BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
www.BREDL.org
~ PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina
28629 ~ Phone (336) 982-2691 ~ Fax (336) 982-2954
~ BREDL@skybest.com
May
17, 2004
EPA
Administrator Michael Leavitt
US Environmental Protection Agency, 1101A
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
leavitt.michael@epa.gov
Re:
Low-Activity Radioactive Waste, Docket ID No.
OAR-2003-0095
Dear
Administrator Leavitt:
On
behalf of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense
League, I write to comment on the Advanced Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on Low-Activity
Radioactive Waste. The Blue Ridge Environmental
Defense League celebrated its 20th
anniversary this year; our organization was
founded in response to the Crystalline Repository
Project of the US Department of Energy.
We
oppose the de-regulation of radioactive wastes.
The EPA’s attempt to save a few dollars on
radioactive waste fees cannot justify public
exposure to dangerous radiation. We recommend
that the EPA withdraw its Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on Low-Activity Radioactive
Waste; furthermore, we recommend that EPA
undertake no non-regulatory actions which would
have the effect of de-regulating radioactive
wastes.
Dr.
Alice Stewart, the British epidemiologist who
studied radiation health effects for over 30
years, speaking on radioactive waste, said,
"You cant just dump it in the ocean or
anywhere else and hope that as long as it comes
off slowly to imitate background radiation
there’s no effect. Because if you increase
the world level of background radiation,
mutations and cancer deaths will increase
astronomically."
EPA’s ANPR
discusses methods of disposing of
"low-activity" radioactive waste,
including the following: alternative disposal
facilities; "low-activity" definition
by computer modeling of radiation exposure to
landfill workers; dose levels to model potential
exposures; NRC licensee wastes; public
involvement; and non-regulatory actions such as
issuing guidance. EPA’s Office of Air and
Radiation website under Docket ID No.
OAR-2003-0095 states:
| At present, cost and
availability of disposal affect the way
'low-activity' waste is managed. We
believe that certain types of disposal
facilities, particularly hazardous waste
landfills permitted under Subtitle C of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), may be able to offer
appropriate protection for disposal of
'low-activity' radioactive waste. Several
facilities of this type are now being
used in a limited way to dispose of some
radioactive waste. Among the waste that
could be addressed as 'low-activity' are
mixed (chemically hazardous and
radioactive) wastes, wastes containing
natural radioactivity, cleanup wastes,
and other low-level radioactive waste. |
The
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking appears to
be the latest in a series of attempts by federal
agencies to de-regulate certain classes of
radioactive waste, allowing them to be dumped or
incinerated without the regulations now required
for such wastes under federal law. I draw your
attention to comments we filed in 2001 when the
US Department of Energy announced its Notice of
Intent on the disposition of radioactive scrap
metals (FR Vol. 66, No. 134, pp. 36562-36566).
The half-life of
the element of de-regulation must surely be
measured in decades because it has not lost much
of its activity since BRC (below regulatory
concern) was formulated in 1986. It is
instructive to look back at the statements
offered by de-regulation proponents at that time.
| The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has
been concerned about the large amounts of
low-level waste, some containing
inconsequential amounts of radioactivity,
being shipped to licensed low-level
disposal facilities. The problem is
coupled with the question of what to do
with other slightly radioactive
materials. Accordingly, on June 27, 1990,
the NRC published the criteria it will
use to determine whether such materials
are "below regulatory concern"
(BRC) and can be handled or disposed of
as non-radioactive materials. The materials and
activities covered by the
"guidelines" are: 1) very
low-level radioactive waste; 2)
decommissioned and decontaminated
facilities; 3) recycled materials; and 4)
consumer products.
The
present policy statement by the NRC does
not reflect a decision to exempt any
material from regulatory control but
simply provides the criteria that
determine whether an exemption can be
granted. A request for exemption must
first be made. Then, after a review
process and the establishment of
appropriate constraints, if the material
satisfies the criteria, an exemption can
be granted.
According
to Robert Bernero, Director of the NRC
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, "The heart of the
guidelines are the BRC dose
criteria." The commission applied an
upper limit of 10 mrem per year exposure
to individuals involved in activities
requiring a limited number of people.
Where there is a widespread distribution
of exempt materials, the limiting
exposure is lowered by a factor of 10 to
1 mrem/yr. The collective exposure
criterion was set at 1,000 person-rem per
year. This is equivalent to one million
individuals receiving 1 mrem/yr or
100,000 individuals receiving 10 mrem/
yr.
It is
obvious that there is some level of
radioactivity in materials below which
regulation is not required and above
which it is. For example, most foods have
some radioactivity, mainly potassium-40
and carbon-14 (see Sources and
Characteristics of Ionizing Radiation,
Unit II of this curriculum). Brazil nuts
are the world’s most radioactive
food; the brazil nut endotherm has an
alpha activity from radium- 226,
radium-228, and their decay products as
high as 1.4 disintegrations per second
per gram. Some consumer products, such as
smoke detectors, lantern mantles,
luminous-dial watches, etc., also have
small amounts of radioactivity but not
enough to require regulated disposal.
Nonetheless,
the NRC announcement caused some public
and corporate concern. It will be
interesting to see how the first
applications for BRC exemptions turn out.
Source: Federal Register, Vol. 55, No.
128, July 3, 1990, P. 27522.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/pm/program_docs/curriculum/unit_1_toc/14b.pdf
|
The
same de-regulation arguments are now recycled by
a new agency with new terminology. But the
devastating public health impacts caused by
releases of radioactive materials into the
environment are unaltered. In June 1999 Federal
District Court Judge Kessler found that there was
a huge potential for environmental harm from
radioactive metal disposition. He found,
"ample evidence that the proposed recycling
significantly affects the quality of the human
environment." Judge Kessler also found that,
"plaintiffs allege and [DOE and BNFL] have
not disputed, that there is no data regarding the
process efficacy or the track record with respect
to safety." (Oil, Chemical &
Atomic Workers, et al. v. Pena, et al. 62 F.Supp.
2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999)
The Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League has done intensive
investigation of pollution at the Savannah River
Site in South Carolina. The groundwater there is
contaminated with many radionuclides including
tritium, plutonium, uranium and cesium. It is
also contaminated with solvents including
trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene, and
heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
mercury, and lead. According to the SC Department
of Health and Environmental Control, wastes are
leaking from SRS and public drinking water is
already showing signs of contamination. The
solvents in this toxic brew are accelerating the
spread of radionuclides and other hazardous
elements which would otherwise be bound in soil.
Burying mixed radioactive and hazardous wastes
together exacerbates the problem of groundwater
contamination.
Respectfully
submitted,
Louis Zeller
Blue Ridge Environmental
Defense League
PO Box 88
Glendale Springs, NC 28629
Cc:
Air and Radiation
Docket
Mail code 6102T
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460-0001.
a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov
|
