radiography - deja vu all over again

[William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>]

Please see the attached item from the March 20, 2003, NRC Daily Event

Report.  Here's another preventable radiography incident.



my usual question:  When is the NRC going to start taking radiography

seriously?



Also, some key information seems to be missing from the report.  The

sequence of events seems to be:  (1) source exposed for shot, (2)

radiographer leaves work area prior to cranking back source, (3)

radiographer returns, changes film,and moves guide tube with source

still exposed.  The report then states, "At this point, he realized that

his survey meter had pegged high, and remembered that he had not cranked

the source back in prior to moving it..."



Assuming that TX regulations are similar to NRC regulations, consider 10

CFR 34.47(a):  "The licensee may not permit any individual to act as a

radiographer or a radiographer's assistant unless, at all times during

radiographic operations, each individual wears, on the trunk of the

body, ... an operating alarm ratemeter..."



I think it's just this scenario that the regulators had in mind when

they required an alarm ratemeter.  Where was it?



BTW, they were very lucky that the source had decayed down to 26 Ci.  If

I remember correctly, a fresh source is 80 - 100 Ci, which probably

would have caused an overexposure.



The opinions expressed are strictly mine.

It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Curies forever.



Bill Lipton

liptonw@dteenergy.com









AGREEMENT STATE

REPORT                                                       |

|

|

| The licensee reported a potential overexposure to a radiographer who

was     |

| x-raying some pipes at a worksite.  After completing a section of

piping,    |

| the radiographer should have cranked his source back in, but was

interrupted |

| by another technician and left his work area.  When he returned,

the         |

| radiographer changed out his film, and moved the guide tube to

another       |

| section of piping to begin more x-rays.  At this point, he realized

that his |

| survey meter had pegged high, and remembered that he had not cranked

the     |

| source back in prior to moving it.  He proceeded to immediately crank

the    |

| source back to its fully shielded position.  The exact time and

distance     |

| from the source for the radiographer's exposure is unknown, and the

licensee |

| is attempting to re-create the

scenario.                                     |

|

|

| The source was 26 Curies of Iridium 192, model number INC-32.  The

serial    |

| number is unknown at this time.  A preliminary investigation by the

licensee |

| estimates the radiographer's exposure to 800-900 millirem whole body.

There |

| is currently no exposure estimate for his

hands/extremities.                 |

|

|

| The radiographer's badge was sent off for processing.  Results will

be       |

| reported on 5/16/03 to the NRC.  The Texas Department of Health is

sending   |

| an additional inspector to the site to

investigate.                          |

|

|

|

|

| * * * UPDATE ON 5/16/03  @ 1120 BY  WATKINS TO GOULD * *

*                   |

|

|

| Blazer Industrial Radiography brought in a consultant to perform

preliminary |

| dose calculations for the whole body and the right hand of the

radiographer. |

| The results were 1.3R for the whole body and 37.1R for the right

hand,       |

| neither of which exceeds the annual regulatory

limit.                        |

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+











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

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/