[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Posting and Monitoring Requirements @ DOE Facilities
Obviously, no one will argue that we should be unreasonable.
Monitoring should never be thought of as "litigation insurance." It will,
however, improve your defense against frivolous cases.
I am confused over what you mean by the "worker perception" and "false positive"
issues. I've found that, if anything, monitoring is reassuring to the worker,
and is taken an indication that the employer cares about the worker's safety,
even if dosimetry is not legally required. (Even if they don't provide dose,
they help provide trust.) I've never heard of a confirmed, positive dosimeter
reading that didn't have a valid cause. (I've worked at Fermi 2 for almost 22
years, and have never received any measurable radiation exposure.) In some
cases, a positive dose may occur due to mishandling or processor error.
Apparently invalid readings should be investigated.
Other indications of worker exposure, such as area radiation surveys, and area
TLD's are of limited value in assigning individual dose, if you can't account
for the worker's location, and if you don't have positive controls over worker
entry into restricted areas. It's difficult to set an upper limit on an
unmonitored worker's dose, if you can't be assured that he can't access your
posted areas.
I believe that the evaluation of "official DOE guidance" is a valid function of
Radsafe.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Stanford Dosimetry wrote:
> With the opinionated Radsafe group, even providing a reference to official
> DOE guidance can generate a thread of debate.
>
> I think the point of the DOE guidance is that we should be reasonable.
> While on the one hand over-monitoring can be thought of as providing "cheap
> insurance against litigation", it can also create problems. Problems with
> worker perception as well as the obvious strain on the technical resources
> in addressing insignificant results. It is the false positives that generate
> the lion's share of the calls to the dosimetry department.
>
> As for records, clearly all records which provide a demonstration of a
> worker's monitoring requirements should be retrievable. Area monitoring
> records, design basis radiological conditions, technical basis
> documentation, and the worker job assignments. Any facility needs to be
> able to demonstrate the upper limit of the dose received by any worker
> whether or not they were wearing a personal dosimeter.
>
> Neill Stanford, CHP
> --------------------------------------------------
> Stanford Dosimetry LLC
> www.stanforddosimetry.com
> stanford@stanforddosimetry.com
> 360 293 9334
> 360 770 7778 (cell)
> -------------------------------------------------
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To
unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the
text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,
with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/