Re: Holding kids thread...

[sandy_perle@email.fpl.com]

     The rule primarily addresses WHO is to be trained if the facility is 
     regulated by the NRC. I think that is what the rule talks about and 
     less as to what type of dosimetry is worn and by whom. The NRC already 
     has a public dose limit of 100 mrem established. The following is part 
     of a memo I wrote addressing this July 13, 1995 FR distribution, and 
     is therefore geared towards the nuclear plant perspective, but is also 
     the requirement for all NRC licensees.
     
     
What The Rulemaking Change Says:


1. Clarifies the definition of an occupationally exposed worker as an individual
whose assigned duties involve exposure to radiation, and, that they are likely 
to receive a dose in excess of 100 mrem in a year. 

2. A member of the public is defined based on not where they work, but with 
respect to the dose they are likely to receive.

3. Plant workers who do not meet the criteria stated above will be considered as
members of the general public, as stated below in item 4.

4. Clerical workers or other individuals similar in nature, who access the 
radiation controlled areas, but are not exposed to levels whereby they are 
likely to exceed 100 mrem in a year, are not required to be trained.

5. The rule allows individuals (members of the general public - such as truck 
drivers and repair service employees) who occasionally enter a restricted area 
to not be required to receive occupational training, merely because they entered
a restricted area when the potential to exceed 100 mrem in a year does not 
exist.

6. 10 CFR 20.1101(b) requires that licensees adopt procedures and engineering 
controls to achieve occupational doses and doses to members of the public that 
are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Radiation protection training 
programs continue to be an important element of an ALARA program.

7. The NRC expects that individuals who do not require training under this rule,
since their normal job does not require them to work in areas where they are 
likely to exceed 100 mrem in a year, but are classified as an emergency worker 
according to the plant emergency plan, that they would still be required to 
receive regulatory required training.



Sandy Perle
Supervisor Health Physics
Florida Power and Light Company
Nuclear Division

(407) 694-4219 Office
(407) 694-3706 Fax

sandy_perle@email.fpl.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Holding kids thread...
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet-Mail
Date:    10/3/95 9:43 AM


This is just to let everyone know that the NRC published new
regulatory definitions of occupational and public dose to
exclude medical exposure.  60 FR 36038-36043, July 13, 1995.  As
I understand the new rule, only persons employed in a radiation
area or radioactive materials area are considered occupationally
exposed, not an occasional visitor ot that area.  So putting a
monitoring device on a "family member who is asked to assist in
positioning a patient" is probably not appropriate.

Also, a "wrong patient" rule was published on September 20,
1995 ..60 FR 48623.  I think the idea a a family member
receiving radiation exposure incidentally from a patient might
be in there.



--
Jean Gresick-Schugsta
RSO/Imaging Physicist
York Hospital
1001 S. George Street
York,  PA  17405
PHONE:   (717) 851-5166
FAX:     (717) 741-8196
Internet:  rd_jgresick@yorkhospital.edu