Re[2]: Patient Release - A Related Question

[steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM (Steven Rima)]

     Okay, Stephen, I'll buy that answer, but then why on earth are we 
     spending hundreds of millions on environmental cleanups to get the 
     public's dose to less than 15 or 25 mrem/y? If the cost of additional 
     hospitalization was the driving force to increase the public dose 
     limit from 100 mrem/y to 500 mrem/y for medical applications, why 
     isn't the same type of ALARA analysis applied to D&D activities?
     
     Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
     Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
     MACTEC-ERS, LLC
     steven.rima@doegjpo.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Patient Release - A Related Question
Author:  Stephen Mcguire <SAM2@nrc.gov> at Internet
Date:    11/2/99 8:12 AM


>>> Steven Rima <steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM> 10/28 3:13 PM >>>
     RADSAFERs,
     
     In my last post on this topic, I asked a question that has bugged me 
     for quite a while. Maybe someone out there can attempt to answer it.
     
      QUESTION: Why is there/should there be such a double standard??? I-131 
     is I-131, whether from a hospital or power plant, and a mrem is a 
     mrem, no matter the source, so why can hospitals do things that would 
     get other licensees cited, fined, or even shut down? An argument can 
     be made that residents near a power plant benefit from its operation, 
     but I don't believe that the random member of the public exposed to a 
     radioactive patient receives any benefit whatsoever.
     
Answer:  The answer to this question is given in NUREG-1492, "Regulatory 
Analysis on Criteria for the Release of Patients Administered Radioactive 
Material," 1997.  In brief, the use of the 500 mrem limit (which is provided for
in NRC regulations and NCRP and ICRP recommendations under special circumstances
when its use can be justified)  is justified as being a net benefit to society. 
The largest benefit is reduced hospitalization costs, the value of which was 
determined to exceed the detriment from radiation exposure.  
     
With regard to the benefit to a "random member of the public,"  very few human 
activities would pass a test that required that each and every individual have a
net individual benefit from the activity.  if individual risks can be considered
acceptable (not zero), then it is enough that the activity provide a net benefit
to society.  But even beyond that, if the "random member ofthe public"  has 
health insurance or pays Medicare taxes, they will benefit from lower premiums 
or taxes due to lower hospitalization costs.
     
NUREG-1492 also estimates that most of the collective dose will be incurred by 
family members, not "random members of the public."   In addition, NUREG-1492 
estimes that the overwhelming proportion of the dose is from direct radiation, 
not from contamination.  Concern about contamination from patients is more of a 
psychological issue than a radiation protection issue.     
     
Stephen A. McGuire
Mail Stop T-4D18
Incident Response Operations
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, DC 20555
301-415-6204
sam2@nrc.gov
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
                               !
!
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
************************************************************************ 
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