conference in Seville, Dr. Abel Gonzales, IAEADeputy Director General was more succinct:

Don't fix the biology; fix the implementation ofthe ICRP's recommendations.

In my personal view, there is a need for the U.S. tomore closely follow the radiation protection systemrecommended by the ICRP. The ICRPrecommendations, while predicated on the LNTconcept, constitute a coherent system. It includesappropriate cautions and warnings that help guardagainst slavish application of radiation pro t e c t i o nrecommendations independent of the origin andpurpose of the radiation source, the assumed risk of theradiation relative to that from background radiationand the costs to mitigate the assumed risks. Many partsof the world are implementing the ICRP system. Forexample, in the European Union, member countriesare required to implement the IAEA Basic SafetySt a n d a rds which are based upon ICRPrecommendations by May 13, 2000.

We have not done so in the United States nor are thereany plans to do so. In my opinion we should. PresentU.S. radiation protection requirements are derived onlyin part from ICRP and NCRP recommendations.Federal statutes, some of which are not specific toradiation protection, and court decisions haveinfluenced the development of U.S. radiationprotection requirements. While adopting the ICRPsystem will not necessarily address all of the presentc o n t roversies, it will provide a more cohere n tframework for radiation protection requirements in theU.S. which would also be consistent with internationalrecommendations and with re g u l a t o ry framew o rk selsewhere in the world. Adopting the ICRP systemalso, in my opinion, would enable the U.S. to maintaina conservative radiation protection approach that willbe more in balance with our knowledge of radiation


S-IV Low-Level Radioactive Waste Forum Meeting Report • February 10–13, 1998

health effects.Conclusions

The issue that is increasingly confronting regulators,the regulated community and the public is whetherNational and State radiation protection standard sproperly take into account the scientific uncertaintiesabout radiation health effects at the low levels ofradiation exposure permitted by regulation.

Knowledge and uncertainty about radiation healtheffects are not exclusively the domains of any individualcountry. Radiation health effects is an internationalscience. The ICRP, an international body of experts,develops recommendations for a radiation protectionsystem that are based upon international knowledgeabout radiation health effects and take into account theuncertainties about that knowledge. The present U.S.radiation protection re g u l a t o ry system is neitheruniform nor consistent with internationally acceptedrecommendations. In my view, absent persuasiveevidence that the science or the ICRP system is faulty,the U.S. should move tow a rds harmonizing itsre g u l a t o ry program with ICRP re c o m m e n d a t i o n s .Doing so coupled with continuing support of radiationhealth effects research will, in my opinion, go a longway towards resolving some of the current controversiesin the U.S. about radiation protection standards withthe desirable end result of increasing public confidencein our regulatory programs.

Commissioner Dicus’ remarks are also available onNRC’s website at

http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/nrarcv/s98-07.htm

Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday February 10–13,...

Documents

Transcript of Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday February 10–13,...