ML20138F603
| ML20138F603 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/11/1996 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| SECY-96-100-C, NUDOCS 9610180004 | |
| Download: ML20138F603 (2) | |
Text
$
AFFIRMATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET ***********************l RELEASED TO THE PDR
/o//5/ft,
[4 TO:
John C.
Hoyle, Secretary date initials FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-96-100 - FINAL AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 20 AND 35 ON CRITERIA FOR THE RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS ADMINISTERED RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL Approved Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
Approved and see attached comments.
t ly 4
SIGNA'IMPf8
(
Release Vote
/
/ b DATE Withhold Vote
/
/
Entered on AS
Yes No an 9610100004 60911 e
PDR COMMS NRCC I/
CRRESPONDENCE9 PDR r
Cgos w) 1
9
- 7 * /
September 11, 1996 Commissioner McGaf figan's comments on SECY-96-100 I approve the rulemaking proposed in SECY-96-100, and, because these rule changes have been in rulemaking process for several years. I support the issuance of the proposed rule changes without further delay.
However. I note that this rulemaking proposal does not address a related Petition for Rulemaking filed by the Radiation Safety Office of the University of Cincinnati (PRM-020-024.
published at 61 Fed.Rea. 31874 on June 21 1996).
The University of Cincinnati's Petition seeks a rule change that would allow radiation therapy patients and patients with brachytherapy implants to receive visits from "specified visitors determined by the physician to be necessary for the emotional and/or physical support of the patient (e.g. parents of children, elderly patients who need support from a familiar individual, etc.)." Permitted visitors presumably would be adult, non-pregnant individuals, either family members or persons with a significant personal relationship to the oatient, and 3'
they would be instructed on radiation. safety precautions.
To confirm that exposures were kept at a low level, dosimeters, film badges, or TLDs would be used by the visitors.
Implicit in the petition is that visitors would be informed about the risks involved in the visit with the patient.
The University of Cincinnati's proposal makes good sense. and it would allow for the provision of emotional support for patients who must be confined under the regulations proposed in SECY-%-100. I would propose that the Commission dir, at-l the staff to address the University of Cincinnati's petition on an expedittu j
- basis, i
4
-, -,