The National Research Council today released a report on the deliberate "release" and dispersal of nuclear power and weapons wastes into regular commerce, everyday consumer items and regular trash.
The Council was hired by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) to give credibility to the practice of selling or donating radioactively contaminated metals, concrete, soil, plastics, asphalt and other solid materials into the regular marketplace as if they are not radioactive.
US NRC sought general support for the concept and technical recommendations for allowable contamination levels, in the face of strong public, environmental and industry opposition. The US NRC intent was for the National Research Council to give its stamp of approval to radioactive materials being "released" or dispersed into regular trash and into raw materials to make consumer goods, but did not get it.
Instead, the Research Council declined to endorse or encourage US NRC to free-release radioactive materials, thoroughly criticized their efforts over the past 16 years to do so and advised them to work more sincerely to build public trust and genuinely incorporate "stakeholder" concerns.
While public interest, consumer, worker and environmental organizations (including NIRS, Public Citizen, STAR and Government Accountability Project) are disappointed that the National Research Council panel did not outright reject the concept of deliberately dispersing radioactive waste into everyday commerce, we are pleased that the panel is strongly recommending that US NRC take seriously the option of not releasing radioactively contaminated materials.
Two key points in the report are that:
"…the US NRC has failed to convince any environmental and consumer advocacy groups the clearance of slightly radioactive solid material can be conducted safely and has failed to convince certain industry groups that it is desirable."
and
"The committee found only limited support for clearance that allows slightly radioactive solid materials to enter commerce for unrestricted recycled use, no matter how restrictive the clearance standard might be. No support for this option exists in the steel and cement industries."
More than half of the seven recommendations in the report call for the USNRC to redirect its basic approach to dealing with radioactive solid materials, including US NRC developing a new decision framework and decision-making process on an expanded range of alternatives and significantly revising their technical support documents.
US NRC has earned its low credibility with public and non-nuclear industries:
The upshot of the National Research Council report to the US NRC is that much more must be done to legitimately involve and incorporate the concerns of all 'stakeholders' in any process that tries to put nuclear materials into general commerce and trash.
"I am skeptical that US NRC will heed the Research Council's advice to listen to the public and honestly consider NOT letting nuclear contamination into commerce and regular landfills," said Diane D'Arrigo of Nuclear Information and Resource Service, who has watch-dogged every step of the NRC's processes on this since 1986. "We were pleased to see that the panel criticized US NRC's abysmal treatment of the public for the last decade and a half as they try to legalize dispersing and 'recycling' nuclear contamination."
The panel reviewed the history of the US NRC efforts to release radioactive materials. The US NRC has, at least 3 times in the last decade and a half, attempted to force the public to accept the deregulation of radioactive waste, materials, emissions, practices and sites.
In the late 1980's to early 1990's US NRC tried to force its "BRC" or Below Regulatory Concern final policies on the American public without heeding the solid opposition. Those policies approved the deregulation of radioactive wastes, emissions, materials and practices from regulatory control, despite state, local and general public demand for continued regulatory control. Congress revoked both policies in 1992.
Next, in the early to mid 1990's, US NRC convinced "stakeholders" to participate in was called the Enhanced Rulemaking On Residual Radioactivity (ERORR) process to develop decommissioning standards. After numerous meetings, comments and shared interactions over many months and years, US NRC reversed all major commitments to the participants. Years later, with new staff, US NRC adopted a decommissioning rule that is counter to concepts agreed to by the stakeholders throughout the process.
In the late 1990's US NRC started up again, in 1998 declaring its intent to develop a broad rule that would allow as much contaminated material to be released as possible. Despite public demand for isolated waste, that option was added late in the process without any real intent to develop or explore it.
Technical problems include ignoring impact of DOE wastes on public doses:
The panel criticized the US NRC's technical basis for radioactive release, its Draft NUREG 1640, for technical and conflict-of-interest reasons. The document purports to project the doses to the public and workers from "recycling" radioactive steel, copper, aluminum and concrete into the large and small consumer products, buildings and other unrestricted uses. It ignores the risk of multiple exposures from many contaminated products and it ignores human error and it was prepared by a company with a conflict of interest (being contracted to the US Dept of Energy to "recycle" radioactive materials while doing the report for US NRC on how much contamination to allow into "recycling.") The technical report also ignores the fact that the amount of metal and concrete will at least doubled when the Department of Energy lets its waste out.
"For the past 2 years, the Department of Energy has been waiting for the NRC to bless its efforts to release radioactive metals from nuclear weapons plants into everyday commerce," stated Richard Miller of the Government Accountability Project. "But the National Research Council didn't give either US NRC or the DOE the blessing they sought. Instead the panel found that the US NRC had tried to issue a rule based on weak science and which was 'clouded' by conflict of interest."
Inventory:
The inventory section of the report indicates that enormous amounts (millions of tons) of radioactive metal and concrete could be let out from US NRC and Agreement State-licensed facilities (commercial nuclear waste generators) and from Departments of Energy and Defense (DOD). It is pointed out that DOD has classified procedures for free releasing materials.
Unfortunately, the report does not tell and apparently the government does not know:
A) how much radiation has already gotten out from commercial and weapons waste generators or
B) how much could be released if US NRC implements a new, expanded policy or standard.
Costs:
The panel compares costs of keeping nuclear power waste regulated versus releasing it into unlicensed landfills.
"As nuclear power plants shut down, the cost of keeping radioactive metals out of everyday commerce is actually small, according to the NAS report," noted Robert Alvarez from STAR (Standing for Truth About Radiation). "For a cost of about 25 cents per month on a $50/month electricity bill, nuclear power plant operators can not deliberately disperse radioactive metals into goods from tableware to hip replacements."
Finding 8.4 Stakeholders
If the US NRC wants to move forward, the panel finds that it must overcome a legacy of mistrust resulting from its history and states, "Reestablishing trust will require concerted and sustained effort by the US NRC, as premised on a belief that stakeholder involvement will be important and worthwhile…"
"Every member of the public is a 'stakeholder' on this and had better let the US NRC know immediately how much radioactivity from nuclear power they want or will accept in their personal surroundings," advised David Ritter, policy analyst for Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.