ML23156A406
| ML23156A406 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/07/1990 |
| From: | NRC/SECY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PR-110, 55FR04181 | |
| Download: ML23156A406 (1) | |
Text
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 02/07/1990 TITLE: PR-110 - 55FR04181 - IMPORT AND EXPORT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES CASE
REFERENCE:
PR-110 55FR04181 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE: PR-110 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME: IMPORT AND EXPORT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 55FR04181 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 02/07/90 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 30 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 03/09/90 EXTENSION DATE: I I FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 55FR04181 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: / /
NOTES ON ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING. SEE ALSO PROPOSED RULE AT
~TUS 57 FR 17859 AND SECY-95-060 ON THE FINAL RULE. (FINAL RULE HAS BEE RULE N PUBLISHED AT 60 FR 37556. FILE LOCATED ON Pl.
TO FIND THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-110 RULE TITLE: IMPORT AND EXPORT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES
-PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 89-327 FINAL RULE PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:
FINAL RULE 01/05/90 DATE PROPOSED RULE SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
DATE FINAL RULE 02/01/90 SECY PAPER: 95-060 SRM DATE: 06/22/95 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 02/01/90 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: WILLIAM LAHS MAIL STOP: NLS-139 PHONE: 49-23774 CONTACT2: FRED COMBS MAIL STOP: 3-D-23 PHONE: 49-20325
DOCKET NO. PR-110 (55FR04181)
In the Matter of IMPORT AND EXPORT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 02/02/90 02/07/90 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 02/26/90 02/21/90 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (DER)
(WILLIAM P. DORNSIFE) ( 1) 02/28/90 02/26/90 COMMENT OF OCRE (SUSAN L. HIATT) ( 2) 03/05/90 03/05/90 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (LAWRENCE H. HARMON) ( 3) 03/05/90 02/27/90 COMMENT OF JOHN GREENBERG ( 4) 03/08/90 03/06/90 COMMENT OF LESLIE P. FOLDESI ( 5) 03/09/90 03/08/90 COMMENT OF GREENPEACE (JIM VALLETTE AND PETER GRINSPOON) ( 6)
- 03/09/90 03/06/90 COMMENT OF JACK COCHEO ( 7) 03/12/90 03/06/90 COMMENT OF CORTLAND CARD AND CHENANGO-NORTH CARD (JAMES P. WEISS) ( 8) 03/12/90 03/06/90 COMMENT OF CENTRAL PA CITIZENS FOR SURVIVAL (GLADYS ZELINSKY) ( 9) 03/12/90 03/08/90 COMMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RADIATION IN THE ENVIRON.
(SIERRA CLUB) ( 10) 03/12/90 03/08/90 COMMENT OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMMISSION (CLARK W. BULLARD, CHAIRMAN) ( 11) 03/13/90 03/06/90 COMMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER (JUDITH H. JOHNSRUD, PH.D.) ( 12) 03/13/90 03/06/90 COMMENT OF ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS (C.W. MALODY) ( 13) 03/16/90 03/14/90 COMMENT OF MARVIN I. LEWIS ( 14) 03/19/90 03/14/90 COMMENT OF ROBERT D. GALLAGHER, PRESIDENT ( 15)
DOCKET NO. PR-110 (55FR04181)
DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 03/19/90 03/09/90 COMMENT OF NUMARC (JOE F. COLVIN, EXECUTIVE V.P.) ( 16) 03/20/90 03/19/90 EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD TO APRIL 24, 1990.
03/22/90 03/06/90 COMMENT OF DEPT. OF ENV. HLTH. l NAT. RES.
(DAYNE H. BROWN, DIRECTOR) ( 17) 03/26/90 03/19/90 COMMENT OF STATE OF NE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (HAROLD R. BORCHERT, DIRECTOR) ( 18)
- 04/09/90 04/09/90 COMMENT OF CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.
(MARK S. WHITTAKER) ( 19) 04/18/90 04/11/90 COMMENT OF ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH, DIV. RC l EM (GRETA J. DICUS, DIRECTOR) ( 20) 04/20/90 04/04/90 COMMENT OF THE COUNTY OF CORTLAND (CINDY MONACO, LLRW COORDINATOR) ( 21) 04/23/90 04/20/90 COMMENT OF AMERSHAM CORPORATION (MARK A. DORUFF) ( 22) 04/24/90 04/23/90 COMMENT OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (YANKEE)
(DONALD W. EDWARDS) ( 23) 04/25/90 04/20/90 COMMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF STATE/EXECUTIVE BRANCH (CAROL M. SCHWAB) ( 24)
- 04/30/90 04/23/90 COMMENT OF ST. OF WASH., DEPTS OF ECOLOGY l HEALTH (ROGER STANLEY l T. R. STRONG) ( 25) 05/01/90 04/22/90 COMMENT OF (MARVIN I. LEWIS) ( 26) 05/03/90 04/23/90 COMMENT OF AMERSHAM CORPORATION (CATHLEEN M. ROUGHAN) ( 27) 05/07/90 05/04/90 COMMENT OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH (LEE E. JAGER, P.E., CHIEF) ( 28) 05/08/90 04/09/90 COMMENT OF STATE OF NC, DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL ***
(DAYNE H. BROWN) ( 29) 05/18/90 04/20/90 COMMENT OF SOUTHEAST COMPACT COMMISSION (RICHARDS. HODES, M.D., CHAIRMAN) ( 30)
DOCKET NUM~tH PR 1/V
, PROPOSED RULE ~ ~ r?/ )
SOUTHEAST COMPACT COM O
. ~ ION for Low-Level Radioactive Waste Managem~t 3901 Borrell Drive*Suite lOO*Roleigh, NC 27609*(919) 781-7152 RICHARD S HODES. MD. *90 NAY 18 Pl2 :45 CAPT. WILLIAM H BP!f\!Er, Chairman Secretory Treasure FRED 0. BRASWELL KATHRYN VISOCKI. MP f-<
Vice Chairman Executive Directc!
Apr11 20, 1990 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm1ss1on Attn: Docketing and Serv1ce Branch Washington, DC 20555
_Q~; Commen~s for the Advance Not1ce of Proposed Rulemak1ng concern1ng NRC regulat1(}i)S ror 1mport and e><port of rad1oact1ve waste CSP-90-21 ).
Dear S1rs:
In response to the Actvance Not1ce or Rulemak1ng relat1ng to I 0CFR 11 o on the 1mportat10.n or exportation of rad1oact1ve wastes, the Southeast Compact Comm1ss1on offers the fo11ow1ng comment s.
A As a matter of po11cy, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm1ss1on should recogntze that most low-level radloacttve waste compacts have adopted a po11cy contro111ng the Import and export or low-level rad1oact1ve waste to and rrom their region. AuthOrlty to enforce these ;*estrtctlons has been granted by the U.S. Congress tn Its approv~.1 or compact legislation. The current proposal gives very ltttle recognltton t o th1s ract.
B. In addlt1on, after such approvals are obtatned, we be11eve that the Nuclear Regulatory commtsslon must provtde speclf1c notice or such tmpendtng Import or export to all low-level radioactive waste compacts which may be Impacted by this action. The portal state should also be nottrted of such shipments.
C. Further, the southeast Compact Commission does not be11eve that Congress contemplated the foreign Importation or exportat1on of waste that would violate a compact's expressed desires to deny such domest1c tmportatton from or exportation to another reg1on or th1s country.
FEBO 1J99L Acknowledged by card ""'"..* -*'"'"""'"'**
- Florido
SU ATORY COMMISSION Sf VICE SECTION E EC'1ETARY
.,QMMISSION mP.nt Statistics
-GIJ4(~J
-~ I ----
diced&
Jd/2:s~ ~~L'
¥=-
Nuclear Regulatory Comm1ss1on Apr11 20, I 990 Page Two D. Flnal ly, because the 1mported and e><ported mater1al may have low econom1c value and m1 ght be abandoned 1n the event of an accident, the southeast compact commtsston believes that appropr1ate 11nanc1a1 assurance must be obta1ned for these wastes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on th1s Advance Not1ce or Rulemak1ng.
S1ncerely, Richard S. Hodes, M.D.
AVG/sjb cc: All Compacts
KET NUMBER POSED RULE PR /// _CD
{55 F/G. Ot//8/
i OCKl i EC U~ NI C State of North Carolina *90 MAY -8 P2 :2 Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Radiation Protection H !C~ OF St Ct~t ll1R..,
DUCKf: 1ING.\ :; [ il VICf P.O. Box 27687
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 BRAN CH James G. Martin, Governor Dayne H. Brown, Director William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary Telephone 919/733-4283 April 9, 1990 Frederick C. Combs, Assistant Director State, Local and Indian Relations State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Dear Hr. Combs:
The Division of Radiation Protection appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Draft Code of Practice on International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste.
In that this Draft Code of Practice is designed to serve as a guideline, we have no specific comments other than this appears to be an acceptable code of practice for the transboundary movement of radioactive waste. We would, however, reiterate your approach in that such movements I should only take place when they are authorized by all States involved in the movement, when all stages of the movement can be conducted in a manner consistent with international safety standards, and when all States involved in the movement have the administrative and technical capacity and regulatory structure to fulfill their responsibilities in a manner consistent with international safety standards.
If you have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to give me a call.
snrely,
~Btf;/2w FEB o1 .1991 Acknowledged by c rd.- --""""""'"'~
I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION DoaJment Statistics Postmark Date Co!'ies Rece*
bn '5/J .s-/2
DOCKET NUMBER STATE OF MICHIGAN PROPOSED RULE
'_1F ~5FR..of!FI PR <<3 LGL I\[; E[:,
U::iNHC JAMES J . BLANCHARD , Governor *90 MAY - 7 P4 :15 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 3423 N . LOGAN P.O. BOX 301 9 5 , LANSING , MICHIGAN 48909 Raj M Wiener, Director May 4, 1990 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) concerning U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations for the import and export of radioac-tive waste, which was received on February 12, 1990, along with a cover dated February 5, 1990 from Frederick Combs, Assistant Director for state, Local and Indian Relations.
Although we support NRC's efforts to address concerns relating to the import and export of radioactive waste, we believe that other regulatory issues need to be resolved before final rulemaking contemplated by this ANPR.
It would seem appropriate for the NRC to establish, first of all, a final policy on exemptions from regulatory control and, subsequently, to issue in final form a revised set of radiation protection standards in the form of new regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. Following this action, the NRC should next complete a revision of the source material regulations in 10 CFR Part 40, along wi th a reform in the general license provisions throughout the NRC regulatory program. All of the foregoing actions are currently under consideration by the NRC for further NRC action or decision. We believe that all of these actions involve fundamental regulatory concepts that impact upon the implementation of other regulatory program improvements, such as additional rulemaking concerning the import and export of radioactive waste.
Enclosed are deta iled staff comments for your consideration relating specifically to the ANPR for the import and export of radioactive waste.
FEB O1 1991 Acknowledged by card .........................""",..
Z -2 5 4/88 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
U.S. NUCLEAfi REGULAiOAY C MMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECPETARY OF THE COMMISS 0 Documen 1 Stati tics Postmark Date - t:....__ _ _ __
Copies Received~ - _ _ _ __
Adrl I r.nn pc: (.' t
~r /) ~ ~~~?tj)S _
C>UM; / / ~
Secretary of the Commission May 4, 1990 page two Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact my staff in the Division of Radiological Health at (517) 335-8200.
Very truly yours,
~
Lee E. Jager, . . , Chef Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health LEJ:DMM Enclosure cc: Roland M. Lickus, Chief (with enclosure)
Office of State & Government Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III James F. Cleary, Commissioner (with enclosure)
Michigan Low-Level Radioactive Waste Authority
Michigan Department of Public Health Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health Division of Radiological Health staff Comments on Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Concerning NRC Regulations for Import and Export of Radioactive waste On February 12, 1990, staff received the above referenced document along with a cover dated February 5, 1990 from Frederick c . Combs, Assistant Director of State, Local and Indian Relations. A review of this document, along with a review of several other regulatory issues proposed or under consideration by the NRC, indicates that a reprioritization of NRC regulatory activities appears appro-priate . we believe several more fundamental regulatory issues need to be resolved before other regulatory proposals can be effectively enacted and implemented . These issues include: a) a final "Policy statement on Exemptions from Regul atory control;" b) a revised 10 CFR 20; c) a revised 10 CFR 40; and d) a reform in the general license provisions in order to increase regulatory controls over certain activities involving byproduct and source material. Our comments relating specifically to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) are as follows:
- 1. On page 4, we note that the NRC' s proposed definition for radioactive waste within the context of the ANPR is less restrictive than that currently applicable to domestic licensees . Given the r ationale for what an "exempt quantity" or an "exempt concentration" should mean from a health and safety viewpoint, the risk posed by a person receiving radioactive wastes in amounts less than established exempt amounts should be negligible. The concept of exemptions, of course, is a regulatory issue that has recently been addressed by IAEA in IAEA Safety Series #89, Principles for the Exempt ion of Radiation Sources and Practices f rom Regul atory Control , and is currently a proposed policy under cons ide ration by the NRC (see comment #2, below). we bel ieve that a radioactive waste definition within the context of this ANPR must, first of all, be consistent with international and U.S. regulatory policy and regulations, unless health and safety risks to the public would be unnecessarily increased.
- 2. On page 5, reference is made to below regulatory concern (BRC) as a "forthcoming policy." This statement is somewhat unclear since the BRC policy required by the federal Low-Level Radioactive waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 has already been established by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 2, Appendix B, and published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1986. Our understanding is that a broader exemption policy, which was
published in the Federal Register on December 12, 1988, and referred to as "Policy statement on Exemptions from Regulatory Control" (ERC), is expected to be forthcoming.
- 3. Concerning Option 1 on page 6, we believe a major reason for the NRC's lack of knowledge as described in this section is a result of the current regulations that apply to source material licensees and to general licensees. we believe that the knowledge base could be significantly improved through revision of the general license concept and through revision of 10 CFR 40, as previously recommended or referenced by NRC staff in a Draft General License study. Our detailed comments concerning these specific issues were previously forwarded to the NRC in a letter (attached) dated May 5, 1989, from Lee E.
Jager, Chief of the Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health, to Donald MacKenzie of the NRC, State Agreements Program. Further, we believe that NRC progress in this area could limit the extent of or obviate the need for increased regulatory control concerning imported radioactive waste. For example, elimination or revision of some of the current general license provisions in 10 CFR 40.22 could eliminate the potential for problems associated with the use and disposal of certain source materials. In the meantime, the NRC could initiate further study of the problem through increased data collection on the amounts and types of wastes that have been or potentially could be involved in the import and export process and the associated problems impacting upon public health and safety.
- 4. For Option 2 on page 6, we agree that this option presents no regulatory advantages compared to existing controls applicable to specific licensees. We believe this option is too difficult to enforce and would not be a reliable and effective option.
- s. The description of Options 3 and 4 on pages 6-8 appear on the surface to offer improved effectiveness to avoid radiological problems associated with improper import or export of radioac-tive waste. However, due to the priority issue previously discussed, we believe it may be premature to select a particu-lar option at this time.
- 6. Concerning page 9, item 2, we suspect there could be health and safety disadvantages as well as advantages to denying import or export of certain radioact ive wastes. This determination, from a health and safety perspective, would depend upon the specific information available on a case-by-case basis.
The NRC examples of possible interference with ongoing trade involving sealed sources and gauges may not be appropriate, since such shipments may not be considered shipments of "waste." Many of these sealed sources are typically returned to the supplier before reaching a "waste" status, as ultimately declared by the supplier.
- 7. In response to the question on page 9, item 4, we are not aware of a current particular problem resulting from the import of r adioactive waste. However, as the NRC is aware, we previously reported what we believe to be a significant potential problem concerning inadequate controls for the import of radioactive waste following our receipt of an inquiry from a Canadian firm regarding the transport and disposal of specific source material wastes from Canada to Michigan. This information was originally brought to the attention of the NRC in a letter (attached) dated April 21, 1987 from George w. Bruchmann, Chief, Division of Radiological Health, to Roland Lickus of the NRC, Region III. Although this particular potential problem appears resolved, the resolution was not a comfortable one from a regulatory perspective. It seems important, therefore, to at least consider a means to prevent a similar problem from occurring in the future.
- 8. Concerning i tern 5 on page 9, we believe that more data are needed before this question can be adequately answered, especially concerning fuel cycle wastes that might be imported into this country . It may be that significant differences exist between imported wastes and wastes generated domestic-ally.
- 9. Concerning item 6 on page 9, we believe that imported wastes should be treated in the same way as domestic wastes. From a state regulatory agency's pers pective, we have a concern that the host state ' s ability to enforce waste acceptance require-ments on foreign waste shipments may not be adequate.
Equivalent regulatory controls, including enforcement capabil-ity, over all wastes received at a particular state-regulated disposal facility, regardless of s ite of origin, will be integral to successful low-level radioactive waste management in t his country.
- 10. For items 7 and 8 on page 9, we believe that the capability of a recipient country to properly manage and dispose of radioac-tive wastes shoul d be considered by the NRC. We believe the IAEA may be best suited to address this question in more detail.
- 4 -
- 11. Concerning item 10 on page 10, we believe that the NRC should pursue regulatory authority over NARM, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act, and that regulatory controls for NARM wastes should be included within the overall framework for regulation of radioactive wastes. Our position on NARM regulation was previously brought to the attention of the NRC through the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors. We understand from the NRC, in a notice dated September 6, 1988, that the issue is now under study by the Committee on Inter-agency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination.
- 12. The issues addressed by items 12 and 13 on page 10 cannot be completely resolved unless a final ERC policy is first established in this country consistent with international recommendations. In addition, the definitions for radioactive waste should be established in a manner consistent with international recommendations.
It is apparent to us that the international agreement process is an integral part of the overall implementation process embraced by this ANPR. Both the importing and exporting countries should agree concerning implementation of regulatory requirements before any import and export activity is initi-ated. Specific controls and licensing criteria should be developed only after the need for improved regulatory controls for import/export of radioactive wastes is re-examined, following the resolution of more fundamental regulatory issues.
Attachments May 4, 1990
STATE OF MICHIGAN JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 3423 N. LOGAN
,>.O, BOX 30195, LANSING, MICHIGAN 4890J Raj M Wiener*, Acting Directo.c May 5, 1989 Donald MacKenzie u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission state Agreements Program Mail Stop WF-l-D-23 Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. MacKenzie:
on April 18, 1989, we received the NRC notice from Frederick c.
Combs dated April 14, 198 9, which was directed to all non-agreement states concerning comments on an NRC draft General License study.
It appears that our receipt of the study completes our previous request for a copy of that document (see enclosed copies of cor-respondence dated December 1, 1988, and March 3, 1989).
My staff have revi£wed the draft General License study and have indicated general agreement and support for the NRC staff initia-tives and recommendations to imp*rove the general license program.
Increased regulatory efforts for generally licensed activities should provide improvement to the overall quality of controls needed to protect public heal th and safety. Preparatory to continuing negotiations for NRC Agreement state status, this Department is concerned about planning resource needs for adequate regul atory controls for the estimated 1,200 general licensees currently located in Michigan. Depending upon final NRC action with regard to changes in the NRC general license program, significant resource implications could result. By copy of this letter, we are informing B.J. Holt, NRC Region III state Agreements Program Officer, of our budget impl ication concerns related to potential NRC action affecting agreement negotiations with NRC.
Enclosed is a list of specific staff comments related to our review of the draft General License Study. Should you have any questions concerning these cc mments, please contact my staff within . the Division of Radiological Health at (517) 335-8200.
~ ,,
c,I,
..... ,,u OIi
~..
~'T~::""*
4 Z-25 4/88 *c*r.uo *A!""
Donald MacKenzie May 5, 1989 Page Two Thank you for the opportunity to provide convnents for your consideration on this important issue *
. very truly yours, .
,/
~ - *L ___
Lee E. Jager, .E., Chief Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health LE.J:DMM Enclosure cc: B.J. Holt (w/enclosure)
n :tr<< :en:c-ST A TE OF MICHIGAN JAMES J. BLANCHARD, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 3500 N. LOGAN P.O. BOX 30035, LANSING, MICHIGAN 48J09 GLORIA R. SMITH. Ph.D., M.P.H., f.A.A.N., Darec1or Ap ril 21, 1987 Hr. Roland Lickus, Director Scace and Government Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III 799 Roosevelt Road, Bldg. 4 Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
Dear Mr. Lickue:
Please refer to the enclosed letter from Eldorado Resources Limited. We have reviewed 10 CFR 40 and have two conflicting opinions. If the material is considered "byproduct material" (10 CFR 40.4(a-l)), the material should not be exempt from regulation. If the material is considered "source material" (10 CFR 40.4(h)), then the exemption listed in 10 CFR 40.13 would apply.
Staff believes the material in question may fall under both definitions. I request your assistance in determining which definition applies, and whether the enclosed request could be approved under fed~ral regulation.
If you need to discuss this prior to your response, please contact me or Chad McIntosh of my staff at (517) 335-8200. Thank you for your assistance *
- rue ~ann, Chief ion of Radiological Health GWB/WCHh .,
Enclosure I C: D. Burgess, Eldorado Res ources Ltd.
(w/o enclosure)
Joan Peck, DNR Waste Mgt. Div.
DOCKET NUMBER PR /IC)
Anersham Corporation PROPOSED RULE..:..:.:.....:.1~*1 -< .,...-
40 North Avenue (;55 FR., 04 I f7i)
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 Telephone (617) 272-2000 COtKETED USNRC 23 April 1990 "90 t1AY -3 P4 :22 OFF!C~ Or SEC~E1AR" DOCKE1 ING & SEH VICL Secretary of the Commission BRANCH us Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Federal Register Vol. 55 No. 26 Pages 4181 - 4184 10 CFR Part 110 ANPRM Gentlemen:
We appreciate the - opportunity to comment on the ANPRM concerning
- 10 CFR Part 110 and the impo r t and export of radioactive waste.
As the largest manufacturer and distributor of industrial radiog-raphy sealed sources (Ir-192 and Co-60), we are actively involved in importing and exporting these sources. Approximately 80 % of the sealed sources we sell to foreign markets are returned to us for disposition and could possibly fall under the definition of radioactive waste as given in IAEA TECDOC-447. This definition is vague as to who decides what use could be foreseen.
Amersham does not consider the returned radiography sources as radioactive waste until a final disposition is made as to whether or not the source can be resold or recycled.
Since the manu fact ur er may have some use for these returned sources ie. resell or recycle the definition should be clarified
- to include t h is option
- If these sources did fall under the definition of radioactive waste, Amer sham would have to be considered a waste broker and subsequently obtain all the necessary
- licensing for this.
this point we are not prepared to do this, and would have to At refuse shipment of returned spent sources.
Current practice in the United States is that the return of sealed sources back to the manufacturer is not considered a waste shipment. We recommend the international regulations adopt the same policy.
We feel that there are adequate regulations in place governing the import and export of radioactive material which also regu-lates radioactive waste. Therefore we would recommend the adop-tion of option one described in your proposed rulemaking.
F'te Acknowledged by c rd O1 199/
Amersham
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE Sl:CTION OFJ:ICE OF THE SECPETARY OF THE COMMIS ION
One area that is of great concern to Amersham is the control over the transportation of imported radioactive material. This area needs to have tighter controls for the existing transports of radioactive material. We receive many returned shipments from various countries and the majority of these are not labeled or classified properly under DOT or IAEA regulations.
Due to misunderstandings and/or ignorance about transportation regulations and waste manifests, the import of radioactive waste would be difficult and should be more tightly regulated under the transportation regulations. Also, we have experienced situations where us Customs has opened packages ( ie. barrels) containing radioactive material. This can not be tolerated especially when dealing with radioactive waste as there is a potential safety hazard (ie. untrained personnel handling contaminated articles).
In summary we feel that the exi s t i ng regulations concerning import and export of radioactive material are adequate except for the transportation cyc le controls. We also feel that a clearer definition of radioactive waste needs to be put into use so that the return of sealed sources to t he manufacturer will not be considered a waste shipment
- Sincerely,
~~.~
Cathleen M. Roughan Radiation Safety Officer CMR160 / tjf
DOCKET NUMBER ~
PROPOSED RULE PB //{) ~
(_.SSF/Z a1 I J7!}.,ocKurn USNRC "90 HAY -1 P7 :22 Marvin I. L..ewis OFF!Cf: OF SlCRL fARY DOCK[ i ING & SE ilVIC:f
~801 Roosevelt Boulevard BRANCH Suite 62 Phila., PA 19152
( 2 l. 5) 624*-15./4 Secretary o~ the Commission USNRC Wahington, U. C. 20555 Dear Secretary; Please accept this letter as my comments on Import and Export Radic,active t*Jastes, 10 ct-:R 110. We must ban the impc,rt 01..
- j ioactive wastes. Uur planned low level and high ]evel waste sites can be easily deluged and overfilled with radioactive Nastes from all over the World with a few brokering and tradering manipulatic<ns.
Here is one that brokering or trad~rinq will cause c,verfill c,t* US wast::? sites. Under tho rules, any US Cc,mpany ~*,ill be able to put its radwastes into a US Llradwaste site. A foreign country or company can sell its wasto to a US company as a recyclable resource. *rhe material enters the country and then is declared a radwaste. Radwaste will go intc, US LLRadwaste sites.
lhe US then becomes garbageman tc, the entire radioactive generators o~ the World.
that is how the rules read and that is how it will happen.
- I wish 1 could s~y, FEB o1 1991 Acknowledged by card ..................................
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATO v f'()~*~t, 1fl Dvl.-r. t ,... 1 * , * ":: , c, OFFK,l ut ' * * * '(
OF THE CC , , .,
Document Stati.t ~
Postmar1< Date -'-- fi.,/?
.__2._3_ __ __ _
CopiesReceived_..___~-- - -
Add'I Copies Reproduced ~==--- - - -
Special Distribution l>P/Z.~ f:4 AS)
~ ~ _L/A~-- ~
DOCKET NUMBERpft OSED RULE
//C:::,
Lt.' -
0'S~/2, O 'ii 8'1) 25 KRISTINE GEBBIE C::- coc.:KE1£.0 Secretary usi-mc STATE OF WASHINGTON
- 90 !\PR 30 p 2 :32 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Airdustrial Center, Bldg. 5
- Mail Stop LE-13
- April 23, 1990 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chilk:
The state of Washington, represented here by the Departments of Ecology and Health, has completed its review of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning NRC Regulations for import and export of radioactive waste. The following comments are provided in response to the Advance Notice:
Proposed Options In reviewing the four proposed options for establishing NRC regulatory requirements for the import and export of radioactive wastes, we feel neither Option 1 (which maintains the status quo), nor Option 2 (which requests the NRC be notified of all trade in radioactive wastes), will alleviate the concerns over imported foreign wastes, because neither provides a uniform set of international management and regulatory standards. Although Options 3 and 4 address concerns over inadequate control of the transfer of radioactive wastes, we prefer Option 3 because it appears to provide the most flexibility, while also ensuring effective control through the specific licensing process.
Questions and Issues The following reiterates and addresses questions asked in the NRC's advance notice:
- 1. What are the economic advantages and disadvantages to the import and export of radioactive wastes, e.g., would such imports or exports affect the economic viability of disposal facilities or State radioactive waste disposal compacts?
Response: Historical data indicate that operator profits and waste disposal costs are volume dependent. Therefore, the importation of radioactive waste might increase site operator profits, while the exportation of radioactive waste might increase such costs as volumes decline. The economic viability of disposal facilities within state compacts may be jeopardized as site operators are forced to increase disposal fees to offset lost revenue from exportation of radioactive waste.
However, possible positive spinoffs of this would be the incentive for additional investments in waste processing research and development.
Acknowledged by card ~ -~.
- U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION oi:FICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date _-1/2,_;1_2.-"y_____
Co ,es Received__.' - - - - - - -
A.drl I Cooies Reproduced =-- - - -
S~
1~'7v-
- - - , 1- -
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Page Two
- 2. 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?
Response; Most U.S. manufacturers of gauges and sealed sources provide a mechanism in which sources may be exchanged. If this option were no longer available to manufacturers, there could be a considerable economic disadvantage. Nevertheless, denying authority to import or export some or all radioactive waste would be consistent with the LLRWPA act, which makes states and compacts responsible for managing and disposing of their wastes.
- 3. Would it be in the interest of U.S. foreign policy to assist certain countries with the disposal of their radioactive wastes?
Response; It is in the interest of the U.S. to assist certain countries with the disposal of radioactive wastes, both in keeping with U.S. policy, and also in consideration of national and international health and the worldwide environment, since many third world countries do not have the technical expertise necessary to safely control the disposal of radioactive wastes. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has such experience and expertise, which would be a valuable resource to developing countries.
- 4. Does the U.S. have an adequate mechanism to dispose of imported radioactive wastes without adversely impacting the disposal of domestically generated wastes?
Response; The current policy in the state of Washington is to only accept regionally generated waste after 1993. However, if all disposal sites currently being considered are actually constructed, there would be sufficient capacity to accept some radioactive waste from foreign countries. Before any of this waste is allowed into U.S. commercial disposal sites, a system must be established to ensure that specific state and federal requirements are met (i.e., exclusion of mixed waste and/or greater than Class C waste).
- 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?
Response: We have no reason to believe that imported radioactive wastes would differ significantly from wastes generated in the United States, although they certainly could. Therefore, an accountable agency providing third party inspections would be essential, to ensure foreign waste streams meet both federal regulatory requirements and the specific requirements of the state to which the wastes are being imported.
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Page Three
- 6. What are the views of operators of disposal facilities and State and local governments on the import of radioactive waste?
Response: State and local governments may be opposed to receipt of foreign wastes, since the original compact agreements were very specific in describing who would be allowed to dispose of waste. In addition, es tab 1i shed compacts have been re 1uctant to add new states to their compacts, and this attitude would probably prevail with regard to foreign countries. The importation of foreign waste is inconsistent with the current Northwest Compact policy and Washington State law of allowing only regional waste after 1993. Where it is technically feasible, politically appropriate, and economically desirable to do so, import and export of wastes could be considered.
- 7. Are national authorities in countries that might receive U.S. exported radioactive wastes technically competent to dispose of such wastes and would they agree to its receipt?
Response: We do not know, but this question must be answered if radioactive wastes were to be either imported or exported.
- 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 open to question?
Response: Yes. Although U.S. government policy opposes direct regulation of hazardous or radioactive exports, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has always taken a responsible position, both domestically and abroad, when dealing with radiation issues. It would therefore be inconsistent for the NRC to allow exportation of radioactive wastes to countries which did not have adequate facilities and/or expertise. It would be consistent with the NRC regulatory approach within the United States to develop and implement appropriate criteria to evaluate capabilities of recipient countries in any export license review.
- 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?
Response: No. It would appear the United States has and wi 11 have adequate capacity. Although an export plan may solve some immediate disposal problems within the United States, such an export plan would be disruptive to the sited states, and to the efforts of the unsited states and compacts to implement PL 99-240, to manage and dispose of wastes on a regional basis. Many sites are currently being developed based on a projected waste volume. The option of exporting waste would probably be an economic disincentive to the development of new sites.
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Page Four
- 10. NRC cannot currently regulate Naturally Occurring or Accelerator Produced Materials (NARM) such as radium contaminated wastes and accelerator components and shielding containing induced activity. Are provisions needed for the import and export of these NARM wastes, assuming NRC were given statutory authority over such materials?
Response: The NRC should be the regulatory authority for all radioactive waste, including NARM waste; it is most inappropriate that NRC does not have such authority now. It is necessary to ensure consistency in development and implementation of regulations dealing with all types of wastes. Additionally, provisions would be needed for the import and export of NARM wastes.
- 11. Are there other means to broaden the Conmission's information base with regard to transactions of exports and imports of radioactive wastes, exclusive of requiring specific licenses or otherwise revising NRC's existing regulations?
Response: The technical institutions of the United Nations organizations might provide limited information; the normal technical connections through our diplomatic relations with the rest of the nations of the world might also provide additional information. In any case, a survey of radioactive materials brokers, processors, and site operators in the United States may provide valuable information with regard to export and import transactions. However, the most direct and accurate means to broaden the Commission's information base would be to take the Commission's proposed Option #3.
- 12. What import/export controls and licensing criteria may be necessary for various categories of radioactive waste and under what circumstances should imports/exports be considered wastes?
Response: Existing NRC regulations, license conditions and definitions of radioactive waste, written for use within the United States, should be used to regulate the import and export of radioactive wastes. If the existing system adequately controls the disposal of wastes in the United States, it should also do so for the rest of the world. No lessening of the control procedures should be considered. Furthermore, controls and 1icensing standards should incorporate RCRA requirements relative to hazardous waste identification to ensure that potential mixed wastes are identified and properly characterized.
- 13. What assurances can be made that the Below Regulatory Concern (BRC )
policies of various countries are consistent so that radioactive wastes declared BRC in the exporting country are indeed BRC wastes in the recipient country?
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Page Five Response; The BRC policy for imports should be identical to the BRC policy for the United States.
- 3t Roger Stanle~
Prog ram Manager Nuclear and Mixed Waste Management Program Was *ngto State Department of Ecology rong, Dir ctor Division of Radia ion Protection Washington State Department of Health
D08KET NUMBER PR OSED RULE p
/10 United States Department of State (65F,e 01'1?1)
DOC:KETEO Washington, D. C. 20520 USN RC
- _ll{_t. \!t:: !
Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 e Attention: Docketing and Service Branch
Dear Sir:
The attached comments have been developed by the Department of State on behalf of the Executive Branch agencies which the Department believes have an interest in the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) on the Import and Export of Radioactive Waste RIN:3150-AD36, published in 55 Fed. Reg. 4181 (Feb. 7, 1990). The Department of Energy has contributed substantially to the attached comments which have also been cleared by the Departments of Transportation and Defense.
Sincerely,
~A ~f Carol M. Schwab Office of the Legal Adviser Acknowledged by caro.s/ 0 t 'f D
. j. J." :
U.S. NUC EAR E ULATORY O Ml SIO DOCKETING & ERVICE ~ECTION OFF' ..,E OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION ment Statistics Postmar1< Date - '--'-'-i't, "-----
Cop*es Received___ \ --,------
Artrl'I Copies Rep buti
~ r r:-=-~~~...,:;._~
The Department of State is providing the following comments on behalf of the interested agencies within the Executive Branch with regard to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on the Import and Export of Radioactive Waste (RIN: 3150-AD36). The Department has taken responsibility for commenting since interest in regulating imports and exports of radioactive waste has been prompted largely by international initiatives (in which the Department has lead responsibility for representing the United States) to impose controls on international transfers of both hazardous wastes* and radioactive wastes.
The latter initiative under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recently resulted after two IAEA expert group meetings in the completion of a draft Code of Practice on International Transboundary Movements of Radioactive Wastes, which the constituent bodies of the IAEA will consider later this year for adoption. The United States expert delegation led by the Department of State, with technical advisers from the NRC and the Department of Energy (DOE), participated actively in the expert group meeting and succeeded in including in the draft code many principal United States objectives. The delegation noted during the meeting that U.S. participation was without prejudice to the NRC proposed rulemaking process and that U.S. ability to subscribe ultimately to the draft code provisions would depend in part on the outcome of such rulemaking.
While conceding that there is no evidence of actual incidents of international radioactive waste "dumping*, the international community is nonetheless committed to establishing a regime to ensure that international radioactive waste imports and exports do not take place without the consent of and regulation by involved states. We have been sympathetic to this interest and believe that option 3, which would put into place domestically a regulatory regime requiring specific authorization for international radioactive waste imports and exports, would, with certain specifications discussed below,
- The hazardous waste initiative under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) led to the conclusion on March 22, 1989, after two years of negotiations in which the United States delegation led by OES participated actively, of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. The United States has also participated constructively in negotiations under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which began in 1986 on a draft agreement to regulate hazardous wastes movements.
respond appropriately to international concerns without imposing unduly burdensome requirements.
In view of widespread concern in the international community over adequately regulating international transfers of radioactive waste, we do not believe that either option 1, involving continuation of the status quo, or option 2, requiring only notification to the NRC of all waste imports or exports, would be appropriate selections. Option 4 would in our view also provide a mechanism for securing appropriate consent and for regulating such transfers, but would involve the State Department's development and negotiation of potentially complex agreements with prospective importing states. There has been no documentation of a waste dumping problem sufficient to justify expending such substantial efforts or resources required to negotiate such agreement.
Specific licensing of radioactive waste imports and exports as recommended in option 3 is, in our view, a reasonable mechanism for initially monitoring and appropriately regulating proposed imports and exports. We believe a regulation along these lines should be structured flexibly to meet the basic concern shared by both the draft Code and the propo se d rulemaking, that is, to ensure, through advance notice of proposed imports and exports, the opportunity to control such imports and exports based on the consent of the ultimate recipient importing state. In giving such consent, a state can take full account of its radioactive waste management and disposal capability in the interest of public health and safety, and the environment.
Specifically, we support the ANPR's proposal to use the existing IAEA definition of "radioactive waste" as contained in the "Radioactive Waste Management Glossary" (IAEA-TECDOC-447).
This use would exclude forms of radioactive waste that DOE would send or receive for R&D testing under international technical cooperation agreements relating to management of radioactive wastes.
We would also recommend that any proposed rulemaking be limited in scope so as to exclude radioactive waste imports and exports in support of U.S. military activities. The United States expert made a statement during the negotiation of the draft Code of Practice designed to exclude from the scope of the Code U.S. military-related activities; this limitation would also apply to any rules adopted by the NRC to implement principal objectives of the Code. such rules should therefore exclude from coverage shipments of radioactive wastes (as defined by the IAEA) that the U.S. Government in effect makes to itself (e.g., to and from u.s. military bases abroad) pursuant to arrangements with another nation. The rulemaking also should not apply to shipments made pursuant to other
arrangements that are concluded between the U.S. and other governments providing entry and transit through the other nation (e.g., the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation).
Appropriate regulation through the use of specific licenses would include requiring some form of written consent of the recipient state as one of the conditions for license approvals. We would propose that this consent be secured by the Department of State in a manner similar to the process for approving export licenses for nuclear equipment and materials when the NRC seeks Executive branch concurrence through the Department of State. For proposed radioactive waste exports, NRC would also ask the State Department to secure the written consent of the importing state.
The rulemaking should provide flexibility for the form that written consent may take. such consent could be secured on a case-by-case basis or take the form of a general or programmatic consent pursuant to written arrangements the State Department concludes with foreign governments. Programmatic consent could, if desired, involve case by case notification to the NRC of individual imports or exports authorized by the programmatic consent. A programmatic consent could also be designed to authorize shipments when the importing state has been notified of each shipment and has not objected within a set period of time prior to shipment, so long as the importing state does not revoke or modify the consent. Should a state express interest in authorizing receipt of numerous imports, arrangements providing multiple authorizations would be particularly useful and could be developed through the Department of State in consultation with interested agencies.
A State Department consent request should include a request for confirmation that the import consented to by a recipient state has been received. Thus any reference to importing state consent in NRC's development of a regulation pursuant to option 3 should be flexible enough to encompass all forms of written consent.
In the recently concluded IAEA draft Code of Practice, the majority of experts insisted on including a requirement that states being transited by such international imports and exports of radioactive waste have the opportunity, along with states of final destination, to consent to the transfer transiting their territory. Several provisions of the draft Code clarified, however, that maritime and air navigation rights and freedoms under international law were not affected or prejudiced by the Code. Similarly, provisions of the Code clarify that it is advisory and relies, inter alia, on existing international standards for the safe transportofradioactive materials and physical protection of nuclear material and does not establish separate guidance in these areas.
We do not consider it necessary or desirable to implement internationally or domestically a transit state consent requirement beyond the opportunities already provided under existing international safe packaging and transportation guidelines and United States regulations derived therefrom.
Transits of nuclear material are effectively authorized on the basis of compliance with those guidelines and regulations.
In this regard the relevant paragraph in the proposed Code provides for prior notification and consent of transit (as well as sending and receiving) states "in accordance with their respective laws and regulations." During the development of this provision, the United States expert, as well as some from developed and developing countries, indicated that the international regime of regulations governing the safe transportation of radioactive materials effectively provided transit states sufficient opportunity to regulate transits by virtue of the transit state's ability to require compliance with safe transport, packaging and physical protection measures as a condition of approved transit through that state. Thus we would recommend that, as proposed by the NRC, the specific licensing regime, apply at this time only to imports into the U.S. for ultimate disposition here and exports from the U.S.
for disposition in the ultimate recipient importing state. The rules adopted should thus not affect or hinder in any way the well-established separate body of U.S. regulations for transporting radioactive materials. In furtherance of the existing international safety and transportation regime, any NRC elaboration of a regulation pursuant to Option 3 should, however, ensure that the relevant export license application solicits information from an exporter regarding the itinerary, routing (including countries to be transited) and handling of the proposed export.
, Drafter:L/SFP/N - CSchwab 71043 Clearance:OES/N - RStratfor dJ DOD/ISP - DHardy ~
DOT - MWangler ~
DOE/CGC:SKuznick DOE/IP:BThomas
1 1 PRCPOSE0 RULE PR //0 YANKEE A TOM/C ELECTRIC COMPANY(25 Ff1cJ1 ii1°"f();;n:,<g_~~:;:~
1
~
- -~-;....,
-o* cossii..Rb[O 580 Main Street, Bolton, Massachusetts 01740-1398
~
- TANK.EE
--* April 23, 1990 "90 APR24 P2:15 FYC 90-006 SPS90-060 OFF!C~ OF SECRETAR *t DOCKE1 iNG & S[flVIO.
BRANCH United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Secretary, Docketing and Service Branch Kr. Chilk
Subject:
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes (55FR4181, 55FR10786)
Dear Kr. Chilk:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the existing Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations for the import and export of radioactive wastes. Yankee owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. our Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing services for other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, including Vermont Yankee, Kaine Yankee, and Seabrook.
We believe the framework provided by 10CFRll0 adequately regulates the importation and exportation of radioactive waste materials just as it controls import and export of other radioactive materials. The importer or exporter must maintain records of all transfers. These records are subject to inspection by the NRC. If the NRC determines that a problem exists, it can then take action against the licensee to revoke, suspend, or modify the license as well as augment the regulation to specifically address the control problem identified.
The proposed rulemaking appears to be based on conjecture about potential future problems. There is no evidence presented or suggested that a change to the current regulations is warranted. In fact, the ANPR states repeatedly that there are no known instances where low level radioactive wastes are being imported or exported in an unsafe manner. We offer this fact to support our contention that the current regulations are effective as is.
Given the above situation it seems unnecessary and even counterproductive to fabricate and impose additional measures on licensees (regardless of whether Option 2, 3, or 4 is selected). We urge the NRC to maintain the status quo (Option 1).
Very t ru l y your s ,
§./tl~
Donald W. Edwards DWE/dhm/WPP76/56 Director, Industry Affairs Acknow1ecgeo oy cara.~
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETAR~
OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics
'l... 3- - ~- -
Postmark Date --+--t---
Copies Received _ __..__~- - - -
Add'I Copies Reproduced - - - --i-,??--1 s~ ';l!:/4~
oocKETNUMBERpl\ //0 ~
Amersham Corporation 2636 South Clearbrook Drive PROPOSED RUc:;-5 F re o 'f I z/ ~
Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005-4692 t:OC KETEO (312) 593-6300 US NHC April 20, 1990
- 90 APR 23 P3 :16 Amersham Secretary of the Commission * . . - ~-c~E~AR'*
- - i::~ ,c(. o~ ::it K r
- u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Comm1.ss1.on.. -lJOl,"*1,l:=-11-I.ir-1 ;, ,;: i1v1cr Washington, D.C. 20555 . GRAJ!CH Attn: Docketing and Service Branch RE: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes.
Gentlemen:
The following comments are provided by Amersham Corporation in response to the ANPR, RIN 3150-AD36, published in Federal Register Volume 55, Number 26, on February 7, 1990, entitled Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes.
- 1) It is understood that the Commission intends to carry out its responsibility to ensure appropriate regulation of the import and export of radioactive wastes. The process of amending existing regulations should begin with a definition of radioactive waste that is more specific and meaningful than the definition contained in IAEA-TECDOC-447.
One problem with this definition, which the Commission proposes to use, is that material "for which no use is foreseen" by one individual may have some value to another.
Examples such as sealed sources returned to manufacturers or contaminated articles may not be generally applied to such a definition. It is unclear, using this definition, at what point certain material actually becomes waste and who is the generator.
We recommend that definition of waste includes that radioactive material returned to a manufacturer is not classified as waste until it is received by the manufacturer who can then determine whether the product can be reused, recycled or reworked.
- 2) We agree with the statement in Appendix A of the ANPR that changes in regulatory requirements could pose an additional burden on the manufacturers of radiation sources. Regulatory prohibition on importing or exporting "spent sources" would adversely affect U.S. markets.
Such prohibition would not only be economically burdensome, but would provide no additional benefit from a public health and safety viewpoint. Receipt of imported sealed sources, whether defined as waste or not, is already controlled by license requirements in the regulations. Furthermore, it would be difficult to add additional requirements on import
u" ',"" P'"l srnuLATORY COMMISSION
- .i t, SERV,CE SE:.' ON
..; ' ',- THE SFCt1c T,\RY Or THE COMMISSION Document Statistics
and export of "spent sources" without a more practical definition of radioactive waste, unless these materials were specifically exempted from additional regulatory requirements.
It is essential for international companies such as Amersham to be able to transfer radioactive materials from one country to another whether or not it is deemed "waste" . This is necessary for a number of reasons including reworking, recycling, investigation of complaints and comments on products.
- 3) It appears that the prohibition or regulation of imported and exported waste by the Commission would be redundant in light of similar restrictions already adopted by most regional compacts under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. The Central Midwest Compact regulations, for example, will prohibit, with few exceptions, import of waste from locations outside the region. Exportation of waste for reasons other than treatment would also be prohibited.
Once these regional facilities become licensed and operational, NRC regulations pertaining to import and export of wastes need not be redundant and should not be inconsistent with regional regulations.
- 4) Of the options discussed in the ANPR, we favor Option 1.
Current NRC requirements effectively regulate the transfer of all radioactive material (sans NARM), including radioactive waste. Additional restrictions on waste accountability and import and export of low-level waste already stand to be enforced within the regional compacts when facilities become operational.
If the Commission determines that an amendment to its existing regulations in 10 CFR 110 is necessary, then Option 3 would be the best alternative to ensure adequate regulatory control and additional protection of public health without presenting excessive economic hardship on industry, e.g., sealed source manufacturers. Again, if additional requirements are implemented, exceptions should be made available for specific waste streams which *do not apply to the proposed IAEA definition of radioactive waste.
Option 2 is unnecessarily restrictive and Option 4 is not acceptable.
- 5) In response to the specific questions posed on pages 4182 -
4183 of the ANPR, we provide answers as follows:
- 1. Import and export of radioactive materials, including some materials which fall under the proposed definition of waste, is essential to businesses such as ours.
- 2. Prohibition of import or export of certain types of radioactive "wastes" would put U.S. companies at an economic disadvantage while providing no additional health and safety benefit.
- 3. We are not able to comment on this question.
- 4. The regional compacts will provide adequate mechanisms for disposal of waste. However, we are not aware of any compact that will accept waste imported from outside their region.
- 5. Imported radioactive wastes would be similar to wastes generated in the U.S.
- 6. It is our understanding that the compacts will not accept waste imported from outside their regions.
- 7. Our only experience with foreign authorities is with the U.K. and Canada. They are technically competent.
- 8. The capability of a recipient country to manage and dispose of radioactive wastes safely should be considered in any NRC export license review process.
- 9. With the current trend toward volume reduction and the advent of the regional disposal facilities, limited a vailable d isposa l capacity should not be a significant problem.
- 10. NARM materials should be regulated in the same way as byproduct material. This should be the responsibility of the regional compact regulators.
- 11. One possibility would be a requirement to furnish an annual report to the Commission regarding waste type, volume, activity, and destination.
- 12. The current regulations covering import and export of radioactive materials in general are satisfactory. It would not be practical to amend these requirements in an attempt to include waste, particularly in the way the NRC proposes to define "waste".
- 13. We do not understand why a generator of waste considered to be BRC in the country of origin would want to export this material.
Amersham Corporation appreciates having the opportunity to comment on this proposed rulemaking, and is willing to clarify our remarks should the need arise.
Sincerely,
~efJ.7' Radiation Safety Officer
Pl //C!2 DOCKET NLMBER
- PROPOSED RULE_;_;:.;;.-.....----:---; )
(_.55 F£ D t./ IJ'lJ DOCKEiEO USNRC ~~
- 90 APR 20 P2 :46 Cortland County Planning DepAftP,ietii County Office Building, 60 Central Avenue, P.O. Box 5590, Cortland, N.Y. 13045 April 4, 1990 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing & Service Branch RE: Proposed Rules on Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes (10 CFR Part 110, RIN 3150-AD36; Federal Register, V.
55, No. 26, Feb. 7, 1990)
Dear Sir or Madam:
The County of Cortland offers the following comments on the abovementioned document.
Cortland County agrees that a policy should be developed so that "greater control and accountability over the export and import of radioactive wastes" could be provided. Options 1 and 2 provided inadequate regulatory control over the import and export of radioactive wastes. The inconsistencies in Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations that permit imported radioactive waste to be subject to less regulatory oversight than radioactive waste resulting from domestic license operations require immediate attention. Thus, options 3 and 4 are preferable in this regard.
With respect to question 1 (p. 4183), the economic advantages of importing radioactive wastes could only be determined if the source term (volume and activity) of anticipated imported wastes were evaluated. In addition, the manner in which imported wastes would be distributed among the various U.S. disposal facilities will need to be carefully delineated. We note that no discussion is included which addresses how the recipients of foreign wastes will be determined. Will NRC have the authority to direct wastes to compact/state facilties? What will be the limitations of NRC's authority in this regard? It is imperative that such questions be resolved prior to instituting any policy that could result in an even greater radioactive waste burden for this nation.
Regarding possible policy, health, safety, or economic disadvantages to denying import or export of certain radioactive wastes (question 2, p. 4183), the cited examples Telephone: (607) 753-5043 Acknowledged by card ...f./1...!tl"f.. euau
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM18~10N DOCKETING & SLWICE St:-
OFFICE OF THE SECRET/ PY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics
~!marl! n,,)" tf/1
'-+, - - - - -
Cop1cl _ _/
Add'I Cof'.. C:, =--,-- --r-ff-f}
~ $Jf~
include wastes which result from medical and agricultural uses. Wastes from such sources contribute a negligible percentage of the total activity in the low-level waste stream. While the ability to import and export materials with medical applications should be preserved, this reasoning should not be used to support the importation and exportation of all LLRW, particularly those materials produced due to nuclear power generation.
With regard to question 3 (p. 4183), the NRC response cites the lack of technical expertise in foreign countries as a justification for U.S. involvement in managing foreign wastes. With the exception of sealed sources, little technical expertise is required to effectively manage medical wastes, the majority of which can be stored on-site for decay. Foreign nations which possess the technical wherewithal to operate nuclear power reactors should certainly possess the ability to manage the wastes produced by the nuclear fuel cycle. Again, there is no justification for a national policy which would unilaterally accept imported LLRW from other foreign countries.
The issue of the availability of U.S. disposal capacity for foreign wastes and the potential impact on the management of domestically-generated wastes remains impossible to assess at this time (question 4, p. 4184). It is unlikely that the number of disposal sites currently planned by U.S. compacts and individual states will be developed. The economic base does not exist for the number of sites being planned, and, as ever-increasing disposal fees are realized and the 1993 deadline draws closer, it appears likely that many compacts and states will reevaluate their respective positions.
Thus, waste importation would serve only to compound an already untenable situation. Additionally, for those compacts or states which pursue development of a disposal facility, those facilities will be designed with a specific source term in mind. Importation of foreign waste, an unanticipated waste stream, could be problematic in this regard.
Question 5 (p. 4184) should consider the issue of waste form and packaging requirements. Would foreign waste form and packaging requirements be consistent with domestic policies?
If processing (incineration, supercompaction, vitrification, etc.) were required, where would that be accomplished?
Where will the authority to determine the need or type of processing lie?
With regard to the attitude of states or compacts accepting foreign-generated wastes (question 6, p.4184), it is undoubtedly the case, and justifiably so, that local opposition will be strong. The matter of establishing disposal facilities within compacts/states is extremely volatile and controversial. It is unclear how importation
of foreign wastes would affect the anticipated source term of the compacts/states. This issue has implications pertaining to the facility design, economics, and liability.
In summary, we find that:
- 1. Stricter control over the import and export of LLRW is advisable.
- 2. Options 3 and 4 need to be evaluated more carefully; more information regarding proposed procedures is required.
- 3. The need for the flexibility to import or export radioactive materials with medical applications should not be used to unilaterally support the importation and exportation of all LLRW.
- 4. The argument that countries which do possess nuclear reactors may not be technically equipped to manage the wastes produced is unsubstantiated.
- 5. A number of outstanding issues exist, and these must be carefully investigated and resolved before formulating national policy.
Sincerely, Cindy Monaco Cor~land County LLRW Coordinator
DOCKET NUMBER PR
- p. ?OSED RULE //0 )
(55 P£.. <0 Lj/t?I 0
~ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTtl JtN\/p:
4815 WEST MARKHAM STREET
BILL CLINTON DIRECTOR GOVERNOR (,FF! C:. OF SECRJTAP_v uOCK [11 NG & St tl V\f.f BR ANCH April 11, 1990 Secretary of the Commission u.s. Nuclear Regulatory commission Washington, D.c. 20555 Att: Docketing and Service Branch Ref: Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes The Arkansas Department of Health, Division of Radiation Control & Emergency Management offers the following comments on the referenced subject. These comments also represent my views as Arkansas' Commissioner to the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Commission.
I tend to agree that a national policy should be established to provide the Commission a way to carry out its responsibilities to ensure that the import and export of radioactive wastes is appropriately regulated. However, I do have some reservations about the subject. My uncertainty rests with whether or not the time is right to consider such a policy or regulation considering the sensitive nature of the issue across the nation. Whatever action taken should be taken only after a thorough evaluation of how the action will affect the overall waste issue. In light of this, I would suggest that the comments received from host state regulatory officials and compact officials should be key to any decisions made regarding initiating rulemaking at this time and what the general content of that rulemaking should be.
As to the four options suggested, options 3 and 4 seem to have the most merit. However, with both options, the licensing authority of Agreement States and the authority of compacts/host states to control the import/export of wastes affecting that compact region must be clarified. As pointed out in staff responses to specific questions, wastes leaving a compact region can cause economic repercussions while wastes entering a compact can cause political repercussions.
I generally agree with the other responses of NRC staff to the posed questions although I have concern about shipping waste to any country that may not have the ability to properly manage that waste.
Aci<<Jow1eagea by card§ ./J /J...6 6
u.s L
r
This response represents my initial thoughts on the notice and certainly as/if the rulemaking proceeds , these views could be modified .
~ :-0 . £), :.v..,.
~:-a_ J . ~ ~ s , Director Division of Fadiation Control & Emergency Management cc: Frederick Combs
DOCKET NUMBER PR / /()
PROPOSED RULE..;;...;;..;;._ __
CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.
(55Ft<o 'fig ,)
P.O. Box 726
- Barnwell , South Carolina 29812 April 9, 1990 Secretary of the Commission DOCKETING&
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission SERVICE BRANCH SECY-NRC Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 De ar Sir:
.,,chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. offers the following comments to the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for 10 CFR 110 concerning the Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes. It is clear that the NRC feels that the status quo is inadequate though no justification is given nor are specific problems identified.
Most significantly, no justification is provided for treating radioactive waste as a special category of radioactive material.
Import and export of radioactive material is currently adequately regulated by 10 CFR 110. Unless specific problems with the current system of regulation are identified, additional regulation seems unwarranted, thus Option 1 is the best choice.
None the less, if regulations for import and export of radioactive wastes are finally promulgated, as may occur given the general public sentiment concerning radioactive waste, a system of notification as described i n Option 2 seems most appropriate. Current requirements for obtaining site use permits and identification of generators at the current disposal sites ensures that appropriate approvals will be obtained from the regulatory agencies (state agencies) overseeing the sites before radioactive wastes are imported for disposal. In fact, the import provisions of the LLRWPAA should be sufficient to handle imports of waste to the U.S. with no additional regulation.
(803) 259-1781
- Telex: 216947 Acknowledged by card ..zJU t:z_,~:::nvnn*
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATOR" COMMlSs<<:>N DOC!- ETiNG & SERVICE SECTION OFf- ICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 1 (; 1 fl Copies Received_-' - - , - - -- -
Add'I Copies ReprodurP.d Jo . ____
Special tJ1fl'ibu1ic1 f.:t _D,s 0 J 6 Y t1/ L~1i ~
Docketing and Service Branch Page 2 Acknowledgment by the receiving country of the acceptability of receipt of radioactive waste prior to export may be useful in preventing an inappropriate export of waste. Extending regulation to require licensing (Option 3) is not necessary and bans (Option 4) are totally inappropriate.
9 The staff's proposed response to question 6 seems to imply that there might be a requirement for a Compact site to accept foreign waste unles s NRC regulations are provided. The Compact has the authority to deny a cc es s to a ny out of c ompact generator including foreign ones. No additional regulations are needed to prevent foreign waste access.
The NRC has proposed to use the definition of radioactive waste from the IAEA. This definition seems to conflict with the AEC Act of 1954. Does the NRC have authority to apply regulation to radioactive materials, e.g. radium, not included in the 9 authorization of the Act?
If there are any questions concerning these comments, please contact me at (803) 256-0450.
Sincerely, CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC.
n~~
Marks. Whittaker Corporate Health Physicist cc: G. Antonucci
1 STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DOCKETED USNP..C KAY A. ORR GREGG F. WRIGHT, M.D., M.ED.
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR
'90 MAR 26 A9 :22 t'.JFF!C[ OF SE.C~ETARY D0CK[1 ING - '.;fi,VlfT March 19, 1990 BRANCl-i Frederick C. Combs, Assistant Director for State, Local and Indian Relations State Programs Office of Governmental and Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Combs:
This is in reference to the advance notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SP 21) Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes.
I have had Mr. Ellis Simmons of my staff review this proposed rule and his comments are enclosed.
Should you have any questions on this or desire additional information, please contact Mr. Simmons of my staff at 402-471-2168.
t, Director ivision of Radiological Health HRB:efn Acknowledged by card f /t..ej.?,,~ ....
301 CENTENNIAL MALL SOUTH P.O. BOX 95007, LINCOLN, NEBRASKA 68509-5007 FAX # (402) 471-0383 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
', ., ., ;~._.,u Lii j ,:,r.y ccMt. 1ss 1ofl D'J ,;f::=1:-.~ G & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE Or THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 3 ~ o 1 'j 0 7
f f Copies Received I Add'l Copies Rep-rod_u_c-ed- - - - -
Special Distribution R:r: D s7 , P D R, Lahs., t Prnb s.j G-ov:o}7
Comments: State Division of Radiological Health, Nebraska Department of Health on NRC request for comments on proposed rule making concerning NRC regulations for import and export of radioactive waste.
Ve favor the option of banning the import and export of radioactive wastes, except with respect to countries with which the U.S. has an agreement.
- 1. What are the economic advantages and disadvantages to the import and export of radioactive wastes, e.g., would such imports or exports affect the economic viability of disposal facilities or State radioactive waste disposal compacts?
Response: There could be some economic advantages to exporting radioactive wastes from compact regions if a long term reliable contract could be negotiated. It is questionable whether there would be any economic benefit from importing radioactive waste at this time due to the political fall-out it evokes.
- 2. Are there policy, health and safety, or economic disadvantages to denying import or export of certain radioactive wastes, e.g.,
interfe renc e with ongoing U.S. internationa l t ra de in sealed sources and gauges used in medical or other applications?
Response: There could be some repercussion from international trade in radiation sources if denying the import or export of radioactive waste would occur.
- 3. Would it be in the interest of U.S. foreign policy to assist certain countries with the disposal of their radioactive wastes?
Response: No. It would not affect U.S. foreign policy to assist certain countries with waste disposal, except to provide the technical assistance which they may need.
- 4. Does the U.S. have an adequate mechanism to dispose of imported radioactive wastes without adversely impacting the disposal of domestically generated wastes?
Response: No, the U.S. does not have an adequate mechanism to dispose of imported radioactive waste. It does not yet have an adequate mechanism in place for the domestic generated waste and it may not be available before the year 2000.
- 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?
Response: The imported radioactive waste would be very similar to the waste generated in the States.
- 6. What are the views of operators of disposal facilities and State and local governments on the import of radioactive waste?
Response: The operators of disposal facilities would probably welcome the additional revenue it would generate. However, their opinion should not count. State and local governments are now and will be sometime in the future opposed to imports of radioactive waste, probably into the 21st. century.
- 7. Are national authorities in countries that might receive U.S.-exported radioactive waste technically competent to dispose of such waste and would they agree to its receipt?
Response: There are few national authorities in countries now technically competent to manage exported radioactive waste. Those countries that generate large quantities of nuclear power are probably the most competent.
- 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 open to question?
Response: Yes, most definitely. Brain surgery should not be per-formed by l ay people.
- 9. Vould 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?
Response: Most definitely, the export of all categories of radio-active wastes would help solve a significant problem in t ~ ~ - even though we have the disposal capacity. Perhaps we could &&S-&e;l. and exchange some of the foreign nations debt in exchange for some of our radioactive waste.
- 10. NRC cannot currently regulate Naturally Occurring or Accelerator Produced Materials (NARM) such as radium contaminated wastes and accelerator components and shielding containing induced activity. Are provisions needed for the import and export of these NARM wastes, assuming NRC were given statutory authority over such materials?
Response: Provisions are needed for the import and export of NARM waste. It is inconceivable that NRC and Congress has not recognized the need to regulate these materials.
- 11. Are there other means to broaden the Commission's information base with regard to transactions of exports and imports of radioactive wastes, exclusive of requiring specific licenses or otherwise revising NRC's existing regulations?
Response: No response.
- 12. Vhat import/export controls and licensing criteria may be necessary for various categories of radioactive waste and under what circumstances should imports/exports be considered wastes?
Response: NRC should use the same criteria that are now in place to determine what is the class of waste.
- 13. What assurances can be made that the Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policies of various countries are consistent so that radioactive wastes declared BRC in the exporting country are indeed BRC wastes in the recipient country?
Response: You should establish by Agreement with other countries what the Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) is which is consistent with what is now in place. Don't change the rule or standard to accommodate other countries.
These are responses to questions that NRC staff has responded to. We have provide d our own comments listed below.
- 1. Are there clear economic advantages to the import of radioactive wastes. e.g ** would importing waste assist in maintaining the economic viability of disposal facilities or State compacts?
Respons e: It would be difficult to asse ss any economical benefit for importing radioactive waste for disposal in one of our compact regions. From past experience it will cost us considerably more than we could recover. We would be very opposed to any importing of radioactive waste.
- 2. Are there clear policy. health and safety. or economic disadvantages to denying import or export of certain radioactive wastes, e.g.,
interference with ongoing U.S. foreign trade in sealed sources and gauges used in medical or other applications?
Response: We cannot improve on the response provided by the NRC staff.
- 3. Is it in the U.S. foreign policy or foreign relations interest to assist certain countries with the disposal of their radioactive wastes?
Response: NRC Staff response is adequate.
- 4. Does the U.S. have an adequate disposal mechanism available as well as sufficient disposal capacity so as not to impact adversely the disposal of domestically generated wastes?
Response: It is our opinion that we have yet to adequately demon-strate that we can manage our own domestically generated low level waste and high level waste; therefore, how can we manage imported waste. The federal government and congress have grossly bungled the management of radioactive waste. Congress in its wisdom shifted this responsibility to the states with the consequence of the potential for a dozen low level waste sites. of which none can operate in an economical matter. The U.S. should not be the waste repository of the world.
- 5. Is imported waste similar to waste generated in the U.S. and therefore not likely to result in new radiological and/or environmental problems?
Response: None.
- 6. Do operators of disposal facilities as well as the State Compact Commissions object to the import of (a) a specific waste stream (b) foreign waste in general?
Response: Interstate compacts and states with low-level radioactive waste sites or proposed sites would be very concerned about import of low level waste. Politically, it would be unacceptable at this time and probably to the year 2000.
- 7. Are national authorities in countries receiving exported U.S. waste technically competent to understand what they are receiving and agree to its receipt?
Response: The states are not in a position to respond to this question as not enough information is available.
- 8. What consideration, if any, should be given to the capability and ability of a recipient country to safely manage and dispose of radioactive wastes, recognizing that NRC would have no authority to deny a license on these grounds?
Response: We have a duty and responsibility to protect people and countries from themselves if they are incompetent to manage the waste.
If they are competent in the management then they should be allowed to conduct their own affairs.
- 9. Does exporting some or all categories of waste help to solve a significant problem in the U.S., such as limited available disposal capacity?
Response: Exporting waste for interstate compacts should be an all or nothing situation. If the wastes are split it drives the costs to prohibitive levels. Exporting waste could solve individual states and compacts considerable money and grief.
- 10. Would exporting the waste adversely affect the economic viability of disposal facilities for State Compacts?
Response: It would adversely affect it in the event the compact would still have to locate a low level site in the compact region. It might be more economically feasible to export all of the wastes provided it were long term.
.--=--:~
UUtiKl:: I NUMl:Sl:H N POSED RULE PR
/ / t)
(55Fk: 4/P/_; 17
, )@
DOCKETED USNRC State of North Carolina "9() MAR 22 P 7 :04 Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Division of Radiation Protection Oft"ICE OF ~EC TARY Po 'gh N h Ca )* ;:.u ¥E11NG. sr f1V 1C:[
. . Box 27687
- Ra) et , ort ro ma 27611-Yo 'I' BRANCH James G. Martin, Governor Dayne H. Brown, Director William W Cobey, Jr., Secretary Telephone 919,733-4283 March 6, 1990 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Comments for the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning NRC regulations for import and export of radioactive wastes (SP-90-21).
Dear Sirs:
The Division of Radiation Protection appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on proposed NRC regulations for the import and export of radioactive wastes. Your specific request for comments on the 13 related questions are as follows:
- 1. What are the economic advantages and disadvantages to the import and export of radioactive wastes, e.g., would such imports or exports affect the economic viability of disposal facilities or State radioactive waste disposal compacts?
Response
It is agreed that the import and export of waste may create some economic advantages. We would note, however, that any projected advantage may be overburdened by the prospect of liability for import and dollars lost by the Compacts and their operators from export. , .1 *.,,. '.:.
j (
- 2. Are there clear policy, health and safety, or economic disadvantages to denying import or export of certain radioactive wastes, e.g., interference with ongoing U.S. foreign trade in sealed sources and gauges used in medical or other applications?
Response
We know of no clear policy or health and safety -
disadvantages to denying import or export of s.eal.erl so~rc~s and gauges. We do recognize the potential economi~ impact in denying import or export of these "wastes", as discussed in the NRC Staff response to this question .
Acknowledged b card .*$..j.J. .. ~,f.1-! _
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMPJ.ISS!0~1 DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 3 /; CJ f 'I rJ I _ , -,--_ __
Coples Race;*,cd _f _
/ldd'I Ccp:ss RsprojucGd _b____
S,r;eci~I Distribution 'R:Ct>s f D R, L-6-h s , C, c rn !> ~, C-- Q V f\ ,
~ 61(e- J 7 -
U.S. NRC March 6, 1990 Page 2
- 3. Would it be in the interest of U.S. foreign policy to assist certain countries with the disposal of their radioactive wastes?
Responses Yes it would be in the interest of U.S. foreign policy and the U.S. health and safety to assist with the disposal of radioactive wastes. This assistance, however, could be in the form of technical assistance and not necessarily importation as a solution.
- 4. Does the U.S. have an adequate mechanism to dispose of imported radioactive wastes without adversely i pacting the disposal of domestically generated wastes?
Responses In terms of sufficient disposal capacity, yes, the planned disposal facilities could possibly be able to accommodate the additional volume. This could, however, have a significant impact upon the disposal of domestic waste if the volume of imported waste was very substantial and if the imported waste was not regulated to the full extent of that domestically generated waste.
- 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?
Responses It would be the assumption that waste generated by similar facilities abroad, i.e. medical facilities, industry, etc.,
would be similar to waste generated in the U.S., however, it would be very difficult to regulate facilities abroad to assure compliance with requirements in the U.S. For example, site access licensing would be a difficult if not impossible issue to address. The control of generators and the waste they generate at their facilities would be a real problem.
- 6. What are the views of operators of disposal facilities and State and local governments on the import of radioactive waste?
U.S. NRC March 6, 1990 Page 3
- Response, Expressing the view of State government, the U.S. should not import radioactive waste except under unusual circumstances.
It would have to be a case by case situation in which the environment and public health and safety were at risk. We would expect that local governments would very strongly oppose any importation of any radioactive waste at any time.
- 7. Are national authorities in countries that might receive U.S. exported radioactive wastes technically competent to dispose of such wastes and would they agree to its receipt?
Res ponse:
It is expected that there would be those national authorities who would be technically competent and those that would not. This being the case, how would the NRC insure that exported waste would only be sent to technically competent recipients?
- 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 open to question?
Responses Yes, the generator of waste must be accountable for the waste generated up to the point of receipt by a disposal facility. A generator should not knowingly transfer waste to a disposal facility that is not suspected of being capable to safely dispose of waste. How would the liability of the generator and his problems from other countries be addressed?
- 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?
- Response, The problem in the U.S. with limited available disposal capacity is currently being addressed by the formation of regional coapacts as required by the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act. The exportation of waste as an alternate solution would send a strong signal indicating the lack of responsibility by both the U.S. and generators in the U.S.
U.S. NRC March 6, 1990 Page 4 In addition, this type of dependency upon other countries may pose an environmental and public health and safety risk if those countries ceased to receive waste. There are many questions and problems to be considered in this issue. For example, a foreign country may refuse to receive a waste shipment or may attempt to make the U.S. take back the waste at some future date. What if major environmental or health problems occurred in the foreign country?
- 10. NRC cannot currently regulate Naturally Occurring or Accelerator Produced Materials (NARM) such as radium contaminated wastes and accelerator components and shielding containing induced activity. Are provisions needed for the import and export of these NARM wastes, assuming NRC were given statutory authority over such materials?
Response
This may be an acceptable solution, but may not address some other unresolved problems for these wastes.
- 11. Are there other means to broaden the Commission's information base with regard to transactions of exports and imports of radioactive wastes, exclusive of requiring specific licenses or otherwise revising NRC's existing regulations?
Response
We know of no other reasonable means.
- 12. What import/export controls and licensing criteria may be necessary for various categories of radioactive waste and under what circumstances should imports/exports be considered wastes?
Response
There must be specific manifest and legal certification from the recipient that he will accept waste along with irrefutable evidence of authority to receive.
Imports/exports should be considered waste if there remains no practical use for the material.
- 13. What assurances can be made that the Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policies of various countries are consistent so that radioactive wastes declared BRC in the exporting country are indeed BRC wastes in the recipient country.
U.S. NRC March 6,1990 Page 5 Responses This would be a difficult concept even if there were no BRC policies. For example, what would we even confidently know about a foreign generator or his waste?
General Comments We agree that a general approach should be to develop a policy that would provide greater control and accountability over the export and import of radioactive wastes. Several obvious problems with the import/export of radioactive wastes are evident. First is the issue of regional compacts and the potential impact upon available volume and compliance with the disposal facilities specific requirements. Second is the issue of liability and the enforcement of responsibility if problems occur at a later date. Another concern is the issue of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and the potential for creating the impression of not being responsible for the waste generated within the U.S. The importation of waste would without a doubt generate major public outcry, considering their lack of acceptance to the regional compact approach.
We would generally agree that no action upon the existing policy of the import/export of wastes may have the potential for having a detrimental affect upon the environment and public health and safety. Therefore, we support option three with the specific criteria as follows: 1) ban specific waste forms (i.e. any waste except sealed sources, gauges, or instruments) from import and export, 2) permit the import of only limited types of waste such as sealed radiation sources, but only to the manufacturer and not a disposal facility, 3) prohibit the importation of any waste to a disposal facility, except where this prohibition would have a detrimental impact upon the environment and public health and safety of the U.S. or a foreign country, and no other safe alternatives exist.
We believe this approach would be in support of international trade by the U.S. production industry, while at the same time avoid the U.S. being the disposal site for international waste via a u.s. waste company or a foreign waste company. In addition, this policy would be a step towards assuring the protection of the environment and the public health and safety both in the U.S. and abroad.
-. I > t U.S. NRC March 6, 1990 Page 6 We appreciate the cgx:>rtunity to review the ccmnents on Advance Notice of Proposerl Rulemakin;J c:x:n::eminJ SP-90-21.
~~
I::ayne H. Brown CHB:dsl
... . DOCKET NUMBER PR //C) [7590-01]
PROPOSED RULE..:..:=_/;...._
- - ~ / '\
(55 F /2 "/l?u LO(;KfiEO USNHC
- 90 MAR 20 P2 :07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 110 JFF !CE: OF SE Cl<!.:. T RY DOCKL i ING .i. ';r ilVICf RRANC!-.
Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes: Extension of Cornnent Period AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking: Extension of comment period.
SUMMARY
- On February 7, 1990 (55 FR 4181), the NRC published for public co1J111ent an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on the import and export of radioactive wastes. The date cited in the notice for comment period expiration was March 9, 1990. Informal requests have been received to extend this expiration date so that substantive comments can be formulated which would specifically consider the impact of the international codes, standards, guides, and recommendations on this subject. Because it is important that the public, industry, and other government agencies have suitable opportunity to review and comment on the need for and content of any proposed rule on the import or export of radioactive wastes, NRC has decided to extend the comment period until April 24, 1990.
DATES: The comment period has been extended and now expires on April 24, 1990.
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the C011111ission is only able to assure consideration of comments received before this date.
1
[7590-01]
ADDRESSES: Mail conments to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD between 7:45 a.m.
and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., (lower Level),
WasMngton, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Lahs, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3774.
a ,,.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this {? day of VI.{~ lc.H, 1990.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
2
NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL 1776 Eye Street, N.W.
- Suite 300
- Washington, DC 20006-2496 *90 MAR 19 P3 :58 (202) 872-1280 Joe F. Colvln Executive Vice President &
Chief Operating Officer Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch RE: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes 55 Fed. Reg. 4181 {February 7, 1990)
Request for Comments
Dear Mr. Chilk:
These comments are submitted by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. ("NUMARC") in response to the request for comments on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking ("ANPR") issued by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or "Commission") entitled "Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes" (55 Fed Reg. 4181 - February 7, 1990).
NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member of NUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect-engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.
NUMARC has reviewed the Commission's four proposals, the specific questions stated in the ANPR, and the Staff responses thereto, and has several observations and comments for the Commission's consideration in deciding whether to proceed to modify its current regulations. Because only thirty days were provided between the issuance of the Commission's ANPR and the due date for comments thereon, we have not had an opportunity to undertake the type of thorough analysis that would be required to provide specific answers to many of the questions posed by the Commission.
I. The ANPR Does Not Evidence a Need for Modification of the Current Regulatory Regime.
NUMARC strongly believes, and has communicated this belief to the Commission in many contexts, that all regulations issued by the Commission
U.S. NJCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cf ,:;<:.: ! .:~G ! ~E:RV!CE SECTION Cv*ument Statisiics
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 9, 1990 Page 2 should have a sound and well-documented technical basis. Regulations that are issued without sound technical bases do not advance the public health and safety, will divert resources that are more appropriately spent on ensuring compliance with necessary regulations, and could decrease confidence in the NRC's regulatory process. The need for technically justified regulation is especially compelling where, as here, the NRC's regulatory decision could impact international relations and foreign trade issues.
Based on our review of the ANPR, it does not appear that there is a need to modify the NRC's current regulation of imports and exports of radioactive waste. The ANPR does not describe any specific instances where the current regulations were found to be inadequate to protect public health and safety, nor does it document grounds for expected future noncompliance with the existing regulatory regime. The ANPR does, however, cite several grounds for modifying the current regulatory system. As discussed below, we do not believe that the grounds cited justify a new and more stringent regulatory regime for imports and exports of radioactive waste.
First, the ANPR explains that the International Atomic Energy Agency
("IAEA") is working on the development of a voluntary Code of Practice for transboundary movement of radioactive wastes and that it is the consensus of member states of the IAEA that "all countries should have in place adequate national means to control the transboundary movements of radioactive wastes in order to avoid unsafe disposal practices." 55 Fed. Reg. at 4181. While NUMARC agrees with this principle, we also believe that the NRC's regulations already meet this goal. The NRC has in place a regulatory regime that provides adequate oversight of imports and exports of radioactive waste to protect public health and safety. Therefore, it would be prudent for the NRC to defer any regulatory modifications until the IAEA has developed its Code of Practice. At that time the NRC could better assess whether regulatory changes are necessary to complement the IAEA standards and the relevant practices and regulatory policies of IAEA Member States.
Second, the ANPR states, in discussing the option of retaining the status quo, that current regulations "do not ensure that the NRC is cognizant of all transfers of radioactive wastes per se across U.S. borders." 55 Fed.
Reg. at 4182. The NRC does not indicate, however, why such knowledge is necessary or desirable. Under current regulations, the NRC has the necessary authority to determine if there has been a breach of regulatory requirements and to revoke, suspend or modify a general import or export license in the event of regulatory noncompliance and to issue civil penalties. 10 C.F.R. Part 110 Subparts F and G. Under these circumstances, the need for and benefits to the NRC of knowing of all transboundary shipment is unclear. On the other hand, the burden on licensees and the burden on the NRC to process and review that information could be significant. The imposition of a burden of this nature simply cannot be justified, particularly when the demands on NRC's limited personnel resources are already substantial.
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 9, 1990 Page 3 Third, the ANPR cites the need to eliminate any inconsistencies between the regulatory oversight of imported radioactive wastes and radioactive waste resulting from domestic operations, citing as an example the disposal of radioactive wastes by NRC licensees. 55 Fed. Reg. at 4182. It is not clear that there are presently such inconsistencies or that, if there are, the NRC does not already have the necessary regulatory tools to eliminate them. A general license to import or export does not authorize the licensee to engage in any other regulated activity (e.g., use, receipt, transfer or delivery of the radioactive material). 10 C.F.R. § 110.50(a)(3). Similarly, a specific import or export license requires the licensee to comply with Parts 40, 70, and 73 of the Convnission's regulations, unless a domestic licensee assumes that responsibility and the Convnission has been so notified. 10 C.F.R.
§ 110.50(b)(4). These provisions appear to be sufficient to ensure that radioactive wastes, once imported into the United States, are regulated in the same manner as radioactive wastes resulting from domestic operations. If the Convnission believes that it has insufficient authority under current regulations to regulate the disposal of foreign-origin wastes in like degree as domestic-origin wastes, then current regulations governing possession and use of radioactive materials could be modified to provide such authority without changing their basic structure and coverage.
Fourth, the ANPR cites a need to alleviate "growing concerns that transfers of radioactive wastes are not being adequately controlled." 55 Fed.
Reg. at 4182. Absent a demonstrated problem (rather than a vague reference to "concerns"), overhauling the existing regulatory regime to exert stricter control over all imports and exports (e.g., through requiring that specific licensees be issued) will only contribute to the belief that this activity poses a threat to public health and safety without adding to the protection already provided by the NRC's regulations. As we have stated before, regulations should be based on demonstrated need, and should not be enacted or modified solely to alleviate a vague, unarticulated concern.
Finally, the ANPR indicates that amending Part 110 to allow imports and exports only if pursuant to international disposal agreements would have the benefit of encouraging countries having such agreements to take responsibility for waste disposal within their own territories. 55 Fed. Reg. at 4182. With due respect, NUMARC does not believe that it is appropriate to use the NRC's import and export regulations to this end. As the Staff explained in response to question number 3, it is U.S. policy to assist certain countries with the disposal of their radioactive waste and the U.S. presently does so working through the IAEA and other organizations. It would be inappropriate, however, for the NRC unilaterally to attempt to more directly influence the internal regulations of sovereign nations through the NRC's import and export regulations. Rather, the question of whether direct U.S. intervention is necessary to ensure safe radioactive waste disposal practices in other countries is one that needs to be addressed by other agencies within the Administration, in conjunction with the NRC, taking account of the broader implications on international relations and foreign trade issues.
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 9, 1990 Page 4 Similarly, the ANPR poses the question "what assurances can be made that the Below Regulatory Concern ("BRC") policies of various countries are consistent so that radioactive wastes declared BRC in the exporting country are indeed BRC wastes in the recipient country?" 55 Fed. Reg. at 4183. This is an issue that should be addressed through the IAEA and other appropriate international committees, and not unilaterally by the NRC through its import and export regulations.
II. Potential Impact of the Commission's Regulations Governing Imports and Exports of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes on Domestic Activities.
Several questions posed by the ANPR seek to explore the impact of imports and exports of low-level radioactive wastes on the disposal of such wastes in the United States. As the Staff indicated in response to these questions, low-level radioactive waste disposal in the United States is governed by the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, as amended, ("LLRWPA")
under which the states are required to enter into regional compacts to provide capacity for such waste disposal. This process is generating significant controversy at the state and local level, as evidenced by the fact that two lawsuits were recently filed challenging the legal validity of the provisions of the LLRWPA and the compacts entered into thereunder. 1 At this point, it is unclear how many disposal facilities will actually be sited and operational under the LLRWPA or what the disposal capacity will be. Thus, it is not possible to determine if increasing the volumes of imports or exports would be beneficial or detrimental to the siting and development of the disposal facilities envisioned under the LLRWPA, or whether there will be a disposal capacity shortage or excess in the future.
In addition, fundamental changes in the Commission's regulatory policy for imports and exports of radioactive wastes could have a significant impact on the regulation of domestic transportation of radioactive materials. For example, the Commission does not require prenotification of most shipments of low-level radioactive waste, nor does it require a specific license to make such shipments. There are no such requirements because there is no demonstrated need for such requirements. Yet, if the Commission were to impose such requirements on imports and exports of radioactive waste, a question could be raised as to whether similar regulations should be imposed on domestic shipments. Thus, the Commission should consider the potential precedential impact of a change in regulatory policy on imports and exports on the domestic regulatory regime.
Conclusion In sum, the record accompanying the ANPR does not demonstrate a need for the NRC to commit its limited resources to the development of further regulations over import and export of radioactive wastes. Fundamentally, 1
New York v. United Stat es, Case No.=-=------=-- (N.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 12, 1990), Concerned Cit i zens of Nebraska v. NRC , Case No. CV90-L-70 (D.Neb.,
filed Feb . 21, 1990).
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk March 9, 1990 Page 5 regulatory modifications should not be undertaken absent evidence that a problem exists of significant scope that cannot be appropriately addressed through the NRC ' s current regulatory authority over importers and exporters of radioactive materials. It would be prudent for the NRC to delay regulatory action until the need for such action have been demonstrated and until a consensus is reached among IAEA Member States of appropriate complementary regulations. At that time, it might be appropriate for the NRC to consider whether rulemaking action is required. Further, many of the regulatory actions envisioned would need to be developed in concert with other Federal agencies, and the appropriate exercise of the authority of those agencies might preclude the need for NRC regulatory action. If the NRC decides to proceed to conduct rulemaking activities in this area, it should clearly articulate the need for such regulatory actions and the justification for the action proposed .
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and would be pleased to discuss these comments further with appropriate NRC personnel .
Sincerely, de/[ i.1-,u,
~ F. Colvin JFC/RWB:bb
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE cssPR //0
.FR ~121)
DOCKETED USNRC
@)
NSSI / SOURCES & SERVICES, INC.
P.O. BOX 34042 HOUSTON, TEXAS 77234 'Of'\ M1'BE19o cp ,~~--0391 1
FAX 713/641-6153 TLX 16081~S1 ilmr March 14, 1990 Secretary of the Commission USNRC Washington, D.c. 20555 Attn: Docketing & Service Branch
Dear Sirs:
on March 1 2, 19 9 0 I received the proposed rules (10 CFR Part 110 Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes).
Unfortunately the comment period ended March 09, 1990.
I am enclosing my comments on the proposed rules and hope they will be considered even though the comment period has closed.
I have numbered my comments to respond to questions 1-13 on pages 4182 and 4183 of the February 07 publication (Vol 55, No. 26).
- 1. Economic advantages and disadvantages of import and export.
The economic viability of the waste compacts i n the U.S. is already in serious doubt.
The inclusion or exclusion of foreign generated wastes will have minimal effect on such viability.
On the other hand, the export of U.S. wastes may have a significant effect on viability as new sites come on line.
Initially the domestic disposal charges will be very high but will begin to drop as additional sites become operations.
During the high costs period, export will be viewed as a reasonable alternative. As more sites become operational, competition for waste volume will cause charges to drop and export will be less attractive.
Import and export of wastes will have almost no long term effect on domestic site viability.
- 2. Policy, health & safety or economic disadvantages.
There will be significant disadvantages to control of the import/export of such materials.
U.S. companies will not be able to compete in markets involving the sale of radioactive materials and their ultimate disposal.
I don't expect other countries to apply similar rules thus the rules will only control wastes into and out of the U.S.
SHIPPING ADDRESS: 5711 ETHERIDGE / HOUSTON, TEXAS 77087 /
Acknowledged hv earn f /1.L ..?..£.._~
U.S. N~C 1.EAR R2GULJ.TORY COMMISSIO~
oori<ETliJG & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMM!SSION
Page The ability of overseas operations to capture markets involving radioactive material will be benefited.
It will also assure that U.S. companies who wish to provide products and disposal services for wastes from other countries will simply set up foreign companies to provide such s ervices.
Any economic impact will be negative as for as the U.S. is concerned.
- 3. U.S. assistance with disposal.
I assume that a sizable amount of the radioactive materials in use in the world today are the result of U.S. manufacture. The contract for s ale of such materials to other countries probably didn't contain any guarantee that wastes generated as a result of such sale would be accepted for disposal by the U.S.
I don't believe such a policy of return would benefit anyone.
- 4. U.S. mechanism for disposal.
current mechanisms are adequate.
No one in their right mind would import into the U.S. wastes for disposal if any mechanism existed outside the U.S.
- 5. Similarity of wastes.
There is no reason to believe wastes outside the U. s. are markedly different from those currently disposed in the u.s.
- 6. Views of operators of sites.
Operators of sites would probably welcome any import of waste for disposal and oppose any export.
Local governments would welcome the export and oppose any import.
The views would be controlled totally by economic and political considerations.
- 7. Competency of foreign authorities.
Technical competence is in the eye of the beholder.
In the U.S. Technical competence if ever demonstrated is overshadowed by public opinion.
In my opinion the U.S. should not impose its biased standards on foreign countries.
The U. s. approach is similar to General Motors telling an independent garage that it can't work on General Motors cars because the garage doesn't have properly trained personnel to do the work.
Page The chances are however that the small garage will turn out better work without the tens of thousands of dollars of fancy equipment General Motors feels is necessary in its repair shops.
The decision relative to the technical design of a foreign disposal site and the standards for waste acceptance should be left to the foreign government.
- s. NRC denial of export license.
NRC should not require export licenses for waste.
The words "for which no use is foreseen" can easily be subverted by routing a shipment of waste material containing material to be recovered.
After removal of the valuable portion at an out of U.S. facility the waste is simply shipped on to a disposal facility.
- 9. Availability of U.S. capacity.
The problem of U.S. capacity is a short term problem.
The NRC should be worrying about the excess capacity that will exist in the next 10 years as waste volumes decrease sharply and multiple disposal sites become available.
- 10. NARM wastes.
The control of NORM in the U.S. has now reached a point of asininity.
Pipe scale, Gypsum piles, and other NORM and NARM wastes which were never considered as radioactive waste are seriously affecting the economy of oil production and fertilizer manufacturing and other associated industries.
In many areas of the world there are surface deposits of NORM (Monosite sands) which far exceed levels found in 90% of U.S.
generated NORM materials.
It would appear these areas might be very suitable for the disposal of lesser contaminated materials.
If any area should be left unregulated it is the NORM materials.
- 11. Broaden Commission information.
The formulation of regulations involving the approval of the Commission to import or export wastes should if implemented be limited to issuing licenses to exporters/importers.
These licensees will maintain records for review by the commission, but should not involve obtaining the approval of the Commission or providing document.
This could become an impossible paperwork burden.
Page 12. Licensing Criteria.
As I don't believe the Commission should formulate rules at this time, I can't address this item.
- 13. Consistency of policies.
Requiring consistency with u. s. rules would ascertain that no wastes would go to foreign sites. Refer to my comments about General Motors in item 7.
If additional clarification of any o f my comments is needed please contact me.
s1 cerel~
1~
fdbl d t ~r President RDG/vw Ref. #90163 CC: USNRC Washington, o.c. 20555 Attn: Janet M. Gorn
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR \ \D (55fRL\-l~l)
[;Q(;KL![D Marvin I. Lewis USNRC 7801 Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 62 Phila., PA 19152 °SU HAR 16 P2 :33 (215)624-1574 Secretary of the Commission OF!CE OF SF"CRETARY U. S. N. R. C. DOCKfifNG i. 5EilVICF.
8RANC!-i Washington, D. C. 20555 r-'
Dear Mr. Secretary; Please accept the following letter as my comments on the Notice on Rules for Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes (FR dated 2-7-90.) I appreciate any extension of the deadline on this important subject
- I respectfully state that the export and import of radioactive wastes should be banned completely. The United States would be inundated with radioactive waste which we could not regulate. Our Low Level Waste Compact sites would be required to accept waste which was not packaged to our regulations on purpose or by accident. The reason that our sites would have to accept dangerously packaged wastes is that we would have no control of the producer. We could not fine or regulate the producer. We could not ban the violator as he could change his identity.
Allowing any foreign waste into this country would allow for any kind of dumping with which the violators could make a dollar. Too many dumpers have already shown little regard for our domestic laws. We would only compound this dumping by allowing foreign wastes into the country.
We could not monitor effectively foreign wastes coming into this country. Our systems are set up t o monitor domestic waste at low level waste sites and geological repositories. Our radiation monitoring on the highways is deficient or related only to the familiar radioactives presently in the transportation system.
There are no parts of the proposed rule which ~onfront the issue of expanding our monitoring to meet the challenge of imported wastes as far as monitoring on the highways for safety and violations. Volunteer fire departments in many parts of the country and even professional fire departments in port cities would be unfairly challenged by an emergenc y i n a radioacti ve imported radwaste shipment. Again the rule fails t o address the se considerations.
Finally week after week, the NRC issues reports of violators being fined. Fines are a major enforcement measure. How can we possibly fine a foreign country or foreign compa ny ? This is a R
111::*7i~
regulation without any teeth, and more questions tha n answers.
3-14-90.
Acknowledged by card ...{?._/L~ {r..~ .........
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETAIW OF THE COMMISSION Document Statis1ics Posamartt Dat8 :3/;4Jqo 1
Copies Recei\!ed_1_ /;....__ _ _ __
Add'I Copies Reproduced _(p _ _ __
Special Oistribullon RtD~
,/µ_µ, ~ . ~
&v:710 .~
DOC-KET NUMB£R PR PROPOSED RULE J I0
( 55 FR Li 1-S 1) DOCKETED ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION tJSNRC REGULA TORY COMPLIANCE 2101 HORN RAPIDS ROAD, PO BOX 130, RICHLAND, WA 99352-0130 (509) 375-8100 TELEX: 15-2878
- 90 HAR 13 P3 :22
~~F!,CC OF SECRETAH'f March 6, tJ~~K ET INC, ,~ Sti1v1cr CWM:90:036 BRA NCH.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Secretary of the Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Sir:
ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON IMPORT AND EXPORT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation (ANF) has reviewed the advance notice of proposed rulemaking on the import and export of radioactive wastes which was published in the Wednesday, February 7, 1990 edition of the Federal Register, Vol. 55, No. 26, p. 4181. Our comments are given below.
ANF is a supplier of light water reactor fuel and related services. It is an importer and exporter of low enriched uranium and byproduct contaminated tools which are used in spent reactor fuel storage pools. It also imports low concentrations of uranium scrap from its affiliated plants in Europe for uranium recovery in its U.S. fuel fabrication plant.
9 We are concerned with two aspects of the proposed rulemaking. First, we have a general concern that the rulemaking will result in additional regulatory requirements which could further reduce the ability of ANF and other U.S.-based nuclear companies to compete in the world marketplace.
Second, we are concerned that rulemaking activities on radioactive waste s could directly and adversely impact on our reactor servicing activities and our commercial agreements to recover uranium from low concentration scrap materials returned from our affiliated plants in Europe.
In our judgment, the Commission has not made a strong case in the Federal Register notice for the need for rulemaking on the import or export of radioactive wastes. No data are given on the quantities of foreign radioactive wastes imported to the U.S. and disposed of at the three U.S.
waste disposal sites. There is a similar lack of data on exports of radioactive waste. Thus, in our minds, there is not a clear need for rulemaking. As certain factual information is needed to determine whether or not rulemaking is necessary, we suggest that the Commission request that the licensees report, on an after-the -fact-basis, all imports and exports of radioactive wastes made during the past several years and on an annual basis in the future. Until a cl ear need for additional regulation is determined, rulemaking should not proceed.
A Siemens Company
> "'U(U AR REGULA TORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date 3-/ q / 70 Copies Received __ I ____
.6.-:ld' I Copies Reproduced 4
,c:- '"' / r:t. .. ,;,.,., f< ----
I D5 Po la..Aa,,j~
Docketing and Service Branch CWM:90:036 March 6, 1990 Page 2 We believe that special attention should be given to the definition of radioactive waste. We recommend that the definition of radioactive waste exclude low concentration scrap materials or contaminated equipment imported or exported for treatment, nuclear material recovery, or decontamination. We also recommend that all packaging and handling materials used in connection with the transport of the above items and contaminated reactor servicing tools as well as the contaminated tools themselves be excluded from controls.
For technical purposes, we suggest that radioactive waste be defined as "any material that contains or is contaminated with radionuclides for which there is no active treatment, recovery, or recycle plan and which exists at concentrations or radioactive levels greater than the exempt quantities established by competent authorities and for which no use is foreseen."
If the Commission does proceed with rulemaking, we believe that special attention be given to the basis for import or export controls. We recommend that low enriched uranium and/or natural uranium waste which is being returned (exported) to an originating country for disposal after treatment or uranium recovery in the U.S. or uranium waste being returned (imported) to the U.S.
for disposal after treatment or uranium recovery in another country be excluded from additional import/export controls. We suggest further that the exclusions we previously described apply and that the import and export controls should only be applied when radioactive waste is imported or exported solely for disposal.
In summary, we do not believe that a strong case for rulemaking has been made. Rulemaking should not proceed until a clear need for such has been established. Additional information is needed on the import and export of radioactive wastes. Such information could be supplied by the licensees on an after-the-fact-basis by request from the Commission.
We do believe that care should be taken in the definition of radioactive waste and an alternative definition was provided earlier. We also believe that care should be taken in the application of import/export controls so as to exempt materials and equipment which are imported or exported for treatment, recovery, decontamination, reuse or return to the originating country. Import or export controls should only apply when radioactive wastes are imported or exported solely for disposal.
Docketing and Service Branch CWM:90:036 March 6, 1990 Page 3 We appreciate this opportunity to participate in the rulemaking process.
Very truly yours, c~~~
Regulatory Compliance CWM:jrs
... DOCKET NUMBER PR PROPOSED RULE I /0 ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION ON NUCLEAR POWER ( 65 Ff< '-f / 81)
Headq uarte rs: 433 Orlando Avenue, State College, Pa. 16803 OOCKE-TEO USNRC March 6, 1990 Secretary of the Commission RE: 55 FR 4181 ~ HAR 13 P3 :1 8 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ANPR, 10 CFR Part 110 Washington, D.C. 20555 Import and Exp01 t-1~ nRa.cltQa<?_tive Wastes
- -; 11 c*K~- d* -
- :_u~Hf it...; *.,
- t '.,t-4G .z; ",, vrr-r Attention: Docket and Service Branch : "' J ,'t **;- ..
Dear Madame or Sir:
The following comments on 55 FR 4181, "Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes," ANPR, are submitted on behalf of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power <ECNP) and Food and Water, Inc., non-profit, public-interest organizations with headquarters in Pennsylvania and New York and New jersey, respectively. The ECNP organization is represented on the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee on Low-Level [Radioactive] Waste <LLRW> and therefore has a marked interest in this Proposed Rulemaking. The Commonwealth is presently engaged in the process of siting, designing, and licensing a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility for the Appalachian States Compact. These comments and ECNP do not, however, in any way whatsoever represent the views of either the Advisory Committee or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In mid-1989, we enquired of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's CNRC)
Public Affairs staff about the legality and status of importation of low-level radioactive waste into the United States for disposal by NRC licensees' subsidiaries abroad. At that time, we understood, from previous NRC publications and 10 CFR 110, that the Commission permitted importation for disposal, but the staff was unable to tell us how the NRC determines, for the purposes of disposal, in what state such wastes would be considered to have been generated. We read this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR>
avidly, in hope of learning the answer to this troubling question. It is of significance in the waste disposal determinations within our state and compact.
Moreover, the almost mythic fate of the Islip, Long Island, garbage barge that wandered the high seas for months without finding a site to dump its wastes adds immediacy to the issues of accountability for and import and export of radioactive wastes. We commend the Commission for addressing this matter.
- 1. The Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power, with submission of these comments, (1) requests to be informed promptly of all future actions of the Commission pertaining to this Proposed Rulemaking, and (2) states that our organization wishes to be entered as a party to any formal rulemaking proceeding that the Commission may decide to convene to address these issues.
- ,.,-:i').
- 2. The Commission has provided a scant thirty days f e public Ua,n of the Federal Register Notice for public comment. Given the t t
- bat i!ul fy a week to ten days may pass hefore the Federal Register is delivered to public libraries and made available for public perusal, we believe that an issue of this great importance to the public interest should have a longer .period for submission of public comments. We therefore ask the Commission to extend the public comment period for an additional sixty days. Since this notice pertains to a future rulemaking and asks numerous questions deserving of careful review and consideration, and since no harm will result from an ~dditional comment time, we respectfully request that the Commission grant the extended time.
Acknowledg&l(f by cafd ** f.,fl,.7
/, 0 f .t'-,-__q...__. ...
.. ! ,,1~,i;;,\jr;
. /~_. ~- ~t-:.i .'.:i>__'li' *. ,,
A' I*
., ~
- r lo i .. t ~.,.
"'I '
. t. I I{'
. (
'u t,r. t Jj i
n,1 *1 1 ~i; nq
" * "'"3.1 9
- ri.J !
. ,, . l I
m, J
- I 1 ~f
!19 91:,
a 1 '
1 rA
, (' t
,,.t: , A . t l
er*
"*"" I
,, J
- I .. e ... ) ...
.t:.!i , l 110 t .) I I Id ,
, .. '1 I* .t 9
1 J 'I ')1,,
~ TL r It dU If. ~: 'r t
.t '
.l
, 'Gt
_t.
~ .
.1
., . ,1
- rr -. l l J
'1 ri ;+
o1 r , 1 I"' w ., F. l ~
. I b
- I I.J 3
'1 _.;, '
I~
.). ~- NUQfM IIII.GlJ1lA"IIQll'lf '~ I-DOCIEJING & 5llNIIQ SI.CltlfOM i. ')
OFFIIC:I *Ot- 1ltE Sl.ODMt a: ntE COMM~IOH Doaaalt~ia Postmark Date Copies Receiyed .!
Add' I Copies Reprocluc;ed
-~--- ...
Special Distribution RI D_S I PO R 1
~- J * ~*~ I .- **-
O'--t.L.lt..4J , ~ *;
- p. 2 CECNP comments on 55 FR 4181)
Introduction and Purpose
- 3. In reference to the NRC's observations about the status and need for regulation and control of all forms of radioactive wastes in inter~natlonal traffic and transboundary transfers, we strongly support the development and promulgation of national policy, regulations, and standards to assure aocountability and the maximum protection of health and safety of citizens and the environment in all affected countries and on the high seas and in the air.
4, We suggest that the Environmental Protection Agency CEPA), is the more appropriate federal agency to set population exposure standards and definitions for radioactive waste control in international movement and disposal, even it NRC is the designated agency for enforcement of regulations and standards.
- 5. The United States should have in place a specific policy :with respect to transfers of radioactive wastes and the NRC should require specific licenses for, and exercise rigorous control over, the export or import of all radio-active wastes: high-level, low-level, transuranic, commercial, military, weapons production-related, and below regulatory concern. The tact that the Commission states that " *** it ls unaware of any low-level radioactive waste being imported or exported in an unsafe manner *** " does not mean that I
unsafe transport --or disposal -- is not occurring. It is almost incredible that NRC does not now require advance notification and consent for radioactive waste imports and exports, and that statement alone yerifies that the Commission has no idea of whether or not wastes are being safely transported or ,disposed of at their unknown destinations. It is yet another example of the very serious regulatory failures of which critics accuse this agency.
- 6. The Commission states, at p. 4181, that " .** there is a delicate balance between protecting public health and safety in foreign countries and placing unnecessary restrictions on international trade." We object strenuously to the Commission's taking so cavalier an approach tb the health and safety of persons in other nations. Their health is as important as ours.
I In a recent U.S. Appeals Court decision <vinyl chloride>, the Court found that the Environmental Protection Agency had wrongly set national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants on the basis of the economics of pollution control and must regulate on the basis of health effects. Similarly, here, regulation must proceed on the basis of.obligation to protect the health and safety of the public and workers, not the balancing of human health against "unnecessary restrictions on international trade." The NRC should abandon any such approach altogether in its regulatory activities.
The Commission has allowed the generation of radioactive wastes and now, in accordance with its charge under the 1974 Energy Reorganiza~ion Act to protect health and safety, must regulate them in a manner that will assure their isolation ,tram the biosphere for the full hazardous life of the wastes.
It is not the Commission's task to solve the world's economic problems associ-ated with radioactive wastes that NRC, and its predecessor and brother agencies allow to be produced -- just to maintain proper control over those wastes.
- p. 3 (ECNP comments on 55 FR 4181>
- 7. We object ta the NRC's adoption of the IAEA definition of radioactive wastes cited at p. 4181-2, This definition utilizes an economic criterion
("for which no use is foreseen") which allows a generator/user of radioactive materials to discard at will or whim the obligation ha has undertaken with his license. It encourages recycling of radioactive waste, which in turn adds more sources of permissible exposure to the overall burden of environmental loading of radioactivity from multiple sources, It also allows, without limits or even definition of the term "competent authority," massive deregulation of radio-active waste and its entry without control or monitoring into the biosystem.
The December, 1989, Report of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR V, has now clarified that there is essentially no "safe" dose of ionizing radiationJ has adopted the linear hypothesis of the dose-response relationship and suggested that supralinearity cannot be ruled out; has found that cancer induction is three- to four-fold, or more, higher per unit of do*e received than had previously been thoughts and has confirmed the far greater sensitivity of embryo and fetus than federal standards have recognized in the past. For these reasons alone, the NRC must not adopt an approach to international radio-active waste management that will subject populations and land and water environments to increasing sources of exposure from deregulation of radioactive wastes. A more precise and far more restrictive definition is required.
proposed Options
- 8. The four options offered for consideration remind us of those "multiple guess" high school exams in which none of the available answers is correct but the good student is not offered the opportunity to give a better response. We commend the Commission here for admitting that it pas not exhausted the possibilities and for inviting additional options.
Option (1): Continuation of existing 10 CFR 110 policy and procedures will not accomplish the NRC's stated purpose of establishing better radioactive waste regulation. Some control procedures for radioactive materials are certainly worthy of retention in Part 110. But we urge the NRC :to review its existing policy in terms of the present uncertainty and confusion between what constitutes a radioactive material and a radioactive waste. We need clarifica-1 tion of criteria and standards for identification of substances as materials and wastes and of the situations and conditions in which they may change from the one to the other: both material-to-waste and waste-to-material.
These distinctions became especially important in the control of international shipments that may involve several changes of licensee, broker, shipper, treatment, and legal liability. They are not now clear with respect to the import and eKport of NRC-lioensed radioactive materials and wastes into and out of Compact regions established within the United States, under the 1980 LLRW Policy Act and its 1985 Amendments. It is imperative to establish policies and regulations to control international traffic in radioactive wastes to and from the United States. This option should be rejected; it is not a sufficient solution to the problem.
- p. 4 (ECNP comments on 55 FR 4181)
Option (2): We strongly urge the adoption of this option that requires notification of all imports and exports of radioactive wastes. Both the NRC and the State and Nation of origin and destination should be required to be notified. Maintaining a paper trail is essential to control, and.a manifest system, even if awkward and burdensome to all parties, must be mandatory. This position does not, however, mean that we condone either the importation or the export of radioactive wastes into or out of the United States. But if any international exchange is taking place, the US NRC should be taking a world lead in assuring the greatest possible degree of control and record-keeping.
Option (3): We strongly urge the NRC to adopt requirements for specific licenses and regulatory requirements for the import and export of all radioactive wastes, if any such activities are to be allowed. W~ certainly favor a ban on traffic in all Class B, C, and C+ wastes and stringent license conditions on wastes such as sealed sources .* A license, unfortunately, is only as good as the regulation and enforcement that accompanies it. The NRG must undertake a careful analysis of the extent of its authority to exercise adequate and effective control over wastes that are the object of international trade and commerce. In our opinion, radioactive wastes should notI be treated in the same manner as other items of commerce because they have no inherent positive values and benefits; they have only burdensome costs and hazards. All considerations of economic gain must be set aside in the NRC's evaluation of this matter and the decisions rest entirely on considerations of human health and safety and environmental protection.
Option (4): Our inclination is to urge very strongly the adoption of the option to ban altogether the import and export of radioactive wa*stes. The question does, however, pose some serious problems. The NRC here recognizes the necessity of honoring its existing agreements for the return to the US for disposal of radioactive wastes generated abroad under prior contract or agreement. We recommend in all such cases that the NRC initiate a renegotiation of such agreements with the intention of terminating all contracts for the export of nuclear technology or equipment that entails an agreement to take back any wastes generated thereby. We also very strongly urge the NRC to terminate immediately any and all arrangements that permit the generation within the US of radioactive wastes -- and materials* -- that are sent out of the US for disposal. These wastes are a burden of rapidly increasing control complexity, not to mention costs. This country cannot exercise the kind of authoritarian control required for assurance of radio-active waste isolation 1n other sovereign nations; it is not clear that the federal government can exercise such control over the states of. this nation.
The United States, having been the major promotional nation for the uses of nuclear energy during the past forty years, must now take leadership in moving the world in the opposite direction toward curtailment and minimization of the production of radioactive wastes in the absence of proven technological capability to maintain isolation from the biosphere of all radioactive wastes for the full hazardous lifetime (ten to twenty half-lives or more) of the wastes. lt is our contention that our society and in particular the NRC have misunderstood the severity of the biological hazards of low-level radiation eKposures and hence the problems of long-term isolation of radioactive waste.
- p. 5 <ECNP comments on 55 FR 4181)
We have all misplaced our twentieth century faith in technological "fixes" that are not in fa~t and in practice sufficient to the need. None of the proposed means of waste disposal can be counted on to assure the true isolation of these wastes from the biosystem for the full toxic life of the wastes. All are experimental and, in our judgment, lack the requisite certainty ot isolation to be deemed permanent disposal. It may rightly be said that, from historical, geological, geographical, and biological perspectives, all will be expected to fail long before the end of the toxic lives of wastes already produced. The continued generation of radioactive waste is therefore an abrogation of our transcendent species responsibilities and obligations to the future that are well enunciated in the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA> and are the law of the land to which even the NRC must be responsible and responsive.
Recently the EPA has conceded the inability of existing technologies and economic considerations to control hazardous air emissions in the interests of health and safety. The EPA approval of a 1 in 10,000 "acceptable" risk of fatal cancer for the lifetime of individuals who live near nuclear facilities is, in our opinion, an abysmal abdication of EPA's legal duty. The NRC's Below Regulatory Concern and Proposed Expanded Exemption Policies are similarly unacceptable failures of the agency's duty to regulate in the interests of health and safety under the 1974 Energy Reorganization Act and NEPA ..
ECNP's Option 5: International Radiation Control and Radiation Risk Reduction: Thus we come to our proposals, which we do not expect to ,be popular with those in NRC who promote unlimited uses of nuclear energy. We remind the agency, however, that it has sought comments "on any additional options the public may raise" and that NRC was created to regulate rather than p~omote the uses of nuclear energy and is directed by law to protect health and safety.
We want to add that our organization, which has been critical of those uses and of the AEC's and NRC's regulatory record for twenty years, is totally dedicated to the proposition that our society has a paramount obligation to prevent injury to human health and genetic integrity from all manmade sources of ionizing radiation. We therefore participate constructively in the decisions that affect control and management of all forms of radioactive wastes and materials already generated. We believe that growth in the total amounts of radioactive materials, wastes, and releases to the environment, both intentional and accidental, from military and commercial uses of atomic energy is now causing severe, irreparable, and irreversible harm to people, other species, and environmental quality. For every commercial and military use of atomic energy, our society has less damaging alternatives if we choose to adopt them. It is for these reasons that we believe that the NRC must use the import export issue as a means for reversing the environmental radiation growth curve.
Step One: The NRC should declare a temporary halt to radioactive waste generation and import and export until all radiation protection standards have been revised to be at least ten-fold more restrictive to reflect the findings of the BEIR V Report and to allow an additional measure of prudent conservatism in anticipation of further confirmation of the supralinear relationship of dose and response, particularly with respect to immune system functions.
- p. 6 CECNP comments on 55 FR 4181)
Step Two: The NRC should request Congress to amend the 1953 Atomic Energy Act to remove the promotional mandate now stated in its Chapter 1, Section 1 Declaration and substitute as the paramount objective of US nuclear energy policy the maximum protection of public health and safety, genetic integrity, ijflij ~nvirAnmantal quality.
Step Threa1 In conjunction with this seemingly extreme action, NRC should immediately revise its regulations and rules to abandon its Compatibility Division 1 preemptive "requirements" and instead allow and encourage the states and local governmental bodies to review applicability at the proposed revised federal radiation exposure standards and radiological safety to the~r unique circumstances and, if they choose, to set standards that exceed minimum federal standards. Voluntary modification of NRC's exercise of preemptive ~uthority will encourage the states and localities to expand their responsibilities for protection of their citizens and local environmental quality.
Step Four: Concurrently, the NRC should initiate revival ot the Carter Administration's lnteragency Review Group on Radioactive Waste CIRG) with all other federal agencies that have statutory responsibilities tor actlvities relating to the generation, treatment, transportation, sale, and control of radioactive materials and wastes (e.g., EPA, DOE, DOT, HHS, Commerce, State, and Justice Departments) for the express purpose of formulating recommendations to the Congress for a new national policy of Radiation Risk Reduct~on.
Step Five: Concurrently, NRC should begin -- with IAEA and a1'1 nations with whom the US has agreements for transboundary movements of nucLear materials, equipment, and wastes -- to explore the adoption of new policies and international accords designed to reduce generation of additional radioactive wastes and minimize the commerce in this technology. These talks should incorporate recommendations both from an IRG and to the Congress t~at will promote control worldwide of the growth of the quantities of radioactive waste all of which must be isolated from the biosystem.
Step Six: Concurrent with the steps above, NRC should adopt a new licensing policy that requires a periodic administrative review of all licensees in adjudicative proceedings that are fully open to members of the public and in which participation of nuclear critics is formally encouraged and financially assisted. This review should require a licensee to bear the full burden of proof to justify the continued societal need for the activity in which he is engaged. Absent his definitive showing that human health will severely suffer and environmental quality will decline without his continuing operations, the NRC should proceed to the decommissioning of nuclear facilities and assist licensees in conversion to non-nuclear forms of production.
Step Seven: Having "bounded the problem" so that the characteristics and total amount ot radioactive waste is known, the NRC and the states will be able to devise the long-term radioactive waste management system that will minimize the biological damage inflicted by wastes already in our inventory. Acceptance of waste storage into the indefinite future will be greater if the specter of ever more wastes is removed. A management system that more fairly allocates
- p. 7 CECNP comments on 55 FR 4181) the burdeng and risks will be more acceptable to waste generators, workers, and the public at risk. The NRC's desperate strategy of deregulation -- just letting go -- will be avoided and the agency's demonstration of good faith will reduce criticism. Overall costs will be minimized and health and environmental protection will be increased.
The goal of these proposed steps is adoption ot International Radiation Control and Radiation Risk Reduction policies that will contribute ,positively to safety and health and environmental protection. The agency may initially find this option reprehensible; you aren't required to like everything you may need to do. Nothing in this option inhibits the uses of nuclear medicine to benefit individuals' health, based on individuals' decisions in consultation with their physicians. Nor will research uses of nuclear materials that are directed toward the betterment of health be prevented. Nor will fewer nuclear weapons be detrimental to world peace, the common defense, or general welfare.
We suggest to the Commission that the shifts in political, economi~, and military world affairs, as well as negative changes in the US economy, now demand of us new approaches to energy, national security, environmental and public health policies. This agency can take a positive leadership role, or can be dragged along by the forward motion of others, or can be abolished.
Questions and Issues
- 1. Economic advantages and disadvantages to radioactive waste imparts and exports, economic viability of state and compact disposal facilities.
We very strongly recommend against the NRC's undertaking any economic studies to justify either the import of export of radioactive wastes. It is not your business to make economic determinations. The NRC is a nuclear technology regulatory agency. It's bad enough that NRC engineers are making vital decisions about biology, medicine, genetics, geography, and other subjects in which they have no education, experience, or understanding; even most economists sometimes appear not to know what they are doing.,
Seriously, the states did not acquiesce in any 1980, 1982, or 1985 federal mandate to take responsibility for the entire world's radioactive wastes --
only for their own. The host states of compaots undertook the obligations of waste disposal only for those wastes that are generated within compact regions, unless compact provisions provide for importation of out-of-region waste.
The effect of importation of out-of-country wastes to fill the state and regional repositories -- and federal high-level and transuranic .and military dumps -- will be to subsidize further the nuclear utilities which generate the overwhelming majority of all low-level radioactive waste and most of the spent fu~l, tQ add to the liability burden of the states, and to increase the total number of waste disposal sites by filling up rapidly the ones now being planned and built.
There are no acceptable moral or political or economic justifications whatsoever for the export of radioactive wastes generated within the United States. We made it; we must keep it.
- p. 8 CECNP comments on 55 FR 4181)
- 2. Polley, health and safety, or economic disadvantages to denying import or export of certain radioactlve wastes; sealed sources, gauges, etc.
The Commission uses a self-justifying argument for importing certain wastes associated with the more popular and societally accepted uses of nuclear energy and materials, apparently with the intent of then also justifying the expansion to include any and all forms of materials and wastes. The lengthy staff discussion of competitiveness is irrelevant. If US enterprises wish to be competitive, then they must be able to compete, not to rely on governmental subsidy and support as is offered here. The goal of US governmental regulation of nuclear energy must be to minimize the damage this technology and Its wastes cause to health and safety and the environment.
There are, however, troubling aspects to the question of the total denial of importation of radioactive wastes, especially from nations that have not developed sophisticated radiation control technology and competent per~onnel or from nations that are politically unstable. Additional worldwide environmental L
loading of radioactivity in excess of naturally occurring background radiation into atmosphere, oceans, surface and subsurface waters, soils, and food chains will result from the miaman~gement or intentional release of radioactive wastes any where on the planet. The United States Congress should weigh carefully the positive and negative aspects of this issue and consult with the states that would be recipients of any imported wastes before reaching decisions and directing the NRC to act. The Commission should turn to the Congress ,for guidance rather than proceeding in this direction on its own. The overall goal of policy and practice must be to reduce to an absolute minimum the adverse effects of ionizing radiation on all populations.
3, US foreign pa/lay interest to assist certain countries in radioactive waste disposal.
This question, too, has no easy answer. In some respects, the wisest US policy will be a truly isolationist one: we need to isolate our own radioactive wastes successfully before we take on anyone else's wastes, and we haven't, and probably won't succeed in doing so. On the other hand, radioactivity doesn't know it ought to halt at international boundaries, and therefore the mismanagement at radioactive wastes anywhere on earth may bring the consequences to our own people. The one thing NRC should not do in this thorny issue, which also requires Congressional action with consultations and concurrences from the statest is to use events such as the cobalt-SO contaminated scrap recyole as a justification for imposing imported radioactive wastes on the states and the American people.
To the extent that the United States can afford to assist anyone else, we should make available whatever advances in technology, management systems, and good advice we can offer to everyone who needs it. In our opinion, however, the NRC, DOE, and EPA have so badly botched the production and disposal of radioactive waste in this country that no intelligent nation would want our help. On the other hand, we could do with the positive benefits of trying to assist rather than to invade and injure the peoples of other nations.
- p. 9 <ECNP comments on 55 FR 4181)
- 4. Adequate meGhanism to dispose of imported wastes without adversely impaating disposal of domestically generated wastes.
Since we in the states cannot figure out how much and what kinds of wastes we are going to be responsible for disposing of, and since NRC's existing standards for radiation protection are wholly inadequate and antiquated, and since NRC is proposing to deregulate up to a third of low-level wastes, it is hard to answer this question other than to say no. Any additional quantities of radioactive wastes from any sources will adversely affect our land and our people at risk and will add to our nation's burden of uncontrollable radioactive wastes. And we certainly haven't progressed with smashing success in the disposal of high-level and transuranic radioactive wastes.
- 5. Imported waste slmilsrfties to damestia waste present no new I radialogiGal and environmental problems.
To the best of our knowledge, domestic and imported wastes would present similar problems, depending on the proportions of which kinds might be imported. Imported wastes present more problems of similar types. They will increase pressures on NRC for deregulation of US low-level radioactive waste.
The NRC should not permit them.
- 6. Views of operators and state and local governments on impor,tatian.
Operators undoubtedly want more more but will find their siting, licensing, and operations more difficult and expensive if they further antagonize the people they are putting at risk. Utilities that gen~rate the wastes are probably delighted at this cost-sharing mechanism. Some states may be willing to dump additional hazards on their own citizens but most, instead, seem to have reached some limits of tolerance, as was shown by defeat of the Simpson Amendment to the Senate Clean Air bill. Very few localities have shown themselves eager to take on their own state's waste burden, much less that of other nations.
- 7. Other nations' ability and willingness to dispose of US wastes.
It is immoral and totally unacceptable for the United States to attempt to solve its own radioactive waste disposal dilemmas by imposing US-g~narated wastes on any other nation, whether that nation is ready, willing, or able to take the burden.
- 8. Consideration of recipient capability Jn NRC export license review process.
Whether or not a recipient nation has waste management capabi~ity, the NRC should move immediately to prohibit altogether the export of radioactive wastes generated in the United States; should issue no export licenses; and should revoke any export licenses now in effect. If there is any question about NRC's authority to prohibit export licenses, it should appeal to the Congress for relief in the form of olear legislation to prohibit exportation of US-produced radioactive wastes.
- p. 10 (ECNP comments on 55 FR 4181)
- 9. Export of wastes to solve US waste disposal problems.
The export of US radioactive wastes of any kind is wrong, plain wrong, and should not be allowed. There are no solutions to the problem of radioactive waste disposal. It won't go away; it will only spread its contamination somewhere else. To dump our improperly generated wastes on others is unacceptable, inexcusable, and totally repugnant.
- 10. Import and export of NARH wastes.
There is no more justification tor export of NARM wastes than tor any other kind. We should not import them, either. NRG should have authority to set minimum regulatory standards and practices for NARM wastes; states and local governments should have full authority to set standards more protective than the federal standards.
- 11. Broadening NRC's export and import information base apart from licenses and revised regulations.
We would support the Commission's first using mandatory licensing plus other regulatory improvements discussed herein to broaden the information base. Mandatory manifest systems and reporting requirements, complete with effective penalties for infractions of regulations are a good place to begin.
- 12. Controls and licensing criteria and waste definitions.
We oppose the NRC's establishing controls, licensing and definitions that will permit import and export of radioactive wastes; if such regulatory equipment is in place, the NRG will use it to import and export radioactive waste. We oppose the Commission's taking those actions.
- 13. Consistency of BRC policies.
Rescind the NRC's BRC policy statement and abandon all efforts to deregulate low-level radioactive waste or to pass waste through from one category of waste to another requiring a lesser degree ot control or to recycle any radioactive waste whatsoever. We strongly recommend that the United States prohibit entirely the importation of any consumer products that haye been or are suspected to have been fabricated with slightly radioactive contaminated materials. We also recommend that the United States prohibit the importation and export of primary and secondary foods that have been exposed to or processed by use of ionizing radiation.
- p. 11 <ECNP comments on 55 FR 4181)
Su11;ary The Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power urges the Commission to reject proposals to permit or encourage either the import or export of radioactive wastes. The question still has not been addressed:, For purposes of determining disposal, in what state would imported radioactive wastes be considered to have been generated? Ue adamantly oppose the export of radioactive wastes generated within the United States. We recommend that the NRC utilize this opportunity to initiate policies of International Radiation Control and Radiation Risk Reduction.
Respectfully submitted.
~'$//.~'
Judith H. /ohnsrud, Ph.D.
Director JHJ / jah
~tJCK TNUMBER PR ,.. .
CENTRAL MIDWEST INTERsJMeSED RULE - j:f&,.
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMMISSION (S'~ #=-fl., '1 /~I 1035 Outer Park Drive
- Springfield, IL 62704
- 217/785-9937 DOU<[
- 1 t-r; i.;
Clark W. Bullard, Chairman Terry R. Lash, Secretary-Treasurer March 8, 1990 Donald R. Hughes, Sr., Commissioner ){) lfAR 12 PS :14 Secretary of the Commission Attn: Docketing and Setvice Branch OfftCf_OF SECRflAWt OOCKt. UNG & Sti<VtCr°"
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission BR.6.NC'i "*
Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Secretary of the Commission:
This is in response to your request for comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning NRC regulations for import and export of radioactive wastes. (SP-90-21)
The LLRW Compacts were established in response to conr,em on the part of the American public that interstate imports and exports ofLLRW were subject to inadequate government control. The Central Midwest Compact Commission would like to ensure that the policies adopted by the NRC allow compact commissions to exercise their authority over low-level waste disposed of in their regions. After extensive public involvement and public hearings, the Central Midwest Compact Commission adopted a policy essentially identical to your proposal Option 4: banning all interre~ional imports and exports except those pursuant to agreements negotiated with other states or Compact Commissions.
Since the Federal government is in an analogous position relative to other nations, I believe that it is appropriate for NRC to exercise similar controls. The citizens of the Central Midwest region probably want the federal government to exercise the same degree of control at the national level as they expect the Compact Commission to exercise at the regional level. At the bottom line is the national need to earn the public's confidence that their health and safety is being protected by an agency that places the burden of proof on industry to demonstrate that such imports or exports will not pose such a threat. The first two options fail that test by placing the burden of proof on NRC; (in an earlier era, a presumption that the nuclear industry would act in the public interest would have been acceptable, but today it is not). The third option demands that the public trust the NRC to have the will and the budget and staff resources to "exercise positive control." At this time I believe that there is little reason to believe that the level of public trust is high enough to survive a visible debate on such an issue, which involves the possibility that "BRC" waste from abroad could end up in municipal landfills or incinerators in the U.S. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence of large 12.U.blk benefits associated with Option 3 over Option 4, advocacy of Option 3 ca:.-ries the 11:.k of <la.-..ugi.iig fm~J*1~:* the p.rnsptcts fm regci:~i~i~ the ..~.mericar. [.id)lic's confidence in the nuclear industry and its regulatory infrastructure. Therefore, I suggest that you focus your analysis on quantifying the difference between the public benefits of Options 3 and 4.
We suggest that the NRC consider using a combination of options 3 and 4 described in the proposed rulemaking. Option 4 provides for a ban on imports and exports unless there is an agreement between the United States and the affected countries. This could provide a framework for assuring that exported wastes are disposed of properly and do not reappear in the country as contaminated products or scrap. Option 3 would provide for specific licenses for import and export of waste. This would provide for host state control over waste disposal and appropriate review by the compact commissions in which regions these host states were located.
llelcnowledged t,y card ** 2/,J. fi1.&
r Illinois
t I 1-t NOi n
Finally, I suggest that regulations such as these contain explicit statements acknowledging that compliance with federal regulations is necessary, but not sufficient. The LLRWPA grants to Compacts the authority to control "imports and exports" of waste across their regional boundaries, and the NRC should explicitly recognize that authority.
Sincerely, tr{/4./~(
Clark W. Bullard Chairman cc: Donald R. Hughes Terry R. Lash
DOCKET NllMBER
'ROPOSED RULE PR I I _O (65F-RL\13I)
SIERRA CLUB P~~~Wania Chapter
, F!CE OF SECRETARY JCK[i ING & SfHVICL
'"===============================" BRANCH March 8, 1990 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commision ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Washingto*n , D.C. 20555 Dear Secretary ot the Coda\~s\~n~ - -
On behalf of the Pennsylvania Chapter of Sierra Club, we submit the following comments on NRC's Proposed Rule concerning Import and Export of Radioactive Waste, noticed for public comment at 55 FR 4181, February 7, 1990.
We do not favor importation into the United States of additional quanti-ties of radioactive wastes for disposal. In our state, we are now attempting to provide adequate disposal capability for all low-level radioactive wastes generated within the Appalachian Compact region. We are not in need of more.
Export of radioactive wastes from the United States to other parts of the world is not a responsible solution to this problem, and we urge the Commission to reject export entirely.
However, because, we understand, there exist some contracts for both import and export of some wastes, and because NRC by its own admission has inadequate regulatory control even to know how much and what kinds of waste are currently in international transboundary trade, we support establishment of expanded regulations to assure that all wastes are under regulatory control either lea~ing or entering this country. However, we urge that the NRC hold to a minimum the amounts of radioactive waste that are shipped into or out of the United States. Under any circumstances, the NRC should take regulatory actions to assure full accountability on the part of all licensees.
Economics of waste disposal should not be a governing factor in decisions on management and international transport. Instead, all Commission decisions relating to nuclear waste regulation should be based on the necessity and legal duty to protect the health and safety of the people, including industry workers, and to assure the maximum protection of environmental quality.
In sum, the Pennsylvania Chapter of Sierra Club supports NRC's regulatory changes to improve control over radioactive wastes that NRC does not now adequately regulate, but opposes proposals to continue or to expand import and export of radioactive wastes. The policy position adopted by this Chapter favors reduction of radioactive waste production and the phaseout of generating facilities as rapidly as can be achieved. The Chapter also opposes deregula-tion of radioactive wastes and recommends that NRC take measures to assure that contaminated consumer products neither enter nor leave the United States.
Submitted by the Committee on Radiation in the Environment, Pennsylvania Chapter, Sierra Club le t? bv PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1'1. HI.JO.EAR RffiU TORY COMMI~
DOCKET ING & SERVI CE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date __:3 /_q:...i/_9.,_o 4
Copies Received Add' I Copies Reproducecl I
_4.._____
Special Distribution f?I D.S, POR >
/..({,hs .1 Co°"hs
DOCKET NUMB~ I IO ROPOSED-RUt£ ( 6 5 FR 41 i \) 467 Martin Terrace State College, Pa. ]6803 March 6 (,1 ~~o 1,,
v0 Kt 1LD USNRC To the Secretary of the Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch NUclear Regulatory Commission "90 MAR 12 PS :07 Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Secretary:
OfF!CE OF SECRETARY OOCKfTING SEIIVICL BRA NCH We have just learned of the NRC plan to import and export radioactive waste. We wish to express our opposition to this proposal and ask the NRC instead to stop any present importation of nuclear wastes into the UNited States. We do not have disposal for what we have already produced. We clearly don't need more.
It is not right for this country to create these wastes and then export them to other nations that are no better able to handle them than we are. For that reason, we urge the NRC to prohibit entirely the export of U.S.-produced radioactive wastes. Hard as it will be to dispose of them here, it is better than inflicting them onto others.
We also ask the NRC to devlop effective wastes accounting systems so that you will know what is where and to make these systems fully public, so that we will know that you know what's where.
In the same vein, we ask that the NRC rescind its deregulation policy for radioactive wastes. If we generated them for any purpose, we must now pay the full price of keeping them from entering the environment. We learn from recent research findings that low doses of radiation are far more hazardous to health than anyone thought and that workers exposed within the limits prescribed are more likely to produce children who develop and die from leukemia (the Sellafield study, recently reported from Britain).
As a group of citizens who devote our efforts to peace and environmental quality, we could forgive the NRC for having mis-understood the effects of radiation, but we can't forgive your failing to take actions now to reduce these hazards and to stop the generation of endless amounts of these wastes
- Thank you for giving your attent i on to our comments. We ask that you not allow import or export of radioactive waste.
~incerely y~s~~ .
G ~ i ~ k y ~ C~r Central Pa. Citizens for Survival
~ledg Oy card *
- f./JJ..,.t,_,.,.7_0....,.**
J I
(',
I
'.'I I
U S. "lt;c, 1:f'R 1, < ATORY COMMISStOlt D " ~ I~ IC I:. BRANCH l , Jt.Cr?ETARY v 1,1 MI SSION De. t: nt Statistics 3/q /qo I I
- p. --~------
I lt1ced_--1-_ _ _ _ _ _
1
- ' I ~ ll I Kl "'C.-4-...!.-=::.J..- - - - 1 La..hs C1 rt\.,bs
CITIZENS AGAINST RADIO\CTIVE DUMPING 25 Court St. OCKET NUMBER Kt. n:.t:
Cortland, N. v. 13045 f ROPOSEO RUlE s~RC 11 0 607-753-6271 ( I I) 55 COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULES ON IMPORT AND EXPORT OF RADIOACTIYf roo:OA WASTE (10 CFR Part 110 RIN 3150-AD36, Federal Regist e,() - "~i .55, No.26, p. 41 8 1-4184, February 7, 1990) ~v ECRt.iP. 1'\ 1*
i:Jf t!C~~Of \._ S(\l'-J \CL March 6, 1990 ooC\\t 1~\~c~
CITIZENS AGANIST RADIOACTIVE DUMPING (CARD) ls actively involved with the education of citizens and government officials on the issues concerning the generation, storage and safe handling of radioactive waste. We wish to make the following comments on the proposed rules governing Import and export of radioactive waste.
- 1. CARD agrees with the NRC determination that greater control and accountability over the import and export of radioactive waste needs to be established.
- 2. The disadvantages arising from denial of import of radwaste, (outlined by the NRC on p 4183 of the above referenced document),
focus chiefly on the inability of domestic suppliers of sealed radiation sources used In medicine, agriculture, and Industry to accept spent sources ln exchange for new ones, thereby Jeopardizing the global economic competitiveness of these suppliers. The regulation of this or other highly specialized needs of nuclear based technology manufacturers, can be estab-lished with a specific licensing and control framework (Option 3.) The contribution by such materials to the overall waste stream l s negligible. Therefore it ls completely without Justlflcatlon that this reasoning should be used to argue for Importation of LLRW ln general CNRC response, question 5),
especially waste generated through the nuclear fuel cycle, which accounts for greater than 95% of LLRW activity.
- 3. As the NRC correctly realizes (response, question 6), local resistance to importation of radwaste will be extremely Intense.
We do not agree with the NRC premise that the siting processes currently in progress ensure against adverse effects on public health and safety. There ls no "safe dose" for exposute to radiation - only "acceptable" risk. Risk assessments undergo ongoing revision CBEIR V) and new data appears continually (eg.
Sellafield). The performance record for existing disposal sites demonstrates repeated failure while the performance of future sites ls modeled on questionable assumptions an d untes ted technologies. Increased motor transport of ra dwast e *arlslng from Importation can only Increase the risk of radi ation exposure to the pub 11 c.
The NRC points out that site operators "~re not likely to object to ...*. Importation of foreign wastes . ..*.* which could mean increased profits for the operator." Also not likely to object are domestic nuclear utilities, which s tand to enJoy significant reductions in radwaste disposal costs due to economies of scale. In effect, the proposal t o Import radwaste
f H1
/\TORY COMMISSI°"
!CE BRANCH
-,t.CRETARY
,11 ::iSION Pc C ~
d ~ _d _ .__ _ _ _ __
R, ~1 ? L.!v_,
e: e=1-L5...hs., ~~~
represents another subsidy to the nuclear power industry at the expense of public health and safety.
- 4. In the response to question 3 the NRC states, "Most developing countries have neither the technical expertise nor the regulatory structure to control adequately the disposal of radioactive waste." The Mexican incident involving exportation to the U.S.
of cobalt-60 contaminated steel ls cited as an example. This incident involved a medical source such as discussed in item #2 above, and illustrates the need to regulate this type of waste.
However, to justify by this example the importation of all types of LLRW to the U.S. ls (again) an argument totally without merit.
Other than highly concentrated sealed sources, foreign medical waste can be stored for decay, or otherwise managed by methods within the technical abilities of the user. The operation, on the other hand, of nuclear power plants in countries that do not have the technical resources to manage utility generated radwaste ls difficult to imagine and causes us to question the intelli-gence of the government which permits export of nuclear power plant technology to that underdeveloped country.
- 7. The NRC points out Cp. 4182) that the proposed import/export rules will be consistent with the proposed policy to deregulate much of the domestic LLRW as Below Regulatory Concern CBRC).
We view the BRC policy as a blatant example of "linguistic detoxification" and an unacceptable compromise of public health to serve the economic interests of nuclear utilities.
- 8. We are opposed to the exportation of American radioactive waste. Our toxic garbage should not by foisted upon an unknowing or unwilling people.
- 9. In summary, while we recognize the need to permit entry into the US of small amounts of very specialized forms of used radioactive materials as discussed in item #2, we view the NRC discussion of proposed import/export regulations as an attempt to blur the distinction between nuclear power plant radwaste, the bulk of all LLRW, and the small amounts contributed by medical, industrial, or agricultural LLRW sources. This ls a ploy that has been used repeatedly by the utilities in their efforts to locate sites to dump their waste. It ls impossible for the importation of such hazardous material not to increase the risk of adverse consequences to the populations in the vicinity of any facility that handles, processes, transports, or stores this waste. In its continuing efforts to protect the nuclear power industry, the NRC has perverted its mission to protect the health and safety of citizens living today and those yet to be born.
fr.;. ~ +/- : r Cortland CARD and Chenango-North CARD
DOCKET N-UMB£R PR PROPOSED RULE 11 0 (6'5FR4181)
C/Jon't ffilsle 1~ew llirk_
"9() t1AR -9 P3 :29 Jack Cocheo , Chmn.
Waste Issues Committee or:F1cc- OF SECRElARY Box 157Q , RD#J ooc'Kr°HNG & SfilVICf Greenwich , NY 12834 518-692-7640 Secretary of the CommissioJRANCH US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington , DC 20555 Attentions Docketing and Service Branch RE1 Comments on proposed rule change to allow import of foreign radioactive wastes (Federal Register , Wed . , Feb. 7 , Vol . 55 ,
- 26 , pp. 4181-4184)
To the Commission :
Any action which would increase this nation ' s radioactive waste stream is of dubious merit . Many questions remain about the details of such an arrangement. Who will track the shipment of waste between nations? Will radioactive waste get "lost" on the high seas as it does on the back roads? What American community will volunteer its back yard for the dump?
The waste industry in the US is characterized by fraud and abuse ,
legal , technical, and environmental . Its frequent claims of new but proven technologies for disposal of toxic and radioactive waste have often become the siren song of financial and environmental disaster .
The questionable system of financial assurance relied on by these concerns , combined with the rash eagerness of government to dis~ose of the radwaste issue has all too often left the taxpayers paying immense clean-up bills while waste haulers continue to haul away fat profits. The history of radioactive waste management in the U.S. is a disgrace.
As someone who has been in all parts of New York State talking to people about radioactive waste , I can tell you that the majority would like to see reform in current disposal prctices . Gung-ho , pro-industry actions such as the one proposed only serve to increase public mistrust of government agencies intended to serve them.Tech-nical considerations aside , it will never be politically possible to make difficult choices and solve the radwaste prob lem a s long as the NRC and others continue to be so transparen tly biased.
Allowing the importation of foreign radioactive waste into the U.S. is unwise considering the state of the waste industry.
Sincerely ,
Jack Cocheo
.J . 5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKEtlNG & SERVICE SECTta,I OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistra Postmark Date 3) (() lq 0
___::C-4,-'!:...,~
µ ..::::,..__ _ _ __
Copies Received I
'---~----
Add' I Copies Reproduced _..,__ ____
Special Distribution f? l 0 5 LaJ,~ (l,,, - ---'-'~ - -
UULll\tl l'WIVltst.K
-1JP SED ULE . -
\\Q (65 FR LllS'I)
ADELAIDE
- AMSTERDAM
- ANCHORAGE
- AUCKLAND
- BOSTON
- BRUSSELS
- BUENOS AIRES
- CHICAGO
- COPENHAGEN
- DUBLIN FORT LAUDERDALE
- GOTHENBERG
- HAMBURG
- LEWES - U.K.
- LONDON* LUXEMBOURG
- MADRID
- MONTREAL
- OSLO
- PALMA DE MALLORC
(§)
fr; PARIS
- ROME
- SAN FRANCISCO
- SAN JOSE - COSTA RICA
- SEATTLE
- STOCKHOLM
- SYDNEY
- TORONTO
- VANCOUVER
- VIENNA GR"i~i~NPEACE Greenpeace USA
- 1436 U Street NW
- Washington DC 20009
- Tel (202) 4W-11tfAA Tix 89-2359
- Fax (202) 462-4507 0
u"Wl°
-9 P3 :26 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland BY COURIER March 8, 1990
Dear Mr. Secretary,
On behalf of Greenpeace ' s two million supporters in the United States , we would like to thank the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revision of existing regulations regarding the import and export of radioactive wastes.
We agree that it is time for a change in these regulations, particularly since at present the Commission is incapable of merely monitoring the flow of radioactive waste in and out of U.S. territory. However, we are compelled to point out that the notice of proposed rulemaking fails to consider the only policy option that would prevent the poisoning of foreign populations by U.S. radioactive wastes: that is, Q total ban QJ1 sll waste exports.
WHY PASS ON THE NIGHTMARE?
The goal of the proposed rulemaking, as stated repeatedly in the advance notice, is to "alleviate growing concerns that transfers of radioactive wastes are not being adequately controlled." This goal is based upon the false premise that wastes can be managed safely , if they are controlled by a sound regulatory structure.
One does not need to look beyond U.S. borders, at failed radioactive waste management sites in places like Hanford, Washington, Barnwell, South Carolina, and the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico, for proof that radioactive wastes can not be managed safely, even when storage and disposal occurs under intense scrutiny and regulation .
R E C Y C L E D P A P E R
& I. NUCLEAR REGULA lOR't COMM*~
DOCK£f ING & SERVla SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date
--'----- 4 ___ ----_
Copies Received
~ d' I Copies Reproduced _ ;.......
lpeciat Distribution RIDS PD R lA..hs, Corribs
At present, there is no permanent operating facility in the world for the disposal of high level radioactive wastes. Wherev-er attempts have been made to conduct development work for such facilities, those countries which produce nuclear wastes have discovered that their own citizens have rejected them. In coun-tries as diverse as the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, France and the Soviet Union, local communities have vigorously resisted the siting of radioactive waste disposal facilities in their region.
The central issue in all these cases is that, no matter how sophisticated the technology employed, the risks presented to health, livelihood and the environment by radioactive waste cannot be reduced to insignificant levels. The point is not to make regulations which attempt to "alleviate growing concerns" the new regulations must stop the trade. The only solution is the termination of the irresponsible production of wastes for which no effective management solution exists.
Those wastes which have been already produced should be retained at the point of production, as the responsibility of the country which produced them. They should be managed in monitorable, retrievable and secure conditions in the country of origin, as near as possible to the point of production.
The continued production of radioactive wastes by the nuclear power industry is worse than short-sighted. Other energy policy options exist which are preferable from environmental, economic and human health standpoints. Following the example currently being set by Sweden, nuclear states such as the U.S.
should phase out nuclear electricity supply capacity and replace it with measures to promote energy efficiency and the harnessing of environmentally benign renewable sources of energy supply which do not threaten the health and livel ihood of other members of the international community.
THE GLOBAL SCALE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE TRADE The immediacy of this issue is clear: in the past few years, there has been a shocking rise in radioactive waste trade schemes worldwide (see attachment).
Historically, the two favored options for dealing with radioactive wastes have been dumping on national territory, or in the "global commons" of the oceans, both of which present intractable technical and political problems. Faced with future vast increases in the quantities of radioactive waste that must be managed, those countries who have adopted nuclear energy and weapons strategies are now forced to seek a third option for the disposal of these hazardous and polluting nuclear wastes -- waste exportation.
2
Since 1984, at least a dozen countries in Africa, As i a, the Pacific, and Lati n America have been targeted for receiving radioactive wastes. While Greenpeace is not aware of any l ess industrialized countries that have fallen victim to radioactive waste dumping by industrialized countries, several remain acti ve targets of radioactive waste traders.
More imminent are radioactive waste trade schemes eyed by the world's superpowers. For example, the Soviet Union is considering building an international center that would research toxic waste treatment and disposal, including nuclear waste. The chairman of the USSR State Committee for the Utilization o f Atomic Energy said that "the USSR is ready to accept high- l evel waste from other countries for disposal at such a center should it be set up." The Soviets are competing with the People's Republic of China, which, according to the Washington Pos t ,
agreed in 1984 to store "huge quantities of radioactive wastes from European nuclear reactors in the remote Gobi Desert area in exchange for Western currency." There is also the persistent, though unconfirmed, rumor that the Chinese government has buil t a high-level nuclear waste dump in Tibet.
And, as the Commission is well-aware, the Uni ted States plans to export high-level radioactive waste to West Germany this year. Under a bilateral agreement reached in 1984, described by government officials as a "joint research effort," nine and a half tons of wastes that emit radiation twice that of spent fuel from commercial reactors will be shipped to the Asse Salt Mine in West Germany.
GLOBAL EFFORTS TO HALT WASTE TRADE The interest of the world's superpowers in expanding the international radioactive waste trade contradicts efforts by the rest of the world in halting all forms of waste trade.
In response to the rapid expansion of the waste trade industry in the late 1980's, most of the world's less industrialized countries have prohibited waste imports. At least 79 countries currently ban the importation of all types of wastes. A ban on imports of both industrial and nuclear wastes is explicitly called for i n Resolution 1225(L) of the Council of Ministers of the Organization for African Unity.
The environment ministers of heavily industrialized countries, such as France and the United Kingdom, have also call ed for a halt to waste trade. The European Community is obliged to prohi b i t all r adioactive and toxic waste exports to 68 former European colonies i n Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific (ACP). This export ban was agreed in Lome, Togo, last December, 3
under a trade and aid pact known as the Lome IV Convention. The European Parliament has further called for a total ban on European waste exports to developing countries.
Those states that have resolved to halt the international waste trade are also likely to respond negatively to any attempts to transport such shipments though their sovereign territories.
In recognition of the sovereign right to deny such transboundary passage, the International Atomic Energy Agency has recently drafted a "Code of Practice on the International Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste" which unequivocally cites "the sovereign right of every State to prohibit the movement of radioactive waste into, from or through its territory ...
Transboundary movement of rad ioactive waste [should] take place only with the prior notification and consent of the sending, receiving and transit States." Majority global opinion will not only dictate a dwindling number of potential recipient states, but governments can and will demand the end of this trade through their veto powers as transit states.
CONCLUSION There is no question that the legacy of any U.S. radioactive waste exports will be severe. The environmental impact of the world's largest importer of nuclear waste, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., should serve as a stark reminder to radioactive waste export policy-makers of the real-life implications of their decisions. A recent report by scientists from the Scottish University has found that childhood leukemia in Seascale, a mile from BNFL's Sellafield plant, is ten times the national U.K.
average. Autopsies of former workers at the plant revealed plutonium contamination hundreds of times the national average.
The solution to the nuclear waste management crisis in the U.S. and elsewhere is not to pass this nightmare onto children and workers in other countries. Why should the grave long-term risks to public health posed by radioactive wastes be transferred to communities and countries who are not responsible for their production, and who have not had a share in any of its purported "benefits"?
If the Commission decides to follow any of the options proposed in its notice of proposed rulemaking, it will be choosing to pass the environmental costs of U.S. nuclear proliferation onto its neighbors in the global village. None of the proposed options will close the door on the radioactive waste trade. Specifically:
Option A (status quo) is not even a consideration, as the Commission itself has seen that present regulations do not police imports and exports.
4
Option B (prior notice and consent) is a duplication of the hazardous waste export regulations that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has followed since 1986. It doesn't work. The Inspector General of the EPA investigated EPA's waste exports program in 1988, and found numerous systemic flaws, and a general inability to monitor U.S. hazardous waste exports. Even if this system succeeded in monitoring the flow of wastes out of the U.S., it would still permit waste exports to any country in the world that is willing to accept them. There are plenty of governments willing to poison their people for cash, but that does not mean that the U.S. should take advantage of their poverty or greed. This option only gives a dirty trade a government stamp of approval.
Option c (licensing) might preclude or limit the most unacceptable aspect of radioactive waste trade, but it does not affect real change. Licenses will not protect foreign recipients from the long-term legacy of our radioactive waste. Nor wi ll they protect public heal th and the environment in affected transit states. Also, the Commission's concern about purchase agreements which requi re the repatriation of radioactive materials to their manufacturer is misplaced. A country wil ling to buy radioactive materials must also be willing to bear t he environmental costs arising from their ultimate disposal.
Finally, option D (banning exports except to countries with which the U.S. has an international disposal agreement) allows a free trade in wastes with countries which merely need to accede to. a bureaucratic system that can not prevent the release of contaminants into the environment. such agreements only legitimize the notion that some countries can produce poisonous trash, and others should be made the dustbins for such poisons.
Therefore, Greenpeace proposes that a fifth option be chosen: A TOTAL BAN ON ALL EXPORTS OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS OF U.S. ORIGIN AND A TOTAL BAN ON THE IMPORT OF ALL RADIOACT I VE MATERIALS OF FOREIGN ORIGIN. Such a ban would address the essential danger of all the materi als involved, and is consistent with international waste trade pol icies which have been c hosen by most of the world's countries.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the notice of proposed rulemaking. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have.
Sincerely yours,
{ ) ~
~~Waste Trade Campaign Coordinator Peter Grinspoon Nuclear Campaigner Greenpeace Internat i onal Greenpeace USA 5
PROPOSED EXPORTS OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES TO NON-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation ~nd Development) NATIONS The following countries were at one time targeted for receiving radioactive wastes. To our knowledge, none have actually fallen victim to radioactive waste dumping.
Importer Year Type of Waste Proposed Exporting Country Benin 1988 radioactive waste France Benin 1988 radioactive waste Soviet Union Bulgaria 1988 radioactive ash USA?
China 1984 radioactive waste Europe China 1987 nuclear reactor waste Germany China 1988 radioactive waste Western Europe Ethiopia 1988 radioactive waste Western Europe Gabon 1987 uranium tailings Canada, USA Gabon 1988 nuclear "treatment" France the Gambia 1988 radioactive waste USA Honduras 1970's radioactive waste USA Marshal ls 1980 spent nuclear fuel USA, Japan Malaysia 1980 spent nuclear fuel USA, Japan Nigeria 1988 Cobalt-60 waste Soviet Union Togo 1988 radioactive waste Italy source: Jim Vallette, The International Trade in Wastes: b Greenpeace Inventory (fourth edition), Greenpeace International, February
- 1989.
6
CO{;tff fE US NHC O COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA'90 l1AR -a P4 :is C.M.G . BUTTERY, M.D. Department of Health COMMISSIONER Bureau of Radiological Health 109 Governor Street, Room 915 804/ 460-5314 S . W. REGIONAL OFFICE Richmond, Virginia 23219 703 / 982-7411 NORTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE 703 / 430-8609 March 6 , 1990 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Sir:
I would like to of fer the fallowing comments regarding Proposed Rule-making concerning NRC regulations for import and export of radioactive wastes:
- 1. NRC should at the very least issue guidelines to the states con-cerning exempt quantities of Naturally Occurring or Accelerator Produced Materials (NARM). It would be preferable that whatever rules adopted for the regulation of imported/exported radioactive materials also include NARM *
- 2. Unless there is a compelling reason to further regulate the import-ation/exportation of radioactive materials based on economic, public health and safety factors, the NRC should continue with its existing policy.
(#P~*Les lie P. Foldesi , Director Bureau of Radiolog ical Health LPF/bt Enclosure(s)
I. NUaEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKE'tlNG & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE Of THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistks stmark Date 3 Ii, 'i 0 pies Received
- ~/ - - - - -
dd' I Copies Reproduced ecial Distribution R105 ?DR 1 La..hs Co 6s
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE _
PR I \ 0 C5"5" FR ~ t 8' ')
New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, Inc.
Box 545, Brattleboro, Vermont 05 302 DOCKET ED Phone (802) 257-0336 USMRC
- 90 MAR -5 P7 :1 2 February 27, 1990 uFF !Cf: Or SECRETARY Docketing and Service Branch DO CK[ TIN G ,.._ S[iNIC L Secretary of the Commission 8RANC~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 To whom it may concern:
I am writing in response to your Federal Register notice, dated Feb. 7, 1990 in Vol. 55, #26, pp. 4181 and following, concerning proposed rules for the import and export of radioactive wastes. I heartily agree with the Com-mission's preliminary judgment that "the best approach would be to develop a policy that would provide greater control and accountability .... " At the same time, I am deeply concerned by the Commission's apparent desire to base these policies on the supposedly "delicate" balance between public health and inter-national trade, since the Commission has absolutely no experience in, knowl-edge of, or expertise in questions of international trade. The Commission's business -- its only business -- is the protection of the public health and safety in the face of radiological hazards.
Not for the first time, I take this opportunity to remind the Commission of one of the fundamental principles of economics. Wealth is created and distributed only to maximize the resources available to benefit human well-being. The purpose of international trade is not simply to make money, or to move goods and services around the globe. The purpose is to enhance the fundaaental well-being of human beings. Trade which is detrimental to human health is therefore not only contrary to the purposes for which the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was established; it is also fundamentally contradictory to the basic purpose of international trade.
There is thus no balance, delicate or otherwise, between human health and safety on the one hand, and international trade on the other. A nation will not prosper long if it builds its enterprise on principles detrimental to human health and safety. It may, for some time, create and accumulate money, gold, or any other symbol of wealth. But in so doing, it will have lost its fundamental wealth, and sacrificed its well-being to the symbols of well-being. This is economic fetishism, not legitimate trade policy. There is therefore no sound economic reason for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission not to do its basic job of regulating nuclear materials for the benefit of the public health and safety.
I intend the preceding remarks to serve both as a general backdrop for the rest of what I have to say, and as a specific reminder that, in questions of import and export of radioactive wastes, the Commission must indeed reason 1
ft.<:knowled by card* *'?./LP/f. O'*W lib E duc a ting t he P u bli c in C lean Alt ernatives to N uc l ear P ower
)'
I.I. NlJaEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKEtlNG & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statisti'cs Postmarlt Date 3 I C,o
consistently with what should be its policy concerning so-called "below regu-latory concern" waste: it must recognize that there si ply is no such thing.
I will not rehash my arguments here, since they are spelled out at length in a letter dated January 27, 1989 to the address above, and in a follow-up letter to William R. Labs, dated April 9, 1989. The essence of these letters states the quite simple proposition that, since there is no safe dose of radiation (as the Commission admits), there is also no such thing as "below regulatory concern" radioactive waste. The Commission's import-export policy should recognize, and be based on, the same fundamental principle.
For all of these reasons, it would be an extreme dereliction of the Commission's duty if it found itself, pursuant to option 1, "in a position of knowing little about the quantities, types and concentrations of radioactive wastes being imported and exported." (4182) In fact, as a minimal principle, option 2 should be obvious: the NRC should be notified of all imports and exports of radioactive materials. The NRC, whose responsibility is to protect the public's health and safety, cannot possibly fulfill its mandate vis-a-vis imported or exported wastes, if it has no knowledge of their existence.
In fact, however, this minimal knowledge is not sufficient. There is no reason for treating internationally transferred radioactive materials less strictly than domestically transferred materials. The danger of radiation does not stop at any country's borders. Radiation is a non-discriminatory killer. Thus, option 3 should also be adopted: imported radioactive waste should be subject to the same regulatory oversight as domestically licensed operations. Similarly, it would be grossly irresponsible to export hazardous materials without some system for notification of all involved: transporters, dock (or other loading and unloading) workers on both sides of the border, the recipient countries themselves, etc.
It therefore follows that option 4 is also required. To export radioac-tive materials without the advanced knowledge and consent of host governments and without mechanisms for cooperation, information exchange, and review, and so forth would be grossly irresponsible. The NRC would not knowingly allow a licensee to ship radioactive materials off-site without a manifest, and with no knowledge of where the materials were headed. Why would it do this merely because the material is crossing a border?
Before proceeding to the Commission's list of questions, one other general point is in order. There is nothing in this federal register notice concerning the hazards of transportation, which will clearly be involved in either the import or the export of radioactive materials. This is particular-ly ironic in view of William Lahs's letter to me of April 6, 1989, concerning "below regulatory concern" wastes, in which he states:
You may also be aware that regarding the issue of low-2
level radioactive waste disposal, claims are made that the small public radiological risks are reduced further if certain very low-level radioactive wastes are dis-posed of at other than licensed low-level radioactive waste sites. Shipping and handling operations are purported to be the contributing factors for a compo-nent of the radioactivity content. Others have argued that the risks and human benefits associated with more localized disposal may also result in a more equitable balance.
Yet, if I understand the staff's positions in this notice, the same staff that wanted to balance the supposedly small radiological risk of "below regulatory concern" waste against the supposedly larger transportation risk now wants to enhance both by sending undefined quantities of wastes half way across the world:
If. however. the Copact can establish a reliable arrangement with a foreign company to dispose of any of the Compact's wastes. such an arrangement could be one way of solving the problem of implementing each member State's responsibilities under the LLRWPAA.
As I have pointed out to Mr. Labs in a previous letter. the Commission should not assume that use of a "local" landfill involves less transportation than use of a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. In the primary case under consideration in Vermont, this assumption will prove false for about 95% of the state's wastes.
In fact. the Couission must rely on the self-evident proposition that transportation copounds radiological risk, especially when transportation of radiologically hazardous materials is involved. Whatever rules the Commission adopts for international trade in these hazardous materials should reflect the additional hazards involved in the transportation and handling of radioactive substances.
It is also ironic that the Commission's first specific question concerns the "economic"advantages and disadvantages of importing or exporting radioac-tive wastes rather than the safety aspects of the question. In fact, that question is never posed here. at least not in so many words. I would argue that the Commission has the right even to ask this economic question only after having established a clear and definitive answer to the safety question which it never poses. The economic advantages of international trade are 3
totally irrelevant if the safety of this trade is not assured. Yet nothing in this notice (or anywhere else) provides that assurance of safety.
The clearly detrimental effect of trading in radioactive wastes is the loss of control over the waste stream: compacts, states, or private operators will have no predictable assurance of how much waste, and what kind of waste will be entering their facilities. This creates an almost impossible engi-neering problem. If low-level radioactive wastes become an uncontrolled article of international trade, then how can waste operators (public or pri-vate) possibly plan their facilities?
There are significant political and legal questions here as well. Will states be able to prohibit the importation of out-of-country wastes? How about compacts? Is it constitutional for the federal government to impose on states or compacts the obligation to become "responsible" (LLRWPA, Sec. 3) for the wastes of another nation? Conversely, can a state or compact evade its responsibility under LLRWPAA by arranging to export its wastes to another country?
Beyond these questions of legal responsibility, there is an obvious question of environmental responsibility. Is the "solution" to the low-level radioactive waste disposal problem to be like the Long Island waste barge's "solution" to that area's trash problem? In a world of unevenly distributed resources, are we really prepared to pretend to create "wealth" in poor coun-tries by foisting our radioactive wastes on them? Have we absolutely no sense of shame?
A few comments on the staff's responses to your specific questions:
- 1) Importing radioactive wastes has clear disadvantages in addition to any possible advantages, since it will impose burdens on a variety of local infra-structures: roads, health facilities, etc. Under LLRWPAA, there are a very large variety of means of paying for the disposal of low-level radioactive wastes. There is therefore no generic way of assuring that operators (or host comunities) can be properly compensated for these and more direct costs which such trade would impose. Nor is there any assurance that in any or all cases, there are economies of scale. Surely, this will depend on local circum-stances, as well as the technologies adopted by each state or compact. In short, this question cannot be answered~ priori.
- 2) Precisely because there is a US Trade Representative and a Department of State (not to mention Commerce), it is not the job of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to attempt to determine whether its regulations impose "additional burdens" vis-a-vis subsidized foreign industries.
4
It is simply not the case that "The US has in place a domestic program, which is set forth in the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA)." Rather, the US has established a legal structure, which has yet to be fully implemented anywhere. It is premature to assume that this program is "in place," and given the political realities around the country, it is not at all certain that the program will be "in place" any time soon.
Denying the import of foreign low-level radioactive wastes would clearly have a positive impact on US public health and safety, since it would clearly mean that the US public would not be subjected to still larger exposures of radiation. Put the other way around, if there is imported radioactive materi-al, there will be greater levels of exposure than if there is no such imported material. While there may be, in some particular instances, offsetting gains from imported materials (if used, for example, for medical purposes ) , these need to be carefully examined, measured, and balanced against increased expo-sure risks. The staff's hasty conclusion is completely unwarranted.
f3) Whenever there is a US interest in assisting less developed countries with their radioactive waste, there is an even clearer interest in not adding to their problems by exporting radioactive materials to them. Radioactive mate-rials are hazardous; they should not be exported to those unable to deal properly with them.
Given that the US is still far from "solving" its own low-level radioac-tive waste "disposal" problems, it makes absolutely no sense to compound them by importing foreign wastes materials. If the US wants to assist other countries with the disposal of their wastes, it should develop adequate waste disposal technologies, and share them.
f4) This time the staff has it right. Lacking specific data on "types and quantities of radioactive wastes to be imported," it is impossible to predict their effect on domestic waste disposal "mechanisms." Meanwhile, these are subject to an abundance of "if" statements: if the siting process is success-ful, if new disposal sites are (not) developed, etc. The fact is that there is no domestic program in place, and importing foreign waste is likely to impede the domestic process dramatically.
f5) Please note the weasel words in the staff's statement: "has no reason to believe" and "it is unlikely that". The real answer is, once again: we just don't know yet.
f6) The staff assumes that there are private operators for all waste sites, and they are compensated proportionately to the volumes handled. This assump-tion is not necessarily correct, and may, in fact, be gratuitous. I can assure the Commission that Vermont administration officials and legislators 5
would be extremely concerned if they thought they would have to deal with foreign wastes. The Vermont facility is likely to be operated by a public authority, not a private operator {although there may be a subcontract).
17 & 8) These are really the same question. The US, despite its "long-stand-ing ... position" clearly should do whatever is necessary to insure that host countries have the technical and other capability necessary to handle exported radioactive material. To do otherwise is grossly immoral, since it will needlessly put human beings in other countries in mortal danger. And in the final analysis, for the reasons outlined at the beginning of these comments, such behavior is also uneconomic. Fundamental morality and fundamental eco-nomics join hands here to dictate that US policy promote human well-being abroad as well as at home.
- 9) The only way it would make any real sense to export low-level radioactive waste would be if there were some technology for waste disposal -- especially for disposing of long-lived isotopes -- which is not available domestically.
At present, this is not the case, and therefore the export of waste adds to, rather than helping to solve the low-level radioactive waste problem in the us.
The main thrust of all of these comments is quite simple. The United States should engage in the importing or exporting of radioactive materials only insofar as these activities add to human well-being at home and abroad.
This is true not only for self-evident moral reasons, but for basic economic reasons as well. Since radiation is hazardous to the health and the lives of human beings throughout the world, it is specious to attempt to balance radia-tion risks against monetary gain. The Commission, in weighing the choices in this field {as in many others) should take great pains to assure that it is measuring apples against apples. Finally, all of the costs of trading in these commodities -- including, but not limited to transportation costs --
should be carefully weighed against the supposed benefits.
When the Commission carefully weighs all comparable costs and benefits, I am confident that it will find few, if any, foreign trade "practices" in-volving radioactive materials which truly benefit the well-being of the citi-
~JU zens of either participating country. I therefore trust that rules will emerge which reflect this conclusion.
r n- Gr 7 erg 6
DOCKET NUMBER Pff \\o PROPOSED RULE ( 66 FR ~ 1~I)
Department of Energy Washington, DC 20545 COC:KtiED USNRC
'90 HAR -5 PS :51 March 5, 1990 OFFICE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & SEi VIC[
BRANCH .
Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Sir:
I am writing in regard to the Commission's advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking en imports and exports of radioactive wastes (RIN 3150-AD36).
Specifically, we request a 45-day extension of the March 9, 1990, deadline for comment that appeared in the Federal Register on February 7, 1990 (Vol. 55, No. 26).
The subject of the proposed rulemaking is very important to us and other Executive Branch agencies. We must address the matter in light of our significant interactions with other agencies, as well as within the Department's programs. We also must consider factors bearing on the proposed rulemaking that rise in connection with potential international arrangements involving movements of radioactive waste.
We appreciate your consideration of our request and hope for a favorable reply before March 9.
Sincerely, L nc H. Harmon, Director T nsportation Management Division Office of Technology Development cc:
R. Stratford, DES/Department of State .*
M. Wangler, DHM-23, Department of Transportation f );; '1 la
, - ..t, ., r, ,.
, I
- f-
- c- ,
- I st
- .-f 1:
- 5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSlv OOCKEt ING & SERVICE SECT ION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TrlE COMMISSION Document StatisHcs tmark Date .C: : :~
D~o~E':L)~~~~._/L , A AL.lu. ,,, , ,.
- pies Received I :....: ~ . . . ,
- ----=---
d' I Copies Reproduced _..:.,_ 4 __
DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR I\O DOCKETED USNRC
( t:>5 FR 4 IB/)
February 26, 1990 *90 FEB 28 Pl2 :31 COMMENTS OF OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY, INC. ~.'fO. ~ ~ *j E~i:.=,1~R f.
ON ADVANCED NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING , "IMPORT AND1. \J E*P~~~.)Lh\i!C ,
OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES " , 10 CFR PART 110, 55 FED. REG. 4181 (FEBRUARY 7, 1990)
OCRE commends the NRC for considering policies regarding the import and export of radioactive wastes at this time. This matter involves a number of complex technical, political and equity issues which need to be balanced: the need to find disposal sites for radioactive wastes which are technically and environmentally suitable (there could be nations which contain no such suitable sites); the desire for each nation or subdivision thereof to take responsibility for the disposal of radioactive wastes generated therein (this is the intent of the U.S. 1980 Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and 1985 Amendments Act); the desire to minimize the transportation of radioactive wastes, so as to minimize the potential for accident a l or intentional (i . e., criminal or t error i s t) disp e rsal of radioactivity; the desire to ensure that the health and safety of all persons in all countries are satisfactorily protected, and that poor waste management practices in other countries do not impact upon U.S. citizens through transborder contamination (i.e., the Juarez, Mexico incident); the need to ensure that the risks of radioactive wastes are not imposed upon persons without their informed consent, with a full knowledge of the risks involved and a willingness to accept such risks; the need to ensure that the dire economic conditions of developing countries are not exploited by other nations and multinational corporations looking for cheap , but not necessarily safe, ways to dispose of radioactive wastes; the need to ensure that radioactive waste disposal, in all countries, is managed by competent institutions having an appropriate infrastructure to protect public health and safety and the environment; the need to encourage generators of radioactive waste to reduce the quantities of waste they produce, a goal which may be subverted by easily available export of wastes to other countries; the need to preserve the capacity of domestic disposal facilities for radioactive waste generated in the U.S.; the need to respect national sovereignty; the need for strong regulation of radioactive waste generation, transport, and disposal, , in all countries; and the desire that all countries gain the benef i ts of the necessary uses of radionuclides, while minimi z ing the risks of such use.
OCRE believes that the import and export of radioactive wastes should be minimized, with exceptions to this policy only when absolutely necessary to achieve the protection of the public health and safety and the environment (i.e., when a nation using radioactive materials has no locations suitable for waste disposal sites). Of the four options presented in the Federal 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY cdMMISSIOk DOCKEtlNG & SERVICE SECTION OFF ICE OF THE SECRETAR.Y OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date ~ f o.,-..:..
C,..::.o_ _ __
Copies Received J Add' I Copies Reproduced _ ,__ __
6pecial Distribution QI D5 PoR.
la.. s & rn bs
Register notice, only Options 3 and 4 have the attributes necessary to achieve a proper balance of the issues noted above. A combination of Options 3 and 4 is necessary to appropriately protect the public interest.
Option 3 has the advantage of requiring a specific license for the import or export of radioactive waste. This is important because a licensing action falls under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, which affords hearing rights to any person whose interest may be affected by the proposed action. It is essential to preserve public participation in such decisions, both for U.S. citizens who may be impacted by the import of wastes from other countries, and to foreign countries and citizens who may be affected by the export of waste from the United States. Section lls of the Atomic Energy Act clearly provides that "persons" shall include any individual or governmental entity, domestic or foreign. Considering the undemocratic nature of some foreign governments, which may not afford their citizens the same rights of participation in governmental decisions as Americans enjoy, foreign citizens (or their representatives in this country) may have greater rights under U.S. law, the Atomic Energy Act, than in their own nations. A specific licensing action, in which all persons may participate, is necessary to ensure that governments of foreign nations do not impose the risks of radioactive waste upon their own citizens without their consent. However, the practical utility of this aspect may be limited, as NRC case law has held that, in import/export cases, the NRC lacks legal authority under its governing statutes to consider health, safety and environmental impacts upon citizens of recipient nations.
Westinghouse Electric Co rp. (Exports to the Philippines),
CLI-80-14, 11 NRC 631, 637 (1980).
Option 4 also has attractive features in banning the import or export of radioactive waste absent an international agreement.
This will ensure that recipient countries must consent to the import of radioactive waste. However, it does not ensure that the citizens of recipient countries will consent to the import of radioactive waste, as the systems and structures of some foreign governments do not allow public participation in governmental decisions. For example, a foreign government more concerned with economic gain than with the health and safety of its citizens and environmental protection might accept radioactive waste without the knowledge and consent of its citizenry. Even U.S. citizens may not be fully protected under this option. The Federal Register notice indicates that the international agreements would be negotiated through the State Department. This means that such agreements would essentially become foreign policy decisions, which are typically matters vested in the authority and discretion of the executive branch, and are not matters open to broad public participation or litigation opportunities.
The appropriate option to adopt is a combination of Options 3 and 4. As in Option 4, there should be no import or export of 2
wastes except under international agreements, which would gain the consent of and examine the waste management practices of the recipient nation. And the licensing provision of Option 3 is also necessary, to ensure a means of meaningful public participation in decisions whether to accept imports of radioactive waste, into any country, and in determining the adequacy of waste management practices. The international agreement could perhaps provide the legal authority for the NRC to consider in its licensing proceedings the waste management practices, and health and safety and environmental impacts, in recipient nations. A specific license would also enable the NRC to retain regulatory control of and enforcement authority over practices (in the U.S.) conducted pursuant to such a license.
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS The NRC has posed 13 questions for public comment. OCRE provides below its responses to certain of these questions, indicated by the number corresponding to the NRC question.
- 1. OCRE believes that economic factors are not within the NRC's regulatory authority, with the possible exception of the effects of financial instability and lack of economic viability of a disposal facility on health and safety. In Uni on of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 824 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir. 1987), the Court held that the NRC is not empowered to consider costs to licensees in either establishing or enforcing the "adequate protection" standard.
- 2. While the policy and economic factors listed by the Staff in its response to the questions (Appendix A to the Federal Register notice) exist, it is OCRE's opinion that such concerns are not properly within the scope of the NRC's authority. The NRC is empowered to protect the public health and safety and the environment. Other issues, such as the balance of trade, are more properly addressed by other government agencies.
- 3. The U.S. government should assist foreign countries in developing appropriate policies, regulations, and institutions for the proper disposal of radioactive waste. This is necessary not only for the protection of the public health and safety in the recipient countries, but also to protect U.S.
citizens from transborder contamination in products imported from recipient countries having poor radioactive waste management practices (e.g., the Juarez incident).
- 4. The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, in its letter dated January 30, 1990 re "NRC Program on Low-Level Radioactive Wastes", stated that "the Committee is concerned about the availability of adequate disposal capacity . * . to accomodate LLWs after the scheduled closure in 1992 of the currently operated . * . disposal facilities." Clearly, the import of radioactive waste will only exacerbate this problem.
Furthermore, importing radioactive waste is inconsistent with the intent of Congress in the 1980 Low-Level Radioactive Waste 3
Policy Act and 1985 Amendments Act. These laws require states to be responsible for the disposal of radioactive wastes generated within their borders. Such an intent cannot be squared with importing radioactive waste from other countries.
Indeed, importing waste would likely cause opposition from citizens living near domestic disposal sites, and would also cause States to challenge LLRWPA and to withdraw from compacts.
- 7. The NRC Staff has clearly stated that "most developing countries have neither the technical expertise nor the regulatory structure to control adequately the disposal of radioactive waste" and that "some foreign countries, by their own admission, do not believe they have regulatory programs sufficient to protect the public." This is certainly disturbing, with respect to both the potential impact on the citizens of these countries and potential consequences here in the U.S. from transborder contamination. Such admissions demonstrate the need for careful regulatory control of these practices. With regard to whether the countries can understand what they are receiving and agree to its receipt, OCRE believes that it is not sufficient that the governments accept the wastes; the people of these countries must also have the right of informed consent. Some undemocratic governments may defy the wishes of the people in accepting import of radioactive waste. There must be a mechanism by which the rights of the people who would be exposed to the risk are preserved.
- 8. While there must be respect for national sovereignty, there should be consideration by the NRC of the capability and practices of recipient countries to manage radioactive wastes, if for no other reason than to protect U.S. citizens from contaminated imported products resulting from poor practices :i,..
foreign nations. Use of an international agreement, along with the licensing process, may provide sufficient legal authority for the NRC to consider the practices of foreign nations.
- 9. While the export of U.S. radioactive wastes would certainly help extend our disposal capacity, there are serious equity, ethical, and foreign policy issues associated with this option.
It is the policy of the United States, as expressed by Congress in the 1980 LLRWPA, that states and regions of the U.S. be responsible for disposing of the radioactive waste generated therein. It would be inconsistent with this policy to insist that other countries accept our radioactive wastes. We should also be discouraging extensive transport of radioactive wastes which their export would entail. Responsible waste management practices should not include export of radioactive wastes; rather, the amounts of these wastes should be reduced, and they should be disposed of in the safest manner possible. Giving them to other countries, especially those least able to handle the wastes properly, is unethical and does not solve the problem.
Export of U.S. radioactive wastes could also precipitate a 4
foreign policy disaster, especially if poor waste management practices of recipient countries lead to adverse health effects on the population or environmental damage. This could encourage resentment or hatred of the United States and U.S.
interests and corporations. Such anti-American sentiments could destabilize the government that accepted the wastes or lead to terrorist activity against U.S. citizens and interests.
Of course, such political instability would even further jeopardize the safe disposal of radioactive wastes in the recipient country, or could even lead to deliberate contamination of products destined for American markets (i.e.,
"send it back").
- 10. The NRC should be given the authority to regulate NARM, and such authority should include import and export of NARM wastes.
- 12. The question of "what are wastes" i s important. The IAEA definition is a good start, but the clause "and for which no use is foreseen" is too broad and speculative. Conceivably, many uses of what we commonly consider radioactive waste could possibly be foreseen at some time in the future. A better clause would be "and for which no specific, technically feasible use is actually and imminently intended."
As stated above, OCRE believes that the import and export of radioactive wastes should be minimized, unless necessary to protect public health and safety and the environment, both here and abroad. One such exception would be the return of sealed radiation sources to the manufacturer, as specified in a purchase agreement. This would help prevent incidents such as those in Juarez, Mexico and Goiania, Brazil.
- 13. OCRE believes that the BRC policy under consideration by the NRC is potentially injurious to public health and the environment and should be not be adopted. However, it is necessary to ensure that the BRC policies of various countries are consistent. This problem can best be handled by (1) minimizing the import and export of radioactive waste; and (2) specific international agreements which address this issue for those limited circumstances in which the import or export of radioactive waste is in the public interest.
Respectfully submitted, Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Road Mentor, OH 44060 (216) 255-3158 5
PR DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE /jD - CD CO(;KEiED COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA USNRC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PENNSYLVANIA Post Office Box 2063 "W FEB 26 p 4 :26 DEw Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 February 21, 1990 OFF!CE OF SECRETARY DOCKETING & 5EiNICt Bureau of Radiation Protection BRANCli (717) 787-2163 Honorable Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Secretary Chilk:
This letter is to provide official comment on your proposed rulemaking on the import and export of radioactive wastes, 10 CFR Part 110, RIN: 3 1 50-AD36. The comments will not specifical l y address the various options or the questions contained in the proposed rulemaking because we believe these considerations are moot in view of existing statutes.
We believe that when the Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact's Disposal Facility begins operation in Pennsylvania, the import and export of any low-level radioactive waste for disposal purposes is effectively banned. Any exceptions would have to be approved by the compact commission and/or the Legislature of the host state.
Specifically, pursuant to the provisions of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021b-2021d) the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted the Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact (PL 1985-120). This Compact was also ratified by the States of Delaware, Maryl and, and West Virginia. This Compact was subsequently approved by the Congress of the United States and signed into law by the President of the United States on May 19, 1988.
Art i c l e 4, Prohibited Acts and Penalti es, of the Compact provides in part:
- 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to dispose of l ow-leve l waste within t h e r egion except a t a regi onal facili t y unless authorized by the Commiss i on.
UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE Of THE SECRET ARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics i:>ostmark Date ,,,J..p~/CJD I I C pies Received /
Add' I Copies Rep-ro_d_u--'c-_ _4____ _
pecial Distribution (}..IDS, PO/:< 1 Lo..hs ~
Page 2
- 2. After establishment of the regional facility(s), it shall be unlawful for any person to dispose of any low-level waste within the region unless the waste was generated within the region or unless authorized to do so both by the Commission and by law of the host state in which said disposal takes place. For the purposes of this Compact, waste generated within the region excludes radioactive material shipped from outside the party states to a waste management facility within the region.
- 3. Any and all low-level waste generated within the region shall be disposed of at a regional facility, except for specific cases agreed upon by the Commission, with the affirmative vote by a majority if the Commission members of the host(s) affected by the decision.
These requirements clearly apply to foreign and domestic waste. So, for the Appalachian Compact at least, your proposed rulemaking is already superseded by both Federal and Commonwealth statutes. Therefore, your rulemaking not withstanding, no low-level radioactive waste may be imported or exported into the compact region for disposal at the regional facility without the authorizations as provided by law. We have not performed a detailed analysis of the specific requirements in other compacts and states, but we believe they are similar.
We hope these comments are of value to you. If you wish to discuss any of these matters further, please free to contact us at the above number. Thank you for the opportunity to express our position on this important issue.
Sincerely, 0~PO~
William P. Dornsife, Chief Division of Nuclear Safety
[7590-01]
ooc~6l~ou~st: PB l L-Q .2'5 OOC:KETED l!3 S F(Z 4 L3-/) USNRC
- 90 FEB -2 A11 :43 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf:i,fc-ic~
OF ~-c .
- it RETARY uOCK[T lNG & SlilVICf" 10 CFR Part 110 fJR.ANCH .
RIN: 3150-AD36 Import and Export of Radioactive Wastes AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the existing NRC regulations for the import and export of radioactive wastes. This action responds to concerns that international transfers of radioactive wastes, in particular low-level radioactive wastes (LLW), may not be properly controlled.
Various options for regulating the import and export of radioactive wastes are being considered. The Commission is publishing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to seek timely comments from the public, industry, and other government agencies on various regulatory options and issues developed thus far.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Comment period expires March 9, 1990
- Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
1
[7590-01]
ADDRESSES: Mail corrments to the Secretary of the Cormnission, U.S. Nuclear Regulator,y ColIITlission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch. Deliver corrments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD between 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of corrments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
FOR FURT~ER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Lahs, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3774.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction and Purpose Recently, the Corrmission has become aware of the need to establish a general policy for the import and export of radioactive wastes, particu-larly low-level radioactive wastes {LLW). The export and import of all types of waste (hazardous and non-hazardous) have been receiving increased public attention internationally. While there are no known cases of coun-tries improperly disposing of radioactive wastes through exports to other countries that, for example, may not have the infrastructure to dispose of the wastes safely, there is a potential for this in the future. There also have been a number of inquiries regarding the import of foreign wastes into the U.S. for disposal.
The International Atomic Energy Agency {IAEA) has published codes, standards, guides, and reconvnendations that many countries use as the basis for planning and regulating national waste management programs.
These codes, standards, guides, and recormnendations, which are agreed to 2
[7590-01]
at an international 1eve1, are ways of providing confidence that radio-active wastes can be managed properly on an international basis. More recently, the U.S. has actively participated in the IAEA's effort to develop a voluntary Code of Practice for transboundary movement of radio-active wastes. The Code will provide guidance to Member States on appro-priate control and monitoring mechanisms. Currently it is the consensus of a large number of IAEA Member States that all countries should have in place adequate national means to control the transboundary movements of radioactive wastes in order to avoid unsafe disposal practices.
Existing regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (40 CFR Part 262) establish criteria for the export of (non-nuclear) hazardous wastes which are more restrictive than the existing NRC regulations.
for the ,export of radioactive waste. Among other requirements, Section 3017 (42 USC 3017) of the "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 11 prohibits exports of hazardous waste to a country not having an agreement with the U.S. unless that country has been notified and has consented. The Basel Convention, which has been signed by many nations, also calls for stricter controls on international shipments of non-nuclear hazardous wastes.
The U.S. currently does not have a specific national policy with respect to transfers of radioactive wastes, nor does the Conmission require specific licenses for the export or import of most low-level radioactive wastes. The Cormnission believes that, while it is unaware of any low-level
)
radioactive waste being imported or exported in an unsafe manner, it is time to establish a national-policy that would provide the necessary frame-work to enable the Cormnission to carry out hs responsibility to ensure appropriate regulation of the import and export of radioactive wastes. The 3
[7590-01]
Commission is presently working towards formulating such a national policy.
It is the Conmission s preliminary judgment that the best approach would 1
be to develop a policy that would provide greater control and accountabil-ity over the export and import of radioactive wastes.
This policy could lead to an amendment to NRC 1 s existing export/import regulations in 10 CFR Part 110 to require advance notification and/or consent for radioactive waste exports or imports.
The Corrmission recognizes that it is in the interest of exporting countries, as well as importing countries, to assure themselves that dis-posal of radioactive wastes will be effectively regulated. However, there is a delicate balance between protecting public health and safety in foreign countries and placing unnecessary restrictions on international trade. As the ColTITlission begins to integrate a variety of topics into a proposed rule, an opportunity for public comment on the options and issues under consideration is being provided via this document.
In considering what radioactive materials should be considered wastes for import and export purposes, the Commission proposes to use the existing IAEA definition of radioactive wastes as contained in the 11 Radioactive Waste Management Glossary 11 (IAEA-TECDOC-447), which describes radioactive waste as 11 any material that contains or is contaminated with radionuclides at concentrations or radioactivity levels greater than the exempt quant-ities established by the competent authorities and for which no use is foreseen. 11 Proposed Option§ The following four possible options are under consideration for establishing Commission regulatory requirements on the export and import 4
[7590-01]
of radioactive wastes: (1) tontinue the existing policy and procedures as codified in 10 CFR Part 110; (2) Require notification of all imports and exports of radioactive wastes; (3) Require specific licenses for the import and export of radioactive wastes; and (4) Ban the import and export of radioactive wastes except with respect to countries with which the U.S.
has an agreement. These options are not exhaustive; therefore, coIT111ents are sought on any additional options the public may raise.
In addition, the ColTITlission will ensure that the implementation of any one of these options is not inconsistent with its forthcoming policy on Below Regulatory Concern 11 11 (BRC) wastes. Consistency could be assured in several ways. For example, the Co11111ission could develop a mechanism to inform recipient countries of the Corrmission's BRC policy and that the NRC review of any BRC petition that anticipated exports would include consultation with the recipient country before approval.
Option 1: Status Quo--Continue the use of existing regulations.
Under this option the present policy and procedures on import and export of nuclear materials, as codified in 10 CFR Part 110, would be continued.
NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Part 110 currently do not distinguish "radio-active waste" as a separate class of material. Consequently, radioactive wastes are regulated under Part 110 to the extent that the wastes contain byproduct, source, or special nuclear material in quantities and concentra-tions that are subject to NRG regulations. For example, existing regula-tions pennit the import of low-level radioactive wastes into the U.S.
under a general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 110.27, if the consignee is authorized to possess the material under: (1) a contract with the U.S.
Department of Energy; (2} an exemption from domestic licensing requirements issued by the Commission; or (3) a general or specific domestic license.
5
[7590-01]
Part 110 permits export of low-level radioactive wastes from the U.S.
under a general license if the provisions of§§ 110.21, 110.22 and 110.23 in 10 CFR Part 110 are satisfied. Thus, the existing regulations agdress the import and export of radioactive wastes only to the same degree that they address other radioactive materials and do not ensure that the NRC is cognizant of all transfers of radioactive wastes per~ across U.S.
borders. Consequently, the Commission may be in a position of knowing little about the quantities, types, and concentrations of radioactive wastes being imported or exported. However, existing regulations do require the exporter and importer to maintain records of transfers which the Co1T111ission may inspect.
Option 2: Require notification of NRG for all imports and exports.
Under this option, the regulations contained in 10 CFR Part 110 would be amended to require written notification of the NRG before radioactive wastes are imported or exported and the receipt of written consent by the exporter from a receiving country prior to the export of wastes from the U.S. Under this option, the Conmission would have a regulatory mechanism to track wastes that are imported or exported and assurances that importing countries are willing to import the material. While the primary objective of this option is oversight or tracking, the Conmission could take action if a threat to public health or safety were to materialize. However, this option provides little additional regulatory control over that which is provided under current NRC regulations because no NRC licensing (or denial) action would be required for specific imports or exports of radioactive wastes.
Option 3: Under this option, 10 CFR Part 110 would be amended to require that any person seeking to import or export radioactive wastes 6
[7590-01]
obtain a specific license. Under this option, the NRC would assume positive regulatory control over transfers of radioactive wastes between the U.S. and foreign countries. The extent of NRC control on import and export activities would be determined by the criteria NRC established for specific license applications. Possible criteria could be: (l} banning wastes, such as Greater-than-Class C wastes (10 CFR § 61.55}, from import and export and (2) permitting the import of only limited types of waste under general license, such as the return of sealed radiation sources to a manufacturer as specified in a purchase agreement. Under this option, the inconsistencies in NRC regulations that may pennit imported radio-active waste to be subject to less regulatory oversight than radioactive waste resulting from domestic licensee operations could be removed. (For example, 10 CFR 20.302, 11 Method for Obtaining Approval of Proposed Dis-posal Procedures, 11 governs the disposal of wastes by NRC licensees, but does not regulate disposal of wastes with similar characteristics from foreign entities not licensed by the NRC.) The specific license requirement also would provide the necessary framework that would alle-viate growing concerns that transfers of radioactive wastes are not being adequately controlled.
Option 4: Amend Part 110 to ban imports and exports of radioactive wastes except under international disposal agreements. Under this option, the NRC would ban the import and export of radioactive waste except with respect to those foreign countries with which the U.S. has negotiated appropriate agreements. These agreements could contain provisions for advance notification and consent of the receiving government, information exchanges in the manner in which the wastes would be managed in the 7
[7590-01]
receiving country, cooperation and enforcement, and periodic review of the effectiveness of the agreement. This option would provide a more rigorous framework for control of such transfers, assure governmental acceptance by the other countries, and encourage countries having agreements to take responsibility for waste disposal within their own territories. This would alleviate concerns that transfers of radioactive wastes are not being adequately controlled. As in Option 3, this option would eliminate the inconsistency in existing NRC regulations which could allow imported low-level radioactive waste to be subject to less regulatory oversight than low-level radioactive waste resulting from similar domestic licensee operations at NRC or Agreement State licensed facilities. The agreements would be negotiated through the U.S. Department of State and could involve extensive technical, administrative, and political complexity.
Questions and Issues In light of the previous discussion, the NRC is particularly interested in receiving comments concerning the following questions which involve key considerations in developing NRC 1 s regulatory requirements on the import and export of radioactive wastes. This list of questions is not exhaustive; therefore, comments are welcome on any additional relevant matters the public may identify.
- 1. What are the economic advantages and disadvantages to the import and export of radioactive wastes, e.g., would such imports or exports affect the economic viability of disposal facilities or State radioactive waste disposal compacts?
8
[7590-01]
- 2. 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?
- 3. Would it be in the interest of U.S. foreign policy to assist certain countries with the disposal of their radioactive wastes?
- 4. Does the U.S. have an adequate mechanism to dispose of imported radioactive wastes without adversely impacting the disposal of domestically generated wastes?
- 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?
- 6. What are the views of operators of disposal facilities and State and local governments on the import of radioactive waste?
- 7. Are national authorities in countries that might receive U.S.-
exported radioactive wastes technically competent to dispose of such wastes and would they agree to its receipt?.
- 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 open to 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?
9
[7590-01]
- 10. NRC cannot currently regulate Naturally Occurring or Accelerator Produced Materials (NARM) such as radium contaminated wastes and accelerator components and shielding containing induced activity.
Are provisions needed for the import and export of these NARM wastes, assuming NRC were given statutory authority over such materials?
- 11. Are there other means to broaden the Conmission s information 1
base with regard to transactions of exports and imports of radioactive wastes, exclusive of requiring specific licenses or otherwise revising NRC 1 s existing regulations?
- 12. What import/export controls and licensing criteria may be necessary for various categories of radioactive waste and under what circumstances should imports/exports be considered wastes?
- 13. What assurances can be made that the Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) policies of various countries are consistent so that radioactive wastes declared BRC in the exporting country are indeed BRC wastes in the recipient country?
In Appendix A to this document, the Conmission is providing preliminary NRC staff responses to similar questions. These responses are intended to focus public comments and are subject to revision based on comments received.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 110 Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Export, Import, Incorporation by reference,.Intergovernmental relations, Licensed material, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Waste treatment and disposal.
10
[7590-01]
The authority citation for this document is: Sec. 161, Pub. L.83-703, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201); Sec. 201, Pub. L.93-438, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
Dated at Rockville, MD this k day o f r ~ 1 9 9 0 .
Regulatory Corrmission.
ommissio~
11
[7590-01]
APPENDIX A NRC Staff Responses to Questions Provided In This Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
- 1. Are there clear economic advantages to the import of radioactive wastes, e.g., would importing waste assist in maintaining the economic viability of disposal facilities or State compacts?
Response: Importing radioactive wastes frir disposal in the U.S *
. might have some economic advantages. The degree.of economic benefit, however, would depend on (1) the adeq~acy of the charges assessed by the disposal-site operator to cover the cost of disposal and subsequent long-tenn care; and (2) the extent to which a low-level radioactive waste dis-posal site benefits from economies of scale. It would be difficult to determine the economic benefit in the absence of information on the quant-ity of waste that would be imported into the U.S. for disposal. Moreover, a detailed economic study of the costs associated with the development and operation of a low-level radioactive disposal site would be needed to detennine .accurately the economic advantage resulting from the importation and disposal of radioactive wastes.
- 2. Are there clear policy, health and safety, or economic disadvan-tages to denying import or export of certain radioactive wastes, e.g.,
interference with ongoing U.S. foreign trade in sealed sources and gauges used in medical or other applications?
Response: Yes, because the versatility.of sealed radi.ation sources, as tools in research and as aids in medicine (Cobalt-60 teletherapy and brachytherapy), agriculture and industry {radiography, gauging devices, product irradiators), has produced a growing international demand for the technology, it affords the exporting manufacturers and distributors many 12
[7590-01]
opportunities for trade with foreign nations in an expanding global market (see Secy-89-020).
With regard to U.S. policy and economic disadvantages in denying import or export of such radioactive wastes, trade and commerce activities are highly competitive, and national trade and regulatory practices play an important role. For example, in some exporting countries, radioisotopes are produced and exported under government corporation licenses or central government control, e.g., Canada, England, France and Japan (through con-trol by the Bank of Japan). The corporations are subsidized by their government, with such national advantages as: (a) no corporate tax; (b) no property tax; (c) no license fees; (d) no civil penalties; (e) minimum or conditional licensing; (f) special loan arrangements; and (g) stocks held by a government administrator (with the ability to transfer stock between corporations). These or similar foreign government arrangements provide trade advantages. The U.S. has no comparable subsidization; therefore, the regulatory practices of some supplier-nations act as an impediment to U.S. trade and commerce in global markets and to the U.S. balance of trade.
Any changes in regulatory requirements could pose an additional burden.
For example, it is part of normal trade and commerce practices to exchange a spent radiation source for a new source, returning the spent source to the supplier. For some radioisotopes, this is a condition of the sale.
Instituting a regulatory prohibition on importing or exporting spent sources (for disposal or recycle) in exchange for new sources, would adversely affect U.S. markets. It should be noted that any suggested regulatory actions affecting the United States that could impact foreign U.S. trade and commerce would be subject to extensive review by the U.S.
Trade Representative (TR) and the U.S. Department of State (DOS). No special problems are foreseen at this time.
The Staff is unaware of any overriding disadvantage to denying the import or export of radioactive wastes from a public health and safety viewpoint. The U.S. has in place a domestic program, which is set forth in the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act (LLRWPAA), that should ensure that all low-level radioactive wastes are disposed of pro-perly without adversely affecting the public health and safety. Therefore, 13
[7590-01]
the export of U.S. generated low-level radioactive wastes could be prohi-bited and not impact the U.S. public health and safety. With regard to denying the import of foreign low-level radioactive wastes, the Staff believes that the denials would have no effect on the U.S. public health and safety.
- 3. Is it in the U.S. foreign policy or foreign relations interest to assist certain.countries with the disposal of their radioactive wastes?
Response: It is U.S. policy to assist certain countries with the disposal of their radioactlve waste. Most developing countries have neither the technical expertise nor the regulatory structure to control adequately the disposal of radioactive wastes. Since 1984, when radio-actively contaminated steel products involving inadvertent melting of cobalt-60 contaminated scrap metal were imported into the U.S. from Mexico, the U.S. has become increasingly sensitized to the very real potential for transborder inadvertent contamination, and to the lack of technical and regulatory infr~structures in the nuclear programs of less developed countries.
The U.S. has a large body of experience, and currently makes a practical contribution to enhancing safety, on an international scale, by assjsting less developed countries through both bilateral activity (e.g., Mexico and Brazil) and international agency activities such as those of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) (e.g., strengthening regulatory organizations; training programs; fostering exchange of informa-tion; emergency assistance; the Radiation Protection Advisory Team (RAPAT) program; and the W'aste Management Advisory Program (WAMAP).
Participation in international agencies is also helpful in assuring that foreign designs and operations (which can be heavily influenced by international guides and standards) are compatible with NRC safety requirements, and improved safety designs are considered.
14
[7590-01]
NOTE: NRC was instrumental in initiating the IAEA RAPAT review programs for less developed countries, which also include a review of radioactive waste. Since its inception in 1984, NRC Staff members have participated on RAPAT teams in reviews for five countries. It should be further noted that the concern for radioactive waste practices in less developed countries has increased enough for the IAEA to have instituted a review pro-gram just for radioactive waste, i.e., WAMAP. NRC has not participated in these reviews.
- 4. Does the U.S. have an adequate disposal mechanism available as well as sufficient disposal capacity so as not to impact adversely the disposal of domestically generated wastes?
Response: The Staff is unable to respond to this question definitively in the absence of specific data on the types and quantities of radioactive wastes to be imported into the U.S. However, if the siting process that is set forth in the LLRWPAA is successful, the U.S. would have sufficient disposal capacity to accept some imported low-level radio-active wastes for disposal. If new disposal sites are not developed and access to existing low-level radioactive waste sites is denied, the importation of any waste for disposal would only compound the problem of low-level waste disposal in the U.S.
- 5. Is imported waste similar to waste generated in the U.S. and therefore not likely to result in new radiological and/or environmental problems?
Response: The Staff has no reason to believe that imported radioactive wastes would be significantly different from wastes generated in the U.S. Foreign low-level radioactive wastes result from medical, industrial, academic, reactor, and fuel cycle operations just as they do in the U.S. Although the characteristics of'the imported wastes might be somewhat different than those of domestic wastes, the imported wastes would be subject to domestic Federal and State regulations, including the 15
[7590-01]
waste classification system set forth in 10 CFR Part 61. This classifica-tion system would ensure that imported wastes would be treated no differ-ently than wastes generated in the U.S. Thus, it is unlikely that imported low-level radioactive wastes would result in new radiological and/or environmental problems.
- 6. Do operators of disposal facilities as well as the State Compact Corrrnissions object to the import of (a) a specific waste stream (b) foreign waste in general?
Response: In general, we believe that the States and Compacts would be very concerned with the prospect of providing disposal capacity for foreign-generated low-level wastes. As States site disposal facilities, a large number of local concerns arise. These concerns would probably be intensified by the prospect of providing capacity for foreign wastes. On the other hand, site operators are not likely to object to disposing of any increased volume of wastes resulting from the importation of foreign wastes. The increased volumes could mean increased profits for the operator.
The issue of handling foreign wastes was not raised during the formulation of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (LLRWPA) or its 1985 amendments. NRC Staff also has not discussed this matter with State regulatory and Compact officials.
Because of the sensitive nature of siting in the States, we believe that this issue should be discussed with interested State officials and raised as part of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This would allow better opportunities for a complete airing of the issues the Corrrnission is considering.
- 7. Are national authorities in countries receiving exported U.S.
waste technically competent to understand what they are receiving and agree to its receipt?
Response: The Staff is unaware of any extensive U.S. exports of low-level waste for disposal to foreign countries; but it should be noted that current regulations do not provide for data collecting concerning such 16
[7590-01]
wastes. However, the Staff is aware of some foreign countries, which, by their own admission, do not believe they have regulatory programs suffi-cient to protect the public. Some of these countries have requested assistance through international agencies. We are also aware of efforts by IAEA to seek infonnation on radioactive waste regulatory and notifica-tion procedures currently used by foreign countries. This effort is in conjunction with the work now underway by IAEA to develop a draft international voluntary Code of Practice for transboundary movement of radioactive waste.
- 8. What consideration, if any, should be given to the capability and ability of a recipient country to safely manage and dispose of radio-active wastes, recognizing that NRC would have no authority to deny a license on these grounds?
Response: The long-standing U.S. foreign policy position on this issue is that the United States Government opposes direct regulation of hazardous or radioactive exports (i.e., making detenninations of the capability or ability of other countries to handle such wastes) because this 11 * *
- amounts to impennissible regulation of the domestic affairs of sovereign nations. 11 This was also the predominant view of Member States represented at the first meeting of the IAEA Experts Working Group, convened to develop a draft international voluntary Code of Practice for Transboundary Movement of Radioactive Waste.
However, in the interest of domestic and international health and safety, the NRC should continue to provide technical and regulatory assistance to less developed countries, through both bilateral and inter-national agency activity, to enhance the capability and ability of these countries to manage and dispose of radioactive waste safely (see response to Question 4).
- 9. Does exporting some or all categorfes of waste help to solve a significant problem in the U.S., such as limited available disposal capacity?
17
[7590-01]
Response: Regardless of whether wastes are exported or disposed of within the United States, all States under the LLRWPA, as amended, are responsible for providing for disposal capacity for the wastes generated within their borders. As discussed in Question 10, exporting some wastes may make it more difficult for some Compacts to implement this responsi-bility, if the export cannot adequately be evaluated and controlled. If, however, the Compact can establish a reliable arrangement with a foreign company to dispose of any of the Compact's wastes, such an arrangement could be one way of solving the problem of implementing each member State's responsibilities under the LLRWPA.
- 10. Would exporting the waste adversely affect the economic viability of disposal facilities for State Compacts?
Response: Potential effects on the economic viability of disposal facilities would vary from Compact to Compact. Pertinent variables to be considered in assessing the effects on any one Compact region would include: the total volume of wastes to be disposed of at the regional facility; the types of waste to be exported, the capital and operating costs of the facility to which the exported waste would otherwise have been shipped for disposal; and the posstbility that international or inter-Compact arrangements for the import of other wastes from outside the region could make up for some of the volume lost to export.
18