Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITAL INMICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC

["Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>]

On 15 May 2003 at 15:51, Steve Jones wrote:



> It is unfortunate that NRC inspectors are 

> apparently not given the same latitude to use their judgement 

> when making such decisions.  This was a case that clearly 

> should have been handled differently and with more 

> compassion by the NRC, in my opinion.



Let's just say that we'll agree to disagree as to how the NRC should have handled 

this. Coming from 4 years as a state regulator and 22 years as a power reactor 

physicist, I was brought up to follow regulations with "verbatim compliance." The 

regulations and technical specifications we had to work by were very precise. They 

were written with much thought and reasoning. It was not for us to determine 

whether or not we would simply ignore a regulation based on our own interpretation 

or what seemed to be very good logic. The regulations are what they are, until they 

are revised or eliminated.



Let me also agree that the dose to the relative was not putting the individual at risk. 

In fact, they could have received much more radiation, and still not have been 

harmed. But that isn't the issue, and, the NRC and any other regulatory agency, 

would have handled this situation the same way. There are regulations. Part 35 

covers this specifically, and more liberally when it comes to public dose limits. If the 

family were to be treated as a member of the general public, Part 20, they would 

have exceeded the 0.100 rem annual dose limit, and not the 0.500 rem limit.



Your premise is that the NRC could have used some discretion in this case. I submit 

that they did in fact use a lot of discretion, only fining the licensee the $6,000 

proposed fine. I have seen much higher fines for a lot less of a dose, and or violation 

of the regulations.



Compassion is also not a causative agent for simply violating the regulations. I also 

believe that many are interpretating what this case was all about. I've read where the 

patient was dying, and the family had to be there. I'm not sure that is the case. If the 

patient was in fact dying, I'm not sure what the purpose of the administration was 

even ordered. In any event, the patient could have always gone home, and, let the 

family get the dose they wanted to accept. But as long as the patient was 

administered a dose in their facility, under a license issued by the NRC, they have an 

obligation to follow the letter of the law. Interpretative regulations can never be 

allowed, where they become interactive, following what you want and ignoring what 

you don't agree with. That can never be allowed to occur. Compassion ,,, discretion .. 

in the end, I believe that is exactly what we see here. $6,000 to me is a lot of 

compassion and discretion. 







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

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: sperle@icnpharm.com      

E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net                      

                 

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/