RE: civil penalty for medical violation

[Glen.Vickers@ucm.com]

I must agree with Bill, this guy just did not care.  What's the frequency of
the leak test, semi-annual?  Even a greedy person wanting to keep their
instrument making money 24 hrs a day could afford to take the time to do a
leak test.  I wonder if the lack of enforcement is indicative of the
possible fact that he might be the only guy on the island to perform a
service that might benefit others.  Otherwise, this guy is getting off way
to easy.

In commercial nuclear power, a person would probably become unemployed after
the second violation for the same offense.

Sincerely,
Glen Vickers
glen.vickers@ucm.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	William V Lipton [SMTP:liptonw@dteenergy.com]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 20, 2000 11:59 AM
> To:	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject:	Re: civil penalty for medical violation
> 
> Let's not lose sight of the fact that the incident that started this
> thread
> involved a licensee who failed to perform a required source leak test 4
> times!  I
> fail to understand how anyone can consider a simple, quick, and
> inexpensive leak
> test as "meaningless forms and repetitive training...", especially when
> this
> source will be applied to a patient's eye.
> 
> I also fail to understand how this violation can be characterized as
> "human
> error."
> 
> That reminds me of when I worked for a DOE contractor.  I discovered,
> during an
> inspection of an accelerator facility, that the limit switch on a door
> interlock
> had been tampered with so that it would always indicate the door as
> closed.  When
> I reported this to the person in charge, he stated that this was a
> "housekeeping
> problem."
> 
> Give me a break.
> 
> The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> 
> Bill Lipton
> liptonw@dteenergy.com
> 
> 
> OFFTOWY@aol.com wrote:
> 
> > In a message dated 7/20/2000 11:04:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > csmarcus@ucla.edu writes:
> >
> > << The new Part 35, which was supposed to be an improvement over the
> previous
> > mess, merely became a mechanism for the NRC staff to ram in all kinds of
> junk
> > that they wanted to put in to INCREASE the nonsense, cost, and senseless
> > busywork.  They also concocted a bizarre and vicious structure that de
> facto
> > turns human error into about 3 "willful violations of safety
> requirements",
> > setting up medical entities for a vicious onslaught of NRC propaganda.
> >>
> >  AND MUCH MORE.
> >
> > Well, that was refreshing.
> >
> > While I do not share Carol's apparent enmity toward the NRC, I do think
> we
> > have a professional obligation to address this problem.  It seems to me
> that
> > allowing our attention ("our attention" to include that of both
> > licensees/operators and regulators) to be diverted from safety to
> compliance
> > with arbitrary rules without an outcry undermines our ethics and
> credibility.
> >  Every dollar that is spent on meaningless forms and repetitive training
> is
> > one not spent on protecting people from real hazards.  As a result, real
> > people get hurt while we engage in navel-gazing.  The system will never
> be
> > perfect, but I think we have gone way over the edge.
> >
> > So, HPS, EFCOG, NRC, DOE, EPA, AMA, NUMARC, etc., any thoughts?
> >
> > Lew LaGarde
> > offtowy@aol.com
> > ************************************************************************
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html


*********************************************************************************
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Unicom proprietary
information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright 
belonging to the Unicom family of Companies.  This E-mail is intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed.  If
you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation
to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful.  If you have received this E-mail in error, please
notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and
any copy of this E-mail and any printout.  Thank You.
*********************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html