I wonder if the phenomenon you're describing is the subtle and often hidden complexity of science, and our inability as humans to recognise and handle that complexity appropriately.
In this case, we have the US Army's procedure for disposing of low-level radioactive waste. That process probably says something like "if a thing has been identified as more radioactive than THRESHOLD, then dispose of as radioactive waste." Could the process be expanded to cover cases where the radioactivity is naturally occurring? Probably, but who would then take on the liability if there were any? I'm not sure. What about a case like this, where a naturally occurring radioactive source has been transformed into some piece of equipment that nobody would reasonably expect to be radioactive. Does that need special handling, or not? If so, who is responsible -- the US Army? The manufacturer? The US EPA, even?
It all gets quite complicated, and as complexity increases the risk of a procedure not being applied consistently, or at all, rises quickly. To keep the collective human machine functional, we need to ignore the complexity, and have every radioactive thing be disposed of in the same way.
There are many instances of humans handling scientific complexity badly and coming to poor decisions as a result. A well-known one is declining nuclear fission power stations in favour of coal power stations and subsequently releasing more radioactivity into the environment than the nuclear power stations would ever have done. I'm sure there are hundreds more.