NRC seeks new rules for shipping radioactive materials
As the NRC solicits written comments from "stakeholders," and hosts a series of public meetings around the country, I wonder just how open its officials will be to the input they receive.
A bit of background might be helpful. Shortly after 9/11, the NRC and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) began thinking in new ways about the transportation of radioactive materials used for medical or industrial applications. As part of this process, the NRC reviewed the chemical, physical, and radiological characteristics of each radioactive material for its attractiveness to a terrorist, according to an NRC notice in the Federal Register on January 4.
The IAEA studied all radioactive materials and published a study, Code of Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources, which identified 16 specific radioactive materials that might pose a threat and threshold quantities of those materials which could make them useful to terrorists.
Now, the NRC wants to figure out the best way to ensure that these 16 materials are moved safely when they’re transported over land in packages, known as "casks," to or from medical institutions or industrial facilities in the U.S. The rules the NRC is contemplating will not cover air transportation (which is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration) nor maritime transportation (which is handled by the U.S. Coast Guard.) The NRC is restricting itself to surface transportation.
The new regulations will deal with matters such as verifying the recipient’s license, monitoring the position of the shipments, maintaining redundant communications and safeguarding shipment information.
The commission acknowledges that it is wrestling with several thorny questions:
Should the NRC replace its non-binding "advisories" with mandatory "orders"? Initially, the agency issued non-binding advisories to commercial operators and transportation companies that simply requested that they implement tougher security measures. "Licensees understood the need for additional security and voluntarily implemented the additional security as requested," said the NRC notice. More recently, the NRC has issued two mandatory orders that require beefed up security measures for what’s called Category 1 and Category 2 radioactive materials. Now, the agency is preparing to issue a new set of mandatory regulations.
Should the NRC use its legal authority to promote "public health and safety" or its separate authority to promote the "common defense and security"? That may sound like a pretty arcane question, but in fact it carries considerable significance. As the NRC points out, if it utilizes its "public health and safety" powers, it would need to share its authority with some of the 50 states. "If these enhancements to the regulations are issued under common defense and security, the NRC would retain its authority and would not co-regulate with the Agreement States in this area," the notice explained. I’m placing my chips on "common defense and security."
Should the NRC adopt global positioning satellite (GPS) tracking technology as a national requirement during the transportation of radioactive materials? Last April, the governor of Washington State, Chris Gregoire, submitted a petition to the NRC urging it to adopt GPS as a mandatory technology. The NRC seems to be open to this possibility. "The staff is interested in gaining a better understanding of the availability, cost and practicality of technologies that could be used to track the location of the source, package or vehicle," said the NRC notice.
To help it sort out these and other questions, the NRC has scheduled a series of public meetings around the country: January 15, 2008 in Lisle, IL; January 17 in Oakland, CA; and January 23 at the NRC facility in Rockville, MD.
After it has heard from the public and scratched its collective head for a while, the NRC hopes to issue what it calls a "technical basis" (essentially its technical findings) this Spring, its draft proposed rule in the Spring of 2009 and its final rule in 2010.
This ought to be an interesting process to follow.
- Add your comment
- trackback url: http://www.gsnmagazine.com/cms/trackback/423-2
