[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: FAA CARI Program
I went to the FAA web site and couldn't even find the program much less try
to use it. There wasn't anything on the Occupational Health page and the
search function appears to be non-functional.
Roger Moroney
Health Physicist
Mallinckrodt, Inc.
314.654.7457 voice
314.654.7571 fax
roger.moroney@mkg.com
> ----------
> From: ROBBARISH@aol.com[SMTP:ROBBARISH@aol.com]
> Reply To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 3:02 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: FAA CARI Program
>
> Greetings,
>
> I am amazed that following my posting of last Monday, 9 August 1999
> (Radsafe
> Digest 2572), much of which is reproduced below, no one has apparently
> taken
> the challenge of putting themselves in the position of the young flight
> attendant interested in learning her occupational dose using the CARI
> program. At least if any of you have done so, you haven't commented on the
>
> experience here. As you will read (reread) below, it is the official
> position
> of the FAA that using CARI is the appropriate thing to do if you are an
> airline crewmember.
>
> In response to Kim Merritt's appeal for appropriate subjects for radiation
>
> detector R&D, let me state with certainty that an in-flight radiation
> detector capable of appropriately deriving dose equivalent values for the
> airliner cosmic radiation environment is a highly desirable project. The
> "Total Dosimeter" concept of Battelle which has been used for
> instrumentation
> supplied to NASA, OSHA, and the Canadian Military College needs to be
> taken
> to the next generation. This TEPC was mentioned in an earlier posting in
> response to my query about current instrument development. Surely we would
>
> all agree that having a single instrument on the flight deck which is
> reset
> to zero prior to departure and reads the accumulated dose upon landing is
> a
> much more rational system than CARI. The problem to date has been the
> difficulty of unfolding the complex secondary spectrum in an airplane and
> appropriately converting the ionization pattern to dose equivalent.
>
> <excerpt from 2572 begins>
> Regarding David's impression that dose monitoring of flight crews is of
> concern to me, it is fair to say that it is the lack of education of this
> worker group that is of far greater concern. I am not really as bothered
> by
> failure to institute dose monitoring (except for pregnant crewmembers) as
> I
> am by the failure of the FAA to require their regulated employer group
> (the
> airlines) to even mention this subject to the flight attendants and
> pilots.
>
> As I said earlier, the advisory circular AC 120-61 on crewmember training
> is
> completely voluntary, and no airline has chosen to follow its advice and
> institute such training I think this is regrettable. As I also said in an
> earlier posting, a dose of 5-6 mSv (500-600 mrem) per year for a twenty or
>
> thirty year career will bring the accumulated lifetime dose to these
> people
> above the "10 rem lifetime" dose that the HPS considers a boundary of
> concern
> for real health risks. As David implied later in his note, failure to
> regulate, even at the level of providing some basic educational material
> for
> this large worker group, is certainly out of whack with respect to the
> elaborate radiation training programs in current practice for workers
> receiving a small fraction of crewmembers doses.
>
> Let me again state unequivocally that the FAA has classified their
> regulated
> constituency, flight crewmembers, as radiation workers. The have advised
> that
> the employers educate them with AC 120-61. They feel that their creation
> of
> the CARI computer program, which is accessible to anyone who is
> interested,
> should serve as the mechanism for dose assessment for any interested
> crewmember. I can state this latter claim to be factual since I am in
> possession of a letter from Thomas E. McSweeny, Associate Administrator
> for
> Regulation and Certification of the FAA, dated 16 July 1999, in which he
> states: "The agency has also made available educational materials and a
> computer program that permits crewmembers to calculate their personal
> radiation exposure. While there is an increased risk for cancer from any
> ionizing radiation exposure, air carrier crewmembers are unlikely to
> exceed
> the recommended exposure limits of the Environmental Protection Agency
> because of cosmic radiation. Only pregnant flight attendants could
> approach
> these limits but the use of exposure calculations combined with
> appropriate
> flight scheduling can effectively mitigate the risk."
>
> At this point it is appropriate to allow you all to download the famous
> CARI
> program in its latest version so that you can see how the agency expects
> the
> worker to perform these "exposure calculations." After you do so, imagine
> that you are a 20-year-old flight attendant who is interested in
> determining
> her dose. See what the FAA expects her to do on her PC. By the way, once
> you
> log on don't forget to look up the appropriate heliocentric potential from
>
> the FAA web site, because the program won't run without it. Go to:
> www.cami.jccbi.gov and give yourself a thrill.
>
> Addressing David's last point, about ALARA, as I said in one of my earlier
>
> postings, no flight crewmember is likely to exceed the 50 mSv (5 rem)
> annual
> dose limit. This is the limit referred to by Mr. McSweeny in the quote
> above.
> As far as I am concerned, receiving these occupational exposures, with
> their
> potential for a lifetime accumulation greater than 100 mSv, is best left
> to
> the crewmembers themselves but such a decision cannot be made without some
>
> understanding of the subject and discussion of the risks. That's where the
>
> current situation is so unfortunate. A large body of workers regularly
> receives these occupational exposures, and they are completely unaware of
> the
> situation and therefore unable to make an informed decision as to the
> acceptability of the risk. Even if all of us agree that the risk is small,
> we
> should also agree that these people have the right to decide for
> themselves
> if it is acceptable.
> <excerpt from 2572 ends>
>
> Rob Barish
> robbarish@aol.com
> ************************************************************************
> 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