NEVADA OFFSITE EXPOSURE CRITERIA (continued) permissible for occupationally exposed persons if these persons were warned that by living there, they would be getting exposures equivalent to occupational levels. This remark resulted in consederable discussion of the philosophy and psychology of setting eral public. different limits for different elements of the gen- MR. BROWN raised the question as to whether or not the Commission would be required to condemn and purchase any land if it were necessary to expose occupants to levels above the re- cognized population limits without any choice on their part, since it might constitute a deprivation of property without due process. Since this subject was closely related to a matter being considered by Dr. Claus, he was introduced in order to present his report. Dr. Walter D. Claus In connection with the reactor testing station, problems similar to that resulting from weapons testing would arise in the future and it had been proposed that certain sections of the adjacent property be purchased in order to exclude IDAHO OFFSITE EXPOSURE CRITERIA residents. DR. CLAUS presented a strong argument to interpret the exposure of the general population &s an average population rather than an absolute limit for any individual and also to consider the limit for any individual to be the same as that for the occupational worker. He plans to suggest this to the NCRP before their recommendations are presented. He further explained that if an attempt is made to keep every member of the general population witl.c the 5 r per year limit, the average will be somewhere between 1 and 3. He emphasizes that under the modifications he proposes, no one would be harmed and there would be no need to compromise with our consciences. He expressed the Opinion that it would be best to keep this out of the NCRP regula- tions. DR. BUGHER reported that there had been no discussion in the NCRP of immediate offsite populations but that the thirteen- week provision gives a certain amount of leeway. DR. CLAUS pointed out that in Dr. Failla's recently proposed changes for Handbook 59, the concept of 10 percent would apply to people in the vicinity. If this were deleted from the NCRP recommendations, the AEC would not be obliged to use it. It was pointed out by MR. BLATZ that the 10 percent figure already appears in Handbook 59 and also in the propeced Part 20 of the AEC regulations but accidental and incidental exposures beyond this limit are acknowledged in that they must be reported to the Commission. DR. DUNHAM indicated that the new Handbook would be very carefully worded so that any exposure over the stated limit would not be interpreted as constituting an injury. The matter as to whether the 10 percent figure does or does not apply to immediate populations was not resolved but it was agreed that its interpretation constitutes a serious problem. ~ 23 -