ML20141J082

Submits Comments,Concerns & Questions Re FRN Review

ML20141J082
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/07/1995
From:	Siegel B NRC
To:	Stewart Schneider NRC
Shared Package
ML20007J296	List: ML20141J014 ML20141J036 ML20141J051 ML20141J057 ML20141J066 ML20141J073 ML20141J078 ML20141J082 ML20141J087 ML20141J089 ML20141J091 ML20141J096 ML20141J102 ML20141J108 ML20141J113 ML20141J120 ML20141J122 ML20141J126 ML20141J135 ML20141J142 ML20141J145 ML20141J151 ML20141J157 ML20141J162 ML20141J175 ML20141J180 ML20141J185 ML20141J191 ML20141J195 ML20141J201 ML20141J207 ML20141J208 ML20141J214 ML20141J220 ML20141J225 ML20141J230 ML20141J235 ML20141J242 ML20141J246 ML20141J251 ML20141J255 ML20141J261 ML20141J265 ML20141J272 ML20141J279 ML20141J283 ML20141J292 ML20141J298 ML20141J303 ML20141J308 ... further results
References
FRN-62FR4120, RULE-PR-20, RULE-PR-35 AE41-2-017, AE41-2-17, NUDOCS 9708140373
Download: ML20141J082 (1)

Text

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _

4' 4 -

From: "Barry Siegel" ("SIEGELB9MIRLINK.WUSTL.EDU")

To: . sxs49nrc. gov r

-Date: Wednesday, June 7, 1995 11:56 pm

Subject:

. .#164# 35.75 (SMTP-Id#: 57852) 16 @ [b $

Stewart:

1.have reviewed the FRN you sent this afternoon, and still have a few comments / concerns / questions.

1. First, referring to my e-mail note of 3 June, I am still not certain why the " annual" and " single-administration" modifiers of the dose limit have been

. eliminated in the current draft (bby comparison with the 20 April draft).

2. In several- placas, the FRN refers to the existing release criterion of a measured dose rate of less than 5 millirems per hour at a distance of one meter. I don't have a copy of Part 35 at home (which is where I am writing.

this) to check to see what the current rule actually says, but shouldn't this be in units of milliroentgens (mR), since that is what is actually being jm _

measured. i

3. The section title "RECORDKEEPING FOR ADMINISTRATIONS AB0VE 1.MILLISIEVE T 4M (0.1 REM)" would be more accurate if:it were "RECORDKEEPING FOR -

Qinh-l ADMINISTRATIONS RESULTING IN DOSES ABOVE 1 MILLISIEVERT (0.1 REM)". [

4. In the Discussion of the Final Rule Text, there is the following paragraph" '

L "In the case of breast-feeding women where the dose to the infant is likely to exceed 1 millisievert (0.1 rem), there is no specific requirement. to maintain a record indicating that breast-feeding status was determined prior to the release of the patient. However,:the NRC would find it acceptable to demonstrate compliance with the requirement to provide instructions if the 4 determination of breast-feeding status is made part of the licensee's procedural routine-for patient release."

l Doesn't.this second statement constitute the indirect introduction of a new regulatory requirement by way of the Statements of Consideration?

Alternatively, is-it assumed by NRC that in order for. licensees to comply with

1. 164# 35.75 (a) and #164# 35.75-(d), they obviously have to develop procedures .t to-determine whether female patients are breast-feeding?

% 5. .When will-the new draft RG be available? I would very much like to review it.

p g 4 gg ,

6. Have you given any thought yet to comments #7 and #8 in my 3 June note (regarding NARM and written breast-feeding instructions, respectivvely)?

BAS CC: jeg9nrc. gov >, " Larry W.-Camper" <lwc0nrc. gov >, ...

~ (f 9700140373 970007 PDR PR 20 62FR4120 PDR u 9Go%l4CN Odi

y,- h , s ' Ch m ts NC Gnwdw .

(t/G% tkoopa A-i c<cc sa ,1,s &

O O