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 -