Ben C. Rogers, CHMM; Rick McNutt, CHMM and Ray Patterson
Bechtel National, Inc.

Julie Peterson
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Since the beginning of the Atomic Age in the 1940s, radioactive waste has been disposed of either in government-held or commercially licensed facilities. As recently as the mid 1970s, the cost of disposing of 1 cubic meter of low-level radioactive waste was less than $71. Today, disposal costs have soared as high as $17,660 per cubic meter in some cases. While there is at least one low-cost disposal facility for certain radioactive materials, costs there have also continued to rise. The cost of disposal at the "low-cost" facility has been as low as $137 per cubic meter but has exceeded $8,830 per cubic meter. In the search for low-cost disposal of wastes from cleanup by the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), the options investigated included disposal at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle C facilities.

FUSRAP has completed cleanup of 25 sites, which have been released for reuse. These sites, contaminated during the Manhattan Project, contained some residual radioactive contamination. A significant volume of FUSRAP waste, now managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, remains to be cleaned up. Radioactively contaminated wastes from cleanup usually require costly disposal in licensed facilities. While under the guidance of the U. S. Department of Energy, FUSRAP pursued a new approach to managing its waste. By completing a dose-based analysis, FUSRAP has been able to show that no significant impact is likely either to the public or to facility personnel if its waste is disposed of by non-traditional means. As a result, guidance for establishing authorized limits for releasing residual radioactive materials was developed with significant cost savings projected. The approach has already been successfully implemented at two FUSRAP sites. This paper presents FUSRAP's overall approach to alternate disposal, the actual and projected cost savings, and the successful results.

From the 1940s through the 1960s, work was performed at various sites throughout the United States as part of the nation's early atomic energy program. Activities at some sites can be traced back as far as the early days of World War II and the Manhattan Engineering District; other sites were involved in peacetime activities. Generally, sites that became contaminated during this early period were cleaned up or released for use under the cleanup guidelines in effect at the time. Because those cleanup guidelines were not as strict as today's guidelines, some radioactive materials remained at some of the sites. The activities conducted at these sites included storing, sampling, assaying, processing, and machining of uranium ore and metal. The cleanup of these sites can require the disposal of thousands of cubic meters of mostly soil-like material that may be only slightly more radioactive than ordinary soil. In fact, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) designed definitions especially for the material being generated, even though its chemical and physical characteristics are no different from those of ordinary soil. For example, the average concentration of radium-226 in the earth's crust is about 0.074 becquerels/gram (Bq/g). By comparison, the average concentration of radium-226 in shipments made by the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) during FY 1997 was about 0.148 Bq/g. However, because this radioactive material is associated with sites used for nuclear weapons production, it is subject to potentially expensive cleanups. The combination of potentially high disposal costs and low radioactive content coupled with the congressional mandate to dispose of these materials led to consideration of alternate disposal as a legal means to a cost-effective end.

FUSRAP was created in 1974 by the AEC, a predecessor agency to the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. FUSRAP is an environmental restoration program that primarily addresses radioactive contamination on properties that have no institutional controls. The FUSRAP mission is to identify, investigate, and clean up or control sites where residual radioactivity exceeding current guidelines remains from the early years of the nation's atomic energy program; some additional sites were assigned to DOE by Congress because of their similarity. FUSRAP involves 46 sites in 14 states, including 311 commercial and residential vicinity properties that have been designated for cleanup. Seven of the FUSRAP sites are owned or leased by DOE. The sites awaiting remediation are primarily located in the Northeast and Midwest (see Figure 1). Through FY 1997, the program was funded through the Oak Ridge Operations Office of DOE. Congress transferred oversight and management of the program from DOE to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations Act.

Millions of dollars have been spent and millions more will be spent on disposal at licensed facilities of waste with concentrations of radioactive materials that barely exceed background levels. These expenditures, incurred because current regulations do not identify exceptions for such materials, are not judicious.

Historically, facilities accepting radioactive waste for disposal have been licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or by Agreement States (see Figure 1). These facilities accept dry active waste such as personal protective gear, discarded parts, and process exchange resins from national laboratories, nuclear power plants, hospitals, and universities. The radiation exposure potential from these waste materials ranges from a few microSieverts per hour to several Sieverts per hour. Certainly, no one anticipated that there might be millions of cubic meters of material with a potential dose of only a few nanoSieverts per hour that would ultimately require disposal. And no one anticipated that, during the approximately 20 years of study of FUSRAP and other government and commercial sites, disposal prices would go from $70.64/cubic meter to more than $17,660/cubic meter. The logical conclusion is that business as usual cannot continue, for if it does, taxpayers will spend more than $100 million on disposal costs without realizing any added worker and/or public health benefits.

Several factors suggest that alternate disposal methods are justified:

• The cold war is over.
• High-level security is no longer necessary for sites and materials that are little more than relics of a bygone era.
• Using alternate disposal does not increase the potential for becoming a responsible party.
• All facilities licensed under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C are built to the highest standards.
• Dose-based decision making ensures that disposal facility employees will not be working with material that may pose a radiological threat in an industrial disposal setting.

From the onset of the Cold War until the demolition of the Berlin Wall, the management of ores bearing source material was determined by national defense interests. The processing and history of the materials were fully considered, but chemical and physical parameters were not. This approach created a large regulatory gray area, which still exists, in determining if and when a material ceases to be classified as radioactive. However, even in the mindset of the Cold War, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, defined an unimportant quantity of source material as containing 0.05 percent by weight of uranium or thorium (or any combination thereof), which equals about 12.58 Bq/g of uranium and 2 Bq/g of thorium.

The NRC allowed licensees to land dispose of low-level radioactive waste onsite without prior NRC approval from 1959 to 1981. This authorization was codified in former 10 CFR 20.304. A 1981 NRC Branch Technical Position (BTP) required that licensees wishing to perform onsite disposal now obtain prior NRC approval in accordance with 10 CFR 20 Subpart K. The BTP summarized the maximum concentrations permitted under five acceptable disposal options. These options ranged from 0.37 Bq/g to 7.4 Bq/g for natural uranium and 0.37 Bq/g to 18.5 Bq/g for thorium. The criterion for each level was based primarily on dose-based risk assessment. The highest-level waste could be buried only in an area that would protect groundwater, had sufficient cover, and was restricted from future use.

The Department of Transportation has for a number of years defined radioactive material as any material containing more than 70 Bq/g of radioactivity (49 CFR 173.403). Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) concentrations generated by the petroleum industry and regulated only at the state level often exceed 37,000 Bq/g. The average concentration of radioactivity in the earth's crust is about 0.074 Bq/g, and the average concentration of radioactivity shipped by FUSRAP during FY 1997 was about 0.148 Bq/g. It hardly seems justifiable to spend $136.57 per cubic meter to dispose of waste that differs little from the soil in many backyards in America, when disposal facilities exist that will dispose of the waste for about $61.00 per cubic meter.

RCRA, a 1976 amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, addresses safe disposal of huge volumes of municipal and industrial solid waste. Subpart N includes the design and operating standards for landfills. Each Subtitle C facility is required to have a triple-lined double-leachate collection system. This requirement is significantly more stringent than current design requirements for radioactive waste disposal facilities. Even Subtitle D facilities built to the current technical requirements, double-lined with leachate collection, surpass those requirements. The primary difference is that radioactive waste disposal facilities are required to have a radiation protection plan for site personnel. These Subtitle C facilities are located throughout the nation, often much closer to FUSRAP sites than the licensed radioactive facilities currently being used (see Figure 1).

To date, several states have implemented rules and regulations governing the use, handling, storage, and disposal of NORM. There currently are no federal regulations specifically for the control of NORM. For example, the State of South Carolina established NORM regulations that allow for the disposal of up to 1.1 Bq/g of technologically enhanced radium-226 and radium-228 and up to 5.5 Bq/g of any other NORM radionuclide. These limits are typical of other states as well. The limits are applied to RCRA Subtitle C facilities on a case-by-case basis for each disposal event that may involve residual radioactive material, at a cost of $49B$83 per metric ton. By controlling the introduction of residual radioactive material in this manner, states can ensure that there is no significant radiation exposure to the public or the environment.

Equipped with the knowledge that disposal is possible at facilities not specifically licensed for radioactive material, Bechtel National, Inc. worked with DOE to develop guidance for establishing authorized limits for releasing and shipping hazardous wastes containing residual radioactive material to commercial waste treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities. The following approval process was developed.

• The process selects candidate sites by evaluating each site to determine whether any or all of the waste at the site is suitable for alternate disposal. Selection of sites then proceeds on the basis of site cleanup priority.
• It is known that some sites may contain more than one waste type, so hazardous or radioactive constituent concentrations are determined for each waste type. Each waste type identified is compared to alternative disposal facility waste acceptance criteria.
• Once approval is granted for a particular waste type or waste stream, shipment from other sites of essentially the same waste type or waste stream can proceed with minimal additional approval.
• A request for proposal for each suitable site is prepared and distributed to acceptable vendors.
• Potential vendors are required to obtain the necessary permits for disposing of materials containing residual radioactive contamination from the regulatory agencies responsible for regulating the proposed disposal site.
• Bids are then received and evaluated to determine the most cost-effective disposal option. Thereafter, contracts are awarded, and the work can commence.

Establishment of authorized release limits requires that the action

• not establish a de minimis concentration for radioactivity in that the releases of these materials will continue to be controlled;
• ensure protective and consistent application of the requirements by permitting a higher authority to approve releases at very low doses;
• provide time to intervene if a problem is identified;
• be consistent with NRC requirements and appropriately coordinated with external regulators;
• have a clear, structured approach to the control and release of material that will result in improved environmental protection in addition to the resource and cost savings associated with the process; and
• help ensure that public protection is integrated into facility operations rather than addressed as an afterthought.

Development, review, approval, and implementation of a compliant and effective program in accordance with the guidance specified above have ensured protection of the public and worker health and safety and the environment, ensured compliance with all regulatory requirements and facility operator requirements, streamlined procedures, expedited waste shipments to TSD facilities, and enhanced waste management cost-effectiveness.

During the cleanup of a vicinity property in Maywood, New Jersey, soil containing residual radioactive material of less than 0.55 Bq/g was also found to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at levels greater than 50 parts per million. Because of the PCB component, which is regulated by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), traditional disposal was not possible. After a meeting among the NRC, DOE Headquarters, and the regulators in the state where the RCRA Subtitle C, TSCA-permitted facility was located, the materials were disposed of at a savings of $400,000.

Figure 2 compares the costs of disposing of FUSRAP wastes. Preliminary evaluations indicate that a significant portion of the approximately 1,000,000 cubic meters of FUSRAP waste remaining is suitable for disposal in Subtitle C facilities. If this can be accomplished, the potential for savings could approach $100 million at FUSRAP sites alone. Other USACE and DOE sites will no doubt also become eligible for consideration for alternate disposal.

The future of alternate disposal will depend on the willingness of state and federal regulators to work together on disposing of waste at the lowest price and in an environmentally and publicly acceptable manner.

A proposed starting point for negotiations should be concurrence from NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency on the following conditions:

• Waste containing less than 0.55 Bq/g of radium-226 remains in place or goes to a local landfill.
• Waste containing greater than 0.55 Bq/g but less than 1.1 Bq/g of radium-226 goes to

Subtitle D facilities. Subtitle D facilities are double-lined, single-leachate collection systems that meet the NRC Branch Technical Position.

• Waste containing greater than 1.1 Bq/g but less than 70 Bq/g of activity goes to Subtitle C facilities.
• Waste with greater than 70 Bq/g of activity goes to an NRC-licensed disposal facility.

Dose-based evaluations have shown that wastes containing these levels of residual radioactivity can be adequately isolated from human receptors and the biosphere, at a cost commensurate with the level of potential hazard.

BACK