RE: Contaminated Lead Questions -Reply

[Jim Hardeman <Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us>]

Floyd, Paul and other RADSAFE'rs ...

Please see Tom Hill's note below on the official sources of
information relative to this matter. The contaminating
radionuclide, at least in the aprons we looked at in Georgia,
was Pb-210 ... I can't recall the concentration right now. The
problem was not limited to a specific device or a specific
manufacturer.

Jim Hardeman, Manager
Environmental Radiation Program
Environmental Protection Division
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
4244 International Parkway, Suite 114
Atlanta, GA 30354
(404) 362-2675  fax: (404) 362-2653
Jim_Hardeman@mail.dnr.state.ga.us

>>> Tom Hill 08/19/97 08:12 >>>
Jim, Floyd and other Radsafers should obtain copies, along
with attachments,  of FDA's Public Health notice dated
6/13/97 and FDA's letter to Fellow Regulatory Colleagues
dated 7/28/97 and a copy of E-Z-EM's recall notice dated
6/25/97.  That would give them the complete information. 
With all the attachments it is too much info to fax.

>>> <paul.l.ziemer.1@purdue.edu> 08/18/97 16:22 >>>
If any Radsafers have a response to Floyd Galpin's question
on contaminated lead, I would appreciate being copied on it
as well.

Thanks!

TO: RADSAFE

FROM: Floyd Galpin

Several weeks ago I saw an interchange on RADSAFE about
contaminated lead aprons and shielding materials designed
for use in medical facilities.  I didn't have a lot of
interest at the time, and then I went on vacation.  Now I find I 
have need for information on this occurrence.  I would be
particularly interested in information on the following points.  


1. What was the radionuclide that was contaminating the
lead?

2. Was the source of the contamination ever determined, and
if so what was it?

3. At what concentration, or range of concentrations did the 
contamination exist?

4. What specific devices or materials were contaminated? 
Was it only one company's devices, or were several involved.

5. I recall some "official" advisory that it was still better to 
use the shielding devices rather than do without shielding. 
Who made this advisory and with what authority?

6. What would be the best source for follow up information?