[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re[2]: Exempt vs. Non-licensed ?
Jay,
I don't have the position paper with me, so I'll try to check
on it later. I should clarify that I meant to restrict my comment to
items distributed under an NRC "E" license, and not to the Table B
quantities. I translated "sources" to "product". However, the
wording regarding specifically exempted products and the wording
regarding exempt quantities is different.
Of course, you should always use your regulator. The NRC position
papers apply to the NRC regulated states. In this case, they appear
to be taking a strict interpretation of 30.18(a) (e.g., the person is
exempt, not the quantity).
Wes
> Date sent: Tue, 29 Oct 96 13:52:22 -0600
> Send reply to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> From: "James P. Tarzia" <tarzijp@naesco.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> Subject: Re[2]: Exempt vs. Non-licensed ?
> Wes,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I agree with your comments except for your
> response to #4 on disposal. My reason is due to the NRC HPPOS-43
> (from Jay Gutierrez, 4/13/83) which states:
>
> "..Once a license is issued then the terms of that license and Part 20
> govern with respect to waste disposal. Schedule B is irrelevent to
> that question, it rather goes to the issue of whether a quantity of a
> particular substance in the first instance should be licensed."
>
> If you have this HPPOS, I would be interested in your feedback from
> the Texas regulation point of view.
>
> Jay
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: Exempt vs. Non-licensed ?
> Author: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet
> Date: 10/29/96 11:57 AM
>
>
> Jay,
>
> Generally correct. My few comments are included below:
>
> > Date sent: Tue, 29 Oct 96 08:30:39 -0600
> > Send reply to: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
> > From: "James P. Tarzia" <tarzijp@naesco.com>
> > To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
> > Subject: Exempt vs. Non-licensed ?
>
> >
> > I for one appreciate people taking the time to donate their
> > professional (and even non-professional) opinions on this exempt Vs.
> > non-exempt topic. I have received various conflicting answers from
> > both regulators and licensees over the years regarding several
> > questions pertaining to this issue.
> >
> > So lets see if I have it down...From the majority of the past opinions
> > it appears that the following statements are (or at least may be)
> > correct:
> >
> > 1. You can throw away smoke detectors as long as its in small
> > quantities.
> >
> > 2. Its not a good idea to combine large quantities of any exempt
> > device.
> >
> > 3. A licensee may transfer unlimited numbers of single exempt
> > quantities to unlicensed persons as long as its not for disposal or
> > commercial distribution
>
> This apparently differs depending on jurisdiction (see below).
> However, (1) assuming exempt transfers are not prohibited by rule;
> (2) the sources are transferred separately; and (3) the sources are
> not combined, this is true.
>
> >
> > 4. Once a license is issued, the terms of that license and Part 20
> > govern with respect to waste disposal for exempt and non-exempt
> > sources.
>
> Nope. Exempt is exempt is exempt. The source is not received under
> the license, it is not disposed of under the license.
>
> >
> > 5. Exempt quantity and concentration limits cannot be used to release
> > contaminated material or someone with internal or external
> > contamination (this seems obvious).
> >
> > 6. You need a license to distribute exempt sources for commercial
> > distribution (and commercial distribution does not mean money has to
> > change hands, but only that the source is introduced into the
> > marketplace)
> >
> >
> > Now, lets bring this one step further...
> >
> > Many licensees have specific requirements for inventory, storage, etc.
> > regarding non-exempt sources that they receive under their license. I
> > have been told by regulators that once you receive a source under a
> > license that all of the license requirements apply until the source is
> > transferred or disposed. Therefore, if a licensee received a
> > non-exempt source that eventually decayed to less than its exempt
> > quantity, the licensee would still have to inventory or control the
> > source as his license dictates.
>
> This is correct.
>
> >
> > Does anyone have a conflicting opinion on this.. especially NRC or
> > agreement state regulators?.. Furthermore, if a non-exempt source
> > (originally received under your license) decays to an activity less
> > than its exempt quantity limit, is it O.K. for you to transfer it to
> > an unlicensed person. (I would think at a minimum you better maintain
> > paperwork to show that it decayed below the appropriate level before
> > you transferred it).
>
> This is not necessarily true in Texas (our regulations are slightly
> different than the NRC's). I am attempting to resolve this issue "in
> the near future" (e.g., weeks to months).
>
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your thoughts
> >
> >
> > Jay Tarzia, CHP
> > tarzijp@naesco.com
> >
> >
> *********************************************************************
> Wesley M. Dunn, CHP 512-834-6688
> Deputy Director, Licensing 512-834-6690 (fax)
> (Texas) Bureau of Radiation Control wdunn@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us
> *********************************************************************
>
>
*********************************************************************
Wesley M. Dunn, CHP 512-834-6688
Deputy Director, Licensing 512-834-6690 (fax)
(Texas) Bureau of Radiation Control wdunn@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us
*********************************************************************