313 



and tWe concentrated waste from subsequent extraction cycles, or 

 equivalents in a facility for reprocessing a radiated reactor fuel, or 

 radiated fuel from nuclear power reactors." 



That is the definition that you are using. 



Mr. Meyers. That is — that is the applied definition. 



Mr. Anderson. And, which to me, does not — you are not really 

 doing anything major then. 



Mr. Meyers. Let us go back to your discussion of the millirems, 

 as a measure of dose rate. One could conceivably have something 

 that emitted radiation in excess of — what was the number that you 

 had for high level? 



Mr. Anderson. Two rems, or more per hour. 



Mr. Meyers. One could have material that emitted 2 rems per 

 hour that remains radioactive perhaps for only 5 years, and after 5 

 years its radition level is insignificant. It may start at a high level 

 of radioactivity, but may yet deteriorate in a very short period of 

 time. In that case you would not consider it to have a lasting 

 environmental impact. 



Mr. Anderson. What would be the impact on the person, or the 

 fish, whatever, that would be in contact during those first 5 years? 



Mr. Meyers. It would depend on what you did with it. If that 

 particular material were contained, it would have very little effect. 



Mr. Anderson. Supposing you ate it? 



Mr. Meyers. Well, I would not want to eat it. If it were that high 

 in radioactivity, one could store it for a period of time, wherein the 

 level of radioactivity would decrease substantially, so that you 

 could process it, package it, and contain the radioactive material. 



Mr. Anderson. Then it would not be 2 rems. Then it would fall 

 into other categories. 



Mr. Meyers. That is one of the problems that we have in trying 

 to define radiation levels by dose rates rather than using specific 

 isotopic levels. If you use a definition like curies or dose rates, you 

 could define something as high-level radioactive waste, which 

 would require substantial processing, packaging, not only substan- 

 tial, but expensive, and by the time you are ready to dispose of it, 

 it is innocuous, and you have essentially spent a lot of money that 

 you did not need to spend. 



Mr. Anderson. Mr. Chairman, I think we are going to have to go 

 into the definition a little bit later, too. 



Have you examined, Mr. Meyers, the data and site justification 

 upon which the EPA states that there is no known environmental 

 harm? 



Mr. Meyers. I have not myself read that. 



Mr. Anderson. Has the Department? 



Mr. Meyers. The Department staff has, yes. 



Mr. Anderson. Just because there is no known harm, does not 

 rule out the possibility that there may be in fact harm to the 

 environment, is that not true? 



Mr. Meyers. Well, I suppose you could take that approach. 



Mr. Anderson. That is the purpose of our study in our bill. 



Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Studds. Mr. Akaka? 



Mr. Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



