Re: Exit Contamination Surveys

[Randy Goodwin <rgoodwin@erinet.com>]

Tony Hedges wrote:
> 
> At 04:11 PM 6/21/96 -0500, you wrote:
> >           I am looking for information from non-DOE
> >          facilities to see how the outside world does business with respect
> >          to contamination surveys of items released from Radiological
> Buffer Areas.
> >
> >          I am not aware of any nuclear facility (power plant or fuel cycle)
> >          that allows unconditional material release from an RBA without some
> >          sort of frisk.  Is this true at your facility?  If there are
> >          exceptions, I would like to get information describing the
> >          circumstances under which this is allowed and the basis used to
> >          justify this.
> >
> >          Rey Bocanegra
> >          DOE Technical Specialist
> >          on Radiological Controls
> >          U.S. Department of Energy
> >          Richland Operations Office
> >          Richland, WA
> >
> Rey,
>     We frisk and smear everything leaving the RCA (Radiological Control Area
> equivalent to RBA) even though the worker has assured us the tool was not in
> a contaminated area.  Having just spent a couple months smearing & clearing
> items during our outage, I have found fixed contamination and internal
> contamination on tools and equipment that was "never" in a contaminated
> area!  Even though we have a contaminated tool crib and areas and methods to
> decon items, workers still think contamination is a minor detail we should
> over look (until they take it home with them!).  The nuclear power industry
> has had and continues to have problems controlling contaminated material.
> My question to your contractors would be how they can assure the DOE that
> 100% of the contaminated material is controlled and stays inside controlled
> areas without performing surveys at the RBA.  I don't know of anyone who can
> do that.  For this to be successful, in fact for any facility to contol
> contaminated material 100%, the worker has to motivated to control and use
> the item properly to prevnt the spread of contamination.
> 
> Tony Hedges
> RPT
> loui19@vcomm.net

i beg to differ tony,
the controlled area at fernald is equivalent to a RCA at a power plant.
a buffer area is non existent in the power plant world.  you will never 
see a buffer area mentioned in 10cfr20, however 10cfr835 defines a 
controlled area, buffer area and an uncontrolled area.

i will look this up monday so as to clear up my mind.

randy goodwin