Regarding :
>The issue is not that the the plume went undetected. Everyone agrees that
>that is not good. The question is whether such a deficiency warrants a
>procedure change, or surveillance periodicity revision, or maybe better
There is some missed communication here. Yes, everyone agrees that missing
detection of the plume is not good. However, I think that that is precisely what drives
the public crazy. It is the primary question they are interested in. How Brookhaven
deals with the detection, policies, plume, and the escape path can wait for a later
issue. They want to know "HOW DID IT MISS A LEAK FOR 10 YEARS?" (emphasis
added.) We try to regulate down to pCi amounts of material and here is 6 Trillion
times that amount that isn't detected for , What, 10 years? Who do you trust?
I think as a regulator that some procedure, frequency, or instrumentation needs to
change and some wrists need to be smacked.
As the public "I" am outraged that this amount got out and went undetected (or even
worse, unreported, see Japan) and "I" don't trust any of the responsible parties. It is
no suprise that politicians are considering a shut down as a sop to their constituents.
There is radiation in the groundwater and there are wells in the area. Most of the
public does not understand groundwater hydrology or separation of aquafers. This is
an outrage situation and throwing money at it (or the equivalent blowoff of "It's a
harmless amount") only increases the outrage. Only after the outrage is addressed
will the public start accepting money or facts as an appeasment.
Zack Clayton
zack.clayton@epa.state.oh.us
These are my thoughts and don't reflect any official position.