# Presentation: 035527

## 			Risk Management 			for Decommissioning 	and 	Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Sites

- Daniel J. Strom, Lynn R. Anspaugh, James Flynn, F. Owen Hoffman, David C. Kocher, Paul A. Locke, Paul J. Merges, Bruce A. Napier, E. Ivan White
- 49th Annual Meeting of the Health Physics Society
- Washington, DC    July 12, 2004
- MAM-C.3 PNNL-SA-40444

**Notes:**
Risk Management for Decommissioning and Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Sites
Daniel J. Strom, Lynn R. Anspaugh, James Flynn, F. Owen Hoffman, David C. Kocher, Paul A. Locke, Paul J. Merges, Bruce A. Napier
The issue of dual or multiple regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and by state agencies of NRC-licensed facilities that are undergoing decommissioning has been a subject of considerable debate and controversy. As a step toward developing consistent approaches to decision-making by NRC and EPA on the cleanup of radiologically contaminated nuclear sites, the NCRP has prepared a report that reviews and analyzes the laws, regulations, guidance, models, and practices of NRC and EPA in this arena. Among other laws and regulations, NRC operates under the Atomic Energy Act and the License Termination Rule (10 CFR Part 20 Subpart E), and EPA operates under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Superfund regulations. The legal and regulatory drivers and practices are analyzed for their historical basis, their commonalities and significant differences, and their current and future implications as they relate to public perception, uncertainty, measurability, and radiation dose and risk estimates. The NCRP has analyzed case studies of decision-making and extracted recurrent themes. This presentation summarizes the report and its conclusions. 
*Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle under Contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. PNNL-SA-40444.
[Note to HPS Program Committee: The conclusions are draft as of January, 2004 and will be approved by the 96 voting members of the NCRP by the end of March, 2004. Thus it is inappropriate to put the conclusions in the abstract. The report will be published in June, 2004, before the HPS Annual Meeting, and will be available at the meeting.]

## Outline

- Statement of Work
- National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Scientific Committee 87-5
- U.S. regulation of remediation and decommissioning
- Conclusions

## U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) asked the NCRP to...

- Identify and summarize current guidance and practices used by
**NRC under the License Termination Rule (10 CFR Part 20 Subpart E), and by **
**the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), a.k.a. Superfund**
- 	for decommissioning and remediation of radioactively contaminated sites
- Identify, examine and summarize the following aspects of current practices used by NRC and EPA
**historical basis**
**commonalities and significant differences, and**
**current and future implications as they relate to public perception, uncertainty, measurability, and radiation dose and risk estimates**

## NCRP Formed Scientific Committee 87-5

## Process

- Meetings
- Presentations by Federal officials
- Site visit and presentations
- Literature review
- Analysis

## Scope Enlargement

- Committee found a need to extend scope
***laws, regulations, *****guidance,**** *****models, *****and practices**
**DOE’s RESRAD**
**RCRA**
**the role of the States**
- Literature Review
**Many, many documents**
**ITRC report: **_**[www.itrcweb.org/user/RAD-2.pdf](http://www.itrcweb.org/user/RAD-2.pdf)**_** **

## Conclusion 1: Criteria Differ for Acceptable Levels of Residual Soil Contamination

- EPA: lifetime cancer risk criterion
- NRC, most States: annual dose criterion
**Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE)**
- _Only_ meaningful comparison of criteria: examine each agency's ***entire system*** for protection of public health and the environment, including
**methods of site characterization**
**assumptions about future land use**
**methods of assessing dose and risk**
**uncertainties in determining levels of residual contamination**
**uncertainties in dose and risk assessments**

## Conclusion 2: Concurrent Regulation Is the Rule, Not the Exception

- In modern legislation established to ensure protection of public health and the environment, concurrent jurisdiction among federal and state agencies is the rule, not the exception

## Conclusion 3: Meaningful Stakeholder Involvement Is Required

- National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CERCLA, and their implementations in NRC and EPA regulations recognize that decision making must involve key stakeholders
**especially the nearby communities directly impacted by decommissioning and remediation**
- Public confidence in decision-making is enhanced when
**the process is open and transparent, and **
**the need for meaningful stakeholder involvement is embraced by all parties**

## Conclusion 4: Either Approach Can Protect Public Health with Site-Specific Cleanup Levels

- Either
**NRC’s License Termination Rule and practices or**
**EPA’s National Contingency Plan and practices**
- 	can result in a negotiated remediation decision among stakeholders that is protective of public health and the environment
- Acceptable residual contamination levels are expected to vary from site to site

## Normalized Residual 239Pu Levels

*derived from ITRC (2002)*

## Conclusion 5: There Are Many Drivers for Practical Decision-Making

- Practical decision making at specific sites has been driven primarily by
**the feasibility and costs of alternatives to remediation**
**the need to achieve negotiated agreements among regulators, site managers, and stakeholders **
- 	rather than rigid adherence to dose or risk criteria in regulations

## Conclusion 6: State Involvement Is Vital

- State governments have a vital role in determining acceptable remediation of radioactively contaminated sites, including sites licensed by NRC, and the role of the states should be taken into account in efforts to reconcile differences in NRC and EPA regulations

## Conclusion 7: EPA Involvement Should Not Impede NRC License Termination

- Involvement of EPA in remediation decisions at facilities licensed by NRC should not be a significant impediment to remediation and license termination, but can be accommodated with cooperative, site-specific, practical decision-making

## Strom’s Observations

- EPA does not use dose, EPA uses risk
**No, it isn’t 15 mrem/y v. 25 mrem/y**
- Even if it were 15 v. 25, criteria are often applied to different end-use scenarios
**EPA commonly uses **
- a 30-year exposure
- to a “suburban resident” who doesn’t drink the groundwater or primarily eat the food produced on site
**NRC commonly uses **
- a lifetime exposure
- to a resident farmer who drinks the groundwater and eats the food

## Summary

- Criteria differ for acceptable levels of residual soil contamination
- Concurrent regulation is the rule, not the exception
- Meaningful stakeholder involvement is required
- Either approach can protect public health with site-specific cleanup levels
- There are many drivers for practical decision-making
- State involvement is vital
- EPA involvement should not impede NRC license termination

## Current Status

- NCRP Report No. 146, “Approaches to Risk Management in Remediation of Radioactively Contaminated Sites” was issued October 15, 2004 (_[http](http://www.ncrponline.org/)__[://](http://www.ncrponline.org/)__[www.NCRPonline.org](http://www.ncrponline.org/)_)
- NCRP Scientific Committee 87-5
**Daniel J. Strom, Chair, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory**
**Lynn R. Anspaugh, University of Utah**
**James Flynn, Decision Research**
**F. Owen Hoffman, SENES Oak Ridge**
**David C. Kocher, SENES Oak Ridge**
**Paul A. Locke, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health**
**Paul J. Merges, Environment & Radiation Specialists, Inc.**
**Bruce A. Napier, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory**
**E. Ivan White, NCRP Staff**