[ RadSafe ] Dosimetry Reports

Wed Apr 18 09:24:01 CDT 2012

Sandy,

I agree with you 100%!  The only time I had any problems was when someone
thought it would be "funny" to run another person's badge through a unit.
NOT FUNNY! Took some work to convince SC DHEC that the 60 Rem were the
results of a "joke".

Best Regards,

Hans

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:48 PM, Perle, Sandy <sperle at mirion.com> wrote:

> Hans and Chris,
>
> I would think that an anomalous reading should receive whatever evaluation
> that is required to correct with an appropriate estimated dose, with the
> concurrence of the worker (very important). I find it hard to believe that
> a worker would refuse to support the change in dose, and why would this
> information not be a requirement of employment, in that the employer is
> accountable for maintaining a safe work place and a worker's dose is always
> a potential litigation possibility.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sandy Perle
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 18, 2012, at 9:13 AM, "Hans Wiegert" <hans.wiegert at sealedair.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > you are correct to the extend that the RSO/ARSO have to get the employee
> to
> > "voluntarily" disclose this information. We try to do this by
> > educating badgeholders  through our annual badgeholder training and
> asking
> > "general" questions about any abnormal reading. HR take the approach of
> the
> > three monkeys!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Hans
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Chris Alston <achris1999 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hans
> >>
> >> I see this scenario as a HIPPA problem only if your employee denies
> >> you the right to inform the dosimetry-service vendor of the
> >> circumstances of the exposure.  Then you would not be able to advise
> >> the vendor to adjust his/her records appropriately.  You would have to
> >> write a note to file, and maybe in your quarterly/annual reports,
> >> saying something to the effect that, while you were morally certain
> >> that the reported dose was spurious, you could not further document
> >> your claim.
> >>
> >> Please note, I don't see that one would have to go into great detail,
> >> either in one's on-site records, or in the documentation one offered
> >> the service vendor.  One could simply state that one had established,
> >> after interviews with the employee, and appropriate reviews of their
> >> work environment, that the recorded exposure, or some fraction of it,
> >> was not occupational in origin.  Of course, one would always cc the
> >> employee and his/her maanger.  But, again, these are questions on
> >> which the Offices of Risk Management, or corporate counsels, may have
> >> different takes, at different institutions.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> cja
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: Hans Wiegert <hans.wiegert at sealedair.com>
> >> Date: Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 3:02 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Dosimetry Reports
> >> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
> >> List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> >>
> >>
> >> The bi-monthly OSL dosimetry reports are reviewed by the plant RSO/ARSO
> for
> >> any irregularities and kept on file. Each badgeholder  is made aware
> during
> >> the *annual refresher training* that they have the right at any time to
> see
> >> *their *exposure records. A copy is made and all other personnel data on
> >> the sheet is blanked out. Under NO circumstance would we post the
> exposure
> >> records of individuals for everyone to see!
> >>
> >> The problem we have with HIPAA is the difficulty when investigating
> >> abnormal dosimetry results since there are almost always the result of a
> >> medical procedure.  For example, I had a stress test some time ago with
> >> Tc-99m. Leaving the Cardiologist's office I was registering 18 mR/hr on
> my
> >> Fluke Biomedical 451P - or about 50 times of what we allow on our
> >> equipment!
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> Hans
> >>
> >> Hans J. Wiegert
> >> Sr. Electrical Engineer - ECL Technology
> >> Regional Radiation Coordinator
> >> CRYOVAC, Sealed Air Corporation
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Hans J. Wiegert
> > Sr. Electrical Engineer - ECL Technology
> > Regional Radiation Coordinator
> > CRYOVAC, Sealed Air Corporation
> > 100 Rogers Bridge Rd., Bldg. A
> > Duncan, SC 29334-0464
> > Tel: (864) 433-2641
> > Fax: (864) 433-3200
> >
> > *The work will wait while you show the child the rainbow, but the rainbow
> > won't wait while you do the work!*
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Hans J. Wiegert
Sr. Electrical Engineer - ECL Technology
Regional Radiation Coordinator
CRYOVAC, Sealed Air Corporation
100 Rogers Bridge Rd., Bldg. A
Duncan, SC 29334-0464
Tel: (864) 433-2641
Fax: (864) 433-3200

*The work will wait while you show the child the rainbow, but the rainbow
won't wait while you do the work!*