[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Patient Release - A Related Question
David's reference is well taken. My point was only that the 0.5 rem limit
has some history with the Commission and is thus a little easier to swallow
than instituting a totally new limit. We all must also remember that the
AMA has a very strong lobby. If the NRC has allowed a loophole to exist, I
am certain the AMA will find a way to squeeze through it. I personally feel
that the AMA should have been covered by many of the regulations from which
they have been exempted.
Just spouting off again
James H. Reese
Health Physicist
(916) 689-2680 tel.
(916) 689-6270 fax
james.reese@worldnet.att.net
----- Original Message -----
From: David Whitfill/Kdhe <DWhitfil@kdhe.state.ks.us>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: October 29, 1999 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: Patient Release - A Related Question
>
> This is from the NRC's 10 CFR Part 20 Training Manual (Rev 0793), page
> 20.1301-11:
>
> "The 0.5 rem per year limit is available only upon specific application to
> and approval by the Commission. A 0.5 rem value has been retained in order
> to apply to transient situations and to alleviate the immediate need to
> redesign or reshield existing facilities that were designed to meet the
> former 0.5 rem limit. The 0.5 rem limit is intended to be applied
primarily
> to temporary situations where operation of a facility, or the person's
> exposure to radiation and radioactive emissions, is not expected to result
> in doses above 0.1 rem over long periods of time. For design of new
> installations, the 0.1 rem limit should be used. However, existing
> facilities may apply for NRC approval to use the 0.5 rem limit while more
> complete evaluation of the need for any additional modifications is
> performed. Such facilities may include, for example, hospitals with
> existing teletherapy machines that were designed, constructed, and
> installed to comply with a 0.5 rem annual dose limit."
>
>
>
>
>
> "James Reese" <james.reese@worldnet.att.net>@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu on
> 10/29/99 09:15:25 AM
>
> Please respond to radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>
> Sent by: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
>
>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> cc:
>
> Subject: Re: Patient Release - A Related Question
>
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but does not 10 CFR 20.1301(c) provide licensees
> (including reactor licensees) to raise their annual exposure limit for
> members of the public to 500 mrem? This would seem to indicate to me
that
> there is some consistency in the 500 mrem limit.
>
> Only spouting off my thoughts
> James H. Reese
> Health Physicist
> (916) 689-2680 tel.
> (916) 689-6270 fax
> james.reese@worldnet.att.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tonry, Louie L MAJ <Louie.Tonry@se.amedd.army.mil>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: October 29, 1999 6:49 AM
> Subject: RE: Patient Release - A Related Question
>
>
> > The 500 mrem is not to any member of the general public, it is to a
> select
> > member of the public, namely the family member. At least this is the
> > intent.
> >
> > When the patient is released, they are given specific instuctions on
> where
> > they can go, how to minimize doses to those around them, etc.
> >
> > As far as the contamination, realistically, the potential dose from
> uptake
> > of their contamination is minimal. I think it is routinely agreed that
> we
> > have the contamination levels not because they are necessary for dose
> > minimization but rather because we can and therefore it's ALARA.
> >
> > Louie Tonry, CHP
> > Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Ft. Gordon, GA
> > louie.tonry@se.amedd.army.mil
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM [mailto:steve.rima@DOEGJPO.COM]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 3:13 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Patient Release - A Related Question
> >
> >
> > RADSAFERs,
> >
> > In my last post on this topic, I asked a question that has bugged
me
> > for quite a while. Maybe someone out there can attempt to answer
it.
> >
> > Most NRC and Agreement State licensees are subject to the 100
mrem/y
> > limit for members of the public from their activities. In addition,
> > there are some pretty strict public information requirements for
> many
> > licensees, especially nuclear power plants, whereby they have to
> > provide information on the calculated _theoretical_ dose, and the
> > measured dose, that their plant is giving local residents. DOE
sites
> > have similar requirements. There are also _very_ strict limits on
> how
> > much surface contamination is allowed to be released to the public
> on
> > material released from their sites.
> >
> > Medical licensees, on the other hand, can now release a patient to
> the
> > public so long as the _calculated_ dose to a member of the public
is
> > less than 500 mrem, and there is obviously no way to ever measure
or
> > confirm whether this was exceeded. There is also no requirement,
nor
> > attempts I've heard of, from hospitals to alert the local public
> that
> > they may be randomly exposed to up to 500 mrem from their patients.
> We
> > also know that a person with tens to hundreds of I-131 will
> > contaminate everything they touch, usually to a level above what is
> > releasable from other licensees, with no monitoring or public
notice
> > required.
> >
> > QUESTION: Why is there/should there be such a double standard???
> I-131
> > is I-131, whether from a hospital or power plant, and a mrem is a
> > mrem, no matter the source, so why can hospitals do things that
> would
> > get other licensees cited, fined, or even shut down? An argument
can
> > be made that residents near a power plant benefit from its
> operation,
> > but I don't believe that the random member of the public exposed to
> a
> > radioactive patient receives any benefit whatsoever.
> >
> > I'm NOT addressing patient care issues here. Dr. Marcus asserts
that
> > the NRC should stay completely out of that arena, and I totally
> agree
> > with her on that point. However, this question has absolutely
> nothing
> > to do with patient care and everything to do with consistency, or
> the
> > lack thereof, in regulations regarding public dose limits and
> > notification.
> >
> > Anybody care to take a stab at an answer to this?
> >
> > Steven D. Rima, CHP, CSP
> > Manager, Health Physics and Industrial Hygiene
> > MACTEC-ERS, LLC
> > steven.rima@doegjpo.com
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> > ************************************************************************
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html