Improving the Regulation and Management of Low-Activity Radioactive Wastes (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 A Risk-Informed Approach to Low-Activity Waste Practices
3 A Risk-Informed Approach to Low-Activity Waste Practices
Pages 43-66
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 43... ...
Like gambling, decisions about the acceptability of health risks from environmental exposures to radiation or other hazards depend on the likeli 43
|
From page 44... ...
In concert with this viewpoint, the National Academies' Board on Radioactive Waste Management1 initiated this study because its members believed that the present, mainly origin-based, regulation and management practices for low-activity radioactive wastes (LAW) do not provide a consistent basis for systematically managing their risks: "The current systems for regulating this waste lack overall consistency and, as a consequence, waste streams having similar physical, chemical, and radiological characteristics may be regulated by different authorities and managed in disparate ways" (BRWM, 2002)
|
From page 45... ...
In the context of protecting public health from environmental exposures, risk assessment involves combining information about hazardous materials of concern (in this case, radioactive materials) , the fate and transport of materials in the environment, the exposure of individuals, and the likelihood of adverse health effects associated with these estimated exposures.
|
From page 46... ...
. agents low exposures, not health and to is measurements, The the RESEARCH animal high in NRC Laboratory observations adverse effects exposures particular Information extrapolation for and Field estimated characterization population 3.1 data wastes management the FIGURE risk basic of SOURCE:
|
From page 47... ...
. Risk from LAW is a function of the probability that an event will occur with release of radioactive materials into the environment, the probability that an individual will be exposed to those radioactive materials, the duration and intensity of exposure to ionizing radiation associated with the released radioactive materials in addition to those already present in natural background, and the probability that the exposure will produce a response.
|
From page 48... ...
In practice, measuring low rates of disintegrations in LAW may not be practical because of interference from natural background radiation or because the emissions are shielded by the bulk of nonradioactive materials in the waste. Typically samples of LAW must be specially prepared to al low detection of radionuclides of interest possible.
|
From page 49... ...
Factors Affecting Radiation Risk from LAW Whether a particular LAW poses a health risk is dependent on many factors, including: · The engineering design and effectiveness of the waste containment or disposal system; · The fate and transport of the material if released into the environ ment (e.g., the geophysical and hydrogeological characteristics of the area where it is stored or disposed and the physicochemical nature of the waste and its container) ; · Whether a person comes in contact with radioactive material released from the waste (e.g., by inadvertently intruding onto a disposal facility)
|
From page 50... ...
Risk-based decisions are generally made by technical experts without benefit of stakeholder involvement or public consultation. Risk-informed decision making evolved from early risk-based concepts into processes that are more flexible and not guided solely by quantitative risk estimates (NRC, 1983; USNRC, 1998)
|
From page 51... ...
The commissioners were appointed by the President, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate, and the National Academy of Sciences. In its 1997 final report, the Risk Commission concluded that a good risk management decision emerges from a process that elicits the views of those affected by the decision, so that differing technical assessments, public values, knowledge, and perceptions are considered (Risk Commission, 1997)
|
From page 52... ...
SOURCE: Risk Commission (1997)
|
From page 53... ...
For radiation issues, risk perception is complex, yet public perceptions about radiation in general and LAW in particular are often important factors in community acceptance of decisions about waste disposal siting and transportation. Most members of the public do not hold consistent perceptions of different types of radiation risks (Slovic, 2000; MacGregor et al., 2002)
|
From page 54... ...
For example, the 1996 National Research Council report Understanding Risk noted that risk management processes must have an appropriately diverse participation or representation of the spectrum of interested and affected parties, of decision makers, and of specialists in risk analysis at each step (NRC, 1996)
|
From page 55... ...
For example, they would not welcome desires of public participants to "redefine problems, focus on different issues, or otherwise change the nature of questions that agencies ask." The second would be if agency decision makers do not recognize the legitimacy of public values and understand that those values may lead to priorities and conclusions that agency personnel, who have their own understanding of what the public interest is, find wrong. According to a recent meta-analysis of 239 cases of public involvement in environmental decision making that had occurred over the past 30 years, a failure to commit to these two important priorities by an agency threatens the legitimacy of the public participation process and whatever public trust the lead agency may have (Beierle and Cayford, 2002, pp.
|
From page 56... ...
The analysis showed that "the goal of incorporating public values, which essentially measures the public's influence, is highly and significantly correlated with the goal of public trust. In low-trust situations, then, the public may need to be granted more influence to convince them of the legitimacy of the public participation process" (Beierle and Cayford, 2002, p.
|
From page 57... ...
Sidebar 3.2 provides an example of how improving stakeholder involvement in risk management decisions has helped those decisions to be more reflective of social values and public concerns. ATTRIBUTES OF A RISK-INFORMED LAW REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM A risk-informed LAW regulation and management system would combine the principles of risk, risk assessment, and risk-informed decision making and apply them to control LAW according to their actual radiological hazards (see Sidebar 3.1)
|
From page 58... ...
Yet, policy decisions on how best to manage radioactive waste failed to consider Native American values such as respect, balance, con tainment, moderation, and reverence. Because Native Americans link their own psychological well-being to environmental stability, the role of psychological healing in decisions about environmental restoration should not be underestimated.
|
From page 59... ...
Furthermore, establishing a consistent level of acceptable risk would provide a way to harmonize regulation of LAW with that of other hazardous materials as envisioned by the NCRP. The risk-informed approach would therefore combine information about the risk arising from inherent properties of a given waste and information about technical, economic, and social issues related to a particular disposal approach in a context of what is considered acceptable.
|
From page 60... ...
tion and management, the classification system reflects the wastes' actual radiological hazards irrespective of the wastes' origins. Waste classification categories would be developed gradually as the decision-making process evolves away from origin-based to risk-informed.
|
From page 61... ...
In a facility-siting decision, public officials representing their constituencies may demand a lower risk for a radioactive waste dis posal facility than, for example, a chemical plant or a prison, irrespective of the technical assessment. Conversely, decision makers may decide that limited financial resources are better used for reducing risks associated with other activities.
|
From page 62... ...
A leak into a LAW facility would not necessarily produce a consequence. Even in this simple example, water from the leak would have to rust the drum, interact with the radioactive materials inside, exit the drum, and transport radio active material out of the vault into the environment.
|
From page 63... ...
3. Classes of wastes that are suitable for near-surface disposal but, due to their radioactive material concentration, total quantity of radioactive materials, and other factors that can affect the risk assessment, require increasingly stringent packaging and disposal methods to meet the agreed-upon acceptable risk objective.
|
From page 64... ...
legislation and regulation that are consistent with a risk-informed approach to LAW disposal, as are many current or proposed international standards and practices. CONCLUSIONS A risk-informed system for regulating LAW -- one that regulates radioactive materials based on their radiological hazards rather than their origin -- would help simplify and standardize the decision-making process.
|
From page 65... ...
A RISK-INFORMED APPROACH TO LOW-ACTIVITY WASTE PRACTICES 65 could allow people to know which agency is making important LAW decisions, why these decisions are being made, and which agency is accountable if the decisions are wrong. Citizens could be able to better evaluate public health protection and cost-effectiveness to determine whether enhancements are needed.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.