Fermi instituted passive monitoring 3 years ago, after a discussion about the implications. It was argued that we would miss people coming in with contamination, and leaving. The potential result would be that we would have an increased number of PCEs attributed to our plant which were in fact from elsewhere, and that other plants that did not do passive monitoring would find previously unidentified contamination from our plant on or in inprocessing workers. Outside legal advice was that it wasn't a great idea. However, somewhat surprisingly, we have had no identified issues associated with this practice--although of course we have to assume that some potentially identifiable contamination has been missed during inprocessing and outprocessing.
Tom VanderMey, CHP Principal Radiological Engineer DTE Energy, Fermi 2 734-586-1539 [email protected] wrote: ----- To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> From: "BREHM, DAVID M" <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] Date: 02/09/2013 03:30PM Subject: Powernet: Passive Monitoring I’m looking for a quick benchmark on any sites that implemented passive monitoring and have since discontinued the practice. FCS is considering implementing passive monitoring and I’m looking for arguments/considerations on both sides of the issue. Thanks, David Brehm Radiological Engineer Office: 402.533.7582 Radiation Protection – Nuclear Operations Cellular: 402.237.9840 Omaha Public Power District - Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station Pager: 402.561.3310 9610 Power Lane, Blair, NE 68008 [email protected] This e-mail contains Omaha Public Power District's confidential and proprietary information and is for use only by the intended recipient. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, this e-mail is not a contract offer, amendment, or acceptance. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.
