[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Idiot Proof" Computer Codes
>>> Ed Bradley <edward.w.bradley@cwix.com> 02/22 1:30 PM wrote:>>>
To expand on two previous threads, i.e., idiot proof survey meters and
Certification, may I add that it is my personal opinion that the RESRAD
family of codes are idiot proof computer codes for engineers and scientists
that try to pass themselves off as Health Physicists.
RESRAD codes provide compliance calculations for the free release of soil
and structures and have no place for individuals doing serious radionuclide
biosphere modeling.
Ed Bradley
edward.w.bradley@cwix.com
<<<<<<<<<<
Ed,
I respectfully disagree. My opinion is that the RESRAD codes MAY NOT be idiot proof. My main reason is that the parameter values "built-in" to the codes have not been specifically justified to be used as default values for calculations for the range of sites to which the codes might be applied. Many of the important parameters have very large variability across different locations and different types of sites, and this was not necessarily taken into account when the built-in values were developed. (I use the term "built-in" to distinguish from "default" values that would be specifically justified for application to a certain codition or certain set of conditions/sites.)
It seems to me that in order to truly have an idiot-proof code for compliance calculations, the code should perform screening-level calculations, which are specifically designed to be conservative for all the cases for which the code will be used. I believe that this is not the case for the RESRAD codes, and so the analyst must be able to apply judgment to determine if the code and all of the built-in parameter values were representative of the site/situation in question.
I admit that this is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine. Just because an answer comes from a computer code, does not mean it is an appropriate answer. I believe that these types of calculations with these codes require judgment on the part of the analyst. (I do note that there are some screening calculation methods developed by the NCRP that may be closer to idiot proof.)
Note that this is only my opinion. I recognize that this is an issue of current concern with the NRC staff related to implementation of the license termination (decommissioning) rule of 10CFR20, Subpart E.
Duane.
Duane W. Schmidt, CHP
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Division of Waste Management
Uranium Recovery Branch
mailto: dws2@nrc.gov
!
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html