BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
PO Box 88 ~
Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 ~ Phone
(336) 982-2691 ~ Fax (336) 982-2954 ~ Email:
BREDL@skybest.com
July 29, 2002
Dockets Unit
US Department of Transportation
Room PL 401
400 Seventh Street., SW
Washington, DC 20590-0001
Fax 202-493-2251
http://dms.dot.gov
Re: Docket No. RSPA-99-6283 (HM-230)
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
2 White Flint North Auditorium
11545 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Fax 301-415-1101
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov
Attn: Rulemaking re: 67 FR 21390
Comments on a proposed rule to revise
NRC's Part 71 Packaging and Transportation of
Radioactive Waste, and DOT's 49 CFR 171 et. al.
Hazardous Materials Regulations
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League with
members in Virginia, North Carolina, and South
Carolina, we submit these comments.
General Comments
We call upon the NRC and DOT to maintain and
improve the standards of radiation protection
embodied in current US law. We oppose
international harmonization with standards which
are less rigorous and less protective of public
health. Harmonization must not become an excuse
for reducing the levels of protection in present
standards. There must be no increase in radiation
exposure to the general public or transportation
workers. We call for real-world testing of all
transport package designs instead of computer
modeling. Finally, we call upon NRC and DOT to
retain double-walled Type B containers. The
introduction or expanded use of less protective
single-wall storage or transport containers is
not an acceptable alternative.
Specific Comments
Issue 1: Nuclide-specific Exemption Values
The current HMR standard of 70 Bq/g (0.002
microcuries/g) should be maintained as the
minimum standard for the protection of public
health and transport worker safety. We oppose the
replacement of this easier to monitor, specific
activity standard with an impossible complex of
radionuclide specific values per the IAEA’s
TS-R-1 for the following reasons: a) There is no
radiation risk level which is sufficiently low as
to be of no regulatory concern, b) There are no
collective radiological impacts which are
sufficiently low as to be of no regulatory
concern, and c) No one will be able to determine
if proposed exempt sources are safe.
Issue 2: Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials
Uranium and thorium levels in phosphate,
gypsum, and coal cannot be considered safe
because they are naturally occurring. From a
public health point of view, there is no need to
determine whether alpha emissions above the 70
Bq/g (0.002 microcuries/g) threshold are
naturally occurring or man-made, their effect on
somatic cells and germ cells is the same. The
NRC, DOT, and the IAEA have not made a
substantial case regarding the shipment of ores
and fossil fuels with regard to radioactive
levels of naturally occurring radionuclides.
Frankly, we doubt that such a case could be made
or that continued industrial use of these
materials requires a reduction in the HMR
standard. We hereby request that NRC and
DOT provide us their analysis of the regulatory
burden of radionuclide HMR on the fertilizer,
construction, and fossil-fuel energy industries.
Issue 3: Changes in A1
and A2 Values
The proposed shipments of radioactive wastes
to a repository should not be the occasion for a
reduction in the standards of radiation
protection during transportation. On the
contrary, the possibility of 90,000+ shipments
calls for an increased radiation protection
standard. We oppose the weakening of the present
standard.
Issue 4: Communication Changes
The words “radioactive materials”
should not be removed from shipping placards.
Many emergency response personnel are volunteers
who lack special HMR training but who could
nonetheless be called to an emergency scene.
Additional requirements notwithstanding, the
plain English warnings are unmistakable and
clearly warn first responders in less well
trained department to take appropriate steps in
the event of a transport accident. We would only
add that multiple language warnings be added for
regions where significant segments of the
population speak, for example, Spanish or French.
Issue 5: Low Specific Activity Materials
ands Surface Contaminate Objects
We oppose creating a new class of
radionuclides shipments in which the activity is
distributed throughout the material and in which
the specific activity does not exceed 30 times
the activity concentration exemption levels. The
admittedly large volume and/or size of LSA and
SCO materials calls for continued reliance on
industrial packages, with appropriate and
necessary safeguards.
Issue 6: Uranium Hexafluoride
We oppose the relaxation of testing for
radioactive transport containers. TS-R-1 allows a
national regulatory authority to waive the
thermal test for packages designed to hold more
than 9000 kilograms of UF6. The drop
test, minimum internal pressure test, and the
hypothetical accident condition test must be
accompanied by the thermal test for assurance of
public protection in the event of an accident.
Issue 7: Air Transportation Requirements
Air transport of plutonium and other
radionuclide should be prohibited under any
circumstances. Low Dispersible Materials is a
faulty concept with regard to air transport and
should be abandoned.
Issue 8: Fissile Material Package and
Transport Requirements
Transport and storage on so-called spent
nuclear fuel and fissile materials should not be
“harmonized” with a watered down
international standard. The Type B(DP) package as
proposed does not provide an adequate level of
public protection from radiation hazards.
In closing, I request that your agencies
inform me before any action is taken on the
matters outlined in these comments.
Respectfully submitted,
Louis Zeller
Nuclear Campaign Coordinator
|
