1 / 36

Seong Ho NA, Ph.D ED for Radiation and Radwaste Safety Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

A New Monitory Value Model for ALARA Practices in NPPs ISOE/ATC ALARA Workshop Seoul, Korea 12-14 Sep. 2007. Seong Ho NA, Ph.D ED for Radiation and Radwaste Safety Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 19 Guseong-dong, Yuseong, Taejon, Korea Tel: +82 42 868 0302, +82 11 402 2071

olwen
Download Presentation

Seong Ho NA, Ph.D ED for Radiation and Radwaste Safety Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A New Monitory Value Model for ALARA Practices in NPPsISOE/ATC ALARA WorkshopSeoul, Korea12-14 Sep. 2007 Seong Ho NA, Ph.D ED for Radiation and Radwaste Safety Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety 19 Guseong-dong, Yuseong, Taejon, Korea Tel: +82 42 868 0302, +82 11 402 2071 Fax: +82 42 862 3680 e-mail: shna@kins.re.kr, Web: http://kisoe.kins.re.kr Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  2. CONTENTS • Financial Consumption for Main ALARA Projects in Korean NPPs • Surveys on Alpha Values and Models (CEPN, UK & Japan) • Logics of KINS Model • Alpha Values • Applications to other countries Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  3. Financial Consumption for Main ALARA Projects in Korean NPP : without model

  4. Alpha Values Used by the World NPPs * Alpha (α) Value: used as the Base value in the model normally called as the ALARA model

  5. Comparison of Alpha Values with GNP GNP  Value

  6. $ Total Cost Protection Cost Ideal goal : curve Practical goal : slope ($/man-Sv) Detriment Cost Collective dose Optimal point Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  7. Case Study of Models • KOREA (2002) • - Population (PP) : 48,082,000 persons • GDP/PP : 16,378 US$/person • - Expected loss of output from non-fatal caners P1 : 0.01/Sv • - Expected loss of output from premature death P2 : 0.05/Sv • - Expected hereditary detriment P3 : 0.013/Sv • - Probability of Employment E : 0.969 • - Inflation r : 4.88% • - Average life expectancy : 76.9 years • - Daily Cost to treat non fatal cancer: 17 US$

  8. - Total cost to treat non-fatal cancer C1:  6,179 US$ - Years to treat non-fatal cancer T1 : 1 year - Total cost to treat fatal cancer C2: 17,485 US$ (8,742 US$ * 2 years) - Years to treat non-fatal cancer T2: 2 years - Years of earlier death due to cancer h : 60 year - Expected cost of hereditary detriment C3 : 1,830 US$ - Years to treat hereditary detriment T3: 20 days

  9. Models & Korean Data Input 1. U.K NRPB Model → αvalue: 9.8 US$ /man-mSv αnf : Expected loss of output from non-fatal caners αf :Expected loss of output from premature death αg :Expected medical expenditure on induced cancers αm :Expected cost of hereditary detriment - P1: Prob. for non-fatal cancers due to radiation exposure = 0.01/Sv - P2:Prob. for fatal cancers due to radiation exposure = 0.05/Sv - P3:Prob. for hereditary detriment from radiation = 0.013/Sv - E :Prob. of being employed = 0.969 - r : Mean inflation rate = 4.88% - l : Life expectancy = 76.5 yr - h :The avg. age of premature death due to cancers = 60yr - C1 :Cost for non-fatal cancers =  6,179,865 won - T1 :Period for medical curing of non-fatal cancers = 1 yr - C2Cost for fatal cancers = 17,485,390 won - C3Cost for hereditary detriment = 1,830,893 won -  T3Period for medical curing of hereditary detriment = 20 day

  10. 2. Japan Kyoto Univ. Model → αvalue: 2.5 US$/man-mSv αnf : Expected loss of output from non-fatal cancers & medical expenditure for a man αfExpected loss from out of work due to fatal cancers for a man αgExpected cost of hereditary detriment for a man • - Pnf: Prob. for non-fatal cancers due to radiation exposure = 0.01/Sv • - Pf:Prob. for fatal cancers due to radiation exposure = 0.05/Sv • - Pg:Prob. for hereditary detriment from radiation = 0.013/Sv • - l : Life expectancy = 76.5 yr • h :The avg. age of premature death due to cancers = 60yr ME : Daily medical expenditure = 16,931 won W : GDP/capita C : Consumption= 0.9*W

  11.  Ref(x)  Ref(x) =  base(x/x0)a  Ref(x) = base base 0 x0 x Collective dose 3. France CEPN Model →αbase : 13 $/man-mSv a : risk aversion factor GDP/capita (in 2002) : 14,503 $/man/yr Loss of life expectancy induced by a radiation health effect : 16 years Probability of occurrence of health effects associated with 1 Sv : 0.056 /Sv Monetary value of health effects associated with 1Sv : 12,995,176 won/Sv Alpha base value → 13 $/mSv Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  12. ① a=1.4 (constant) ② a= (varied) * Christian,1998 Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  13. Distribution of workers in four stepwise dose ranges in 2005 ※ Duplicated Count is Adjusted Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  14. Case Study of Models ECONOMIC METHOD

  15. Approach to Define the Human Value • Human Capital Approach • - Treat as a substance value • - Cost-Benefit Analysis • Revealed Preference Approach: WTP • - Survey • - willingness to-pay

  16. Residual dose(D) ◆ ◆ △ D ◆ ◆ ◆ △ C Cost(C) (1) DIFFERENTIAL COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Ⓑ ⊙ Ⓐ • □△C/ △D : implicit cost of avoided dose unit • α : reference monetary value of d dose unit • => “what is agreed to be paid in order to avoid one dose unit” • □Optimum : dC/dD ≤ α

  17. Cost Total Cost Optimized Cost Exposure Cost Protection Cost 0 man-mSv Optimized Dose (ALARA) (2) Cost-Benefit Analysis - Optimization Optimal point

  18. 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Collective dose (man-Sv per year) ALARA only 0.2 20 mSv, then ALARA 0.1 0 0 120000 40000 80000 Annual cost (US dollars per year) Case of UK - Annual Cost to reduce the collective dose

  19. 80 60 40 Mean life expectancy(y) 20 0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 Annual gross national product per person (US dollars per year) Life Expectancy & GNP • Surveyed 53 countries • Life Expectancy is proportional to the GNP increase if it is less than US$ 10,000

  20. GDP /person US$ 35,282 Average Life Expectancy 42 yr Life Price US$ 35,282 42( yr ) = 1,481,844 × Life years lost due to disease 19.4( yr ) (ICRP60) Cost to treat Health Detriment 35,282 19.4( ) = 684,470 × 년 US$ - 2 Probability of Cancer (1Sv) 5.6 10 /Sv × Loss of National E c onomic - 2 due to Health Detriment per 684,470 5.6 10 × × 1Sv Human Capital Approach • Human Life Price is estimated by an individual loss of contribution to the national economic • Case of France CEPN : Monetary value of Human Life per Sv

  21. CEPN Model for Alpha Value Ref(d) - Ref(d) = Base(d/d0)a Ref(d) = Base Base 0 d0 d d Individual Dose mSv Base : Monetary Value of unit dose do : Upper value allowed individual dose for Base a : Aversion Factor (1.2-1.75)

  22. Aversion Factor Range for a 16 High A 12 Multiplying Factor a 8 Low A 4 0 - 4 - 0 10 10 10 - 6 10 - 2 Annual Individual Dose Sy/y Case of France a = 1.6 if less or equal to 15 mSv/y a= 1.75 if 20 mSv/y

  23. KINS Model for Alpha Value Ref(d) = Base for d ≤ d0 (1 mSv) Ref(d) = Base(d/d0)a for d > d0 (1 mSv) GDP/capita (2005) : 16,378 US$/man Loss of life expectancy caused by radiation : 18.6 years Detriment Probability : 0.056 /Sv Exchange Rate(2005) : 1024 Won/$ PPP : 764 Won/$ αbase value : 17.1 US$/man-mSv = GDP/capita × Loss of Life Expectancy × Prob.  17.1 x 764/1024 = 12.7 US$/man-mSv (PPP Adjusted) Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  24. $ Total Cost Ideal goal : curve Practical goal : slope ($/man-Sv) Protection Cost Detriment Cost Collective dose Optimal point Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  25. KINS Alpha Value Model for Korea • Cost α3 α2 α1 αbase 0 1 5 10 • Individual Dose( mSv ) Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  26. Alpha Value in Korea • αref(x) = αbase, if x≤ 1 a=1 • = α1, if 1<x≤ 5 a=1.4 • = α2, if 5<x≤ 10 a=1.5 • = α3, if 10<x a=1.7 • αbase : 17.1 US$/man-mSv • α1 : 160 US$/man-mSv • α2 : 540 US$/man-mSv • α3 : 2,800 US$/man-mSv Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  27. Applied in Other Countries 1) Corporate or plant alpha values for occupational exposure: set of values Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  28. Alpha Value in Korea • 0~1m Sv : 17.1 $/man-mSv • 1~5mSV : 160 $/man-mSv • 5~10mSv : 540 $/man-mSv • >10mSv : 2,800 $/man-mSv Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  29. KINS Model for Alpha Values Ref(d) = Base d ≤ 1 mSv Ref(d) = Base(d/d0)a

  30. 2) Alpha values of Regulatory bodies * CEPN, 2003 * PPP GNI : Purchasing Power Parity Gross National Income It reflects the real value of currency and objective-economic situation. Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  31. Comparison of Existing Values KINS Model (PPP) US$/man-mSv 1~ 20 mSv Own Model Values Base 1 3 2 12.7 120 400 2000 KOREA 17 US$/man-mSv UK 34 US$/man-mSv 43 382 970 2480 JAPAN 51 450 1,150 2,920 37 US$/man-mSv USA S. Texas NPP 466~2,620 US$/man-mSv 38 ~ 24,200 (40 mSv) FRANCE 380 43 962 2450

  32. New Values in Current Price and PPP (5) = (1) x (2) (18.6 year) x Cancer risk (5.6 x 10-2 /Sv) PPP Alpha base value = (5) x (3)/(4) Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  33. New Values evaluated by the use of KINS Model Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  34. New Values evaluated by the use of KINS Model Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

  35. CONCLUSION • ALARA Value is communication tool among stakeholders • Easy and Rational : neither in-depth study nor mathematical complexity • derived from the basis on GDP and Life Expectancy : practical compensation and current values • Purchasing Power Parity is recommended for international comparison • Variation of Risk Aversion Factor (a-value) drives different values; however, laborious effort for adjustment is not recommended • Consistency of the probability of health detriment: Human Race and Regional Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety

More Related