Re[2]: Question RE <Working Level>

["Riasp Medora"<riasp.medora@fernald.gov>]

     Is there any Report number for this document.
     
     Riasp Medora
     riasp_medora@fernald.gov


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Question RE <Working Level> 
Author:  <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu> at FE-INTERNET
Date:    1/12/1999 2:13 AM


Dear Ivor,
     
Please refer to the International Atomic Energy Basic Safety Standards, 
Table II-I 'Limits on intake and exposure for radon and thoron progeny" 
and Table II-II "Conversion coefficients for units in table II-I for 
radon and radon progeny".
     
There are two dose conversion factors:
1 Bq*h/m3 converts to 6.28 * 10 E-7 WLM, and 'at work' 1 WLM converts to 
5 mSv.
     
The dose conversions factors are not negotiable and I do not see any 
possibility for an Australian operator to use any dose conversion 
factors different from those.
     
Kind regards
Nick Tsurikov
Radiation Safety Officer
RGC Mineral Sands Limited
Eneabba, Western Australia
     
----------
From:  Ivor Surveyor[SMTP:isurveyor@vianet.net.au] 
Sent:  Tuesday, 12 January 1999 15:47
To:  Multiple recipients of list
Subject:  Question RE <Working Level>
     
Dear Radsafe, 
     
I wonder if anybody be kind enough to help me with some questions on the 
definition of <working level>. 
     
Epidemiological studies on Radon and its progeny use a unit called 
<working
level>.  
     
I understand that is a historical unit, but is still very much favored 
by
some epidemiologists.  
     
I am interested to know the origin of the unit. 
How did the definition 1.3 x 10E5 Mev/L of alpha energy arise?
How did the original workers measure this quantity? Or intend it to be 
measured? 
Is it necessary to assume a form of secular equilibrium between  radon 
and
its progeny in order to use the unit?
     
I read that 1 WL corresponds to a Rn-222 concentration of approximately 
100pCi/l or 3.7Bq/l, and/or 7.5 pCi/ or 277mBq/l of Rn-220.  Are these 
neat
conversions just a coincidence? 
     
I have also read 1 WLM corresponds to an  equivalent dose  of 10 mSv, 
but
the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia uses the conversion 1 WLM = 5 
mSv. 
ICRP 90 (B126) page 138. Points out that the complex relationship 
between
dose to target tissue and concentration in WLM. Matters such as the 
aerodynamics of particles, breathing patterns and biological 
characteristic
of lungs, the lung model used etc. 
I note that ICRP gives  a conversion to the tracheobronchial region of 
between 4 to 13 mGy per WLM.
     
This raises two further questions.
     
In any given industrial site is the conversion of WLM to equivalent dose 
a
compromise based on management, worker negotiation?
     
Is variation in conversion from WLM to mSv a problem in comparing 
findings
from different epidemiological sources?
     
I hope these question are not considered to be too simplistic.
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
Ivor Surveyor                [isurveyor@vianet.net.au] 
Emeritus Consultant Physician,
Department of Nuclear Medicine
Royal Perth Hospital.
     
************************************************************************ 
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription 
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
     
************************************************************************ 
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription 
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
     

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html