202.328.0002; fax: 202.462.2183; nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) is asking for the public’s opinion. I have provided the Commissioners with opposition statements from over a hundred organizations.

We repeat—We do not want ANY MORE exposure from the nuclear power and weapons fuel chain. That means that we want the source, byproduct and special nuclear material now under the control of governments and industries to remain regulated, monitored, isolated from general commerce for as long as it remains radioactively and/or chemically hazardous.

We are responding to your desire for public input by calling for you to require continued care of the radioactive wastes and materials that have been created and to isolate them. You do not have our permission to release or to stop holding radioactive wastes and materials in a condition that prevents public exposures. NRC’s job is to prevent exposures to the public and environment.

Environmental organizations and much of the public did not participate in the NRC’s workshops because of the predetermined outcome to allow radioactive materials to be released from regulatory control into general commerce and regular trash, as stated in the NRC’s June 1998 Staff Requirements Memo directing staff to come up with a standard that "allows quantities of materials to be released," prohibits a "detectability standard, and codifies "clearance levels above background."

After the bitter experience of participating in the NRC’s "enhanced rulemaking" on decommissioning standards, it does not appear that our voices are being heard or taken at all seriously. They still are not. Not one level of this Commission is capable of articulating even a theoretical plan that would prevent radioactive wastes and materials from being deregulated and released into daily commerce and normal trash. SECY-00-0070, March 23, 2000 appendix 1 page 1 lists the US NRC’s options: make a rule to release radioactive materials or continue releasing under the current provisions with a possible "update" of those provisions. Both avenues mean continuing and increased radioactive materials and wastes being released/recycled.

Punting public attention to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a waste of tax-dollars, time and the public’s attention. It was admitted last week at the staff briefing that the purpose of the NAS study is to divert attention from the US NRC while NRC continues to "develop a technical basis" for recycling and releasing atomic waste into everyday household items. The public deserves to know the missions and potential conflicts of interest of those agencies, organizations and contractors on whom you rely for that technical basis.

Be forewarned that the NAS does not have the prestigious reputation that you might hope regarding radioactive waste and radiation issues. In my years of observation I have witnessed a pattern of bias, imbalance and secrecy by the panels and staff carrying out studies on Ward Valley, Yucca Mountain, so-called "low-level" radioactive waste siting in New York State, which were the subject of letters from federal and state legislators and members of the National Academy itself to the president of the NAS. The current panel on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VII), reassessing radiation health effects, is under international scrutiny and criticism for imbalance, conflicts of interest and secrecy, which could result in the federal agencies being prohibiting from using their conclusions when they come out. We have grave concerns another ongoing NAS study on "low-level" radioactive waste. The 1968 restructuring of the section of the NAS that works on radioactive waste resulted in more sympathy to the Atomic Energy Commission, whose mission was to promote nuclear power. That sympathy toward the nuclear industry continues today in the attitude and makeup the committees and panels and in the procedures behind closed doors.

The NAS Board proposed to carry out the US NRC’s project on radioactive recycling has already produced a report (NAS BEES report 1996, "Affordable Cleanup?" pages 129 and 134) which recommends that …" DOE and regulatory authorities [to] set free-release standards quickly and permit recycling of recovered metals (within DOE complex or for sale to the commercial market) where economically feasible," and states that "A DOE commitment to permit such release once the new criteria have been approved is essential."

The NAS procedures are highly secretive and will not result in the openness and impartiality US NRC might be seeking to evaluate the proposed standards and radioactive release options. Exactly how will the NAS committee evaluate public opposition to unnecessary exposures if it proceeds?

We oppose the proposed NAS /US NRC contract and call on NRC to move directly to prohibiting releases and recycling of radioactive wastes into commerce.

One of the unconscionable ways the US NRC is attempting to justify setting standards legalizing recycling of nuclear waste into commerce is by pointing to international efforts to do so. The fact is the US NRC and nuclear industry are major promoters of those international standards. The international bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the European Commission section on nuclear power, Euratom, the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD are all nuclear power promoters by definition and mission statement. US NRC directing the NAS to review their proposals does nothing to assuage public opposition to unnecessary exposure from release and recycling of atomic power and weapons wastes.

Conflicts of Interest

Once US NRC was forced to look at its contractor for technical support, Scientific Applications International Corp. (SAIC), their blatant conflict of interest required the contract be stopped. But NRC appears to continue to rely on the data from their work over many years to justify radioactive waste recycling into the marketplace.

Has the US NRC evaluated the potential conflicts with its other contractors [ICF, DOE’s Environmental Measurements Lab and Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education (ORISE) and any others]? The reliance on international pro-nuclear agencies is also highly questionable. Asking the NAS, which has its own nuclear propensities to review the work is not the next best step for the US NRC.

An ironic point is that recycling has a very positive connotation by the public right now but contamination of recycling streams with nuclear waste at any level threatens that important step the public has made toward resource conservation.

We are frustrated with the refusal by this commission at every level to do what it is charged to do: protect us from ionizing radiation from Source, Byproduct and Special Nuclear Materials from nuclear power and weapons. We encourage NRC to prohibit radioactive release and recycling into commerce and normal trash. We support state and local authority to set stricter, more protective standards than federal. Finally, we encourage our federal agencies to call on other nations and international agencies to prohibit, not legalize radioactive release, clearance and recycling into commerce.