Standards of Professional Responsibility - Another Case

[gj_vargo@ccmail.pnl.gov]

     Another Thorny Issue...
     
     NOTE - ANY RESEMBLANCE TO PERSONS LIVING OR DECEASED IS PURELY
     COINCIDENTAL!  THIS IS A FICTIONAL CASE INTENDED TO STIMULATE
     DISCUSSION.

     During the inspection of an NRC-licensed radiography operation, an 
     inspector discovers numerous instances of falsified records (leak 
     tests, training, surveys, instrument calibrations, etc.)  It is also
     determined that a number of persons not trained and certified as 
     radiographers (in accordance with the the licensee's program, license 
     conditions, and 10 CFR 34) have been rotuinely permitted to use
     licensed material. Through further interviews and statements made 
     during an Enforcement Conference, it is determined that the licensee's 
     Radiation Safety Officer, in this case a CHP, also made material false 
     statements to the inspector concerning the integrity of the licensee's 
     records.
     
     The NRC, in accordance with it's enforcement policy, issues a Notice 
     of Violation and Order Imposing Civil Penalty against the licensee and 
     an Order Prohibiting Involvement in Licensed Activities against the 
     Radiation Safety Officer that bars employment in NRC-licensed 
     activities for a period of three years (note - this order has no legal 
     effect on employment in activities not regulated by the NRC, such as 
     those regulated by a state program, or the DOE).
     
     The NRC, in accordance with its public affairs policy, issues a press 
     release describing the events in addition to naming the licensee, the 
     Radiation Safety Officer, and the penalties imposed.  Local and 
     regional news media have carried the story because of interest in 
     radiation issues.  The inspection report and records of the 
     enforcement action are available in the NRC's Public Document Room.  
     Several CHPs in the region become aware of the event through the news 
     media coverage and electronic bulletin boards that carry NRC press 
     releases, however, none of them has any first-hand involvement with 
     the case (i.e., they have no RELATIONSHIP to the parties in this 
     matter.)
     
     While the actions by the CHP cited in the Notice of Violation clearly 
     violate a number of the Standards for Professional Responsibility by 
     Certified Health Physicists, no single individual has filed a 
     complaint as outlined in the Guidelines for the AAHP Executive 
     Committee and the AAHP Professional Standards and Ethics Committee for 
     Evaluation of Charges Alleging Violation of the Standards of 
     Professional Responsibility for Certified Health Physicists.

     QUESTIONS:
     
     Under the proposed Standards and Guidelines, what happens?  
     
     What, if anything, should happen?
     
     Do other CHPs who learn of the story via the news media have any 
     responsibilities in this matter?
     
     How does the requirement to maintain confidentiality apply here?  The 
     case has already been tried in the news media.
     
     If you were one of the CHPs in the region who learned of this event 
     through the news media, or electronic bulletin board of NRC press 
     releases, what would YOU do?
     
     PLEASE THROW IN YOUR OWN QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, AND OPINIONS
     
     
     George J. Vargo
     gj_vargo@pnl.gov