While I do appreciate Callaway's stance on hardhat PCEs, Cook currently still 
does count a contaminated hardhat as a PCE.  But, we are attempting to navigate 
the waters to sanity based in part on some of the same reasoning Dewey has 
expressed.  Cook has never assigned dose from a hard hat (or ED) PCE, forgiving 
the contamination that actually gets on the paper hardhat cover while working 
inside the CA.

Currently, Cook does take a slightly different twist on hard hat PCEs. We brief 
workers and RP techs that as a worker doffs their PCs at the SOP, removing the 
paper cover from their personal hardhat (response to Palo Verde), they need to 
inform the technician at the SOP if they had to handle their hardhat in the CA. 
If they had to tighten it (using the unprotected knob, set it down (touching 
the underside of the bill), dropped it, etc., they need to let the RP tech at 
the SOP know so he can specifically survey and release the hardhat from the CA, 
as we would any tool or piece of equipment we suspected to be contaminated. If 
they fail to inform us of such issues and then ring up the PCM, it would count 
as a percon.

We take this same stance on contaminated EDs. If they handle the ED and believe 
they could have contaminated it, and we/they don't catch it as they perform a 
hand/foot frisk as they are leaving the SOP area (before passing through a 
PCM), they would be a percon for a contaminated ED as well as the PCM alarmed.

We take the stance that these uncontrolled contaminated items across the SOP 
caused the PCE, and certainly could cause more issues as they traversed through 
the Restricted Area. From this stand point it really is more of an uncontrolled 
contamination issue of course, not a dose-significant, PCE issue.

Now that INPO has expressed the thought that Level 1 PCEs aren't as tragic as 
once thought (1/day/RFO) we'll see some relief from hard hat PCEs(?).

Cook has tried the "Community CA-designated hardhat" route but had too many 
complaints from workers; not wanting to wear someone else's hardhat, they are 
sweaty, they have cooties, some bored workers found the time to decorate them 
with questionable graphics (up to and including a very authentic NRC eagle 
insignia- found by the NRC), and we had to constantly survey and wipe them down 
and most of all (being an ice condenser plant) we didn't have the real estate 
to stage them.

Thanks all,

Dave Raye
RP Operations Gen Supv
Cook Nuclear Plant
269-466-2803 (O)
269-405-6040 (C)
2803 pager


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Thompson, Dewey L
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 9:11 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Powernet: RE: hard hats in contaminated areas

This is an EXTERNAL email. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN 
attachments.
________________________________
Mmmmm....From Callaway.  I'm in the mood to stir up a hornets nest this 
morning. .......Let us see if this can spin off to a new discussion.

To answer Chucks question.  Callaway does NOT consider a contaminated hard hat 
to be a PCE.  This is specifically and clearly stated in our procedure.  Yes, 
we are aware of INPO C.2.d (Page 74) specifying that a contaminated hardhat 
should be a PCE.  We disagree.  The hard hat is a safety device that is several 
inches away from the body.  It is entirely reasonable to expect a worker to 
handle the hard hat while inside the Contaminated Area, or even fall off of the 
head to the floor of a CA.  It would be entirely reasonable to require the 
worker to adjust or re-don the hard hat with contaminated gloves.  Therefore 
counting a contaminated hard hat as a PCE is self-defeating and of zero added 
value.

We have never seen skin or hair contamination from this, so the risk is 
minimal.  Additionally, the hard hat is made of thick plastic (generally), that 
shields any beta dose.  The EPRI contamination response guidelines are focused 
on skin dose,  so again, contamination of a hard hat presents little risk.  
Whether or not our good friends from Atlanta will make an issue of this is for 
the future to tell.

To answer Palo Verde's original question,
Callaway does allow use of personal hard hats in Contaminated Areas, we also 
provide RCA hard hats that stay in the RCA (sometimes they stay in the 
contaminated area).  We have janitors clean and disinfect the hard hats 
following use and restock the "donning bins".  The process is pretty much the 
same both outage and routine operations, except during outages we set up the 
don and doff bins inside the Contaminated Area, the worker enters the turnstile 
at the Containment, and if they need one, grabs a hard hat at the don barrel.  
The hard hat is removed at dress out and placed in the doff barrel.

SO! What say you?  Others that do not count a contaminated hard hat as a PCE, 
what is your motivation and justification?  Or for that matter, those on the 
other side, what is yours?

Most respectfully,  Dewey.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Dewey Thompson
Staff HP
Radiation Protection Department
T 314.225.1061
F 573.676.4484
E [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>


From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Creamer, Charles E
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 2:33 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Powernet: RE: hard hats in contaminated areas

Browns Ferry uses both designated hardhats and personal hardhats.  For some 
areas with higher levels of contamination like the drywells we always use 
designated yellow hard hats.  We have hard hat covers available when using a 
personnel hard hat.

If you use personnel hardhats in c-zones and they get contaminated, how do you 
not count them as a Personnel Contamination?


Chuck Creamer
Charles E. Creamer
Health Physicist
Tennessee Valley Authority
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant
P.O. Box 2000 (Mail Stop NAB-1G-BFN)
Decatur, Al. 35609-2000
Phone: 256-729-2983
Fax:  256-729-3101
Pager: 1-800-323-4853, pin 30-053
mailto:[email protected]

REMEMBER - You don't know what you don't know

This electronic message transmission contains information which may be TVA 
SENSITIVE, TVA RESTRICTED or TVA CONFIDENTIAL. Any misuse or unauthorized 
disclosure can result in both civil and criminal penalties. If you are not the 
intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use 
of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify me immediately by email and delete the 
original message.



From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:15 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Powernet: hard hats in contaminated areas

Palo Verde is looking for the industry standard on hard hats in contaminated 
areas:

Do you have people use their own, or do you provide hard hats for use in CAs?

Do you handle this issue differently during outage vs. online?

Thanks for your time!

Heather Jackson, CHP, RRPT
Sr. Health Physicist
Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant
623-393-6076




--- NOTICE ---

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain confidential, 
privileged or proprietary information.  If you have received it in error, 
please notify the sender immediately and delete the original and any copy or 
printout.  Unintended recipients are prohibited from making any other use of 
this e-mail.  Although we have taken reasonable precautions to ensure no 
viruses are present in this e-mail, we accept no liability for any loss or 
damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments, or for any delay or 
errors or omissions in the contents which result from e-mail transmission.

The information contained in this message may be privileged and/or confidential 
and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the 
intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. Note that any views or opinions presented in this message are 
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Ameren. 
All e-mails are subject to monitoring and archival. Finally, the recipient 
should check this message and any attachments for the presence of viruses. 
Ameren accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by 
this e-mail. If you have received this in error, please notify the sender 
immediately by replying to the message and deleting the material from any 
computer. Ameren Corporation

Reply via email to