Determination and Use of the Monetary Values of the Averted Person-Sievert for Use in Radiation Protection Decisions in Hungary

Abstract

The monetary value of the averted dose is a key element in the implementation of the optimization principle both in radiation praxis and intervention. The main concept of this principle is to select options so as to maintain exposures at a reasonable level. The feature of this concept is to look for the minimal total cost, i.e., the sum of the costs of protection and health detriment. In its publications, ICRP emphasized the need for developing models which also take into account the "subjective" aspects of health detriment in the optimization process, such as the perception of risk by individuals and the need to put more emphasis on equity in the distribution of individual doses. This paper proposes a modified alpha-value model based on CEPN's model (Centre d'Etude sur L'Evaluation de la Protection dans le Domaine Nucleaire) to put more emphasis on recently published considerations about the smaller effects of the portion of collective dose derived from small doses. The parameters of the monetary value of unit collective dose averted, which is a key element of this type of model, can be estimated by means of approaches like human capital (HC) and willingness to pay (WTP) from the point of view of economic theories. The present study summarizes the results achieved by WTP among the radiation specialists mainly from the Paks Nuclear Power Plant, Hungary. The aim of the effort was to determine the value of a statistical life and the monetary value of a unit person-sievert associated with averted occupational exposure due to ionizing radiation. To apply the WTP method, a questionnaire has been prepared on the basis of the one introduced by CEPN in the late 1990's. The investigations show that the value of US$6,200 person-Sv(-1) seems to be acceptable for the alphabase-value for the occupational situation in Hungary in 1999. WTP assessments should be applied with caution since the economic level of the country, the workplace surveyed, and the computational methods affect the results. In addition, achieving a high level safety culture must rely on international cooperation both from the theoretical and practical viewpoints, and international markets affect the associated costs. Therefore the monetary requirements cannot always be assessed solely on a national basis.

Optimization of the Area 5 Radioactive Waste Management Site Closure Cover

“…Review of the literature indicates a maximum value of a statistical life of $300 million in 1990 dollars (Guenther and Thein, 1997;Hardeman et al, 1998;Eged et al, 2001;Katona et al, 2003). Multiplying by a radiation risk coefficient of 0.05 Sv -1 (Guenther and Thein, 1997), an upper limit cost of $15,000,000 person -1 Sv -1 is obtained.…”

“…The threshold for risk aversion has been estimated to fall in the range of 1-0.2 mSv, which is in the range of environmental radiation protection standards (Hardeman et al, 1998;Eged et al, 2001;Katona et al, 2003). Presumably, there is little risk aversion at levels of exposure allowed for the general public.…”

Reduction of external dose in a wet-contaminated housing area in the Bryansk Region, Russia

“…On the other hand, it would be expected that Western European governments could accept greater expenses to avoid doses. Various approaches have been suggested to equate averted doses with a monetary value (e.g., Guenther and Thein, 1997;Eged et al, 2001;Hedemann Jensen and Yatsalo, 1998).…”

Genomics and Medicine at a Crossroads in Chernobyl

“…We can imagine the sponsors of such a project working with Ukrainian public health officials and other regional institutions to develop a framework that includes a consensus limit on acceptable exposures such as the one advocated by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (50 millisieverts per year, which measures the biological effects of radiation) (20). It should then be possible to estimate the perworker cost of averting higher cumulative doses a priori (21), while also providing for the construction of a lasting scientific infrastructure at the reactor site. If multiple nations are willing to collectively provide as much as $1 billion to secure Chernobyl for the next 100 years by building the Ark, surely they can also see the logic of supporting a once-in-a-lifetime scientific effort to produce an unprecedented knowledge base for a small fraction of the total construction costs.…”