Monitoring requirements

["ERIC GOLDIN" <goldinem@songs.sce.com>]

     Sandy Perle noted that 10 CFR 20 permits a licensee to issue a 
     dosimeter to an individual and then report that the individual 
     was not monitored.  I believe many facilities use the terminology 
     in the individual's dose history that "monitoring was not 
     required" and would not state "monitoring was not provided".  The 
     difference is of course that many facilities issue dosimeters to 
     workers who probably will never approach the 500 mrem per year 
     criterion (10% of the occupational limit), but with the dosimeter 
     issued, we have good records of what dose was received, can 
     permit entry into high radiation areas, etc.  I'd never sign a 
     form stating that monitoring was not provided when in fact it 
     was.  I'll also acknowledge that Sandy has forgotten more about 
     dosimetry programs than I'll ever know.
     
     As far as Andy Hull's comments on tracking dose from medical 
     administrations (or solar flares or falling satellites), the 
     licensee is responsible for his/her contribution.  If we ever had 
     (heaven forbid) some sort of radiation protection practice that 
     was required to manage ALL exposure, then maybe we'd (try to) 
     take into account the dose from medicine.  Just think of the 
     enormous bureaucracy we could build to look over those ALARA 
     evaluations.
     
     Just Friday ramblings,
     Eric Goldin
     <goldinem@songs.sce.com>