Re: U.S. NRC Approves Westinghouse Risk-Informed, In-Service

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

Michael Mokrzycki stated the following:

> I know, in part from past threads on this list, that many in the radiation
> protection/health physics world believe there is no evidence that low doses
> of radiation cause health problems.

The issue is one of risk/benefit, taking into account the socio-
economic factors. Each country, and facility, uses an ALARA cost 
analysis factor to determine whether or not to expend $$ to reduce 
dose. While this $$ value is not a go/no-go decision, it is a major 
component. Having just attended the 1999 International ALARA 
Symposium this week, the discussions such as Mike asked, were 
openly addressed. From the presentations, it is obvious that the 
overall $$ expended is not entirely based on the dose to be 
saved/avoided, as one would expect. Most often, the decision is 
often based on the time to implement and the effect of the 
modification/program on reactor downtime. In other words, if a 
facility could reduce downtime but incur extra dose in doing so,, 
the decision is often to incur the dose, not reduce the dose.

I for one am of the opinion that the overall dose projected to be 
saved does relate to very little dose reduction at the individual level. 
Does this then require a large new program from an ALARA 
standpoint? Hard to say. In the US power reactor program, man-
rem has already been reduced significantly. Individual dose is also 
at the lowest levels. The question to be answered by company 
executives is,, are they going to spend new sums of $$ to reduce 
dose further. I expect not, considering all of the pressures from 
deregulation.

The last issue Mike asked relates to risk. If the evidence 
demonstrates that there is no clear risk due to low dose, should 
the $$ then be expended. I say it's not a logical expense. If there is 
evidence to the contrary, then all must take another hard look, and 
then determine if the $$ do in fact make a demonstrable reduction 
in risk. My last thought ... fighting perceptions with $$ does not 
make good logical sense.


Sandy Perle
E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net 
Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -
***********************************************Ø************************
The 6AE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html