Lot's of gray area Re: [ RadSafe ] Seeking exempt quantity sources donation.

[Dale Boyce]

Many years ago a company asked me to analyze a water sample for Co-60. I 
worked for an institution that gave me the capability to do so, and I 
agreed. I gave them a letter with a non-detect and a MDA.

Later, I got a call from a state inspector questioning whether I was 
licensed to do commercial leak testing.  No, I did not do a leak test. I 
evaluated a sample, an exempt sample for which I did not require licensing 
to receive or analyze. As I understand it the ability of a licensee to 
transfer exempt quantites to a non-licensee for analysis is the main reason 
for part of the exempt quantity rules.


Still, it caused some heart burn. One has to be very careful in transferring 
exempt quantities because it is subject to interpretation of folk that may 
not interpret the rules in the same way.

Dale
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cary Renquist" <cary.renquist at ezag.com>
To: "Dale Boyce" <daleboyce at charter.net>; <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Seeking exempt quantity sources donation.



The key for the exempt quantities is "commercial distribution"...
There is a very broad interpretation of "commercial" that does not involve 
monetary exchange.

This is the way that I look at it...
If you have an established business relationship (or anticipate a future 
relationship) of any sort
with the "person" to whom you are transferring, then I would think that it 
would be interpreted as
commercial.  Basically, if you expect to benefit from the transfer, then it 
is likely deemed commercial.
A good gray-area example:
Let's say that I am a rad consultant.  The son of one of my clients wants to 
do a science fair
project on radiation so I give him a couple old exempt sources that I have 
laying around.  I'm
technically in violation of 30.18 since I have a business relationship with 
his mother and I am
essentially "buying goodwill" from my client (even though my intentions are 
just to help with a
science project).  Now, this likely would never escalate to the point of any 
sort of "finding" unless
Butterfly-solar-flower's mom freaks out at the science fair because Bobby 
has radioactive material.
If I was just John Q. Geek who happened to have a couple of old check 
sources from some DIY detector
project that I played with years ago and I gave the sources to my neighbor's 
son, Bobby, to use for his
project, then I would think that I was within the scope of 10cfr30.18.

If you are transferring exempt quantities on a regular basis and not "once 
in a blue moon", then that
is starting to look like commercial distribution (even if there is no 
business relationship or money
exchanged).  Not too sure, but an exception might be something like sending 
a monthly water sample to
a lab for chemical analysis (monthly might be a bit too frequent).

Trying to think of a situation that could go either way...
Let's say Nuke Em All, Inc.  has to submit a quarterly waste water report to 
their city.  NEA, inc.
usually sends their waste water sample to a rad-licensed laboratory, Rad 
Water Lab, LLC, for analysis.
The city lowers the release limit for a chemical to a level below Rad Water 
Lab's detection capability.
 o Situation A: NEA finds a local water lab that can do the analysis, but 
they don't have
   a rad license -- it is likely that NEA would be within the scope of 
10cfr30.18 if they
   send a small sample to the local lab for analysis of that chemical on a 
quarterly basis.
 o Situation B: Rad-Water-Lab identifies a non-rad-licensed laboratory that 
can do the analysis and
   just sends a portion of NEA's water sample to that lab to perform the 
analysis -- I would
   think that Rad-Water-Lab is now performing a commercial transfer and thus 
would be in
   violation of 10cfr30.18.


If you have a specific license, I would definitely consult with your 
friendly neighborhood regulator
before making any sort of transfer.

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 Dale Boyce
Sent: Thursday, 03 September 2009 20:00
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Seeking exempt quantity sources donation.

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