[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Missing Shipment?
Many thanx for taking the time to respond. Although I generally agree with what
you say, I have concerns about a few items:
"FedEx and the licensee were both authorized to have the
materials. So, as long as either of them had the materials, there was no
concern for public health and safety." - I can't agree with this. The package
could have been in the building lobby or another public area, or in a
nonradiological part of the facility. While there, it could have resulted in
unnecessary exposure. It could also have been opened or damaged by an
unauthorized person.
"The shipment was due on October 31 and was received on November 2, how does
that mean it was lost for a week?" - FedEx claims the package was delivered on
October 26. The licensee claims that they didn't receive it until November 2.
This is within acceptance criteria for "a week."
Although it is true that the NRC prints the licensee notifications virtually
unedited, the agency loses credibility when it prints reports which are so
obviously self-contradictory.
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
dkosloff1 wrote:
> The NRC did not retract the report. The report was retracted by the same
> organization that made the original report. They are the only party that
> could retract the report. A retracted report is still on record. The NRC
> personnel (duty officers) who receive reports and retractions do not
> evaluate whether
> reports or retractions are appropriate or correct. That function is
> accomplished by inspectors and inspection management personnel. The NRC
> duty officers do decide if NRC management needs to be notified immediately
> or if the event can wait to be reviewd by NRC management the following
> morning. For power reactors, the resident inspectors are always notified,
> usually by the licensee prior to the report being made to the duty officer.
>
> The initial report was made in an apparent attempt to comply with CFR
> 20.2201(a)(1)(i). Reading that section of the CFR would tell you why the
> licensee thought that they needed to make the initial report. It probably
> would also make clear why the report could be retracted. The questions you
> asked would be appropriate followup to the initial report. Those questions
> may have been asked and answered during the evaluation of the need to report
> the incident.
>
> One of the main reasons for reporting lost or missing radioactive materials
> is so that they can be found if they are truly lost or have been stolen.
> The concern would be that they could be in the hands of someone who should
> not have them. FedEx and the licensee were both authorized to have the
> materials. So, as long as either of them had the materials, there was no
> concern for public health and safety.
>
> The reports are also used by NRC management to determine the need for
> immediate inspection or other action, either immediate or as a later
> followup. This occurs whether or not the report is retracted. Note that at
> the end of the retraction, there was a brief discussion of communication by
> the licensee with NRC regional personnel.
>
> The shipment was due on October 31 and was received on November 2, how does
> that mean it was lost for a week?
>
> Don Kosloff dkosloff1@msn.com
> 2910 Main St, PERRY OH 44081
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William V Lipton" <liptonw@dteenergy.com>
> To: "Multiple recipients of list" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>
> > The attached, NRC event report creates more questions than it answers:
> >
> > (1) The original report states that Fedex records show that the shipment
> > was delivered on October 26, but the licensee couldn't find it.
> >
> > (2) The retraction states that the shipment was delivered on November 2.
> >
> > Where's the problem? Was it delivered on October 26 and lost by the
> > licensee, or are Fedex's delivery records fubar? In any event, someone
> > lost track of this shipment for a week, so why is the NRC "retracting"
> > this event report?
> >
> > |Other Nuclear Material Event Number: 37479 |
> >
> > | REP ORG: SCHERING-PLOUGH |NOTIFICATION DATE:
> > 11/01/2000|
> > |LICENSEE: SCHERING CORPORATION |NOTIFICATION TIME:
> > 16:08[EST]|
> > | CITY: KENILWORTH REGION: 1 |EVENT DATE:
> > 11/01/2000|
> STATE: NJ |> |LICENSE#: 29-00244-02 |LAST UPDATE DATE:
> > 11/02/2000|
> > |10 CFR SECTION: |BAB1 20.2201(a)(1)(i) LOST/STOLEN LNM>1000X
> >
> > EVENT TEXT
> > MISSING SHIPMENT OF I-125
> |
> The licensee reported that a shipment of I-125 (10 vials, 100 µCi
> > each) that |
> > | was scheduled to arrive via FedEx on 10/31/00 cannot be located. When
> > the |
> > | package was not checked in to the RSO on 10/31/00, the licensee
> > contacted |
> > | the local FedEx office and attempted to locate the package. According
> > to |
> > | FedEx, the package was delivered on 10/26/00. The licensee stated
> > that |
> > | incoming FedEx packages are not invoiced and signed for
> > individually; |
> > | instead, a master list of packages is presented with the delivery
> > (the |
> > | packages are scanned when they are loaded onto the truck). The package
> > has |
> > | not been reported as misdelivered by any other FedEx
> > customers. |
> > |
> > | * * * RETRACTED AT 1515 EST ON 11/2/00 BY FRED JAEGER TO FANGIE JONES
> > | The licensee is retracting the event notification because they
> > received the |
> > | shipment today from FedEx fully intact and complete, just late.
> > They |
> > | discussed this with NRC Region 1 (Eric Reber) who informed John
> > Kinneman. |
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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