Jerry,
You're shifting arguments on me:
a. I did NOT claim that ALARA improves workers' health,
although that is its rationale. I was only showing that it is NOT
an economic burden.
b. I did NOT claim that assuring even dose distribution among
employees in a work group is for purposes of keeping individuals under
the dose limit. Rather, even dose distribution is an integral aspect
of a good ALARA program.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Jerry Cohen wrote:
Bill, Talking
about myths; one of the biggest is that workers are somehow better off
healthwise if the person-rem at a plant is lowered. This would be true
only if one accepts the LNT nonsense. I am not impressed by companies
that boast of lower person-rem exposure, unless that reduction is also
accompanied by lower production costs and/or production efficiency.
Another myth commonly believed is that judicious scheduling of worker's
time allotments to assure that they will not exceed dose limits is an integral
part of a sound ALARA program. It is not ALARA. Since exceeding dose limits
is not an option, management must do whatever it takes to keep workers
within limits. Compliance with regulatory dose limits is simply the cost
of doing business and not a part of ALARA which fundamentally involves
the concept of optimization, not minimization.
I used to believe that myth, which is generally broadcast by those
who have limited practical experience.
On
the contrary, experience at nuclear power plants generally shows that an
effective ALARA program also promotes good work practices, more efficient
utilization of resources, and high quality work.
The two major aspects of an ALARA program are:
1. ALARA for collective dose - A program for managing collective
dose also promotes:
a. work planning - The attention to detail required to perform
a job with ALARA also results in more efficient work practices.
b. training - dry runs on mock ups results in more efficient
work and fewer errors.
c. lessons learned - Jobs must be reviewed and lessons learned
incorporated into planning for future work. This also reduces errors
and results in more efficient work.
d. job scheduling - The optimum frequency must be determined
for high dose jobs, to avoid underscheduling, with resulting breakdowns,
and overscheduling, which generates unnecessary dose.
2. even distribution of dose within work groups - This promotes
the more efficient utilization of the work force. Management no longer
has the luxury of letting a few workers carry the load and ignoring
nonperformers.
In fact, the lessons learned from ALARA programs are being used to promote
improved work practices in the non-nuclear side of utilities.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
|