Event Notification Report for June 27, 2003

OFFSITE NOTIFICATION MADE FROM ST. LUCIE TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA

"At 1240 EST, (on 6/27/2003) the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing was contacted (by St. Lucie), due to an inadvertent discharge of a firearm in the PSL Security Building Armory.

"At 0613, a contract security officer inadvertently discharged his weapon when it was reloaded following routine maintenance. The accidental weapon discharge was attributed to human error. No injuries resulted from this event.

"This non-emergency notification is being made pursuant to 10CFR50.72(xi)."

The Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing person contacted was Eileen Kidd (561-640-6144).
The NRC Resident Inspector was notified.

NON-POWER REACTOR MONITORED RELEASE BELOW 10CFR20 LIMITS WITH SCRAM

On 6/27/2003 at 1709 PDT, the licensee received particulate and noble gas monitor alarms on the stack. The readings were 1.0E-6 microcuries/ml noble gas and 1.4E-6 microcuries/ml particulate. The particulate setpoint was 1.0E-8 microcuries/ml. The licensee determined that there was a pin hole fuel leak and three minutes following the stack alarm they received a percent power scram.

At 1812 PDT the licensee determined that they did not reach an emergency classification level. The count rate alarm was in for 10 minutes, and the concentration alarm was in for 5 minutes. Offsite concentrations were calculated to be 1.136E-9 microcuries/ml noble gas and 1.605E-9 microcuries/ml particulate. They determined that offsite doses were <0.2 mr/hr during the event.

This was an information only call, and they will not be making a press release or contacting Oregon. They are currently investigating the event and have no date for assuming operation.

LOST VIAL OF PHOSPHORUS-32

The following information was obtained from the licensee via facsimile:

"This is a potential 30 day report of loss of licensed material in accordance with 10CFR20.2201(a)(ii). I use the qualifier 'potential' because the regulation as written is confusing as to what the activity of the missing material must be to qualify as a reportable at the time of the report. The lost material was a vial of Perkin-Elmer Easytides P-32 [Phosphorus-32]-DCTP, 250 microCurie (9.25 Mbq) on the day of loss. Today, the activity would be approximately 50 microCurie, which would not be reportable under the regulation. However, due to the confusion created by the wording of the regulation, I am conservatively reporting the event.

"On July 7, 2003 the NIH Radiation Safety Branch was called by a purchasing agent at the Gerontology Research Center (GRC), Baltimore, MD to inquire as to the status of an item of radioactive material ordered in June. The GRC is a research facility of the National Institute on Aging, part of the NIH. Our database indicated that the item in question had been received and processed in at Building 21 on the Bethesda, MD main campus on June 27, 2003 and subsequently delivered to the GRC facility the afternoon of that same day.

"Following the inquiry, a search for the material was conducted by the Authorized User and also, on July 8, 2003, by the Health Physicist assigned to the GRC, accompanied by one of the contract delivery technicians. This search was exhaustive, covering every corridor in the complex as well as each lab where five other items were delivered on June 27, 2003. The item was not discovered in inventory within any laboratory, nor in any corridor.

"At this time, our conclusion is that the item was inadvertently misplaced during the delivery run of the six items that day, probably in a corridor. The container for the item was a cardboard box labeled Radioactive Material-Excepted Package-Limited Quantity of Material, UN2910. The box was likely mistaken as empty and disposed of to the refuse dumpster servicing the GRC facility on June 27, 2003.

"The low volume comprising the Easytides product is doubly-contained within a very durable Plexiglas vial, which also serves to shield the beta emissions from the P-32. Therefore we believe it is very unlikely that anyone would have been exposed to the P-32 as a result of the disposition of the vial into municipal refuse.

"Corrective measures have been implemented with the delivery contractor to prevent the likelihood of another such loss in the future."