Radiation exposures from the beneficial use of alumina production residue

Figures & data

Table 1. Typical radiological characteristics of alumina production residue.

Nuclide	Activity Conc (pCi/g)	Nuclide	Activity Conc (pCi/g)	Nuclide	Activity Conc (pCi/g)
Th‐232	5.49E + 00	Tl‐208	9.09E + 00	Ra‐226	3.25E + 00
Ra‐228	1.24E + 01	U‐238	3.65E + 00	Pb‐214	3.60E + 00
Th‐228	7.22E + 00	Th‐234	2.03E + 00	Bi‐214	3.74E + 00
Pb‐212	1.06E + 01	U‐233/234	3.18E + 00	U‐235	1.44E ‐ 01
Bi‐212	9.26E + 00	Th‐230	2.57E + 00	K‐40	1.42E + 00

Table 2. Naturally occurring radionuclides in cement and other building materials.

	Concentration (pCi/g dry wt)
Reference	Ra-226	Th-232	K-40	Notes
Chong and Ahmed (1982)	2.2	―	―	Cement
Stoulos, Manolopoulou, and Papastefanou (2003)	2.49	―	―	Cement
Hizem, Fredj, and Ghedira (2005)	0.59	―	―	Cement
Xinwei (2005)	1.25	0.77	3.7	Cement bricks
	1.75	1.31	4.36	Cement plaster
Rahman et al. (2008)	0.81	1.1	14.1	Brick
	0.51	0.81	20.8	Sand
	0.49	0.49	6.18	Marble
	0.65	0.49	6.59	Cement
Estokova and Palascakova (2013)	0.23–0.52	0.26–0.71	4.23–13.2	Cement
Trevisi et al. (2018)	1.38	1.32	15.0	Bricks
	1.6	0.92	9.2	Concrete

Figure 1. Potential life cycle radiation exposures from beneficial use of alumina production residue (APR).

Figure 2. Process flow for a typical cement kiln facility (U.S. DOE 2001).

Table 3. Typical concrete recipe.

Concrete Component	Amount per cubic foot	Proportion
Cement	22 pounds	15.4%
Sand	41 pounds	28.7%
Gravel	70 pounds	49.0%
Water	10 pounds	7.0%
	143 pounds	100.0%

Table 4. NUREG-1640 concrete recycling and disposal exposure scenarios.

Scenario abbreviation	Scenario title
Processing concrete	Processing concrete rubble at satellite facility
Truck driver	Truck driver hauling concrete rubble
Road building	Building road using recycled concrete
Driving on road	Driving on road built with recycled concrete
Disposal-industrial	Handling concrete rubble at industrial landfill
Disposal – MSW	Handling concrete rubble at municipal landfill
Leachate – industrial	Ingesting leachate from industrial landfill
Leachate – MSW	Ingesting leachate from municipal landfill

Table 5. Normalized mass-based effective dose equivalents to critical groups for concrete.

Radionuclide*	Average Dose Factor (mrem/year per pCi/g)
Th-232	0.33	Truck driver
Ra-228	0.43	Road Building
Th-228	0.68	Road Building
U-238	0.079	Leachate-MSW
U-234	0.085	Leachate-MSW
Th-230	0.066	Truck Driver
Ra-226	0.75	Road Building
K-40	0.069	Road Building

Notes.* While Pb-212, Pb-214, Bi-212, Bi-214, and Tl-208 are not explicitly listed, their contribution to the dose conversion factors (DCFs) are already incorporated into the DCFs of their parents; i.e., Ra-228 and Ra-226.

Table 6. Summary of calculated radiation exposures from the beneficial use of alumina production residue.

APR Exposure Scenario	Annual Dose (mrem/year)
Excavation of Material from the APR pond	53.
Direct/Shine Dose	40.
Submersion Dose*	Negligible
Inhalation Dose	13.
Ingestion Dose*	Negligible
Transportation of APR to Cement Production Facility	52.
Direct/Shine Dose from Loaded Truck	17.
Direct/Shine Dose from APR pond Surface	27.
Inhalation Dose above APR pond Surface	8.7
Exposure of Workers at the Cement Kiln Facility	–
Materials Storage Silo	4.8
Grinding Mill	2.6
Preheater Tower	2.6
Cement Kiln	2.8
Cement Storage Silo	0.7
Transportation of Cement to Ready-Mix Concrete Plant	3.0
Exposure of Workers at the Concrete Plant	0.7
Transportation of Concrete	0.4
Exposure of Members of the Public	4.0
Recycling and Disposal of Concrete	0.23
Radon on Top of the APR pond	≪0.5 pCi/L
Radon Dose Inside a Home	≪4 pCi/L

Notes.* Calculated, but not included in this paper due to their negligible contribution to the dose.

Chong, C. S., and G. U. Ahmed. 1982. Gamma activity in some building materials in west Malaysia. Health Phys. 43:272–73.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Stoulos, S., M. Manolopoulou, and C. Papastefanou. 2003. Assessment of natural radiation exposure and radon exhalation from building materials in Greece. J. Environ. Radioact. 69:225–40. doi:10.1016/S0265-931X(03)00081-X.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hizem, N., A. B. Fredj, and L. Ghedira. 2005. Determination of natural radioactivity in building materials used in Tunisian dwellings by gamma ray spectrometry. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 114:533–37. doi:10.1093/rpd/nch489.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xinwei, L. 2005. Radioactive analysis of cement and its products collected from Shaanxi, China. Health Phys. 88 (1):84–86. doi:10.1097/01.HP.0000142498.08451.c8.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rahman, S., M. Matiullh, S. Mujahid, and S. Hussain. 2008. Assessment of radiological hazards due to the presence of natural radionuclides in samples of building materials collected from the northwestern areas of Pakistan. J. Radiat. Prot. 28 (2):205–12. doi:10.1088/0952-4746/28/2/004.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Estokova and Palascakova. 2013. Assessment of natural radioactivity levels of cements and cement composites in the Slovak Republic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 10 (12):7165–79. doi:10.3390/ijerph10127165.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Trevisi, R., F. Leonardi, S. Risica, and C. Nuccetelli. 2018. Updated database on natural radioactivity in building materials in Europe. J. Environ. Radioact. 187:90–105. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2018.01.024.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

U.S. DOE. 2001. Cement kiln flue gas recovery scrubber project: A DOE assessment. DOE/NETL-2002/1163, U.S. Morgantown, WV: Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory.

 Google Scholar