RE: Exemptions - further clarifications

["Spell, Bill" <bills@deq.state.la.us>]

Thanks.  I'll check to see if we still have it in our regs.

Best regards to you, Lynn.  Did you post the original message?

Bill Spell
bills@deq.state.la.us
 ----------
From: radsafe
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: Exemptions - further clarifications
Date: Wednesday, October 30, 1996 9:25AM

Bill - This is in 10CFR32.19. I also note that this is in the
Suggested state regs - p. C31 of my 1991 copy.

Regards,
Lynn
 -------------------------------------------------------

Date:          Wed, 30 Oct 1996 09:13:52 -0600
From:          "Spell, Bill" <bills@deq.state.la.us>
Subject:       RE: Exemptions - further clarifications
To:            Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Reply-to:      radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu


I sure would like to know who is speaking on this??????  What is the
citation for the "ten separately packaged exempt sources in one shipment?
 I'm not sure we still have this regulation.

Bill Spell
bills@deq.state.la.us
 ----------
From: radsafe
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Exemptions - further clarifications
Date: Tuesday, October 29, 1996 11:19AM

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