[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: AW: DOE still trying to dump contaminated nickel - - Funny howbenefi cial reuse is referred to as "dump" by critics[Scanned]
From a
regulatory perspective the important quantity is the potential dose to the
critical group or to the most exposed individual which clearance can lead
to. The nuclides involved, e.g. Tc-99 or the uranium istopes themselves
decay by types and energies of radiation that make for excellent self-shielding
in the case of volumetric contamination. The effect of progeny must be
taken into account. One gets the impression that it is probably more a
case of perceptions than of actual risk. Are there laid-down criteria
which are exceeded by the nickel in question?
I
think one has to accept that there are economic limits beyond which it does not
pay to decontaminate. Here the basic difference between superficial
surface contamination and volumetric contamination is quite
important.
In the
longer term and with greater volumes of somewhat contaminated materials becoming
available for recycling, it would seem logical that such materials get a
designation that makes them primarily suited to re-use in the nuclear industry
or other uses where the dose potential to the public is minimised.
The dilution into virgin material will probably remain unpopular as long as LNT
reigns.
Own
musings.
Chris
Hofmeyr
Contaminants in the nickel are primarily Tc-99 and U
isotopes. Contamination is distributed throughout the mass of the
nickel; it is not surface contamination.
Bill Goldsmith
URS
Corp.
865.220.8265
bill_goldsmith@urscorp.com