[ RadSafe ] Treating Coal-fired plant waste as TENORM
Forsee, Gary
Gary.Forsee at illinois.gov
Mon Dec 8 14:56:23 CST 2014
Nathan,
The 2003 IAEA Technical Report #419 may be useful (if you haven't already reviewed it). In addition to discussing the TENORM content of coal, fly ash, bottom ash, and slag; there is discussion of radon in natural gas. The report states that radon preferentially follows the ethane and propane fractions of natural gas (the separation of which reduces the radon content of natural gas by 30 - 75%). As a consequence, most of the data I have seen places the larger exposure hazard on the worker - where the lead-210 and polonium-210 progeny downstream of this separation process have contaminated piping, valves, and railcars. Regarding the 1973 US EPA report, I believe it concluded an average concentration of radon in natural gas distribution lines was 23 pCi/L; and 20 pCi/L at the point of use - resulting in an average radon contribution in homes (from ranges) of 0.0028 pCi/L. To try an put this into context with more recent measurements, a recent USGS study of radon content in 11 wells in Pennsylvania showed a median concentration of 37 pCi/L - the same value as the average concentration of well heads from the U.S. EPA 1973 report. A measured concentration of radon in gas distribution lines from Pennsylvania gas sources at Lambertville, NJ was 17.0 pCi/L, a value lower than the average used by the U.S. EPA (23 pCi/L) to estimate household exposure. Anspaugh (reference below) also recently published some data to this effect. Based on the above, my current thoughts are that the exposure hazards lie with the worker from radon progeny. I would appreciate any dialogue or input from others that may have additional data or conflicting opinions.
* http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TRS419_web.pdf
** http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/oilandgas.html
*** R.H. Johnson, et al., Assessment of Potential Radiological Health Effects from Radon in Natural Gas, EPA-520/1-73-004 (1973).
**** Lynn R Anspaugh, Scientific Issues Concerning Radon in Natural Gas Texas Eastern Transmission, LP and Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, New Jersey-New York Expansion Project Docket No. CP11-56 (July 5, 2012).
Respectfully,
Gary Forsee
Manager, Environmental Compliance
Bureau of Radiation Safety
Illinois Emergency Management Agency
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of stewart farber
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 12:20 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Treating Coal-fired plant waste as TENORM
Regarding radon dose from natural gas [ NG ], I recall that the EPA carried out and published a 20 or 30 page analysis back in the early 1970s to assess whether it was justified to require the NG industry to build some type of storage tanks to hold up delivery of NG when it entered a pipeline for delivery to consumers, so less Rn dose would result in different situations At the time they were looking at the use of NG for unvented uses in homes — stove burners and ovens, and unvented space heaters. They calculated that building large NG holdup tanks would avoid [ if memory serves ] radiation dose to the bronchial epethelium of the population exposed totaling many tens of millions of person-rem to the US public. However, the holdup tanks would cost a some millions of dollars so their bottom line was that they did not feel holding up natural gas delivery to end consumers was worth spending a few $ per person rem of lung dose avoided.
I recall thinking of the EPA’s disregard of substantial radon dose from NG use many times when the EPA and other regulatory agencies made an major licensing issue about trivial theoretical radiation doses delivered thousands of years in the future from nuclear waste disposal in deep geological repositories, or the NRC required nuclear plants to spend tens of millions of dollars for some effluent control system to avoid a integrated person-rem to the general public with individual doses of micro-rem.
Ain’t it awful? It’s tough for an industry like nuclear power that is held to a completely different standard regarding radiation dose to the public than other power generation or energy related industries.
Stewart Farber, MSPH
Farber Medical Solutions, LLC
PO Box 144
Old Saybrook, CT 06475
farber-medical.com
farber at farbermed.com
[203] 441-8433 [o]
[203] 522-2817 [m]
> On Dec 8, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Nathan Sutherland <sutherln at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The radon angle on this is an interesting one, in canada
> drilling/fracking operations look to be getting ahead of the game in
> their employ of RSO's on site. To many I have spoken with, it is
> looking likely that this practice could become something that ends up
> being mandated by our regulator. dose received would depend highly on
> the geography, and a quick google seems to indicate that radon levels
> transported to residential customers would be a factor of the geology
> of the source and relative distance to the operation (decay time).
> Seems like at a gas fired plant, it would be difficult to get any
> representative numbers for the industry as a whole, but given how
> close the stations are to residential neighbourhoods id love to hear
> some more information on this!
>
> -Nathan
>
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 6:11 PM, ROY HERREN <royherren2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Yes indeed, Doug's referenced article sums up the double standard between the waste from coal and that of nuclear power rather nicely. One can't help but wonder how natural gas would fair by comparison against nuclear power. One good part about burning huge quantities of natural gas is that one isn't left with mountains of left over ash, however I am left to wonder about he quantity of radon gas emissions from burning natural gas. Is the a potential for huge plumes of radon daughter products falling out from the natural gas power plants smoke stacks? While this question may well sound alarmist, it's not outside the realm of possibilities when one considers previous stack emissions from copper smelters, wherein adjacent smelter town communities were heavily contaminated from lead fall out.
>> Roy Herren
>>
>> On Sunday, December 7, 2014 5:28 AM, Doug Aitken <JAitken at slb.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> An oldie, but goodie:
>> http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
>> Regards
>> Doug
>>
>> Doug Aitken
>> Cell phone: 713-562-8585
>> QHSE Advisor, D&M Operations Support
>> Schlumberger Technology Corporation
>> c/o Kathy Trosclair
>> 300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
>> Sugar Land, Texas 77478
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Dan McCarn
>> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2014 10:24 AM
>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 10 warmest years on record
>>
>> Dear Doug:
>>
>> That would mean that farmers who use water with trace radium would have to remediate their TENORM soils when accumulation exceeds a specified norm; Or that waste from most rare-earth mining would have to be considered TENORM.
>>
>> Dan ii
>>
>> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
>> 108 Sherwood Blvd
>> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
>> +1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
>> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
>> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Doug Aitken <JAitken at slb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Does not a lot of this waste from coal fired power stations contain a
>>> significant amount of radioactivity? And should it not be treated as TENORM?
>>> That would put the cat among the pigeons.....
>>> Regards
>>> Doug
>>>
>>> Doug Aitken
>>> Cell phone: 713-562-8585
>>> QHSE Advisor, D&M Operations Support
>>> Schlumberger Technology Corporation
>>> c/o Kathy Trosclair
>>> 300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
>>> Sugar Land, Texas 77478
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:
>>> radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of ROY HERREN
>>> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 9:15 PM
>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>>> List
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] 10 warmest years on record
>>>
>>> Is there a double standard at work here regarding waste post energy
>>> production? What is the coal fired energy industries long term
>>> plan/solution for the environmentally acceptable disposal of well over
>>> a century of accumulated waste? See ‘Thick Orange Gooey Stuff’ With
>>> Arsenic, Lead Found In River Near Duke Energy Power PlantandNew Coal
>>> Ash Leaks Found at Duke Energy’s Buck Power Plant » EcoWatch
>>> Roy Herren
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 5, 2014 6:24 AM, "Sandgren, Peter" <
>>> Peter.Sandgren at ct.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> No agenda here - just relaying what has been reported:
>>> http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/10-warmest-years-global
>>> ly It’s official: 2013 is tied with 2003 as the fourth warmest year
>>> for Planet Earth since modern record-keeping began more than 130 years
>>> ago. The mean global temperature rose 1.12°F above the 20th century
>>> average. That means the 10 warmest years on record have all happened
>>> since 1998, with
>>> 2010 still on top as the warmest of all. The only year in the entire
>>> 20th century that was warmer than 2013, and the only one remaining in
>>> the top 10, was 1998. This also marks the 37th straight year where the
>>> global temperature was above the long term average.
>>>
>>> (Google News) US, British data show 2014 could be hottest year on
>>> record
>>>
>>> http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/11/27/us-climatechange-heat-idUKKCN
>>> 0JB1EM20141127
>>>
>>> P. SANDGREN
>>> CT DESPP - DEMHS
>>> RAD EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
>>> 25 SIGOURNEY ST., HARTFORD, CT
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>>
>>> On 11/24/2014 12:49 PM, JPreisig at aol.com wrote:
>>>> Radsafe,
>>>>
>>>> See google news --- antarctic sea ice .
>>>>
>>>> Not only is there more Antarctic Ice, but it is also now
>>>> thicker, as determined by underwater robotic vessels.
>>>>
>>>> So much for global warming????
>>>>
>>>> Joe Preisig
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>
>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>>
>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>
>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>>
>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>
>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>>
>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>>
>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list