[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Potential Overexposure
The attached, NRC "Preliminary Notification" regarding a potential
overexposure brings to mind a previous string on the ANI requirement for
secondary dosimetry. With 20/20 hindsight (Is there any other kind?),
secondary dosimetry would have obviated this situation. If this is a
real overexposure, an alarming dosimeter would probably have warned the
worker of the hi rad fields in time to prevent it. If this is some
artifact, then the secondary dosimetry would give the licensee a more
credible basis for writing it off.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
PRELIMINARY NOTIFICATION OF EVENT OR UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE PNO-I-00-015
This preliminary notification constitutes EARLY notice of events of
POSSIBLE safety or public interest significance. The
information is as initially received without verification or evaluation,
and is basically all that is known by Region I staff in King of
Prussia, Pennsylvania on this date.
Facility
Licensee
Emergency Classification
Yale University
Notification of
Unusual Event
Yale University
Alert
135 College Street
Site Area
Emergency
New Haven, Connecticut
General Emergency
Dockets: 03000582 License No: 06-00183-03
X
Not Applicable
Subject: Potential Personnel Overexposure
A technician in the University's Environmental Services group was
performing an inventory of waste/sources in a lead-lined
"cave" (source storage vault) over the course of three or four days,
when the technician noticed on the last day that a vial
containing approximately 1 millicurie of Na-22 (accelerator produced)
was on its side, partially outside of its shield. The
individual expressed concern about his exposure, therefore, the
university requested an expedited processing of the individual's
film badge on June 14, 2000. The University received the badge report on
June 15, 2000, which indicated an exposure of
6930 millirem to the whole body. University radiation safety staff
interviewed the individual immediately and performed a dose
reconstruction where they calculated a maximum dose of 150 millirem to
the whole body. University radiation safety staff also
performed bioassay measurements of the technician and all co-workers,
with negative results. The film badges of the
technician's co-workers were sent in for expedited processing. The
University's investigation has noted that the individual
typically receives monthly doses no greater than 10 mrem and the
individual had inadvertently taken the dosimetry badge to
Texas in May, where it may have been left in the sun. The University
asked their dosimetry processor to review possible
environmental effects on the film and was notified on June 19, 2000 by
the processor that the exposure was not due to heat or
light.
Region I and NMSS contacted the Assistant RSO at the University on June
16, 2000 and were informed that: 1) radiation
work by all other employees in the individual's department has stopped
until their badge results are received; and 2) the
potentially exposed individual may have worked with byproduct material
during the exposure period, as well as with
accelerator-produced material. The licensee's investigation has not
determined the source of exposure so far. The State of
Connecticut was notified. Region I plans to conduct an immediate
inspection in conjunction with the State of Connecticut.
This information is current as of 4:00 p.m. on June 19, 2000.
Region I is prepared to respond to inquiries by the media.
Contact:
Mohamed Shanbaky
Penny
Lanzisera
(610)337-5209
(610)337-5169
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html