[ RadSafe ] High Radiation fine for Coal Plant Owner; Cs-137 gauge

[Clayton J Bradt]

Jim,

Don't worry.  Wyoming is a non-agreement state.  NRC regulates this
facility and certainly will have thought of everything. If there is any
chance that the aggregation of these sources would exceed the Category 2
limit, NRC would require the company to adopt enhanced security measures
which will ensure that terrorists never get their hands on them.  Of course
enhanced security doesn't prevent accidental overexposures.

Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health
Biggs Laboratory, Room D486A
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12201-0509

518-474-1993


>
> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 12:42:36 -0400
> From: "Jim Hardeman" <Jim.Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us>
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] High Radiation fine for Coal Plant Owner;
>    Cs-137 gauge
> To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Message-ID: <4C7E4A3B.1E3F.005A.0 at dnr.state.ga.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Emilio --
>
> Thanks for posting this article ... I ran across it earlier today in
> my morning reading as well.
>
> One aspect of this story concerns me somewhat, and that is the
> statement that "Laramie River Station has 216 monitors that use
radiation ..."
>
> I'm going to presume, unless somebody has more detailed information,
> that these are generally-licensed (GL) process control gauges, which
> can contain quantities anywhere from several 10's to several 100's
> of millicuries -- at least for Cs-137. I obviously don't know if all
> 216 gauges in this facility are Cs-137 gauges, as GL gauges using
> other radionuclides, such as Sr-90 and Am-241 are common in
> industrial facilities. FYI -- we've had experience in dealing with
> these gauges after industrial accidents (i.e. fires and explosions)
> and they are extremely rugged devices.
>
> Here's the concern -- in federal and state radioactive materials
> regulations there are "prohibitions" against aggregating multiple
> exempt sources -- are there similar provisions discouraging or
> prohibiting the aggregation of multiple GL devices?? It seems to me
> that the potential exists -- although perhaps unlikely -- that the
> aggregation of GL devices, particularly when you're dealing with
> hundreds, could result in an aggregate activity exceeding an IAEA
> Category 2 quantity -- a quantity to which NRC and state regulatory
> authorities attach a definite level of concern.
>
>
> Colleagues, am I way off base here -- or is the concern over the
> aggregate activity mitigated by the fact that it's split over some
> many devices -- making it almost impossible to get it all in one
> place at one time?
>
> Jim Hardeman
> jim.hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us
>
> >>> Emilio Martinez <emiliommartinez at yahoo.com.ar> 8/31/2010 19:55 >>>
> I thought you might find this article interesting---
>
>
> August 30, 2010 New  York TIMES
>
> And You Thought Radiation Was a Problem for Nuclear Plants?By MATTHEW  L.
WALD
>
> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/and-you-thought-radiation-
> was-a-problem-for-nuclear-plants/?partner=rss&emc=rss
>
>
>
>
> Emilio,
> Math Student
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.