RE: Radioactive Recycling

["J. J. Rozental" <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>]

According with the IAEA-TECDOC-855, Clearance levels for radionuclides in
solid materials, january 1996 (still in interim report for comment), of the
practices cosidered, the largest collective doses may be expected to arise
from recycling of steell and other metals, especially if metal were to be
recycled into consumer gooods  or into motor cars with humans may come into
close  contact during their normal use. At the national level (in Europe),
typically 1000 t/a of metal suitable for conventional disposal or recycling
is currently arising from decommissioning operations. Ehen the
decommissioning of nuclear installations enters its maim phase these amounts
can be expected to be substiantially higher, typically of the order of 10000
t/a. In the case of Co-60, which seems likely  to be the most important
radionuclide in the ccontext of steel recycling and collective dose, the
estimatred annual recycled quantity which would give rise to 1 man.Sv is of
he order of 10000t (1, 2) . However, this calculation assumes all of the
steel to be at the level determined on the basis of the individual dose
criterion for clearance (10 uSv/a). In practice, it is likely that only the
maximum levels in recycled steel would approach this level and that the
averagre concentration would be substantially lower. Further, it assumes
that all of the recycled steelll is directed into one or other     of the
products considered in the analysis. Again this unlike. It is more likely
that the steel would be used in a variety of products, some of which , such
as railway lines or bridge structures, would have little contact with
humans during their use.

(1) Application of Exemption Principles to the Recycle and Reuse  of
Maaterials from Nuclear Facilities, IAEA Safety Series 111, 1992

(2) Radiological Protection Criteria for the Recycling of Materials from the
Dismantling of Nuclear Installations, Radiation Protection 43 - Commission
of the European Communities, 1988
 
How to communicate  this subject to the society is another question: The
goal of informing the public about radiation risks seems easy in principle
but surpringly difficult in practice (Dr. Vicent T. Couvello). Probably
Radsafers have no objection to buy a car with the above clearance level.
Probably there is no difficulty also to convince the familly. However how to
explain to a common mother: -- Don't worry you can drive the car with your
children safely, there is a high degree of assurance that individual dose
would not exceed 10 uSv/a....

J. J. Rozental <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
Israel        

At 07:41 AM 2/20/98 -0600, you wrote:
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:	Ryanchp@aol.com [SMTP:Ryanchp@aol.com]
>Sent:	Thursday, February 19, 1998 10:15 PM
>To:	Multiple recipients of list
>Subject:	Re: Radioactive Recycling
>
>Radsafers,
>
>The recycling option must be looked at with a few things in mind.  First is
>the question  of whether the metals to be reprocessed are in short suppy, 
>i.e.
>are they necessary in a specific industry?  Secondly, is the cost of 
>recycling
>economical, can the industry in need stand the cost?  Thirdly, is the 
>disposal
>as is out of the question or just not desireable?  Also, what appears to be
>the Risk associated with both recycle and disposal as is?
>
>If recycle appears to be desireable then lets recycle within the Nuclear
>Industry.  Rad waste container spent fuel shipping containers and storage
>facilities, and components of power plant systems.
>
>It does not appear prudent to recycle into consumer goods.
>
>Bob Ryan
>ryanchp@aol.com
>
>[Joe Alvarez]
>What do you mean by "it does not appear to be prudent"?  What is the basis 
>for this statement?
>
>All metals are in short supply if you look at the cost of producing virgin 
>metal as opposed to recycle.  Also the acturaial risk of producing virgin 
>metal is larger than the hypothetical risk from low-levels of radionuclides 
>(less than 1 mrem/y as proposed by EPA).
>
>Joe Alvarez
>jalvarez@auxier.com
>
>