[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSP



     





______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

Subject: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL

Author:  sandyfl (sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET) at Internet

Date:    5/14/03 7:52 AM





The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $6,000 fine 

against St. Joseph Mercy Health System in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for a 

radiation exposure in excess of NRC limits for a member of the 

public. The excessive radiation exposure involved a family member who 

had prolonged contact with a patient receiving a nuclear medicine 

treatment in July of last year.  

     

A patient at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital received a therapeutic dose of 

radioactive iodine-131 on July 1 of last year. The patient s 

condition subsequently worsened , and she died on July 7. There is no 

indication that her death was associated with the iodine-131 

treatment. 

     

Members of the patient s family who visited during the treatment 

period of July 1 to 7 were in prolonged, close contact with the 

patient.

     

The hospital staff provided shielding around the patient to reduce 

radiation levels and counseled family members on the need to minimize 

their time and proximity to the patient. Family members, who wanted 

to maintain close contact with the patient, disregarded the radiation 

safety instructions provided by the staff. 

     

One family member, who spent the longest period of time in close 

contact with the patient, received a total dose of 3,000 to 15,000 

millirem (A millirem is a standard measure of radiation dose), which 

exceeds the NRC limit of 100 millirem per year. Other members of the 

family may have received significantly lower doses. 

     

The NRC conducted a special inspection to review the circumstances 

and causes regarding exposures to members of the public which 

exceeded the NRC limits, as well as the hospital s corrective 

actions. Although the NRC determined that radiation exposures within 

the reported range would not cause any significant health effects, 

the NRC inspectors found violations of NRC requirements to limit 

radiation doses to members of the public, and promptly identify and 

implement corrective actions.

     

In the letter to the hospital, NRC Region III Regional Administrator 

James Dyer states,  The NRC staff understands that the case involved 

unusual circumstances and that you did not want to appear 

uncompassionate toward the patient or her family.  However, the 

hospital could have taken more proactive steps to determine the 

visitors  doses more accurately and to limit their exposure, he says. 

The letter also notes that the hospital has taken appropriate 

corrective actions to prevent recurrence of violations.

     

The hospital has until June 6 to either pay the fine or to protest 

it. If the fine is protested and subsequently imposed by the NRC 

staff, the company may request a hearing. 

     

The letter notifying St. Joseph Mercy Hospital of the proposed fine 

has been posted to the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading- 

rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/.

     

------------------------------------------------- 

Sandy Perle

Director, Technical

ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Service

ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue

Costa Mesa, CA 92626

     

Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100  Extension 2306 

Fax:(714) 668-3149

     

E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net

E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com

     

Personal Website: http://sandy-travels.com/

ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/

     

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

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/

     

     



 

     =====================================================================

     

     Please note that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be 

     privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure under 

     applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended 

     recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this 

     message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 

     reading, dissemination, distribution, copying, or other use of this 

     communication or any of its attachments is strictly prohibited.  If 

     you have received this communication in error, please notify the 

     sender immediately by replying to this message and deleting this 

     message, any attachments, and all copies and backups from your 

     computer.




     The 'official' NOV can be found at 

     <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/mat

     erials/ea02248.html>

     

     The NRC felt the licensee could have taken implemented more effective 

     dose reduction techniques.  Agreed.  The NRC then provides 4 examples 

     of dose reduction techniques that the licensee could have easily 

     implemented.

     

     '1) explaining to the daughter that staying an arm's length from the 

     patient would significantly reduce the exposure (radiation levels at 

     one meter were approximately one-tenth those at the bedside); (2) 

     using additional shielding, including shielding the catheter bag; (3) 

     minimizing the daughter's time at the bedside; and (4) providing a 

     digital dosimeter for the daughter to self-monitor her exposure, which 

     you had available. Therefore, the NRC has determined that your staff's 

     performance was deficient such that enforcement action is warranted.'

     

     My concern here is that the NRC has now giving guidance in writing for 

     monitoring a member of the public.  Hmm, a hospital's performance is 

     deficient if they have EDs and don't give them to members of the 

     public visiting radioactive patients.

     

     Keep conjecture and 'what ifs' off the docket.  Now it's a 

     referencable deficiency.  The NRC is defining the std of care for 

     ALARA and members of the public.

     

     

     Matt Williamson

     my opinions only

     

     PS: ever here of a nuke overexposing a worker or a member of the 

     public and ONLY getting a $6,000 fine?