PUBLIC SUBMISSIONAs of: 7/31/20 9:57 AMReceived: July 20, 2020Status: Pending_PostTracking No. 1k4-9hx8-nz9gComments Due: October 21, 2020Submission Type: Web

Docket: NRC-2020-0065Transfer of Very Low-Level Waste to Exempt Persons for Disposal

Comment On: NRC-2020-0065-0001Transfer of Very Low-Level Waste to Exempt Persons for Disposal

Document: NRC-2020-0065-DRAFT-0159Comment on FR Doc # 2020-04506

Submitter InformationName: Anonymous Anonymous

General CommentSee attached file(s)

AttachmentsComments edited 1 on NRC Interpretive Rule on VLLW NRC-2020-0065

Page 1 of 1

07/31/2020https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006484788693&format=xml&showorig=false

SUNSI Review Complete Template = ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Marlayna Doell

COMMENT (154)PUBLICATION DATE: 3/6/2020CITATION 85 FR 13076

Comments on NRC Interpretive Rule on VLLW

NRC-2020-0065

While not inimical to the public health and safety, a 25 mrem/yr standard for disposal outside of the

controls of low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) is not in accord with international norms, which for the

most part, are consistent with, or lower than, the exempt values (concentration or consignment activity)

above which materials must be regulated as hazardous Class 7 radioactive materials in transport. In other

jurisdictions, licensees may also propose limits based on a one (1) mrem/yr dose to the theoretical

maximally exposed individual. For example, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) regulations

SOR-2007-207, 5.1(1) adopts both criteria. Several countries have adopted similar standards for

unregulated disposal or unrestricted release of very low levels of radioactive materials. Over the past few

years, the European Union (EU) has taken the initiative to lower their criteria for unregulated radioactive

materials and waste. A one (1) mrem/yr standard would be more in line with release and disposal

practices found outside of NRC jurisdiction.

NRC implies that their interpretation would only apply to a small fraction of the existing Class A LLRW.

However, the 25 mrem/yr standard is the same standard that is currently applied to LLRW burial facilities.

See 10 CFR Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste, §61.41, Protection of

the General Population from Releases of Radioactivity, which states:

Concentrations of radioactive material which may be released to the general environment in groundwater, surface

water, air, soil, plants, or animals must not result in an annual dose exceeding an equivalent of 25 M1LLIREMS to the

whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the public. Reasonable

effort should be made to maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as is

reasonably achievable. [Capitalization added for emphasis.]

The NRC has not explained why the interpretive rule, if finalized, would not accommodate the disposal of

the majority of Class A Low-Level Radioactive (LLRW) waste materials, given that such materials are

subject to the same dose criterion. For perspective, the United States Department of Transportation

(DOT) exempt concentration is the concentration of radioactive materials below which materials are not

regulated as Hazardous Materials in transportation. For Cobalt-60 (Co-60), the exempt concentration is

ten (10) Becquerels per gram (Bq/g). The twenty-five (25) mrem/yr standard would allow for the disposal

of several times this concentration outside of the regulation and oversight as radioactive waste — and

arguably, up to the limit of Class A LLRW; for Co-60, nearly 26 million (25,900,000) Bq/g assuming a density

of 1 g/cc. Note: International exempt concentration values are identical to US DOT exempt concentration

values. For an international reference, please refer to International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA),

Safety Standards for Protecting People and the Environment, Regulations for the Safe Transport of

Radioactive Materials, 2018 Edition, Specific Safety Requirements No. SSR-6.

The NRC has provided 2407 pages of guidance and direction regarding the same 25 mrem/yr criteria for

facility decommissioning (1058 pages in NUREG-1575, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site

Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), and 1349 pages in NUREG-1757, Consolidated Decommissioning

Guidance). Yet, the NRC provides only two paragraphs of interpretive guidance on the disposal of

radioactive materials in municipal landfills. It is expected that NRC will eventually provide additional detail

in subsequent guidance. However, the details of subsequent guidance and further information are

needed prior to the approval of the rule so that the regulated community can provide meaningful

feedback. A normal rulemaking process would likely result in the provision of substantial additional

information.

The NRC specifies that applicants must include a 'sensitivity and uncertainty analyses" in their submission

for an exemption allowing the disposal of VLLW in a municipal landfill. Additional rigor is required so that

subjective review and interpretation of submitted information does not occur. Accordingly, we conclude

that there is insufficient information to assess whether or not safety margins accounting for errors in

pathway analysis, dose modeling, input assumptions, unforeseen situations, accident scenarios, or

analytical errors are adequately protective of the public health and safety.

Currently, adequate disposal capacity exists for low-level radioactive waste. The interpretive rule process

is a seldom-used accelerated process. In fact, a search of the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and

Management System (ADAMS) does not return any meaningful results for "interpretive rule"[s] aside from

the commentary on the instant interpretive rulemaking. That begs the question as to where the

repository of interpretive rules is kept so that members of the regulated community and the public can

find the rules when necessary. The proper use of interpretive rulemaking is to provide the long-standing

accepted interpretation of an existing rule, not to change and replace the current interpretation of an

existing rule. In this case, NRC is changing the prior interpretation as to who may apply for an exemption

under 10 CFR §30.11, 40.14, and 70.17. Changing the long-standing interpretation changes the rule. This

proposed interpretive rule changes what licensees legally can do. Therefore, the newly created avenues

for disposal of radioactive material should be the subject of formal rulemaking, not a mere interpretation.

The NRC must not implement such a drastic change of a long-held policy involving its low-level radioactive

waste disposal regulations without a formal rulemaking process. If the NRC wishes to change its rule

interpretation, it is appropriate and best-handled through an official rulemaking petition with all the

controls and protections afforded thereto. This extreme divergence — in both the policy and process —

damages the credibility of the NRC with the public, and we do not believe such a change should be made

by interpretation.