Re[2]: Regulations from scratch

[sandy_perle@email.fpl.com]

     It is very true that a significant number of dosimeter results show 
     ND, or zero dose (if less than reportable criteria), depending on your 
     software. The dosimeter is indicative of "what environment" the 
     dosimeter was exposed to, hopefully with the individual wearing it, 
     simultaneously! The environment one works with today is not always 
     indicative of the future environment, therefore, as Scott sated so 
     well, the dosimeter becomes a tool to indicate "if" something has 
     changed in the work place. I will state categorically that the 
     majority of workers, including power reactor workers, do not meet the 
     regulatory criteria for personnel monitoring.  However, it is much 
     easier to demonstrate to someone, be it the worker, management, 
     regulators or juries, that a monitored zero, or whatever dose is 
     reported, has some foundation. NOT so easy when no monitoring is 
     reported. Surveys are random, and not indicative of what is happening 
     all the time. Only a dosimeter worn all the time while in the work 
     area will suffice. 
     
     I just attended a session on litigation, the law, the regulations and 
     what juries decide. It is not a pretty picture. The dosimeter will NOT 
     keep you from being brought into litigation from workers. What it does 
     provide is documentary evidence of what happened in the facility with 
     respect to radiation dose while the litigant was there. It doesn't 
     hurt to have it.
     
     The lawyer who lectured to us, who has been involved in many radiation 
     litigation suits, focused on what the plaintiff's attorneys are 
     consistently hammering the jury with. This is the phrase that is 
     becoming common place. They call us, the facility, playing with 
     "DOLLARS FOR LIVES" !!  Take heed health physicists, and learn from 
     what the litigants are saying. 
     
     I suggest you all read the following article in the June 1996 Nuclear 
     News, entitled "ALARA: Two court decisions with dramatically different 
     implications" by David Wiedes and Donald Jose.
     
     Sandy Perle
     
     sandy_perle@email.fpl.com
     sandyfl@ix.netcom.com
     
     http://www.netcom.com/~sandyfl/home.html
     

-------------------------------
I think that the point that a lot of people are missing with the badges is 
that it is a great indicator of procedural and radiation practice 
problems at your facility. No one at 99% of the research institutions 
is going to exceed any limit (or even 10% of the limit).  I, like all 
of you, review page after page of minimal exposure reports. But, 
there are those badges that occasionally come back high. What this 
allows us, as health physicist, to do is evaluate these situations 
and make immediate corrections with personnel practices. We evaluate 
and make recommendations to maintain ALARA principles. Isn't this the 
philosophy that we should be considering.  
 
Scott Richards
Radiation Safety Officer
University at Albany, SUNY
518-442-3497
Fax: 518-442-3783
SR996@poppa.fab.albany.edu