No Subject

[Tim <tstead@ntirs.org>]

Interestingly enough, there is already a precedent on

tour groups being exposed to radiation and the

liability of a utility if those limits are exceeded

IAW 10CFR20.



Bohrmann, Daniels, Gagnon, Novkovic, & Ortman v. Main

Yankee Atomic Power Company.  USDC - District of Main,

Case No. 95-359-P-C.



A normal tour through, say, the turbine building of a

PWR would/should not provide any appreciable dose that

could realistically be measured.  However, a tour

through the aux building could.  Fortunately, not too

many tours are given through the aux building.



In this case, some U. of Main students' tour of Main

Yankee on Oct. 11, 1994 was a little different.  The

students were taken through the aux building and, at

the same time, repair work on some demineralizers.  It

resulted in some minor off-gassing but exposed the

students to doses possibly in excess of the limits to

the general public (10CFR20.1301), but below the

statuatory limit of 10CFR20.1201 - dose limits to

radiation workers.



The students sued but lost.  They claimed that they

were exposed to an excess amount of radiation and that

they live day to day in fear of potential problems

later in life.



The court determined that since the students were in

the RCA, they were not statuatorily defined as

"members of the public" and so the limits set forth in

1301 do not apply (see 10CFR20.1003).  The only other

limits that therefore apply are those in 1301.



Further, the court stated that the students could not

sue because of hypothetical problems that may occur

sometime in the future.  Only real problems that have

already occured are cause for awarding damages.



Tim Steadham



--- Jack_Earley@RL.GOV wrote:

> Visitors/members of the general public are not

> generally allowed into areas

> where that would be a realistic issue. Even in the

> case of vendors brought

> in briefly to oversee testing/installation of

> equipment, they're not allowed

> hands-on work except for their own equipment. If

> they're anticipated to have

> such exposures, they would/should be rad worker

> trained. Nevertheless, see

> my subsequent posting re. survey definition.

> 

> Jack Earley

> Radiological Engineer

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Franz Schoenhofer

> [mailto:franz.schoenhofer@chello.at]

> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 11:13 AM

> To: Jack_Earley@rl.gov; rpconserv@HOTMAIL.COM;

> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> Subject: Re: 

> 

> 

> 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

> Von: Jack_Earley@RL.GOV <Jack_Earley@RL.GOV>

> An: rpconserv@HOTMAIL.COM <rpconserv@HOTMAIL.COM>;

> radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

> <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

> Datum: Freitag, 15. Februar 2002 21:11

> Betreff: RE:

> 

> 

> >It's only a de facto limit if you don't want to use

> area TLDs to show that

> >your tour route produces less than 1 mSv per year.

> You don't care, nor

> >should you, what Joe Public does offsite.

> >

> 

> Jack,

> You forget about ingestion and inhalation and

> beta-radiation......... You

> would need a lot more than a TLD to assess the dose

> of an individual

> received.

> 

> Franz





__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Sports - Coverage of the 2002 Olympic Games

http://sports.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/