Standards of Professional Responsibility - Another Case

["ALDEN N TSCHAECHE" <XAT@inel.gov>]

Nothing happens. No one has filed a complaint with the AAHP against the
CHP. Nothing should happen unless some person files a complaint. No,
unless the CHP enters into a relationship with one of them. Then, if I
were the "other CHP", I would discuss the matter with the CHP and
determine for myself what kind of a relationship we would have. If a
complaint were brought before the AAHP, I think confidntiality by the
AAHPshould still be in place. I would not be willing to take the NRC's
word and certainly wouldn't believe anything I read or heard in the
media. I wouldn't do anything. With respect to Les Slaback's latest note
about the AIHA (I am also a member ofthe AIHA although not a CIH), I
think someone must assist CHPs in keeping their agreement to abide by
the Standards of Professional Responsibility -- if the CHPs agree to
have them at all. Once the agreement is made, there is much benefit in
having a system in place to assist those making the agreement to keep
it.
  Unfortunately, we know that it is human nature not to keep agreements.
If everyone kept all the agreements there are out there (laws,
regulations, unspoken, etc., etc.), we wouldn't need lawyers, prisons,
police, etc., etc.  But, we do need someone to assist us in keeping our
agreements. That's what the AAHP can do if it wishes. I'm disappointed
that the AIHA will not assist its CIHs in this matter. If the AAHP does
it right, there shouldn't be much expence in providing the assistance.

*** Reply to note of 10/09/95 18:44
To: RADSAFE --INELMAIL RADSAFE

Subject: Standards of Professional Responsibility - Another Case
     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