Re: Dosimetry

[Jim Abraham <jimabe@lamar.colostate.edu>]

Eric Dennison wrote:
> 
> In the discussion of cost savings from quarterly dosimetry versus monthly,
> the important aspect of processing time seems to have been forgotten.  Jim
> Abraham's example also makes the mistaken assumption that the vendor has to
> give out fresh new badges every month and throw the old ones out.  This may
> be true for film, but TLD's will be re-used.

Well, actually I used the example to try and point out that moving from
quarterly to monthly does not incur a "carrying cost" as suggested by
Sandy.  In actuality, all of our badges are reused as we don't use
film.  I was not making an assumption that badges are used then thrown
away, rather stating that by reducing the re-processing of the same
dosimeters, this should not incur an increase in cost.

> 
> Assume the following (for convenience):
> * 100% of your 1000 TLD's are returned on time every month (improbable);
> * processing takes 1 month (this includes sending them back and
>   having them read, refurbished, sent back to your facility);
> * every TLD can be re-used (no chipping, breaking or aging effects).
> 
> If you're on a monthly program, a quick calculation shows that the vendor
> will have to essentially devote 2000 TLD's to the exclusive use of your
> facility -- one set in use and one set in "processing" at any given time.
> Remember that this assumes 100% timely return.  If some of your people lose
> their badges or turn them in late, the number goes up.

Yes, you are correct in that the number goes up, but the vendor also
imposes a fine which more than covers for the loss of the badge, not to
mention a fine for the delay of the badge.  That loss is recouped and
thus, should not be compared to monthly exchange versus quarterly.
> 
> If you go to quarterly, it's fairly easy to see that 4 groups of 1000
> badges can support 3 facilities with 1000 employees each if the start dates
> for the facilities are offset correctly (one starts in January, April, July
> and October; another starts in Feb, May, Aug and Nov; the third starts in
> Mar, Jun, Sep and Dec).  This puts three sets in use and one set in
> "processing" at any given time.  Again, we're assuming 100% return and 100%
> reusability.  4000 quarterly badges for 3 facilities is only a 33% decrease
> from the 6000 needed to support monthly exchange.
> 
> The cost of "processing" the TLD's your facility uses should go down by 2/3
> because the vendor is only doing your TLD's four times a year instead of
> twelve, but the number of TLD's they have to buy, maintain and keep in
> inventory only goes down by 1/3 at the most.

> 
> Also consider the fact that quarterly TLD's have to be more stable and
> better able to "hold a dose" over a long period of time than monthly ones.
> This probably means that the TLD and supporting materials are more
> expensive than stuff that only has to last a month.

Sorry, but I don't buy this last statement one bit.  Our badges are
reusable and thus have to last much longer than only a month's reading.
These dosimeters are designed to be reused over and over again.  I don't
think they use different materials for a badge that is read quarterly
compared to monthly.  At least I wasn't informed of this by the vendor. 
It wouldn't make fiscal sense for the company either.  They would make
the same badge for quarterly users as monthly and wouldn't waste time
with "who's on first".  A badge that can be used for all frequencies
would make the most sense.  (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong)

 
> 
> I'm not sure where Sandy came up with the "utilization potential" thing,
> but since the total cost to the vendor is a combination of buying,
> maintaining and processing the TLD's, you can't expect a 67% drop in the
> cost just because your exchange frequency dropped that much.


Here's the deal.  As we debate the semantics and the examples of what
should increase in cost and what should decrease in cost I'm looking at
one thing...the fairness in pricing for some of these dosimeters
depending on their frequency.

I ask you, is it fair to increase the unit price by 3x for a badge that
is processed 1/4 the time ??

Remember that in the decrease in frequency processing, essentially
service stays the same, processing procedures stay the same, badge late
fees are incurred (monthly and quarterly), dose reports decrease, and
service decreases.

We all in some respect have to operate within budgets while keeping our
eye on the most important aspects of radiation safety.  I'm all for
offering and paying someone (a company) a FAIR price for the services
rendered.  Where I see a problem regarding services in pricing is NOT
when a vendor increases the unit price of a badge, but when a vendor
increases the price so much that appears to be ONLY to recoup a loss in
revenue and not give the fair price for the service rendered.  I say
that is wrong and should not be a burden to the customer.  Right now, I
am paying for a badge to be stored.  Chances are, you might be too.

-- 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
James P. Abraham
Alt. Radiation Safety Officer
Radiation Control Office - Environmental Health Serv.
Colorado State University - Fort Collins, CO 80523-6021

Phone: 	(970) 491-3928		Fax: 	(970) 491-4804
email: 	jimabe@lamar.colostate.edu
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html