[ RadSafe ] > 300 mrems/month = "no significant exposure"?
doctorbill34 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 9 13:55:49 CDT 2013
It's an INPO "guideline," which you violate at your peril.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Stroud - CDPHE, Ed <ed.stroud at state.co.us>wrote:
> Bill and all,
> Do workers at U.S. nuclear power plants really have a 1 rem per year
> regulatory limit, or is that an in-house ALARA limit?
> Ed Stroud, Compliance Lead
> Radioactive Materials Unit
> Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:49 AM, William Lipton <doctorbill34 at gmail.com
> > I'm concerned about this NRC event report from a radiography provider:
> > *POTENTIAL OVEREXPOSURE OF RADIOGRAPHER
> > The RSO for the licensee called to report a potential overexposure of a
> > radiographer. This event occurred while the radiographer was checking
> > at a refinery in Wyoming. While moving the camera to another location,
> > radiographer's dosimeter alarmed. It is suspected that the camera's
> > was not fully retracted into the safe position. The source was
> > retracted back into the fully shielded position.
> > The RSO calculates an estimated dose to the radiographer of 5 rem. The
> > licensee will send the radiographer's dosimetry for expedited reading as
> > soon as possible.
> > The licensee will update this report with additional details as they
> > available.
> > * * * RETRACTION FROM GAYLE STATON TO HUFFMAN AT 1436 EDT ON 9/04/13 * *
> > The RSO has received the radiographer's dosimetry badge readings. The
> > radiographer was still wearing his August dosimetry when the event
> > occurred. His badge readings was 328 mrem for the entire month of August
> > including the exposure from this event.
> > Since there was no significant exposure from the event, the licensee has
> > retracted this event notification. *
> > *
> > *
> > While I'm glad that there was no overexposure, there are 2 important
> > that need to be addressed:
> > 1. Why did the source fail to retract: mechanical failure?, less than
> > adequate training? under time pressure? ... This has to be determined
> > fixed.
> > 2. 328 mrems in one month is considered routine and acceptable. This
> > means that it's acceptable for the company's radiographers to receive 3
> > 5 rems/year. This is NOT "As Low As Reasonably Achievable." Again, the
> > NRC has a double standard. Power reactors have a de facto limit of 1
> > rem/year for a rad worker. My experience is that this is rarely
> > approached, and this is under much more difficult circumstances than
> > in most radiography jobs.
> > *B*ill Lipton
> > It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> > _______________________________________________
> > You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> > Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> > the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> > http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> > For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> > visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe