United States Radietion and EPA 402-S-94-001
Environmental Protection indoor Air January 1994
Agency (660 U)
Meeting Summary:
National Advisory Council on
Environmental Policy
and Technology
Subcommittee on Radiation
Cleanup Regulation
October 18-19, 1993
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
October 18-19, 1993
Hall of the States, 444 No. Capitol St., Suite 283\285
Washington, DC
The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations held its first meeting on October 18
(9 am to 5 pm) and October 19 (9 am to 2:30 pm). NACEPT is a committee
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to provide advice and counsel to
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on issues associated
with the management of environmental problems. NACEPT initiated this
Subcommittee to advise EPA on the development of a Radiation Cleanup Regulation.
The purpose of the meeting was to convene the NACEPT Subcommittee, discuss the
radiation cleanup regulation rule making and the Subcommittee's work, provide
background briefings on key issues, and discuss and offer comment to EPA on those
issues. The three key issues EPA is currently exploring as they begin the
development of a draft rule on radiation cleanup regulations are: questions about
cleanup levels/ risk levels; future land use/state and local statutes; and site-specific
public involvement.
Members of the Subcommittee represented professional associations, tribal
governments, state and local governments, academia, environmental groups, industry,
and cleanup contractors.
This summary is organized chronologically under major headings drawn directly from
the meeting agenda. It is meant to serve as an overview of major discussion topics
and items; not as minutes per se. Attached to this summary are three appendices:
the agenda for the two-day meeting (Appendix A) the list of attendees (Appendix B),
and EPA overheads used at the meeting (Appendix C).
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 1
-------
ST
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
DAY 1
October 18, 1993
WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
Margo Oge, Director of EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA),
welcomed NACEPT Subcommittee members, other participants and observers. She
offered a few words about NACEPT, describing how each EPA office has the option
to establish a NACEPT Subcommittee. This Subcommittee of NACEPT will provide
EPA with advice on radiation cleanup regulations. Oge, on behalf of senior EPA
management, committed to listening and responding to the advice of the
Subcommittee as EPA moves forward over the next several years to set policies in the
area of radiation cleanup regulations and waste management regulations.
Legislative Background to the Rule Development
Oge described the legislative background to the current effort and indicated that EPA,
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), US Department of Energy (USDOE),
and the Department of Defense (DOD) had been asked to cooperate in setting
radiation cleanup regulations and waste management regulations.
She indicated that the rule will deal with a large number of both government owned
and privately licensed sites, including all those:
Contaminated with naturally occurring radioactive materials,
ป Contaminated as a result of the weapon complex activities,
* Coming up for decommission such as aging nuclear power reactors.
Regulations to be developed for Radiation Cleanup, later for Waste Management
Oge indicated that EPA is developing two sets of regulations. This Subcommittee has
been asked to help with the first set on cleanup regulations. In a separate but parallel
process, EPA will develop waste management regulations. Disposal of low level
waste and waste classification are two issues EPA will take up as part of the waste
management rule making.
Many Players
Oge reported that an Interagency Steering Committee is at work with EPA to help
develop the cleanup regulations. Participants include the Department of Energy,
Department of Defense, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Office directors from
within EPA who are responsible for related programs - the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) program, and the CERCLA program, and the federal
enforcement program - also attend these meetings. The Steering Committee has met
twice.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 2
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
EPA is attempting to receive and refine existing data on contamination levels at sites
so as to do the risk assessment that will support the cleanup regulation.
EPA understands state and local governments to be co-implementers of the cleanup
regulation. Although this NACEPT Subcommittee has some state and local
representatives, she said that EPA will do additional work to coordinate with state and
local governments.
Oge noted that the NACEPT Subcommittee members bring diverse expertise and
perspectives to the table. EPA welcomes that diversity and looks forward to learning
the opinions of all members.
Coordination with NRC
Oge noted that EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are collaborating
closely. This is because for the past year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
been developing decommissioning regulations. If EPA finds the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission regulations will provide equivalent protection to the public, EPA will
propose that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission be allowed to use its own
regulations, rather than being subject to EPA's rule. This is outlined in a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two agencies.
Schedule
Oge said that EPA will begin writing the cleanup regulation within the next 6 to 8
weeks. The first step in that process was to complete of the Issues Paper on Radiation
Site Cleanup Regulations. EPA is now developing a risk assessment and cost benefit
analysis for each regulatory option under consideration. In addition, EPA will
propose a risk assessment methodology to the Science Advisory Board, Oge offered
that any of this information will be available upon request.
Oge said she expected to have a draft regulation package to show the Subcommittee
early in 1994. At the same time, EPA plans to take this package to the public and to
state and local government representatives. EPA is looking at summer or fall 1994
for a Proposed Rule, assuming Office and Management and Budget review is
expeditious.
Bill Dornsife, Chair of the Subcommittee and Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of
Radiation Protection, was introduced. He said that the Subcommittee would be an
extremely important part of EPA's process to develop the rule. Given EPA's
aggressive schedule, he said that this Subcommittee's ability to have clear, early input
would be critical. The Subcommittee should therefore clearly articulate various
opinions on the three key issues in the agenda and thoroughly discuss each. He noted
there was no need to get full consensus on resolutions to these issues, however, if a
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 3
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
consensus emerged, it would be pursued.
Dornsife noted that there were many parallel efforts to develop some sorts of cleanup
regulations. An early sense of what EPA is going to come out with is key to all of
these other efforts since EPA's responsibility is to set the framework for other rules.
Dornsife said he planned to take an active role in the discussion and described his
role. He then introduced Pamela Russell, the Designated Federal Official for this
NACEPT Subcommittee.
NACEPT Background
Pamela Russell Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, described how this Subcommittee
fits into the broader NACEPT framework. She noted that NACEPT:
is an EPA advisory body first chartered in 1988 in compliance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA);
provides recommendations and advice to the EPA Administrator and to other
officials of the Agency;
includes senior-level persons representing diverse backgrounds and viewpoints;
ป is currently chaired by Dr. John Sawhill, President and CEO of the Nature
Conservancy.
Further she noted that the major work of NACEPT is currently carried out by six
committees. A plenary session of NACEPT meets once a year. At this meeting
Subcommittee Chairs make summary reports to the EPA Administrator.
Russell reviewed the Federal Advisory Committee Act procedures. These procedures
are designed to maximize public access to committee deliberations and to improve
overall management of advisory committee activities.
SUBCOMMITTEE INTRODUCTIONS\AGENDA REVIEW
Dornsife introduced the facilitation team from Triangle Associates including the lead
facilitator, Martha Bean.
Margo Oge, along with Gene Durman, Deputy Director of ORIA and Acting Division
Director of the Radiation Studies Division; and Barbara Hostage, Branch Chief;
introduced members of the ORIA rule writing team (see ORIA list in Appendix B).
Summary of Expertise/Interests and Message to Writers of the Rule
Dornsife then asked each member of the subcommittee to introduce themselves,
identifying the expertise and interests they bring to the table and noting most
important messages they wanted to convey to the EPA staff about what ought to be
addressed in the rule. Dornsife began the introductions with himself.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 4
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Bill Domsife
Expertise and Interests
ป Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection.
Chairperson of Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors Committee on
Decontamination and Decommissioning.
Represents the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors on a federal
interagency task force that is looking at developing a cleanup regulation.
Responsible for all the radiation issues in Pennsylvania, a state with about 14 sites
that are on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's target list for immediate
cleanup, including the Three Mile Island reactor.
ป Has a state perspective that is squarely in the middle of this effort.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
State concurrence up front with regulations and state review during the process are
extremely important.
Notes that states are primarily responsible for implementing many of the waste
disposal options that will support this effort.
Regulation needs to be measurable and verifiable in order to make sure it's being
implemented,
ป Regulation has to take into consideration what it will do to the waste management
infrastructure. Need to ask where the waste that is produced is going to go.
Regulation needs to be looked at in the context of other radiation risks that are
faced. We can not afford to spend all of our resources on cleaning up some of
these facilities and not address some of the other problems states face such as
naturally occurring radiological health and safety problems - many of these are not
yet regulated.
Regulation must be adoptable by the states so that they can carry out the state
role.
Mike Veiluva
Expertise and Interests
* Foundation Counsel to the Western States Legal Foundation, a non-profit
environmental and peace organization based in San Francisco, in existence about
10 years. A primary focus is to monitor the Department of Energy's nuclear
weapons program, including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Represents the Physicians for Social Responsibility as administrative / legal
counsel.
In past they have represented a number of related issues including disarmament.
Have represented Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and currently involved in a law suit
against Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separator Facility at Livermore - this gives
you a score card of his perspective.
The interest that Western States represent has to do with the public's perception
of risk from radioactive materials and wastes generated by the arms race and
nuclear power.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 5
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Messages to Writers of the Rule
Notes the need to distinguish radioactive waste from other types of hazardous
waste. The public is aware of, and interested in, the differences between the two.
Need to maximize public involvement, to avoid the cycle of "lawsuits, hearings;
more lawsuits, more hearings," etc.
ป Emphasizes the enormous uncertainty in three areas: scientific, social, economic.
Given these uncertainties, there are enormous risks involved in setting regulations.
Would like to see the most conservative approach possible, in assessing the risks
and settings regulations, given the vast unknowns involved.
Dr. Kim Kearfott
Expertise and Interests
Professor of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Michigan.
Serves on the Board of Directors of Health Physics Society, a 6400 member
scientific organization involved with radioactive protection for the public,
workers, and environment.
ป Member of the NCRP Subcommittee # 57 - an umbrella committee for the
development of methodologies for Internal Dosimetry.
ป Ph.D. from MIT in Nuclear Engineering, minor in Physiology from Harvard, MS
in Reactor Safety from University of Virginia.
Currently V'orking on design of novel radiation detectors for mixed field
dosimetry.
Developing a curriculum at University for leaders of the teams that will be
involved in the cleanup activities.
Broad research interests, over the last 15 years. Worked on radon in Arizona,
models for use in internal dosimetry particularly for radio tracers in medicine,
with some work on quality control and dose reduction techniques for
mammography.
Primary field is Radiological Engineering - concerned with solution of problems,
medical and radiation protection aspects of nuclear technology.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
Hopes EPA will proceed quickly on this complex issue.
Would like to see regulations that are consistent and reasonable; they must be
measurable, achievable, quantifiable goals, above the lower limit of detectability
for a given sample type and background).
ป Limited resources must be deployed in an ethical way which considers all risk
(including risk to workers involved in cleanup) and costs to society balanced with
potential benefits.
ป Regulation must be able to be verified.
* Regulation should be achievable, so that work can proceed.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 6
-------
NACEPTSubcommittee <,., Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Susan Wiltshire
Expertise and Interests
Vice president of JK Research Associates; a consulting firm specializing in public
policy formulation, strategic planning, and public involvement planning, mostly in
radioactive waste management issues.
Chair the NACEPT Subcommittee on Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
Serves on National Academy of Science Committee on the technical basis for the
Yucca Mountain Regulations.
Wrote the new edition of the League of Women Voters Nuclear Waste Primer,
Served on NAS Board on Radioactive Waste Management's Uranium Mill
Tailings pr.;iel, and panel on Risk Communication,
Brings a new way of looking, because of lack of past regulation development
involvement.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
Regulation needs to be clear technically well-funded and pass the test of reason
when it becomes part of the public discussion.
Regulation needs to give sense of confidence, consistency, and clarity.
Dave Jansen
Expertise and Interests
Works for the Washington State Department of Ecology Nuclear and Mixed Waste
Program, Director of Hanford project.
Civil and environmental engineer.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
Determining where the waste is going to go will make or break the regulations in
the long term.
Consider the perspective of ground level implementor, who turns regulatory
expectations into bulldozer work, and completed projects.
Regulations must be crafted so they allow ground level implementers to proceed
with physical cleanup at these sites.
Encourage consistency among the agencies.
Discuss the possibility of geographically focused cleanup such as that being
considered at Hanford - outgrowth of Future Site Uses project.
Regulation should not derail existing cleanup plans and commitments.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 7
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Linda Capano Dolan
Expertise and Interests
Member of Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the American
Nuclear Society for more than 17 years. ANS is a not-for-profit technical and
educational society comprised of about 17 thousand members, which includes
environmental, waste management, and cleanup professions, medicine, health
care, and power plant operations professionals.
Chair, ANS's Special Committee on Cleanup Regulations; member Environmental
Sciences and Fuel Cycle, and Waste Management Professional Divisions.
* Professional experience includes DOE contractor manager, Manager of State
Compliance, and Operable Unit Project Manager at CERCLA sites.
Certified Hazardous Materials Manager.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
ANS favors a dose based approach, used in conjunction with land use
restrictions, to give flexibility to different types of groups affected by this
regulation. Regulations should be tailored to the amount of risk the type of
facility involved presents to public. Gave example showing that ANS would
not believe a medical facility should necessarily be under the same regulations
as a CERCLA site.
Supports the idea of a graded approach, perhaps with land use restrictions in
the future.
Calculation methods used are just as important as the basis of the regulation
itself.
Depending on the methodology selected to calculate risk, i.e. slope factors, dose
ICRP / NCRP method, etc., the method can affect the risk number calculated and
thus the cost of cleanup by a factor of 10 or more.
Always keep in mind that when DOE sites are cleaned up it is a public expense.
Regulation should be compatible with other regulations, i.e. RCRA and
CERCLA.
Arjun Makijhani
Expertise and Interests
President, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research.
Member, EPA Radiation Advisory Committee.
Co-authored book, "High Level Dollars, Low Level Sense" on nuclear waste.
Doctorate in Electrical Engineering, specializing in Nuclear Fusion from
University of California at Berkeley.
* Worked on environmental issues for more than 20 years and been co-author of
many studies, and participated in many studies on nuclear weapons plants,
with some done in the context of lawsuits.
Expert to studies for Fernald against DOE contractors; suit settled in 1989 for
$78 million dollars. It was the first time anyone independent had assessed
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 8
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
source term from a nuclear weapons facility and said official source term was
not correct, putting some other preliminary numbers on table.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
Risk has already been created - focus is really about risk reduction and
radiation relocation.
Can not and should not consider cleanup regulations without dealing with both
waste management and risk.
Although waste disposal processes are separate institutional questions, risk and
waste management issues must be considered as part of this process, otherwise
there cannot be a risk minimization approach from a societal point of view,
Past radioactive management practices have become today's cleanup problems.
A lot of these risks were involuntary, without informed public consent.
Difference between voluntary and involuntary risks- the public has no tolerance
for involuntary risks, such as exposure to radioactive contaminants.
Synergistic risks must be considered; factor in for our lack of knowledge.
Non-cancer effects must be considered.
Regulation setting should factor in vulnerable populations such as children and
pregnant women.
Land use shouldn't be considered a onetime decision, but should be seen as an
on-going process.
Public information and consent should be an on-going process.
Contamination for future generations to deal with is a given. Therefore,
something for community monitoring and education at these sites is essential.
Evaluate what cleanup to background means. What does that mean?
Argues for clarity and transparency about what we're doing.
Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner
Expertise and Interests
President, consulting firm called Governmental Dynamics. Mission is focused
on local communities impacted by federal facilities, regulations, etc.
Director of Energy Community Alliance, which is focusing on a number of
cities and counties that have DOE sites in their jurisdictions and are having to
confront cleanup and downsizing.
* Trained in Public Administration and Pre-Medical Biology, which gives him a
science and public policy background.
ป Consults heavily in Nye County, Nevada the location of NTS (a candidate site for
a high level nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca mountain) as a policy advisor;
helped them set up their technical and socioeconomic oversight program.
* Worked in Riehland to help design an environmental quality program, that will
demonstrate a commitment to balancing it's dual role of protecting public health
/ safety and helping to maintain a viable economy.
Worked in Oak Ridge as an economic development administrator, working to
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 9
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
sustain the local economy when many of the environmental problems first come
to public attention,
Has perspective of a local government professional.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
ป Regulation should incorporate a new role for local governments. To build local
and public confidence in cleanup we need to build in local capacity to help
monitor cleanup.
Regulation should bear in mind role local governments in arbitrating local
community values as they are applied to the assumptions used in risk
assessment models.
* Need public input on the value side. With a lot of expert's personal judgment
built into risk assessment models, public judgment should be brought in as well.
Massive cleanup requires massive dollars. Federal commitments can be
expected to diminish as they sense this is an untenable conundrum.
Hopes for regulation that will protect public health and safety, while sustaining
the political support for the cost.
Adam Babich
Expertise and Interests
Editor, Environmental Law Reporter from the Environmental Law Institute, a
non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to advancing environmental
protection through improvement of law and fostering dialogue and shared
information. ELI does not lobby or litigate.
ป On behalf of Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources
Defense Council, litigated at Rocky Flats and at Waste Isolation Pilot Project in
Carlsbad New Mexico.
ป Participated in Keystone dialogue on regulatory negotiation about Radium Mill
Tailings.
Juris Doctor from Yale.
* Private practice attorney until February.
ป On NRDC Panel on Prioritization of DOE Sites which is on hold.
Involved in CERCLA enforcement for the State of Colorado's Uranium Mill
Sites from 1984-1987.
Views are not necessarily the same as former clients.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
Regulation should be consistent, and act as a model for other environmental
contaminants, such as CERCLA program.
It is just as important who implements the regulation as what the regulation is.
* Thought should be given to what extent public processes can be implemented.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 10
-------
NACEPTSubcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Ann Hurley
Expertise and Interests
* Environment Project Director and Chief Counsel of the National Attorneys
General. NAAG's members, the Attorneys General of the 50 states, the chief
legal officer of the District of Columbia, the Northern Marinana Islands, Puerto
Rico, American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands, have a particular interest
in the cleanup of federal facilities. NAAG recommended individuals who
served on the Keystone Dialogue Committee.
* Ph.D. in Oceanography, gives a quantitative, scientific background.
* Background as lawyer, in both private practice and as an attorney for the
federal government.
* Trial attorney with the Department of Justice section which represented the
DOE at some of the CERCLA sites.
Understands private parties perspective, because she was a private practice,
attorney.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
Here in an individual capacity, giving personal viewpoints.
Regulation should be verifiable in order to enforce it.
Should involve local, state, and the public in cleanup decisions - on a site-by-
site basis.
ซ Method for involvement needs to be considered. Perhaps a fund to empower
communities is a good model.
Environmental justice movement has taught us to start talking about land use
decisions, and who will bear the burdens. It should not just be low income
communities that are stuck with what is left at the site.
It would be a big mistake to divorce radiation from other programs. Regulation
needs to work within the whole package of hazardous substance cleanup
regulations.
ซ Recognize and be willing to admit limitations on our ability to come out with a
nice easily definable number.
Doug Sarno
Expertise and Interests
* Manager of federal and technical programs for Clean Sites, a not-for-profit
organization that has been around for about 10 years focusing on CERCLA
issues.
Career in CERCLA, but has focused on DOE issues in the last few years.
Have seen our cleanup programs from a number of different perspectives,
cleanup contractor for EPA and DOD, then working for EPA, and now non-
profit capacity.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 11
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Messages to Writers of the Rule
Believes that programs for cleanup in this county have let "the perfect be the
enemy of the good."
Should not idealize, and theorize what sites could be if we could make
everything go away, when we can't make it all go away. This has lead to
unrealistic expectations and to spending our time not meeting them. Limited
resources, limited technologies.
Hears encouraging voices around the table saying that there are limits to what
can be done.
ซ The perception that land use which is less than residential/ pristine is creating
more risk, or is less desirable, is wrong. Cleanup will make it better than what
we have today. Perhaps less than perfect, but perfect was never realistic in the
first place.
Should not be myopic about cleanup focusing exclusively on threat to human
health which is often theoretical; need to balance societal resources.
Roland Fletcher
Expertise and Interests
Administrator of Maryland Radiological Health Program.
ป Chairman-Elect of the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors.
* Worked in Radiation Safety / Protection for last 29 years. The first 21 as a
member of the U.S. Army.
MS in Organic Chemistry.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
The Army studied dealing with worst case scenarios with the goal to survive on
radioactively contaminated battlefields. Brings this up because we might have
to consider closing some heavily contaminated areas off for availability. Not
only clean to the best level, but if it not ready, then close it off altogether -
restricted use or no use.
Need to ensure that there is communication with state officials, county and
local governments, and the public.
ซ Consider the process as well as the goal. States do not have a consistent
answer on how to implement many federal regulations. Wants this
regulation to be clear.
Concerned with the coordination between federal agencies. As an agreement
state, we need to be a part of any agreement that's being made, so that our
particular needs will be met.
ซ Agrees with consistency, and achievability.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 12
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Robert Holden
Expertise and Interests
Program Director of the Nuclear Radiation Project of the National Congress of
American Indians, a Tribal Government Advocacy Organization since 1944.
Tribal governments pass resolutions within their governing bodies to join
NCAI.
Messages to Writers of the Rule
Many of the sites are located on or near Indian reservation sites.
In exchange for giving up all of our land, we were given reserved areas which
would not be encroached upon by anyone. Much of these lands have been
encroached upon and used, and are now polluted.
The Federal Government has power, and it also has responsibility.
The Federal government and EPA agreed to recognize the tribes as
governments and agreed to deal with them on a government to government
basis. This action gave the tribes access to the protections of the regulations
developed, yet funds were not made available.
Must look back at what some of this land was originally used for. Many sites
have cultural significance (e.g., Gable Mountain at Hanford is a Visionquest
site). Native American people want access to these sites, and want them
cleaned up.
Look at cost implications: it will require quite a lot of money to restore these
lands to natural background. In the minds of Indian people we have already
paid for these lands up front.
* Native Americans have given up a lot for national defense, and they are still
giving up a lot. Many have suffered in Nevada and not been dealt with fairly.
Many have suffered from exposure, monitoring stopped at reservation borders.
Pay attention to what Indian people say, as members of the public, and as
sovereign peoples. Because of their relationship to the land, they have the
power to heal much that nuclear medicine can not.
Dornsife then asked all observers in the room to introduce themselves (see list of
attendees, Appendix B).
Bean reviewed the agenda for the two days, describing how each issue outlined in the
agenda includes a short presentation on ORIA's approach, followed by free discussion.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 13
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
THEMES
After a 10-minute break the group reconvened and Dornsife noted that there seemed to
be several common themes that cut across the points people raised this morning:
The cleanup regulation needs to be measurable and verifiable so people
implementing and providing oversight can determine the regulations are met.
ป The regulation needs to take into consideration local and cultural needs and
make sure that state, local, and tribal governments are involved early, and
throughout the process; including some provisions that the public is somehow
empowered to get involved in the process.
* There's a need for recognition of the impacts on the waste management
infrastructure how cleanup is likely to affect where the waste is going and
how that's going to be managed.
There's a need to consider this regulation in the context of other regulation-
setting processes.
An additional theme appeared to be the recognition of limits; that resources,
technology and even "whole system" risks may limit the ability to get to pristine
cleanups. These limits are not fixed, and may change overtime, especially as new
technologies are developed.
It was acknowledged that members of the Subcommittee may have minority opinions.
These may be the "uncommon themes" which never the less should be kept in mind with
the "common themes" and should be reflected in any document of the Subcommittee.
A short discussion followed on the nature and importance of voluntary risks and
involuntary risks. Much radiation exposure has been involuntary. This makes people
fundamentally skeptical of cleanups regulations which leave residual (e.g. additional
involuntary) risks.
GOALS/CONTEXT
Goals of this Meeting/Goals of Rulemaking Effort
Durman noted that ORIA's goals in convening this Subcommittee are to:
Describe key issues.
Get comments and deal with them systematically.
Provide a summary of this meeting.
ป Report back to this Subcommittee.
The overall goals of the rule are to:
Protect human health and environment.
Streamline radiation cleanup process.
Be acceptable to the public
Be cost effective/affordable
Be implementable
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 14
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Durman described the schedule:
ANPR (Advanced Notice Of Proposed
Rulemaking)
Draft Proposed Rule
Second NACEPT Subcommittee meeting
OMB review of Draft Rule
Publication of final Proposed Rule
Final Rule promulgated
Late October - Early November
1993
December 1993
February 1994
Summer 1994
Fall 1994
Fall 1995
PARALLEL PROCESSES
Durman reiterated the distinctions between EPA's rule and NRC's rule. EPA's rule
does apply to all sites, including NRC sites. But if EPA finds NRC's rule sufficiently
protective of human health and environment, then EPA would propose that NRC sites
be exempt from the EPA rule.
Durman said that there were 18 major categories of nuclear facilities that would be
covered by the EPA cleanup rule, they are as follows:
1. Mines and Mills
2. Enrichment
3. Fuel/Target Fabrication
4. Reprocessing Facilities
5. Reactors
6. Reseaich/Biomedical/Analytical labs
7. Industrial/Commercial
8. Sealed Source Users
9. Nuclear Medicine Departments
10. Accelerators
11. Fusion Facilities
12. Nuclear Test Sites
13. Weapons Accidents and Safety Tests
14. Depleted Uranium
15. Waste Management
16. Waste Disposal
17. Naturally Occurring Radioactive Waste
18. Entire Facility
October 1993 Meeting Summary
page 15
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Other Activities Within EPA
Durman noted that EPA is coordinating work within the Agency. For example:
Waste Management Rule. There is an obvious link between the cleanup
regulation and the waste management rule. The waste management
rulemaking will follow closely after the cleanup regulations.
Overall Radiation Exposure Guidance. The Atomic Energy Act gives EPA
responsibility to create guidance on overall radiation exposure to the general
public. This guidance is being revised by a group working with Allan
Richardson at EPA. This overall radiation exposure guidance will provide an
"umbrella" for other regulations.
CERCLA. Superfund will be streamlined; and ORIA is tracking and
participating in the process by participating in an interagency task force. An
example of Superfund streamlining is the concept of soil "trigger" levels.
These will help determine when additional site characterization is needed.
These are not regulations, however, and do not currently include
radionuclides.
Work With NRC and DOE
Durman invited Jill Lytle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste Management at DOE
and Chip Cameron, Special Counsel for Public Liaison and Waste Management of
NRC, to provide their perspectives on coordinating efforts.
Jill Lytle summarized the change in DOE's mission from defense production to
cleanup. There are more than 5000 identified contaminated sites, and more than 1400
waste streams. Lytle said she agreed with what many people said earlier in the
meeting, especially relative to time and resources. Surely with sufficient time and
resources (both human and monetary), full cleanup to a pristine level might be
possible. But the question is how long, and at what cost?
She noted that DOE sees five specific issues relative to the regulation:
Finding risk based regulations is a worthy effort.
DOE is looking at EPA as the lead and is working with NRC.
Ultimately the rule must make sense, and be understood by people.
Fiscal constraints are real.
Future land use is going to be a critical consideration.
Finally, taxpayers and the Congress need to know their money is well spent.
Congress is requiring DOE to give a" baseline" cost for their operations. The
cleanup regulation from EPA should help them with this.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 16
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Chip Cameron, NRC, said that by working closely with EPA, NRC hopes EPA will
find NRC's own regulations protective and EPA will exclude NRC sites from EPA's
generally applicable cleanup regulation. He noted:
NRC had resources to begin their rulemaking effort earlier than EPA.
Objective of NRC's "Enhanced Participatory Rulemaking" effort (January to
May 1993) was to, 1) get comment early before the staff sat down to develop
a draft proposed rule, and 2) have a dialogue about how to accomplish the
objectives of the rulemaking effort.
ซ NRC is using the results of their regional workshops to get early input on their
regulation.
NRC hopes to have a draft rule and draft "Generic Environmental Impact
Statement" available for comment early next year. They expect to send the
rule to the Commission in April 1994, and hope to have a final rule in May,
1995.
Daman noted again that EPA learned a great deal from the NRC Enhanced
Participatory Rulemaking process, and will build on this work as ORIA writes the
cleanup rule.
SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION ON CONTEXT FOR RULE AND NRG/DOE
Dornsife invited Subcommittee members to ask questions of Oge, Durman, Cameron
and Lytle.
Question: What is the merit of having NRC's rule process separate from EPA's rule
process?
Response: In an ideal world maybe it wouldn't have worked out this way but it may
now turn out even better because of the cooperation this has produced.
NRC had the resources to get to work on the problem and then enlist
EPA's help after they got the resources to go ahead themselves.
Question: Recognizing EPA and NRC both have rules underway, what key things
do you need, Chip (NRC), and what key things did you take away from
the NRC process, Gene (EPA)?
Response (Cameron, NRC): The Subcommittee can most help us by saying what
should the regulation be? How can it be verified and measured? How do
practical considerations fit into this regulation? Also, NRC would like to
know what should the role of land use be? When can land be released?
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 17
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Response (Durman, EPA): EPA's current work builds on the NRC process. Some
lessons learned from the workshops:
First, unrestricted use was originally seen by us as the ultimate target.
However, we learned this was not the direction of choice of people
across the country.
Second, cleanup of these sites is of intense interest to local
communities; and they don't want a process that supplies all the
answers from Washington, DC.
Third, costs are staggering, especially when considering costs of
transport once you are moving dirt.
Comment (Dornsife): As a point of clarification, he wanted people to remember that
in a related project, EPA's Allan Richardson is asking at what level will
the public be protected from all sources of radiation. The cleanup rule has
a great deal more specificity on a particular topic. Draft guidance from
Allan Richardson's Task Force is expected in February 1994.
Question; Is the NRC work available to the EPAfmmers of thin cleanup
regulation ?
Response: Yes. Drafts will be made available to this Subcommittee and to EPA.
Our work will be available in January, 1994. NRC would welcome the
perusal of the NRC rule by this Subcommittee.
Question;
Response
Response
agencies
/ am still confused about jurisdictions. Two regulations is not better than
one, not even better than none. How will decision makers in the field
know to choose the NRC rule or the EPA rule?
(Cameron): Whole idea is that a decision maker at a site will not be faced
with two regulations. We have a great interest in setting a consistent
regulation.
(Oge): Ideally, we'll come up with the same regulation. The two
have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (see Appendix C of the
Issues Paper on Radiation Site Cleanup Regulations) and EPA is committed
to evaluating the NRC proposal. If NRC comes up with something
different they will have to work hard to make sure that we can make the
finding that it is protective of human health and the environment.
Comment: Want to remind both agencies that 60 percent of the states are Agreement
States and any directive that comes down must be coordinated with states.
Question: What's available from the NRC process?
Response: Summaries, transcripts, draft regulatory summary of comments.
Contractors are still finalizing the comments. Expect these in about a
month, NRC will send it to those on the Subcommittee roster as a matter
of course.
October 1993 Meeting Summary
page 18
-------
NACEPTSubcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
PUBLIC COMMENT/DISCUSSION WITH THE SUBCOMMITTEE
Dornsife invited members of the public to ask questions of Oge, Cameron and Lytle
and the Subcommittee.
Comment:
Take cost into account, take it seriously - think about the effect on industry
and jobs.
ป Make public participation real. Don't just offer soap boxes to people who
don't care about spending other people's money.
Educate people, speak of risk in terms people understand.
Recognize there are sites that beg for land use restrictions as opposed to
cleanup to unrestricted use; this can be extremely cost-effective way to protect
public health.
ป Communication must be developed at site level.
Be sure to consider and analyze the impacts on states developing new low level
radioactive waste sites.
ป Perhaps do environmental impact statement on volumes of low level waste, for
which states and compacts will be responsible for.
There is a possibility that wastes resulting from a new cleanup regulation
would overshadow current low level radioactive waste disposal requirements.
It may be inappropriate for some of the wastes generated from this rule to go
into low level waste sites.
Until we take on radioactive waste classification we'll get bad answers;
The public should not have to show harm; please use an ethic of protection,
not risk assessment.
Issues of BRC (Below Regulatory Concern) policies apply here ~ basis for
rejecting it is that industry does self-reporting, it is dose based, no limit and
exemptions, and because it was generic there was no role for local control;
This cleanup regulation has to be acceptable.
Rulemaking has to look at current and future facilities; we don't want to make
more messes.
People understand risk numbers; remember 1:1,000,000 is barely acceptable.
A person at a site may hive four regulations/rules to go by.
We need a consistent set of rules.
Federal Register notice didn't have deadline for comment.
Response (Durman, EPA): You can comment in written form until 60 days after the
date of publication of the ANPR, which is expected in late October or
November.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 19
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Question; What is the relationship between this rule and the DOE sites not licensed
by AEA?
Response (Jill Lytle, DOE): Yes, the rule will pertain to all our sites, it is a
generally
applicable rule. High level repositories are a special case and would be
licensed by NRC and therefore under NRC rule.
Response (Chip Cameron, NRC): There are a few DOE facilities we deal with in
our regulation.
FIRST ISSUE: CLEAN UP LEVELS AND RISK LEVELS
Durman said ORIA needs help of the Subcommittee on questions related to the actual
cleanup levels and/or risk levels that will ultimately become part of the regulation.
These are key questions ORIA is grappling with right now as they begin to write the
draft rule:
* Considering existing regulations and current practices, what is an acceptable
cleanup level?
What level of risk, as an incremental increase over background, should be
achieved in site cleanup to protect human health and the environment?
ป What is the role of technological feasibility and cost of cleanup in the selection
of cleanup levels?
Durman noted that EPA is not working in a policy vacuum, there are precedents. He
displayed a chart showing the relationship between dose and risk and different
exposure assumptions. He then presented a chart displaying the hypothetical
relationship between volumes of soil removed relative to risk reduction. This chart
was meant to illustrate the diminishing returns in risk reduction per unit volume of
material moved. See appendix C for each of these.
Bean then invited the Subcommittee to ask questions of Durman and ORIA staff, and
then to offer EPA ideas for how to set cleanup levels and risk levels. She asked
people to keep in mind their themes from the morning discussion regarding the rule:
Measurable and verifiable.
Meet local and cultural needs.
Link with waste management infrastructure.
Be consistent.
Recognize the limits of cost; and human and time resources.
Keep in mind the "uncommon" themes.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 20
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Question: How is EPA staff leaning? Are there any biases in terms of what is
acceptable?
Response: EPA is leaning toward a dose or risk-based regulation as opposed to imposing a
technology (unless that technology can be shown to achieve a particular risk
or dose level in a predictable way). ORIA is less sure about whether the
regulation should set a range or a single number regulation, but the ORIA team
is currently leaning toward a single number. ORIA is looking at the possibility
of different numbers for different land uses. In addition, he noted that although
ORIA doesn't have a leaning as to what the number actually is, they are paying
attention to precedents such as CERCLA (which incorporates a risk range of
10-4 to 10-6). WIPP analysis includes a number, and other work offers
numbers also. However, those precedents are quite varied, so EPA is looking
for advice.
There was agreement that it is useful to hear the leanings of the staff, and that these
did not constrain the discussion, but helped it to be more substantive.
One member commented that any supporting analysis must be made apparent to the
people whose livelihoods will be affected.
Minimizing Total Risk
A lengthy discussion followed on the dilemmas associated with minimizing risk at a
site. One member noted that the ultimate test of a regulation will always be "has the
number of people who might have died been lessened?". But this requires a look at
the entire system: exposure before cleanup, residual exposure after cleanup, risks to
workers, and risks associated with the remediation itself. For example, some sites
may have high volumes of material with relatively low levels of radiation. At these
sites, there may be more risk associated with trucking accidents and worker health and
safety than if the material remained unremediated. On the other hand, some sites will
have lower volumes of materials at higher concentrations. The risk benefits of
remediating the material may be very clear.
One member volunteered personal experience with a site that would have posed more
risk if it had beer, traditionally remediated through a soil removal and/or incineration
program. The "cleanup" ultimately chosen involved institutional controls, a choice
that was supported in the risk assessment. The point was made that it is very hard -
perhaps impossible - to assume that there will always be a predicable relationship
between risk reduction and volume of material remediated that holds true across all
sites. Risk reduction must be optimized site by site, and must consider the whole
system.
A member made the final point that there is no single "magic number" that can or
should always be reached at every site.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 21
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Suggested Regulations
One member offered 10"* as the appropriate risk level for the regulation. Advantages
are that 104 falls within the CERCLA risk range, it translates to 3 mrem/year dose
(which is measurable), and it is above the measurable variations in dose.
Disadvantages are that it is at the "high" end of the CERCLA risk range, and that it's
best selling point may be the fact that it is measurable and verifiable not that it is
protective.
One caution is that 104 may not even be possible to reach at naturally occurring
radiation sites (NORM).
Several members then supported the notion that 10"6 should be the risk level set for the
regulation. Advantages are that it is at the "low" or most protective end of the
CERCLA risk range, and is a figure much of the public understands. Any variation
from this risk level will have to be explained and that won't be easy. Disadvantages
include that it is probably not verifiable at many sites. Plus, in some areas 10* may
be below background. One member's concern was that 104 was below background,
and that the minimum would be background.
A question was asked of Durman if his earlier chart translating risk levels into doses
(see appendix C) assumed incremental risks, above background. The answer was yes,
they assume incremental risk above background. A caution was offered that
calculating this would be very difficult, and harder to describe. Ultimately, it may not
be possible to sum radio toxicity and chemical toxicity.
A reminder was given that in many cases the NRC works with a 10"2 risk level.
Another participant reminded the group that the assumptions in the supporting risk
assessment drive the risk level. For instance, with a different set of assumptions, a
risk level of 10"2 could become a risk level of 10"3.
A member noted that the set of risk assumptions from which you start, will bring you
to different level, i.e. 10"2 might become 10"3, or vice versa.
Finally, a member offered background level as the regulation, noting that it had the
distinct advantage of not being a "moving goal post" as do risk or dose based
regulations, which are likely to change as technology changes and as we learn more
about risk. Another member noted that a background regulation, or even "background
- plus," would set an international example, A background regulation would formally
acknowledge that the EPA recognizes that the radiation exposure resulting from sites
that need to be cleaned up has been involuntary. Both members said that they believed
background as a regulation may, in the near term, serve primarily as a goal until new
technologies were developed. Both expressed a concern, however, that unless
background was the regulation there would be little incentive for the development of
new technologies.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 22
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
There was no consensus on an appropriate risk level, or whether or not the regulation
should be a single number or a range. There was consensus that the regulation should
be protective, verifiable, and measurable, but there appeared to be divergence on
which of these was most important (see discussion below).
Approaches to Setting a Cleanup Level/Risk Level
One member offered the concept that there are two approaches to setting a regulation,
regardless of the actual number:
Choose the regulation that represents what we are willing to achieve now (given
constraints of technology, costs, measurability, etc.). To this member, a
regulation of 10"* would represent this approach.
Choose the regulation that represents what we think is an acceptable risk, and
work hard to attain this wherever possible. To this member, a regulation of 10"
6 would represent this approach. Where "acceptable" risk cannot be attained, a
clear and defensible procedure for determining the best course of action should
be outlined in the rule.
To this member, the regulation itself was less important than honesty and clarity on the
part of EPA regarding why a particular regulation is ultimately chosen. For instance,
if the regulation chosen is 10^ it should be clearly stated that this is what is most
practical. If 10"6 is chosen, it should be stated that is the most protective but it may
frequently be unattainable.
This suggestion became the basis for a full discussion on various "tiered" approaches
to implementing a regulation. A "tiered" approach allows a site to "aim" for a
particular level of cleanup, but if this cannot be attained, a rational approach is used to
determine what level of cleanup can be attained.
Most Subcommittee participants agreed that cleanup would nearly always be an
iterative process, and even if a particular site cannot be completely "cleaned up" now,
technology might be available in the future.
Therefore, periodic re-visiting of sites should probably be a provision of the rule. One
member noted industry's has concern about this. While the industry recognized this
might be necessary in the worst cases, it also asked that EPA recognize the need to
consider a cleanup complete at some point, and not allow liability to exist in
perpetuity.
On a similar vein, many members of the Subcommittee supported the notion of
providing ongoing resources (funds, expertise) to local communities to monitor sites,
and perhaps re-evaluate sites as years progress, as technology improves, and as the
need for, and use of, the land changes.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 23
-------
NACEPTSubcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Although there was general agreement that a "tiered" approach would be useful, there
was no consensus on exactly how the tiers could be structured. Opinions diverged
most regarding the initial "tier": the regulation itself. In addition to the discussion
cataloged above, the following points were made:
Some members wanted to use a single point risk, some a risk range.
Include a "not to exceed" number in addition to the regulation itself. This "not
to exceed" number would be the upperbound level of acceptable risks,
regardless of the circumstances.
ป Use a regulation that calls for cleanup to background at each site; this is the
only regulation that will be acceptable to the public.
* Set sights high in order to "push the technology envelope", but assume that this
risk level is more likely to function as a goal, as MCLG's in the Clean Water
Act.
Incorporate the concept of ALARAs (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) into
the risk number. This would allow some sites to achieve different levels, for
instance, a 10~6 cleanup when it was a relatively minor expense to go from ICr4 to
10-6.
EPA should have discretion to enforce as an ALARA standard a "goal" if the
characteristics of the site allowed it (i.e. single sources capable of inexpensive
cleanup).
ป Regulation should 'sever' the achievable limit for existing sites from any
standard applied to future operators.
* Operating standards should be independent of cleanup regulations, at sites with
future or on-going activities: otherwise standard could "creep" towards more
leniency.
ป Dose may be more stable to measure than risk, and might therefore be a better
basis for the regulation.
The group agreed to disagree on just what the regulation should be, and moved on to
discussing the "tiers" themselves. Most believed that if a cleanup level could not be
met (be it a regulation or a goal) the procedure for determining what can be done
should include:
ป A focus on local involvement and perhaps even local control.
Attentiveness to providing "local empowerment structures" where communities
may not have the resources to be active participants in determining what should
be done,
Recognition of special populations in risk assessment work.
ป Funds or resources to help local communities "in perpetuity" monitor, etc..
Specific options for re-visiting the site in case new technologies develop.
Exploration of land uses which might minimize exposures but still allow
productive use of the land.
ป Use of institutional controls which might lessen exposures.
October ]993 Meeting Summary page 24
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Cleanup from the Perspective of Native People
The unwavering position of Native sovereign nations is that all contaminated sites should
be cleaned up to background. This was the land's original state, and the state in which
it was offered by Native Peoples to the United States government. Therefore, full
cleanup should always be the endpoint. However, many Native American nations
understand this may not be technologically feasible at this point in time. Given this
reality, whatever is possible to do now should be done. When the Tribes agreed to
transfer many of the uses of their land to the United States government, they reserved
areas and the rights to those areas for themselves - for fishing, hunting, gathering of
plants, animals, and sacred sites. These agreements are still in place and they will
continue in perpetuity. Therefore we should assume that cleanup would continue into
perpetuity. There is a cultural difference in how uncertainty is understood. Native
people think ahead to seven generations and this involves a level of uncertainty and faith
in the fortune that Native Americans are comfortable with. They are guided by the
knowledge that whatever befalls mother earth will befall man, we are all one
environment.
Other Discussion
A member asked how ARARs (Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Regulations)
would be considered. Durman noted that states can always be more stringent; this is
almost certain to continue to be the case for the radiation cleanup regulation. It is
possible that the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) may contradict this, but it is not likely the
rule is likely to be promulgated under the AEA in any case.
Other points made included:
Recognize that the science of risk assessment and analysis is brand new. What
we think we know now about a particular risk may completely change later on.
Don't let the iterative nature of science and technology create "decision
paralysis". There will always be better ways of doing things in the future; that
knowledge should not keep us from doing the best we know how to do now.
Don't forget it took us 50 years to get into this mess, going to take us a lot
longer to get out of it. This is perfectly fine.
We have to create a process that looks at cleanup as a long-term situation
where we have some intermediate steps.
ป Cleanup regulation gets you in the door, starts the negotiations. Site-specific
technology is what ultimately sets the cleanup. From a practical perspective,
the numbers you're trying to achieve initiate the process of getting the cleanup
started. Completion of the cleanup driven primarily by technology and
community acceptance.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 25
-------
NA CEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Summary of Discussion on Cleanup Levels and Risk Levels
Number or Range - Some said "set a number"; some said "set a range".
Variations on the theme of ranges included the concept of "As Low as is
Reasonably Achievable" and "not to exceed" upperbound limits.
Basis of Regulation - Within both of these options ~ number or range -- there
were several ideas discussed and championed for the basis of the regulation
itself: These ideas included: 1) risk based, 2) dose based 3) risk or dose
based, but with a recognition of what is achievable, measurable and verifiable,
4) background, 5) "background - plus".
Goal or Regulation - And within each of the ideas for the basis of the
regulation were further opinions on whether the regulation should be a goal or a
number that cleanups are expected to achieve.
Tiered Approach - All agreed that some sort of "tiered approach" should be
used. The first tier would be the regulation itself. If the regulation cannot be
met, a rational process would be followed on a site specific basis to determine
the appropriate level of cleanup for that site under current conditions.
Local Involvement/Control - All agreed that for a tiered approach to work
there had to be significant local involvement. Some discussed the importance
of local control; a step beyond involvement.
Local Capacity - Some communities may not have the local capacity to
actively participate, and/or may not be as powerful as other communities in
terms of garnering resources. Most people agreed that capacity-building for
communities should be a part of the rule.
Participants agreed that the following issues would also affect the regulation:
ป Uncertainty and how much is not known about the nature of risk; but this
uncertainty should not keep us from taking action.
Different types of sites may need different regulations because of the nature of
the material being cleaned up. Examples include coal ash and other NORM
sites.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 26
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
PUBLIC COMMENT/DISCUSSION WITH SUBCOMMITTEE
Question: Tlie current effort that 's going on here, the radionudide major source
definition, will it be applied through the Clean Air Act and the
radionudide NESHAPs (National Emission Regulations for Hazardous Air
Pollutants)? If not, the regulated industry will be dealing with the
problem of dual regulations?
Response (Durman): Those regulations are also the responsibility of this office so
there shouldn't be a problem of incompatibility between this regulation and
the Clean Air Act as it deals with radionuclides.
Question: Management of mixed waste is going to be a problem before you deal with
site cleanup and future land use. A technology-based debris rule was
passed last year dealing with treatment and disposal of hazardous debris.
If EPA comes up with a risk based rule now, how can you avoid
thoroughly confusing the regulated community and interested
stakeholders?
Response (Durman): We are concerned with the problem of mixed waste, but it's not
an issue we think we'll be able to make major progress on in the course of
this cleanup rule. We are in discussions with RCRA and CERCLA people,
we are going to be able to disentangle some of these mixed waste issues in
the waste management rule.
Comment:
Maybe a different set of regulations could be promulgated to deal with different
types of waste problems since some of them are so unique.
Want to bring into this room what was brought to all of the NRC workshops:
concept of adopting returning to background as a regulation. The way this is
talked about seriously is that local entities would be involved in establishing
what the range of natural variability of the key radionuclides in that area are,
and then going for a number that's within that range. Clearly there are some
sites at which we can't do this, so there is an acknowledgment of a two-tier, of
a non-release situation, but we're very far from knowing what that looks like;
ป Look to the drinking water regulation in which the EPA does acknowledge that
there is no safe level for radionuclides in drinking water. Radiation regulation
should acknowledge there is no safe level;
A stringent regulation would save money pollution prevention;
ป License termination is by definition deregulation; last year the National
Environmental Policy Act put some language in that says if waste is deregulated
after the date of that act, states can set a more stringent regulation;
A suggestion on the issue of risk that pertains to non radiological risk: industrial
work hazards should be treated like background. Consider those risks as a
background level that exist in any industrial operation. Should not be allowed to
be factored into the considering a radiological criteria that will affect the public.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 27
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
This issue of measurability is going to be critical and needs to be dealt with up
front. Concern about EPA using existing data. Challenge the Agency to do a
full scale site characterization at something they think might be measurable.
We would then have real data on what these impacts would be.
SECOND ISSUE; FUTURE LAND USE AND STATE AND LOCAL STATUTES
Durman introduced this issue for discussion. He said that the movement toward
looking at future use as an indicator of cleanup is an exciting one within all the
affected agencies, but noted it is still quite controversial. The notion that a site might
not be cleaned up to residential use regulations is a fairly strong diversion from past
philosophy, and needs careful review. Durman listed different categories of land use
adding that there may be mixed uses at any site in the future. He then posed the
following questions to the Subcommittee:
ป How should the Agency look at reasonable future land uses at radiation sites?
ป What is the relationship between cleanup levels and possible future land uses?
How should the Agency develop reasonable future use scenarios for a site?
What institutional controls, including state and local statutes should accompany
future land uses?
With less than an hour left in the first day of the meeting, the Subcommittee agreed to
freely discuss all the topics above, and try to get closure the next day.
Importance of Local Involvement/Control
Several members emphasized the importance of local involvement and control in
determining future use. Some had experience with release of land, and with looking at
future uses. All agreed that a process to garner clear, local input and buy-in about
future use possibilities was essential.
Some members provided a reminder that land use planning is the purview of local
governments, and they frequently have excellent resources to help manage the
exchange between the agencies and the community about future use options.
There was a reprise of the theme that local communities may not have the capacity to
take care of sites (monitoring, community education, enforcement of institutional
controls, health studies) that are not cleaned up to levels which would allow
"unrestricted" use. Solutions to this potential problem were repeated: there could be
grants to local communities, and other methods of capacity building. The advances in
local control of waste water treatment was offered as a reminder that in just a few
short decades local communities have been able to build and maintain the capacity to
handle complex site and resource management tasks.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 28
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Future Use: Concerns and Supports
There was no consensus within the group that future use as an indicator of cleanup
levels was a good policy to pursue. Concerns included:
Difficulties in controlling groundwater with surface use restrictions;
groundwater frequently "goes it's own way".
Concern that future use may be a panacea, and become too large a safety valve
for the agencies; perhaps de facto, absolving those responsible from cleaning up
further, even if it becomes possible to do further clean up.
Future use may be a useful concept to "get us moving", but does it think ahead
to seven generations?
Future use discussions always seem focused on the notion that industrial uses
may not require the same level of cleanup as residential uses. This may be short
sighted; some of the industrial uses were created with no regard to historic
uses, especially by Native Americans.
Liability for cleanup remains a huge issue. If land is "released" for an alternate
use, but risk regulations change overtime, all previous technical and policy
decisions may have to be thrown out and the wisdom of "releasing" the land will
be questioned. One member of the Subcommittee had experience with this
happening in his state.
Continued federal involvement over the long term with released sites will
require sophisticated interaction with local government and understanding of how
local planning decision are made. This will make the release of partially
cleaned sites, premised upon some level of federal oversight, difficult to
manage.
ซ Governments fail and nations change. Any institutional controls or use
restrictions may be forgotten in future eras. One member offered that no future
use should be allowed if it would pose a "clear and present danger" to future
generations if the institutional controls were not in place.
Fears institutional memory will be lost in the context of an agency or local
government retaining a partially remediated site, forgets, and turns it into a
residential redevelopment area.
Problems of institutional memory can be. alleviated through recorded restrictions
in deeds, amendments to local general plans, indemnities, etc.
Future Use Considerations
One member offered five criteria to be considered as potential future uses are being
discussed for any particular site:
Extent of hazard.
Cost of cleanup.
Concern of local community.
Technical feasibility, and
Environmental impacts.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 29
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Support for Considering Future Use
Several members offered their thoughts on why it is important to begin looking to
future use as a vehicle for both targeting and expediting cleanup:
The model of CERCLA doesn't work anymore; it just doesn't make sense to
spend millions capping and fencing sites, and not allowing other uses of the
site, even though the site might be "cleaner" than surrounding industrial sites.
If we can be clear about future use, it allows resources to be maximized. For
instance, a cap can be a parking lot if there is advance planning. But local
coordination and involvement is a must, as well as helping the Agency think of
it's role a little more broadly than simply cleanup.
* There is a reason why industrial land has developed overtime, and that many
of these sites are in industrial areas. Under the "do no harm" concept, it
makes sense to release lands, even if they are not cleaned up to pristine levels,
for industrial use.
Looking to future use gets us away from CERCLA's "all or nothing"
approach.
Shaping How Future Use Can Work
Subcommittee members had a variety of ideas for practical considerations for how to
make future use processes successful. Some of these ideas were borne of actual
experience with such processes:
Again, the theme of local involvement and perhaps even local control.
* Assume that institutional controls will eventually break down, but don't let this
fear of future change cause undue paralysis. One member illustrated this point
by taking the concern about the failure of institutions in the future to its
extreme: If our government fails, we may have bigger problems than risks at
former radiation cleanup sites. Fear of the future shouldn't prevent rational
decisions now.
It will be important to distinguish between waste management sites and sites
where cleanup has occurred. The nature of institutional controls for each will
be very different, and require different levels of vigilance to make sure they
stay in place.
Build in allowances for future technological advances; perhaps by suggesting
periodic revisiting of sites. But don't let the promise of future technological
advances keep progress from being made now,
PUBLIC COMMENT/DISCUSSION WITH SUBCOMMITTEE
Bean invited public comment on the issue of land use.
Comment:
If there is residual radioactivity left at the site, and the site is being restricted
for what will probably be other hazardous facilities, this local community now
not only has to deal with impacts from the operations we are now terminating,
but also they now will have to deal with the same for the ongoing future. The
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 30
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee an Radiation Cleanup Regulations
regulation has to look at that.
We have to start talking about endowing these sites. Spend the money today
or endow the same amount of money into an investment for that site.
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m. with the promise that future use considerations
would be continued the next morning.
DAY 2
October 19, 1993
RECONVENE
Bill Dornsife welcomed Subcommittee members back and asked if there were new
observers who were not in attendance at the previous day's meeting. Martha Bean
reviewed the agenda for the day, and the Subcommittee discussed how the results of this
meeting would be prepared and used by EPA. Several members said they might send in
additional thoughts or technical details not captured in the summary of this NACEPT
meeting. This was encouraged by ORIA staff.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF FUTURE LAND USE
Bean gave an overview of the discussion from the day before on future use. Themes that
emerged were:
A process is necessary if future use is to figure into site cleanups.
Local communities should have a strong role in any future use process, internal
controls to support monitoring, etc., of sites should be actively built.
There was no agreement about federal role, but Subcommittee members agreed
that a federal role would help bring national interests to the table in local future
use discussions.
Cautionary tales were also told about potential problems. Most of these focused on
issues of liability if risk standards change, and on concerns that institutions might "lose
the memory1' over time that contamination exists at a site. Finally, there was concern that
the "will to clean up" might be lost if people or governments become complacent with
less than pristine land uses on a contaminated site.
Durman noted that the Agency will, in some way, incorporate the consideration of future
use in the rule. He said he believed he heard general support for this during Monday's
discussion. The big question that remains is how to do this. Durman said he also heard
the theme of a "process" with local participation, and would like to see such a process
fleshed out. He also wanted to hear more about the relationship between cleanup levels
and future land uses. Finally, he was interested in learning what institutional controls
might be best? Do we have more confidence in certain kinds of controls over others?
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 31
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Basic Philosophy Behind Future Use
A member said that the group should not "skate over" basic questions of philosophy
before giving advice on the details of future use processes and mechanisms for instituting
them. The basic question is "Do we really believe that doing something (e.g., cleaning
up to a level that allows some form of restricted use) is better than doing nothing?"
Most people, through the course of the morning, agreed that yes, "doing something is
better than nothing," There were many cautions and caveats to this, which are cataloged
later in this summary.
One member felt strongly that the issue is miscast if we think in terms of "doing
something is better than nothing". Maybe we should change our perspective; we should
not assume we are "settling for something less than desirable" if we can't or don't clean
up to pre-contamination levels. We shouldn't assume that the only reason for looking at
future use is because we don't have a complete technical solution today. In many cases,
it may actually be unnecessary to spend the money to get all the way back to a pristine
state, and it is therefore preferable to cleanup to a standard that allows only restricted
use.
One participant said that the movement toward future use is really a way of saying "we
are going to set some priorities here by coupling cleanup to land use." This is going to
be hard for regulators, because it is a whole different way of regulating. But the fact that
it represents a means of priority-setting should be done explicitly, not implicitly. Another
person said that it should not be the Agency's job to set priorities; Congress should give
direction and guidance.
In a supporting response, another participant noted that the Agency must acknowledge
that radioactive cleanup and waste disposal is a long term issue that will take much time,
resources and technology to address. And not all of these resources exist today. By
looking long term, we can take useful actions today without precluding other possibilities
in the future. A systems approach is required.
Discussion of this basic question of philosophy surfaced in conversation throughout the
morning. In sum:
All members of the Subcommittee agreed that future use considerations should
be used to help target cleanup, and that a process for considering future use
should be incorporated into the draft rule.
It is important to note that two very different perspectives ultimately both lead to the
consensus statement above. One perspective is that the consideration of future use is a
practical but somewhat regrettable response to the fact that right now we can't always
completely clean up a site. Another perspective is that of, future use having merit of it's
own accord, and is a very positive step toward making remediation more responsive to
larger societal needs and values.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 32
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Concerns Regarding Future Use
Many concerns were raised about future use considerations, and how they might be
written into the rule. Oge reiterated that ORIA is looking for a framework to offer, but
would not proscribe site uses. Concerns mentioned by the Subcommittee included those
listed below:
(Some people repeated concerns listed in the summary from Monday's meeting).
* Who has liability for revisiting sites that are not cleaned up to pristine standards?
The nuclear industry is clear that if a private site can be released for industrial
use, it should not have to be revisited by the original owner as notions of "what is
risky" change.
Restricted use categories should apply only to former sites; new sites should not
be allowed to contaminate water or land beyond unrestricted use levels.
Additional contamination on past sites should be confined to restricted uses should
not be permitted beyond what would be normally allowed for the new uses just
because a site was contaminated already.
Future use considerations may not be germane to all sites; especially not sealed
source sites, etc. Process should be clear when and where a future use exercise
should be used.
Off-site uses can be affected, also. This is especially true for groundwater. If
groundwater is left at "restricted use" standards, institutional controls may need to
extend off-site.
Indigenous peoples do not necessarily look only to risk numbers as the arbiters of
whether or not a site should be cleaned up. For Native Americans, some sites
may have cultural or religious significance, and this in and of itself may be
grounds for remediating a site back to background. Another way to approach this
is to say that "historic" use could be a consideration in determining which sites get
cleaned up. If a site has had a historic use for Native Americans, perhaps it
should be cleaned up to background. But this should be a decision made in
conceit with the local Indian Nations.
Future use may become a crutch for not cleaning up a site at all. The analogy
was made that if you tell a person you'd like them to work for 60 hours, but it is
okay if they only work 40, they will only work 40.
Thinking about future use is fine, but industry will always have a negative
incentive to clean up to the most "clean" standard for unrestricted use unless there
is some specific release from liability. Is this what the Agency wants to
encourage?
ป Land use restrictions as a substitute for limits should be the last cleanup resort.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 33
-------
NA CEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Reasons for Supporting Future Use
Several people brought up reasons for supporting the consideration of future use. Some
of these reasons were different from those discussed on the first day. They included:
* Remediation can create greater risks than those it is designed to ameliorate. An
example is the excavation and movement of contaminated silt in a habitat area.
Allowing a restricted use in that area until a better technology develops to clean
up the silt is the best choice.
ป Limits just flat out don't work when you are dealing with complex sites. A
process must be established for dealing with complex sites on a site-by-site basis.
Semantics/Definitions/Meanings
Throughout the morning, there was a great deal of discussion on the words that are used
both in the Subcommittee discussions and in the rule itself. The language that is used
was recognized by the group as very important; for different words have different
implications. The following suggestions were made, although the group did not take the
time to come to general agreement on any of these:
ป Use the term "remediation" rather than "cleanup," especially since the rule may
not require that the site go back to it's original, or pristine state. "Cleanup"
implies all the way cleaned up; not just adequate cleanup.
* Use the term "unrestricted" rather than "residential," this is more inclusive.
Use the term "restricted" rather than "industrial," this is more inclusive. An
example was given that a park with few visitor days may not require cleanup to
"unrestricted" levels; there is simply not the opportunity for that much exposure
to occur.
Clarify the use of the terms "goals" and "limits."
Institutional Controls
The Subcommittee recognized that if future use is used at any given site to help
determine cleanup levels, institutional controls would have to be put into place to prevent
unsafe exposures. The following points were made through the course of the morning
about institutional controls:
Passive institutional controls (e.g. signs that say "don't dig here") may not be as
effective as "positive" institutional controls. An example of positive institutional
controls might be environmental monitoring done by the local community, and
funded nationally. The local community would be responsible for reporting
annually both locally and nationally. National responsibility for such monitoring
might lead to complacency or loss of memory.
ป Institutional controls for waste management will be very different than for
cleanup, and the two should not be confused.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 34
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
It must be remembered that we can never guarantee that a certain use or a
particular set of institutional controls will be respected by future generations.
Federal ownership may be the best choice for "institutional controls" when it is
critical that a site remain in a particular use for several generations. This, of
course, pre-supposes that the federal government remains intact.
Institutional controls should recognize that in many cases radionuclides are easier
to stabilize than other toxics.
Zoning is a local decision, but can locals be counted on to keep a site in a
particular use? (There was much discussion, pro and con, about this point).
Deed restrictions are extremely useful and can also be inserted when land transfers
from public to private.
Institutional controls are useless if they can't be enforced.
Lifecycle Costing and Ecobalance Calculations
There was some discussion about the importance of looking at all costs and impacts and
ramifications of cleanup at any particular site. Some were more familiar with "lifecycle"
costing, others with "ecobalance" calculations. Comments on this topic included:
If we really did look at Ecobalance calculations, we might find surprising results.
It might point to leaving some contamination in place where we didn't expect to,
moving it away or treating it where we didn't expect to. Ecobalance work is
common in Europe.
A concern about these types of calculations is that they tend to be even "softer
science" than risk assessment, and therefore subject to more controversy and
manipulation. They can hide policy choices.
Risk Remain the Same
The group spent several minutes talking about risk and rates of exposure under different
land use. The group agreed that:
Risk standards, and the maximum level of risk these imply, should be the same
for all remediated sites.
For any given site, the actual risk to individuals depends upon the land use. For
instance, if the future use is to be a day care center, cleanup must occur to the
level that will allow children to eat dirt. If industrial uses are anticipated, and the
entire site is to be paved and only trained workers are to be on the site, the risk
level may be achieved even if contamination remains on site.
One Subcommittee member said that the public would accept different levels of risk for
workers than for the general public. There was a great deal of discussion on this point.
Some members disagreed, stating that workers at industrial sites located on or near
remediated sites should not have higher risks levels than those accepted for the general
public. One member reminded the group that radiation workers are in fact allowed to
receive greater doses of radiation on a yearly basis than the general public. Nothing in
the upcoming regulation should change this.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 35
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
"Tfered" Models for Incorporating Future Use into Site Cleanup Standards
The Subcommittee discussed, though did not come to agreement upon, a set of steps for
incorporating future use into the rule. Below is a description of some of the models put
forward, as well as the discussion that ensued from each.
First "Tiered" Model offered:
Step 1: "No risk" standard: Treated as a goal for all sites. Acknowledges that there
is no "safe" threshold. If this cannot be reached, go to:
Step 2: "Design" standard: Allows for unrestricted use, and may even be more
stringent than is necessary for unrestricted use. It is based on risk; but may
also incorporate technology. Acknowledges that cleanup can occur to a level
that may not result in "no risk" but none-the-less provides adequate
protection. If this standard cannot be reached, go to:
Step 3: "Unrestricted Use" standard: Allows for unrestricted uses, and is derived
from the doses acknowledged to be at or below an acceptable level of risk.
If this standard cannot be reached, or if meeting this standard is not
necessary given future use considerations, go to:
Step 4: "Never to Exceed" standard. Allows for certain types of restricted uses (e.g.
industrial) with specific (perhaps even site-specific) institutional controls.
Some felt that sites meeting the Step 4 standard should be revisited
periodically to see if technology might allow more complete cleanup, and/or
if additional cleanup was necessary given the uses of the site.
Second "Tiered" Model Offered
The Washington State Model Toxics Control Act allows for different approaches to
cleaning up sites. These approaches, called methods, present a variety of options for
handling sites with different characteristics.
Method A: Provides specific risk-based cleanup levels (numbers), risk based, that
allow residential use.
Method B: Provides specific risk-based cleanup levels (numbers), risk based, that
allow industrial use.
Method C: Provides specific risk-based cleanup process steps to follow at complex
sites with multiple contaminants.
Method D: Provides specific risk-based cleanup Institutional Control standards where
you have to leave material behind. These may incorporate A, B and C
above.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 36
-------
NACEPTSubcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Result of this law is that many sites are done independently, with private initiative. The
Act allows for a site to be considered "out" of the system if and when it is cleaned up to
the appropriate "method" step above.
Acceptable Versus Achievable Risks
The group spent a great deal of time discussing whether the "first step" of the tiered
portion of rule/standard should be acceptable risk or achievable risk. One member noted
that we can nearly always get to acceptable risk by restricting land uses and imposing
institutional controls. A member noted that the 'goal' of unrestricted use should be kept
firmly in mind. Another member noted that the only "acceptable risk" is that which we
do to ourselves, and of our own volition.
Similarly, some Subcommittee members expressed concern that the Agency not "quote
itself by referencing precedents in other laws. Acceptable risk should be from a health
standpoint, not based on what has been written into other laws.
Finally, there was considerable discussion, with no resolution, on whether the standard
should be risk based, dose based, or technology based.
Local Control
Throughout the day there was continued discussion of and support for strong local roles
in determining future use options for sites. Additional ideas included:
It is essential to consult early and thoroughly with Indian Nations who have
environmental, religious, economic and cultural interests in sites. In some cases,
there may need to be a treaty search to make sure all parties are identified.
Local communities have the resources and the mandate to do land use planning; it
is essential that they be consulted early.
Future uses for a large, complex area may be best done by pulling together a group
of stakeholders, like the Hanford Future Site Uses Working Group or the Site
Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs).
EPA should have a "meet and confer" requirement with local planners; planners
and elected officials should have binding agreements with appropriate federal
agencies to put restrictions into local plans.
Different Standards for Different Types of Sites
Many people brought up the fact that what works for a Hanford or a Savannah River
might be completely unacceptable for "smaller" sites. In fact, the same standards could
be totally unworkable for places like labs, universities and medical facilities. EPA should
explore more than one standard to accommodate these differences.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 37
-------
NA CEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
PUBLIC COMMENT/DISCUSSION WITH SUBCOMMITTEE
Comment:
* Cleanup levels and risk relating to contamination in the soil. You are basically
asking for a gridlock for cleanup because there will be no place to put it.
Institutional controls should be the first order. Not removal, because there is no
place to put it.
Regarding institutional memory: Deed restrictions are enforceable - one member
noted it as the best mechanism to restrict land .
Regarding industrial la-id use and risk. Institutional controls maintain the risk.
Institutional controls should be commensurate with an accurate and responsible
characterization of source term at the site - this is a reflection of one members
belief that new numbers have to be generated from studies before institutional
controls are put into place. Sites which have a hazardous life in the range of a
generation, should be separated from those that do not.
ป Money helps people remember. Consider quality and what that means in terms of
the level of dialogue when you empower a community and people are given the
understanding and knowledge.
What are the implications to the local community of saying we'll come back in 10
years when in fact there is no immediate containment of radionuclides.
Is EPA planning other outreach on this rulemaking? In terms of reaching the
general public who will be affected by this rule, there needs to be more notice.
Response (Oge, EPA): We plan to have a couple of public meetings in the early winter.
Question (Bean): WJiat is the best way to get to your constituency?
Comment: Newsletters, phone trees, etc. are a good way to get the word out. FACA
committees are not the same thing as public outreach.
Question: Time line: This is a very major agency decision. Frankly not possible for
our infrastructure to work within this time frame. Why are we going so
fast?
Response (Oge, EPA): We have been working on this for a year, there is a lot of need
to get something out at least in a proposal form which we plan to do in the
form of a proposed rule, which will then take a year to 18 months to finalize.
We appreciate your comments and agree that public comment is important, and
we would like to work with you so that your constituency knows of the
activities we are undertaking. We will be working with the state agencies in a
separate forum. We do agree with you.
Response (Durman, EPA): Information is available by accessing the computerized
bulletin board. We do have the information on-line and available, we have an
extensive mailing list.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 38
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Question: Does EPA have to do a Generic Environmental Impact Statement like NRC?
Response (Oge, EPA): We'll do a regulatory impact analysis and a cost-benefit analysis.
We will look at risk, cost and benefits of each one of the regulatory options
that the agency is considering.
Comment:
ป Regarding land use: RCRA and CERCLA already utilize land use. The
precedent is to clean up to industrial standards and you're done. That precedent is
important in not letting perfect become the obstacle of good in getting people
motivated to do these cleanups and not have this liability forever holding over
people's heads.
Regarding comparisons being a soft science. I disagree because if you compare
the impact of industrial accidents in transporting the soil, the data, if anything is
harder; statistics have been kept for years. It is easy to say that if we remove soil
we reduce activity, i.e. - lessen the number of employees injured. Along the
same lines, this issue of ecological decimation is somewhat qualitative. These
comparisons must be made in developing the rule and setting the standard, and
they can and will be made on a site specific-basis.
ป Regarding the waste management infrastructure: Pennsylvania fought over the
decommissioning issue. Put future permittees on notice that we probably will not
accept all of the decommissioning waste that is going to be generated at the low
level waste facilities. There will have to be another part of waste management
infrastructure to take some of this contaminated soil like what is currently being
done with Envirocare.
October 1993 Meeting Summary . page 39
-------
NACEPTSubcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Durman recapped the public involvement questions EPA is considering in the rulemaking:
What role should the public play in site-specific decision making?
What issues can be resolved in a generic national rule-making, and which issues
need to be resolved on a site-specific basis?
ป Are the existing public involvement processes used by EPA adequate for use at
radiation sites?
What we need to know is, what are the appropriate decisions and what works.
There was some discussion among subcommittee members as to whether or not public
involvement was/should be within the scope of this rulemaking. Oge responded by
saying that EPA is very interested in how the public can be utilized both in setting
criteria and monitoring the success of current and future activities at a site.
Ideas for Public Involvement
Not orchestrated by liable parties.
Early, continuous and meaningful.
Notice and comment is not the same as ongoing involvement process.
EPA helps by officially encouraging a structure.
Involvement and ratification by the local government.
If restricted uses implemented need to have increased public involvement.
Be creative and thorough in identification of stakeholders.
Involvement from tribes essential - government to government effort.
Provision for a local inspector to shut down operations.
Role for independent scientific investigation.
Risk acceptable in light of a tradeoff on disruption.
Set up local education programs.
Institutional memory as part of the monitoring.
Role for public in negotiating tradeoffs - not just identifying them.
Early involvement of local groups including technical assistance grants, and ways
of making information available.
Public involvement regarding transportation issues and planning the cleanup itself.
Concerns Regarding Public Involvement
How do you resolve the tension between local control and a NIMBY impulse?
How do you get the national interests expressed in the local decisions?
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 40
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
PUBLIC COMMENT/DISCUSSION WITH SUBCOMMITTEE
Comment:
How are you going to talk to the public? We need to train ourselves to deliver
messages in ways that can be understood - and this has not been addressed.
Identification of stakeholders: Unfortunately, we tend to omit that as the most
difficult part of the job. One of the issues we are running into is the
environmental justice groups.
* Site Specific Advisory Boards can help once they are established. They have
limited membership - need to have subcommittees and still bring in even more
people if you were to use them as your basis of public involvement.
ป I like the idea of a multi-tiered system perhaps with some restricted use at the
end. It seems a lot of public participation is geared toward how that particular
site will be managed, which I think is beyond the scope of this regulation.
WRAP-UP
As a conclusion to the two days, Bean then invited each of the Subcommittee members to
revisit their goals expressed at the outset of the meeting and assess whether or not their
expectations had been met.
Fletcher: In order to ensure rules are implementable, states that are doing their own
regulations need to be involved in the rulemaking process. How do we
actually get the public involved in cleanup efforts to the level we want and that
we can handle. We can't get away from the questions, "What can we actually
accomplish? How will this affect our credibility with the public?"
Sarno: Unfortunately we are only meeting twice, we will miss a step. Next time
think of this involvement earlier in the process.
Hurley: Most important to leave EPA with the message that state and public
participation is essential in rulemaking. Keep the CERCLA program in mind:
it is important to have consistency across these programs.
Babich: Two main messages are, first consistency and second, who implements the
standard. The level of discussion exceeded my expectations - and stimulated
my own thought.
Niedelski-Eichner: Don't forget about local government in this, and public
involvement in issues of hazardous waste management and public confidence.
Think in terms of federal, state, local and public.
October 1993 Meeting Summary page 41
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Makhijani: Mixed wastes must be factored into this rulemaking. Underlying focus on
cancer risk is not adequate, also non-cancerous effects need to be
considered.
Dolati: Would like to reiterate that we are going to be regulating different types of
facilities. Need a context or tiered approach to handle some of the smaller
facilities. Needs to be addressed in rulemaking, not in other guidance,
Jamen: Intra- and inter-agency consistency. At the next meeting, would like to hear
more about waste management issues.
Wiltshire: Clarity, Consistency and Confidence. We need to be clear about the
differences between and among the different sites you're regulating.
Kearfott: Optimistic that EPA can quickly get a rule in place. I think EPA needs to
establish itself as the center of a broad limits system with local involvement in
land use decisions for specific sites.
Veiluva: 1) We have to bridge the gap between public perception and the administrative
nature of the problem and the cost/benefits and explain the assumptions and
uncertainties you are facing. 2) think about priorities and process, and
implementation. 3) discussion of public participation in implementation
process.
Dormlfe: I don't think state issues were well covered. The issue of verifiability was
well discussed. The waste management infrastructure and other waste (like
NORM) need to be discussed at next meeting. Also "can states be more
stringent," needs to be discussed.
As chair I can truly say this is probably the most productive committee I've
been involved with. Your input is valuable. The radiation standard is
probably the most important standard being developed. Stay involved in the
issue.
Oge: I am delighted. My expectations were realized. A committee is only as
good as it's members. When we come back in February we will be able to
use the input you have given us. I hope that we will be able to bring
forward at the same time the NRC proposal. We'll talk with Martha and
Bill about waste management issues.
Durman: We built on the NRC process, got helpful suggestions, you gave us some
useful guidance on difficult questions.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 PM.
October 1993 Meeting Summary
page 42
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
AGENDA
National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Standards
Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street
Rooms 283/285
FIRST DAY
Monday October 18, 1993
Purpose of the meeting: to convene the NACEPT Subcommittee, to discuss the
radiation cleanup standard rule making and the Subcommittee's work, to provide
background on key issues, and to discuss and offer comment to EPA on those
issues.
9:00 am WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS Margo Oge,
Office Director
9:15 am SUBCOMMITTEE INTRODUCTIONS Oge, ORM Staff,
Members of
Subcommittee
10:20 am AGENDA REVIEW Bill Dormife,
Section by section review of the two days. Subcommittee
Dormife, and Martha
Bean, Facilitator
10:30 am BREAK
10:45 am GOALS/CONTEXT Gene Durman
Deputy Office
Director
October Meeting Summary APPENDIX A
-------
NACEPTSubcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
11:00 am PARALLEL PROCESSES
Durman,
representatives of
DOE and NRC,
Bean
11:30 am OVERVIEW OF KEY ISSUES
ORIA will give an overview presentation on the
three key issues they would like to discuss with the
NACEPT Subcommittee.
Durman
11:45 am DISCUSSION
Noon PUBLIC COMMENT
12:30 pm LUNCH
Durman, Bean,
Dornsife
1:30 pm ISSUE: CLEAN UP LEVELS AND RISK
LEVELS
EPA is interested in learning from the NACEPT
Subcommittee:
ป Considering existing regulations and current
practices, what is an acceptable cleanup level?
What level of risk, as an incremental increase
over background, should be achieved in site
cleanup to protect human health and the
environment?
What is the role of technological feasibility and
cost of cleanup in the selection of cleanup levels?
Please review Section 2.2 of the Issues Paper, Table
1 on page 7, and "Cancer Risk Management" by
Travis et al.
Durman, Bean,
Dornsife
3:00 pm BREAK
October Meeting Summary
APPENDIX A
-------
A'ACEPTSubcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
3:15 pm ISSUE: FUTURE LAND USE AND STATE Dwman, Bean,
AND LOCAL STATUTES Dornsife
EPA is interested in learning from the NACEPT
Subcommittee:
How should the Agency look at reasonable future
land uses at a radiation site?
What is the appropriate relationship between
cleanup levels and possible future land uses?
How should the Agency define the reasonable
future land use scenarios for a site?
What institutional controls, including State and
local statutes, should accompany alternative
future land uses?
What is the Federal role?
Please review Section 2,3 of the Issues Paper,
"Institutional Controls at Superfund Sites," and the
Hanford Future Site Uses Report.
4:45 pm WRAP-UP Dornsife with
Summarize discussion and review accomplishments ฎean
of the day,
5:00 pm ADJOURN Dornsife
Evening SOCIAL HOUR
October Meeting Summary APPENDIX A
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
AGENDA
National Advisory Council on Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Standards
SECOND DAY
Tuesday, October 19, 1993
9:00 am WELCOME & INTRODUCTIONS
Dornsife, Bean
9:15 am ISSUE: SITE-SPECIFIC PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
EPA is interested in learning from the NACEPT
Subcommittee:
What role should the public play in site-specific decision
making?
ป What issues can be resolved in a generic national rule
making, and which issues need to be resolved on a site-
specific basis?
Are the existing public involvement processes used by
EPA, as well as evolving public involvement processes,
adequate for use at radiation sites?
Please review chapter 3 of the Interim Report of the Federal
Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee
(February 1993), and the t\vo Superjund Fact Sheets entitled,
"Public Involvement" and "Superfund Technical Assistance
Grants.
Durman, Bean,
and Dornsife
10:45 am BREAK
11:00 am PUBLIC COMMENT
11:30 am REVIEW OUTSTANDING ISSUES
We will identify issues that still require discussion, and
identify issues where we might be able to achieve consensus
with more work. We will agree to a process for discussing
these.
Bean, Chandler,
Dornsife
October Meeting Summary
APPENDIX A
-------
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Noon LUNCH
1:00 pm CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF OUTSTANDING ISSUES Bean, Chandler,
Domsife
2:00 pm SUMMARY/NEXT STEPS Bean, Cha,idler,
We will review what will go into the summary; confirm the Durman,
next steps for the NACEPT Subcommittee and their product, Dornsife
2:30 pm ADJOURN Domsife
October Meeting Summary APPENDIX A
-------
LIST OF ATTENDEES
National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
Subcommittee on Radiation Cleanup Regulations
Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street
Rooms 283/285
Washington, DC
October 18-19, 1993
Subcommittee Members
Cham-
William Dornsife
Director, Bureau of Radiation
Protection
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 8469
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Adam Babich
Environmental Law Institute
1616 P Street, NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Linda Capano Dolan
American Nuclear Society Board
of Directors
c/o Martin Marietta Technologies
P.O. Box 555837
Mail Point = 280
Orlando, FL 32855-5837
Roland G. Fletcher
Administrator, Radiological Health
Program
Maryland Department of the
Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Robert Holden
Director, Nuclear Waste Project
National Congress of American Indians
900 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Ann Hurley
Chief Environmental Counsel
Natl. Assoc. Attorneys General
444 N. Capital St. #339
Washington, DC 20001
Dave Jansen
Section Mgr., Environmental
Technology Assessment Systems
Integration
Washington State Department of
Ecology
719 Sleater-Kinney Rd. SE #200
Lacey, WA 98504-1138
Dr. Kim Kearfott
Depaitment of Nuclear Engineering
University of Michigan
108 Cooley Laboratory
North campus
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2104
October 1993 Meeting Summary
APPENDIX B
-------
Arjun Makhijani
Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research
6935 Laurel Avenue
Tacoma Park, MD 20912
Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner
Energy Communities Alliance
1925 N. Lynn Street, Suite 500
Rosslyn, VA 22209
Doug Sarno
Manager of Technical Programs
Clean Sites
1199 North Fairfax Street, Suite 400
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mike Vieluva
Western States Legal Foundation
1440 Broadway, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
Susan Wiltshire
JK Research Associates, Inc.
77 Fox Run Road
Hamilton, MA 01982
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation & Indoor Air
401 M Street SW
Mail Code 6603J
Washington, DC 20460
Margo Oge
Director
Gene Durman
Deputy Director
Barbara Hostage
Branch Chief
Jamie Burnett
Section Chief
Pamela Russell
Designated Federal Official for the
NACEPT Subcommittee on Radiation
Cleanup Standards
Nick Lailas
Radiation Assessment Branch Chief
Karen Woods
Lynn Johnson
Peter Tsirigotis
John Mackinney
Ambika Bathija
Kathy Hogan
Donna Straker
Ben Hull
Miles Kahn
Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management:
David Graham
Designated Federal Official for
NACEPT Environmental Information
and Assessments Committee
October 1993 Meeting Summary
APPENDIX B
-------
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Chip Cameron
Donald A. Cool
Robert A. Meek
Dorothy Michaels Gauch
Frank Cardile
U.S. Department of Energy
Jill Lytle
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste
Management
Harold T. Peterson
Lee Stevens
Harold Peterson
Bobbie Smith
Other Attendees:
Tim Poff
Fermco
P.O. Box 398704
Cincinnati, OH 45239
Richard Cator
TDEC/DOE-O
761 Emory Valley Rd
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
Lynnette Hendricks
Numarc
1776 Eye St. NW
Washington, DC 20016
MS-7155, Bldg K-1001
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Gary W. Snyder
SAIC, P.O. Box 789
Building XT-801
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Piketon, OH 45601
Elizabeth Mooney
SAIC
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22042
Jeffrey Hacala
Booz Allen & Hamilton
1725 J.D. Highway
Arlington, VA 22203
Douglas E. Price
BDM Federal, Inc.
950 L'Enfant Plaza, 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20024
Lewis Battist
SAIC
20201 Century Blvd
German town, MD 20874
Don Womeldorf
Southwestern LLRW Commission
P.O. Box 942732
Sacramento, CA 94234-7320
Pat Donnachie
GPU Nuclear
2574 Interstate Dr.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Mitchell A. Callahan
Martin Marietta Energy Systems
P.O. Box 2003
October 1993 Meeting Summary
APPENDIX B
-------
John Bullock
Handy & Harman
P.O. Box 120
Waterbury, CT 06720
AJ Birkbeck
Winston & Strawn
35 W. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, !L 60601
Joseph G. Homsy
Winston & Strawn
35 W. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60601
Herb Estreicher
Covington & Burling
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
P.O. Box 7566
Washington, DC 20044
Mary Olson
Nuclear Information Resource Service
1424 16th St. NW, Suite 601
Washington, DC 20036
Diane D'Arrigo
Nuclear Information Resource Service
1424 16th St. NW, Suite 601
Washington, DC 20036
Pat Ware
BNA - Environment Reporter
1231 25th St NW, Room 375-5
Washington, DC 20037
Marlin Seymour
Bechtel Group, Inc.
1015 15th St. NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Roy W. Brown
Mallinckrodt Medical, Inc.
675 McDonnell Blvd.
P.O. Box 5840
St. Louis, MO 63134
Ellen Berick
Exchange Publications
2014 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
John Stefano
SAIC
20201 Century Blvd.
Germantown, MD 20874
Holmes Brown
Afton Associates
403 E. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003
Ernest Ralston, P.G.
National Congress of American Indians
900 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
Joseph F. Bannon
ERM-DMC
7926 Jones Branch Dr.
Suite 210
McLean, VA 22102
Raymond P. Lizotte, JR.
Texas Instruments Inc.
34 Forest St., MS 10-4
Attleboro, MA 02703
Henry Morton
10421 Masters Terrace
Potomac, MD 20854
Ellen Gross
Argonne Natl. Lab
370 L'Enfant Promenade SW
Suite 702
Washington, DC 20024
October 1993 Meeting Summary
APPENDIX B
-------
John F. Schmitt
NUMARC
17761 St., NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Nora Hoskins Neureiter
OMB, Energy & Science Division
725 17th St., NW
Washington, DC
Noree Ahneamlke
Medill News Service
1325 G. St. NW
Washington, DC 20005
Richard Cator
TDEC DOE-O
761 Emery Valley Rd
Oak Ridge, TN
Floyd Galpin
Rogers & Associates Engineering
7204 Millcrest Terrace
Derwood, MD 20855
Mel rose Woodson
Woodson Associates, Inc.
19210 Racine Ct.
Gaithersburg MD 20879
Stephen Prewett
General Corporation
(delivered written comments)
Consultant Facilitation Team
Triangle Associates, Inc.
811 First Ave., ฃ255
Seattle, WA 98104
Martha Bean
Nedra Chandler
Suzy Schwarzlander
David Erne
Booz Allen & Hamilton
1725 J.D. Highway
Arlington, VA 22203
Andrew Schwartz
American University
October 1993 Meeting Summary
APPENDIX B
-------
Status of Funds (ORIA)
Status of Funds (RSD)
Superfund Memo's
Supply Store Receipts
Telecommunications Info.
Telephone Service Requests
Temp. Promotion
Training Announcements
Training/Course Registration
Training & TQM Calendar
Transmittal
Travel
Travel Vouchers
TRB Study Icon. Regulation
TRG Work Assignments
Union Move Documents
-------
RSD Budget 91
RSD Budget 92
RSD Budget 93
RSD Budget 94
RSD Program Info.
RSD Training
Seperation or Trans, checklist
Significant Activities
SF 171's
SF Budget 91
SF Budget 92
SF Budget 93
SF Budget 94
SF Travel
Space
Staff Meetings
-------
RSD FILES
AARP
Account $*s
Activities Report
Auth. to Work Overtime
Bankcard Logs
Bankcard Receipts
Bankcard Statements
Claim for Reimbursement
Clean-up Training
Clean-up Travel
Communications
Computer Equipment Bills
Computer Inventory List
-------
I
Cr
8
EPA Radiation Site Cleanup Regulations
r>
-------
Goals of Rulemaking
Six goals of the radiation site cleanup rule:
Protective of human health and the environment
Streamline radiation cleanup process
Acceptable to the public
Cost effective/affordable
Implementable
-------
Schedule of Rulemaking
1. Draft of Proposed Rule Making December 1993
2. Second NACEPT meeting February 1994
3. OMB Review Summer 1994
4. Publication of Proposed Rule Fall 1994
5. Final Rule Promulgated Fall 1995
-------
Goals of Meeting
Describe issues
Get your comments
Provide a summary of your comments
At a second meeting:
Report back to you
-------
Other Activities in EPA
Waste Management Rule
Draft Federal Radiation Protection Guidance
Superfund Program
Draft Soil Screening Levels
-------
Site Characterization Scheme
1. Mines and Mills
2. Enrichment
3. Fuel/Target Fabrication
4. Reprocessing Facilities
5. Reactors
6. Research/Biomedical/
Analytical Labs
7. Industrial/Commercial
8. Sealed Source Users
9. Nuclear Medicine
Departments
10. Accelerators
11. Fusion Facilities
12. Nuclear Test Sites
13. Weapons Accidents and Safety Tests
14. Depleted Uranium
15. Waste Management
16. Waste Disposal
17. Naturally Occurring Radioactive Waste
18. Entire Facility
-------
Intentionally Left Blank
-------
Building on the NRC Process
Unrestricted use Not always best goal
Involve:
Tribes
States
Local Governments
Costs are staggering
-------
Key Issues
L Cleanup Levels and Risk Levels
II. Future land use
III. Site specific public involvement
-------
Issue I:
Cleanup Levels and Risk Levels
What is an acceptable cleanup level?
What level of risk, above background, should be
achieved in site cleanup?
What role should technological feasibility and cost play
in the selection of a cleanup level?
-------
Dose vs.
Dose/year
1 mrem =
2 mrem =
3 mrem =
4 mrem =
5 mrem =
10 mrem =
15 mrem =
25 mrem =
100 mrem =
Risk
70 year exposure
4.4*105
8.8*105
1.3*104
1.7*104
2.2*10'4
4.4*10"4
6.6*104
1.1*10ฐ
4.4*10ฐ
30 year Exposure
1.9*105
3.8*10-5
5.6*105
7.3*105
9.4*105
1.9*104
2.8*104
4.7* 10 4
1.9*10ฐ
-------
Future Land Use
Residential/Agricultural
Industrial/Commercial
Disposal
Recreational
Reserve/Natural
Remember: Any site, in the future, may have mixed uses,
-------
Future Land Use
Consider:
Current land use
Local agreements (zoning/plans)
Historic
Most intensive use
Highest exposure
-------
Potential Restrictions on Future Land Use
Physical barriers
ป
Zoning restrictions
Deed restrictions
Building permit requirements
Well drilling prohibitions
Easement
Irrevocable trust
Permanent government ownership
-------
Issue II;
Future Land Use: State and Local Statutes
How should the Agency look at reasonable future land
uses at radiation sites?
What is the relationship between cleanup levels and
possible future land uses?
How should the Agency develop reasonable future use
scenarios for a site?
What institutional controls, including state and local
statutes, should accompany alternative future land uses?
-------
Issue III:
Site-Specific Public Involvement:
What role should the public play in site specific decision
making?
What issues can be resolved in a generic national rule
making, and which issues need to be resolved on a site-
specific basis?
Are the existing public involvement processes used by
EPA adequate for use at radiation sites?
-------
How People at Sites Can be
Involved in Superfund
Citizen petitions
TAG grants
Public Comment Periods on:
- Administrative record
- RI/FS
- Remediation Plan
Information exchange
Fact Sheets
Public Meetings
RCRA/CERCLA Hotline 1-800-424-9346
-------
Public Involvement Process
Formation of site-specific advisory boards (SSABs):
Regular, early, and effective public participation in
decision-making process
Public forum for information exchange
Review and evaluation of cleanup plans
Acceptability Mechanism: Federal agencies respond to
SSAB members and SSAB members respond to Federal
agencies
------- |