Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

This page intentionally left blank.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The content of the review comments and draft manuscript remains confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Louis Lanzerotti, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies, and New Jersey Institute of Technology, Murray Hill and George Hornberger, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Appointed by the National Research Council, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Research Council.

Risk has become a pervasive concept in modern society. The public confronts it in almost every aspect of life, from recreational sports to investments to surgical procedures, and people are urged to consider risks described in qualitative or quantitative terms. In our society we are not satisfied to wait in ignorance to see how a future event comes out. In financial decisions, potential shareholders must be fully informed of the risks before investing; in medicine, patients must be informed of the health risks of a drug or medical procedure; and in protecting the environment and human health, regulators do not wait for actual harm to occur before taking protective action. In some places, owners of buildings that may be vulnerable to earthquakes must post notices of that risk at their entrances. And for thirty years, the federal government has had a requirement that the risks associated with major federal actions be assessed as part of the decision-making process. This committee's study is about the role of risk and risk assessment in decisions about federal actions that will cost tens of billions of dollars, require decades of work by possibly thousands of workers, and affect the environment for millennia.

Much work precedes this committee's efforts on the role of risk in decision making and on the disposition of long-lived radioactive waste. The committee has not, therefore, tried to reinvent what has been done so ably by its predecessors. Instead, the committee has endeavored to apply insights from prior studies to the specific situation of disposition of relatively low hazard high-level radioactive waste and transuranic waste. Readers should note that the study does not cover spent nuclear fuel, commercial high-level radioactive

waste, or DOE wastes with undetermined waste classification or disposition path (“orphaned wastes”).

Experts appointed by the National Research Council to review this report asked several interesting questions that were beyond what the committee could examine in the current report. We share these here in hopes that the ideas will not be lost. Questions were asked about the nature, time requirements and expenses associated with the RCRA delisting process. Questions were also raised about adhering to the exemption process schedule. It may be useful to explore the effects of protracted scheduling delays on cost and human health risk as a potential drawback to seeking exemptions.

The statement of task states that the study “will examine the application of risk-based approaches to selected DOE waste streams to assess their practical usefulness.” In the report, the committee examines three waste types and endorses a risk-informed approach for addressing their disposition. The committee, however, specifically declines to make a recommendation concerning the disposition of these wastes. The risk-informed approach requires a formal, well-defined, participatory process for evaluating risks and other impacts; it would be inconsistent to recommend such a process and in the same report purport to conduct a useful risk analysis for disposition of the waste streams without following the approach. For the same reasons, the committee does not dictate how different factors should be balanced or valued.

An important component of the study was a survey of prior studies. The literature on environmental health risks and decisions is vast and summarizing all of the previous reports would have been too large a task resulting in a too-large report. The summaries in Appendix A therefore cover only the points directly relevant to disposition of transuranic and high-level radioactive waste and the summaries in Appendix B address only studies directed at helping DOE incorporate risk into its environmental management program.

There have been several political and legal developments during the course of this study. The states of Washington and Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation all filed notices of intent to sue DOE over natural resource damages at the Hanford Site. The State of Washington over-whelmingly passed a ballot initiative requiring that no additional wastes could be added to the Hanford site until waste that is already on-site has been cleaned up and stored, treated, or disposed of in compliance with all state and federal environmental laws. The committee did not examine natural resource trusteeships or natural resource damage assessments, and the report does not address the Washington ballot initiative. As the committee's report was about to enter peer review, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate agreed on legislation that could change the legal context for high-level waste

significantly, at least in South Carolina and Idaho. President Bush signed the act into law on October 28, 2004. In a further twist, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court decision on provisions of DOE's Order 435.1 that allow for DOE to manage some waste in its HLW tanks as transuranic or low-level waste. The report now presents a few of the details of these developments, but does not explore all of the issues that led to differing opinions on the issues by the different states and courts because they are not essential to the committee's message. It is not yet clear how either of these actions will affect plans and waste disposition, but they do not change the approach recommended by the committee. Indeed, if anything, they lay the stage for DOE to use the approach recommended here to develop its plans for disposition of TRU and HLW. If DOE is able to implement this approach in a collaborative manner with the stakeholders, American Indian nations, states, and federal regulators then the nation may avoid further litigation and legislation on these issues.

The committee held public meetings in Washington, D.C., Idaho Falls, Idaho, Augusta, Georgia, and Richland, Washington. We recognize that a great deal of effort went into making these meetings possible and supporting the committee's requests for information. The committee thanks the many people at DOE headquarters and the field offices, site specialists (lab scientists and contractors), U.S. EPA headquarters and regional representatives, U.S. NRC personnel, state regulators, representatives of American Indian tribal nations, local governments, public-interest groups, and interested citizens for the time and effort they put into our study. Many of these people are listed in Appendix C as presenters at the committee's meetings. We specifically note support provided by Keith Lockie, Bill Pearson, and Mary Goldie, who served as the points of contact at INEEL, SRS, and Hanford, respectively, and coordinated excellent tours and meetings. Finally, the committee thanks the staff of the Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Micah Lowenthal, Darla Thompson, Angela Taylor, Toni Greenleaf, Marili Ulloa, and Kevin Crowley, for their assistance to the committee in completing the study.

David Daniel, Chair

John Applegate, Vice Chair

Committee on Risk-Based Approaches for Disposition of Transuranic and High-Level Radioactive Waste

This page intentionally left blank.