Re[2]: Reply to re:Multi-clinic Monitoring

[RONALD GOODWIN <RONALD_GOODWIN@health.ohio.gov>]

     Hospitals II and III - Joint responsibility as they should have been 
     aware of the 4000 and limited exposures accordingly to allow for 
     dosimetry error.
     
     Ronald_goodwin@health.ohio.gov
     
     PS - fines to be imposed later.


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Reply to re:Multi-clinic Monitoring
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet
Date:    4/4/96 4:18 PM


On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 VERNIG.PETER@FORUM.VA.GOV wrote:
     
> I think the original question regarded radiologists.  As Wes Dunn
> pointed out most agreement states have adopted their version of the new 
> part 20 and the practice is close to universal in state regs of treat-
> ing radiation from all sources the same.  However in nonagreement states
> and federal facilities, NRC has no authority over strictly machine produce 
> exposure.  That means the regulation defaults to OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.96 
> which in turn was cribbed from 70s vintage NRC regulations.
     
I does not matter if the state is an agreement state or non-agreement 
state unless the individual is exposed radiation from NRC regulated 
materials in addition to machine sources.  The state radiation control 
agency has jurisdiction over the use of x-ray producing machines. 
     
Wes Dunn's answer is correct.
     
Now for a twist.  If the radiologist receives 4000 mrem at hospital A 
between 1/1 and 11/30; 1000 mrem at hospital 2 between 12/1 and 12/31; 
and 10 mrem at Hospital III between 12/1 and 12/31; who has overexposed 
the worker? 
     
     
Kent Lambert
LAMBERT@hal.hahnemann.edu
     
These are my thoughts.  If they are wrong 
I accidentally pressed the send instead of
the delete key.  My employer makes no claim 
to endorse my opinions.