5579
905R76112
Radioactive
Wastes
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Radioactive Wastes
Wanted: A permanent storage place
for vast quantities of radioactive mate-
rials that will retain their toxicity for
thousands of years. Must be earth-
quake-proof, leakproof, and foolproof.
This is a need that must be met,
because failure to find a solution could
threaten the future of the nuclear
power industry.
Roger Strelow, Assistant Administra-
tor for Air and Waste Management,
told the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy last November that "EPA
believes the rapid development of at
least one environmentally acceptable
method for the permanent disposal of
radioactive wastes is essential for the
continued development of nuclear
power."
Mr. Strelow stressed that EPA is
"totally committed to finding a means
to ultimately dispose of high-level
wastes."
He also said that the inventory of
wastes from weapons production is
presently in interim storage in leaking
tanks, and wastes from nuclear power
plants are expected to exceed current
temporary storage capacity.
"The question then is not if, but
when will we have an acceptable
ultimate disposal method, how good it
will be, and how much will it cost."
Some fission products which must be
stored are cesium-137, strontium-90,
iodine-131 and plutonium-239. Some
decay rapidly in hours or days. Others
take up to thousands and millions of
years to lose their radioactive po-
tency.
A proposal for permanent disposal of
radioactive wastes is expected to be
made this year by the Energy Re-
search and Development Administra-
tion, one of the successor agencies to
the Atomic Energy Commission.
Many Options
Some of the possibilities which had
been considered by AEC included:
Geologic Disposal: Burial in bedded
salt deposits or bedrock caverns.
AEC had proposed at one point use
of a salt mine near Lyons, Kansas, for
disposal of all commercial radioactive
waste. However, this proposal was
later abandoned when it was learned
that nearby mining activities might
have caused leaks in the abandoned
mine. Another possibility, dumping
wastes into a manmade cavern near
This abandoned salt mine near Lyons, Kansas, was considered but rejected for
permanent storage of high-level radioactive waste. Other salt-bed sites are being
studied for a Pilot Plant Repository.
the AEC's property on the Savannah
River was also dropped because of
concern that the wastes might reach
the nearby Tuscaloosa aquifer, a huge
underground reservoir that supplies
fresh water to much of Georgia and
South Carolina.
Outer Space: Questions of cost and
safety now appear to rule out this
alternative. The great concern was
that wastes rocketed from earth might
unexpectedly return as a result of
launching or rocket malfunction.
Polar Disposal: Could the wastes be
placed in uninhabited land masses
such as Antarctica? Wouldn't they
just melt their way down to bedrock?
However, this alternative would re-
quire amending an international treaty
that now bars the disposal of atomic
wastes there. Also, scientists argued
that too little is known yet about the
movement of glaciers.
Transmutation: The concept was to
bombard the wastes with neutrons
inside a reactor and thus change them
into shorter-lived or even harmless
substances. However, some of the
radioactive waste products, such as
cesium-137 and strontium-90, cannot
be easily changed by this bombard-
ment process.
Seabed Disposal: European nations
and the United States used to deposit
relatively low-level wastes in the
oceans. However, the U.S. stopped
doing this many years ago. Now inter-
est is mounting in resuming ocean
dumping of radioactive wastes. The
July-August issue of EPA Journal
carried the first published account by
Robert S. Dyer, an EPA oceanogra-
pher, with the Office of Radiation
Programs, on his successful search for
radioactive wastes dumped in the Pa-
cific Ocean some 20 years ago. Since
then, Mr. Dyer, who used deep sub-
mersibles to find and photograph ra-
dioactive wastes dropped on the
seabed, has found radioactive wastes
deposited in the Atlantic.
-------
"These surveys," Mr. Strelow said,
"were the first successful attempts at
finding the actual drums of radioactive
wastes, some of which had lain there
for almost 30 years at depths of over
9,000 feet.
"We have taken extensive photo-
graphic documentation of the dump-
site areas and have collected many
sediment samples for radioanalysis.
We are still tabulating our results and
hope to issue one or more technical
reports in the near future and present
our findings to the International
Atomic Energy Agency."
Costs Will Soar
In his Congressional testimony, Mr.
Strelow emphasized that interim stor-
age of high level wastes "with only
minimum planning for eventual final
disposal is unacceptable because of
the potential enormity of the costs that
may have to be incurred."
The cost projections for interim stor-
age of high-level wastes and for burial
of low-level wastes will be about $7
billion by the year 2000, he noted.
Therefore, he added, explicit attention
should be given to the possibility that
an interim engineered storage system
may become permanent solely due to
economic costs.
Noting that this point has been de-
veloped in detail by Dr. Rowe, in a
paper entitled "The Hidden Commit-
ment of Nuclear Wastes," Mr. Stre-
low said that "these potentially large
costs could eventually dictate use of
an interim storage method as a perma-
nent repository, contrary to the envi-
ronmental need for ultimate disposal."
The cost for ultimate disposal of
high-level wastes could exceed $1 bil-
lion by the year 2000, he said.
Discussing the disposal of low-level
wastes, Mr. Strelow said that EPA, in
conjunction with the States involved,
has been conducting environmental
studies at the Maxey Flats site in Ken-
tucky and the West Valley site in New
York, where low-level wastes are
buried in large earthen trenches.
He said that studies supported by the
Office of Radiation Programs have
shown that rainfall seeping through the
earthen caps over these trenches can
cause some leakage of radioactive
material from the wastes.
"EPA believes it is necessary to
place a high priority" on establish-
ment of additional regulations control-
ling the burial of long-lived waste in
shallow surface trenches, Mr. Strelow
said.
Million-gallon storage tanks for liquid radioactive wastes built at Hanford. Wash.
Steel-lined tanks are surrounded by thick concrete and buried 7 to 14 feet below ground
surface.
Natural Radioactivity
In addition to manmade radioactive
wastes, there are naturally occurring
radioactive materials. This area in-
cludes the problems of radioactivity
from uranium mine and mill tailings
and from the mining of such materials
as phosphates, fossil fuels, vanadium
and other ores.
Mr. Strelow said EPA is conducting
a number of projects designed to
provide a comprehensive assessment
of this problem, including field meas-
urement of radioactivity at mill tailing
piles.
One of these projects is the develop-
ment and testing of a model to esti-
mate population exposure from radon
and its decay products or "daughters"
to human beings.
EPA is also involved in assessing the
radioactivity from phosphate mining
and milling. The Agency recently in-
formed the Governor of Florida that a
preliminary EPA study showed the
presence of high levels of radioactive
radon and its decay products in resi-
dential buildings constructed on re-
claimed phosphate mining lands in
Polk County.
Although the health risk involved
will not be fully known until further
studies are completed, EPA scientists
believe that continuous exposure for
ten years to the highest level of
radioactivity found at the Polk County
site could double the normal risk of
lung cancer for people living in these
buildings.
Mr. Strelow emphasized that EPA is
concerned with proper management
and containment of all types of radio-
active wastes, o
-------
IS THIS X-RAY REALLY NECESSARY?
How are you most likely to be
exposed to radiation?
If you answer "an accident at a
nuclear power plant" or "the outbreak
of nuclear warfare," you?re wrong.
The odds-on chances are that your
radiation exposure will come from an
x-ray examination given by your doc-
tor or dentist or in a hospital or clinic.
At least 90 percent of the total
"dose" of manmade radiation to peo-
ple in the United States comes from
diagnostic x-rays, according to a re-
port made to EPA three years ago by
a special committee of the National
Academy of Sciences.
EPA is developing guidance to Fed-
eral agencies for diagnostic x-ray
usage to protect patients receiving
health care from these agencies from
unwise or excessive exposure. The
first public announcement of the EPA
plan is being made this month by Dr.
James E. Martin of the Office of
Radiation Programs at a meeting of
the Health Physics Society in Denver.
The plan, called "Federal Radiation
Guidance for Diagnostic X-Rays,"
will be formally proposed by publica-
tion in the Federal Register after
completion of technical review and
Presidential approval. This review
process is expected to begin in March.
The guidance recommended by EPA
wiH take effect when it is implemented
by various Federal agencies—such as
the Department of Defense, the Vet-
erans' Administration, and the Public
Health Service—which provide medi-
cal services and operate hospitals and
clinics, Dr. Martin iexpiained.
There is a broad consensus that
many unproductive x-ray examina-
tions are given, he said.
Advising the President
"EPA has no authority to tell doc-
tors how to treat their patients nor do
we want such authority," Dr. Martin
said, "but we do have a statutory
responsibility to 'advise the President*
on radiation health matters and, with
his approval, to provide guidance to
'all Federal agencies in the formula-
tion of radiation standards.' With the
population exposure to x-rays as high
as it is and the potential reductions
available, we feel compelled to work
with Federal agencies and to recom-
mend national goals to the President."
This power goes back to the Atomic
Energy Act which was amended in
1959 (PL 86-273) to establish the Fed-
eral Radiation Council and its func-
tions. These functions were trans-
ferred to EPA, when the Agency was
formed.
170 Millirems
In general, for population groups, the
current Federal recommended limit is
170 millirems per year to the average
individual. (A millirem is a measure of
radiation's effect on living tissue.) The
limit is about twice the natural back-
ground radiation to which everyone is
unavoidably exposed: an average of 84
millirems per person annually in the
United States. This radiation comes
from minerals in the earth and from
cosmic rays, so it varies in different
parts of the country and at different
altitudes.
"Our aim in proposing diagnostic x-
ray guidance is simple." Dr. Martin
said. "We want to try to make sure
that x-rays are used in Federal health
care activities with a minimum risk
and maximum benefit to the patient.
"We believe there is no 'safe' level
of radiation; all radiation is assumed
to have some potential effect, and the
effects are cumulative; they add up
over the years. One x-ray or fluoro-
scopic examination, can give you as
much radiation exposure as several
years of natural background.
"Most people don't realize that an x-
ray involves a small but definite risk.
Many doctors use x-rays routinely.
like a blood pressure or urine test,
even when there is no real indication
that an x-ray is needed for the particu-
lar patient.
Dr. Martin and his colleagues, De-
Vaughn R, Nelson and Harry J. Pet-
tengill, have been working for a year
and a half with medical representa-
tives of the Army, Navy, Air Force,
Veterans' Administration and with
consultants from universities and the
Public Health Service in developing
the guidelines.
3 Steps to Take
The group agreed it was desirable
and possible for Federal facilities to
reduce diagnostic x-ray exposure in
three ways:
• Fewer x-ray examinations, elimi-
nating those that are "clinically unpro-
ductive." The total medical x-ray
usage in the United States has been
increasing at about 4 percent each
year. In 1970 the abdominal dose was
estimated to be about 72-millirem to
the average person. No x-ray should
be made unless ordered by a qualified
physician for a specific purpose. X-ray
screening of groups of people—as
chest x-rays for tuberculosis—should
be avoided, likewise routine dental x-
rays and breast x-rays for women
under 35 who have no symptoms of
possible breast cancer.
• Better techniques to assure mini-
mum exposure when x-rays are taken.
These include proper maintenance and
calibration of equipment, better train-
ing of technicians, and use of image
intensifies for fluoroscopy. The
guides will include recommended ex-
posure, levels for several x-ray views.
• Equipment standards. All x-ray
equipment manufactured after Aug. 1,
1974, must conform to standards set
by the U.S. Food and Drug Adminis-
tration, but most of the equipment
now used in Federal facilities ante-
dates these standards, and variances
can be obtained for some new equip-
ment. The guides for all Federally-
owned equipment will recommend
conforming to key portions of the
equipment performance standards as
soon as practicable; in the interim
minimum levels of performance neces-
sary to protect both patient and opera-
tor will be recommended.
Although EPA's guidance would ap-
ply only to activities of Federal agen-
cies, it is expected to have an influ-
ence on private medical practice and
general hospitals by setting an exam-
ple, o
-------
PREPARING
FOR
NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS
"The phone call came in mid-after-
noon of Wednesday, October 5, 1966.
The exact time is not recorded, be-
cause it was never entered officially
on the log of the Sheriff of Monroe
County, Michigan. An unidentified
voice on the other end of the line
spoke sharply and briefly. There was
something wrong at the new Enrico
Fermi Atomic Power Plant. The voice
said that the situation should not be
publicized, that no public alert should
be given. More information would
follow ..."
This is an excerpt from a new fast-
selling book about the hazards of
nuclear power titled "We Almost Lost
Detroit" by John G. Fuller. The book
begins with a report on what hap-
pened on that October afternoon in
1966 when the control panel inside the
Enrico Fermi atomic reactor near De-
troit suddenly registered high radiation
levels, a sign of critical danger.
The problem at this experimental
breeder reactor was finally controlled,
but this plant, which continued to be
troubled by mishaps, was finally or-
dered closed.
Even though the title is exaggerated.
the book does raise in a dramatic
fashion a problem EPA believes must
be faced and dealt with.
This is why EPA has prepared
guides advising States and local gov-
ernments what should be included in
their emergency plans to prepare for
nuclear accidents.
The types of accidents that must be
planned for include those in nuclear
power reactors used for generating
electricity, in plants that reprocess fuel
for nuclear reactors and in the trans-
portation of spent fuel and high-level
radioactive wastes.
The nuclear power industry has de-
veloped elaborate safety measures to
prevent accidents and to reduce the
consequences of those that occur.
Because of this effort the industry has
avoided any large release of radioac-
tivity to the environment, and it
claims to be one of the Nation's safest
industries.
Accident Odds
The probability of a serious accident
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.'s Calvert Cliffs Plant is on the Chesapeake Bay near
Lusby, Md.
such as a core meltdown is estimated
to be one in 20,000 per reactor per
year. There are also possible accidents
of lesser consequences with increased
probabilities (about one in 2,100 over
the 30-year life time of a power reac-
tor), according to Dr. William D.
Rowe, Deputy Assistant Administra-
tor for Radiation Programs.
"Some States," he said, "with only
one or two reactors have been reluc-
tant to spend money on the develop-
ment and maintenance of an effective
radiological emergency response plan
for a very unlikely serious reactor
accident within their State.
"However, there are about 55 oper-
ating reactors in the United States.
Therefore, a serious but not catas-
trophic accident at a power reactor dur-
ing the next 10 to 20 years is a definite
possibility and the probability is increas-
ing as the nuclear industry continues to
grow.
"Furthermore, the possibility of
other types of nuclear accidents, in
transportation of radioactive material.
for example, must be added to the
growing probability of a nuclear power
plant accident."
The need to protect the population
within several miles of a reactor from
a serious nuclear accident has
prompted responsible State and local
officials to seek guidance from Federal
agencies for improving their radiologi-
cal emergency response plans.
These plans must cover several types
of nuclear accidents, because each
type may require a different response.
Emergency Plans
As part of a Federal interagency
program for emergency response plan-
ning, EPA is preparing a manual for
use by State agencies in developing
their emergency response plans. The
first portion of the manual has been
issued. It provides guidance for pro-
tection of the population from expo-
sure to airborne release of radioactive
gases and iodine. This section of the
manual was written first, because'
large airborne releases of radioactive
materials would require immediate
protective actions to minimize popula-
tion exposure.
People living near or immediately
downwind from a power reactor from
which radioactive gases have escaped
would be soon exposed to radioiodine
and to gamma radiation from the
gaseous cloud.
What should be done to avoid a
radioactive cloud? The individual may
be told to leave home at once and go
to a designated safer area or be ad-
vised to remain indoors until the ra-
dioactive cloud has passed by and
been dispersed.
The protective action guides recom-
mend that action be taken when antic-
ipated exposure reaches certain levels.
Merely publishing advice, however,
will not ensure that effective plans will
-------
Control room of the Commonwealth Edison Company's Dresden Nuclear Power
Station near Morris, III. Three General Electric boiling water nuclear reactors are in
operation at this location.
be developed by each State. The
States must decide how to apply this
guidance to the different needs of their
communities.
Details in the State plans will vary
depending on the number of people
involved, the weather conditions.
available transportation and many
other considerations that should be
worked out carefully by the responsi-
ble State officials and tailored to each
locality where an accident might oc-
cur.
EPA's goal is to help each State
develop emergency response plans
that will save lives. This will require
prompt communication between plant
operators and State authorities, train-
ing of emergency workers, and testing
of the whole emergency response sys-
tem.
Training Courses
EPA personnel have assisted in de-
veloping courses of study for State
planners at the Staff College of the
Defense Civil Preparedness Agency at
Battle Creek. Mich. In addition, EPA
is developing a program for training
State emergency response coordina-
tors and their staffs on implementing
State plans. EPA personnel are also
observing and commenting on tests of
State plans.
EPA's Region VIII Office in Den-
ver has taken the lead in developing
guidance for handling accidents in-
volving the transportation of radioac-
tive materials.
A 40-minute video tape, "The 5th
Line of Containment," produced by
EPA's Audiovisual and Public Sup-
port Branch, will be made available
to the Regions to help explain EPA's
emergency response roles.
The film is introduced by Dr. Rowe
and involves a panel discussion on the
protective action guides. Panelists in-
clude John Abbots, National Public
Interest Research Group; Ralph
Lapp, nuclear energy consultant and a
former member of the AEC; Margaret
Reilly, Pennsylvania's emergency re-
sponse coordinator; John Robinson,
Yankee Electric Power Corp.: and
David Smith, Director, Technical As-
sessment Division, Office of Radiation
Programs. Carroll James, a profes-
sional actor, is moderator.
While the current issue of the manual
issued by EPA on protective action
guides deals only with exposures to
airborne releases from nuclear power
facilities, similar guidance on other
types of accidental releases of radioac-
tivity will be distributed by the
Agency in the near future, a
-------
COMMON RADIATION SOURCES
These photos show common
radiation sources and their
approximate average millirem
(mrem) yearly doses to hu-
mans. A millirem is a measure
of radiation's effect on living
tissue. In general, for popula-
tion groups, the current Fed-
eral recommended limit is 170
millirems per year to the aver-
age individual. EPA gathers
information about radiation
produced by many sources
through a national monitoring
network.
Diagnostic X-rays—72 mrem.
Radiation generated by consumer products such as a tv set—1.6 mrem.
-------
Annual external radiation dose from nuclear tests' fallout1—.9 mrem.
Cosmic and terrestrial radiation—
84 mrem.
Average radiation dose within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant—.1 mrem.
-------
What is EPA's role in radiation?
An interview with Dr. William D. Rowe,
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Radiation Programs
What are the health hazards of radiation? Who monitors
the radiation levels in the United States? How much
radioactive wastes are being stored now? Will radiation
problems block growth of the nuclear power industry? Dr.
Rowe answers these and other questions.
QUESTION: What is EPA's basic role in the field of
radiation?
DR. ROWE: We are responsible for overseeing all
aspects of radiation protection. Both ionizing radiation,
which is what we usually associate with nuclear power
plants, medical x-rays and cosmic rays; and non-ionizing
radiation, which we are more familiar with in the form of
rays from radio and TV transmitters and microwave
devices.
In carrying out this role, we examine all aspects of
radiation including uses which are not strictly environmen-
tal. For example, presently we cover medical x-ray, and
occupational uses of radiation under this broad responsibil-
ity.
In addition, we have specific legislative authority in
specific areas.
QUESTION: Do you see this role growing or diminishing
in the next five years? And why?
DR. ROWE: I think we see the role growing because of
the expanded uses of radiation—nuclear power and emerg-
ing problems of natural radiation such as in the phosphate
industry. There is also an increasing awareness of the risks
incurred by radiation exposure.
I think EPA's role will grow. I don't think it will grow
enormously, but I think there will be steady growth in the
field since we have to cover more problems.
QUESTION: What is the most serious problem in the
radiation field today?
DR. ROWE: Well, that is hard to answer, since there are
many problems, and they fall into two classifications.
Those which are not problems now, but which if we don't
do something about them, could potentially become very
great problems, such as the disposal of radioactive wastes
from nuclear power plants.
And, secondly, those which we have identified as existing
problems which need control.
Much of our efforts are focused on the emerging
problems, especially in relation to nuclear energy. There
are few immediate problems with nuclear energy; but as
these uses expand, there are going to be tremendous
amounts of radioactivity produced by man, and we,
indeed, want to assure that controls are adequate.
In other cases where man is already exposed, such as
excess exposure to medical x-rays, and certain aspects of
naturally occurring radiation, we're addressing these kinds
of problems directly. Radium in drinking water is a good
example.
QUESTION: Does EPA have a national monitoring
network to check on radiation?
DR. ROWE: Yes, we do. We call it by an acronym,
ERAMS, which is the Environmental Radiation Ambient
Monitoring System. It measures ambient radiation levels
from different sources around the country.
In addition, we will in the near future issue a State of the
Radiation Environment Report which will report all as-
pects of radiation throughout the country and summarize
total exposure from all sources. This report will be
published annually and will be based on data from other
agencies and States as well as on data that we obtain
ourselves.
QUESTION: Is the level of radiation growing? Have any
hot spots been found by this network?
DR. ROWE: Well, we are finding hot spots, caused
primarily by man's efforts, and in many cases in unsus-
pected areas.
These are occurring because of leaks to the environment
from various activities, or the fact that man has upset
nature's natural barriers in extracting materials from the
earth which are themselves radioactive. The mining of
phosphate is a good example.
QUESTION: What are EPA's main accomplishments in
radiation control?
DR. ROWE: We've had some success in two areas.
The first is reviewing all environmental impact statements
involving radiation. We have had considerable influence in
persuading other agencies to take steps to assure that
-------
radiation protection is enhanced. This has been particularly
true in the nuclear energy areas of waste disposal and
Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors.
In the second area, we are setting radiation environmen-
tal protection standards directly for the protection of
individual members of the population.
In 1971 we initiated standards to protect uranium miners
from overexposure to radon in the mines. These rules are
now enforced by the Department of Interior's Mining
Enforcement and Safety Administration.
In May, 1975, we issued proposed standards for the
uranium fuel cycle. Last September we issued proposed
standards for radiation in drinking water; these should be
promulgated early this year.
QUESTION: What is the approximate quantity of radioac-
tive wastes now being held in this country?
DR. ROWE: There are a number of different kinds of
wastes, and different ways of summing this up, but first of
all let's talk about those wastes which are generated by the
Government for weapons production.
In 1974, there were about 85 million gallons of this waste
in liquid form. A great deal of this waste has been
solidified into cake and crystal form in a program carried
out by the Energy Research and Development Administra-
tion.
The level of wastes that are being produced by nuclear
energy are now rather small compared to that left from our
weapons program.
In the nuclear energy industry there are about 400 gallons
of high level waste produced for every ton of fuel. We
have about 100,000 to 200,000 gallons of waste from this
industry.
But with the growth of nuclear power we expect the
commercial wastes to begin to exceed those from the
weapons production by the year 2000. In addition to this,
we have even larger volumes of low-level wastes, but
these are a separate problem.
QUESTION: How do you distinguish between high-level
wastes and low-level wastes?
DR. ROWE: High-level wastes are produced directly in
the reprocessing of fuel from nuclear reactors. Their
wastes are active—"hot" both from a radioactive point of
view and a thermal point of view.
Low-level wastes are generated as by-products of the
nuclear industry. Included are contaminated clothing,
contaminated resins used to extract radioactivity, labora-
tory glassware, contaminated equipment, etc.
QUESTION: Is the amount of wastes over-all going to
grow in the future?
DR. ROWE: Very definitely. Our projections show that
wastes from weapons have generally leveled off. but the
growth of nuclear power is going to increase the volume of
wastes at all levels—high-level, low-level, long-half-life
wastes of transuranic materials. By the year 2000 we
estimate the total commitment for waste management will
be about $7 billion which includes some allowance for
inflation over this period.
QUESTION: Where are the high-level wastes being kept
now?
DR. ROWE: Those associated with the weapons program
are stored in three Government facilities: lHanford, Wash.,
Idaho Falls, Idaho, and Savannah River, Ga. These are
large underground tanks which are considered temporary
storage. And, as many of your readers may have read, the
tanks in Hanford have had a variety of leaks over the past
few years.
Wastes from nuclear power plants are presently being
stored at the power plant, in the form of spent fuel rods.
Until new capacity to reprocess spent fuel is implemented
in the next few years, this will be the primary storage
mechanism.
QUESTION: What are the feasible options for permanent
disposal of these wastes?
DR. ROWE: There are many options being looked into:
geologic disposal in a variety of different formations,
including salt beds, dry rock, under old known aquifers,
and geologic disposal under the seabed. This does not
mean disposal in the ocean but underneath the seabed with
the ocean as an extra environmental barrier. Separation of
isotopes is being explored; the high-level wastes would be
reduced in volume so they can be handled more easily,
and at the same time separated from the long-half-life
materials.
QUESTION: When is a decision going to be made as to
which options will be the most advantageous?
DR. ROWE: That decision is initially up to the Energy
Research and Development Administration (ERDA), and
we hope it will be soon. But that decision has not been
made.
QUESTION: EPA, I presume, will have an opportunity
to comment on proposed final disposal options?
DR. ROWE: Not only will we have the opportunity, we
are involved in developing criteria to determine if these
methods will be acceptable. We have been working very
closely with both ERDA and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commision (NRC) to develop a program to take care of
these wastes and dispose of them in a manner we know
will be safe for generations to come.
Then when the plan is drafted we will be involved in
reviewing not only the general methods to be used, but
also the specific disposal methods when we review
environmental impact statements.
QUESTION: How long a storage period are we talking
about?
DR. ROWE: Well, it will have to be tens of thousands of
years for long-lived wastes. However, if we go to isotopic
separation, we are talking of 300 to 400 years for those
fission product wastes which are very hot.
QUESTION: How about the low-level wastes, where are
they being stored now?
DR. ROWE: They are now stored in six commercial
burial sites throughout the country. The adequacy of the
methods used for low-level storage is open to question,
and we have been actually surveying some of these sites to
determine what problems may be involved and what
corrective action should be taken.
The present method uses open trenches which when filled
are covered with soil.
QUESTION: There has been concern, has there not,
about possible leakage at the Maxey Flats storage area in
Kentucky?
DR. ROWE: This is one we've been investigating, and
we are compiling considerable data on it.
QUESTION: Do you still see nuclear power as providing
a major part of the answer to our energy needs?
DR. ROWE: I don't see any alternative in the near
future. I think we will have to depend upon nuclear power
as one low-cost form of energy until new, renewable
sources, such as solar and geothermal energy, are devel-
oped.
-------
I feel strongly that, with the proper environmental
regulations and controls, certain forms of nuclear power
can be environmentally acceptable.
QUESTION: Generally, what are the health hazards of
radiation? What happens to the person who is exposed?
DR. ROWE: Well, we have to talk about exposure to
radiation of two different types. First there is very high-
level exposure in which there are acute effects which
include radiation sickness, such as that experienced by the
Japanese after the dropping of nuclear weapons at Hiro-
shima and Nagasaki in 1945. While we are always
concerned with these, they are different than the effects
which we are concerned with in most environmental
sources of radiation.
At low levels we consider that all exposure to radiation
carries some hazard proportional to the dose received. The
ionizing radiation acts upon the various organs of the
body, and the cells in the organs, to cause changes in the
cells that may develop as cancer sites. This can be caused
not only by radiation itself but radiation acting with other
potential carcinogens in a synergistic manner to possibly
cause cancer over a long time period. It may be anywhere
from 10 to 20 years from the initiation of the radiation dose
till the cancer develops.
A second aspect is cellular damage to the chromosomes.
There is a possibility of genetic effects occurring both in
the person exposed and in subsequent generations.
QUESTION: What sources of man-made radiation do you
think are most dangerous?
DR. ROWE: Well, all sources of radiation are essentially
equally dangerous in terms of the relation seen between
exposure and dose. Alpha particles from heavy radioactive
elements are much more damaging to human tissue than
gamma rays. We feel that some of the long-lived alpha-
particle materials, such as plutonium and radium, can
indeed be very dangerous because of their long half-lives
and ability to enter the body and remain there for long
times.
QUESTION: What can individuals do to reduce their
exposure?
DR. ROWE: Since radiation is unseen and people are not
aware of it, it is very difficult for an individual by himself
to reduce his radiation exposure. Therefore, it becomes the
role of EPA to intercede for individuals, to explain to
people what some of the risks are and what actions they
may take.
QUESTION: Do you think there is adequate public
understanding of the radiation received from x-rays and the
possible damage?
DR. ROWE: Obviously not. x-rays are probably the
single largest source of man-made radiation exposure in
our country. We personally feel that we can receive the
benefits of x-ray diagnosis and therapy with much lower
exposures.
Many x-rays do not directly benefit the patient. These
ought to be eliminated.
QUESTION: What steps could EPA take to implement
those precautions?
DR. ROWE: Well, in acting for the general public, EPA,
under its Federal guidance function has undertaken to look
at the way x-rays are prescribed. Several Federal agencies
have helped us: the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Veterans
Administration hospitals and radiologists. We have come
up with some general guidelines for use in Federal facilities
to assure that x-rays are administered properly and with
minimum exposure.
What is
EPA's role
in radiation?
QUESTION: What research work in radiation is EPA
doing now?
DR. ROWE: Our Office of Research and Development is
primarily directing their resources into two areas. One is to
investigate the health effects of non-ionizing radiation, that
associated with television, radio frequency sources, micro-
wave ovens, and radar systems. The second area is
investigating the biological effects from exposure to low
levels of krypton 85 and tritium.
We've also been investigating the possibility that very-
high-voltage power lines might have health effects We
have been measuring such power-line fields around the
country and exchanging data with other investigators.
We've been a central source for gathering information in
this area, which may or may not be a problem, depending
upon the results of our findings.
QUESTION: What other Federal agencies are concerned
with the radiation problem?
DR. ROWE: Well, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
is, of course, the specified regulatory agency involved with
licensing nuclear energy and with radioisotopes used in
medical research and therapy.
The Energy Research and Development Administration
is responsible for developing our weapons systems and for
conducting research and development activities towards
development of new energy sources which include nuclear
power and fusion energy as part of their activities.
The Bureau of Radiological Health of HEW is responsi-
ble for electronic equipment that involves radiation, includ-
ing x-rays, and microwaves, lasers, and other aspects of
non-ionizing radiation.
The Food and Drug Administration of HEW is responsi-
ble for specifying the limits of radioactivity in food,
although EPA is responsible for specifying the limits of
radioactivity in drinking water.
QUESTION: How would you describe EPA's mission in
the radiation field?
DR. ROWE: The difficulty about radiation is that people
cannot see it. You can't feel it; you can't know it is
happening. It is also associated with nuclear weapons so
people are indeed frightened of it.
The role that we have to play at EPA is one of assuring
the public that they are adequately protected from this
radiation they cannot see. We must make certain that all
possible steps are being taken to reduce exposure. While
there are some risks to any exposure from radiation,
radiation can also provide benefits which are often well
worth minuscule exposures.
We have a responsibility to inform the public about all
aspects of radiation, and assure that regulatory actions are
taken only after participation by all parties affected by the
decisions, n
-------
Ocean Disposal
of Radioactive Wastes
The CURV, an unmanned submersible with sonar "ears" and camera "eyes", which was used
last summer to locate drums of radioactive waste on the floor of the Pacific Ocean.
The ALVIN, a submersible which can carry a crew of three, will be used by Robert S. Dyer,
EPA oceanographer, to hunt for drums of radioactive wastes in the Atlantic Ocean this summer.
-------
Should radioactive wastes be
dumped in the ocean? If so, what
types of wastes should be included, at
what locations, and how should they be
packaged? These are questions being
asked more and more often by scientists
and government officials both here and
abroad. EPA is trying to find some
answers.
With the passage of the Marine Protec-
tion, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (commonly known as the Ocean
Dumping Act), the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency was given the mandate to
regulate dumping of all types of pollut-
ants, including radioactive materials.
The Ocean Dumping Act prohibits
ocean dumping of any high-level radioac-
tive wastes or radiological warfare agents
and the Office of Radiation Programs
(ORP) was delegated the responsibility
within EPA to develop criteria and stand-
ards governing ocean disposal of non-
prohibited radioactive materials. As a re-
sult, ORP proposed two initial require-
ments regarding ocean disposal which
were published in the Federal Register,
on October 15, 1973.
These requirements are as follows: (1)
radioactive wastes should be con-
tainerized, and (2) the containerized
radioactive wastes must radiodecay to in-
nocuous levels within the life expectancy
of the containers and/or their inert
matrix.
In order to amplify these requirements
ORP has initiated field studies to find out
what has happened to radioactive wastes
dumped into the oceans in past years.
From 1946 to 1966 some government
agencies and research organizations in
the United States carried out ocean dis-
posal of low-level radioactive wastes.
This practice was gradually discontinued
and supplanted by land burial.
Today, however, some states are be-
coming reluctant to accept any more
radioactive wastes for land burial since
these wastes often contain long-lived
radionuclides. Such wastes require long-
term surveillance at considerable cost to
insure that the radionuclides are not re-
leased into the environment.
Therefore, many other nuclear waste
disposal options are being investigated,
particularly for the longer-lived mate-
rials.
These options include disposal into
outer space, or emplacement in salt
mines, polar ice caps, and under the
ocean floor. But not all radioactive waste
would require such ultimate disposal. For
certain classes of radioactive waste ocean
dumping onto the ocean floor under care-
fully controlled conditions may offer an
environmentally acceptable technique as
part of an overall waste management pro-
gram.
Nevertheless, ocean dumping must be
viewed as a form of irretrievable storage
and, as such, must be considered with
caution. Any ocean disposal of radioac-
tive materials must aim at containment
over their lifetime so as to prevent en-
vironmental dispersal.
A search of the records of past sea dis-
posal operations indicates that between
1946 and 1966 almost all U.S. disposal
operations consisted of packaging the
radioactive wastes in 55 gallon drums fil-
led with concrete or other experimental
matrices. These drums were then dumped
at depths ranging from 3,000 to 9,000
feet. But no one had ever determined
what happened to the actual radioactive
materials that were dumped.
Did the containers implode from the
tremendous hydrostatic pressures found
in the ocean deeps? Have the containers
corroded away, releasing the contents?
Are there any fish or invertebrates living
in the disposal areas which could take up
released radioactivity and transmit it
through the food chain to our dinner ta-
ble?
To answer these questions and others
required a unique approach to oceano-
graphic research; an approach which
would allow probing of ocean waters
many thousands of feet deep in search of
small targets such as radioactive waste
containers. Such a task could not be ac-
complished with the usual sampling
By Robert S. Dyer
equipment.
The solution came with the availability
of the deep submersibles CURV III
(Cable-Controlled Underwater Recovery
Vehicle) and ALVIN. The CURV III is
operated by the Naval Undersea Center,
San Diego, California. It is an unman-
ned, tethered submersible with a depth
capability of 10,000 feet.
The ALVIN is operated by the Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods
Hole, Massachusetts. Named after a sci-
entist, Allyn Vine, at Woods Hole, the
ALVIN has a titanium alloy hull to with-
stand great pressure, can carry a crew of
three, and has a depth capability of
18,000 feet. Deep submersibles differ
from submarines principally in that they
are much smaller, have more maneu-
verability, and can descend to much greater
depths.
Two deep water dumpsites were
selected for EPA's pilot studies since his-
torical records indicated that they had re-
ceived the majority of radioactive wastes.
One site is located in the Pacific Ocean
near the Farallon Islands, 40 to 50 miles
offshore from San Francisco, and con-
sists of two disposal areas at 3,000 and
6,000 feet respectively.
The other site, designated on naviga-
tional charts as a disused munitions dis-
posal area, is in the Atlantic Ocean ap-
proximately 120 miles east of the
Maryland-Delaware border at a depth of
8,000-9,000 feet.
The 3,000-foot depth site investigated
by EPA off the West Coast received ap-
proximately 3,600 containers of an unde-
termined radioactivity inventory while
the East coast site received approxi-
mately 30,000 containers with a total ac-
tivity of about 45,000 curies.*
Many government agencies, companies,
and research groups were involved in the
organization and performance of these
unique pilot studies. One comment kept
recurring regarding the proposed project:
"Locating these radioactive waste con-
tainers in thousands of feet of water,
miles out at sea, will be like looking for
the proverbial needle-in-a-haystack!" IF
the weather holds out and IF there are no
mechanical or electrical problems in the
complex submersible system, and IF the
bottom topography is relatively smooth
so that the sonar system can find the
targets, then and only then can you have
the opportunity to search miles of ocean
bottom to locate the containers.
These contingencies loomed very large
and could not be overcome on the East
* A curie is a special unit used in measuring radioactivity
and is equal to 37 billion nuclear disintegrations per sec-
ond
-------
coast operations of May and
September-October, 1974, where both
mechanical and weather difficulties
forced cancellation of the ALVIN dives.
However, w.ith the cooperation and sup-
port of EPA's Marine Protection Branch
of the Office of Water Program Opera-
tions, the Manned Underseas Science and
Technology Program and the Marine En-
vironmental Protection Office of the Na-
tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration (NOAA), the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution, and the Vir-
ginia Institute of Marine Science, much
oceanographic data in this Atlantic region
was collected by the research vessels Del-
aware and Albatross. Also, the existence
of large populations of the potentially
commercially exploitable large red crab,
Geryon quinquedens, was verified in the
Hudson Canyon approximately 90 miles
north of the radioactive waste dumpsite.
In addition, some munitions containers
were found in the trawls near the
dumpsite area confirming the relative ac-
curacy of the published coordinates for
past munitions dumping operations and
providing support for the supposition that
the radioactive wastes will also be found
in this dumpsite area as reported.
The West coast operation near the Faral-
lons met with remarkable success. This
pilot study was a coordinated effort of
EPA's Office of Radiation Programs and
Water Program Operations, the Navy's
Undersea Center at San Diego, and In-
terstate Electronics Corporation. The op-
eration budget permitted only five days to
be spent in running station lines in search
of the radioactive waste containers. After
two and one-half days of searching the
ocean bottom the first cluster of targets
was located consisting of about 150
fifty-five gallon drums nestled in a small
valley between 300 foot embankments at
a depth of 2,800 feet. In the subsequent
two and one-half days, two more target
clusters were found. After five days this
mission had succeeded in: (1) taking the
first videotape and 35 mm coverage
documenting the conditions of the
radioactive waste barrels, (2) taking the
first precision-located sediment core
samples in a radioactive waste disposal
area using a specially-devised rosette
corer attached to the CURV Ill's man-
ipulating arm, (3) finding large sponges
up to four feet high, (possibly a new
genus) attached to the radioactive waste
containers; these sponges were, in at least
one case, partly responsible for
biodeterioration of a metal container, and
(4) documenting edible species of fish in
the immediate vicinity of the con-
tainerized radioactive wastes.
We have obtained much preliminary in-
formation on container integrity and de-
sign. Through existing records and corre-
spondence pertaining to past disposal op-
erations in the region of the Farallon Is-
lands, we have been able to determine the
age of the photographed containers as be-
tween 20 and 22 years old. Those
radioactive wastes packaged in an inner
matrix of concrete have maintained rela-
tively good integrity while those pack-
aged in a gel matrix with a bitumen (tar)
liner did not stand up as well. Radionu-
clide analyses for strontium, cesium,
uranium, thorium, radium, plutonium,
and gross gamma activity are currently
being completed, and an operations re-
port on the Farallon Islands pilot study is
soon to be published. Preliminary results
of radiochemical analyses of samples has
detected some levels of plutonium above
background in sediment at the site. The
implications of these findings are under
investigation and the results will be the
included in a forthcoming technical re-
port.
Since the studies conducted in 1974
were primarily pilot studies to determine
the feasibility of this unique approach
using deep submersibles, the Office of
Radiation Programs has organized two
follow-up studies for this summer to pro-
vide more specific answers to continuing
questions such as;
(1) What are the hydrostatic pressure ef-
fects on containers dumped at 6,000-
9,000 feet as oppo.sed to now-
documented effects at 3,000 feet? (The
present internationally-recommended
minimum disposal depth is 6,000 feet.)
(2) What is the speed and direction of
dispersion forces in the disposal areas?
(3) What is the sediment sorption or ca-
tion exchange capacity for released
radionuclides?
(4) Are the past packaging and container
design specifications adequate to assure
that no radioactive materials will be re-
leased when dumped in waters greater
than 6,000 feet deep? If not, can these
specifications be attained with current
technology?
(5) What should be the design and extent
of a monitoring program around any fu-
ture radioactive waste dumpsites?
Only after the successful completion of
the 1975 studies may enough information
be available to begin answering some of
these questions.n
NOTE: The International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, Austria, is
developing international recommenda-
tions for ocean dumping of radioactive
wastes pursuant to its responsibility as
stated in the International Ocean Dump-
ing Convention of 1972. To fulfill its re-
sponsibility the IAEA has established an
international panel of experts to assist in
the development of specific recommenda-
tions. EPA (Office of Radiation Pro-
grams) will present its findings to the
IAEA panel of experts in its role as the
United States representative to this panel.
A deep sea fish, a Thornyhead (Sebastolobus). swims past drum of
radioactive wastes photographed h\ (he CURV in the Pacific.
The dent in the middle of this drum is believed to be the result
of underwater pressure.
------- |