1 / 5

John Blaikie Health Physics Program Manager – SC- 31.1

OFFICE OF SCIENCE. Accelerator Safety Workshop SLAC. Access Control and Posting Issue Break-out Summary August 19 , 2010. John Blaikie Health Physics Program Manager – SC- 31.1 Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy. Issue Review. Statement of issue

sawyer-herrera
Download Presentation

John Blaikie Health Physics Program Manager – SC- 31.1

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OFFICE OFSCIENCE Accelerator Safety Workshop SLAC Access Control and Posting Issue Break-out Summary August 19, 2010 John Blaikie Health Physics Program Manager – SC- 31.1 Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy

  2. Issue Review • Statement of issue • Posting requirements during accelerator operations • There is no issue with posting while accelerator is NOT operating • Issue was identified at TJNAF during a 10 CFR 835 Review • Is enclosure considered accessible during accelerator operations • Discussion • Reviewed posting guidance • Reviewed practices at each site • Attempted to determine extent of conditions

  3. Talking Points • GC – How would you post? Post for legitimate allowable entry • Do not want to dilute significance of radiological postings by over-posting • Define accessibility probability when beam is on • What resolution provides the best long-term solution—define end state—best for DOE—what makes sense that is reasonable, credible state for requirement • What is a defensible solution and the path to get there and the best bang for the buck? • Conditional posting would meet requirement for 10CFR835. Could not agree on whether “beam on” light is required at EVERY door. Conditional posting would not work at all facilities

  4. Talking Points • Need to determine if we are NOT in compliance—break-out group was only one-fourth of workshop—need to determine who else would be affected • Possible resolution—amend 835—exemption request • Are we expecting contractors to self-ID and file NTS?

  5. Outcome • TJ issued finding for not posting IAW 10CFR835 • All sites represented in break-out acknowledged they post the same way • GC representative does not agree that the enclosure doors can be legally described as inaccessible—subject to further discussions at HQ • GC has first draft of official guidance—has agreed to delay issuance to allow sites time to review and assess issue. • We know there is DOE issued conflicting guidance • Need to advise management of potential issue • HS & SC to discuss with Enforcement • DOE HQ needs to provide official guidance

More Related