The United Steelworkers union is sharply opposing a proposal to ease Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules for disposal of “very low-level” (VLLW) radioactive waste in landfills.
“The United Steelworkers asks the NRC to withhold issuing this proposed rule and strongly urge you to reconsider. The minimal monetary costs this rule may reduce is not worth the costs to workers, our communities, and our environment. We stand with those who oppose this rule, while continuing to support the ongoing mission of the cleanup of our nation’s [Department of Energy] nuclear sites,” Roxanne Brown, USW international vice president at large, wrote in a May 19 letter to NRC Chairman Kristine Svinicki.
Very low-level waste is the informal term for the least radioactive form of Class A low-level radioactive waste, which is the least hazardous among the three classes of the material. For the most part it is intended to be disposed of in one of four U.S. facilities licensed to take low-level waste. However, current regulations allow the NRC to approve disposal via land burial at hazardous waste and municipal landfills, on a case-by-case basis.
The waste type encompasses concrete, soil, and other materials that can be generated during decommissioning of nuclear power plants. It is generally considered safe for disposal in landfills not specifically designed for radioactive wastes.
A rule interpretation being considered at the NRC would allow landfills to apply for an agency exemption to accept VLLW on an ongoing basis, without needing approval for each shipment. Participating landfills would have to meet certain restrictions, including a cumulative dose limit under 25 millirem from all disposals in any year.
Brown raised three central objections to this approach. First is the lack of an official definition for very low-level waste, which “provides insufficient protection to workers and the communities surrounding the receiving company’s premises and the disposal site or sites.” Second, the updated rules would lead to more untrained personnel managing disposal of radioactively contaminated material. Third, the new regulatory language does not include directives for monitoring of soil and groundwater near disposal facilities for contamination.
The current case-by-case framework should be sustained, according to the United Steelworkers.
“Given the long-term effects of solid waste disposal, a case-by-case review before turning over licensed radiological materials to unlicensed parties for disposal in unlicensed facilities is essential,” Brown stated. “The NRC needs to give far more attention than is apparent in the proposed rule to the long-term effects of even relatively low levels of radiological contamination in unlicensed facilities.”
Representing 1.2 million active and retired workers, United Steelworkers says it is the largest industrial union in North America. In the letter, Brown emphasized USW’s representation of workers in the DOE and commercial nuclear complexes, including at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico and the Paducah Site in Kentucky.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is accepting public input on the rule update through July 20. The deadline was pushed back from April 20 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As of Friday, 113 comments had been posted to the federal regulations.gov website. Most opposed the potential rule revision, echoing the USW’s concerns about disposal of radioactive waste by facilities and personnel generally not dedicated to that work.
A handful of commenters, though, expressed support for the proposition.
“Sending certain very low level waste (VLLW) to only a few licensed facilities is extremely wasteful of taxpayer dollars and causes the licensed facilities to fill up too fast for no reason,” Christopher Baugues, director of the Teleforensic Center for the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, wrote in comments filed on May 19. “It has been known that this type of VLLW should be disposed in landfills because the amount of radioactivity and the type does not produce any real risk to health and safety.”
