RE: Magnesium-thorium question

["Mike Carstensen" <carstensenm@edaw.com>]

thanks for the information.
I didn't have time to respond yesterday.
The mag-thor in question is being used in a DOD
project.  I am helping in a NEPA analysis and the
public has a concern over the potential radiation
hazard.  The regs (several of them) indicate there
is no problem with the DOD using this material, but it
is still my job to inform the decisiionmaker (and public)
as to potential impacts.  just citing a reg isn't sufficient.
I ended up finding appropriate information (I realized
within 15-minutes of sending the question that the
radiation measure I sent was junk, but it was all I had
at the time).

thanks for your help,
Mike C.

>>> alombardo@earthsciences.net 01/10/01 03:46PM >>>
I have supported work sites that have thorium < 4% as a byproduct. The
thorium although NORM is licensed and is decommissioned to levels in soil in
the 2 - 10 pCi/g, a very restrictive concentration. Using risk based dose
modeling, natural thorium in this activity concentration delivers about 10 -
25 mrem TEDE/yr. "80 uCi" is not a helpful quantity. Is this total
inventory? More info is needed.

Andy Lombardo, CHP
Earth Sciences Consultants, Inc.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu 
> [mailto:radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]On Behalf Of Mike Carstensen
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:35 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Magnesium-thorium question
>
>
> Hi,
> I'm new to this list (and to radsafe issues overall).
> I need some help and hope someone can at least
> point me in the right direction.
>
> I am a member of a team working on an environmental
> assessment that involves missile test launches.
> The proposed missiles use surplus POLARIS
> 1st- and 2nd-stage boosters.  The skin on the
> boosters is made from HK31A-H24 Magnesium-
> thorium, less than 3% thorium according to what
> we've been told.
>
> A statement has been made, but not signed off to,
> that the "alloy's radioactivity measures less than 80
> microcuries and is handled as a normally occurring
> radioactive material."  There have been other
> statements bandied about to the effect that the
> radiation from this is less than that from a watch.
>
> The public is concerned and I am looking for a
> way to accurately and appropriately address their
> concerns.  This doesn't mean placate.  If there
> is a genuine safety issue, I need to be able to
> show what clearly what the saety issue is, etc...
>
> Any pointers would be appreicated.  Please note
> that it is not my desire to get into any kind of
> issue as to whether these tests are 'right' or
> 'wrong'.  I just want to be able to analyze their
> use appropriately so the decisionmaker can
> make a properly-informed decision about the
> project.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Mike Carstensen
> Staff Environmental Specialist
> EDAW, Inc.
> 256-430-5560
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html 
>

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html