Scrap metal recycling

[7pe@ornl.gov (Phil V. Egidi)]

There are a few initiatives happening:

DOE has had the Recycle 2000 program for a few years.  Look at: 

http://www.em.doe.gov/recyc/index.html for more info.

NRC is now working on a clearance rule for scrap metal.  Bob Meck is the
contact.  Look at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/NUREGS/SR1640/V1&2/index.html

for a look at NUREG 1640, which outlines scenarios and doses.

EPA was going to consider a scrap metal rule, but dropped it.


The ANSI N13 working group on surface and volumetric standards has
submitted its draft for ballotting.  Bill Kennedy is the lead on that one.
This standard would replace REGUIDE 1.86 values.

The European Union has to have their standards in place by next year.  They
have also derived their standards for clearance based on risk assessment.

There is a conference on scrap metal recycling held in Knoxville every year
called "Beneficial Reuse".  Go to:

http://funnelweb.utcc.utk.edu/~armr/default.html

for procedings of past conferences.


Argonne has a RESRAD-RECYCLE module to calculate doses from various
secnarios.  Go to:

http://www.ead.anl.gov/resrad.html

for more info.

There is much ado about scrap metal recycling.  Those that have it want to
release it.  The steel industry does not want it.  The public does not want
it.  

The market may ultimately decide.  At Waste Management '99, during the
TENORM session, Shankar Menon gave a great example:

Imagine a commercial in a few years: Ricardo Montelbon (Jr.) is holding a
detector against the new Fordolet (needle moves up, clicks get more rapid).
 He then places the pancake against his Chrysler-enz and gets no elevated
reading.  Which car do you want to buy for your family, Mr. Public?  

It is my understanding that the doses being considered are from 1 - 10
mrem/year per item.  You can't release a facility if its more than 25
mrem/y all pathways combined (10CFR20), but you could release
surface-contaminated material at 10 mrem/y/item.  Good luck.

This will be an interesting test of justification of new practices.  Why
should the public take on any additional risk, no matter how trivial in
some people's opinion, to assist the nuclear/defense industry in getting
rid of their contaminated scrap?  The only measurable cost benefit is to
industry, none to the public (unless there IS a hormetic effect).  As long
as LNT is policy, this market will probably not go too far(IMHO).  It's one
thing to use the RSM for waste containers, etc., which are still out of
public reach, another to release with no further controls, markings,
pedigree, etc.

There will be plenty of ongoing discussion over this issue, BTW, there is a
growing black market of contaminated scrap, particularly in Eastern Europe.  

Phil Egidi
ORNL/GJ
7pe@ornl.gov


>********************************************************************
>Greg,
>I think what they're referring to here is more related to surplus radioactive
>scrap metal (RSM) that is deemed "Below Regulatory Concern" (BRC). When I 
>was in
>Oak Ridge 5 years ago, K-25 was hoping to be able to reuse/recycle several 
>types
>of slightly contaminated scrap metal that on the open market would be worth a
>lot of money (I remember nickel and copper, and there were others). I believe
>the University of Tennessee was involved in a study to define BRC (e.g., maybe
>shouldn't use RSM in baby high chairs, but okay to use it for office filing
>cabinets). Anybody know the latest on this? 
>
>Elizabeth Algutifan, MS
>Weldon Spring Site Remedial Action Project
>St. Charles, Missouri
>Elizabeth_Algutifan@wssrap-host.wssrap.com
>
>
>************************************************************************
>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