RE: NRC Prelim. Notification of Unusual Occurance

[VERNIG.PETER@FORUM.VA.GOV]

{Original Msg: 'NRC Prelim. Notification of Unusual Occurence' from <root@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
{
{The annual limit of intake for P-32 is 600 uCi (10CFR20 Appendix B). Maybe 
{I am dumb, but is 579 still less than 600?   NRC requirements (10CFR20.2202)
{call for immediate notification if an individual receives >25 rems or more 
{TEDE, 24 hour notification if an individual receives >5 rems in a 24 hour
{period.  The NRC also requires a written report within 30 days if an 
{individual receives an exposure in excess of the limits (e.g., TEDE > 5 
{rems).  With this in mind, why is an unusual occurence report justified?  
{If an individual received 4.8 rem TEDE from external radiation over the 
{course of a year, would the NRC issue an unusual occurence report?
{
{I also take issue with the statement, "The information [about this event] 
{is basically all that is known by Region I staff..."  I gave the Region I 
{staff much more credit - I thought that they at least knew their name, 
{home address, and even some health physics :-).
{
{
{Kent Lambert, CHP
{LAMBERT@hal.hahnemann.edu
{
{These are my views and not my employers.
 
 
Kent Lambert wrote inquiring about the need to report the incident.
 
First I assume we are talking about NIH and not MIT.  I would suggest
any future messages regarding either of these unfortunate incidents
include the facility to prevent misunderstanding.
 
Second, if 600 uCi is the limit at which such an event MUST be reported,
[I only say if because I haven't verified it.  I know 600 uCi is the
ALI for P-32] and 592 is the estimate, I understand that estimate was
either raised from or to 592 and that an independant estimate is over
600 uCi.  I doubt I would rely on the accuracy of an estimate that close
and not report to the NRC.  NIH is getting enough bad press without adding
a possible NRC citation.  Besides with a deliberate "attack" such as
this NRC is in the best possition to assist the FBI which almost certain-
ly doesn't have the expertice to pursue the investigation.  This thing
needs a rigorous and competant investigation.
 
Regards,
Peter G. Vernig, VA Medical Center, Denver, vernig.peter@forum.va.gov
 
 
************************************************************************
VA Medical Center, 1055 Clermont St. MS 115 - DISCLAIMER
Denver, CO 80220; 303-399-8020 x2447 FAX 393-4656 Opinions = Mine
FAX 303-393-4656, vernig.peter@forum.va.gov Opinions =/ VA or USA
************************************************************************