Re: tritium exit signs - not

[Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>]

Maybe I don't get it.



The minor child in the NJ case got a dose of almost 100 mrem. Yes, a 

"small" dose and less than the 100 mrem per year limit for members of 

the general public. However, that dose was minimized because of the 

cleanup. What is the dose that the child should have received? I vote 

for the dose that he would have received had the sign been properly 

disposed -- zero.



Let us understand that the issue here was the IMPROPER disposal of a 

licensed radioactive material that resulted in both contamination of 

a home and dose to the child. Why would we not hold those who did not 

follow the law (did not dispose of the sign properly) responsible for 

any and all response and cleanup costs. The only "penalty" that the 

owner of the sign got was costs of response and cleanup. Seems cheap 

to me. In fact, I think that a civil penalty would have been fully 

justified and should have assessed against those who improperly 

disposed of the materials. That is what is often done for illegal 

disposal of hazardous waste.



If the "industry" (I am not sure what industry we are talking about 

here) needs the information it is readily available from USNRC Region 

I. A phone call or email to them will get both the details and the 

rational. Additionally, the NRC has an extensive document regarding 

the risks associated with these consumer products.



Paul Lavely

Director

Office of Radiation Safety

Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>





>

>  >  In the first incident a teenaged male walking by a building demolition

>site

>>  picked up components of a sign, took it home and "opened it", breaking the

>>  glass tubing, in his basement bedroom.  The cost to clean up the tritium,

>>  dispose of the contaminated material and test him and others who were in

>the

>  > room was over $60,000.

>  >

>  > 

>

>I wonder if the cleanup and testing was necessary.  The licensing of the sign

>manufacturers must consider the consequences of such a release.  Was the

>testing and cleanup demanded by New Jersey?  Was any reference made to the

>license criteria for these signs?  If so, was there a decision that there was

>a problem that was not addressed in the licensing?  Maybe it was done just to

>be safe.  This is the traditional response even though there is no exposure

>risk.  I would like to see some numbers besides cost for such an incident.

>The industry needs the information.

>

>John Andrews

>Knoxville, Tennessee