Re: Release Concentrations

[Chris Davey <cdavey@med.phys.ualberta.ca>]

On Thu, 6 Jul 1995 JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com wrote:

> Albert Lee Vest (avest@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) writes:
> 
> > Peter Fundarek writes:
> > 
> > >The AECB, our regulatory agency, has 
> > >developed these generic maximum release concentrations for 
> > >licensees who do not develop their own derived emission 
> > >limits.
> > 
> > I hope they continue to *clearly* communicate this intended use for "generic
> > MRC's".  Some of the regulatory guides I've been exposed to (which contain
> > numbers *suggested* for use) have such statements in the fine print, where
> > nobody seems to notice them!  The suggested numbers then become, de facto,
> > regulatory limits.
> > 
> > >I am looking at the impact of this new document on 
> > >a potential for a delay and decay facility in the 
> > >university. 
> > 
> 
> I agree with the IDEA that limits be established by the isotope (and even the
> form of the isotope -- applying science). It was my impression from the
> numbers however, that these were rather low values. Does anyone know the basis 
> for converting to potential exposures that this numbers came from? Is there
> any public health benefit associated with these limits vs concentrations 2 or
> 10 times the reported values? Did the assessment include a pathway analysis? 
> 
Quoting from C123: "the sum of all doses from all radioisotopes via all 
methods of release does not exceed 50 uSv in a year for a member of the 
critical group."

Yes, pathway analysis was done, but soooo concervatively.

> I guess my reaction to the idea that government is "wasting" hard-won waste
> facitiy capacity, is that government is generally committed to such waste as a 
> means for enhancing its role and authority and funding; that more
> "hard-to-win" capacity means more government role and authority and funding,
> whether contributing to public health and safety or not (e.g., EPAs radon
> mission notwithstanding the unambiguous scientific evidence that radon in home 
> concentrations has zero health consequences, and perhaps a negative
> correlation (B. Cohen, HPJ, Feb 95, and in a series of increasingly
> well-developed and unambiguous data sets since 1988; and hard lifetime data on 
> spa workers and surrounding populations in Japan, Europe, China, etc; and that 
> the lung cancer histology in miners only in unventilated mines, who smoked, at 
> exposures >1000 times home radon levels, which MAY be associated with radon,
> is a different lung cancer histology in the rare lung cancers in the
> non-smoking population). 
> 
> > I'll return the soapbox to its rightful owner now.
> > 
> > Albert.
> 
> Just had to jump on it in passing.
> 
> Regards, Jim
> 
Believe it or not, the AECB does not have quite the same reputation for 
being power-hungry that you (Jim) alude to for the government 
organizations south of our border.  Of course, this document may change 
that perception.

Thanks for you comments,

Chris Davey
RSO CCI Edmonton, Alberta