RE: Lab Coat usage at DOE facilities

[MICHAEL S FORD <MFORD@pantex.com>]

Kevin,

Taking credit for engineered controls and barriers is, as
you have pointed out, accepted by the DOE RCM as
method to downgrade the level of PPE otherwise required
for a given radiological area.

1)  You could probably take advantage of the containment
barriers afforded by your gloveboxes and vent hoods, but
extending that to sinks and table-top operations might be a
stretch.  The easiest way to look at PPE requirements is to
evaluate what type of confinement factor your engineered
barrier affords you (e.g., 50, 100, 1000, etc.) and select the
appropriate type of PPE based upon the residual hazard
level.

2)  If you have an area posted as a CA for logistical
reasons, you are faced with a couple of alternatives.  You
either have people suit up in accordance with the RCM
requirement (because, as stated, you have no engineering
barriers in that location) or you provide justification for
deviating from the requirements -- which may require a
full-fledged exemption or an Article 113.

3)  Visitors USUALLY require less PPE than those
performing work because their potential for exposure is
much less -- USUALLY.  I would strongly caution you to
avoid specifying visitor/auditor PPE requirements in a
broad sense and evaluate each individual operation based
on the contamination hazard present.

'Hope this helps!  You might also look at Chapter 4 of
PNL-6534, "Health Physics Manual of Good Practices for
Plutonium Facilities," if you haven't already done so.

Michael
*************************
Michael S. Ford, CHP
Radiation Safety Department
Battelle Pantex
Amarillo, TX
806.477.5727 phone
806.477.4198 fax
mford@pantex.com
The above comments in are those of the author and in no
way should be attributed to Battelle Memorial Institute,
Mason & Hanger Corp, or the Department of Energy.
*************************