By MARV BALOUSEK Low-level radioactive wastes at Sheffield Burying the wastes but not the problems A LOW-LEVEL radioactive waste burial site is located two miles south of Sheffield in Bureau County in west central Illinois. On the surrounding land cattle blissfully graze. They drink from watering holes in pockmarked pastures still being reclaimed by nature and man from the strip-mining assaults of a generation and a half ago. The Bureau County site is one of three such commerically operated sites in the United States. A fourth has been recently closed for at least a year because of a leakage problem; a fifth has not accepted waste for burial since 1975. Attempts are now underway in Illinois to close the Sheffield site, and the Chicago Sun-Times predicted April 8 that the operation would soon be stopped. The 20 1/2-acre Sheffield site has been used for the burial of low-level radioactive waste material since 1967. When this occurred, the residents were not fully informed about decisions made by business and government to provide a place for these waste materials from the nuclear energy industry just developing in Illinois. The immediate issue at Sheffield centers on license renewal for the operator of the site as well as for a proposed expansion of the site. The larger issue focuses on Illinois' continued commitment to nuclear power — to the energy it provides and the wastes it generates. The agencies of the state and federal government involved in the Sheffield license renewal are so many that their acronyms resemble a bowl of alphabet soup. How and why did Illinois make the decision to open the Sheffield site? After establishing the first commercial nuclear power plant in the U.S. in Grundy County in 1960, Commonwealth Edison recognized the magnitude and the attendant cost of disposing of radioactive wastes. It urged Illinois to establish a disposal site and persuaded General Electric to establish a reprocessing plant for spent nuclear fuel nearby at Morris. (For details on nuclear wastes stored at Morris, see September 1977.) The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), also sensing the growing problem of the disposal of accelerator-produced isotopes, supported legislation passed by the Illinois General Assembly in 1963. The Radioactive Wastes Act contained provisions giving authority to the IDPH to purchase suitable land, establish a disposal site and oversee its operation, in accordance with state and federal laws. The site selection Bureau County was chosen as the best site by the IDPH, and the site was opened in 1967. The initial operator, selected through a bidding method, was soon bought out by Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc. (NECO), which was disposing of radioactive waste for the government on the West Coast. NECO President James N. Neel says the company was attracted to the operation in Bureau County because of the commitment of Commonwealth Edison to nuclear power in Illinois. What were the criteria for site selection? Selection was based on suitability of terrain, climate and geologic formations (factors that would minimize seepage) since the release of radioactive material from the buried waste was highly probable within 30 years. At the same time, faith was placed in the development of new technology that would find a better solution to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste before the 30-year period ended. The waste is buried in a variety of containers, many expected to last no longer than 30 years under the most favorable ground conditions before leaking their hazardous contents. The shallow trench burial technology (200 to 500 feet long, 50 to 60 feet wide and 30 feet deep) used at Sheffield is the same as that used at West Valley, N.Y., where burial operations were closed down because of leakage after less than a dozen years of operation. This technology, including the type of containers used, must conform to standards set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC). The main concerns at the Sheffield site are to keep the hazardous waste from leaking off site, and to prevent any acidic materials from leaking on site where they might attack the containers that house the waste. Several years ago, NECO became convinced that Illinois waste by itself would not provide a sound economic basis for a profitable operation at Sheffield. Consequently, waste from Commonwealth Edison's seven Illinois nuclear power plants plus waste from 18 out-of-state plants is now buried at the Sheffield site. The shallow trenches also hold other radioactive wastes ranging from plutonium contaminated gloves to broken-up, six-foot-thick concrete walls trucked in from a government experimental nuclear power plant in Elk River, Minn. The burial of all this waste has quickly reduced available space at the Sheffield site to a point where additional acreage is required for continued operation. Initial approval of the Sheffield site came from the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), but the responsibility for site expansion and license renewal is now with the Nuclear Regulatory
MARV BALOUSEK 12/June 1978/Illinois Issues Commission (NRC). But the expansion of the site will also involve the state of Illinois. The new U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also plays a role through its efforts in developing national policy on the treatment and long-term disposal of both low and high-level radioactive waste material. DOE'S findings must be examined and articulated into national policy through congressional action and then implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Clarifying criteria for policies on site expansion approval, Gary Pitchford, assissistant to the manager of public affairs for DOE, stated the underlying principle for current policies of DOE and past policies of Energy, Research and Development Administration (ERDA) as follows:
"We always attempted to find ecological disposal areas where the integrity of the container that holds the radioactive material is not your primary safeguard, but the character of the soil and the geological area in which the stuff is stored provides your basic assurance." (Pitchford was formerly public affairs officer for ERDA, an agency whose duties relating to radioactive waste policy were taken away after the establishment of the U.S. Department of Energy.) Two problems with the geology of the site have recently come under scrutiny. Owners of prime farmland near the site say there is a problem with underlying sand deposits in the Sheffield area. The site operator recently acknowledged the sand's existence, and the Nuclear Safety Division of the IDPH recently refused to allow NECO to use a newly opened trench when findings showed an underlying bed of sand. On March 15, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officially informed NECO that it was withholding permission to use the new trench until further studies could be made. A second problem was disclosed recently when tests showed tritium was leaking. The tritium indicated the existence of a leakage pathway 75 feet away from a trench instead of a predicted three-foot maximum. The trench in question was filled and covered three years ago. The services of both the Illinois Geological Service and the U.S. Geological Service have been requested by the Nuclear Safety Division of the IDPH to make hydrogeological studies. Illinois is right in the middle of the controversy over site expansion since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may only license operations on government-owned land — the state of Illinois in this case. Expansion of the site started in 1976 when NECO petitioned the Bureau County Zoning Board for a zoning variation from agricultural to industrial usage on 120 acres contiguous to the state-owned 20 1/2 acres, with the intention of deeding the land to the state and using it for future radioactive waste burial. The zoning board denied the petition after which time NECO went into the circuit court to request that the board decision be declared invalid on the grounds that the board did not have jurisdiction in the first place. According to a local attorney, Robert Russell, the court then "got bogged down in procedural matters" and denied a motion to dismiss the NECO request. It then reversed itself and denied the NECO request for a declaratory judgment. NECO then asked for a rehearing which the court is not likely to even rule upon for at least another six to nine months. Even if the state were to accept a gift of the land from NECO during the interim, according to Russell, "the law is not clear on their right to use it for industrial purposes in the face of the denial by the Bureau County Zoning Board to NECO." Illinois agencies The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) is directly involved in the Sheffield site since the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has contracted the enforcement of federal regulations to the IDPH, which has assigned these duties to its Nuclear Safety Division. IDPH also must decide on renewal of the state license for the operator. The Nuclear Safety Division does other monitoring for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and also enforces the Illinois Radioactive Wastes Act with a staff of six and an annual budget of approximately $156,000. Illinois also has a Commission on Atomic Energy which makes biennial reports to the governor and the legislature. Its 1977 report appears to be a product of the nuclear energy industry with only favorable government reports included. For example, 17 of the 56 pages of the report contain a reprint of a report by the commission's advisory committee. The reprinted report includes a statement of purpose: "To identify State of Illinois actions which create impediments to the utilization of nuclear electricity in the State." The renewal process for the federal licenses has been openly criticized, but the federal government has gone through so many reorganizations of agencies responsible for nuclear energy that bureaucracy itself may have to share the blame. The chronology of NECO's license renewal was explained by Jan Strasma, public affairs officer for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Region III, headquartered near Chicago: "The AEC [Atomic Energy Commission] received NECO's [Nuclear Engineering Co., Inc.] application for license renewal in 1968 and didn't act on it and allowed it to renew itself. AEC was replaced by the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] and ERDA [Energy Research and Development Administration] in 1975. Shortly after becoming the legally responsible authority, the NRC requested an environmental statement of NECO which it didn't receive until January 1977." Atty. Gen. William J. Scott criticized the federal license renewal in testimony before a U.S. House subcommittee hearing in December investigating low and high-level radioactive waste disposal practices in Illinois. Scott said that although NECO had applied for a license renewal in 1968, the "bureaucracy"[NRC] didn't hold any public hearings and didn't ask for an environmental statement for nine years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its consideration of NECO's application in December 1977 and called for statements from any interested parties. A prehearing conference was scheduled for April 24 in Peoria. June 1978/Illinois Issues/13 Local citizens near the Sheffield site finally organized in 1974 when NECO expanded its operation to include burial of hazardous industrial chemical wastes. At that time NECO bought a 40-acre plot contiguous to the radioactive waste burial site; the plot was already zoned for industrial use by the county zoning board. NECO obtained a license, without a public hearing, from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) to operate a trench burial site on the new plot for disposal of industrial wastes. As soon as this became public knowledge, local citizens organized the Associated Citizens for the Protection of the Environment. Spearheaded by Eloise Baker, an 82-year-old retired physician and Bureau County farmer, the group keeps the community aware of the NECO presence and has been actively working against both the radioactive and industrial chemical disposal sites in Bureau County. It was active in the protracted zoning hearing in 1976 and has gained support from metropolitan Chicago environmentalist groups. Dr. Baker has testified in Chicago at hearings conducted by both the U.S. and Illinois Houses of Representatives. Her conclusion on the state's involvement in Sheffield is that it "isn't on our side" and that it has "definitely" put itself on record as "fostering nuclear energy." Legislative hearings Two bills which would directly affect the state's commitment to nuclear energy have been before the Illinois General Assembly. Sponsored by Rep. Richard A. Mugalian (D., Chicago), the bills would declare a five-year moratorium on new nuclear power plant construction in the state and would create a special 11-member evaluation committee to reconsider the state's commitment to nuclear technology. Mugalian's bills, H.B. 764 and 765, both failed to receive support from the House Committee on Environment, Energy & Natural Resources on April 14 and are essentially dead for this session. During testimony before the subcommittee considering the bills, Michael Hines, assistant state sanitary engineer for the IDPH, said there is no present danger to the public at the Bureau County site. He said there is a large concentration of nuclear industry in Illinois, and "we, the State, feel to support that industry we need a spot to get rid of these low-level wastes." Hines also testified that tests show migration of radioactive tritium at the site and
14/June 1978/Illinois Issues indicated that the level of radioactivity present in the water in three monitoring wells was double the maximum allowed for safe drinking water. But, he explained, the standards were set very recently by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Hines said, "We experts feel that they are ridiculous.... The chances of something leaving the Sheffield site and encroaching upon either public or private property are very low." Federal agencies The USEPA has also assumed statuorial jurisdiction, effective April 1, 1978, over the disposal and burial of all accelerator-produced isotopes. (This jurisdiction had previously belonged exclusively to the state.) Because of the investigatory role the USEPA has been assigned at the West Valley, N.Y. low-level site, findings could be made that may have a bearing on possible dangers at the Sheffield site. For instance, the USEPA discovered that radioactive hydrogen gas was leaking out through the clay mounds or caps at West Valley. Another issue in which the USEPA may get involved at the Sheffield operation, is whether the burial of poisonous industrial chemical waste is advisable on property contiguous to that where hazardous radioactive waste is being buried. Two other federal agencies involved in the Sheffield operation are the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW). USDOT was most recently involved in July 1976 when it investigated two separate incidents reported on radioactive sludge leaking from containers in shipments being made from Commonwealth Edison's Dresden Plant in Grundy County to the Sheffield site. The site operator, NECO, refused to accept either shipment made on two successive days because of the radioactive liquid dripping from the cracked cisterns; both shipments were trucked back to Grundy County.
HEW merits a mention because of the study it commissioned on the cancer deaths resulting from exposure to low-level radioactivity among workers employed at the government atomic weapons plant in Washington State. This study may be helpful in determining whether or not humans are affected adversely by levels of radioactivity that are currently accepted by both the government and industry as harmless. One very large problem for the state of Illinois with the low-level radioactive waste site is the future perpetual care responsibility of the site once it is filled to capacity. "At that point you would assume the contractor to decommission and turn the site over to the state. The state is going to have to monitor the site perpetually . . . ," says Jim Blackburn who has administrative responsibility for the operation of the Nuclear Safety Division of IDPH. Obviously, part of the problem will be the funds to pay for the custodial care. To finance this perpetual care, NECO pays a tax of 10 cents levied on each cubic foot of waste buried. The tax collected as of December 1, 1977, amounted to $140,000, based on an estimated 2,880,000 cubic feet. The tax revenues are deposited in the state's general fund, not in a separate fund. But will this be enough to care for the site after the operator leaves? In New York, the West Valley operation closed down after burying 2.3 million cubic feet of waste. A U.S. House Committee on Government Operations received testimony on that site and said that the estimated price tag of $.7 to $1.6 million was understated for necessary remedial work done by a private contractor. And, according to the U.S. Accounting Office, quoted in the committee's report, the federal government bears no responsibility for perpetual care at that site. In Illinois, the current levy of 10 cents per cubic foot is being negotiated with IDPH, according to a statement in December by NECO president Neel. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission faces a difficult decision on renewal of the NECO operation. Its decision would be made easier under either of two options — the first by the state, the other by the federal government. First, the state's Nuclear Safety Division could recommend to the Illinois Department of Public Health that the state refuse to accept a gift of the additional acreage necessary for NECO to continue the operation. This would be an almost irresponsible decision since the Illinois nuclear industry might then discover that the other states maintaining low level disposal operations might not accept Illinois waste for burial. Second, Congress could federalize the Sheffield operation in Bureau County, but such action could come only after a lot of handwringing. NECO has suggested this option, and examination of the public statements made by Commonwealth Edison's assistant to the president George Travers, seem to indicate company support for federalization. Travers testified in March at the Illinois House subcommittee hearing on Mugalian's bills that the proposed legislation on a five-year moratorium on nuclear power plant construction represented a state intrusion on authority already belonging to the federal government. This brings up another problem for Illinois in regulating the operations at the site. In a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the court had in the words of Atty. Gen. Scott, "ruled the state court is preempted from regulating nuclear emissions and handling the safety and environmental considerations of nuclear power facilities." The court reaffirmed its decision on April 3 when it severely criticized the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for interfering with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the states of Vermont and Michigan on radioactive waste disposal and energy conservation at nuclear power plants in those states. State option There is another option for the state. By meeting certain qualifications of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Illinois could enforce and carry out all of the regulations covering the operation of the Bureau County site. However, Illinois is not one of the 25 states which has exercised this right given them under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended: To be responsible for certain regulatory responsibilities ordinarily June 1978 / Illinois Issues/15 held by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission covering the use and disposal of by-products, source and special nuclear materials. The Sheffield site is the only one of four in the nation presently administered solely by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Blackburn of the IDPH's Nuclear Safety Division says that in his personal opinion, "It is a budget matter. Spending state money for this would be a political decision which will have to be made by the legislature and the governor." What conclusions can be drawn from the events that have occurred at the Sheffield site in Bureau County? How can government — state or federal — decide what to do with the low-level radioactive waste produced by the nuclear energy industry? There is an energy crisis, and the federal and Illinois government made a commitment two decades ago to proceed with developing peaceful usage of nuclear energy. There was no long-term solution to the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes at that time. A dependence on the discovery of a solution within 30 years was a form of "American Roulette." Since no such discovery has been made, and the hazardous wastes are beginning to leak out at Sheffield in Bureau County, at West Valley, N.Y., and elsewhere, we may lose the game. There can be no doubt that something must be done about the wastes already buried and thought must be given to the need for a continuance of the generation of additional wastes by the nuclear industry — wastes which will not be reclaimed in a generation or two, as is the case in strip-mining. The wastes are buried in the middle of one of the most populated states in the nation, in the Mississippi River watershed and within the richest area of farmland in the world. Both the state and the nuclear industry have a large commitment here in Illinois, and waste disposal is an Illinois problem. If the wastes are not buried in Bureau County, where should they be buried? A reevaluation of the state's commitment to the nuclear power industry may be in order. Unless there are incentives for the utility industry to change to other energy sources, nuclear power will continue to be relied upon heavily in Illinois. Until there is an adequately funded reevaluation called for by the Illinois General Assembly and supported by the governor, the waste problems at Sheffield and elsewhere will continue to multiply. In any event, with no solution but continued shallow ground trench burial for the disposal of hazardous low-level radioactive wastes, the state is apparently responsible for such waste's perpetual care, including the costs. 16/June 1978/Illinois Issues
|
||||||||||||||||||
