[ RadSafe ] The State of Radiation Safety in the Industrial setting

[parthasarathy k s]

Walt Coffer,

You are perfectly right. Existence of rigid rules alone is not going to enhance the status of radiation safety. Surprise inspections followed by stringent regulatory action alone will be helpful. This will lead to eternal vigilance on the part of the licensee. That is the experience in India. A few decades ago, when industries were coming up over the length and breadth of the country, the Central Government allowed  the fabrication and sale of   a fairly inexpensive gamma radiographic device for use in non destructive testing, A camera used to cost about $120.With another $100  for handling tools and instruments, many individuals started NDT service on a small scale. The camera was nothing more than a glorified container. Panoramic irradiation could be done by screwing a two meter steel rod on to the rigidly fixed source and pushing it ahead. Maximum allowed capacity was less than 10 Ci iridium-192. If the radiographer is well trained and is safety
 conscious, it was safe.

The regulatroy agency which has approved the device was forced to withdraw the approval as the incidents of over exposures and loss of sources increased. The regulator ordered the withdrawal of the devices totally from mid 90s. Such devices were replaced by safer substitutes.

All over the world, the status in the field continues to be less than satisfactory. I found that besides formal training, we have to indoctrinate the radiographers as if it is a ritual. I  knew a few instances in which "well trained" radiographers forget to use the instrument to confirm that the source is in safely shielded position. IN one instance the source remained at the end of its drive cable and not in the shield! Another radiographer found excess radiation level outside the storage area the next day and found out the unsafe condition
I chaired a committee of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to prepare illustrated training material for radiation workers. The experience of the members of the committee was similar


Regards

K.S.Parthasarathy




________________________________
From: Walt Cofer <radcontrol at embarqmail.com>
To: Scott Cargill <scott at vxray.com>
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Tuesday, 15 September, 2009 0:43:29
Subject: [ RadSafe ] The State of Radiation Safety in the Industrial setting

Sorry Scott, but I beg to differ. In my opinion, the state of radiation safety in industrial radiography is far from great.  The industry is grossly under-regulated - not from a regulations perspective (those are quite extensive), but from an oversight perspective.  While part of the problem is that regulators are inadequately trained, the main issue is that the regulators are simply not conducting sufficient unannounced field inspections to ensure compliance.  This lack of oversight results in routine noncompliance and unnecessary exposures to personnel.  Radiographers know that the odds of an unannounced field inspection are slim to none, so they know that they can get away with lax adherence to safety procedures.  Its the equivalent of roads with no speed limit enforcement; drivers will speed when they know they are unlikely to be caught.

The NRC and Agreement States talk a lot about risk-based regulations and enforcement, but they don't walk the walk, because if they did, they would be devoting a great deal more resources to ind. radiography field inspections; instead their focus has been on increased security controls, which do very little to improve worker safety.

As a former radiographer, former state regulator, and as a practicing consultant with multiple radiography clients, trust me when I tell you that many radiographers continue to be inadequately trained and inadequately supervised, both internally and externally, and that unsafe conditions continue to exist.  I'll admit that the situation is much better in the U.S., Canada and Europe, where there is better equipment, better management, and better oversight (and more lawyers - also a factor), so we tend to see the worst accidents occurring in other countries, but no one should be deluded into believing that improved equipment and stricter rules has solved the industry's problems.  Just because the frequency of source disconnects is down doesn't mean that accidents aren't continuing on a regular basis.  If you doubt me, I suggest that you visit the NRC's Event Reports site and see how many reportable events are radiography-related - and those are just the
 ones the regulators find out about; don't think that there aren't plenty more that go unreported.

If it sounds like I'm blaming the regulators, then my message is clear.  Lax regulatory oversight is rewarding the companies that cut corners on safety while punishing the companies that invest in safety; the bad actors gain an economic advantage that can only be curtailed while the playing field is leveled, and that will only happen when the NRC and states make it happen.

And don't get me started on the failure of third party radiographer certification to make a difference; simply put, it hasn't; because the enforcement component is, if not a complete failure, close to it.

Sorry to be such a pessimist, but I call it as I see it. 

Walt Cofer
Radiation Control, Inc.
Tallahassee, FL
Tel:    (850) 668-8559
Cell:   (850) 519-5351
Email: radcontrol at embarqmail.com




----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Cargill <scott at vxray.com>
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 16:29:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [ RadSafe ] The State of Radiation Safety in the Industrial setting

I'm working on a paper to be presented at ASNT's (American Society of
Non-Destructive Testing)  fall conference (Oct 2009) 



I thought I would explore the question of "What is the State of
Radiation Safety" specifically in the U.S. the real question I have is
how are we doing from the Rad Safety view, I would think it could be
said that compared to the 1980s we're doing great, no source disconnects
on a daily basis, very few personnel over exposures, etc. But then again
that would be an assumption on my part. So my question to you all is
what do you think?






This email has been scanned by the MailProtector(r) Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.mailprotector.net/email
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

-- 
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/