Re: another intentional P-32 misuse incident

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@earthlink.net>]

> Even if the contaminations are self-inflicted, they are still "intentional misuse",
> with significant impacts on the licensees, in terms of both regulatory
> concerns and litigation.

Bill,

I do not disagree with you at all. The comment was directed at looking at all 
angles in the investigation. All intentional contaminations are important to 
address. That is not the issue. The issue has to do with how one prevents 
these occurrences from happening in the first place. As you are well aware, 
there is no way to guarantee that any individual can be restrained or prevented 
from intentionally causing an incident. Be it removing material from a controlled 
and restricted area, from dosing their dosimeter, from by-passing a frisking 
station, etc. The plants I worked at instituted frisker watchers to mitigate INPO 
concerns on contaminations at step off pads. It worked for awhile,, but what 
was the risk, and look at the cost involved!  The bottom line is, unless we are 
going to assign a babysitter to every worker in every facility, we are going to 
have incidents. We can proceduralize as many things to help prevent them. We 
can institute as many surveys to identify them. But the real issue can not be 
eliminated 100%. That is the real bottom line. Where there's a will, there's a 
way.



------------------
Sandy Perle
Technical Director
ICN Dosimetry Division
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Office: (800) 548-5100 x2306 
Fax:    (714) 668-3111
  
sandyfl@earthlink.net
sperle@icnpharm.com

ICN Dosimetry Website:
http://www.dosimetry.com

Personal Website:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/1205

"The object of opening the mind, as of opening 
the mouth, is to close it again on something solid"
              - G. K. Chesterton -

The opinions expressed are solely, absolutely, positively, definitely those of the author, and NOT my employer