Re[2]: Occupational and Public Dose

[sandy_perle@email.fpl.com]

>Shouldn't we be categorizing the person and then limiting 
the dose as appropriate rather than determining the doses and then categorizing 
the 
person?  
     
BTW, the rule is much improved over the previous definition.  The sticky points 
are 
"course of employment" and "duties involve exposure to radiation."<

For what it's worth, I prefer the current philosophy over the previous 
philosophy as to who is an occupationally exposed worker. The reasons why the 
100 mrem limit should be used, or some specific value determined by the 
regulators, are:

1. The risk is correlated to the dose received, not the type of person or what  
   they do. Specifically, it doesn't matter "what" the person does, rather what 
   dose the person received from doing whatever it is they do. A rose is a rose 
   is a rose, i.e., a dose of 150 mrem from working in a lab versus doing a     
   project or a survey is still a dose of 150 mrem. WHAT the person did to      
   receive the dose is irrelevant.

2. The primary reason for the definition change was to minimize having to train 
   all individuals who accessed a radiation controlled area. The regulators     
   elected to base this on a dose of 100 mrem. While a facility can reduce      
   training costs, they are also required to train an individual who has been   
   predetermined to be below the 100 mrem threshold, BUT, has accountabilities  
   in the emergency response organization.

Sandy Perle
Supervisor Health Physics
Florida Power and Light Company

sandy_perle@email.fpl.com

Homepages: http://www.netcom.com/~sandyfl/home.html
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral.com/1205

All opinions expressed are mine alone