Exit Contamination Surveys

["Brian Scott, ESH1" <bgs@lanl.gov>]

I'm glad to see someone's taking a lead in DOE to explore some
options in health physics exit controls. 

The issue is complex and vulnerable to convoluted reasoning so
I'll try to limit my comments/interpretations to my own team
(solid and liquid waste operations at Los Alamos National
Laboratory):

1)RCA (controlled area)is used for areas where potential
contamination may exist; however, the potential for contamination
without an operation is negligible
2)RBA (buffer area) is used for areas where likely contamination
may exist
3)10 CFR 835 does not address RBAs
4)Per DOE RADCON Manual (ignoring the impact of DOE N 441.1,
canceling the RCM), hand/foot surveys are only required for RBAs
surrounding a contaminated area, CA or airborne area, AA)
5) Our team has RBAs which do not surround a CA or AA and do not
require exit monitoring (exit monitoring would be required upon
exit from the RCA) for certain operations.
6)RBAs are invaluable when interpreting DOE Order 5000.3B,
Occurrence Reporting, since contamination in a RBA is, to a
degree, "expected" for certain operations.
7)Exit monitoring from a RCA is not required if the operation (as 
concluded through a rudimentary fault-tree analysis, FTA) does
not indicate the potential for contamination exist.
8)If an operation inside a RCA does not indicate (again through
FTA) a contamination potential, the drinking of water for heat
stress, with IH recommendation, is permitted under suitable
controls.


The above, appears to both comply and optimize a small portion of
our health physics operations. I glad you're trying to do the
same. Please call me, Ray, if you feel further information would
be helpful.

Brian Scott
ESH-1 Team Leader, Waste Operations
505-667-1819





__________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
>Subject: Exit Contamination Surveys
>Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at INTERNET
>Date:    6/21/96 4:10 PM
>
>
>          Ladies and Gents:
>     
>          I'm working an issue at DOE's Hanford site regarding the necessity 
>          and type of contamination survey appropriate for items released 
>          from a radiological buffer area (RBA) for unconditional use in 
>          uncontrolled areas --- i.e. items located in an RBA being released 
>          for off-site use.
>     
>          The DOE Rad Con Manual (RCM) addresses contamination surveys of 
>          items released from contamination areas and radiological buffer 
>          areas.  In the past, DOE contractors at Hanford interpreted the RCM 
>          as requiring contamination surveys on items leaving the buffer 
>          area; even if the items were never inside a contamination area.  
>          This interpretation of the RCM has recently come into question by 
>          some contractors.  The new thinking is that items released from a 
>          buffer area do not need to be surveyed ... the reasoning is long 
>          and complicated.  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 RBAs.
>     
>          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.
>     
>          I am also interested in any other information on RBA exit surveys 
>          or in other contacts that may have pertinent information.
>     
>          Thanks for help.
>     
>          Rey Bocanegra
>          DOE Technical Specialist
>          on Radiological Controls
>          U.S. Department of Energy
>          Richland Operations Office
>          Richland, WA
>     
>          reynaldo_rey_bocanegra@rl.gov
>          (509) 372-2868
>
>
>