Re[2]: Badging Criteria

[coogen_michael@hq2ccgw.hq.dla.mil]

I believe that the bottom line is that organizations must be able to demonstrate
cost-effectiveness without compromising health or standard health physics 
practices.  We are always buing insurance and paying interest on trouble that 
has not happen.  If we provide the required training and implement applicable 
protocols, business should be as usual.  We tend to look for ZEBRAS in a herd of
LIONS.  When we do, we only add to the complexity of the issue.  We should take 
from the past, place it in front of us and learn to improve on the future.  
Things will happen and when they do, we will have to deal with the issue.  Can't
always be dealing with issues that haven't occurred.  We can plan to reduce the 
incidents from happening, but errors will always be made...mikecoogen


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Badging Criteria
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at hq2ccgw
Date:    8/18/95 8:47 AM


     Guess we could call this topic "as the suit continues."

     I have been involved in power reactor health physics for 20 years now, 
     and prior to that, I was a supervisor of a state radiological health 
     program section. In that job I was involved in assessments of RAM 
     Licensees. Unless the training has gotten a lot better, I will make an 
     assumption that the workers are not getting the levels of training that 
     we are required to provide in the power reactor environment. I'm not 
     saying this to raise a flag .. or start a "we do this and you do this" 
     .. the points I am trying to convey will follow:

     1. For the most part we DO badge workers because:

        a. We're required to by regulatory bodies
        b. We are interested in protecting ourselves from legal actions ..  
           so, badging is a form of insurance (sometimes not enough)
        c. Workers who are confident that they work in a secure work area   
           are more productive and a better atmosphere is evident 

     2. Yes, surveys and other documentation is necessary to demonstrate a  
        proactive program. The surveys should be process indicators to      
        indicate if "something" is happening in the facility, and actions   
        are necessary to mitigate any potential negative trend.

     3. While P-32 is a individual isotope, and monitoring requirements for 
        it are quite different than monitoring Co-60 and other high energy  
        photons that we deal with in the power reactor environment every    
        day, the concerns of the regulators, management and the workers are 
        the same. Are we adequately monitoring the work place and the       
        worker. If we don't meet all 3 objectives, then we have failed.

     4. Dosimetry results provided by a TLD or a film badge are more        
        accurate than any survey result. This has already been discussed by 
        others. A survey only shows data for the area the worker worked in. 
        The dosimeter shows what the exposure the worker was exposed to. To 
        determine the actual Hd, Hs and He the worker is assigned, other    
        actions must be taken. A TLD or film badge is significantly more    
        effective than the "snap shot" of a survey meter, and a lot depends 
        on how, when and by whom the meter was calibrated.

     As I have stated previously, whether or not an individual would be 
     monitored has to do with what the person is doing now .. not based on 
     the results from previous time periods. Lab environments do change. It 
     is not as simple as saying that we have only reported zero doses 
     before, therefore we will only see zero doses in the future.

     Accidents do happen .. incidents do happen. A film badge (or a TLD) is 
     cheap when comparing future costs involved in documenting what 
     happened if NO dosimetry was provided. While wearing a dosimeter does 
     not automatically ensure that litigation will be successfully 
     mitigated, it is far better to have the data than to not have it.

     This is obviously a business decision that each organization must make 
     for itself. How much risk are you willing to assume. How much of a 
     settlement can you afford and still remain a viable operation.

     More opinions .. yours may differ, but all factors need to be assessed 
     and then make a decision for your own facility. This forum is a great 
     place for all sides of an issue to be discussed, therefore, an 
     invaluable forum.

     Sandy Perle
     Supervisor Health Physics


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Regarding the comment against badging for "legal protection," I agree 
with the importance of good surveys and training.  But the central 
issue is that if a worker has a perception that you WON'T provide a 
badge, then you must have something to hide.  My experience has been 
that a program that doesn't build worker trust is doomed, no matter how 
technically proficient it is.  Surveys and training are crucial to 
building this trust, but I also think that providing a badge to a 
nervous worker who asks for one generally does much more good than 
harm; even given the things that can go wrong.

[P.S., I have had several of the scenarios (false positive, "internal 
dose," etc.) arise; I still was happy I had assigned the badge because 
now as I wasn't being viewed by the worker as an adversary, we could 
work out a satisfactory solution.