Re: Monitoring criteria (another can of worms)

[BFLOOD@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Bob Flood)]

I sympathize with your budget-cutting position. It is a thoroughly
unpleasant experience.

I recommend that you look through your own data. If your processing results
are like most, you have been using personnel dosimeters to monitor natural
background for years, where the dosimetry system reports zero occupational
dose. You should be able to show that certain jobs, laboratory staff
positions, perhaps even whole laboratories historically receive zero dose,
and this information provides a basis for discontinuing badging.

I also concur with another recommendation: document your basis very well,
and do so in advance of making the changes. If litigation arises latyer,
better you can show an organized, planned set changes based on real data
rather than looking like the basis was backfitted after a non-negitiable
budget cut.

You should ask your university's legal staff for their opinion about
dosimetry. Is the university obliged to measure the dose of a person it
allows into its controlled areas and risk receiving dose from its radiation?
What defense would the universtity have if a radiation injury claim is filed
by someone not badged, and is the cost of badging so much cheaper than
potential losses and legal costs (winning can be expensive!) that it should
be continued? These are not easy issues.



>I may be opening another can of worms, but here goes:
>
>You may tell from my post last Friday that I am being asked to review (once
>more) my tiny budget for (yet more) possible cuts. Film badges are the biggest
>single expense I have, so I am looking for guidelines to justify honing the
>program down a bit. A year ago I started off a lengthy discussion on TLD vs.
>film and the question of "to badge or not to badge" on this network. Today I am
>wondering:
>
Bob Flood
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.
(415) 926-3793
bflood@slac.stanford.edu