No comprehensive regulations currently exist for decommissioning and cleanup of radioactively contaminated sites. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have had a parallel, cooperative process to create the regulations, yet the final cleanup regulations continue to be pushed into the future. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its proposed rule, "Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning" in the August 22, 1994 Federal Register. The final rule is currently scheduled to be published next spring. For IEER's comments on the proposed NRC regulations see SDA Volume 4 Number 3.

The EPA is also behind schedule. Its proposed Radiation Site Cleanup Regulations are expected to be promulgated in the winter of 1995-1996, and the final rule announced one year later.

Comments on EPA's Proposed Regulations

A May 11, 1994 preliminary staff working draft proposes regulations that set standards for the remediation of soil, surface water, groundwater, and structures at federally owned sites to be release to the public.(1) The proposed maximum radiation dose to members of the public is 15 millirem (mrem) per year in excess of natural background radiation and would apply for a period of 1,000 years after completion of remediation. However, the EPA estimates that because the remediation activities must ensure that the concentrations of radionuclides in groundwater do not exceed the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the actual dose to the public will be further limited.(2) (The MCLs of the Safe Drinking Water Act limit exposures from ground water to no greater than 4 mrem per year.) The EPA is currently revising the MCLs which are found in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR 141, 142). (3) The EPA first published these proposed revisions in the Federal Register on July 18, 1991. The adoption of the final rule will be announced on December 15, 1995.

In addition, the EPA May 1994 working draft proposed the inclusion of radon concentration limits for existing as well as future residential and commercial structures on the site. This was done to comply with the guidelines of the EPA Radon Program as well as any other applicable federal, state, or local government regulations and/or guidance. (The EPA radon program is otherwise a nonregulatory program which recommends remediation for levels of radon-222 above 4 picocuries per litre [4 pCi/l ]of air.) Under the proposed rules, 4 pCi/l would become EPA's standard. However at this time, one-and-a-half years later, it appears that this radon standard may not be included in the proposed rule. It also appears that Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORM), wastes originally included, may also not be part of the proposed rules. (4)

Like the NRC, the EPA proposed rules would have provisions in the event the site remediation does not meet the criteria for unrestricted residential use. The owner of the site would then be required to "implement active control measures" to ensure that individuals located at the site do not receive a dose exceeding 15 mrem per year overall and no more than 4 mrem per year from groundwater. In the event these active control measures fail, individuals should not be exposed to doses exceeding 75 mrem per year.

Comments on NRC's Proposed Rules and its Site Decommissioning Management Plan

Although the NRC's proposed regulations are an improvement over its previous patchwork of guidelines, the loopholes worked into it would allow higher levels of residual contamination to be left behind than stipulated. The sites currently being decommissioned under the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) will be exempt from the criteria of the final rule. But a recent NRC document, SECY-95-209, dated August 11, 1995, contains numerous indications that under the guise of expediting decommissioning and cost reduction, the NRC would even like to relax the existing patchwork of guidelines. (5)

One way of achieving this would be to reduce the scope of NRC's confirmatory surveys. (6) The NRC realizes that this would increase the risk of elevated levels of residual radioactivity in isolated spots, or "hot spots", and candidly admits that "with the reduced scope of confirmatory surveys and measurements, it is possible that a licensee could attempt to deceive the NRC through a concerted effort by falsifying data or intentionally biasing sampling results and survey measurements." However the NRC has two ways of fixing that problem. The first would revise the "hot spot guidance" to allow higher levels of radioactivity. The second would put more emphasis on reviewing the licensee's termination survey plans and reports.

The NRC also has several policy proposals under review. Some are:

• Concentration averaging: The licensee would be allowed to mix contaminated soil with uncontaminated soil, ("dilution is the solution to pollution").
• Assumptions for exposure assessment scenarios: The NRC is initiating reviews of the dose assessment methodology on the grounds that the modeling used tends to overestimate the potential doses by an order of magnitude or more. Different assumptions, such as lowering the lifetime exposure or assuming no intrusion, would result in lower exposures for the same amount of residual radioactivity left on site.
• Generic conclusions on disposal of uranium and thorium wastes: For some of the sites which will not be able to meet the proposed criteria, the NRC has initiated the development of site-specific environmental impact statements (EISs) to consider the effects of onsite disposal of contaminated wastes. After review and evaluation, if the NRC determines that any generic conclusions can be drawn, it will consider developing a generic EIS instead of preparing an EIS for every site.
• Institutional controls: The NRC is proposing that sites which cannot be released to the public for unrestricted use be accepted by the DOE for long-term management under section 151 (b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The provision that "the licensee set aside sufficient funds to ensure that long-term custody would be at no cost to the Federal government" frees the corporation from all responsibilities even if in the future the funds are found to be insufficient. If funds do run out, the corporation's liabilities are transferred onto the taxpayer.

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

Comments to Outreach Coordinator, Pat Ortmeyer: ieer@ieer.org
Takoma Park, Maryland, USA

Revised March 21, 1996