Radiation 

Protection 

at EPA 

The First 30 Years


...Protecting People and the En

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................. 1

AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ....................................... 3

The Formation of EPA: Reorganization Plan No. 3 ................................. 3

Functions Transferred to EPA .............................................. 3

EPA’s Radiation Protection Responsibilities .................................. 4

Functions Transferred from HEW-BRH ................................ 4

Functions Transferred from AEC ..................................... 4

Functions Transferred from FRC ...................................... 5

New Radiation Protection Authorities ............................................ 5

Radiation Protection at Other Federal Agencies ................................... 6

Summary .................................................................... 6

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES ...................................................... 7

Federal Guidance ............................................................. 7

Presidential Federal Guidance .............................................. 8

Underground Mining of Uranium Ore .................................. 8

Diagnostic X-Rays ................................................. 8

Occupational Exposure ............................................ 10 


Exposure of the General Public ...................................... 11 


Federal Guidance Reports ................................................ 11 


NAS Reports .......................................................... 13 


Nuclear Fuel Cycle Standards and Regulations ................................... 14 


The Uranium Fuel Cycle ................................................. 14 


Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings ........................................ 17 


Low-Level Wastes ...................................................... 19 


Ocean Disposal .................................................. 19 


Land Disposal ................................................... 20 


Low-Activity Mixed Wastes ........................................ 21 


i 
Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level, and Transuranic Wastes ....................... 22 


Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes 


Management and Disposal .......................................... 23 


Deep Geologic Repositories ......................................... 25 


Waste Isolation Pilot Plant .................................... 26 


Yucca Mountain, Nevada ..................................... 28 


Environmental Standards ..................................................... 30 


Drinking Water ........................................................ 30 


Radionuclides Other than Radon ..................................... 30 


Radon .......................................................... 32 


Hazardous Air Pollutants ................................................. 33 


Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials ............. 35 


Environmental Regulations ......................................... 36 


Indoor Radon Exposure in Florida .................................... 39 


Cleanup Rule .......................................................... 40 


Superfund Program ..................................................... 42 


Emergency Response ......................................................... 45 


Radiological Emergency Response ......................................... 45 


Three Mile Island - Emergency Response at the Cross Roads .............. 45 


Radiological Emergency Response Plan ............................... 46 


Chernobyl - An International Incident ................................. 47 


Lost and Abandoned Radiation Sources ............................... 48 


Radiological Emergency Preparedness ...................................... 48 


Protective Action Guides ........................................... 48 


Working with International Organizations ............................. 49 


Counterterrorism ................................................. 50 


Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System ......................... 51 


APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Statutory Authorities, Executive Orders, and Other Reference Documents .... 53 


Appendix B: Federal Agency Radiation Responsibilities ............................. 61 


Appendix C: Acronyms ....................................................... 63 


Appendix D: Organizational History ............................................. 67 


Appendix E: References ...................................................... 69 


ii 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This report was prepared by Jacolyn Dziuban in EPA’s Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) 

within EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. Numerous EPA staff contributed to this report. ORIA 

thanks the following ORIA staff members who contributed to this report: Marcia Carpentier, Mary 

Clark, Raymond Clark, Jim Cumberland, Mark Doehnert, Gene Durman, Jonathan Edwards, Betsy 

Forinash, Ann Gile, Bonnie Gitlin, Ben Hull, Miles Kahn, John Karhnak, Deborah Kopsick, Mary 

Kruger, Ritchey Lyman, Cheryl Malina, Scott Monroe, Chris Nelson, Neal Nelson, Dennis 

O’Connor, Jerry Puskin, Julie Rosenberg, Renelle Rae, Lowell Ralston, Loren Setlow, Glenna 

Shields, Sharon White, Kung Wei-Yeh, and Anthony Wolbarst. In addition, thank you to Richard 

Graham and Milt Lammering of EPA Region 8 for contributing to this report. Thank you also to the 

following staff from EPA laboratories who contributed to this report: Greg Dempsey (R&IENL), 

Rhonda Sears (NAREL), Edwin Sensintaffar (NAREL), and Mike Smith (NAREL). Contributions 

were also made by Al Colli and Joe Logsdon, former EPA employees. 

ORIA appreciates the substantial contributions made by: Allan Richardson (former EPA employee) 

to the Nuclear Standards and Regulations chapter and the Federal Guidance section; Jim Gruhlke 

to the Low-Level Waste section; Ken Czyscinski to the Yucca Mountain section; Anita Schmidt to 

the Radon in Drinking Water section; W. Craig Conklin to the Emergency Response chapter; and 

Keith Matthews (OGC) for the time and valuable insights he provided during the development of 

this document. 

ORIA recognizes the valuable contributions made by TechLaw under U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-D5-

0174. 

This report was prepared with the support of SciComm, Inc. under U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-D7-

0062. 

iii 
This page left intentionally blank. 

iv

INTRODUCTION


This report describes key accomplishments and program activities during the first thirty years of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) involvement in radiation protection. It is limited 

however to activities carried out by the current Radiation Protection Division 1

 (RPD) of the Office 

of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) within the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and its earlier 

organizational formulations. This report provides the context for EPA’s key actions and the 

practical impact of these actions. It does not provide an in-depth policy or scientific discussion; 

rather, it is intended to introduce Agency staff and other interested parties to historical information 

on this topic. 

The Agency’s involvement in radiation protection has both a legal and historical foundation. To 

better understand the origin of EPA’s radiation protection activities, the first part of this report, 

Authorities and Responsibilities, describes the historical basis. It begins with a description of the 

ongoing radiation protection activities transferred to EPA when it was established in 1970, and 

continues with information on the statutes that have been enacted over the past 30 years that provide 

additional radiation protection authorities and responsibilities to EPA. The second part of this report, 

Program Activities, provides information on key EPA radiation protection activities carried out in 

response to these responsibilities, and highlights significant precedents for radiation protection 

established by these activities. 

1 Both ORIA (and RPD) have been reorganized several times, resulting in many different program names and 

acronyms. To avoid confusion, this report recognizes all radiation protection work as having been done under RPD 

auspices. 

1 
This page left intentionally blank. 

2

AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES


This section reviews the environmental 

protection authorities and responsibilities 

transferred to EPA when it was established in 

1970, provides information on the statutes that 

have been enacted over the past 30 years, and 

the radiation protection responsibilities of 

other Federal agencies. 

The Formation of EPA: 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 

EPA was formed at the direction of President 

Nixon under Reorganization Plan No. 3, 

which became law on December 2, 1970. The 

White House Press Release, dated July 9, 

1970, described the need to form EPA as 

follows: 

As concern with the condition of our 

physical environment has intensified, it 

has become increasingly clear that we 

need to know more about the total 

environment – land, water and air. It also 

has become increasingly clear that only by 

reorganizing our federal efforts can we 

develop that knowledge, and effectively 

ensure the protection, development and 

enhancement of the total environment 

itself. 

The Government’s environmentallyrelated activities have grown up piecemeal over the years. The time has come to 

or gani z e t h em rationall y and 

systematically. As a major step in this 

direction, I am transmitting today two 

reorganization plans: one to establish an 

Environmental Protection Agency and one 

to establish within the Department of 

Commerce, a National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration. [1] 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 consolidated the 

environmental protection functions of several 

departments and agencies into the newly 

formed EPA. EPA was generally provided 

research, monitoring, standard setting, and 

enforcement authorities for each category of 

pollutant. However, the transfer of radiation 

protection responsibilities to EPA was more 

limited than that of other pollutants, in that the 

authority for enforcement of radiation 

standards was retained by the Atomic Energy 

Commission (AEC). EPA would later gain 

enforcement authority for the regulation of 

some radioactive materials under certain 

environmental statutes. 

Functions Transferred to EPA 

Selected functions performed by the following 

Federal agencies and their components were 

transferred to the newly formed EPA under 

Reorganization Plan No. 3: 

Department of the Interior (DOI) 

•	 Federal Water Quality Administration 

(FWQA) 

•	 Research on the effects of pesticides on 

fish and wildlife 

Department of Health, Education and Welfare 

(HEW) 

•	 National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA) 

•	 Bureau of Solid Waste Management 

(BSWM) 

•	 Bureau of Water Hygiene (BWH) 

•	 Bureau of Radiological Health (BRH) 

3 
• Pesticide research tolerance setting 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

•	 Pesticide registration under the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (FIFRA) 

Executive Office of the President 

•	 Federal Radiation Council (FRC) 

•	 Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 

environmental radiation standard setting 

•	 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

research on ecological systems [2] 

EPA’s Radiation Protection 

Responsibilities 

Prior to the formation of EPA, radiation 

protection standard setting and guidance 

development authorities were housed in 

different organizations within the Executive 

Office of the President and various Federal 

agencies in the executive branch. In forming 

EPA, the authors of Reorganization Plan No. 

3 created a new national approach for 

protecting the general public from the harmful 

exposure to radiation. Two key radiation 

protection functions would now be housed in 

a single agency – the promulgation of 

generally applicable environmental standards 

to limit man-made radioactive materials in the 

environment, and the development of national 

radiation protection guidance for Federal and 

State agencies to follow in the development of 

their radiation protection programs and 

regulations. Along with these responsibilities, 

EPA was provided extensive research and 

surveillance capabilities to support the 

development of national guidance and 

standards, as well as the authority to provide 

technical assistance to the States. 

This section discusses both the legal and the 

historical foundation of the radiation protection functions transferred to EPA. The 

authors of Reorganization Plan No. 3 explicitly stated that the term “functions” referred to 

an organization’s statutory authority as well as 

its “duties, responsibilities, and activities.” [3] 

Functions Transferred from HEW-BRH 

Several functions vested in the Bureau of 

Radiological Health under the Public Health 

Service Act (PHSA) were transferred to EPA, 

including a broad authority to conduct or 

promote research, investigations, experiments, 

demonstrations, and studies relating to the 

causes, diagnoses, treatments, control, and 

prevention of diseases. EPA also was 

transferred BRH’s “primary responsibility 

within the executive branch for the collection, 

analysis, and interpretation of data on environmental radiation levels” along with three 

laboratories. The functions transferred to 

EPA from BRH include the following: 

development of Protective Action Guides; 

routine and special surveillance; monitoring, 

research, and development; environmental 

impact analysis and evaluation; and administrative and service support, including training. 

[4] 

Under Reorganization Plan No. 3, BRH 

retained the responsibility to regulate radiation 

from consumer products and certain nonregulatory functions pertaining to medical and 

occupational exposures to radiation. BRH 

also retained the research, technical assistance, 

and training related to these responsibilities. [2] 

Functions Transferred from AEC 

Under Reorganization Plan No. 3, EPA was 

transferred the functions of the Atomic Energy 

Commission, administered through its 

Division of Radiation Protection Standards “to 

4

the extent that such functions consist of 

e s ta blishing g e ne ra ll y a p p lic a b le 

environmental standards for the protection of 

the general environment from radioactive 

material.” [2] Under the AEA, these standards 

were defined as “limits on radiation exposures 

or levels, or concentrations or quantities of 

radioactive material, in the general environment outside the boundaries of locations under 

the control of persons possessing or using 

radioactive material.” [2] The AEC (and later 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) retained 

the responsibility for implementing and 

enforcing these standards. This AEC authority applies only to exposures resulting from 

radionuclides from the nuclear fuel cycle. 

Functions Transferred from FRC 

In 1959, the Federal Radiation Council (FRC) 

was established by Executive Order (EO) 

10831 and was given the authority under the 

Atomic Energy Act (AEA) to develop Federal 

guidance. Soon after, Congress provided an 

identical statutory basis for the FRC. Reorganization Plan No. 3 abolished the FRC and its 

functions and authorities were transferred to 

EPA. This included the FRC’s primary 

function to “advise the President with respect 

to radiation matters directly or indirectly 

affecting health, including guidance for all 

Federal agencies in the formulation of 

radiation standards and in the establishment 

and execution of programs of cooperation 

with States.” [2,5] 

New Radiation 

Protection Authorities 

Subsequent to the formation of EPA, Congress enacted several new statutes providing 

EPA with the authority to regulate hazardous 

materials in specific environmental media. 

Through the enactment of these new statutes, 

most notably the Clean Air Act (CAA); the 

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); and the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

the scope of EPA’s radiological protection 

authorities expanded. EPA became responsible for regulating both chemical and certain 

radiological hazards under the same legislative 

requirements. As a result of these changes, 

EPA was faced with the challenge of establishing standards and regulations for radiation 

that were consistent with its standards and 

regulations for chemical carcinogens.2

 (See 

Appendix A “Statutory Authorities” for a 

summary of statutes providing authorities for 

EPA’s radiation protection activities.) 

Radiation Protection at 

Other Federal Agencies 

Several Federal agencies have significant 

radiation protection responsibilities, including 

EPA, the Department of Energy (DOE), the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the 

Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 

the Department of Labor (DOL), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA). The overall responsibilities of these 

organizations are described in Appendix B. 

2

 For an extended analysis of EPA’s resolution of the 

conflicts between the Agency’s regulatory policies 

for chemicals and historical radiation protection 

policy, see Regulation of Radiological and Chemical 

Carcinogens: Current Steps Toward Risk 

Harmonization.” [6] 

5

Summary 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 provided EPA with 

considerable authorities and responsibilities 

for the development of the Agency’s radiation 

protection program. For the first time, the 

national radiation protection guidance setting 

authority and the environmental standard 

setting authority were housed in a single 

agency. The authorities transferred to EPA 

from the FRC, when combined with those of 

the BRH, gave EPA wide-ranging authority to 

promote, conduct, or contract for any research 

to provide needed radiation protection 

information. 

In addition, EPA was transferred authority under 

the PHSA to provide technical assistance to the 

States and other Federal agencies having 

radiation protection programs, and to provide 

emergency assistance in responding to radiological emergencies. 

6 
PROGRAM ACTIVITIES


This section discusses EPA’s radiation 

protection activities from 1970 to 2000 within 

the following four program areas: 

Federal Guidance describes Presidential and 

Federal radiation protection guidance and 

supporting EPA technical reports. 

Nuclear Fuel Cycle Standards and 

Regulations describes EPA’s regulatory 

program developed under the authority of the 

AEA and related statutes. These standards 

generally apply to source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the AEA of 

1954, as amended. 

Environmental Standards describes mediaspecific (e.g. air, water, etc.) standards 

developed under a variety of environmental 

statutes that apply to both chemical and 

radioactive contaminants. 

Emergency Response describes technical 

support and guidance developed in compliance with the FEMA regulations. 

Each of these program areas are discussed in 

detail below. First an initial background 

paragraph is provided giving the general 

context for EPA’s actions, then the discussion 

of each program area contains following subsections: 

Legislative Authority describes the authorizing statute and statutory purpose. 

Internal/External Triggers describes the reason 

for RPD’s action. 

EPA Actions describes RPD’s actions to 

address the problem. 

Impact of EPA Actions describes how RPD’s 

actions affected other Federal agencies, other 

program areas within EPA, and the international radiation protection community. 

Federal Guidance 

The authority to develop 

Federal guidance was 

one of the primary radiation protection authorities transferred to EPA 

when it was formed in 

1970. The purpose of 

this guidance is to provide a common framework for all Federal agencies to follow to 

ensure that the regulation of exposure to 

radiation is carried out in an adequately 

protective and consistent manner. It is used by 

Federal agencies as the basis for developing 

and implementing their own regulatory 

standards. There are two kinds of Federal 

guidance publications: 

 Presidential Federal Guidance 

provides principles and basic 

standards for Federal and State radiation protection programs. This guidance is developed by EPA and approved by the President. 

 Federal Guidance provides current 

scientific and technical information for 

radiation dose and risk assessment. 

This guidance is issued by EPA to 

support the implementation of Federal 

and State radiation protection programs. 

7

From 1960 to 1970, the FRC issued three 

Presidential Federal guidance documents and 

eight Federal guidance reports. These 

documents, for the first time, provided broad 

guidance to Federal agencies for protection of 

the general public from radiation, and for 

workers exposed to radiation in the workplace. 

Since 1970, EPA has developed four Presidential Federal guidance documents. Two of 

these replaced guidance developed by the FRC 

for workers, one provided guidance for 

medical uses of radiation – an area not 

previously addressed by Federal guidance – 

and the last provided guidance for the general 

population and is still awaiting final action. 

EPA has developed five Federal guidance 

reports, including one multi-agency report, 

and sponsored seven studies by the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) under this 

authority. These reports are discussed in the 

following subsections. 

Presidential Federal Guidance 

Underground Mining of Uranium Ore 

Legislative Authority 

The AEA and Reorganization Plan No. 3 

provide EPA the authority to “...advise the 

President with respect to radiation matters 

directly or indirectly affecting health, 

including guidance for all Federal agencies in 

the formulation of radiation standards and in 

the establishment and execution of programs 

of cooperation with States.” [2] EPA is 

authorized to consult with the National 

Academy of Sciences, the National Council on 

Radiation Protection and Measurements, and 

other experts in carrying out this 

responsibility. 

Internal/External Triggers 

In the 1960s, the FRC noted an increase in 

lung cancer among underground uranium 

miners in the U.S. associated with the 

inhalation of radioactive materials. The FRC 

conducted a study of the problem, and in 1967 

reported the results in Federal Guidance 

Report No. 8, Guidance for the Control of 

Radiation Hazards in Uranium Mining. [7] 

Based on that study, in 1969 the FRC 

proposed recommendations for miners, 

including a threefold reduction in the 

maximum annual radiation exposure to radon 

and its decay products for miners in 

underground uranium mines. 

EPA Actions 

After an extensive review of available 

scientific and epidemiological information on 

radiation induced lung cancer, EPA concluded 

that the recommendations of the FRC should 

not be modified. On July 9, 1971, EPA 

finalized the guidance, recommending 

standards for the protection of underground 

uranium miners. [8] EPA’s primary objective 

was to protect miners from radiation induced 

lung cancer. In recommending these 

standards, EPA considered the protection of 

the health of uranium miners, technical 

feasibility of achieving various levels of 

exposure, and the economic impact 

Impact of EPA Actions 

This was the first time occupational standards 

were recommended for Federal agencies to 

incorporate into their regulations that limited 

the exposures of uranium miners to the 

harmful exposures to radiation. 

Diagnostic X-Rays 

Legislative Authority 

See above. 

8

Internal/External Triggers 

Although the beneficial uses of diagnostic xrays were well recognized, by the 1960s there 

was a growing concern among medical 

practitioners, medical physicists, and other 

scientists concerned with radiation protection 

that medical uses of ionizing radiation 

represented a significant and growing source 

of exposure for the U.S. population. Medical 

exposures to radiation were not controlled by 

guidance, regulation, or law. [9] 

In 1970, at the request of the FRC, the NAS 

initiated a study on the health effects of 

exposure to low levels of radiation. (Later 

that year, the responsibilities of the FRC, 

including the sponsorship of this study, were 

transferred to EPA.) In their 1972 report, 

The Effects on Populations of Exposure to 

Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, the NAS 

noted that “...medical diagnostic radiology 

accounts for at least 90% of the total manmade radiation dose to which the U.S. 

population is exposed.” The Committee 

recommended that medical radiation exposure 

be reduced by limiting its use to clinically 

indicated procedures, using efficient exposure 

techniques and optimal operation of radiation 

equipment. [10] 

EPA Actions 

To address these recommendations, on July 5, 

1974, EPA formed an Interagency Working 

Group on Medical Radiation. The Working 

Group issued two reports for public comment, 

and on January 18, 1977, EPA published 

proposed recommendations. [11] As a part of 

this process, EPA also entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with 

the Department of Health, Education and 

Welfare (HEW) defining the responsibilities 

of the two agencies for the development of 

Federal guidance on medical uses of radiation. 

This MOU provided that either agency could 

develop recommendations, with EPA 

primarily responsible for broad guidance and 

HEW primarily responsible for implementing 

guidance. However, EPA was responsible for 

the final review of all Federal guidance. 

Consistent with this agreement, EPA and 

HEW developed its final recommendations on 

Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal 

Agencies for Diagnostic X Rays, approved by 

President Carter and published in the Federal 

Register on February 1, 1978. [9] 

Impact of EPA Actions 

The 1978 guidance was the first to provide a 

framework for the development of radiation 

protection programs for diagnostic uses of xrays in medicine. It introduced into Federal 

guidance the concepts of: 

 Medical x-ray studies should only be 

conducted to obtain diagnostic 

information (i.e., studies were for the 

benefit of the patient, and not undertaken for other purposes); 

 Routine screening exams should be 

limited to those that have a demonstrated beneficial yield compared to 

the radiation risk; 

 Exams of pregnant or potentially 

pregnant patients should consider 

possible fetal exposure; 

 Operators of diagnostic equipment 

should meet or exceed requirements of 

established credentialing organizations; and 

 Specified standard x-ray exams should 

satisfy maximum numerical exposure 

criteria. 

9

This guidance provided the basis for 

subsequent legislation that gave HEW both 

the authority and the charge to develop 

regulations to implement most of these 

recommendations. 

Occupational Exposure 

Legislative Authority 

See above (page 8). 

Internal/External Triggers 

Occupational exposure to ionizing radiation in 

the United States is governed by regulations 

established by a wide variety of Federal and 

State agencies. To assure uniform protection 

of workers, the framework for these 

regulations is set out in Federal guidance. 

In 1974, EPA began an evaluation of the 

magnitude and extent of worker exposure to 

radiation in the United States. EPA published 

reports in 1980 and again in 1984 providing 

comprehensive reviews of the numbers and 

exposures of workers for the years 1960 to 

1980, with projections to the year 1985. 

These reports demonstrated that the number of 

workers exposed to ionizing radiation 

increased significantly since Federal radiation 

protection guidance for occupational exposure 

was first issued in l960, and was continuing to 

increase. The average exposure of workers, 

however, was decreasing. The mean annual 

dose to potentially exposed workers decreased 

by a factor of two between 1960 and 1985. [12] 

EPA Actions 

EPA began its review of radiation protection 

guidance for workers by establishing a Federal 

interagency committee. Final recommendations for increased protection of U.S. workers, 

Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal 

Agencies for Occupational Exposure, were 

approved by President Reagan and published 

on January 27, 1987. [13] This guidance 

replaced the Federal guidance signed by 

President Eisenhower and published by the 

FRC in 1960. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

EPA’s new Federal guidance for occupational 

exposure made a number of major changes in 

the protection of workers, including: 

 Reducing the annual limit from 12 

rem to 5 rem; 

 Replacing the “critical organ” 

approach to radiation limits (that 

limited only the dose to the most 

exposed organ) with limits based on 

the sum of risks to all exposed organs 

through the introduction of the 

“effective dose equivalent” as the 

relevant dose quantity; 

 Requiring summing internal and 

external doses in assessing conformance with dose limits; 

 Introducing the use of the “committed 

dose” to account for future exposure 

from radionuclides retained in the 

body; 

 Limiting exposure of the fetus through 

lowered limits, on both a monthly and 

an annual basis, for declared pregnant 

workers, and requiring that this be 

achieved in a non-discriminatory 

manner; 

 Requiring application of the “as low as 

reasonably achievable” (ALARA) 

principle to collective, as well as 

individual, doses; 

10

 Requiring education of workers on the 

risks from radiation, and that workers 

be given access to annual records of 

their exposure and dose commitments; 

and 

 Introducing the concept of “administrative control levels” below the limits 

for use in the great majority of 

situations involving radiation exposure 

that do not warrant use of the full 

exposure limits. 

These recommendations have been implemented by essentially all Federal and State 

agencies. 

Exposure of the General Public 

Legislative Authority 

See above (page 8). 

Internal/External Triggers 

In 1960, the FRC issued its first 

recommendations, which established limits for 

exposure of the public, and included an annual 

limit of 500 mrem to the whole body and a 5 

rem limit over 30 years to the gonads. During 

the years following EPA’s creation in 1970, 

the Agency decided to concentrate its energies 

on establishing more protective limits for the 

most important specific kinds of exposure 

sources, such as the nuclear power industry 

and sources of emissions to air, rather than on 

revising the 1960 FRC general guidance on 

limits for members of the public. All of these 

environmental radiation standards, as well as 

the corresponding risk levels involved in the 

Agency’s standards for other pollutants, were 

much lower than the 1960 FRC limits. In 

addition, new reviews of radiation risks by the 

NAS found that radiation risks were 

significantly higher than had been assumed by 

the FRC in 1960. By 1986, it had become 

apparent that the old FRC limits were 

anachronisms that should be addressed. 

EPA Actions 

In 1986, EPA began a long series of meetings 

with the eleven Federal agencies that have 

responsibilities for controlling exposure of the 

public, and with representatives of State 

radiation control programs. By 1993, in 

cooperation with these agencies and the 

States, EPA developed draft recommendations 

for new Federal guidance to replace the old 

1960 FRC guidance for members of the 

public. EPA proposed Federal Radiation 

Protection Guidance for Exposure of the 

General Public in 1994. [14] The proposed 

guidance contained the following major 

changes: it reduced the former limits to a 

single limit of 1 mSv/y, and limited its use to 

that of a cap on the sum of exposure from all 

man-made sources of exposure; it introduced 

the use of source-related limits (e.g., those 

already established under the environmental 

statutes) as the primary basis for control of 

exposure; and it replaced use of dose to 

critical organs with effective dose and the use 

of committed dose. 

During the period following publication of 

these recommendations, EPA conducted 

extensive negotiations but was unable to 

resolve the outstanding issues. 

Federal Guidance Reports 

Legislative Authority 

See above (page 8). 

Internal/External Triggers 

To implement radiation protection guidance 

on standards and regulations for radionuclides 

and for sources of x-ray and gamma external 

11

radiation, it is necessary to relate dose and risk 

to quantities of radioactivity in the environment through various exposure pathways, and 

to the intensity of external radiation sources. 

Prior to EPA’s formation, there were only a 

few incomplete sources of Federally approved 

technical information available for these 

purposes. 

EPA Actions 

Since the mid-1980s, EPA has published five 

Federal guidance reports on a variety of 

technical matters to provide Federal and State 

agencies dose and risk information for use in 

the development and implementation of their 

radiation protection programs. 

Federal Guidance Technical Report No. 9, 

Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic 

X Rays. This report, prepared in cooperation 

with an Interagency Working Group on 

Medical Radiation, provides the basis for the 

Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal 

Agencies for Diagnostic X Rays. [15] 

Federal Guidance Technical Report No. 10, 

The Radioactivity Concentration Guides. This 

report presents numerical values for the 

concentrations of radioactivity in air and 

water, corresponding to the limiting annual 

doses recommended for workers in 1960. [16] 

Federal Guidance Technical Report No. 11, 

Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and 

Air Concentration and Dose Conversion 

Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and 

Ingestion. This report provides derived 

guides (limiting values) of radionuclide intake 

and air concentration for control of occupational exposure that are consistent with 1987 

Federal radiation protection guidance. The 

derived guides serve as the basis for 

regulations setting upper bounds on the 

inhalation and ingestion of, and submersion 

in, radioactive materials in the workplace. 

The report also includes tables of exposure-todose conversion factors for general use in 

assessing average individual committed doses 

in any population that is adequately characterized by Reference Man. This report supercedes 

Federal Guidance Report No. 10. [17] 

Federal Guidance Technical Report No. 12, 

External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, 

Water, and Soil. This report provides tables 

of exposure-to-dose conversion factors for 

external exposure to photons and electrons 

emitted by radionuclides in air, water, and 

soil. It is intended to be a companion to 

Federal Guidance Report No. 11 (see above). 

The dose coefficients for exposure to external 

radiation are intended for the use of Federal 

agencies in calculating the dose equivalent to 

organs and tissues of the body. Dose coefficients for air submersion in Report No. 12 

update those given in Report No. 11. [18] 

Federal Guidance Technical Report No. 13, 

Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental 

Exposure to Radionuclides. This report 

provides, for the first time, comprehensive 

tables of health risks due to ingestion, 

inhalation, external exposure, or submersion 

for over 800 different radionuclides. It uses 

nationally accepted biokinetic models to 

incorporate age-, gender-, and organ-specific 

intakes and risks to determine lifetime cancer 

risks. [19] 

Impact of EPA Actions 

Federal Guidance Technical Report No. 11, 

Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and 

Air Concentration and Dose Conversion 

Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and 

Ingestion, has been adopted by Federal 

agencies and the States as the standard source 

12

for calculating radiation doses from radionuclides in the human body. 

Federal Guidance Technical Report No. 12, 

External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, 

Water, and Soil, is used by Federal and State 

agencies and others as the standard source for 

exposure-to-dose conversion factors for 

external exposure of human from radiation 

and radionuclides in air, water, and soil. 

Federal Guidance Technical Report No. 13, 

Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental 

Exposure to Radionuclides is used by 

Federal and State organizations to assess risks 

from exposure to radionuclides in a wide 

variety of applications. These range from 

environmental impact analyses of specific 

sites to the general analyses that support 

rulemaking. 

NAS Reports 

In support of all Federal and State radiation 

protection activities, EPA has sponsored seven 

major reviews of radiation risks by the 

National Academy of Sciences-National 

Research Council (NAS-NRC) during the past 

30 years under its Federal guidance authority. 

Most of these studies have been carried out by 

the NAS-NRC Committee on the Biological 

Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR). Four of 

these reviews, the BEIR Reports I, II, V, and 

the in-progress BEIR VII Report, address low 

level effects of radiation in general, and two of 

these reviews, BEIR IV and VI, deal with 

more specialized risk assessments for alphaemitting radionuclides and for radon, 

respectively. BEIR II addressed the use of 

cost/benefit analysis in radiation risk 

management. [10,20,21,22,23, 24] 

Taken together, the NAS BEIR reports are the 

United States’ most authoritative and 

comprehensive source of reliable information 

and opinion on the health effects of exposure 

to radiation. 

13

Nuclear Fuel Cycle 

Standards and 

Regulations 

Prior to the formation of EPA, radiation 

protection activities for the nuclear industry 

were primarily the responsibility of the AEC. 

The AEC was charged, under the 1954 

amendments of the AEA, to both promote 

peaceful uses of nuclear energy and regulate 

the nuclear industry. With the passage of 

time, the dual role of the AEC as both 

regulator and advocate of the use of atomic 

energy came into question. 

In 1970, under Reorganization Plan No. 3, the 

responsibility to develop Federal guidance and 

establish generally applicable environmental 

standards for radioactive materials was 

transferred from the AEC to the EPA; 

however, AEC retained its responsibilities to 

simultaneously promote and regulate the 

nuclear industry. The controversy surrounding this dual role reached its height during the 

Arab oil embargo and the energy crisis of 

1973-74. Additional factors included the 

growth of the nuclear industry; an increasingly 

active anti-nuclear movement; and growing 

concern among citizens groups, Congress, 

and scientists about the perceived 

environmental threat from reliance on nuclear 

energy. In 1974, Congress passed the Energy 

Reorganization Act (ERA), which abolished 

the AEC and split its remaining 

responsibilities among two new entities: the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and 

the Energy, Research and Development Administration (ERDA). The AEC’s authority to 

regulate civilian nuclear power operations was 

transferred to the NRC, and AEC’s responsibilities for producing nuclear weapons and 

promoting peaceful uses of atomic energy 

were transferred to ERDA, which became 

DOE in 1977. 

Under the AEA and subsequently enacted 

nuclear statutes, EPA developed a 

comprehensive set of standards addressing 

environmental issues for all phases of the 

uranium fuel cycle, including: uranium 

milling; chemical conversion; fuel fabrication 

and reprocessing; power plant operations; 

waste management, storage, and disposal; and 

site cleanup for milling operations. These 

standards apply to exposures due to releases of 

radioactive material into the accessible 

environment. Implementing agencies (primarily EPA, NRC, and DOE) incorporate them 

into their site-specific or facility-specific 

regulations, which promotes consistency in 

radiation protection. 

Under the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (WIPP 

LWA), EPA developed a facility-specific 

regulation for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(WIPP) that certifies the facility to open and 

accept transuranic radioactive waste. The 

Agency also proposed a facility-specific 

standard for Yucca Mountain. 

The Uranium Fuel Cycle 

(40 CFR Part 190) 

From the late 1950s 

through the early 1970s, 

nuclear power emerged 

as a significant source of 

energy for the United 

States. By the late 

1960s, it b ecam e 

apparent, to both the 

public and the Federal government, that the 

growing industry supporting nuclear power – 

the production, management, and use of 

uranium fuel – could pose a significant risk to 

14

the environment and public health. In 1970, 

seventeen nuclear power plants were in 

operation, forty- nine were under construction, 

and an additional forty-eight were in the 

planning stage. These 114 plants were to be 

located in twenty-nine States and were 

expected to provide over 85 million kilowatts 

of electric generating capacity. The AEC 

estimated nuclear power would generate 150 

million kilowatts by 1980 and one billion 

kilowatts by the year 2000. These expectations have not been met, however, and today 

there are only about 100 commercial nuclear 

power plants in operation. 

Legislative Authority 

The AEA provides EPA the broad authority to 

develop generally applicable environmental 

radiation standards. [25] 

Internal/External Triggers 

As the technology to generate electricity using 

nuclear energy became more sophisticated 

and widespread, concern over potential public 

health and environmental impacts of 

radioactive materials also increased. The 

fission of nuclear fuel was a fairly recent 

discovery, and as a consequence the health 

and environmental implications were only 

beginning to be understood. At the time this 

standard was developed, environmental 

contamination resulting from the nuclear 

power industry was minimal. Therefore, the 

opportunity and the challenge existed to 

manage future growth of this industry in a 

preventive, rather than remedial, context, 

which is the best situation for environmental 

protection. 

EPA Actions 

On August 13, 1973, EPA developed 

proposed standards for nuclear power plants 

that set separate exposure and release limits 

for the three classes of facilities in the 

uranium fuel cycle: fuel supply operations 

(e.g., uranium mills, chemical processing, 

isotopic enrichment, and fuel fabrication), 

light water reactor plants, and fuel 

reprocessing plants. The AEC challenged 

EPA’s legal authority to set these standards, 

arguing that standards for separate classes of 

facilities in the fuel cycle encroached on 

AEC’s authority to license and regulate such 

facilities individually, and that such standards 

were not “generally applicable” standards. 

This dispute was referred to President Nixon, 

who asked the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to further clarify the responsibilities of the EPA and AEC. The decision 

was defined in a memorandum from Roy L. 

Ash, Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget, dated December 7, 1973. [26] 

Although OMB supported AEC’s position 

against separate standards for classes of 

facilities within a given industry, it confirmed 

that EPA could set different generally 

applicable environmental standards for broad 

classes of activities, such as the uranium fuel 

cycle, taken as a whole. 

Based on this OMB decision, EPA revised its 

approach and in 1975 proposed standards 

applicable to normal operations of the entire 

uranium fuel cycle. This approach included 

four basic considerations: the total radiation 

dose to populations; the maximum dose to 

individuals; the risk of health effects 

attributable to these doses, including the 

future risks arising from the release of longlived radionuclides to the environment; and 

the effectiveness and costs of the technology 

available to mitigate these risks. [27] 

On January 13, 1977, the uranium fuel cycle 

standard was promulgated at 40 CFR Part 190. 

15

This two-part standard, entitled Environmental Radiation Protection for Nuclear Power 

Operations, sets generally applicable environmental limits for the entire uranium fuel cycle. 

The first part limits individual exposures from 

planned discharges of radioactive materials, 

and the second part addresses population 

exposure and buildup of environmental 

burdens by limiting discharges of certain 

long-lived radionuclides. [28] These were the 

first U.S. radiation standards to be based on 

explicit estimates of the associated health 

risks, and contain provisions that limit the 

total impact on health in populations. The 

latter provisions, which required severely 

limiting emissions of certain long-lived 

radionuclides, were based on the calculation 

of a new radiation protection quantity, the 

“environmental dose commitment.” [29] 

Calculation of population dose commitments 

has since become a standard part of risk 

assessments for environmental impact statements, rulemakings, and international 

assessments of radiation doses, such as those 

prepared by the United Nations Scientific 

Committee on the Effects of Atomic 

Radiation (UNSCEAR). 

The uranium fuel cycle standard does not 

apply to mining operations, transportation of 

radioactive material, or waste disposal 

operations. These activities are regulated 

under subsequent standards. Nuclear power 

generation from recycled plutonium or 

thorium was excluded from this standard 

because sufficient operating data and 

experience with fuel cycles utilizing these 

fuels were not available at the time. These 

activities are also regulated under subsequent 

standards. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

The uranium fuel cycle standards had the 

following critical impacts on the regulation of 

radiological contamination: 

•	 These were the first U.S. radiation 

standards to be based on explicit 

estimates of individual health risks, 

and to contain provisions that limit the 

total impact on health in populations. 

They address both discharges of 

radioactive materials into the 

environment and the accumulation of 

long-lived materials by limiting 

discharges of certain long-lived 

radionuclides. 

 The standards set a precedent for 

setting limits that take into account 

both individual exposures and general 

population exposures. 

•	 These standards set generally applicable environmental limits for the entire 

uranium fuel cycle, applicable to areas 

outside the boundaries of those facilities. 

 NRC later selected the same 

individual exposure levels for their 

low-level waste requirements (10 CFR 

Part 61). 

 The issuance of the Ash Memorandum 

in 1973 clearly defined the roles of 

both EPA and the AEC in the regulation of nuclear fuel facilities. The 

directive set the future direction of 

RPD rulemaking. 

16

Uranium and Thorium Mill 

Tailings 

(40 CFR Parts 192 and 61) 

In the 1940s, the U.S. government began to purchase 

uranium for defense purposes. To meet the 

demand, the uranium 

milling industry began to 

generate large quantities 

of uranium mill tailings, the waste byproduct 

of the extraction of uranium from ore 

(“yellowcake production”). This sand-like 

material, produced predominantly in the West, 

was stored in surface impoundments (piles) 

amounting to thousands of tons of waste and 

covering up hundreds of acres of land. 

Historically, uranium mill tailings were not 

covered under the AEA since they were not 

considered to be hazardous. They were, 

however, highly contaminated with 

radionuclides, particularly radium-226, and 

heavy metals such as arsenic, molybdenum, 

and selenium. 

With the passage of Uranium Mill Tailings 

Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), uranium 

and thorium mill tailings were for the first 

time subject to regulation under the AEA. 

Legislative Authority 

Section 275 of the AEA, as amended by 

Section 206 of UMTRCA (1978), directed 

EPA to set generally applicable health and 

environmental standards to govern the 

stabilization, restoration, disposal, and control 

of effluents and emissions at both active and 

inactive mill tailings sites. [30] 

The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 

1979 gave EPA the authority to develop 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), including 

radionuclides. 

Internal/External Triggers 

Prior to the 1970s, uranium mill tailings had 

been removed from storage piles and used in 

construction and soil conditioning. During the 

late 1970s, the lack of controls over uranium 

mill tailings piles was identified as a major 

health risk, particularly in the West. Elevated 

levels of indoor radon gas and gamma 

radiation were found in western communities 

where housing developers had used uranium 

mill tailings for fill material, road construction 

aggregate, and other purposes. The associated 

long-term health risks to families living in 

these homes (termed “vicinity properties”) 

were high enough to warrant cleanup actions. 

The source of the radiation exposure hazard 

from tailings piles lasts for tens of thousands 

of years. Some of the non-radioactive toxic 

chemicals persist indefinitely, along with their 

potential to contaminate groundwater. The 

tailings, therefore, posed both an immediate 

threat to human health and a very long-term 

threat of extensive environmental contamination if allowed to disperse through human 

misuse or by natural forces. 

To address these problems, Congress passed 

UMTRCA. EPA initially developed standards 

for the regulation of uranium and thorium mill 

tailings under UMTRCA. Subsequently, EPA 

developed additional standards for the regulation of mill tailings to meet the statutory 

requirements of the CAAA. Ultimately, EPA 

amended the UMTRCA standards to incorporate these additional limitations required by 

the CAA. (See Hazardous Air Pollutants 

section on page 33) 

17

EPA Actions 

On January 5, 1983, EPA issued 40 CFR Part 

192, Standards for Remedial Actions at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (the Title I 

sites). These standards were developed to 

govern the stabilization and cleanup of uranium mill tailings at the twenty-four inactive 

sites designated under Section 102(a)(1) of 

UMTRCA and at associated vicinity properties. [32] 

On October 7, 1983, EPA issued Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium 

Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites (the Title II sites). This standard 

governs the stabilization and control of byproduct materials (primarily mill tailings) at 

commercial uranium and thorium processing 

sites licensed by the NRC or the States under 

Title II of UMTRCA. The standards for 

disposal require stabilization of the tailings 

and separate ground water limits. [33] 

Standards for both Title I and Title II sites 

were subsequently challenged in the Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals by several parties. 

The Court upheld all aspects of the rules, 

except the ground water provisions of the 

Title I regulations. 

On September 24, 1987, EPA proposed new 

standards to replace those that had been remanded. [34] On January 11, 1995, EPA 

issued final ground water standards for the 

Title I sites. [35] These ground water standards were essentially identical to existing 

RCRA requirements but with a precedentsetting new provision – the regulation, for the 

first time, permitted the use of institutional 

controls under specified conditions to meet the 

ground water criteria. This resulted in a 

reduction in the cost of compliance by a factor 

of two, at no increase in risk to health. 

The Title I and II standards address both 

cleanup and disposal. The disposal standards 

deal with the long-term control of radium and 

hazardous chemicals in uranium and thorium 

tailings piles. In light of the long half-life of 

radium (1,600 years), EPA’s primary objective for the disposal standards was to isolate 

and stabilize the piles to prevent the release of 

radon, misuse of tailings by humans, and 

dispersal by natural forces for the longest 

feasible period of time, which the Agency 

decided was 1,000 years, or at a minimum 200 

years. The standards generally limit emissions 

of radon from the piles to a lifetime individual 

risk of 10-4. 

A distinguishing characteristic of these disposal standards is that they apply to the performance of the disposal facility for an unprecedented time period of 1,000 years. Active 

institutional controls are to be implemented in 

perpetuity to ensure the disposal facilities 

continue to perform as designed. 

In 1989, EPA promulgated additional standards, under the authority of the CAAA, at 40 

CFR Part 61 Subpart T for inactive Title I and 

II uranium mill tailings sites, and at Subpart 

W for operational Title II uranium mill tailings sites. Issues that these standards addressed that the UMTRCA standards did not 

include are: establishing compliance schedules 

to ensure a timely closure of the tailings piles; 

ensuring the standard would be met within a 

reasonable period of time; and requiring 

monitoring to verify initial compliance with 

the radon flux standard. 

After promulgating Subpart T, EPA received 

petitions for reconsideration from NRC and 

the industry, arguing that there was an overlap 

between EPA’s UMTRCA regulations and 

Subpart T of the radionuclide NESHAP. [36] 

18

EPA worked closely with these stakeholders 

to resolve the issues. In October 1991, EPA, 

NRC, and the relevant NRC Agreement States 

entered into a MOU to resolve the deficiencies 

in compliance with EPA’s Title II UMTRCA 

standards that had led to the promulgation of 

Subpart T. As a result, in 1993 EPA amended 

the UMTRCA standards and NRC amended 

their implementing regulations to address the 

above deficiencies. Subsequently, EPA rescinded Subpart T. [37,38] 

Impact of EPA Actions 

UMTRCA and the uranium and thorium mill 

tailings standards set important precedents: 

 These standards provided the basis for 

DOE’s program for protection of 

human health and the environment at 

inactive uranium mill tailings sites and 

vicinity properties. There are twentyfour inactive uranium sites designated 

as Title I sites. [39] To date, tailings 

stabilization has been completed at all 

twenty-four sites, and ground water 

restoration is underway. 

 These standards also provided the 

basis for NRC’s program for 

protection of human health and the 

environment at operating sites licensed 

by NRC or Agreement States. There 

are twenty-seven operating sites 

designated as Title II sites. [40] To 

date, four are still considered to be 

operational, and the remainder are in 

some stage of closure. 

 This was the first EPA regulatory 

program to establish standards applicable for more than a few decades – 

in this case for 1,000 years. 

 It was the first regulatory program to 

set ground water standards for radionuclides. 

 It was the first regulatory program to 

permit the use of institutional controls 

to limit the costs of remediating contaminated groundwater. 

Low-Level Wastes 

LLW is defined as radioactive material that is 

not HLW, spent nuclear fuel (SNF), transuranic (TRU) waste, or byproduct material as 

defined in section 112(2) of the AEA of 1954. 

It is also radioactive material that the NRC, 

consistent with existing law, classifies as 

LLW. [41] LLW is comprised of a large 

volume of radioactive wastes produced by a 

variety of different processes including the 

nuclear fuel cycle, medical or biotechnological 

research, the production of radioactive chemicals, the manufacture of commercial products, 

and government military operations. Radioactive waste resulting from the operations, 

decontamination, and decommissioning of 

fuel cycle facilities is also classified as LLW. 

LLW varies widely in the hazard it poses. 

This section discusses both ocean disposal and 

land disposal, as well as the disposal of mixed 

waste. 

Ocean Disposal (40 CFR Part 220) 

In the 1950s and 1960s, 

the United States disposed 

of some LLW in the deep 

ocean. At the time, this 

activity, while not specifically regulated, was an 

accepted method for managing low-level radioactive waste. 

19 
Legislative Authority 

The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA) authorizes EPA 

to issue permits and promulgate regulations 

for disposing of materials into the territorial 

waters of the United States, when it will not 

degrade or endanger human health, welfare, 

ecological systems, the marine environment, 

or the economy. It specifically prohibits ocean 

disposal of HLW. Any request for ocean 

disposal of LLW requires a permit that must 

be approved by both houses of Congress. [42] 

EPA Actions 

EPA undertook a series of studies to determine the impact of ocean dumping on the 

marine environment. Based on these studies, 

EPA issued a proposal in 1973 specifying 

conditions for permits for ocean disposal of 

LLW. The final rule for such permits was 

issued on January 11, 1977. [43] To date, no 

applications for this type of permit have been 

submitted to EPA. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

With the severe national and international 

restrictions placed on ocean disposal, commercial generators and EPA accelerated the 

search for acceptable radioactive waste disposal alternatives. Ocean disposal of LLW 

has effectively stopped. 

Land Disposal 

In the 1950s and early 

1960s, most of the 

nation’s LLW, generated 

at both commercial and 

Federal facilities, was 

buried at Federal disposal facilities. When 

the Federal government 

closed its disposal facilities to commercial 

LLW, several private disposal facilities were 

constructed. By 1970, six private facilities 

were accepting LLW from commercial 

sources. These facilities were located in 

Hanford, Washington; West Valley, New 

York; Maxey Flats, Kentucky; Barnwell, 

South Carolina; Sheffield, Illinois; and Beatty, 

Nevada. By the end of the decade, three of the 

facilities were closed – Sheffield was filled to 

capacity, and West Valley and Maxi Flats 

were closed due to containment problems. All 

three of these sites caused extensive environmental contamination requiring cleanup. In 

1986, Maxi Flats was listed on Superfund’s 

National Priorities List (NPL). By the late 

1970s, all commercial LLW in the United 

States was being disposed of in the remaining 

three facilities - in Nevada, South Carolina, 

and Washington. The closure of three disposal facilities and the slow development of 

new disposal capacity caused a significant 

increase in the volume of stored LLW. This 

waste is frequently being stored at sites away 

from the generation or disposal facility. 

By 1992, the Nevada site closed permanently. 

There remained only a few facilities that 

accepted LLW – Barnwell in South Carolina, 

the commercial disposal facility in Hanford, 

Washington, and a new facility, Envirocare, in 

Utah. [45] 

Legislative Authority 

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 provides 

EPA broad authority to develop generally 

applicable environmental radiation standards. 

The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 

of 1980 (LLRWPA), as amended, required 

each State to be responsible for providing 

disposal capacity for commercial LLW generated within its borders by January 1, 1986. It 

also encouraged States to form regional compacts to develop new disposal facilities. By 

20

1984, it became evident that no new disposal 

facilities would be opened before the deadline. 

The LLRWPA was amended in 1985 to 

provide States more time to develop facilities, 

and to provide incentives for volume 

reduction of LLW. [44] To date, ten 

interstate compacts have been developed, 

covering 44 States, to build new disposal 

facilities; however, none of these facilities 

have been licensed to accept waste. [45] 

Internal/External Triggers 

During the late 1980s, the governors of 

Nevada, South Carolina, and Washington 

urged Congress to take action to improve 

packaging requirements for LLW and to 

relieve their States of the burden of providing 

LLW disposal for the entire United States. 

When Congress did not respond, both Nevada 

and Washington temporarily closed their 

disposal facilities, and South Carolina 

significantly reduced the amount of waste it 

would accept. This was the catalyst for 

enactment of the LLRWPA in 1980. 

EPA Actions 

In 1988, EPA developed a proposed rule for 

the management, storage, and disposal of 

LLW for both commercial and Federal 

facilities. This rule encountered significant 

opposition during the OMB review due to 

interagency concerns over the ground water 

protection standards, and OMB suspended 

review. The rule languished until 1993 when 

EPA initiated the development of standards to 

regulate the cleanup of Federal facilities (see 

Cleanup Rule on page 40). The cleanup effort 

would generate large volumes of LLW. 

In 1994, EPA developed a LLW pre-proposal 

that included individual protection limits for 

management and storage of the waste, and 

individual protection limits and ground water 

protection requirements for waste disposal. 

This pre-proposal was consistent with EPA’s 

ground water protection policy which says 

that, “maximum contaminant limits (MCLs) 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act (shall be 

used) as ‘reference points’ for water resource 

protection efforts when the groundwater in 

question is a source of drinking water.” 

In November 1994, the LLW pre-proposal 

was circulated for review and comment on 

major policy issues prior to beginning the 

formal rulemaking process. One major 

concern identified during the public comment 

period was that a new LLW standard for 

commercial waste would further delay the 

development of the new State compact 

disposal sites. It was also noted that large 

amounts of LLW were anticipated from the 

cleanup of DOE sites. To ensure the standard 

would not be disruptive to States, in 1995, 

EPA limited the applicability of the rule to 

Federal facilities. In 1996, when EPA 

withdrew the Cleanup Rule, it effectively 

halted the development of the LLW regulation 

as well. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

There is no generally applicable standard for 

the management and disposal of LLW. 

Low-Activity Mixed Wastes

 Low-Activity Mixed 

Waste (LAMW) is 

produced commercially at industrial, 

medical, and nuclear 

power fa c ilities. 

There are several thousand cubic meters of 

this mixed waste held in storage, and the 

amount is increasing each year. This waste is 

being stored, indefinitely in many cases, by 

small commercial generators because the 

21

current regulatory framework severely limits 

disposal options. 

EPA is working with NRC to develop a mixed 

waste rule for the management, storage, and 

disposal of commercially generated LLW 

mixed with RCRA hazardous waste. Disposal 

alternatives are being evaluated for mixed 

waste minimally contaminated with radionuclides. This rule will propose a more economic and efficient regulatory framework for 

the disposal of commercially generated 

LAMW that is protective of human health and 

the environment. 

Legislative Authority 

The AEA provides EPA broad authority to 

develop generally applicable environmental 

radiation standards. 

RCRA gives EPA the authority to regulate 

hazardous waste from "cradle-to-grave." The 

definition of hazardous waste under RCRA 

specifically excludes source, special nuclear, 

or byproduct material as defined by the 

AEA. [47] 

Internal/External Triggers 

The regulation of commercially generated 

LAMW is both complex and expensive. 

LAMW is comprised of both hazardous and 

radioactive wastes. For a waste to be considered hazardous it must be specifically listed as 

a hazardous waste by EPA or exhibit one or 

more of the characteristics of hazardous waste 

– ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or 

toxicity. [46] The hazardous chemical component is regulated by EPA under RCRA and 

the LLW component is regulated by NRC 

under the AEA. Management and storage 

costs are high and disposal options are limited. 

EPA Actions 

In August 1995, EPA and NRC published the 

Draft Joint Guidance on the Storage of Mixed 

Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste. 

[48] This guidance describes the applicable 

regulatory requirements under both RCRA 

and the AEA, the procedures that are generally 

acceptable to both NRC and EPA, and 

resolves issues of concern which have been 

identified to the agencies by licensees and 

generators. 

On November 19, 1999, EPA proposed a rule 

to provide increased flexibility to facilities 

that manage low-level mixed waste and 

naturally occurring and/or accelerator 

produced radioactive material (NARM) mixed 

with hazardous waste. The proposal aims to 

reduce dual regulation of LAMW, which is 

subject to RCRA and AEA. This rule is 

designed to lower cost and reduce the paperwork burden while improving or maintaining 

protection of human health (including worker 

exposure to radiation) and the environment. 

[49] 

Impact of EPA Actions 

EPA intends, by rule, to increase disposal 

options and reduce disposal costs for mixed 

waste minimally contaminated with 

radionuclides. EPA intends that improved, 

affordable access to approved disposal facilities will induce the thousands of generators 

currently storing mixed waste to dispose of it 

in ways that are more protective human 

health. [50] 

Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level, 

and Transuranic Wastes 

EPA has the responsibility to establish general 

environmental standards for SNF, HLW, and 

TRU, and to develop regulations at specific 

22

waste disposal sites (e.g, the WIPP repository 

and the proposed Yucca Mountain repository). 

SNF is produced by the fission of nuclear fuel 

in nuclear reactors. Although little commercially generated SNF has been reprocessed in 

the United States, SNF from nuclear weapons 

production reactors was routinely reprocessed 

to recover unfissioned uranium and plutonium 

for use in weapons programs. Most of this 

spent fuel is currently being stored in water 

pools at the reactor sites where it is produced. 

HLW is defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy 

Act of 1992 (NWPA) as “the highly radioactive material resulting from the reprocessing 

of spent nuclear fuel, including liquid waste 

produced directly in reprocessing and any 

solid material derived from such liquid waste 

that contains fission products in sufficient 

concentrations; and other highly radioactive 

material that the Commission, consistent with 

existing law, determines by rule requires 

permanent isolation.” [41] HLW is a mixed 

waste containing radionuclides that remain 

radioactive for thousands of years, as well as 

highly corrosive components, organics, and 

heavy metals that are regulated under RCRA. 

Since the 1940s and 1950s, HLW has been 

stored in various liquid and solid forms in 

underground tanks at the Hanford Reservation, Richland, Washington; Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 

Idaho Falls, Idaho; and Savannah River Site, 

Aiken, South Carolina. 

Most TRU wastes are contaminated items 

(e.g., rags, equipment, and organic and inorganic sludges) resulting from nuclear weapons 

production, dismantling, and cleanup. The 

radioactive components are radionuclides with 

an atomic number greater than 92, and are 

created during nuclear fission – primarily isotopes of plutonium and americium. TRU is 

often mixed with hazardous chemicals. Until 

1970, TRU was disposed of along with lowlevel waste by shallow land burial at Federal 

reservations. In 1970, the AEC issued a 

directive that TRU could no longer be disposed of by shallow land burial. Since then, 

TRU wastes have been stored at Federal 

facilities in Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New 

Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and 

Washington. Currently, WIPP, located in New 

Mexico, is accepting defense-related TRU 

waste for disposal (see WIPP section on page 

26) 

Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and 

Transuranic Radioactive Wastes 

Management and Disposal 

(40 CFR Part 191) 

This generally applicable standard provides limits for the 

release of radionuclides into 

the accessible environment for 

management and disposal of 

spent nuclear fuel, high-level 

waste, and transuranic radioactive waste. It 

applies to most such wastes generated by both 

commercial activities regulated by the NRC, 

and defense activities under the jurisdiction of 

DOE (see Yucca Mountain, on page 28, for 

the exception). 

Legislative Authority 

The AEA provides EPA broad authority to 

develop generally applicable environmental 

radiation standards. 

The NWPA directed EPA to utilize its existing authority, pursuant to the AEA, to “promulgate generally applicable standards for the 

protection of the general environment from 

offsite releases from radioactive materials...in 

repositories” by January 7, 1984. [41] 

23

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act (WIPP LWA) reinstated most of 

the disposal standards issued by the Agency in 

1985 and remanded in 1987 (see WIPP 

section on page 26). It also exempted Yucca 

Mountain from the 40 CFR Part 191 disposal 

standard. [51] 

Internal/External Triggers 

In 1976, OMB established an interagency task 

force on commercial wastes to define the 

responsibility of each Federal agency involved 

in HLW management. The EPA was tasked 

with establishing general environmental 

standards governing waste disposal activities. 

Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan were 

committed to the development of a permanent 

storage facility for HLW. Presidents Ford 

and Carter directed EPA to develop general 

environmental standards governing releases 

from nuclear waste facilities to the biosphere, 

including a numerical limit on long-term 

radiation releases outside the boundary of the 

repository. In 1982, as the study of this issue 

progressed, President Reagan recommended 

the development of temporary storage and 

long-term monitored retrievable facilities to 

manage these wastes until a permanent repository becomes available. 

EPA Actions 

In 1978, as a first step in response to President 

Ford’s directive, EPA published a proposed 

Federal guidance, Criteria for Radioactive 

Waste, intended as generic guidance for storage and disposal of all forms of radioactive 

wastes. [52] EPA withdrew the proposal in 

1981 because the many different types of 

radioactive wastes made this generic approach 

to disposal impractical. [53] 

On September 19, 1985, EPA promulgated 

generally applicable environmental standards 

for the management and disposal of HLW, 

SNF, and TRU wastes. The management 

standards limit the radiation exposure of the 

public from the management and storage of 

these wastes prior to disposal at waste 

management and disposal facilities regulated 

by the NRC. They also limit waste emplacement and storage operations at DOE disposal 

facilities that are not regulated by the NRC. 

The primary disposal standards are the longterm containment requirements that limit 

projected releases of radioactivity to the 

accessible environment for 10,000 years after 

disposal. The disposal standard also establishes six qualitative assurance requirements 

(e.g., multiple barriers – both engineered and 

natural to better isolate the wastes, and institutional controls) to provide additional certainty that the containment requirements will 

be met. In addition, the disposal standards set 

limits on exposures to individual members of 

the public, and separate ground water protection requirements for 1,000 years after disposal. [54,55] 

In 1986, several States and environmental 

groups petitioned for review of the rule 

because the individual protection requirements 

were modeled for 1,000 years, whereas the 

containment requirements were modeled for 

10,000 years. Additionally, they claimed the 

rule was not consistent with the underground 

injection requirements of SDWA. In July 

1987, the Court of Appeals remanded the 

individual protection requirements (§191.15), 

the ground water protection requirements 

(§191.18), and the rest of 40 CFR Part191. 

[56] 

The government requested reinstatement of all 

unchallenged sections. In September 1987, 

24

the court reinstated the management and 

storage standards but left the entirety of the 

disposal standards in remand. 

On October 30, 1992, the WIPP LWA was 

enacted. The law reinstated all of the disposal 

standards issued by the Agency in 1985 that 

had been remanded by the court in 1987 

except the individual and ground water protection requirements which were the basis of 

the remand. 

On December 20, 1993, EPA issued revised 

individual and ground water protection standards at 40 CFR Part 191. The time frame for 

applicability of the individual protection 

standards was increased to 10,000 years, and 

the whole body/specific organ dose limits 

were updated, based on more recent methodology3

, in terms of an annual committed effective dose. The revised ground water standards require compliance with the SDWA 

MCLs for 10,000 years. [57,58] 

Impact of EPA Actions 

EPA has set containment, individual protection, and ground water standards for SNF, 

HLW, and TRU to protect current and future 

populations and the environment for at least 

10,000 years after disposal. These requirements are complimented by six qualitative 

assurance requirements designed to provide 

confidence that the standards will be met 

3

EPA revised the risk assessment methodology used 

in the final rule to be consistent with Federal 

Guidance Report No. 11, Limiting Values of 

Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose 

Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and 

Ingestion. The limit for doses to individuals of 25 

mrem/yr to the whole body or 75 mrem/yr to any 

organ, in the 1985 rule, was replaced with an annual 

limit of 15 mrem/yr committed effective dose, in the 

1993 final rule. [17] 

given the substantial uncertainties inherent in 

predictions of systems performance over 

10,000 years. 

The promulgation of 40 CFR Part 191 set the 

stage for one of EPA’s most prominent regulatory programs for radioactive waste disposal – 

the WIPP, constructed by DOE and regulated 

by EPA, for disposal of TRU waste from DOE 

sites. 

This standard extended the precedent first 

established by the uranium and thorium mill 

tailings regulations for standards requiring 

design performance far into the future – in this 

case, for 10,000 years. 

Deep Geologic Repositories 

Since the mid to late 1940s, the Federal government has assumed ultimate responsibility 

for the management and disposal of defense 

generated radioactive wastes. The AEC began 

conducting research as far back as the mid to 

late 1940s on processes to stabilize high-level 

liquid wastes. With the support from the NAS, 

the AEC evaluated the feasibility of different 

disposal media, including geologic repositories for long-term disposal of radioactive 

wastes. The 1957 NAS report recommended 

naturally occurring salt formations as 

promising disposal media for disposal of these 

wastes. [59] 

From 1965 to 1970, the AEC tested an abandoned salt mine in Lyons, Kansas to determine the safety and feasibility of handling and 

storing radioactive waste in such a facility. By 

1970 the AEC believed they had adequately 

demonstrated the safety of the mine and 

announced its preliminary selection for the 

establishment of a national radioactive waste 

repository. However, growing public 

opposition and concerns that nearby drilling 

25

had compromised the geologic integrity of the 

mine prompted the AEC to withdraw this 

selection and pursue other options. 

At this time, the AEC also requested the NAS 

to again evaluate the feasibility of disposing of 

radioactive waste in salt formations, and to 

advise them on long-range management of 

radioactive waste. In the 1970 report, Disposal 

of Solid Radioactive Wastes in Bedded Salt 

Deposits, the NAS concluded that salt 

formations are satisfactory for long-range 

disposal of radioactive waste since they are 

generally located in geologically stable areas. 

The salt beds indicate an absence of flowing 

fresh water that would have dissolved them. 

Salt is relatively easy to mine, and salt will 

eventually “creep” and fill in mined areas and 

further seal the radioactive waste. [60] Plans 

for the development of the WIPP for longterm storage of TRU waste, followed in the 

next two decades. 

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

(40 CFR Part 194) 

Once the decision to establish a repository in Lyons, 

Kansas, was rejected, the 

U.S. Geological Survey 

continued to conduct studies to identify a new site. 

In 1975, at the invitation 

of local officials, a salt 

formation east of Carlsbad, New Mexico, was 

explored. By 1979, DOE completed the initial 

environmental studies of the site, and in 1980, 

Congress authorized construction of the 

WIPP. 

WIPP is DOE’s geologic repository for TRU 

wastes. It is located on 10,240 acres of land in 

a salt deposit 2,150 feet below the surface. It 

was developed to store TRU and mixed 

wastes that are currently being stored on 

Federal reservations across the United States. 

Legislative Authority 

The Department of Energy National Security 

and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy 

Authorization Act of 1979 provided the authorization for the development of the WIPP. 

This repository was to be developed to “demonstrate the safe disposal of radioactive wastes 

resulting from the defense activities and 

programs of the United States.” The Act also 

specified that only certain amounts and types 

of defense-generated TRU could be disposed 

of at the WIPP. [63] 

The 1982 NWPA also supported the use of 

mined geologic repositories for the safe storage and/or disposal of radioactive waste, and 

established formal procedures to evaluate and 

select sites for geologic repositories. Based on 

the criteria defined in the NWPA, DOE selected the WIPP as the first potential deep 

geologic repository. The NWPA also required 

EPA to develop generally applicable environmental standards for off-site releases from 

radioactive material in repositories. [41] 

The 1992 WIPP LWA effected a legislative 

withdrawal of the land surrounding WIPP for 

purposes of developing and building a TRU 

waste repository, and required EPA to finalize 

the generally applicable disposal standards at 

40 CFR Part 191, establish a process to certify 

that the WIPP facility was technically adequate to meet the disposal standards established at 40 CFR Part 191, and reevaluate the 

WIPP every five years to determine whether it 

should be recertified. [51] 

Internal/External Triggers 

In 1982, DOI initially withdrew the land 

surrounding the WIPP for an eight year period 

26

for the purpose of performing initial site and 

design characterization activities. In 1983, 

DOI issued a second eight-year administrative 

land withdrawal for the purpose of 

construction of the WIPP. The 1983 withdrawal provided that the withdrawn area was 

not authorized for use for burial or storage of 

any radioactive materials. In 1991, DOI 

modified the 1983 withdrawal to permit DOE 

to conduct a “test phase” involving placement 

of TRU waste in the WIPP, and extending the 

term of the withdrawal through 1997. DOI’s 

extension was found unlawful by a U.S. 

District Court. [61] The Court’s order was 

upheld on appeal. [62] Congress subsequently 

effected a legislative withdrawal of this land in 

perpetuity in the WIPP LWA. [51] 

EPA Actions 

As directed by WIPP LWA, EPA finalized the 

generally applicable standards for the disposal 

of spent nuclear fuel, transuranic, and highlevel radioactive wastes. These regulations 

limit the amount of radioactive material that 

may escape from a disposal facility and protect individuals and ground water resources 

from dangerous levels of radioactive contamination (see 40 CFR Part 191 on page 23). 

Next, EPA developed criteria to implement 

and interpret these generic radioactive disposal standards specifically for the WIPP. In 

1996, EPA promulgated the “Criteria for the 

Certification and Re-certification of the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant’s (WIPP) Compliance 

with the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations” at 40 CFR Part 194. This rule 

described the information DOE must submit 

in any certification application and clarifies 

the basis on which EPA’s WIPP compliance 

determination would be made. [64] 

As a companion to this rule, EPA developed 

the Compliance Application Guidance (CAG) 

to “assist DOE with the preparation of any 

Compliance Certification Application (CCA) 

for the WIPP and, in turn, to assist in EPA’s 

review of the CCA for completeness and 

generally to enhance the readability and 

accessibility of the CCA for EPA and public 

scrutiny.” [65] The criteria were challenged 

in the Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia and upheld in their entirety on June 

6, 1997. 

DOE studied the WIPP site for a decade. The 

Department conducted field studies, 

laboratory tests, and computer modeling to 

gain a clearer understanding of the WIPP’s 

ability to isolate waste. In 1996, DOE 

submitted a Compliance Certification 

Application (CCA) for WIPP to EPA. After 

a careful review of the CCA, supplementary 

materials, and additional information, on May 

13, 1998, EPA certified that the WIPP likely 

will comply with 40 CFR Part 191 as well as 

other relevant environmental and public health 

and safety regulations. [66] 

Since TRU may be either a radioactive waste 

or a mixed radioactive and chemical waste, 

DOE was required to obtain a RCRA Permit 

(40 CFR Parts 264 and 270) for disposal of 

hazardous wastes from the New Mexico 

Environment Department (NMED). NMED 

granted a Hazardous Waste Facility Permit for 

the WIPP in October 1999, specifying the 

conditions under which DOE may dispose of 

mixed radioactive and chemical waste in the 

WIPP. The WIPP received its first shipment 

of TRU radioactive waste in March 1999. 

EPA will continue to regulate the WIPP, 

through inspections, recertification, and other 

actions, through the operational phase (i.e., as 

long as DOE is emplacing waste in the 

repository – about 35-40 years). 

27

Impact of EPA Actions 

The WIPP is both the nation’s and the world’s 

first facility certified for the deep geological 

disposal of TRU waste. 

The WIPP provides a long-term disposal 

facility for TRU waste that is temporarily 

stored at Federal facilities. Most of the waste 

proposed for disposal at the WIPP will be 

generated in the future as nuclear weapons are 

disassembled. 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada 

(40 CFR Part 197) 

In 1980, DOE performed 

an analysis of disposal 

alternatives for spent 

nuclear fuel and highlevel waste. This study 

evaluated possible disposal options, including ejection into space, 

elimination by transmutation to other 

elements, disposal in polar ice sheets, engineered disposal in a deep geologic repository, 

and burial in the ocean floor. Disposal in a 

deep geologic repository was determined to be 

the safest option. 

Legislative Authority 

The NWPA of 1982 provides DOE the 

responsibility of siting, building, and operating a deep geologic repository for the disposal 

of HLW and SNF. It directs EPA to "by rule 

promulgate generally applicable standards for 

protection of the general environment from 

offsite releases of radioactive material in 

repositories." NRC is required to license 

DOE to operate a repository that meets EPA’s 

standards and all other relevant requirements. 

[41] 

In 1987, Congress enacted the NWPAA that 

directed DOE to consider Yucca Mountain as 

the primary site for the first HLW and SNF 

repository in the United States and to phase 

out activities at other potential sites. [69] 

The WIPP LWA of 1992 reinstated most of 

EPA’s generally applicable disposal standards 

at 40 CFR Part 191, and exempted Yucca 

Mountain from those disposal standards. [51] 

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EnPA) 

directed EPA to “promulgate, by rule, public 

health and safety standards for protection of 

the public from releases from radioactive 

materials stored or disposed of in the repository at the Yucca Mountain site.” EPA was 

required to contract with NAS to conduct a 

study and make recommendations on the 

suitability of Yucca Mountain as a disposal 

site. EPA’s standards were to be “based upon 

and consistent with the findings and recommendations of the NAS,” and “shall prescribe 

the maximum annual effective dose equivalent 

of individual members of the public.” [70] 

Internal/External Triggers 

A process for the selection of potential sites 

for disposal of HLW and SNF was established 

in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. DOE 

was given the responsibility for conducting 

the siting process. The first steps were to 

identify potentially acceptable sites and develop general guidelines for siting repositories. In February 1983, DOE identified nine 

sites in six States as potentially acceptable for 

the first deep geologic repository. Yucca 

Mountain was one of those sites. [67] After 

further consideration and environmental 

assessment, DOE determined that three sites, 

Yucca Mountain, Nevada; Deaf Smith 

County, Texas; and Hanford, Washington, 

were suitable for development as repositories. 

[68] 

28 
The 1987 Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments (NWPAA) directed DOE to study only 

one candidate site, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 

as the primary location for the first HLW and 

SNF deep geologic repository in the United 

States. It is located about 100 miles northwest 

of Las Vegas on Federally owned land on the 

western edge of the DOE’s Nevada Test Site. 

EPA is responsible for developing site-specific radiation protection standards and DOE 

is responsible for the construction, management, and operation of the facility. Since 

about 90% of the waste proposed for disposal 

is commercially generated, with the remainder 

coming from defense programs, NRC is 

responsible for implementing the EPA standard. 

EPA Actions 

To better understand the technical aspects of 

Yucca Mountain, EPA conducted extensive 

information gathering activities and analyses. 

These activities included contracting with the 

NAS Committee on Radioactive Waste Management to conduct the study and make recommendations on the suitability of Yucca 

Mountain as a disposal site, as required by the 

EnPA. The NAS completed the study and 

published the report, Technical Bases for 

Yucca Mountain Standards. [71] EPA 

solicited comments on this report from stakeholders and the scientific community, had 

technical discussions with NRC and DOE and 

its scientists, and worked with the President’s 

Office of Science and Technology Policy. In 

addition, other Federal agencies’ actions, other 

countries’ regulations, and guidance from 

national and international organizations were 

considered. Based on the NAS report and the 

information received from the public, EPA 

proposed "Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada" 

on August 27, 1999. [72,73] 

Impact of EPA Actions 

If approved, Yucca Mountain will be the 

nation’s first deep geological disposal facility 

for the permanent disposal of HLW and SNF. 

29

Environmental Standards 

An important activity of the national radiation 

protection program has been the development 

of national standards and regulations to 

protect the general public from exposure to 

radiation in the environment. The environmental statutes discussed below apply to 

both chemical and radioactive contaminants. 

Drinking Water 

(40 CFR Part 141) 

Through the 1960s, 

both surface water and 

groundwater had generally degraded to the 

point that drinking 

water quality was becoming compromised in 

the United States – particularly in heavily populated urban areas. In 

1960, the FRC, for the first time, established 

drinking water guidelines for selected 

radionuclides, including Ra-226, I-131, Sr-90, 

and Sr-89. The U.S. Public Health Service 

(PHS) established drinking water standards 

for these same radionuclides in 1962. In 

1976, EPA revised these standards and 

developed drinking water standards for a host 

of other radionuclides under the authority of 

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 

Through SDWA, Congress intended to 

improve the quality of drinking water and 

throughout the United States and prevent its 

further contamination. 

Radionuclides Other than Radon 

Legislative Authority 

The Public Health Service Act, as amended in 

1974 by SDWA, required EPA to establish 

primary drinking water standards for contaminants in public water systems. EPA was 

directed to set protective limits on drinking 

water contaminants that water systems can 

achieve using the best available technology; 

set water-testing schedules and methods that 

water systems must follow; and establish 

acceptable techniques for treating contaminated water. [75] 

SDWA, as amended in 1986, declared the 

1976 interim standards to be final National 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

(NPDWRs), required EPA to set Maximum 

Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and 

MCLs4

, and directed EPA to develop 

procedures to assure drinking water supplies 

dependably comply with the MCLs. The 

standards were to be promulgated for 83 

contaminants, including two additional 

radionuclides, uranium and radon, which may 

cause adverse health effects in humans and are 

known to occur in public water systems. 

SDWA, as amended in 1996, directed EPA to 

withdraw the proposed MCL for radon due to 

a controversy over the cost-benefit basis for 

the proposed standard; required the NAS to 

conduct a formal study of the issue; and 

required assurance that any revised drinking 

water standards will maintain or increase 

public health protection. These amendments 

also provide for a cost-benefit analysis when 

publishing a proposal for new NPDWRs 

pursuant to SDWA section 1412(b)(6). 

4

 MCLGs are non-enforceable health based goals, set 

where no anticipated health effects would occur, with 

an ample margin of safety. For known carcinogens, 

the MCLG is set at zero, the assumption is that any 

exposure could present a cancer risk. MCLs are 

legally enforceable standards set as close to the 

MCLGs as possible, considering cost and technical 

feasibility. 

30

Internal/External Triggers 

Although radium may occasionally be found 

in surface water due to man’s activities, it is 

usually found in groundwater where it is the 

result of geological conditions. In contrast to 

radium, man-made radioactivity is ubiquitous 

in surface water because of fallout radioactivity from nuclear weapons testing. In 

some localities radioactivity in surface or 

groundwater may be increased by small releases from nuclear facilities, hospitals, and 

scientific and industrial users of radioactive 

materials. EPA recognizes that, for both manmade and naturally occurring radioactivity, a 

wide range of both controllable and uncontrollable sources can influence the concentrations 

of radioactivity in water served by public 

water systems. Regulation of these contaminants under the authority of SDWA provides 

protection of human health from the harmful 

effects of exposure to radiation in drinking 

water. [74] 

EPA Actions 

In 1976, EPA established National Interim 

Primary Drinking Water Regulations 

(NIPDWRs) that included interim limits for 

the following categories of radionuclides: 

radium-226 and radium-228 combined at 5 

pCi/l, gross alpha emitters at 15 pCi/l, and all 

beta particles and photon emitters (referred to 

as “man-made” radionuclides) at a total dose 

equivalent of 4 mrem/yr to any organ or the 

whole body. Standards for uranium and 

radium were not developed at this time since 

the Agency did not have sufficient health and 

occurrence data to establish standards. [76] 

The NIPDWRs became final NPDWRs under 

the 1986 amendments to SDWA. 

In 1986, EPA also published an Advanced 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 

requesting additional information and 

comments on radionuclide contaminants in 

drinking water. 

In 1991, EPA proposed a revision to the 1986 

NPDWRs, including separate MCLs for 

radium-226 and radium-228; new standards 

for radon-222 and uranium; and revised 

standards for the gross alpha emitters and 

beta and photon emitters. The proposed limit 

for uranium was based on toxicity to the 

kidney as well as consideration of the cancer 

risk it poses. This proposed regulation also 

included monitoring, reporting, and public 

notification requirements. [77] 

In 1996, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon issued an order that directed 

EPA, by November 2000, to either finalize the 

1991 proposed radiation standards; state its 

reasons for not taking final action; or develop 

revised standards. The Court also directed 

EPA to establish a final standard for uranium 

by November 2000. 

In 1999, EPA released Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to 

Radionuclides, providing dose and risk data 

for each radionuclide based on updated scientific data. These values have been used to 

update the MCLs promulgated in 1986. In 

April 2000, EPA proposed revised NPDWRs 

which would result in the same or greater 

level of human health protection. [78] 

Impact of EPA Actions 

These drinking water standards replace those 

set by the PHS in 1962, setting legal limits on 

the levels of radionuclide contaminants in 

drinking water. The MCLGs reflect the level 

that is protective of human health; the MCLs 

reflect the level that water systems can 

achieve using current technology. These rules 

31

set water-testing schedules and methods, and 

list acceptable techniques for treating contaminated water. 

As described in Protecting the Nation’s 

Groundwater: EPA’s Strategy for the 1990s: 

The Final Report of the EPA Ground-Water 

Task Force, EPA will use MCLs as reference 

points when the groundwater in question is a 

potential source of drinking water. [81] 

Radon 

Legislative Authority 

See above (page 30). 

Internal/External Triggers 

National and international scientific organizations have concluded that radon causes lung 

cancer in humans. According to the NAS, 

breathing indoor radon in homes is estimated 

to cause about 15,000 to 22,000 lung cancer 

deaths each year in the United States. [22] 

That makes radon in indoor air the second 

leading cause of lung cancer in the United 

States after cigarette smoking. In most cases, 

radon in soil under homes is the biggest 

source of exposure and radon from tap water 

is a small source of radon in indoor air, 

generally contributing about 1-2 percent of the 

total radon exposure from indoor air. In a 

second report in 1999, Risk Assessment of 

Radon in Drinking Water, the NAS estimated 

that lung cancer accounts for about 89 percent 

of the fatal cancers resulting from exposure to 

radon released from water into indoor air. The 

remaining fatal cancers, primarily stomach 

cancer, result from ingestion of radon in 

water. [79] Based on this report and other 

updated information, EPA estimates that 

uncontrolled levels of radon in public drinking 

water supplies cause 168 fatal cancers each 

year in the United States. 

EPA Actions 

In November 1999, EPA proposed new regulations to protect people from exposure to 

radon. The proposed regulations will provide 

the States flexibility in how to limit the 

public’s exposure to radon by focusing their 

efforts on the greatest public health risks from 

radon - those in indoor air - while also 

reducing the highest risks from radon in 

drinking water. SDWA provides a unique 

framework for a multi-media approach, and is 

intended to promote a more cost-effective way 

to reduce the greatest risks from radon. The 

proposed rule applies to all community water 

systems (CWSs) that use groundwater or 

mixed ground and surface waters. [80] 

The multi-media approach is based in part on 

the goals, program strategies, experience, and 

successes of existing national and State programs working to achieve indoor radon risk 

reduction through voluntary public action. 

Given the much greater potential for risk 

reduction in indoor air, EPA expects that 

greater overall risk reduction will result from 

this proposal than from an approach that 

solely addresses radon in community drinking 

water supplies. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

Once finalized, this rule would limit the 

public’s exposure to radon by reducing the 

greatest public health risks from radon – those 

in air – while also reducing the greatest risks 

from radon in water. 

The proposed radon in drinking water rule is 

one of EPA’s first multi-media rules, and 

presents a unique multi-media risk management approach. 

32

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Radionuclides are emitted 

into the air from many 

sources, including nuclear 

power plants, facilities 

relating to the nuclear fuel 

cycle, national defense 

facilities, research and 

development laboratories, medical facilities, 

industrial users, some mining and milling 

operations, and fossil fuel combustion plants. 

The CAAA of 1977, for the first time, 

provided EPA the specific authority to limit 

radionuclide emissions to the air. 

Legislative Authority 

Section 122 of the CAA Amendments of 1977 

directed EPA to review all relevant information and determine whether emissions of 

radioactive pollutants will cause or contribute 

to air pollution that may reasonably by anticipated to endanger public health. Section 112 

of the CAA required EPA to publish and 

periodically revise a list of HAPs that cause or 

contribute to an increase in mortality or 

serious illness and to which no national 

ambient air quality standard apply. Under 

Section 112(b), EPA was directed to publish 

regulations establishing NESHAPs for each 

listed HAP. The EPA was required to 

“establish such standards at the level that in 

his judgement provides an ample margin of 

safety to protect public health.” [82] 

Internal/External Triggers 

On December 27, 1979, EPA added 

radionuclides to the list of HAPs under the 

CAA. [31] Among the radionuclides included 

were those defined by the AEA as source 

material, special nuclear material, and byproduct materials as well as TENORM. In 

accordance with the requirements of Sections 

122 and 112 of the CAA, EPA found that 

exposure to radionuclides increases the risk of 

human cancer and genetic damage. Also, the 

Agency found that emission data indicate 

radionuclides are released into air from 

thousands of sources. Based on this 

information, EPA concluded that emissions of 

radionuclides may reasonably be anticipated 

to endanger public health, and that 

radionuclides constitute HAPs within the 

meaning of the CAA. 

EPA Actions 

In 1983, EPA proposed NESHAPs for 

elemental phosphorus plants, DOE facilities, 

NRC-licensed facilities and non-DOE Federal 

facilities, and underground uranium mines. 

Simultaneously, the Agency proposed decisions not to regulate coal-fired boilers, the 

phosphate industry, other extraction industries, uranium fuel cycle facilities, uranium 

mill tailings, high-level radioactive waste 

facilities, and low-energy accelerators. [83] 

These standards were finalized in 1985. 

[84,85] A new standard for uranium mill sites 

was promulgated in 1986. [86] 

Vinyl Chloride Decision 

In July 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia remanded the vinyl 

chloride NESHAP. The Court found that 

costs and technological feasibility had been 

improperly considered in setting the standard. 

According to Section 112 of the CAA, the 

Administrator is first required to make a 

determination based exclusively on risk to 

health. In light of that decision, EPA 

concluded the radiological NESHAPs should 

be reconsidered. The Court agreed, and on 

December 8, 1987, granted EPA’s motion for 

a voluntary remand. 

The Court, in the vinyl chloride decision, 

33 
established a two-step process to establish a 

safe level under Section 112 of the Act. First, 

it said, “the Agency must determine the level 

of emissions considered ‘safe or acceptable,’ 

without regard to control costs.” Second, the 

Agency must achieve an ample “margin of 

safety” – considering both cost and technology. This approach was first expressed in 

the NESHAP for benzene, and became known 

as the “benzene policy.” 

For the first step, to determine “safe or 

acceptable,” the Agency compared risks from 

many different sources, evaluated risks 

accepted in other Agency programs (e.g., 

Superfund and drinking water), and accepted 

public comments. EPA also considered 

several measures of risk including individual 

exposure, population exposure, numbers of 

people in various risk ranges, and non-fatal 

health effects. EPA defined “safe or 

acceptable” as: 

•	 An individual lifetime risk of no greater than approximately 1 in 10,000 of 

contracting fatal cancer; 

 The majority of people within 80 km 

of the facility at a less than 1 in 

1,000,000 lifetime risk; and 

 A small total estimated number of 

cases of death or disease. 

The second step, an “ample margin of safety,” 

involves establishing the actual level of public 

protection. It must be at least as protective as 

the level determined to be “safe” in step one. 

EPA defined the factors to be considered in 

setting an “ample margin of safety” to be: 

 Costs and economic impacts of controls, 

 Technological feasibility, 

 Uncertainties, and 

 Any other relevant factors. 

All subsequent radionuclide NESHAPs have 

been promulgated through this process. These 

individual and population risk criteria (10-4 

and 10-6 lifetime risk) correspond to the 

bounds of acceptable risk employed for all 

carcinogens, chemical or radioactive, by the 

Agency in its drinking water, Superfund, and 

CAA programs. 

Radionuclide NESHAPs 

On December 15, 1989, EPA published 

NESHAPs for eight radionuclide source 

categories, covering an estimated 6,300 

sources. The revised rules were more 

prescriptive, based primarily on the decisionmaking framework outlined in the vinyl 

chloride decision and the benzene policy. 

They included radionuclide emissions other 

than radon from DOE facilities; NRClicensees and non-DOE Federal facilities; 

elemental phosphorus plants; radon emissions 

from underground uranium mines; DOE 

facilities; phosphogypsum stacks; inactive 

uranium mill tailings facilities; and operating 

mill tailings facilities. [36] 

Legal Actions 

Eleven parties, primarily representing the 

regulated community, sued EPA during the 

development of the radionuclide NESHAPs 

promulgated in 1989. Several environmental 

organizations sued EPA over the level it chose 

as a benchmark for acceptable risk. 

The NRC and the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH) petitioned for reconsideration of 

the NESHAP for NRC-licensed facilities, on 

34

the basis that this regulation duplicated NRC’s 

regulatory program. However, NRC did not 

have data from these facilities to verify the 

emissions, and did not constrain emissions 

below the EPA limit. Between 1992 and 

1996, EPA evaluated the NRC program at 

thousands of facilities. Based on the data 

collected, EPA concluded that radionuclide 

emissions from NRC- and Agreement Statelicensees did not exceed the 10 mrem/yr 

standard established in the NESHAP. NRC 

issued a “constraint rule” that required licensees to maintain emissions below that standard. 

EPA found that NRC’s regulatory program 

protects the public health to a safe level with 

an ample margin of safety and the NESHAP 

regulating air emissions from NRC-licensees 

was rescinded on December 30, 1996. [87] 

EPA was also petitioned by The Fertilizer 

Institute (TFI), Consolidated Minerals, Inc. 

(CMI), and U.S. Gypsum Co. (USG) to reconsider the portion of the NESHAP for 

phosphogypsum that required disposal into 

stacks or mines, thereby preventing any alternative uses of the material. EPA received 

more information on the proposed uses of 

phosphogypsum and on June 3, 1992, revised 

the rule to provide for limited uses for both 

agriculture, research and development, and other 

alternative uses on a case-by-case basis. [88] 

EPA was petitioned by the NRC and industry 

stating that the operating uranium mills 

NESHAP overlapped EPA’s uranium fuel 

cycle standard at 40 CFR Part 192, resulting in 

duplicative, burdensome regulations. EPA 

amended 40 CFR Part 192 to incorporate the 

additional requirements defined in the 

NESHAP, the NRC incorporated the 

additional requirements into its regulations, 

and this NESHAP was withdrawn (see the 

Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings section 

on page 17). [37] 

Impact of EPA Actions 

These NESHAP standards limited releases of 

radionuclides from a variety of sources, 

protecting people and the environment from 

the harmful effects of ionizing radiation, 

including an increased risk of human cancer 

and genetic damage. 

Radionuclides in air were regulated for the 

first time under a legislative authority other 

than that provided by the AEA. This meant 

that States and localities could set standards 

more stringent than the NRC standards; 

citizens could sue the government to provide 

and enforce standards; and policies for development of standards for radioactive materials 

could be established consistent with standards 

for the regulation of chemicals. 

The vinyl chloride decision provided the 

decision-making framework for the NESHAPs 

independent of, yet consistent with, the risk 

management approach adopted by many 

EPA’s programs. 

Technologically Enhanced 

Naturally Occurring 

Radioactive Materials 

Over the past 20 years, 

EPA and other Federal and 

State agencies, industries, 

and other organizations 

have identified an array of 

natura l l y o c c u r r i ng 

materials that, because of 

human activity, may present a radiation hazard 

to people and the environment. These 

materials are known as technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive 

35

materials, or TENORM.5 In general terms, 

TENO R M i s m a t e r i a l c ontaining 

radionuclides that are present naturally in 

rocks, soils, water, and minerals and that have 

become concentrated and/or exposed to the 

accessible environment as a result of human 

activities such as manufacturing, water treatment, or mining operations. The NAS defines 

TENORM as “any naturally occurring 

material not subject to regulation under the 

Atomic Energy Act whose radionuclide 

concentrations or potential for human 

exposure have been increased above levels 

encountered in the natural state by human 

activities.” [89] Much TENORM contains 

only trace amounts of radiation and is part of 

our everyday landscape. Some TENORM, 

however, contains very high concentrations of 

radionuclides that can produce harmful 

exposure levels. EPA is concerned about 

TENORM because of this potential for 

harmful exposure to humans and the 

environment. 

The radionuclide radium-226, a decay product 

of uranium and thorium with a radiation decay 

half-life of 1,600 years, is commonly found in 

TENORM materials and wastes and is the 

principal source of radiation doses to humans 

from natural surroundings. While normally 

occurring in soils of the United States at 

concentrations ranging from less than 1 to 

slightly more than 4 picocuries per gram 

(pCi/g, where picocuries are a measure of 

radiation content in a material), Radium-226 

in TENORM materials can occur in 

concentrations ranging from undetectable 

 Before 1998, the term used for these materials was 

“Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials” 

(NORM). Based on more current industry and 

regulatory practice, the term “TENORM” now is 

considered more appropriate. TENORM is used 

throughout this report. 

amounts to as much as several hundred 

thousand pCi/g. In comparison, EPA has 

issued guidance that recommends that 

radioactively contaminated soils should be 

cleaned up so remnant radium concentrations 

are 5 pCi/g or less. This level would provide 

for a reasonably reduced risk from long term 

exposure. [90,91] Total amounts of 

TENORM wastes produced in the United 

States annually may be in excess of 1 billion 

tons. 

Environmental Regulations 

Legislative Authority 

The CAA provides EPA the authority to set 

NESHAPs at 40 CFR Part 61. This authority 

applies to any TENORM sources specified by 

EPA that engage in activities resulting in 

emissions of a hazardous air pollutant into 

ambient air. [82] 

The SDWA provides EPA the authority to set 

standards for radioactivity in community 

drinking water systems at 40 CFR Part 141. 

This authority applies to all TENORM; the 

principal concern is radium, but may also 

include uranium. [75] 

The CWA provides EPA the authority to 

protect the waters of the United States (e.g., 

rivers, lakes, and wetlands) from pollution. 

The CWA is implemented through the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES). This system requires all 

pollutant discharges to the waters of the 

United States to comply with certain pollutant 

discharge criteria. EPA has the authority 

under the CWA to regulate non-AEA 

radioactive materials (e.g., TENORM). [95] 

CERCLA provides broad Federal authority to 

respond directly to releases or threatened 

36


5
releases of hazardous substances that may 

endanger public health or the environment, 

and to assure permanent cleanup of contaminated sites listed on the NPL. Radionuclides 

are considered hazardous substances under 

CERCLA by virtue of their listing as HAPs 

under the CAA, and are treated the same as 

any other carcinogen under Superfund 

regulations. Although CERCLA excludes 

source, byproduct, or special nuclear materials 

from the definition of “release,” TENORM is 

subject to CERCLA. [96] 

RCRA applies to active and future facilities, 

and provides EPA the authority to regulate 

hazardous wastes from "cradle-to-grave," 

including minimization, generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal. 

RCRA exempts solid waste, including 

TENORM produced, from the extraction, 

beneficiation, and processing of ores and 

minerals (Bevill exclusion) and oilfield wastes 

from regulation as hazardous wastes. 

Additionally, source, special nuclear, or 

byproduct material as defined by the AEA of 

1954 as amended, are exempt. [47] 

Internal/External Triggers 

In 1978 and 1983, the Conference of 

Radiation Control Program Directors 

(CRCPD) published reports titled Natural 

Radioactivity Contamination Problems, 

Numbers 1 and 2, providing recommendations for the protection of public health from 

exposure to TENORM. These reports recommended that EPA study the risk assessment 

and management of TENORM. [92,93] 

The issue was further highlighted by the 

following two events: 

•	 In 1986, significant levels of radioactivity were found at the Street facility 

in Mississippi. This facility removed 

scale and residue from salvaged 

oilfield equipment for Chevron and 

Shell Oil Co6

. Street and its 

employees filed a suit against Chevron 

alleging personal injury and property 

damage resulting from the company’s 

“failures to conduct reasonable 

inspections of the equipment and to 

warn the employees of the associated 

dangers.” The Federal District Court 

found Chevron liable for damages to 

workers at the facility. [94] 

•	 Following the discovery of TENORM 

at the Street facility, playground 

equipment and fences were found to 

be contaminated with TENORM at a 

number of locations in Mississippi and 

Louisiana. This equipment was made 

from oilfield equipment donated by 

the industry. [94] 

Finally, as directed by Congress, EPA 

contracted with the NAS for a comprehensive 

review of guidance and regulations, developed 

by regulatory and advisory organizations, for 

indoor radon and other sources of TENORM. 

The 1999 NAS study found Federal and State 

organizations used the same scientific and 

technical information as the basis for their risk 

estimates. The differences in individual 

organizations numerical guidelines, which 

may vary significantly, were attributed to 

different risk management strategies and 

organizational missions. [89] 

EPA Actions 

EPA initiated studies in the 1970s to assess 

the risk to human health and the environment 

from industrial releases of TENORM. EPA 

6

 Shell settled its claims prior to trial. 

37 
began with an evaluation of mining, milling, 

and smelting operations since they processed 

large quantities of ore, and there was little 

information about how these activities release 

radioactive emissions. EPA continued the 

evaluation of other NORM producing 

industries, and developed the following 

regulations under CAA, SDWA, CWA, and 

CERCLA to control exposures to these low 

levels of radiation. 

Clean Air Act 

In 1989, EPA promulgated the NESHAPs for 

radionuclides including four standards for 

releases of TENORM from both surface and 

underground mines as well as the production 

of phosphoric acid as follows: 

Elemental Phosphorus Facilities – To gain a 

better understanding of TENORM releases, 

EPA conducted extensive radiological surveys 

of airborne releases at three elemental 

phosphorus plants: FMC Thermal Processing 

Plant, Pocatello, Idaho; Stauffer Elemental 

Phosphorus Plant, Silver Bow, Montana; and 

Monsanto Company Plant, Columbia, 

Tennessee. The significant releases of radionuclides for this industry were polonium-210 

and lead-210 that were volatilized by the high 

temperatures in the calciner stacks. [97] Although significant amounts of radium were 

contained in the slag, the radon emanation 

rate was very low since the radium was 

encapsulated. However, the gamma exposure 

was found to be fifteen times that of background. [98,99] The NESHAP standard, 

promulgated in 1989, regulates polonium-210 

emissions from elemental phosphorus plants. 

[36] No separate standard was promulgated 

for lead-210 since control of polonium ensures 

control of lead as well. Gamma radiation is 

not regulated since it is not considered a HAP 

under the CAA. 

Phosphogypsum Stacks – Phosphogypsum is 

the primary byproduct generated from the wetacid process of producing phosphoric acid. To 

protect human and environmental health, the 

EPA requir e d t h e p l a c ement of 

phosphogypsum wastes in isolated “stacks” or 

piles. There are about sixty-three 

phosphogypsum stacks in the United States, 

ranging in size from 2 to almost 300 hectares, 

and from 3 to about 60 meters high. After an 

extensive study, EPA found that the radon 

released from the stacks present low levels of 

risk to millions of people. Subsequently, a 

NESHAP standard was promulgated to 

r e g u l a t e r a d o n e m i s s i o n s f r o m 

phosphogypsum stacks. [34] 

Surface Uranium Mines – Until the early 

1960s, uranium was commonly mined in open 

pit mines from ore deposits near the surface. 

During this process, the topsoil (overburden) 

is piled on land beside the pit and saved for 

reclamation. The large surface area created by 

the pit and overburden, both of which contain 

elevated levels of radium, allowed higher than 

normal radon emissions to be released into the 

atmosphere. In 1988, EPA surveyed two 

active mines in Texas and Wyoming and 25 

inactive mines in Arizona, New Mexico, 

Colorado, South Dakota, Texas, and 

Wyoming and determined health risk to be 

very low. Since these mines were already 

regulated by State and Federal mine 

reclamation laws and there was no reason to 

believe that new mines would be constructed 

since the industry was depressed, EPA 

decided not to set a NESHAP regulating 

emissions from surface mines. [36] 

Underground Uranium Mines – EPA 

conducted a site-by-site assessment of 

operating or operable underground uranium 

mines, and found that the risk to nearby 

38

individuals from exposure to the radon 

emissions from mine vents, in some cases, 

may be relatively high. The 1989 NESHAP 

regulates radon emissions from underground 

uranium mines. [83] 

Safe Drinking Water Act 

Water used for municipal purposes comes 

from lakes, streams, reservoirs, and aquifers 

that contain varying amounts of naturally 

occurring radionuclides. This water is 

generally treated to ensure its safety. The 

sludge generated from the treatment process 

may contain elevated levels of TENORM. 

EPA has developed a draft document, 

Suggested Guidelines for Disposal of 

Drinking Water Treatment Wastes Containing 

Radioactivity, to provide assistance to drinking water treatment facilities for the disposal 

of wastes resulting from the treatment of 

drinking water. These guidelines are intended 

to fill the gaps in State regulations for disposal 

of TENORM wastes. [99] 

Clean Water Act 

CWA provides EPA the authority to set 

standards for liquid discharges of TENORM 

from mines or mills. In 1982, EPA set 

standards for releases from the production of 

uranium, radium, and vanadium into surface 

waters. These limits are based on “best 

available control technology.” [100] 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

CERCLA addresses TENORM within the 

same risk management scheme as chemicals 

(see Superfund Program on page 42). 

Diffuse Norm Scoping Document 

In the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, EPA 

began developing a report to characterize and 

evaluate the potential risks from TENORM 

generated from a variety of common activities. 

The draft report, NORM Waste Characterization, presented a preliminary risk 

assessment, NORM waste characterization, 

and generic risk assessment information for 

generation, handling, disposal, and use in each 

of the identified NORM sectors. This report 

also summarized the literature for several 

major industrial sectors that produce NORM, 

including industries EPA has previously 

evaluated (discussed above) as well as the 

following industries: metal mining and 

processing other than uranium, oil and gas 

production and processing, and geothermal 

energy production. In 1999, the Agency 

decided to concentrate its efforts on issuing 

technical reports on one sector at a time. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

EPA has developed regulations, under several 

different environmental laws, limiting 

TENORM releases to air and water, and 

establishing cleanup goals for contaminated 

soil. The implementation of these regulations 

has protected people and the environment 

from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation. 

Indoor Radon Exposure in Florida 

In 1975, approximately 83 percent of U.S. 

phosphate rock was mined in Florida, with the 

remainder in Tennessee and several western 

States. Uranium and radium-226 are present 

in the phosphate ore and the overburden. The 

presence of radium-226 and its decay products 

is a potential source of gamma exposure, but 

of greater concern is exposure to radon gas. 

[102] 

Legislative Authority 

See above (page 30). 

EPA Actions 

In 1975, EPA initiated a pilot study to 

39

examine the radiological impact of living in 

structures built on reclaimed phosphate land. 

The field investigations identified high levels 

of radon in some structures built on reclaimed 

phosphate land in Florida when compared 

with structures built on unmined land. In 

September 1975, EPA informed the Governor 

of Florida that the Agency had found elevated 

radon decay product levels in these homes, 

noting that the primary health concern is 

increased risk of lung cancer to the occupants. 

The EPA recommended that “as a prudent 

interim measure the start of construction of 

new buildings on land reclaimed from 

phosphate mining area be discouraged.” 

Florida requested a follow-up investigation 

and guidance from EPA. [102] 

In 1978, the Florida Department of Health and 

Rehabilitative Services (HRS) issued the 

results of an additional study of indoor radon 

and gamma radiation levels in houses located 

in phosphate mining areas; this report 

confirmed the earlier results reported by the 

EPA. 

EPA conducted a more comprehensive study, 

and in February 1979 published the results in 

Indoor Radiation Exposure Due to Radium226 in Florida Phosphate Lands. This report 

provided an estimate of the radiation levels in 

existing structures, an evaluation of costeffectiveness of controls, an evaluation of the 

social and economic impact of potential 

radiation protection controls, and a delineation 

of the alternatives available for radiation 

protection to minimize adverse risk to the 

public. [103] Governor Bob Graham directed 

HRS to appoint a task force to further 

investigate the issue and recommend policies 

to address the health risks of people living on 

reclaimed phosphate land. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

The three above-mentioned studies, which 

examined the radiological impacts of living in 

structures built on reclaimed phosphate land, 

led to the promulgation of a new Florida 

statute, which effectively changed the way 

mined land is managed in the State. [103] 

These were among the first studies to be 

conducted to evaluate the impact of living in 

structures built on reclaimed land, and they 

launched the U.S. program to identify and 

limit exposure of the U.S. population to 

indoor radon. 

The numerical level recommended for radon 

in this study became the national action level 

that is still in effect today (albeit expressed in 

different units). [102] 

Cleanup Rule 

By 1990, it was 

evident that the 

Federal government 

needed more and consistent guidance for 

cleaning up radioactively contaminated 

sites. Although cleanup activity was ongoing in all environmental 

media (e.g. soil, groundwater, air) by several 

different Federal agencies, progress was slow 

due to public concerns, technical complexity, 

and the lack of consistent regulations. 

Legislative Authority 

The Atomic Energy Act provides EPA the 

broad authority to develop generally applicable environmental radiation standards. [1] 

CERCLA authorizes EPA to take corrective 

action whenever a site has been listed on the 

40

National Priorities List (NPL). [96] This can 

occur due to contamination by any hazardous 

substance, including radionuclides. 

Internal/External Triggers 

In the early 1990s, Senator John Glenn (DOhio) held a series of hearings that highlighted problems experienced by EPA, DOE, 

DoD, and NRC at sites contaminated with 

radiation. As an outcome, in late 1991, EPA 

began to develop a “Cleanup Rule” to reduce 

the uncertainty associated with determining 

the cleanup level needed to protect human 

health and the environment. DOE was 

committed to the rule’s development and 

provided funds to EPA to cover the cost of 

development. This approach held the promise 

of providing a precedent for interagency 

cooperation. 

In March 1992, the Administrator of EPA and 

the Chairman of NRC signed a MOU, 

“Guiding Principles of EPA/NRC 

Cooperation and Decisionmaking.” The goal 

of this MOU was to define the division of 

responsibilities and to foster cooperation 

between the organizations in fulfilling their 

responsibilities to ensure protection of human 

health and the environment. Principles in the 

MOU included conformance with the radiation protection responsibilities set out in 

Reorganization Plan No. 3, and avoiding 

unnecessary, duplicative, or piecemeal 

regulatory requirements for NRC-licensees. It 

was envisioned that this MOU would expedite 

the development of the Cleanup Rule. 

EPA Actions 

In 1993, EPA developed the Issues Paper on 

Radiation Site Cleanup Regulations, and 

made it available for public comment. [104] 

During this period, EPA sought input from 

individuals actively involved in environmental 

and radioactive materials management 

through the establishment of a subcommittee 

under the National Advisory Council on 

Environmental Policy and Technology 

(NACEPT) that met several times in 1993 and 

1994. During the last NACEPT meeting, EPA 

released an early draft of the proposed rule for 

public comment. [59] In addition, EPA 

requested comments from the EPA Science 

Advisory Board (SAB) concerning approaches 

for developing and implementing the standard. 

The goals of the draft proposed rule were to: 

provide clear, consistent, and protective 

health-based cleanup standards; promote 

beneficial land uses; facilitate consistent 

radiation site cleanup; be implementable; and 

promote innovative technologies. It was to be 

applicable to all sites contaminated with 

radioactive material subject to the AEA and to 

sites covered under the authority of CERCLA, 

including the land and structures at Federal 

facilities, Superfund sites, and NRC- and 

Agreement State-licensees. The draft 

proposed rule assumed the property would 

ultimately be released to the public. It 

specified an individual protection limit of 15 

mrem/yr ground water standards based on the 

SDWA MCLs, and provided flexibility with 

respect to land use. 

During the OMB review, there was 

disagreement between the Federal agencies on 

both the proposed level of individual 

protection and the use of MCLs for ground 

water protection. In December 1996, EPA 

withdrew the proposed rule. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

NRC, DOE, and EPA each continued 

development of separate regulations or 

guidance for their own agencies to follow in 

cleaning up sites contaminated with radioac41

tive materials. 

On August 22, 1997, EPA issued an OSWER 

Directive Establishment of Cleanup Levels for 

CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination. This directive clarified cleanup criteria 

for radiation consistent with the criteria for 

hazardous chemicals. [105] 

On February 12, 1998, EPA issued an 

OSWER Directive, Use of Soil Cleanup 

Criteria in 40 CFR Part 192 as Remediation 

Goals for CERCLA Sites. This directive 

addresses the use of the soil cleanup criteria in 

40 CFR Part 192 when setting remediation 

goals at CERCLA sites contaminated with 

radioactive materials. [106] 

Superfund Program 

The Superfund program applies to contaminated sites listed 

on the NPL based on 

criteria for the degree 

of hazard they pose 

under provisions of 

the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Fiftyfive of these are Federal sites, most of which 

are associated with past DOE weapons 

operations. These DOE sites comprise over 

98% of the total volume of soils contaminated 

with man-made radioactive materials in the 

United States. [107] 

The Radiation Protection Division (RPD) 

works closely with the Superfund Program to 

ensure that radioactive contaminants at 

Superfund sites are addressed in a protective 

manner. RPD assists in two primary areas: 

site-specific support, such as site monitoring 

programs, analysis and interpretation of site 

data, and work on emergency removal actions; 

and program-wide efforts such as development of technical and policy guidance, 

technology reviews, and training in assessing 

and addressing radiological hazards. 

Legislative Authority 

CERCLA provides EPA broad Federal 

authority to respond directly to releases or 

threatened releases of hazardous substances 

that may endanger public health or the 

environment, and to assure permanent cleanup 

of contaminated sites listed on the NPL. 

CERCLA excludes source, byproduct, or 

special nuclear material from the definition of 

“release.”7 [96] 

Internal/External Triggers 

Radionuclides are considered hazardous 

substances under CERCLA by virtue of their 

listing as HAPs under the CAA, and are 

treated the same as any other carcinogen under 

Superfund regulations. The majority of 

radioactively contaminated sites (i.e., those 

administered by DOE) were listed on the NPL 

in the years immediately following 1989, 

when Congress mandated that DOE enter into 

cleanup agreements with EPA and the States 

under CERCLA. 

EPA Actions 

Guidance Development 

In 1988-1989, EPA developed Section 7 of 

Superfund’s Hazard Ranking System Rule, 

which is the schematic for “ranking” or 

placing sites on the NPL. This rule, finalized 

on March 8, 1990, provided guidance for the 

consistent scoring of sites contaminated with 

radiation. [108] 

7

 See 42 USC 9601(22) for definition of 

“release.” 

42

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, RPD 

collaborated with Superfund in the development of a series of documents collectively 

entitled Risk Assessment Guidance for 

Superfund (RAGS). [109,110,111] RAGS 

provide guidance to evaluate risks to human 

health and the environment from exposure to 

radioactive and nonradioactive hazardous 

substances at CERCLA sites. It provides 

guidelines for assessing baseline risks, 

developing preliminary remediation goals, and 

evaluating risks for remedial action alternatives. 

RPD also developed the Radiation Exposure 

and Risk Assessment Manual: Risk Assessment Using Radionuclide Slope Factors 

(RERAM), which provides detailed 

documentation of the methodology used by 

EPA to develop health risk assessments. [112] 

These slope factors are incorporated into the 

Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables 

(HEAST) and are used to estimate excess 

cancer risks associated with radiation 

exposure at Superfund sites. [113] RERAM 

was developed as a supplement to the RAGS. 

When the Cleanup Rule effort stalled, RPD 

continued to work with the Superfund 

program to incorporate guidance for cleanup 

of radioactive materials into Superfund 

guidance. This effort led to the development 

of the 1997 OSWER Directive Establishment 

of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with 

Radioactive Contamination. [105] This 

guidance reaffirms that protective cleanup 

criteria for radioactive contamination at 

CERCLA sites are the same as those for all 

other carcinogens, and specifies that 15 

mrem/y satisfies these criteria. 

The Superfund Soil Screening Level 

Guidance (SSLG), developed by OSWER in 

1996, provides a methodology for evaluating 

the risk at Superfund sites. [106] This 

evaluation considers the concentration of the 

hazardous contaminants present, and guidance 

on the number and location of samples to be 

taken to determine if cleanup is needed. 

In 1998, EPA issued the directive titled Use 

of Soil Cleanup Criteria in 40 CFR Part 192 

as Remediation Goals for CERCLA Sites. 

[106] It addressed the use of the soil cleanup 

criteria in 40 CFR Part 192 as an ARAR at 

Superfund sites. 

The Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site 

Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), issued in 

1997, is a multi-agency consensus document 

that was developed to provide a single Federal 

basis for designing protocols to investigate, 

characterize, and remediate radioactive 

contamination in the environment. It provides 

information on how to plan, conduct, evaluate, 

and document environmental radiological 

surveys of surface soil and building surfaces 

for demonstrating compliance with regulations. [114] 

On-Site Support 

RPD’s radiation laboratories, the National Air 

and Radiation Environmental Laboratory 

(NAREL) in Montgomery, Alabama and the 

Radiation and Indoor Environments National 

Laboratory (RI&ENL) in Las Vegas, Nevada 

provide on-site support for site assessment and 

characterization. The laboratories’ unique fleet 

of mobile radiological laboratories and support 

vehicles provide sample collection, analyses, and 

comprehensive cleanup support activities. The 

labs provide assistance to the Superfund and 

RCRA programs, DOE, and DoD. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

Risks associated with exposure to chemical 

43

and radioactive contamination have 

traditionally been evaluated and managed 

using different methods and risk management 

criteria. RPD’s work with the Superfund 

program has helped to develop a consistent 

national approach to the remediation of 

chemical and radioactive contamination. This 

work helped ensure that radioactive 

contamination is addressed early and 

consistently in the Superfund process. 

The MARSSIM manual provides, for the first 

time, a uniform approach to assessment and 

verification for all Federal site 

decontamination and cleanup activities 

regardless of the cleanup level desired. 

44 
Emergency Response 

Working closely with its partners in other 

Federal agencies as well as State and local 

governments, ORIA is prepared to respond to 

radiological emergencies including accidents 

at nuclear power plants, transportation 

accidents, and deliberate acts of nuclear 

terrorism. In the event of a nuclear 

emergency, EPA employs specially trained 

Regional, Headquarters, and Laboratory staff, 

sophisticated equipment, and mobile and fixed 

laboratories to provide crucial scientific and 

technical support to State and local 

governments, and other Federal agencies. 

EPA’s two radiological laboratories, the 

Radiation and Indoor Environments National 

Laboratory (R&IENL) in Las Vegas, Nevada 

and the National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL) in Montgomery, 

Alabama, provide the majority of the EPA 

personnel and field and lab equipment in 

support of a Federal response to a nuclear 

emergency. The lab’s unique fleet of mobile 

radiological laboratories and support vehicles 

provide the capability for on-site sample 

collection, analyses, and comprehensive 

cleanup support. 

Legislative Authority 

The AEA provides EPA the authority to 

“advise the President with respect to radiation 

matters, directly or indirectly affecting health, 

including guidance for all Federal agencies in 

the formulation of radiation standards and in 

the establishment and executions of programs 

of cooperation with the states.” 

The Public Health Service Act (PHSA) 

provides EPA: the primary responsibility 

within the executive branch for the collection, 

analysis, and interpretation of data on 

environmental radiation levels; the authority 

to develop protective action guides; conduct 

routine and special surveillance and 

monitoring; and to provide technical assistance 

to the States in responding to an emergency 

affecting public health. 

CERCLA provides EPA a broad Federal 

authority to respond directly to releases or 

threatened releases of hazardous substances, 

including radionuclides that may endanger 

public health or the environment. CERCLA 

does not apply to radiological accidents 

indemnified by the Price Anderson Amendments to the AEA (i.e., commercial nuclear 

facilities). DoD is the lead for any response at 

a DoD facility. 

The Clean Water Act (Section 311) provides 

EPA the authority similar to CERCLA, but 

specific to navigable waterways. 

Radiological Emergency 

Response 

This section discusses 

EPA’s role in responding 

to radiological emergencies, including those at 

nuclear power plants as 

well as lost or abandoned 

sources. 

Three Mile Island - Emergency Response at 

the Cross Roads 

On March 28, 1979, a series of mechanical, 

electrical, and human failures led to a partial 

meltdown of the reactor core of the Three 

Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, allowing a release 

of radioactive coolant to the atmosphere. 

45

There were no injuries. This accident did 

however, identify significant coordination 

issues within the different Federal and State 

agencies responsible for responding to a 

radiological emergency, and led to a complete 

overhaul of the Federal emergency response 

system. (This is discussed in more detail in 

the Radiological Emergency Response Plan 

section.) 

Legislative Authority 

See above (page 45). 

EPA Actions 

EPA played a significant role in response to 

the accident at TMI, primarily by supporting 

the Federal effort to characterize the 

radioactive releases after the accident. EPA 

assumed responsibility for off-site 

environmental monitoring and analysis for 

nine years. In 1988, this monitoring 

responsibility was transferred to the State of 

Pennsylvania. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

EPA’s radiation monitoring and assessment 

activities provided the information needed to 

assure the public that the release of radioactive 

was minimal, and there was no threat to public 

health. EPA continued monitoring for nine 

years after the accident. 

Radiological Emergency Response Plan 

The accident at TMI had a profound effect on 

the way the Federal government responds to 

radiological emergencies. Prior to TMI, 

Federal agencies developed individual plans 

for a response to a radiological emergency. 

There was no coordinated plan or overall 

organization, leading to confusion during the 

response. In the aftermath of TMI, President 

Carter created the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) to lead the 

effort to reorganize the Federal emergency 

response. 

Legislative Authority 

On July 20, 1979, President Carter issued 

Executive Order 12148, transferring the 

Federal lead role in off-site radiological 

emergency planning and preparedness 

activities from the NRC to the newly formed 

FEMA. FEMA's responsibilities encompass 

activities that take place beyond the 

boundaries of the nuclear power plant. Onsite activities continued to be the responsibility of the NRC. [115] 

On September 29, 1980, President Carter 

issued Executive Order 12241, directing 

FEMA to develop a National Contingency 

Plan. 

Internal/External Triggers 

As directed by President Carter, FEMA 

developed a National Contingency Plan (NCP) 

called the Federal Radiological Emergency 

Response Plan (FRERP). FEMA published 

the plan in November 1985, establishing an 

organized, integrated response by Federal 

agencies to peacetime radiological emergencies in the United States. The FRERP 

specified the roles and responsibilities of 

Federal, State, and local government; required 

Federal agencies to develop agency-specific 

response plans called the Radiological 

Emergency Response Plans (RERPs); and 

provided for the Radiological Emergency 

Response Team (RERT), a designated special 

response force as the primary mechanism to 

respond to nuclear emergencies. 

In March 1982, FEMA issued regulations 

establishing the Federal Radiological 

Preparedness Coordinating Committee 

(FRPCC) to coordinate all Federal 

46

responsibilities and to assist State and local 

governments in radiological emergency 

planning and preparedness. [116] 

There are currently 17 Federal agencies that 

have a role in responding to a nuclear 

emergency; the major players are FEMA, 

NRC, DOE, DoD, and EPA. 

EPA Actions 

EPA’s RERP, first published in 1986, defined 

EPA’s authorities, organization, responsibilities, and capabilities for responding to 

radiological emergencies in the environment. 

The plan was revised in January 2000. The 

current plan describes EPA’s role in developing and implementing training programs for 

State and local officials on protective action 

guides, radiation dose assessment, and 

decision making and effective use of Agency 

assets in the event of a nuclear accident. [117] 

RERT capabilities include conducting 

environmental monitoring, performing 

laboratory analyses, and providing advice and 

guidance on measures to protect the public. 

When required, the RERT may also exercise 

EPA’s authority under the FRERP to coordinate the Federal response to a nuclear emergency. The RERT works with other Federal 

agencies and State and local governments to 

plan and participate in nuclear emergency 

response exercises. Additionally, RERT 

personnel continually update their multidisciplinary skills and provide training to 

other organizations charged with responding 

to nuclear emergencies. 

EPA also has participated in the first major 

Federal radiological exercises – Full Field 

Exercises (FFEs) 1 and 2. These exercises 

examined the ability of Federal agencies to 

support a State response to simulated nuclear 

power plant accidents. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

EPA is prepared to respond in the event of a 

radiological emergency, and provides training 

and support to assist States in preparing for a 

radiological emergency response. 

Chernobyl - An International Incident 

On April 26, 1986, unauthorized testing of 

reactor number four at the Soviet Union’s 

Chernobyl nuclear power station caused it to 

explode and burn, emitting large quantities of 

radioactive material into the environment. 

Internal/External Triggers 

The White House designated EPA to lead the 

Federal response to this emergency. 

EPA Actions 

EPA began to monitor and assess radioactivity 

in the United States, based in part on daily 

samples from its Environmental Radiation 

Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS) 

stations. EPA’s monitoring activities first 

detected radiation from the Chernobyl power 

station, at ground level on the West Coast, one 

week after the accident, well below levels 

requiring protective action. 

EPA also dispatched response personnel to 

Europe to monitor and assess levels of 

radioactivity in the U.S. embassies. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

EPA’s radiation monitoring and assessment 

activities provided the information needed to 

assure the nation that radiation levels in the 

United States remained below levels requiring 

protective actions. 

47

Lost and Abandoned Radiation Sources 

Legislative Authority 

See above (page 45). 

Internal/External Triggers 

The FRERP was modified after the accident at 

Chernobyl to include responses to smaller 

emergencies such as lost radiation sources or 

lost radioactive material. In the revised 

FRERP, EPA was assigned Lead Federal 

Agency (LFA) for coordinating the Federal 

response to lost and abandoned radiological 

materials. [118] 

EPA Actions 

EPA utilized its authorities under CERCLA to 

respond to lost and/or abandoned radiation 

sources that present an imminent danger to 

public health and safety. The first of these 

types of responses was conducted in 1989 at 

the abandoned Radium Chemical Company 

facility located in a light industrial area in 

New York City. Thousands of curies of 

radium were abandoned because the owner 

did not have the financial capability to clean 

up the facility. EPA successfully removed all 

the hazardous and radioactive material and 

cleaned up the facility. 

EPA responds to dozens of requests for 

assistance annually from State and local 

officials that discover radioactive material in 

local landfills or scrap metal recycling 

facilities. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

EPA works closely with the scrap metal 

industry, States, and other Federal regulatory 

agencies to identify the source of the lost or 

abandoned radioactive material, and to 

address the impact on humans and the 

environment. 

Radiological Emergency 

Preparedness 

Since the early 

1970s, EPA has 

been involved in 

numerous radiological emergency 

preparedness activities both nationally and internationally. 

EPA has supported State preparedness and 

planning for responding to nuclear incidents 

through the development of State plans and 

emergency response guidance. EPA also has 

participated in emergency response drills and 

exercises. The most significant activities are 

briefly discussed below. 

Protective Action Guides 

One of EPA’s most important emergency 

preparedness activities is the development of 

Protective Action Guides (PAGs). PAGs are 

projected levels of radiation at which State 

and local officials should take action to protect the public from radiation exposure. They 

are used by Federal, State, and local officials 

with responsibility for emergency response 

planning in the event of a nuclear incident. 

[119] 

Legislative Authority 

See above (page 45). 

Internal/External Triggers 

In 1975, the General Services Administration 

(GSA) outlined the responsibilities of various 

Federal agencies for radiological emergency 

response planning. EPA was given the 

responsibility to establish PAGs for the levels 

at which protective actions should be taken by 

governmental authorities to minimize the 

consequences of a radiological incident. [120] 

48

EPA Actions 

Manual of Protective Action Guides and 

Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents 

This manual was developed to provide State, 

local, and other officials criteria to use in the 

development of their State radiological emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors. It provided information for both evacuation and sheltering of the public during a 

nuclear incident, and included PAGs for 

exposure to airborne radioactive materials. 

This document recognized the need for, but 

did not establish, PAGs for exposure from 

radioactively contaminated food or water, and 

radioactive material deposited on property or 

equipment. [121] 

In 1980, this manual was updated. PAGs for 

an airborne plume were revised to apply to a 

much broader range of situations. However, 

the recommendations still applied only to 

nuclear power reactors. 

The Manual of Protective Action Guides and 

Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents was 

revised again in 1991 after extensive consultation with all affected Federal agencies. The 

new recommendations adopted lower, more 

protective values, and now applied to all types 

of nuclear incidents. This guidance has been 

accepted by all Federal agencies and States 

and applies to all nuclear sites, both Federal 

(including military) or commercial, nationwide. [119] 

PAGs for Accidents from Nuclear 

Powered Satellites 

After the 1978 crash Cosmos 954, the Soviet 

nuclear powered satellite, in a remote part of 

Canada, the U.S. became concerned about 

accidents with satellites containing radioactive 

material. EPA began working with NASA to 

develop PAGs for accidents during the launch 

of nuclear powered satellites and took part in 

the deployment of emergency response assets 

during the launch of the Ulysses and Galileo 

space craft. Because of the potentially wide 

distribution of radionuclides during an aborted 

launch or reentry, this effort required considerable coordination between EPA and other 

Federal, State, and local government agencies 

and the international community. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

PAGs are used to guide decision makers in 

determining the most prudent action to take in 

the event of a radiological emergency – no 

action, seek shelter, or evacuate. 

The PAGs are incorporated into all State plans 

for responding to a radiological emergency at 

a nuclear power plant. 

EPA was on-site during preparations for 

several spacecraft launches involving radioactive materials, including the Cassini mission 

to Saturn and the Galileo and Ulysses 

missions to Jupiter. In the event of an 

accident, EPA was prepared to respond. 

Working with International Organizations 

Legislative Authority 

See above (page 45). 

Internal/External Triggers 

As a result of EPA’s response to the accident 

at the Chernobyl, the scope of the FRERP was 

expanded to include responses to accidents in 

foreign countries that may impact the United 

States. EPA was assigned LFA for coordinating the Federal response foreign radiological 

emergencies. 

49

EPA Actions 

EPA is working with the International Atomic 

Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear 

Energy Agency (NEA) to improve the ability 

to respond to nuclear accidents that have 

transboundary impacts. To better prepare for 

such an incident, EPA has participated in the 

NEA’s International Nuclear Emergency 

Exercise (INEX) series of exercises in 1995 

and again in 1999. 

EPA has organized and conducted RADEX 94 

in Anchorage, Alaska in 1994 under the 

auspices of the Arctic Environmental 

Protection Strategy. This international exercise 

involved Russia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, 

Denmark, Finland, and the United States, and 

examined the issues surrounding a nuclear 

accident that had an impact on the Arctic 

environment. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

EPA is better prepared to coordinate with 

international organizations in the event of a 

transboundary radiological emergency 

response. 

Counterterrorism 

Legislative Authority 

The U.S. Policy on Counter-Terrorism (PDD39), issued June 21, 1995, established how the 

United States will respond to the use of 

weapons of mass destruction by terrorists. EPA 

has the responsibility to provide support to the 

FBI during crisis management operations and 

to FEMA during consequence management 

operations. EPA assistance may include threat 

assessment, agent identification, hazard 

detection and mitigation, environmental 

monitoring, and long-term site restoration. [122] 

Protection Against Unconventional Threats to 

the Homeland and Americans Overseas (PDD62) issued May 22, 1998, directed EPA to 

provide support to FEMA for consequence 

management. EPA is further directed to 

support State and local responders plan for 

terrorist events, coordinate activities with key 

Federal partners, and provide training to 

emergency responders. [123] 

Presidential Decision Directive 63, Critical 

Infrastructure Protection, issued May 22, 

1998, ensures the continuity and viability of the 

United States’ critical infrastructure. EPA, and 

all other Federal departments and agencies, are 

required to: develop a Critical Infrastructure 

Protection Plan (CIPP) to protect its critical 

infrastructure; conduct an assessment of 

infrastructure vulnerabilities; and develop a 

plan to address all the vulnerabilities in a timely 

manner. 

Enduring Constitutional Government and 

Continuity of Government, PDD-67, issued 

October 21, 1998 directs the development of 

plans and capabilities to assure the continuity of 

government, at all levels, in any national 

security situation that might confront the 

Nation. 

Internal/External Triggers 

In response to the Tokyo subway sarin gas 

attack in March 1995 and the bombing of the 

Murrah Building in 1995 in Oklahoma City, the 

United States government increased its efforts 

to combat terrorism. 

EPA Actions 

Because of its role in responding to terrorist 

events, EPA is working closely with the FBI 

and FEMA to develop plans and procedures 

that implement the instructions contained in the 

Presidential guidance addressing terrorist 

activities. EPA has also participated in terrorist 

50

training exercises such Mirrored Image in 

preparation for the Atlanta Olympic Games and 

Exercise TopOff which involved Cabinet-level 

officials in an exercise for the first time. 

EPA has been working with DoD to prepare for 

accidents involving nuclear weapons in their 

custody and has participated in exercises such 

as Diagram Jump in Seattle, Display Select in 

Virginia. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

As a result of EPA’s participation in numerous 

planning and preparedness work groups, 

training activities, exercises and drills, and 

responses to real events, the Agency is prepared 

to coordinate effectively with our partners in 

other Federal agencies as well as State and 

local governments to ensure a timely and 

effective response to a radiological emergency 

involving terrorist activities. 

The development of PAGs has led to a 

consistent national approach to protecting both 

nuclear emergency response personnel and the 

general public in the event of a nuclear 

incident. PAGs are used by all Federal 

agencies and States. 

Environmental Radiation 

Ambient Monitoring System 

The Environmental 

Radiation Ambient 

Monitoring System 

(ERAMS) is the nation’s most comprehensive means of acquiring and analyzing 

environmental radiation data. ERAMS stations 

are distributed across the nation and regularly 

sample the nation’s air, precipitation, drinking 

water, and milk. Station locations provide 

broad geographical and optimal population 

coverage. All station operators are volunteers 

provided mainly by State agencies, or, in some 

cases, local governments. 

Legislative Authority 

See PHSA above (page 45). 

Internal/External Triggers 

Following the 1963 moratorium on atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, the focus of 

many radiological environmental monitoring 

systems shifted to baseline, trend analysis, and 

emergency preparedness. 

EPA Actions 

In 1973, EPA established ERAMS by consolidating various components of existing radiation 

monitoring networks into one system. These 

components included the Radiation Alert 

Network, the Tritium Surveillance System, the 

Interstate Carrier Drinking Water Network, and 

the Pasteurized Milk Network. 

ERAMS operates in either an emergency or 

routine mode. During routine conditions, 

samples are collected and analyzed on established schedules, producing data that can be 

used to perform baseline and trend analysis of 

radioactivity in the environment. During 

emergency conditions, the sampling schedule is 

accelerated to daily sampling and the data are 

used to determine the immediate and long-term 

environmental and public health impacts. 

EPA compiles the ERAMS data quarterly and 

publishes it in Environmental Radiation Data 

(ERD) reports. 

Impact of EPA Actions 

During its more than twenty years of operation, 

ERAMS has been most successful in 

developing an important environmental 

51

radiation database, providing information about 

weapons tests, and reporting upon significant 

releases of radioactivity into the environment 

such as the Chinese weapons tests of 1976 and 

1977, Three Mile Island in 1979, and the 

Chernobyl incident in 1986. ERAMS was the 

nation’s principal source of comprehensive data 

for those events. 

Data generated by ERAMS have been 

published in the quarterly data-only journal 

Environmental Radiation Data (ERD). Each 

issue of the ERD is entered into the National 

Technical Information Service (NTIS) 

clearinghouse. 

52 
Appendix A: Statutory Authorities, Executive Orders,


and Other Reference Documents


The mission of the radiation protection 

program is derived from numerous statutory 

authorities, Executive Orders, Presidential 

Decision Directives, and Federal plans. Some 

of these documents, such as the Clean Air Act, 

address radioactive emissions only as part of 

the much larger problem of air pollution, 

whereas other documents, such as the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, 

directly address EPA’s role in the disposal of 

radioactive waste. The radiation protection 

program has evolved significantly over the last 

thirty years as these documents have been 

implemented. EPA’s radiation protection 

authorities are briefly described below. 

1944 - Public Health Service Act 

(42 USC 201 et seq.) 

The PHSA provides EPA with the authority to 

conduct monitoring of environmental radiation, 

perform research on the environmental and 

human health effects of exposure to radiation, 

and provide training and technical assistance to 

the States. Under Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 

1970, EPA was assigned the authority of 

Section 311(c)(1) to develop, and implement as 

needed, a plan to effectively provide personnel, 

equipment, medical supplies, or other Federal 

resources to respond to health emergencies. 

1946 - Atomic Energy Act, as amended in 

1954 (42 USC 2011 et seq.) 

The AEA established the Atomic Energy 

Commission (AEC) to promote the “utilization 

of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the 

maximum extent consistent with the common 

defense and security and with the health and 

safety of the public.” Under Reorganization 

Plan No. 3, EPA was transferred the authority 

of the AEC for "establishing generally 

applicable environmental standards for the 

protection of the general environment from 

radioactive materials. As used herein, standards 

mean limits on radiation exposures or levels, 

concentrations or quantities of radioactive 

material, in the general environment outside 

the boundaries of locations under the control of 

persons possessing or using radioactive 

material." EPA also was transferred the 

authority of the Federal Radiation Council 

(FRC) under the AEA to “advise the President 

with respect to radiation matters, directly or 

indirectly affecting health, including guidance 

for all Federal agencies in the formulation of 

radiation standards and in the establishment 

and executions of programs of cooperation 

with the states.” 

1959 - EO 10831, Establishing the Federal 

Radiation Council 

The Federal Radiation Council (FRC) was 

issued July 24, 1959, by President Eisenhower. 

The FRC was composed of the Secretary of 

Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the 

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

and the Chairman of the AEC. It was 

established to “advise the President with 

respect to radiation matters directly or 

indirectly affecting health ...” The Council was 

given the authority to seek technical advice, in 

respect of its functions, from any source it 

deems appropriate. These authorities were 

transferred to EPA under Reorganization Plan 

No. 3, 1970. 

53

1963 - Clean Air Act, as amended in 1970, 

1977, 1990 (42 USC 7401 et seq.) 

Section 122 of the CAAA of 1977 directed 

EPA to review all relevant information and 

determine whether emissions of radioactive 

pollutants into ambient air will cause or 

contribute to air pollution that may reasonably 

be anticipated to endanger public health. 

Section 112 required EPA to publish and, from 

time-to-time, revise a list of hazardous air 

pollutants (HAPS), and to develop a program 

to promulgate, implement, and enforce 

emission standards for listed pollutants. The 

Administrator was directed to establish 

national emission standards “at the level in his 

judgement provides an ample margin of safety 

to protect public health.” This gave EPA the 

authority to develop NESHAPs for 

radionuclides. In addition, the listing of 

radionuclides as hazardous pollutants meant 

that the emergency response requirements of 

CERCLA also applied to accidental releases of 

radioactive material. 

Section 103 of the CAA provides EPA broad 

authority to gather information, provide grants, 

to conduct or promote research, and to 

coordinate and accelerate training. 

1972 - Marine Protection, Research, and 

Sanctuaries Act, as amended in 1977 

(32 USC 1401 et seq.) 

The MPRSA authorizes EPA to issue permits 

and promulgate regulations for disposing of 

materials into the territorial waters of the 

United States when it will not degrade or 

endanger human health, welfare, ecological 

systems, the marine environment, or the 

economy. It specifically prohibits ocean 

disposal of HLW and requires a permit for any 

other ocean disposal activity. Any request for 

ocean disposal of LLW requires a permit that 

must be approved by both houses of Congress. 

1972 - Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act 

of 1977, as amended in 1987 (33 USC 1251 

et seq.) 

The primary objective of the CWA is to restore 

and maintain the integrity of the nation’s 

waters. The CWA requires major industries to 

meet performance standards to ensure pollution 

control; charges States and Tribes with setting 

specific water quality criteria appropriate for 

their waters and developing pollution control 

programs to meet them; provides funding to 

States and communities to help them meet their 

clean water infrastructure needs; and protects 

valuable wetlands and other aquatic habitats 

through a permitting process that ensures 

development and other activities are conducted 

in an environmentally sound manner. Section 

311 of the CWA provides the Administrator 

with the authority to initiate and direct 

responses to any accidental releases of oil or 

hazardous substances when there is a 

substantial threat to the public health or 

welfare. The NCP implements the emergency 

response requirements of Section 311 of the 

CWA. 

1974 - Safe Drinking Water Act, as 

amended in 1986, 1996 

(43 USC s/s 300f et seq.) 

SDWA requires EPA to promulgate and 

enforce primary standards for contaminants in 

public water systems, including radionuclides. 

Initially, EPA was to set interim regulations for 

a limited group of contaminants and later revise 

those regulations and set standards for the 

remaining contaminants. The 1986 

amendments required EPA to develop MCLGs 

and MCLs concurrently and to finalize the 

interim regulations. Under this statute EPA 

may delegate program enforcement authority to 

the States. 

54

The 1996 amendments to the SDWA directed 

EPA to: withdraw the proposed NPDWR, 

including the proposed MCLG and MCL and 

monitoring, reporting, and public notification 

requirements for radon, due to the controversy 

over the cost-benefit basis for the proposed 

standard; arrange for the NAS to conduct a 

formal study of radon in drinking water; 

publish a risk reduction and cost analysis for 

possible radon MCLs by February 1999; 

promulgate the radon MCLG and NPDWR for 

drinking water by the year 2000; develop an 

alternative MCL for radon, as directed to 

ensure that any revised drinking water standard 

will maintain or increase public health 

protection; and review all drinking water 

regulations every six years. 

SDWA also provides EPA with emergency 

response authority. Section 1431(a) directs the 

Agency to take the necessary actions to protect 

the public health during emergencies that 

affect public drinking water supplies. 

1976 - Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act, as amended in 1984, 1986 

(42 USC 6901 et seq.) 

RCRA gives EPA the authority to regulate 

hazardous waste from "cradle-to-grave." This 

authority includes the minimization, 

generation, transportation, treatment, storage, 

and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also 

set forth a framework for the management of 

non-hazardous solid wastes. RCRA focuses 

only on active and future facilities. It does not 

address abandoned or historical sites. Source, 

special nuclear, or byproduct material as 

defined by the AEA is specifically excluded 

from RCRA. 

1978 - Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act (42 USC 2022 et seq.) 

UMTRCA amended the AEA by directing EPA 

to set generally applicable health and 

environmental standards to govern the 

stabilization, restoration, disposal, and control 

of effluents and emissions at both active and 

inactive mill tailings sites. 

Title I of the Act covers inactive uranium mill 

tailing sites, depository sites, and vicinity 

properties. EPA was directed to set standards 

to provide protection consistent with the 

requirements of RCRA to the maximum extent 

possible, and to include ground water 

protection limits. DOE was directed to 

implement these standards for the tailings piles 

and the vicinity properties. Upon completion 

of site cleanup and uranium mill tailings 

stabilization work, NRC was directed to review 

the completed actions for compliance with EPA 

standards. NRC licenses the site for perpetual 

care to the State or DOE. 

Title II of the Act covers operating uranium 

processing sites licensed by the NRC. EPA was 

directed to promulgate disposal standards in 

compliance with Subtitle C of the Solid Waste 

Disposal Act, as amended, to be implemented 

by NRC or the Agreement States. The 1993 

Amendments to UMTRCA further directed 

EPA to promulgate general environmental 

standards for the processing, possession, 

transfer, and disposal of uranium mill tailings. 

NRC was required to implement these 

standards at Title II sites. 

1979 - EO 12148, Federal Emergency 

Management 

EO 12148 was issued on July 20,1979, by 

President Carter in response to the accident at 

the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant. It 

assigned FEMA the responsibility for 

developing a National Contingency Plan for 

responding to accidents at nuclear power 

plants. FEMA published the first version of the 

FRERP in 1985. An updated FRERP was 

published on May 1, 1996. 

55

1980 - Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Policy Act, as amended in 1985 

(42 USC 2021b et. seq.) 

The LLRWPA requires each State to be 

responsible for providing disposal capacity for 

commercial LLW generated within its borders 

by January 1, 1986. It encouraged States to 

form regional compacts to develop new 

disposal facilities. The LLRWPA was 

amended in 1985 to provide States more time 

to develop facilities and to provide incentives 

for volume reduction of LLW. 

1980 - Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, as amended, 1986, 1990 

(42 USC 9601 et seq.) 

CERCLA (commonly known as Superfund) 

created a tax on the chemical and petroleum 

industries and provided broad Federal authority 

to respond directly to releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, 

and contaminants that may endanger public 

health or the environment. CERCLA defines 

hazardous substances by reference to other lists. 

Since the CAAA list radionuclides as 

hazardous substances, they are covered by 

CERCLA. 

CERCLA authorizes two kinds of response 

actions: short-term removals where actions may 

be taken to address releases or threatened 

releases requiring prompt response; and 

long-term remedial response actions that 

permanently and significantly reduce the 

dangers associated with releases or threats of 

releases of hazardous substances that are 

serious, but not immediately life threatening. 

Long-term remedial response actions can only 

be conducted only at sites listed on EPA's NPL. 

Short-term removal actions (emergency 

responses) may be taken at any site at which a 

release or threatened release occurs. These 

response actions are conducted in accordance 

with the concept of operations contained in the 

NCP (40 CFR Part 300). Section 105 of 

CERCLA requires the development of the 

NCP. CERCLA applies to radiological events 

at DoD and DOE facilities, but does not apply 

to releases from NRC-licensed facilities subject 

to the requirements of the Price Anderson 

Amendments (Section 170) of the AEA. 

1982 - Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

(42 USC 10101 et seq.) 

The NWPA provides the basis for the current 

national program for the disposal of SNF and 

HLW. The Act established formal procedures 

to evaluate and select sites for geologic 

repositories, as well as procedures for the 

interaction of State and Federal governments. 

It provides a timetable of key milestones the 

Federal agencies must meet in carrying out the 

program. 

The NWPA provides DOE with the 

responsibility for siting, building, and operating 

a deep geologic repository for the disposal of 

HLW and SNF. It directs EPA to "by rule 

promulgate generally applicable standards for 

protection of the general environment from 

offsite releases of radioactive material in 

repositories." NRC is required to license DOE 

to operate a repository that meets EPA’s 

standards and all other relevant requirements. 

1985 - Federal Radiological Emergency 

Response Plan, as revised in 1996 

The FRERP established an organized and 

integrated capability for a timely, coordinated 

response by Federal agencies to assist State and 

local governments as they respond to peacetime 

radiological emergencies (e.g., nuclear power 

plant accidents, lost radioactive sources, foreign 

nuclear accidents, transportation accidents, 

etc.). The FRERP is an interagency agreement 

that has no statutory authority of its own. Each 

56

signatory agency uses its own authorities when 

implementing a FRERP response. The FRERP 

covers any peacetime radiological emergency 

that has actual, potential, or perceived 

radiological consequences within the United 

States, its territories, possessions, or territorial 

waters and that could require a response by the 

Federal government. The FRERP assigns EPA 

as the Lead Federal Agency (LFA) to lead and 

coordinate the activities of other Federal 

agencies for foreign radiological accidents that 

may have an impact on the United States and 

for accidents involving radioactive material that 

is not owned, licensed, or regulated by another 

Federal agency. 

1987 - Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments 

Act (42 USC 10101 et seq.) 

The NWPAA directs DOE to consider Yucca 

Mountain as the primary site for the first 

geologic repository for HLW and SNF, and 

prohibits DOE from conducting site specific 

activities at a second site, unless authorized by 

Congress. It also requires the Secretary of 

Energy to develop a report on the need for a 

second repository no later than January 1, 2010. 

The NWPAA also established a commission to 

study the need and feasibility of a monitored 

retrievable storage facility. 

1988 - EO 12656, Assignment of 

Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities 

This Executive Order, issued in November 

1988, delineates the roles and responsibilities 

of the various Federal agencies in preparing for 

and responding to national security 

emergencies. These roles and responsibilities 

are based on the existing statutory authorities 

and capabilities of the agencies. 

1992 - Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land 

Withdrawal Act, as amended in 1996 

(PL 102-579) 

The WIPP LWA reinstated the disposal 

standards that were issued by the Agency in 

1985 and remanded in 1987, except for 

§191.15 and §191.16, and directed EPA to 

issue final disposal standards. It also directed 

that the disposal standards at 40 CFR Part 191 

would not apply to any site characterized under 

section 113(a) of the NWPA (e.g., Yucca 

Mountain). 

This Act also provided an extensive role for 

EPA oversight of DOE activities at WIPP. 

Specifically, EPA was required to: issue final 

standards for disposal of spent nuclear fuel, 

high-level radioactive waste, and TRU waste 

(see 40 CFR Part 191 on page 23); develop 

criteria specifically for the WIPP that 

implement the final disposal standards; certify 

that the WIPP is in compliance with 40 CFR 

191 if DOE satisfies the criteria; reevaluate the 

WIPP every five years to determine whether it 

should be recertified; and ensure that the WIPP 

complies with other environmental and public 

health and safety regulations every two years. 

The 1996 WIPP LWA Amendments (PL104­

201) dictated three major items. The WIPP 

LWA Amendments specified November 30, 

1997 as a non-binding date for the WIPP site to 

open, pending certification by EPA that the site 

meets environmental regulatory requirements; 

exempted the WIPP from RCRA Land 

Disposal Requirements; and withdrew 

requirements in the original Act that required 

DOE to conduct underground tests on-site with 

transuranic waste to determine whether it could 

be disposed of safely. 

1992 - Energy Policy Act (PL 102-186) 

This act requires EPA to "promulgate standards 

to ensure protection of public health from high57

1999 

level radioactive wastes in a deep geologic 

repository that might be built under Yucca 

Mountain in Nevada." EPA is further directed 

to issue these site-specific public health and 

safety standards, “based upon and consistent 

with the findings and recommendations of the 

National Academy of Sciences...” 

1992 - Federal Response Plan, as revised in 

The FRP outlines how the Federal government 

implements the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to assist 

State and local governments when a major 

disaster or emergency (e.g., a natural 

catastrophe; fire, flood, or explosion, 

regardless of cause; etc.) overwhelms their 

ability to respond effectively to save lives; 

protect public health, safety, and property; and 

restore their communities. It describes the 

policies, planning assumptions, concept of 

operations, response and recovery actions, and 

responsibilities of twenty-seven Federal 

departments and agencies, including the Red 

Cross, that guide Federal operations following 

a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or 

emergency. 

1994 - National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(40 CFR Part 300) 

The purpose of the NCP is to provide the 

organizational structure and procedures to 

prepare for and respond to discharges of oil and 

releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, 

and contaminants which may present an 

imminent and substantial danger to public 

health or welfare of the United States. The 

NCP provides for a national response 

organization that may be activated in response 

actions and specifies the roles and responsibilities of Federal, State, and local governments. 

Because radionuclides are listed as hazardous 

substances in the Clean Air Act, the NCP 

applies to releases of radioactive material. 

1995 - PDD 39, U.S. Policy on CounterTerrorism 

President Clinton issued PDD-39 on June 21, 

1995. It establishes how the United States will 

respond to the use of weapons of mass 

destruction by terrorists. It assigns specific 

preparedness and response duties to a limited 

number of Federal agencies based upon their 

existing statutory authorities and response 

capabilities. The FBI is the Federal lead for the 

crisis management phase of a response to a 

terrorist incident, and FEMA is the lead for 

coordination of Federal response activities 

during the consequence management phase of 

the response. EPA has been directed to provide 

support to the FBI during crisis management 

operations and to FEMA during consequence 

management operations. EPA assistance may 

include threat assessment, consultation, agent 

identification, hazard detection and reduction, 

environmental monitoring, decontamination, 

and long-term site restoration (environmental 

cleanup). It may also include participation on 

the Domestic Emergency Support Team 

(DEST) and regional response team 

deployment. The CTPCT coordinates all 

Agency activities involving preparing for and 

responding to terrorist events. 

1998 - PDD 62, Protection Against 

Unconventional Threats to the Homeland 

and Americans Overseas 

PDD-62, issued by President Clinton on May 

22, 1998, directs the establishment of an 

integrated program to increase the effectiveness 

of the United States in countering terrorist 

threats and to prepare to manage the 

consequences of attacks against U.S. citizens or 

infrastructure. Lead agencies, such as EPA, 

designate a Senior Program Coordinator who 

will coordinate this effort with the U.S. 

Government. This PDD complements the 

58

directives contained in PDD-39. PDD-62 also 

requires each agency to maintain a viable 

Continuity of Operations Plan and to have a 

Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan (CIPP). 

1998 - PDD 63, Critical Infrastructure 

Protection 

PDD-63 was issued by President Clinton on 

May 22, 1998, to ensure the continuity and 

viability of United States critical infrastructure. 

Critical infrastructures are those physical and 

cyber-based systems essential to the minimum 

operations of the economy and government. 

These systems are highly automated and interconnected, and thus are vulnerable to physical 

and cyber attacks. PDD-63 required EPA and 

all other Federal agencies to: develop a CIPP to 

protect its critical infrastructure; conduct an 

assessment of infrastructure vulnerabilities; 

and develop a plan to address all vulnerabilities 

in a timely manner. 

1998 - PDD 67, Enduring Constitutional 

Government and Continuity of 

Government 

PDD-67 was issued by President Clinton on 

October 21, 1998 and directs the development 

of plans and capabilities to assure the 

continuity of government at all levels in any 

national security situation that might confront 

the nation. It assigns specific essential 

functions to be performed by Federal agencies 

based on existing statutory authorities and 

response capabilities. 

59

This page left intentionally blank. 

60

61

Appendix B: Federal Agency Radiation

Responsibilities

The mission of the U.S.

Environmental Protection

Agency is to protect human

health and to safeguard the

natural environment — air,

water, and land — upon

which life depends on both national and global

levels. EPA’s radiation protection

responsibilities originate from both the AEA

and related statutes, as well as the environmental statutes. Under the authority of the

AEA and related statutes, EPA develops

generally applicable environmental standards

for Federal and State organizations to

incorporate into the development of their

regulations; develops regulations that

implement these standards (e.g., Criteria for

Certification and Re-Certification of WIPP

Compliance with 40 CFR 191 Disposal

Regulations); and is responsible for developing

guidance for all Federal agencies in the

formulation of radiation standards and the

establishment and execution of programs of

cooperation with the States. Under the

authority of the environmental statutes, EPA

develops, implements, and enforces mediaspecific regulations for both chemical and

radioactive environmental pollutants. 

The mission of the

Department of Energy

(DOE) is to develop and

implement a coordinated

national energy policy to

ensure the availability of

adequate energy supplies

and to develop new energy sources for

domestic and commercial use. In addition,

DOE is responsible for developing,

constructing, and testing nuclear weapons for

the U.S. military; for managing low- and highlevel radioactive wastes generated by past

nuclear weapons and research programs; and

for constructing and maintaining a repository

for civilian radioactive wastes generated by

commercial nuclear reactors. DOE develops its

own standards under the authority of the AEA

(known as DOE Orders) and is responsible for

enforcing those as well as EPA regulations at

DOE facilities.

The mission of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is to

ensure adequate protection

of public health and safety,

the common defense and

security, and the environment in the use of

certain radioactive materials in the United

States. The NRC licenses commercial facilities

including nuclear power reactors; non-power

research, test, and training reactors; fuel cycle

facilities; medical, academic, and industrial

uses of nuclear materials; and the transport,

storage, and disposal of nuclear materials and

waste. 

Under the authority of the AEA, NRC is

responsible for developing, implementing, and

enforcing NRC licensing criteria, EPA

standards and regulations, and other Federal

regulations at these facilities.

The Federal Emergency

Management Agency

(FEMA) is responsible for

planning for and responding to all types of disasters

in the United States,

including nuclear incidents. EPA, through its

Emergency Response Team, is one of several

agencies providing guidance and coordination
to the FEMA activities. 

The Department of Health 

and Human Services 

(DHHS) is the principal 

agency for protecting the 

health of all Americans and 

providing essential human 

services. The Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) assures the safety 

of foods and cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, 

biological products, and medical devices. It is 

responsible for setting policy for health care 

and the use of radiation in the healing arts. 

The mission of the Department of Defense (DoD) is to 

provide the military forces 

needed to deter war and 

protect the security of the 

United States. DoD is 

responsible for the safe handling and storage of 

nuclear weapons and other military uses of 

nuclear energy. 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for the coordinated 

national transportation 

policy. It proposes transportation legislation, 

coordinates transportation 

issues with other concerned agencies, and 

provides technical assistance to States and 

cities in support of transportation programs. 

DOT works with Federal and State agencies to 

govern the safe packaging and transport of 

radioactive materials. 

The Department of Labor 

(DOL) is responsible for 

preparing the American 

workforce for new and better 

jobs, and ensuring the 

adequacy of America's 

workplaces. Within DOL, the Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 

responsible for protecting the health of the 

American workforce. It develops and enforces 

radiation exposure regulations, protecting 

workers who are not expressly covered by other 

Federal agency regulations. 

62

Appendix C: Acronyms 

AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954 

AEC Atomic Energy Commission 

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable 

ANPRM Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

ARAR Applicable, Relevant, and Appropriate Regulation 

BEIR Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation 

BRH Bureau of Radiological Health 

BSWM Bureau of Solid Waste Management 

BWH Bureau of Water Hygiene 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CAG Compliance Application Guidance 

CCA Compliance Certification Application 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CIPP Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan 

CMI Consolidated Minerals, Inc. 

COOP Continuity of Operations 

CRCPD Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWS Community Water Systems 

DHHS Department of Health and Human Services 

DoD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOL Department of Labor 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

ER Emergency Response 

ERA Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 

ERAMS Environmental Radiation Monitoring System 

ERD Environmental Radiation Data 

ERDA Energy, Research and Development Administration 

FDA Food and Drug Administration 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FRC Federal Radiation Council 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FFE Full Field Exercises 

FRERP Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan 

FRMAC Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center 

FRP Federal Response Plan 

FRPCC Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee 

63

FWQA Federal Water Quality Administration 

GERMON Global Environmental Radiation Monitoring Network 

GSA General Services Administration 

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant 

HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables 

HEW Health Education and Welfare 

HLW High-Level Waste 

HRS Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency 

INEX International Nuclear Emergency Exercise 

LAMW Low Activity Mixed Waste 

LFA Lead Federal Agency 

LLRWPA Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act 

LLW Low-Level Waste 

MARSSIM Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual 

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level 

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 

NACEPT National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology 

NAPCA National Air Pollution Control Administration 

NAREL National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory 

NARM Naturally Occurring and/or Accelerator Produced Radioactive Material 

NAS National Academy of Sciences 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NAS-NRC National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council 

NCP National Contingency Plan 

NEA Nuclear Energy Agency 

NESHAPs National Environmental Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NIH National Institutes of Health 

NIPDWR National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation 

NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation 

NPL National Priorities List 

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

NRDC National Resources Defense Council 

NRS National Response System 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NWPA Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

NWPAA Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

OAR Office of Air and Radiation 

OCRWM Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ORIA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 

64

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

PAG Protective Action Guide 

PDD Presidential Decision Directives 

PHSA Public Health Service Act 

POTWS Publicly-Owned Treatment Works 

RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RERAM Radiation Exposure and Risk Assessment Manual: Risk Assessment Using 

Radionuclide Slope Factors 

RERT Radiological Emergency Response Team 

R&IENL Radiation and Indoor Environments National Laboratory 

RPD Radiation Protection Division 

SAB Science Advisory Board 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SNF Spent Nuclear Fuel 

SSLG Superfund Soil Screening Level Guidance 

TENORM Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials 

TFI The Fertilizer Institute 

TMI Three Mile Island 

TRU Transuranic Waste 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act 

UMTRCA Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 

UNSCEAR United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation 

USG U.S. Gypsum Co. 

USDA Department of Agriculture 

WIPP Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

WIPP LWA Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawl Act 

YM Yucca Mountain 

65

This page left intentionally blank. 

66

67

Appendix D: Organizational History
This page left intentionally blank. 

68

Appendix E: References 

1.	 The White House, President R. Nixon, Press Release, July 9, 1970. 

2.	 The White House, President R. Nixon, "Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970", in the Federal 

Register 35 FR 15623-15625, October 6, 1970. 

3.	 House of Representatives, 91 Cong., 2nd Sess. Hearings before a Committee on Government 

Operations, Hearing pp 77, 142, 1970. 

4.	 Health, Education and Welfare, J.A. Lieberman, Assistant Administrator for Research and 

Development, "EPA Radiation Organization", November 20, 1970. 

5.	 The White House, President D. Eisenhower, Executive Order 10831, August 14, 1959. 

6.	 O’Very, D. P., and Richardson, A.C.B., "Regulation of Radiological and Chemical 

Carcinogens: Current Steps Toward Risk Harmonization", The Environmental Law Reporter, 

25, 10655-10670, December 1995. 

7.	 Federal Radiation Council, Guidance for the Control of Radiation Hazards in Uranium 

Mining, Federal Guidance Report No. 8, Staff Report, September 1967. 

8.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Underground Mining of Uranium Ore, Radiation 

Protection Guidance for Federal Agencies", in the Federal Register 36 FR 132, July 9, 1971. 

9.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies 

for Diagnostic X Rays", in the Federal Register 43 FR 4377, February 1, 1978. 

10.	 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, The Effects on Populations of 

Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. (BEIR I), 1972. National Academy Press, 

Washington, D.C. 

11.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Diagnostic X Rays, Radiation Protection Guidance, 

Invitation to Comment", in the Federal Register 42 FR 4884, January 26, 1977. 

12.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation in the 

United States, A Comprehensive Review for the Year 1980 and a Summary of Trends for the 

Years 1960-1985, EPA-520/1-84-005, September 1984. 

13.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Radiation Protection Guidance to Federal Agencies 

for Occupational Exposure," in the Federal Register 52 FR 2822, January 27, 1987. 

14.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for 

Exposure of the General Public, Notice", in the Federal Register 59 FR 246, December 23, 

1994. 

69

15.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic X 

Rays, Federal Guidance Report No. 9, EPA-520/4-76-19, October 1976. 

16.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Radioactivity Concentration Guides, Federal 

Guidance Report No. 10, EPA-520/1-84-010, December 1984. 

17.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air 

Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion, 

Federal Guidance Report No. 11, EPA-520/1-88-020, 1988. 

18.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, 

and Soil, Federal Guidance Report No. 12, EPA-402/R-93-081, 1993. 

19.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental 

Exposure to Radionuclides, Federal Guidance Report No. 13, EPA-402/R-99-001, September 

1999. 

20.	 National Academy of Science/National Research Council, Advisory Committee on the 

Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations, Considerations of Health-Benefit-Cost Analysis for 

Activities Involving Ionizing Radiation Exposure and Alternatives (BEIR II), 1977. National 

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

21.	 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Committee on the Biological 

Effects of Ionizing Radiations, The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of 

Ionizing Radiation (BEIR III), 1980. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

22.	 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Committee on the Biological 

Effects of Ionizing Radiations, Health Risks of Radon and Other Internally Deposited AlphaEmitters (BEIR IV), 1988. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

23.	 NationalAcademy of Sciences/National Research Council, Committee on the Biological 

Effects of Ionizing Radiations, Health Effects of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing 

Radiation (BEIR V), 1990. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

24.	 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Committee on the Biological 

Effects of Ionizing Radiations, Health Effects of Exposure to Radon (BEIR VI), 1999. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

25.	 Atomic Energy Act, Public Law 83-703, as amended, 42 USC 2011 et seq., 1954. 

26.	 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Roy L. Ash, 

Responsibility for Setting Radiation Protection Standards (Memo), December 7, 1973. 

27.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Radiation Protection for Nuclear Power Operations, 

Proposed Standards", in the Federal Register 40 FR 23420, May 29, 1975. 

70

28.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 190, Environmental Protection 

Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, Final Rule", in the Federal Register 42 FR 2858, 

January 13, 1977. 

29.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Radiation Dose Commitment: An 

Application to the Nuclear Power Industry, EPA-520/4-73-002, February 1974. 

30.	 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, Public Law 95-604, 92 Stat. 3021, 42 USC 

2022, et seq., 1994. 

31. 	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants; Addition of Radionuclides to List of Hazardous Air Pollutants", in the Federal 

Register 44 FR 76738, December 27, 1979. 

32.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 192, Standards for Remedial Actions 

at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites; Final Rule", in the Federal Register 48 FR 590, 

January 5, 1983. 

33.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 192, Environmental Standards for 

Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites; Final Rule", 

in the Federal Register 48 FR 196, October 7, 1983. 

34.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 192, Standards for Remedial Actions 

at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites; Proposed Rule", in the Federal Register 52 FR 36001. 

September 24, 1987. 

35.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 192, Groundwater Standards for 

Remedial Actions at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites; Final Rule", in the Federal Register 

60 FR 2854, January 11, 1995. 

36.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 61, National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Radionuclides; Final Rule and Notice of Reconsideration", in the 

Federal Register 54 FR 240, December 15, 1989. 

37.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 61, National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Final Rule", in the Federal Register 59 FR 36280, July 15, 1994. 

38.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental 

Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings; Final Rule", in the Federal Register 58 

FR 60340, November 15, 1993. 

39.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ground-Water Protection Standards for Inactive 

Uranium Tailings Sites (40 CFR 192), EPA-520/1-88-023, March 1989. 

40.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Final Environmental 

Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings at Active Sites, EPA-520/1-83-010, September 1983. 

71

41.	 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97-425, 42 USC 10101, January 7, 1983. 

42.	 Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 33 USC 1801 et seq., 1972. 

43.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR 220, Ocean Dumping, Final Revision of 

Regulations and Criteria", in the Federal Register 42 FR 2462, January 11, 1977. 

44.	 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, Public Law 96-573, as amended, 42 USC 2021b et 

seq., 1985. 

45.	 Low-Level Waste Forum, Summary Report Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management 

Activities in the States and Compacts, Vol. 6, No. 2, September 1998. 

46.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, RCRA Orientation Manual, EPA-530/R-98-004, 

May 1998. 

47.	 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Public Law 94-580, as amended, et seq., 1984. 

48.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Joint 

Guidance on the Storage of Mixed Low-level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste, August 

1995. 

49.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 266, Storage, Ttreatment, 

Transportation, and Disposal of Mixed Waste; Proposed Rule", in the Federal Register 64 

FR 63464, November 19, 1999. 

50.	 Foutes, C.E., Czyscinski, K., Colli, A., and Gruhlke, J., Benefits of Alternate Approaches to 

the Disposal of Low-Activity Mixed Waste, 1998. 

51.	 Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act, Public Law 102-579, as amended, 1992. 

52.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Recommendations for Federal Guidance, Criteria 

for Radioactive Wastes", in the Federal Register 43 FR 53262, November 15, 1978. 

53.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Withdrawal of Proposed Regulations Federal 

Register", in the Federal Register 46 FR 17567, March 19, 1981. 

54.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 191, Environmental Standards for the 

Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive 

Wastes; Final Rule", in the Federal Register 50 FR 38066, September 19, 1985. 

55.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 191, Environmental Standards for the 

Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive 

Wastes", in the Federal Register 47 FR 58196, December 29, 1982. 

56.	 NRDC vs. EPA, 824F.2d 1258 (1st Cir. 1987). 

72 
57.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 191, Environmental Radiation 

Protection Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level 

and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes", in the Federal Register 58 FR 66398, December 20, 

1993. 

58.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes ­

Background Information Document for Amendments to 40 CFR Part 191, EPA-402/R-93-

073, November 1993. 

59.	 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Disposal of Radioactive Wastes 

on Land, Publication 519, 1957. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

60.	 National Academy of Sciences/ National Research Council, Committee on Radioactive 

Waste Management, Disposal of Solid Wastes in Bedded Salt Deposits, November 1970. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

61.	 Memorandum Decision Granting Permanent Injunction. 783F. Supp. 633 (D.D.L. 1992). 

62.	 New Mexico v. Watkins, 969 F 2d 1122 (D.C. Cir. 1992). 

63.	 National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy Authorization Act of 1979, 

Public Law No 95-509. 

64.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of 

the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations, 

Final Rule", in the Federal Register 61 FR 5224, February 9, 1996. 

65.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compliance Application Guidance for 40 CFR Part 

194, EPA-402/R-95-014, March 29, 1996. 

66.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR 194, Criteria for the Certification and 

Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the Disposal 

Regulations: Certification Decision; Final Rule", in the Federal Register 63 FR 27354, May 

18, 1998. 

67.	 Department of Energy, Environmental Assessment Overview, Yucca Mountain Site, Nevada 

Research and Development Area, DOE/RW-0079, May 1986. 

68.	 Department of Energy, Recommendation by the Secretary of Energy of Candidate Sites for 

Site Characterization for the First Radioactive-Waste Repository, DOE/S-0048, May 1986. 

69.	 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987, Public Law 100-203, December 22, 1987. 

70.	 Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486, October 24, 1992. 

73

71.	 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Committee on Technical Bases 

for Yucca Mountain Standards, Technical Bases for Yucca Mountain Standards, 1995. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

72.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “40 CFR 197, Environmental Radiation Protection 

Standards for Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Propsed Rule", in the Federal Register 64 FR 

47012, 1999. 

73.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Yucca Mountain Background Information 

Document, 1999. 

74. 	 National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards, EPA-270/9-76-003, 1976. 

75.	 Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 USC 300f et.seq., 1974. 

76.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Drinking Water Regulations Radionuclides", in the 

Federal Register 41 FR 28402, July 9, 1976. 

77.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 

Radionuclides; Proposed Rule", in the Federal Register 56 FR 33050, July 18, 1991. 

78.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 

Radionuclides; Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule", in the Federal Register 65 FR 

21575, April 21, 2000. 

79.	 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Risk Assessment of Radon in 

Drinking Water, 1999. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

80.	 Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Parts 141 and 142, National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations; Radon-222, Proposed Rule", in the Federal Register 64 FR 59245, 

November 2, 1999. 

81.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Protecting the Nations Groundwater: EPA’s 

Strategy for the 1990s", 570/9-91-011FS, July 1991. 

82.	 Clean Air Act, 42 USC 7401 et seq., 1970. 

83.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 61, National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, Standards for Radionuclides", in the Federal Register 48 FR 

15076, April 6, 1983. 

84.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 61 National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Standards for Radionuclides, Final Rules", in the Federal Register 

50 FR 5190, February 6, 1985. 

74

85.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 61, National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, Standards for Radon-222 Emissions from Underground Uranium 

Mines; Final Rule", in the Federal Register 50 FR 15386, April 17, 1985. 

86.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 61, National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, Standards for Radon-222 Emissions from Licensed Uranium Mill 

Tailings; Final Rule", in the Federal Register 51 FR 34056, September 24, 1986. 

87.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 61, National Emissions Standards for 

Radionuclide Emissions From Facilities Licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

and Federal Facilities not Covered by Subpart H; Final Rule", in the Federal Register 61 FR 

68971, December 30, 1996. 

88.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 61, National Emissions Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants, National Emissions Standards for Radon Emissions from 

Phosphogypsum Stacks; Final Rule", in the Federal Register 57 FR 23305, June 3, 1992. 

89.	 National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Evaluation of Guidelines for 

Exposures to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials, 1999. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

90.	 Myrick, T., Berven, B., and Haywood, “Determination of Concentrations of Selected 

Radionuclides in Surface Soil in the U.S.,” Health Physics Journal, 45(3), 631-642, 1983. 

91.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Memorandum on Use of Soil Cleanup Criteria in 40 

CFR Part 192 as Remediation Goals for CERCLA Sites, Signed by Stephen T. Luftig, 

Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, and Larry Weinstock, Acting 

Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Directive No. 92000, 4-25, February 12, 1998. 

92.	 Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Natural Radioactivity Contamination 

Problems Report No. 1, a report of the Task Force, EPA-520/4-77-015, February 1978. 

93.	 Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Natural Radioactivity Contamination 

Problems Report No. 2, a report of the Committee, August 1981. 

94.	 Cox, J. R., "Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials in the Oilfield: Changing the Norm", 

Tulane Law Review, 67, 1197, 1993. 

95.	 Clean Water Act, 33 USC1251 et seq., 1972. 

96.	 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 USC 9601 et 

seq., 1980. 

97.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radionuclides Background Information Document 

for Final Rules Volume I, EPA-520/1-84-022-1, October 1984. 

75

98.	 Andrews, V.E., Emissions of Naturally Occurring Radioactivity: Stauffer Elemental 

Phosphorus Plant, EPA-520/6-82-019. 

99.	 Andrews, V.E., Emissions of Naturally Occurring Radioactivity: Monsanto Elemental 

Phosphorus Plant, EPA-520/6-82-021. 

100.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Suggested Guidelines for Disposal of Drinking 

Water Treatment Wastes Containing Radioactivity (Draft), June 1994. 

101.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "40 CFR Part 440, Ore Mining and Dressing Point 

Source Category; Final Rules", in the Federal Register 47 FR 54609, December 3, 1982. 

102.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Preliminary Findings Radon Daughter Levels in 

Structures Constructed on Reclaimed Florida Phosphate Land, Technical Note ORP/CSD75-4. 

103.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Indoor Radiation Exposure Due to Radium-226 In 

Florida Phosphate Lands, EPA-520/4-78-013, February 1979. 

104.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Issues Paper on Radiation Site Cleanup Regulations, 

EPA-402-R-93-084, September 1993. 

105.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites 

with Radioactive Contamination, OSWER Directive No. 9200, 4-18, August 22, 1997. 

106.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Use of Soil Cleanup Criteria in 40 CFR Part 192 as 

Remediation Goals for CERCLA Sites, OSWER Directive No. 9200, 4-25, February 12, 

1998. 

107.	 Wolbarst, Anthony B, et al, “Extent of the National Problem of Radioactive Contamination,” 

Health Physics, 77, 247-60, 1999. 

108. 	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Hazard Ranking System; Final Rule", in the 

Federal Register 55 FR 51532, December 14, 1990. 

109.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I 

Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final, EPA-540/1-89/002, December 

1989. 

110.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I ­

Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B), Development of Risk-Based Preliminary 

Remediation Goals Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA-540/R-92/003, 

December 1991. 

76

111.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I ­

Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part C), Risk Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives, 

Interim. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Directive 9285.7.01C., 1991. 

112.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Radiation Exposure and Risk Assessment Manual: 

Risk Assessment Using Radionuclide Slope Factors, EPA-402/R-96-016, 1996. 

113.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health Effects Summary Tables, EPA-540/R95/142, PB95-921101, 1995. 

114.	 Environmental Protection Agency, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation 

Manual (MARSSIM), EPA-402-R-97-016, December 1997. 

115.	 Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency Management, July 20, 1979. 

116.	 Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Federal Radiological Emergency Planning and 

Preparedness", in the Federal Register 47, 10758, March 1982. 

117.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Radiological 

Emergency Response Plan, EPA-402-R-00-003, January 2000. 

118.	 Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan 

(FRERP); Operational Plan; Notice", in the Federal Register 90, 20944, May 8, 1996. 

119.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective 

Actions for Nuclear Incidents, EPA-400-R-92-001, October 1991. 

120.	 General Services Administration, "Radiological Emergencies", in the Federal Register 40 FR 

5949, December 1975. 

121.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective 

Actions for Nuclear Incidents, EPA-520/1-75-001, September 1975. 

122.	 Presidential Decision Directive 39, US. Policy on Counterterrorism, June 21, 1995. 

123.	 Presidential Decision Directive 62, Protection Against Unconventional Threats to the 

Homeland and Americans Overseas, May 22, 1998. 

77

This page left intentionally blank. 

78