[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ALARA - What is it Worth?
At 06:50 AM 12/11/97 -0600, you wrote:
>gwkindred@centerior.com
>
>ALARA is not a concept. A concept is an abstract notion
>(according to Webster). Referring to ALARA as a "concept"
>reduces the importance of the acronym. ALARA is the law!
>At least for those folks under the auspices of the Code of
>Federal Regulations. Specifically, 10CFR20.1101.b; where
>it reads; The licensee shall use, to the extent practicable,
>procedures and engineering controls based upon sound
>radiation protection principles to achieve occupatinal doses
>and doses to members of the public that are as low as is
>reasonably achievable (ALARA).
>
>In my opinion disagreements and/or confusion is with the
>real meaning of R. What is reasonable! What is the real
>monetary value that can be reasonably associated with the
>cost that a company is willing to spend to avoid a preson-rem
>of radiation dose? ALARA does not mean avoiding all
>radiation exposure. What is the value placed on a person-rem
>based on? Please share your thoughts.
>
>Gerry W. Kindred
>Perry Nuclear Power Plant
>Perry, Ohio USA
>
At 06:50 AM 12/11/97 -0600, you wrote:
>gwkindred@centerior.com
>
>ALARA is not a concept. A concept is an abstract notion
>(according to Webster). Referring to ALARA as a "concept"
>reduces the importance of the acronym. ALARA is the law!
>At least for those folks under the auspices of the Code of
>Federal Regulations. Specifically, 10CFR20.1101.b; where
>it reads; The licensee shall use, to the extent practicable,
>procedures and engineering controls based upon sound
>radiation protection principles to achieve occupatinal doses
>and doses to members of the public that are as low as is
>reasonably achievable (ALARA).
>
>In my opinion disagreements and/or confusion is with the
>real meaning of R. What is reasonable! What is the real
>monetary value that can be reasonably associated with the
>cost that a company is willing to spend to avoid a preson-rem
>of radiation dose? ALARA does not mean avoiding all
>radiation exposure. What is the value placed on a person-rem
>based on? Please share your thoughts.
>
>Gerry W. Kindred
>Perry Nuclear Power Plant
>Perry, Ohio USA
>
Dear Mr. Kindred,
Please, let me express the information from the IAEA Safety Series
109, Intervention Criteria in a Nuclear or Radiation Emergency, and some
from the references 2 and 3 at the end mentioned, to joint with has been
previously pointed out in this subject. I do believe this information will
help to clarify some points:
While a value for physical resources needed to implement a
protective action can be assigned reasonably well on the basis of a market
values and in monetary terms, putting such a value on loss of life is
especially difficult; under nearly all conveivable circunstances, no sum of
money would induce individuals to give up their lives.
Some would argue that lenght and quality of life are more fundamental
measures of value than monetary terms, contending that the true value of
market commodities should be measured in terms of how much they improve the
quality of life. Nevertheless, individuals do implicity value their own or
other people's lives, in a way that can be expressed in monetary terms, when
they make everyday decisions that involve risk. For example, when
considering making a journey by car, train or aeroplane, some implicit
trade-off is made between among other factors, the finantial costs and to
some degree the risk. Also from an economic point of view , there are limits
to the proportion of a society's income that can be devoted to heath an safety.
Several methods have been developed for assessing how much value is placed
by both individuals and society on avoiding health detriment. These include
the humann capital appproach, the legal conpensation approach, insurance
premium analogies, the public implied or revealed preference approach and
willingness to pay approaches. There are flaws in all of these methods.
Nevertheless, it is possible to arrive at a credible range for the level of
resources allocated to avoiding health detriment, and thus at a range of
values for alfa.
The following four assumptions are made to reflect the impact of the loss of
life expectancy resulting from a collective dose of 1 man.Sv (100man.rem):
a) Average loss of healthy life associated with one case of radiation
induced fatal cancer is of the order of 13 years;
b) Nominal probability coefficient for fatal cancer is 5.E(-2)/Sv (5.E(-4)/rem;
c) Detriment coefficient for non-fatal cancer is 1.E(-2)/Sv (1.E(-4)/rem;
d) Detriment coefficient for induction of severe hereditary damage in all
generations is 1.3E(-2)/Sv (1.3E(-4)/rem;
On the basis of these assumptions, the statistical loss of life expectancy
(with some allowance for loss of quality of life for non-fatal cancers and
severe hereditary effects) associated with 1 man.Sv (100man.rem) can be
evaluated as being the probability of occurrence of a somatic or genetic
effect, wighted by the average loss of life expectancy associated with each
of these effects:
[5.E(-2)+ 1.E(-2)+ 1.3E(-2)]/Sv x 13 years ~ 1 year per Sv
It can be shown that as first approximation the level of health care in any
country is proportional to the country's average annual GNP per head. On a
purely economic basis, a minimum value to be associated with a stastical
year of life lost is the annual GNP per head. For highly developed
countries, the value of GNP per head is approximately $20,000 per year. A
value of alfa for such countries can therefore be calculated to be:
alfa = 1 year per Sv x $20,000/year per man ~ $20,000 per man.Sv saved
Several objections are raised and consenquently modifications are often made
to this basic value of alfa. Firstly it takes no account of pain, grief and
suffering associated with a premature death. Secondly, because people show
an aversion to higher risks, and because society is normally willing to
allocate more resources to protect people at higher risks, a modification is
often used whereby alfa is increased according to the level of risk...
For the present discourse, only the uncertainty of a factor of two in the
risk per unit of dose has cbeen explicity considered, giving rise to a
range in the value of alfa, giving rise to a range in the value of alfa from
US$10,000 to US$40,000 per man.Sv
====================
Regulatory Authority in USA has many others factors to consider the value
of alfa of US$2,000.00 per man.rem (US$200,000.00 per man.Sv), as mentioned
by Mr. (Alan Roecklein) <AKR@nrc.gov>
================================
References:
1)IAEA 109 Safety Series -- Intervention Criteria in a Nucclear or Radiation
Emergency
2)Beninson, D. J., Gonzalez, A. J., -- Optimization in relocation decisions.
Optimization of Radiation Protection, Proc. IAEA/NEA Sympp. Vienna, 10/14
Mar4ch 1986
3) Bo Lindell -- Risk Evaluation and Decision Making -- IRPA Conference,
Vienna, April 1996
>
>