Re: Part 20 revision

[mikeg@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Michael P. Grissom)]

Those who heard the ANI representative speak at the Boston meeting 
(there was a problem of no slides and no facilities for overhead 
viewgraphs--an abominable situation that I may digress on later) 
that Les mentioned also heard him support Sandy's position below.  
That is, you should badge everyone at your facility.  If you 
don't, don't be surprised not to be insured!  The concept of 
reducing badged populations through improved area monitoring (and 
perhaps use of supplemental dosimeters) isn't being very well 
accepted by the legal community, the insurance community, and the 
dose reconstruction community.

Problem is, economics are dictating a reduction anyway.  I hope
this doesn't become a case of "pay me now, or pay me later" but
the signs are ominous!

My own opinion and that of no other.

>It is highly unfortunate, but I have seen too many health physicists 
>recently (power reactor HPs) promulgating reducing the use of TLDs, 
>which have been proven over time, replacing them with electronic 
>dosimetry, which has many limitations, all in the name of cost 
>savings. This will also be the case with reduced training. It's 
>another case of "pay me now or pay me later."
>     
>This is another case of professionals shooting themselves in the foot, 
>and will make all of us look like a bunch of idiots when these cases 
>hit the media.
>     
>     Sandy Perle
>     Supervisor Health Physics
>
>______________________________ Reply Separator 
>
>Even if NRC does not require dosimetry, or training, legal issues 
>will be a driving force for many of these program elements (but 
>only if the HP points this out to management for those in the 
>smaller organizations).  Less Slaback
-----------------------
Michael P. Grissom
mikeg@slac.stanford.edu
Phone:  (415) 926-2346
Fax:    (415) 926-3030