[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Leak Testing
>>Recently UCSB was inspected by the California DHS Rad. Health Branch, and
as
>>usual a few violations were issued. One of them was regarding the
frequency
>>of sealed source leak testing, more specifically that it was (and I quote)
>>"not (exactly) timely." Both instances cited were sources that were
>>tested 13 or 14 days after the six-month anniversary of the last leak
>>test.
>>The inspector stated that within 10 days was timely, but 14 was not.
>>This is not written in the California code of regulations anywhere that I
>>can
>>find (California being an agreement state), and I was wondering if anyone
>>knows of similar problems or their resolution. It seems to me that as
>>things
>>are it is totally up to the individual inspector to decide what is
>>reasonable
>>and that the next inspector could be even stricter! Comments or
>>suggestions?
To interject a bit of maybe total irrelevance ........
Measuration is a well developed and well defined discipline.
Once if its provision is to specify the PRESUMED error of a specification
when not specifically provided.
That default "error" specification is ALWAYS 1/2 the least significant digit
in the units stated.
THUS - a 6 month interval is by default 6 month +/- 1/2 month and 180 days
+/- 1/2 day and 6.0 month +/- about a day and a half.
So for this discussion in question - since California State Law says the
testing interval is not to exceed 6 months - the "grace period" _SHOULD_
(and can legitimately be assumed to) be 15 days.
IF legislators wrote GOOD LAW - they would be cognisant of this and such
would be the case.
But ............
- References:
- Leak Testing
- From: "Roman E. Fail, (RF)" <EHS5FAIL@UCSBVM.ucsb.edu>