Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Pantex 1965 Investigation of Excess Radiation Exposure

    Загружено:

    Shawn Downloader
    13 просмотров49 страниц
    this is a sanitized report that still has a lot of detail if you know what you're reading.

    Оригинальное название

    Pantex 1965 Investigation of excess radiation exposure

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    this is a sanitized report that still has a lot of detail if you know what you're reading.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    13 просмотров49 страниц

    Pantex 1965 Investigation of Excess Radiation Exposure

    Загружено:

    Shawn Downloader
    this is a sanitized report that still has a lot of detail if you know what you're reading.

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 49
    UNCLASSIFIED SIGNATURE REFERRED TO DATE SIGNATURE 1G t tty 2 gates i i; a B i % g K i F i i { pee ee INFORMATION COPY TO ee COPIES OF THIS RECEIPT SHOULD BE PROTECTED AS IS A SECRET - CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT. ROUTING SHEET UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASS f / _ SAC 2eotty 210600 Janes V. Glenn, Cowsittee Chairman April 20, 1965 Investigating Comittee viginal Signed bye H. Jack Blackwell, Area Manager Hesdath Blechrell Anarillo Acea Office TTYPS "B" RADIATION EXPOSURE, JANUARY - MARCH 1965 AATHIB I have carefully revieved the subject report and have the follow- od ing questions for the Comittee: 1, Under Section "B" of Findings on Page 9, it is stated that when the MC 1493 vas first received im June 1964, details were not sufficiently koovn to predict radiation doses to operators. When were radiation dosages pre- dicted and specifically what dosages vere predicted? 2. Tt te stated in the same section that the exposure problem was recognized when a Production Operator came close to exceeding the allowable dose during the third calendar quarter of 1964 and at that time it was decided that the Job in question should be rotated on @ one-week-out-of each-month basis, what criteria was used to arrive at the determination that the job in question should be rotated on this basis? Were other limitations applied im addition to the one week limit per uonth and the aub- sequent two weeks per calendar quarter? In other words, was there a limitation on the number of items 2 man could work on per day, or did the criteria only establish « full day vork each day of the week for the two-week period of exposure? What I need here is an anever that will ‘explain to me why reject units were significant im adding 7 to the exposure received by an operator. 3 \zI é| EI eI eI B R| 5 ;| B 3 3. When were the gamma radiation measurenents as listed in Table II, Page 11, taken? “=< “UNCLASSIFIED James V. Glenn 2+ April 20, 1963 4a On Page 12, 2 statement is made thet in the persounel rotation plan, care bas been taken not to rotate: epera- tors from the cushion operation te the first pour epera- tion. Were written or verbal iastroetions issued end 4£ 0, what vere they? How vas thie care exercised? Who had the responsibility for supervising tT): 10< ble In respect to Item "A" on Page 13, I presuae advised you that he moved his film badge to var! locations on his body so that it was’ in the eleeastt

    Вам также может понравиться