Radiation Protection Challenges at Accelerator Facilities

["Michael P. Grissom" <MIKEG%SLACVM.bitnet@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu>]

1.  Some time ago I posted a request originally driven by the DOE-
Oakland Radiological Control Quality Improvement Team (RC QIT)
asking for the top "6" (or whatever number) radiation protection
challenges at accelerator facilities.  I have received some
input (see the following).  More input is desirable since the
responses so far have only come from facilities with larger
electron accelerators.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         8-31-94
Subj:         Radiation Protection Challenges At Accelerators
Authors:      Submitted By RP Professionals At Accelerator Facilities
Status:       Working List
File Name:    ACC CHALL A1

Last Input Update Item Received:  8-30-94 @ 16:42:29

Responses to the DOE-OAK RC QIT Request for the top "6" radiation
protection challenges at accelerator facilities:

    (1)  Radiological Work Controls - Two Identified
    (2)  Radiological Work Permit Program - Two Identified
    (3)  ALARA Program Requirements
    (4)  Radioactive Materials Records & Controls - Two Identified
    (5)  Instrument Calibration & Maintenance - Three Identified
    (6)  Environmental & Area Monitoring (TLDs)
    (7)  Radiological Training - Two Identified
    (8)  Radiological Posting Requirements
    (9)  Radiological Documentation - Two Identified
    (10) Radiological Quality Assurance - Two Identified
    (11) Release Limits for Volume Activated Materials
    (12) DOE Specific Documentation:  Use 10CFR835 as the rule, use
         all other directives/IGs/etc. as guidance.

Note that these are not listed in any particular order (other than
time of receipt and listing.  Also note that some of these items are
related (for example, numbers 1/2/8 relate directly to worker exposure
controls and number 12 is a particularization of 9 for DOE facilities).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last line, file should be about 31 lines long less mail headers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The opions expressed above are    |  The opinions above also do not
those of the author alone and do  |  represent those of US Department
not represent those of the        |  of Defense, Defense Nuclear
Stanford University or the US     |  Agency, US Navy, Metropolitan
Department of Energy.             |  Edison, Porter Consultants, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------