



"You have explained how ' reasonably' achievable could be misused in a regulatory context. But can you give examples of where ALARA has actually been misused, examples of where excessive radiation protection measures have led to unnecessary costs? I want examples of the supposed excess costs of ALARA in terms of day-to-day operations. This isn't a question about accident prevention costs."





In a few posts, I will describe examples of the unreasonable costs of ALARA at Vermont Yankee. These are cases in which Vermont Yankee had to go to great expense about radiation protection or paying for elaborate radiation measurements---for trivial amounts of radiation. The levels of radiation had no possible public health consequences.



Today's example: tritium.



Tritium and the Zero-Discharge Plant





Vermont Yankee is a zero-discharge plant. No tritium must leave the plant boundaries. Why is this? There is nothing wrong with small discharges of tritium. Canadian plants legally release thousands of curies of tritium per year.



So, Vermont Yankee had a leak in a pipe. The pipe was in a concrete conduit, but eventually, some tritium found its way out of the conduit and into the soil and water.









In contrast, exit signs containing



In further contrast, Canadian plants are allowed to discharge thousands of curies of tritium per year. There are no health effects in Canada from these discharges.



Though I posted extensively on tritium, Rod Adams has the best post on the subject. The small leak was a huge problem for the plant. It cost the plant a great deal of trouble and expense to find, fix and "remediate" this leak, even though the leak released less than a curie of tritium. Meanwhile, the plant gathered a great deal of negative publicity for having had the leak.In contrast, exit signs containing about ten curies of tritium can be shipped through the mail (or at least they could be at the time that Howard Shaffer bought his tritium sign about three years ago).In further contrast, Canadian plants are allowed to discharge thousands of curies of tritium per year. There are no health effects in Canada from these discharges.Though I posted extensively on tritium, Rod Adams has the best post on the subject.

http://atomicinsights.com/how-much-tritium-leaked-from-vermont-yankee-before-the-leak-was-stopped/



Adams compares the Vermont Yankee leak with the tritium levels just north of the border. Vermont Yankee's leak was less than one curie of tritium, while Canadian plants routinely discharge over 5000 curies of tritium a year.

Remediation







Vermont Yankee found and fixed the leak within a few weeks.



Then,



Meanwhile,more groundwater, for further safety.



All for less tritium than is held by a single exit sign.



ALARA Plumbs Some New Depths



As low as reasonably achievable reached some new depths with the great Vermont Yankee tritium scare story. Of course, a plant should fix a leak if it has one. Even if nothing but super-pure water is leaking, you fix leaks. But the remediation? All the pumping? Large amounts of money and time were devoted to protecting the public from---trivial amounts of radioactivity.



It is often thus with ALARA. More to follow. Vermont Yankee found and fixed the leak within a few weeks.Then, Vermont Yankee began "remediation." They pumped groundwater and disposed of it as radiologically contaminated. By doing so, they captured most of the tritium.Meanwhile, famous hydrological engineers (such as Governor Shumlin) asked Vermont Yankee to pump evengroundwater, forsafety. Vermont Yankee agreed to pump more. I don't know how much they spent on pumping, but I suspect the amount was non-trivial.All for less tritium than is held by a single exit sign.oweasonablychievable reached some new depths with the great Vermont Yankee tritium scare story. Of course, a plant should fix a leak if it has one. Even if nothing but super-pure water is leaking, you fix leaks. But the remediation? All the pumping? Large amounts of money and time were devoted to protecting the public from---trivial amounts of radioactivity.It is often thus with ALARA. More to follow.

In Protecting Against Nothing: The Failings of ALARA , I described the ALARA strategy (oweasonablychievable) for radiation safety. This strategy is based upon the idea that there is no safe level of radiation, so radiation protection must constantly attempt to "do better." The words "reasonably achievable" can be interpreted in unreasonable and expensive ways.In contrast, protection from contaminants in drinking water is regulated on the basis of drinking water standards: concentrations of harmful substances are kept lower than agreed-upon values. This is a better and more cost-effective strategy than the ever-more-expensive strategy of ALARA.I would like to give some examples here. The need for examples was raised (in rather insulting phrasing) in a comment on an earlier post by Howard Shaffer . This is my understanding of what the questioner actually meant to ask: