[ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 368, Issue 1

[Brennan, Mike (DOH)]

Hi, Jack.  

> Why would I jeopardize my RSO certification, or my company's ability
to provide these services, by falsifying records?

I would never imply that you would, but I would also submit that there
are people out there in a lot of fields that not only would, but do.
The reason?  Money.  Your example of the mother-daughter team is an
excellent example (and do you believe they are the only tax preparers in
the US who inflate deductions?)  By the numbers you gave, they broke the
rules to get their clients an average of $50 more in deductions (I'll
bet it was actually a few getting much bigger deductions).  I don't know
if the mother-daughter team benefited from higher fees or more clients,
but either way, the money wasn't that good.  But they did it anyway.    

> In fact, I declined to certify several devices that my predecessor had
certified because the owner or device was non-compliant with
regulations.

So, there was something about the situation that led your predecessor to
do something that you didn't think was right.  I commend you for your
behavior, but I don't think it necessarily argues against my point.  

>The statistical sampling was sufficient for them to identify a weakness
that they can now pursue in detail. I think that's the right approach
(probably because that's also how I do independent assessments). And if
state regulators can review the processes of third-party certifiers (or
laboratory accreditations) to infer the compliance of a larger number of
licensees, that seems highly efficient to me.

This works as long as the state regulatory agency has the resources to
do high quality reviews and the power to enforce decisions.  Indeed,
even if the process is handled entirely within a state agency, they
still need the review process.

> Maybe states will start certifying assessors to perform that function
as a way to cope with budget cuts; they already use professional
engineer certifications for any number of other functions, such as for
approving contingency plans.

I remain unconvinced that contractors are inherently less expensive than
government employees, at least for ongoing functions.  In any event, I
see little reason to believe that without government requirements, with
actual enforcement powers, members of the regulated community wouldn't
see the economic value (short term) of not bothering with all those
annoying tests and inspections.  Especially if the cost of failure would
be borne by someone else.    

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Earley, Jack N
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 10:45 AM
To: 'radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] RadSafe Digest, Vol 368, Issue 1

Mike Brennan wrote:

 
> "Indeed, even within the radiation control program certain classes of
> x-ray installations (e.g. dental x-ray) are
> inspected primarily by private contractors who collect a fee directly
> from the registrant."
> 
> This strikes me as a very bad idea (this is not a criticism aimed at
you
> Clayton, as I assume you didn't create this policy).
> 
> I don't know how the contractors are chosen, or how it is determined
> which contractor inspects which facility, or how the licensees are
made
> to correct discrepancies, but the best system I can see coming out of
> this is much like a state program, but with more cumbersome
> communications and less efficient billing.  Even if all players are
> completely honest, I see the potential for arguments between
contractors
> as to who gets to do the most profitable licensees, and difficulty for
> licensees in inconvenient places to get an inspector to come to them.
> And, of course, any system where an individual regulator is taking
money
> directly from the regulated is a system begging for corruption to
occur
> (when the traffic cop collects the fine on the spot, and gets to keep
> what he collects, the number of traffic stops will likely go up, but
the
> quality will certainly go down.)



Another part of my job as RSO in Texas was to provide third-party
certification of radiation-generating devices, to analyze leak-test
smears, and to provide radiographer training. We were contacted by
various parties who needed these services, just as I contacted other
businesses who provided services that I needed. Why would I jeopardize
my RSO certification, or my company's ability to provide these services,
by falsifying records? In fact, I declined to certify several devices
that my predecessor had certified because the owner or device was
non-compliant with regulations (they were still billed for the
inspection). I've also failed any number of trainees over the years for
not meeting testing standards (and, yes, I've been offered bribes to do
otherwise).


The IRS recently banned for life a mother-daughter team from preparing
tax returns for others. The IRS examined 100 tax returns, of nearly
20,000 that the couple had prepared, and identified almost $1,000,000 in
inflated deductions. The statistical sampling was sufficient for them to
identify a weakness that they can now pursue in detail. I think that's
the right approach (probably because that's also how I do independent
assessments). And if state regulators can review the processes of
third-party certifiers (or laboratory accreditations) to infer the
compliance of a larger number of licensees, that seems highly efficient
to me. Maybe states will start certifying assessors to perform that
function as a way to cope with budget cuts; they already use
professional engineer certifications for any number of other functions,
such as for approving contingency plans.


Jack Earley
Sr. Health Physicist

Don't Say It - WRITE IT!
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
whom it is addressed and may contain proprietary, business-confidential,
and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of
this message, you are hereby notified that any use, review,
retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction, or any action
taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this
in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the
individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the
company.


_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu