Re: Scrap metal recycling -Reply -reply

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

Thanks for the interesting replies.  Please understand I am playing devil's
advocate here.  I agree there is no way we will ever live in a riskless
society.  That's not the point.   


> we already accept materials in our homes
>TODAY that would give the same response on the GM counter as
>Mr. Menon's "Fordolet".  Are we being harmed by this activity?  NO!
>
Most consumer products that contain TENORM have it as an unintended
consequence of manufacturing - the rad comes along with the process.  Not
here - the additional rad is being purposfully introduced. How do you
justifiy the practice of introducing this contamination (radioactivity
where it is not wanted) into commercial products?  

I don't have a problem with a few extra miro-R/h extra coming my way - I
live at 6,800 ft. above sea level.  That is a risk I am willing to assume.
I communte 600 miles a week on a 2 lane highway to work - that's risky,
believe me, but again it is a risk I am willing to assume.  I handle
sources and work around contaminated materials often - a risk I am willing
to assume (and control).  I go to hot springs to soak in the
naturally-heated mineral waters - and can only imagine what the radon dose
is there - but I am willing to assume the risk.  Never mind the risk from
all those rock concerts when I was younger! I would probably buy a frying
pan that has a little extra added rad and use it to cook food to feed my
kid - but that doesn't mean society sees it the way we do. 

Even with "non-voluntary" risks that are imposed - say driving tankers full
of gasoline down highways or rairoad cars full of chlorine gas through
towns - there is an ultimate benefit to society - goods, products and
services that require those substances.  I just don't see that benefit here
- no added value to the product by adding the rad.  Dilution is not the
solution, as some say.

To me, this is an economic/waste management issue, not an issue of risk.
If we can't dump this stuff in the ocean, we should not be dumping it on
society. Yes, there is a lot of value there in those metals, and it seems a
waste to pay a licensed facility to bury them.  I certainly don't blame
anyone for trying to recover costs, that is comendable.

Currently, there is a glut of carbon steel, and accusations of dumping into
the American market by other countries, I wonder how that will affect the
argument in favor of releasing this material?   

Again, as I said in the previous post, the market will probably decide.
Let's assume a commercial smelter can be found that will run this feed.
They may be stigmatized by the other smelters because of competition - buy
our steel - its not rad-enhanced.

One other problem with using risk-based standards is the communication
problem.  One to ten mR a year sounds like(is) a very low, acceptable dose.
 But the scenarios drive the models.  Actual emission rates (or
concentrations) may be higher than one thinks.  Look at the dilema Rocky
Flats is having over their proposed soil cleanup limits- negotiated, based
on 85 mrem for some scenarios, 15 mrem for others.  Sounded reasonable to
many until the calculations were published.  When the proposed buffer zone
limit of 651 pCi/g Pu (sum of fractions) was published , that didn't sound
too protective or reasonable to many, especially those folks in their
$300,000+ homes that border the buffer zone.  Now those limits are being
challenged, and are under independent review. A similar fate may await
steel recycling.  IMHO, clear communication about what these risk-based
numbers equate too is paramount. 


Thanks for the comments, thread closed from this end.
Phil Egidi
7pe@ornl.gov








At 08:51 AM 5/5/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Phil,
>
>I think I'm going to have to agree with Barbara on this one.
>
>When you ask "Why should the public take on any additional risk,
>no matter how trivial ...?", how much will this "riskless" utopian
>society cost the individual taxpayer?
>
>How can you distinguish an annual risk from 10 mrem/yr from
>making a choice on which road to drive in the morning? (which
>probably carries a mortality risk a couple orders of magnitude
>higher). Or walking on an icy sidewalk? Or spending a day on the
>beach with no sunscreen?
>
>If John Q Public had to carry around a few bars of Uncle Sam's
>melted-down scrap metal waste 24 hours a day, then as a
>profession, the HP's should probably raise some concerns about
>that practice.   BUT... we already accept materials in our homes
>TODAY that would give the same response on the GM counter as
>Mr. Menon's "Fordolet".  Are we being harmed by this activity?  NO!
>
>Pandering to the public's fears in this area would be a shameful
>practice and should be identified as such.
>
>I think you'll find that your concept of "no additional risk" -- as
>esoteric and multi-variate as it may be --- is much more expensive to
>a society than one of an "INFORMED and acceptable risk."
>
>My own personal/non-corporate thoughts,
>v/r
>Michael
>mford@pantex.com
>TX Radiation Advisory Board
>
>>>> Phil V. Egidi  wrote on Tue 4 May 99  17:05 >>>
>... It is my understanding that the doses being considered are from 1
>- 10 mrem/year per item... 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, ....
>>>>>>>>>>
>
>************************************************************************
>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