Re: MIT and NIH Incidents produce NRC Information Notice

[tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov (Ted M. de Castro)]

>>I am skeptical that any licensee can " ensure that they have a 
>>radiation safety program in place that will prevent deliberate 
>>misuse of radioactive materials in all licensee areas."

>>I believe that this is an impossible standard.

>>I would be interested in hearing any dissenting views.

Since I am DOE and NOT NRC I didn't make a comment ....

BUT my reaction was the same as yours!  That is NOT a minor detail but a 
whole new level of protection - equivalent to protection for significant 
amounts of special nuclear material!

Heretofor the standard of protection was to prevent reasonably predictable 
accidents - but it has always been conceded that you cannot protect against 
a deliberate act.

I would worry that this notion could spread!!!  I guess it IS possible - to 
some extent - but it certainly IS very very expensive.

So long as I am commenting .......

There was also a clause in the about surveys and with the word "calibrated" 
appended is such a way as to give it considerable emphasis.

I submit that the usual standard for a contamination survey is to keep 
things below detection and the most typical detector a GM.  I submit that if 
it responds to its check source calibration is irrelevant to detection and 
elimination/control of contamination!



Ted de Castro
tdc@ehssun.lbl.gov
University of California Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Bldg B75B Rm 101
Berkeley, CA 94720
(510) 486-5256
(510) 486-7304 - FAX

The preceeding message was NOT reviewed by my employer and therefore
represents MY OPINION ONLY and does not in any way represent the policies 
or opinions of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory or the U.S. Department of 
Energy.