RE: DOE's decision on MOX fuel (vs. NORM)

[GEORGE CICOTTE <GEORGE_CICOTTE@health.ohio.gov>]

     With respect to cmeyer@tdh.state.tx.us' comments, below.
     
     Someone correct me if I am in error, but I believe that respirable 
     particle size comes into play here, and although there is a lot of 
     Th-232 in the sand, if you protect the workers from nuisance dust in 
     accordance with the standard (ANSI Z88.2?) [I don't remember the ISO, 
     but I think there is one], then you will achieve a sufficient 
     reduction.  Good, bad, or indifferent, NORM is usually handled 
     differently.  It's the "good" radiation versus "bad" radiation thing, 
     as a colleague pointed out the other day.
     
     V/R
     george_cicotte@health.ohio.gov
     my own opinion, etc.
______________________________ Reply Separator______________________________
Date:   Wed, 18 Dec 1996 09:59:29 -0600 (CST)
From:   Charles Meyer at CMEYER@brc1.tdh.state.tx.us
Subj:   Re: DOE's decision on MOX fuel 
     
     . . . what the government is doing about business which use zirconium 
     sands which contain relatively high concentrations of Th-232 for sand 
     blasting.  These operations must generate  airborne concentrations 
     well in excess of the DAC for Th-232 and are virtually uncontrolled, 
     unless perhaps the operations are conducted on a DOE prime 
     contractor's facility.  The ALI for Th-232 is 0.7E-7 microcuries and 
     that for Pu-239 is 0.8E-7.  Sand blasting in a great number of cases 
     is performed in open areas where other personnel besides the sand 
     blaster are exposed to elevated levels of Th-232,  NRC, EPA, and OSHA 
     are aware this is going on yet I see no initiatives to remedy what 
     could be very high doses being delivered  to members of the general 
     public,  HIGHER THAN IF THE PEOPLE WERE INHALING PU-239 AT THE SAME 
     CONCENTRATIONS.  What's wrong with this picture? . . .