ML23156A391

PR-110 - 57FR17859 - Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes

ML23156A391
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/28/1992
From:	Taylor J NRC/EDO
To:
References
PR-110, 57FR17859
Download: ML23156A391 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 04/28/1992 TITLE: PR-110 -57FR17859 - IMPORT AND EXPORT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-110 57FR17859 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OP RULEHAJtING PROPOSED RULB: PR-110 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULB HAKB: IXPORT AND EXPORT OP RADIOACTIVE WASTES PROPOSED RULB PED REG CITB: 57PR17859 PROPOSBD RULB PUBLICATIOB DATB: 04/28/92 NUMBER OP COMMENTS: 17 ORIGINAL DATB POR COKKEBTS: 07/13/92 EXTEBSIOB DATE: I I PINAL RULB PED. REG. CITE: 60FR37556 PINAL RULB PUBLICATION DATE: 07/21/95 NOTES OB PINAL RULE BPFECTIVE AUGUST 21, 1995. CORRECTION TO FINAL RULE

~ATUS PUBLISHED 10/30/95 (60FR55183). FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

P RULB TO PIBD THB STAFP CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OP THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-110 RULB TITLE: IMPORT AND EXPORT OP RADIOACTIVE WASTES PROPOSED RULB PROPOSED RULB DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: SRX DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 04/22/92 PINAL RULB PINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 95-060 SRX DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 07/14/95 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: RONALD HAUBER MAIL STOP: 3H5 PHONE: 504-2344 CONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE:

DOCKET NO. PR-110 (57FR17859)

In the Natter of IMPORT AND EXPORT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 04/24/92 04/22/92 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 06/02/92 05/22/92 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA - LOS ANGELES MEDICAL CENTER (DR. CAROLS. MARCUS, DIRECTOR) ( 1) 06/11/92 06/09/92 COMMENT OF WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP (WILLIAMS. HUDEC) ( 2) 06/24/92 06/22/92 COMMENT OF MR. MARVIN I. LEWIS ( 3) 07/01/92 06/26/92 COMMENT OF NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY (RALPH E. BEEDLE, EXEC. V.P.) ( 4) 07/06/92 07/01/92 COMMENT OF FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES FORUM (DONALD A. BARBOUR, SECRETARY) ( 5) 07/10/92 07/09/92 COMMENT OF AMERSHAM CORP (DR. BRYAN W. BAKER) ( 6) 07/13/92 07/13/92 COMMENT OF EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE (LORING E. MILLS, V.P.) ( 7) 07/14/92 07/13/92 COMMENT OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC (SUSAN L. HIATT, DIRECTOR) ( 8) 07/14/92 07/13/92 COMMENT OF NEW YORK STATE (MR. EUGENE J. GLEASON) ( 9) 07/14/92 07/13/92 COMMENT OF UNITED STATE ECOLOGY, INC (MR. HARRY J. NEWMAN) ( 10) 07/14/92 07/13/92 COMMENT OF COUNCIL FOR ENERGY AWARENESS (MARVIN S. FERTEL, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 11) 07/16/92 07/13/92 COMMENT OF MR. A. WENDELL CARRIKER ( 12) 07/20/92 07/08/92 COMMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER (JUDITH H. JOHNSRUD, PH.D.) ( 13) 07/20/92 07/20/92 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (RAYMOND F. PELLETIER, DIRECTOR) ( 14)

DOCKET NO. PR-110 (57FR17859)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 07/23/92 07/20/92 COMMENT OF ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAFETY (THOMAS V. ORTCIGER, DIRECTOR) ( 15) 07/28/92 07/21/92 COMMENT OF NEUTRON PRODUCTS, INC (J.A. RANSOHOFF, PRESIDENT) ( 16) 08/18/92 08/17/92 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR (JONATHAN P. DEASON, DIRECTOR) ( 17)

- 07/18/95 10/06/95 10/30/95 07/14/95 09/29/95 10/19/95 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE LTR FN KARL J. NOVAK REQUESTING THAT RULEMAKING BE REOPENED FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE: CORRECTION

Copy to SECY-Orig(nal sent to the DOCKETED Office of Uie Federal Register for publication U NRC

• 95 OCT 30 P4 :4Q [7590-01-P]

OFFI CE CF SECRET RY DOCKET NUMBER p DOCK [ ff!G *;,. SFR IC'~ PROPOSED R LE no,__

NUCLEERUREGULATORY COMMISSION ()5"1 f(e. \7 -ca 59) 10 CFR Part llO RIN 3150 - AD36 Import and Export of Radioactive Waste: Correction AGENCY : Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION : Final rule: Correction.

SUMMARY

In the Federal Regi ster on July 21, 1995 {60 FR 37556), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission {NRC) issued a final rule to establish specific

- licensing requirements for the import and export of radioactive waste and to clarify other import and export requirements. As part of the final rule, certain sections of NRC's export regulations were redesignated. However, in

§ 110.82, the amendment necessary to change a reference to reflect a redesignated section was i nadvertently omi t t ed. As a result, § 110.82 now contains an erroneous reference. This action is necessary to correct this inconsistent reference and does not result in any substantive change.

EFFECTIVE DATE : August 21, 1995.

~~. \O\~\C\5

( tcc~R. SS\<35)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Ronald Hauber, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regu l atory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone (301} 415-2344.

1. The authority citation for Part 110 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 54, 57, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 109, 111, 126, 127, 128, 129, 161, 181, 182, 183, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2074, 2077, 2092-2095, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2139a, 2141, 2154-2158, 2201, 2231-2233, 2237, 2239}; sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.

5841}; sec. 5, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 (42 U.S.C. 2243}.

Sections 110.l(b}(2} and 110.l(b}(3) also issued under Pub.L. 96-92, 93 Stat. 710 (22 U.S.C. 2403}. Sect ion 110.11 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152) and secs. 54c and 57d, 88 Stat. 473, 475 (42 U.S.C.

2074}. Section 110.27 also issued under sec. 309(a}, Pub. L.99-440. Section 110.50(b)(3) also issued under sec. 123, 92 Stat. 142 (42 U.S.C. 2153).

- Section 110.51 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2234). Section 110.52 also issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

2236). Sections 110.80-110.113 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552, 554. Sections 110.130-110.135 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Sections 110.2 and 110.42(a)

(9} also issued under sec. 903, Pub.L. ~02-496 (42 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.).

2. In§ 110.82, paragraph (b}(3) is revised to read as follows:

§ 110.82 Hear i ng request or intervention petition.

(b} * * *

(3) Explain why a hearing or an intervention would be in the public interest and how a hearing or intervention would assist the Commission in making the determinations required by§ 110.45.

Dated at Rockville, MD this /£_,,/day of ~ 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

. Tayl ive Dire for Operations.

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE . p

. .;.;. ~~---

RD 2, Box 132 ( 51 Ae..l7~59)

DOCKETED Clearville , PA 15535 ( ? ~ -b l(,;-, __._

USNRC September 29 , 1995 ~. ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Re: 10CFRllO Export and Import of Washington, DC 20555 *95 OCT -6 p 3 :Q6 Radioactive Waste

Dear Commissioners:

OF FICE OF SECRETARY This letter is my pet DOOKi.E f tN e~o ~ £Rulemaking, "Import and Export of Radioactive Waste" for cause. T M " is that the definition "incidental radioactive waste" is a euphemism for " helow regulatory concern (BRC) radioactive waste," which classification was disallowed by law. The NRC has neither the authority nor the ability to allow BRC as a legal classification through the euphemism "incidental radioactive waste."

Other deficiencies abound in the 10CFR rule. One startling deficiency con-cerns the rules, regulations and laws of involved foreign lands as well as the NAFTA and GAIT trade pacts . NAFTA and GATT require that our rules, regulations and laws meet the requirements imposed by t hese trade pacts. This rule does not mention any rule, regulation or law outside those of the NRC and other US agencies.

A statement needs to be inserted in the 10CFR 110 rule that the rule must be in compliance with all rules, regulations and laws of foreign countries, including transit countries as well as NAFTA and GATT trade pact countries. "Prior notifi-cation" required in the 10CFR 110 rule is clearly deficient.

Para 110.42(d)(2) requires only that the receiving country "find" and "consent" to the import of our wastes. In the political upheaval of this world , finding and consenting are deficient. Many countries are ruled by crimin~l undergrounds where tips have more effect than law. This rule foists our wastes on any country that loves a buck more than the safety, health and well being of its citizens . This rule approaches the realm of the immoral.

Para 110.19 is a description of "general license." This general license is so general as to be nebulous, with a lack of requirements which would allow any radwaste to be manipulated to fit the license . Any entity may export up to 100 KG of waste without paperwork by stating that they thought the radwaste was included in a " general license" somewhere .

The "general license" is an invitation to manipulate radwaste so as to avoid filing form 7 and, thereby, avoid scrutiny. This manipulation can take the form of presenting invoices which show that multiple owners have parts of a shipment, each less than 100 KG . The owners are thus relieved of filing form 7 and avoid scrutiny.

This 10CFR 110 rule is particularly deficient in meetingFederalRight to Know Laws such as CERCLA Title III. The U.S., States and local governments have Right to Know laws which require that citizens and residents be informed of potential dangers f 4Jm commercial enterprises such as export, import and transportation.

This 10CFR 110 rule needs sections requiring that the public be notified in a sufficient and timely fashion of the transit of nuclear waste.

Considering all the above reasons, I respectfully request that the Commission immediately vacate the present 10CFR 110 rule and reopen rulemaking on this dangerous and timely issue of the export and import of nuclear waste.

10/6 * *

• To OIP for Appropriate Action **. Copy to: Chrm, Comr, DSB *** 95-0869.

. NUCLEAR RE J. , 1Y C M ~ISSIOt--.

DOCKET ING & SER ,CE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Docume t Statistics mar1( Date7\oc~C'd\;&, 1 s Received _ __.__ _ _ _ __

c\~

l Copies Reprod dG = -5= -- - - -

cial Pistr:blltion ~ ,h>""°=".h I 3?~)

If the Commission disagrees with my request, I would greatly appreciate receiving a written response that would provide a solid rationale for actions contemplated.

Sincerely, Karl J. Novak cc - Senator Specter Senator Santoroum

DOCKET NlJABEA PROPOSED RULE..;;...;..;;-M,~-

(_5-, PR... \'""\ ~5C\

[7590 P] DOCKE TED US NRC NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION

• 95 Jfl 18 P3 :1 O 10 CFR Part 110 OFFI CE OF SECRE TA RY RIN 3150 - AD36 DOCKETING & SER ICE BRA. CH Import and Export of Radioactive Waste AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC} is amending its regulations to establish specific licensing requirements for the import and export of radioactive waste and to clarify the requirements for the import and export of incidental radioactive material coming into or leaving the United States. The amendments conform the policies of the United States to the guidelines of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA} Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste. These amendments strengthen the Commission's control over radioactive waste entering and leaving the United States.

~ ~\> \CRS EFFECTIVE DATE: 3 er fH:tblieation-;-

ADDRESSEES: Copies of comments received are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at 2120 L Street, NW . (Lower Level}, Washington, DC.

Coot==R~rissto

'-f>~. '1\a,\C\S-

• I 2

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Ronald Hauber, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regu l atory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone (301) 415-2344.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :

I. Objective and Background.

II. Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Rule.

III. Overview of New Rule.

I. Objective and Background Radioactive waste is generated from the nuclear fuel cycle during the normal operation of nuclear power plants, fuel fabrication plants, enrichment facilities, uranium mining and milling facilities; the decommissioning and close out of nuclear facilities {environmental restoration); and the use of radioactive materials in medicine, industrial applications, research, and education. The nuclear fuel cycle is by far the largest source of radioactive waste, with low-level radioactive waste {LLW) currently accounting for the largest proportion of waste by volume. The importance of protecting human health and the environment in radioactive waste management and disposal has long been recognized by the NRC. This rule helps ensure the safe management and disposal of radioactive waste by amending the NRC'~ regulations in 10 CFR Part 110 with respect to radioactive waste entering or leaving the jurisdiction or control of the United States. The amendment also clarifies the requirements applicable to shipments of incidental radioactive material .

This final rule is intended to reflect the principles of the International Atomic Energy Agency {IAEA) Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste {Code) . The Code

3 was approved in September 1990, with strong U.S. Government support. The Code resulted from an international effort within the IAEA to address concerns about possible improper transfer and disposal of radioactive waste. A set of principles was established to guide countries in the development and harmonization of policies and laws on transboundary movements of radioactive waste to ensure its safe management and disposal. A basic principle of the Code is that international movements of radioactive waste should take place with the prior notification and consent of the sending, receiving, and transit countries. The Code also provides that no receiving country should permit the receipt of radioactive waste for management or disposal unless it has the administrative and technical capacity and regulatory structure to manage and dispose of the waste in a manner consistent with international safety standards. Before the issuance of this final rule, NRC's regulations were not consistent with the principles embodied in the Code, especially with regard to possible transfers of LLW. (The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal expressly excludes from its coverage "[w]astes which, as a result of being radioactive, are subject to other international control systems, including international instruments, applying specifically to radioactive materials 11

• Because the IAEA Code of Practice is an international instrument applying specifically to radioactive materials, radioactive waste is excluded from the scope of the Basel Convention.)

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, NRC has the statutory responsibility for authorizing the export and import of byproduct, source, and*

special nuclear material. The NRC regulates the import and export of these materials under 10 CFR Part 110. Until now, NRC's regulations in Part 110

4 were concerned primarily with exports and imports that have nuclear proliferation significance. Tnus, radioactive materials that have little or no significance with respect to national security (proliferation), such as LLW, have not been subject to specific licensing. Rather, radioactive waste has been allowed to leave the United States under general export licenses pursuant to§§ 110.21-110.23, and to enter the United States under similar Part 110 provisions in§ 110.27. (After entry into the United States, the domestic regulations of the NRC and Agreement States ar,ply.) During the development of this rulemaking, the NRC, in consultation with other government agencies, published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on February 7, 1990 (55 FR 4181} to seek comments from the public, industry, and other government agencies on four possible options and thirteen associated questions for establishing an NRC policy on radioactive waste exports and imports. The comments received in response to the ANPR were considered in a proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 28, 1992 (57 FR 17859). The comments on the proposed rule were considered in the development of the definitions, exceptions, procedures, and licensing criteria of the final rule.

II. Analysis of Public Comments on Proposed Rule Seventeen letters of comment were received in response to the proposed rule from individuals, organizations, industry, and government agencies. One letter was subsequently withdrawn.

One commenter believed that the NRC should not permit any category of radioactive waste to be moved into or out of the United States, except perhaps in a few extraordinary circumstances. Another commenter urged the NRC to ban all imports and exports of radioactive waste. The NRC does not agree with

5 these highly restrictive approaches. International commerce in radioactive waste, including movement of waste into and out of the United States, may be desirable from a policy perspective. For example, some commerce involving radioactive waste may further important policy goals of the international community (such as waste shipments for international research) and other shipments may embody desirable take-back features (such as return of U.S.

Government radioactive waste and shipments of used radioactive sources to authorized consignees).

Other commenters urged the NRC to exempt from specific licensing controls movements of sealed sources that are being returned to the U.S. or another country for reconditioning, recycling or reprocessing. They n6ted that, while the supplementary information of the proposed rule incorporated this view, no such provision was expressly provided in the regulations. The NRC believes that there should be an exclusion from the definition of "radioactive waste 11 in Part 110 for movements of sealed sources and devices 4lt containing sealed sources to any qualified manufacturer authorized to receive and possess them. These types of transfers help to ensure that the materials are handled responsibly and not left in dispersed and perhaps unregulated locations around the world, and therefore they should not be subject to specific licensing if the radioactive material involved would not otherwise be subject to such licensing. The definition of radioactive waste has been revised to exclude these shipments.

One commenter expressed the view that export and import of LLW should be treated no differently from seale~ sources and radiopharmaceuticals, opining that all radioactive materials should be handled consistently. It is not clear whether this means that the regulations should apply the same treatment to waste and non-waste forms of radioactive material, or whether the commenter

6 simply believes that all types of radioactive waste should be treated identically. The NRC believes that the former approach would not be consistent with the view embodied in the Code of Practice that there should be a special regime for transboundary movements of radioactive waste. The NRC is in general agreement with the position that most radioactive waste should be handled consistently, but in some situations there are policy considerations that militate in favor of a different result. An example of this is found in the exclusion of certain sealed sources from the definition of "radioactive waste", discussed above. Other exceptions are discussed elsewhere in the supplementary information.

Several commenters said that NRC's policy on regulation of export and import of radioactive waste for waste management purposes needs modification.

They opined that import and export for waste management purposes, as distinct from disposal, should not be subject to specific licensing under Part 110.

One of these commenters, representing businesses in decommissioning and environmental restoration activities, said that specific licensing should not be required for volume reduction, treatment, and resource recovery. Others argued that waste management practices should be encouraged internationally without unnecessary restrictions as rising disposal costs make them more feasible and cost effective, especially when residual LLW will be returned to the country of origin. In response to these comments, the NRC has made special provisions for certain shipments intended for recycling or resource recovery. (See the provisions in the final rule relating to incidental radioactive material.) However, though the proposed rule published in 1992 did have an exclusion for return of radioactive waste to a consignee in the country that previously exported the radioactive material, after careful consideration of the comments, the NRC has concluded that a general exemption

7 for waste going to the country of origin would not ensure confonnity with the Code of Practice. A country that exports radioactive material may not have adequate means to handle its management or disposal when returned as radioactive waste. Further, such a broad exemption would leave too large a regulatory gap, permitting a country of origin to be used as a way station for waste intended for disposition elsewhere. Thus, this change also addresses the concerns of comrnenters who expressed apprehension that radioactive waste might be exported from the U.S. under false pretenses.

Three comrnenters were of the view that specific licenses should not be required for transboundary movements of what the final rule terms 11 incidental radioactive material" -- i.e., radioactive material not ottferwise subject to specific licensing under Part 110 that is contained in or a contaminant of any non-hazardous, non-radioactive material that is exported or imported for recycling or resource recovery of the non-radioactive component.

The Commission agrees that such movements should not require the issuance of a 4t spec i fie 1i cense because, by definition, the i rnmed i ate purpose of these*,

shipments is not waste management or disposal of the radioactive component.

The rule helps to ensure the purpose is bona fide by limiting the use of the term "incidental radioactive material" to situations in which the exported material will not be processed for separation of the radioactive component before the recycling or resource recovery occurs or during the resource recovery process. However, since in these cases the radioactive component of the material being shipped has, in itself, no foreseeable use, the Commission believes that some form of regulatory oversight of these exports is required in order to help ensure that an exporter will not ship radioactive waste for disposal in another country under the guise of shipping usable materials for recycling or resource recovery. The proposed rule was somewhat ambiguous on

8 this point. Therefore, the final regulations have been clarified in that regard. {The term "incidental radioactive material" is applied to the radioactive component of the exported material, rather than a term identifying the radioactive component as a form of radioactive waste, because the Commission believes that this will avoid unnecessary limitations on the usefulness of the material for recycling or resource recovery.)

Under the rule proposed in 1992, an exporter of material that contains or is contaminated with radioactive material for which no use is foreseen was generally required to file an NRC Form 7 before the export took place and the export required a specific license issued by the NRC. Under the final rule, an exporter of incidental radioactive material will still be required to file an NRC Form 7 before the export takes place {if the total amount of the shipment containing the incidental radioactive material exceeds 100 kilograms), but the NRC will not issue a specific license in these cases.

Shipments involving incidental radioactive material will continue to take place under the general license provisions in§§ 110.19-110.30. Deliberate misrepresentations on the form are subject to the same penalties as apply to falsification of other documents submitted in matters involving the United States and may subject a person to criminal sanctions under section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act. To help clarify the application of the rule in these cases, definitions of "incidental radioactive material" and "management" have been added in the final rule.

Several commenters were concerned that the proposed definition of "radioactive waste" was too vague and subjective, possibly leading to an exporter shipping radioactive waste for disposal in another country under the guise of shipping usable materials for recycling or resource recovery.

Several other commenters, including one representing electrical utilities in

9 the United States, criticized the proposed definition of radioactive waste as differing from the various waste terms in other parts of NRC's regulations.

One said that the definition had not been sufficiently evaluated by affected parties and that basing it upon whether use is foreseen II II is unp.recedented in NRC's regulations and represents new NRC thinking which could have implications beyond the amendments to Part 110. The NRC recognizes that the concept of foreseeable use, introduced by the IAEA Code of Practice, could cause some confusion. Therefore, in response to these concerns, the definition of "radioactive waste" has been clarified to provide for usage of the term in a manner that is generally more consistent with NRC's usage for domestic purposes. As so defined, the export and import of radioactive**waste requires issuance of a specific license under Part 110.

Generally, the final rule requires the filing of an NRC Form 7 for export of radioactive waste, as was provided under the proposed rule.

Exports of radioactive waste remain subject to the specific licensing requirements of Part 110, unless expressly excluded. In addition, an NRC Form 7 must be filed before the export of incidental radioactive material (i'f the total amount of the shipment containing the incidental radioactive material exceeds 100 kilograms), but in most instances a specific license will not be required for such an export. Information required to be reported on NRC Form 7 is listed in 10 CFR 110.32.

Under the final rule, imports of radioactive waste are also subject to the specific licensing provisions of Part 110. Imports of incidental radioactive material, however, do not require the filing of any information with the NRC and remain subject to the general licensing provisions of Part 110. This is considered sufficient in light of the extensive domestic

10 regulatory program to which they will be subject when they enter the United States.

One commenter said the proposed regulation was unclear on NRC's position on imports and exports of mixed wast~ (i.e., waste that consists of hazardous waste and radioactive waste). It is the NRC's view that with respect to radioactive waste components of mixed waste, such transboundary movements should be subject to the specific licensing requirements of Part 110, and the definitions of "incidental radioactive material" and "radioactive waste" reflect this position. Accordingly, the*NRC, under the Atomic Energy Act, will license movements of mixed waste into and out of the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the NRC_under the Atomic Energy Act jointly regulate exports of mixed waste from the jurisdiction of the United States. The NRC will consult with the EPA regarding Part 110 license applications relating to movements of mixed waste. (Domestically, mixed waste is subject to applicable regulations of the EPA and NRC.} A sentence has been added to§ 110.19 alerting potential shippers to the fact that an NRC li~ense does not avoid the need to consult with the EPA regarding the hazardous component of mixed waste.

One commenter stated its view that service tooling used in nuclear facilities contaminated with radioactive materials is not radioactive waste as defined in the proposed rule. It was not NRC's intent to include as radioactive waste exports and imports of contaminated equipment (including service tools) used in nuclear facilities, if the equipment is being shipped for use in another such facility and not for-management or disposal. While one could reasonably maintain that this is not a question of radioactive waste at all, to ensure that the NRC's intent is free from doubt, the definition of "radioactive waste" in the final rule clarifies this point.

11 Two commenters expressed concern that the information required on an application for a specific license did not include the date, time, and route of transit of the radioactive waste, or a statement of ultimate disposition of the waste. The NRC believes that at the time of filing an application for a specific license it may be too early for an exporter or importer to provide a precise shipping date and time. However, the approximate date of shipment is required to be stated. In addition, the NRC has added a requirement for the route of transit information to be provided before the export or import takes place.

One Federal official asked how other Federal agencies would be notified of an application for a specific license. The Department of State, as ],ead Executive Branch agency for the review of nuclear exports, has agreed to notify other appropriate Federal agencies. For an import application, the NRC would itself seek the views of appropriate Federal and State agencies. The NRC recognizes the unique interest and responsibilities of the S~ates under the Low-level Radioactive Waste Policy Act for safe management and disposal of LLW. Therefore, consultation with affected States is appropriate.

One commenter expressed concern that the proposed rule did not include a provision for informing LLW compacts before issuance of a specific license for import or export of radioactive waste. Section 11O.7O{b}.has been revised to require that the Commission publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of an application for a specific license for the export or import of radioactive waste (other than incidental radioactive material). To promote consideration of LLW compacts' restrictions on waste disposal, the Commission will exchange information and views with interested compacts. The NRC also intends to take other reasonable steps to inform States and LLW compacts of

12 pending requests for specific licenses for import or export of radioactive waste, but believes it to be unnecessary to spell this out in the regulations.

One commenter suggested that the Department of Transportation and the Customs Service should be able to initiate efforts to determine the validity of statements made with respect to a particular export or import. The Commission expects that if the Department of Transportation or the Customs Service encounters a questionable export, they will seek assistance from the NRC. The NRC will then work with the Department of State and other concerned parties in resolving questions raised in such circumstances.

Another commenter referred, among other things, to the proposed rule's inconsistency with NRC's below regulatory concern (BRC) policy. The BRC policy has been withdrawn by the NRC (See 58 FR 44610; August 24, 1993).

One commenter suggested o~fering the import and export licensing program to the Agreement States for administration over its licensees. The NRC disagrees with this suggestion. This transfer would be inconsistent with Section 274 c. of the Atomic Energy Act, which specifically provides that no agreement entered into under the Agreement States program shall provide for discontinuance of any NRC authority with respect to the export from or import into the United States of byproduct, source, or special nuclear material.

However, NRC's export and import licensing authority does not diminish any separate authority vested in States and LLW compacts, by the Atomic Energy Act or the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, in regard to the licensing, handling, and disposal of radioactive materials within the United States.

III. Overview of New Rule The purpose ~f this rule is to conform NRC's regulations on export and import of nuclear equipment and material with the principles of the IAEA Code

13 of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste.

The Code's guidelines state that each individual country should take the appropriate steps necessary to ensure that the international transboundary movement of radioactive waste is managed safely. This rule is designed to serve that purpose.

The final rule requires that a person file an application with the NRC for a specific license to export or import radioactive waste, including mixed waste, but distinguishes a separate category of "incidental radioactive material". Radioactive waste subject to the specific licensing requirements of Part 110 may not be exported from or imported into the United States unless the NRC has granted such a license. The export and import of incidenta.l;*

radioactive material {i.e., radioactive material not subject to the specific licensing controls of Part 110 that is contained in or a contaminant of any non-hazardous, non-radioactive material that is exported or imported for recycling or resource recovery) continues to be covered by the general license provisions of Part llO. However, an exporter must fi 1e an NRC Form 7 b~fore a ,,i, shipment of incidental radioactive material takes place if the total amount of the shipment containing the incidental radioactive material exceeds 100 kilograms. (Use of the 100 kilogram threshold is consistent with the threshold established in§ 110.27{b). This provision provides that a general license may not be used for import of source or special nuclear material in the form of irradiated fuel that exceeds 100 kilograms per shipment.) The fi na 1 rule takes into account changes made in** Part 11 O by the fi na 1 rule on Specific Licensing of Exports of Certain Alpha-Emitting Radionuclides and Byproduct Material, published on September 26, 1994 (59 FR 48994).

The NRC has decided that it is consistent with the IAEA Code of Practice not to include the following within the definition of radioactive waste:

14 (These kinds of shipments will continue to enter or leave the United States under general or specific license, whichever is applicable under Part 110 to the nuclear material in question.)

1. Radioactive material in used sealed sources, or devices containing used sealed sources, being sent to any qualified manufacturer authorized to receive and possess them. This exclusion acknowledges that shipment of used sources to a qualified manufacturer should be handled as expeditiously as possible because these types of shipments help to ensure that used sources are handled in a safe and responsible manner.

• 2. Radioactive material that is a contaminant on equipment (including service tools) used in nuclear facilities, if the equipment is being shipped for use in another nuclear facility and is not being shipped for management or disposal. This exclusion recognizes that equipment used in nuclear facilities frequently becomes contaminated. However, this does not prevent the equipment from being used to service other nuclear facilities instead of being subject to disposal or waste management.

3. Return of military and other U.S. Government radioactive waste to the United States when destined for a Federal or military facility authorized to possess the waste (see§ 110.27). This exclusion from specific licensing was requested by the Department of State.

4. Radioactive waste generated in support of U.S. Government waste research and development testing programs under international arrangements.

This exclusion recognizes that shipment of the waste is not for the purpose of disposal or waste management and that the exclusion will facilitate government-to-government waste research programs.

In addition incidental radioactive material can continue to enter or leave the country without specific NRC approval. However, an export of

15 incidental radioactive material requires the filing of an NRC Form 7 if the total amount of the shipment containing the incidental radioactive material exceeds 100 kilograms.

In applying for a specific license, applicants for the export or import of radioactive waste must include the information required by§§ 110.31 and 110.32 of Part 110 for export and import of nuclear equipment and material.

In addition, this final rule also requires the submission of the following information for the proposed export or import of radioactive waste:

information on the volume and classification of the waste, the chemical and physical characteristics of the waste, its routing (including countries to be transited), and its disposition (including waste management). In the c~se of proposed imports, the information provided must include the industrial or other process responsible for generation of the waste and whether the compact and host State have agreed to accept the waste. The application must contain sufficient information to allow NRC to make a determination on whether a

license should be granted. A notice of receipt of each application for a specific license for export or import of radioactive waste will be published in the Federal Register.

As is the case with all applications for a specific license for export of radioactive material, the review of an application for a specific license for a proposed export of radioactive waste is governed by whether licensing the proposed export would be inimical to the common defense and security interests of the United States. The Connnission's review is also governed by whether the receiving country consents to receipt of the radioactive waste.

It is NRC's policy that the agency normally will not consider extraterritorial impacts. The latter policy was enunciated by the Commission in Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Exports to the Philippines), CLI-80-14,

16 11 NRC 631 {1980), where {among other things) the Commission refused to consider the health, safety, and environmental impacts on Philippine citizens of a proposed reactor export to the Philippines on the ground that the Commission should not consider such impacts upon the citizens of another country. {Though there was some divergence in the reasoning of the judges, the Commission's decision was upheld in NRDC v. NRC, 647 F.2d 1345 (D.C. Cir.

1981).) The rationale for the Commission's conclusion was that the regulation of economic and industrial activities taking place within a nation's territorial boundaries is a function of the territorial sovereign.

The IAEA Code of Practice provides in clear terms that a receiving State should not permit receipt of radioactive waste for management or disposal unless the receiving country has an appropriate "administrative and technical capacity and regulatory structure to manage and dispose of such waste in a manner consistent with international safety standards. 11 In contrast, the Code of Practice is far from clear when it states that it is the sending State's obligation to satisfy itself "in accordance with the receiving State's consent that the receiving State is meeting the foregoing requirement. The 11 Code does not explain the intended meaning of the phrase 11 in accordance with the receiving State's consent," and it does not indicate how the sending State is expected to satisfy itself regarding the receiving State's capability.

The NRC will expect a receiving State to indicate to the Department of State, during the process for obtaining the receiving State's consent, that it has found that it has the administrative and technical capacity and regulatory structure to manage and dispose of the waste. At this time, however, the NRC is not prepared to include provisions in this final rule that would necessitate independent and specific NRC assessments and findings and an opportunity for adjudication regarding the adequacy of the receiving State's

17 administrative and technical capacity and regulatory structure for managing and disposing of the waste. This decision flows from (1) the ambiguity of the guiding provision in the IAEA Code, (2) the NRC's longstanding policy of not considering health, safety and environmental impacts in foreign countries, {3) the ongoing work -- under the aegis of the IAEA -- to develop a Convention on Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, and (4) Congressional inaction regarding implementation of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their disposal. Nevertheless, as indicated in the notice for the proposed rule, the NRC does not contemplate any circumstances in which a license WOijld be issued to export radioactive waste to a country without a regulated waste disposal program. Moreove~; the Commission would obtain the views of the Executive Branch before*approving an application for export of radioactive waste.

Note that this rule does no1/2 address on a generic basis the applicability of the National Environmental Policy Act to Part 110 specific licensing actions. Such applicability (if any) will be determined on ~:case- J '

by-case basis. Note also that export licenses and (with limited exceptions not relevant here) actions related to nuclear activities are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12114 (44 FR 1957; January 4, 1979),

Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.

NRC has exclusive jurisdiction, vis-a-vis the States, for granting or denying all import licenses. However, in the*case of a proposed import, the NRC recognizes the authority of LLW compacts to decide whether or not to accept an import of LLW for disposal in the compact region. The NRC will consult with interested States and LLW compacts prior to issuing an import license for LLW. The NRC will not grant an import license for waste intended for disposal unless it is clear that the waste will be accepted by a disposal

18 facility, host State, and compact (where applicable). This will be part of the determination regarding the appropriateness of the facility that has agreed to accept the waste for management or disposal.

The NRC will consult with the Department of State and other cognizant Federal agencies regarding proposed exports of radioactive waste. In addition, in all proposed export and import cases, the NRC will ask the Department of State to consult with transit countries, as the Department of State deems appropriate, to obtain any necessary approvals pursuant to the IAEA Code of Practice.

Following review by the NRC staff, a determination will be made whether to approve or deny the application for a specific license for the import or export of radioactive waste. An import or export license issued by the NRC only authorizes the radioactive waste covered by the license to enter or exit the United States. This license alone does not authorize possession of the waste material or guarantee access to a waste management facility or a disposal site in the United States or another country.

This rule requires specific licenses for exports and imports of mixed waste. Mixed waste is waste that consists of both hazardous waste and radioactive waste. In addition to meeting NRC requirements, mixed waste must also meet Environmental Protection Agency requirements applicable to the hazardous component of the waste. The exporter or importer is responsible for ensuring compliance with those requirements.

The rule does not cover the export or import of naturally-occurring radioactive material (other than source material and byproduct material under section 11 e.{2) of the Atomic Energy Act) and accelerator-produced radioactive material. Naturally-occurring radioactive material and accelerator-produced radioactive material lie outside NRC's regulatory

19 authority and are subject to health and safety regulation by the States and other Federal agencies.

The new regulations in Part 110 do not affect existing or future NRC regulations in other parts of this chapter which may relate to matters covered by this rule.

The Commission notes that violation of regulations issued under sections 161b, 16li, or 1610 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 may subject a person to criminal sanctions under section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act. The regulations in Part 110 that are not issued under§§ ltilb, 16li, or 1610 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for the purposes of section 223 of the Act are listed in § 110.67 of Part 110, as amended by this final rule. The fol:1owing regulations amended by this final rule are not listed in§ 110.67": §§ 110.19, 110.20, 110.21, 110.22, 110.23, and 110.27. Violation of these sections may subject a person to criminal sanctions under section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this final rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22{c)(l). Therefore neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this final rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 {44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These paperwork requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval numbers 3150-0036 and 3150-0027.

20 The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0036 and 3150-0027),

Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis NRC regulations provide strong regulatory control over the export of strategic nuclear material from a national security (nonproliferation) standpoint, but they have traditionally provided much less control over non-strategic materials. Many non-strategic imports and exports qualify for general licenses without specific review or approval by the NRC. (Domestic regulations in the United States and abroad, and international transportation regulations, have provided the primary regulatory controls for health and safety and environmental protection purposes.) In recent years, national and worldwide concerns about radioactive waste disposal practices have brought attention to the limited focus of the NRC's import and export regulations and the fact that certain types and quantities of radioactive materials, including LLW, may be imported or exported without specific authorization by the NRC and without NRC's knowledge.

The IAEA Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste, which was approved by the IAEA General Conference in 1990

21 with strong U.S. Government support, provides that international shipments of radioactive wastes should take place only with the prior notification and consent of the sending, receiving and transit countries. The Code also provides that no receiving country should permit the receipt of radioactive waste for management or disposal unless it has the administrative and technical capacity and regulatory structure to manage and dispose of such waste in a manner consistent with international safety standards. This final rule is intended to conform U.S. regulations with these international guidelines. The final rule amends the Part 110 general license provisions applicable to the export and import of special nuclear, source, and byproduct materials to state specifically that general licenses do not provide authority to import or export radioactive waste, as defined by Part 110. Instead, persons desiring to import or export radioactive waste may do so only upon issuance of a specific license by the NRC. Persons desiring to export incidental radioactive material (i.e., radioactive material not otherwise subject to specific licensing under Part 110 that is contained in or a.~

contaminant of any non-hazardous, non-radioactive material that is exported or imported for recycling or resource recovery of the non-radioactive component) are required to file an NRC Form 7 if the total amount of the shipment containing the incidental radioactive material exceeds 100 kilograms, thus providing infonnation about the proposed export, but the NRC will not issue a specific license for such exports. Instead, the material may continue to be shipped under general license. Imports of incidental radioactive material continue to be subject to general licensing under Part 110, but they do not require any filing of information with the NRC under Part 110.

The rule impacts persons interested in exporting radioactive waste from, or importing radioactive waste into, the United States, and those exporting or

22 importing incidental radioactive material (i.e., radioactive material not subject to specific licensing under Part 110 combined with non-hazardous, non-radioactive material exported or imported for recycling or resource recovery).

The rule is necessary to satisfy the U.S. Government's commitment to the Code of Practice. There are no alternatives other than rulemaking for achieving the stated objective. (Alternatiyes to the changes made by this final rule were discussed in the ANPR published in February 1990 and the proposed rule published in April 1992.) We expect that there will be few exports and imports per year that will be covered by the new requirements established by the rule. (There should actually be little, if any, effect on those importing incidental radioactive material.) The agency also believes that, outside of having to pay a licensing fee, this regulation will have a minimal impact on the affected exporters and importers, since they should have ready access to most of the information required to be submitted to the NRC.

The NRC has considered the resource implications for the agency in developing this final rule, and based on analogous NRC experience under Part 110, it is estimated that a typical waste export or import licensing case resulting from this final rule will require 40 to 50 NRC staff hours for review and processing. It is estimated that the cost associated with such review and processing will, on the average, be approximately $5,000 per case, though a few cases (particularly the first license applications received) may cost as much as $10,000. The total annual cost to the NRC is expected to be approximately $50,000, which would be offset by the collection of application fees.

To the NRC's knowledge, there is no appreciable U.S. import or export traffic in radioactive waste. A possible exception is the widely accepted practice of returning depleted sealed radioactive sources to a manufacturer

23 for recycle or disposal. This practice is generally encouraged by governmental authorities as a way of helping to ensure that the items are handled in a responsible manner at the end of their useful life. For this reason such shipments are excluded from the definition of "radioactive waste" in the final rule.

The changes made by this rule could affect waste management companies interested in importing radioactive waste from other countries because the imports will now require specific import licenses from the NRC, and an individual import of this type may not satisfy the licensing criteria.

However, it is not clear whether this licensing requirement imposes any more difficult obstacles to a prospective waste importer than does the authority given LLW compacts to block shipments of such waste into their respective jurisdictions. (Note that the function of new§ 110.43, which sets forth import licensing criteria, is primarily to bring together criteria stated in other sections of Part 110. That the host State and compact do not object to the importation of the waste will be part of the determination regarding the appropriateness of the facility that has agreed to accept the waste for management purposes or disposal.)

The final rule focuses greater attention on ship1nents of radioactive waste from or into the United States. This is consistent with the intent of the recommendations of the Code of Practice. The rule effectively excludes from the new requirements for specific licensing export and import of sealed sources, and devices containing sealed sources, to manufacturers qualified to receive and possess them; export and import of contaminated service equipment used in nuclear facilities, if the service equipment is being shipped for use in another nuclear facility and not for management purposes or disposal; and import of government waste returning to the United States. These exclusions

24 from the specific licensing requirements for export and import of radioactive waste, the limited nature of the requirement for export of incidental radioactive material (confined to filing of NRC Form 7), and the absence of any new requirement with respect to import of incidental radioactive material, help to minimize the impact of the rule on commercial activities in the United States. Persons applying for a specific license will be subject to license application fees, which are currently under $10,000 per license.

(Fees for licensing services rendered by the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR Part 110 are covered in 10 CFR Part 170.) We do not expect that an annual fee will be assessed because we do not foresee that any significant NRC inspection or enforcement activities will result from this final rule.

Overall, the NRC believes that requiring specific licensing of radioactive waste coming into or leaving the United St~tes for management purposes or disposal is a sound regulatory approach to help ensure that such shipments are subject to U.S. Government approval and the consent of other involved parties. Filing of an NRC Form 7 before export of incidental radioactive material {if the total amount of the shipment containing the incidental radioactive material exceeds 100 kilograms} will help ensure that the regulatory program is effective.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),

the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule establishes specific licensing requirements on the import and export of radioactive waste coming into or leaving the United States, pursuant to which certain information must be filed with the NRC. It also clarifies the application of

25 these requirements with respect to the import and export of incidental radioactive material. The additional burden for the collection of this information is estimated to average 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per response, which will increase the cost of the shipment only by a minimal amount. In all, the amendments to Part 110 are expected to result in fewer than ten new export and import licenses per year.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule and, therefore, a backfit analysis is not required because these amendments do not involve any provision which would impose backfits as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(l).

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 110 Administrative practice and procedure, Classified informat.ion, Criminal penalties, Export, Import, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materi~ls, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 110.

PART 110 - EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL

1. The authority citation for Part 110 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 54, 57, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 109, 111, 126, 127, 128, 129, 161, 181, 182, 183, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 931, 932,

26 933, 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2074, 2077, 2092-2095, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2139a, 2141, 2154-2158, 2201, 2231-2233, 2237, 2239); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.

5841); sec. 5, Pub. L. 101-575, 104 Stat. 2835 {42 U.S.C. 2243).

Sections 110.l(b)(2) and 110.l(b)(3) also issued under Pub.L. 96-92, 93 Stat. 710 (22 U.S.C. 2403). Section 110.11 also issued*under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152) and secs. 54c and 57d, 88 Stat. 473, 475 (42 U.S.C.

2074). Section 110.27 also issued under sec. 309{a), Pub. L.99-440. Section 110.50{b){3) also issued under sec. 123, 92 Stat. 142 (42 U.S.C. 2153).

Section 110.51 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2234). Section 110.52 also issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

2236). Sections 110.80-110.113 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552, 554. Sections 110.130-110.135 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553. Sections 110.2 and 110.42{a)

(9) also issued under sec. 903, Pub~L. 102-496 (42 U.S.C. 2151 et seq.).

2. Section 110.2 is amended.by adding the tenns disposal, incidental radioactive material, management, radioactive material, radioactive waste, storage, and treatment to read as follows:

§ 110.2 Definitions.

Disposal means pennanent isolation of radioactive material from the surrounding environment.

Incidental radioactive material means a~y radioactive material not otherwise subject to specific licensing under this part that is contained in or a contaminant of any non-radioactive material that (1) for purposes unrelated to the regulations in this part, is exported or imported for

27 recycling or resource recovery of the non-radioactive component, and (2) will not be processed for separation of the radioactive component before the recycling or resource recovery occurs or as part of the resource recovery process. The term does not include material that contains or is contaminated with "hazardous waste" as defined in section 1004(5) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6903(5).

Management means storage, packaging, or treatment of radioactive waste.

Radioactive material means source, byproduct, or special nuclear material.

Radioactive waste means any waste that contains or is contaminated with source, byproduct, or special nuclear material, including any such waste that contains or is contaminated with "hazardous waste" as defined in section 1004(5) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6903(5), but such term does not include radioactive material that is--

(1} Contained in a sealed source, or device containing a sealed source, that is being returned to any manufacturer qualified to receive and possess the sealed source or the device containing a sealed source; (2) A cont~minant on service equipment {including service tools} used in nuclear facilities, if the service equipment is being shipped for use in another nuclear facility and not for waste management purposes or disposal; or

{3} Generated or used in a United States Government waste research and development testing program under international arrangements.

Storage means the temporary holding of radioactive material.

28 Treatment means any method, technique, or process, including storage for radioactive decay, designed to change the physical, chemical or biological characteristics or composition of any radioactive material.

3. Section 110.19 is revised to read as follows:

§ 110.19 Types of licenses.

(a) Licenses for the export and import' of nuclear equipment and material in this part consist of two types: General licenses and Specific licenses. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a. general license is effective without the filing of an application with the Commission or the issuance of licensing documents to a particular person. A specific license is issued to a named person and is effective upon approval by the Commission of an application filed pursuant to the regulations in this part and issuance of licensing documents to the applicant. Issuance of a specific or general license under this part does not relieve a person from complying with applicable regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency for any export or import that contains or is contaminated with hazardous waste.

(b) A person using a general license under this part as authority to export incidental radioactive material that is contained in or a contaminant of a shipment that exceeds 100 kilograms in total weight shall file a completed NRC Form 7 before the export takes place.

4. In§ 110.20, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

§ 110.20 General license information.

(a) A person may use an NRC general license as authority to export or import nuclear equipment or material (including incidental radioactive

29 material), if the nuclear equipment or material to be exported or imported is covered by the NRC general licenses described in§§ 110.21-110.30.

{l) A person using a general license under this part as authority to export incidental radioactive material that is contained in or a contaminant of a shipment that exceeds 100 kilograms in total weight shall file a completed NRC Form 7 before the export takes place.

(2) If an export or import is not covered by the NRC general licenses described in§§ 110.21-110.30, a person must file an application with the Commission for a specific license in accordance with§§ 110.31-110.32.

5. Section 110.21 is amended by revising the introductory texts of paragraphs (a) and (b), revising paragraph (c), and adding new paragraphs (d) and {e) to read as follows:

§ 110.21 General license for the export of special nuclear material.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export the following to any country not listed in§ 110.28:

(b) Except as-provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export the following to any country not listed in§ 110.28 or§ 110.29:

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export Pu-236 or Pu-238 to any country listed in§ 110.30 in individual shipments of 1 gram or less, not to exceed 100 grams per year to any one country.

30 (d} The general licenses in paragraphs (a), (b), and {c) do not authorize the export of special nuclear material in radioactive waste.

{e} Persons using the general licenses in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) as authority to export special nuclear material as incidental radioactive material shall file a completed NRC Form 7 before the export takes place if the total weight of the shipment exceeds 100 kilograms.

6. Section 110.22 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph {a}, revising paragraphs (b), (c}, and (d), and adding new paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:

§ 110.22 General license for the export of source material.

(a} Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export the following to any country not listed in§ 110.28:

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a general -

license is issued to any person to export uranium or thorium, other than U-230, U-232, Th-227, or Th-228, in individual shipments of 10 kilograms or less to any country not listed in§ 110.28 or§ 110.29, not to exceed 1,000 kilograms per year to any one country or 500 kilograms per year to any one country when the uranium or thorium is of Canadian origin.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export uranium or thorium, other than U-230, U-232, Th-227, or Th-228, in individual shipments ~f 1 kilogram or less to any country not listed in§ 110.29, not to exceed 100 kilograms per year to any one country.

31 (d} Except as provided in paragraph {e) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export U-230, U-232, Th-227, or Th-228 in individual shipments of 10 kilograms or less to any country listed in

§ 110.30, not to exceed 1,000 kilograms per year to any one country or 500 kilograms per year to any one country when the uranium or thorium is of Canadian origin.

• (e) Paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) do not authorize the export under general license of source material in radioactive waste.

(f) Persons using the general licenses in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) as authority to export source material as incidental radioactive material shall file a completed NRC Form 7 before the export takes place if the -total weight of the shipment exceeds 100 kilograms.

7. Section 110.23 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a), revising paragraphs (b) and {c), and adding new paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as follows:

§ 110.23 General license for the export of byproduct material.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export the following to any country not listed in§ 110.28:

{b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export to the countries listed in§ 110.30 tritium in any dispersed form (e.g., luminescent light sources and paint, accelerator targets, calibration standards,*labeled compounds) in quantities of 40 curies (4.12 milligrams) or less per item, not to exceed 1,000 curies (103 milligrams) per shipment or 10,000 curies (1.03 grams) per year to any

32 one country. This general license does not authorize exports for tritium recovery or recycling purposes.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph {d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export to the countries listed in§ 110.30 actinium--225, actinium-227, californium-248, californium-250, californium-252, curium-240, curium-241, curium-242, curium-243, curium-244, einsteinium-252, einsteinium-253, einsteinium-254, einsteinium-255, fermium-257, gadolinium-148, mendelevium-258, polonium-208, polonium-209, polonium-210, and radium-

• 223, except that polonium-210 when contained in static eliminators must not exceed 100 curies (22 grams) per individual shipment.

(d) Paragraphs {a}, (b), and (c) do not authorize the export under general license of byproduct material in radioactive waste.

(e) Persons using the general licenses in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c}

as authority to export byproduct material as incidental radioactive material shall file a completed NRC Form 7 before the export takes place if the total weight of the shipment exceeds 100 kilograms.

8. Section 110.27 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a), redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), and adding a new paragraph {c) to read as follows:

§ 110.27 General license for imports.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to import byproduct, source, DY special nuclear material if the consignee is authorized to possess t material under:

33

{c} Paragraph (a) does not authorize the import under general license of radioactive waste, other than radioactive waste that is being returned to a United States Government or military facility in the United States which is authorized to possess the material.

9. Section 110.32 is amended by revising the heading, redesignating paragraph (f}(5) as (f)(7), and adding new paragraphs {f){5) and (f)(6) to read as follows:

§ 110.32 Information required in an application for a specific license/NRC Form 7.

(f) * * *

(5) For proposed exports or imports of radioactive waste, and for proposed exports of incidental radioactive material -- the volume, classification (as defined in§ 61.55 of this chapter), physical and chemical characteristics, route of transit of shipment, and ultimate disposition (including forms of management) of the waste.

(6) For proposed imports of radioactive waste -- the industrial or other process responsible for generation of the waste, and the status of the arrangements for disposition, e.g., any agreement by a low-level waste compact or State to accept the material for management purposes or disposal.

10. In§ 110.40, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:

(a) Immediately after receipt of a license application for an export or import requiring a specific license under this part, the Commission will

34 initiate its licensing review and, to the maximum extent feasible, will expeditiously process the application concurrently with any applicable review by the Executive Branch.

11. Section 110.41 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a)(7) and

{a}(8) as paragraphs (a){8) and (a){9) and adding a new paragraph {a){7) to read as follows:

§ 110.41 (a)

Executive Branch review.

(7) An export involving radioactive waste.

12. Section 110.42 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a)(3) and (c) and adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 110.42 Export licensing criteria.

{a) The review of license applications for export for peaceful nuclear uses of production or utilization facilities 1 or for export for peaceful nuclear uses of special nuclear or source material requiring a specific license under this part is governed by the following criteria:

1 Exports of nuclear reactors, reactor pressure vessels, reactor primary coolant pumps, "on-line" reactor fuel charging and discharging machines, and complete reactor control rod systems, as specified in paragraphs (1) through (4) of appendix A to this part, are subject to the export licensing criteria in§ 110.42(a). Exports of nuclear reactor components, as specified in paragraphs (5) through (9) of appendix A to this part, when exported separately from the items described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of appendix A, are subject to the export licensing criteria in§ 110.42{b).

35 (3) Adequate physical security measures will be maintained with respect to such material or facilities proposed to be exported and to any special nuclear material used in or produced through the use thereof. Physical security measures will be deemed adequate if such measures provide a level of protection equivalent to that set forth in§ 110.44.

(c) Except where paragraph (d) is applicable, the review of license applications for export of byproduct material or for export of source material for non-nuclear end uses requiring a specific license under this part is governed by the criterion that the proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security.

(d) The review of license applications for the export of radioactive waste requiring a specific license under this part is governed by the following criteria:

(1) The proposed export is not inimical to the common defense and security.

(2) The receiving country, after being advised of the information required by§ 110.32{f){5), finds that it has the administrative and technical capacity and regulatory structure to manage and dispose of the waste and consents to the receipt of the radioactive waste. In the case of radioactive waste containing a nuclear material to which paragraph {a) or (b) is applicable, the criteria in this paragraph shall be in addition to the criteria provided in paragraph (a) or (b}.

§§ 110.43, 110.44, and 110.45 [Redesignatedl

13. Sections 110.43, 110.44, and 110.45 are redesignated as§§ 110.44, 110.45, and 110.46.

36

14. A new§ 110.43 is added to read as follows:

§ 110.43 Import licensing criteria.

The review of license applications for imports requiring a specific license under this part is governed by the following criteria:

(a) The proposed import is not inimical to the common defense and security.

(b) The proposed import does not constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety. *

(c) Any applicable requirements of subpart A of part 51 of this chapter are satisfied.

(d) With respect to the import of radioactive waste, an appropriate facility has agreed to accept the waste for management or disposal.

15. Section 110.45 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:

§ 110.45 Issuance or denial of licenses.

(b) The Commission will issue an import license if it finds that:

(1) The proposed import will not be inimical to the convnon defense and security;

{2) The proposed import will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the public health and safety; (3) The requirements of subpart A of part 51 of this chapter (to the extent applicable to the proposed import) have been satisfied; and (4) With respect to a proposed import of radioactive waste, an appropriate facility has agreed to accept the waste for management or disposal.

37 (c) If, after receiving the Executive Branch judgement that the issuance of a proposed export license will not be inimical to the connnon defense and security, the Commission does not issue the proposed license on a timely basis because it is unable to make the statutory determinations required under the Atomic Energy Act, the Corrmission will publicly issue a decision to that effect and will submit the license application to the President. The Commission's decision will include an explanation of the basis for the decision and any dissenting or separate views. The provisions in this paragraph do not apply to Commission decisions regarding license applications for the export of byproduct material or radioactive waste requiring a specific license.

16. In§ 110.67, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

§ 110.67 Criminal Penalties.

(b) The regulations in part 110 that are not issued under sections 161b, 16li, or 1610 for the purposes of section 223 are as follows: §§ 110.1, 110.2, 110.3, 110.4, 110.7, 110.10, 110.11, 110.30, 110.31, 110.32, 110.40, 110.41, 110.42, 110.43, 110. 44, 110.45, 110.46, 110.51, 110.52, 110. 60, 110.61, 110.62, 110. 63, 110.64, 110.65, 110. 66, 110.67, 110.70, 110.71, 110. 72, 110. 73, 110 .80, 110.81, 110.82, 110 .83, 110 .84, 110 .85, 110 .86, 110.87, 110.88, 110.89, 110.90, 110.91, 110.100, 110.101, 110.102, 110.103, 110.104, 110.105, 110 .106, 110.107, 110 .108, 110 .109 ~ 110.110, 110.111, 110.112, 110.113, 110.120, 110.122, 110.124, 110.130: 110.131, 110.132, 110.133, 110.134, and 110.135.

38

17. Section 110.70 is amended by revising paragraph (a), adding a new paragraph (b)(4), redesignating paragraph {c) as paragraph (d), and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 110.70 Public notice of receipt of an application.

(a) The Co1T111ission will notice the receipt of each license application for an export or import for which a specific license is required by placing a copy in the Public Document Room.

{b) * * * *

{4) Radioactive waste.

(c) The Commission will also publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of a license application for an import of radioactive waste for which a specific license is required.

18. Section 110.72 is amended by revising the introductory text to read as follows:

§ 110.72 Availability of documents in the Public Document Room.

Unless exempt from disclosure ~nder part 9 of this chapter, the following documents pertaining to each license and license application for an import or export requiring a specific license under this Part will be made available in the Public Document Room:

19. Section 110.82(a) is revised to read as follows:

§ 110.82 Hearing request or intervention petition.

39 (a) A person may request a hearing or petition for leave to intervene on a license application for an import or export requiring a specific license.

/</-,.£ (14, Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this day o f ~

• 1995 .

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

e, I the Commission.

DOCKET NUMBER Pl PROPOSED RULE..:..:.:.----=~

( 51 F-TZ I 7 8' S °I) Tm United States Department of the Inte,r,t,Q.[~i. = *

!JS N' .C OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Washington, D.C. 20240 *

"92 AUG 18 PS :39 ER 92/379 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The Department of the Interior has reviewed the proposed rule for the import and export of radioactive wastes and has the following comments.

Under Section 110.31, which discusses the information required in license applications, it is not completely clear that the prereporting of the date, time, and route of transit of the radioactive waste is part of the licensing process. This is an area of concern due to the possibility of an accident occurring en route in which the environment, fish and wildlife resources, including Federal trustee resources, and their habitats could possibly be put at risk.

In the Overview of the Proposed Rule (page 17863) it states: "A notice of receipt of each application would be published in the Federal Register." However, it is not clear how other involved Federal agencies would be notified of these shipments, except through reading of these Federal Register notices. We suggest direct mailings to other Federal agencies may be appropriate.

We hope these comments will be helpful to you.

Sincerely,

J~ ?.-r .

D'+/-

t Jonathan P.

Director Office of Environmental Affairs SEP 1b **~

Aeknowtedged by card .. _._ ....,.......,..,...... .,

U.S. NUCLFt.R 2£Gu*_A.TORY cmAt..1:SSI0/1.

DOC~ETIN$ A SERVICE SECTION ufflCE OF 1Hf: SEGRETARY CF THE COMMiStlON OOC'JmOOt SfaiisHcs

DOGK[i[O USNRC neuTROn PRODUCTS inc

'92 JUL 28 P3 :36 22301 Mt. Ephraim Road, P.O. Box 68 Dickerson, Maryland 20842 USA 3011349-5001 TWX: 710-828-0542 FAX: 349-2433 July 21, 1992 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Rule on Import and Export of Radioactive Waste Federal Register Vol. 57, No 2, Pages 17859 ff

- Ladies and Gentlemen:

As drafted, Neutron Products, Inc. ("Neutron") is concerned that the Proposed Rule would have a serious adverse i pact on competition in the sale and exchange of sealed sources and by-product utilization equipment. In the course of informal discussions with Commission staff, we have been assured that no such result was intended; and we hereby respectfully request that both the Proposed Rule and the international agreements it is designed to implement be modified as required to allay our concern.

This letter addresses our specific concern that the Proposed Rule, as presently drafted, would restrain trade and hamper progress by placing an articficial barrier to Neutron's proven ability to expand its sale of cobalt-60 sources and related equip ent in international markets. Moreover, it seems likely that the Proposed Rule could also impact other domestic radiation source manufacturers in a similar way; and accordingly, the language we have proposed is more broadly based than required for our narrow purpose.

Neutron's Role in the Supply of Cobalt-60 Sources and Related Equipment For more than a quarter century, Neutron has been one of the world's leading innovators in the development of radiation processes and radiation processing equipment, the production of certain radioisotopes, and the supply of cobalt-60 sources for use in medicine, industry and research.

In 1966, in cooperation with Consumers Power Company, Neutron pioneered the production of cobalt-60 as an incidental, intentional by-product of nuclear power plant operations. Neutron's process, which was rendered obsolete by legitimate changes in regulations governing the design of fuel cycles for water moderated reactors, was viable for more than a decade, and was used to produce nearly 20 million curies of cobalt-60.

Since 1968 Neutron has produced, sold and delivered (or placed in service in its own radiation processing plants) more than 4,000 sources, containing approximately 30 million curies of cobalt-60 in the aggregate, for use by more than three hundred domestic and foreign customers located in 48 states and more than a dozen countries on four continents.

~ 'CLEM~ R~GULATORY COiv,MISSI01 DOCKETING & SE VICE SECTION Of=-1i:,E OF THt ;';f:Ct HARV OF ThE: COMM,SS!CN P stma k Dat:1 12...

Copies Rt:re1,e~ ___ _.._-,--_ __ _

Add'I Copir:~ P.ep:,; lL'1,cd 3 Sp ct.: ls. *.:t.tk, tZ_;t;-0._!S_. -().,..(...,,...,.

} (l,...=-

~ __,.., __ _1_ __ ., _

Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 21, 1992 Page 2 More than 50% of the teletherapy sources currently in use in the United States, and a growing share of those in other countries, have been produced by Neutron's proprietary process for casting highly radioactive cobalt-60 to produce sources that are uniquely dispersion resistant and capable of delivering uniform exposure. Over that past twenty years, sources containing more than six million curies of cobalt-60 have been produced by this novel, economic and environmentally considerate process.

Neutron has also been a leader in the reconditioning of cancer therapy units, and has reconditioned, sold and installed dozens of such units in the US and abroad. Many of these units feature components that contain depleted uranium as a shielding material.

Although Neutron's share of international markets is much smaller than its share of the US market, it has effective representation in more than a dozen countries; and for the past several years its share of international source and utilization equipment sales has increased at a rate exceeding 50% per year.

Based largely on the advice of our customers, it is our belief that Neutron has been, and is, one of the principal sources of genuine competition in the supply of cobalt-60 sources and related equipment for use in medicine and industry.

Neutron's Specific Concerns Although there are exceptions, in most instances involving the sale and delivery of cobalt-60 sources, we return to our facility in Maryland the source (or sources) we have replaced. Although such source(s) may not have any further use for the purpose of our customer, it often is useful to Neutron; and accordingly, return sources are frequently not properly classified as waste.

However, some sources have no demonstrably useful purpose at the time of their return; and with few exceptions, the Rule, as presently drafted, would subject each transaction to the judgment of government officials of two (or more) countries as to the economic usefulness of return sources. Moreover, proprietary considerations can produce wide differences of opinion in the value of used sources and raw material therefor; and our ability to import sources and raw material that we are able to store, modify and use should not be dependent either on the country of origin, or some other person's business judgment as to economic usefulness.

Since our export business is growing, our sales often entail the return of used sources that were initially produced by a competitor from another country.

Thus, the definition of radioactive waste as presently drafted is troublesome, and the Country of Origin exemption creates a serious barrier to our opportunities, the opportunities of other new entries, and the customer's freedom of choice.

nelJTROn PRODUCTS inc

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 21, 1992 Page 3 We are also concerned that the Proposed Rule may artificially restrain traffic in shielding products which contain depleted uranium. In the aggregate, tonnage quantities of depleted uranium metal are used in the shielding components of cancer therapy units (and prospectively other shields); and most of our reconditioned cancer therapy unit sales comprise the transfer of more than ten kilograms of DU. Depleted Uranium in dense metallic form is not a viable source material; it is not prudently regulated as either source material or radioactive waste; and in fact, it was decided long ago to generally license industrial products containing depleted uranium metal in massive form ("DUIP"),

However, we have recently been subjected to interpretations of that general license provision (allegedly from the Commission) which seem directed more toward trade restraint than to any rational concern for public health and safety.

Proposed Remedies

1. To whatever extent clarification is required, it should be made clear that industrial products and components that contain depleted uranium metal for its high density, and have been designed and produced in accordance with sound manufacturing practice, are subject to a general license; and are not to be treated as "radioactive waste" unless so desginated by its owner.

2. There is no rational basis for denying licensees such as Neutron the right to receive, store for extended periods, recycle, sell to others, and ultimately dispose of by-product material that is comparable in nature to finished sources (or raw material) that such licensees are authorized to manufacture in the ordinary course of business. Numerous alternative remedies are undoubtedly available, but we propose the following:

(a) Add to the definitions:

"Authorized By-product Manufacturer" means a person in any subscriber country that is duly licensed to possess and process by-product material in the form at issue to produce commercially useful products therefrom.

(b) Add to the definition of "Radioactive Waste" the statement:

"Regardless of actual or prospective economic value, country of origin, or any other consideration, sealed sources being returned to an Authorized By-product Manufacturer retain their designation as "sealed sources" and are exempt from this definition of "Radioactive Waste".

3. The language of proposed Section 110,27 would permit spent sources to be returned to the utilization facility of a user that has no ability to evaluate and refabricate such sources as may be required for long term safe storage; and nelJTROn PRODUCTS inc

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 21, 1992 Page 4 accordingly, it is probably too broad. We suggest that the language be clarified to authorize receipt spent sources, either by a consignee licensed to receive it as waste, or a manufacturer qualified to use, process or store the returned sources.

4. It seems likely that success in this effort requires that the Commission also undertake to assure that the other countries to the Agreement adopt rules and regulations which permit the waste management objectives to be met without the undue restraint of trade that this letter seeks to alleviate.

Undoubtedly, there are other (perhaps better) means of achieving the objectives we seek by this letter; and we are prepared to discuss alternatives to the extent that the Commission considers such discussions to be appropriate. Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly cc: Ronald Hauber, NRC JAR/B12 SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card ..................................

neLJTROn PRODUCTS inc

OOCKET NUMBER PR /

PROPOSED RU LE...:...:.:....1._..:...;.-m11t.

(_'51 FY( I 7 q-~ q)

,lJ CKL ; E USNRC STATE OF ILLIN0IS

'92 JUL 23 A11 :16 DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR SAF~ 'ff _Gi 1035 OUTER PARK DRIVE LOCK [ilNG *< :: t *'Vlf' I 1

.)r:.l- r,l u\ ~-

SPRINGFIELD, IL 62704 ~!~AN ',,;

(217) 785-9900 THOMAS W. 0RTCIGER JIM EDGAR DIRECTOR GovERNOR July 20, 1992 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Rule, "Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes";

10 CFR Part 110.57; Federal Register 17859 (April 25, 1992}

Dear Sir:

The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety has reviewed the above-referenced rule and offers the following comments:

1. We agree that import into, and export from the country of radioactive waste should only be conducted subject to specific licensure.

- 2. We believe that the NRC's responses to the concerns expressed by the various interstate low-level radioactive waste compacts and the states are appropriate.

3. We note that the proposed rule would commit the NRC to publish in the Federal Register notice of receipt of an application for a license to import radioactive waste. Many, if not all, of the Interstate Compacts also impose requirements regarding export of low-level radioactive waste from the compact region. We therefore suggest that notice of receipt of an application to export low-level radioactive waste as well.

4. In response to a concern expressed by the Southern States Compact, the NRC has stated that the NRC will inform interested Compacts and States prior to issuing a license to authorize the import or export of radioactive waste.

However, the proposed rule does not include such a commitment. We suggest that the NRC include in the rule a provision for soliciting comment by the affected interstate compact, prior to issuance of a license to import or export low-level radioactive waste. We also suggest that in the case of an application from an agreement state licensee the rule contain a specific provision for specifically informing the licensing authority of the Agreement SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card"...............................,

ll.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO~

DOCKfT:~G g. SERI/ICE SECTION Of;* iCf OF THE SECRETARY u:-= n:E CCMMISSlON Add" C1 1 t:* ' q ,-~ I' 1

• 't. 1.. i~(' -'-'111:- - - -

s*,9:;;2; C..:::: :* J.,~*,I ~

A.,Lv l,;e,r- -

n.>

I

Secretary of the Commission Page 2 July 20, 1992 State prior to issuance of the license, rather than by publication in the Federal Register.

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter.

Sincerely, TWO:cjg

lJ' t;I(.!: i rJJ~Jfot:H PROPOSED RULE / l0 L£7Frl. 11s-s Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 JUL 20 1992 Samuel L. Chilk Secretary of the Commis sion U.S. Nuclear Regu latory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (Attn: Docketing and Service Branch)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Enclosed for your consideration are comments on the Commission's proposed rulemaking on import and export of radioactive waste, as announced in the :F'ederal Re gister on April 26, 1992 ( 57 FR 17859). These comments were prepared by the Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Manageme nt (RW). If you have que stions, Dr. John Vlahaki s of RW may be contacted at 202-586 -

1464.

Sincerely, Raymond F. Pelletier Director Office of Environmental Guidance Enclosure SEP 18 1992 ...

Acknow\9dQed by cmd .._ ...............unmn

DOE,F 1325.B (B-a9}

EFG (07-90)

United States Government Department of Energy memorandum DATE: JUN 2 9 1992 REPLY TO ATTN OF:

RW-332

SUBJECT:

Proposed NRC Rulemaking on Import and Export of Radioactive Waste (57 FR 17859)

TO:

Raymond F. Pelletier, EH-23 In response to your memorandum of May 15, 1992, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW) has reviewed the subject proposed NRC rulemaking on import and export of radioactive waste (Attached). As part of that review, RW has also reviewed the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) of February 7, 1990, and its attached commentary.

RW beli eves that NRC intends to address the issue of import and export of low-level radioactive waste in the proposed rulemaking, rather than high-level waste.

However, this important distinction is not clearly stated either in the proposed rule, the ANPR, or the accompanying supplementary information. The following paragraphs explain the basis of our concerns and provide our recommendation.

The fourth paragraph of the section on Supplementary Information of the proposed rule states, "The ANPR reflected concerns that international transfers of radioactive waste to and from the U.S., in particular low-level radioactive waste (LLW), should be subject to more control." (Emphasis added). Furthermore, the proposed rule deals with matters concerning the roles and responsibilities of the states and Compacts (those entities which are preparing low-level radioactive waste reception and disposal facilities); indeed, the first section of comments is entitled, "General Comments by Low-Level Waste Compacts."

The content of and public comments to the ANPR deal exclusively with low-level radioactive waste.

Examples of this are numerous, but an abbreviated list is as follows; The sections on Supplementary Information and Proposed Options contain many references to the import and export of low-level wastes.

2

- Appendix A contains many statements which mention "disposal", "disposal facilities", "disposal site",

"low-level waste disposal site", "the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act"; all of which a re an indication that the control of low-level waste is intended.

- Appendix A also contains references to 10 CFR Part 61 which provides licensing requirements for land disposal of low-level radioactive wastes, but does not mention 10 CFR Part 60 on the disposal of high-level waste in geologic repositories.

Other comments and responses to the questions posed by the NRC in the ANPR make references to the rights and responsibilities of the states or regional Compacts which have jurisdiction over LLW. One specific comment in response to Question 4 of the ANPR stated that the intent of Congress under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1985 was to make the states responsible for their own wastes, not imported wastes. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) is not mentioned in this context, further reinforcing our contention that NRC is proposing rules for the control of the import and export of low-level, rather than high-level, radioactive waste.

Finally, the summary paragraph of the ANPR states, in part, " *** international transfers of radioactive wastes, particularly low-level wastes CLLWl. may not be properly controlled." (Emphasis added)

Because of the intention of the proposed rule to address low-level, and not high-level, radioactive wastes, we recommend that the definition of "radioactive waste" be revised as follows:

"Radioactive Waste means any material that contains or is contaminated with source material, special nuclear material or byproduct material , for which no wriimported s~t:Bxb.1&:rradioactive u::;;;:0w.!ll!lllll:

l lll!!91 1

:!;m:

material resul ting from any

~~:~ :,~uru foreign nuclear operation that, if operated in the United States, would be subject to the NRC's licensing authority, &fHi for which no use is 1ruiwi;;;i.1;:llllllillll1lllll~fiff:r::r§Y.itlli)iff§iiJ.;fii\HIIi

3 We also note that if high level waste (HLW) were intended to be covered by the subject rulemaking, the question of import of HLW is moot because there is no legally authorized place for its disposal in the U.S. The planned geological repository authorized by the NWPA is intended only for domestically generated HLW (ref. Sec. 302.(a) of NWPA).

Should you or your staff have any questions regarding these comments, please call Dr. John Vlahakis, RW-332, on 586-1464.

k Q~

P. Roberts Acting Associate Director for Systems and Compliance Attachment cc: G. Parker, RW-332 L. Desell, RW-331 J. Vlahakis, RW-332

DOCKET NUMBER PR / /

PROPOSED RULE_:_:..:::-~-

(5 @

ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER (__ 51 p",e_ /J f'fi'[J )3 Headquarters: 433 Orlando Avenue, State College, PA 16803 DOCKETt-n LISNRC L.;

July 8, 1992 Secretary of the Commission *92 JUL 20 p ,1 :,rn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RE: 57 FR 17859 : 10 CF'l<f>art 110 Washington, D.C. 20555 PrQp~s~d Rule: Import and

Dear Madam or Sir:

Ex~f f~, ~~1t;Ji~~~~i've Wastes The following comments on the NRC's draft Import/Export Rule are submitted on behalf of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power CECNP>, a Pennsyl-vania-based non-profit public-interest organization with a long-standing and active involvement in issues relating to nuclear power and radioactive waste management.* We incorporate by reference our comments on the NRC's ANPR on Import/Export (55 FR 4181) and request that they be reviewed and considered by the NRC Staff in concert with the present comments.**

The Commission's Proposed Rule is essentially a conformance with and adoption of international recommendations of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency CIAEA) approving a voluntary Code of Practice to guide Nation States in the development and harmonization of policies and laws on the international transboundary movement of radioactive waste. Commenting on this Proposed Rule is rather like responding to the question, "Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?" The premise is wrong.

The rule states that the NRC's decision to import and export radioactive wastes has already been made, and this rule confirms that that decision is in accord-ance with the September 1990 decision of the General Conference of the IAEA.

Our position is that the NRC should not, except in a very few extra-ordinary circumstances, permit international movements of any category of radioactive waste into and out of the United States. Certainly, with respect to low-level radioactive waste CLLRW) for which Congress has assigned disposal responsibility to the States, no State should be required to accept LLRW produced outside that State or its Compact or contractual region. The 1980 and 1985 Federal LLRW laws do not speak to LLRW importation or its export.

We urge the Commission, instead, to reject a policy that permits the United States to scatter the radioactive wastes generated, in our opinion, mistakenly in this country throughout the world, with little or no certainty of

• Our organization is represented on the Pennsylvania State Advisory Committee on Low-Level Waste, but these comments do not, nor are they intended to, represent the views of the Advisory Committee, the Department of Environmental Resources, or the Commonwealth. The association is mentioned only to indicate the extent of our concern with the subject of the Proposed Rule.

• • A computer hard disc problem prevents recovery of our comments on the ANPR (so much for high tech communications). They should, however, be available to the Staff in the PDR ANPR file; and we request that the Staff member who reviews these comments also obtain and review our Anpr Import/Export comment s which were previously submitted to the NRC. We ask also that ANPR comments received by the NRC from the Pennsylvania Chapter of Sierra Club, if any, a ls o be reviewed in conjunction with these ECNP comments.

SEP 18 l~~l.

Acknowledged by card ......... """'.....:=;.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOI\

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Po Date J/!3/ 9 ~

Rol1Md /~

~

~

2!5;010£ 11ber

the capability of a recipient nation to assure the safe isolation of the waste from the biosystem for the full hazardous life of the waste. This policy also allows an essentially unrestricted flow (i.e., requiring~ NRC approval) of radioactive wastes generated abroad into this country for "disposal," thereby turning our nation into an unlimited dumping ground for radioactive wastes produced worldwide. Imports should also be banned.

The only suitable characterization for such policies is that they are wrong, immoral, and reprehensible, if not criminal, in the extreme. They will in no way necessarily improve the management or assure the isolation of radioactive wastes for the duration of their biological toxicity. Existing Commission policies that permit import and export should be rescinded, and every effort directed instead to the abolition altogether of international trade and transport of radioactive materials and wastes.

Now, to address a halt to the beating of the spouse: while we disagree with the premise <NRC's import/export decision), ECNP offers the following comments.

General Comments on the Proposed Rule Under no circumstances should provisions of any international Code of Practice relating to transboundary shipments of radioactive materials and wastes among nations be merely voluntary. Participation in a traffic or commerce of radioactive wastes must be under the most stringent and accountable controls that the United Nations can devise. To turn over the decisionmaking for this extremely significant matter of public and worker health and safety and environmental protection to the IAEA is tantamount to guaranteeing that the regulation of the traffic will fail; the IAEA's promotional support for both the existing nuclear power and weapons industries and their expansion is well known. See, for example, its reports on the Chernobyl accident that failed to account for the extent of contamination, residual contamination, deaths, injuries to health, and disruption of sociopolitical and economic affairs. It is an agency not to be trusted with traffic in radioactive material and waste.

If, however, such radioactive materials and waste movements are to occur, by any and all means of transport (ship, airplane, train, truck or any other),

it is, of course, imperative that sending, receiving, and transit countries must receive ample prior notification, adequate information, and verification to enable them to handle the materials and wastes without release to the bio-sphere. They must also be fully empowered to set whatever restrictions they and/or their subnational units of government may wish or need to impose, includ-ing but not limited to method of transport; form and composition; concentration of radioactivity; packaging requirements; size, conditions, and timing of move-ment; and financial, ownership, liability, and verification requirements. The written consent and conditions must be obtained by the sending, transit, and receiving nations, with all contractual terms for each shipment agreed to among all affected and potentially affected nation states and their subnational governmental entities.

Contrary to some views noted by NRC in responses to its ANPR questions, formal international agreements and protocols should be adopted to govern all movements of rad~oactive materials and wastes. Each_Nation State should, how-ever, be able to set more, but not less, restrictive requirements. For ECNP's responses to other ANPR questions please revisit our ANPR comments (see above).

It must be noted that the use of the term "radioactive materials" as well as "radioactive wastes" in this Proposed Rule opens a concern that ECNP has previously addressed to Congress, NRC, the Appalachian Compact, and Pennsyl-vania's General Assembly, DER, and Environmental Quality Board: viz., U.S.

Federal LLRW law allows Compacts to exclude from a regional disposal facility radioactive wastes that are generated outside a Compact region, but is silent on the exclusion of radioactive materials that originate outside a Compact region. Importation of radioactive materials is only partially addressed in this proposed rule.

Moreover, the Proposed Rule still does not adequately clarify, for purposes of disposal, in what state an imported waste, or a radioactive material, will be considered to have been generated: port of entry, place of shipment to a licensee facility, locus of licensee's headquarters, or state in which licensee is incorporated? This unresolved matter is indicative of the kinds of problems that can be expected to be encountered on an international scale if NRC sanctions the conditions specified in this Proposed Rule.

NRC's concern for and control of nuclear proliferation are not enough. lt is now well known and understood -- although not appropriately recognized, adopted, or enforced, by IAEA or NRC -- that there is no safe threshold of radiation exposure CBEIR V; J.W. Gofman; D.W. Boardman; A.M. Stewart, et al.)

That being true, in our view no transboundary traffic in radioactive materials or wastes should be allowed. The potential for variations in standards and regulations, political and economic instability, lack of recognition of the health and environmental hazards posed by radioactive materials and wastes, abuses and loss of control is far too great. Particularly because individuals are not equipped to be able to detect the presence or intensity of radio-activity, these materials and wastes should be moved about as little as is possible. Reduction of production at the source should be the first priority and must become a permitting condition for any international or national radioactive materials and waste movements.

If any international shipments are authorized, economic factors should play no role in determinations of radioactive waste and materials movements.

Only those shipments that can be certified to be absolutely essential to the protection of health, safety, environment, and security should be considered for approval. The certified existence in the recipient nation of operating isolation facilities that have been proven (demonstrated in practice, not merely promised) to be safe and permanently effective for sequestration must be a precondition for any movements or issuance of necessity permits for movement.

The NRC's response to comments received on BRC indicates that the agency has not thought through the myriad problems associated with its own BRC policy statement(s) or the international implications of encouraging BRC anywhere by anyone. Deregulated wastes will, by definition, be impossible to control.

Comments on NRC's Overview of the Proposed Rule These comments are underlain by our strong overall opposition to the importation and exporting of radioactive materials and wastes. They respond to NRC's statements in the Proposed Rule but are not meant to support the NRC's decision to allow import/export.

1. A Final Rule must require that a specific license be issued by the regulatory agency, not just "require a person to file an application" for one.

2. The requisite information in the application must include not merely that "a disposal site operator had agreed to accept the [imported] waste," but that the affected agencies of government, including but not limited to Compact, Host State, and Host and Affected Municipalities, had supplied a written agreement and may impose additional more restrictive conditions and fees.

3. Information must also include the number of curies, concentration, and biological hazard and its duration. A complete Environmental Impact Statement must accompany each application and be published for public comment.

4. An FR notice of receipt of application must also guarantee and announce full opportunity for formal public comment and adjudicative hearing.

5. For any exports or export licenses, consultations and views must be solicited from the public, in addition to the Executive Branch, State Department, Federal and State agencies, and Compacts.

6. Contrary to assurances from, for example, the Acting Director of our state's Bureau of Radiation Protection that Compacts and Host States would be fully empowered to reject imported Cor export of) wastes, the NRC in this Overview clearly states that "The NRC would have exclusive jurisdiction for granting or denying all licenses." Which is it? Does a Host State or Compact have jurisdiction to exclude imported waste or not? If NRC grants an import license, which requires that a disposal facility be available, will its claimed preemptive authority over the states override any objections of a Host State or a Host Municipality to the disposal of imported waste within its borders? How would NRC export licenses affect a Host State that requires all LLRW generated within its boundary or its Compact region to be disposed of in its facility?

Does the NRC decision to allow export override the state's prohibition of it?

The Staff also states that" In the case of waste imports, the NRC would consult with interested States and **. Compacts prior to issuing a license and generally would not grant a license unless *.. the waste would be accepted by a disposal site and its host State and Compact." (emphasis added> This language negates assurances that a Host State -- and clearly a Host Municipality --

would be able to reject imported waste or retain wastes that NRC wishes to export. This is especially true for Compacts that can override the wishes of a Host State. NRC's claim of preemptive authority over the states again raises its threatening head. NRG must clarify in the Final Rule that a Host State and a Host Municipality, whether or not the Host State is an Agreement State, has full authority to deny access of imported waste to its facility.

7. The first criterion for NRC review (minimization of health, safety, and environmental impacts) does not indicate how minimization would be deter-mined. How would NRC compare and contrast U.S. vs. "the global commons"* in reaching a licensing decision? What would be the grounds for issuance and denial? To what competent court would a licensee outside the U.S. or a Nation State or a citizen of either a sending, transit, or receiving country appeal?

8. The second criterion for NRC review (acceptability to "the competent regulatory authority of the receiving country") would potentially exclude any role for those political entities and citizens of a recipient country who would be affected by the license issuance. A number of nations do not let half or more of their populations even vote, much less have a voice in these matters.

How is the "competence" of the regulatory authority of a sovereign foreign nation to be discovered and verified by NRC? By taking the word of its government? By NRC inspection? By an untrustworthy IAEA? This is not a minor point and must be clarified in a Final Rule.

9. Any export of radioactive waste is inimical to U.S. security: the waste passes out of control and jurisdiction for control or remediation of the U.S. In the event of transit accident or disposal facility failure, such waste may and eventually will enter the biosystem causing near- or long-term injury to humans or other forms of life. NRC neglects the fact that international boundaries have no barrier effect if radioactive releases occur but have a substantial impact on the actions that people take and on the political and economic decisions and conditions that affect waste management and isolation.

10. The NRC's comments on possession of the material (Is it now material that is to be imported and exported, or is it waste?) need to be withdrawn and reconsidered in light of the June 19th Supreme Court decision in the New York Take Title case. If waste was generated abroad, how are title, liability, and possession determined? If waste is exported, what legal recourse has the recipient nation or any subdivision thereof to the generator in the event of disposal failure? This recently altered major matter must be addressed.

Comment on "Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion" The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's categorical determination that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 110 is clearly an arbitrary and capricious misuse of agency author-ity and failure to assess environmental impacts carries a threat of personal injury, loss of use of and access to property, and other potentially negative and actionable consequences to affected persons. In the event of accident or disposal failure, the environmental effects of either importation of radio-active wastes into the United States, or export of such biologically hazardous wastes abroad, may be substantial, economically ruinous, long-lasting, and irreversible in their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.

• "Global commons" is a phrase and concept that we are pleased to see that NRC has finally adopted, although it must not be used, as is, for instance, the term "collective dose," to exclude due consideration of actual specific impacts upon an affected individual or community.

The potential for biological harm from radioactive materials and wastes and their permissible or accidental release is enormous and becomes ever greater so long as additional amounts of radioactive materials continue to be produced and moved about the face of the earth from place to place, encountering accidents, failures of control, or technical or economic or political inability to maintain them in isolation. For these reasons, it is imperative that all NRC actions be directed to curtailing and halting the generation of an ever increasing amount of all forms of radioactive waste. It is plainly evident that production and utilization of nuclear power causes radioactive wastes to be generated.

In the short fifty years since the production of radioactive waste began, we have accumulated an enormous quantity of both volume and radioactivity. We lack any demonstrated, proven capability to guarantee the isolation of these wastes from the biosystem for the full length of their hazardous lives. There is still not agreement among learned scientific experts even as to the duration of the biologically hazardous life of certain radioactive wastes, much less the competence of our barrier materials and facility designs and operations to accomplish their purpose.

The only responsible action possible for the NRC, therefore, is immediately to initiate a regulatory program that consists of three parts:

(a) First, drastic revision of all radiation protection standards to take into account recent information on the far greater adverse health effects both per unit of dose received and from chronic low-dose exposures and consequent internal emitters (zero tolerance must be recommended); and (b) An orderly but rapid phase-out of existing facilities and activities that generate radioactive wastes, in order to "bound the problem" -- by capping the total quantity of waste generated; then we can begin rationally to develop integrated programs to manage these wastes for their toxic life and minimize their negative biological effects; (c) Development of crash programs to redefine radioactive wastes in ways that will facilitate their short- and long-term management, and to replace the methods currently proposed for what is called "waste disposal" with integrated management systems designed to minimize the negative health, safety, and environmental effects from the wastes that have already been produced.

Comment on NRC's Regulatory Analysis

1. If any transboundary shipments are to be allowed, specific licenses must be mandatory, not voluntary.

2. The NRC's position that it has no jurisdiction to consider the impacts upon citizens of recipient nations is improper and immoral and without justification, despite the lame excuse offered. Such considerations of health, safety and environmental impacts on those persons and places that must bear the burdens of risk must be incorporated in all NRC import/export decisions.

3. Since, at page 17864, the NRC acknowledges that "certain types and quantities of radioactive materials, including possible shipments of low-level wastes, may be imported or exported without specifical authorization by the NRC and without NRC knowledge," the Commission cannot then claim, as it here does two sentences later, that "To the NRC's knowledge, there is no appreciable U.S. import or export traffic in radioactive waste." The NRC does not know how much waste is being imported and exported. Nor does it appear to have any idea how much radioactive material is being imported and exported that may later, some time, somewhere, be declared by someone to be radioactive waste.

Success in waste isolation -- which is, after all, the goal of these exercises -- is heavily dependent on knowing how much of what for how long one must plan, design, and build. In Pennsylvania, we have spent a good many years participating in these efforts, and yet the wastes, nuclear industry, and NRC all seem to be moving farther away from, not closer to, success.

• It is time for the NRC and the entire nuclear industry to admit that successful control of radioactive wastes may in fact be beyond our technological capability to retain in isolation from the environment. The potential biological damage from man-made radiation must be internalized in the real costs of nuclear energy.

4. No decisions relating to the safest management of radioactive wastes should be made on the basis of real or potential adverse economic effects upon licensees and others who profit from these activities. See the NRDC vlnyl chloride decision, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, c.1987. However, "acceptable risk" assessments and "margins of safety" are not suitable bases and should not be applied to waste disposal, in part because of the duration of the hazard and uncertainties of control. Zero tolerance must become the exposure standard.

5. Generators must be required to bear full financial responsibility for wastes that they cause to be created and full liability for damages that result from the existence of those wastes: internalize the externalities. All radio-active wastes must be retained in isolation, not deregulated or recycled in ways that increase either individual or population doses. It is the generator's responsibility to internalize all costs of all production externalities associated with health, safety, environmental impact, waste storage and long-term isolation. See the New York Take Title decision, Supreme Court, 1992.

6. NRC must not even attempt to remove or exempt from EPA's control regime any LLR wastes. If EPA's regulations are more protective than NRC's, so be it. However, the manner in which this issue is here raised indicates that it is the NRC's intent to provide a lame justification to exempt radioactive waste imports and exports from EPA's control. Such exemption is insupportable.

7. No wastes -- including sealed sources, source, byproduct or special nuclear material -- should be exempted from regulatory control and licensing.

Conversely, NRC should not be allowing waste imports and exports at all.

• It was troubling, at a recent meeting of Pennsylvania's contractor and advisory task force, that a utility representative claimed isolation of radio-active waste from the biosphere for its toxic life is not the goal of LLRW disposal. Is that NRC's view? If NRC instead shares our position on safe isolation, it should transmit that position to its reactor licensees.

Comments on the Wording of the Proposed Rule, 10 CFR 110

1. Part 110.2 Definitions:

a. "Radioactive waste" is defined as any material that contains or is contaminated *** , "for which no use is foreseen" and *** "would be subject to NRC licensing authority, and for which no use is foreseen." Foresight concerning no use is vague and its meaning may be considered open to interpretations that would in actual practice permit the import and export of radioactive materials that are only later declared to be radioactive wastes. This is precisely the loophole in the U.S. law that concerns those of us who wrestle with the disposal problem in Host States. A Final Rule must clarify, inter alia, that these materials have been declared by the generator or user, and certified by the sender nation state to be, radioactive waste. U.S. Host States need this clarification badly, even if most have not yet faced this one.

b. This Section has no definition of "Disposal." The Part 61 definition tails to include language concerning the duration of isolation, and also limits the "biosphere" to that which is "inhabited by man and containing his* food chains." The presence or absence of "man" -- human beings -- and uses of land for food both vary tremendously over time. What part of the earth does the NRC exclude from having a role in "food chains"?

c. As tor "emplacement in a land disposal facility," this definition must include above grade and above ground facilities if those are what a Host State chooses to require. This modification must be clarified.

d. "Public health and safety" cannot be restricted to only that of the United States. It is insulting to the rest of the world as well as inappropriate to the need. Is the health and safety of Mexicans and Canadians of no importance to the NRC? They will again see the NRC in court if the Commission thinks not.

2. Part 110.21 Export of special nuclear material:

a. We are deeply uneasy about import/export of special nuclear material, shifting it about from one country and consignee to another. The quantities of plutonium, for example, in transit from and to Japan are substantial enough to cause a terrible environmental catastrophe in the event of an unanticipated event, which is to say an accident. NRC should be discouraging or prohibiting such shipments, rather than encouraging them, especially in view of the new U.S. decision to halt plutonium production, and apart from returning nuclear weapons to this country for dismantling and waste isolation.

b. At Part 110.21Cb)C2), in the absence of an available U.S. TRU disposal facility Cthe failure of DOE's WIPP>, the U.S. should halt further shipments of fuel elements abroad that must later be returned to the U.S. for disposal

• NRC should revise all of its regulations to remove gender language that is inappropriate.

<Keep in mind that "disposal" means "isolation"). The lack of specificity with respect to the timing of the return of spent or damaged fuel elements that are sent under export licenses is also troubling: what's "a reasonable time period" in a world where development of nuclear weapons remains a basic threat to U.S.

and world peace and security? The Rule should include a time limit for return.

3. Part 110.31 Information required in license applications:

a. The wording of Subpart 110.31(f)(5) in the Proposed Rule does not clarify the requirement that a license applicant provide certification of guaranteed ultimate disposition of the waste. This Subpart seems to call for just a report of "status of the arrangements for that disposition." Applicant must be required to supply a contract with a Regional LLRW Compact Commission or state to accept the waste <not, as is stated, the "material") for disposal.

b. This same Subpart (f)(S) raises another question about what "state" is meant here: is it the Host State of a Compact? Any Party State of a Compact?

A go-it-alone State? Can any State agree to take wastes (and materials? ) from abroad, then pass them on to the Host State of a Compact to which that state belongs or to a Sited State's facility with which a state may have a contract to take its waste for disposal? Clarify this point in the Final Rule.

4. Part 110.44 Issuance or denial of licenses:

a. At Subsection Cc>, what criteria are to be applied in the Commission's "statutory determinations required under the Atomic Energy Act"? A citation to the applicable portions of the Act or a listing of criteria should be added.

b. ln the same Subpart, after the Comm i ssion decides not to approve a license, is the President, to whom the license application is then submitted, empowered to allow a license to issue in disregard of the NRC's findings?

c. What provisions apply to Commission decisions regarding license applications for the export of byproduct material or radioactive waste, if not the ones cited in this paragraph; why a different treatment of export licenses?

ECNP hopes that these comments will be of utility to the NRC Staff. We restate our firm belief that NRC should stop the practices of importing and exporting radioactive wastes, with only very few severely limited exceptions.

So long as traffic in these wastes and, evidently, materials continues, the risks of transport accident, improper management and isolation, and damage to people, land, and other elements of the biosystem will remain unacceptable and will increase over time as amounts of waste increase and, for some, the money and other resources to care for them diminish.

Sincerely, I, Jud~t~H. Johnsrud, certify !uh~ / 1~~

that this document was placed in /udith H. Johnsrud, Ph.D.

the U.S. Mail, first class postage Director, ECNP paid, before 9:00 p.m., on Monday, July 13, 1992.

DOCKET NUMBER ng Jf 0 PROPOSED RULE r -

LUL I\L1LQ USNRC cs 7 f (l /7 8- 5Cf) @

8606 Pilgrim Court

• 92 JUL 16 P4 :21 Alexandria, VA 22308 July 13, 1992 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

- Attn: Docketing and Service Branch REF: 10CFR Part 110, RIN 3150-AD36 Gentlemen:

I have reviewed the proposed rule and believe it does not adequately address problems and some of the comments on the Advance Notice for this proposed rule.

The most fundamental problem in this proposed rule, in the Advanced Notice and in the IAEA code of practice referenced in both documents is the defect in the definition of "radioactive waste". The "no use is foreseen" is subjective. It ls assumed but not established that "use" means technologically and radiologically "effective use" by persons whose motives are driven by concern for health and safety of persons and environment beyond the exporters immediate sphere of interest.

The technically and disadvantaged importing country should not be taken advantage of by an exporter who foresees no use of a product and uses export as an economic advantage over domestic disposal of waste.

In some cases, potential "users" in some foreign countries may not be under the controls of officials with adequate technical and radiological expertise and ethics might be a concern. It may be difficult for NRC to dete~mine the adequacy of the regulatory controls of uses in a foreign country.

Determination is more complicated if an export shipment is not identified by a licensee as being a waste. As described in the proposed rule, the State Dept. is the obvious U.S. agency for resolving problems of this type with a foreign country. However, persons such as the customs or transportation inspectors may encounter shipments of questionable in.t.e.nded use. --Those inspectors' agencies should be able to initiate efforts to have the State Dept. determine the validity of the stated intents of the exporter or importer.

SEP 18 1992 Acknowledged by card .....,.twi~u*;,.,.;,.;,.;vvii,

' i  : ,*1 . . \t .! * .

~

) I)~ *

,...' ~ ._1 ("

,*, Ir. ,. '*'

~ ., -::.

.1

,\ .n I

.,. *~J

• l 1, r, - j ..

i 11 \ I

.* . ) l!t J .

f

., 1' J II vl ., . ) ' -~

J :.> I '

• I d I l

• I

, 1 ... ., ,'

.*

• t t *. t. ,1** I, *1 n X

• l 11 f. *l

,.

• 1 .,i-,

Documar,t ~tatistics' *I -~

Postmark 0::0 -'-"'7... . . . .,._S_./__'f._L_._*_~~ i I '1' Copi:s Rac-Ji~*ed __.._.....,_________  ; .JI 'I Afld'l Copies Re~roducoa _________ i .J,.

Special Distrit>tJtiOn_,./=l:P_.. *~..,;.+!~ _12,µ;~==,*,'*-*_

H~hbr-* .

• I ** .. I

'I.

The proposed rule does not seem to resolve all the guestions raised about "import" and "export" related to low-level waste compacts. The international import and export must be compatible with the restrictions of the compacts. Some problems might be resolved by alternative use of the words ," passage through a compact" rather than "import" and "export " .

The final rule has no explanation of the activity limits for the AM-241 and Tritium export allowances.

I hope these comments will be meaningful to the preparation

- of a final rule or an amended proposed rule.

Sincerely,

~~~~-----

ABHP Certified Health Phys c st

PR

..,.~-*

b aoti U.S. Council for Energy Awareness

=i DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE CS7 Ffl t7 s-s9)

Suite400 1776 IStreet, N. W Washington, D.C. 20006-3708 (202) 293-0770 Marvin S. Fertel JU. P t 1992 00 c:<STING & FAX (202) 785-4019 Vice President, Technical Programs  ;,;."1 \

'?, e,[R'_l!CE 8AARNCH (202) 785-4113

/ ,',

• SEOY-N 0 July 13, 1992 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Reference:

"Import and Export of Radioactive Waste" (57FR17859)

Proposed Rule, Request for Comments

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The comments are submitted by the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness (USCEA) on behalf of its Facility Operations Committee. They are in response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) request for comments on the proposed rule on Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes.

In this response, USCEA is providing the perspective of its mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, and fabrication members. It also represents the view of its low-level waste disposal site operators, transportation members, as well as its radionuclides and radiopharmaceutical members. These members operate under NRC licenses. USCEA also endorses the comments submitted by Edison Electric Institute/Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program on behalf of its utility members.

The proposed rule raises two issues. First the introduction of a new definition of radioactive waste, and second a concern that the processing of radioactive materials could inappropriately be designated as waste.

This proposed regulation has introduced a new definition of radioactive waste which is not consistent with the existing regulations. Low-level radioactive waste and high-level radioactive waste are presently defined in other NRC regulations. The definition provided in this proposed regulation is not consistent with the existing regulations. USCEA recommends that the NRC use the existing low-level radioactive waste definition which is contained in 10 CFR 61 . This will eliminate confusion. The NRC's analysis indicated this proposed regulation applies only to low-level waste as high-level waste is already covered in other regulations.

SEP 18 1992 AcknCMJedged by card.-.........."""""""'"

L,... ' ::~G*JLA WRY COMMISSIO~

L- * - ,:~G 3, SERVICE SECTION U-f!CE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics PostmarkData 2/ 15 /t:Ji--- F~...~eJ dh. 7/,3/'rl-Copics Received /

Add'I Copies Rep_ro_du_C_ed-'-~

Special Distribution fL:J: ~ p/J /!

H4L< ~et:: -:;

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk.

July 13, 1992 Page Two The definition could also impose potential problems associated with the processing of radioactive materials within the states or overseas. The nuclear industry operates in an international market. Moving materials internationally continues to become more and more complex. The processing of radioactive materials for recovery of valuable material, either the radioactive or non-radioactive component could be an important part of this international business. The NRC should be careful in the implementation of their requirements to ensure that material that is shipped into or out of the country for "scrap recovery" is not labeled as waste, potentially limiting the usefulness of the material for recycling. Such material might be more appropriately designated as resource recovery materials, rather than simply "waste." The industry recognizes that the waste generated through the scrape recovery process must and would be appropriately handled.

If you have any questions concerning this response please contact Felix Killar or me.

Sincerely, Wa-i---E-~

Marvin S. Fertel cc: Felix M. Killar, Jr.

US Ecology, Inc.

9200 Shelbyville Road , Suite 300 P.O. Box 7246 DOCKET NUMBER PR /

PROPOSED RULE _ _ __

IO Louisville, Kentucky 40257-0246 502/426-7160 (5 7 f fl / 7 ~ 5 Cf) t r I-'; * *

• 92 JUL 14 P4 :11 USEcology an American Ecology company July 13, 1992 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Sir:

US Ecology, Inc. offers the following comments regarding the proposed rule titled "Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes," which appeared in the April 28, 1992 Federal Register.

1. LLRW is no more hazardous (generally less so) than the sealed sources and radiopharmaceuticals which are now covered by the general license requirements of 10 CFR Part 110. Imports and exports of LLRW should be regulated in the same fas hi on as these other materials. In whatever fonn the rule is promulgated, import and export of all radioactive materials should be handled consistently. Requirements necessary for one should be necessary for all.

2. The proposed rule is disturbingly non-specific. If specific licenses are to be required, there should be a specific licensing procedure.

What are the standards for issuance? What are the forms and demonstrations required in the application? What are the timeframes allowed for regulatory review and decision making? Who has the licensing authority, and what are the provisions for appeal? All of these details should be addressed in the proposed rule.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please contact me at l -800-999-7160 with any questions.

Sincerely,

~,~

Harry J. Newman Deputy Chief Radiological Control and Safety Officer SEP l 8 1992 HJN:njc(l277s/98)

Acknowledged by card ............................. ~...

~ Recycled Paper

U.S. 1-., . , ** * * ._, j~r.~1PS:.10h 0().' * ,,.. t ~:~RV:CE ..:ECTIOiJ

, j., iCE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMM!SSION Document Sta'istics Postmark D,.'1 2 / 13 }~ H_',{0, ~n.., 7//Jfl}-

Ccpics R-:Jccived _ _~ - - - - -

Add'I Copies Reproduced -'--J_ _ _ __

Special Distribution fl:J;IJ~ 11'00:; -

~II'-

,:a~__

p."'l'E Etv N_E_w_v_o_R_K_S_T_A_T_E_E_N_E_R_G_v_o_F_F_1_c_E________FR_A_~-~-'~-~-*,:_su_,~_~_:~_*_JR_._

V -; NU.~BER PR

-:r-J RULE . .:. .:~-...,;;---

c~ 7 Fr< 17a51) July 13, 1992 JUL 14 1992 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk DOCKETING &

Secretary SERVICE BRANCH SECY-NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 I I

--,-~'L ATTN: Docketing & Services Branch -----

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter is in response to the request for comments on a proposed rulemaking on the import and export of radioactive wastes (10 CFR Part 110) as outlined in the April 28, 1992, Federal Register notice.

New York State agrees that the present use of a general license for the export and import of radioactive waste should be discontinued. While we agree that it is necessary to remove the inconsistencies in the current regulations that may permit imported radioactive wastes to be subject to less regulatory control than domestically produced waste, we feel this can best be done through the use of a specific license as is currently being proposed. Indeed, additional control over international commerce in radioactive materials is necessary and will be consistent with international and domestic guidance and regulations.

However, New York feels that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission also should consider offering the import and export licensing program to the agreement states for administration over its licensees. While we believe that the establishment of a specific import and export license administered by the NRC is a solution, in agreement states this would require material licensees to possess two licenses: one for regular operations and another for import/export activities which might only be carried out occasionally.

The same objective could be carried out more efficiently in agreement states under already well-established transfer regulations set forth in the agreement states specific license. Certainly, if states can regulate state-to-state transfers of waste, they are equally competent to oversee international movements. However, we feel the program should not be offered as a matter of compatibility for all agreement states, but offered as an optional program similar to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA). In this way, if there are any specific requirements for recording waste movements, the NRC could establish them in a manner similar to UMTRCA.

TWO ROCKEFELLER PLAZA

• ALBANY, NEW YORK 12223 SEP 18 1992 518-473-4375

@ Acknowledged by card--.............._

', _;:..,l_;J'CRY COMMISSIOt-.

. ;~: i~ 5c=RVICE SECTION

• ">:: *::.r= T1*r= SECRETARY c:. Tdi:: C0!<.~:.1:S3!0N

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 2 July 13, 1992 New York appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments.

/ta cc: Frank Murray

July 13, 1992 COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC. ( "OCRE " )

ON PROPOSED RULE, "IMPORT AND EXPORT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES," 57 FED. REG. 17859 (APRIL 28, 1992)

OCRE supports this proposed rule. The proposed rule will strengthen the NRC's controls over radioactive wastes being imported or exported. This rule is necessary to ensure that the health and safety of Americans, and of people throughout the world, and the global environment, are properly protected. This rule will conform NRC policies with the IAEA recommendations. The need for this rule has been well documented in this Federal Register notice and in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (55 Fed. Reg. 4181 (2-7-90)). The NRC has appropriately chosen Option 3, specific licensing, of the four options discussed in the ANPR, as this option gives the NRC the most control over transboundary shipments of radioactive waste. OCRE urges the NRC to adopt this rule expeditiously.

Respectfully submitted, Susan L. Hiatt Director, OCRE 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060-2406 (216) 255-3158 I *

). I" 4, o \ *

• 11/f ~

• t SEP 18 199Z Acllnovflqect by card ...........,N ...................

~ ... *-~ ft.

. . ~'

1 ' .. * ..

U.S. NUCLEAf{ i-1EGULATORY COMMISSIOI'.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECT!ON OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMM!CSION Document St::'istics Postmark Dat3 7/J 7 / 1}-- W j e,,l. Oh 1 / J3/'r.J-Copics Recc!v~d_.....__ _ _ _ _ __

Add'I Copios Reproduced ___.3 _ ____

Special Distribution ek~ /)() Jl. 1

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington D.C. 20004-2696 Telephone 202-508-5750 DOCKETED USNRC (j)

• 92 JUL 13 ? 5 :41 EDISON ELECTRIC LORING E. MILLS INSTITUTE )lice rresident, Nuclear<A'tlivities 1r.r.

July 13, 1992 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Edison Electric Institute/Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program Comments on Definition of "Radioactive Waste" Contained in NRC Proposed Rule on Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes.

57 Fed. Reg. 17,859 (April 28, 1992)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The following comments are being submitted on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute/Utility Nuclear Waste and Transportation Program (EEI/UWASTE) in response to the Federal Register notice referenced above.

EEi is the association of the nation's investor-owned electric utilities. Its members generate approximately 78% of the nation's electricity. EEI/UWASTE is a separately funded activity within EEi representing the vast majority of electric utilities with nuclear energy programs. EEI/UWASTE takes actions necessary to ensure that safe, environmentally sound, publicly acceptable, and cost-effective radioactive waste management and disposal, and nuclear materials transportation systems are maintained and developed in a timely manner.

EEI/UWASTE's comments focus on one particular aspect of the proposed rule: the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 110.2 defining the term "radioactive waste". The proposed definition is not consistent with the definitions of related terms (i.e.

"waste", "low-level radioactive waste", "high-level waste") presently contained in other NRC regulations and applicable federal statutes. Although the proposed definition would only be applicable to 10 CFR Part 110, EEI/UWASTE is concerned that this new definition of radioactive waste could be adopted in other NRC regulations or guidance without a sufficient consideration of the implications and could lead to unnecessary confusion among licensees and other parties.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 13, 1992 Page 2 Additionally, the proposed new definition is rather vague and has not been sufficiently evaluated in the proposed rulemaking background material.

The following definition appears in the proposed rule:

Radioactive waste means any material that contajns or is contaminated with source material, special. ouclear material or byproduct material, for which no use is foreseen ... (57 FR 17865).

While EEI/UWASTE recognizes that this definition is derived from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voluntary Code of Practice, the principle of defining radioactive waste based upon whether "use is foreseen 11 is, to our knowledge, unprecedented in existing NRC regulations and applicable federal law. At present, radioactive wastes are defined in NRC's regulatory program in a manner that parallels the way they are regulated by the NRC. Thus, there is no broad definition for the terms 1waste11 or 11radioactive waste,i' because there are few requirements applicable to 'wastes11 as a generic category of regulated materials. Instead, NRC regulations provide specific requirements for the possession, handling and management of 11high-level waste11 and "spent fuel" (10 CFR Part 60), and for low-level waste (10 CFR Part 61).

Furthermore, the purpose of the proposed import/export rule is to address only low-level waste. The definition in the IAEA Code of Practice is much broader and could encompass other materials not defined as low-level waste in the U.S.,

including high-level waste and spent fuel. 1 Thus, rather than tailor the rule to the precise terms of the IAEA Code of Practice, NRC should assure that the import/export rule closely coincides with the national definition of low-level waste.

In NRC's low-level radioactive waste disposal regulations (10 CFR Part 61), NRC defines 1waste11 and "low-level radioactive waste11 in accordance with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980, as amended. The Act defines "low-level radioactive waste" to mean radioactive material that:

(A) is not high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material (as defined in section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2))); and 1 The Code of Practice excludes only spent fuel "which Is not intended for disposal*

from the definition of *radioactive waste.a

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 13, 1992 Page 3 (8) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, consistent with existing law and in accordance with paragraph (A), classifies as low-level radioactive waste.

The foreseeability of a particular use for a material is not a component of this definition. Similarly, the definition of 11 high-level waste11 found in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and incorporated by NRC in 10 CFR Part 60 does not refer to whether a use for the material is foreseen.

While EEI/UWASTE agrees with the apparent practical objectives sought by NRC in adopting the 1AEA definition - ensuring consistency with international standards and not unnecessarily impeding the importation or exportation of radioactive materials that are not wastes - we are concerned that the proposed definition may become incorporated into other NRC regulations or guidance and may lead to confusion among NRC and Agreement State licensees, states, and interstate low-level radioactive waste compacts.

A similar new definition for radioactive waste appears in the NRC proposed rule entitled 11 Low-Level Waste Shipment Manifest Information and Reporting 11 published in the Federal Register on April 21, 1992 (57 FR 14500). That proposed rule defines a 11waste generator* as a licensee who 11 possesses any material or component, for which no further use by the licensee is foreseen, that contains radioactivity or is radioactively contaminated .... 11 This proposed definition raises a number of significant questions that will be addressed in the EEI/UWASTE comments on the proposed uniform manifest rule. We are also raising the issue in the context of the import/export rule to highlight our concern that the proposed definition for radioactive waste represents new NRC thinking that could have Implications beyond the proposed changes to Part 110.

EEI/UWASTE does not believe that any redefinition of the term "low-level waste11 is necessary. Even if the NRC felt that such a redefinition was appropriate, due to the broad potential regulatory Implications, such redefinition should not be undertaken within the context of a narrowly-focused rulemaking like the import/export or uniform waste manifest rules. The proposed new definitions are not being subjected to the appropriate level of scrutiny by NRC, licensees, states, compacts and other affected parties. These rulemakings do not examine the rationale for the new definitions or the practical implications of such changes.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 13, 1992 Page 4 Furthermore, the concept of foreseeability is too vague. The proposed rule does not address questions such as 11what party determines the foreseeability of further use of a radioactive material?', 11when is such a determination to be made?' and 11 how should mixtures of useful materials and non-useful materials be addressed?".

Without ? detailed consideration of these and other questions during the notice and comment process, there is a risk that licensees, states, compacts, NRC and others may interpret key provisions of the proposed rules differently, leading to an undesirable inconsistency and nonuniformity in some radioactive material and waste management practices.

EEI/UWASTE recommends that NRC adopt a definition of "radioactive waste" in section 110.2 that corresponds to the definition in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended and 10 CFR Parts 61, by eliminating language invoMng the foreseeability of use of a radioactive material. At a minimum, NRC should specify clearly in the statement of considerations that the definition of "radioactive waste11 included in the proposed revision to 10 CFR 110.2 represents a departure from the established NRC and statutory definitions for the purpose of ensuring consistency with the IAEA definition, applies only to the importation and exportation of radioactive waste, and has no bearing on other NRC regulations or related guidance documents.

EEI/UWASTE appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mike Alissi of my staff at 202/508-5513.

Sincerely

~

Loring E.

2,71A ills Vice P ent, Nuclear Activities LEM/mat Enclosure

Amersham Corporation DOCl~ET NUMBER PR / / O Pr1:)i-'0SEO RULE..!..!=-....:....;......--

2636 South Clearbrook Drive Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005-4692 [ 57 FIZ t 7 5r-' 51) DOCl'i[i LO USNi~C (708) 593-6300 July 9, 1992 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville MD 20852

Dear Secretary:

I am writing on behalf of Amersham Corporation/Medi + Physics to provide comments on NRC's proposed rule on Import and Export Radioactive Wastes 10 CFR Part 110 which was published in the Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 82, Tuesday, April 28, 1992 pages 17859-17866.

Amersham Corporation supplies a wide variety of radioactive materials including sealed sources to life science researchers in universities, medical schools, research institutes and industry, and for numerous industrial applications. Amersham Corporation has facilities in Illinois, Massachusetts and Louisiana. Medi + Physics is an Amersham company that supplies Health Care products such as radiopharmaceuticals and sealed radiation sources for both diagnostic and therapeutic applications. Medi+ Physics has facilities in Illinois and New Jersey and 18 nuclear pharmacies throughout the United States.

The following are our comments:

1) We are in agreement with the NRC position expressed in the Supplementary Information in the Federal Register that there be provision for the return of sealed sources, gauges and similar items to a manufacturer (either in the U.S. or another country) under the general license. This would allow for reconditioning, recycling or other reuse of the radioactive material. Amersham has been recycling/reprocessing some sealed sources for a number of years, but greater emphasis is now being placed on this activity. We have recently instituted a source recycling program. We believe that reprocessing/recycling is environmentally sound and responsible, particularly in view of the current world-wide shortage of some radionuclides. We agree that the return of sealed sources, gauges and similar equipment should be exempt from the specific licensing requirements for imported and exported radioactive wastes.

JUL 16 1992 Acknowledged by card"*""--'""'"""""

I .* . * :"~ *. ::.:_:;.: *i.r:y

~- *......~1~, :.~:? ': ,( j;\!

• -* ;:,~ :, :.. : ::; _( _ ~ .gs_$--1!1 IA

• 1:2/ Cf I4J-

.-. * *::. r:.*~::*. ,-1 __')_ _____ __ _

.( _

1

, ,, ;:t ~:; : *: _;;. r }:;~~:,_;{! -'3 ~------

Secretary July 9, 1992 Page 2

2) We strongly recommend that the authority to import and export sealed sources is not limited to return to the original manufacturer, but expanded to include other source manufacturers. This would provide for those instances where the original manufacturer is no longer in business, and help to ensure that the sources are handled responsibly and not abandoned.

3) Although the Supplementary Information and Regulatory Analysis discuss the advantages of permitting the return of sealed sources, gauges and similar equipment to a consignee in the country of origin, without the need for a specific import or export license from the NRC, this is not stated in the Proposed Rule.

We recommend that the proposed definition for "Radioactive Waste" is revised to specifically exclude sealed sources, gauges etc. being returned for reconditioning, recycling or reprocessing. This would remove ambiguity and prevent Mure misunderstanding and regulation beyond what was intended.

4) If the revised definition we have recommended for "Radioactive Waste" in Section 3 above is not adopted, then we urge that the exemption of sealed sources, gauges and other equipment containing radioactive material and similar medical and industrial items from the specific import/export licensing requirements is specifically stated in the final rule.

We appreciate the opportunity NRC has provided for comments on the proposed rule.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions concerning our comments. I shall be pleased to discuss them with you and may be reached by phone at 708/593-6300, extension 379.

Bryaf: aker, Ph.D.

Manager, Environmental and Safety Regulatory Affairs cem

PAoPosEoFiuLe' PR 110 C~7 F- R I 71rS9)

FUEL. CYCLE FACILITIES FORUM .

01Y1d G. Culberson

• Chairman Donald A. Barbour

• Secretary

• 92 JUL -6 A11 :05 1 July 1992 Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch RE: "Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes" (Federal Register; Vol. 57, No. 82, 28 April 1992)

Dear Sir:

The Fuel Cycle Facilities Forum, an industrial consortium of current and former fuel fabricators and other source material processors formed to address decontamination and decommissioning issues (listing of member companies attached), recognizes the general desirability of conforming US regulations to the IAEA Code of Practice. We believe, however, that the rule proposed by the NRC to effect this should be modified and clarified in several important ways.

Congress, in enacting the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA), recognized individual state responsibilities for L.L.W. management but deliberately attempted to encourage and promote more economical and effective regional solutions. In spite of difficulties and delays in developing a national, regionally oriented management system pursuant to the LLRWPAA, the wisdom of the regional (compact) approach remains widely accepted. The FCFF contends that the same principle is applicable on the international level: that there are environmental and economic benefits to the encouragement and facilitating of cooperative international solutions to L.L.W.

management problems.

We believe that the NRC's proposed rule, and the analysis by which it was developed, takes too narrow a view of waste management, generally, either explicitly or implicitly , equating it with disposal. Many of its arguments do make sense from this 1 imited perspective, but they are not relevant or applicable to three areas of waste management which are rapidly growing in importance: volume reduction, treatment (stabilize, remove hazardous components , etc.) and resource recovery . These practices are receiving increasing attention both in the U.S. and in other countries as new technologies are being developed and as rising waste disposal costs make them ever more feasible and cost-effective.

• ;:11 ~OMMlSSION

~l\.*.,.t: t tl\,..: ~ ~t::RvJCE ~ION

1E

ECRETAR Y

. , i : ,_ cor.1Miss10N DGcumer,t Statistics FJstmaik Oare / /:L/'Jb Copie;; Receive<l _ _/_ c:: : ;, 1- - - - -

Add't Coples Reproduced c,,6---- - - - -

Sileetal Oistritxition ~ f!25JP/Jl2,

- f5&tVC5) 1 -~* tJ~ u l,e,~

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 1 July 1992 In many cases the economic viability of new capital intensive tr eatment facilities depends on the scale of their operation and the volume of material to be processed. For the same basic reasons that it would be environmentally unwise and economically unsound to require each and every state to operate a separate L.L.W. disposal facility, it would be unwise and unsound to expect each individual country to establish and operate volume reductio n, treatment and resource recovery processing facilities solely for its own wastes.

We believe that volume reduction, treatment and resource recovery should be encouraged inter na tionally as well as nationally. One technique for promoting these activities would be to avoid the imposition of any unnecessary restrictions or barriers to the free movement of candidate materials. While regional L.L.W. compacts may have a legitimate interest in controlling or prohibiting the importation of waste for burial at their disposal facilities, there is no apparent reason why they should be able ( or disposed) to restrict the movement of waste consigned to a processing facility, where radwaste disposal was not contemplated and the processed waste was to be returned (exported) to the o rigi nal shipper. The acceptance criteria for the waste and the processing parameters would be governed by the license of the facility. An example of such a volume reduction tr ansa ction might involve a foreign fuel fabricator with a U.S. subsidiary that had a licensed incinerator (or visa versa). The parent company might ship combustible D.A.W.

to its U.S. facility for incineration and return of the ashes.

Such activities should be allowed to proceed without the delays, expense, and uncertainties of requiring a special import license for- the D.A.W. (and presumably a separate export license for the ashes). The generator's activities are regulated by his license.

The processor's operations are controlled by his facility license.

The shipment of the waste is governed by transportation regulations. Thus, there is already complete regulatory control over this material throughout the process, and it would be redundant to introduce additional regulatory controls. If information is needed by NRC in order to monitor the extent of such transactions, the establishment of a reporting require men t would be much less expensive and less intrusive .

With respect to resource recovery, other issues must be considered as well. A material that would be a waste if consigned to disposal is arguably not a waste, but rather a raw material, feed S t O C k , 0 r 11 0 re , 11 i f p race S S e d t O re C O V e I" i t S C On S t i t U e n t S

• FO I" example, magnesium fluoride slag from the r-eduction of depleted uranium tetrafluoride to metal contains several percent DU and is commonly buried as a L.L.W. If the uranium were recovered for reuse , the magnesium fluoride could be sold as a commodity or be

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 1 July 1992 further broken down and marketed as magnesium metal and hydrofluoric acid. We know of cases where European processing of such mate ri als has been proposed, and transatlantic shipments have been made to support pilot scale processing. The FCFF believes that mate ri als to be subjected to resource recovery should not be defined or considered as wastes and should not be burdened with the r equirement fo r import and export licenses. If, in ou r pr evious volume reduction example, incineration was followed by an acid leaching step to recover the en ric hed ur anium, this would also become a r esou rc e recovery ope r ation and the initial D.A.W. could be viewed as a feed mate ri al and not as a waste.

In our view, the c riti cal de t e rmi nant is not the nature of the initial "waste" to be shipped, but the operat i ons that will be performed on it by the consignee. The proposed rule may be justified for waste be i ng shipped for disposal. It would be inappropriate, unnecessa r y, and counterproductive if it was applied to wastes destined for either volume reduction and return to the 11 11 country of origin or for resource r ecove r y.

It is not clear from NRC's discussion and analysis whether, in the 110 . 2 defini ti on of "Radioactive waste, processing a mate ri al 11 to recover constituents would constitute a "fo r eseen use" that would exclude a "material that contains or is contaminated with source mate ri al, special nuclea r mate ri al or byp r oduct mater-ial 11 from the definition. We believe that the NRC should add r ess this question directly and should modify the definition, if necessary, to insure that r- esource recovery is recognized as a legitimate use that exempts such materials from export and import controls applied to wastes.

The FCFF also recommends that Part 110 be r- ewor-ded so that export and import licenses a r e not required for shipments of waste containing or contaminated with special nuclea r mater-ial, source material, and byp r oduct material to treatment or volume r eduction facilities unde r contracts that specify return of the processed waste to the country of origin (except for incidental or secondary wastes, e.g. contaminated HEPA filters, protective clothing, etc.,

gener-ated during the pr ocessing). This could be accomplished by cha ng ing the wording of paras. 110.21(c), 110.22(d), and 110.23(d) to read "othe r than *** in radioactive waste that is being, or- will be, r eturned to the country of ori gin *** 11 Pa r ag r aph 110.27(6) should likewise be amended to r ead 11

• • • impo rt of r adioactive waste, othe r than r adioactive waste that is being *** or that will be returned, after processing, to the countr-y of origin.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 4 1 July 1992 The FCFF believes that the changes suggested herein wi 11 not detract from meeting NRC's objectives for controlling the import and export of L.L.W. for disposal purposes. We contend that incorporation of these changes into the rule will help to encourage desirable and beneficial volume reduction, treatment and resource recovery initiatives and fruitful international cooperation and solutions to L.L.W .manag ement.

Sincerely, Donald A. Barbour Secretary, Fuel Cycle (Nuclear Metals, Inc.

2229 Main Street Concord, MA 01742 508-369-5410 x280)

DAB:swf/tc Enclosure

FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES FORUM MEMBERSHIP ABB Combustion Engineering Nuclear Metals, Inc.

Aerojet Ordnance NUMARC Babcock & Wilcox Olin Corporation Battelle-Columbus Sequoyah Fuels Corporation BP Chemicals, Inc. Siemens Nuclear Power Corporation Cabot Corporation Teledyne Wah Chang EcoTek, Inc. Texas Instruments, Inc.

Fansteel United Kingdom Atomic Energy General Atomics Authority General Electric UMETCO Minerals Corporation Kerr-McGee Corporation UNC Naval Products Lawrence Livermore National U.S. Council for Energy Awareness Laboratory Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Services

DOCKET NUMBER 123 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 PROPOSED RULE Pl / /0 914 681.6846 l'CL~~?F-R Jt<S-5V USNHC

, . NewVorkPower Ralph E. Beedle

. , Authority *92 JUL -1 P3 :28 Executive Vice President Nuclear Generation June 26, 1992 IPN-92-029 JPN-92-031 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION : Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 Comments on Proposed Rule 10 CFR Part 110, "Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes"

Dear Sir:

The Power Authority staff has reviewed the proposed rule (Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 82, pg. 17859, dated April 28, 1992) to amend Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 110, concerning "Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes."

The Power Authority staff believes this proposed rule, as written, would provide additional control over international commerce in radioactive materials. This is consistent with international and domestic guidance and regulations and should contribute to the general welfare.

Very truly yours, v ~fl_

Ral~~~§:;;:;F,.

~

~1-...:a...--- - -

Executive Vice President Nuclear Generation cc: see next page JUL 16 1 ~

Acknowledged by card ..........w.....dMww,lffll\\

U.S. NU(;Lr.. .. 1it.~ fOFIY COMMISSIO~

DCCr,r: i  ! 2E?lflCE SECTION OF ,i.,.: ~,f THc ~*:r.RETARY Of fH;: COM1'1iSSION Document S"1tistics Postmar!{ Da!a I q "2...

Copies Rece;vea ____-"'-------

Add'I Copies Reproduced ........,__ __

Special Distribution Jt X OJ. ~

. /:j a µ,., h £- u-  ;,

cc: Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Office of the Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 136 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. Richard Plasse Project Directorate 1-1 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14B2 Washington, DC 20555 Resident Inspector's Office Indian Point 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 337 Buchanan, NY 10511 Mr. Nicola F. Conicella, Project Manager Project Directorate 1-1 Division Of Reactor Projects 1/11 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14B2 Washington, DC 20555

(

/to {i)

(S1 F-Yt 11g,5Cf) LOCKL H-.. 0 US NRC

'92 JUN 24 P12 :26 Marvin I. Lewis 7801 Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 62 Phila., PA 19152 (215)624-1574 Secretary USNRC Washington, D. C. 20555 Re: 10 CFR Part 110; RIN 3150-AD36; Import and Export of Radwaste

. r Mr. Secretary; Please accept this letter as my comments on the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register dated April 28,1992 at Page 17859, Vol.

57, No. 82.

Our Government has its priorities mixed up!

Our government wants to import dangerous radioactive waste.

Our Government wants to keep citizens away from healthful vitamins. Our Government has raided doctors and pharmacists for prescribing and giving out vitamins! (Independent Citizens Research Foundation for the Study of Degenerative Diseases, Ardsley, NY 10502 NL/39 Ap 1992, See enclosures.)

A Our Government needs to get its goals straight. Vitamins are

<Wd for people, and radioactive wastes are bad for people. You can ingest vitamins, and you are not supposed to eat radioactive waste. Our Government needs to promote vitamins which are good to eat, and keep radioactive wastes , which are bad to eat, out of this country. I hope that is simple enough.

The idea that radioactive waste is dangerous and unhealthful is a difficult idea for the bureaucrats at the NRC. The idea that vitamins are healthful is a difficult idea for the bureaucrats at the FDA. I shall attempt to clarify.

The Proposed Rule for the Export and Import of Radioactive Wastes will promote and expedite the movement of radioactive wastes. "Below radioactive concern" radioactive wastes will be allowed into the US from many other countries. Once in the US, BRC radwaste may be disposed of into municipal sewers, non-hazardous landfills and on farmers' fields. The radioactivity in these foreign BRC wastes will then get into our water from leaching out of landfills and from municipal sewers and into our food from spreading as fertilizer on farmers' fields. <NRC BRC Policy 1986 and 1990.) It's bad enough that we have to eat BRC wastes produced domestically. This rule will force us to eat foreign BRC radwaste. ~L l61992 Acknowledged by carcf .. _., __""'""'"'""

~ .3

~ - --,--~ -

G~ I~~* s ;-,~ :. /CQ2r_7 p () ~

ll

-=-H

~ ad.. U.,k _- .,

2.

The next problem is low level radioactive waste. Low level radioactive waste is a legal misnomer. LLRW may be as radioactive or more radioactive than some high level radioactive waste. If a fuel rod splits in the reactor, and if some of the "high level radioactive" fuel gets out and is recovered in the piping, the recovered fuel pellets are classified low level radioactive waste. This is only one example of highly radioactive waste classified as low level.

Many states such as Pennsylvania are in the midst of planning Aw level radioactive waste sites. These plans include

~ ass A, B, C, GTCC (Greater than Class C), and mixed waste.

These plans do not include a large influx of foreign low level radioactive wastes. (Phone conversation between PADER Acting Director, Rad Bureau, and Marvin Lewis.) A large influx of low level foreign radioactive waste could easily knock Pennsylvania's plans for handling the Appalachian Compact*s LLRW into a cocked hat, drive costs up, and destroy the Appalachian Compact*s ability to handle domestic waste adequately, economically and safely.

The inability of Agreement State radiation control program officers to understand or acknowledge the problem of massive influxes of radioactive waste is exemplified in a letter from Steve R. Jones, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources(PADER>, to Marvin Lewis, dated 6-10-92 A "Therefore, the disposal site planned for Pennsylvania is not

- q u ired to, and does not plan to accept LLRW from foreign countries."

The PADER letter ignores the issue of returning sources to manufacturers incorporated in the Compact region. Many manufacturers send radioactive sources out of the country as part of international commerce. Good business practices require that these sources return to the manufacturer at the end of their usefulness. These sources include well-loggers, educational sources, and cobalt 60 sources for medical devices.

One cobalt 60 source used in a medical device in Mexico wound up as steel scrap. The steel scrap was remelted into fence posts and kitchen table legs. The cobalt 60 source returned to the US as kitchen table legs and fence posts. If we do not acknowledge the problem of returning sources, we will wind up with these sources coming back as fence posts and kitchen table legs or worse.

3.

There are many other questions intrinsic to the question of so-called foreign wastes. These questions include, but are not limited to When does a radioactive source become a waste?

If a source contains some intrinsic value, is it a waste just because the present user no longer considers the source useful?

Does Pennsylvania have the power to restrain trade if a foreign customer assumes that a US manufactured source will be returned to the manufacturer at the end of its usefulness to the present A stomer?

Ti nce many manufacturers are incorporated in Delaware, will these manufacturers have access to the Appalachian Compact Site for their returning sources without regard to the actual place of manufacture?

Since the DOE is presently importing high level radioactive waste, what assurance is there that DOE, DOD or commercial sources cannot and will not flood the LLRW Compact Sites with foreign LLRW(Radioactive Waste Management Associates Radioactive Waste Bulletin, April 1992, Page 7.)?

Since many corporations are incorporated in Delaware and Delaware is in the Appalachian Compact, do these Delaware Corporations have the option of depositing their returning foreign LLRW into the Appalachian LLRW Site?

Another consideration concerning the import and export of radioactive wastes is, "Will this international movement of

- d ioactive wastes help or hurt the interests of the United 9: tes of America?". The Atomic Energy Act and subsequent legislation does not require promotion of atomic energy internationally.

Will this international movement of radioactive wastes help or hurt the interests of the United States?

Industrialized nations have traditionally attempted to foist wastes of all sorts on third world countries. The result has been a great deal of antagonism on the part of the country receiving the waste. Radioactive waste will repeat this tradition of antagonism whether the United States imports or exports the radwastes.

If the United States imports the radwaste, the residents near the LLRW site will react like third world residents,"The World is defecating its radwaste on us and we can't do nothing about it."

If the US exports its radwaste, we will bear the antagonism of the importing country. I hope that the NRC will contact likely importing countries to assess their requirements.

4.

Regulation in a vacuum.

Another problem in this Proposed regulation is that this regulation is proposed in a vacuum.

The question of where and when a radioactive source becomes a waste is very real. The NRC is considering changing regulations to allow compacted waste to return to reactor sites(NRC News l eases, V. 12 No 17, dated 4/28/92, No. 92-64 and Receipt of p roduct and Special Nuclear Material Proposed Rule 10 CFR 50

• 3150-AE04, dated 4-24-92.) A source sent off site may or may not contain some intrinsic value. After compaction, the source loses its remaining value, and becomes waste. The NRC wants to return the waste to the reactor site even if the compaction and incineration is performed across the border in Mexico or on the open ocean.

These changes to Part 50 to allow return of incinerated and compacted low level radioactive wastes to the reactor site raise many questions and problems. These questions and problems should not be decided in a vacuum, but as part of this present proposed Rule on Export and Import of Radwaste.

Many questions remain as to what is low level radioactive waste, its volume, physical properties, forms and Curie Ai ntent. The question of mixed waste has gotten short shrift, and Wi ly been addressed in draft guidance ( Clarification of RCRA Waste Testing Requirements for Mixed Waste, Draft Guidance, dated 3-1992.) The questions of volumes, Curies, physical forms, and just about anything else are not addressed. This Proposed Rule is proceeding without adequate information.

Many of these issues were touched upon by NECNP in their comments to the 2-27-90 comments to the 2-7-90 Proposed Rule on Export and Import of Radioactive Waste, and never adequately answered by the NRC staff. I join NECNP comments and point out that they are applicable to the present Proposed Rule, and have not been answered adequately by the NRC.

One point made by NECNP is that any radioactive exposure is dangerous. I extend their point by enclosing an article from Nature Magazine, 20 February 1992, V 355, Page 674, Alpha Particle After Effects. This article points out that radiation is more dangerous than previously assumed because the testing ignored delayed effects.

5.

Local and State Emergency Operations Plan:

New Jersey is typical of delaying emergency operations plans.

"State police are charged with seeing that all New jersey communities have a written, updated emergency operations plan; fewer than half have complied.(Philadelphia Inquirer, Neighbors Section for BR New Jersey, Page 4 BR, June 11, 1992.)

Since many communities do not have an adequate plan to deal th a nuclear accident, this proposed rulemaking is premature

• ntil adequate emergency plans are in place to deal with the transport of radwaste through unsuspecting communities throughout the US and, especially, Philadelphia.

Conclusion:

For the reasons stated above and for many other reasons stated in previous filings by NECNP, I respectfully urge the NRC to prohibit and ban all importation and exportation of nuclear wastes.

Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled that part of the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act is unconstitutional. I respectfully request that this Rulemaking be held in abeyance until particulars of this Decision have been reviewed by the NRC. This Decision may have impact on the Rulemaking which puts many of the issues into a very different light.

1'-'t.VV::> ANU VIEWS R1\DIATION BIOLOGY - - - - - - -

ma,* IW\'1.' suffered ionizations from 1 Alpha-particle after effects a s111;1II part of a track. When chromosomes of these sur\'ivinl!

H. John Evans were analysed n surprisingly high 4ucncy of chromatid-typ1..* aherrat 0.\ paJ!e 7.18 of thi~ issuc 1, M. ,\. tion is )!l\l'n at low dl*sc rail'. the re- ww, l.'\'id.:nt: these aberrations were n Kadhi1i1 and wlleagues dcs..:ribe experi* sponse rune nwy approximate to lincar- donal and were C\'identl\' eni:endc mcnt, whirh . unexpectedly. show that itv hl'IWl'l'n dosl' and cfkct. so that many el*II di\'bions .1fter' thl*- orii i C\*partidl' irradiation of a l0ell may in- d;unage imluccd hy low LET radiations exposure. In Clllltrast. the 5 per cent duce a transmitted genetic im,tahility may he rl*paircd and lhcir repair is time c:clls strl'\'i\'ing an exposure to 3 gra:

that may well result in the generation of dq1cndl*111 . In crn1tra,1. with n*1-y high X-ravs showed a few dunal iibnorm

!!rnl*t il* ;1h1111r111;ili1il*s latl'r in till' sallll' I.ET radiations little repair \eems to he ities: presumably engendered during cell li11c . Oi\'en that the genetic effects of possible. tlw aharation freq11ency in- fir~t cell cycle fo!lowing cxposurl.' ,

low lc\ds of ionizing radiation remain crl*a~cs linl*arlv with. do-.c ai1d the cfT1.'Cts

• nonclonal chromati<l-type aherratic of l'llllsiderahle concern in terms of :ire n\1t rl*duc~d hy decreasing dose rnlc were prl"St'tlt at the expected cont l'n,*in1nn11:ntal hl*alth, the findings arc (that is. increasing exposure time) . It levels. ,

likcl~ 1,1 provoke something nf a stir. follows that, llCl Hll:>L' of d'iffcrl*nct*s in 0

Thesl** findings i!11ply that. at 1101 Thl*rl' has lonu been lk*h;1te O\'er thl* thc shapes of lhl' rcspon:-c curves. high dissin~ilar sun*iv;1l levels. o:-p;rrtidc l rl*lari, l" hiologil*:~I dficiencies (RBI ~) of I.ET r-adiation, arl* rdativdy far more po~urc may induce dmnage that is tr ion i1in!' radiations of dift\:ri11g qti°alities - - - - - ---, - - - - mitted to dauchter cells and which m in indlll.:in)! gerll'tic damage at equivak-111 r1:\ult in the - expression of a gene:

ltm l' .x po,tne le\'cls. With radiations of instabilit~* .in later l'Cll generations. T' high linl*ar enl"r):ly tran,kr (I.ET), the  ; gcrwration M new chromatid ilhcrrntlrn io11i1ations in the irradiated l'ell arl' chrs- I many i:eft ~-cles aftl'r exposure is kno,1

! to oecur after exposur.: to certain chen 1<:red as dense tracks: this patl<:rn of I' l'lle rgy deposition is chara..:teristic of cos- i' ical mutai:ens and. indeed, there are mic rays. the 'knoc_k-on* protons from fast nl."utrnns or till' o:-rays from pluto- /

.I numhcr ,;f l*omlitions in humans wher

m innat1..* diromosmne instahilit\' is a ct1r nium fn,m nu..:kar inst.illations. and the ,, ~*l(t1l'ltl"l' of the inlK*ritan~*e of

,kray p1od11l'ls of thl' radon gas that *single mutant gene-'.

• It is well. knm, form a major part of the n;1tural had,* that sud1 inlli\'iduals arc 111orc prone ground radiation~. Radiations of low the dcwlopment of early cancers. an, I.ET on thl' other hand, such as X-rays Kadhim c*t al. point to the possibh or thc *i1-rays from the atmosphere. soil importanct of their findings in radiation and buildings, not to mention food. Dose induced kukaemoi:cncsis and childho\l, release their c11°crgies as sparsely distri- Dose- response curves for the Induction of leukaemia clusters~ associate<l with nuc-buted :-mall dusters wit11in the cell. chromosome damage in human lympho* lear sites. NlltWithstamling the foci tha Thesl." difl°l:n:nces in spatial energy trans- cytes. a. Fast neutron. for both acute ~nd clu~ters ()f d1ildhood kukaemias occur al fer an: rdlccte<l in the different prop- chronic expo'.iure: b. X-rays. for acute expo- locations other than those associatct!

ensities 11f these radiations to induce sure: c, X-rays, for chronic exposure. with nuclear install:itions"*". hd,v impor*

!,!enctic dmnges resulting in inherited cffocti\'c than low LET radiations at low tant arc thc!-.c new findings in thl! gcncrn ddccts ur carcinogenesis. kvcls (lf expostrrl' , and that the IWE l'tlllll':>.t of radiatilin CXl'lllsure'~

Earl\' studies, ,,;uch as those using 0

decreases with inc:re,1sinl! lewis r,f dam- One c1111ccrn for radiation protection insl'Ct l'l!I!-.. or mammalian cells in eul- age. (Sl'l' figure.) - b. the nnnuniformity of ahsorbcl.l dnse.

tul'l'. in ~,~hkh it was possible by *selective Kadhim cl 11/. 1 now rcp11rt that not For'inst:111c:c. it is diffinrlt to c\'aluate th*:

lead shielding to irradiate spel*ifically the only an: tlll're quantilatiw dil°fl'rl*11n*~ l'clllsl1q{1l'lll'l's of the lkj\\l~ition of a 'hot cdl nurk11, or thc cytoplasm . showed lwllWl'll lhl* dli1*i,*1Kics of X-rays and partidc' in a sensitive tissue. An n*-

rhat the pa,sagc of a sin!,!lc o*-partidc o:-partkks in induring !!l'netic d;1maJ!C. l'mittinJ! SJK'Ck of plutonium will have trark thrPUl!h a nuch:us was suffil'icnt to hut that thl*re 111av abo he hith,:rtu high proh;1hility of killing cells in it!-

kill a l*dl.

• I lowcvcr. the protons prn- unsuspl'Ctnl qualitatiw differc1ll'l'S. Till* in1111cdiate vici.nity. hut if it CIIJ:!Cndered dt1l0l'd hy fa,t nl'Utrons or the C\*partkl<*,; .tuthors L'mploycd an i11 l'itro assay for in~tability in rll'arh)' surrounding survi\'-

fn1111 plu11111i11m may of c,,ursc dq1osit till' survival of rolo11v-fmmi1111. :,ll*m l'clls in!! l'L'lls ih effect would he very mud, thci1 l'lll'l'I!\' in the near \'idnitv. t*r in the hone 111:trr1>w ~if min* .'afll*r l'Xf'O* grl':lll'r than that prcdit:tl*tl on tJ1c tl1tat at thl' ('l'rit;lwry. of a nudcus*. ai1d !-O Mire of thl'Sl' cl'lls to a ran!.!e 11f doscs of hc1ll\' dose ren*i\'ed. A l'onnected con-mav 1\llt :dwa\'s he lethal but mav still n-partirks (11 .25 . 0.5 and I.II gray) from l'l'rri is thc RBE of high wr:,ir~ low LET res;111 in ,!!l'neiic dama!!l' . lmh*d. *nn1d1 plulonium-~38 or to ,1 sinµk X-r:1y dose - -* --------*---*----

1. ~l~h1n1. M ,\ et al. NJture 355. 73!1 740 11992,.

i, knllwn of thl' RBEs of radiations of (:'.O gray). Alpha partil°ll'S han- very 7 C,J,~c. R II t. SouU1WOO<l. I R E. N,11ure 336.

different 1110.:an I.ET~ in i111l11rinu cl'II poor pn1,*l*rs of pc11dration. s,1 the l*ells 197 198 fl').~ 9, dcath. dm,nwsome ahl'frations or~,;incle \Wl"l' l'Xj\\*sed in thin-layl*r suspl*nsions

• 3 Gr*mnn. J IL'd , Chromosomfs and CJnccr (Wiley, New ho>k , 19T*IJ

)!l'ne mut.itionli in human pcriphc.ral amt then t'lakd il'lto Pctri dishl*s: sur* 4. E,ans. H. J O,of,sa,-s 12. 541 5,19 (l!J'lOJ.

blood I~ mphocytes or fihwblasts irradi- vi\'al was dek1111inl*d h\' lhl' abi!itv of 5 c,,~s. 11 J N,ltll't' 347 71:.! 713 ll!l90J.

G. Ort*nsh,1w . S. & Craft, A. 1n Studtt"'S on Mco,cal and atcd i,1 rim>. survi,*ing cells t\l )!i\'e ,*ise to ~*oh;nk*s r,*.-u/Jt*on Sut>1c,-ts. 53, r,,., r.eo1:r.,,1111ca1 £p,d,:,m,ol*

In wry hn,ad terms, with l,,w I.ET :md d1ro1111N1111l' analysis was pl*rformcd <',:1 ol ("l111,111<><'<1 Lt*u~,1m110 llnd non lloc11km l,mitllo*

radiations thl' frequency o( imh,n*d on 7-day-old mlonies. m.,s m ci.t-,,1 Br,ta,n 1966 -83 (Cd. Otape,. G.J 109 120 1 1\ISO. Lorulon . 19911.

gcnl*tk. damacc is related t.1 d11se and Al sunfral In els of ahoui -10 pl'r cent 7. C,11*1m1t1,*c on lhc 8101og1cal Eflects of lon,tinl RudtJ*

dosl' ratl* . Ai hi!,!h ratl'S of l'Xpostrrl' , or 20 Jll'r l'l'llt, tlw mean numhl*r or 110n, Elf/II ,v 1N,1uonol Acadumy of Sc,cnces/Nallonal R~scarch Counc,1. Wusluni:1on, OC. 19H81.

d1rn111os11111l* d;1111age incrl*ascs with in- n-parlicks tran:rsing a n*II of 7 11111 ll H,* oshaw. 0 L., Ento-gh. J P & Richard .on. A. 8.

nl*a*,ing dllsl' roughly in pn1p111 tion to di:1111..:tcr 1,*a, n:spl-ctivcly I or ~- Many l,1:1,*er 335. 1008 1012 rl990) .

9 R.1~*,11,un Elf,*ct, Acsra,ch lound~l!on U,ldlllc J. IJMut t!ll' squar,: of the dose, !,!i\ in!! a t:ur\'i* survivin!! rdl~ would th.:n:forl.' not haw 3 3 1 JlJS J,,pJn Rdd,allon Ellects Rc,r:arch Founda*

lllll'ar d, 1,l' dl°l-l"I rl*sponse. If till' rndia- hcen trawrsl*d hy a partidc mid otlll'rs t*\.':\. H1{ostun,.>. 1991).

674 NATURE

• VOL 355

• 20 FEE3BUARY 1992

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PENNSYLVANIA PO Box 2063 DEw adiation Protection Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063 June 10, 1992 Mr. Marvin I. Lewis 7801 Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 62 Philadelphia, PA 19152

Dear Mr. Lewis:

This letter is in response to your letter of May 9, 1992.

The intercompact, interstate, and international shipment of radioactive "Material" is regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).

The Commerce Act prevents any state or compact from restricting these shipments. Any attempt by a state or compact to stop such shipments would be viewed as a restraint of trade.

However, with regard to low-level radioactive "Waste" (LLRW); the Congress of the United States by way of the Low-Level Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 granted compacts an exception to the Commerce Act. Pursuant thereto, the Appalachian Compact, which was approved by Congress, and Pennsylvania's LLRW Disposal Act prohibits the importation of out-of-compact waste without the approval of the compact and the host state.

Therefore, the disposal site planned for Pennsylvania is not required to, and does not plan to accept LLRW from foreign countries.

The NRC's proposed rule, which you reference, states, in part , "the NRC would consult with interested states and LLRW compacts prior to issuing an import license and generally would not grant a license unless it was clear that the waste would be accepted by a disposal site and its host State and Compact."

In general, it is significantly less expensive and far s impler from a regulatory perspective to dispose of LLRW in other countries.

It is unlikely they would ship LLRW to the United States for disposal.

Foreign waste will have no effect on disposal site longevity since we will not be accepting it.

Recycled Paper ~

Marvin I. Lewis Page 2 June 10, 1992 Pennsylvania has no jurisdiction over the shipment of foreign LLRW , in general it is the responsibility of the International Atomic Energy Agency, NRC, and USDOT. Any foreign waste traveling through Pennsylvania to other destinations would be essentially the same as current LLRW shipments sent through Pennsylvania by other states to the existing disposal s i tes.

The Pennsylvania taxpayer will not be burdened by the cost of LLRW, foreign or otherwise. All cost of the LLRW disposal program will be paid by the waste generators. You noted in your letter that the editor of Environmental Waste Management is not paid by the taxpayers.

Actually, the LLRW program staff in this office is paid for by fees from the LLRW generators, primarily Pennsylvania utilities, not the taxpayers.

I trust this addresses the issues raised in your letter. Should you have further questions, please direct them to me on our toll-free number 1-800-232-2786.

Sincerely,

~,e[ll Steve rlJ. Jones, Chief Low-Level Waste Section

CITIZENS P.O. Box 388 Tacom11. WA 98401 For Health (206I 922-24~7 FAX l206I922*7~83 May 8, 1992; 6 a, m,, Tacoma, Washington URGENT UPDATE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

'l"" ~n Concorned From: Alex.ander C. 5chaun, B~etutlv* Dlr111:tur Sub!11ct: May 6th PDA raid of the the offices of Or. Jonathan Wrlgt\t, M.O.

Recap: On May 6th at 9 a.m., li FOA *sent* wearing flOk )aCitclhl With gun dr,nYn, t,ock.cd t,y a QQr,tlng'2.ntoC Kina County Pullet who ,urrounded the cltnk, atormed lnto tho Tahoma Clinic at 24030 132nd Avenutl S,E., Kent, WA., by breaking through tho Clink'* door by forca. No a1te1mpt WH rnadt to knoc\t on tht door ur utlll:r.e th~ ,crvlce.a t1l lho complexet l~ndlord, who offered io open the door with hi* rnaater key when preMnttd tho IOIIK"h warrant, Two olflt;*ni ytll'1d at amployee* "Drop evarythlnst Put )'our hand, up!" Unbeknowncttt to the FDA one *mpluycc hid behind 11 column allowing her 10 reach* phone And cont*ct a friend of Dr, Wright'* farnlly, She: contActod KVI Radio Scilttlc, whleh lmmtdi.atcly contacled u1. By that limo, Or. Wrl3ht arrivod et the clinic ro di1cove.r hi* loclllty 1urroundcd by king County Pulice. Ht wa5 1n,1ructed not to er\ltr ttio c:Unlc. H* found hi* terrified ,tdl end pelltntt outside the bulldll\g, 1 arrlvtd thortly thor121~er from TAcoma. By th1t time, Or, Wright', attorney, Georsc Cody had arrived. I immedlau,ly ateur-.d a copy of the U.S. M*gi111ratt Court e,earch warrant. Thie wa, lrnmediAltly PAXCol'I KOMO-TV, )<INC-TV, etc, tht' Swuttle Po.t-lntolli5tlf'IC-. The (T"'1>mA) New, Tribune, etc. ~ogon noodlng into lhll pRrklng lot o( the Oink. All ellcuU \>y pre~* 1nd m-11* to determine th* cau,e of the 10,rch w1rr,nt mot wlth a "no comment." Nl!kl w* col\lMltd acor4a n( our or&AI\IZAtlOl\ 1 1ntmbtr1 1hrO\lghout tho U.S. 10 *ctlvau: our orsanlz.atlon', .rmci11e"c1 pho.)ne -netw-,rk. Within-four 1

houn wa wcra in touch with NBC Nawa New York, Auotlnhtd l'r~,e*Seattlo and New York, UPI, 11nd contact* In Wa&hlngton. D.C.. NNFA, NH.\ amt othor or15*nlt1tion1 were- imml"diattly FAXed coplos of the U.S. M11gh-lra1~ Court'11 t'lcerch W1rr1n1.

The PD.A rematnea ln the bulldlng, Cltny111s Dr. wriaht, JIii IIIOrncy or anyunl" l"IW. HL"C'II~~ l11to the bulldlug Lmt11 11 p.m., 14 houu alter the raid began. Doxes and boxt\1 of tho cllrilc'1 rccora, alld equ1pm~m wuo removed by a PCM.

They hired a U*HAul truck whlcn took the unct>untab\c number of bo>iee of clinic rec:orcb and c'lutpment tu 11n unknown locatlon.

ltepe1ued anempta by thl' med111 In the $eattlt art, and. lrosn thr<m&llllut thr. country to 8 11n ",.pJ11111111lon fo, *

• raid met with ttlH , ..1,111nce and "no comment" by the Olatrlct Offico of tho PDA in Bothell, Wuhlngton. the U.S.

AH111am Anorney, ftnd tht U.S. Mag11t1'tlt'1 otnce. Dyl p.m. our offlc:c had rocetved c1t1l* trorn Ariz.Ona. By 4 p.m. ftom Miami. Aonaa. Py 6 p.m. Or. Wrl§l'\t WU tn ln°11udio guett ol The Mike Se.gAI !\how on 'KVJ-r;1dlo, 570 AM. HP a1t1ckod th* POA lor "gatttpo" and Naz.i" 111clln, aflcr tryrn3 fur hciur, co g*c any as~ncy of government to axplaln lh1r reuon for the raid. Ht tulct t.l\t audlen~ that the U~. M*5lttr1te, the PDA and tho U.S. Attorney re(uacd 10 glvt him any ~uon tor the raid. Ha d<<!tcrlbad tho FDA'* ac1lun as a con1p1racy between tht P'OA .and ph;arm,ccuUc1l lndu,1ry to 1t1mp our alternative hc11lth option, and dietary 1upp1cment1. Wa have II tape uf th1u 11huw tmor~ dLitJIIJ tu follow nn 5ctt1ng coplot), ThoUNl\d1 o( people callod Into the 111tlon (or the nexc 1wo hour5 In ange.r 1u tht region b.-:s*n to hoar o( Dr, Wright'* plight. Calla wore \lnbchavably 1upPorllve ol Dr. Wrl5tu, tvtn from people who nor"'atly don'1 l81'ff With alternatlv~ medic-Inf. People loft fnr do11d by the mcdlc:*I 05l*bllahmc:nt l'l'!ported lh~lr rMuhs at hli; c11nh:.

rc:oplc: were livid ttttt tho pollcc were ,armed, bru'kc lr,tn I medlCAI cltnlc, and created Dr. WtlSht Hkc a comm'?n criminal, Caller af1or caller uked for a Podorol lnvcatl8Dtlon and County lnva1t1garton ot ch" u11~ of pclltt: force lQ *~I~

thu POA. Jt wu hard not to cry NVtral tlmo11 whor, you hatcn~d ta the pica, ol callera atkln8 1he publlC' to h~lp g,*1 hl11 CJhdc Of"I\Ud lmm*cUatvly.

Thl1 morning Mr, ken rullen, 11 memtx,r of the King Coun,y Cuunc-11 CAIIN't for the County Shgrfft Mancl\omcry and the. Ktftg County f'OltC"t 10 AppMr betC\re the cuunty Law And Juftll"t Co,nrr,luN on Moy 14th or

• public honing In the County building at 9:30 *.m. to txpl1ln 10 the pres.a ond public the ute of gunt durJn15 rhc, PDA r111d. He publlclly 1

• poloStztd on radlO tor the outrageou1 Uta Of local law enforc-cmenl to H l t the PDA, HI, announa:mc:nl 1' ballllJ c.rrJed lhro1A5houl the re5lon on new. pro15rain,,

We Wm, in!ormed WU the While Houy S:bllt Q( Slft(f Si,ln Sk.1nncr. bad lml))CIDQDJQd I llrdlcpled PAX 11011 Al the White ljouae tQ rf(!\Ve de)ftl\l dircs;t))' on th!, PDA DIO He claim* that r,ahhcr the rre1lden1 or he were aware of tM ft>A rat4, or other r,ald, u, C.11/omla, ore5on, Oklahoma or Te11.a, In rect1nc month*. "" *p~11lll'l fur anyuru, 111 thu country havin5 k1lowlcd5c of 1uch raid to PAX rhe Whlle Hou,e 2O2-45&S-141Sl Whh lnform rlon. Local 1111' ahow ho11 Mike 5egal ha* appealed for the public chroughouc the United Seate, co FAX Sam ,klnncr and the rn:1tden1 with thc:lr Nntlment wun thll 111u1uon tmmedt*~ly. Mr. &.gal wlll penon1lly contlet Vt/Ol"f maJor radio tallr. 1how ho11 In the U.S.

(he hu been tn the butlneu over 20 year,, l* often f.. t~...S as or,c of the top nve talk ,t1ow hu,111 In the U.S.) by tornonow to alr thl, story and Interview br. Wrisht We have He up 1 "Jonathan Wright Legal f>eten" fund." A IRS tu number w11 eHabll,h"'1 fur thla. dd.:n~ tw1cl 1h11 morntng. Mv on-me evoluntJon of she Tahoma CHnJc,; lh11 tf!r.rnfilm Jeed1 me 10 l\dYl11:e yuu 11';,1 uml.111 M g.rcymJt:mcc cpn [Jr. Wristit or ID)' Of DJ* pllYil~D.J\ COIIH&,U@I proVJQo JlUlr1llon~lly-orlenlM me<11cnl rnrv IV 1.200 potjcl\tl ur,dsr \hr dint(* cgre ., thll tlm51, The l*DA 11ct1on ho clo*ed hi, al>llhy tu provide nutrhlunal- bo,anh:al-baaed medic*! ,orvlcc, to palic:nt,. The FDA methodically *tripped down tho cllnh: until It resemble*

• t)'plcal atlopathlc: fllclllty, PleAH Nnd donation, to th, defon~ fund, In any amount (even a dollAr would lot him know you core), to r .o. C\o,c

~ , Taroma, WA Sl8f01. J have Nltcled thl'OI Tru1tec11 for the PWld: a tru"ed patient ot Or. Wrl3h11, a local T11com1 natW'opath,

• local allopath and O\)'IOll, alon~ with 11n ofllct*I or she t1a111'1 large5t ba1,k., l"uget &ound Nalloqal Dank*

MJln lranc:h, to handle all fund* received. l'loeae wuier11nd, thr.. a1tornoy, NYe been rctAlned ,o p1,4n1,1, chit m*ller,

'l'hl* morning we began geu1.ng call* trom S1,1ropun countrla., from

• D'ledlcaJ conferen~ 1n Br*Jll (10 It 11 po11lblc thLI l'lJA raid hH gone overaeu through the Wlr, servlce1), CNN*'JV, A11ocllued Pren, etc:., ,nd now1p1p0r1 throughout the country. Slnce some of the puro lnJcctablc vlt11mln1 an! lmponed trorn C.rm,my, the Ocrman, ,re \'try mtere.led in why the U.S. govaminent would aei1.e the world'* purou an,)e<.'table v11.1.m1n1, lrM ol preMrva,tvos, ovaill1ble only f,om th\)(t c,owit7, J w.. tc2VlNd by the S.a1t1e Post-Jnte1118oncc thlt Uie U.S. M11ghtr11e hilt Nlltd ~ht 1rflJavlr cxplalnln& tho r1u0n for the FDA raid&. Thia ha, ln~rlat~ mcmbc-ra of the local pren, whu h11v11 bwn deMandl11& 1111 e1epl*nallon trom the FDA, particularly Ill UM ot sun,, ThG fDA In Sc,NII! ind Wa,hln~tun, D.C., Continue, ID -h.~pc)nd "nc>

comment." Ono (allor to ow- otttco, w)lo refuted to give me- her n me, 10ld l'l'lt tha1 tho fD.4 never expOClod 1he k.lnd of publldty thu matter 11 generating In tt\u ncw,popou and over the air wave,. She felr thtt they would never have aelocted him if they )tnc:w of tho mcdl* ind public' in1erc1t. She urged the public to write Jetter to lho PDA with roples 10 membcn of Congrc11, cepecially both Repment1tlve'1 Wnxman and Dingell And Scn110r'1 Kenncday ind Huch.

She reminded me th,t Ju*t recently I leadin& anl115on1,t IJllnlt 1upplemrnt11 In tho FDA'1 W11hlng1on oUlre w,u renlOVod from hi1 po111hon boc11uto ot hit vocal *fanalldsm" against *upplemenls. The head ol tho Office of Con,umer ut1gat1on tor Ulc Depanm~n, o/ Juetlc-i hed apparwnlly re{"en1ly bwn ,..placwd.

The Governor'* Off1ct ln Olympl1 And acoru of &tat0 lcisi,lator1 have been ronraered by hundred, of cltlicint 10d11y demanding

• 5tlte 1nvu11su1on Into che U5e or Joe.I law onforcurncnl resource, to IIHllt an um uf th~ U.S. 6OV'1rnmet1t In thle matter, Unlen you live In W11hln51on a10111, you could no, 1m1g1ne how the POA hu satvanlzod a very vocal element ot thl* rate** population *&*lnat the fDA, the U.5, Covtrnmtnc, and rho U.S. PNeldent. Consrenlon11l reprtHntAtlv.t were 1nuru1atec1 1oaay With phone can,. h WH 1mpoHlblo to te41Ch anything other chan

• bu,y *l15n11l 111 either the ro31onal FDA Offte'11, tho otl100 of tho U.S. Attomey or U,5. District Court.

On* mutt unaarttan'1, this doe1or. trelr,od II Harvard Mc:dlra1 5chool end th* Untvw,hy of Michigan hlJ bocn In practice ln thla llato 1lnce uno. He hu trc:a&ec:1 ten, ot thou11nd1 or fAtLens1. 1,200 p111tla1u1 w~rc under the care or 1h1 c11nlc' practllloncr-. at the time o! the raid. There an: lJ *mploy_.. 11 tht- f,u:lllty.

Dy 1111 rhll &tlernoon, we hNrd from CFH memtleB and non-ma1nbert who1O volree wr.re JOre from thr doz.en1 ol ph0l\t cant Cht)' maot 111 day. our offlce took morf than 400 c41ls today, h*lf trom out lde o/ Wuhlng&.0n. Our !'AX machlnH were bu,y 12 tonMcuttve hours Hndlns OUI coplGI g( tho KGl"C'h warrent and Oth*r rertlntl\l information rtlAted 10 the raJc1. Olher organLZatlOIU fUCh u thl Well Mind Clinic, Cttl1.cn1 for Allernaflvi: H*tth C*r1, *It. tu lhl~

region have done Jn tnc:Nlellble J<>b of mobJJ1Zln5 their mtmben and frtt*nda In thl* ceu111.

An Inventory thl1 1nomlng and afternoon of ltemt nu111ng WH given ro 11,e durtng my vt,11 10 th" clinic In the afternoon. A<<oratng co ltftrl and L>r. Wrl8hl, tht FDA ramovcd: computer htu'd dr1V*H, paclenc Ill*** food allcr&y 1c11tng equipment, rotoro11co m1111r1a1t, dl1pen1lng record,, trn&menc *svnrJu *ml ,pr111orol11, .11 nut, h1t11 tupplemen11, account payal-lt recorda, lnvolce ftlei;, nnanclal record,, all video tapes, an IV produt't&, all prci;cripllons, United Parcel Servtce k>g,, newalettm, all rolodexea, equipment rna1\uel1, of1ware, 3 lnterro machine,, etc. 1 met with on* nurM. lht Indicated that the tollowtns 1ter,,, wcra ml1slng from her duty 11u111un: printer,, key l>ollrd*. p,rso""I bt'6lnt1H card,, comrute, f.Crten,, re&aarch flln, p1tlant ftle,, two rotodcucea, -'>ltWart, all video tero1, all compu1er 2

peirt11 ..tc. I al.a ,.,.rned durtng lntervl*w* wuh ,t,fl th111 whon on, nur&e (J.C.) tneci to atop* l'DA 11gcnt trom rnmovln5 her penoMI af/ect1, he aald: wl wlll place you under lrr(llt If you Interfere."

Alto, a Vllltlng computer MrVicc rcpresc:nl1tlvo waa dtta:ned by the PDA ,nd posalbly forcod *satnat her will tu phYfic:Ally rcmovo tho hard dt"'* trom 111 the computen at the tllnk. I could not locate lhi11 woman to w.rlly that ahe w1t1 d..t*ln.d fur pt>Hlbty &-12 houn by the POA.

On May 7th the Seattle ro1t*Jnt1111tgence new1papt-.r r11n a large 1tory tltl9d "Armed Agentl Make '8-vltamln 0\1st:!

fn Ktnt.* Tho (TacomaJ N,w, Tribune c1rrlGd

• 11ory titled "FDA Rald1 Altematlvc Hcahh Clinic ln Kent.~ W1 dlt\!Ov*rw that A*wclated Prr.a1 wa* ~Inning to gt1 calls from 1hrou5hout the muntry from now,paper, uklng !or the ttory, You rnu"t cvntlnue to 11k your newspaper* to report thl1 1tory. We cont11ctod the AP oltlet tn New York firM thing In the morntn5 whh addltlon,1 d8'al111.

'° N,1w ll*t*n this~ The.neareat phumacy co Or. Wright'* Clinic, at* duterent oddrcn, with no t1nandal connoctlon to hi" Cllulc wu alllO beln8 raided 11 the ~me time t,y che FDA, \lnbeknowneat to mu or 01hcr11 while I waa w1tn11~11\8 thv r11ld ye11terday . Tho rhormacy owner llAld th1u over ~100,000 tn equtpment wu rcmovod by the FDA Including Cree.ten, (~cz.c dr)'cn; u1,c1p1tul11tlon1 equlpm*nc, *II:., He h111 been clor.od by the l'OA. Why7 Jklca,uc he 11115 pr.Krlptlon* lur Dr. Wrl5htl Ho II very bln~r.

Or. Wright and l wont to SWl"le for four houn of ln-cudlo radio 1nte1Ylew1. ThouNnd1 oi phono cal11 have floodO<l thv 1t1ulon11 In ~anle. We wll\ be ba<:>t on the air for ,wo mort hour* flt lea11 tomorrow at,ernoon, agatn during prime commulvr houn. Calla ara coming In rrom Canada. We have 1ec-1.1red

• complete HI of Dr. Wri8hl'I Interview*

de11trll,ln~ wh10 h111rpvrwc1 at hh1 clinic flrll J'\and from tho r.adlo 11at1on5. Th*** lht hO\ln Of 1mervsew11 have btoen IW'nt ror niproduct1011 1 to l>w J¥t1.1rnt,d lo hh* auorney, It you would ll'ke coplo,i of thoao 11po1, w11h the c-ommenu: o(

government omctat, In 1uppon ot Dr. Wright, and the vocal outra500 reaction ot caller *f1,:r caller, plo;a,u Jut ua know of your lntara.t, At K>OII &I I am 1uld 1he w111 tor reprodut'tlon, 1 will m1ko thorn *vallabl~ throu5h Cltl.ians for Health at ro,r 111d pa***~u. 9':m.1 u11 ~ J'O"' caul u1 hinu rc,que11t1n5 notice of the COit, Tiley wlll be *vallable by MClnday afternoon, A rill)' Wlll bt hold PrldAY May &th at 2 p.n,. Alroody ovgr m people have Indicated that they WIil t>e at CJ\~ rally, tndudln~ ovtr lOO 1tudenu and tac-ul1y trom Butyr Collese of Natur,I !,clone., In 5-ttlu With the announcem~111 Ot the rally no le11 thin a do.zen time* ton1Sh* on S..11le*re~on1I r11dio, thon: t, a good chanco moN than a 1,000 will 1w out IUPf'Ortln g Or. Wright. Government offlcl III ,nd radio lllk lhOW host, lndlrAtN1 lhl!f Will be th,re Ill thf' rally

, uppo,11118 111* crowd. Lvt yuur lucal new:1p11per1 11cron tho country know of th!,, u ther, will be "Po" and p hotog r1p hor11 there, lnc:ludtns AP and ur1. Further, l>r. Wright h.u 1rh1duJed

• prtie1 conJerence at !1:30 ,.m. al th!!

RMton Holiday lnn. l will

• 51ve an lnl4rvlew 10 Gary Null on WVAI radio (99.5 FM) In Ntw York live Al 9 a.m. (Noon In New York Ch)') on Prlday. On S.turr:1ny, l will b4' giving an lntarv1ow to KPOC radio live l l*U a.m. tn Dallaf, Texaa.

Contac, Pred Vaf\ Liew for detail, l-lS00-88o-92lS.l Phil Donahue hu aakOd to have Dr, Wright. Put you mufl tftll hl1 program In New York and urgt him to hav* Dr. Wrl&ht on the program (2l2~4-6Wl). Tomorrow we have orgAnlzed a call In to ABC, NBC, CBS to carry thil ttory on Prime Time, 60 Mlnut05, lntlde Repon, 11tr. Call New York and urge the r111pectlve ma,Or ne<worka to carry 1he atory. S.mo with Larry J<lng. lnlonnauon hu been aent to Paul Harvey In Chicago. Cell hi* *how, ume 1h1n5. Plee1e undcraland, llthOl.lgh Dr. Wrisht hu hAr:1 lea* than 3 J'\our. of lec:p in two day,, he 11 uklng everyone In America w call, call, call, c-,11, cvoryol\O In th11J country about tht, 1ltu11t1on. He reAllui*

that an oppor&unlly like thl* may never happen *s*tn. He w*n11 thlt 11tu1t1on to be thf rallying cry to k.111 H.R. 3h42, H.R.

1662, SB 11-" and the objcc-ttonable pr0Vi1lont Of FDA proposed 'NU!A regulation,. Thert t, film footft8l" of the FDA trom loc*I station,. tactual m1w1 atorle of cvont, 1urroundln5 the raid that ore very ,uprortlvc, and ,Ix hour, of taped 1-.cuo Interview,. 1uutk1an ** many level* of gov,rnmeint are up.et that thfJ)' c n 11ot gc, an an,wer from the PDA u to why lnjtctlb>t Yhamin, were 1,kon lrom

• llcer\ltd medical doctor. We mcelved c,119 from malnltream phyldana 11kln3 If It WH lllt3al 10 tl'YII v1U1mln B-12 ahoU to patlenll, gtven the PDA'I ralel!

l l*tl Dr. Wrtaht Ill w~t filmaln, ol hi, clinic at &1:00 p.m. Ho 1, ro1.1nt1na on our euppon nauon-wide. Plea&e. 'FAX tho Whitt HouH. rleaH llltlll v1 cople,. ot your letter to the White Hou10. Write your Consreutnan. Con1ar1 your Joc11I mod la, FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS "HOT-LINE" NETWORK :, ,, (201) 471-3792.,. (516) 935-2244.,, (215) 667-8246 RADIO:, ,GARY NULL SHOWS ,

I I I I ,DR.ROBERT c, ATKINS, I I I ,DR.RONALD HOFFMAN WEAi (99,5-FM) WOR (710-AM) WOR (710-AM)

WEEKDAYS NOON-1 WEEKDAYS 9:05PM SAT: 2PM-4PM WEVD (1050-AM)

SATURDAYS 8:30AM 3

DOCKET NUMBER PR Westinghouse PROPOSED RULE.!.!!....-. .~

c 51 F n..

Energy Systems 11 rs 1J f LilKEiLO U!:>NHC

• WSH-92-128 Box 355 (j)

Electric Corporation *92 D 11 p 1 : s tttsburgh Pennsylvania 15230-0355 June 9, 1992

~iP"!(;f JF SlCRt. iAI V GOCKF1 tNG .\ ';fflVIC f BR. NC~

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rule -

Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes The following comment is provided relative to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 28, 1992 covering the "Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes".

In the performance of services at nuclear power plants, service tooling often becomes contaminated with by-product material, source material and/or special nuclear material. It is Westinghouse opinion that contamination which resides on service tooling is not "radioactive waste" as defined by NRC in the proposed rule. The NRC should clarify the intent of the proposed rule to ensure that contaminated tools do not require import/export licenses.

Sincerely, William S. Hudec Senior License Administrator International

/aaa WSH92128:060992 JUL 16 1992 Acknowledged by card ....:.,amW.Zih ..........-

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOr-.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TH E COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Dato - ~_/ _,0~ _9_ 2....._ __

Copies Reccive1 _ _.,_I---....--- - - -

Add'I CopiGC Reproduced - - - - : - - -

Special Distribution fLZ >2~ /JIJ It

/-ta u...h-il~

co D., ,r i-;..,.. ~1 J**v*-:-R r..*r 1o \>:M~

r I

" r>r)~

.>tu f - -

,11i-t

I J 1 (;)

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELE S ( q 7 f fl J? 8-" S Cf) UCLA

{; I'{' .* -

BERKELEY

• DAVIS

• IRVINE

• LOS ANGELES

• RIVERSIDE

• SAN DIEGO

• SAN FRANCISCO  !:J N~tfi'R BARBARA

• SANTA CRUZ

• 92 JUN u lA Pdlo 2i2oF MEDICINE HARBOR - UCLA MEDICAL CENTER May 22, 1992 . 1000 CARSON STREET QFF 1cr_oF :m iof~1~P~ ?&AuFoRN1A 90509 uOCKt ! ING.*~ SFt<V lf'f

! RANC11 .

Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission USNRC Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: RIN 350-AD36, FR 57 (82 ) :17859-17 866, 1992 ( 28 Apr.); Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes The NRC is proposing regulations concerning import and e xport of radioactive wastes. I would like to raise a few questions for consideration in order to effect orderly applicabil i ty and coverage of certain possible situations.

If the Supreme Court judges the LLRWPAA of 1985 unconstitutional, we will have no commercial LLRW sites operating as of 1 Jan. 93, in all probability. If the Compact concept is left intact, we will most likely have only one commercial site, Richland, which will bury only about 5% of the nation's waste. Significant generators of LLRW other than nuclear power plants have storage capacity varying from several weeks to several years, with typical capacity being 3-9 months. The Southwest Compact which generates about 10%

of the nation's LLRW, has over 2200 materials licensees, 577 of whom buried LLRW over the past 3 years. We can therefore imagine that some 5000 licensees in the U.S. will have to bury waste over the next 3 years; wi th large efforts at waste reduction, this number may be reduced to say, 2500. If a technologically competent nation agrees to accept our LLRW, there may be many more than "fewer than ten new export and import licenses per year" ; there may be hundreds. Of course, these waste generators may deal with brokers, of which there may be only a small number. However, if a waste broker is an exporting "person", are NRC's byproduct l imits sufficient to include the entire nation's waste production? It may be necessary to ship in large quantity for economy. Is 100 Ci of tritium a good limit for a waste broker representing hundreds or thousands of materials licensees? (This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know the answer, but it sounds very low. Does NRC have more information? ).

Although NRC states that "Any shortage of U.S. disposal capacity would only be a short term condition.", I wonder whether anyone at NRC has tried to build a LLRW site in the U.S. recently? It is my JUL. 16 ~

Acknowledged by card ,n:uo.weedllU::tfMWPtrn,m,

\

, .. r- r-

~Jr , ~

c-:-= -;-, ; (

May 22, 1992 Samuel J. Chilk Page opinion that there is a reasonable chance that such shortages would become a long-term condition.

Has NRC considered the importing of LLRW for the purpose of waste treatment and possible re-export of radioactive residue to the country of origin? While this may not be economical for simple compaction, what about radioactively contaminated metal that goes to a special foundry, with subsequent recycling of some of the decontaminated metal? The difficult problems of radioactive waste management have created an innovative industry in the U.S., and international business should be supported by a regulatory framework that clearly permits this activity.

The criteria for licensing seem unnecessarily cumbersome, and I have some concerns about reasonable speed, such as JO days or so to issue an amendment for export. If NRC decides it must evaluate a for eign country f or a dherence to 10CFR Part 61 standards , the waste is liable to decay before the license amendment is issued. I believe that for this whole licensing process to be us e ful it must be speedy. If there is a technologically developed country that will accept our LLRW, and thousands of American licensees needing to dispose of it, we have a potentially unstable situation if the NRC is not efficient. With States screaming to export LLRW, and a lumbering bureaucratic review process, one can expect (1) LLRW smuggling and/or (2) removal of LLRW authority from NRC to the States by Congress so that States can issue the needed amendments in a timely fashion. We do not need NRC headquarters staff, the Commission, the public, or the President to review these amendments. The regional NRC offices would appear to be all that is necessary for the most part.

Exemption of return of sealed sources to the country of origin is a good idea. This works well and I agree that no further regulation is necessary. However, market forces may act to extend this concept as follows.

Let us imagine that companies that make radiolabeled compounds, such as DuPont and ICN, are worried about LLRW disposal. Let us assume that these companies can purchase necessary radionuclides from Canada, Russia, or the U.S. If the country of origin of the radionuclide offers to take back the LLRW, could this be exempted as well? If the country of origin offers to take back (not necessarily for free), LLRW from those who purchase labeled compounds from the companies who use their radionuclides to make the labeled compounds, could this be exempted? If the waste were to be supercompacted and embedded in plastic, would it be a "sealed source"? As there are no commercial sources of byproduct material in the U.S. besides the U. of Missouri Research Reactor and some DOE Laboratories, could D.O.E., to keep its business, put LLRW in

May 22, 1992 Samuel Chilk Page DOE LLRW sites? Otherwise, business would go to foreign competitors. Would states that have DOE LLRW sites permit this?

If many licenses are required, would Agreement States issue them once the byproduct material and destination countries are approved by NRC and the Executive Branch? It would seem appropriate to do so for Agreement State licensees.

The last issue that concerns me is transportation of LLRW thr ough a state which is not the final destination of the LLRW. LLRW has freely crossed all states for half a century with no significant problems, and I believe that no state should be permitted to place any restrictions or new financial obligations on the mere act of transporting or transporting and unloading/loading LLRW. Such action would be restraint of trade.

Thank y ou for your atten tion, and I hope that these issues will be smoothly resolved.

Sincerely,

~

Carols. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.

Director, Nuclear Med. Outpt. Clinic and Assoc. Prof. of Radiological Sciences UCLA cc: Kristen Morris Henry Kramer, Ph.D.

Alan Pasternak, Ph.D.

Capt. William Briner (ret.)

Commissioner Ivan Selin Commissioner Gail de Planque Commissio ner Forrest Remick Commissioner Kenneth Rodgers Commissioner James Curtiss James Taylor Hugh Thompson Robert Bernero Richard Cunningham

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR 1*..

1 O

(57 F Yl /?~Sq )

DOCKETfO USNRC

[7590-0)]

• 92 APR 24 P2 :40 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 110 RIN 3150-AD36 Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its licensing requirements regarding the import and export of radioactive wastes.

The proposed amendments reflect the decision of the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency in September 1990 approving a voluntary Code of Practice to guide Nation States in the development and harmonization of policies and laws on the international transboundary movement of radioactive waste. The proposed amendments are intended to conform U.S .

policies with these international recommendations.

7/ 13/Cf'L DATE: Conrnent period expires [75 days after pyblicatjon jn the Federal Register]. Co11J11ents received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only of comments received on or before this date .

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

Copies of connnents received may be examined at: the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ronald Hauber, Office of International Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone 301/504-2344.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

• Introduction and Purpose The Nuclear Regulatory Conmission (NRC) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on February 7, 1990 (55 FR 4181) to solicit public connnents on possible options with respect to imports and exports of radioactive waste. The ANPR was issued in the context of ongoing Connnission interactions with the U.S. Department of State and other Federal agencies regarding the Connnission's interest in helping to develop a broad U.S. policy in regard to these imports and exports.

The ANPR referred to the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voluntary code of practice on transboundary shipments of radioactive

waste. This effort was supported by the U.S. Government. A final document was approved by the IAEA General Conference in Vienna, Austria in September 1990. A basic principle of the code of practice is that international exports of radioactive waste should take place with the prior notification and consent of the sending, receiving, and transit countries.

At present, the NRC's import and export licensing requirements are concerned primarily with nuclear proliferation controls. Radioactive materials of little or no significance with respect to national security are currently allowed to enter or leave the U.S. under general import and export licenses. Thus, currently, imports or exports of nuclear waste may take place without issuance of a specific license by the NRC and without the NRC's knowledge. By amending Part 110, in the manner discussed below, to require specific licensing of such imports or exports, the NRC will be strengthening I

its controls over radioactive waste entering or leaving the United States.

The ANPR reflected concerns that international transfers of radioactive wastes to and from the U.S., in particular low-level radioactive wastes (LLW),

should be subject to more control. The Conrnission sought conrnents from the public, industry, and other government agencies on four regulatory options and several related issues. The ANPR stated the NRC's preliminary judgement that the best approach would be to develop a policy that provides greater control and accountability over the export and import of radioactive waste. The ANPR also stated that this policy could lead to an amendment to the NRC's exist1.ng regulations in Part 110 to require advance notification and/or consent for radioactive waste exports or imports.

4-Thirty letters of comment were received in response to the ANPR. The comments addressed various aspects of the four regulatory options and thirteen associated questions. A discussion of the general comments of the low-level waste compacts, and the public comments on the four options and thirteen questions, is given below:

General Comments by Low-Level Waste Compacts The Southeast Compact Commission offered four general convnents, as follows:

I. As a matter of policy, the Co11111ission should recognize that most low-level radioactive waste compacts have adopted a policy controlling the import and export of low-level waste to and from their respective regions.

Authority to enforce restrictions has been granted by the Congress in its approval of compact legislation. The ANPR gives little recognition of this fact.

NRC Response: The authority of the low-level waste compacts (Compacts) and States is recognized in the proposed rule. The NRC would coordinate its import licensing actions closely with interested Compacts and States. An NRC import license would not be issued in a particular case unless there were a disposal faciljty willing and able to receive it, including having the necessary authorizations from State-level officials. Neither Compacts nor States have any authority over exports of low-level radioactive waste from the United States although they may have authority to bar such waste from leaving their respective regions or jurisdictions.

5 -

2.* The NRC must provide specific notice of any approved, impending imports and exports to all low-level Compacts which may be impacted. The portal State should also be notified of such shipments.

NRC Response: The NRC will inform interested Compacts and States prior to*issuing a license to authorize the import or export of radioactive waste.

However, the proposed rule does not place reporting requirements on shippers with regard to notifying the NRC of the actual route and schedule of each auth~rized import or export of radioactive waste. The C-ompacts and States might be able to place their own reporting requirements on shippers. In the case of imports, such reporting requirements might be imposed as a condition of authorizing a disposal facility to receive the shipper's material.

3. It is believed that Congress did not contemplate the foreign importation or exportation of waste that would violate a Compact's expressed desires to deny such domestic importation from or exportation to another region of this cou~try.

NRC Response: The NRC believes the proposed rule complies with Congressional requirements and respects the role and authority of the Compacts and States with respect to low-level radioactive waste. It does not preempt the authority of the Compacts or States to control the movement of low-level waste into or out of a regional or State facility.

4. Because the imported and exported material may have low economic value and might be abandoned in the event of an accident, appropriate financial assurance must be obtained for these wastes.

NRC Response: The proposed rule does not establish any special requirements for financial assurances as a condition for the NRC issuing an

._ 6 -

import or export license. The NRC staff believes it would be difficult to justify requiring financial assurances for waste shipments when assurances are not required for other shipments of radioactive materials which have low economic value. However, the Commission's decision criteria for licensing imports or exports of radioactive waste include a determination of whether or not the proposed import or export would minimize public health, safety, and environmental impacts in the U.S. and the global commons. This criterion could lead to an examination of the shipper's qualifications and past performance in light of the potential risks to the public and the environment.'

Moreover, the NRC will consult with State officials and the Department of State will consult with foreign officials to identify concerns in particular cases and allow those officials or others to require special financial assurances, outside the specific framework of the NRC's import-export regulations.

The Central Midwest Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission, in addition to several specific coments on the options, noted:

1. Policies adopted by the NRC must allow the Compact commissions to exercise their authority over low-level waste disposed of in their regions.

NRC Response: The NRC agrees. as discussed above and as reflected in the proposed rule.

2. The public must be confident that their health and safety is being protected by an agency (NRC) that places the burden of proof on industry to demonstrate that imports or exports will not pose a threat to them.

NRC Response: The NRC believes its proposed rule should be helpful in assuring public confidence in this regard.

7-

3. The NRC's regulations should contain explicit statements acknowledging that compliance with federal regulations is necessary, but not sufficient. The NRC should explicitly recognize the authority granted to the Compacts by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act to control "imports and exports" of waste across their regional boundaries.

NRC Response: The introduction to the proposed rule states that the NRC's import/export licensing authority only controls the entry or exit of the radioactive waste into or out of the jurisdiction of the United States. It does not authorize possession of the materials nor does it in anyway assure access to a disposal facility or preempt the authority of the Compacts or States in respect to the movement of radioactive waste into or out of a region or State.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, with particular reference to the Appalachian States Compact, observed:

1. No low-level radioactive waste may be imported or exported into the

- Compact region for disposal at the regional facility without authorization as provided by law.

NRC Response: The proposed rule does not preempt the authority of the Compacts or States to control the movement of low-level waste into or out of a region or State.

2. When the Appalachian States disposal facility begins operation in Pennsylvania, the import or export of any low-level radioactive waste for disposal purposes is effectively banned. Any exception would have to be approved by the Compact commission and/or the legislature of the host State.

NRC Response: The proposed rule does not preempt the authority of the Compacts or States to control the movement of low-level waste into or out of a region or State.

Public CoD1Tients on the Four Options and Thirteen Questions Option 1: Maintain the status quo.

• Several co11111enters preferred Option 1. They said a heed for change is not evident; any proposed rulemaking would be based on conjecture about potential future problems; the Compacts are able to restrict transfers in and out of their regions; and if there is any inconsistency in the regulation of domestic- and foreign-origin waste disposal, the regulations governing domestic possession and use could be modified.

Others opposed Option 1 because this option does not provide adequate control, is not appropriate in view of international concern about extraterritorial waste dumping, and does not keep the NRC informed about waste exports and imports.

The NRC carefully considered the comment that regional Compact restrictions on waste moving in or out of the Compact obviated the need for additional NRC import or export controls on radioactiva wastes. However, the NRC concluded that neither these restrictions, nor conditions placed on materials licenses by the NRC or the Agreement States, effectively control exports or imports of wastes under the general licenses in Part 110.

Overall, Option I does not ensure that the Comission would be informed of radioactive waste exports from the U.S. or of imports into this country and

does not provide the degree of control and international consultation recorrrnended by the IAEA Code of Practice.

Option 2: Notification of the NRC.

One cormnenter favored this option, if any change is needed. Two supported this option in combination with Options 3 (specific licensing) and 4 (international agreements).

Several commenters opposed this option; some because it would be too restrictive or burdensome; others because it would be ineffective or would offer an insufficient degree of control.

The Department .of State commented that this option, by itself, is not appropriate in view of international concerns. The NRC believes that a notification-only option is insufficient in regard to assuring adequate government control to allay worldwide concerns about waste dumping and conform with the IAEA Code of Practice.

Option 3: Require specific licenses to import or export radioactive waste.

One corrrnenter opposed Option 3. This commenter believed that it is unnecessary to control waste imports to the U.S. because of the import provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act and current requirements for obtaining site use permits and for identifying waste generators at the current disposal sites. The commenter said acknowledgement of the receiving country may be useful to prevent an inappropriate export of waste but that this is possible without licensing. One commenter observed that Option 3 demands trust in the NRC to administer the program and that the

10 -

public may not trust the NRC to assure that foreign "BRC" (below regulatory concern) wastes will not end up in municipal landfills or incinerators in the U.S.

Several commenters supported Option 3 either alone or combined with Option 4. Option 3 was generally recognized as ensuring effective control, yet providing some flexibility. One commenter supported Option 3 because the licensing process allows possible public participation which would be unavailable under Option 4. Another commenter said Option 3 would provide for host State control over waste disposal and appropriate review by the affected Compact commission.

The Department of State preferred Option 3, noting that it should ensure, through advance notice of proposed waste imports and exports, the opportunity to control these transactions based on the consent of the importing country.

The NRC also favors Option 3. The NRC would eliminate the use of existing general licenses under Part 110 for radioactive waste exports and imports except to return sealed sources and other materials to the country of origin to a consignee who is authorized to possess them.

Option 4: Ban imports and exports of radioactive waste except under international disposal agreements.

Co11111ents were about equally divided on this option. Supporters generally favored combintng it with Option 3 (specific licensing) to achieve adequate control over imports and exports. One commenter suggested using this combination to ensure that exported wastes do not reappear as contaminated scrap. Those opposing Option 4 thought this option could be inflexible and difficult to implement. One co11111enter said that there may be little

opportunity for public participation and litigation in connection with international agreements negotiated by the Department of State.

The Department of State said there had been no documentation of a waste dumping problem sufficient to justify expending substantial resources developing and negotiating a potentially complex set of agreements with prospective importing countries. The NRC agrees with the Department of State that it is not necessary to require formal agreements with other countries in order to determine the receiving government's acceptance of a proposed shipment of radioactive waste. This can be done by the Department of State in consultation with the receiving government prior to the NRC's issuance of an export license.

Question 1: What are the economic advantages and disadvantages to the import and export of radioactive wastes?

The responses to this question emphasized the current uncertainties about the number, location, and capacity of domestic disposal sites now being planned, as well as uncertainties 1n the future domestic demand for storage at those sites, cost factors, etc. The NRC agrees that there are a large number of unknowns and that requiring specific NRC licenses for radioactive* waste imports and exports will help ensure that all relevant considerations can be taken into account at the time each licensing decision is made.

Question i: Are there policy, health and safety, or economic disadvantages to denying import or export of certain radioactive wastes, e.g.,

interference with ongoing U.S. international trade in sealed sources and gauges used in medical or other applications?

Three public interest groups expressed the view that the NRC should not be concerned with economic disadvantages but should limit its concern to public health and safety and the environment. Several co11111enters (source suppliers and States) recognized an economic disadvantage for U.S. source suppliers if they are not allowed to take back used sources because the sale of a source is often conditioned on later return of the source for disposal.

One co11111enter said that if return of used sources was prohibited by import restrictions, U.S. suppliers would set up foreign companies with a possible negative economic impact on the U.S. One State official commented that on a case-by-case basis there may be health and safety advantages or disadvantages to denying import or export of certain wastes. Others noted that medical sources or instruments, although per~aps a*small part of the possible volume of exports and imports of radioactive waste, produced benefits which may offset the environmental cost of disposal. Another commenter beljeves that waste imports and exports should be minimized, with approvals granted only when necessary to protect the public health and safety and the environment.

The NRC believes that the return of used or depleted sealed sources, gauges, and similar items to the U.S. or to another original exporting country for reconditioning, recycling or disposal may be appropriate for a number of reasons, but especially to help ensure that such materials are handled responsibly and not left in dispersed and perhaps unregulated locations around the world.

Question 3: Would it be in the interest of U.S foreign policy to assist certain countries with the disposal of their radioactive wastes?

13 -

Commenters acknowledged that foreign governments might appreciate any assistance the U.S. could give them on waste disposal, but that the U.S.

should provide help on policies, regulations, and institutions for handling wastes, rather than agree to import their waste when we have not solved our own problems in this area.

The NRC believes that specific licensing of low-level radioactive waste (LLW) exports and imports, as contemplated in the proposed rule, will allow important foreign policy considerations to enter into the.decision process, but that these considerations would not supersede primary U.S. domestic interests.

Question 4: Does the U.S. have an adequate mechanism to dispose of imported radioactive wastes without adversely impacting the disposal of domestically generated wastes?

Commenters noted that the U.S. has not yet demonstrated its ability to handle disposal of domestic waste under the siting process defined in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA) of 1985. The con111enters identified other uncertainties which made the impact of any foreign waste imports difficult to judge. One commenter noted that the intent of Congress under the LLRWPAA was to make the States responsible for their own wastes, not imported wastes. An operator of a disposal site commented that current requirements for site use permits and identification of generator~

ensure appropriate approvals by State regulatory agencies before wastes are imported for disposal and obviate the need for additional regulation of imports of waste into the U.S.

The NRC believes the answer to this question depends largely on the success of the LLRWPAA's siting process.

Question 5: Would imported radioactive wastes be similar to radioactive wastes generated in the U.S. and therefore not likely to result in new radiological and/or environmental problems?

Commenters were not sure of the nature of foreign waste, but some assumed it would be similar to U.S. waste. There was some concern that imported waste could differ and that control at the generator's facilities could be a problem. There was a view that an accountable agency providing third party inspections would be essential to ensure that foreign waste streams meet Federal and importing States' specific requirements.

The NRC agrees that a verification system would need to be in place to assure that imported wastes meet U.S. standards. Existing mechanisms could be used for this purpose.

Question 6: What are the views of operators of disposal facilities and State and local governments on the import of radioactive wastes?

The one site operator who responded to the question said the NRC had implied in the ANPR that a Compact site might be required to accept foreign waste unless a change is made in Part 110. However, the operator noted that a Compact has the authority to deny access to any out-of-Compact generator, including foreign ones. Several State agencies said that imports should only take place under exceptional circumstances on a case-by-case basis when the environment and public health and safety are at risk.

State agencies, as well as the one local government official that responded to the question, expected that local governments would oppose

15 -

imports, probably at least into the 21st Century. A regional Compact official stressed his view that Congress did not contemplate foreign imports and exports that would violate a Compact's expressed desires to deny domestic (inter-Compact) imports and exports. The official said that if any foreign imports or exports are approved, specific notice should be given to portal States and impacted Compacts, and financial assurances should be provided to cover accidents.

• The NRC notes that neither this question nor any others in the ANPR were intended to show a predisposition to approve radioactive waste imports without regard to the acceptability of the proposed actions to interested States and Compacts. Also, the NRC emphasizes that its exercise of import and export control at the borders of the U.S. is independent of the control which the States and Compacts may possess over radioactive waste while it is in the U.S.

Question 7: Are national authorities in countries that might receive U.S.-exported wastes technically competent to dispose of these wastes and would they agree to its receipt?

Co11111enters recognized that countries differ widely in their technical competencies, with the major nuclear power-producing countries generally most advanced in waste handling technology. Some cormnenters said that if any countries are willing to receive U.S.-exported waste, the U.S. should ensure that these host countries have the technical and other competence necessary to handle the waste safely.

The NRC believes that any waste exports should be confined to countries which are willing to receive them and which have regulated waste disposal programs. The NRC knows of no countries currently willing to receive our wastes.

Question 8: Should the capability of a recipient country to manage and dispose of radioactive wastes safely be considered in any NRC export license review process, recognizing that NRC authority to deny a license on these grounds is questionable?

Most commenters favored consideration of the capability of the receiving country in order to protect populations and the environment from incompetent disposal activities, as well as for moral and economic reasons. One commenter stated that criteria should be developed and implemented to evaluate host country capabilities prior to licensing. Another suggested that international agreements be used to provide the legal authority for the NRC to consider the capability of the host country.

Among the licensing criteria which the NRC would apply to its review of proposed radioactive waste exports are two which are relevant to this question. The NRC would consider the extent to which the proposed export would minimize public health, safety, and environmental impacts in the U.S and the global conunons. The NRC would also consider whether or not the proposed export would be acceptable to the competent regulatory authority of the receiving country. The NRC does not contemplate any circumstances in which a license would be issued to export to a country without a regulated waste disposal program or to a country whose government is opposed to receiving the waste.

Question 9: Would the export of some or all categories of radioactive wastes help solve a significant problem in the U.S., such as limited available disposal capacity?

• Co11111enters noted that export of radioactive waste might be seen as the solution to the problem of developing low-level waste disposal sites but, unless all U.S. wastes were to be exported, would drive up the cost of disposing of whatever low-level wastes remained for domestic disposal and thus would serve as an economic disincentive to development of*new sites.

The NRC agrees that exporting waste may cause more problems than it solves and should only be licensed when a case is made in support of a particular proposal. Any shortage of U.S. disposal capacity would only be a short-term condition.

Question 10: The NRC cannot currently regulate Naturally Occurring or Accelerator Produced Material. Are provisions needed for the import and export of these wastes, assuming the NRC were given statutory authority over these materials?

Co11111enters seemed to favor the NRC regulation (and LLW Compact disposal) of accelerator-produced wastes, but were less sure with respect to naturally-occurring wastes such as pipe scale and gypsum piles which might be best left unregulated by the NRC.

As indicat~d in the question itself, the scope of the NRC's authority is not decided by the NRC but is set by law. At present the NRC does not have regulatory authority over naturally occurring and accelerator-produced wastes.

Question 11: Are there other means to broaden the Co11111ission's information base with regard to transactions of exports and imports of

.. 18 - .

radioactive wastes, exclusive of requiring specific licenses or otherwise revising the NRC's existing regulations?

Commenters suggested that international agencies or diplomatic channels might provide transaction information or that the U.S. might conduct a survey of radioactive materials broke_rs, processors, and site operators in the U.S.

Another suggestion was to require licensees to keep records for NRC review or to submit an annual report to the NRC on waste types, volumes, activities, and des ti nations.

The NRC appreciates the suggestions which were offered, but has opted for specific licensing as a means of increasing its cognizance and control with respect to radioactive waste imports and exports.

Question 12: What import/export controls and licensing criteria may be necessary for various categories of radioactive waste and under what circumstances should imports and exports be considered wastes?

This broad question produced extensive conments covering the whole spectrum of options. One publi'c interest group opposed NRC controls and asked for a complete ban. Others urged minimization of radioactive waste imports and exports, supporting only those actions necessary to protect health and safety and the environment, but also allowing the return of sealed radiation sources to the manufacturer. One said the NRC should use specific_ licensing to control international trade in sealed sources and to ban the import of low-level waste generated by the nuclear fuel cycle. Another said the NRC should ban specific waste forms, allowing the return of spent sealed sources to the manufacturer but not directly to a disposal facility except when such a

19 -

prohibition of this type would have a detrimental impact on the environment or public health and safety in the U.S. or abroad and when no other safe alternative exists.

Another con111enter stated that the NRC's system of regulations, license conditions, and definitions should be used for the rest of the world and that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements could be used to ensure proper identification and characterization of mixed wastes. Others said that wastes should be accompanied by specific manifests and there should be legal certifications by receivers that they have the authority to accept the waste shipments and wish to accept them. Another said it could be useful for the receiving country to acknowledge the acceptability of the waste import before the export is authorized.

The Department of State recomended that it obtain written consent of the recipient country and ask the country to confirm receipt of the import when it

)

occurs. The Department of State also said that the NRC's rulemaking shoul_d exclude:

a) waste imports and exports in support of U.S. Government waste research and development testing programs under international arrangements, b) military shipments that the U.S. Government makes to itself, between foreign and domestic bases, pursuant to arrangements with another country, and c) shipments made pursuant to other arrangements concluded between the U.S. and the other *governments providing entry and transit through the other nation (e.g., the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation).

The NRC accepted several of the suggestions in developing the definitions, exceptions, procedures, and licensing criteria presented in this proposed rulemaking. Regarding the Department of State/Executive Branch recommendations: (a) international research and development shipments would be excluded from any new requirements because the shipped waste is being sent for research purposes, not just for disposal; (b) military and other U.S.

Government shipments involving the return of radioactive waste to the U.S. (to an authorized Federal facility) would be excluded; and (c) nothing in the proposed new requirements would affect entry and transit rights under international shipping conventions.

Question 13: What assurances can be made that the Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policies of various countries are consistent so that radioactive wastes declared to be BRC in the exporting country are indeed BRC wastes in the recipient country?

, Several commenters expressed objections to Below Regulatory Concern as a regulatory concept or policy. One said that the problem is best solved by minimizing import and export of radioactive wastes and addressing BRC by specific international agreement when necessary and prior to import or export activity. Another said that BRC policy for imports should be the same as U.S.

domestic BRC policy. Yet another commenter observed that it is not clear why a generator of .BRC wastes would wish to export them.

The NRC has made no special provision for BRC material in its proposed rule. Future BRC detenninations by the Connission may or may not be applied to waste imports and exports under Part 110, depending on how they are formulated and on Commission policy at that time.

~ 21 -

Overview of the Proposed Rule The proposed rule would require a person to file an application for a specific license to export or import radioactive waste. The applicant would be required to include information on the volume of wastes, the waste classification, its chemical and physical characteristics, and whether a disposal site operator had agreed to accept the waste. A notice of receipt of eacrr application would be published in the Federal Register. The views of the Executive Branch would be requested from the Department of State on proposed exports, and time would be available for NRC consultations with other Federal agencies and interested States and low-level waste Compacts on proposed imports. The NRC would have exclusive jurisdiction for granting or denying all licenses.

The NRC review would be governed by the f~llowing criteria: Would a proposed export or import minimize public health, safety, and environmental impacts in the United States and the global co111nOns? Would a proposed export be acceptable to the competent regulatory authority of the receiving country?

And would a proposed export be inimical to the contn0n defense and security interests of the United States?

Following its review, the NRC would recomend to the Comission approval or denial of the license. If the CoD111ission approved the issuance of an import or export license, such license would only authorize the waste material to enter or exit the jurisdiction of the United States. The NRC import or export license alone would noi authorize possession of the material and would not guarantee access to a disposal site in the U.S. or another country. In

the case of waste imports, the NRC would consult with interested States and low-level waste Compacts prior to issuing an import license and generally would not grant a license unless it was clear that the waste would be accepted by a disposal site and its host State and Compact.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion

• The NRC has determined that pursuant to Sections 51.10 and 51.22(c)(l) of this chapter, these proposed amendments to Part 110 require neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Jhis rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, {3150-0036 and 3150-0027)

Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis Existing NRC regulations provide strong regulatory control over the export of strategic nuclear material from a national security

{non*proliferation) standpoint, but provide much less control over non-strategic nuclear materials. Many such non-strategic imports and exports qualify for general licenses without specific review or approval by the NRC.

(Domestic regulations in the U.S. and abroad, and international transportation regulations, provide the primary regulatory controls for health and safety and environmental protection purposes.} In fact, the Comission has taken the position in the Philippine Reactor Export Case, and in several materials export licensing cases, that its consideration of health, safety, and environmental impacts of an export is confined to those that affect the territory of the U.S. or the global commons and that the NRC is without jurisdiction to consider impacts upon the citizens of recipient nations. This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in NRDC v. NRC, 647 F.2nd 1345 (D.C. Cir. 1981}. Executive Order 12114, however, calls for concise environmental reviews by the Executive Branch of any exported reactor or nuclear waste management facility.

National and worldwide concerns about radioactive waste disposal practices have brought attention to the limited focus of the NRC's import and export regulations and the fact that certain types and quantities of

radioactive materials, including possible shipments of low-level wastes, may be imported or exported without specific authorization by the NRC and without the NRC's knowledge. The voluntary international Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste, which was approved by the IAEA General Conference in 1990 with strong U.S. Government support, provides that exports and international shipments of radioactive wastes should take place onl.Y with the prior notification and consent of the sending, receiving, and tran~it countries. The proposed changes in the NRC's regulations in Part 110 would serve to bring the U.S. into line with these international recommendations.

To the NRC's. knowledge, there is no appreciable U.S. import or export traffic in radioactive waste. A possible exception, depending on one's definition of radioactive waste, would be the widely accepted practice, usually rooted in a sales or leasing contract or other agreement, of returning depleted sealed radioactive sources,.used gauges, and other instruments containing radioactive materials, and similar medical and industrial items, to the original supplier-manufacturer for recycle or disposal. This practice is generally encouraged by governmental authorities as a way of helping to ensure that the items are han~led in a responsible manner at the end of their useful life. By exempting these return shipments from new import or export controls, the NRC believes the proposed regulatory changes involve no significant cost to U.S. companies, the medical conununity, or other entities which provide or use nuclear equipment and materials. The changes could affect waste management companies interested in receiving low-level waste imports from other countries. At present low-level imports would be generally licensed

under Part 110. Under the proposed changes, the imports would require specific import licenses from the NRC and might not satisfy the licensing criteria. However, it is not clear whether this licensing requirement would impose any more difficult obstacle to a prospective waste importer than would the authority given the States and low-level waste Compacts under the LLRWPAA to block shipments of LLW into their respective jurisdictions.

Finally, it is noted that legislation to implement the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste (1989} may establish an interface in the regulatory import-export control regimes of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NRC. That legislation may exempt from the EPA's control regime radioactive waste imports and exports controlled by the NRC in its implementation of the IAEA voluntary Code of Practice on Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Wastes.

In this sense, the alternative to the proposed changes to the NRC's regulations contained in this rulemaking is not to maintain the status qu~

but, arguably, some form of EPA control.

Overall, the NRC believes that requiring specific NRC licensing of U.S.

waste imports and exports is a sound regulatory approach to help ensure that the transactions are subject to approval of the U.S. Government and the consent of other involved parties. This approach will bring the NRC's regulations in,line with the recently-adopted IAEA voluntary Code of Practice.

The following points influenced the NRC's position on this matter:

~ 26 -

A. Only Option 1 of the ANPR, i.e., to continue the use of existing regulations, would not require rul~making and this option is not acceptable if

-additional control over imports and exports of radioactive wastes is to be achieved.

B. The international co11111unity, including the United States, is conunitted to establishing a regime to ensure that waste imports and exports do not take place without the consent of the sending, receiving, and transit countries.

C. Specific licensing of radioactive waste exports and imports is a practical means of extending NRC cognizance and control over these transactions while also allowing for consultations and coordination with Executive Branch, State, and.local authorities, as appropriate. Formal Executive Branch coordination would require the Department of State to determine if each proposed radioactive waste export .from the U.S. is acceptable to the government of the receiving country.

D. Sealed sources (and other shipments of source, byproduct, and special

)

nuclear material currently exported or impor~ed under NRC Part 110 general licenses) should be allowed to return to a consignee in the country of origin who is authorized to possess them, without need for a specific import or

~xport license from the NRC, in order to avoid undue disruption of commercial activities that embody desirable waste-takeback features.

The proposed rule would ensure that the NRC regulates imported, foreign-generated waste in a manner consistent with the NRC's regulation of domestically-generated waste. By requiring a specific import license from the NRC, the proposed rule would ensure that NRC regulatory requirements would be

~ 27 -

applicable to any imported radioactive waste resulting from any foreign nuclear operation that, if operated domestically, would be subject to the NRC's licensing jurisdiction.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)),

the *commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The new licensing requirements for radioactive waste specifically exclude from additional controls the return of U.S.-origin sealed sources by foreign customers, which is the principal type of existing commercial activity which otherwise might have been adversely affected. In all, the proposed amendments of the general licenses contained in Part 110 are expected to result 1n fewer than ten new export and import licenses per year.

Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and, therefore, a backfit analysis is not required.

~ 28 -

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 110 Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Export, Import, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorgan1zation Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 110.

PART 110 - EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL

1. The authority citation for Part 110 continues to read:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 54, 57, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 109, 111, 126, 127, 128, 129, 161, 181, 182, 183, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 931, 932, 933, 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2074, 2077, 2092-2095, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2139a, 2141, 2154-2158, 2201, 2231-2233, 2237, 2239); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 u.s.c. 5841).

Section ll0.l(b)(2) also issued under Pub.L. 96-92, 93 Stat. 710 (22 U.S.C. 2403), §110.11 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152) and secs. 54c and 57d., 88 Stat. 473, 475, (42 U.S.C. 2074).

Section 110.27 also issued under sec. 309(a), Pub.L.99-440.

Section 110.50(b)(3) also issued under sec. 123, 92 Stat. 142

29 -

(42 U.S.C. 2153). Section 110.51 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234); Section 110.52 also issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236). Sections 110.80-110.113 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552, 554. Sections 110.30-110.35 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553.

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),

§§110.20-110.29, 110.50, §§110.120-110.129 also issued under secs. 161b.

and i; 68 Stat. 948, 949, as amended {42 U.S.C. 220l{b) and {i)); and §110.7b.

as i~sued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended {42 u:s.c. 2201(1) and

§§110.7a and 110.53 are also issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended

{42 u.s.c. 2201(0)).

2. Section 110.2 is amended to add the terms country of origin and radioactive waste to read as follows:

§110.2 Definitions.

As used in this part, Country of origin means the country which has previously exported specified radioactive materials to another country.

Radioactive waste means any material that contains or is contaminated with source material, special nuclear material or byproduct material, for which no use is foreseen, and any other imported radioactive material resulting from any foreign nuclear operation that, if operated in the United States, would be subject to the NRC's licensing authority, and for which no use is foreseen.

~ 30 -

3. In §110.21, the introductory text of paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised, and a new paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

§110.21 Export of special nuclear material.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export the following to any country not listed in §110.28:

• (b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this sect1on, a general license is issued to any person to export the following to any country not listed in §110.28 or §110.29:

(c) The general licenses in paragraphs (a) and (b) in this section do not authorize the export of special nuclear material in radioactive waste, other than special nuclear material in radioactive waste that is being returned to the country of origin to a consignee who is authorized by such country to possess the material.

4. In §110.22, the introductory text of paragraphs (a), (b), and {c) are revised and a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:

§110.22 Export of source material.

{a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export the following to any country not listed in §110.28:

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export uranium or thorium in individual

31 -

shipments of 10 kilograms or less to any country not listed in §110.28 or

§110.29. A person may not export more than 1,000 kilograms per year to any one country.

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export uranium or thorium in individual shipments of 1 kilogram or less to any country listed in §110.29. A person may not export more than 100 kilograms per year to any one country.

• (d) The general licenses in paragraphs (a), (b), and* (c) of this section do not authorize the export of source material in radioactive waste, other than source material in radioactive waste that is being returned to the country of origin to a consignee who is authorized by such country to possess the material.

5. In §110.23, the introductory text of paragraphs (a) and (b), and paragraph (c) are revised and a new paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:

§110.23 Export of byproduct material.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export the following to any country not listed in §110.28:

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export americium-241 to any country not listed in §110.28, except that exports of americium-241 exceeding 1 curie per shipment or 100 curies per year to any country listed in §110.29.

~ 32 -

(c) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, a general license is issued to any person to export bulk, undispersed tritium in individual shipments of 100 curies or less to any country not listed in

§110.28 or §110.29. No person may export more than 10,000 curies per year to any one country.

(d) The general licenses in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section do not authorize the export of byproduct material in radioactive waste, other tha~ byproduct material in radioactive waste that is being returned to the country of origin to a consignee who is authorized by such country to possess the material.

6. In §110.27, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

§110.21 Imports.

(b) The general license in paragraph (a) of this section does not authorize the import of source or special nuclear material in the form of irradiated fuel that exceeds 100 kilograms per shipment or the import of radioactive waste, other than radioactive waste that is being returned to the United States to a consignee who is authorized by the NRC or an NRC Agreement State to possess the material or to a United States Government or military facility which is authorized to possess the material.

~ 33 -

7. In §110.31, paragraph (f}(5) is redesignated as paragraph {f)(6) and a new paragraph (f)(5) is added to read as follows:

§110.31 Information required in license applications.

(f) * * *

{5) For proposed exports or imports of radioactive waste, the volume, classification, and physical and chemical characteristics of the material; and for ~roposed imports of radioactive waste, the industrial* or other process responsible for generation of the waste, the ultimate disposition of the waste, and the status of the arrangements for that disposition, i.e.,

agreement by a Regional Low-Level Waste Compact or state to accept the material for disposal.

8. In §110.4Q, paragraphs (b) and (c) are redesignated (c) and (d),

respectively, and a new paragraph (b) is added to read as follows.:

§110.40 comission review.

(b) The Commission shall review an application to import or export radioactive waste.

9. In §110.41, paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(S) are redesignated as paragraphs (a)(S) and (a)(9), and a new paragraph (a)(7) is added to read as follows:

§110.41 Executive Branch review.

(a)* * *

(7) An export involving radioactive waste.

10. In §110.44, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

§110.44 Issuance or denial of licenses.

(c) If, after receiving the Executive Branch judgement that the issuance of a proposed export license will not be inimical to the common defense and security, the Cormtission does not issue the proposed license on a timely basis because it is unable to make the statutory determinations required under the Atomic Energy Act, the Conrnission will publicly issue a decision to that effect and will submit the license application to the President. The Conrniss1on's decision will include an explanation of the basis for the decision and any dissenting or separate views. The provisions in this paragraph do not apply to Commission decisions regarding license applications for the export of byproduct material or radioactive waste.

11. In §110.70, paragraph {c) is redesignated as paragraph (d), and new paragraphs {b)(4) and {c) are added to read as follows:

§110.70 Public notice of receipt of an appljcatjon.

(b) * * *

(4) Radioactive waste.

._ 35 -

{c) The Commission will also publish in the Federal Register a notice of receipt of an application for a license to import radioactive waste.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, t h i s ~ day of ~\ , 1992.

For the Nuclear Rega'lory Commission.

he Comission.