Public comments for: Repeal and Reenact Radiation Control Rule (Article 175 of the NYC Health Code)

Comments

Comment:
To whom this may concern, In reviewing the proposed revisions to Article 175, I would like to request that the Office of Radiological Health reconsider the release of this document until a formal review be performed by the Department with the input of a committee of New York State Licensed and Board Certified Radiologists, Radiation Oncologists and Medical Physicists. These individuals will have experience and knowledge of Federal, State and Local regulations as well as an understanding of the current literature and practice parameters recommended by the various academic and clinical organizations and radiological societies in their respective fields. The document, as presently constituted, conflicts with New York State Education and Licensing requirements regarding the practicing of Medical Physics, as well as New York State regulations regarding Radiation Safety requirements. It’s recommendations and regulations conflict with published practice parameters from the American College of Radiology (ACR) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM). The definitions of important terminology in the new document are incorrect or incomplete and are often times contradicted at a later point in the body of the Article 175 proposal. An itemized list of recommended corrections have been submitted to your Office by the New York Chapter of the AAPM (RAMPS). To repeat the list in e-mail form would be redundant and counter-productive. The length of this list is proof enough that a committee of NYC Department of Health officials and representatives from licensed and practicing professional organizations (eg. RAMPS, NYSRS) should convene to review and rewrite Article 175. I would like to formally request that after such a committee has had appropriate time to meet and revise the proposed changes, that the public period for review and comment be reopened so that the public input be a method of “fine-tuning” the final document instead of the current state of Article 175, which in my opinion, requires wholesale changes and revision. I hope that my comments are seen as constructive. I understand that the revision of this document is intended to provide a long term benefit to the health and safety of New York City residents. But as presently constituted, my professional opinion is that it will have the opposite effect. Thank you for your time. Bill William E. Moloney, M.S., DABR Medical Physicist
Agency: DOHMH
Comment:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the repeal and replace of Article 175. Attached are a list of comments for your review. Please also consider convening a committee of stakeholders to assist in the process of the review and rewriting of this code.
Supporting Document:
Agency: DOHMH
Comment:
Please see the attached letter regarding comments on the proposed repeal and reenactment of Article 175 from Dr. Joshua L. Weibtraub and Dr. Peter F. Caracappa
Agency: DOHMH
Comment:
I agree with most of the comments on the Repeal and Reenactment of Article 175 of the New York City Health Code provided by Radiological and Medical Physics Society (RAMPS) and The New York State Radiological Society (NYSRS). Attached are my additional comments to the proposed new Article 175. Sincerely, Yongguang Liang, Ph.D.
Agency: DOHMH
Comment:
Mid-June 2018 the Office of Radiological Health of the Department of Health of the City of New York published a draft of proposed changes to §175. Although the idea of updating the current code is a good one, closer review showed that this proposed draft cannot, in its current form, considered to be a satisfactory document. It falls short because it contains contradictions, errors, unrealistic and/or onerous requirements and unclear procedures. It also falls short because many of the items that were imperfect in the current version have not been addressed. I reviewed the draft and discussed it with many of my colleagues. The comments, concerns, corrections, edits, questions and, suggestions listed below are my own and do not in any way reflect the opinions of CUMC-NYP or RAMPS. Those two organizations will in due time provide their own feedback. I strongly believe that the idea to update §175 is an excellent one. However, as I know from personal experience, having published papers, policies, and manuals, I believe the DOH has developed a little bit of ‘tunnel vision’ concerning the imperfections. It would truly be for the best for all stakeholders, DOH, patients, physicists, physicians, radiation safety personnel, and administrators if a workgroup could be created to work synergistically to clean the draft up and create a document that can be a model nationwide. I concede that this would certainly delay the final approval of the update but given that once in place the legislation will be affecting patient care, radiation safety, and X-ray quality assurance for many years to come, it, I believe, an acceptable price to pay. Sincerely yours, Klaus A. Hamacher, Ph.D encl.: Full list of comments, concerns, corrections, edits, questions and, suggestions
Agency: DOHMH
Comment:
Attached please find the response from the Radiologic and Medical Physics Society of New York, the local chapter of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Agency: DOHMH
Comment:
Please see the attached comments provided by the New York State Radiological Society.
Agency: DOHMH
Comment:
In Article 175.08 Definitions, “Skyshine” means radiation, such as neutrons and photons, generated by high energy proton accelerators over 10 MeV, which can be scattered by the atmosphere near the facility and result in public exposure as a scattered dose. Here Skyshine, as radiation exposure scattered by atmosphere to the point on the ground around outside of perimeter of the facility, is a common scene seen in accelerator facility, not only proton accelerators. Skyshine is often seen when a vault roof is essentially unshielded, even below 10 MeV. For example, the SKYSHINE program NRC used is based on a tropical 6.2MeV gamma(photon) source. I suggest the this definition could be: “Skyshine” means radiation, such as neutrons and photons, generated by high energy accelerators, which can be scattered by the atmosphere near the facility and result in public exposure as a scattered dose. Thank you
Agency: DOHMH