[ RadSafe ] Guidance on ALARA

Wed Mar 25 14:32:46 CDT 2009

Regarding ALARA, 

It seems like the avoided cost approach should work here, but I'm not an 
economics person so feel free to add to the discussion.

For example, if the avoided cost of  0.1 mSv is $5000, and the robot costs 
$6000 more than a worker to save that 0.1 mSv (over the same time period, 
present value cost, etc., etc.), it seems like ALARA would hold that the 
worker is the better choice.  The usual caveats apply, i.e. total dose has 
to be within regulatory limits, it would have to apply to the whole work 
crew (10-100 people) vs. the replacement robots, etc., etc.

The point is that ALARA in and of itself does not mandate 0.0 dose.  Some 
interpreters insist on some pretty ridiculous extremes, but IMHO, that's 
only because the numbers are so low now, that we've lost sight of reality.

BTW, I personally "believe" in ALARA, but it aint science, it's an 
approach.  'nuff said  - - jmr

John Rich
312-269-3768

From:
Jerry Cohen <jjc105 at yahoo.com>
To:
Kai Kaletsch <eic at shaw.ca>
Cc:
radsafe <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Date:
03/25/2009 01:56 PM
Subject:
Re: [ RadSafe ] Guidance on ALARA

Kai,
Where did you get the idea that application of ALARA should make sense?

________________________________
From: Kai Kaletsch <eic at shaw.ca>
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 5:34:55 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Guidance on ALARA

Friends,

Is there any guidance on how to apply ALARA, that takes into account the 
benefits to the worker from having a job?

For example, suppose I want to build a uranium mine in an area with high 
unemployment and I have the choice of 2 mining methods. One his highly 
mechanized and requires importing expensive equipment from outside of the 
host country. The other requires 200 more workers, each expected to 
receive 5 mSv per year. Further, suppose that the total cost of the 2 
methods is identical.

A quantitative ALARA analysis requires that I spend X dollars to avoid 1 
Sv of collective dose and, therefore, I should choose the mechanized 
option and eliminate 200 jobs.

To me, this does not make any sense. If 5 mSv per year has been found to 
present a risk that is no greater than other jobs, and having a job is 
considered a good thing, then why should I eliminate any jobs in the name 
of ALARA? Who benefits from this????

It seems to me that, to maximize benefits to workers and society, we 
should maximize employment first (as long as no one exceeds dose limits), 
and only after this has been done apply ALARA.

So, my question is: Is there a statement to that effect issued by any 
recognized agency, or is there any other guidance document that recognizes 
the benefits of employment in a quantitative way when performing an ALARA 
analysis?

I'm aware of the 'social and economic factors taken into account' phrase. 
The problem with that is that almost everyone interprets it differently 
and it certainly provides no quantitative guidance.

Thanks in advance,
Kai

Kai Kaletsch
Environmental Instruments Canada Inc.
http://www.eic.nu/
http://www.webrad.biz/Introduction.aspx

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/