[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stuck with Smoke Detectors
In a message dated 95-11-27 16:48:50 EST, FRANK@rover.bsd.uchicago.edu (Free
Spirit) wrote:
> I saw the following filler in the local paper the other day.
> It reminded me of previous discussions about Government workers and
> what they will/won't, (or can/can't) do for us.
> DENVER - A cargo of mildly radioactive material has been sitting
> in a truck in a parking lot since 1983, and the shipping company
> and the state can't get rid of it.
I have a copy of an NRC memo dated Feb 11, 1986, from Richard E. Cunningham,
then Director Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS, and HE said
(in part):
"1. Our regulations are clear that secondary distributors and consumers may
dispose of smoke detectors as ordinary trash, even in bulk. This policy was
clarified and emphasized by a 1980 rule change (45 FR 38340, June 9, 1980).
Therefore, the term "proper disposal" has no meaning, because it implies a
(non-existent) legal restriction. We do not believe that it is appropriate
for a regulatory agency to imply that there are legal restrictions on
disposal of smoke detectors by consumers.
2. We agree that it is not a good idea to combine large quantities of any
exempt devices, including smoke detectors. We frequently receive inquiries
regarding disposal of exempt items. We inform people that there are no legal
restrictions on disposal, but that it is a good idea to try to "spread out"
the disposals rather than making a large, bulk disposal. (Note for example 10
CFR 32.19(d) which says that exempt quantities should not be combined.)
3. It would not seem practical or enforceable to attempt to impose legal
restrictions on disposal of smoke detectors by retailers or consumers. . ."
If NRC's official position on this has changed, I would be very interested in
knowing that. Otherwise, someone should probably tell American Shippers that
they could have thrown those smoke detectors away in the trash since 1986.
This is a personal communication, and not reviewed or endorsed by my
employer. I am acting as an agent of no one.
Barbara L. Hamrick