[Intl_DxMedPhys] Are shielding surveys for replacements required?

Wed Sep 10 16:57:36 EDT 2025

Hi Nima,

There is an easy answer to convincing administration of best practice and answering the question you pose of “that’s fine, but is it in the state regs?” and my answer would be to defer to the institution’s lawyers / legal department. Normally I would avoid the legal department at all costs, they typically bog everything down, but in a case where an individual or department does not want to follow best practices or skirt around a grey area, I would engage the legal department. They will likely enlighten those involved as to the potential costs of not following standards and/or best practices, both in safety and money.

A different topic, but similar vein, there are no state regs limiting radiation dose to patients, but if an institution delivers 20 Gy of skin dose to a patient and didn’t follow best practices, proper risk mitigation, and/or standard of care there will be a cost, even though the state might not have an explicit threshold…

All the best,
Kevin

[The Ohio State University]
Kevin Wunderle, PhD, FAAPM, FACR
Professor, Department of Radiology
Diagnostic Medical Physicist
395 W. 12th Avenue,
Floor 4, Room 424
Columbus, OH, 43210
216-245-5513 Mobile
kevin.wunderle at osumc.edu<mailto:kevin.wunderle at osumc.edu>

From: Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces at lists.osu.edu> On Behalf Of Nima Kasraie via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2:59 PM
To: intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu
Subject: Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] Are shielding surveys for replacements required?

These questions that I ask over the years often have a common theme: how do you convince admins of a “good practice” when there is spotty/hazy/confusing regulatory coverage on it. Like, how do you respond to “that’s fine, but is it in the state
These questions that I ask over the years often have a common theme: how do you convince admins of a “good practice” when there is spotty/hazy/confusing regulatory coverage on it.

Like, how do you respond to “that’s fine, but is it in the state regs?”?

In the case of NM and CT, JC is often equivocally clear, but for e.g. fluoro, I’m not very pleased (as a QMP) having to constantly go to battle and put up an offensive to establish the need for implementing certain safeguards or good practices. Some things should be obvious. In my mind, in an ideal world, the word of a QMP should be enough. I shouldn’t have to pull out a string of regulations and standards and flash them at everybody to convince them that certain things are needed.

One time, a client told me that they did not need a shielding inspection for their SPECT-CT upgrade, because “GE has provided it to us”.

Thanks to all.

Nima

From: Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces at lists.osu.edu<mailto:intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list-bounces at lists.osu.edu>> On Behalf Of John Sadler via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Eugene Mah <eugenemah at gmail.com<mailto:eugenemah at gmail.com>>
Cc: intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu<mailto:intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>
Subject: Re: [Intl_DxMedPhys] Are shielding surveys for replacements required?

Even if it is not regulatory, it is good practice. Not only does it confirm that the shielding is adequate, but it can also detect irregularities with the system. John Sadler, MS, DABR Licensed Medical Physicist Mobile 214-924-0046 John. Sadler@ 

Even if it is not regulatory, it is good practice. Not only does it confirm that the shielding is adequate, but it can also detect irregularities with the system. John Sadler, MS, DABR Licensed Medical Physicist Mobile 214-924-0046 John. Sadler@ mac. com
Even if it is not regulatory, it is good practice.

Not only does it confirm that the shielding is adequate, but it can also detect irregularities with the system.

John Sadler, MS, DABR
Licensed Medical Physicist
Mobile 214-924-0046
John.Sadler at mac.com<mailto:John.Sadler at mac.com>

On Sep 9, 2025, at 10:45 AM, Eugene Mah via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu<mailto:intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>> wrote:

South Carolina regulations require a new shielding plan and shielding evaluation whenever a new x-ray system is installed or replaces an existing system. Eugene --------------------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Mah,
South Carolina regulations require a new shielding plan and shielding evaluation whenever a new x-ray system is installed or replaces an existing system.

Eugene

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Mah, Ph.D., DABR               eugenemah at gmail.com<mailto:eugenemah at gmail.com>
Medical Physicist                     maheug at musc.edu<mailto:maheug at musc.edu>
                                      "For I am a Bear of Very Little
                                       Brain, and long words Bother
Charleston, SC 29425                   me." - Winnie the Pooh
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://v16.imablog.net/__;!!KGKeukY!y9kErFRcK7JTcI5cJ6FeBtNsEO2r97wP3-wyIS_e4GdozC2CsuA7R8Y6rnXQROY61tpRT3sp_MonDFi88f__OpYle_nBYo57-wksmFFZ-P_ifYQ55A$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/v16.imablog.net/__;!!KGKeukY!3fYTxnODWFhpPwU11j1j_M3uMCCu7FoYXn9EiILzwW1tg_GQ70QdPkbNrFhTX1mjf6COWi7qFXTp1Gd8ZYNeCl4k3QLCEn4PL77NCiVF$>              Jabber: imabug at imabug.net<mailto:imabug at imabug.net>
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://blog.ab4ug.net/__;!!KGKeukY!y9kErFRcK7JTcI5cJ6FeBtNsEO2r97wP3-wyIS_e4GdozC2CsuA7R8Y6rnXQROY61tpRT3sp_MonDFi88f__OpYle_nBYo57-wksmFFZ-P-0CV-23g$ <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/blog.ab4ug.net/__;!!KGKeukY!3fYTxnODWFhpPwU11j1j_M3uMCCu7FoYXn9EiILzwW1tg_GQ70QdPkbNrFhTX1mjf6COWi7qFXTp1Gd8ZYNeCl4k3QLCEn4PL_nJuMDe$>
PGP KeyID                             PGP key available on request O-
0x56B705CAE9542BB8
---------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 2:39 PM Nima Kasraie via Intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list <intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu<mailto:intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list at lists.osu.edu>> wrote:
Hi all, If you replace a fluoro room with a similar model and vendor with no changes to room shielding and walls, do you still need to do a shielding survey, legally speaking? TJC says yes. But what about the states? For example, in Texas, I
Hi all,

If you replace a fluoro room with a similar model and vendor with no changes to room shielding and walls, do you still need to do a shielding survey, legally speaking?

TJC says yes.

But what about the states?

For example, in Texas, I find no mention of the state regs where they compel a shielding survey for diagnostic X-ray/fluoroscopy rooms. It’s not in TAC 289.227, nor any of the adopted rules I could find.

But if the state doesn’t ask for it, can they expect a post-installation shielding confirmation—especially for high-dose fluoro rooms—even if that expectation isn't explicitly stated in 227?

I find it hard to accept that the state wouldn’t have any specific language on this issue.

Nima

________________________________

UT Southwestern

Medical Center

The future of medicine, today.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list/attachments/20250910/c0f4dfa2/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3605 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/intl_dxmedphys_wd_osu_list/attachments/20250910/c0f4dfa2/attachment.png>