Fwd: Re: tritium exit signs - not

[Paul Lavely <lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>]

It does not appear that this went to the list; therefore, I am trying 

to send it again.

Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>





>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 20:32:47 -0700

>To: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

>From: Paul Lavely <lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

>Subject: Re: tritium exit signs - not

>Cc: AndrewsJP@AOL.COM

>Bcc:

>X-Attachments:

>

>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

>



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.