Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

David Adelman, University of Arizona, Tucson

Jan Beyea, Consulting in the Public Interest, Lambertville, NJ

Robert J. Budnitz, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CA

Michael Corradini, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Sharon Dunwoody, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Gordon Linsley, International Atomic Energy Agency (retired), Oxon, England

Michael McWilliams, Stanford University, CA

Richard Meserve, Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC

Dianne Nielson, Department of Environmental Quality, Salt Lake City, UT

Allan Richardson, Environmental Protection Agency (retired), Bethesda, MD

Atsuyuki Suzuki, Nuclear Safety Commission,Tokyo, Japan

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by John F. Ahearne, Sigma Xi and Duke University, Research Triangle Park, NC. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with NRC procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the NRC.

Studies by the National Academies provide scientific and technical advice to assist public decision makers. Studies are typically conducted at the request of a government agency, which funds the study. This study, however, was self-initiated by the National Academies’ Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board (NRSB). Looking back over 60 years since the widespread use of nuclear energy began, Board members recognized that statutes, regulations, and commercial practices that deal with low-activity radioactive wastes—which comprise the largest volume of radioactive wastes in the United States—have evolved as an inconsistent patchwork. Low-activity wastes range from medical and laboratory wastes, to industrial-scale equipment and process residues, to rubble and contaminated soils from nuclear facility decommissioning and cleanup, and to mining and mineral extraction wastes. Clearly this wide variety of wastes touches on many sectors of the economy.

Low-activity wastes are regulated primarily by their origins—the nature of the industry that produced them—rather than the actual radiological hazards they present. Wastes from some origins are tightly controlled, resulting in limited and relatively expensive management and disposal options; while other wastes that present equal or greater risks are less closely controlled.

Once initiated by the NRSB, this study received a great deal of interest from agencies responsible for the regulation and disposition of low-activity wastes as well as from public stakeholders. The committee gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the following 10 federal, state, and foreign organizations, which made this study possible:

• Army Corps of Engineers

• California Environmental Protection Agency

• Department of Defense Executive Agent for Low-Level Radioactive Waste

• Department of Energy

• Environmental Protection Agency

• The Institute of Applied Energy—Japan

• Institute de Radioprotection et de Surété Nucléaire—France

• Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Southeast Compact Commission

The committee benefited greatly from the diversity of perspectives, concerns, and new ideas brought to our attention by our sponsors. Congressional staff, industry representatives, and members of the public also provided valuable insights. Presentations to the committee (see Appendix C) generally cited needs and opportunities to improve the current system of regulations and management practices, but differed in what specific changes were needed or their urgency. Presenters also cautioned the committee that its advice should be practical and implementable in the context of existing legislation, regulation, and commercial infrastructure.

The first half of this study culminated in an interim report that provided an overview of the current system and identified areas for improvement.¹ In the second half of the study, which led to this final report, the committee developed the concept of a “risk-informed” framework that would provide rationale and structure for significant improvements in the system. By focusing on the risk presented by given wastes, rather than their origin, and requiring consistent measures to control these risks, the framework would further enhance safety, improve efficiency, and promote cooperation among all stakeholders.

While noting current initiatives in the United States and internationally that are sound examples of risk-informed practices, the committee did not suggest specific changes in current legislation, regulations, or commercial practices. Rather it is the committee’s position that specific changes are matters of public policy to be developed through the risk-informed decision-making structure set forth in this report.

The committee especially recognizes the efforts by the members and staff of the NRSB to initiate and secure funding for this study. NRSB staff

director Kevin Crowley was primarily responsible for starting the study. John Wiley, who served as study director, ably assisted the committee through all stages of information gathering, report development, and review. Staff members Toni Greenleaf, Darla Thompson, Marili Ulloa, Laura Llanos, and James Yates all helped bring this study to its successful conclusion.

David H. Leroy, Chair

Michael T. Ryan, Vice Chair²

This page intentionally left blank.