ML20210U144
| ML20210U144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/26/1996 |
| From: | Cool D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Siegel J COOPER HOSP./UNIV. MEDICAL CENTER, CAMDEN, NJ |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210U065 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-97-273 NUDOCS 9709170219 | |
| Download: ML20210U144 (2) | |
Text
i/
p2 M0g\\
UNITED STATES
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 10 % 5 4001 Se pt embe r 26, 1996 Cooper Hospital / University Hedical Center Department of Continuing Hedical Education ATTN: Jeffrey A. Siegel, Ph.D.
Program Director One Cooper Plaza Sarah Cooper Building, Room 116 Camden, New Jersey 08103-1489
Dear Dr. Siegel:
I am responding to your letter dated July 12, 1996, regarding the findings of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review of your program entitl.ed:
- Basic Sciences in the_ Clinical practice of Nuclear Medicine."
In your letter, you acknowledge that your program consists of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> of classroom instruction and 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> of graded homework.
However, you state your disagreement with the NRC finding that the homework assignments did not focus entirely on the subject matter specified in 10 CfR 35.920(b)(1), but rather were related to different imaging systems (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging, computerized tomography,etc.). The NRC staff arrived at this conclusion, based on the sample homework assignments provided to them by you, during their visit to your facility on August 24, 1995.
The homework assignments reviewed dealt with subject matter other than that specified in 10 CFR 35.920.
As stated in my letter dated June 26, 1996 (enclosed), NRC will consider alternative methods of training, consistent with current approaches to formal collegiate level training and available information technology to meet the requirements in 10 CFR 35.920(b), e.g., video lectures, workbooks, tutoring, computerized disks, and other off-site training modalities.
In addition, we agreed there may be circumstances in which homework could be an appropriate alternative for parts of the required classroom and lab training.
- Ilowever, we do not believe that you have provided evidence that supports your statement that the topics are the topics covered by 10 CFR 35.920(b).
le would welcome evidence that shows that the topics and duration of the homework satisfy the requirements in 10 CFR 35.920.
You may provide the information to:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATIN:
Sally Merchant MS T8f5 Washington, DC 20555 or Telephone:
(301) 415-7874
)
9J791g9970911 ROSE 97-273 PDR V'Oyr/Or(7
i, Jeffrey A. Siegel, Ph.D.
C 2
in regard to your concern that, based on the findings of NRC's review of your course, students will not be approved as authorized users on NRC medical use licenses, NPC does not plan to tu-c further action at this time to prevent students who have successfully completed your course, prior to June 26, 1996, L
from being listed on NRC or Agreement State meriical use licenses.
This l'
position is based in part on the fact that these students are subject to all of the training and experiente requirements in 10 CFR 35.920(b), which includes not only classroom and laboratory training, but supervised work and clinical experience as well.
Additionally, NRC is not in possession of any evidence which indicates that the use of byproduct material by graduates of the Cooper program poses a significant hazard to public health and safety.
However, students completirtg your program after this date may not be approved pending the successful resolution of the concern stated above.
4 Sincerely, f)titl$ f l
Donald A. Cool, Director Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated
',