445 



effects. High level, low level, who cares? It's the concentration of 

 radioactivity and its proximity to man that you're worried about. 



EPA is going to try to help this problem a little bit in its high- 

 level waste environmental standard, which is due to be issued for 

 public comment next year. In that standard the traditional defini- 

 tion is used for high-level wastes, and then it is supplemented by a 

 specific activity number. I don't remember that number off the top 

 of my head today. 



People are aware of the problem. To us, it's a bit of a semantics 

 problem. We should be worried about these wastes for what they 

 were and how close they can get to man, not what they were 

 called. 



Mr. Anderson. I suppose I maybe shouldn't be commenting on 

 this. I am more at ease with a definition like the one that AEC 

 used which defined the low level at 50 millirems or less per hour 

 and 2 rems per hour or more as high level. I can understand that 

 better, and I don't quite understand 



Mr. Mattson. If I might interrupt you, that was not an AEC 

 definition. And this is a good opportunity to clear that up. 



Mr. Anderson. OK, fine. 



Mr. Mattson. That was the definition that appeared in a report 

 published by the Argonne National Laboratory. I have a copy of 

 the report cover and also the specific page that I think you're 

 referring to; it is in my notes here. 



It was written by a consultant to Argonne National Laboratory 

 who spent some time there one summer lecturing on waste man- 

 agement to the scientists at Argonne. In that report he said that he 

 would adopt a definition for the purposes of talking to those people. 

 Later in the report he referred to the materials that had been 

 disposed of in the ocean as low-level waste; that is, he changed his 

 own mind about the definition. 



If that's the same definition you're referring to, I think it's 

 probably a misnomer to call it an AEC definition. The correct AEC 

 definition was in 10 CFR part 50, appendix F, and it's still there 

 today. Mr. Meyers from the Department of Energy cited it this 

 morning in his testimony. It is consistent with the definition that is 

 in NRC's new regulation 10 CFR part 60, and it is consistent with 

 the definition that's in EPA's regulations, put there last spring. 



Mr. Anderson. The information I have, I'm informed, came from 

 the AEC report, the Arnold Joseph report of the 1955 AEC. Again, 

 that's for you people to take a look at, because we want you to take 

 a look at it and help us straighten this whole thing out. 



Mr. Mattson. We would be willing to take a look at that, but I 

 don't believe Arnold Joseph defines 



Mr. Anderson. It's Arnold Joseph, 1954. 



Mr. Mattson. We would be willing to look at that, and if you 

 like, to supply an answer for the record that would help straighten 

 this out. 



Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Mr. Studds. Mr. Hughes. 



Mr. Hughes. I understand from previous testimony that there is 

 really very little information available on the type of canisters and 

 dumping locations. 



