[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST ST. JOSEPH MERCY HOSPITALINMICHIGAN FOR OVEREXPOSURE TO A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC
I suggest that you read the full inspection report (Inspection Report No. 030-1997/2002001(DNMS)), that is referenced in the NOV.
It is available on ADAMS. The hospital did appeal the violation. The letter of appeal is attached to the inspection report. In
that letter, the hospital places virtually all of the blame on the RSO. Here are some quotes: "The former RSO's failure to
promptly investigate and take corrective action was quickly corrected by management..." "It is also significant that the former
RSO's failure to immediately investigate and take corrective action did not result in any harm to the pubic or the the NRC..."
Two things to note: (1) It's the former RSO. Any hospital RSO out there who is thinking about being "compassionate" by violating
regulations should keep in mind that your employer may choose not to support your decision, especially if they receive a NOV. (2)
I'm not sure what the hospital means by "...harm ... to the NRC..."
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Sandy Perle wrote:
> On 19 May 2003 at 6:30, Knapp, Steven J. wrote:
>
> > The questions still remains, how much control over the patient and family is required before the NRC determines the control is
> > adequate?
>
> Steve,
>
> Your question can't be answered, even by the NRC, in that there is
> subjectivity even amongst inspectors (can this really be)!
>
> Ever licensee must remember that they can always appeal any NOV and
> fine, to the Region, and, ultimately, can raise the issue all the way
> up to HQ, and even beyond that, by going to the General Counsel. They
> should only do this where they firmly believe that they were treated
> unfairly. However, if I recall, the facility did take full
> responsibility for this, and, the only areas for complaint have come
> from this and the MedPhysics listservers. The hospital didn't appear
> to take issue.
>
> The discussion is good, since it involves regulations, personal
> issues, risk issues and health issues.
>
> But there is no answer to your question directly.
> -------------------------------------------------
> 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/
************************************************************************
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/