[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Re: Hot Spot Exemption







------------------------------TEXT-OF-YOUR-MAIL--------------------------------

> Date: Mon, 14 Aug 95 19:05:27 -0500
> Reply-To: radsafe@ROMULUS.EHS.UIUC.EDU
> Sender: radsafe@ROMULUS.EHS.UIUC.EDU
> From: Gary Masters <gmasters@CSN.NET>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@ROMULUS.EHS.UIUC.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Hot Spot Exemption
>
> Linda,
>
> The purpose of "Hot Spot" posting is to alert workers to the elevated
> dose rate with respect to the general area dose rate. If you have a bunker
> full of warheads you shouldn't have a bunker full of Hot Spots, you should
> have an elevated general area dose rate (i.e. High Radiation Area). If,
> on the other hand, you have a single warhead in a radiation area you
> then have a Hot Spot.
>
> I would not pursue an Article 113 exemption in this case.
>
> Gary Masters
> ALARA Program Coordinator
> Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site
> gmasters@csn.net
>
> >
> > Radsafers:
> >    At the DOE Pantex Plant, our mission is to disassemble/assemble
> > nuclear warheads.
> >    According to the DOE Radiological Control Manual Article 234, hot
> > spots shall be posted for localized sources that are 5 times general
> > area dose rate and greater than 0.1 rem/hr.  The localized source in
> > a nominal warhead is a "hot spot" per the DOE definition.  However,
> > isn't the intent and spirit of the Order of "hot spots" applicable to
> > crud/buildup in piping, process equipment, etc.. places where it is
> > not "designed or engineered" to be.  Our warhead sources are designed
> > and engineered to meet or exceed "hot spot" dose rates.  Therefore,
> > the question is:  Would not our warhead sources be candidates for an
> > exemption to the "hot spot" regulation?
> >
> > Linda Vickers
> > Health Physicist
> > Pantex Plant
> >
> >
>