Reference, Questions and Help > Lessons Learned
Drinking Water in radiological areas
Hasher:
I have been asked to benchmark a good program against our practices here at OPG. I have had little success to date identifying a high-flyer organization to approach. This topic doesn't exactly grab headlines.
Are any of you involved or recall a program that has stood out in your mind as having some solid fundamentals and common sense built in?
I was at Farley a decade ago and thought their program was allright, but it has been awhile since I have swung a meter in the good ol' US of A....
Any comments are welcomed.
RDTroja:
I absolutely HATE drinking water in the RCA and I don't think it is a good practice no matter how it is done. Just a bit too old-school I guess.
I have never seen a fool-proof system or even one I was comfortable with. I have reluctantly participated in several 'systems' and I have not seen any measurable uptakes that could be linked to drinking water, but I think that is due more to very low contamination levels more than good controls. Every system is a compromise where radiological safety is impinged upon for the sake of productivity. We teach workers one thing and then prove to them that we really didn't mean it.
I am getting off the soapbox before I start to rant.
wlrun3@aol.com:
Millstone has an effective program in place. Brandon_L_Graber@dom.com, health physicist, is extremely helpful.
Roll Tide:
Down at Browns Ferry, there is a common sense approach at the Drywell (or was a couple of years back). The control point has a cooler of bottled water. If someone needs a drink, they are given one by the rover (with appropriate monitoring).
Marlin:
--- Quote from: RDTroja on Nov 01, 2007, 11:07 ---I absolutely HATE drinking water in the RCA and I don't think it is a good practice no matter how it is done. Just a bit too old-school I guess.
I have never seen a fool-proof system or even one I was comfortable with. I have reluctantly participated in several 'systems' and I have not seen any measurable uptakes that could be linked to drinking water) but I think that is due more to very low contamination levels more than good controls. Every system is a compromise where radilogical safety is impinged upon for the sake of productivity. We teach workers one thing and then prove to them that we really didn't mean it.
I am getting off the soapbox before I start to rant.
--- End quote ---
In the seventies even the Navy had foot operated drinking fountains in contaminated areas (shipyard). Looking at risk and reasonable application of contamination controls is difficult as risk and reasonable application depend to a large extent on to your point of view (i.e. production or protection). If you are an old timer you have probably experienced someone falling out from heat exhuastion while in double PC's or plastics. I think this is a little like the use of respirators ( or non use) where there was an adjustment from no ingestion to adding it to the whole body dose as part of over all risk and reasonable application of radiological control, as wearing a respirator carries risk in itself.
"That's just my opinion I could be wrong" D.M.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version