Re: incontinent patient dosed with ~100 mCi of I-131

[Don Edling <dedling@home.com>]

As I unerstand it, the qustion would be "Is the radoactive material
(Iodine diapers)part of a commercial transport activity. If "Yes" then
apppropriate DOT regulations would apply. If "No", this is a private
person carrying his own contaminated materials, then the DOT regulations
do not apply. The DOT regulations apply only to RAM introduced into
commrcial transport.

Example: I can purchase and package large quantities of gasoline (an
example hazardous material)and transport it in the trunk of my car
without concern for proper DOT packaging, marking, labeling as long as
the gasoline is  not shipped "commercially." I am not saying this is an
appropraite thing to do from a safety standpoint, good practice, etc.,
but, it can be done without need for DOT regulatory compliance.

I suspect if the contaminated diapers were given to or left with a
hospital or commercial facility for disposal, the "commercial" criteria
would be met and appropriate DOT regulations would apply.

Anther example might be something like a smoke detector with amerecium
or similar RAM. I can purchase and transport (i.e. home) any number of
such items without concern for DOT regulations - excepted quantities -
instruments and articles - lSA - marking - labeling - shipping papers,
etc.

Don



William V Lipton wrote:
> 
> Many thanx for you thoughtful response.  However, I do not see valid regulatory
> basis.  It is important to keep in mind that DOT and NRC regulations, although they
> interface in many areas, are separate.  Often, material which is exempt from
> licensing requirements is still considered "radioactive material" for
> transportation.  Likewise, waste material that is below the DOT threshold for
> "radioactive material" (i.e., < 2 nCi/g) may still be considered "radioactive waste"
> by the NRC.  Thus, I'd have to disagree with the reasoning in your statement:
> 
> "Once the patient is released from confinement, the radioactive material is
> unregulated.  The patient does not need a "license", and while counseled to
> take certain precautions, cannot be forced to do so.  The patient can carry
> contaminated diapers in their car without a DOT license, and can carry
> themselves in their car without a DOT license as well."
> 
> You're correct in stating that a patient does not need an NRC license to possess his
> contaminated diaper.  However, the diaper may still be within the DOT definition of
> "radioactive material," and, hence subject to DOT regulation.  BTW, there is no such
> thing as a "DOT license."
> 
> In addition, the licensee, under 10CFR35.75, is required to: "... provide the
> released individual with instructions, including written instructions, on actions
> recommended to maintain doses to other individuals as low as reasonably achievable
> if the total effective dose equivalent to any other individual is likely to exceed 1
> millisievert (0.1 rem)...."  These instructions must:  (1) be effective, and (2) not
> instruct to patient to violate any regulations.
> 
> The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
> It's not about dose, it's about trust.
> 
> Bill Lipton
> liptonw@dteenergy.com
> 
> >
> > >carol marcus wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear Radsafers:
> > >
> > Dear Radsafers:
> >
> > Once the patient is released from confinement, the radioactive material is
> > unregulated.  The patient does not need a "license", and while counseled to
> > take certain precautions, cannot be forced to do so.  The patient can carry
> > contaminated diapers in their car without a DOT license, and can carry
> > themselves in their car without a DOT license as well.  They can throw
> > contaminated kleenexes in any garbage can or waste basket they like.  Once
> > the material is deregulated, it is no longer labeled "radioactive", and I
> > believe that it is illogical to assume that if it touches that hands of
> > someone on a license that it is suddenly reregulated.  This point was raised
> > with some radiation control program directors a couple of years ago, who
> > agreed that once patients are released from confinement, their contaminated
> > articles are permanently deregulated in terms of NRC or Agreement State
> > radiation requirements.
> >
> > I have always treated it as such, with no directive from anyone otherwise
> > (e.g. a radiation regulator or my RSO).  The point is that no member of the
> > public can get more than 500 mrem from the patient or his/her diapers
> > because if someone reasonably could, the physician should have kept the
> > patient in the hospital in the first place.  Why make a big deal about an
> > insignificant hazard?
> >
> > If you can show that a physician is letting someone out of the hospital in a
> > situation where it is reasonable to expect a member of the public to get
> > more than 500 mrem, I would (1) like to see your analysis and (2) suggest
> > that you should get that physician off the license.
> >
> > Ciao, Carol
> >
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
begin:vcard 
n:Edlign;Don
tel;fax:502-899-5117
tel;home:502-896-8597
tel;work:502-896-8597
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:CROFT Inc.
version:2.1
email;internet:dedling@home.com
adr;quoted-printable:;;1105 Old Cannons Lane=0D=0A;Louisville;Kentucky;40207;
fn:Don A. Edling
end:vcard