Negative Press/Orphan sources/scrap recycle

["Phil V. Egidi" <7pe@ornl.gov>]

Radsafers,
Kudos to the Bergen Evening Record for trying to present the issue of
orphan sources and contaminated scrap metal to the public.  I grew
up in North Jersey, where the Bergen Evening Record is published. 
It is a place with its share of industrial pollution, orphan waste sites,
corruption, and health problems from legacy industrial practices (even
has some FUSRAP and Superfund rad sites).  The people of NJ have
been enacting strict laws to clean up their state, and have educated(?)
themselves on numerous issues.  Sensationalism, unfortunately, is
part of the process.  

I found use of the term "atomic" off base, but in general, the
issue of orphan sources is with merit and a real problem.  People
have died in the third world (I believe Turkey just this year), and
perhaps the fact that it may not have happened here yet is why
they used the phrase roulette.  Besides, just because a death or
injury was never been linked to orphan sources in the US, who's to say it
hasn't happened?  The Precautionary Principle is applicable in this
situation.

The issue of orphan sources is credible because it shows the extremely
terrible job industry and regulators around the world have done with
tracking and controlling industrial sources (this is not just a US
issue).  Once they are no longer under control, no one can assume
that the shielding will not be violated.  People do get exposed, and
people do die.  This is possibly the most hazardous form of elevated
radiation or radioactivity that average people have a real chance of
being exposed to.  The average member of the public will never be
anywhere near high level waste, transuranic waste, etc.  But they
may end up with a damaged density gauge or some other uncontrolled source
in their proximity.  Doesn't take much creativity for shielding to
be compromised.  

The steel industry has spent millions on decontamination of facilities
contaminated with smelted industrial sources.  They do not want
radioactive scrap in their processing streams.  The public does not
want "added" radioactivity in their consumer goods.  It
may not be an issue of dose or actual health risk, it is an issue of
liability and money.

There is not much distance in the eyes of the public between the issue of
orphan sources and the current debate about recycling radioactive scrap
metal into commerce.

For the sake of discussion, I will play the role of devil's advocate here
and support the NEPA process and the development of an Environmental
Impact Statement for recycling of contaminated scrap metal.

All the work that has been done to support the practice of recycling may
really show the public and industry the trivial risk.  The process
may actually work in your favor by going through the EIS route. 
Then the anti's will have to come to the table with facts.  At the
end of the day, there may finally be real discussion in the public
policy, scientific and regulatory domains instead of the media about the
effects of low level radiation on the public.

The current effort for release and recycling of contaminated scrap metal
is one that only the nuclear and defense industries favor.  I have
mentioned in the past my position that there is no benefit to the
consumer from added radioactivity in consumer goods (I'm NOT saying that
there is significant risk, just no added benefit).  There is no
justification for the practice, except from the financial point of view
of those that are stuck with the contaminated metal. Ore will be
continued to be mined whether or not recycling goes forward.  The
steel industry will never cut back production so that DOE and the nuclear
industry can save disposal costs.

BTW, public input is requested on the NRC volumetric standard (comment
period extended and now due by December 22).  The amount of residual
radioactivity allowable for free release in an item (volumetric and
surface) is a subject of debate and has merit.  There has to be a
way to quantify free release.  There has to be a way to measure what
levels are coming into the country in metal/products and compare that to
a standard.   People need assurances that release standards
won't be abused.  

I better stop now before Rima and King (they work on the same facility)
come over to my office, put me in a headlock and give me a noogie. 
Let's discuss, not flame.  There are always multiple viewpoints
worth discussing.

Have an enjoyable Thanksgiving to all, 
Phil Egidi
ORNL/GJ
7pe@ornl.gov




At 09:11 PM 11/23/99 -0600, you wrote:
> Is there anything but negative press about
> radiation and radioactivity?
>
> The Bergen County Record (a NJ, NYC suburban paper), not the NY Times but
> a large circulation daily has just published a very large 4 part series
> titled "Radioactive Roulette".  Any guesses on the theme
> and conclusion? The basic topic is loss of control of radioactive
> souces.
>
> I am still sorting through pages (multiple) of inaccuracies, distortions
> and outright falsehoods to determine a best course of action as a
> responce.
>
> It seems as though the most damaging quotes are from various state, NRC
> and DOE officials.  A choice example:
>
> "This is a domestic nuclear danger that is not in Russia; it's
> here and it's now, right at our back door," said  Lee Leonard,
> a Los Alamos National Laboratory physicist directing the effort to
> recover 18,000 nuclear devices lurking in shuttered factories,
> research labs, and public works garages.  "Our mission is to
> get to them before we literally have people dropping in the
> streets." The underline is my emphasis.
>
> The home page for the 4-part series (started Sunday 11/21/99) can be
> found at:
>
> http://www.bergen.com/special/radioactive/index.html
>
> Where to start?  I want to do my part to correct the bias exhibited
> in these articles.
>
> Erik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Erik C. Nielsen
> mailto: enielsen@stl-inc.com
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Severn Trent Laboratories
> 628 Route 10
> Whippany, NJ 07981
> Voice (973) 428-8181  ext 6461
> Fax    (973) 428-5222
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Radiochemistry, it's not rocket science, but it is nuclear physics. 
> Standard denials apply.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Analytical Laboratory Services: Mixed Waste, Radiochemistry, Waste
> Characterization.
> Visit us at: 
> http://www.stl-inc.com
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
> subscription
> information can be accessed at
> http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html