Welcome the Homepage of the New Hampshire Comparative Risk Projec

NH COMPARATIVE RISK PROJECT                                          ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY, May 1998
NON-REACTOR SOURCES OF RADIATION
(Low Level Radioactive Waste and Non-Reactor Radioactive Materials)

Definition

Non-federally regulated sources of radiation exposure or waste includes: (a)low level radioactive waste (LLRW) and (b)non-reactor radioactive materials.  LLRW is defined as any radioactive waste that does not fall into one of the following categories:

• spent fuel from nuclear reactors;
• wastes from reprocessed reactor fuel;
• tailings from uranium mines or mills;
• “transuranic” wastes (material contaminated with elements whose atomic number exceeds 92) (Jordan 1984).

Radioactive Materials (RAM) are used in diagnostic and therapeutic medicine (e.g., I-131); in industrial applications such as sealed gauges (e.g., fill gauges, density gauges), fluorescence X-ray instruments to determine chemical composition and industrial radiography instruments to analyze structural integrity (e.g., of bridges and large buildings), and calibration of specialized equipment; and in various research applications.

 
Data Quality & Quantity

Sources/Availability: The NH Bureau of Radiological Health (NHBRH) in the NH Department of Health and Human Services, as the regulatory agency, maintains data on all facilities licensed to possess and use radioactive materials, on past LLRW generation, and on all reported incidents involving radioactive materials; and produces estimates of future LLRW generation based on license information.

Significant Gaps: Comprehensive data on amounts of LLRW generated annually from all sources in New Hampshire is lacking.  No radiological standards or criteria currently exist for protection of fish, wildlife, and natural resources (Eisler 1994).

History: Passage of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 led to development of nuclear medicine and industrial applications of radioactivity.  These applications led to an increasing accumulation of LLRW in the commercial sector during the 1960s (Jordan 1984).  Three methods of LLRW disposal have been used in the United States: sea disposal, dilution and dispersion, and shallow-land burial.  Sea disposal, conducted between 1946 and 1970, involved approximately 94,600 Ci of packaged LLRW that were dumped in the Atlantic Ocean off the Maryland-Delaware coast, in the Pacific Ocean near the Farallon Islands, and in the Gulf of Mexico (USEPA 1977).  Shallow-land burial typically involves trenches about 25 ft. deep, 300 ft. long, and 40 ft. wide in which containers of LLRW are buried.  The U.S. government operates 13 land-based disposal sites, which continue to handle LLRW from defense and government research facilities.  The first commercial land burial site (in Beatty, Nevada) was licensed in 1962, and federal disposal facilities stopped accepting commercially-generated LLRW in 1963.  Five additional commercial sites followed: Maxey Flats, KY, and West Valley, NY, in 1963; Hanford, WA, in 1965; Sheffield, IL, in 1967; and Barnwell, SC in 1971 (Jordan 1984).  The Maxey Flats site accepted about 135,287 cubic meters of LLRW before closing in 1977, after surface contamination was discovered on the site. The Sheffield site accepted about 88,334 cubic meters of LLRW before closing in 1978, after the discovery of groundwater contamination. The West Valley site accepted 66,521 cubic meters of LLRW before closing in 1975.

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-576) required states to provide for the disposal of commercially generated LLRW produced within their borders, and encouraged states to form regional compacts for development of disposal facilities.  State response to this legislation was slow, and Congress amended the act in 1985 to include milestones and financial penalties.  Hanford, Beatty, and Barnwell accommodated the nation's LLRW during the 1980s and early 1990s.  New disposal facilities to accommodate the needs of each state were to be operational by 1 January 1993.  As of January 1995, 11 states planned new disposal facilities, which, with continued operation of Hanford, would serve waste generators in 47 states.  However, no sites were under construction as yet and only 4 candidate sites had been identified.  In January 1993, the Beatty site closed entirely, Hanford stopped accepting waste from outside its 11-state compact areas, and Barnwell closed to all but 8 southeastern states (GAO 1995). Subsequently, LLRW accumulated at New Hampshire generation sites.  During 1996-97, Barnwell again accepted waste from outside the southeast compact area, and a license amendment enabled a commercial site in Utah (Envirocare) to accept additional types of LLRW.  New Hampshire's primary generators of LLRW (Dartmouth College, University of New Hampshire, and Seabrook Station nuclear power plant) were then able to ship their backlogs.  The bulk of this waste went to Utah (D. Tefft, NHBRH, personal communication).  In addition, New Hampshire shipped 2.32 cubic feet of LLRW, with an activity of <1 curie, to Barnwell in 1996; 89.9% of the volume and 50.0% of the activity came from industrial sources and 18.1% of the volume and 50.0% of the activity came from academic sources (INEER 1997).  Table 1 summarizes volumes and activities of LLRW shipped from New Hampshire to commercial disposal facilities (excluding Envirocare) during 1987-1995.

Table 1. Volumes and activities of LLRW shipped from New Hampshire to commercial disposal facilities, 1987-1995. INEER. 1997. 1996 State-By-State Assessment of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes Received at Commercial Disposal Sites. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company, National Low-Level Waste Management Program, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
 
 

Current Condition: Presently 85 New Hampshire facilities are licensed to possess and use radioactive materials.  These include 32 licensed for medical applications, 23 for sealed gauges, 22 for other industrial applications, and 8 for research applications (NHBRH data).  In addition to these facilities, generators of LLRW in New Hampshire include the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.  Radioactive isotopes used in nuclear medicine typically have short half lives, and LLRW from medical applications can be safely disposed with other medical refuse after decaying to background radiation levels.  Medical facilities store LLRW for a period of 10 half lives before disposal by standard means.  Standard protocol for sealed gauges and instruments containing radioactive materials calls for shipment back to the manufacturer for dismantling and disposal.  At the present time, most academic LLRW and some LLRW from Seabrook can be shipped to Envirocare in Utah, and LLRW not meeting Envirocare license criteria can be shipped to Barnwell in South Carolina.  Because New Hampshire is not a party to any regional compact, long-term LLRW disposal options for major generators (Dartmouth College, the University of New Hampshire, and Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant) are uncertain.  However, the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-249) authorizes the NRC to order access to an appropriate disposal site in the event of actual risk to the public from accumulating wastes in temporary storage.  LLRW from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is transported to a military disposal facility.  No historical or current long-term disposal sites for LLRW are located in New Hampshire or adjacent states.

Ecological Receptors of Concern: Terrestrial and/or aquatic organisms in immediate vicinity of accidental LLRW release to environment. Primitive organisms are generally the most resistant to radiation, and complex organisms, such as mammals, are the most sensitive (Eisler 1994).
 

EXPOSURES AND IMPACTS

Severity: Severity of effects would depend on the type, duration, and intensity of exposure, and on the species, age, and other characteristics of exposed organisms (Hoffman et al. 1995).  Rapidly dividing cells, such as those in embryonic tissues, are the most susceptible to damage from radiation, and young animals are more sensitive than adults (Hobbs and McClellan 1986).  The lowest chronic radiation dose to reliably produce harmful effects in sensitive species is about 1 Gy/year; the lowest acute dose to produce such effects is about 0.01 Gy (Rose 1992).

Distribution/Extent: Potential distribution is generally limited to the immediate vicinity of licensed facilities, transportation routes, and landfills.  Extent generally would be limited to the immediate vicinity of an accident involving exposure of LLRW to the environment.  Exceptions would include releases to rivers or other water bodies.

Frequency: Of 167 reports of radiological incident events in New Hampshire since 1966, 27 (occurring in 18 towns) involved an actual or potential environmental hazard involving radioactive materials (not including incidents at nuclear power plants, which are addressed in the technical report, Federally Regulated Nuclear Facilities) (NHBRH data).  Table 2 summarizes these events.
 

Table 2. Summary of Radiological Incident Events in New Hampshire, 1966 - 1997. (Data from NHBRH New Hampshire Radiological Incident Event Details database)
 
 

Duration/Reversibility of effects: The duration of exposure is likely to be short, given the small quantities of LLRW transported at one time, the low probability that all transported containers would be perforated in a given accident, and adequacy of existing protocols and procedures for clean-up and decontamination of affected sites.  No significant adverse effects have been observed at population or community levels in aquatic ecosystems with exposures of less than 10 mGy/day (IAEA 1992, NCRPM 1991).  Even in the most contaminated areas, levels of radioactivity  have been too low to detect effects at the population or community levels in terrestrial ecosystems (Whicker and Schultz 1982 cited in Hoffman et al. 1995).
 

Other Issues for Consideration

Physical, chemical, and biological agents cycle radioactive materials through the environment (Eisler 1994).  Many radioactive isotopes decay to compounds that are highly toxic, even if they are not radioactive (Mathews, peer review comment).  Low level radioactive wastes may cause synergistic effects with other toxic substances in mixed wastes (Brisbin, peer review comment).  Considered globally, living organisms receive a greater radiation dosage from natural than from anthropogenic sources (Aarkrog 1990).  Fallout from nuclear weapons tests conducted 20-30 years ago, authorized ocean discharges from nuclear reprocessing plants, and the 1986 accident Chernobyl comprise the most important anthropogenic sources of environmentally damaging radiation at the present time (Aarkrog 1990).
 

Technical Assessment of Risk:
 
 

Explanation of Scores

Severity: Given that there are no long-term storage facilities in the state to provide potential chronic exposures, expected severity is low assuming accidental release and rapid clean-up.

Geographical Extent: The affected area generally would be limited to the immediate vicinity of an accidental release.

Ecological Extent: An accidental release that was promptly cleaned up would be most likely to affect local populations in the vicinity of the release site.

Taxonomic Extent: All taxonomic categories could be affected.

Reversibility: With prompt clean-up at sites of accidental releases, exposure of organisms is minimized, and biological processes can reverse effects.

Uncertainty/Probability: There is a possibility of effects based on current understanding of biological principles.

 
Justification / Summary

Since there are no long-term disposal sites in New Hampshire, risks are limited to accidental releases to the environment, which have a low probability of occurrence and would affect a limited geographic area.
 

References

Aarkrog, A. 1990. Environmental radiation and radiation releases. International Journal of Radiation Biology 57: 619-631.

Eisler, R. 1994. Radiation Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. USDI National Biological Service, Biological Report 26, Contaminant Hazard Reviews Report 29.

General Accounting Office (GAO). 1995. Radioactive Waste: Status of Commercial Low-Level Waste Facilities. United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Requesters GAO/RCED-95-67.

Hobbs, C.H. an d R.O. McClellan. 1986. Toxic effects of radiation and radioactive materials. Pp. 669-705 in C.D. Klaassen, M.O. Amdur, and J. Doull, eds. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology. Third edition. Macmillan, New York.

Hoffman, D.J., B.A. Rattner, G.A. Burton, Jr., and J. Cairns, Jr. 1995. Handbook of Ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, London.

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL). 1997. 1996 State-by-state assessment of low-level radioactive wastes received at commercial disposal sites.  Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company, National Low-Level Waste Management Program, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 1992. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Plants and Animals at Levels Compiled by Current Radiation Protection Standards. Tech. Rep. Ser. No. 332, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna.

Jordan, J.M. 1984. Low-level Radioactive Waste Management: An Update; A Legislator's Guide. National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, CO.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRPM). 1991. Effects of Ionizing Radiation on Aquatic Organisms. NCRP Rep. No. 109, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD.

Rose, K.S.B. 1992. Lower limits of radiosensitivity in organisms, excluding man. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 15: 113-133.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1977. Radiological Quality of the Environment in the United States, 1977. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, EPA 520/1-77-09.

Whicker, F.W. and V. Schultz. 1982. Radioecology: Nuclear Energy and the Environment, Vol. II. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

NH Comparative Risk Project: 
Non-Reactor Sources Of Radiation (US)

NH Comparative Risk Project: 
Nuclear Reactors & Associated 
Radioactive Waste (US)

Public Advisory Group Rationales 
for Nuclear Issues

Motercalo - Netlinking Casino -- Referencement - Fiches Pedagogiques - Annuaire