[ RadSafe ] Re:Reasonable risk?

Sandy Perle sandyfl at earthlink.net
Fri Apr 21 09:50:41 CDT 2006

On 21 Apr 2006 at 6:38, John Jacobus wrote:

> The LNT has nothing to do with these
> issues, despite your efforts to make that argument.

Hi John,

I'll take a little exception to this overall conclusion. In NPP, the 
ALARA requirement was a direct result of assumed risk (LNT) and we 
were required to reduce dose whenever the very low threshold of dose 
could be saved, by using tens of thousands of dollars to save a 
manrem. Back in the late 80s our company evaluated the significant 
cost incurred to reduce manrem and the conclusion was that millions 
had been expended without any observable benefit, and made up about 
30 to 40% of expenses. This was also provided to the State Public 
Utility Commission in that they looked at every dollar spent and were 
interested in how much was spent in the name of "protecting the 
public and environment", very important during rate hearings.

I don't know who you can separate ALARA, dose and funds from each 
other. If there were no assumed risk, then the dollars should not 
need to be expended. Simply spending on money without evidence of any 
benefit, solely to meet the ALARA principle actually took dollars 
away from doing actual work that may have potentially improved safety 
and efficiency in other real areas within the plants.

Respectfully ..

Sandy Perle
Senior Vice President, Technical Operations
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614 

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714  Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144

E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com
E-Mail: sandyfl at earthlink.net 

Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/ 
Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/ 

More information about the RadSafe mailing list