eD sr UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
5
V
ppg 17 rinnn OFFICE OF
£"UU SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
OSWER No. 9272.0-15P
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Interim Final Evaluation of Facilities Currently or Previously Licensed NRC Sites
under CERCLA
FROM: Timothy Fields, Jr.
Assistant Administrator
TO: Addressees
PURPOSE
This memorandum addresses the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
evaluation of facilities previously or currently licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC). EPA has increasingly received requests to either 1) conduct response actions under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) at
previously or currently licensed facilities, or 2) make a determination if a past or proposed NRC
decommissioning would meet CERCLA cleanup levels. This memorandum does not address
EPA's role under other statutory authorities at NRC facilities, such as corrective action
authorities under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for hazardous waste
practices. The Regional Superfund Office should coordinate with other EPA offices and
governmental authorities, including states, as appropriate. EPA expects that the vast majority of
facilities decommissioned under NRC authority will be protective of human health and the
environment. This memorandum provides guidance to clarify EPA's role under CERCLA at
previously or currently licensed NRC-facilities to avoid dual regulation. The procedures in this
guidance will facilitate the beneficial reuse of NRC licensed facilities while ensuring the
selection of cleanups that are protective of human health and the environment.
This memorandum provides guidance to EPA staff. It also provides guidance to the
public and the regulated community on how EPA intends that the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) should be implemented. The guidance is
designed to describe EPA's national policy on these issues. The guidance does not, however,
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.spa.gov
RecyclectfRecyclable .Printed with Vegetable OH Based inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer)
-------
substitute for EPA's statutes or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it cannot impose
legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a
particular situation based upon the circumstances, EPA may change this guidance in the future,
as appropriate.
BACKGROUND
Since September 8, 1983, EPA has generally deferred listing on the National Priorities
List (NPL) sites that are subject to NRC's licensing authority because NRC's actions are
generally believed to be consistent with the CERCLA requirement to protect human health and
the environment.1 However, even with EPA's policy of deferral to NRC, EPA has taken action
at formerly or currently licensed NRC sites that posed a threat to human health or the
environment. As EPA indicated in the Federal Register notice announcing the policy of deferral
to NRC, if EPA "later determines that sites which it has not listed as a matter of policy are not
being properly responded to, the Agency will consider listing those sites on the NPL" (see 48 FR
10661). This remains EPA's position.
On July 21, 1997, the NRC promulgated a final rale on "Radiological Criteria for License
Termination" (see 62 FR 39058). The NRC rale sets an allowable cleanup level of 25 millirem
per year effective dose equivalent (EDE) (equivalent to approximately 5 x 10"4 lifetime cancer
risk) as the primary standard with exemptions, allowing cleanup levels of up to 100 millirem per
year (mrem/yr) EDE (equivalent to approximately 2 x 10"3 lifetime cancer risk). Also, the NRC
rule does not include a separate requirement for protecting groundwater that is a current or
potential source of drinking water to the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established
under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
•"•&
Prior to promulgation of the NRC rale, EPA's Administrator Carol M. Browner sent a
letter on February 7,1997, to NRC Chairman Shirley Jackson expressing EPA's concern that the
NRC rale would allow the cleanup of sites to levels that are not protective of human health and
the environment. In this letter, EPA raised the idea of reconsidering EPA's policy of generally
deferring the listing of NRC sites on the NPL.
Subsequent to the NRC rale, EPA issued guidance entitled "Establishment of Cleanup
Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination" (OSWER No. 9200.4-18, August
22,1997). This 1997 radiation guidance provided clarification for establishing protective
cleanup levels for radioactive contamination at CERCLA sites. In it, EPA recommended that the
NRC decommissioning requirements (e.g., 25, 100 mrem/yr EDE dose limits) in the NRC rale
EPA has the authority to choose not to respond to certain types of releases under CERCLA because
existing regulatory or other authority under other Federal statutes provides for an appropriate response. As a policy
matter, EPA has generally chosen not to list releases of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material that is
currently licensed by NRC, This general deferral policy never applied to facilities where NRC has terminated the
license, or the current license is issued by a State pursuant to a delegation of authority from the NRC pursuant to
section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2021).
-2-
-------
should generally not be used to establish cleanup levels under CERCLA, even when these
regulations are ARARs. Concurrently, EPA issued guidance entitled "Clarification of the Role
of Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements in Establishing Preliminary
Remediation Goals under CERCLA" (OSWER No. 9200,4-23, August 22,1997). This 1997
ARARs policy guidance explained that CERCLA cleanups may be more stringent than an
ARAR, where application of the ARAR would not be protective of human health or the
environment.
Previously, NRC and EPA have transmitted to each other draft Memorandums of
Understanding (MOUs) concerning how the two agencies might coordinate when NRC planned
to decommission facilities. A joint MOU has not been finalized. For this reason, this
memorandum should be used by the Regions as the Agency's guidance for these situations
instead of either EPA's or NRC's draft MOU. If EPA finalizes an MOU with NRC in the
future, EPA will revise this memorandum as necessary to reflect the coordination
procedures agreed upon by NRC and EPA.
OBJECTIVE
This guidance provides general considerations for Regions when evaluating currently or
previously NRC licensed facilities, either when Regions are considering conducting CERCLA
response actions (removal, remedial, orNPL listing), or determining if proposed or previous
NRC decommissionings will be/are protective under CERCLA. EPA expects to use CERCLA
cleanup levels as the measure for protectiveness in either case. The discussion that follows
outlines considerations to aid in these discussions.
IMPLEMENTATION
The following subsections will clarify the considerations when the Agency evaluates
NRC facilities to determine either the attainment of CERCLA cleanup levels of NRC's
decommissioning or the need for EPA response action, either removal or remedial if warranted,
or listing on the NPL.
Protectiveness Evaluation of NRC Pecommissionings
EPA should consider the following factors when conducting a CERCLA protectiveness
evaluation of an NRC licensed or decommissioned facility that has been requested by a
stakeholder. The decision as to whether such an evaluation is appropriate will generally be
determined by the Region in which the facility is located.
When EPA is conducting an evaluation to determine if NRC's proposed/planned/previous
decommissioning was/is protective under CERCLA, EPA expects to use CERCLA cleanup
levels as the measure of protectiveness. CERCLA cleanup levels include, but are not limited to,
the risk range (generally W4 to 10'6 cancer risk summed for all contaminants, both radiological'
-3-
-------
and chemical), hazard index (HI) (generally a HI of less than 1 for noncarcinogens with the same
toxic endpoint or mechanism of action), compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs), and protection of the environment. This includes attainment of MCLs
for actual and potential drinking water aquifers throughout the plume.
Protectiveness determinations include evaluation of responses for contaminants addressed
under the NRC license and decommissioning as well as contamination not being addressed by
NRC. This may include: non-NRC licensed contaminants that NRC is not addressing (e.g.,
chemicals, technologically enhanced naturally occurring radiological materials2, etc.) or areas
where NRC is not addressing the contamination (e.g., contamination outside a facility's
boundary). In making a determination, the Regional Superfund program should coordinate with
other EPA offices (e.g., the RCRA office) and government entities, including the states, as
appropriate, regarding whether the NRC's facility will meet the CERCLA cleanup levels for all
contaminants.
While a protectiveness determination can best be made at the completion of the NRC
decommissioning, EPA should be able to make a preliminary judgement at any time in the
process where sufficient information is available. In discussions with the public, NRC and NRC
licensees, EPA should provide a general overview of CERCLA cleanup levels (including the
need for public involvement) to aid groups in their dialogue. EPA should then evaluate the site-
specific information available including the proposed or actual cleanup concentrations and
consider whether the level being proposed/planned or has been achieved, for all contaminants,
will meet CERCLA cleanup levels. During its evaluation, the following information should be
considered by EPA:
EPA should evaluate NRC decommissionings based on the NRC licensee's proposed,
planned, or actual cleanup levels, not the dose limits (25, 100 mrem/yr EDE) in the NRC
decommissioning rule. As noted below, the evaluation of NRC's cleanup level needs to
consider available site-specific information such as land and ground water use, and the
levels of contaminants not being addressed by NRC, EPA's evaluation should be
conducted using the EPA's CERCLA policies [e.g., NCP, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) directives] regarding what cleanup level is acceptable,
rather than NRC's policies.
EPA should not evaluate NRC decommissionings using all of the procedures that EPA
would use if it were conducting a CERCLA response action. The NRC decommissioning
should not be judged using EPA's CERCLA process [e.g., establishing preliminary
remediation goals (PRGs) at either 1 x 10'6 cancer risk or ARAR levels, then modifying
Until recently, technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material (TENORM) was
previously referred to in EPA documents simply as naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM)
"Technologically enhanced" was added to distinguish clearly between radionuelides as they occur naturally and
radionuclides that human activity has concentrated or exposed.
.4.
-------
those PRGs based on the balancing of the nine criteria used for remedy selection (see 55
FR 8717-8718)]. An NRC decommissioning should be evaluated in terms of whether it
meets the risk range and attains ARARs.
EPA should evaluate whether the cleanup will achieve the CERCLA risk level (generally
no greater than the 10~4 to 10"6 cancer risk range) for reasonably anticipated land uses,
ARARs, and whether ground waters will be returned to beneficial reuse (as identified by
the State designation or Federal Criteria for determining groundwater use) throughout the
plume. For non-carcinogens, a Hazard Index of less than one should generally be the
measure of protectiveness.
For an overview of EPA CERCLA policy regarding the risk range, see guidance
entitled "Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection
Decisions" (OSWERNo. 9355.0-30, April 22, 1999).
Risk assessments, both for radiological and nonradiological (chemical) carcinogens,
conducted by EPA to determine if the NRC decommissioning is/will attain CERCLA
cleanup levels, should be conducted using slope factors, and expressed as a risk number,
such as # x 10"* for purposes of determining whether the cleanup is within the CERCLA
risk range. Risk assessments should also be performed on a site-specific basis using EPA
guidance to the extent possible.
For an overview of EPA CERCLA risk assessment policy at radioactively
contaminated sites, see guidance entitled "Radiation Risk Assessment At
CERCLA Sites: Q & A" (OSWER No. 9200.4-3 IP, December 1999).
The Region should use CERCLA cleanup levels (generally 10"4 to 10~6 estimated
with slope factors, and ARARs) for determining cleanup levels at CERCLA sites.
Under certain circumstances for other radiation control programs developed by
EPA, a level of 15 mrem/yr per year is generally considered protective. However,
under CERCLA dose assessments are generally conducted only where necessary
to demonstrate ARAR compliance (see memorandum from Stephen D. Luftig
titled "Distribution of OSWER Radiation Risk Assessment Q & A!s Final
Guidance" December 17,1999, pp. 2-3).
Compliance with standards that EPA would likely consider potential ARARs (especially
MCLs, but also including others such as State laws) should be used in evaluating the
attainment of CERCLA cleanup levels, to the extent those potential ARARs can be
readily identified. It should be noted that compliance with the dose limits in the NRC
rule should generally not be used to determine if an NRC cleanup attains, or will attain
CERCLA cleanup levels.
-5-
-------
Information regarding some Federal standards that are likely ARARs for
radioactively contaminated sites is included in Attachment A of "Establishment of
Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination" (OSWER
Directive 9200.4-18 August 22, 1997).
Guidance regarding the use of subsurface soil cleanup standards in 40 CFR Part
192 as ARARs to establish cleanup levels for radium-and thorium-contaminated
sites is contained in guidance entitled "Use of Soil Cleanup Criteria for 40 CFR
Part 192 as Remediation Goals for CERCLA Sites" (OSWER Directive 9200.4-25
February 12, 1998).
Guidance on making decisions concerning ground water protection is contained in
"Presumptive Response Strategy and Ex-Situ Treatment Technologies for
Contaminated Ground Water at CERCLA Sites" (OSWER Directive 9355.7-04
October 1996).
Risk assessment numbers should be provided for both: (1) the land use for which NRC
released the site, and; (2) the current and reasonably anticipated land use. NRC will
usually release facilities for unrestricted land use after license termination, although the
reasonably anticipated land use may be industrial.
Potential time frame for surface and ground water use and the use of alternative water
supplies should be used to provide an assessment as to whether the remedy will be
protective in the near term and whether the ground water resource will be protected for
future generations.
When presenting results of EPA's analysis of NRC's proposed/planned decommissioning
cleanup level, the Region may want to caveat the results by noting that it is likely that the
cleanup level the NRC licensee achieves may be significantly lower than the
proposed/planned cleanup level (e.g., the planned level of residual concentrations after
cleanup versus the actual level of residual concentrations achieved by the cleanup.)
When presenting results of EPA's analysis of a previous NRC decommissioning, the
Region may want to also include some discussion of NRC's proposed/planned cleanup
level.
When presenting results of EPA's analysis, the Region may want to caveat the results to
the extent the analysis is based on the data provided by NRC, and was conducted using
current EPA guidance and ARARs. The Region may also want to provide some
discussion of NRC's sampling and site characterization methodology if it raises
significant uncertainty in EPA's assessment.
-6-
-------
Generally, for sites at which a CERCLA response action is not being conducted, EPA's
Superfund program generally does not expect to be involved with the specifics of how a cleanup
action will proceed. However, the NRC licensee, the community, or the State, may find it useful
to consult EPA policies and practices relating to CERCLA response actions. In this regard, EPA
may provide suggestions or Agency guidance to help in the cleanup effort. If the Region is
suggesting some practice that the NRC licensee should follow that is not either an NCP
requirement or a Superfund policy, this should be made clear as well as the rationale for making
this suggestion. For example, the Region may offer suggestions regarding Regional practices
[e.g., public participation procedures beyond those required in the NCP, or the use of non-
Superfund guidance such as the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual
(MARSSIM)].
Evaluating Need for CERCLA Response Action
EPA receives requests to review a planned or completed cleanup conducted under other
authorities, including NRC authority, to determine whether it warrants a response action under
CERCLA removal or remediation authority. EPA may and does take removal and remediation
actions at sites where there is an active NRC license. This is appropriate in situations where the
NRC license does not apply, and may include actions involving contaminants not addressed by
NRC (e.g., chemicals, technologically enhanced naturally occurring radiological materials,
contamination outside the facility's boundary, or cases where the licensee is in violation of the
license). Response actions under other EPA authorities (e.g., RCRA) may also be appropriate
and should be coordinated at the Regional and State level.
As a matter of general course, we expect that most NRC decommissioning will result in
protective cleanups and that a response under CERCLA authority will not be required. In those
limited situations where this is not the case, we expect to consider listing on the NPL those sites
potentially warranting remedial response under CERCLA after the completion of the NRC
decommissioning and termination of the license. Evaluations of sites for potential listing on the
NPL should be based on factors identified in the NCP, 40 CFR § 300.425(c), and should
generally consider:
NRC sites should be considered for listing on the NPL consistent with other sites, since
the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) clearly states that radioactive substances are
hazardous substances under CERCLA and should be considered for HRS scoring (see
final rule for the HRS final rule, 55 FR 51663 December 14,1990).
States conduct Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI) for listing.
Listing determination would be subject to prior notice and comment. As is always
the case, the public may petition EPA to list a site on the NPL, and EPA will
evaluate those requests.
.7.
-------
• Both radiological and chemical contaminants should be analyzed. NRC generally does
not include chemical contaminants in their assessments and response activities, HRS
scoring considers both radioactive and chemical contamination.
EPA may also take removal action at an NRC decommissioned or decommissioning site
as appropriate. Decisions to take such action should be made in a manner consistent with other
removal actions. In particular, the site-specific nature of the situation, and the ability of the
existing authorities to address the situation in a protective and timely manner, should be
considered.
Summary
EPA is committed to ensuring that sites are cleaned up in a manner that protects the
public and the environment. EPA believes that working together with all the involved
stakeholders can ensure that this happens. In a limited number of cases EPA may need to address
contamination at a former or currently NRC licensed facility using CERCLA authority. In the
vast majority of cases, EPA expects that these sites will be cleaned up adequately using other
authorities and CERCLA guidance may be useful for those stakeholders involved in decisions to
help judge the protectiveness of the remedies. While we expect our resources are most
appropriately directed towards CERCLA response actions (removal or remedial) to ensure that
those sites within EPA's jurisdiction are cleaned up to protective levels to facilitate their return to
beneficial use, EPA will provide information with regard to CERCLA requirements and guidance
as needed. EPA believes that this may further limit the need for additional response actions
under CERCLA authority.
Coordination Policy
When considering requests for listing a former or current NRC licensed facility, Regions
should contact Robert Myers of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR).
When considering requests to evaluate the protectiveness of a previous or proposed NRC
decommissioning, Regions should contact Stuart Walker of OERR. When considering a removal
action at a former or currently NRC licensed facility, Regions should contact Craig Beasley of
OERR.
-8-
-------
FURTHER INFORMATION
The subject matter specialists for this directive are Stuart Walker and Robin M. Anderson
of OERR. General questions about this directive should be directed to 1-800-424-9346.
Addressees:
National Superfund Policy Managers
Superfund Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
Office of Regional Counsel, Superfund (Regions I-X)
Radiation Program Managers (Regions I, IV, V, VI, VII, X)
Radiation Branch Chief (Region II)
Residential Domain Section Chief (Region III)
Radiation and Indoor Air Program Branch Chief (Region VIII)
Radiation and Indoor Office Director (Region IX)
Federal Facilities Leadership Council
OERR Center Directors
cc:
Steve Luftig, OERR
Steve Page, ORIA
Jim Woolford, FFRRO
Elizabeth Cotsworth, OSW
Craig Hooks, FFEO
Barry Breen, OSRE
Joanna Gibson, HOSC/OERR
Earl Salo, OGC
Bob Cianciarulo, Region I
OERR Records Manager, IMC, 5202G, OERR
.9.
------- |