Re: To Luxel Users

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

Although CYA is a necessary part of our lives; taking the time to  formalize,
document, and justify  important practices generally improves the quality of
your program.  If you can't, with minimal effort, describe and justify your
practices in writing, how can you expect the user to understand and accept them?

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

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy

Grant Wilton wrote:

> 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

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