NRC FORM 658 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

(9-1999) 

TRANSMITTAL OF MEETING HANDOUT MATERIALS FOR 

IMMEDIATE PLACEMENT IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN 

This form is to be filled out (typed or hand-printed) by the person who announced the meeting (i.e., the 

person who issued the meeting notice). The completed form, and the attached copy of meeting handout 

materials, will be sent to the Document Control Desk on the same day of the meeting; under no 

circumstances will this be done later than the working day after the meeting. 

Do not include proprietary materials. 

DATE OF MEETING 

The attached document(s), which was/were handed out in this meeting, is/are to be placed 

11/05/2002 in the public domain as soon as possible. The minutes of the meeting will be issued in the 

near future. Following are administrative details regarding this meeting: 

Docket Number(s) N/A 

Plant/Facility Name N/A 

TAC Number(s) (if available) N/A 

Reference Meeting Notice See ML022950328 

Purpose of Meeting 

(copy from meeting notice) Public Meeting to discuss the NRC-EPA Memorandum 

of Understanding 

NAME OF PERSON WHO ISSUED MEETING NOTICE TITLE 

Eric R. Pogue Project Manager 

OFFICE 

NMSS 

DIVISION 

DWM 

BRANCH 

DCB 

Distribution of this form and attachments: 

Docket File/Central File 

PUBLIC

NRC FORM 658 (9-1999) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER This form was designed using InForms
AGENDA 

NRC-EPA MOU Public Meeting 

12:30-1:00 Meet and Greet (Poster Session) 

1:00-1:15 Welcome and Opening Remarks 

1:15-2:15 Overview of MOU (NRC/EPA) 

2:15-2:45 Public Questions 

2:45-3:00 NRC Next Steps/Guidance 

3:00-3:15 EPA Next Steps/Guidance 

3:15-3:30 Closing Remarks 

3:30-3:45 Public Questions 

3:45-4:30 Staff Available for Additional Discussion

Attachment
1

2002 MOU between 

NRC and EPA 

Bruce Means 

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, USEPA 

(Superfund) 

November 5, 2002

Purpose 

"* Describe MOU Status and History 

"* Provide Overview of MOU

MOU Status 

u NRC and EPA have completed MOU on 

how two agencies will coordinate during 

NRC decommissioning 

Under development since 2000
2

MOU intent 

* Minimize potential for site-specific issues due to inconsistent cleanup approaches 

* EPA expects vast majonty of NRC cleanups to meet CERCLA 

standards 

* MOU should result in: 

* More efficient use of federal dollars 

* Greater stakeholder confidence 

* Better working relationship between EPA and NRC

Background 

"* Since 1983, EPA has generally deferred NRC 

sites from listing on Superfund's NPL 

Agreement States and NRC license-terminated 

sites not covered 

"* In 1997, EPA raised possibility of withdrawing 

deferral policy during disagreement between 

EPA and NRC over acceptable cleanup levels

Congressional direction 

0 House Appropriation Committee FY 

2000 directed EPA and NRC to work on 

an MOU. 

- Subsequent reports have continued this 

direction.
3

"• MOU Overview 

* MOU focuses on coordination between 

EPA CERCLA authority and NRC 

decommissioning or previously license

terminated sites 

* One section refers back to EPA's existing 

policy under RCRA at NRC sites

MOU Overview (continued) 

* MOU provides consultation procedures 

for EPA and NRC 

* EPA reaffirms 1983 deferral policy 

Expanded to now cover previously 

licensed, in addition to currently licensed 

sites

Consultation Triggers 

* NRC will contact EPA when: 

,) Radionuclide MCLs will be exceeded in 

groundwater 

2) Residual soil levels will exceed 

concentrations in Table 1
4

Consultation Triggers (continued) 

* NRC will contact EPA when: 

3, NRC contemplates future use of site will 

be restricted by conditions in license 

termination 

NRC contemplates use of alternative 

criteria for license termination (i.e., site

specific dose greater than 25 mrem/yr 

may be allowed)

,, MOU Table 1 

"* Concentrations based on: 

* 1 x 10-4 cancer risk 

* UMTRCA as an ARAR (radium & thorium) 

* Hazard Index of 1 (total uranium) 

"* Residential and commercial/industrial 

land uses

Table 1 & MCLs 

* Table 1 and MCLs included since levels 

may be used by EPA as action levels at 

CERCLA sites
5

MOU limited to NRC 

"* MOU does not affect how CERCLA 

actions are conducted 

"* Table 1 does not establish cleanup levels 

"* CERCLA cleanups should still consider 10-6 

risk goal first (not 10-4) 

"* Agreement States not included 

* EPA would consider similar MOUs

MOU Contacts 

* Designated Contacts 

* NRC, Director, Office of Nuclear Materials 

Safety and Safeguards (Martin Virgilio) 

. John Greeves, daily contact 

* EPA, Director, Office of Emergency and 

Remedial Response (Mike Cook) 

* Stuart Walker, daily contact
6

Outreach Plans 

"* MOU and implementing guidance on 

Internet 

- http://www.epa.govlsuperfund/resources/r 

adiation/mou.htm 

"* Briefings for interested stakeholders

EPA Guidance 

* EPA implementation guidance to EPA 

Regions contained in transmittal note 

"* Caution: Transmittal note assumes familiarity with CERCLA. 

"* Clear, overarching goal: to implement the 

MOU as written.

N. EPA Guidance (continued) 

"* MOU does not affect CERCLA actions 

"* Explains rationale for consultation 

triggers
7

•[ New MOU? 

* House Report language (10/10/2002) 

asks for revised MOU 

* Should address EPA involvement "when 

requested by the NRC"
2

0, 

'Li 

Memorandum of Understanding 

BETWEEN EPA AND NRC 

John T. Greeves, Director 

Division of Waste Management, NMSS 

November 5, 2002

Background 

* 1992 MOU 

* NRC/EPA Controversy 

* 1997 NRC License Termination Rule 

* 1997 EPA Guidance 

* Risk Management Differences 

* 2000 GAO Report
2002 MOU

* Process to eliminate or 

dual regulation

mitigate

"* Congress directed language 

"* Success Between Agencies 

"* MOU does not relieve Licensees 

from meeting Part 20 Subpart E

4

DUAL REGULATION 

* Leads to Conflicts 

* Inefficient Use of Resources 

* Lack of Finality 

* Erodes Public Confidence 

3
6

Principles and 

Implementation 

* Establish a stable and predictable 

regulatory environment 

* Implement NRC and EPA 

responsibilities in a coordinated 

and consistent manner 

* Inform Congress and Stakeholders

Specific MOU Provisions 

"* EPA agrees to defer to NRC 

- Vast majority of NRC terminated licenses will not 

invoke MOU 

"* NRC agrees to consult with EPA when: 

- Site groundwater contamination exceeds EPA MCLs 

- Site soil concentrations exceed levels defined in 

MOU 

- NRC contemplates restricted release or alternate 

use criteria 

"* License Termination rule continues a 

dose criterion that encompasses all 

pathways.
8

COMPARISON OF MOU CONSULTATION 

VALUES TO NRC'S COMPLIANCE 

SCREENING CRITERIA 

H-3 2.1 Co-57 5.8 Cs-137 0.55 U-234 31 

C-14 3.8 Co-60 1.1 Eu-152ý 0.46 U-235 2.5 

Na-22 2.1 Ni-59 3.8 Eu-154 10.63 U-238 5.3 

S-35 73 Ni-63 4.5 Ir-192 8.2 Pu-238 120 

CI-36 17 Sr-90 14 Pb-210 17 Pu-239 110 

Ca-45 240 Nb9 0.34 Ra-226 7.1 Pu-241 560 

Sc-46 7 Tc-99 1.3 Ac-227 20 Am-241 89 

Mn-54 4.6 1-129 120 Th-228 3.2 Cm-242 200 

Fe-55 27 Cs-134 2.8 Th-232 4.5 Cm-243 11 

Values <1 = NRC's value is larger; 

Values >1 = MOU value is larger 

7

EXAMPLE 1 

"• A site has Sr-90 in Soil 

"• Requesting License Sr-90+D 

Termination 

"Must show compliance with NRC 1.7 pCi/g 

Past sw cScreening Part 20 Value 

"* Coordination with EPA MOU 23 pCi/g 

- Screening Criteria Residential 

- No Consultation with EPA Value 

- Site-specific modeling 

- No Consultation with EPA 

if <23 pCi/g
10

EXAMPLE 2 

"* A site has Cs-137 in Soil 

"° Requesting License Cs-137 

Termination 

" Must show compliance with NRC 11 pCi/g 

Part 20 Screening 

" Coordination with EPA Value 

- Screening Criteria 

• Consultation with EPA if 

ACTUAL concentrations MOU 6 pCi/g 

>6 pCi/g Residential - Site-specific modeling Value 

* Consultation with EPA if 

ACTUAL concentrations 

>6 pCi/g 

9

EXAMPLE 3 

* Site has Sr-90 in ground 

water 

* Current concentration is 

12 pCi/I 

* If concentration will be >8 EPA MCI 

pCi/I at time of license 

termination, NRC will 

consult with EPA. 

* Must show compliance 

with Part 20
Path Forward 

* Each agency will revise its 

guidance to address consultation 

role 

* NRC will continue to request 

legislation to eliminate dual 

regulation 

11
Table H.1 Acceptable License Termination Screening Values of Common 

Radionuclides for Building-Surface Contamination

Radionuclide Symbol Acceptable Screening Levelsa for 

Unrestricted Release (dpm/100 cm 2 )b 

Hydrogen-3 (Tritium) 3H 1.2E+08 

Carbon- 14 IT 3.7E+06 

Sodium-22 22

Na 9.5E+03 

Sulfur-35 3s 1.3E+07 

Chlorine-36 36C1 5.OE+05 

Manganese-54 54Mn 3.2E+04 

Iron-55 55

Fe 4.5E+06 

Cobalt-60 60Co 7. 1E+03 

Nickel-63 63

Ni 1.8E+06 

Strontium-90 9°Sr 8.7E+03 

Technetium-99 99Tc 1.3E+06 

Iodine- 129 1291 3.5E+04 

Cesium- 137 17Cs 2.8E+04 

Iridium- 192 1

921r 7.4E+04

Notes: 

a Screening levels are based on the assumption that the fraction of removable surface contamination is equal to 

0.1. For cases when the fraction of removable contamination is undetermined or higher than 0.1, users may 

assume for screening purposes that 100 percent of surface contamination is removable, and therefore the 

screening levels should be decreased by a factor of 10. Users may calculate site-specific levels using 

available data on the fraction of removable contamination and DandD version 2. 

b Units are disintegrations per minute (dpm) per 100 square centimeters (dpmf/100 cm 2). One dpm is equivalent 

to 0.0167 becquerel (Bq). Therefore, to convert to units of Bq/m2

, multiply each value by 1.67. The 

screening values represent surface concentrations of individual radionuclides that would be deemed in 

compliance with the 0.25 mSv/y (25 mrem/y) unrestricted release dose limit in 10 CFR 20.1402. For 

radionuclides in a mixture, the "sum of fractions" rule applies (see Part 20, Appendix B, Note 4).
Interim Screening Values' (pCilg) of Common Radionuclides for 

Soil Surface Contamination Levels

Radionuclide Symbol Surface Soil Screening ValueSb 

Hydrogen-3 3H1. 1 E+02 

Carbon- 14 IT1.2E+01 

Sodium-22 22 Na 4.3E+00 

Sulfur-35 3s2.7E+02 

Chlorine-36 36c1 3.6E-0OI 

Calcium-45 45 Ca 5.7E+O1I 

Scandium-46 4 6sC 1.5E+01 

Manganese-54 5 4 Mn 1.5E+01 

kron-55 55 Fe 1 OE-s04 

Cobalt-57 57co 1 .513+02 

Cobalt-60 60CO 3.8E+00 

Nickel-59 59Ni 5.5E+03 

Nickel-63 63 Ni 2. 1E+03 

Strontium-90 9OSr 1 .713+00 

Niobium-94 94Nb 5.8E+00 

Technetium-99 99

Tc 1 .9E+O 1 

Iodine- 129 1291 5.OE-O1 

Cesium- 134 13S5.7E+00 

Cesium-137 1.1S LE+O1 

Europium-152 152 Eu 8.7E+00 

Europium- 154 154 Eu 8.OE+OO 

Iridium- 192 1921r 4.IE+01 

Ltad-210 2 Ob9.OE-O1I 

Radium-226 22 .OE-O I 

Radium-226+C' 226 Ra+C 6.OE-O1 

Actinium-227 22 c5.OE-O1I 

Actinium-227+C 227 Ac+C 5.OE-O1 

Thorium-228 228Th 4.7E+00

Table H.2
Table H.2 Interim Screening Valuesa (pCi/g) of Common Radionuclides for 

Soil Screening Surface Contamination Levels (continued)

Radionuclide Symbol Surface Soil Screening Values' 

Thorium-228+Cc 228

Th+C 4.7E+00 

Thorium-230 23°Th 1.8E+00 

Thorium-230+C 230

Th+C 6.OE-01 

Thorium-232 232Th 1. 1E+00 

Thorium-232+C .

32

Th+C 1. 1E+00 

Protactinium-231 23 Tpa 3.OE-01 

Protactinium-231 +C 231 Pa+C 3.OE-0 1 

Uranium-234 2

34U 1.3E+01 

Uranium-235 235u 8.OE+00 

Uranium-235+C 235U+C 2.9E-01 

Uranium-238 238U 1.4E+01 

Uranium-238+C 238U+C 5.OE-01 

Plutonium-238 238pu 2.5E+00 

Plutonium-239 239

pu 2.3E+00 

Plutonium-241 24 1

pU 7.2E+01 

Americium-241 241Am 2.1 E+00 

Curium-242 242Cm 1.6E+02 

Curium-243 243Cm 3.2E+00

Notes: 

a These values represent surficial surface soil concentrations of individual radionuclides that would be deemed 

in compliance with the 25 mrem/y (0.25 mSv/y) unrestricted release dose limit in 10 CFR 20.1402. For 

radionuclides in a mixture, the "sum of fractions" rule applies; see Part 20, Appendix B, Note 4. 

b Screening values are in units of (pCi/g) equivalent to 25 mrem/y (0.25 mSv/y). To convert from pCi/g to 

units of becquerel per kilogram (Bqfkg), divide each value by 0.027. These values were derived using DandD 

screening methodology (NUREG/CR-5512, Volume 3). They were derived based on selection of the 90th 

percentile of the output dose distribution for each specific radionuclide (or radionuclide with the specific 

decay chain). Behavioral parameters were set at the mean of the distribution of the assumed critical group. 

The metabolic parameters were set at "Standard Man" or at the mean of the distribution for an average 

human. 

"c "Plus Chain (+C)" indicates a value for a radionuclide with its decay progeny present in equilibrium. The 

values are concentrations of the parent radionuclide but account for contributions from the complete chain of 

progeny in equilibrium with the parent radionuclide (NUREG/CR-5512 Volumes 1, 2, and 3).
I

Next Steps and Guidance 

John T. Greeves, Director 

Division of Waste Management, NMSS 

November 5, 2002

PUBLIC OUTREACH 

* Press Releases and FRNs 

* Today's Public Meeting 

* Continued participation in State and 

organizational meetings 

- 10/02 Fuel Cycle Forum 

- 10/02 California State Meeting 

-5/03 CRCPD Meeting
2

INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION 

Guidance letter to NRC Staff 

- Overview of MOU 

- Review decommissioning sites against 

MOU triggers 

- DWM to coordinate communication with 

EPA Headquarters

NRC GUIDANCE 

* In accordance with MOU, NRC will 

revise guidance within 6 months 

• MOU guidance will be incorporated 

into Consolidated Decommissioning 

Guidance (i.e., NUREG 1757)
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN 

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND 

THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

CONSULTATION AND FINALITY ON DECOMMISSIONING AND DECONTAMINATION OF 

CONTAMINATED SITES 

I. Introduction 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in 

recognition of their mutual commitment to protect the public health and safety and the 

environment, are entering into this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in order to establish a 

basic framework for the relationship of the agencies in the radiological decommissioning and 

decontamination of NRC-licensed sites. Each Agency is entering into this MOU in order to 

facilitate decision-making. It does not establish any new requirements or rights on parties not 

subject to this agreement. 

II. Purpose 

The purpose of this MOU is to identify the interactions of the two agencies for the 

decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites and to indicate the way in which 

those interactions will take place. Except for Section VI, addressing corrective action under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), this MOU is limited to the coordination 

between EPA, when acting under its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) authority, and NRC, when a facility licensed by the NRC is 

undergoing decommissioning, or when a facility has completed decommissioning, and the NRC 

has terminated its license. It continues a basic policy of EPA deferral to NRC decision-making in 

the decommissioning of NRC-licensed sites except in certain circumstances, and establishes 

the procedures to govern the relationship between the agencies in connection with the 

decommissioning of sites at which those circumstances arise. 

III. Background 

An August 3, 1999, report (106-286) from the House Committee on Appropriations to 

accompany the bill covering EPA's FY1999 Appropriations/FY 2000 budget request states: 

Once again the Committee notes that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) has and will continue to remediate sites under its jurisdiction to a level that 

fully protects public health and safety, and believes that any reversal of the 

long-standing policy of the Agency to defer to the NRC for cleanup of NRC's 

licensed sites is not a good use of public or private funds. The interaction of the 

EPA with the NRC, NRC licensees, and others, with regard to sites being 

remediated under NRC regulatory requirements--when not specifically requested 

by the NRC--has created stakeholder concerns regarding the authority and finality 

of NRC licensing decisions, the duration and costs of site cleanup, and the 

potential future liability of parties associated with affected sites. However, the 

Committee recognizes that there may be circumstances at specific NRC 

licensed sites where the Agency's expertise may be of critical use to the NRC. In

-1-
the interest of ensuring that sites do not face dual regulation, the Committee 

strongly encourages both agencies to enter into an MOU which clarifies the 

circumstances for EPA's involvement at NRC sites when requested by the NRC. 

The EPA and NRC are directed to report to the Committee on Appropriations no 

later than May 1, 2000, on the status of the development of such an MOU. 

Since September 8, 1983, EPA has generally deferred listing on the CERCLA National Priorities 

List (NPL) those sites that are subject to NRC's licensing authority, in recognition that NRC's 

actions are believed to be consistent with the CERCLA requirement to protect human health and 

the environment. However, as EPA indicated in the Federal Register notice announcing the 

policy of CERCLA deferral to NRC, if EPA "determines that sites which it has not listed as a 

matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency will consider listing those sites 

on the NPL" (see 48 FR 40658). 

EPA reaffirms its previous 1983 deferral policy. EPA expects that any need for EPA CERCLA 

involvement in the decommissioning of NRC licensed sites should continue to occur very 

infrequently because EPA expects that the vast majority of facilities decommissioned under 

NRC authority will be decommissioned in a manner that is fully protective of human health and 

the environment. By this MOU, EPA agrees to a deferral policy regarding NRC decision-making 

without the need for consultation except in certain limited circumstances as specified in 

paragraphs V.C.2 and V.C.3. 

One set of circumstances in which continued consultation should occur, pursuant to the 

procedures defined herein, relates to sites at which the NRC determines during the license 

termination process that there is radioactive ground-water contamination above certain limits. 

Pursuant to its License Termination rule, NRC applies a dose criterion that encompasses all 

pathways, including ground water. In its cleanup of sites pursuant to CERCLA, by contrast, EPA 

customarily establishes a separate ground-water cleanup standard in which it applies certain 

Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs, found at 40 CFR 141) promulgated for radionuclides and 

other substances pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act. NRC has agreed in this MOU to 

consult with EPA on the appropriate approach in responding to the circumstances at particular 

sites with ground-water contamination at the time of license termination in excess of EPA's 

MCLs or those sites for which NRC contemplates either restricted release or the use of alternate 

criteria for license termination, or radioactive contamination at the time of license termination 

exceeds the corresponding levels in Table 1 as provided in Section V.C.2. 

IV. Principles 

In carrying out their respective responsibilities, the EPA and the NRC will strive to: 

1. Establish a stable and predictable regulatory environment with respect to EPA's 

CERCLA authority in and NRC's decommissioning of contaminated sites. 

2. Ensure, to the extent practicable, that the responsibilities of the NRC under the AEA and 

the responsibilities of EPA under CERCLA are implemented in a coordinated and 

consistent manner.

-I-
V. Implementation

A. Scope 

This MOU is intended to address issues related to the EPA involvement under CERCLA in the 

cleanup of radiologically contaminated sites under the jurisdiction of the NRC. EPA will continue 

its CERCLA policy of September 8, 1983, which explains how EPA implements deferral 

decisions regarding listing on the NPL of any sites that are subject to NRC's licensing authority. 

The NRC's review of sites under NRC jurisdiction indicates that few of these sites have 

radioactive ground-water contamination in excess of the EPA's MCLs. At those sites at which 

NRC determines during the license termination process that there is radioactive ground-water 

contamination above the relevant EPA MCLs, NRC will consult with EPA and, if necessary, 

discuss with EPA the use of flexibility under EPA's phased approach to addressing ground-water 

contamination. NRC has agreed in this MOU to consult with EPA on the appropriate approach in 

responding to the circumstances at particular sites where ground-water contamination will 

exceed EPA's MCLs, NRC contemplates either restricted release or the use of alternate criteria 

for license termination, or radioactive contamination at the time of license termination exceeds 

the corresponding levels in Table 1 as provided in Section V.C.2. 

B. General 

Each agency will keep the other agency generally informed of its relevant plans and schedules, 

will respond to the other agency's requests for information to the extent reasonable and 

practicable, and will strive to recognize and ameliorate to the extent practicable any problems 

arising from implementation of this MOU. 

C. NRC Responsibilities 

1. NRC will continue to ensure remediation of sites under its jurisdiction to a level that fully 

protects public health and safety. 

2. For NRC-licensed sites at which NRC determines during the license termination process 

that there is radioactive ground-water contamination in excess of EPA's MCLs, or for which 

NRC contemplates either restricted release (10 CFR 20.1403) or the use of alternate 

criteria for license termination (10 CFR 20.1404), NRC will seek EPA's expertise to assist 

in NRC's review of a decommissioning or license termination plan. In addition, NRC will 

consult with EPA if either the planned level of residual radioactive soil concentrations in the 

proposed action or the actual residual level of radioactive soil concentrations found in the 

final site survey exceed the radioactive soil concentration in Table 1. With respect to all 

such sites, the NRC will consult with EPA on the application of the NRC decommissioning 

requirements and will take such action as the NRC determines to be appropriate based on 

its consultation with EPA. For example, if NRC determines during the license termination 

process that there will be radioactive ground-water contamination in excess of EPA's 

MCLs at the time of license termination, then NRC will discuss with EPA the use of 

flexibility under EPA's phased approach for addressing ground-water contamination. If 

NRC does not adopt recommendations provided by the EPA, NRC will inform EPA of the 

basis for its decision not to do so.
3. NRC will defer to EPA regarding matters involving hazardous materials not under NRC's 

jurisdiction. 

D. EPA Responsibilities 

1. If the NRC requests EPA's consultation on a decommissioning plan or license termination 

plan, EPA will provide, within 90 days of NRC's notice to EPA, written notification of its 

views on the matter. 

2. Consistent with this MOU, EPA agrees to a policy of deferral to NRC decision making on 

decommissioning without the need for consultation on sites other than those presenting 

the circumstances described in Sections V.C.2 and V.C.3. The agencies will consult with 

each other pursuant to the provisions of this MOU with respect to those sites presenting 

the circumstances described in Sections V.C.2 and V.C.3. EPA does not expect to 

undertake CERCLA actions related to radioactive contamination at a site that has been 

decommissioned in compliance with the NRC's standards, including a site addressed 

under Section V.C.2, despite the agencies decision to engage in consultation on such 

sites. EPA's deferral policy, and its expectation of not taking CERCLA action, continues to 

apply to sites that are covered under Section V.C.2. 

3. For NRC-licensed sites presenting the circumstances described in Section V.C.2 and for 

which NRC has not adopted the EPA recommendation, EPA will consult with NRC on any 

CERCLA actions EPA expects to take if EPA does not agree with the NRC's decision. 

4. EPA will resolve any CERCLA concerns involving hazardous substances outside of NRC's 

jurisdiction at NRC licensed sites, including concerns involving hazardous constituents that 

are not under the authority of NRC. As provided in Section V.D.2, EPA under CERCLA will 

defer or consult with NRC as appropriate regarding matters involving AEA materials under 

NRC's jurisdiction. 

E. Other Provisions 

1 Nothing in this MOU shall be deemed to establish any right nor provide a basis for any 

action, either legal or equitable by any person, or class of persons challenging a 

government action or failure to act. 

2. Each agency will appoint a designated contact for implementation of this MOU. The 

designated individuals will meet at least annually or at the request of either agency to 

review NRC-licensed sites that meet the criteria for consultation pursuant to Section V.C.2. 

The NRC designated contact is the Director, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and 

Safeguards, and the EPA designated contact is the Director Office of Emergency and 

Remedial Response, or as each designee delegates. 

3. This MOU will remain in effect until terminated by the written notice of either party 

submitted six months in advance of termination. 

4. Within six months of the execution of this MOU, each party will revise its guidance to its 

Headquarters and Regional Offices to reflect the terms of this MOU.

4 -
5. If differences arise that cannot be resolved by senior EPA and NRC management within 90 

days, then either senior EPA or NRC management may raise the issue to their respective 

agency head. 

Section VI. Corrective Action under RCRA 

Some NRC sites undergoing decommissioning may be subject to cleanup under RCRA 

corrective action authority. This authority, administered either by EPA or authorized states, 

requires cleanup of releases of hazardous waste or constituents at hazardous waste treatment, 

storage or disposal facilities. NRC sites subject to RCRA corrective action will be expected to 

meet RCRA cleanup standards for chemical contamination within EPA's jurisdiction. EPA 

Office of Solid Waste's policy is to encourage regional and State program implementers to 

coordinate RCRA cleanups with decommissioning, as appropriate, at those NRC sites subject 

to EPA's corrective action authority.1 

EPA will continue to support coordination of cleanups under the RCRA corrective action 

program with decommissioning at NRC sites consistent with its March 5, 1997 policy. In 

addition, under RCRA the majority of States are authorized to implement the corrective action 

requirements. States are not signatories to this MOU; however, EPA will encourage States to 

act in accordance with this policy where they have responsibility for RCRA corrective action at 

NRC sites undergoing decommissioning.

Items 1 and 3 of the "Other Provisions" of Section V. apply to this section. 

SEP 30 02 

Christine T. Whitman Date Ric ard A. Meserve D 

Administrator Chairman 

US Environmental Protection Agency US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

ate

1

See letter from Elizabeth Cotsworth, Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste to James R. 

Roewer, USWAG, dated March 5, 1997.

-5-
MOU Table 1: Consultation Triggers for Residential 

and Commercial/Industrial Soil Contamination

Except for radium-226, thorium-232, or total uranium, concentrations should be 

aggregated using a sum of the fraction approach to determine site specific consultation 

trigger concentrations. This table is based on single contaminant concentrations for 

residential and commercial/industrial land use when using generally accepted exposure 

parameters. Table users should select the appropriate column based on the site's 

reasonably anticipated land use.

Residential Industrial/Commercial 

Radionuclide Soil Concentration Soil Concentration 

H-3 228 pCiig 423 pCi!g 

C- 14 46 pCiig 123,000 pCiig 

Na-22 9 pCiig 14 pCi/g 

S-3 5 19,600 pCiig 32,200,000 pCL'g 

CI-36 6 pCi/g 10,700 pCi g 

Ca-45 13,500 pCii"g 3,1740,000 pCi-g 

Sc-46 105 pCi/g 169 pCig 

Mn- 54 69 pCi/g 112 pCig 

Fe-55 269,000 pCilg 2,210,000 pCi/g 

Co-57 873 pCi/g 1,420 pCii'g 

Co-60 4 pCi/g 6 pCi'g 

Ni-59 20,800 pCiig 1,230,000 pCi'g 

Ni-63 9,480 pCiig 555A000 pCiig 

Sr-90+D 23 pCiig 1,070 pCig 

Nb-94 2 pCilg 3 pCLig 

Tc-99 25 pCi/g 89,400 pCiig 

I-129 60 pCilg 1,080 pCLig 

Cs-134 16 pCi/g 26 pCig 

Cs-137 +D 6 pCiig 11 pCLig 

Eu-152 4 pCi..g 7 pCiLg 

Eu- 154 5 pCi g 8 pCi g

-6-
MOU Table 1: Consultation Triggers for Residential 

and Commercial/Industrial Soil Contamination

Except for radium-226, thorium-232, or total uranium, concentrations should be 

aggregated using a sum of the fraction approach to determine site specific consultation 

trigger concentrations. This table is based on single contaminant concentrations for 

residential and commercial/industrial land use when using generally accepted exposure 

parameters. Table users should select the appropriate column based on the site's 

reasonably anticipated land use.

Residential Industrial/Commercial 

Radionuclide Soil Concentration Soil Concentration 

Ir-192 336 pCiig 544 pCi/g 

Pb-2 10I+D 15 pCi/g 123 pCiLg 

Ra-226 5 pCi/g 5 pCi'g 

Ac-227+D 10 pCi/g 21 pCi~g 

Th-228-D 15 pCiig 25 pCi'g 

Th-232 5 pCi/g 5 pCiig 

*- 234 401 pCiig 3,310 pCi~g 

*U-235-D 20 pCi'g 39 pCivg 

U-238-D 74 pCi/g 179 pCi'g 

total uranium 47 mg/kg 1230 mg,-kg 

Pu-238 297 pCi/g 1,640 pCi/g 

Pu-239 259 pCiig 1,430 pCiig 

Pu-241 40,600 pCiig 172,000 pCi'g 

Am-241 187 pCi/g 568 pCilg 

Cm-242 32,200 pCi/g 344,000 pCiig 

Cm-243 35 pCi/g 67 pCL/g
List of Radionuclides addressed by 

4 mrem/yr man-made beta particles and photon emitters MCL standard1

Nuclide pCi/I Nuclide pCi/I Nuclide pCi/I Nuclide pCi/I 

H-3 20,000 Sr-85 m 20,000 Sb-124 60 Er-169 300 

Be-7 6,000 Sr-85 900 Sb-1 25 300 Er-1 71 300 

C-14 2,000 Sr-89 20 Te-125m 600 Tm-170 100 

F-18 2,000 Sr-90 8 Te-127 900 Tm-171 1,000 

Na-22 400 Sr-91 200 Te-127m 200 Yb-175 300 

Na-24 600 Sr-92 200 Te-129 2,000 Lu-1 77 300 

Si-31 3,000 Y-90 60 Te-1 29m 90 Hf-I 81 200 

P-32 30 Y-91 90 Te-131m 200 Ta-182 100 

S-35 inorg 500 Y-91 m 9,000 Te-1 32 90 W-1 81 1,000 

CI-36 700 Y-92 200 1-126 3 W-1 85 300 

CI-38 1,000 Y-93 90 1-129 1 W-1 87 200 

K-42 900 Zr-93 2,000 1-131 3 Re-1 86 300 

Ca-45 10 Zr-95 200 1-132 90 Re-1 87 9,000 

Ca-47 80 Zr-97 60 1-133 10 Re-1 88 200 

Sc-46 100 Nb-93m 1,000 1-134 100 Os-185 200 

Sc-47 300 Nb-95 300 1-135 30 Os-191 600 

Sc-48 80 Nb-97 3,000 Cs-131 20,000 Os-191m 9,000 

V-48 90 Mo-99 600 Cs-134 80 Os-193 200 

Cr-51 6,000 Tc-96 300 Cs-1 34m 20,000 Ir-1 90 600 

Mn-52 90 Tc-96m 30,000 Cs-1 35 900 Ir-1 92 100 

Mn-54 300 Tc-97 6,000 Cs-1 36 800 Ir-1 94 90 

Mn-56 300 Tc-97m 1,000 Cs-1 37 200 Pt-191 300 

Fe-55 2,000 Tc-99 900 Ba-1 31 600 Pt-1 93 3,000 

Fe-59 200 Tc-99m 20,000 Ba-140 90 Pt-193m 3,000 

Co-57 1,000 Ru-97 1,000 La-140 60 Pt-197 300 

Co-58 300 Ru-103 200 Ce-141 300 Pt-197m 3,000 

Co-58m 9000 Ru-105 200 Ce-143 100 Au-196 600 

Co-60 100 Ru-106 30 Ce-144 30 Au-198 100 

Ni-59 300 Rh-1 03m 30,000 Pr-1 42 90 Au-1 99 600 

Ni-63 50 Rh-105 300 Pr-143 100 Hg-197 900 

Ni-65 300 Pd-103 900 Nd-147 200 Hg-197m 600 

Cu-64 900 Pd-1 09 300 Nd-1 49 900 Hg-203 60 

Zn-65 300 Ag-1 05 300 Pm-1 47 600 TI-200 1,000 

Zn-69 6,000 Ag-11im 90 Pm-1 49 100 TI-201 900 

Zn-69m 200 Ag-11l 100 Sm-1 51 1,000 TI-202 300 

Ga-72 100 Cd-109 600 Sm-153 200 TI-204 300 

Ge-71 6,000 Cd-i 15 90 Eu-1 52 200 Pb-203 1,000 

As-73 1,000 Cd-115m 90 Eu-154 60 Bi-206 100 

As-74 100 In-113m 3,000 Eu-155 600 Bi-207 200 

As-76 60 I n-114m 60 Gd-153 600 Pa-230 600 

As-77 200 In-1 15 300 Gd-1 59 200 Pa-233 300 

Se-75 900 In-115m 1,000 Tb-160 100 Np-239 300 

Br-82 100 Sn-1 13 300 Dy-1 65 1,000 Pu-241 300 

Rb-86 600 Sn-125 60 Dy-166 100 Bk-249 2,000 

Rb-87 300 Sb-1 22 90 Ho-1 66 90

1For those isotopes where an MCL is calculated, concentration values were rounded using the same format 

as EPA guidance for the 1976 MCL rulemaking.
"°' Or, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY 

RESPONSE 

OSWER No. 9295.8-06a 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Distribution of Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission 

FROM : Michael B. Cook, / a s-V on s ,(A E

Office of EmergenyIai d ,'rre ial es onse (OER) 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

TO: Addressees 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit and explain the implementation of a final 

document entitled "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and 

Decontamination of Contaminated Sites" (OSWER 9295.8-06). This Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU) between EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identifies the interactions of the 

two agencies for only the decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites and the ways in 

which those responsibilities will be exercised. Except for Section VI, which addresses corrective action 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), this MOU is limited to the coordination 

between EPA, when acting under its Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) authority, and NRC, when a facility licensed by the NRC is undergoing 

decommissioning, or when a facility has completed decommissioning, and the NRC has terminated its 

license. 

This MOU does not address EPA's role under other statutory authorities. Also, the MOU does 

not address EPA's role at sites that are being addressed under CERCLA (e.g., a site where a removal 

action is occurring or that is listed on the National Priorities List (NPL)) or under RCRA Corrective 

Action authorities, except when NRC is decommissioning a facility or when NRC has completed 

decommissioning a facility and terminated its license at the same site. The MOU provides new 

guidance only when EPA acting under CERCLA authority, and NRC need to consult during the 

decommissioning and decontamination process as part of NRC's license termination of a facility.
The MOU does not establish any rights or responsibilities that may be enforced against the 

government. For example, the MOU does not establish protective cleanup or action levels. This 

documnent provides guidance to EPA Regions exercising responsibility under CERCLA and RCRA 

concerning the MOU between EPA and NRC. The CERCLA or RCRA provisions described in this 

document contain legally binding requirements. However, this document does not substitute for those 

provisions, nor is it a regulation. Thus, it cannot impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, NRC, 

States, or the regulated community, and may not apply to a particular situation depending upon the 

circumstances. EPA decisionmakers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis 

that differ from this guidance where appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in the future. 

BACKGROUND 

The House Committee on Appropriations has directed EPA and NRC to work together on an 

MOU. The Committee first addressed the issue of EPA/NRC coordination at NRC licensed or 

decommissioned sites in the House Committee on Appropriations Report 106-286, Department of 

Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriation Bill 

1999, pages 58-59, August 3, 1999. Subsequent Reports by the Committee have continued this 

direction (Report 106-674, page 58, June 12, 2000, Report 107-159, page 65, July 25, 2001). The 

attached MOU represents an agreement between EPA and NRC that addresses the concerns of this 

Committee. 

OBJECTIVE 

The objective of this memorandum is to transmit to you and provide additional clarification of 

the MOU with NRC for CERCLA response actions and to provide supporting information. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

The following subsections provide a discussion of sites covered by the MOU, lack of MOU 

applicability at CERCLA sites, MOU consultation triggers and their basis, and the MOU consultation 

strategy for EPA. 

1. MOU Covered Sites 

The MOU covers any facility that is licensed by the NRC and undergoing 

decommissioning and decontamination, or that has completed decommissioning and the NRC 

has terminated its license. It is limited to those facilities that meet one or more of the 

consultation triggers specified in the MOU. It does not address NRC-Agreement State 

licensed facilities or facilities decommissioned by such states. This is a continuation of EPA's 

current policy of deferral, which does not include NRC-Agreement State licensees.
At some sites, EPA may be conducting a removal action, or the site may be listed on 

the NPL, while remaining an NRC licensed facility. If, during the decommissioning process or 

after the decommissioning process has been completed and one or more of the consultation 

triggers are met at such a site provisions of the MOU consultation procedure would come into 

effect. 

EPA is committed to maintaining a constructive dialogue with NRC on sites of potential 

mutual interest as identified by this MOU. Although this MOU addresses specific interactions 

with NRC related to the decommissioning of contaminated sites, EPA intends to maintain an 

open dialogue with NRC on other issues as well. Therefore, communication with NRC on sites 

not subject to this MOU should occur as the need arises. 

11. Limits to MOU Applicability at CERCLA Sites 

The MOU does not govem how response actions (e.g., removal or remedial) are 

conducted under CERCLA authority, at either NPL or non-NPL sites. Response actions 

conducted under CERCLA authority should continue to use the CERCLA response 

approach, including the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP) and EPA guidance documents. Cleanup levels for response actions under CERCLA 

are developed based on applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), site

specific risk assessments, and/or to-be-considered material' (TBCs). Where ARARs are not 

available or are not sufficiently protective, EPA generally sets site-specific remediation levels 

for: 1) carcinogens at a level that represents an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to an 

individual of between 10` to 10.6 (with 106 as the point of departure); and for 2) non

carcinogens such that the cumulative risks from exposure will not result in adverse effects to 

human populations (including sensitive sub-populations) that may be exposed during a lifetime 

or part of a lifetime, incorporating an adequate margin of safety. (See 40 

C.F.R.§300.430(e)(2)(i)(A)(2).) The site-specific cleanup levels are deternined using the nine 

criteria specified in Section 300.430(e)(9)(iii) of the NCP. EPA has provided guidance 

regarding how radioactive contaminants should be addressed at CERCLA sites, which is 

available on the Intemet at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/isuperfund/resources/radiation/index.htn

III. MOU Consultation Triggers 

The MOU establishes four triggers for when EPA and NRC will consult on the 

radiological decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites. These four 

ITo-be-considered material (TBCs) are non-promulgated advisories or guidance issued by Federal or State 

governments that are not legally binding and do not have the status of potential ARARs. However. TBCs will be 

considered along with ARARs as part of the site risk assessment and may be used in determining the necessary 

level of cleanup for protection of health and the environment.

-3-
consultation provisions are triggered when NRC determines one or more of the following will or 

may be exceeded during the license termination process: 

1. NRC determines that residual levels in groundwater will exceed radionuclide Maximum 

Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or 

2. Residual levels in soil will exceed the soil concentrations in "MOU Table 1: 

Consultation Triggers for Residential and Commercial/Industrial Soil Contamination," or 

3. NRC contemplates that future use of the site will be restricted by conditions contained 

in the license termination (as specified in 10 C.F.R. 20.1403), or 

4. NRC contemplates the use of alternative criteria for license termination (i.e., a site

specific dose greater than NRC's primary dose limit of 25 mrermvr may be allowed)2. 

The consultation triggers determine when NRC and EPA consult on sites. They do not imply a 

level below which radionuclide levels would be deemed protective. These consultation triggers 

represent situations where EPA and NRC would benefit most from sharing knowledge and 

technical experiences to address the situation. These triggers were developed to identify the 

potential areas that would benefit most from an EPA/NRC dialogue and that would have the 

highest potential for CERCLA involvement. These consultation triggers provide information to 

industry and other stakeholders of when it is most likely that EPA and NRC will interact on 

these sites. Although the MOU only addresses certain interactions with NRC and provides a 

framework for consultation under the MOU when triggered, EPA intends to continue to have a 

positive dialogue on other sites where consultation has not been triggered by the MOU. The 

MOU's consultation triggers do not provide any new guidance to CERCLA site decision

makers regarding when CERCLA response actions should be taken, or how CERCLA 

response actions should be conducted, and do not represent levels that are deemed to be 

protective or unprotective. 

Basis for Restricted Future Use and Alternative Criteria Consultation Triggers 

The third and fourth consultation triggers (i.e., restricted future use, and alternative 

criteria of site-specific dose limits of greater than 25 rnrem/yr) were identified as consultation 

triggers because these represent scenarios that have the potential for greater exposure and 

2NRC's decommissioning regulations require that NRC shall notifx' and solicit comments from EPA in this 

situation (see 20 C.F.R. 20. 1405). Inclusion of this consultation trigger should not be interpreted as EPA changing its 

previous guidance regarding 25 trem/yr. Generally, regions should not use dose-based ARARs greater than 15 

mrem, yr effective dose equivalent to establish cleanup levels under CERCLA, and should not use dose-based 

recommendations as TBCs (see OSWER Publication 9200.4-31 P "Radiation Risk Assessment At CERCLA Sites: Q & 

A'" December 1999 and transmittal memno from Steve Luftig to EPA regions entitled "Distribution of OSWER 

Radiation Risk Assessment 0 & A's Final Guidance" December 17, 1999.)

4
therefore, there is additional potential for CERCLA concern. Again, the consultation triggers 

do not imply an endorsement of these levels as cleanup levels but rather that they are 

appropriate levels to trigger consultation. 

Basis for MCLs and Table I Consultation Triggers 

Two of the consultation triggers (MCLs and soil concentrations in MOU Table 1) were 

included to provide NRC with a simplified framework for determining when groundwater and 

soil radiological contamination levels are at levels which have a greater potential for EPA 

concern. 

This potential for EPA concern is derived from EPA's policies for taking action under 

CERCLA at a site. At a CERCLA site, EPA's decision to take action is based on risk using 

reasonably anticipated land use considerations and may also be based on requirements (e.g.. 

Federal and State environmental regulations that are potential ARARs) that help define 

protectiveness. Unless there are current or potential adverse environmental effects, EPA 

generally would not consider action under CERCLA warranted if all of the following four 

circumstances are met.

1. The cumulative carcinogenic risk to an individual is estimated at less than 10-' for the 

reasonably anticipated land use based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario. 

Although 1 x 10` is not a discrete upper boundary, EPA generally uses I x 10.4 in 

making risk management decisions. 

2. Noncarcinogenic hazard index (HI) to an individual is estimated at less than 1 

for the reasonably anticipated land use based on a reasonable maximum exposure 

scenario. EPA calculates HI for uranium to account for kidney toxicity. 

3. MCLs or non-zero Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) are not exceeded in 

groundwaters that are current or potential sources of drinking water. 

4. Other chemical-specific ARARs that define acceptable risk levels are not exceeded. 

Chemical-specific ARARs usually are either health- or risk-based numerical values or 

methodologies that establish the acceptable amount or concentration of a chemical that 

may remain in or be discharged to the environment. Several chemical-specific Federal 

IFor further information regarding when EPA takes remedial action under CERCLA, see OSWER Directive 

9355.0-30. "Role of Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions," April 22, 1991.
ARARs (e.g., soil standards in 40 C.F.R. Part 192 issued under the Uranium Mill 

Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA), MCLs, and non-zero (MCLGs), are used 

as benchmarks for determining if sites should be listed on the NPL4. 

While the basis for selecting Table 1 soil levels and MCLs as consultation triggers is 

related to the four factors listed above, additional information is necessary to understand the 

basis for the Table 1 soil levels that trigger consultation. Table 1 is a list of 37 radionuclides with 

soil concentrations based on either a residential or industrial/commercial land use scenario. 

These radionuclides were selected because they were considered the radionuclides with the 

greatest potential for being a contaminant in soil at an NRC facility> Table 1 levels are based 

either on ARARs (40 C.F.R. 192), HI of 1, or a I x 10' excess carcinogenic risk based on 

residential and industrial/commercial land use. Residential and industrial/commercial land uses 

were selected because these were considered the most restrictive, reasonably anticipated land 

uses at nearly all NRC facilities that may have significant radioactive soil contamination. 

In Table 1, the 5 pCi/g soil concentrations for radiun-226 and thorium-232 are based 

on soil standards developed under the UMTRCA and implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. 

192). The UMTRCA standard is often identified as an ARAR at CERCLA sites and generally 

determines protective levels for radium-226 and thorium-232. For further information 

regarding how EPA interprets this potential ARAR, see OSWER Directive 9200.4-25, "Use of 

Soil Cleanup Criteria in 40 CFR Part 192 as Remediation Goals for CERCLA sites." 

The soil concentrations (mg/kg) for total uranium are based on a HI of 1, calculated 

using the Soil Screening electronic calculator. The soil screening approach was developed by 

EPA to identify and define areas, contaminants, and conditions at a particular site that do not 

require further Federal attention. This calculation tool may be found on the Internet at: 

http:u/risk.lsd.ornl.gov/calc start.htm. 

For the remainder of radionuclides, the soil concentrations (pCiig) are based on a I x 

10-' cancer risk, developed using an electronic calculator entitled: "Radionuclide Preliminary 

Remediation Goals (PRGs) for Superfund." This calculator generates PRG concentrations at 

the I x 10.6 risk level. The PRG value at 1 x 10-' was multiplied by 100 to derive the I x 10' 

4

For further discussion how chemical-specific Federal ARARs are used as benchmarks when sites are 

ealuated by EPA for potential listing on the NPIL. see the lHazard Ranking System (IIRS) Final Rule, 55 FR 51532 

(December 14, 1990). 

5NRC had developed screening values for surface soil contamination release levels for them in a Federal 

Register notice entitled "Supplemental Information on the Implementation of the Final Rule on Radiological Criteria 

for [.icctise fermination' (see 64 FR 68395, December 7, 1999).

( -
value for Table I consultation triggers. (At CERCLA sites, PRGs based on cancer risk 

should continue to be developed at the 1 x 10-' level.) The radionuclide PRG 

calculation tool may be found on the Internet at: http://epa-prgs.oml.gov/radionuclides'. 

The residential and commercial/industrial risk (both cancer and noncancer) estimates 

for soil were developed using the default reasonable maximum exposure scenarios found in 

EPA guidance documents "Soil Screening Guidance for Radionuchides: User's Guide." October 

2000 (OSWER 9355.4-16A) and "Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening 

Levels for Superfund Sites," February 2001 (OSWER 93 55.4-24). 

Table 1 and MCL Caveats 

The Table 1 soil levels do not necessarily constitute protective soil concentration values. 

Land use and other site-specific circumstances influence the soil concentration values that 

constitute protective levels for a given situation. The soil concentration values using I x 10-4 

cancer risk and HI of 1 for total uranium were developed using conservative default 

parameters. At most sites, higher soil concentrations corresponding to a given risk level 

generally may be justified using site-specific parameters. 

On the other hand the generic risk assessment scenarios used to develop soil 

concentration values in Table 1 may not account for certain exposures that may be cause for 

concern at an NRC facility. For example: 

I. Site is adjacent to contaminated surface water bodies. 

2. Contamination presents potential ecological concerns. 

3. Additional likely human exposure pathways exist (e.g., an agricultural scenario that 

includes consumption of livestock and additional produce). 

4. Unusual site conditions exist (e.g., large areas of contamination, unusually high fugitive 

dust levels). 

The soil concentration values do not account for migration into groundwater, which could cause 

groundwater contamination in the future to exceed MCLs. Also, the presence of multiple 

contaminants may lead to a potential concern that non-radionuclide (chemical) contaminants or 

radionuclides-not in Table I-may cause residual levels to rise above 1 x 10' or an HI of 1. 

Multiple contaminants may result in EPA potential concern for human health or the environment 

even when chemical specific ARARs (e.g., UMTRCA soil standards or MCLs) are being met. 

Table I also does not consider State regulations (e.g., exceedance of State MCLs) which could 

be used to determine protectiveness.
IV. Coordination Policy

The MOU designates the EPA principal contact as the Director, Office of Emergency 

and Remedial Response (OERR). The NRC designated contact is the Director, Office of 

Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. EPA and NRC intend that communication related to 

potential CERCLA interest and NRC communication about sites that meet or exceed the 

consultation triggers will be discussed initially at that level. On a site-specific basis, it is 

expected that follow-up discussions would happen at the staff level at Headquarters (HQ) and 

the Regions. 

Regions are requested to contact OERR as issues arise for sites that may potentially be 

subject to this MOU. This request for consultation is an expansion of the request contained in 

OSWER Directive 9272.0-15P, "Interim Final Evaluation of Facilities Currently or Previously 

Licensed NRC Sites under CERCLA." When considering requests for listing a former or 

current NRC licensed facility, the Regions should contact Robert Myers (703) 603-8851, 

OERR. When considering requests to evaluate the protectiveness of a previous or proposed 

NRC decommissioning or to engage otherwise in dialogue regarding NRC cleanup levels and 

CERCLA standards of protectiveness with the NRC, the licensee, or stakeholders at the site 

outside the context of the MOU, the Regions should contact Stuart Walker (703) 603-8748, 

OERR. When considering a removal action at a former or currently NRC-licensed facility, the 

Regions should contact Craig Beasley (703) 603-9015, OERR. 

The four MOU consultation triggers are provisions for initiating dialogue only, and 

identifying those sites that should be under consultation between NRC and EPA. We 

anticipate that the vast majority of NRC-licensed sites undergoing decontamination and 

decommissioning will be cleaned to protective levels and no EPA/CERCLA consultation will be 

necessary. In other cases, we anticipate that a dialogue on ways of achieving protective levels, 

including the range of flexibility available under CERCLA (e.g., phased approach to addressing 

groundwater contamination or remediating sites to allow for the reasonably anticipated land 

use) will be beneficial. EPA and NRC have worked closely together over the last three years 

as this MOU was developed. We anticipate that EPA and NRC will continue to work 

cooperatively on sites of mutual interest in the future. 

FURTHER INFORMATION 

The subject matter specialists for this MOU are Stuart Walker (703-603-8748) and Robin M. 

Anderson (703-603-8747) of OERR. 

Addressees: 

National Superfuind Policy Managers 

Superfund Branch Chiefs (Regions I-X)

-S-
Superfund Branch Chiefs, Office of Regional Counsel (Regions I-X) 

Radiation Programn Managers (Regions I, 1V,, VI. VII, X) 

Radiation Branch Chief (Region 1I) 

Residential Domain Section Chief (Region llI) 

Radiation and Indoor Air Program Branch Chief (Region VIII) 

Radiation and Indoor Office Director (Region IX) 

Federal Facilities Leadership Council 

OERR Center Directors and Senior Process Managers 

OERR NARPM co-chairs 

cc: Elizabeth Cotsworth, ORIA 

Jim Woolford, FFRRO 

Robert Springer, OSW 

Elliott Gilberg, FFEO 

Barry Breen, OSRE 

Joanna Gibson, HOSC!OERR 

Earl Salo, OGC 

Jeff Josephson, Region II 

Marianne Horinko, OSWER 

Mike Shapiro, OSWER 

Tom Dunne, OSWER 

Jeff Denit. OSWER