REGIONAL RADIATION PROGRAMS PRESENT AND FUTURE Analytic Center Region VIII November 1931 ------- EPA REGIONAL RADIATION PROGRAMS PRESENT AND FUTURE Analytic Center Region VIII November 1981 ------- Ack nowledgements This report was prepared by the Region VIII Analytic Centor at re,u«t of EPA's Office of Alr, Noise aSd Lynn Householder are the principal investigators and authors We wish tn thank the following EPA individuals for their contributions!' Dwain Winters, OANR Ken Travis, ORP Byron Keene, Region 1 Joyce Feldman, Region 2 David Langford and Lou Felleisen, Region 3 Richard Payne, Region 4 Pete Tedeschi, Region 5 Hank May, Region 6 William Brinek, Region 7 John Giedt and Paul Wagner, Region 8 David Duncan, Region 9 Edward Cowan, Region 10 In addition we wish to thank the following state radiation representatives for information they provided during the course of the study. Robert Hallisey, Massuchusetts Bernard Heald, New York Margaret Re illy, Pennsylvania U1ray Clark, Florida Maury Neuweg, Illinois Ken Miller, Missouri Ted Wolff, New Mexico A1 Hazle, Colorado Joseph Ward, California Terry Strong, Washington i ------- Table of Contents Acknowledgments i Executive Sunmary iii I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. REGIONAL RADIATION ACTIVITIES: Present and Future 2 A. Prevention/Planning Responsibilities 4 1. Radiological Emergency Response Plans 4 2. Environmental Impact Statements 12 B. Regulatory/Implementation Responsibilities 15 1. Standard Setting and Guidance Development 15 2. Implementation of Regulations (Permits and Enforcement) 18 3. Remedial Actions and Imminent Hazards 21 C. Technical/Information Services 24 1. State Assistance 24 2. EPA (Intra-agency Assistance) 27 3. Assistance to Other Federal Agencies 29 4. Public Response 31 III. PRESENT AND FUTURE PRIORITIES 32 APPENDICES 35 1. EPA's Mandates and Legal Authorities 37 2. Responsibilities of Other Federal Agencies 43 3. Unit Pricing Model: Regional Radiation Program i i ------- Executive Sunmary EFA's primary mission with respect to radiation is to protect the public from the adverse effects of radiation exposure. EPA's principal means of accomplishing this goal is through the development of radiation standards and guidance which are implemented and enforced by the EPA regional offices as well as many other federal, state, and local agencies. The radiation staffs in the regions help the other regional EPA programs and local/state/federal agencies carryout their respective programs so that the nation's health objectives, with respect to radiation, can be achieved. Presently, each region is allotted 1 to 2 positions to carry out its responsibilities. Within the EPA regional offices, the radiation staffs are the focal point for all activity related to radiation. All the major EPA programs (air, water, hazardous/solid waste, drinking water, and underground injection control) rely on the radiation staff for assistance on matters involving 1) radiation standards and guidance; 2) issuance and enforcement of permits having specific limits for radiological emissions; 3) EPA's implementation of radiological regulations; and 4) discovery, assessment, and clean-up of radiation hazards. The regional radiation staffs advise the states on standards and guidance issues, conduct studies with or for the state, help the state develop radiological emergency response plans, and provide the states a focal point for the exchange of information with EPA and other states. Most of the ten states contacted during the study were satisfied with the assistance they receive from the regions. Five states thought the regions' service to the states could be expanded and that their state would use the region more often if the region had a broader mix of disciplines and more expertise on certain subjects. The radiation staffs interact with other federal agencies primarily through the review of environmental impact statements and as members of a federal inter-agency committee which reviews and tests radiological emergency response plans. Less frequent contact occurs between the regional radiation staffs and other federal agencies through ad hoc or inter-agency committees. Presently the regions have little or no responsibility to oversee other federal agency activities even though most of the standards and guidance which EPA develops for radiation is implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and the Bureau of Radiological Health. ------- Many things are on the horizon which will affect the regions' workload and emphasis during the next few years. Each of these factors and how it is likely to affect the regions is highlighted below: o The Administration's desire for rapid expansion of nuclear power industry in the United States will require the regions to place priority on radiological emergency response planning and environmental impact statement reviews. The regions also will need to increase their knowledge about decommissioning and decontamination of nuclear facilities and become authorities on acceptable practices for disposing of radiological wastes. o EPA's and the Administration's policy to delegate as many programs as possible to the States will require the regions to adjust the technical assistance they presently provide to satisfy more of the states' needs and less of EPA's needs. This shift may require some regions to develop additional skills which are presently lacking 1n regional offices. o The Agency's desire to correlate EPA activities with environmental results may require the regions to expand their oversight responsibilities to include more data gathering and analysis, on-site inspections and compliance determinations. Headquarters should consider establishing a carefully designed pilot program in the regions which would test the feasibility of using the regions in such an oversight role. o Several standards, regulations, and guidance packages are scheduled to take effect over the next five years which will require regional scrutiny and assistance if they are to be successfully implemented in the regions. The challenge confronting the regions the next five years 1s one of adjustment to new priorities and demands while continuing to respond to existing priorities and demands with relatively small staffs and budgets. To adequately meet this challenge will require the regions to 1) further focus their efforts, 2) develop additional skills and refine existing ones, and 3) market and deliver their services to respond to the major needs of their clients. Several suggestions are offered which should help the regions respond to the pressing demands placed on them. First, the regional radiation staffs should spot check the majority of EISs and exhaustively review only those they have a major concern about or which are stategically preselected. Second, every region should develop at least one speciality area in which other regions, headquarters, and other state/federal agencies will recognize iv ------- the region has expertise. This special area of expertise should be selected based on the types of assistance predominantly needed by the states within each EPA region. EPA-Headquarters should establish as a national priority the training of the regional staffs so that the regions can effectively meet the needs of their respective states. Third, the regions' review and testing of radiological emergency response plans (RERPs) should be limited to the key elements for which EPA has responsibility. Fourth, EPA-Headquarters should work with FEMA to resolve the issue of how many tests the regional radiation staffs need to participate in each year. Finally, the regions need to be involved earlier in the EIS and RERP processes so that potential problems can be avoided and so that the radiation staffs can manage their time more effectively by projecting future workloads and assigning priority to each project. Projects which have fewer potential impacts on public health and the environment should receive a lower priority. National priorities for the regional radiation program are unlikely to change in the next five years. RERPs and EISs will continue to receive a high priority, especially since each are part of Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) licensing process for nuclear facilities. EPA's highest priority for the regions should be to establish a process which will protect the public and the environment without prolonging the amount of time required to obtain a license. v ------- I. INTRODUCTION Radiation programs have existed in the ten EPA regions since the agency was formed (See Appendix 1 for a history of EPA's radiation program). Except for the people working in the program, only a few EPA managers know much about the functions of the regional radiation staff. This report describes the radiation activities of the collective ten regions and considers what the regions will and should be doing 1n the future. The discussion of each activity is divided into two parts. The first part answers the question, "What are the regions' current roles, responsibilities, and activities with respect to radiation?" The second addresses the issue of "What should the role and responsibilities of the regions be in the future?" With respect to the first question, major activities are described in terms of how they relate to: 1) activities of EPA, other Federal agencies, states and local agencies, and industry; 2) EPA's legal mandates; and 3) the radiation sources the activity is intended to address. A complete presentation of EPA's authorities and responsibilities and those of other Federal agencies appears in the Appendices to this report. Regarding the second question, each of the existing activities is evaluated, briefly, 1n terms of how it contributes to the achievement of the nation's environmental and health objectives, and how it responds to the agency's legal mandates and policies. A three-step process was followed in order to complete the evaluation. First, the regions' future role for each activity is identified. Second, assuming that every region has adequate staff, obstacles are identified which interfere with the regions' ability to effectively fulfill their role and carry out their responsibilities. Finally, suggestions are offered to correct some of the deficiencies identified under Step 2. Although the conclusions and recommendations of this report have budget and human resources implications, this report does not evaluate the effect of existing or future resources on the success of the regions nor does it make any recormiendations regarding the total resources allocated to the regions. Presently each region is allotted 1 to 2 positions to carry out the responsibilities described in the following chapter. 1 ------- II. REGIONAL RADIATION ACTIVITIES: Present and Future Table 1 shows how the ten regions differ in terms of the problems and radiation sources which most concern them or which require the greatest amount of time to address. Due to these differences some variation exists among the regions in terms of the type of activity and level of effort devoted to each activity described below. The following description does not distinguish between the specific problems of each region, nor does it discuss the amount of time each region spends on each activity. Rather what follows is a composite description of the activities of all ten regions. The regions, in cooperation with headquarters, have developed region specific workload models which generally reflect the amount of time each region devotes to certain activities. This study does not evaluate the workload models and does not reconmend changes to the resources allocated to the regions. The effect that future changes will have on the regions' workload is identified generally (i.e., increased versus decreased workload). The study is to help managers within EPA to better understand the breadth and complexity of the activities presently performed in the regions so that they can better judge the value of the regional radiation programs in comparison to other EPA programs. Frequently, examples are used to illustrate the kinds of specific sources or activities the regional radiation programs address or undertake. These examples are representative only and are not intended to give special preference or treatment to any single region. The following discussion is organized under three headings: prevention/planning responsibilities, regulatory responsibilities, and technical/information services. Under each of these headings several major activities or groupings of activities are described. The description covers existing activities and identifies changes anticipated in the future. 2 ------- TABLE 1 RADIATION SOURCES AND HAZARDS CF MAJOR CONCERN TO THE REGIONS SOURCES/HAZARDS I II III REGION IV V VI VII VIII IX Radiation Wastes Disposal Sites: Low Level X X High Level X Ocean Oumping Transportation Nuclear Facilities RERPs oso* Nuclear Weapon Storage/ Manufacturing Tailings Uranium M1n1ng/M1ll1ng Phosphate Mining/Milling Radioactive Construction Materials Other Sources/Hazards Coal Power Plants (radioactive emissions) Uranium Exploration Radioactivity In Drinking Water X X X x X Abandoned Radiation Sites (e.g. radium processing) X X Processing of Uranlferous Minerals Non-ioniz1na Radiation X X X X ~Decommissioning and Decontamination Source: The Information 1n this Table was put together from various reports and information provided by the regions in written and oral form. ------- A. Prevention/Planning Responsibilities Prevention/planning refers to those activities which help avoid or minimize future radiation problems. Most of the regions' activities fall into the categories of emergency response plans and environmental impact statements. 1. Radiological Emergency Response Plans a. Present Program: The regional radiation staffs are involved in planning for and responding to emergencies where radiation is accidentally released into the environment. Regional radiation staffs help develop and implement two kinds of emergency response plans. The first are Radiological Emergency Response Plans (RERPs), which are prepared generally under the authority of the Disaster Relief and Civil Defense Acts and more specifically under regulations promulgated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA regulations (44 CFR 351) assign specific responsibilities to EPA and other federal agencies for radiological emergency response planning. The second kind of plans are regional environmental emergency response plans which include regional "Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plans" (prepared under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act) as well as other regional contingency plans. Together these plans cover any emergencies which involve radioactive materials and vrfiich are not covered by RERPs. (1) RERPs RERPs are written for nuclear facilities (i.e., nuclear power plants, nuclear weapons facilities, training and research reactors, and other nuclear fuel cycle facilities) and also for transportation of nuclear materials. These plans cover both on-site and off-site consequences of radiation releases from nuclear facilities. The owner and/or operator of the facility prepares a plan addressing on-site consequences at the facility. State and local governments have responsibility for preparing plans to address the off-site consequences. The combination of these plans constitutes the RERP for a single facility. (a) Responding to an Emergency The state and local governments have primary responsibility for implementing RERPs and for protecting the public during a radiological emergency. EPA and other federal agencies determine a state's capacity for responding to an emergency and retain independent authority to act if the state does not or cannot adequately 4 ------- respond to the emergency. Federal agencies other than NRC, FEMA and EPA which also have significant RERP responsibilities are: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Agriculture, and Department of Commerce. If needed, each of these agencies supplement the state's efforts during an emergency. During an actual emergency, the EPA regional radiation representatives 1) serve as technical advisors on public health issues to federal, state, local, and industry officials, 2) are responsible for contacting personnel 1n EPA-Headquarters and EPA laboratories, 3) coordinate requests from the state for EPA assistance, and 4) review the off-site monitoring efforts of other agencies. Except for transportation accidents only a few radiological emergencies have occurred which required regional response. Most of the radiation staffs' time under the emergency response activity is spent preparing for radiological emergencies through reviewing and testing of emergency response plans. (b) Planning for an Emergency The regional radiation representatives are members of Regional Assistance Committees (RACs). These coirniittees were established by regulation (44 CFR 351) and are composed of representatives from each of the federal agencies having radiological emergency response responsibility. The RACs help state and local officials develop their emergency plan and review and test the adequacy of the plan. Once a plan is approved by the RAC it is forwarded to FEMA and a national interagency committee for approval. Approval of the RERP is one step in obtaining a NRC license to operate a nuclear facility. Each of the nine Federal members of the RAC has responsibility for reviewing and testing specific aspects of a RERP. Within EPA the regional radiation staffs have the sole responsibility for reviewing and testing RERPs. The most important aspects of the radiation staffs' review are to ensure that: 1) EPA can provide the services identified for EPA in the plan; 2) state and local officials will receive the information they need and can understand in order to decide upon and take protective action; 3) inmediate and long term off-site monitoring is adequate to assess the public health consequences of an accident; 4) the plan is compatible with EPA's standards and protective action guides (PAGs); and 5) the plan will protect the public during an emergency. Other responsibilities of the radiation staff related to the above include seeing that competent individuals are assigned the task of deciding what actions are required to protect the public, and making sure that the plan provides for adequate decontamination 5 ------- procedures, for documentation of health effects, for criteria to decide when an area is safe, and for post-accident operations to evaluate long term health effects. Some states have requested RAC assistance in preparing the radiological elements of their statewide emergency response plan. Generally, in these cases the EPA representative helps the state write that part of the plan which is based on EPA's protective action guides and other criteria. (c) Testing the Emergency Response Plan Tests are conducted to detect shortcomings in each plan and to assess the actual preparedness of the response teams. FEMA requires RAC members to attend each major drill (i.e., one test per reactor site per year). EPA-Headquarters has recommended that the regions participate in every state exercise which may amount to one or more tests per state per year. Testing of the plan involves preparing for the test, participating in the drill, and follow-up once the drill is completed. Preparation for a test requires the regional radiation representatives to review all test scenarios and comment on the adequacy of the monitoring and public exposure aspects of the scenario. When requested by a state, the regional staff may write parts of the test scenario. At least one radiation representative has written that part of the test scenario addressing public health effects and off-site monitoring. During the drill the radiation representatives check the emergency response procedures and comnuni cat ions network to see that information is transmitted according to the plan, that necessary people and equipment are available, and that decisions can be made quickly on the basis of available information. In addition to testing the emergency response system, states also conduct practice drills for the response teams to actually perform the operations as they would 1n an emergency. Some drills do not require the radiation representative's involvement (e.g., evacuation drills), while others (e.g., monitoring and health physics assessment drills) require staff participation in the practice drill as an on-the-scene-observer. As an observer, the EPA representative pays particular attention to the execution of off-site monitoring activities and the assessment of impacts on public health. A full-scale test can last 2 to 3 days. As part of the test the regional radiation staff member fills out extensive EPA and FEMA forms answering many specific questions about the success of the test. EPA observers submit to FEMA their findings with recommendations for change. At a meeting of the RAC, each agency's comments and recommendations are discussed. If the RAC accepts the recommendations, they are forwarded to the state or local agency for their use in revising or improving the RERP. If the state revises the RERP, the revised plan is submitted to RAC for its review and approval. 6 ------- The review and testing of these plans require contact with several private, local, state, and federal groups. One region estimated it maintained working level contact with 6 states, 60 conmunities, and 6 federal agencies in carrying out its RERP responsibilities. (2) Other Emergency Plans In addition to RERPs, the regions have developed other environmental emergency response plans which identify what the regions and states will do to clean up and contain all spills and releases of hazardous substances. Unless requested, the regional radiation respresentatives do not review these plans since they do not exclusively or specifically address radiation related accidents. If a spill includes radioactive material, the regional coordinator for spill prevention usually will contact the radiation staff for assistance, since the spill prevention staff is unfamiliar with radiation problems and controls. As members of the regional response team, the radiation staff assesses how serious the problem is and suggest ways to clean up, isolate, or contain the spill. Occasionally a radiation staff member serves as an on-scene coordinator for clean-up of a radioactive spill. One region has a mobile radiation laboratory which is used to respond to spills in sparsely populated areas. Summary: The regions' primary responsibilities with respect to radiological emergencies are to: 1) help states develop their radiological emergency response plans; 2) review and test RERPs to determine if they adequately address public health and environmental protection issues; 3) provide advice and technical assistance to the emergency response teams which are activated during a radiological emergency; and 4) ensure that the short and long term consequences to public health and the environment are minimized. 7 ------- b. Future Program: This discussion focuses on RERPs since no changes are anticipated in the regions' Involvement in "other emergency planning" activities. RERPs should be designed to provide maximum protection for the public during a nuclear accident. The regions' role in ensuring that RERPs provide this protection probably will not change. Several factors will affect the regions' emergency response plaming and testing workload over the next five years. Approximately 99 nuclear power units at 45 new sites are 1n some stage of planning for which an emergency response plan must be prepared (see Table 2). If the new administration is successful in shortening the permitting and licensing process for nuclear power plants, it is possible that about 70 units will require review of their plan within the next five years. Using the Unit Pricing Model developed by Headquarters for the regional radiation programs (see Appendix 3) the review of 70 RERPs represents about 8.5 workyears of effort. The workload projection for testing RERPs depends very much on the frequency of the tests required. One test per nuclear power plant site would require five workyears of effort in 1982. This estimate would increase to about ten workyears 1n 1986. In comparison if the regions participate in one test per state per year, the annual workload equals 2.6 workyears for 1982 which will Increase to 3.5 workyears in 1986. Regardless of which frequency one adopts, the regions will be spending more time testing plans (a minimum of 2.5 to 3.5 workyears per year) than they will devote to the review of plans (2-3 workyears per year). The above estimates do not account for time spent reviewing and testing plans prepared for facilities other than nuclear power plants. They also do not account for facilities requiring more than one EPA region to review and/or participate in the test, or which are covered by more than one state plan (RERP); nor do they include an estimate for the review of plan revisions. Some regions estimate that multi-state RERPs and multi-regional reviews more than double the RERP workload in their region. If 1.5 workyears per year is allowed for these activities, RERP reviews and tests represent 40 to 50 percent of the regions' allocation of 16 people for the next five years. Due to their hazardous nature, radioactive waste disposal facilities and uranium mills probably will require RERPs in the future. These changes would greatly increase the workload of those regions which presently do not have many nuclear facilities for which RERPs are required (see Table 2). NRC is now developing regulations which would require a RERP for all uranium mills. 8 ------- TABLE 2 Distribution of Nuclear Facilities Region by Region Nuclear Power Plants a/ DOE Uranium (a) (b) Waste Disposal Production Existing Planned and Storage Centers as Region Units/Sites Units/Sites Facilities b/ of 1977 c/ I 7/6 4/1 0 0 II 7/1 5/2 1 0 III 12/7 5/2 0 0 IV 16/9 38/16 6 3 V 19/12 19/11 2 0 VI 2/1 8/5 3 17 VII 3/3 4/3 1 0 VIII 1/1 0/0 3 19 IX 3/3 7/2 2 0 X 2/2 9/3 _2 _2 ll 72/15 99/45 20 41 a/ Nuclear News, August 1981, pp 98-103 b/ Regulation of Federal Radioactive Waste Activities, NRC, Sept, 1979 pp A-2 to A-14 c/ Uranium Mining and Milling, Administrator's Guide, EPA, May, 1978 pg 2-24 (Several mines and mills have closed during the past year due to economic considerations. No current data exists in public sources which updates these figures.) 9 ------- If nuclear power production increases, as projected under this Administration, there could be a similar increase in minor accidents. New medical and industrial uses for radioactive materials may also increase minor accidents. Most states will continue to take care of such things as spills quite competently. Nevertheless EPA involvement, at least as an observer/advisor, is often desirable in terms of both reassuring the public that proper action is being taken and accumulating experience which can then be passed on to others. There are some states which do not have the equipment and expertise to take care of small accidents unaided. Transportation accidents are now and will probably continue to be the most common accidents. Although transportation accidents are usually minor, procedures for them need to be improved, and the region should help make these changes. The Administrator's guidance stresses the importance of RERP review and testing. The plans are an important part of the state and local governments' preparation for a major nuclear catastrophe should certain low probability, high consequence accidents occur. The public is very concerned about such accidents; RERPs are required prior to licensing nuclear power plants, so efficient development of the plans is vital to any expansion of nuclear generating capacity. The regions play an important role in making sure the plans and tests are sufficient, which is a contributing factor in building public confidence in community or state emergency response capacity. EPA Headquarters has recently provided the regions with guidance for conducting RERP reviews and tests. This guidance was developed jointly by the regions and EPA Headquarters and should enable the regions to increase their efficiency and effectiveness 1n reviewing and testing RERPs. The effectiveness of the regions also would improve if they participated more in the process as RERPs are under development rather than after they are submitted to RAC for review. One function which would be natural for the regions to fulfill is oversight of the offsite monitoring activities during an accident or for monitoring drills. Many regions expressed a need for more training before they would be comfortable fulfilling this role. Consequently, these regions are relying on the EPA laboratories or other agencies to oversee offsite monitoring activities, and the regions are uncertain what exactly their role should be, if any. Oversight should include 1) ensuring that the agencies responsible for collecting and analyzing offsite data are equipped to do so and are complying with quality assurance requirements; 2) helping to select monitoring sites and interpreting data; and 3) directing certain activities if requested. Headquarters should clarify the regions' role with respect to offsite monitoring and should provide training to the regions needing it. 10 ------- Because radiological emergencies cannot be predicted, there exists in most regions the possibility that the radiation staff will not be available to provide assistance or fulfill their responsibilities when an accident happens. This problem may or may not be serious depending on the circumstances of the accident and the capacity of state and local government to respond. This problem is not nearly as great in those regions having two staff members. However, in those regions having more than one radiation professional it is Important that each member participate in an equal number of tests per year and that all members are familiar with the emergency response procedures and responsibilities of the region. Because only a few tests have been conducted in each region it was not apparent during the study that this is a problem. Headquarters has not recognized this as a potential problem in its guidance to the regions and should, in future revisions to the guidance, recommend that all members of the staff participate in tests and be familiar with the region's responsibilities and procedures. 11 ------- 2. Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Present Program; EPA's authority for reviewing EISs prepared for or by other federal agencies is derived from the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act which requires federal agencies proposing legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment to consult with agencies (such as EPA) having "jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved." The courts have held that EPA has an obligation to review all EISs prepared by other federal agencies. EISs describe the social, economic, and environmental consequences which are expected to result from implementing a proposed project or activity. The statement usually includes a plan for minimizing these impacts and evaluates other options to the selected project or activity. EISs vtfiich the regional radiation staffs review can be 1) site and area specific, 2) written on a proposed regulation, or 3) for a broad category of activity. Site and area specific EISs come primarily from NRC, DOE, and DOD. NRC must write an EIS before issuing a major license (for any fuel cycle activity including uranium mining, milling and enrichment, fuel manufacture, power production, and waste disposal). Similarly, DOE before constructing, re-opening, or decommissioning a nuclear facility (such as those for power production, weapons manufacture, waste disposal, and nuclear research), and for remedial action (e.g., clean-up of abandoned mill sites), must write an EIS. DOD also frequently writes an EIS before opening or expanding a defense facility such as a nuclear submarine base or missile site. When EPA or NRC proposes a major regulation, a regulatory Impact analysis (and possibly an EIS) is prepared addressing the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the regulation. For example one set of standards for which an EIS was written was "Remedial Action Standards for Inactive Uranium Processing Sites." Finally, decommissioning and decontamination of nuclear facilities is an example of an activity related EIS. These general EISs are referred to as "generic". Some generic EISs may include site specific evaluations. The regional radiation staffs review each of the three kinds of EISs. For some projects the radiation staff member attends meetings with the sponsoring federal agency to discuss, clarify, and define options/issues the EIS should address. Frequently, the review includes one or more site visits to collect basic data about the site(s) for use in the review, (e.g., location of site relative to residents, farms, and employers). The number of radiation related EISs reviewed by each region varies year to year. A rough estimate of the average is two to five per year per region. 12 ------- EPA's review of the NRC, DOE and DOD Environmental Impact Statements is primarily from an environmental and health perspective. In reviewing an EIS with radiation implications the regional radiation staffs: a. Check the validity of the environmental and public health analyses; b. Determine that all appropriate sites and options were considered in the analysis; c. Determine whether the selected option satisfies EPA's radiation standards and guidance; d. Ensure that future consequences to land, air, water, and human health are adequately considered and provided for. This review process has identified errors and omissions in the analyses; for instance, an EIS was reviewed for a nuclear power plant which, if the planned site was used, would have cut off a whole conmunity from any possibility of land evacuation. This site was dropped as a result of the radiation representative's comments. If the comments suggest major revision, the radiation representative often takes time to present them personally to the sponsoring agency or EIS coordinator within the EPA regional office. The regions' review of EISs helps federal agencies prevent or mitigate any adverse consequences of the projects. Most regions assign responsibility to a separate staff for coordinating EIS review among affected program offices and for compiling and rewriting the comments into an agency response. In some regions the radiation staffs perform all these tasks for radiation related EISs. The radiation staffs attend WC/state licensing meetings if requested by NRC or the state. States, which have licensing authority under an agreement with NRC, must prepare an environmental report as part of the application procedures for obtaining certain licenses. Occasionally a state will request the region to review and comment on these environmental reports. One region has an agreement with one of its states to review those environmental reports related to the development of uranium resources in the state. Sunmary: EPA's review of federally prepared EISs is required by law. The regional radiation staffs review generic EISs, site and area specific EISs as well as EISs prepared for radiation related regulations, standards, and guidance. 13 ------- Future Program: Regions will continue reviewing radiation related EISs. The number of EISs requiring EPA review is expected to increase over current levels if nuclear power is expanded and if more NRC licensed radioactive waste disposal sites are developed. EPA's 1982 Operating Guidance makes EIS review a second priority, which suggests that fewer EISs will receive a thorough review. This, coupled with the Administration's desire to reduce the time required to process and approve applications for permits and licenses, Indicate that the regions may need to review their procedures to make sure they are as efficient as possible. One suggestion which the regions should implement is to distinguish between EISs which require a thorough review and those which require a less detailed review. This distinction should be made prior to receiving the draft EIS for review and should be used in planning the regions' workload each year. As federal agencies become more proficient in environmental planning, the need for exhaustive EPA reviews should diminish. However, changes in technology, new disposal practices, and new and increased uses of radioactive materials will require the regions to oversee the planning (EIS) activities of other federal agencies. The EIS process is the principal opportunity EPA has to ensure that good environmental planning occurs and that federal agencies are responsive to the nation's health and environmental objectives. For this reason, it is important that each region should have the flexibility to determine the priority it gives to this activity. Good environmental planning 1s the best and most direct way for federal agencies to achieve environmental results. The EIS process 1s designed with checks and balances very much in mind. In order for the radiation staff's review to be effective, individual staff members must establish themselves as authorities (experts) on the subjects they address in their EIS review. Too often the radiation staff's comments are merged with other agency comments and a dialogue with the other federal agency's radiation staff is never initiated. As pointed out later the radiation representatives do not spend much time interacting with other federal agencies. Establishing rapport with federal agencies, such as M*C and DOE, is an important element in making the EIS process work and is an area which can be improved in most regions. 14 ------- B. Regulatory/Implementation Responsibilities This section addresses those activities which result in correcting existing radiation related problems or in regulating sources of radiation. The categories in this section are 1) developing standards and guidance; 2) implementing regulations; and 3) clean-up of past hazards and response to imminent hazards. Because of the close tie between these activities and data assessment activities, this chapter also includes a discussion of the radiation staff's role in data gathering and evaluation. 1. Standard Setting and Guidance Development Present Program: EPA has responsibility to formulate radiation standards and guidance for aJ2 federal agencies to use in administering their radiation programs. These responsibilities were assigned to EPA under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) at the time EPA was created; in addition, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), the Clean Air Act, other Acts and federal guidance assign EPA responsibility for developing specific standards. The purpose of the standards and guidance is to limit public exposure to radioactivity. Standards usually specify acceptable levels of radionuclides which can be released to the environment or specify maximum dose rates for exposure of the whole body or particular body organs (e.g., bones, lungs, etc.). Guidance and standards may also address acceptable practices and site specific criteria for certain sources of radiation (e.g., low level radioactive-waste disposal, clean-up of uranium tailings) which minimize the risks of population exposure to radioactivity at the source. Regions are involved in both the development and implementation of the Agency's standards and guidance. This section discusses the regions' Input into the rulemaking process, since frequently it is during this process that regions are requested to review and comment on standards and guidance. EPA-Headquarters develops the agency's radiation guidance, standards, and regulations using intra-agency work groups. Each work group includes at least one regional radiation person who has a strong interest in the guidance, standard or regulation under development. This individual has the responsibility to represent other affected regions during the work group's deliberations and to assess the feasibility of the options under consideration. Once the guidance or standard is proposed, Headquarters solicits comments from all the regions. The regions comment on all radiation related regulations regardless of their origin within EPA. The regions assess how the proposal will affect public health, the environment, and the regulated community to determine if there are any practical difficulties with implementing the proposal. Often states, other enforcing agencies, and industry have questions about EPA regulations, standards and guidance. Regional 15 ------- radiation staffs address these questions by explaining the rationale or basis for the standard, defining the conditions under which they apply, and suggesting appropriate ways compliance with the standard can be achieved. Sometimes during the review or implementation of a standard, particular problems surface which require the regional radiation staff's attention. Depending on the nature of the problem, the radiation staff may suggest a temporary solution, or may work with appropriate parties to effect a change in EPA's procedures, guidance, and/or standards. Other times the staff is confronted with a radiation problem for which there is no guidance or standards. Indoor radon, and uranium mining and milling are subjects for which standards and guidance are not available. Sometimes the radiation staff make suggestions to a state about limitations and control measures which a state is considering adopting. Often the staff provides the state with this kind of assistance even when EPA standards and guidance are 1acking. The states contacted during the study indicated that the region fulfilled an important role in helping the states use EPA's radiation guidance and standards. At least one state identified the region's role with respect to explaining and using EPA's guidance and standards as the most important thing the region can do to help the state. Most of the Standards and Guidance developed by EPA are implemented by other federal agencies (e.g., NRC, DOE and BRH). Except for emergency response and environmental impact statement activities the regional staffs do not interact much with other federal agencies on matters relating to the implementation of EPA standards and guidance. Generally, the regional radiation staffs review the proposed actions of other federal agencies to determine if these agencies are using the EPA standards and guidance 1n their planning (i.e., in EISs and RERPs). Summary: The regions current role in relation to the development of EPA's standards and guidance is: 1) to help develop them; 2) to explain the basis for them to other parties; 3) to help states develop regulations which implement them; and 4) to ensure that the proposed actions of other federal agencies are consistent with them. These activities are presently a minor part of the regions' total activities. Future Program: As intended by Congress, the development of standards and guidance is the cornerstone of EPA's efforts to protect the public from radiation exposure. The regions' current role and responsibilities related to this activity probably will not change. The regions' contribution to the development of regulations should increase in importance over the next five years as regional radiation staffs acquire more experience in implementing EPA's standards and guidance. The Administration's policy to reduce and minimize the burden that federal regulations have on society also stresses the importance of good regional review before publishing new rules. 16 ------- Standards and guidance activities are the basis for relating radiation to health effects; the achievement of environmental results depends upon setting and implementing appropriate workable standards. One difficulty hindering regional support of this process is that often the amount of time given the regions to comment on proposals (regional staffs estimate 2-5 d^s) is insufficient for most regions to do a thorough review and in turn precludes headquarters from adequately considering the comments of the regions. This weakness in the process results in fewer practical comments being considered by Headquarters during the development of EPA's standards and guidance. The regions should be given as much time for review as other peer review groups. The regions also can help Headquarters assess how well standards are achieving environmental results. EPA has the mandate to see that radiation standards and guidance are implemented and to determine their effectiveness. The regions are logical candidates to evaluate the implementation of many EPA standards because of their familiarity with and proximity to nuclear facilities and state radiation programs. The radiation program needs to devise some systematic way to track implementation. One option 1s to develop a model system for a single regulation or set of regulations. Implementation of EPA standards for uranium mill tailings through UMTRCA would be one possibility for which EPA could develop a model system and identify a few pilot regions to test the system. The pilot program should be used by Headquarters to decide whether a full scale tracking system should be implemented regionwide. This proposal, if implemented, would help EPA in carrying out its mandate to see that standards are in fact implemented and that standards are achieving desired results. Information obtained through the tracking system should be used by the Headquarters in assessing the adequacy of EPA's standards and guidance and in revising existing regulations. This internal feedback loop does not exist within EPA and is definitely needed if EPA is to properly assess the cost effectiveness of its actions. Presently, several radiation regulations are proposed or are in some stage of development under the authority of FEMA, the Atomic Energy Act and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA); others may be developed for radionuclide emission under the Clean Air Act. Regions which have particular interest in these standards (e.g., uranium milling) should devote considerable time to reviewing and conmenting on them, especially those proposed under UMTRCA, since development of many of these standards are a first priority in the Administrator's budget and operating guidances. Also, since the radiation representatives will be asked questions about these standards and will need to defend them at some time, an extra effort will be required on their part to become intimately familiar with the standards. Unlike some programs (e.g., water quality) the regional radiation program does not have specialists whose responsibility it is to understand the basis for the standard. If 17 ------- each radiation staff member were to develop a thorough understanding of each standard for radiation, a great deal more time would be needed than is presently devoted to this activity. Consequently, the radiation representatives must select which standards and regulations are most important to their respective regions and develop a level of expertise consistent with the needs of the region. The Agency is presently developing guidance for the states which addresses problems associated with non-ioniz1ng radiation. The regions will work with other agencies, interpreting and using the guidance once it is distributed. Regions I and II are helping Headquarters develop this guidance. Most regions respond to many requests for information about non-ionizing radiation each year. 2. Implementation of Regulations (Permits and Enforcement) Present Program; NRC and the states issue the majority of licenses and permits regulating the use of nuclear materials. EPA has legal responsibility to issue permits to control radioactive emissions which are not regulated by NRC, or which are not regulated by the state under an agreement with NRC or EPA. EPA regions issue permits under the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA - Underground Injection Control Program), and the Ocean Dumping Act. To date the the ten regions have issued only a few permits under any of these Acts (primarily UIC, NPDES, and Ocean Dumping permits) that included requirements for radiological emissions. The radiation staff's involvement Includes reviewing the requirements proposed in the permit, evaluating radiation data, and advising EPA or state permit writers on what are appropriate requirements to include in the permit. One recent example Involved a discharge from a uranium mine which was contaminating a downstream cormiunity's water supply. The regional radiation staff assisted the state in developing an instream water quality standard which was used by the state with EPA's assistance to develop an NPDES permit for the mine, which included specific discharge limitations for radioactive substances. EPA also has authority to set certain regulations. The only radiation regulations at present are several maximum contaminant levels (MCL's) set under SDWA. These are requirements for municipal drinking water supplies which are enforceable against the suppliers. EPA regions directly and independently act against a permit violator, request another enforcing agency to take action, or act cooperatively with another agency. In each of these situations, the regional radiation staff helps enforcement's legal and technical staffs to prepare their case by helping them to understand the nature and extent of the violation(s). 18 ------- Whenever the region's enforcement program needs additional data for proper assessment of possible enforcement actions, the radiation staff assists in collecting data by designing a minimum monitoring program and arranging for the use of the regional or national laboratory radiation equipment and staff, by personally conducting the necessary monitoring, or, if funds are available, by procuring and managing a contractor who collects the data. The radiation staffs participate in these same types of efforts when conducting a special study to determine if a health problem exists. The radiation staffs advise EPA and state enforcement staffs during negotiations and occasionally participate directly in negotiations with the permittee. Two examples from Region V in which radiation staff helped the enforcing groups take action are Velsicol Chemical Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical Company. Both required remedial action. In the first, the radiation staff verified that clean-up actually occurred; in the second, the staff reviewed and commented on a proposed plan of action. Included in EPA's and the states' enforcement of permits and regulations are compliance determinations, which involve review of monitoring data and sometimes inspection of the facility. The regions do not receive copies of monitoring reports which the licensee prepares under a NRC or "agreement state" license. Rarely do NRC or the state request EPA to accompany them when an NRC licensed facility is inspected. A great deal of data collection is required under SDWA, which has shown many violations of radiological MCL's. EPA regions help the municipality determine the source of the contaminant and the best method of eliminating it. Data that is gathered or submitted to EPA in response to an EPA Issued permit is not routinely reviewed by the radiation staff unless the permittee is a suspected or known violator of a radiological standard. Summary: The regional radiation staffs help both EPA and the state permit and enforcement programs to write and enforce permits. Collection and analysis of radiological data and preparation of background materials are the principal types of assistance provided. They also help enforce other regulations (e.g., drinking water MCL's) that do not involve permits. Future Program: Regulatory activities are clearly tied to environmental results and therefore are important to achieving EPA's mandates and objectives. EPA's major programs (i.e., air, water, UIC, drinking water, and hazardous waste) depend on the regional radiation programs for technical advice and support when dealing with radioactive pollution. The need for this support is expected to increase immediately as new programs, such UIC and hazardous waste control, establish themselves as major programs in the regions. These programs will require assistance from the radiation staff in the areas of permitting, monitoring, and compliance. 19 ------- After the mineral studies required by the 1980 RCRA amendments are completed, solid wastes from mining and milling will be subject to EPA regulation. Regulation of these wastes under RCRA probably will include radioactive wastes from the mining and processing of uraniferous ores (e.g., phosphate, molybdenum, and coal). The 1980 RCRA amendments also authorize EPA to regulate the use of radioactive wastes (tailings and overburden) in construction materials and in landfills. Currently these activities are a low priority 1n terms of developing regulations for them; however, once regulations are put into effect the regional radiation staffs will help both the state and EPA permit writing and enforcement staffs to implement them. Radioactive substances will be the subject of more regulation under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act (i.e., MCL's and UIC), and the Ocean Dumping Act in the future. The need for more assistance from the radiation program will be gradual and also will focus on monitoring, permitting, and compliance. EPA's delegation of programs (e.g., NPDES, UIC, and hazardous waste) to the states is likely to shift to the states much of the assistance the regional radiation staffs currently provide other regional programs. However this assistance will not shift to those states which refuse to administer programs which EPA can delegate and which the radiation staff support. As states gain experience and expand their radiation staffs in the field of environmental radiation, they probably will not rely on EPA's assistance as much. Presently most states have experienced staffs with respect to healing arts and consumer products but usually do not have adequate staffs to deal with all the environmental/public health aspects of radiation. This support system works well as long as the regional staff has the necessary skills to satisfy EPA's as well as the states' needs. However, not all the radiation staffs have all the skills they need to respond to these needs. Further training 1n specialized areas (monitoring and measurement, mining technology, geology, and hydrology) would allow them to offer more useful services to the region and their respective states. Five out of ten states contacted during the study also expressed a need for regional radiation staffs to increase their skills in these subjects or to hire individuals that already possess these additional skills. Due to the size of the regional staffs it is difficult for the region to possess all the skills necessary to satisfy the state needs. The regions should first survey their states to determine how each region can best respond to the technical assistance needs of their respective states. Such a survey should be conducted periodically and priorities for assistance should be established each year. The regional radiation staffs should use this information to identify training that 1s necessary before they can effectively respond to the needs of the states. 20 ------- Most regions lack personnel and equipment to obtain the data necessary for enforcement actions. The need for this data will increase as the regions expand their radiation related regulatory activities. Some but not all of the regions' monitoring and laboratory needs are being met by the existing national laboratories. An option which is under consideration which would solve this problem is to combine the existing regional laboratories into multi-regional facilities. Each multi-regional facility should be equipped to monitor and analyze radioactive materials. This proposal would be cost efficient and makes sense for radiation since the equipment and personnel cannot be justified for every region. 3. Remedial Actions and Imminent Hazards Present Program: In assessing their own activities, the regional radiation staffs place great importance and emphasis on activities which identify and clean up dangerous radiation sources. Several EPA regions have done preliminary work in identifying former Atomic Energy Commission sites, radium processing sites, abandoned pharmaceutical facilities, and chemical waste disposal sites where radioactivity poses a public health problem. The regions' activities have assisted states, NRC, DOE and DOD in discovering and restoring sites under their jurisdiction. EPA has authority under RCRA and the Comprehensive Environental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) to correct radiation hazards not under the jurisdiction of these other federal agencies. Once the radiation staff identifies hazardous sites and facilities, they are added to a growing list of sites requiring remedial action. The regional staffs work with local, state, and federal officials to convince them of the need to clean up the radiation source. These efforts have resulted in special studies which clarified the problems, and identified methods to clean up the sites. For example, at the request of several states elevated radon levels in residential and commercial buildings is or has been the subject of several EPA studies with regional involvement. Some of these structures were constructed with radioactive materials made of mill tailings, or were constructed on radioactive fill or tailings. The regional radiation staffs are instrumental in gaining funding, staff, or contractor support to carry out these investigations. Studies have been completed in Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Idaho, and Florida. Grand Junction, Colorado is one site where clean-up has started as a result of the study. The radiation representatives often serve as project officers for these studies. As project officers, they prepare the contract documents, identify and negotiate a scope of work, prepare the request for proposals, select the contractor, monitor the progress of the work, and approve change orders and payments. At the time this report was written, several studies were in progress for which the project officer was a member of the regional radiation staff. 21 ------- Under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) the radiation staffs in several regions assisted in identifying and evaluating the dangers from inactive uranium tailing sites. EPA-Headquarters and DOE have used the results of these investigations to identify priorities for remedial action. DOE is responsible under UMTRCA to clean up these sites, but the EPA regions continually advise DOE and EPA Headquarters of problems requiring immediate action. Each year EPA must comment on DOE's annual report to Congress on its progress in restoring or stabilizing the sites. The regional radiation staffs contribute to these comments. The regions also have provided information to Headquarters which was used in preparing EPA's report to Congress on uranium mine wastes; comments included recommendations for eliminating any identified hazards. The radiation staffs help the Regional Administrators, and sometimes the Administrator, by recommending whether and what action EPA should take under any of the imminent hazard provisions in the Acts EPA administers. If an action is decided upon, EPA is authorized to issue orders and file injunctions to halt any emission, storage, and transport of radioactive materials which pose an imminent and substantial danger to the public health. Although the regions have considered using these powers to control an imminent radiation danger, EPA has not needed to do so. Frequently the states or another federal agency takes appropriate action which avoids the necessity of EPA using its imminent hazard powers. The regional radiation staffs have assisted in the preparation of background materials which described the nature of the hazard. Such materials form the basis upon which a decision can be reached regarding the best course of action, and are needed to issue orders or to file for an injunction. A member of the radiation staff usually is designated as the region's contact to follow through with the responsible parties to eliminate the hazard. Sunroary; The regional radiation staffs perform the following functions: 1) identify sites needing remedial actions; 2) conduct or manage studies which are designed to define and correct hazards; 3) decide what action is needed in response to a hazardous situation; and 4) serve as an important link between states, other federal agencies, and EPA regarding clean-up of hazards. Regional radiation staffs devote much of their time to support of the regions' and the states' regulatory activities as described under the two sections of this chapter. Future Program; To date much uncertainty has existed as to what the regions' role is or should be with respect to remedial, clean-up activities. The regions' interest in abandoned radioactive facilities and sites stems from the fact that no other agency will assume any responsibility for them. The regions are limited in what they can do, but they have in the past brought these problems to the attention of lawmakers. In the future, EPA probably will be responsible for 22 ------- cleaning up hazards caused by private parties who are not licensed by NRC or under contract to DOE. EPA also will have some responsibility for clean-up of sites for which no responsible party can be identified. A memorandum of understanding between NRC and EPA is under development to clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of each agency with respect to the clean-up of sites and facilities contaminated with radioactivity. Clean-up activities will increase the radiation staffs' contact with EPA's and the states' enforcement staffs. For the immediate future CERCLA (Superfund) and UMTRCA will dominate the time of some regional radiation staff members. To date, only the Denver radium processing sites are scheduled for remedial action under Superfund. A few others may be added to the list. The radiation representatives probably will be the EPA project officers who oversee the actual clean-up of a radioactive site/facility for work performed under contract using CERCLA funds. Over the next few years, the regions will continue discovering radioactive hazards and consequently will spend more time overseeing EPA's and other agencies' clean-up activities. EIS reviews will continue to be the primary mechanism regions will use to accomplish oversight of other federal agencies. In addition, some regions will take a more active role, as consultants, during the clean-up operations. This expanded role will occur naturally as other local, state, and federal agencies seek the regions' advice and draw from their experience in clean-up operations. Decommissioning and decontamination (D & D) is another activity the regions may be involved in during field operations and actual clean-up. The regions' involvement and future role in clean-up activities depends very much on the types of skills the radiation staff members acquire during the next few years and on the role EPA secures for itself. The public is concerned about cleaning up old radiation dangers and preventing new ones and will demand that some agency have sufficient authority to address these problems. The regions are appropriate agents to handle this responsibility, given their experience with RCRA and CERCLA, and assuming they will develop the necessary skills and knowledge with respect to remedial, clean-up activ ities. The level of activity and the region's role regarding imminent hazards will not change for the forseeable future. Very little effort is projected for the regions under the imminent hazards provisions of the EPA Acts. 23 ------- C. Technical/Information Services Much of w*at the regional radtallot d0 ^"secttSn responds to the needs of other P™9™* ®rese*ted 1n the previous two SftiM ;i7sflrsme;fi) EK! Quarters an* Regions; 3) Other Federal Agencies; and 4) the Public. 1. State Assistance Present Program: States receive assistance from the regions primarily in the areas of emergency r®^P° ^ tralnina standards and guidance, monitoring, c'u*]lt.^ ? J" nr^u5d1n0 information For most regions, state assistance is limited to p>rovid1 "9 information advising the state on specific issues and problems, and coordinating EPA activities with the state. The states use the regional radiation staffs to coordinate activities with EPA and among states. The r eg 1 °ns ° J J®" i+f 5rw contact between the state and EPA laboratories or Headquarters for special studies, monitoring, and lab analysis performed by the , labs. A few regions are coordinating the development and testl g of RERPs where more than one state is covered by the plan. The region 1s helping these states develop uniform and consistent procedures for responding to the emergency. Occasionally states and EPA jointly conduct special studies. Under such an arrangement the regional radiation staff usually has responsibility for one part of the study (e*9i» data collection or evaluation). At other times the states ask EPA to conduct the entire study. Depending on the capabilities of the region, the study is sometimes performed by the regional staff; more often, the regional radiation staff obtains a commitment from one of the national laboratories to perform all or most of the work. Frequently the regional staff serves as a liaison and/or coordinator for the study, ensuring that the state is kept informed of the study's progress and preliminary findings, and that the national laboratory is responding to both the region's and state's needs. Some states are requesting EPA assistance to help the state select environmentally safe low level radiation waste disposal sites. The radiation staff serves as a consultant to the states on matters such as defining acceptable risks for each site under consideration and involve other EPA personnel on highly technical issues such as defining each site's potential to contaminate ground water. 24 ------- Often the regional staff are requested to testify at state conducted hearings to provide comments on state proposed guidance and standards or to help the state during the development of its radiological standards. The radiation representatives at these hearings provide testimony in defense of EPA's recommended limits and they enter into the record appropriate documents which support EPA's position. A few states also request assistance from the regional radiation staff related to permits, monitoring, and enforcement activities. Regions also provide an Important service to states that need help developing and testing RERPs. This assistance can take many forms from writing parts of the plan to observing tests to securing EPA monitoring equipment and personnel. Some regions have both knowledgeable people and equipment to provide monitoring support to the states. In the area of data collection and handling, the regions primarily advise the states on procedures and methods that should be followed in order to obtain consistent and comparable data (quality assurance function). Some informal training is provided to the states related to quality assurance. Sometimes a state requests the region to review a state environmental report that is prepared in conjunction with an application for a state license. In general, states believe their staffs are adequate to address the public health and environmental aspects of an application for a license. Summary: Regions provide many kinds of services to the state depending on the needs of each state. These services include but are not limited to conducting studies for the state, helping the state develop standards, and providing advice on technical issues related to clean-up of abandoned sites and disposal of radioactive wastes. Future Program: The regional radiation offices are clearly carrying out the legal mandate EPA has to support the states in their efforts to control environmental pollution. Most of the ten states contacted were satisfied with the kind and amount of assistance provided by the regions. A few of the states thought the type of service could be expanded and only one was unaware of any assistance the state had received from the regional radiation program. As discussed previously, the quality of the regions' services both to EPA and to the states can be improved by increasing the skills of the regions' personnel. Five states expressed a need for improved and more skills within the regional offices. These states thought they would use the regional office more if the regions could offer a larger variety of services and if the regional offices possessed 25 ------- technical competence in other subjects. Two regional radiation representatives need to i"crease their knowledge are 1) radioactive waste disposal practices *nd 2) treatment technologies for removing radionuclides from dr1n g water. Disposal of radioactive wastes is a major "jcern of the !^tes since most existing sites will be closed th states about years. The regions have an important ro1e a t citizen acceptable criteria for selecting sites and A au1dance for concerns. Headquarters is in the process of develop g 9 ... both low level and high level disposal sites, which the regionswill apply on a case-by-case basis. States are in the Pr°cess o g interstate compacts whereby radioactive wastes generated . compact states will be disposed of at regional s1^es* * P?*? h ® regions should participate in the interstate commissions which have responsibility for identifying prospective disposal sites. In order to help the regions improve their Jecl?n"!c* Headquarters should identify certain regions as having iL experts for certain subjects. For example, Regions 4 and 5 should designated as the regional experts for decommissioning facilities while Regions 6 and 8 should be identified as the experts for uranium mining and milling. The other regions should be designated as experts for specific subjects as well. Headquarters should make the designation of regional experts and should ensure that tnelr skills are improved sufficiently so that they will be recognized as experts outside of the agency. For this concept to work, provision must be made for travel expenses to provide technical assistance to states in other regions, for obtaining training, and for traveling to conferences to present professional papers. When a state agency perceives the EPA region as meddling in its affairs rather then helping that agency to do its job, the support function cannot be performed well. Two states cited past problems with EPA's assistance which were a result of EPA not obtaining the full support of the state agency prior to initiating work in their state. If EPA ever converts to a "block grant" or other similar approach for awarding grants to the states the radiation staffs may find themselves helping states decide whether any of EPA's grant funds should be expended on radiation activities. Presently, EPA does not award grants to the states in support of their radiation programs. The new administation is committed to 1) improving the federal partnership with the states and 2) transferring responsibility from federal government to state government. The regional radiation programs have been successful in building this partnership with many states. Several states have large radiation staffs and consequently 26 ------- their need for EPA assistance is less than most other states. Even in these cases the regions have been a clearinghouse for EPA information and have facilitated exchange of information among states and between a state and other parts of EPA. Delegation of EPA programs to the states should temporarily increase the amount of radiation assistance EPA provides the states. Once a state's program is well established and adequate staffing is achieved, the state's reliance on EPA should diminish. If the regions are successful in delegating programs to the state, the radiation staffs will find themselves having contact with more individuals than when EPA administered the program. Program delegations probably will not decrease the total amount of time the regions spend helping the states over the next five years. The types of problems that surfaced during the investigation were usually isolated and not representative. Consequently, no suggestions are offered in this regard. 2. EPA (Intra-agency Assistance) Present Program; The regional radiation staffs provide Headquarters with several services. On the average the regions estimate 10% of their time is devoted to working with EPA-Headquarters answering questions, responding to requests, participating on committees, and receiving assistance from the Headquarters staff (labs are included in the definition of Headquarters). The most important services provided to Headquarters include: 1) feedback on public health environmental problems and issues confronting the region; 2) practical and technical comments on proposed guidance and standards; and 3) promotion and implementation of national policies, standards, guidance, and directives. Headquarters sometimes uses the information it receives from the regions to revise standards and guidance, to develop policies, and to establish priorities for EPA's radiation programs. The region provides an important link between Headquarters and other parties affected by EPA's radiation program. The regions support EPA's Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS) by working with the states to assure that states participate in ERAMS. ERAMS is a national network of stations which monitor changes in radiation levels in the environment. Some regions include ERAMS data in a yearly suimiary of regional radiation activities. In most regions, ERAMS is a negotiated task under each state's annual agreement with EPA, commonly referred to as the State/EPA Agreement or SEA. The regional radiation representative is responsible to negotiate this part of the SEA with each state in the respective region. 27 ------- The regional radiation staff also supports special studies and collates and summarizes region specific data to meet Headquarters needs. The West Valley waste disposal site, non-1oniz1ng radiation, and indoor radon studies are examples of the regions actively supporting specific Headquarters efforts. The regions estimate 35% of their time (i.e., about one half man •ye®r ^suming an average of 1.6 professionals per region), Is spent on activities specific to the regional radiation program or 1n support of other regional programs and offices. The two programs which require the most attention and assistance from the radiation staff are hazardous waste and underground injection control. The radiation staffs have helped these programs to develop inventories of ?« hazard°us where radiological wastes have been dumped It Jfi •]!! underground; also some radiation staffs have worked closely with the UIC staff to assess some of the problems associated with in situ uranium mining. i suPP°r^ activities mentioned elsewhere in this report include air and water data analysis, monitoring, and advice with h ° £en!?u anci enforcen>ent actions. Often the radiation r^tnnai *r ™embers of the region, senior managers, and the regional administrators on current Issues and problems. Due to the controversial nature of nuclear power and weapons, these briefings are invaluable in terms of keeping key managers informed on radiation issues. Suimiary: The regions estimate that about 45% of their time is spent dealing with headquarters, or on radiation matters Internal to e rs9ionai office. The regions generate data for Headquarters use and are actively involved in the activities of other regional programs. Hazardous waste and drinking water are the two which recently have required the most assistance. Future Program; The type of needs the regional programs will have in the future depend primarily on what programs are or are not delegated to the states. If all the major programs are fully delegated and if a state has a capable radiation staff, the regions' needs with respect to these programs probably will be confined to administrative items rather than to technical assistance. If EPA retains responsiblility for any of the major programs or if a state does not have a capable radiation staff, the need for technical assistance from the regional radiation staff will continue. With respect to EPA's radiation guidance and standards, EISs , and RERPs the regional radiation staffs will maintain primary responsibility for these activities 1n the region. Consequently, the support the radiation staffs provide other parts of the region for 28 ------- these activities will not change. Radiation related CERCLA activities are likely to increase in some regions. The regions will retain authority for administering CERCLA and therefore the radiation staffs' future involvement in CERCLA should not be affected by program delegations. As specific regions develop expertise in certain subjects the other regions and Headquarters will rely more and more on those regions for advice. This already happens to a limited degree but should be more common in the future, especially as Headquarters encourages the development of regional experts. Since not all regions share the same problems and since not every radiation representative can be an expert in all subjects, implementation of this suggestion should increase the agency's effective use of regional radiation resources and should expand the services EPA can provide among the regions and to the states. 3. Assistance to Other Federal Agencies Present Program: Only a small percentage of the radiation staffs time (less than 10% on the average) is spent directly interacting with other federal agencies. The majority of the interaction occurs while attending RAC meetings or participating in RERP exercises. (See discussion on emergency response planning.) The regions are indirectly linked to DOE through EPA Headquarters under UMTRCA. Very little Interaction occurs regarding NRC's licensing of nuclear facilities. Under a 1975 agreement with l\KC, the regions provide water quality information to NRC which is used during the preparation of an EIS. The regional radiation staff may be asked to provide some analysis of health effects related to off-site consequences of building the nuclear facility. During nuclear fallout events, the radiation staffs have had contact with the Department of Defense in order to secure and exchange relevant information about the event. Occasionally, a member of the regional radiation program is an instructor at a NRC-sponsored training course dealing with EPA's monitoring requirements or protective action guides relative to emergency response planning. The regional radiation staffs have phone contact with Bureau of Radiological Health (BRH) representatives about every other week. These conversations follow-up on requests for information which EPA has referred to BRH, request information on specific aspects of BRH's work which is related to EPA's (e.g., results of BRH health effects studies), and generally serve to keep the two agencies informed of each other's activities. 29 ------- Some regions have worked with HUD in developing HUD requirements for limiting radiation levels in building materials. As previously mentioned the radiation staffs have worked with HUD on notification procedures for residents living within the emergency planning zone of a nuclear facility as part of that agency's emergency response planning responsibilities. Sunrcary: Generally, the regions do not provide any technical assistance to federal agencies having major responslbility for radiation; instead information is exchanged with these agencies, especially with BRH, NRC and DOE. The regional radiation staffs spend only a small amount of their time, aside from RERP activities, interacting with these federal agencies. Ocassionally, regions provide technical assistance to other federal agencies such as HUD. Future Program: Because of the division of radiation responsibilities among several federal agencies, regional radiation representatives must maintain regular contact with other agencies, in order to keep informed, to prevent duplication of effort, and to provide information of interest to the other party. This activity should require a minimum amount of time in the future. If EPA implemented some sort of tracking/oversight system for some of its radiological standards, the amount of contact with another federal agency or agencies could increase dramatically. Likewise 1f the regional representatives were recognized as experts, (e.g., in rad-waste disposal or clean up of decontaminated sites/facilities or in some other specialty) the amount of contact time with other agencies would increase as well. The probability of either of these events happening in the next five years depends very much on the direction the Agency chooses for the regional radiation program. Establishment of an oversight program is consistent with the Administrator's objective of correlating EPA's activities to environmental results. Regarding the second example, 1f the regions are to provide technical assistance to states and other agencies they will need to improve their expertise so that these other agencies will want to use the regions' services. 30 ------- 4. Public Response Present Program: EPA is in the public eye more than most federal agencies; consequently, citizens frequently request radiation related information from EPA and voice their concern about radiation to EPA. One regional radiation representative identified over 120 phone and written requests he had received over the course of one year. Many of these requests related to non-ionizing radiation (e.g., radiofrequency, microwaves, high voltage power lines). Regional radiation staffs respond to the public's need for information and their specific concerns by providing the requested information, by answering the question or referring the questioner to more appropriate agencies for answers, and by attending meetings and public hearings to present information about EPA's responsibilities and to discuss the health and environmental effects of radiation. A major incident such as Three Mile Island can prompt frequent questions and requests for information which are usually received by the public affairs office or another office. In these cases the radiation staff educate these other offices about the particulars of the issue so that they can handle routine callers. Occasionally, a caller alerts EPA to a local problem, such as an overflow of a tailings impoundment, which the radiation staff investigates and then notifies other appropriate authorities and responsible parties of the situation so that immediate action can be taken to correct the problem. Summary: Responding to public inquiries can consume much of the radiation staff's time. The regions receive many requests about non-ionizing radiation sources. Future Program: The Administrator hopes to improve the agency's responsiveness to the public (this term includes all those who have a need for information). Several regions think they already spend too much time responding to the public in comparison to the amount of time they spend on other higher priority activities. Despite their complaints, regional staff members cannot turn off their telephones. Unfortunately much of the public's image of EPA is formed during the few minutes they are on the phone talking with the EPA representative or is based on a written response to a verbal or written request. Consequently the regions must provide as much information as possible to the interested party to fulfill their responsibilities as public servants. This means the radiation staffs need to continue their present activities and make time to respond to the needs of citizens, other agency personnel, and key managers within EPA. These activities can take much preparation to do well, but they are important since there is much concern about radiation, but not many individuals are well informed on the subject. 31 ------- III. PRESENT AND FUTURE PRIORITIES The Administrator's program and budget guidance for Fiscal Years 1982 and 1983 directs the regions to give a high priority to emergency response planning. A second level priority is suggested for review of environmental impact satements. Not all the regions agree with the emphasis Headquarters places on RERPs and EISs. Several regions believe their time would be better spent on regulatory and remedial activities. The perspective of these regions is that they think the public and the environment would benefit more from the regulatory/remedial activities than from the planning/prevention activities associated with RERPs and EISs. It is extremely difficult to measure the value of emergency response planning and environmental impact statements. The question that needs answering is what difference have or will these activities make in terms of preventing radiological accidents, improving government response to an accident, and protecting the public and the environment. These activities supposedly were in response to the perception that emergency response and environmental protection was inadequate prior to the initiation of these activities. Have these activities made a difference? Opinions vary among regions, between agencies, and within departments. Because no concensus exists on the above question, EPA's radiation priorities are established based on assumptions that the activity is doing some environmental good or that the activity is important in achieving a national goal (objective). During the 1980s environmental objectives will be important, but they will be weighed against other national objectives. Under the present Administration, this translates to mean that generally economic growth will receive a significant weight compared to the environment when the two are in conflict. Consequently, from the perspective of the Administration, RERPs and EISs are important since each is tied to the licensing process for nuclear facilities. Given existing national goals and the political climate, the highest priority of the Agency should be putting into operation a process which will protect both the public and the environment without delaying or prolonging the time required to obtain a NRC license. As suggested in this report, the best way to accomplish this objective is through more up-front planning and fewer after-the-fact reviews. EPA needs to establish procedures which will allow regions to interact with other agencies as the plans are being developed, not after they have been developed. Without up-front participation and without some mechanism to distinguish relative significance of EISs and RERPs, the regions cannot manage their time to best accomplish this objective. 32 ------- In summary, indications are that RERPs and EISs will continue as the regions' first and second priorities for the next five years. Although some staff members do not entirely agree with these priorities, not enough evidence exists to suggest they should be changed. The high priority for RERPs and EISs is reinforced since RERPs and EISs are a factor in achieving part of the Administration's goals of promoting economic growth and developing the nuclear power option. 33 ------- 34 ------- APPENDICES 1. EPA's Mandates and Legal Authorities 2. Responsibilities of Other Federal Agencies 3. Unit Pricing Model: Regional Radiation Program 35 ------- 36 ------- Appendix 1 EPA's Mandates and Legal Authorities This appendix sumnarlzes, in one location, the legal authorities and mandates which relate to EPA's radiation program. EPA's radiation responsibilities are covered by no less than twelve Acts and by at least a half dozen executive orders and directives. 1. Broad Spectrum Responsibilities EPA's general radiation authorities are derived from the Atomic Energy Act (AEA, 42 USC 2011), Reorganization Plan #3 of 1970 (42 USC 4321), and Executive Order (EO) 12088. Reorganization Plan #3 transferred to EPA all of the functions of the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) and of the Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) Division of Radiation Protection Standards. EPA assumed the responsibility from the FRC "to advise the President with respect to radiation matters, directly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation with States." From the Division of Radiation Protection Standards EPA assumed the responsibility for defining "standards for the protection of the general environment from radioactive material" where standards mean limits on radiation exposures, or limits on concentrations or quantities of radioactive material outside the boundaries of facilities licensed to use such material. These authorities do not include enforcement of standards. Reorganization Plan #3 also assigned to EPA whatever environmental aspects of radiation problems had been the responsibility of the Public Health Service under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA, 42 USC 241). Data gathering, analysis, consultation and training concerning (1) radiation effects on living organisms, and (2) pathways through the natural environment to people, are the major activities EPA acquired. Excepted from EPA's jurisdiction were regulation, research, technical assistance and training related to consumer products, medical uses, and occupational exposure. An existing PHS radiation monitoring network, initiated in 1959 to monitor fallout, also became an EPA responsibility. This network was renamed ERAMS—Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System. Executive Order 12088 described EPA as lead federal agency on all pollution matters, including radiation. Specifically, EPA is to provide other agencies with advice and assistance, to monitor their compliance with applicable standards, to notify them of any compliance problems and to help them solve such problems. 37 ------- 2. Review Duties (EIS and Regulation) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 USC 4341) gives all agencies with special expertise or legal jurisdiction (over environmental impacts) the responsibility to independently review any relevant Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). EPA is considered to have expertise in environmental matters and jurisdiction over environmental impacts. Courts have upheld the mandatory nature of this review duty and of the duty of the lead agency (EIS writer) to consider seriously all comments. Also, the Clean Air Act (CAA, 42 USC 7609) reinforces EPA's responsibility of EIS review and instructs EPA to review and comment on any legislation or regulations proposed by a Federal agency which relate to EPA responsibilities. 3. Radiation Aspects of Media Authorities EPA has some specific authority over radiation under Its major regulatory acts. The Clean Water or Federal Water Pollution Control Act (CWA 42 USC 1251)and the Resource Conservation and Recovery or Solid Waste Disposal Act (RCRA, 42 USC 6901), authorize regulation of radioactive materials other than those radioactive substances already covered under AEA provisions. AEA provisions cover "source, special nuclear, and by-product materials."1 The 1977 Clean Air Amendment includes all radioactive emissions, specifically Including source, special nuclear, and by-product materials. EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the licensing agency for AEA provisions, have agreed that EPA will set CAA standards for particular radionuclides, NRC will implement and enforce the standards for those sources which NRC licenses, and EPA (regions) and the states will Implement and enforce the standards for any other sources. The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries, or Ocean Dumping Act (MPRSA, 33 USC 1401) prohibits ocean disposal of high level radioactive wastes (specifically interpreted as spent fuel and wastes from reprocessing) and radiological warfare agents, and designates EPA as the central permitting agency for dumping of other wastes. Permits are necessary unless the disposal is already covered under CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits or under NRC regulations. 1"Source material" means uranium, thorium, and any other naturally occurring elements (which may be used in producing nuclear energy) later named by NRC, or ores containing over a specific concentration (set by NRC) of those elements. "Special nuclear material" means plutonium, uranium enriched in U233 or U235 (particular isotopes), and anything else so defined by NRC, including materials artificially enriched in the named elements or isotopes. "By-product material" means 1) any radioactive material (natural or irradiated) produced incidental to the use of special nuclear material, and 2) (as of 1978) the wastes (tailings) from extracting or concentrating source material. ------- For any pollutants not included in AEA, these Acts require either EPA or the states to issue permits for emission or disposal into the air, water, and earth media. EPA Regions administer the permitting programs if there is no approved state plan, and assist and monitor the functioning of approved plans. This authority includes mining discharges (although some solid waste regulatory authorities have been suspended pending studies under the 1980 RCRA Amendments), certain waste from research and medical use, and in general, any radioactive substances entering the environment from an activity not connected with the use of radioactive materials for atomic energy. The 1980 RCRA Amendments also specifically authorize regulation of the use of phosphate mining and milling waste and uranium mining waste in construction or land reclamation. 4. Other Acts The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA, 42 USC 6973) includes any radioactive pollutants in its provisions; EPA has set maximum contaminant levels (MCL's) for several radioactive substances (CFR 141.15, 141.16) and more MCL's are being developed. Regions have monitoring and enforcement, or state assistance, responsibilities for those MCL's. To protect underground sources of drinking water, the Act requires an Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, which is presently being developed. As with air, water and solid waste programs, UIC permits will be state issued when there is an EPA region approved program. Permits will be required for underground injection of radioactive wastes and for injection of solutions for in situ uranium mining. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 15 USC 2601) limits its definition of chemical substances only to exclude source, special nuclear, and by product material. Other radioactive substances could seemingly be regulated under the Act. However, these were not the substances for which Congress clearly intended the Act to be used; no radioactive substance has been or seems likely to be regulated under it. The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA, 42 USC 7911 and AEA amendments, 42 USC 2021) specifies that EPA promulgate standards to protect the public and the environment from radiological (and non-radiological) hazards associated with the processing of ores for source material and the disposal of the by-product material. Specifically, EPA must set standards for inactive mill tailings sites, for disposal sites for these wastes, and for active mill sites and associated tailings disposal sites. EPA advises the Department of Energy (DOE) in establishing priorities for remedial action, and in making up the list of processing sites requiring remedial action, and DOE does the clean-up. 39 ------- 5. Emergency Powers The air, water, drinking water, solid waste and toxics acts all have emergency sections, which give EPA some authority to deal with imnediate dangers to the public. Most such provisions are more encompassing than other provisions of the acts (several begin "Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act"). At least some, and perhaps all, could be used in cases of danger from radioactive materials, even if the materials are source, special nuclear, or by product. Specifically authorized EPA actions include issuing orders and filing for injunctions to halt any emission, storage, transport, or other activity posing an imminent and substantial danger to public health. The Clean Water Act has two emergency provisions; the first, Section 311 (33 USC 1321) provides authority to clean up spills of oil and designated hazardous substances in surface waters or on shore lines and to recover costs from the responsible party. This authority can also be invoked if there is a "substantial threat" of such a spill, and supports whatever actions are necessary "to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare" where welfare includes wildlife, natural resources, and property. Section 311 requires a National Contingency Plan for emergency response and sets up a fund which can be used for authorized assistance. The second, Section 504(a) (33 USC 1364(a), authorizes EPA to sue for immediate restraint of discharges which present "an imminent and substantial" danger to health or livelihood. Under SDWA, EPA may issue "such orders as may be necessary to protect the health of... users of such system," and may bring "civil action for appropriate relief." TSCA provides that EPA me^y sue the actor responsible for the danger and the courts may grant "relief as may be necessary to protect health or the environment from the unreasonable risk associated with the chemical substance," and further that EPA ma^y sleze "an imminently hazardous chemical substance." RCRA has two provisions: one (42 USC 6973) which authorizes suits and actions "including, but not limited to, issuing such orders as may be necessary to protect public health and the environment," and another (42 USC 6934) which specifically authorizes EPA to require owners and operators whose wastes "may present a substantial hazard to human health or the environment" to monitor, test, analyze, and report on whatever aspects EPA deems necessary. If there is no appropriate owner or operator, EPA may do the Investigation. Both RCRA provisions have enforcement clauses with penalties. In addition to these authorities, the new Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (called Superfund, P.L. 96-510) sets up funding and response systems for dealing with hazardous emergency-type situations, including those requiring remedial action; also it provides for, if certain conditions are satisfied, permanent correction of problem-causing situations. Superfund excludes from its coverage (1) any federally permitted release, and (2) any release (including accidental) by an NRC licensee (under AEA) who has liability coverage under AEA (42 USC 2210). This still leaves for EPA Superfund action, 40 ------- releases of other kinds of radioactive materials, as well as problems remaining from use of radioactive materials prior to the 1957 AEA amendments (even including those fitting definitions of source, by product and special nuclear materials), unless such hazards are covered by UMTRCA. There are also research facilities licensed by NRC which do not have liability coverage, and DOE facilities without liability which meiy be covered by Superfund. Superfund covers ground left open by other emergency provisions and creates a source of money with which to perform emergency actions. 6. Emergency Response Mandates In addition to authorities for emergency response provided to EPA by law, certain executive mandates have been established. The President, in fulfilling his responsibilities under the Disaster Relief Act (42 (JSC 5121) and the Civil Defense Act (50 USC 2251), has assigned to various federal agencies particular responsibilities in radiological emergencies (EOs 11490, 12127, 12148, Reorganization Plan #3 of 1978). A number of directives and memoranda from federal agencies have dealt with the specific division of emergency duties among the agencies and the coordination of these duties by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) In sum, EPA is charged with: 1) finding and diagnosing any problems or hazards left in the environment as a result of the catastrophe; 2) developing, encouraging, and coordinating federal, state and local plans "to prevent or minimize long-term ecological impacts" from emergencies and to preserve resource quality during an emergency; 3) writing Protective Action Guides for use in emergencies; these guides would estimate the doses that could result from particular incidents and would suggest appropriate actions; 4) assisting the state and local agencies in developing radiological emergency response plans; and 5) establishing, with NRC, emergency radiation detection and measurement systems. 41 ------- 42 ------- Appendix 2 Responsibilities of Other Federal Agencies A number of other Federal agencies are involved in radiation protection. This appendix summarizes briefly the major responsibilities of the agencies. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) have most of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) responsibilities. NRC regulates and licenses, or requires states to license, all private processing, use, disposal, possession or transportation of radioactive materials which are used to produce nuclear energy, even if the use is medical or research, unless the processing, use, etc., is by another Federal agency. NRC can delegate to states the licensing responsibilities for users handling less than a "critical mass" of source and special nuclear materials, or handling only by-product materials, if the state has appropriate authorities and expertise and an agreement is signed. States that have made such an agreement with NRC are called "agreement states." The Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Defense (DOD) handle large quantities of radioactive materials (i.e. they operate nuclear facilities) and are responsible for safety coring their use. DOE does the most nuclear research of the federal agencies. The Bureau of Radiological Health (BRH) in the Food and Drug Administration of the Health and Human Services Department (HHS) regulates some aspects of radiation used in the healing arts (mostly equipment), advises states on other uses, regulates many consumer products (including microwave products), and advises the Bureau of Foods and Bureau of Drugs on the control of radiation in food and drugs. DOE and DOD are responsible for protecting from radiation exposure workers in nuclear facilities which these agencies operate. NRC, in its licensing requirements, also provides for worker protection. The Mine Health and Safety Administration (MHSA) in the Department of Labor (DOL) regulates the mining industry to protect miners from radiation, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in DOL regulates any remaining industries. Transportation of radioactive materials is regulated by the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Postal Service (if mails are used), and NRC. NRC regulates the packaging for shipment of AEA covered materials and licenses shippers and receivers of these materials. DOT and NRC have a Memorandum of Understanding to provide consistent regulation without duplicating each other's efforts. 43 ------- 44 ------- Appendix 3 Unit Pricing Model: Regional Radiation Program FTE Support to the Regional Administrator 0.33 State Emergency Response Plan Review (Per Plan) 1. Pre-review Guidance and Consultation 0.05 2. Formal Review 0.05 Emergency Response Plan Testing (Per Plan) 1. Pretest Consultation 2. Participation in Test and Follow-up Evaluation Environmental Impact Statement Review (Per Review) ERAMS Support General Support ot State Radiation Programs (Per State) Special Regional Projects Support to H.0. (Workgroups, etc.) Implementation and Follow-up to Regulations 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.10 variable 0.10 0.15 45 ------- |