Re: RSO qualification

["Mark B. Mattheiss" <denmbm@AM.DAMES.COM>]

Radsafers & Mr. Slaback

I writing this anonomously so as not to slight any individuals specifically.

For the last 5 years I have been obtaining and amending licenses for clients in
all aspects of the laboratory industry - from destructive geotechnical to
environmental analysis.  These facilities are not typical licensed facilities
and neither the NRC or Agreement States seem to know how to properly license
these facilities (i.e there doesn't seem to be an appropriate classification).
That in itself is a minor issue.  The only requirements (that I have run
across) for a person to be titled RSO is an adequate resume which would have to
include high school chemistry and physics, experience in the lab, and a brief
outline of some radiation training.  

I have been told that with such small licensed amounts, 10 microCuries to 100
milliCuries, the former qualifications are sufficient. The license usually
allows for any isotope in any form.  You can draw your own conclusions. 

I also have as part of my contract with these clients a minimum of one year
consultant service to help them in their learning curve and to hopefully
aleviate and potential problems.  After the first year most of the cients have
elected to try it alone and even though I set the table for this decision I am
not comfortable swallowing the entree.

Any time a radioactive materials sign is hung there are people that are afraid
of it - no matter what type of training they have received. This is not all
bad.  What is bad is if the RSO can not explain adequately to those concerned
indivuals the associated hazards.  The RSO, although usually an outstanding
chemist, typically is not familiar enough with radiological materials,
monitoring equipment, or regulations to properly administer the license.

I am aware of many competent RSO's and many overqualified RSO's but yes there
are a few bad apples out there.