Re[2]: Exemptions - further clarifications

["Eric L. Darois" <daroiel@naesco.com>]

     I concur.  However, let us recognize that this is only "enforceable" 
     for licensees since individuals are "exempt from licensing".  Also 
     this is applicable to exempt quantities not just exempt sources (i.e. 
     sources distributed by an E-distribution license.
     
     Eric Darois, CHP
     daroiel@naesco.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Exemptions - further clarifications
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu at Internet
Date:    10/29/96 3:53 PM


Let's see if we can get a consensus on at least one focused issue: 
Disposal & transfer for purposes of disposal - exempt sources.  By 
exempt sources or materials, assume this to mean a 0.1 uCi Cs-137 
check source NOT otherwise covered by 30.15 (a) (9) [rad survey 
instruments sources]. According to HPPOS-190, you cannot dispose of 
these by just chunking them in the trash.  Agree? [I know Wes  Dunn 
does not - but this looks like an official NRC interpretation to me] 
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Date:          Tue, 29 Oct 1996 11:23:19 -0600 From:         Catherine 
Mattsen <CRM@nrc.gov> Subject:       Exemptions - further 
clarifications To:            Multiple recipients of list 
<radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu> Reply-to:     
radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
     
Much of what has been said in the most recent postings concerning exemptions are
corrrect; however, one can not generalize too much because there are a number of
differences amongst the various exemptions. 
     
 Most of the byproduct material exemptions, but specifically not 30.18 (exempt
quantities), contain an exemption from Part 20.  Thus licensees can treat the 
specific products covered by such an exemption as non-radioactive.  None of the 
source material exemptions specifically contain an exemption from Part 20 so 
these
materials should be controlled under Part 20 (in the case of a licensee). 
However,
there is not anything explicit to prevent licensees from transferring source 
material
to exempt persons as a way of getting rid of it.  
     
Generally, exemption provisions assume that it is not possible to enforce 
restrictions on non-licensees.  Thus, disposal in municipal waste or sometimes 
recycling is assumed.  In the case of specific product exemptions one can 
estimate
the number likely to be in one place under normal circumstances and take this 
into
account in the regulatory decision to exempt.   
     
Exempt quantities is different because the use is not specific and there is no 
incorporation into a device.  Since one cannot prevent unlicensed persons from 
obtaining many exempt sources, the information provided to the recipient that 
the
quantities should not be combined  is intended to discourage use in combination 
which would increase the likely exposures.  The requirement for a license to 
distribute in this case is tied to commercial distribution rather than initial 
distribution.  In the case of product exemptions, the intent is not to license 
secondary distributors such as mass merchants.  For exempt quantities, there is 
more of a need to reduce the number likely to accumulate in one place not under 
license so even secondary commercial distributors are required to be licensed. 
However, non-commercial transfers between licensees is not controlled by a 
distribution license.  This is to allow such things as transfers of samples 
between
labs. 
     
Ten separately packaged exempt sources can be tranferred in one shipment.
     
Although decay in storage is allowed, specific criteria are not contained in the
regulations.  Exempt concentrations and exempt quantities do not apply to this 
situation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     
Lynn McGuire - ELMCGUIRE@LIFE.UAMS.EDU 
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) 
Little Rock AR 
DISCLAIMER: Not speaking in any official capacity of VHA