Re: dose from airborne emissions

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Al,

Since controlling to 0.1 mrem/year seems impossible, do you mean 0.1 mSv/year? 
Or do you mean that you just tell/convince the public that "it's very low"?? 
:-)   (And do you tell them "at what cost"?) 

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@state.ma.us
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
========================

> I respect your opinion on a regulatory limit, such as 0.1 mrem/yr. I also 
> understand why you feel the way you do. 0.1 mrem/yr is a very low number. 
> I also admit I don't know anything about the Ohio EPA nor any alleged 
> abuses by them.
> 
> With that in mind, however, I would respectfully disagree with your 
> comments about whether such a program could or should work. Maybe the 
> citizens of Ohio trust the federal government more than they do in 
> Washington, where the Department of Energy (Hanford) has a checkered past 
> in dealing with the public on their exposures (Don't get upset, Hanford 
> people. You're doing orders of magnitude better now than you used to). 
> The public simply doesn't  trust them. They barely trust us, but we are 
> considered independent. The public also translates that distrust to the 
> entire nuclear industry, unfairly, but they do.
> It's true that a single individual has no choice but to delegate a 
> protective role to their government. But, the closer the government is to 
> them (the more local), the more trust they are willing to give them. At 
> least that's my experience (which has been extensive, when it comes to 
> dealing with public concerns on radiation exposure for the last 11 
> years). Fernauld, in Ohio, I believe has had some similar problems.
> 
> I disagree that such a limit causes more harm than good. I've been 
> running this program for 9 years, and it has been very positive. We've 
> been able to "prove" on numerous occasions, that the public was not being 
> harmed, when they wouldn't believe the facility. At least it has been 
> proof acceptable to the public. We've been able to verify the low 
> emissions coming from those facilities. We've put to rest numerous 
> allegations, the recent when their was an explosion at Hanford's 
> Plutonium Finishing Plant. Our report of no releases of plutonium became 
> the bottom line with most people and the press.
> 
> We have no problem with the 0.1 mrem/yr cutoff for NESHAPs verses 
> nonNESHAPs sources. If you are careful in how you administer the program, 
> its not hard to make it clear that that level is very conservative. Its 
> not hard to enforce, because with any controls whatsoever, 0.1 mrem/yr is 
> easy to accomplish.  We've never had the public look at 0.1 mrem/yr as 
> safe verses unsafe. (Well, maybe never is too strong. You do have some 
> individuals who view "any" exposure as dangerous. But its not a huge 
> problem, and the vast majority of the public are satisfied.) Their fears 
> are allayed, for the most part. I believe that is a "worthy" cause, and 
> if administered carefully, an effective use of dollars, because it heads 
> off a lot of fear and public backlash.
> 
>  But then, maybe Ohio  is different. And,  maybe Ohio EPA has other 
> problems that are not related to this one issue. By your note, it sounds 
> like it. 
> Its good to debate these things , however.
> 
> Allen W. Conklin
> Head, Air Emissions & Defense Waste
> Division of Radiation Protection
> Department of Health
> P.O. Box 47827
> Olympia, WA  98504
> Work - (360) 586-0254
> Fax    - (360) 753-1496
> Internet :  awc0303@hub.doh.wa.gov