Andy Jones, ID/FR, noted that Leeds and Northrup did testing on PDAs and found they did have some effects on distributed controls systems (DCS). This needs to be checked into further.

The question was raised about the inclusion/exclusion of these devices in Radiological Control areas. A consensus that these devices would be no different than notebooks, or any other tools/materials, taken into these areas. For contamination control purposes they would need to be frisked on exit.

The security concerns with these devices at various sites (SRS in particular) was discussed. Due to the lack of experience of the participants, this issue was basically tabled for further investigation. Jeffrey Cravens, OR, stated that, given a little more time, he felt that the security issues with PalmsTM will be resolved.

Briant Charboneau, RL, stated that Richland senior management is purchasing PalmsTM. Several other comments were made regarding the recent purchase/use of these devices. This is evidence that this technology is beginning to gain acceptance in DOE and that others, including members of management, are starting to see the inherent value of PDAs in the workplace.

OPEN DISCUSSION

1. Is It worthwhile to have some sort of working group or committee to help standardize PDA issues for FRs across the complex?

Ray Schwartz, HQ Steering Committee member, stated that if this were needed that a charter would need to be prepared and put to the FR Steering Committee and that Joe Arango would probably need to lead that action. After discussion of this issue, the general consensus reached by the participants was that a lessons learned forum would be more valuable than a working group or committee. And/or a small (two or three person) working group formed in conjunction with a lessons learned forum may be useful.

Putting together a users group web page as the mechanism to share information was suggested. Contacts at the various sites interested in participating in this lessons learned forum should forward their names to Chuck Decker (RL, ID, and OR already volunteered to do this). Linking this users group/lessons learned forum web page to the FR Homepage still needs to be investigated further.

2. Are there certain applications that could be developed centrally and shared complex-wide: like an electronic FR handbook, for example?

Those in attendance agreed that typical reference materials electronically stored in a PDA would be very valuable. It was suggested that if this material was developed, it should be generic in nature so that each site could take it and tailor it to their specific concerns/operations.

Another suggestion concerning reference materials related to developing an interactive tool that would guide the assessor through various questions on a particular subject and eventually point to weaknesses or concerns in the assessed system. The questions could start out at an upper level and based on the answers given it could automatically focus more specific questions on suspect areas, until narrowing in on potential concerns/problems.

3. How much freedom in developing site/individual corrective action tracking systems and other applications is warranted and/or healthy?

Attendees agreed it would be difficult to standardize corrective action tracking systems since each site pretty much has their own systems in place.

OTHER COMMENTS

a. Outside of the breakout session, David Rast, AAO/FR, asked whether the PalmTM and other PDAs were intrinsically safe. This also needs to be checked into further.

b. Clarification on HQ's expectations and/or policies regarding electronic records of daily activities may be needed to challenge the mind set of those who need a handwritten FR log to read as a record of FR daily activities - this was an audience response to a concern stated by Chris White, OH/FR, regarding his supervision's requirement to review handwritten FR logs.