Re: SOURCE DESTROYED ACCIDENTALLy AT PARIS AIRPORT

["J. Andrew Tompkins" <jatalbq@BELLSOUTH.NET>]

Group,

In my experience in testing type A packages, crushing modes exist where the 

collapse of a thin walled lead pig becomes an issue. A standard solution to 

this problem is to insert a steel sleeve in between shield and the inner 

container.  This geometry change does not require a complete re-testing of 

the Type A package, since the weight of the sleeve added is very minor 

compared to the weight of the shield.  I would certainly re-do the 

penetration test (49 CFR 173.465 (5) ) with the 6 kg billet dropped from 

one meter to show that the problem was solved.



The manufacturers packaging tech nor the radio-pharmacist will want caps on 

the sleeve.  Screwing on a cap and removing a cap take time. Time is dose. 

The addition of any dose to an operation where hundreds of these shipments 

are made daily is undesirable.  John Grant was correct,  a simple steel 

sleeve will prevent a recurrence of this type of incident. The sleeve will 

add less than 50 cents of cost to the packaging.



Andy Tompkins

LANL - Off-site Source Recovery Project

Woodstock, GA



At 10:00 AM 8/30/02 -0400, you wrote:

>John -

>

>I was not clear in my post, the 5/8" Pb shield is the wall thickness, not

>the diameter.  You would probably need a 2" pipe.  This new configuration

>would have to be tested and certified as a Type A package.  It would also

>add weight and therefore shipping costs.  All these costs would be passed

>on by the shipper to the hospitals then to the insurance companies and then

>to the patients. I ask, for what real benefit?  Do you feel that the

>current A1 and A2 values in 49 CRF 173 and the associated package

>specifications are inadequate to protect the public?  There are thousands

>of these types of shipments across the country each week, has there been

>numerous problems with  these shipments that have gone unnoticed?  The

>original article downplayed the resulting contamination from the truck

>destroying the package.  The French apparently did not get too excited

>about 100 mCi of I-131 dispersed on a jetway.  Should we learn from their

>response or should we tell the French how foolish they were for not

>declaring an emergency, shutting down the airport and sending dozens of

>potentially exposed individuals to the hospital for an immediate exam?

>

>I'm getting off track, whenever anyone ships hazardous materials there is a

>risk.  The DOT regulations and the associated packaging criteria are

>designed to minimize that risk for the public and emergency responders.  I

>personally believe the current requirements are adequate and in some cases

>(i.e. C-14, H-3) too conservative.

>

>Have a good weekend!

>

>Mike Vala

>

>john grant wrote:

>

> > Michael J Vala wrote:

> >

> > > John and Radsafers -

> > >

> > > We always shipped 100 mCi therapeutic fills of I-131 in a poly vial

> > > overpacked into a 5/8" Pb shield.......

> >

> > Sounds like a 1 inch pipe and caps would do the job.  Cost, about $3.

> > Is it government regulations that make $3 worth of pipe fittings

> > prohibitively expensive?

> >

> > John Grant

>

>************************************************************************

>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/



J. Andrew Tompkins

Woodstock, GA



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/