St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial: Mallinckrodt

[GlennACarlson@aol.com]

Posted: Monday, June 26, 2000 | 4:01 a.m. 
http://www.postnet.com/postnet/stories.nsf/ByDocID/FD2F6A1BA27DE3B38625690A002
C9F56?OpenDocument

Radiation burn
MALLINCKRODT

WHEN a Mallinckrodt employee receives what amounts to 40 years worth of 
acceptable radiation exposure in a single dose, it's called an accident. When 
a company investigation uncovers 33 other instances of worker overexposure 
during the past five years, it becomes a pattern.

But when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports that the company has 
inadequate controls for handling radioactive material -- and that it lacks 
the ability to find or fix safety problems -- there are systematic flaws.

Since the release of an NRC inspection report last week, Mallinckrodt 
officials have been quick to point out the steps they've taken to improve 
safety at their Maryland Heights plant. The facility manager has been placed 
on indefinite leave, and an independent consultant has been retained for a 
complete review of the plant and its safety systems. "We take these issues 
very seriously," said Bradley Fercho, president of Mallinckrodt's imaging 
division. Mr. Fercho also maintains that Mallinckrodt has no more serious 
worker accidents than other similar firms.

But it will take more than good intentions and outside consultants to remedy 
the serious, systemic problems detailed by the NRC. One example is the 
widespread practice of handling radiation sources without using safety 
shields.

Mallinckrodt supervisors ignored signs of the problem for years -- until 
federal inspectors arrived at the plant. "The NRC was very surprised that 
anyone would see as an acceptable practice handling unshielded (radiation) 
sources," an official said last week. Inspectors specifically mentioned a 
lack of employee training in radiation safety as a problem at Mallinckrodt. 
It was worse for temporary employees, who were not given access to written 
descriptions of work procedures.

That sometimes casual attitude toward radiation safety indicates serious 
problems with the corporate culture. Worker safety was apparently not the 
primary value at Mallinckrodt, despite the company's protestations to the 
contrary.

Although company officials indicate they intend to do better in the future, 
the NRC report documents a failure to learn from prior mistakes and a 
reluctance to change work procedures in the past.

In the next several months, the NRC will consider possible penalties against 
Mallinckrodt. As it does, the question it must ask is whether the promises 
this time outweigh the serious, system-wide problems of the recent past.
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html