Re[2]: Separate licenses?

[mckennj@ccsmtp.ccf.org]

     In response to Rich's request for further details, suffice it to say 
     that an averted potentially "unpleasant" situation had occurred in one 
     of the research labs, the Radioisotope & Radiation Safety Committee 
     recommended follow-up actions for both the approved user and rad 
     worker involved. But as these situations circulate through the rumor 
     mill the scenario turned into "what if", so as one of the what if 
     scenarios was NRC could close down not just research but clinical uses 
     as well, if it had been reportable and if they the program inadequate 
     with significant management concerns. (Of course I wouldn't see this 
     happening at present!)  As the same management would exist even if 
     separate licenses, I don't see this flying but wanted some idea as to 
     other setups.
     
     Thanks for the input.
     Judy  


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Separate licenses?
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at smtppost
Date:    5/3/95 10:35 AM


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.        * 
****************************************************************