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

-------