The PCE plot thickens... Larry, I agree. Our station procedure does not address the counting and reporting of PCEs, only the first two items you addressed. What Cindy brought up concerns me a little though. At first glance, it appears we are not consistent in how we (industry) are interpreting the EPRI Guide and as a result counting/reporting PCEs. Page 2-1 paragraph 1 of the EPRI Guide leads you to believe you use the inside of the garment reading to determine the level (Mark's quote below). However, this is not reiterated on page 3-1 or 3-2 where the counting and reporting criteria are outlined. The definitions below provided by Cindy do not indicate an inside vs.... outside reading. Does that default to the outside reading since it does not specify? The RP technicians I work with tend to believe they moonlight as lawyers, so they read these documents as such. Help with clarity is much appreciated. Anne Shatara Radiation Protection | Supervisor - Health Physics Diablo Canyon Power Plant | Avila Beach CA 805.545.4768 | [email protected]
________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Haynes, Larry E Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Powernet: PCE Question >From my perspective there are at least three considerations included in the >EPRI PCE Guidelines. 1) tracking of contamination on personnel as it relates >to the overall station contamination control program i.e. where, how & why 2) >risk (skin dose) as reflected in Level 1,2,3 PCEs and 3) industry consistency >(benchmarking) in counting and reporting PCEs. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thomas J Vandermey Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:49 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Powernet: PCE Question OK I'm glad we all agree but that doesn't mean that our PCE classifications bear any relationship to importance or risk significance. Why couldn't we have Level 1 begin at 1000 ccpm on shoes, 500 ccpm on external clothing, 200 ccpm on skin, and 100 ccpm on the face? Wouldn't that make more sense? Tom VanderMey, CHP Principal Radiological Engineer DTE Energy, Fermi 2 734-586-1539 [email protected] wrote: ----- To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> From: "Williams, Dane R. (INPO)" <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] Date: 10/19/2010 08:17AM Subject: RE: Powernet: PCE Question I’m glad you’re clearing this up with the industry. Another point to make, in case it comes up, is that the industry agreed with these definitions - so wasn’t just INPO coming up with the definitions. Dane R. Williams, CHP Organizational Effectiveness Team Leader Institute of Nuclear Power Operations [email protected] 770.644.8882 From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of cindy connelly Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Powernet: PCE Question INPO position: It is still a level 1 PCE if inside of the clothing is less than level 1 criteria but outside meets level 1. This is very important to provide consisitency in reporting/trending of the additional indicators. These are the definitions from the Data Element Manual. Total Contaminated Personnel 8.4.1 This is a unit level data element. Data is entered for each unit at a station. The number of occurrences in each month in which an individual was contaminated (≥100 cpm above background) on skin, clothing or modesty garments. This is a count of the number of logged occurrences (Action Level 1, 2, and 3) in accordance with EPRI guidance. Refueling Outage Contaminated Personnel 8.4.2 This is a unit level data element. Data is entered for each unit at a station. The number of occurrences during a refueling outage in which an individual was contaminated (≥100 cpm above background) on skin, clothing or modesty garments. This is a count of the number of logged occurrences (Action Level 1, 2, and 3) in accordance with EPRI guidance. In months in which no refueling outage has occurred the value field should be left blank with a status of "Final". If you have any questions, please give us a call. 770-644-8839. Thank you, Cindy ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, October 17, 2010 11:48:17 AM Subject: Powernet: PCE Question Friends, Do you look for >100 ncpm on the inside of clothing before classifying a clothing PCE as Level 1? Been recommended to me that EPRI guidance (excerpted below) is interpreted as suggesting that approach at some benchmark plants. The determination of the EPRI PCE level classification should be based on a frisker reading of the skin or the highest reading on clothing. For skin contaminations, a frisker reading should be the maximum reading with the frisker held approximately ½ inch away from the affected skin. For clothing, the frisker reading should be on the inside of the clothing with the detector faced away from the skin. EPRI “Guidelines for Industry Response to Personnel Contaminations Rev 1” thank you, Mark Lewis Health Physics Division Manager San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (D1N) Work: (949) 368-1140 [email protected]
