Browner vs. Jackson

["Brian Rees" <brees@lanl.gov>]

In regards to the letter from Administrator Browner to Commisioner Jackson 
(2/7 /97)

It's unfortunate that a vast majority of the public will not understand the 
real basis for this disagreement.  The NRC's regulations are an attempt to 
consider risk and reality as a basis for a regulatory foundation, while the 
EPA continues to use political posturing as its basis.

While the EPA fights with the NRC and numerous other parties over 
radioactive pollutants at levels with no credible risk to any real person 
(IMO), millions of tons of truly hazardous materials are being dumped into 
our air and water each day.  The effluent streams from thousands of 
factories and combustion-based power plants are hazardous,  not at some 
esoteric E-4 risk level from consumption levels that would challenge 
livestock, but IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health).   

If the EPA and NRC  top management were threatened with being subjected to 
the effluents from the worst facilities they regulate,  that would put risk 
in a perspective that the public might better understand.   

While I do not favor or support the consideration of economics to the 
detriment of this or future generations, a detriment should be credible to 
impose regulation.

The above is the opinion of the author, and in no way reflects those of his 
employer ( I think).

Brian Rees
brees@lanl.gov