[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: quarterly vs. monthly TLDs revisited
- To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
- Subject: Re: quarterly vs. monthly TLDs revisited
- From: Robert Jeffrey Gunter <GUNTERRJ@kohis.a1.ornl.gov>
- Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:35:00 -0400 (EDT)
- A1-Type: MAIL
- Alternate-Recipient: prohibited
- Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
- Hop-Count: 2
- Importance: normal
- Mr-Received: by mta KOHIS; Relayed; Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:56:29 -0400
- Mr-Received: by mta KSV; Relayed; Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:56:39 -0400
- Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 07:55:00 -0400 (EDT)
- Priority: normal
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [;92657061904991/2916011@KOHIS]
Dear Wyoming,
We have been using quarterly TLDs here in Oak Ridge for some time. A few
comments on badging individuals: If you have one person who is expected to
receive >100 mrem, and only give them a dosimeter, his/her buddy working at the
next desk will get "Jealous". If you monitor one, you will have a hard time
justifying not monitoring all. One argument for preserving pay for external
dosimetrists is that if there was a hazard requiring me to wear a TLD in the
past, what has been done to eliminate the hazard. This is a cop out, but it
works sometimes. In addition, can you really justify expected exposures from
one building to another? (Tell that to the Judge.)
I agree with the comment regarding 3X the possibility of failure due to false
positives/unusual TLD response. The caveat to that is you will have a harder
time doing a dose estimate for a period of 3 months rather than one. Depending
on the source of ionizing radiation, the TLD will have a varying LLD. This can
be anywhere from 10-40+mr. Much of the LLD is TLD type specific. The real
savings will be in record keeping, unless you reduce staff.
Rob Gunter
gunterrj@ornl.gov
Disclaimer: The comments above were not induced or approved by anyone above me
in the food chain... Bla Bla Bla, Bla Bla, Bla.