The Nuclear Information and Resource Service appreciates the chance to speak directly to the Commissioners regarding the proposed transportation regulation changes.

We support protective regulation of nuclear transport. Our position is that, because of the inherent dangers of transporting nuclear materials, such shipments should be limited and prevented rather than encouraged.

REGARDING TSR-1 and EXEMPTION Concentrations and Quantities:

We oppose adoption of TSR-1 (ST-1) particularly because it sets exempt quantities and increases exempt concentrations for radioactive transport.

The exemptions in columns 3 and 4 of the A-1/A-2 tables are new and constitute a side-door attempt to set BRC or radioactive "release"/ "clearance"/ dispersal into commerce - levels. We continue to support regulatory control over the isolation of radioactive materials from the public and environment, including the deliberate permission and introduction of radioactive contamination into commerce and unregulated disposal at any level above existing natural background.

Currently, DOT and NRC and international regulations, (consistent with SS 6) allow radioactive materials that have less than 70 becquerels of all radioactive isotopes per gram to be exempt from transport regulation. The new regulations proposed will increase, in some cases dramatically, the amount of radioactive concentration allowed in commerce unregulated. Despite the rationalization that the isotope-specific concentration levels are "more scientifically based" the exempt concentrations go up for most of the radionuclides. We have no problem with reducing the concentrations that are exempt, but it is inconsistent with the basis principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable to increase exemptions.

If the goal is minimizing public risk, and it is not clear that that is NRC’s goal, these new, higher concentrations do just the opposite.

Furthermore, Column 4 sets exempt amounts of contamination per consignment. This has never been part of the transport regulation and is new, completely unjustified additional risk, dose and exposure to the public, unregulated.

At a minimum the exemption portions of the TSR-1 should be deleted from whatever NRC adopts.

REGARDING NRC’s proposed changes to CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE (not a part of TSR-1):

We oppose the proposal by NRC to allow changes to be made to transport casks after they have received a Certificate of Compliance, without notifying NRC or getting documented, evaluated approval by NRC.

This is the case for dry storage casks and has resulted in problems. An example is the VSC 24 cask at Palisades which had shims placed in the plug. The problems with that cask and heatup continue.

We recommend requiring all design changes to be approved after documented evaluation by NRC for both transport and storage casks.

Diane D’Arrigo, Mary Olson, NIRS April 9, 2001