RE: 15 or 25 mrem per year?

["Peter Thomas" <Peter.Thomas@arpansa.gov.au>]

Wait a minute ... what are you using to convert 5 mrem/y to a 1e-4 risk?

 

5% per Sv equates to 5 x 1e-2 x 50 x 1e-6 = 2.5e-6 risk (per year)  (5

mrem = 50 x 1e-6 Sv).

 

Is there some extra allowance for non-fatal cancers plus a translation

to lifetime risk plus whatever else

in the conversion you state?

 

Peter Thomas

Medical Physics Section

ARPANSA

 



	-----Original Message-----

	From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu] On Behalf Of Phil Rutherford

	Sent: Thursday, 12 February 2004 3:02 PM

	To: Raymond A Hoover; jjcohen; Redmond, Randy (RXQ);

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

	Subject: Re: 15 or 25 mrem per year?

	

	

	The MOU to which Ray refers, specifies soil concentrations for a

risk level of 10-4 for both suburban residential and industrial use

sceanarios.  The EPA does not agree to 25 mrem/y in the MOU.  The soil

concentrations were calculated with the EPA's Preliminary Redmediation

Goal (PRG) Calculator.  The PRG Calculator usually defaults to 10-6 risk

level (point of departure for CERCLA Superfand cleanup process).

Therefore the EPA is effectively agreeing in this MOU that 10-4 risk

levels are fully protective of public health.  That's a big win for

those of us who are facing activist/legislator/EPA pressure to cleanup

to 10-6. 

	 

	If you are a LNT believer, then 10-4 risk would be equivalent to

~ 5 mrem/y (non isotope specific), not 15 mrem/y (risk of 3x10-4) and

not 25 mrem/y (risk of 5x10-4).  Of course none of us believe the LNT

model should be applied at these low levels anyway ... right???

	 

	Phil Rutherford

	email@philrutherford.com <mailto:email@philrutherford.com> 

	www.philrutherford.com <http://www.philrutherford.com> 



		----- Original Message ----- 

		From: Raymond A Hoover <mailto:ray2hoover@YAHOO.COM>  

		To: jjcohen <mailto:jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>  ; Redmond,

Randy (RXQ) <mailto:redmondrr@Y12.doe.gov>  ;

radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu 

		Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 2:29 PM

		Subject: Re: 15 or 25 mrem per year?



		Considering all the uncertainties in the calculations,

it should not make a bit of difference.  Of course the folks at the EPA

would then insist that conservative is better.

		 

		Actually, I think on at least one occasion EPA has

agreed to 25 mrem. On October 10, 2002, NRC News No 02-120 was released

in which the NRC announced that that the NRC and EPA had reached an

agreement in which the EPA agreed to defer exercise of authority under

CERCLA Act for the majority of NRC facilities to be decomissioned.  This

I have taken to mean that they are not going to argue with the NRC.  The

copy of the MOU I have doesn't get specific on doses, so presumably the

NRC number is the controlling one.  However, there is a table of

permissible contamination levels for radionuclides in soil.  How the

numbers were devied is not stated.



		jjcohen <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET> wrote:



			From a practical (health and safety) standpoint,

what difference would it

			make whether a 15 or 25 mrem/yr limit is

applied? Just curious------

			

			----- Original Message -----

			From: Redmond, Randy (RXQ) 

			To: 

			Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 11:15 AM

			Subject: Authorized Limit(s) for Annual Dose

from Release of Property

			

			

			> Need a quick answer and have failed to find it

through a search (too many

			> hits and too little time) - Did the NRC and

EPA ever settle on an

			authorized

			> limit for annual dose for release of real

property? 25 millirem per year?

			> EPA still pushing 15 millirem per year?

			>

			> Thanks,

			>

			> Randy Redmond (32458)

			> Radiological Control Organization

			> BWXT Y-12 L.L.C.

			> Oak Ridge, TN

			> 865-574-5640

			>

			>>

************************************************************************

			> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe

mailing list. To

			> unsubscribe, send an e-mail to

Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the

			> text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in

the body of the e-mail,

			> with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe

archives at

			> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

			

	

************************************************************************

			You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe

mailing list. To

			unsubscribe, send an e-mail to

Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the

			text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in

the body of the e-mail,

			with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe

archives at

			http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

			



		

  _____  



		Do you Yahoo!?

		Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online

<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=22055/*http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html> 







**********************************************************************

Important: This email (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the

addressee and may contain confidential and / or privileged information.  If you are not the intended addressee, you are prohibited from relaying on, distributing, disclosing, copying or 

in any other way using any information in this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and erase all copies.

Any opinions expressed in this email are not necessarily held or authorised by Australian Radiation Protection And Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).

Whilst ARPANSA has taken all reasonable steps to ensure this is email is virus free,

it accepts no responsibility and makes no warranty. The recipient should take its own steps to ensure

there is no virus and bears full responsibility for any use.



Australian Radiation Protection And Nuclear Safety Agency

**********************************************************************