Re: Separate licenses?

[Rich Oesterling <ogr@inel.gov>]

On Wed, 3 May 1995 mckennj@ccsmtp.ccf.org wrote:
> 
>      Radsafers!
>      
>      A researcher has raised the question of why we don't have two separate 
>      licenses, one for the Research Institute and one for the clinical 
>      aspects, with the premise being if one "arm" was bad the other would 
>      still be able to operate. We presently operate under a broad scope 
>      license with about 80 approved users and Part 35 medical uses.
>      
>      I'm curious how other institutions are structured and if there are any 
>      lessons learned which may prove beneficial for us. I'm looking at the 
>      management chain and financial independence issues and have yet to 
>      contact the NRC regarding their input. Any comments/questions welcome. 
>      Thank you.
>      
>      Judy McKenna
>      Director, Radiation Safety
>      Cleveland Clinic Foundation
>      MCKENNJ@CCSMTP.CCF.ORG
>      fax: 216 444-4849
> 

Judy -

Could you expand on your situation?  I have been, and have operated in the 
past, under the assumption that a correctly administered broad scope license 
would allow shutting down "bad" users without affecting the others.  Of 
course, if the "bad" users are in the majority, it seems to me that the 
situation is out of control and the whole place should be shut down.

****************************************************************
*      Rich Oesterling, CHP     ogr@twinpeak.inel.gov          *
*     "What opinions?  I'm not permitted to have any."         *
*    This isn't a signature.  I'm still working on one.        *
****************************************************************