Late charges for unreturned badges

["Karam, Andrew" <Andrew_Karam@URMC.Rochester.edu>]

If I may be excused for over-simplification, it seems to me that we have two
primary viewpoints being expressed.  One group, which seems primarily those
with significant power plant and DOE experience feels that allowing gray
areas is the first step down a slippery slope towards chaos and litigation
while the other, apparently composed of medical and academic types, thinks
that a purely "black and white" approach may create more problems than are
solved, leading us down an equally slippery slope towards researcher
rebellion and chaos.  In my opinion, this is probably more indicative of the
differences between these two work environments than the effectiveness of
these approaches.

In a power plant or at a DOE facility, with the higher emphasis on
radiological controls on an institutional level, ALL workers realize that
the institution will vanish (along with their jobs) without the ability to
use radioactive materials.  In addition, I think that these facilities have
higher potential for high personnel doses.  Therefore, there is a higher
level of awareness among badged personnel combined with a higher
institutional risk.

At a university or hospital, a relatively small percentage of workers are
rad workers and radiation plays a significant, but much smaller part in the
facility's overall operating scheme.  With a few exceptions, the potential
for high dose is small.  Most workers are focused on their work, which is
viewed as doing research or healing people.  Radiation is a tool to be used
in this pursuit, but is viewed as only one tool of many.  Therefore, while
awareness of radiation use may be high, there is a concomitant perception
that risks to the institution and people within it are relatively low.

Without going into a protracted discussion about the "correctness" of these
two approaches, I think that a nuclear power plant approach will do more
harm than good in an academic/medical setting, although it is necessary in a
power plant.  I feel that my experience in the academic, military, and DOE
settings qualifies me to make this comparison and these comments.  

In closing, I would say that there are some areas in which the only standard
to hold is that of absolute compliance.  These areas are those which can
affect health and safety and that affect compliance with the "shall"
portions of regulations.  Basically, we can't hurt people and we can't break
the law.  And we have shut labs down for regulatory or safety violations.
But we can't and won't give the same level of attention to everything that
comes up.  To do so, in my opinion, will cause many more problems than are
solved, including raising my Maalox bill to unacceptable levels (and stress
is a risk factor, too...).  So, on some of these points, I think we are
going to have to agree to disagree, hopefully both realizing that we are
working in very different facilities with different requirements.  

And, with this, I will bow out of this discussion.

Sincerely,

Andy

P. Andrew Karam, CHP
Radiation Safety Officer
University of Rochester
(716) 275-1473 (voice)
(716) 256-0365 (fax)
andrew_karam@urmc.rochester.edu 
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html