RE: Data on Rate of Personnel Contaminations

["Isham, Michael N (INPO)" <IshamMN@INPO.org>]

	Mr. Turner's perspective has, perhaps, merits when considered
from a largely legal standpoint.  Given that nuclear workers and the
public at large might not necessarily agree with Mr. Turner's viewpoint,
it might be wise to study this challenge professionally, from multiple
perspectives, rather than be quoted using the terms "nuisance
contaminations" with regard to others' lives.

> ----------
> From: 	Doug Turner[SMTP:turners@earthlink.net]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, September 02, 1997 1:13 PM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	Re: Data on Rate of Personnel Contaminations
> 
> The rate of personnel skin contaminations as a goal is a carry over
> from the
> nuclear navy program into the commercial nuclear power industry.  INPO
> ratcheted the commercial nuclear power industry into accepting a rate
> as one
> of several indicators, and enormous resources were spent trying to
> achieve
> these atrificial goals.  With todays revised 10cfr20 I would suggest
> you
> treat skin contaminations like internal depositions- calculate the
> dose
> equivalent( if the contamination is significant) and control as part
> of the
> shallow dose equivalent.
> 
> Of course even nuiscance skin contamination take time to document,
> decontaminate and if the program requires perform a whole body count.
> If
> individuals repeatedly get skin contaminations from poor work habits
> or
> lackadasical attitude you might want the supervisor to retrain or
> replace
> the individual.
> 
> When I was working for GPU in the 1980's the goals were 3 per 10,000
> RWP
> hours.  We had the same goal at Oyster Creek, TMI-1 & TMI-2.  While I
> was at
> TMI-2 we were never able to achieve this low level despite
> extraordinary
> efforts including almost continuous observation of the workers,
> undressing
> the workers, investigating each contamination, several trips to the
> laundry
> vendor site etc.
> 
> There are limited funds for decomissioning, and you might want to
> consider
> the financial impact of skin contamination goals very carefully on
> achieving
> the overall goal of removing and burying radioactive material.
> 
> Doug Turner <turners@earthlink.net>
>  At 11:34 AM 9/2/97 -0500, you wrote:
> >I am currently developing radiological performance measures for the
> power
> >station decommissioning project at the Haddam Neck Plant (Connecticut
> Yankee).
> >
> >Not unexpectedly, one measure has generated a rather broad range of
> opinion
> >among plant staff and the large group of consultants present with
> regard to
> >where to set the goal. This measure is the indidence/rate of
> personnel
> >contamination incidents.
> >
> >Accordingly, I am interested in any impirical data OR anecdotal
> information on
> >industry experience with the number of RWP hours logged per personnel
> >contamination event in similar situations (i.e. very large outages or
> >decommissioning projects) and what people consider a "acceptable"
> rate or use
> >as goals.
> >
> >I understand that there are huge variabilities in this issue, such as
> plant
> >source term, threshold and criteria for defining an event as a
> personnel
> >contamination, etc. so I would like to hold the discussion to raw
> data and
> >specific experience with using such a measure in equivalent
> situations.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >D.J. Richards
> >Radiological Services, Inc.
> >richadj@gwsmtp.nu.com (work)
> >djrichards@email.msn.com (personal)
> >
> >
>