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

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 20^th 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.

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.