Low Dose Risk -Reply

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

Charlie Willis writes:

> Eric,
> 
> It is interesting to see those lines from CIRRPC-9 repeated.  Untold hours and
> efforts went into getting that report out with those good words.  Unfortunately,
>  it all went for nought when they pulled the plug on CIRRPC.

The words were issued whether CIRRPC survived or not. Their effect would
likely have been as negligible if CIRRPC had survived. It seems to me that in
reading the statement the quality of those words is vastly over-rated
considering where EPA and NRC are in forcing massive cost and effort for
inconsequential radiation. One has to be expert in radiation and bureaucrat to 
make any sense of them. I suggest it is be much better for each "side" to
write its own words in straight terms than to prodce a camel that has no
meaning or support. There is benefit in the discussion between NRC's 25 mrem
rule and EPA's 15 mrem position, if NRC's wasn't virtually just as bad as
EPA's. They are both scientifically uninformed and self-serving. 

Eg, NRC just lauded itself for forcing the expenditure of $10 million, 250,000 
rad measurements under a rigorous QA program, just for the "release survey"
(not the primary D&D work itself) for Shoreham (which operated for 5
full-power days), and $12 million, 400,000 measurements, at Ft. St. Vrain (a
ceramic fueled gas-cooled reactor, ie, negligible contamination). Now let's
apply that to a "release survey" for all other contaminations? Is that a money 
maker or what? 

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
muckerheide@mediaone.net
> As for interagency policy coordination today, it is not going very well as 
> evidenced
> by FGR-13.  We have interagency committees and we discuss matters at length but
> consensus is rarely possible.  

The issue is data and integrity, not the words.  
> Sorry I cannot be more positive, but this is the way it appears to me.
> 
> Charlie Willis
> caw@nrc.gov
> 
>