$/person-rem

[goldinem@songs.sce.com]

     On Friday, Chris Alston asked about the possible inappropriate 
     use of the $/person-rem figures I described because they're not 
     entirely based on societal costs (medical expenses, health 
     detriment, etc.)  
     
     The short answer is: you're right.  We found very early on that 
     the societal costs (sometimes $200/person-rem, rarely as much as 
     the NRC's $1000 in Part 50, Appendix I) couldn't justify even the 
     cheapest plant modification.  The only way you're going to 
     justify plant modifications is to show reduced plant downtime.  
     Other ALARA evaluations (engineered controls for example) 
     typically rely on a "dose saved greater than dose expended" 
     equation.
     
     However, to determine the extra "cost of doing business" at a 
     nuclear plant, you can come up with an algorithm based on 
     collective exposure and use that to charge for services.  That 
     was the primary goal for the figure we developed: a means to 
     equate worker exposure to extra costs (imposed on the radiation 
     protection organization).  So in a sense, the figure is still 
     relavent as a cost for avoiding exposure, but in a twisted sort 
     of way.  
     
     I can't think of a recent example where a $/person-rem figure was 
     used to justify a plant modification.  The design change process 
     is simply way too expensive.
     
     Eric Goldin, disclaimed of course
     Southern California Edison
     <goldinem@songs.sce.com>

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