Re: ALARA or Not? -Reply

["Michael J Boyle"<mjboyle@dpcmail.dukepower.com>]

RE: Appropriate use of respirators and considerations

The 10CFR20 Question & Answer sets and NRC Health Physics Position
Statements published by the NRC were  available for free download from the
Fedworld BBS and Fedworld web site at http://www.fedworld.gov.  I obtained
my copies of these electronic search engines sometime ago from Fedworld and
haven't verified current availability.  The programs are DOS based and have
been handy as I use both programs frequently to cut regulatory "research"
time.

Regarding the question of allowable considerations for prescription and use
of respiratory equipment, the NRC Q&A program shows that Questions 386,
387, and 449 address worker efficiency, ALARA-TEDE, industrial
hygiene/safety risk, culture shift, and cost/benefit analysis.  All of the
above may considered (legally) when deciding on the appropriateness of
respiratory protection for a particular job or evolution, but please see
the NRC Q&A for the details and any limitations that may apply.

Michael J. Boyle, RRPT, CHP
mjboyle@dpcmail.dukepower.com
---------------------- Forwarded by Michael J Boyle/Gen/DukePower on
05/01/97 07:09 AM ---------------------------
                                                                  
 (Embedded                                                        
 image moved   LLE@nrc.gov                                        
 to file:      04/30/97 05:39 PM                                  
 PIC13403.PCX)                                                    
                                                                  



Please respond to radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu

To:   radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
cc:    (bcc: Michael J Boyle/Gen/DukePower)
Subject:  Re: ALARA or Not? -Reply




B. Flood wrote:
<In addition to Sandy's comments about the "cultural" change this
<regulation brought for experienced HPs, there has also been the matter
<of assessing the value of wearing a respirator to protect a wearer from
<small potential internal exposures against the impact on non-radiological
<hazards such as vision restrictions when climbing, heat stress (ever
<worn a respirator inside containment right after shutdown?), etc.
<Unfortunately, we regulate radiation separately in the US, so including
<these factors in the decision is not allowed. Is this a great country or
<what?

Overall risk assessments are *not* allowed?   Please review the Health
Physics position papers.  I believe there are specific positions in regards
to this matter.   Unfortunately I do not have mine handy with me and
won't be back in the office for a couple of weeks.


Regards,
Lonny Eckert
LLE@NRC.GOV
-standard disclaimers-

PIC13403.PCX