|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 39
4
Issues and Findings
As described in Chapters 2 and 3, low-activity wastes are regulated primarily on
the basis of their origin (national defense, nuclear power, resource recovery) under a
patchwork of federal and state statutes put into place over a period of almost six decades.
The current system for regulating this waste lacks overall consistency and, as a conse-
quence, waste steams having similar physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics
may be regulated by different authorities and managed in disparate ways. These dispar~-
ties have health, safety, and cost implications, and they may undermine public confidence
in regulatory agencies.
Table 4.1 summarizes the committee's overview of the radiological hazards as-
sociated with low-activity waste and the current regulations that address the hazards. The
first three waste categories shown on the table (low-level waste; slightly radioactive solid
materials; and discrete radioactive sources) are governed by section ~ le.(l) of the Atomic
Energy Act (AEA). They meet the Nuclear Waste Policy Act's exclusionary definition of
low-level waste (LLW) (see Chapter 2~. ~ the commercial sector, waste is regulated by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) under 10 CFR Part 61. At Department of
Energy (DOE) sites the same types of waste are controlled by DOE Order 435. i .
Radiological hazards in these first three waste categories vary greatly, however,
and these differences are not adequately recognized by the broad statutory definitions of
LLW. Even the USNRC's classification system for LLW (e.g., USNRC Classes A, B.
and C) does not completely address these differences. At the low end, radioactivity in the
very large volumes of debris, rubble, and soil is so low it is often difficult to measure.
Recognizing this, the USNRC has initiated a rulemaking on alternative dispositions for
"slightly radioactive solid materials." Both the EPA and USNRC are considering allow-
ing the use of hazardous waste landfills for these materials. At the opposite extreme,
discrete sources declared as waste are often extremely radioactive and have the potential
to produce acute radiation effects and serious contamination incidents. The larger
sources exceed USNRC Class C limits on near-surface disposal, and in the absence of a
geological repository (e.g., Yucca Mountain if licensed and constructed) have no present
means of disposal.
The radiological hazards in the last two waste categories in Table 4.1, uranium
and thorium processing wastes and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM)
~ Landfills for chemically hazardous wastes must meet design and permitting requirements of
the EPA, under authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). States can set
standards for acceptance of radioactive materials in RCRA landfills when the state has jurisdic-
tion.
39
OCR for page 40
wastes, arise from the uranium and thorium and their daughter isotopes. While their con-
centrations and isotopic distributions may vary, their hazards are roughly comparable.
Nevertheless, their regulatory frameworks differ greatly. Uranium and thorium wastes
fall under the AEA section ~ 1 end) definition of byproduct materials. If the facilities that
contained these wastes were under license by the USER C at the time of the passage of
the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) in ~ 978, their wastes are
managed according to the provisions of UMTRCA. Otherwise they may be managed
under the Formerly Utilizec! Sites Remeclial Action Program (FUSRAP).
Since ore residuals managed under FUSRAP were generated prior to the enact-
ment of UMTRCA, the USNRC has determined that it does not have the authority to
regulate them; such materials are not prohibited by federal law from disposal in RCRA-
permitted landfi~Is. UMTRCA wastes must be disposed in USNRC-licensed facilities.
Disposal of pre-1978 ore residuals managed under FUSRAP or other programs can be
regulated by the states. NORM ant! technologically enhanced NORM (TENORM)
wastes are also regulated by the states, because they are not inclucled in the AEA and
therefore not subject to federal regulation. Among the states, NORM, TENORM, and
FUSRAP wastes are not regulated consistently.
FUSRAP wastes provicle a good example of political and regulatory inconsisten-
cies. The Army Corps of Engineers is currently shipping railcar Toads of FUSRAP
wastes from St. Louis, Missouri, to the U.S. Ecology facility in Gran~view, Idaho, which
is permitted by the state for hazardous chemical wastes and radioactive materials not
regulated by the USNRC. Previous FUSRAP disposals in the state-permitted Buttonwil-
low, California, hazardous waste landfill encountered severe opposition (see Siclebar 4.11.
Another option used by the Corps is disposal at Envirocare of Utah according to that
site's USNRC license for AEA ~ le.~2) byproduct waste. DOE has disposed of about 1.5
million cubic meters of waste, which is mostly the same as the St. Louis FUSRAP
wastes, at Weldon Springs, Missouri. This DOE facility was not an available option for
the Corps.
Relative to AEA waste, NORM waste has received little attention from policy
makers or the public. Sidebar 4.2 describes a situation in which NORM wastes, generally
accepted for disposal at a Michigan landfill, are actually more radioactive than highly
regulated LLW from the nuclear industry. In presentations to the committee, the EPA,
USNRC, ant! the Conference of Radiation Con~o! Program Directors (CRCPD) clearly
expressed the need for recognizing and more consistently controlling the radiological
hazards of NORM wastes.
40
Interim Report
OCR for page 41
TABLE 4.1 Summary of low-activity waste Hazard,s and Regulations
Category RadiologicalHazard Governing Statutes/Regulation~s)
Low-level wastes from Mostly short-lived (half- lives on the
commercial and de- order of decades) fission and activation
fense activities products. Some (e.g., reactor compo-
nents, filters) have high specific activ-
ity and penetrating radiation. Potential
short-term hazards to workers and
long-term hazards to the environment
if the wastes are allowed to migrate
DOE: AEA, 1 1 e.~1), self-regulated
Slightly radioactive Mostly short-lived (half-lives on the under DOE Order 435.1
solid materials (debris, order of decades) fission and activation
rubble, and contami- products in large volumes of steel
nated soil from facility concrete, other construction materials COMMERCIAL AEA, 1 le. (13'
decommissioning and and soils. Low hazards to workers but USNRC or state regulated
cleanup) potential long-term hazards to the en- --1 OCFR6 1 Classes A, B. and C per
vironment if the wastes are allowed to Part 61 55
migrate. --Greater-than-Class C is responsi-
bility of DOE to receive and dispose
Discrete radioactive Mostly short-lived (half-lives on the of with USNRC approval.
sources declared as order of decades) fission products of
waste high specific activity. Potential short-
term hazards to individuals and to the
environment if the sources should
make their way into metal recycle
facilities or if they are allowed to rni-
grate from waste disposal facilities.
Uranium and thorium Very long-lived parent and daughter Defense waste, pre-1978: not di-
ore processing wastes isotopes. Low specific alpha activity rectly regulated
and little penetrating radiation. Low
hazards to workers, but potential long- Defense waste post-1978:
term hazards to the environment If the '
radionuclides are allowed to migrate --UMTRCA, Title I
in particular radon gas and its daugh- --1 OCFR40, Appendix A
ters, which constitute an inhalation --small quantities, under DOE Order
hazard. 435. 1
Commercial waste, post-1978:
--UMTRCA Title II
--1 OCFR40, Appendix A
Naturally occurring Very long-lived parent and daughter DOE: DOE Order 435.1
and technologically isotopes. Low specific alpha activity --DOE M435.1-1, IV B.~3) covers
enhanced naturally and little penetrating radiation. Low accelerator-produced waste
occurring radioactive hazards to workers, but potential long- --DOE M435.1-1 IV B.~4) covers
materials (NORM and term hazards to the environment if the 1 1 e `2' and NORM
TENORM wastes). rad~onucl~des are allowed to remigrate,
in particular radon gas and its daugh-
ters, which constitute an inhalation Other: States have authority
hazard. --CRCPD has recommended Part N
for specific regulations.
Interim Report
41
OCR for page 42
SIDEBAR 4.1 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FUSRAP ISSUES
. . . . .
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for remediating 21 sites that contain 1-2 million
cubic meters mainly of uranium-contam~nated soils and debris. The USNRC does not license or
otherwise regulate:
· pre-1978 ore processing residuals at facilities that were not under license by the USNRC
in 1978 or thereafter, or
· residuals of ores processed for other than their source material content (i.e., non-AEA
section 1 1 e.~2) material).
While the Corps believes the USNRC's legal position is correct, the position is questionable from
a health, safety, and environmental perspective. Standards of individual states that control the
residuals vary considerably. The above-listed residuals are radiologically and chemically similar
and present similar or identical hazards to 1 le.~2) byproducts, which are controlled by the
USNRC. The radiological similarity between 1 le.~2) byproducts and pre-1978 residuals has led
some to reject He USNRC determination that the pre-1978 residuals do not come under material
regulated by the USNRC and are not low-level radioactive waste.
The Corps has disposed of building rubble contaminated with pre-1978 residuals at He Bu~onwil-
low, California, hazardous waste disposal facility. This practice was criticized in the belief Hat
the materials should only be disposed in a USNRC licensed facility.
"When I learned that the Corps had disposed of 2,200 tons of radioactive
waste in an unlicensed hazardous waste facility..., I was shocked."
Senator Barbara Boxer, Transcript, Hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works Com-
mittee, July 25, 2000 [emphasis added the facility was permitted to receive these materials, but
not licensed].
FINDINGS
In general, the committee believes that there is adequate statutory and institu-
tional authority to ensure safe management of low-activity wastes, but the current patch-
work of regulations is complex and inconsistent which has led to instances of ineff-
cient management practices and perhaps in some cases increased risk overall. Existing
authorities have not been exercised consistently for some wastes. The system is
likely to grow less efficient if the patchwork approach to regulation continues in the fu-
ture.
Finding ~
Current statutes and regulations for low-activity radioactive wastes provide ade-
quate authority for protection of workers and the public.
In its fact-finding meetings, site visits, and review of relevant literature, the
committee found no instances where the legal and regulatory authority of federal and
state agencies was inadequate to protect human health. This finding is consistent with
that of previous studies by the National Academies and the National Council on Ra(lia-
tion Protection and Measurements (NCRP) `described in Chapter ~ (NCRP, 2002; NRC,
42
Interim Report
OCR for page 43
OCR for page 44
OCR for page 45
Representative terms from entire chapter:
radioactive materials
SIDEBAR 4.2 NUCLEAR POWER WASTE VERSUS NORM
The Big Rock Point (BRP) nuclear power plant, located in northern Michigan is in the midst of
decommissioning. In 2001, BRP officials approached the USNRC, seeking approval for disposing
of large quantities of concrete rubble from the decommissioning project in a municipal landfill in
northern Michigan.
They proposed a waste characterization and monitoring protocol that would assure that no con-
crete rubble would go to the landfill if any appreciable quantity of radioactivity were present. All
surfaces would be scanned for contamination at predetermined release limits. Any contamination
would be removed. Then, the concrete would be rubbleized and bulk scanned. A 5 picocurie
above background per gram of rubble cut-off value for approving or rejecting a particular load
would be established. The USNRC approved the proposal under the authority of 10 CER section
20.2002, which gives USNRC the authority to approve disposal for LLW other than in a licensed
LLW facility. The plan also was approved by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
The BRP personnel worked closely with the landfill owner and the township board in the rural
community where the landfill is located, to assure all that the disposal of their decommissioning
waste would be fully protective of the environment and the public. . In general, BRP efforts were
fairly successful in assuaging public concerns, though some reluctance to taking nuclear power
plant waste remains in the minds of some local community residents and township board mem-
bers. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality representatives had pointed out that there
are other things going into the landfill that contain more radioactive material than the rubble. In
fact, the coal ash that is used as daily cover for the cells show radioactive material concentrations
in the range of 13 picocuries of radium per gram of ash.
Recently, the landfill operator installed portal monitors at the landfill, in preparation for accepting
the decommissioning rubble. However, the portal monitor alarm has been tripped when certain
loads of oil- and gas-production sludges and coal ash have been brought to the landfill. This mate-
rial has been coming to the landfill for years, without any recognition of its radiological content.
The landfill operator is developing operational procedures for determining when to refuse a load,
which has tripped the portal alarm. The Michigan Low-Level Waste Authority has requested, and
the landfill operator has agreed, to keep a log of all shipments that trip the portal alarms, to de-
velop a better sense of radioactive materials entering the landfill.
(Source: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality)
. ..
1 999a' 2002a). Some states' however' have chosen not to exercise regulatory authority
over NORM and TENORM wastes. The USNRC has determined not to regulate certain
pre-1978 uranium and thorium wastes. The EPA has so far not exercised its authority un-
der the Toxic Substance Control Act to regulate non-AEA radioactive wastes. ~ adcti-
tion, some wastes have not been adequately controlled in spite of the existence of regula-
tory authority. The EPA estimates that some 30,000 "orphan" sealed radioactive sources
have disappeared from regulatory control, and notes that since 1983 there have been 26
recorded meltings of sources that were inadvertently mixed with scrap steel.2 These inci-
dents have been expensive, lee! to very conservative practices in the steel ant! nuclear in-
2 The Orphan Sources Initiative is described at
Busbies, and fueled public distrust in the regulatory system (HPS, 2002; NRC, 2002a;
Turner, 2003).
Finding 2
The current system of managing and regulating low-activity waste is complex. It
was developed under a patchwork system that has evolved based on the origins of
low-activity waste.
~ its information-gathering the committee received a clear message from agen-
cies responsible for managing and regulating low-activity waste: A more consistent, sim-
pler, performance-based and risk-informed approach to regulation is needed (see Sidebar
4.3~. Many committee members had difficulty in understanding the regulations well
enough to discuss the system and its applications, as noted in Chapter 1. Similarly, the
NCRP found that the current waste classification systems "are not transparent or defensi-
ble" and that the "classification systems are becoming increasingly complex as additional
waste steams are incorporated into the system" (NCRP, 2002, p. 651.
SIDEBAR 4.3 COMMENTS FROM REGULATORS AND MANAGERS
Radiation is radiation. Make decisions based on the radiation in the material and not based on the
regulatory box of the material. Southeast Compact Commission
DOE would benefit from a more uniform approach to waste management, particularly when DOE
uses commercial treatment and disposal. Department of Energy
Suggest improvements in management and oversight activities to achieve the greatest risk reduc-
tions with available resources. Environmental Protection Agency
Consistent, national standards for classifying radioactive materials such as pre-1978 ore process-
ing residuals, oil and gas drilling wastes, and other NORM or TENORM, independent of pedi-
gree... Army Corps of Engineers
Address more consistent and harmonized regulation of like materials that fall under different regu-
latory regimes; identify and address opportunities for more risk informed disposal of low-activity
wastes. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
These comments were made by sponsors of this study at the first committee meeting (see Appen-
dix A).
Fin(lings 3 and 4
Certain categories of low-activity waste have not received consistent regulatory
oversight and management.
Current regulations for low-activity waste are not based on a systematic considera-
tion of risks.
Regulations focused on the wastes' origins have led to inconsistencies relative to
their likely radiological risks. Naturally occurring and technologically enhanced natu-
rally occurring radioactive material (NORM and TENORM) are not regulates] by federal
44
Interim Report
agencies because they do not fall under the Atomic Energy Act State regulation of these
wastes is not consistent. Nevertheless, these wastes may have significant concentrations
of radioactive materials compared to some highly regulated waste streams. For example,
NORM wastes routinely accepted at a fancify triggered a radiation monitor intenclect to
ensure that rubble from a clecommissioned nuclear reactor meets very strict limits on its
radioactivity (see Sidebar 4.2~.
Uranium mining and processing wastes, which are radiologically similar to
NORM wastes, are regulated under federal authority by their status at the time UMTRCA
was enacted. There are no fecleral regulations that prohibit ore processing residuals at
facilities that were not uncler license by the USNRC in 1978 or thereafter from being clis-
posed in hazardous waste facilities, but mill tailings regulated by the USNRC uncler
UMTRCA, which may be radiologically identical to pre-1978 residuals, are prohibited!
from being disposed in such facilities. The disposal of FUSRAP waste in a hazardous
waste facility in California has been the subject of much recent discussion in Congress,
the media, and the regulatory community.
In addition to inconsistencies in regulating the radiological risks, current low-
activity waste regulations generally overlook trade-offs between radiological and non-
radiological risks. Hundred-thousanct-cubic-yarc! volumes of slightly contaminated soil
and debris and very heavy reactor components are being transported long distances for
disposal. In developing current requirements for how low-activity wastes are managed
or clisposed, worker risks in excavating, loading, and unloading large-volume wastes;
risks of transportation accidents; ant! environmental risks and costs (e.g., consuming large
amounts of fossil fuel) have not been analyzed ant! compared in a systematic way to ra-
ctiological risks.
PUBLIC CONCERNS REGARDING LOW-ACTIVITY WASTE: AN ISSUE FOR
THE FINAL REPORT
On beginning this study, the committee was aware that there is persistent and
widespread public concern with all aspects of radioactive waste management and dis-
posal (NRC ~ 996, 200 ~ a, 2002a, 2003; GAO, ~ 999; DunIap et al., ~ 993~. During the
committee's open sessions, members of the attending public expressed considerable lack
of Bust in the Tow-activity waste regulatory system due to its complexity, inflexibility,
and inconsistency. These factors have apparently raised doubts about the sys-
tem's capability for protecting public health. The key concerns raised in the open ses-
sions~is~ust of regulatory institutions and processes, the complexity of the problem,
apprehension about risks, and the desire for greater stakeholder and public involvement
is consistent with a large and growing literature on public views of radioactive wastes and
how to manage them (DOE, 1993; DunIap et al., 1993; SIovic, 1993; Rosa ant! Clarke,
1999; Cvetkovich et al., 2002; Mohanty and Sagar, 2002; NRC, 2003~.
The task of this interim report was to develop an overview of current regulatory
and management practices for low-activity waste, and thus set the stage for the commit-
tee's final report, which will assess policy and technical options for improving the current
practices. The assessments will include risk-informed options, and the committee
strongly believes that issues of public trust and risk perception will be important consic3-
erations in the final report.
Interim Report
45
