Re: Emergency exposure limits

["J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>]

At 10:52 AM 3/2/99 -0600, you wrote:
>I have recently reviewed our procedure for emergency exposures since it is
>in revision and would like to hear from other places what their guidelines
>are for an acceptable maximum dose (or dose rate) for a rescuer to be
>exposed to? Assuming of course that they are volunteers and trained...

According with the IAEA Basic Safety Standards, Safety Series 115, 1996

a) Life  saving actions Total effective dose guidance  > 500 mSv (*)
b) Prevent serious injury; Avert a large collective dose; Prevent the
development of catastrophic conditions <100 mSv
c) Short term recovery operations; Implement urgent protective actions;
Monitoring and sampling <50 mSv;
d)Long term recovery operations; work not directly with an accident -
Occupational exposure guidance

(*) Considering Life saving actions the dose can be exceeded if justified,
however every effort shall be made to keep dose below this level (500 mSv)
and certainly below the thresholds for deterministic effects. 

>
>What kind of authorization is needed to get a high dose in order to do a
>rescue?  Any delay in a very high dose field can take someone who may have
>non-life threatening injuries (ie, broken legs) and subject them to a
>lethal dose.

You mentioned above: "Assuming of course that they are volunteers and
trained..." part of the training is the understanding for workers the risk
they face. 
In Goiania were engaged 400 persons from the Brazilian Nuclear Energy
Commission, Army and Contractors. They knew the possibility of high dose.
However was not necessary any authorization, to any one, and no one asked
such document. Curiosity Certification was necessary for people leaving the
State of Goias (Goiania is the Capital), the reason,  was to assure they
were not contaminated. Hotels were refusing accepting people from the State.   

>Also, I would like to hear any thoughts on what kind of dose you would
>allow someone to get in order to rescue someone who has most likely already
>received a lethal dose.   Do you treat this like a body recovery?  My own
>thoughts would be to conduct a rescue as if they are a viable patient even
>though they probably won't survive.
>I realize of course that many other factors will influence the decision to
>make any rescue but would like to stick just with the radiological ones.

ICRP 60, 1990  answer this question 6.3.2 (225) - exposures  in the control
of the accident and in the immediate and urgent remedial work should be
restricted to effective dose of no more than 0.5 Sv, except for life-saving,
which can rarely be limited by dosimetric assessments. The connection
between this sentence and yours is the word rarely. 


J. J. Rozental
<josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
Israel 

>If I get a good number of responses I will put together a summary and post it.
>
>| | | |    Kim Merritt, RRPT
>| | | |__  Safety Support Officer, Physics & Space Technolgy
>| | \___/  Lawrence Livermore National Labs
>| \___/    merritt9@llnl.gov
>\___/      Voice: (925)423-9668   Fax: (925)422-7160
>	   "When the only tool you have is a hammer,
>	   every problem begins to resemble a nail."
>	   -Abraham Maslow
>************************************************************************
>The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
>information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
jjrozental

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