The 41st Annual Meeting of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) was held at the Crystal Forum, Crystal City Marriott, Arlington, Virginia on March 30 & 31, 2005. The topic was Managing the Disposition of Low-Activity Radioactive Materials, with a number of nationally and internationally recognized presenters. These individuals were from government, academic and industry sectors, and they reviewed the current situation in the U.S. with respect to the classification and disposal options for low-activity radioactive materials. A link to the full abstracts of all presentations is below.
It seems every year I have a dozen pages of notes, and will attempt to give a few of the highlights and key points of each presentation. As was stated in the announcement, the meeting was a series of presentations providing updates on the disposal of regulated and unregulated radioactive waste. A major point that was noted in at least two talks was the current system in the U.S., as imperfect as it is, does protect the public. Recent initiatives within NRC (e.g., clearance), EPA (e.g., ANPR) and DOE (e.g., updates on guidance) were presented during the one and a half day meeting. An issue that was clearly apparent was that the metal recycling industry is very concerned about economic impact of orphan source melts and any future clearance of materials. A presentation on a recent source melt in Spain, with an overview of related European standards efforts, added an international perspective to the meeting.
NCRP President Thomas Tenforde opened the meeting noting this was the 76th anniversary of the original US Advisory Committee on X Ray and Radium Protection, and the 41st since Congress chartered the NCRP in 1964 (PL 88-376).
B. John Garrick (Garrick Consulting) who has served on many national nuclear waste committees then gave the second “Warren K. Sinclair Keynote Address” with an excellent overview of the Contemporary Issues in Risk-Informed Decision Making on the Disposition of Radioactive Waste. His presentation reviewed the public’s fear of radiation, how radioactive waste issues are not presented well to the public, the need to apply probabilistic risk assessment and performance assessments to waste disposal, and, how most regulators and advisory groups do not use a uniform risk assessment approach.
Mike Ryan (Charleston Southern Univ.) opened the first session with a talk on Improving the Regulation and Management of Low-Activity Wastes. He reviewed his work on the National Academy of Sciences committee that recently examined radioactive waste management, noting a patchwork system of regulations and policy based on waste origin, and where improvements could be made to make it more risk-informed.
Allen Croff (retired, ORNL) provided further analysis in his presentation entitled Risk-Informed Radioactive Waste Classification and Reclassification. He broke the present waste classification approach into Fuel Cycle (i.e., SNF, HLRW, TRU, LLRW, U/Th Mill Tailings, DU) and Non- Fuel Cycle (i.e., NORM, TENORM and Accelerator Produced). One can further sub-classify these wastes into Class A, B, C, greater-than-class C, civilian or defense, GTCC, TRU, contact or non-contact handled, and regulated or non-regulated.
S.Y. Chen (ANL) presented the Managing Disposition of Potentially Radioactive Scrap Metal, and noted that such materials are well defined, a commodity that should be recycled, but there is a degree of controversy associated with such scenarios. Related issues are that of international trade (i.e., those counties using IAEA standards), residual liability and risk communication to the public.
Gordon Linsley (IAEA) presented a Review of International Standards, Recommendations and Practices Related to the Management of Low-Activity Radioactive Materials, including a December 2004 proposal defining a very low-activity waste class for clearance. The standards that are in place in European countries are promulgated thru the IAEA and European Commission.
Juan Pedro (JI Serrano Renedo) presented on a Spanish Protocol for Radiological Surveillance of Metal Recycling - A Collaboration of Government and Industry. He noted before the 1998 Acerinox event, where an approximate 120 curie Cs-137 source was melted in Spain, radiation detection portals were not used in Spain. Since this event became one of international scale, and cost over 26 million euros (over $30M) to clean up, Spain’s steel industry has since implemented radiation monitoring and detected two other large Cs-137 sources and several others (e.g., Co-60, Ra-226 and Am-241).
Steven Romano (US Ecology) presented the Current Radioactive Waste Disposal Industry Conditions and Trends, noting there are major LLRW disposal facilities still available to generators in SC, WA and UT, with additional disposal available for certain wastes in TX and ID for NORM / TENORM, 11(e)(2) and FUSRAP waste. He also described the related laws and regulations in the U.S. as a “patchwork.”
C. Ray Turner (River Metals Recycling) spoke on the Scrap Metals Industry Perspective on Radioactive Materials, and stated there has been some 80 major source melts in the U.S. since the early 1980s. Cleanups cost on average $12 million. He stressed that we need additional regulation and control of sources, and better detections systems and employee training.
Al Johnson (Duratek) provided the Radioactive Metal Processing Industry Perspective on disposal, clearance, and presented several options for the nuclear power industry. The DOE and various nuclear power plant decommissioning projects represent major potential generators. The options include continued licensed disposal, recycle, waste-specific bulk assay and disposal in a RCRA landfill, or a central facility that processes and dispositions very low activity metals.
Doug Conclave (DOE) (filling in for Frank Marcinowski) updated the attendees on Low-Activity Radioactive Materials Management at the U.S. Department of Energy. Doug provided an overview of the EM Program, how it is DOE’s policy is to manage waste onsite or regionally. They’re also having to deal with the low-activity waste from the tons of Pu contaminated clean-up waste, millions of gallons of liquid HLW, tons of spent nuclear fuel, and respective millions of cubic feet of LLRW.
Ralph Anderson (NEI) gave an overview of the Nuclear Industry Experience with Safe Disposition of Radioactive Materials. This has basically been the NRC’s 10CFR20.2002 alternate disposal criteria approach, where one evaluates the disposal pathway, estimates the maximum dose to an individual, and determines if it is in the range of a “few millirem per year.” Ralph provided a few example case studies, and noted the industry has a good base experience for the alternate disposal option.
David Leroy (Leroy Law Offices) provided a government policy overview with the Formulation of Future Nuclear Waste Public Policy in America. He noted the ‘not in my backyard’ approach by elected officials, and even when major legislation was implemented by Congress, the siting process was thwarted by state and local officials.
H. Keith Florig (Carnegie Mello Univ.) gave an appraisal of the public’s perspective with his talk on Low-Activity Waste Management An Analysis of Public-Interest Group Positions, noting how many ‘public interest’ groups have focused on energy, health & safety and economic public policies, and that the ‘distribution of fairness’ seeks to balance the distribution of risks and benefits of a particular policy.
Bill Dornsife (Waste Management Specialists) gave the view of waste generators and the disposal / management industry in his presentation Policy Development from the Industry Perspective, noting the major burden for implementation of any waste policy will be on the generators and waste managers. He feels the most important issue is to confront the public’s concern thru factual presentation of independent information, i.e., to present the potential health & safety risks and economic benefits.
The end of the first day closed with the Twenty-Ninth Lauriston S. Taylor Lecture on Radiation Protection and Measurements by John Little (Harvard SPH), with his talk Non-targeted Effects of Radiation: Implications for Low-Dose Exposures. Dr. Little presented a very interesting overview of the new evidence related to non-DNA targeted effects of radiation, e.g., induced genetic instability, bystander effects, and genetic effects by cytoplasmic irradiation.
Bob Gorson (Thomas Jefferson Univ., retired) opened the second day of the meeting with a wonderful (and personal) Tribute to the Life and Scientific Accomplishments of Lauriston S. Taylor. Dr. Taylor was over 100 years old when he passed away in 2004. He was a life-long leader in the field of radiation sciences and protection from the late 1920s thru the early 1980s, and instrumental in the formation of the NCRP. Also see the tribute to Dr. Taylor on the NCRP web site - http://www.ncrponline.org/LSTaylor%20obituary.pdf
NCRP President Thomas Tenforde presided over the NCRP Business meeting, noting a number of new NCRP Reports have been published in the past year or so, i.e., No. 146, 147, 148 and 149, Statement No. 10, and a publication in the Health Physics Journal - RESIDENTIAL RADON EXPOSURE AND LUNG CANCER RISK: COMMENTARY ON COHEN'S COUNTY-BASED STUDY. Tom noted the financial situation of NCRP has improved in the past couple years, and they actually had a financial gain of about $150K this past year. Net assets are now about $1.3 million. He also noted the 2006 Annual Meeting topic will be "Chernobyl at Twenty," and will be held in April 3-4, 2006. As the program is developed and speakers confirmed, NRCP will post this information, typically at the beginning of the year. See link below.
Dan Schultheisz (EPA) presented for Elizabeth Cotsworth, and provided an Overview of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Initiative on Disposition of Low-Activity Radioactive Waste. Dan gave an update on the November 2003 Federal Register ANPR where the EPA is looking for input on the construct of using a ‘risk’ vs. ‘origin’ approach to low-activity waste disposal. He noted they received over 1500 comments.
Carl Paperiello (NRC) gave an Update of Regulatory Efforts by U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Carl gave a brief review of the NRC’s past BRC and de minimus effort, and the current 10CFR20.2002 Alternate Disposal approach and other allowed disposal options in 10CFR20 for liquid and gaseous effluents. He also discussed the staff’s SECY-00-0070 paper on ‘clearance.’
Andy Wallo (DOE) presented the Implementation of U.S. Department of Energy Policies, Directives and Guidance for Radiological Control and Release of Property. Andy reviewed the current Orders and guidance available to DOE contractors, e.g., Order 5400.5, noting that DOE is updating their guidance and taking a management systems approach to release of property.
CRCPD Chair, Ed Bailey (CA), presented the Role of State Regulatory Agencies in the Disposition of Low-Activity Radioactive Materials. He closed the meeting and presented the LLRW disposal situation from the state's perspective, how sites UT, SC and WA still remain open to commercial users, though access to SC will be limited in 2008. Also, he mentioned NV is open to DOE users, but noted the LLRW Compact system has not improved the national situation, and that we’re dealing with political vs. technical issues. Ed discussed the new site application put forth in TX, and that states are basically left to their own in having to deal with NORM and TENORM. Ed also mentioned the new (non-radioactive) solid waste radiation monitoring program in PA.
There was a final Q&A session where attendees and presenters had the chance to further flush-out submitted questions on: role of stakeholders, risk communication, regulatory actions, science and engineering approach, flexibility in regulations, TENORM, internationals standards, etc. This was followed by an official meeting summary of the high points.
Overall, this writer thought the meeting was quite good, giving the ‘40,000 foot view’ overview of what the current situation is with disposal of LLRW and other low-activity waste. However, from a state’s perspective, I thought we needed more discussion on how individual states are actually dealing with NORM, TENORM, and other non-regulated low-activity waste. Also, I don’t track the numbers, but I thought the turnout for this year’s NCRP meeting was not as good as past years. If you’re able to attend these NCRP meetings, I’d encourage you to do so. There is no registration fee, the subjects are always timely, and presentations well done.
Lastly, every year the Health Physics journal publishes the papers of the NRCP meeting. The proceedings of the NCRP meeting are normally published in late spring, thus, these presentations in full paper form should appear in the June 2006 timeframe.
For a complete set of 2005 NRCP meeting presentation abstracts see –
http://www.ncrponline.org/Programs/05Program.html
For the 2006 NCRP program information and photos from the 2004 and 2005 Annual NCRP meeting see –
http://www.ncrponline.org/dates.html
If you are a member of the HPS, see another roll-up of presentation abstracts –
http://hps.org/membersonly/newsandactivities/newsletter/june05.pdf
Website: http://www.ncrp.com