[Fwd: RE: Industrial Radiography]

[William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>]

I realize that it's a little overwhelming posting this multiple exchange

all at once, but I wanted to be sure to have Steve's permission to post

his response.  I am grateful to Steve for presenting a regulator's point

of view.  My experience, in general, is that IL has one of the best, if

not the best of the Agreement State programs.  Regulators from other

states, as well as the NRC, should benchmark what they do.  



The only part of Steve's response where I'd like to comment is his

remarks on enforcement.  I don't know any more about the incident than

Steve, and this could be a case of a rogue individual in an otherwise

good licensee.  My experience,  however, is that such cases are the

exception, and fines and other enforcement actions for licensees other

than nuclear power plants seem to be short of even a good "slap on the

wrist."  I do not think that it's overly harsh to suspend the company's

license until it demonstrates credible corrective action.  If this

individual is the exception, that shouldn't be hard to demonstrate.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com







"Collins, Steve" wrote:



May I see your reply first?  If permission is granted, it may be

necessary

to add a disclaimer as follows:  "These comments are mine and do not

necessarily represent those of my employer."





-------- Original Message --------

Subject: RE: Industrial Radiography

Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 14:25:28 -0500

From: "Collins, Steve" <Collins@idns.state.il.us>

To: 'William V Lipton' <liptonw@dteenergy.com>



You may print the reply with the disclaimer.  You may also send the

following if you wish.  In reply to your comments below, I offer the

following personal comments that may or may not reflect the views of my

employer:



No, I am not claiming that the regulator's responsibility ends there. 

Also,

I do not believe it is the tip of the iceberg.  Great progress has been

made

in the last two decades reducing the number of overexposures from

industrial

radiography.  No one can answer the question regarding how many

subclinical

overexposures have gone unreported.



Regarding the multitude of questions in your Quality Assurance section: 

I

believe the answer for IL is yes we check almost every one of the items

you

mentioned during our agency inspections of the licensees.  One way the

regulators check the quality of training is as follows:  Industrial

radiographers in IL and many other states are required to demonstrate an

adequate level of knowledge by passing a certification exam administered

by

a radiation regulatory agency or, as recently approved, by the ASNT.  In

general, this exam will not be passed by anyone that does not have the

knowledge to do the radiography process safely.  The exams have been

evaluated for comprehensiveness of the subject matter.  I think the

regulators and professional associations involved believe the test

adequately evaluates whether of not an individual possesses the minimum

level of knowledge required to perform industrial radiography safely. 

The

examinee is not allowed to take the same exam over and over until

passing

the exam.



In response to "What's your guess?", I would not guess.  You did the

audit

so there should be very little need for guessing.  I presume you

recommended

appropriate corrective action.  I know of a few consultants whose

industrial

radiography procedures have been good enough that very few revisions

were

necessary in the last few years.



In IL, the industrial radiography licensee is inspected at approximatly

one

year intervals.  The inspectors are trained to look for the items in

your

list.



Regarding your comments for enforcement:  One consideration used by many

regulators considering enforcement actions is that the penalty should be

more than the "cost of doing business" in a manner that resulted in

violations.  Some use a rule of thumb that the penalty for such should

be

approximately three times the "cost of doing business."



Obviously you know more about this overexposure than I do because you

have

been able to pass judgement and sentence on the licensee.  Your

pronouncements seem to indicate that the company failed in its efforts

to

ensure that the radiographer had all the right equipment, training, and

time

to do the job safely.  In my personal experience, there have been

several

cases where the company did all the right things, but the industrial

radiographer knowingly committed violations anyway.  The independent

operation at temporary jobsites is one reason that many of the states

and

the NRC made the individual industrial radiographers responsible in

addition

to the licensee who was already held responsible.





-----Original Message-----

From: William V Lipton [mailto:liptonw@dteenergy.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 12:08 PM

To: Collins, Steve

Subject: Re: Industrial Radiography



Enacting regulations is the easiest part of an effective regulatory

program.

I hope you're not claiming that a regulator's responsibility ends,

there.

It seems clear to me that this event is just the tip of the iceberg.  

Note

that the radiographer did not report this until he/she had noticeable

injury

and felt compelled to seek treatment.  How many subclinical

overexposures

have gone unreported?



Obviously a regulator cannot continually watch a licensee. To provide a

reasonable assurance that regulations are followed, you must be sure of

at

least two things:



(1) Quality Assurance - What is the quality of the required training? 

Are

the exams thorough and challenging?  Are the exams protected against

being

compromised?  Are exam failures properly remediated, or is the trainee

given

the same exam until he/she  passes?  Are dosimetry records properly

maintained.  Are instruments and electronic dosimeters calibrated and

tested

at the required intervals.  Does the licensee have high quality

procedures

to implement regulatory requirements.  Do the procedures show evidence

that

they're  actually used, e.g., do interviews with randomly selected

radiographers demonstrate that they understand the procedures and know

how

to meet them? (I did an audit where the procedures were several years

old

and still in revision 0.  Either the

licensee was the best procedure writer in the history of civilization,

or

the procedures were ignored.  What's your guess?)  Are incidents and

near

misses properly investigated; eg, if a source sticks, does the licensee

assure that the root cause is found and corrected?   (All of these

concerns

are auditable.  Do you check for this during inspections?)



(2) Enforcement - Do violations receive enough enfocement to give the

licensee the incentive to correct the problem rather than considering

paying

an occasional fine the "cost of doing business."  A licensee involved in

an

incident such as this should have its licensee suspended until it has

demonstrated credible corrective actions.





Bill





-----Original Message-----

From: William V Lipton [mailto:liptonw@dteenergy.com]

Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 10:53 AM

To: Collins, Steve

Subject: Re: Industrial Radiography



I'd like to reply to this on RADSAFE.  May I post this?

Bill



"Collins, Steve" wrote:



I read your comment on the industrial radiography overexposure.  The

article

indicated that the radiographer broke almost every rule that exists for

his/her own protection.  Radiographers must take training covering the

dangers and safety measures, pass written and performance test on the

safety

aspects (at least every five years), and work in pairs at temporary

jobsites.  Additionally, the equipment has indicators for the source

position so that the radiographer can know the source is not in the safe

(shielded) position even if the required survey meter and alarming

dosimeter

fails. Just exactly what additional safety measures do think should be

implemented by the regulators?  Regulations will never stop intentional

wrong actions.

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.