[ RadSafe ] Seeking exempt quantity sources donation.

Fri Sep 4 00:45:51 CDT 2009

Hello. A little joke:
I can throw at waste one exemt source (without labels) ok?, and then,  
one man take it from waste and throw money at waste, and then I return  
and take the money from waste.
This is distribution too, or not?
Sometimes the law have no sense...

Miguel Angel Sebastian
www.matralab.com

Dale Boyce <daleboyce at charter.net> ha escrito:

> I had to look for a ruling quite a few years ago. The response I got
> was that sending (the same) material to more than two other
> institutions was considered distribution. Note, that this was for
> non-exempt quantities. However, I was told that the exchange of money
> had no impact on the interpretation of distribution.
>
> I would interpret this as you could send an exempt quantity to one or
> two people without being in violation. That said you will still have to
> face the interpretation of the regulations of the folk that decide to
> challenge it.
>
> Dale
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cary Renquist" <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
> To: "Cary Renquist" <cary.renquist at ezag.com>; "Geo>K0FF"
> <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>; "Glenn R. Marshall"
> <GRMarshall at philotechnics.com>; "Bray, Linda G."
> <LINDA.G.BRAY at saic.com>; "Johanning, Jeffrey R."
> <JEFFREY.R.JOHANNING at saic.com>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 4:15 PM
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Seeking exempt quantity sources donation.
>
>
> I'll reply to myself.
> I thought that I remembered an old HP Position Paper on the subject...
>
> NRC: Health Physics Positions
> No License is Required for a Person to Receive Exempt Quantity
> Byproduct Material
> <http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/protects-you/hppos/hppos131.html>
>
> The second question concerned whether a licensee (Facility
> A), who had bought an exempt quantity of radioactivity
> material from the manufacturer, can give the radioactive
> material to Facility B. (As examples, Facility B is not
> licensed for the possession of any radioactive material, or
> Facility B does possess a radioactive material license, but
> it is not licensed for this radioactive material.) In
> reply, NRC stated that Facility A may give an exempt
> quantity of material to Facility B provided that it does
> not transfer the material as part of a commercial
> distribution under the provisions of 10 CFR 30.18 (c) and
> (d) or does not have reason to believe Facility B will
> transfer the material for purposes of commercial
> distribution to persons exempt under 10 CFR 30.18 or
> equivalent Agreement State regulations. Therefore, Facility
> A may transfer the material provided it is an exempt
> quantity and that paragraphs (c) and (d) of 10 CFR 30.18 do
> not apply.
>
> Best regards,
> Cary
>
> ---
> Cary Renquist
> Direct: +1 661-309-1033
> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Cary Renquist
> Sent: Wednesday, 02 September 2009 15:38
> To: Geo>K0FF; Glenn R. Marshall; Bray, Linda G.; Johanning, Jeffrey R.;
> radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Seeking exempt quantity sources donation.
>
>
> If my friend buys an exempt source and then later gives it to his niece
> to use for her mad scientist experiments, I would like to know what
> regulation has been violated.
>
> If the regulator is going to cite a person for a violation, then they
> need to cite the regulation.
> If the person is exempt from the regulation that they are being cited
> for, then the regulator doesn't
> have a leg to stand on.
>
>   "That certainly seems contradictory, and no one at the NRC office
> will defend either
>    application of the rule. It is not their job to do that."
>
> My 0.02 $US:
> Well, if they are not willing to defend it, then that sounds like they
> are probably not willing to enforce
> the "it's a violation" interpretation of the rule.
>
> It reminds me of the time that I encountered a State regulator who
> "didn't agree" with her State's
> 10cfr§35.65 equivalent rule and tried to cite one of her licensees  
> who possessed sources under that
> rule.  [It is optional for the agreement state to adopt that particular
> rule for NRC compatibility, but
> once the State puts that rule on the books, it is there and not optional]
> <off soapbox>
>
> The regulations that I can see being violated by "persons" who possess
> exempt sources are DOT regulations...
> NRC exempt quantities are typically higher than DOT exempt consignment
> levels, thus transport of NRC exempt
> sources should be as limited quantity excepted packages.
>
> So if my friend put that exempt quantity source in his car's cup-holder
> and got into an accident as he drove over to his niece's house, he
> might get in trouble with the DOT when the first responder's
> over-sensitive-rad-alert-pager-thingie goes off and thus summons the
> FBI, DHS, etc....
>
> Best regards,
> Cary
>
> ---
> Cary Renquist
> Direct: +1 661-309-1033
> cary.renquist at ezag.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geo>K0FF [mailto:GEOelectronics at netscape.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 02 September 2009 12:51
> To: Glenn R. Marshall; Cary Renquist; Bray, Linda G.; Johanning,
> Jeffrey R.; radsafe at radlab.nl
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Seeking exempt quantity sources donation.
>
>
> Glenn said:
> "----- Original Message ----- From: "Glenn R. Marshall" Now I believe
> the original question had to do with
> a specific licensee wanting a bunch of exempt sources to distribute them to
> unlicensed entities such as schools.  That requires an exempt distribution
> license under Part 32.
>
> Glenn "
>
> Concerning schedule B, exempt quantity sources.
> Quite correct Glenn. To receive the sources, they must come from a licensed
> distributor.
> To transfer the sources, they must be transferred by a licensed distributor.
>
> No sort of license is needed to own or use them, but an unlicensed user
> cannot combine exempt quantity
> sources for the purpose of increasing the radioactivity.
>
> It is true that the NRC rules plainly state that there is no restriction on
> ownerships.etc and transferring the material.
>
> It says that in plain language, but the NRC also gives guidance that an
> unlicensed person may not "enter the sources into the marketplace", and
> further states that is is laughable that anyone would thing the rules
> mentioned above would allow someone to purchase the sources from a
> licensed place, then give them
> away.
>
> That certainly seems contradictory, and no one at the NRC office will defend
> either application of the rule. It is not their job to do that.
> That is the job of the NRC legal department, and they will not do that for
> you for free. It is not their job to do that.
>
>
>
>
>
> George Dowell
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/