[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: INFO
- To: "O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822; DDA.VALUE=radsafe(a)romulus.ehs.ui" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
- Subject: RE: INFO
- From: "Houser Brett MSM GRPP US" <brett.houser@usgr.MHS.CIBA.COM>
- Date: 23 Oct 1996 16:16:49 +0000
- Autoforwarded: FALSE
- Importance: normal
- Original-Encoded-Information-Types: (2) (6) (3) (4) (11)
- Priority: normal
- X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 (22)
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [/PRMD=CIBA/ADMD=ATTMAIL/C=CH/;961023065212]
- X400-Originator: brett.houser@usgr-msm2.usgr.mhs.ciba.com
- X400-Received: by /PRMD=CIBA/ADMD=ATTMAIL/C=CH/;converted ((1) (0) (10021) (7) (1) (0) (1), (1) (0) (10021) (7) (1) (0) (6));Relayed; 23 Oct 1996 11:52:13 +0500
- X400-Received: by mta chbs-mta1 in /PRMD=ciba/ADMD=attmail/C=ch/;converted ((1) (0) (10021) (7) (1) (0) (1), (1) (0) (10021) (7) (1) (0) (6));Relayed; 23 Oct 1996 16:16:49 +0000
- X400-Recipients: non-disclosure:;
Mark,
I appreciate the fact that the EPA is looking for the most cost effective
method of remediation of the uraninum contaminated equipment. By my
suggestion of direct disposal, I knew that I would get some flame mail
concerning enviro-issues of waste minimization.
As you well know, cleaning the equipment with an acidic solution may produce
a mixed waste which may require more processing prior to disposal (see
RCRA). Also, if the equipment cannot be free released after cleaning, you
will have to dispose of all of the equipment PLUS the cleaning materials as
radioactive waste.
In my limited experience with decon VS direct disposal, I have found that
Cost can neither be created nor destroyed - only the form changes.
Best of Luck to you and the EPA on this project
Brett Houser
----------
From: O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822; DDA.VALUE=radsafe(a)romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list; houser, brett
Subject: INFO
Date: Monday, October 21, 1996 9:03PM
<<File Attachment: BDY59.TXT>>
DATE: Oct 21 18:26:58 1996 -05:00 relative to GMT
IPMessageID: s26bcc3f.016(a)ARTHUR.RTPTOK.EPA.GOV
FROM: [O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822;
DDA.VALUE=radsafe(a)romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]
AUTHORIZED: MARK WINSLOW [O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822;
DDA.VALUE=WINSLOW.MARK
(a)epamail.epa.gov]
TO: Multiple recipients of list [O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822;
DDA.VALUE=radsa
fe(a)romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu]
SUBJECT: INFO
REPLY TO: [O=internet; DDA.TYPE=RFC-822;
DDA.VALUE=radsafe(a)romulus.ehs.uiuc.
edu]
IMPORTANCE: normal
AUTO FORWARDED: FALSE
PRIORITY:
ATTACHMENTS: c:\temp\BDY59.TXT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
In reference to your mail, yes we are
considering direct disposal without decon.
However, we would like to follow the least cost
option and right now we don't know what that
would be. If the contamination can easily be
removed and relocated as clean scrap metal we
don't have the disposal and transportation costs.
Anyway the EPA prefers to spend money on
cleaning rather than just burry it at the same
cost.
Mark