1995
DOI: 10.2172/195680
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of radioactive scrap metal recycling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
8
0
1

Year Published

1995
1995
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
2
8
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The CAP88-PC code was used with the following assumptions: a stack release height of 43 m, stack exit velocity of 3 d s , stack diameter of 6 my and typical U.S. Midwest weather conditions. These assumptions are consistent with the methodology developed by Nieves et al ( 1995).…”
Section: Smelter Emissionssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…The CAP88-PC code was used with the following assumptions: a stack release height of 43 m, stack exit velocity of 3 d s , stack diameter of 6 my and typical U.S. Midwest weather conditions. These assumptions are consistent with the methodology developed by Nieves et al ( 1995).…”
Section: Smelter Emissionssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…The input parameters used to calculate doses from the recycling of contaminated metal are presented in Tables A.6 and A.7; these values are consistent with those used by Nieves et al (1995). The key assumptions in the analysis are discussed below.…”
Section: Assumptions and Input Parametersmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…The overall framework of exposure scenarios and assumptions was adopted from a methodology developed by Argonne National Laboratory to assess the radiological impacts to workers and the general public related to the recycling of radioactive scrap metal generated by DOE (Nieves et al 1995). In using this methodology, the recycling process is divided into seven recycle steps, and representative exposure scenarios are considered for each step.…”
Section: Scenarios and Pathwaysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Negative impacts include adverse effects on human health and safety, transportation, waste generation, cultural resources, earth resources, ecological resources, air quality, water quality, energy consumption, and land use. The nature of these impacts have been described in a previous report focusing on scrap metal in general (Nieves et al 1995). Ultimately, the volume of RCCS considered in this ER would be such a small percentage of both the scrap metal recycled annually and the carbon steel produced annually in the United States and throughout the world that the negative and positive impacts resulting from using new carbon steel would be negligible.…”
Section: 000 M3mentioning
confidence: 97%