UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
QSWERNo. 9295.8-06a
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Distribution of Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
FROM:
TO:
PURPOSE
Michael B. Cook,'.
Office of]
Office of Solid Waste andl
Addressees
esp
ncy Response
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit and explain the implementation of a final
document entitled "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and
Decontamination of Contaminated Sites" (OSWER 9295.8-06). This Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identifies the interactions of the
two agencies for only the decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites and the ways in
which those responsibilities will be exercised. Except for Section VI, which addresses corrective action
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), this MOU is limited to the coordination
between EPA, when acting under its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) authority, and NRC, when a facility licensed by the NRC is undergoing
decommissioning, or when a facility has completed decommissioning, and the NRC has terminated its
license.
f'
This MOU does not address EPA's role under other statutory authorities. Also, the MOU does
not address EPA's role at sites that are being addressed under CERCLA (e.g., a site where a removal
action is occurring or that is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL)) or under RCRA Corrective
Action authorities, except when NRC is decommissioning a facility or when NRC has completed
decommissioning a facility and terminated its license at the same site. The MOU provides new
guidance only when EPA acting under CERCLA authority, and NRC need to consult during the
decommissioning and decontamination process as part of NRC's license termination of a facility.
-------
-------
Duplicate first page - Inserted to allow word searching
• • ' •-. V UNI IL D uT^riS
-
^ 1- v..U,.!lNGTON,D.C. 20460
OSWERNo. 9295.8-06a
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Distribution of Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
FROM: Michael B. Cook, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
TO: Addressees
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit and explain the implementation of a final
document entitled "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and
Decontamination of Contaminated Sites" (OSWER 9295.8-06). This Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identifies the interactions of the
two agencies for only the decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites and the ways in
which those responsibilities will be exercised. Except for Section VI, which addresses corrective action
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), this MOU is limited to the coordination
between EPA, when acting under its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) authority, and NRC, when a facility licensed by the NRC is undergoing
decommissioning, or when a facility has completed decommissioning, and the NRC has terminated its
license.
This MOU does not address EPA's role under other statutory authorities. Also, the MOU does
not address EPA's role at sites that are being addressed under CERCLA (e.g., a site where a removal
action is occurring or that is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL)) or under RCRA Corrective
Action authorities, except when NRC is decommissioning a facility or when NRC has completed
decommissioning a facility and terminated its license at the same site. The MOU provides new
guidance only when EPA acting under CERCLA authority, and NRC need to consult during the
decommissioning and decontamination process as part of NRC's license termination of a facility.
-------
The MOU does not establish any rights or responsibilities that may be enforced against the
government. For example, the MOU does not establish protective cleanup or action levels. This
document provides guidance to EPA Regions exercising responsibility under CERCLA and RCRA
concerning the MOU between EPA and NRC. The CERCLA or RCRA provisions described in this
document contain legally binding requirements. However, this document does not substitute for those
provisions, nor is it a regulation. Thus, it cannot impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, NRC,
States, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation depending upon the
circumstances. EPA decisionmakers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis
that differ from this guidance where appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in the future.
BACKGROUND
The House Committee on Appropriations has directed EPA and NRC to work together on an
MOU. The Committee first addressed the issue of EPA/NRC coordination at NRC licensed or
decommissioned sites in the House Committee on Appropriations Report 106-286. Department of
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill
1999. pages 58-59, August 3, 1999. Subsequent Reports by the Committee have continued this
direction (Report 106-674, page 58, June 12, 2000, Report 107-159, page 65, July 25, 2001). The
attached MOU represents an agreement between EPA and NRC that addresses the concerns of this
Committee.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this memorandum is to transmit to you and provide additional clarification of
the MOU with NRC for CERCLA response actions and to provide supporting information.
IMPLEMENTATION
The following subsections provide a discussion of sites covered by the MOU, lack of MOU
applicability at CERCLA sites, MOU consultation triggers and their basis, and the MOU consultation
strategy for EPA.
I MOU Covered Sites
The MOU covers any facility that is licensed by the NRC and undergoing
decommissioning and decontamination, or that has completed decommissioning and the NRC
has terminated its license. It is limited to those facilities that meet one or more of the
consultation triggers specified in the MOU. It does not address NRC-Agreement State
licensed facilities or facilities decommissioned by such states. This is a continuation of EPA's
current policy of deferral, which does not include NRC-Agreement State licensees.
-2-
-------
At some sites, EPA may be conducting a removal action, or the site may be listed on
the NPL, while remaining an NRC licensed facility. If, during the decommissioning process or
after the decommissioning process has been completed and one or more of the consultation
triggers are met at such a site provisions of the MOU consultation procedure would come into
effect.
EPA is committed to maintaining a constructive dialogue with NRC on sites of potential
mutual interest as identified by this MOU. Although this MOU addresses specific interactions
with NRC related to the decommissioning of contaminated sites, EPA intends to maintain an
open dialogue with NRC on other issues as well. Therefore, communication with NRC on sites
not subject to this MOU should occur as the need arises.
II Limits to MOU Applicability at CERCLA Sites
The MOU does not govern how response actions (e.g., removal or remedial) are
conducted under CERCLA authority, at either NPL or non-NPL sites. Response actions
conducted under CERCLA authority should continue to use the CERCLA response
approach, including the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) and EPA guidance documents. Cleanup levels for response actions under CERCLA
are developed based on applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), site-
specific risk assessments, and/or to-be-considered material1 (TBCs). Where ARARs are not
available or are not sufficiently protective, EPA generally sets site-specific remediation levels
for: 1) carcinogens at a level that represents an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to an
individual of between 10"4 to 10"6 (with 10"6 as the point of departure); and for 2) non-
carcinogens such that the cumulative risks from exposure will not result in adverse effects to
human populations (including sensitive sub-populations) that may be exposed during a lifetime
or part of a lifetime, incorporating an adequate margin of safety. (See 40
C.F.R.§300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(2).) The site-specific cleanup levels are determined using the nine
criteria specified in Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP. EPA has provided guidance
regarding how radioactive contaminants should be addressed at CERCLA sites, which is
available on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/resources/radiation/index.htm.
Ill MOU Consultation Triggers
The MOU establishes four triggers for when EPA and NRC will consult on the
radiological decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites. These four
To-be-considered material (TBCs) are non-promulgated advisories or guidance issued by Federal or State
governments that are not legally binding and do not have the status of potential ARARs. However, TBCs will be
considered along with ARARs as part of the site risk assessment and may be used in determining the necessary
level of cleanup for protection of health and the environment.
-3 -
-------
consultation provisions are triggered when NRC determines one or more of the following will or
may be exceeded during the license termination process:
1. NRC determines that residual levels in groundwater will exceed radionuclide Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or
2. Residual levels in soil will exceed the soil concentrations in "MOU Table 1:
Consultation Triggers for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Soil Contamination," or
3. NRC contemplates that future use of the site will be restricted by conditions contained
in the license termination (as specified in 10 C.F.R. 20.1403), or
4. NRC contemplates the use of alternative criteria for license termination (i.e., a site-
specific dose greater than NRC's primary dose limit of 25 mrem/yr may be allowed)2.
The consultation triggers determine when NRC and EPA consult on sites. They do not imply a
level below which radionuclide levels would be deemed protective. These consultation triggers
represent situations where EPA and NRC would benefit most from sharing knowledge and
technical experiences to address the situation. These triggers were developed to identify the
potential areas that would benefit most from an EPA/NRC dialogue and that would have the
highest potential for CERCLA involvement. These consultation triggers provide information to
industry and other stakeholders of when it is most likely that EPA and NRC will interact on
these sites. Although the MOU only addresses certain interactions with NRC and provides a
framework for consultation under the MOU when triggered, EPA intends to continue to have a
positive dialogue on other sites where consultation has not been triggered by the MOU. The
MOU's consultation triggers do not provide any new guidance to CERCLA site decision-
makers regarding when CERCLA response actions should be taken, or how CERCLA
response actions should be conducted, and do not represent levels that are deemed to be
protective or unprotective.
Basis for Restricted Future Use and Alternative Criteria Consultation Triggers
The third and fourth consultation triggers (i.e., restricted future use, and alternative
criteria of site-specific dose limits of greater than 25 mrem/yr) were identified as consultation
triggers because these represent scenarios that have the potential for greater exposure and
NRC's decommissioning regulations require that NRC shall notify and solicit comments from EPA in this
situation (see 20 C.F.R. 20.1405). Inclusion of this consultation trigger should not be interpreted as EPA changing its
previous guidance regarding 25 mrem/yr. Generally, regions should not use dose-based ARARs greater than 15
mrem/yr effective dose equivalent to establish cleanup levels under CERCLA, and should not use dose-based
recommendations as TBCs (see OSWER Publication 9200.4-3 IP "Radiation Risk Assessment At CERCLA Sites: Q &
A" December 1999 and transmittal memo from Steve Luftig to EPA regions entitled "Distribution of OSWER
Radiation Risk Assessment O & A's Final Guidance" December 17, 1999.)
-4-
-------
therefore, there is additional potential for CERCLA concern. Again, the consultation triggers
do not imply an endorsement of these levels as cleanup levels but rather that they are
appropriate levels to trigger consultation.
Basis for MCLs and Table 1 Consultation Triggers
Two of the consultation triggers (MCLs and soil concentrations in MOU Table 1) were
included to provide NRC with a simplified framework for determining when groundwater and
soil radiological contamination levels are at levels which have a greater potential for EPA
concern.
This potential for EPA concern is derived from EPA's policies for taking action under
CERCLA at a site. At a CERCLA site, EPA's decision to take action is based on risk using
reasonably anticipated land use considerations and may also be based on requirements (e.g.,
Federal and State environmental regulations that are potential ARARs) that help define
protectiveness. Unless there are current or potential adverse environmental effects, EPA
generally would not consider action under CERCLA warranted if all of the following four
circumstances are met3
1. The cumulative carcinogenic risk to an individual is estimated at less than 10"4 for the
reasonably anticipated land use based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario.
Although 1 x 10"4 is not a discrete upper boundary, EPA generally uses 1 x 10"4 in
making risk management decisions.
2. Noncarcinogenic hazard index (HI) quotient to an individual is estimated at less than 1
for the reasonably anticipated land use based on a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario. EPA calculates HI for uranium to account for kidney toxicity.
3. MCLs or non-zero Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) are not exceeded in
groundwaters that are current or potential sources of drinking water.
4. Other chemical-specific ARARs that define acceptable risk levels are not exceeded.
Chemical-specific ARARs usually are either health- or risk-based numerical values or
methodologies that establish the acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that
may remain in or be discharged to the environment. Several chemical-specific Federal
ARARs (e.g., soil standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 192 issued under the Uranium Mill
Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), MCLs, and non-zero (MCLGs), are used
For further information regarding when EPA takes remedial action under CERCLA, see OSWER Directive
9355.0-30, "Role of Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions." April 22, 1991.
-5-
-------
as benchmarks for determining if sites should be listed on the NPL4.
While the basis for selecting Table 1 soil levels and MCLs as consultation triggers is
related to the four factors listed above, additional information is necessary to understand the
basis for the Table 1 soil levels that trigger consultation. Table 1 is a list of 37 radionuclides with
soil concentrations based on either a residential or industrial/commercial land use scenario.
These radionuclides were selected because they were considered the radionuclides with the
greatest potential for being a contaminant in soil at an NRC facility5. Table 1 levels are based
either on ARARs (40 C.F.R. 192), HI of 1, or a 1 x 10"4 excess carcinogenic risk based on
residential and industrial/commercial land use. Residential and industrial/commercial land uses
were selected because these were considered the most restrictive, reasonably anticipated land
uses at nearly all NRC facilities that may have significant radioactive soil contamination.
In Table 1, the 5 pCi/g soil concentrations for radium-226 and thorium-232 are based
on soil standards developed under the UMTRCA and implementing regulations (40 C.F.R.
192). The UMTRCA standard is often identified as an ARAR at CERCLA sites and generally
determines protective levels for radium-226 and thorium-232. For further information
regarding how EPA interprets this potential ARAR, see OSWER Directive 9200.4-25, "Use of
Soil Cleanup Criteria in 40 CFR Part 192 as Remediation Goals for CERCLA sites."
The soil concentrations (mg/kg) for total uranium are based on a Ffl of 1, calculated
using the Soil Screening electronic calculator. The soil screening approach was developed by
EPA to identify and define areas, contaminants, and conditions at a particular site that do not
require further Federal attention. This calculation tool may be found on the Internet at:
http://risk.lsd.ornl. gov/calc_start.htm.
For the remainder of radionuclides, the soil concentrations (pCi/g) are based on a 1 x
10"4 cancer risk, developed using an electronic calculator entitled: "Radionuclide Preliminary
Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Superfund." This calculator generates PRG concentrations at
the 1 x 10'6 risk level. The PRG value at 1 x 10'6 was multiplied by 100 to derive the 1 x 10'4
value for Table 1 consultation triggers. (At CERCLA sites, PRGs based on cancer risk should
continue to be developed at the 1 x 10"6 level.) The radionuclide PRG calculation tool may be
found on the Internet at: http://epa-prgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/.
The residential and commercial/industrial risk (both cancer and noncancer) estimates
For further discussion how chemical-specific Federal ARARs are used as benchmarks when sites are
evaluated by EPA for potential listing on the NPL, see the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Final Rule, 55 FR 51532
(December 14, 1990).
NRC had developed screening values for surface soil contamination release levels for them in a Federal
Register notice entitled "Supplemental Information on the Implementation of the Final Rule on Radiological Criteria
for License Termination" (see 64 FR 68395, December 7, 1999).
-------
for soil were developed using the default reasonable maximum exposure scenarios found in
EPA guidance documents "Soil Screening Guidance for Radionuclides: User's Guide." October
2000 (OSWER 9355.4-16A) and "Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening
Levels for Superfund Sites." February 2001 (OSWER 9355.4-24).
Table 1 and MCL Caveats
The Table 1 soil levels do not necessarily constitute protective soil concentration values.
Land use and other site-specific circumstances influence the soil concentration values that
constitute protective levels for a given situation. The soil concentration values using 1 x 10"4
cancer risk and HI of 1 for total uranium were developed using conservative default
parameters. At most sites, higher soil concentrations corresponding to a given risk level
generally may be justified using site-specific parameters.
On the other hand the generic risk assessment scenarios used to develop soil
concentration values in Table 1 may not account for certain exposures that may be cause for
concern at an NRC facility. For example:
1. Site is adjacent to contaminated surface water bodies.
2. Contamination presents potential ecological concerns.
3. Additional likely human exposure pathways exist (e.g., an agricultural scenario that
includes consumption of livestock and additional produce).
4. Unusual site conditions exist (e.g., large areas of contamination, unusually high fugitive
dust levels).
The soil concentration values do not account for migration into groundwater, which could cause
groundwater contamination in the future to exceed MCLs. Also, the presence of multiple
contaminants may lead to a potential concern that non-radionuclide (chemical) contaminants or
radionuclides-not in Table 1-may cause residual levels to rise above 1 x 10"4 or an HI of 1.
Multiple contaminants may result in EPA potential concern for human health or the environment
even when chemical specific ARARs (e.g., UMTRCA soil standards or MCLs) are being met.
Table 1 also does not consider State regulations (e.g., exceedance of State MCLs) which could
be used to determine protectiveness.
IV. Coordination Policy
The MOU designates the EPA principal contact as the Director, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR). The NRC designated contact is the Director, Office of
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. EPA and NRC intend that communication related to
-7-
-------
potential CERCLA interest and NRC communication about sites that meet or exceed the
consultation triggers will be discussed initially at that level. On a site-specific basis, it is
expected that follow-up discussions would happen at the staff level at Headquarters (HQ) and
the Regions.
Regions are requested to contact OERR as issues arise for sites that may potentially be
subject to this MOU. This request for consultation is an expansion of the request contained in
OSWER Directive 9272.0-15P, "Interim Final Evaluation of Facilities Currently or Previously
Licensed NRC Sites under CERCLA." When considering requests for listing a former or
current NRC licensed facility, the Regions should contact Robert Myers (703) 603-8851,
OERR. When considering requests to evaluate the protectiveness of a previous or proposed
NRC decommissioning or to engage otherwise in dialogue regarding NRC cleanup levels and
CERCLA standards of protectiveness with the NRC, the licensee, or stakeholders at the site
outside the context of the MOU, the Regions should contact Stuart Walker (703) 603-8748,
OERR. When considering a removal action at a former or currently NRC-licensed facility, the
Regions should contact Craig Beasley (703) 603-9015, OERR.
The four MOU consultation triggers are provisions for initiating dialogue only, and
identifying those sites that should be under consultation between NRC and EPA We
anticipate that the vast majority of NRC-licensed sites undergoing decontamination and
decommissioning will be cleaned to protective levels and no EPA/CERCLA consultation will be
necessary. In other cases, we anticipate that a dialogue on ways of achieving protective levels,
including the range of flexibility available under CERCLA (e.g., phased approach to addressing
groundwater contamination or remediating sites to allow for the reasonably anticipated land
use) will be beneficial. EPA and NRC have worked closely together over the last three years
as this MOU was developed. We anticipate that EPA and NRC will continue to work
cooperatively on sites of mutual interest in the future.
FURTHER INFORMATION
The subject matter specialists for this MOU are Stuart Walker (703-603-8748) and Robin M.
Anderson (703-603-8747) of OERR.
Addressees:
National Superfund Policy Managers
Superfund Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)
Superfund Branch Chiefs, Office of Regional Counsel (Regions I-X)
Radiation Program Managers (Regions I, IV, V, VI, VII, X)
Radiation Branch Chief (Region IT)
Residential Domain Section Chief (Region m)
Radiation and Indoor Air Program Branch Chief (Region VTfl)
-------
Radiation and Indoor Office Director (Region IX)
Federal Facilities Leadership Council
OERR Center Directors and Senior Process Managers
OERR NARPM co-chairs
cc: Elizabeth Cotsworth, ORIA
Jim Woolford, FFRRO
Robert Springer, OSW
Elliott Gilberg, FFEO
Barry Breen, OSRE
Joanna Gibson, HOSC/OERR
Earl Salo, OGC
Jeff Josephson, Region U
Marianne Horinko, OSWER
Mike Shapiro, OSWER
Tom Dunne, OSWER
Jeff Denit, OSWER
-9-
-------
-------
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
CONSULTATION AND FINALITY ON DECOMMISSIONING AND DECONTAMINATION OF
CONTAMINATED SITES
I. Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in
recognition of their mutual commitment to protect the public health and safety and the
environment, are entering into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in order to establish a
basic framework for the relationship of the agencies in the radiological decommissioning and
decontamination of NRC-licensed sites. Each Agency is entering into this MOU in order to
facilitate decision-making. It does not establish any new requirements or rights on parties not
subject to this agreement.
II. Purpose
The purpose of this MOU is to identify the interactions of the two agencies for the
decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites and to indicate the way in which
those interactions will take place. Except for Section VI, addressing corrective action under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), this MOU is limited to the coordination
between EPA, when acting under its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) authority, and NRC, when a facility licensed by the NRC is
undergoing decommissioning, or when a facility has completed decommissioning, and the NRC
has terminated its license. It continues a basic policy of EPA deferral to NRC decision-making in
the decommissioning of NRC-licensed sites except in certain circumstances, and establishes
the procedures to govern the relationship between the agencies in connection with the
decommissioning of sites at which those circumstances arise.
III. Background
An August 3, 1999, report (106-286) from the House Committee on Appropriations to
accompany the bill covering EPA's FY1999 Appropriations/FY 2000 budget request states:
Once again the Committee notes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) has and will continue to remediate sites under its jurisdiction to a level that
fully protects public health and safety, and believes that any reversal of the
long-standing policy of the Agency to defer to the NRC for cleanup of NRC's
licensed sites is not a good use of public or private funds. The interaction of the
EPA with the NRC, NRC licensees, and others, with regard to sites being
remediated under NRC regulatory requirements-when not specifically requested
by the NRC-has created stakeholder concerns regarding the authority and finality
of NRC licensing decisions, the duration and costs of site cleanup, and the
potential future liability of parties associated with affected sites. However, the
Committee recognizes that there may be circumstances at specific NRC
licensed sites where the Agency's expertise may be of critical use to the NRC. In
-------
the interest of ensuring that sites do not face dual regulation, the Committee
strongly encourages both agencies to enter into an MOU which clarifies the
circumstances for EPA's involvement at NRC sites when requested by the NRC.
The EPA and NRC are directed to report to the Committee on Appropriations no
later than May 1, 2000, on the status of the development of such an MOU.
Since Septembers, 1983, EPA has generally deferred listing on the CERCLA National Priorities
List (NPL) those sites that are subject to NRC's licensing authority, in recognition that NRC's
actions are believed to be consistent with the CERCLA requirement to protect human health and
the environment. However, as EPA indicated in the Federal Register notice announcing the
policy of CERCLA deferral to NRC, if EPA "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 40658).
EPA reaffirms its previous 1983 deferral policy. EPA expects that any need for EPA CERCLA
involvement in the decommissioning of NRC licensed sites should continue to occur very
infrequently because EPA expects that the vast majority of facilities decommissioned under
NRC authority will be decommissioned in a manner that is fully protective of human health and
the environment. By this MOU, EPA agrees to a deferral policy regarding NRC decision-making
without the need for consultation except in certain limited circumstances as specified in
paragraphs V.C.2 and V.C.3.
One set of circumstances in which continued consultation should occur, pursuant to the
procedures defined herein, relates to sites at which the NRC determines during the license
termination process that there is radioactive ground-water contamination above certain limits.
Pursuant to its License Termination rule, NRC applies a dose criterion that encompasses all
pathways, including ground water. In its cleanup of sites pursuant to CERCLA, by contrast, EPA
customarily establishes a separate ground-water cleanup standard in which it applies certain
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs, found at 40 CFR 141) promulgated for radionuclides and
other substances pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. NRC has agreed in this MOU to
consult with EPA on the appropriate approach in responding to the circumstances at particular
sites with ground-water contamination at the time of license termination in excess of EPA's
MCLs or those sites for which NRC contemplates either restricted release or the use of alternate
criteria for license termination, or radioactive contamination at the time of license termination
exceeds the corresponding levels in Table 1 as provided in Section V.C.2.
IV. Principles
In carrying out their respective responsibilities, the EPA and the NRC will strive to:
1. Establish a stable and predictable regulatory environment with respect to EPA's
CERCLA authority in and NRC's decommissioning of contaminated sites.
2. Ensure, to the extent practicable, that the responsibilities of the NRC under the AEA and
the responsibilities of EPA under CERCLA are implemented in a coordinated and
consistent manner.
-2-
-------
V. Implementation
A. Scope
This MOU is intended to address issues related to the EPA involvement under CERCLA in the
cleanup of radiologically contaminated sites under the jurisdiction of the NRC. EPA will continue
its CERCLA policy of September 8, 1983, which explains how EPA implements deferral
decisions regarding listing on the NPL of any sites that are subject to NRC's licensing authority.
The NRC's review of sites under NRC jurisdiction indicates that few of these sites have
radioactive ground-water contamination in excess of the EPA's MCLs. At those sites at which
NRC determines during the license termination process that there is radioactive ground-water
contamination above the relevant EPA MCLs, NRC will consult with EPA and, if necessary,
discuss with EPA the use of flexibility under EPA's phased approach to addressing ground-water
contamination. NRC has agreed in this MOU to consult with EPA on the appropriate approach in
responding to the circumstances at particular sites where ground-water contamination will
exceed EPA's MCLs, NRC contemplates either restricted release or the use of alternate criteria
for license termination, or radioactive contamination at the time of license termination exceeds
the corresponding levels in Table 1 as provided in Section V.C.2.
B. General
Each agency will keep the other agency generally informed of its relevant plans and schedules,
will respond to the other agency's requests for information to the extent reasonable and
practicable, and will strive to recognize and ameliorate to the extent practicable any problems
arising from implementation of this MOU.
C. NRC Responsibilities
1. NRC will continue to ensure remediation of sites under its jurisdiction to a level that fully
protects public health and safety.
2. For NRC-licensed sites at which NRC determines during the license termination process
that there is radioactive ground-water contamination in excess of EPA's MCLs, or for which
NRC contemplates either restricted release (10 CFR 20.1403) or the use of alternate
criteria for license termination (10 CFR 20.1404), NRC will seek EPA's expertise to assist
in NRC's review of a decommissioning or license termination plan. In addition, NRC will
consult with EPA if either the planned level of residual radioactive soil concentrations in the
proposed action or the actual residual level of radioactive soil concentrations found in the
final site survey exceed the radioactive soil concentration in Table 1. With respect to all
such sites, the NRC will consult with EPA on the application of the NRC decommissioning
requirements and will take such action as the NRC determines to be appropriate based on
its consultation with EPA. For example, if NRC determines during the license termination
process that there will be radioactive ground-water contamination in excess of EPA's
MCLs at the time of license termination, then NRC will discuss with EPA the use of
flexibility under EPA's phased approach for addressing ground-water contamination. If
NRC does not adopt recommendations provided by the EPA, NRC will inform EPA of the
basis for its decision not to do so.
-3 -
-------
3. NRC will defer to EPA regarding matters involving hazardous materials not under NRC's
jurisdiction.
D. EPA Responsibilities
1. If the NRC requests EPA's consultation on a decommissioning plan or license termination
plan, EPA will provide, within 90 days of NRC's notice to EPA, written notification of its
views on the matter.
2. Consistent with this MOU, EPA agrees to a policy of deferral to NRC decision making on
decommissioning without the need for consultation on sites other than those presenting
the circumstances described in Sections V.C.2 and V.C.3. The agencies will consult with
each other pursuant to the provisions of this MOU with respect to those sites presenting
the circumstances described in Sections V.C.2 and V.C.3. EPA does not expect to
undertake CERCLA actions related to radioactive contamination at a site that has been
decommissioned in compliance with the NRC's standards, including a site addressed
under Section V.C.2, despite the agencies decision to engage in consultation on such
sites. EPA's deferral policy, and its expectation of not taking CERCLA action, continues to
apply to sites that are covered under Section V.C.2.
3. For NRC-licensed sites presenting the circumstances described in Section V.C.2 and for
which NRC has not adopted the EPA recommendation, EPA will consult with NRC on any
CERCLA actions EPA expects to take if EPA does not agree with the NRC's decision.
4. EPA will resolve any CERCLA concerns involving hazardous substances outside of NRC's
jurisdiction at NRC licensed sites, including concerns involving hazardous constituents that
are not under the authority of NRC. As provided in Section V.D.2, EPA under CERCLA will
defer or consult with NRC as appropriate regarding matters involving AEA materials under
NRC's jurisdiction.
E. Other Provisions
1. Nothing in this MOU shall be deemed to establish any right nor provide a basis for any
action, either legal or equitable by any person, or class of persons challenging a
government action or failure to act.
2. Each agency will appoint a designated contact for implementation of this MOU. The
designated individuals will meet at least annually or at the request of either agency to
review NRC-licensed sites that meet the criteria for consultation pursuant to Section V.C.2.
The NRC designated contact is the Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and
Safeguards, and the EPA designated contact is the Director Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, or as each designee delegates.
3. This MOU will remain in effect until terminated by the written notice of either party
submitted six months in advance of termination.
4. Within six months of the execution of this MOU, each party will revise its guidance to its
Headquarters and Regional Offices to reflect the terms of this MOU.
-4-
-------
5. If differences arise that cannot be resolved by senior EPA and NRC management within 90
days, then either senior EPA or NRC management may raise the issue to their respective
agency head.
Section VI. Corrective Action under RCRA
Some NRC sites undergoing decommissioning may be subject to cleanup under RCRA
corrective action authority. This authority, administered either by EPA or authorized states,
requires cleanup of releases of hazardous waste or constituents at hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal facilities. NRC sites subject to RCRA corrective action will be expected to
meet RCRA cleanup standards for chemical contamination within EPA's jurisdiction. EPA
Office of Solid Waste's policy is to encourage regional and State program implementers to
coordinate RCRA cleanups with decommissioning, as appropriate, at those NRC sites subject
to EPA's corrective action authority.1
EPA will continue to support coordination of cleanups under the RCRA corrective action
program with decommissioning at NRC sites consistent with its March 5,1997 policy. In
addition, under RCRA the majority of States are authorized to implement the corrective action
requirements. States are not signatories to this MOU; however, EPA will encourage States to
act in accordance with this policy where they have responsibility for RCRA corrective action at
NRC sites undergoing decommissioning.
Items 1 and 3 of the "Other Provisions" of Section V.E^pply to this section.
Christine T. Whitman Date Richard A. Meserve Date
Administrator Chairman
US Environmental Protection Agency US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
1See letter from Elizabeth Cotsworth, Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste to James R.
Roewer, USWAG, dated March 5,1997.
- 5 -
-------
Duplicate first page - Inserted to allow word searching
5. If differences arise that cannot be resolved by senior EPA and NRC management within 90
days, then either senior EPA or NRC management may raise the issue to their respective
agency head.
Section VI. Corrective Action under RCRA
Some NRC sites undergoing decommissioning may be subject to cleanup under RCRA
corrective action authority. This authority, administered either by EPA or authorized states,
requires cleanup of releases of hazardous waste or constituents at hazardous waste treatment,
storage or disposal facilities. NRC sites subject to RCRA corrective action will be expected to
meet RCRA cleanup standards for chemical contamination within EPA's jurisdiction. EPA
Office of Solid Waste's policy is to encourage regional and State program implementers to
coordinate RCRA cleanups with decommissioning, as appropriate, at those NRC sites subject
to EPA's corrective action authority.1
EPA will continue to support coordination of cleanups under the RCRA corrective action
program with decommissioning at NRC sites consistent with its March 5, 1997 policy. In
addition, under RCRA the majority of States are authorized to implement the corrective action
requirements. States are not signatories to this MOU; however, EPA will encourage States to
act in accordance with this policy where they have responsibility for RCRA corrective action at
NRC sites undergoing decommissioning.
Items 1 and 3 of the "Other Provisions" of Section V.E. apply to this section.
Christine T. Whitman Date Richard A. Meserve Date
Administrator Chairman
US Environmental Protection Agency US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
1See letter from Elizabeth Cotsworth, Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste to James R.
Roewer, USWAG, dated March 5, 1997.
-------
MOD Table 1: Consultation Triggers for Residential
and Commercial/Industrial Soil Contamination
Except for radium-226, thorium-232, or total uranium, concentrations should be
aggregated using a sum of the fraction approach to determine site specific consultation
trigger concentrations. This table is based on single contaminant concentrations for
residential and commercial/industrial land use when using generally accepted exposure
parameters. Table users should select the appropriate column based on the site's
reasonably anticipated land use.
Radionuclide
H-3
C-14
Na-22
S-35
Cl-36
Ca-45
Sc-46
Mn-54
Fe-55
Co-57
Co-60
Ni-59
Ni-63
Sr-90+D
Nb-94
Tc-99
1-129
Cs-134
Cs-137+D
Eu-152
Eu-154
Residential
Soil Concentration
228 pCi/g
46 pCi/g
9 pCi/g
19,600pCi/g
6 pCi/g
13,500 pCi/g
105 pCi/g
69 pCi/g
269,000 pCi/g
873 pCi/g
4pCi/g
20,800 pCi/g
9,480 pCi/g
23 pCi/g
2pCi/g
25 pCi/g
60 pCi/g
16 pCi/g
6pCi/g
4 pCi/g
5 pCi/g
Industrial/Commercial
Soil Concentration
423 pCi/g
123,000 pCi/g
14 pCi/g
32,200,000 pCi/g
1 0,700 pCi/g
3,740,000 pCi/g
169 pCi/g
112pCi/g
2,21 0,000 pCi/g
l,420pCi/g
6pCi/g
1,230,000 pCi/g
555,000 pCi/g
l,070pCi/g
3 pCi/g
89,400 pCi/g
l,080pCi/g
26 pCi/g
llpCi/g
7 pCi/g
8 pCi/g
-7-
-------
MOD Table 1: Consultation Triggers for Residential
and Commercial/Industrial Soil Contamination
Except for radium-226, thorium-232, or total uranium, concentrations should be
aggregated using a sum of the fraction approach to determine site specific consultation
trigger concentrations. This table is based on single contaminant concentrations for
residential and commercial/industrial land use when using generally accepted exposure
parameters. Table users should select the appropriate column based on the site's
reasonably anticipated land use.
Radionuclide
IT- 192
Pb-210+D
Ra-226
Ac-227+D
Th-228+D
Th-232
U-234
U-235+D
U-238+D
total uranium
Pu-238
Pu-239
Pu-241
Am-241
Cm-242
Cm-243
Residential
Soil Concentration
336 pCi/g
15 pCi/g
5 pCi/g
10 pCi/g
15 pCi/g
5 pCi/g
401 pCi/g
20 pCi/g
74 pCi/g
47 mg/kg
297 pCi/g
259 pCi/g
40,600 pCi/g
187pCi/g
32,200 pCi/g
35 pCi/g
Industrial/Commercial
Soil Concentration
544 pCi/g
123 pCi/g
5 pCi/g
21 pCi/g
25 pCi/g
5 pCi/g
3,310pCi/g
39 pCi/g
179 pCi/g
1230 mg/kg
l,640pCi/g
l,430pCi/g
1 72,000 pCi/g
568 pCi/g
344,000 pCi/g
67 pCi/g
------- |