The Nuclear Regulatory Commission should consider additional safety measures for its proposed update to rules for disposal of “very-low-level” radioactive waste, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The federal regulator currently on a case-by-case basis allows land burial of this waste type in municipal and hazardous waste landfills that are not licensed for disposal of low-level radioactive waste. A rule interpretation now being considered would enable some landfills to be authorized to take that material on an ongoing basis, provided they meet certain requirements, such as a total dose limit under 25 millirem from all disposals per year.
“We recommend adding that the disposal facility should generally be limited to RCRA [Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] hazardous waste facilities that also have adequate controls in place to contain and to monitor for the radioactively contaminants in all media over the life of the contaminants,” according to comments submitted in July by the EPA to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Specifically, the exemption should be restricted to landfills that are compliant with standards cited in Subtitle C of RCRA, which covers regulation of hazardous waste, Dana Stalcup, acting director of the EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, wrote in a July 20 letter attached to the agency’s comments.
Disposal of certain radioactive wastes in facilities not licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should also be predicated on “sufficiently low” levels of radioactive materials, adequate design of the site, and public support, according to Stalcup.
There are currently four commercial facilities for disposal of low-level waste in the United States. All are in agreement states to the NRC – South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Washington – which assume most regulatory oversight for radioactive byproduct materials. That means the sites are licensed at the state level.
Very-low-level is the informal terminology for the least radioactive form of Class A low-level waste, which is the least hazardous among the three classes designated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It encompasses materials such as incinerator ash from research facilities and contaminated debris from nuclear plant demolition, and is designated by the agency as largely safe for disposal in landfills not specifically designed for radioactive wastes.
The proposed interpretive rule, announced in March, is intended to increase the efficiency of disposal of very-low-level waste, by eliminating the need for a detailed evaluation of each request for use of a non-licensed landfill. The agency receives fewer than five such requests each year.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received at least 4,894 comments on its rules proposal, according to the website regulations.gov. However, 1,702 of those were “duplicate or significantly similar comments,” the agency said in an Aug. 26 note. Anecdotally, most of the commenters appear to be opposed to or skeptical of the proposal.
The EPA and other stakeholders filed comments on the date of the previous deadline of July 20. However, public input is now being accepted through Oct. 21.
“We will consider all comments on the interpretive rule once the comment period is over,” NRC spokesman David McIntyre said by email Monday. The regulator has not discussed a current schedule for completing the proceeding.
Some state agencies have also raised questions about the interpretive rule.
In a July 20 letter, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control asked how the federal agency would provide regulatory oversight of very-low-level waste, as well as ensuring closure and post-closure care of landfills and financial assurance for hazardous waste landfills that take the material.
The chairman of the California Energy Commission said directly that he opposes the proposal.
“The proposed Interpretive Rule has the potential to increase radiological material disposal access to non-radiologically licensed facilities,” David Hochschild wrote in a July 20 letter to Annette Vietti-Cook, secretary of the commission at the NRC. “Expanded utilization of alternate disposal options could increase burdens on state and local regulators that may or may not be familiar with radiological materials. Furthermore, the proposal reduces NRC oversight in critical areas and instead, empowers licensees to exercise oversight responsibility, essentially shirking the NRC’s core mission and role.”
Shipping very-low-level waste to hazardous or municipal landfills would be at odds with New Mexico regulations against the disposal of any radioactive waste in municipal solid-waste landfills, according to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).
The rule interpretation could also endanger employees of municipal solid-waste landfills, the state agency stated in comments submitted July 20. It is not assured that the waste would remain in permanent isolation, due to activities ranging from waste excavation to a police investigation, NMED said. Municipal landfills are also not designed specifically for disposal of low-level radioactive waste, creating the potential for it to contaminate landfill gas and leachate collection systems, according to the comments. Landfill employees, meanwhile, are generally not provided with training or protective gear for management of this waste type, it added.
“NRC’s Proposed Interpretive Rule could result in VLLW being disposed at sites that have no permits or regulatory oversight, posing unnecessary and unacceptable risk to New Mexico’s citizens and environment,” NMED said.
The Washington state Department of Ecology on July 20 expressed similar concerns.
“We urge NRC to consult with EPA and affected states, perhaps through engagement with the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, to better evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed interpretive rule and more fully develop the details of how it could be implemented in a manner consistent with RCRA,” wrote Laurie Davies, program manager for solid waste management at Ecology. “We believe the rule should not be finalized in its current form and until such consultation occurs and revisions are made that address these concerns.”
