Re: Standards of Professional Responsibility - Another Case

[jgbarnes@ix.netcom.com (JAMES BARNES)]

My response:
>     
>     Under the proposed Standards and Guidelines, what happens?  
>     
      As I understand it, if no complaint is filed, then nothing would occur.

>     What, if anything, should happen?

      I would think that the RSO(CHP) should automatically be subject to a review
      and hearing.  I would assume that the Chair of the Standards and Ethics    
      Committee would (should?) have plenipotentiary powers to act in cases where
      regulatory or legal actions have been taken by a regulatory body and
      violations of Standards have clearly occurred based upon the public record
      compiled during the regulatory process.  I would expect that a
      hearing would still be held, but the bringing of the action would not
      depend upon a formal complaint from an individual member.
>     
>     Do other CHPs who learn of the story via the news media have any 
>     responsibilities in this matter?

      A moral obligation to report the situation to Standards and Ethics exists.
      I'm not convinced a legal obligation is present.  The situation is
      complicated by the fact that the other CHPs would be reporting second hand
      (hearsay).  Does "I read in the paper that. . . ." serve as enough grounds
      for filing a complaint?  And if you would report such a situation, and it
      was later shown to be groundless, are you in "libel and slander" legal
      space?

>     How does the requirement to maintain confidentiality apply here?  The 
>     case has already been tried in the news media.

      The S&E proceedings would be held in confidence.  The facts of the case
      would not be publicly dicussed by S&E participants.  The fact that they
      have already been reported in the media doesn't really enter in.
>     
>     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?

      As the matter is on public record, and as the situation is egregious, I     
      would probably report it.

>     PLEASE THROW IN YOUR OWN QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, AND OPINIONS
>     
>     
>     George J. Vargo
>     gj_vargo@pnl.gov
>
>============================================================
The QUESTION:

>     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.
>