Re: Special Handling individuals with lifetime dose greaterthan age

["Joseph Nick" <JLN@nrc.gov>]

I remember a similar push to limit people to lifetime dose=age back in the late 80's and early 90's.  
Is this non-regulatory requirement being driven by the power plants' insurance companies based on recommendations from NCRP?

Joe Nick
JLN@nrc.gov
USNRC, Region I
(610) 337 - 5056

>>> sandyfl@earthlink.net 08/28 3:43 PM >>>
I just returned from the National Dosimetry Conference Meeting, 
Boston. One of the discussions asked which power plants handled 
individuals with a lifetime dose that was greater than their age. It 
appeared that all respondents stated that they did something, either 
by restricting their dose through administrative limits, or, simply 
not allowing the contractor on-site. My questions are therefore:

(1) In light of the fact that there are no regulatory requirements 
for lifetime dose, where is the momentum coming from for licensees to 
do anything with respect to lifetime dose?

(2) The current NRC Form 4 Equivalent only requires that an 
individual state what their lifetime dose is, and, unless there is a 
PSE, nothing else need be done (other than an attempt to validate the 
dose - if the licensee can do that).

(3) The NCRP has recommendations regarding lifetime dose. However, 
NCRP, ICRP, ICRU are not regulatory bodies, and in the past most 
licensees frowned upon regulation through guidelines, 
recommendations, etc. So again, where is the push to treat lifetime 
dose differently, coming from?

(4) If one looks at the cumulative and individual doses at the US 
nuclear plants over the past decade, the totals have been reduced 
dramatically. Rarely is there an individual over 1 rem in an annual 
period. Therefore, those individuals with lifetime dose > age has to 
be a small population. The majority of the higher dosed individuals, 
have either retired or died. Again, what number of individuals are we 
dealing with, and why?

In my opinion, any time an action is taken that is not regulatory 
bound, the end result, in this case, is that lifetime dose becomes a 
quantitative risk indicator. If that is true, then the current 
regulatory limits are inadequate, and, lifetime dose must become a 
regulated dose limit. I am not promoting this, but, if we have groups 
implementing a pseudo-regulatory limit for lifetime dose, then those 
who don't become suspect, and, the pseudo-regulatory limit in 
essence, becomes a "standard of care" that denotes risk. Is this what 
we want?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Perle					Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100   				    	
Director, Technical				Extension 2306 				     	
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division		Fax:(714) 668-3149 	                   		    
ICN Biomedicals, Inc.				E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 				                           
ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue  		E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com          	          
Costa Mesa, CA 92626                                      

Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205 
ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com 

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html