Re: NRC Licensing of Am-241

[steven t hand <hand@wam.umd.edu>]

In reference to the Exempt Quantity Responses, Texas and Maryland have	
the same type of license, I believe we pretty much copied their state	
regulations, but I have not found anything in them that lists a limit	
for exempt quantities.  An individual may possess, use, transfer, etc...
exempt quanitities, and they are exempt from the regulations.  I think	
Wes said this already, sorry if I am repeating.  I can fax the section
of our state regs to anyone who is interested.  At UMCP our Radiation	
Safety Committee has taken the stance to license everything that arrives	
on the campus under our Broad Scope Agreement State License.  We haven't
had any problems with this so far.  Hope this helps.

steve at umcp

On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, Douglas Gossen wrote:

> If I understand you correctly, you are saying that I can have 5 check
> sources of Co-60 each containing .7uCi, because the the exempt quantity for
> Co-60 is 1 uCi.  If this is what you are saying you better clairify this
> with the NRC.  I recently had to sent a check source of Co-60 back to the
> supplier because another department in the college thought they could buy an
> exempt check source with no problem.  The problem was that it put us over
> the exempt quantity limit.  Until I add Co-60 to our licenses I had to sent
> the exept quantity back to the supplier.
> At 09:12 PM 10/28/96 -0600, you wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>Hi Dave and Fellow Radsafers,
> >>>
> >>>I think Dave is wrong on the above point.  In fact, a licensee may
> >>>transfer unlimited numbers of single exempt quantities to the same
> >>>(unlicnesed) person.  There is no limit on the number of single exempt
> >>>quantities a person may receive or accumulate. Implied in this is that a
> >>>person may not combine exempt quantities.
> >>>
> >>>See 10 CFR 30.18(a).
> >>>
> >>>Cheers, Wes
> >>>--
> >>>Wesley R. Van Pelt, Ph.D., CIH, CHP                   KF2LG
> >>>President, Van Pelt Assoc., Inc.      vanpeltw@mail.idt.net
> >>>Consulting in radiological health and safety.
> >>>"TIME, its what keeps everything from happening at once."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >Unforunately when we conduct a houshold hazaroudous waste turn-in's under
> >EPA conctract.. we are not allowed to take smoke detectors...any number as
> >they are radioactive!!! The functional unit of the company is separate from
> >any that has RAML..  Our TSD part B facility cannot accept anything
> >radioactive...even obviously expempt quantities from a non-license holder to
> >a non-license holder..i.e. less than 0.05% zirconium blasting grit, lab
> >packs of uranium and thorium compounds even though the agreement state and
> >the NRC says the material is "not radioactive" for the purposes of disposal.
> >
> >A customer recently had 500 cu-ft of blasting material that had been used to
> >remove lead paint from a tank project... The material was sold to them
> >exempt...less than 0.05% thorium or uranium.  The company's use of the
> >material added a RCRA hazard that they were familiar with... they had a RCRA
> >part B facility "on board" to take their blasting grit.  Unfortunately this
> >facility had also installed NaI detectors at their gates.  You can guess how
> >far the zirconium (niobioum--columbium) sands went.  The customer was left
> >to find a RCRA part B facility that did not have rad detection equipment or
> >go to Envirocare as Barnwell was not even possible with the RCRA
> >characterization.
> >
> >There is a much larger problem with a variety of isotopes and
> >consumer/business products not usually thought of as radioactive.  Not only
> >do you have the smoke detectors with Am-241, you also have your lantern
> >mantles, sand blasting grits and others..
> >
> >Will our govenment agencies ever agree on what is "radioactive".
> >Not in my lifetime...
> >
> >Erik 8-}
> >If it isn't in writing, it didn't happen
> >
> >
> >
> Douglas Gossen
> Health Physics Dept.
> Lakeshore Technical College
> 
>