Re: tritium exit signs - not

["Raymond Shadis" <shadis@ime.net>]

Gerald,

With respect to incident two:  Why did surface contamination on the shipping

containers [18,000 - 240,000 dpm/ 100 cm2] exceed maximum surface

contamination [14,000 dpm/ 100 cm2] in the contaminated ward?

How long were residents vulnerable to contamination? That is, how much time

elapsed before they were removed, separated from the source, and scrubbed

up, or whatever?

What was the background level of tritium in the water supply and/or on the

grounds of the facility estimated to be?

Was the urine of any residents not in the spill area (not exposed) assayed

for tritium content?

Thanks,

Raymond Shadis

Post Office Box 76

Edgecomb, Maine 04556



----- Original Message -----

From: Gerald Nicholls <GNICHOLL@DEP.STATE.NJ.US>

To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:36 AM

Subject: Re: tritium exit signs - not





> This is in response to JPAndrews request for "numbers" regarding the two

tritium exit sign incidents I described in a recent posting.

>

> Incident 1 - The sign was found at a demolition site by a 17 yr old male

who took the sign to his basement bedroom and disassembled it, contaminating

his bedroom and portions of the first floor of his home (most notably the

kitchen).   The sign contained approximately 12 Ci of tritium at the time it

was disassembled.  Urine bioassay estimated a total effective dose of

approximately 100 mRem to the young man.  The dose almost certainly would

have been lower if the bedroom had been on an upper floor with better

ventilation.

>

> Incident 2 - A 14 year old male client at a state operated residential

facility for severely emotionally disturbed children removed a sign from a

wall and threw it down breaking it.  The client was restrained by an

attendant.  The incident took place in a dormitory that housed 13 teen-aged

clients.  It took place in a second floor hall but was not immediately

reported and contamination was spread to a common room on the first floor.

Tritum contamination up to 14K dpm/100 cm squared was found.  Urine bioassay

found detectable tritium in 18 clients, workers and response personnel.  The

highest dose (to the client who broke the sign) was estimated to be 16 mRem.

Some 47 drums of waste were generated and, when they arrived in South

Carolina for disposal, exhibited surface contamination levels from 18 to 240

Kdpm/100 cm squared.  The sign contained approximately 15 Ci of tritium when

it was broken.  Also, two other signs of similar activity were found to be

missing and unaccounte!

> d for at the facility.

>

> Given the facts that both of these incidents involved contamination of

living areas, and that they involved children, we believe we acted

appropriately.  I would be interested, however, in comments from Radsafers

who have dealt with similar incidents or who other views regarding our

responses.

>

>

>

> Gerald P. Nicholls

> NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection

> 609-633-7964

> gnicholl@dep.state.nj.us

>

> ************************************************************************

> 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.

>



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

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.