Wipe test requirements under 49 CFR 173.424, etc.

[Roy Parker <RoyAParker@compuserve.com>]

Clayton,

This most  certainly will  cause some discussion.  I will also point out
two minor  points without elaboration (1) a general licensed device does
not necessarily  equate to shipment as an excepted package; and (2) your
point also  extends to  licensed users,  such as  radiographers, who are
required  to  have  survey  instrumentation,  but  the  required  survey
instrumentation is  not appropriate  for measuring  the required removal
surface contamination limits.

1.  One must  first examine the "old" regulations, prior to 60 FR 50292,
    which stated in 49 CFR 173.443(a):
          The level  of non-fixed radioactive contamination may be
          determined by wiping ...
    The  operative   word  above  is  "may."    Other  sections  of  the
    transportation regulations only stated that a shipper must not offer
    a  package   whose  non-fixed   surface  contamination   exceed  the
    applicable limits.
    
    The point is that no transportation regulation explicitly required a
    measurement, "wipe test," or "physical measurement" of the non-fixed
    surface  contamination.    Regulations  simply  stated  one  was  in
    violation  if   they  offered  a  package  whose  non-fixed  surface
    contamination exceed  the applicable limits.  There were a least one
    or more DOT Letters of Interpretation to that effect.

2.  In actuality  most major  large shippers of radioactive materials do
    not perform  physical surface contamination measurements on each and
    every package.

3.  With the  advent of  60 FR 50292 the  wording  in  49 CFR 173.443(a)
    changed to:
          The level of non-fixed radioactive contamination may not
          exceed the  limits set  forth in  Table 11 and  must  be
          determined by either:
          (1) Wiping an area ...; or
          (2) Using other methods of assessment ...
    The operative word above is "must."
    
4.  Some people have interpreted "using other methods of assessment ..."
    as permitting  the continuation  of the earlier interpretation under
    the previous permissive "may" regulations.  In fact a June 10, 1999,
    DOT Letter  of Interpretation to the Department of the Army seems to
    support that position.
          You also  state that  in 1985 the Department of the Army
          requested a  clarification of  173.443.   You enclosed a
          copy of  RSPA's response,  in which we stated "... it is
          desirable to allow flexibility in the manner of ensuring
          compliance," and "if a shipper utilizes methods which do
          not rely  on actual  wipe samples, such as new packaging
          material, which  is protected from onsite contamination,
          it is acceptable as long as it ensures compliance."  You
          asked if  the current  regulations allow the same degree
          of flexibility.
          
          The  answer   is  yes.     Sections   173.443(a)(1)  and
          173.443(a)(2)  allow   a  shipper  the  same  degree  of
          flexibility as before.
          
    The above  seems clear,  but it  is clouded  somewhat by  subsequent
    text.
    
5.  Nevertheless, the  current practice  seems to be that the shipper is
    required to  ensure that  the non-fixed surface contamination levels
    are met by any reasonable means, including indirect evaluations, and
    he is  only in  violation if  it is  demonstrated that he did indeed
    ship a  package where  the non-fixed  surface  contamination  exceed
    applicable values.


Roy A. Parker, Ph.D.
E-Mail: 70472.711@compuserve.com
Tel: 225-924-1473
Fax: 225-924-4269

-------------( Forwarded computer archived letter follows )-------------
I have a nagging question for someone with more experience with DOT regs
than I:

General Licensees routinely ship GL devices, such as ECDs and Tritium
exit signs, back to the distributor for replacement or disposal. The
packages are supposedly prepared for shipment under 49 CFR 173.424,
Excepted packages for radioactive instruments and articles. How are
these general licensees, who are not required or expected to have survey
meters or liquid scintillation counters available, supposed to survey
the package to ensure that non-fixed surface contamination is below the
Table 11 limits?  Is there a (legal) way around this requirement?


************************************************************************
Clayton Bradt, CHP <raldrich@nysnet.net>        phone: 518/457-1202
Assoc. Radiophysicist                           fax:   518/485-7406
NYS Dept. of Labor
Radiological Health Unit
Blg.12, Rm 169
State Office Campus
Albany, NY 12240
***********************************************************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html