July 25, 2000
My name is L. Max Scott. I am an Adjunct Associate Professor of Physics and Astronomy and the System Radiation Safety Officer at Louisiana State University. I hold a Bachelor of Science Degree from Texas A&M; University and a Master of Science and Doctor of Philosophy Degrees from Purdue University. I am a certified Health Physicist and a Fellow of the Health Physics Society. I have worked as an applied health physicist for over 39 years. For most of that time, either as a primary job responsibility through research grants or as a consultant, I have been involved with radiation safety issues related to naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) and similar materials like the majority of the waste resulting from the remedaition of formally utilized site remedial action plan sites (FUSRAP).
I have received grants from the American Petroleum Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Mineral Management Service to study various issues related to the safety and disposal of NORM. As you may know, the State of Louisiana was the first state to specifically regulate NORM from petroleum production. I was a member of the committee of four that suggested those regulations. Subsequently, I served on other Louisiana committees concerning regulation and disposal of NORM. I was a member of the NORM advisory committee to the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors during the drafting of the suggested state regulations for NORM. I am on the Health Physics Society NORM subcommittee. I am currently assisting two companies who are remediating FUSRAP sites and a company that is remediating a NORM site. I have consulted extensively with the petroleum industry, the fertilizer industry, the aluminum industry and to a lessor degree with other industries that encounter NORM.
The views that I express today are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of any industry, trade association, professional society, the State of Louisiana, or Louisiana State University.
Usually at this point in my presentation I give the audience an examination by asking them who were David Banner and Peter Parker. As you may know, David Banner was the incredible hulk. He became the incredible hulk after exposure to gamma radiation. Peter Parker became the spider man after he was bitten by a radioactive spider. Unfortunately, many of the young adults of today were introduced to radiation by this means. If you are as old as I am, your introduction to radiation was reading about the dropping of the atomic bombs at the end of World War Two. Mention Three-mile Island or Chernobyl and most anyone can identify them. Mention Texas City or Coconut Grove and more than likely people will identify a city in Texas and a place to gather coconuts. Yet over 500 people died in Texas City as a result of a ship which was loaded with ammonium nitrate that exploded, and Coconut Grove was a night club in Boston where more than 200 people burned to death in a fire. We routinely ship ammonium nitrate and some of us frequent night clubs. I do not mean to belittle Three-mile Island or Chernobyl, but to emphasis the fact that there are risks in all human endeavors. For reasons that are not clear to me, anything associated with radiation appears to be reported more frequently and more intensely than other real or potential hazards. For example, in the early 1990s a quantity of waste oil contaminated with trace amounts of radioactive material was incinerated in Louisiana. Although I did not personally count them, I was told that there were articles concerning the radioactive material in the local paper for 43 consecutive days. Subsequent studies revealed that the incineration did not result in exposure to the public. Such reporting has engendered an undue fear of radiation and the potential health effects of exposure to radiation. I believe that we need to provide a safe environment and provide that degree of protection commensurate with the scientifically defined risk, not some perceived or extrapolated risk. My goal today is to attempt to set out what I feel are reasonable approaches for the disposal of NORM waste and most FUSRAP waste.
As has been pointed out today, depending on the source of the NORM, it may be unregulated, regulated in varying manners by some of the states, and in some limited cases by federal agencies. It is my understanding that FUSRAP waste is regulated differently depending on the date that remediation occurred. The alpha particle that is emitted when an atom of internally deposited radium-226 decays, does not know whether the radium atom originated in water treatment plant waste, a phosphogypsum stack, a FUSRAP site, or scale from petroleum production tubulars. If it has the potential to cause harm from one source, it has the potential to cause harm from all sources.
According to the EPA (EPA 1993) the majority of FUSRAP waste is uranium, thorium, and radium. Recoginizing that various radionuclides have different radiological properties and thus pose differing exposure potential, NORM and FUSRAP waste can be treated in a similar manner.
As a general philosophy I subscribe to the proposed EPA guidance on radiation protection of the public (EPA 1994):
There should be no radiation exposure to the general public unless it is justified by the expectation of an overall benefit from the activity causing the exposure.
Doses to individuals and populations should be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
The annual effective dose equivalent to individuals from all controlled sources combined, including sources not associated with operations of the nuclear-fuel cycle, but excluding indoor radon, should not exceed 1 millisievert (100 mrem).
Annual effective dose equivalent to individuals up to 5 millisieverts (500 mrem) may be permitted, with prior authorization, in unusual, temporary situations.
Continued exposure over substantial portions of a lifetime at or near 1 millisievert (100 mrem) per year should be avoided.
Authorized limits for specific sources or practices should be established to ensure that the primary dose limit of 1 millisievert (100 mrem) per year for all controlled sources combined and the ALARA objectives are satisfied, and the authorized limit for any source or practice, normally should be a fraction of the dose limit for all controlled sources combined.
However, from a practical standpoint I believe that the National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements (NRCPM 1993) has prescribed annual limit for man made sources which are applicable for use in the disposal of NORM waste and most FUSRAP waste, ie.,
One millisievert (100 mrem) per year for continual exposure and 5 millisievert (500 mrem) per year for infrequent exposure. The current regulations covering the disposal of NORM waste, and in some cases FUSRAP waste, are not consistent. It is not possible in the time allotted to cover the various regulations; however, I would like to discuss some of those which appear to offer practical solutions. Colorado allows for any radioactive material containing up to 40 pCi/g total alpha to be disposed of in nonhazardous solid waste disposal facilities (Mallory in DOE 1999).
Michigan allows bulk waste containing up to 50 pCi/g radium-226 to be disposed of in a Type II solid waste landfill (nonhazardous) (MDEQ 1996).
Louisiana allows for nonhazardous oilfield waste containing up to 30 pCi/g radium-226 to be disposed of in nonhazardous oilfield disposal facilities (LEC 1999). Uranium mill tailing containing unlimited quantities of radium-226, and thorium-230 can be disposed of by burial under the Uranium Mill Tailing Act. Typical quantities range up to a few hundred pCi/g (Title 40 CFR Part 192).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission until recently allowed for the disposal or 30-35 pCi/g of uranium and 10 pCi/g of thorium by burial. Under specified disposal conditions these values can range up to 3000 pCi/g and 500 pCi/g respectively (46 FR 62061).
The Environmental Protection Agency has published guidelines for the disposal of radium-226 and radium-228 in water treatment plant waste (EPA1994):
Solid waste containing 3 pCi/g radium-226 plus radium-228 and uranium at less than 50 ęg/g (about 35 pCi/g) may be disposed of without institutional controls in a municipal landfill, if the volume of such waste does not exceed 10% of the total waste.
Solid waste containing 3-50 pCi/g radium-226 plus radium-228 in facilities comparable to those developed under Subtitle D of RCRA.
Solid waste containing 50-2,000 pCi/g radium-226 plus radium-228 in facilities comparable to those developed under Subtitle C of RCRA.
The Corps of Engineers has proposed and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given tacit concurrence for the disposal of FUSRAP waste in RCRA disposal facilities, dose to be limited to 1 millisievert (100 mrem) per year (Essig 2000). In my opinion the only practical method of disposing of NORM and most FUSRAP waste is by burial in a landfill. Under these conditions the only practical exposure pathways are airborne particulates during disposal operations and leeching to ground water over an extended period of time. Airborne particulate can be controlled by using appropriate dust suppression techniques. Thus, there is no exposure potential at the time the waste is disposed. I am neither a civil engineer nor a hydrologist; therefore, I cannot speak authoritatively regarding the likelihood of the ground water pathway. However, it is my opinion that EPA provided adequate requirements for the construction of Subtitle C and D RCRA facilities to prevent appreciable leeching to ground water. In my opinion there are two approaches whereby NORM waste and most FUSRAP waste can be disposed of so that the environment and the public are afforded adequate protection.
1. Dispose of waste in Subtitle C and D RCRA facilities at concentrations such that the average dose to an individual member of the public does not exceed 1 millisievert (100 mrem) per year with a maximum dose not to exceed 5 millisievert (500 mrem) per year. Guidance should be provided to assure that dose estimates are made using reasonable and practical exposure scenarios. Such waste should not exceed 10% of the anticipated capacity of the disposal facility.
2. Use the EPA guidance for water treatment waste as framework as follows:
Develop comparable concentrations for uranium and thorium equivalent to those values proposed for radium-226 plus radium-228. As a matter of reference, I have included values for uranium and thorium which pose a similar risk to the radium values. These values were derived from ratios of the allowable discharges to sanitary sewer contained in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 3.
Disposal as follows:
Municipal landfills:
3 pCi/g radium-226 plus radium-228, or 15 pCi/g total uranium or 1.5 pCi/g total thorium. For mixtures the sum of fraction rule to be applied. Volume of such waste not to exceed 10% of the anticipated volume of the facility. During disposal operations dust suppression techniques to be employed as necessary.
Subtitle D RCRA waste facilities:
Up to 50 pCi/g radium-226 plus radium-228 or 250 pCi/g total uranium or 25 pCi/g total thorium. For mixtures the sum of fraction rule to be applied. Volume of such waste not to exceed 10% of the anticipated volume of the facility. During disposal operations dust suppression techniques to be employed as necessary.
Subtitle C RCRA waste facilities:
Up to 2000 pCi/g radium-226 plus radium-228 or 10,000 pCi/g total uranium or 1,000 pCi/g total thorium. For mixtures the sum of fraction rule to be applied. Volume of such waste not to exceed 10% of the anticipated volume of the facility. During disposal operations dust suppression techniques to be employed as necessary.
I am sure that each member of this committee has cast votes and taken positions that were not in keeping with the desires of their constituents, but the positions taken were the best for the nation as a whole. Drafting and supporting legislation regarding the disposal of NORM wastes and most FUSRAP waste may put you in that position.
I encourage you to draft and support legislation that will provide for methods to dispose of NORM waste and most FUSRAP waste in a practical and uniform manner utilizing RCRA type facilities.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views.