Re: Medical examination for a radiation worker

[steve hand <hand@wam.umd.edu>]

In reply:

    I had a case this year of an undergraduate student who wanted to get a
dosimeter because they would be helping out with a few low activity sealed rod
sources in undergraduate physics labs.  This individual had no prior training,
education or information on radiation and its possible effects other than the
perception that radiation was dangerous and 'someone' told them they needed a
badge.

    I went to see this individual and ended up conducting a training session on
the spot in the hallway of the physics building on their chalkboard.  I spent 30
minutes discussing everything from fundamentals to dose limits, as commesurate
with the need of the student.  This individual will never exceed the dose limit
(if the sources are used properly in the context of the experiments) that requires
training.

    Sometimes it happens this way with these sealed sources, other times more
extensive training is required - such as the case of graduate TAs supervising
undergraduates in life science labs using unsealed sources of radiation.  These
TAs require more extensive training even though they will not exceed the dose
limit requiring training, nor will the students.

    There are no doubt other cases in this realm - I think the key is the wording
in the regulations, " extent of the instructions shall be commensurate with .."
regardless of the 1 mSv dose limit.

Steve Hand
Radiation Safety
University of Maryland

Sandy Perle wrote:

> > Sandy- It's your interpretation of 19.12 as implying that the NRC doesn't
> > believe anyone getting <100 mrem/yr needs any training that I have a problem
> > with.
>
> John,
>
> If you read what I had written, several times previously, you will
> note that I said item (b) of 19.12 states that the licensee needs to
> assess what, if any training, needs to be provided, for those who
> both exceed or are below the threshold. We both are in agreement
> with that. If the licensee deems that no training is required (after
> the assessment), then the NRC will not have a problem with this
> section.
>
> In my opinion, if a facility determines that there is no potential for a
> dose (internal or externals), there are no other potential hazards, or
> risks to others, then it is appropriate for the facility to determine
> that no training, or very minimal training is appropriate. This is the
> regulatory issue. They also need to consider the employee's
> attitudes, fears and other litigation forces when making their
> determination.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sandy Perle
> E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> Personal Website: http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
>
> "The object of opening the mind, as of opening
> the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
>               - G. K. Chesterton -
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html