ML20141J082
| ML20141J082 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/07/1995 |
| From: | Siegel B NRC |
| To: | Stewart Schneider NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20007J296 | List:
|
| 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
- 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