ML24162A303
| ML24162A303 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/05/2024 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NRC-2843 | |
| Download: ML24162A303 (1) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes
Docket Number: (n/a)
Location: teleconference
Date: Wednesday, June 5, 2024
Work Order No.: NRC-2843 Pages 1-83
NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1716 14th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 234-4433 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+ + + + +
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE MEDICAL USES OF ISOTOPES
+ + + + +
VIDEOCONFERENCE
+ + + + +
WEDNESDAY,
JUNE 5, 2024
+ + + + +
The meeting was convened via
Videoconference, at 1:00 p.m. EDT, Richard L. Green,
ACMUI Vice Chairman, presiding.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
HOSSEIN JADVAR, M.D., Ph.D., Chairman
RICHARD L. GREEN, Vice Chairman
REBECCA ALLEN, Member
ANDREW EINSTEIN, M.D., Member
JOANNA FAIR, M.D., Ph.D., Member
MICHAEL FOLKERT, M.D., Ph.D., Member
RICHARD HARVEY, Dr.Ph., Member
JOSH MAILMAN, Member
MELISSA C. MARTIN, Member
MICHAEL D. O'HARA, Ph.D., Member
ZOUBIR OUHIB, Member
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 2
MEGAN L. SHOBER, Member
HARVEY B. WOLKOV, M.D., Member
NRC STAFF PRESENT:
BRIAN ALLEN, NRC
JOHN F. ANGLE, M.D., NRC
LILLIAN ARMSTEAD, NMSS
MARYANN AYOADE, NRC
KEN BRENNEMAN, NMSS/MSST/MSEB/MRST
DANIEL DIMARCO, NRC
LISA DIMMICK, NRC
CYNTHIA M. FLANNERY, NMSS/IMNS/MSIB
TRAVIS JONES, NRC
DANIEL SHAW, NRC
SARAH SPENCE, NRC
KATHERINE TAPP, Ph.D., NRC
CELIMAR VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ, Ph.D., DFO,
Medical Radiation Safety Team Leader
KEVIN WILLIAMS, MSSSTP
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 3
AGENDA
Opening Remarks
Dr. Valentin-Rodriguez.......................4
Implementation of Part 35 T&E Subcommittee Report
Dr. Folkert.................................12
Closing and Adjournment
Mr. Richard Green...........................83
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 4
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
1:01 p.m.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: So we'll get
started with today's meeting. Again, good afternoon.
As the designated Federal Officer for this meeting
I am pleased to welcome you to this public meeting of
the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes.
I am Celimar Valentin-Rodriguez, and I am
the Medical Radiation Safety Team Leader and I have
been designated as the federal officer for this
Advisory Committee in accordance with 10 CFR Part 7.11.
This is an announced meeting of the
Committee. It has been held in accordance with the
rules and regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This meeting is being transcribed by the
NRC, and it may also be transcribed or recorded by
others.
The meeting was announced in the May 7th,
2024, addition of the Federal Register, Volume 89, Page
38197. On May 21st, 2024, NRC publish a correction
to the original Federal Register in Volume 89, Page
44714 to correct the Teams meeting link.
The purpose of this meeting today is to
discuss the ACMUI's Subcommittee report on the NRC
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 5
staff's draft interim staff guidance for the
implementation of training and experience requirements
in 10 CFR Part 35. The function of the ACMUI is to
advise the staff on issues and questions that arise
on the medical use and byproduct material.
The Committee provides counsel to the
staff, but does not determine or direct the actual
decisions for the staff or the Commission. The NRC
solicits the views of the Committee and values their
opinions.
I request that whenever possible we try
to reach a consensus on the issue that we will discuss
today. But I also recognize there may be minority or
dissenting opinions. If you have such opinions please
allow them to be read into the record.
At this point I would like to perform a
roll call of the ACMUI Members participating today.
Dr. Hossein Jadvar?
DR. JADVAR: Present.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Richard
Green?
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Present.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Ms. Rebecca
Allen?
MS. ALLEN: Present.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 6
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Michael
Folkert?
DR. FOLKERT: Here.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Josh
Mailman?
MR. MAILMAN: Here.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Ms. Melissa
Martin?
MS. MARTIN: Here.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Michael
O'Hara? Mr. Zoubir Ouhib?
MR. OUHIB: Present.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Ms. Megan
Shober?
MS. SHOBER: Present.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Harvey
Wolkov?
DR. WOLKOV: Present.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Richard
Harvey?
DR. HARVEY: Present.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Andrew
Einstein?
DR. EINSTEIN: Present.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Joanna Fair?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 7
I think I did see her join through Teams. Okay, so
I can confirm --
DR. O'HARA: Sorry --
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: No, you're fine.
DR. O'HARA: This is Michael O'Hara. My
mic was off so, I'm here.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: No worries.
Thank you, Dr. O'Hara. Okay, so with that I can confirm
that we have a quorum of at least six members present.
All members of the ACMUI are subject to
federal ethics laws and regulations and received annual
training on these requirements. If a member believes
that they may have a conflict of interest, as that term
is broadly used within 5 CFR 2635 with regards to an
agenda item to be addressed by the ACMUI, this member
should divulge it to the Chair and the designated
federal officer as soon as possible before the ACMUI
discusses it as an agenda item.
ACMUI members must recuse themselves from
participating in any agenda item in which they may have
a conflict of interest unless they receive a waiver
or prior authorization from the appropriate NRC
official.
Mr. Richard Green, ACMUI Vice Chair, will
conduct today's meeting. Although I see that Dr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 8
Jadvar, our Chair, is also present.
Dr. Joanna Fair recently selected as the
diagnostic radiologist representative, who I see has
joined us today, is pending her security clearance and
will not have voting rights for any actions requiring
a vote, but may participate in the discussion during
today's meeting.
Dr. John F. Angle, interventional
radiologist consultant to the ACMUI, may also
participate in today's discussion but does not have
voting rights for any actions requiring a vote.
Today's meeting is being transcribed by
a court reporter. We are utilizing Microsoft Teams
for the audio/video of today's meeting, and to view
presentation material in real time. The meeting
materials and agenda for this meeting can be accessed
from the NRC's public meeting schedule. And the
ACMUI's public website.
The phone number for the meeting is
301-576-2978. And is currently being shown on the
screen. The phone conference ID is 652827577.
For the purposes of this meeting, the chat
feature in Microsoft Teams has been disabled so that
we can capture all comments as part of the official
transcript. Mr. Green, at his discretion, may
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 9
entertain comments or questions from the members of
the public who are participating today.
Comments and questions are typically
addressed by the Committee near the end of the
presentation, after the Committee has fully discussed
the topic. We will announce when we are ready for the
public portion of the meeting. And we will assist in
facilitating public comments.
Individuals who have joined us via
Microsoft Teams, please use the raised hand function
to signal to our Microsoft Teams host that you wish
to speak.
If you have called in to the Microsoft
Teams using your phone, please ensure you have unmuted
your phone pressing star-6. When you begin your
comment please clearly state your first and last name
for the record.
At this time we have disabled all of the
attendees' mics. We will enable them during the
meeting. And at that point you can all use, press,
or press star-6 to unmute your phone if you're on the
phone and want to provide a comment.
Members of the public who notified Ms.
Lillian Armstead that they would be participating via
Teams will be captured as participants in the
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 10
transcript meeting summary. Those of you who did not
provide prior notification or who have called into the
Microsoft Teams meeting through a phone, please contact
Ms. Armstead by email at lxa5@nrc.gov at the conclusion
of this meeting.
At this time I ask that everyone who is
not speaking please mute your Teams microphones, or
your phone. And I will now turn over the meeting to
Mr. Richard Green.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you, Dr.
Valentin-Rodriguez. Again, we're here as the Advisory
Committee on the Medical Use of Isotopes to hear the
report out from this Subcommittee on the Training and
Experience Requirements Draft Interim Guidance. And
we'll hear from the Chair of this Subcommittee, Dr.
Michael Folkert to present their report.
DR. FOLKERT: Mr. Green, I think you have
to unmute.
(Pause.)
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Dr. Folkert, the chair,
the floor is now yours.
(Pause.)
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Folkert, can
you hear us?
DR. FOLKERT: I can hear you. I couldn't
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 11
hear, yes, Richard Green as he muted the entire time.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Dr. Folkert, I just
announced you and your subcommittee. Are you able
to hear me now?
DR. FOLKERT: I'm not hearing Richard
Green at all.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: He just jumped
through the agenda, and he just passed on the meeting
to you, Dr. Folkert, so you can go ahead with the meeting
slides. We'll try to figure out on the back-end if
there is something going on with Mr. Green's
presentation.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes, I hear you fine, but
I don't hear --I didn't hear anything from him.
All right. I'm sorry about the delay on
that. That's probably technical issues on my side.
I apologize.
So, I am Dr. Folkert. I am the
subcommittee chair for the Training and Experience
Subcommittee. And I am going to be presenting on the
comments from the Advisory Committee on the Medical
Use of Isotopes.
I'd like to thank the other members of my
subcommittee, as well as the rest of the ACMUI for their
feedback, the NRC for the summary on this guidance and
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 12
providing the platform for discussion. And thank the
members of the public for joining today, which it looks
like there is at least 60 so far. So thank you very
much.
So next slide, please. This is the
membership of the subcommittee. The T&E Subcommittee,
including Dr. Harvey, Dr. Jadvar, Ms. Martin, Ms.
Shober. And we were advised by the NRC staff resource
Cindy Flannery. Okay, thank you.
Next slide. Okay. So on February 2nd the
ACMUI Chair expanded the charge of the T&E for all
modality subcommittee to include a review of the NRC's
draft training and experience implementation guidance.
A joint NRC and agreement state working group drafted
this guidance in accordance with the Commission
direction.
I want to emphasize that with this guidance
the NRC is not recommending or instituting any changes
in the current training and experience requirements
in 10 CFR Part 35. This guidance is to provide a
roadmap and a resource for helping us, helping people
meet those requirements.
So next slide, please. As background, so
for the Commission direction and the staff requirements
memorandum to SECY-20-0005, staff requirements. The
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 13
rulemaking plan for T&E requirements for unsealed
byproduct material in 10 CFR Part 35. The staff
developed this guidance for implementing the T&E
requirements in 10 CFR Part 35 medical use of byproduct
material.
The NRC staff utilized information from
a number of different resources, including the
NUREG-1556 from the frequently asked questions on the
NRC's medical tool kit. And from information based
on questions received from stakeholders to develop the
guidance.
Next slide, please. Next slide, please.
Okay, I think the slides aren't advancing. The next
slide, if you could show it please? Unless it's
frozen.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: What, Dr.
Folkert, what slide do you see, because I see them
advancing on my end. I can see Slide 10 right now on
the screen.
DR. FOLKERT: Let me see. I am on Slide
- 5. And so it's what it should be. The background
where this guidance aims to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of individuals subject to T&E
requirements.
It seems to be, at least on mine, I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 14
apologize, it's frozen on Slide Number 4. There, now
it's moved to, let's see, the one that's popped up right
now is slide --
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Dr. Folkert, as a
suggestion you might turn off your camera.
DR. FOLKERT: I see Slide 8 is on the
screen now.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: You may have limited
bandwidth.
MR. MAILMAN: Yes, we're seeing Slide 10.
This is Josh. So may be on your end.
DR. FOLKERT: Okay. I'm still only
seeing slide, you have both said Slide 10, so. Oh,
it's Slide 10 in your dataset, but not Slide 10
presentation?
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
DR. FOLKERT: If you -- I don't know if
it's possible to go back and --because it should be
-- I believe it should be Slide 7 in your presentation
stack.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we'll get
to Slide 7.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes, because you're showing
Slide 10.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Folkert, I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 15
advise maybe turning your camera off. It might be a
bandwidth issue on your end.
DR. FOLKERT: Okay.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: So that might
help with you seeing --
DR. FOLKERT: All right. I'll do that.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: -- yes, the
slides that we see.
DR. FOLKERT: Can we go back to slide --
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: It should be on
Slide 7 on our side.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes. That is the correct
slide.
All right. So this guidance aims to
clarify the roles and responsibilities that
individuals subject to T&E requirements outlines the
information needed to demonstrate the necessary
training and experience for individuals who are being
listed on the license, and explains expectations for
how these individuals are to fulfill the T&E
requirements.
Next slide, please. It also importantly
provides criteria for the NRC staff and agreement state
regulators to evaluate the applications for licensees
and applicants who are seeking to add individuals to
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 16
their license as authorized individuals, including
authorized users, radiation safety officers, associate
radiation safety officers, authorized nuclear
pharmacists, authorized medical physicists or
ophthalmic physicists.
Next slide, please. And we have to note
that due to ongoing medical rulemakings, this guidance
is serving as an interim staff guidance as some or many
training experience requirements could change in the
near future. So once the NRC is closer to distributing
and promulgating these medical rulemakings, the NRC
staff will then decide on the best way to transmit this
guidance, whether it's through NUREG-1556 or through
a standalone guidance document, which will also have
additional review.
Next slide, please. So overall I said
that members of the ACMUI Subcommittee on T&E found
that the submitted document was very thorough and
helpful. The general opinion of the Committee was that
the guidance was well developed and did effectively
outline the process to list individuals as AUs, RSOs,
ARSOs, ANPs, AMPs and OPs on an NRC license.
So next slide, please. However, to make
things more approachable to simplify and to make this
a more accessible resource, one recommendation was that
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 17
presentation of the required hours, which are generally
divided into classroom and laboratory hours,
supervised work experience hours and/or the number of
cases/supervised clinical casework required to meet
the regulatory requirements for each T&E element should
be presented clearly in a tabular format, perhaps as
an appendix, to increase accessible.
Next slide, please. And also to make it
even more approachable, the recommendation was to
create case scenarios to outline comment situations.
Many of us learned by case descriptions, by example,
and use those to inform our processes.
Some suggestions that were made by the
Subcommittee were to create a case scenario, such as
an interventional radiologist, who is seeking to be
listed as an AU for liver microsphere applications.
Or medical physicists taking on the role of a radiation
safety officer at a new institution, a radiation
oncologist who is ten years out of training seeking
to be listed as an authorized user for seed implant
brachytherapy or radiopharmaceutical therapy.
Or a community radiologist who previously
only worked in the diagnostic realm as the diagnostic
nuclear medicine practitioner who now wanted to
participate in theranostics, the application of a
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 18
therapeutic and diagnostic applications of
radiopharmaceuticals.
Next slide, please. And then also
specifically, Section 4.1.2, roles of
responsibilities, Page 6. Under the radiation safety
committee we requested to add a statement about how
and when 35.1000 technologies, emerging technologies,
are required to have radiation safety committee
participation. Whether one could represent multiple
technologies or if you need individual
representatives, so on and so forth.
Next slide, please. And in Section
4.3.2.4, device-specific training, Page 17, we noted
that guidance stated that training is not required to
be specific to the model of the device. This is
inconsistent with other guidances that require
specific training for new devices and applications.
So even though an authorized user or an
authorized medical physicist may be otherwise
qualified in a device, they should have training in
the use of an emergency procedures for the model of
device or byproduct material for which the
authorization is sought.
Next slide, please. In the same section
it was noted that model specific training may be
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 19
required under some cases under 10 CFR 35.610. But
this only applies to sealed sources and remote
afterloader units, teletherapy units or gamma
stereotactic radiosurgery units. And there is many
byproduct material uses/devices that are not covered
under 10 CFR 35.610.
Now in Section 5.1 of the microsphere
licensing guidance, for example, also requires
authorized users to have training with the specific
microsphere product for which the AUs is seeking
authorization. So a clarification of these training
requirements is recommended.
Next slide, please. And again, the same
section, the guidance also noted the device training
must be completed in person with the device. We
requested that the sentence be removed. This element
must be completed in person with the device. And for
the NRC to provide specific guidance as to when and
what devices or applications require both in-person
and hands on training.
Next slide, please. So those were our
specific questions and comments. The next slide has
the acronyms used in our report. Abbreviations and
acronyms used in the report.
All right, thank you very much.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 20
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you, Dr. Folkert,
and the care and diligence exercise by the subcommittee
on preparing this report.
Are there any questions from the ACMUI on
this report? Go ahead and use the raise your hand
feature. Mr. Ouhib?
MR. OUHIB: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Green.
I actually have one, two, three, four, five questions
regarding the report itself.
So my first question is on Page 6 of the
document. It says, like if, however, if the licensee
has a radiation safety committee the RSO is prohibited
by 10 CFR 35.24(f) from serving as the management
representative on the committee.
And I was just wondering if there was any
exception in the event that the management
representative is not present for whatever situation
that might be. Are there any exceptions that the RSO
can actually serve as the management representative?
DR. FOLKERT: I apologize, I still cannot
hear any audio from anyone else other than the NRC
Members. I am going to exit out and try to join back
in. I apologize again.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Thank
you, Dr. Folkert.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 21
MR. OUHIB: Can you hear me now, Dr.
Folkert?
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Folkert is
going to call in. Trying to see if his audio is fixed,
Dr. Zoubir. But you can go ahead with your comments,
we can hear you.
MR. OUHIB: You can hear me, okay.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
MR. OUHIB: Should I move on to the next
question until he, there is an opportunity to answer
those or how do you want me to proceed?
VICE CHAIR GREEN: The court reporter will
be recording these. Let's move on to your question
number two. The rest --
MR. OUHIB: Okay.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: -- of the Subcommittee
can assist.
MR. OUHIB: Absolutely. Thank you. My
next question is on Page 7 of the document. What it
says, the RSO duties and responsibility include
ensuring radiological safety, security and compliance
with both the NRC and the U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations and the conditions of the
license.
I was just curious if the word conditions
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 22
can be explicit? In other words, what is meant behind
the conditions of a license? Okay.
And along that line, in that same section,
there was no, nothing mentioned regarding pregnant
staff, you know, recommendations or policies or
whatever. There are several things that are being
discussed there but none related to what should be done
about pregnant staff.
Move on to Page 9. If I can get to it.
Okay. This is regarding the RSO. The associate
radiation safety officer. And it says the ARSO cannot
assume any RSO responsibility unless the licensee
designates, in writing, the ARSO as a temporary RSO.
And my question on that is, is that to be
submitted to the regulation, to regulators, that state
or NRC, whatever, or is that just a document that's
available in-house?
My, oops. My next question is on Page 10.
This is regarding the atomic physicist, Item 2 there.
Where it says, an OP is responsible for assisting the
licensee in developing, implementing and maintaining
written procedure to provide high confidence that the
administration is in accordance with the written
directives.
I think it would be great if the word
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 23
procedures, written procedures, are defined in that
paragraph. What is meant about that.
And my last question is on Page 16 of the
document. And allow me to get to that section. Okay.
Where it says, in order for the regulatory body to
determine whether the classroom and laboratory
training requirement are met, the applicant may need
to provide information such as a transcript, completion
certificate, course description, syllabus, outline and
learning objectives. I was just curious whether there
is a need of providing the instructors credentials?
My worry is that somebody who is not
qualified to provide all that might be providing that.
That is documented that, well yes, they had all this
but that person was not qualified to provide that kind
of training and education and so on.
And that concludes my questions. Thank
you.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Ouhib.
Has Dr. Folkert rejoined us via telephone?
DR. FOLKERT: Let's see, I was able to get
back on.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Okay.
DR. FOLKERT: Now I hear you at least.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Dr. Folkert, I don't
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 24
know how many of those questions you were able to catch,
but I believe Dr. Ouhib had about five, five questions
for the subcommittee.
DR. FOLKERT: See, the first one that I
head mentioned had to do with clarifying the conditions
of the license on Page 7.
MR. OUHIB: Page 6.
DR. FOLKERT: And so it would have had --
oh. Radiation safety officer, okay.
MR. OUHIB: Yes.
DR. FOLKERT: Okay. Okay, it's 6, not 7.
So purpose of the authorized individual. And so.
And in any events, now I think this is a very reasonable
request to make, and so to clarify what conditions of
the license means.
And I had assumed that condition of the
license would be whether or not it was active or
currently under review at the state level. And so if
the NRC can clarify what the conditions for license
are I think that would be a good addition to the
guidance.
The second question that I heard was about
including direction about pregnant workers. I believe
that was what he said.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Ms. Shober, a member
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 25
of the Subcommittee, has raised her hand.
MS. SHOBER: Hi. Yes, this is Megan
Shober. I just wanted to provide a little
clarification on the conditions of the license.
So that is referring to the actual license
document itself and the conditions that are listed on
the license document. So that's standard regulatory
language that licensees need to be compliant with the
regulations and the conditions of their license because
those licensed conditions are also legally binding
requirements.
DR. FOLKERT: So clarify --
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you, Dr. Shobert.
(Simultaneously speaking.)
DR. FOLKERT: -- within the document.
Oh, thanks. Sorry about that. Just for interrupting.
Okay. So I do think it would be helpful
to include some clarification of that in the document
to make it generally understandable what exactly is
meant by the condition to the license.
So, and then the next question about
training for workers who are pregnant or seeking to
become pregnant. I do believe that's included in one
of the referenced regulatory requirements of -- listed
on Page 3 of the document.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 26
My question for Mr. Ouhib would be, what
aspects of that training, like the training guidance
for what their dose limitations are or what they're
reporting requirements are? Is that what he wanted
to have expanded in the document?
MR. OUHIB: No. It is more like the RSO,
basically define the role of the RSO. The duties of
the RSO and all that. But there is nothing mentioned
regarding, you know, pregnancy issues. What the role
of the RSO is to monitor these situation.
DR. HARVEY: Dr. Folkert, if I may? It's
Dr. Richard Harvey. I don't think that's something
that would be included in the scope of this. I think
that that's clearly defined in regulations, NUREGs and
other guidance documents so I don't think that's
intended to be included here, but that's just my
opinion.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes. And the radiation
officer, the radiation safety officer is in charge of
tracking dose limits and requirements for pregnant
workers or workers seeking to be become pregnant, so
perhaps adding the line in there just specifying that
that is one of their charges in the section under RSO
responsibilities on Pages 7 through 8 of the doc, 7
through 9 of the document. As it is one of their
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 27
specific duties. I think that would be reasonable.
MR. OUHIB: Yes, I was just curious
because it defines and lists all the responsibilities
of the RSO in here. And then I notice that the
pregnancy issue was simply omitted there, which is a
very important one in my opinion.
DR. FOLKERT: Okay.
DR. HARVEY: Dr. Richard Harvey. Mr.
Ouhib, I agree with you, it's a very important one.
I don't think every duty is listed there. I don't
think it's completely encompassing. So I wouldn't
expect every single duty responsibility to be listed
within this report presentation.
DR. FOLKERT: So I'm looking to see now,
this is Mike Folkert, I'm looking to see if there is
a comment that this list has not exhausted. So, okay.
It just says, typically these duties and
responsibilities including the following.
And so, we can say include, but are not
limited to the following. That would be on Page 7 under
the paragraph labeled, the RSO is responsible for the
day-to-day oversight of the entire radiation safety
program.
Because I completely agree, this is not
meant to be an exhausted list.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 28
MR. OUHIB: That is not.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes. It's supposed to be
spelled out in other documents.
All right, the next question that I heard
had to do with, let's see. It was on --
MR. OUHIB: Page 9.
DR. FOLKERT: Page 9. And sir, would you
be so kind as to repeat the question?
MR. OUHIB: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear
you?
DR. FOLKERT: Would you be so kind as to
repeat the question?
MR. OUHIB: Yes. On Page 9 it talks about
the associate radiation safety officer. And on Bullet
number, one, two, three, three it says, the ARSO cannot
assume any responsibility unless the licensee
designate, in writing, the ARSO as a temporary RSO.
And my question was that, does that have to be
submitted to the regulators or it's just a statement
that is kept basically in house?
DR. FOLKERT: For that one I would defer
to our NRC staff. Are you able to give feedback as
to where the responsibility designation statement goes
to?
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Ms. Shober has her hand
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 29
raised.
MS. SHOBER: Thank you. Megan Shober.
The regulations allow licensees to name temporary RSOs
for up to 60 days without a licensing amendment. So
when that phrase, temporary RSO, is used, it means that
up to 60 day designation that happens locally.
MR. OUHIB: Locally. Okay, thank you.
DR. FOLKERT: Like in locally, as within
the institution itself?
MS. SHOBER: Correct.
DR. FOLKERT: Okay.
MR. OUHIB: Thank you, Ms. Shober.
DR. AYOADE: Hi, this is Maryann Ayoade
from the NRC. And Megan beat me to it. So Megan is
correct. The correct regulations for the temporary
RSO does allow the licensee to name someone as a RSO
temporarily. The designation, in writing, is for
in-house for the licensee to keep. And for us to
review, if necessary, if we need to or during
inspection.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: To improve clarity of
this guidance document should we ask the guidance
document be edited to clearly show that this is
submitted to the local management chain of the
institution, not the regulator?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 30
DR. FOLKERT: It's Mike Folkert. I would
agree. And also in part to add a reference to the
regulation that states this. Okay.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Dr. Ouhib, have we
answered your questions?
MR. OUHIB: Yes, thank you. Thank you.
DR. FOLKERT: All right.
MR. OUHIB: I think that that clarifies
that so there would be no confusion.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Any other member of the
ACMUI that has questions regarding the report or the
draft interim guidance?
DR. FOLKERT: Well so this is Michael.
His next question that was relevant to Page 16, about
including the credentials of those providing the
training.
And so, I do think it would be, I mean,
for any course CME, educational program that the
credentials are vetted for CME applications, continued
medical education applications, all of the
credentials, the conflicts of interest, the review of
the presented material is all required. So I would
say for this that policing the credentials the
individual educational activity would certainly be out
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 31
of the scope of the NRC.
It's, but as far as looking to see if they
are CME credentialed, if they're a part of a collegiate
force that I think looking to see the source I think
does make sense as part of the review of the training
and the hours done. But going into the credentials
of the presenters I think would be far beyond the scope
of the NRC.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you, Dr. Folkert.
Do we have any other comments, questions from Members
of the ACMUI?
MR. OUHIB: Mr. Green, if I may? This is
Zoubir Ouhib.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Yes.
MR. OUHIB: Two items of the one, the first
one on Page 6 and the last one on Page 16 that we did
not address. And on Page 16 that's under 4.3.2.1.
It's the last paragraph.
What it says, in order for the regulatory
body to determine whether the classroom and laboratory
training requirement are met, the applicant may need
to provide information such as transcript, completion
certificate, course description, et cetera, et cetera.
I guess my question in there, should there
be a need of qualified instructors and credentials to
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 32
avoid having training provided by a non-qualified
person?
And, for that matter, who should that be?
Who should what requirements are needed for that
person providing the training, qualifications, et
cetera?
DR. FOLKERT: All right, it's Mike
Folkert. I think that was the point that I had been
trying to -- I was addressing just right before you
joined in there.
So, I mean, I think policing the
credentials I do think would be far out of the scope
of anything the NRC can do. I hope you can hear me.
For any sort of policy course, any continuing
education course, CME course, all of those presenters
do have to have their credentials reviewed. They have
to disclose their conflict of interest, they have to
present their course materials for approval in advance.
So I think that the responsibilities on
the source of the education, whether it's like an ASTRO
CME course of an SNMMI CME course, so on, because of,
I mean, if you go down to things like the radiation
biology education, radiation biology is taught by
people who have no authorized user status, or not
clinicians. You know, they're often laboratory based
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 33
scientists so who are not, who don't have a credential
for radiation biology but they have a deep and
fundamental knowledge of the subject and are providing
educational training.
And so I don't see how the NRC on any level
could review that level of training that review their
credentials. But the offering institutions that, so
are supervised by the ACGME, by the graduate medical
education groups, they review them. And ultimately
it's going to be their responsibility to assess the
quality of core education and things like radiation
biology, core physics, so on and so forth.
MR. OUHIB: Okay. All right, thank you.
DR. FOLKERT: And if you could, your first
on that I wasn't able to hear, the one on Page 6, or
was --
MR. OUHIB: I think it was on Page 6 where,
on the one before last bullet point. Let see what
section that is. Give me a second here. Under
radiation safety officer. RSO.
And I think it says, if the RSO is placed
in the license management structure and meets the
criteria of management as defined in the regulation
in 10 CFR 35.2, then action of the RSO may be considered
action of management. And my question is on the last
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 34
sentence there.
However, if the licensee has a radiation
safety committee, the RSO is prohibited by 10 CFR
35.24(f) from serving as the management representative
on the committee. My question to that is, could there
be any exception in the event that the management
representative cannot be available and that RSO can
act as the management representative?
DR. HARVEY: This is Dr. Richard Harvey.
We keep those roles completely separate. I don't know
how the NRC feels about it. If there could be an
exception to Mr. Ouhib's point, but we keep those roles
completely separate for many reasons.
And it's nice to have the management
representative there to help mediate situations
between an RSO, and maybe other members of the
committee. And, you know, it's just is better, in my
opinion, to clearly keep those roles separate.
Segregated. That's just my feeling.
MR. OUHIB: I guess my question is that,
let's just say something prevented the management
representative from attending at the very last minute.
And you have a radiation safety committee meeting.
Now you know that you're supposed to have that person
present during radiation safety committee, but here
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 35
you are, you don't have that person. Could there be
an exception that somebody like the RSO can assume those
functions? And that's all.
DR. HARVEY: Yes. This is Richard Harvey
again. And so, I mean, our approach is we have a
management alternate in case of situations like that.
But again, there is nothing to say that the management
representative and their alternate can't make the
meeting as well.
So your point is well taken. I think it's
the NRC's decision to say if they would allow that
exception. So I think your point is very important
and well taken and would be very interested to hear
an answer. Thank you.
MR. OUHIB: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Do any members of the
NRC staff wish to address that last portion of Mr.
Ouhib's question?
DR. AYOADE: Hi, Dr. Folkert, this is
Maryann Ayoade from the NRC. So as it relates to that
situation, you know, 10 CFR 35 clearly has a definition
for management in 35.2. And I believe that was
included in the guidance. But as Dr. Harvey said, we
tried to keep, the intent was to keep the roles of
management and the RSO separate, except for situations
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 36
where the RSO does meet the criteria of management.
And so, for the case that Dr. Ouhib has
presented, it would have to be, you know, an exception,
and that would have to mean, you know, or an exemption.
And so it would have to come in separately from what,
to request that separate from what you currently
authorize. Or allow.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes, this is Michael
Folkert. That makes sense. And most of this
discussion I think actually would pertain more to that
regulation rather than this guidance document.
DR. AYOADE: Agreed.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you. Are there
any additional questions from Members of the ACMUI?
I see no hands raised.
Let's open it up to any questions from
Members of the NRC staff? Dr. Valentin-Rodriguez, I
see your hand raised.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr.
Green. I had one question for Dr. Folkert. When you
were, when you and Shober were discussing the temporary
RSO, the ARSO, one of those bullets in the
implementation guidance, you mentioned that it might
be worthwhile for the NRC to clarify the regulation
as well. Is that something that the Subcommittee is
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 37
considering as a recommendation or, and do you all think
that you can provide language at this time or is that
something for further consideration for the Committee?
I just want to make sure that whatever
action the ACMUI wants to recommend that it's captured
as part of the report.
DR. FOLKERT: This is Michael Folkert.
Yes, I wouldn't expect any full discussion on that right
now this just came up. I was merely pointing out that
this, like the purpose for today's discussion is to
go over the guidance document. If there are concerns
about a separate regulation I think that is a separate
conversation and that should be taken up at a different
time.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Yes, I
just wanted to make sure if I understood the comment
correctly. That's all.
Mr. Green, I was going to suggest, if there
are any changes that the Committee, in full, wants to
make to the draft report based on Mr. Ouhib's questions,
now might be the time for the ACMUI to discuss those
changes so we can capture them as part of the final
report when we issue that. I don't know if you wanted
to do that now. I think we have time.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: I agree. As I recall
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 38
it was one recommendation to clarify that the internal
designation of the alternate RSO is submitted to the
institutional leadership, not to a regulator. Were
there any other things that we thought required
clarification?
DR. FOLKERT: This is Michael Folkert.
On the section under the radiation safety officer, with
the conditions of the license. And so the, right there
we would look for language for clarifying what
conditions of the license means. Because it has to
do with --
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
DR. FOLKERT: Oh, sorry.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: No, I was just
going to say, I capture that. And I think the plan
would be to include that as a specific comment in that
section of the report, and we would just add it as Number
7.
DR. FOLKERT: Okay.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.
DR. FAIR: Just to clarify, I may have
misheard. I thought what I had just heard was that
the alternate RSO would be designated at the
institution. I think it was actually that the
temporary RSO, that if the alternate RSO becomes the
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 39
temporary RSO that that's internal. I don't think
alternate RSO's are strictly internal.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you for catching
that.
DR. HARVEY: This is Richard Harvey. I
think it's for associate RSOs to be the temporary RSO,
correct?
DR. FAIR: Yes.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes. ARSO to RSO. Yes.
So, again, this is Michael Folkert again. So in that
same area there was just the clarification, the duties
and responsibilities include the following. Just
because it did not specifically state anything about
the documentation or special considerations for
pregnant workers, to make the last line of that
paragraph that the RSO is responsible for daily
oversight of the entire radiation safety program. To
say typically these duties and responsibilities
include, but are not limited to, the following.
Just to make it very explicit that this
is not the exhausted sum of the list of all
responsibilities of an RSO.
MR. OUHIB: I like that suggestion very
much.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Is there anything else
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 40
we need to capture, Mr. Folkert?
DR. AYOADE: Hi, this is Maryann Ayoade
from the NRC. Just wanted to, again, clarify that,
a question about the ARSO being able to function as
a temporary RSO. Again, as I mentioned before, that
designation in writing is for, you know, within the
institution or for the licensee.
But I also wanted to clarify that the NRC
does require that the licensee notify us when they made
the change or they want to appoint an individual as
an RSO. And the notification is separate from a
license amendment where they would have to submit
something or information that we would have to actually
amend the license to include that individual's name.
So as Megan said, for up to 60 days they
have to notify us. That licensee designation in
writing is for in-house with the licensee.
DR. FOLKERT: So this is Michael Folkert.
So that would be, so the specific line then we're
looking at is on Page 9. The ARSO cannot assume any
RSO responsibilities unless the licensee designates
in writing the ARSO is a temporary RSO.
So we should add, so it seems like the
suggestion would be then, unless the designee, unless
the licensee designates in writing the ARSO as a
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 41
temporary RSO, and then comma, and notifies the NRC.
And then I would recommend providing a link or a
reference to the appropriate regulation that states
this.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Melissa, I see your
hand raise.
MS. MARTIN: One question. Yes, this is
Melissa Martin, a member of the ACMUI Subcommittee on
this project.
One question that has been raised is, in
today's world with such a shortage of qualified
radiation safety officers, is it permissible to do more
than 60, in other words, if you designate your ARSO
for 60 days, at the end of that 60 days you still do
not have another person to be named RSO, can you do
that multiple times?
DR. HARVEY: This is Richard Harvey. I
can't speak for the NRC, but I think 60 days is a
timeframe for you to, you know, try to make some
arrangements other than extended that multiple times.
And I could be incorrect on that, but I think there
would have, I would think there would be able, the NRC
and the agreement states would want somebody
specifically designated after 60 days. But I cannot
speak for them whether they would grant additional
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 42
occurrences of that. Thank you.
MS. MARTIN: Thank you, Richard.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Ms. Shober?
MS. SHOBER: Yes. Again, Megan Shober.
I won't speak for the NRC either, but in my state we
require a license amendment if it's a temporary
situation that's going to extend beyond the 60 days.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Dr. Ayoade?
DR. AYOADE: Yes, this Maryann Ayoade from
the NRC. So yes, for as far our regulations it is 60
days, and so it would require them submitting an
amendment.
Now the regulations also allow for more
than one ARSO, or more than one, I mean, temporary RSO.
So it could be another individual that qualifies, that
meets the qualification to be a temporary RSO.
But if it's beyond the 60 days it would
have to be an amendment. And so they would have to
submit information of the individuals, or the proposed
individuals, training and experience to be named on
the license as an RSO.
MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Have we succeeded in
capturing all the thoughts and recommendations that
you've come up with?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 43
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Green, I
have captured I think all of them. They are also
captured in the transcript. So what we'll do is we'll
go back to the draft report, incorporate the comments
from the transcript, and we'll send the ACMUI a copy
of the final draft report before we issue it as final
to ensure that we captured the appropriate changes
based on the transcript.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: So for today's purposes
we still want to entertain a motion to accept this
report, as amended.
DR. WOLKOV: Move we accept the report as
amendment. This is Harvey Wolkov.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you, Dr. Wolkov.
DR. HARVEY: This is Richard Harvey, I'd
be happy to second that.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you, Dr. Harvey.
Now we'll ask all members of the ACMUI if they support
the report as amendment, say aye?
(Chorus of ayes.)
VICE CHAIR GREEN: There are any opposed?
Any abstentions? Hearing none, it is in the
affirmative.
Now we have some time to open up the phone
lines to see if there are any comments from members
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 44
of the public. Can we go ahead and do that now? What's
the process?
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Thank
you, Mr. Green. So right now I've, I'm pretty sure
I've enabled everyone's mics who have joined us through
the Microsoft Teams meeting. I see there is some hands
raised already. So I will go and call on those hands
raised in the order that they appear. And you should
be able to enable your mics to come off mute.
So the first person I have is Laura Evans.
Laura, you can take yourself off mute if you want to
comment. Okay, maybe Laura is having some issues.
The next person I see is Ralph Lieto.
Ralph, can you take yourself off mute?
(Pause.)
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Lieto, I see
you're off mute so you can go ahead with your comment.
It might be some issues on our side with
the unmute function, so let me go back and try to unmute
everybody so that you all can control your own mics
and come off mute. Let's try this again. Mr. Lieto,
are you able to speak into your mic or are you unable
to unmute yourself?
DR. FOLKERT: It's Mike Folkert. And in
order for me to be able to hear anybody I had to
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 45
completely close out and exit the Teams program and
restart it again. I'm on a trunk line so it's not a
--and it's definitely not a bandwidth issue.
(Simultaneously speaking.)
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Let's see.
I've tried something else. Laura Evans, can you come
off mute now? Or Ralph Lieto. I have promoted you
to presenter so I think you should be able to control
your mics now. Let's try that.
(Pause.)
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay, let's try
this a different way. So, please stand by while I try
to figure out what's going on in the back end. Because
I can hear everyone else and I see the mics being turned
on but I can't hear if anyone is talking.
(Pause.)
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay, let's try
this again. Let's see. Laura Evans, can you unmute
your mic and see if you can make a comment? You should
be able to unmute your mic.
So I'll go down the list. Ralph Lieto,
can you unmute your mic?
(No response.)
MR. OUHIB: As a last resort --
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay, let's try
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 46
this again.
MR. OUHIB: -- can we use the chat box by
any chance?
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes. So I just
enabled the chat. I am so sorry about that. I'm not
sure what's happening on the back end. But I have just
enabled the chat so what I'll try to do is, if you have
a comment, thank you for your patience.
The chat feature should be enabled, so if
you can write your comment or you're in the chat, we'll
be able to read it for the transcript. The chat is
turned on for the duration of the meeting. So I really
apologize. I'll keep trying on my end to see if there
is anything we can do to resolve the audio issues.
In the meantime, if you can type your
comments on the chat that should be enabled for
everyone. And so we'll be looking for comments there
while I try to figure out if there is any other way
I can fix this. So I apologize for that.
MR. MITCHELL: Hello, this is Chris
Mitchell. I was the next one on your list. I don't
know if --
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Yes, we
can hear you, Chris. Go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. So if it's okay I'll
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 47
go ahead and ask my, make my comment and questions.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes, please.
Thank you.
MR. MITCHELL: Okay. Chris Mitchell. I
am the radiation safety officer at Kettering Health
in Dayton, Ohio. My question and comment really is
regarding the discussion that was had regarding the
temporary RSO and the associate RSO.
Since the associate RSO really is, has to
undergo the same training and experience requirements
as the RSO, would they not be the more logical choice
for, as a temporary RSO, maybe not for the 60 days,
but in those situations where maybe the RSO is on leave
or medical leave or whatever RSO leaves, you have an
assistant RSO that's in the process. But would they
not fit that bill and would you have to submit an
amendment for them to do that? Thank you.
DR. FOLKERT: This is Michael Folkert.
This is definitely a question for the NRC staff to
answer.
DR. AYOADE: Hi, Dr. Folkert, this is
Maryann Ayoade from NRC. So, again, the regulations
would only allow for an associate radiation safety
officer to become a temporary RSO if that ARSO meets
the qualifications of the RSO, right?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 48
And so, in some cases licensees are
appointing multiple associate RSOs to do specific
duties and tasks. So they may not be fully qualified
to do everything that that licensee is licensed for.
And so again, the licensee can designate an
individual, but again, the individual has to be, has
to meet the qualifications of an RSO even to be listed
as a temporary RSO. And I hope that clarifies the
question at hand.
MR. MITCHELL: Thank you very much. That
does I appreciate that.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Thanks,
Maryann. Let's see. From the chat Mr. Ralph Lieto
asked for the, if the document is available for public
comment?
So, Mr. Lieto, the draft that the ACMUI
reviewed is available on the ACMUI website. I put the
link to the direct document, and to the materials for
today's meeting on today's chat.
The plan is to provide this interim staff
guidance for a 60 day public comment in the next few
months. So the public will have an opportunity to
provide comments on this document.
And then, Ralph, I don't know if you can
come off mute now? I've tried toggling some of our
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 49
audio settings, but I see your question in the chat.
Last slide of the report is confusing.
What is the difference between in-person and hands on,
I'm assuming training, if hands on you are in person,
is this terms of different authors? His suggestion
is to just use the hands on term.
Let's see. For the folks that have their
hands raised, maybe we can try for you to leave the
call and then come back in. I think everyone's audio
should be enabled so when you come back in you should
be able to unmute yourself, and then go ahead and raise
your hands and I will come on your names. I apologize
for that, but hopefully that will ease that audio
settings issue and we can have folks get their questions
on the transcript.
Dr. Folkert, go ahead?
DR. FOLKERT: Oh yes. So it's Michael
Folkert. And so this has to do with Ralph Lieto's
comment about the in-person hands on. So there were
a couple of points within the draft guidance where they
mention hands on training, in-person training. And
it is a little confusing that's one of the reasons why
we want to clarify.
So hands on training you could be
practicing with a syringe for an injection, you could
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 50
be practicing with a Mick applicator for LDR
brachytherapy, you could be practicing with an HDR
afterloader, so on and so forth. But you may or may
not have a trained licensed, otherwise authorized
individual like with you for the training.
And like in-person training is you've got
a trained authorized user who is there with you going
through the training rather than Zoom or Teams meeting,
so on and so forth. So kind of clarifying these, like
when do you have to physically manipulate the device
as part of the training, when do you have to have an
authorized user or, you know, other specified
professional trainer physically with you on site for
the training? I think that was what we wanted to have
clarified.
MR. OUHIB: This is Zoubir Ouhib from the
ACMUI. I guess my question is, should there be, like
right underneath that, a very quick short definition
of the two terms basically? What is meant about
in-person, what is meant about hands on.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Zoubir, I think
your comment was for the Committee to make such a
recommendation, correct? If I capture that correctly.
To suggest to the NRC clarify --
MR. OUHIB: That is correct. Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 51
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay.
MR. OUHIB: Yes, that is correct. Since
it was clarified, you know, it would be good to have
that clarification right underneath that.
DR. FOLKERT: So, Mike Folkert. And so
part of the concern about that is that this, this is
kind of mirrored in many, many, many different specific
guidances for other devices. So, it's something where
it actually is going to have to be addressed on other
guidances. Guidances for the use of microspheres,
guidance on the use for the beta-cath device, so on
and so forth.
So specifically to this document, I mean,
if we want to add something in there it would be under
Section 4.3.2.4, and that's on Page 17 of the document.
And let's see.
So we had actually asked to remove the line
stating, this element must be completed in person with
the device. And so, because it's not really spelled
out anywhere in here. It has to be in other
regulations. So that's why we recommended removing
the sentence from the guidance document.
So, but if we want to clarify it there we
could state something, let's see. For this, so under
scope of training, reach device we could say, so after
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 52
that line that we suggest removing, this element must
be completed in person with device, we could say,
aspects of training could include hands on training
where the perspective authorized user directly works
with the device or a mock injectable.
And another possible, and another type of
training is in-person training where the regulation
specified authorized user or trainer who is physically
present in the same room as the perspective authorized
user as part of the training. That might be a bit
clunky and overly worded.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Dr. Folkert, it sounds
like that suggestion would require us to go back and
DR. FOLKERT: Wordsmith.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: -- wordsmith. And
again, for a motion to approve the report as amended,
including this last recommendation. A second vote.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes. So Michael Folkert
again. I mean, that was the reason why we asked for
this to be removed. And so the, you know, because we
did not, because there are multiple other guidances
out there that do spell out requirements. This was,
this was a request for the NRC to clarify this in their
other regulations. We asked to remove this from the
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 53
document.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: So that's the issue
with other documents, not this document. We can let
this document remain as the report recommends.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes. I mean, that was our,
that's why we asked for that line to be removed.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Okay.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: So, Dr. Folkert,
I think based on your discussion with Mr. Green there
is no need to amend the report further because I think
you've captured that already in your report, correct?
VICE CHAIR GREEN: I agree.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Let's
see. Are there any folks with their hands raised who
can unmute themselves and let, and try and speak?
Otherwise I'll go to the chat that I see a question
or two.
DR. RAZMARIA: Hi there. Can you hear me?
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we can hear
you.
DR. RAZMARIA: Hi, how are you? This is
Ali Aria Razmaria. I'm calling in from, I'm a nuclear
medicine physician from Memorial Sloan Kettering
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 54
Cancer Center.
Yes, again, thank you for the ACMUI Members
on the Subcommittee for the report. And I just want
to kind of bring up a topic here that, kind of reading
through the regulations that has caught my eyes, and
also pertains the training and experience
requirements. And I wanted to share that at this
opportunity with my comment and the ACMUI in general.
So, again, that goes along the lines of
what Mr. Ouhib, he has mentioned regarding insuring
quality. How that can be maintained in terms of what
training and experience requirements.
And again, it's clear that obviously NRC
cannot police the requirements and have the standards
of training that has been provided, but thinking there
are measures in place in terms of, you know, the medical
field we rely on which pertains to like residency
trainings that are created by bodies that basically
have accreditation and instruments in place that we
rely in the medical field on.
So again, in that regard I just want to
kind of point out that we have a discrepancy that is
kind of apparent in the regulations. And again, I wish
I could, because I have the regulations, NRC
regulations, up here. I wish we could have shared
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 55
that. Is it possible to share those? I know I will
try --
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: We can try to
pull up the regulations --
DR. RAZMARIA: Okay.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: -- if you let us
know what the --
DR. RAZMARIA: Yes. So I think --
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: --number --
DR. RAZMARIA: Because if I could try if
that's possible. Can you see those? I mean, this is
not pulled up as NRC website, this is kind of --
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay.
DR. RAZMARIA: -- foreign material. Kind
of we see here, obviously this is about Part 35, medical
use of byproduct materials. Particularly we're
interested in training and experience requirements.
And I just want to kind of point out, in
terms of the Subpart E, which kind of pertains to
unsealed byproduct material and the corresponding
training and experience requirements. And I just
wanted to kind of point that out. And kind of different
tabs here.
So if you read here we see, in terms of
what is needed in order to be able to basically
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 56
confidently administer or use those products is
successfully complete residency training in radiation
therapy and nuclear medicine training program and other
related specialties.
But I just want to put that in contrast,
what we have in place in subpart for, if we go back
it's Subpart, basically in 35.494, brachytherapies.
You kind of see there really explicitly mentioned in
the regulations, successfully complete minimum three
years of residency training in a radiation oncology
program approved by the residency review committee of
accreditation counsel for graduate medical education.
So you're kind of relying here, the NRC
is relying here on a third-party established
accreditation body, so, which kind of oversees all the
practice of medical field. It gets started from family
medicine, surgery, radiology, et cetera.
So we are relying on an external body to
basically, to keep that accreditation. So we need to
police the educators but these are kind of the standard,
standards that we go in the medical field by.
So the same thing applies to like training
for user remote afterloading units, teletherapy units,
and gamma stereotactic radiosurgery. Again, we see
the same thing for radiation oncology has been kind
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 57
of very proactive in kind of having those requirements
explicitly mentioned in the regulation.
So here again, successfully complete a
minimum of three years of residency training. And this
is kind of the first point. So there are subsequent
points that point out like alternative pathways. But
again, you're relying here heavily on kind of medical
bodies, accreditation bodies that are kind of giving
us their assurance, this is quality training that has
been pursued by people who are kind of using these
devices.
So three years of residency training in
a radiation therapy program approved by the residency
review committee, accreditation costs for grad medical
education.
So, again, going back to the training for
use of on unsealed byproduct material, again, by no
means less dangerous or less prone to side effects,
if you will, but we have the kind of rudimentary mention
of what training is, so basically successfully complete
residency training in radiation therapy or nuclear
medicine.
Again, we know that unsealed byproduct
materials have been kind of traditionally used by
nuclear medicine as a field and a program-related
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 58
medical specialty, again, not really kind of going into
the details as we have it in the other two training
and experience requirements.
So, again, a very clear disparity in terms
of how to maintain or assure quality in terms of
training for people who pursue this or people who are
providing the training for people that are interested
in becoming authorized users.
Again, you see here that, again, this goes
hand-in-hand with having an examination, again, in Part
4 the brachytherapy, examinations have to be passed
by the candidates.
That kind of provides the board
certification, specialty board, and this applies for
like, you know, teletherapy units as well. Again, not
as clearly stated for unsealed byproduct materials.
So, yes, again, since we are at the point
where we are discussing what are, you know, what is
the quality of training, you know, what it should look
like going into future, again, very well worded out
or kind of spelled out for radiation oncology
applications, brachytherapy, teletherapy, but not so
much for nuclear medicine application, which kind of
this area has been traditionally within the nuclear
medicine field, again not that specific language.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 59
Again, I think that's kind of, you know,
at this point, I just want to kind of bring up this
disparity in regulation, the wording of the regulation,
and kind of towards the point of how we can in the future
improve or maintain, establish the quality that we want
to see these products being used by -- for the people
who are candidates where people providing the training.
So I just wanted to kind of bring that up
at this point and, you know, have kind of, you know,
a response or comments from the ACMUI or NRC staff.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Thank you for
your comment, Dr. Razmaria. Let's see. I think there
was some back and forth in the chat. Let's see, looking
at the next comment.
Mr. Bryant, if you want to come off mute,
otherwise I will share your question and read through
it. I think Dr. Folkert responded to it, but your
question was "Can a proposed authorized physician user
be added without considering recentness of training
to an NRC RAM license if the proposed individual was
previously but not currently listed on an NRC RAM
license for all uses applied for?"
Dr. Folkert responding, "Yes, they would
use NRC Form 313A, Authorized User Requesting
Authorization for Use of Seal Sources Defined Under
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 60
10 CFR 35.400 or 35.600. Instructions are in Section
4.6 of the proposed guidance."
Mr. Bryant, I don't know if you wanted to
come off mute to add anything.
(Simultaneous speaking.)
DR. FOLKERT: This is Michael Folkert.
Just to --Oh, sorry. Yes, okay.
MR. BRYANT: Yes, so perfect. It sounds
like my microphone is working now.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes.
MR. BRYANT: So that was the question.
I just wanted to make sure there wasn't like a time
bar that existed as far as on the time that would have
elapsed from the time that the proposed authorized user
would apply to be added to a RAM license and the time
that they were last listed on an active radioactive
materials license.
So let's say that it was ten years ago when
the individual was last employed and working in the
field and was on a byproduct license as an authorized
user?
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Dr. Folkert, I
think that's something that the NRC could consider as
a potential scenario --
MR. BRYANT: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 61
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: -- to add to the
guidance if I think I understood Mr. Bryant's question
correctly.
DR. FOLKERT: Yes, this is Michael Folkert
again. Yes, that's -- I mean he captured -- That's
exactly one of the ones that we specifically requested.
And so as a case example, a 10-year out
radiation oncologist who wanted to, you know, get set
up, because you could do one of the standard pathways
or you could do the preceptor attestation. That is
the one that is listed under Section 4.7 and it explains
the preceptor attestation method of getting on the
license.
So, but, yes, we should -- I mean providing
an explicit case example for some of these very common
scenarios I think is absolutely a need and clearly
wanted by the public.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Dr.
Folkert. Ralph Lieto, I think you can unmute yourself
now. Let's see if this works.
MR. LIETO: Can you hear me?
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes. I
apologize for all the issues but we can hear you now.
MR. LIETO: It's probably not on your end.
I ended up changing computers.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 62
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay.
MR. LIETO: My name is Ralph Lieto. I am
a retired RSO and medical physicist and I am asking
this on behalf of myself.
I had a couple of questions. My main one
has to do with the last slide where it talks about "in
person" versus "hands on." I am trying to understand
what that difference is.
Was that just maybe different authors of
the document using their respective terms or is there
some difference between "in person" and "hands on" that
I just don't fathom? So it's directed not only to the
Committee, the subcommittee, but also NRC.
DR. FOLKERT: Hi. It's Mike Folkert. So
I think maybe while you were switching computers we
had a discussion about that as well. I apologize if
it was confusing in the presentation.
We actually did not want that to be
discussed at all in the guidance. We actually asked
for it to be removed from the guidance, because there
are elements of -- there is definitions of these aspects
of training in specific guidance that are more in line
with specific applications, radiopharmaceutical
applications, device applications, so on and so forth,
and so it was a request to the NRC to address when
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 63
devices and applications require both in person and
hands on training.
The general thinking that hands on
training means that you train with the device or a mock
version of the device yourself, whereas in person is
you have a qualified person with you, physically with
you in a room, not on a Teams chat or a Zoom chat or
anything like that, going over the use of the device
or the application.
But as far as the guidance was concerned,
we had actually asked for it to be removed from the
guidance so it would not be part of this draft.
MR. LIETO: But -- Okay. But then you are
asking that just from that respective section but
wherever it's used in the document, is that correct,
because the terms are used about four or five times
throughout the document?
So some cases there is "hands on," the term
is used, and in other places, in a couple other
instances the term "in person" is used. So I am still
not clear in terms of the way you described "in person,"
how that does not mean that the person is actually hands
on with the device or some mock of it. So --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. LIETO: I think this is something that
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 64
needs to be fixed in the document and also in terms
of with NRC, but I think the term, it should be just
one term and not two terms.
I think "hands on" is used in other NRC
documents if my memory serves me right.
DR. FOLKERT: Yeah, I think it is.
MR. LIETO: Like in the regulatory
guidance documents.
DR. FOLKERT: Yeah.
MR. LIETO: So that was my one point. The
other is I think Maryann mentioned a comment about that
you could have more than one temporary RSO designated
during some type of transition, especially in larger
programs.
I don't -- I'm pretty sure that's not
common knowledge and I would recommend to the writing
committee that they clarify and maybe even specify that
point in a discussion about temporary RSOs, or, excuse
me, the associate RSOs becoming temporary, because I
think that's a very important point and could aid
licensees very much. Thank you.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Thank you,
Ralph. Again, thanks for putting up with our audio
issues. Let's see. I am looking for more hands
raised. Any other attendees who would like to comment.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 65
I think the audio now is working so you
can go ahead and unmute yourself or raise your hand
and I'll call on you.
(Pause.)
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay. William
Hinchcliffe, go ahead.
MR. HINCHCLIFFE: Hi. William
Hinchcliffe. I am the radiation safety officer for
Yale New Haven Hospital. Actually on this point for
the temporary radiation safety officer I just wanted
to clarify Ms. Ayoade's comments for 35.24(c), that
the 60 days a licensee makes for an individual qualified
radiation safety officer, the 60 days is specific to
the individual and not the licensee.
I was looking and there is a little bit
between 35.24(c) and 35.24(d) and whether it can be
multiple individuals longer than 60 days or is the 60
days tied to the licensee in an annual year, in a year?
DR. AYOADE: This is Maryann Ayoade from
the NRC. I can clarify that some more because I believe
that's what you are asking for, some more
clarification.
So as you mentioned the regulations in
35.24 does allow for the temporary RSO to serve in that
role for up to 60 days each year, right, and then it
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 66
is in I believe 10 CRF 35.14 the notification where
the licensee has to notify NRC within 30 days of any
changes, including that of the temporary RSO. I hope
that clarifies your question.
MR. HINCHCLIFFE: I think the actual
clarification was whether the 60 days is for the
individual or the 60 days is the maximum for a licensee
to have any temporary RSO. So --
(Simultaneous speaking.)
DR. AYOADE: The 60 days is for the
individual to function as a temporary RSO on the
license, or for the licensee.
MR. HINCHCLIFFE: Okay. So --
DR. AYOADE: So to function as a temporary
RSO.
MR. HINCHCLIFFE: For that individual.
So if you had two individuals you could have a temporary
RSO for 60 days and then you could in writing have a
new individual be a temporary RSO for 60 additional
days as long as you notified the NRC per 35.14?
DR. AYOADE: Yes. I believe from what you
said, yes, that's correct.
MR. HINCHCLIFFE: Okay. Thank you.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Thanks,
William. Matt Barrett, I think you can come off mute.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 67
I see your question in the chat. If you can't unmute
yourself then I can go ahead and read it but I figured
I'd give you the chance to come off mute.
MR. BARRETT: Yes. Let me try to clarify
(audio interference) --
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: See, I think
your connection is coming in and out, Matt, so maybe
I can read the question and if that's fixed on your
end you can come off mute.
Your question is "Would this be
acceptable, 10 CFR 35.24(d), a licensee may
simultaneously or sequentially appoint more than one
temporary radiation safety officer in accordance with
Paragraph C of this section if needed to ensure that
the licensee has a temporary radiation safety officer
that satisfied the requirements to be a radiation
safety officer for each of the different types of uses
of byproduct material permitted by the license?"
So, I don't know, maybe you can come off
mute now. Is that what the NRC is allowing? I think
based on your quoting of regulations I think, yes, it
would be allowed, but I don't know.
Maryann, maybe you can --I think that's
what you were speaking to earlier.
DR. AYOADE: Yes. Hi, Celimar, this is
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 68
Maryann Ayoade. So it looks like in is quote of
35.24(d) he included the language "or sequentially,"
right.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
DR. AYOADE: And currently the regulation
says "simultaneously."
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Right.
DR. AYOADE: And so currently the
regulation's intention is not for that to be the case.
But, again, on the case-by-case basis, you know, as
you notify us and you present the information to the
NRC or the agreement states, you know, we would have
to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Let's see. I
think he added something. The chat says "I am just"
-- Okay. "I am just trying to clarify is that what
we are verbally saying?" And I think Maryann clarified
that. Okay.
I don't see any other hands raised.
Anyone else from the public who would like to make a
comment feel free to come off mute or raise your hand
and I'll call on you.
It looks like the enabling mic feature for
all of you should be active so you can come off mute.
Dr. Carol Marcus, I see your hand raised. Go ahead.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 69
(Pause.)
DR. MARCUS: Can you hear me now?
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we can hear
you.
DR. MARCUS: Oh, okay. You'll have to
forgive me, but the first hour and a quarter of this
meeting I couldn't hear because there was some speaker
issue, but it's resolved now, so I don't know if this
was discussed at all.
I was concerned that preceptor attestation
in nuclear medicine now does not include assurance of
clinical competence but only radiation safety
competence.
The NRC has a statement that it's the job
of the Board of Medicine to regulate clinical
competence. Number one, it's not the job of the Board
of Medicine, they don't do that.
Once you pass Part 1, 2, and 3 of the
National Board Exams as long as you pay your fee you
get a license. In the very, very unlikely event that
somebody makes a complaint to the Board of Medicine
about your performance they will appoint a board
certified person in nuclear medicine to look at what
went on and to decide if you are competent, if that's
the question, but that hardly ever happens.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 70
I think it would really be important that
the preceptor attest to the clinical competence of the
physician because the physician is not board certified
in a field, you know, that is recognized by the NRC.
If you just -- You know, radiation safety
is pretty simple and almost anybody can learn it pretty
fast, but clinical competence is something else.
When I was teaching radiation oncology
residents to do radiopharmaceutical therapy they, you
know, satisfied the case numbers and things like that,
but that wasn't enough.
I had, you know, extensive discussions of
all the cases from a medical point of view and I had
a comprehensive written examination for each resident
and a passing grade was a 100. If you didn't get
something right you had to do it over till you got it
right.
So that my criteria for clinical
competence was more than what was set out in the
regulations because I simply wouldn't attest to that
unless I thought these residents could actually do the
job.
So I basically am asking the ACMUI how are
you going to assure that the people you license to do
radiopharmaceutical therapy, for example, are
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 71
clinically competent, you know.
If, you know, the Board of Radiology says
that the requirements of their residency program no
longer meets the NRC requirements -- Actually, it
hasn't met the NRC requirements in 20 years, but they
finally realized that they were lying so they stopped
this nonsense.
But what are we going to do about this
preceptor thing? Somebody has to decide that the
person is competent and usually it's the boards, the
specialty boards, but now you're talking about
licensing people who don't have specialty boards and,
you know, you better make sure they are competent.
I mean if the NRC has any job at all, you
know, you certainly don't want to license people who
aren't competent to do radiopharmaceutical therapy and
then shrug your shoulders when they screw up and say,
oh, well, it was the Board of Medicine's fault, not
ours.
That just does not fly at least in my
thinking. Well, I'm done. Anyone like to talk about
this?
DR. FOLKERT: It's Mike Folkert from the
ACMUI. I mean my personal opinion on this is that it
should be the responsibility of the specialty board
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 72
and the professional groups.
I know, for example, for radiation
oncology they are taking a very active role in this
through ASTRO. They are developing training
curriculum that is specific to radiopharmaceuticals.
The ACGME requirements have been expanded
to require increased numbers of cases for performance
of radiopharmaceuticals even in order to just to
graduate regardless of the NRC requirements.
It's actually currently above the old NRC
requirements, the number of cases that radiation
oncology residents are required to finish in order to
graduate now.
So, you know, my opinion is that it is the
responsibility of the specialty board and of the
professional societies that oversee the education of
radiation oncologists, in all areas, but I am most aware
of the radiation oncology residents, and so to make
sure that they are up to speed and clinically competent
for these.
I know they have also included
radiopharmaceutical questions into our oral boards,
which is a direct one-on-one, you know, testing of
knowledge.
So that's where I think the clinical
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 73
competency should be for the, at least for the board
areas. From the clarification that we had seen back
in 2018, they do still require attestation for folks
who are not trained by a specialty board, and so
preceptor attestation.
So that is still requiring the
attestation, but I know that the professional societies
are taking an active role in making sure that clinical
competency is met.
DR. MARCUS: Well if that's the case then
I would expect the American Board of Radiology to say
that the requirements for radiopharmaceutical therapy
are now met by accepted radiation oncology residency
programs, but they haven't said that yet, have they?
The last thing I heard was that neither
diagnostic radiology residency programs or radiation
oncology residency programs, neither of them meet the
requirements for radiopharmaceutical therapy.
I mean I like the idea of the residency
programs being altered to really establish competence,
but then it's up to the Board to ask the NRC to then
recognize their Board as competent, like we have for
the American Board of Nuclear Medicine, but that hasn't
happened yet as far as I know.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Dr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 74
Marcus. Dr. Einstein, did you want to make a comment?
DR. EINSTEIN: Yes. I would second Dr.
Folkert's thoughts about this as well. I appreciate
Dr. Marcus' concerns in ensuring quality of care, but
it doesn't seem to me to be the bailiwick of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to ensure clinical competence,
which is really more the bailiwick of organizations
which are approved by the American Board of Medical
Specialties and smaller organizations which are
affiliated with organizations that are affiliated with
the American Board of Medical Specialties.
You know, fundamentally the NRC is not a
clinical competency accrediting or a credentialing
organization. So while, you know, your comments are
very valid, I think to a certain degree you may be
barking up the wrong tree, as the expression goes.
Like I think you'll have ACMUI members who
are sympathetic to your concern, but NRC is probably
not the mechanism through which to ensure such clinical
competency.
DR. MARCUS: I agree with you completely.
The NRC is completely non-competent in clinical
anything.
What I am just pointing out is that the
only group that was providing assurance of clinical
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 75
competence was these preceptors and now the preceptor
only attests to radiation safety competence, which is
pretty simple and pretty basic, but not the clinical
competence.
So if the person is not board certified,
you know, board recognized by the NRC for its competence
in this area and the preceptor is not attesting to
clinical competence nobody is attesting to clinical
competence, and I think that's a problem.
I think that until the American Board of
Radiology says, okay, now our boards in radiation
oncology are consistent with clinical competency in
radiopharmaceutical therapy and they get the NRC to
recognize them, fine, we let the American Board of
Radiology determine clinical competence, but we don't
have that. We don't have anything.
DR. EINSTEIN: It's a problem as you point
out and it's a problem with the system, but it's not
a problem, you know, for the NRC. That's not NRC's
part of the system as I understand it.
So I encourage you to move forward with
these concerns but I don't know that moving forward
through ACMUI is the right way to do that.
DR. MARCUS: Well unless you have a
situation where the person can be called clinically
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 76
competent by the board that he has taken, if you would
say that the -- I mean your last chance of establishing
clinical competence is the preceptor and, you know,
it's been a joke for many years because most nuclear
medicine people are in a radiology department and if
they don't declare the residents clinically competent
they're not going to have a job.
So for years and years and years the
preceptors declared clinical competence when they were
really were very uncomfortable with that. When the
NRC said we no longer need these preceptor statements
in diagnostic and therapeutic radiology they were very
happy because then they didn't have to be responsible
for determining clinical competence, but that --And
now that you've put the preceptors back in here, and
I think maybe we shouldn't have it.
Unless you are Board certified in nuclear
medicine or nuclear radiology, which I assume now
includes therapy, it originally just included
diagnostic nuclear medicine, why do you need an
alternate pathway?
I mean the radiation oncologists to
practice radiation oncology you have to be board
certified in radiation oncology period. There isn't
any alternative thing.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 77
It would seem to me if the
radiopharmaceutical therapy should require that you
be boarded in a Board that is recognized by the NRC
as establishing clinical competence.
DR. EINSTEIN: Again, I agree that you
should be boarded by such a board, but I don't know
that it's the NRC's role to establish that, which
fundamentally is a check of clinical competency. This
is not a clinical organization.
DR. FOLKERT: So Michael Folkert, if it's
okay to join in again on that one.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Yes.
DR. FOLKERT: I mean we are very
sympathetic to the needs of ascertaining and confirming
clinical competency and this is an entire area of focus
for me as a former residency program director and
constantly involved in education and safety training,
and so for radiation therapy, brachytherapy, and
radiopharmaceuticals.
I mean this is actively being worked on
by the professional societies. One of the big programs
that is being developed, SNMMI has it, ASTRO has it,
the accreditation programs that look at centers of
excellence for radiopharmaceutical administration.
They are taking a deep dive into
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 78
competency, into safety, into how well these patients
are being taken care of, and people are going to be
applying for these accreditations and in the end, you
know, patients will have the choice to go to places
that are accredited that have that stamp of approval
for high quality care in terms of radiopharmaceuticals.
So this is, you know, so this venue for
looking at safety is very critical for the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, but in the areas that are
looking at clinical competency and for high quality
deliver of care with radiopharmaceuticals, these are
established and growing right now.
There are multiple accreditation programs
through ACR, ASTRO, and SNMMI, that are looking
specifically at this area and, you know, it's going
to be very obvious to patients which places have
satisfied this, which places have received these marks
of approval and which have not.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Dr.
Folkert. This is Celimar. I just wanted to step in
for the interest of time. It is 2:52 and our meeting
is scheduled to end at 3:00.
I just wanted to give Mr. Green and Dr.
Jadvar enough time to summarize the meeting as well
as put in a vote for the amendments to the report.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 79
So I appreciate everyone's interest in
this topic. I know that we'll have more public
meetings once we issue this document for public
comment, and so the public will have an opportunity
to weigh in with their own comments.
So, Mr. Green, if I can go ahead and
summarize the discussions for the meeting so you can
call for a vote on the amended report.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Yes, please do.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr.
Green. So for today besides the report that was
included as a handout I have the following amendments
that will be done to the draft report before it is issued
as final.
One is to clarify what the NRC means by
"conditions of a license." The next is to clarify and
add more detail to the section on assistant and
temporary RSOs, associate RSOs, and how that can be
and the difference between notification and especially
to clarify the 60-day requirement in 35.24.
The next issue that will be amended in the
report is to clarify that RSO responsibilities are
inclusive but not limited to the list that is already
included in the draft implementation staff guidance.
So those are the changes that I noted.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 80
Was there anything I missed before Mr. Green you can
call on the vote?
DR. JADVAR: Wasn't there a definition of
"hands on" and "in person" clarification?
VICE CHAIR GREEN: There was no
definition. There was an ask to remove that language.
DR. JADVAR: Remove, yes.
PARTICIPANT: Okay.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: And that's in the
report.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Do you want to
-- Is the ACMUI asking to amend that comment in the
report or should we keep it as is?
DR. FOLKERT: Let's see. So this is
Michael Folkert. Looking at the report and as was
mentioned that there were a couple points where "in
person" or "hands on" was mentioned besides that one
spot, so there are two mentions of "in person" and,
let's see, and then "hands on" I believe there were
two other mentions of it.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay. I'm good
with that.
DR. FOLKERT: And so we just have to be
thorough for getting those. So, yes, so it has
training and --So, for example, on Page 26 where it
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 81
says "hands on device operation" we could remove "hands
on" and have "training in device operation."
And then overall the NRC though does have
to be, has to have a definition of "in person" versus
"hands on" and where the crossover is because it's
critical for the training and certification for
different devices and applications throughout all the
different applications that we have.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: So from your
comment what I understand is you want to keep the
current recommendation but maybe propose a second one
to clarify "hands on" versus "in person?"
DR. FOLKERT: No. Yes, so this is not for
the report.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay.
DR. FOLKERT: Specifically for the report
to remove these comments of "hands on" versus "in
person."
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay.
DR. FOLKERT: But outside of the report
I mean the NRC needs to have a policy for what is hands
on and what is in person.
DR. VALENTIN-RODRIGUEZ: Okay. So I'll
take that back as an action for the NRC staff then.
I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Dr.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 82
Folkert.
If there is nothing else I think Mr. Green
I can turn the meeting back to you so you can call on
the vote.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Okay. I believe we do
need to have a second vote. We have amended the report
from our previous vote. So are there any votes to
accept the report as amended?
DR. HARVEY: I can make a motion. This
is Richard Harvey. I will make the motion to accept
the report with the revisions and clarifications.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you, Doctor.
Any seconds?
DR. EINSTEIN: Second.
PARTICIPANT: Second.
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Thank you, Andrew
Einstein. Okay, all in favor say aye.
(Chorus of ayes.)
VICE CHAIR GREEN: Any opposed?
And any abstentions?
Hearing none, the vote is unanimous.
Well, that concludes our time this
afternoon and I would like to thank you for
participating and for the Subcommittee for their
excellent work and report. We will now stand
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com 83
adjourned.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter
went off the record at 2:57 p.m.)
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1716 14th STREET, N.W., SUITE 200 (202) 234 -4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20009-4309 www.nealrgross.com COMMENTS FOR JUNE 5TH ACMUI MEETING
Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.
May 31, 2024
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on NRCs interim guidance on medical Training and Experience (T&E) requirements. I am surprised that the ACMUI has not commented on the fact that preceptor attestation no longer requires the preceptor to attest to the clinical competence of the recipient of his preceptoring, but only to his radiation safety competence. The NRC states that medical competence is the responsibility of the applicable state medical board.
This represents a huge change. For many years, licensed Nuclear Medicine physicians were expected to provide preceptor attestation for residents in Diagnostic Radiology and in Radiation Oncologythat included clinical competence. This caused a problem because the Nuclear Medicine physician often did not think that the resident was competent to practice Nuclear Medicine, but could lose his job if he/she did not provide preceptor attestation. Many nuclear medicine physicians were happy when preceptor atte station was no longer required for Diagnostic Radiology and Radiation Oncology residency programs. Board certification was all that was required. Now that the American Board of Radiology no longer claims that its residency programs in Diagnostic Radiology and Radiation Oncology meet NRCs T&E requirements, there is no requirement that preceptors attest to clinical competence, only radiation safety competence. There is no one to judge clinical competence. State medical boards do not do this, except in the unlikely event of a malpractice accusation.
I think that the ACMUI and its subcommittee need to address this. Some entity has to assure clinical competence to keep patients safe.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.