RE: To Luxel Users

["Grant Wilton" <gwilton@chem.swri.edu>]

It's a sad commentary on life in the '00s wherein we all have to CYA
everything we do to prevent litigation.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
[mailto:radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of William V Lipton
Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 10:45 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: To Luxel Users


I agree that each facility should determine the  lowest recordable dose.
The basis
for this determination should be documented.

I have a problem, however, with simply telling your dosimetry vendor not to
report
valid readings below x mrem, especially if there is no formal justification.
A lot
of radiation injury litigation is based on very low doses, and it is likely
that
plaintiff's attorney will make a big deal out of ignoring valid readings.
It seems
that the best approach is to have the vendor report all readings, and have a
procedure which specifies what levels are made part of the individual's dose
record
and what levels are investigated.

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com




Mike Lantz wrote:

> Several commenters on this issue have noted that you can choose a higher
value
> than 1 mrem on the Luxel.  So guys!  Don't pick 10 mrem.  It is pretty
> historically-based.  Specify 4, or 5, or 8 mrem.  Wherever your false
positive
> rate is low for your system of storage, transits through the mail, etc.
>
> As a NVLAP Assessor for years, that would always be of interest to me  --
where
> the minimum reportable was set and how it was determined.  Quit picking 10
out of
> history.  Landauer has jumped out there and said 1 mrem is resolvable.  To
me, in
> my opinion, the false positive rate may be too high at some facilities.
That's
> all I'm saying about it.
>
> The minimum reportable at my NPP is much lower than 10 mrem per month or
per
> quarter.  And it is well documented and routinely evaluated with the
capabilities
> we have; e.g., a report of any positive TLD dose with no RCA entries and a
report
> of EPD total vs TLD total.  My previous note on this issue simply
supported a
> client's best effort at evaluating her false positive rate.
>
> Mike Lantz
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html