[ RadSafe ] DOT versus DOE 5400.5 and Other Authorized Limits

[gv1 at aol.com]

A common example is low-level contaminated soil or Dry Active Waste.  There's byproduct material above the required free-release sensitivity limits, but it is below what is normally controlled by 49CFR.  If the material is waste, you have to generate a NRC 541 waste manifest, which then means you have to have a NRC 640 "DOT" manifest which drags you back into 49CFR for generating shipping papers.

In cases where I have 40' containers of laundry which might be an exempt qty and not need a waste paper since it is not waste, I would still ship as Class 7.  The primary purpose for the shipping paper is the emergency responder.  If my container gets into a wreck, people will get contaminated trying to clean it up.  If they don't find that out until after the fact rather than identifying it up front with a Class 7 shipping name, you will clearly be the bad guy.

There are a couple of shipping philosophies out there with a lot in between.  Some will spend an exhaustive amount of time trying to get out of Class 7 and some will say Class 7 when you have measurable radiation levels and the material comes up exempt qty.  I try to provide good commo to the public for the low-level cases as those that interact with your shipment would rather be aware of a low-level hazard, than an undeclared hazard.  I also understand that money is a big driver to have people spend so much time to trying to get out of Class 7.  

In the end, don't put yourself into a low-margin condition as any inspector can always claim you were off by a few percent in anything you do and then you find yourself in violation space...

Glen






-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn R. Marshall <GRMarshall at philotechnics.com>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Mon, Aug 22, 2011 9:14 am
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] DOT versus DOE 5400.5 and Other Authorized Limits


Randy,
Question 1:  The table might meet SCO, but only if it the activity exceeds the 
imits of 49 CFR 173.436 for both activity concentration and toatl activity per 
onsignment.  If it doesn't exceed both of those limits, then it's not Class 7 
aterial and would not be shipped as SCO.
Question 2: Yes.  An item could meet DOE or Reg Guide 1.86 contamiantion limits 
nd be unconditionally released, but could, I suppose, have enough activity to 
e considered DOT Class 7 material.  I would have to think for while to come up 
ith an example, but it could happen.  Maybe a very large, thin sheet of plastic 
hat was just below the Reg Guide 1.86 limits; but if you added up all the 
ctivity it would exceed 49 CFR 173.436.
Question 3:  Most of the activity in enriched uranium is U-234.  My first 
eaction is to assume the people who wrote the regulations intended for U-234 to 
lso be a low-toxicity alpha emitter.  But it doesn't make sense to risk a DOT 
iolation because we thought we knew what the regulator who wrote that 
efinition was thinking.  Because neither enriched uranium nor U-234 is listed 
n the definition, you should assume it's high toxicity.

lenn Marshall
________________________________________
rom: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] 
n Behalf Of Redmond, Randy (RXQ) [redmondrr at y12.doe.gov]
ent: Monday, August 22, 2011 8:33 AM
o: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
ubject: [ RadSafe ] DOT versus DOE 5400.5 and Other Authorized Limits
Radsafers and IRP,
How are you reconciling the difference between DOT, DOE, NRC Reg. Guide 1.86 
urface contamination values?
Question 1
The 49CFR173.403 definition of "contamination" is more restrictive than the 
epartment of Energy (DOE) Order 5400.5 limits to free-release an item to the 
ublic and the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86 surface contamination values [5000 
pm/100 cm2 (0.8 Bq/cm2) fixed plus non-fixed for uranium].  Additionally, if 
uthorized limits are obtained for certain materials/items, the authorized 
imits may be substantially higher than the values specified in 49CFR173.403.
For example: A table is monitored for radioactive contamination and the 
onitoring results indicate 0.7 Bq/cm2 fixed plus non-fixed beta-gamma.  The 
onitoring results exceed 0.4 Bq/cm2 fixed plus non-fixed beta-gamma, but are 
ess than the DOE 5400.5 free-release limit of 0.8 Bq/cm2 fixed plus non-fixed 
eta-gamma.  The table can be free-released to the public under the DOE 5400.5 
imits; however, since 0.7 Bq/cm2 exceeds 0.4 Bq/cm2 , it appears that the table 
ay be considered a Surface Contaminated Object (SCO-1) under 49CFR173.
Is an item that is free-released under DOE 5400.5 limits, or other authorized 
imits, and exceeds the 49CFR173.403 contamination values, regulated under 
9CFR173, OR are there other 49CFR173 criteria (for example: 49CFR173.436 
73.436  Activity Limit for Exempt Consignment) must be exceeded that must also 
e met for the item to be considered a Surface Contaminated Object?
Question 2
If an item is released under DOE or other authorized limits, does DOT even 
pply?
Reference
49CFR173.403 - "Contamination means the presence of a radioactive substance on a 
urface in quantities in excess of 0.4 Bq/cm\2\ for beta and gamma emitters and 
ow toxicity alpha emitters or 0.04 Bq/cm\2\ for all other alpha emitters. 
ontamination exists in two phases.
   (1) Fixed radioactive contamination means radioactive contamination that 
annot be removed from a surface during normal conditions of transport.
   (2) Non-fixed radioactive contamination means radioactive contamination that 
an be removed from a surface during normal conditions of transport."
49CFR173.403 - "(1) SCO-I: A solid object on which:
ii) The fixed contamination on the accessible surface averaged over 300 cm\2\ 
or the area of the surface if less than 300 cm\2\) does not exceed 4 x 10\4\ 
q/cm\2\ (1.0 microcurie/cm\2\) for beta and gamma and low toxicity alpha 
mitters, or 4 x 10\3\ Bq/cm\2\ (0.1 microcurie/cm\2\) for all other alpha 
mitters;
Question 3
The 49CFR173.403 definition of low toxicity alpha emitters does not include 
nriched uranium; however, it includes uranium-235. Uranium-235 always has 
ranium-234 present. The 49CFR173.403 definition of uranium includes enriched 
ranium and makes a point in stating that uranium-234 is present in depleted, 
atural and enriched.
Is enriched uranium considered a high toxicity alpha emitter?  If so, given the 
efinitions, why?
Reference
49CFR173.403 -  "Low toxicity alpha emitters means natural uranium; depleted 
ranium; natural thorium; uranium-235 or uranium-238; thorium-232; thorium-228 
nd thorium-230 when contained in ores or physical and chemical concentrates; 
nd alpha emitters with a half-life of less than 10 days."
Uranium--natural, depleted or enriched means the following:
   (1)(i) ``Natural uranium'' means chemically separated uranium containing the 
aturally occurring distribution of uranium isotopes
approximately 99.28% uranium-238 and 0.72% uranium-235 by mass).
   (ii) ``Depleted uranium'' means uranium containing a lesser mass percentage 
f uranium-235 than in natural uranium.
   (iii) ``Enriched uranium'' means uranium containing a greater mass 
ercentage of uranium-235 than 0.72%.
   (2) In all cases listed in this definition, a very small mass percentage of 
ranium-234 is present.
Regards,
Randy Redmond
&W Y-12
adiological Engineering
65.574.5640

______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
adSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu
______________________________________________
ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
adSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
ttp://health.phys.iit.edu