1. The United States does not have a formal regulatory definition of VLLW. What should the NRC consider in developing its own regulatory definition for VLLW? Is there another definition of VLLW that should be considered? Provide a basis for your response.
The NRC should not waste its and taxpayers’ resources by creating a new category within the “low-level” waste category. This is clearly an effort to reduce and remove radioactive regulatory controls which are already inadequate to protect the public and environment from man-made radioactive materials and wastes. It should be discouraging international nuclear promotion and guidance organizations, in which NRC plays very influential roles, NOT to proceed with developing a VLLW category. It disperses rather isolates the radioactivity and isolation should be the goal.
2. The existing regulatory framework within 10 CFR 61.55 divides low-level radioactive waste into four categories: Class A, Class B, Class C, and Greater Than Class C. Should the NRC revise the waste classification system to establish a new category for VLLW? What criteria should NRC consider in establishing the boundary between Class A and VLLW categories?
No. Since the NRC should not be creating the new VLLW category, there is no need to waste resources on it. Rather the NRC should use any available resources to provide greater regulatory control and to document that control as more and more nuclear facilities close and decommission.
3. The NRC’s alternative disposal request guidance entitled, “Review, Approval, and Documentation of Low-Activity Waste Disposals in Accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002 and 10 CFR 40.13(a),” which is undergoing a revision, allows for alternative disposal methods that are different from those already defined in the regulations and is most often used for burial of waste in hazardous or solid waste landfills permitted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Should the NRC expand the existing guidance to include VLLW disposal or consider the development of a new guidance for VLLW disposal? Why or why not?
No, no. It is bad enough that NRC allows radioactive waste out of radioactive control on a case by case basis as in 10 CFR 20.2002. Making this a generic approval as a new VLLW category will only make that worse and remove any opportunity for public knowledge and input by the very public that would be harmed by the re-categorization.
4. If the NRC were to create a new waste category for VLLW in 10 CFR part 61, what potential compatibility issues related to the approval of VLLW disposal by NRC Agreement States need to be considered and addressed? How might defining VLLW affect NRC Agreement State regulatory programs in terms of additional responsibilities or resources?
Members of the public and residents of agreement states appreciate the potential for states (whether an agreement state or not) to be more protective than the federal government. NRC has various compatibility levels for its regulations. The NRC should NOT make any regulations that weaken public protection, but since that is what is being considered here, NRC should not force states to do the same and should expressly clarify that states can retain requirements for radioactive regulatory control.
5. Following the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985, states formed regional compacts for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. If the NRC were to create a new waste category for VLLW, does it fall within the regional compact authority to control VLLW management and disposal? How might defining VLLW affect regional compacts in terms of additional responsibilities or resources?
Since VLLW is currently Class LLRW, states and compacts have authority. Even if NRC tries to redefine LLRW to exempt or remove radioactive controls, the states have authority over that material. If NRC wants to require states and compacts to adopt the VLLW category and release it from controls, it must go through Congress. Changing the regulations should not affect the existing states’ rights.
6. Environmental Protection Agency-imposed waste analysis requirements for facilities that generate, treat, store, and dispose of hazardous wastes are defined in 40 CFR parts 264 through 270. How would NRC incorporate and apply waste analysis requirements for VLLW at RCRA Subtitle C and D facilities? Should the NRC impose concentration limits and/or treatment standards for VLLW disposal?
The public has repeatedly, over the last 30 years, opposed and stopped the efforts to allow radioactive waste into hazardous facilities and hazardous waste into radioactive facilities.
There is no technical justification for putting radioactive materials into solid and hazardous waste facilities…it is obvious this is only being done because such facilities charge less than radioactive licensed facilities.
7. Are there any unintended consequences associated with developing a VLLW waste category?
Whether intentional or not, developing a VLLW category will disperse radioactive materials/wastes that should be isolated. A basic international principle of ionizing radiation protection is to prevent and minimize exposures. Spreading the waste to locations not even intended to manage or track radioactivity is irresponsible and a clear effort to externalize the costs of nuclear waste production. The consequences will be multiple, additive, cumulative and synergistic health effects and blatant externalization of nuclear power costs.
8. What analytical methods/tools should be used to assess the risk of disposing of VLLW at licensed LLW disposal facilities or RCRA Subtitle C and D facilities? (i.e., generic or site-specific).
We oppose any pseudo-scientific analysis, assessment or rationalization for dispersing man-made radioactivity from radioactive regulatory control.
9. How should economic factors be considered in the VLLW Scoping Study?
Until the NRC admits that there are health effects from low continuous doses of radiation, the Commission is incapable of assessing the true economic consequences (including health effects) of the wide releases and exposures that creating a VLLW category would cause. Health effects are inevitable but not tracked. Those costs to society and individuals need to be calculated and considered rather than completely ignored and denied.