Re: <None>

[gu9@ornl.gov (Robert J. Gunter)]

There is a lot of discussion about reducing dosimetry costs.  Here 
are a few things to think about.

I don't think you can make the statement "we have never seen a high 
enough dose to warrant monitoring, therefor we will remove dosimetry
 from our workforce", unless there is no potential for exposure to a 
dose of significance ("potential" of course makes this a relative statement 
which would have to be backed up).  

The question should be what controls do you have on your sources to
 prevent anyone from handling a source of sufficient activity to warrant
 dosimetry.  If the controls are tight (strict source accountability, Rad Work
Permits, controlled areas), dosimetry can be issued only when necessary.  
If control is minimal, you will have to monitor more people.

Can you say within reason that XXX individuals and no one else have 
handled sources of sufficient activity to warrant monitoring? 

For extremity dosimetry, the level of dose that is of concern is high enough
 that (using TLD) you may be able to extend the term of issue to reduce the
 frequency of monitoring.  This would mean that your technical basis would
 have to reflect the new policy and be technically feasible.  

Now you have to weigh the cost of creating a new technical basis, additional
 source control, proving all this to your regulators, and etc., against the
cost 
of continuing the current practice.

If dosimetry is hard to get, how many of your users will jump through the
 hoops to get it?? 

How many temporary dosimeters will you have to issue as opposed to a
routine issuance.  If an individual handles sources requiring monitoring more
than X times per year it would not be worthwhile to remove their routine 
dosimeter.

Of course there is the "protection factor" which I am not considering.

For legal advice (liability).. call a lawyer.

Dollars are dollars, but think about how much money is spent upgrading
 software from Version 2.1 to 2.1.1 to 2.1.1a ....

I must admit that my group provides dosimetry to a large population. As the 
monitored population increases so does my job security.

Of course you will not know the impact if you don't try.

Yours,

Rob

The above opinion was not endorsed or edited by my employer or the DOE.
Robert J. Gunter
Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
P.O. Box 2008 
Bldg: 105MIT Mail Stop 6494
Oak Ridge, TN 37871-6494
PH:  (615) 576-6317
FAX: (615) 576-8593
email: gunterrj@ornl.gov