Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)

Author Topic: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)  (Read 31115 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline HousePuke

  • ALARA Coordinator / Rad Engineer
  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 414
  • Gender: Male
  • If you don't like it here, go somewhere else!
Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« on: Sep 24, 2008, 10:17 »
A couple of questions for those of you in the commercial Nuke power plant world:  What counts as a PCE at your site?  Do you allow workers to changes scrubs, clean their shoes or any other such actions before attempting clear the monitors?  Do you count contaminations on modesties?

Just curious because it appears we are not all playing from the same sheet of music if you know what I mean.

TIA for your responses.
Irish diplomacy is the ability to tell a man to go to hell such that he looks forward to making the trip.

Inspite of inflation, a penny is still a fair price for most peoples thoughts.

Offline retired nuke

  • Family Man
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1508
  • Total likes: 33
  • Karma: 3536
  • Gender: Male
  • No longer a nuke
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #1 on: Sep 24, 2008, 11:18 »
A couple of questions for those of you in the commercial Nuke power plant world:  What counts as a PCE at your site?  Do you allow workers to changes scrubs, clean their shoes or any other such actions before attempting clear the monitors?  Do you count contaminations on modesties?

Just curious because it appears we are not all playing from the same sheet of music if you know what I mean.

TIA for your responses.
Modesties count as PCEs.
Workers should not be changing modesties prior to monitoring. After a PCM alarm, check with a frisker to determine contamination level and location. This is the point where it is determined if it is a PCE. >100 ccpm w/hp-210 probe (frisker) is a documented (counts towards goals) PCE.
This is all per INPO guidelines, and what most RP procedures specify.

What sheet of music is your site playing??
Remember who you love. Remember what is sacred. Remember what is true.
Remember that you will die, and that this day is a gift. Remember how you wish to live, may the blessing of the Lord be with you

Offline HousePuke

  • ALARA Coordinator / Rad Engineer
  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 406
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 414
  • Gender: Male
  • If you don't like it here, go somewhere else!
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #2 on: Sep 24, 2008, 12:22 »
Pretty much what you describe.  I've been getting some feedback from our contractors and shared services folks that some places are "managing" their indicator to meet the goal.
Irish diplomacy is the ability to tell a man to go to hell such that he looks forward to making the trip.

Inspite of inflation, a penny is still a fair price for most peoples thoughts.

Offline Laundry Man

Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #3 on: Sep 24, 2008, 01:34 »
Pretty much what you describe.  I've been getting some feedback from our contractors and shared services folks that some places are "managing" their indicator to meet the goal.

I can't believe that would ever happen ;).  The EXELON sites I worked all seemed to do things a little different even though all had the same procedure.
LM

workinman

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #4 on: Sep 24, 2008, 01:56 »
Oh what a beautiful world it would be if we all played by the same rules!  Then you wouldn't end up with some ridiculously low number (that becomes the industry standard) from those plant that manage their indicator!

Offline retired nuke

  • Family Man
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1508
  • Total likes: 33
  • Karma: 3536
  • Gender: Male
  • No longer a nuke
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #5 on: Sep 24, 2008, 02:15 »
Pretty much what you describe.  I've been getting some feedback from our contractors and shared services folks that some places are "managing" their indicator to meet the goal.

Many contracts have deliverables about personal contaminations - if they go over, they lose out on bonuses. Same as management.....
It's nice to have goals, but we should at least follow our own rules to reach them.
Remember who you love. Remember what is sacred. Remember what is true.
Remember that you will die, and that this day is a gift. Remember how you wish to live, may the blessing of the Lord be with you

Melrose

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #6 on: Sep 24, 2008, 02:35 »
This horse has been beaten so bad, I'm gonna bring the smell back.  I hate the idea that modesties count in the PCE tally.

If you let a worker in the area wearing modesty, booties and gloves, THEN, the modesty clothing is acting as protective clothing, 'PCs'.
Let the guy change his modesty clothing, he removes his yellows...... 

If you let the workers climb into the overhead, handle contaminated items and work in CAs, all in modesties, then beat him down when he comes out crapped up, it doesn't send a good message.   Throw the disposables away, or wear PCs where PCs should be worn.

Simply, stop beating yourself to death, do what it takes to contain the contam, get back to basics regarding GTE and radworker practices.


Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Total likes: 5
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #7 on: Sep 24, 2008, 04:57 »
Yes, this is the typical nuke methodology.  Make the tail wag the dog.

The concept is simple, but we geniuses can't help but to make it as complicated as possible.

The only reason in the world why you would need to track PCE's is to learn how and why they occur so that you can prevent them.  PERIOD.

Do we do that?  No.  We count them, track them, analyze them, and do anything except use this information to help us improve our methods.

If you are counting PCE's as though the number itself was indicative of anything, and hammering people or companies based on this alone, you might as well be that guy with OCD who counts parking meters or pickets in a fence.  Instead of worrying about how to get that number down, you need to look at what the number is telling you.

PCE's can tell you lots of things.  They can indicate that your survey frequency is inadequate, or your maintenance program, or your protective clothing requirements, or maybe that your workers aren''t getting the right training, ...etc.
Should you count PCE's on modesty garments?  Well, is there something they can tell you that you would not otherwise know?  I would want to know as much as possible, but putting too much emphasis on the number of PCE's leads us to try to ignore some of them.
 
So, it really doesn't matter if your plant and the next one are "playing by the same rules".  What matters is that you get a grip on the cause of the events.  If you do that, the numbers will take care of themselves.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline nowhereman

Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #8 on: Sep 24, 2008, 06:40 »
With some plants "managing their indicators", is really Orwellian doublespeak for blaming the  Exit RCT for the contamination events until the numbers start to dwindle....if we only had telepathic powers to help us figure out what the house supervision "really"  wants
« Last Edit: Sep 24, 2008, 06:44 by nowhereman »

Offline Old HP

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Total likes: 3
  • Karma: 275
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #9 on: Sep 24, 2008, 07:57 »
Hey, we just had two workers come out of containment and they were doing a safety (?) walkdown and we need a complete survey of everywhere in containment. 
 
Has anyone ever heard this line before?

Offline retired nuke

  • Family Man
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1508
  • Total likes: 33
  • Karma: 3536
  • Gender: Male
  • No longer a nuke
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #10 on: Sep 24, 2008, 09:05 »
I believe that the reasoning from INPO is that the modesty clothing was considered personal clothing at most sites - you could wear it home.

Troy is right - we should be using PCEs as a learning / training tool, not as a stick. But as usual, once the bosses latch on to something they can count....that's as far as they go.

I gave up explaining the better way when my head started to bleed on the brick wall, now I just try to follow the latest wind, and hope it isn't stinky.... ;)
Remember who you love. Remember what is sacred. Remember what is true.
Remember that you will die, and that this day is a gift. Remember how you wish to live, may the blessing of the Lord be with you

Offline dinutt

  • RPT (HP)
  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 305
  • Gender: Female
  • I love NukeWorker!
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #11 on: Sep 25, 2008, 12:22 »
Pretty much what Housedad says is what the the norm is at our site  INPO  guidelines and our RP procedures which drives us into a flow chart the how to for action levels and notifications etc.it works .need bigger print to read(haha) :D

Offline snowman

Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #12 on: Sep 25, 2008, 10:36 »
Do you allow workers to changes scrubs, clean their shoes or any other such actions before attempting clear the monitors?  Do you count contaminations on modesties?

In outside type work we prefer workers to clean their shoes before stepping into monitors. Boot scubbers are sometimes stationed near the PCM's on muddy days. The detectors get trashed if they don't.

Any article of clothing is "supposed" to be treated as an event. Unless it's an HP (just kidding).

Offline cairnit

Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #13 on: Sep 25, 2008, 07:39 »
Some of the plants that I have worked at in the past considered a PCE >100ccpm on your personal clothing or skin.......they didn't really count it as a PCE if it was on company furnished modesty garments.

Some of these plants you were not allowed to wear scrubs in and out of the plant, they furnished their own scrubs in dress-out and some of these plants also recognized scrubs as PC's and it was on the RWP whether you needed log sleeve scrubs when entering the area.

One plant had the scrubs issued to us in the morning and turned them in in the afternoon, if we got them contaminated we received a chit slip from RP and turned that in so that the scrubs were accounted for. At the end of the outage, if you had any scrubs under your name not counted as turned in then the cost of the scrubs would be deducted from your final check. They kept the accounting by scanning your badge and bar coding the various styles/sizes of scrub tops and bottoms so it was all electronic.

Since the scrubs are PC's then anything on them were not counted as a PCE and as long as you passed the PCM with them on you could wear them all night at the plant but they didn't get worn off-site.

withroaj

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #14 on: Sep 25, 2008, 08:23 »
When you talk about "goals," does that mean that low-level contamination on people doesn't instantly result in a call to the head honcho?  As an ELT I just can't imagine that approach to nukeeler work (it sounds like it might function too smoothly).

EDIT:  Changed to acknowledge that no person is low-level.  We are all worth 1.0 human beings.
« Last Edit: Sep 25, 2008, 10:11 by withroaj »

vikingfan

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #15 on: Sep 25, 2008, 09:52 »
When you talk about "goals," does that mean that low-level personnel contamination doesn't instantly result in a call to headquarters?  As an ELT I just can't imagine that approach to nukeeler work (it sounds like it might function too smoothly).

what do you mean by  low level personnel huh ??? and also a call to headquarters ? ok back on track i have seen some plants only count pce's if its skin contamination, while others count it if its on your mod's undergarments... thank goodness for disposable orex scrubs :)

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Total likes: 5
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #16 on: Sep 25, 2008, 10:42 »
When you talk about "goals," does that mean that low-level contamination on people doesn't instantly result in a call to the head honcho?  As an ELT I just can't imagine that approach to nukeeler work (it sounds like it might function too smoothly).

EDIT:  Changed to acknowledge that no person is low-level.  We are all worth 1.0 human beings.

Oh grasshopper, we have so much to teach you.  Smoothly?  I laugh out loud at such silliness.

There are throngs and hordes of people in yeller suits who all break for coffee and lunch at about the same time.  They don't get monitored for contamination in the same building where they were working.  (even though they are "supposed" to frisk their hands and feet as soon as they leave the contaminated area.)

Not everyone who comes out contaminated was working in a posted contamination area.

Who is this "head honcho" of whom you speak?  The site VP, plant manager, shift manager, shift outage manager, maintenance manager, rad protection manager, project manager, ... et al. don't have the time to drop everything when some pipefitter gets some crud on his boot because he lost his balance for a second on the step-off-pad.  Maybe the Rad Pro supervisor for that person's work area is called.  But that is just to alert him to survey the guys walk path to see what he tracked or what he stepped in.  Even that won't happen unless it is a relatively high level of counts, or a trend emerges.  If that happens, they will go out and look for the source of contamination and isolate it.

Unless there is a lot of contamination, or a hot particle (you are gonna LOVE those) or a trend among one work group, or something like that, the contamination will be removed, documented, and filed away until someone reviews the log later.  There won't be a lot of follow-up investigation.  It will be chalked up to sloppy worker practice or stray contamination in a clean area or basically considered an isolated incident.
« Last Edit: Sep 25, 2008, 10:44 by BeerCourt »
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

withroaj

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #17 on: Sep 26, 2008, 07:01 »
By the head honcho I mean the way it happens in NNPP work.  You know, even fluctuations that may cross 100 counts requiring a written statement all the way to Washington?  Seems like big kids' plants run pretty smoothly if low levels get resolved locally.

Offline retired nuke

  • Family Man
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1508
  • Total likes: 33
  • Karma: 3536
  • Gender: Male
  • No longer a nuke
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #18 on: Sep 26, 2008, 07:04 »
When you talk about "goals," does that mean that low-level contamination on people doesn't instantly result in a call to the head honcho?  As an ELT I just can't imagine that approach to nukeeler work (it sounds like it might function too smoothly).

EDIT:  Changed to acknowledge that no person is low-level.  We are all worth 1.0 human beings.

That's what is so fun about a Navy nuke's first outage.... ;)
People get conaminated, and the job doesn't stop.
1000 cpm personal contamination isn't a freak out point. Just contaminated.
When you are using a dose rate meter on people, it's time to ask how long they may have been contaminated - skin dose is important.
You count smears on a dose rate meter after the frisker maxes out...and everyone understands the level.
There is not much response to a spill, unless it's really nasty (like dose rate from it) - just post and call the deconners.
The first time you arrive late when a crew is opening a system, and they went ahead and cleaned the internals with a flap wheel. Now everybody gets to shower together... :-\

At our plant, the RP supv is notified of PCE, and the word gets up to the "war room" but unless we are above the curve on the goal graph, it doesn't get much attention. Usually, when things are going bad, it's usually a shift or two before attention gets on it, and by then we are so far behind that draconian knee jerking comes out of the war room.... :(
Remember who you love. Remember what is sacred. Remember what is true.
Remember that you will die, and that this day is a gift. Remember how you wish to live, may the blessing of the Lord be with you

Marvin

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #19 on: Sep 26, 2008, 08:44 »
Personnel contamination's shouldn't even be documented unless they reach a certain skin exposure value (value is debatable) or specific alpha emitting isotopes are present.

The actual risk to human health associated with the vast majority of personnel contamination events is negligible, yet the paper gets in the way, doesn't it?  The typical response is grossly disproportionate to the risk.  We were all inculcated into a nuclear world run amuck with disproportionate responses.

Anyone that has had an opportunity to experience the post-Chernobyl world anyplace in the vicinity of Chernobyl has a totally different attitude about contamination.  Is their attitude the "right" attitude?  By no means.  The truth is someplace in the middle.  Our disproportionate response speaks to a world where additional layers of defense are not also recognized as additional layers of complexity.  Disproportionate responses should be sacrificed on the altar of simplicity, particularly in this instance.

Offline Laundry Man

Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #20 on: Sep 26, 2008, 09:10 »
Yes they need to be documented!  Litigation is the reason why.  Ten years down the road XYZ worker gets cancer and he/she worked an outage at ABC Nuclear Plant and he/she remembers setting of that monitor thing.  The nice RP cleaned me up and off he/she went.  Do you think any jury in the world would not take into account that no documentation exists?  That is the reality of life.  Ever spent weeks trying to find records 20 years old to provide to the company lawyer defending against such case?  Not always easy.
LM

Motown homey

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #21 on: Sep 26, 2008, 09:28 »
Personnel contamination's shouldn't even be documented unless they reach a certain skin exposure value (value is debatable) or specific alpha emitting isotopes are present.

The actual risk to human health associated with the vast majority of personnel contamination events is negligible, yet the paper gets in the way, doesn't it?  The typical response is grossly disproportionate to the risk.  We were all inculcated into a nuclear world run amuck with disproportionate responses.

Anyone that has had an opportunity to experience the post-Chernobyl world anyplace in the vicinity of Chernobyl has a totally different attitude about contamination.  Is their attitude the "right" attitude?  By no means.  The truth is someplace in the middle.  Our disproportionate response speaks to a world where additional layers of defense are not also recognized as additional layers of complexity.  Disproportionate responses should be sacrificed on the altar of simplicity, particularly in this instance.

I couldn't agree more - in '95 when we were all switching to the "risk-based" limits of Dose Equivalence, there was a move afoot that looked at total risk from all sources.  It was then that we started allowing entries into Heat Stress areas in modesties and shoecovers and gloves because the risk from heat stress was greater than the risk from low level contamination.  We were looking for a way to quantify the risk from contamination so that it could be easily compared to all other risks.  

I recommended using the model of internal contamination - 2 DAC-hrs/day was where we were required to start documenting internal dose; so any skin contamination that created a skin dose equalling or exceeding 5 mrem would require tracking.  Depending on your isotopic mix, that could be as little as 70,000 dpm-hr or as much as 180,000 dpm-hr (based on VARSKIN studies I read at the time).  

This recommendation was never given full consideration, but we were looser than we are now (we had the ability to "plan contaminations" under conditions that created other industrial hazards or higher external doses). We ditched that philosophy in one fell swoop in 2003.  I asked our RPM why, he said "INPO" and he acted as if there had never been any attempt to balance the risk with the consequences.  So here we are.

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Total likes: 5
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #22 on: Sep 26, 2008, 10:27 »
There's your answer.
INPO = an organization made up of nuclear utility employees who are so good at their jobs the company saw fit to let them go give advice to their competitors for two years.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5758
  • Total likes: 186
  • Karma: 2641
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #23 on: Sep 26, 2008, 08:20 »
There's your answer.
INPO = an organization made up of nuclear utility employees who are so good at their jobs the company saw fit to let them go give advice to their competitors for two years.

aye luv it when da truth hits da phan!  itz bin awile since eye wuz atta plant... eyem reeding dat  yinz are back two da auld weighs of deeling with contaminashun?  dat risk assissment is out da win dough?  back two 100cpm/hp probe starts da problim? 

don't make me come bak inn two da plants..... ;)
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

HAIRDUDE

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #24 on: Sep 27, 2008, 08:07 »
I'm only going to expound on one part of this argument since the majority of it falls into the realm of doing business as per any given plant's interpretation of INPO's "guidelines".

Changing scrubs before monitoring ... Bad idea. Why? Because if Joe Six-Pack has been wandering around the can with a hot partical on his scrubs for two hours, and he removes said scrubs prior to monitoring, we have not been allowed to track/assign the associated skin dose for that exposure. I can remember a decon tech back in the 80's who came walking out of containment after removing his PC's and all the friskers started pegging out. He had a 3R/hr hot partical on the back of his scrubs. Now ... Granted that is an extrem case, but had the partical been of a much lower activity, he would have gone under the proverbial radar and changed his scrubs before getting t the PCM by today's way of doing business.

The rest aside, the whole scrub changing before monitoring thing just doesn't sit right with me.

Marvin

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #25 on: Sep 28, 2008, 06:44 »
My perspective on radiological risk has certainly shifted since back when.  Yeah, I think 3 R/hr particle should probably be documented (after removal of course).  I wonder how long that particle would have to be on the skin before it started to turn red? (not the particle, the skin)

I just spent 3 weeks in the middle east with a radiation biologist who had been studying the effects of Chernobyl on little furry critters.  Now, her risk perspective was really skewed in the what we could consider "wrong" direction.  She was looking at biological effects, not personnel contamination paperwork.  She did get me to thinking about the flawed basis behind the linear threshold dose response curve, which we all know drives the current dose limits.

Here's a question for you?  How many times have you personally seen people in the nuke plants get hurt?  Ok, next question.  How many times did that have anything to do with radiation exposure?  Now, with that in mind, don't you think we've all went a little overboard in protecting people from radiation?  I know, job security is good, but someday our kids and grandkids will look back on all the stuff we did with ALARA and wonder what the heck we were thinking.

The nuclear world started out thinking that radiation was just a good tool to look at bones with.  Then it was discovered that it could hurt you and the pendulum swung to the right.  So, when will it be time for it to swing back to center?  Events have a way of recalibrating the pendulum.  Some of you probably remember when asbestos was safe too.  I'm of the opinion that lawsuits shouldn't drive the pendulum.  Unfortunately, in America, that has became the reality.

Come to think of it, the pendulum probably started to swing back a little bit in the early 90's when we stopped sucking rubber every time we found contamination.  I wonder when we will take that next step and stop generating generous quantities of paperwork every time somebody gets crapped up.  So long as we can keep the people driving the boat a little confused about what real risk is we all should be able to keep our jobs.  We can expect a recalibration when the next major event occurs.  Course we'll have a lot of stuff to frisk then and the lawyers will have lots of suing to do to.

The future's so bright -- now where are my shades?

Offline G-reg

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 1261
  • Gender: Male
  • C'mere and chum some of this...
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #26 on: Sep 28, 2008, 11:51 »
Marvin,

Wonderful argument!

But unfortunately, it has an Achilles' heel: a public population which is generally uneducated regarding radiological risk.  And as long as "public population" in the previous sentence can also be spoken as "constituent voter population" and/or "juror population", then things are going to remain pretty much just as they are now.  There may be some tweaking here-and-there, but I don't foresee a wholesale industry shift to true risk-based radiological protection during my career...

Just my thoughts,
 - Greg
"But that's just my opinion - I could be wrong."
  -  Dennis Miller

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Total likes: 5
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #27 on: Sep 29, 2008, 12:53 »
Fear and ignorance are not a sound foundation on which to build a program that protects the employees and the public.  Fear and ignorance are not a good reason to do anything, now that I think about it.  So, why do we govern ourselves in a way that spends too much time and money on one small hazard while practically ignoring the immediate hazards?

How many RP's at your plant?  How many safety technicians?  You probably have a hundred or more friskers, but only two WBGT meters.

Honest to Gawd!  I do less paperwork for a broken arm than I ever did for a 10 mRad SDE on the same arm.  Really!  Consider the possibility that the same person who got the 10 mRad on his stupid elbow is going outside into the sunlight to smoke a Marlboro as soon as you get him to clear the PCM.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline G-reg

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 1261
  • Gender: Male
  • C'mere and chum some of this...
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #28 on: Sep 29, 2008, 10:49 »
Troy,

The short and honest answer:

In this country, fear and ignorance are not a sound foundation for anything except litigation.  And therein lies the answer to many questions of the universe, such as why we have "Caution-Hot" warnings on cups of coffee.

Essentially, if a given ambulance-chaser can whip up a good enough sob story to sway 12 people (who each lack formal radiation protection training), then the price tag on the resultant verdict is gonna cut DEEP.  From whence, springs the corporate fear of public fear and ignorance.  And out of that corporate fear is borne their desire to CYA - indeed, in our litigious society, even their need to CYA.

*That* is the real 'origin of the species' regarding several of the protection(?) practices currently in place.  Is it an ideal system? or an ideal way to model a system?  Hell, no.  But to employ anything different in today's society is to risk getting yourself sued out of corporate existence.

So getting back a little closer to the central topic of this particular thread, I think that there really should be at least some documentation (even if it's just a single line or two in a log entry) whenever there's a PCE, even on modesties.  Otherwise, Worker X goes home after shift and complains to his/her spouse about the whole rigamaroll getting out of the RCA because they found contamination on his/her ____ (fill in the blank).  Worker X's spouse just happens to be the cousin of some lawyer/reporter/congressional aide/etc., and next thing you know Somebody (with a capital "S") is querying the company about the event - and the company doesn't have any record at all of what took place.  The only evidence the company would have in that case comes down to an eye-witness recollection of the HP Tech who happened to process nine hundred thousand other people outta the RCA during that shift.  (Not exactly a legal defense posture that the shareholders would be happy with.)

So all rambling aside, risk-based radiological protection has been overshadowed considerably by risk-based legal protection.

It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world...   :(
"But that's just my opinion - I could be wrong."
  -  Dennis Miller

Offline HydroDave63

Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #29 on: Sep 29, 2008, 11:02 »
Troy,

The short and honest answer:

In this country, fear and ignorance are not a sound foundation for anything except litigation.  And therein lies the answer to many questions of the universe, such as why we have "Caution-Hot" warnings on cups of coffee.

Essentially, if a given ambulance-chaser can whip up a good enough sob story to sway 12 people (who each lack formal radiation protection training), then the price tag on the resultant verdict is gonna cut DEEP.  

At least $3.5 million at one plant....

Marvin

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #30 on: Sep 29, 2008, 11:55 »
Very well put G-reg.  Unfortunate but true.  Risk based radiological protection has taken a backseat to the litigators.  I'm still waiting on that recalibration event.  Maybe in our lifetime, maybe not.


wlrun3@aol.com

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #31 on: Sep 30, 2008, 12:10 »
Very well put G-reg.  Unfortunate but true.  Risk based radiological protection has taken a backseat to the litigators.  I'm still waiting on that recalibration event.  Maybe in our lifetime, maybe not.



   ...BIER 7 was very straight forward in its reimphasis of LNT and the ALARA concept...

   ...can we view nuisance personnel contaminations as collective precursors to a program deficiency that will, if not corrected, generate large, expensive, and dangerous contamination events...





« Last Edit: Sep 30, 2008, 12:11 by wlrun3 »

Marvin

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #32 on: Sep 30, 2008, 06:46 »
The collective precursor approach is certainly a valid argument, which pushes the pendulum towards protection.  But even this argument can be easily disputed when looking at it from a pure risk-based approach.

Are the resources used to identify, track, and recover from personnel contamination events commensurate with the risks?  Who even knows where we are on the protection vs. production scale when it comes to this specific topic?  Even the specific spot on the scale is subjective and ambiguous.

We are trying to measure the absence of a negative consequence which will be debatable long after we are gone.  We will all be employable as long as the debate continues, so from that perspective, we should continue to document everything down to the nat's behind and crank up the volume on the frisker.  Maybe even install little mini-amp's and Bose speakers to make sure the unfortunate production oriented victim is traumatized to the point of "coming over to the other side".  We might even consider changing frisker speaker output to play the theme from "jaws" rather than that annoying clicking sound.   ;D

wlrun3@aol.com

  • Guest
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #33 on: Sep 30, 2008, 07:52 »
The collective precursor approach is certainly a valid argument, which pushes the pendulum towards protection.  But even this argument can be easily disputed when looking at it from a pure risk-based approach.

Are the resources used to identify, track, and recover from personnel contamination events commensurate with the risks?  Who even knows where we are on the protection vs. production scale when it comes to this specific topic?  Even the specific spot on the scale is subjective and ambiguous.
   
We are trying to measure the absence of a negative consequence which will be debatable long after we are gone.  We will all be employable as long as the debate continues, so from that perspective, we should continue to document everything down to the nat's behind and crank up the volume on the frisker.  Maybe even install little mini-amp's and Bose speakers to make sure the unfortunate production oriented victim is traumatized to the point of "coming over to the other side".  We might even consider changing frisker speaker output to play the theme from "jaws" rather than that annoying clicking sound.   ;D

   ...we can, in simple language, explain that an intake of 100k dpm equates to several mR...

   ... that most of the contaminant is excreted rapidly...

   ... that one worker in twenty five hundred per rem received will develop a fatal cancer due to their exposure...

   ...that, comparatively, five hundred of twenty five hundred members of the general public will develop a fatal cancer due to their environment...

   ...we can develop a contagious sense of pride in our industry and relay a message of respect and gratitude to the worker who is allowing us to exist in our supporting role...

   ...we can, collectively and optimistically, instill in the worker a well informed and common sense second nature in respect to contamination...

   ...we can explain, unspectacularily, the consequences of the loss of control of large ammounts of contamination... 

   ...your post was well written...thankyou







   

   
« Last Edit: Sep 30, 2008, 08:01 by wlrun3 »

Offline Dave Warren

  • Radiological Engineer
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 2911
  • Total likes: 18
  • Karma: 1571
  • Gender: Male
  • Cubs vs. White Sox in the Series this year.
Re: Personnel Contamination Events (PCE's)
« Reply #34 on: Jun 30, 2011, 03:19 »
I am doing a Root Cause Analysis regarding excessive PCE's for the next 5 weeks.
I will let you know what the real truth is....;)

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?