Interagency Steering Committee on

Radiation Standards

1998 Annual Report

INTERAGENCY STEERING COMMITTEE ON

RADIATION STANDARDS

1998 ANNUAL REPORT

Table of Contents

Historical Introduction .......................................................... 3

Foreword .................................................................... 4

1998 ISCORS Planned Activities ................................................. 5

1999 ISCORS Planned Activities ................................................. 6

1998 and 1999 Subcommittee Activities

 and Summary of 1998 Accomplishments .......................................... 7

ISCORS Member List ......................................................... 16

Subcommittee Member List ..................................................... 20

Appendices

ISCORS Charter ............................................................ A-1

Institutional Controls Fact Sheets ............................................... B-1
3

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

INTERAGENCY STEERING COMMITTEE ON RADIATION STANDARDS

The Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) was formed in response

to an October 27, 1994, letter from Senator John Glenn to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Office of Science

and Technology Policy (OSTP). In this letter Senator Glenn charged EPA and the NRC, in

coordination with the Committee on Interagency Radiation Research and Policy Coordination

(CIRRPC), to develop a plan for a "path forward" to address the inconsistencies, gaps, and

overlaps in current radiation protection standards. ISCORS is also one of the committees OSTP

recommended for achieving the goals of the former CIRRPC, now defunct.

The objectives of the ISCORS include: (1) facilitating a consensus on acceptable levels of

radiation risk to the public and workers; (2) promoting consistent risk assessment and risk

management approaches in setting and implementing standards for occupational and public

protection from ionizing radiation; (3) promoting completeness and coherence of Federal

standards for radiation protection; and (4) identifying interagency issues and coordinate their

resolution.

Since its inception, NRC and the EPA have co-chaired the ISCORS. The current co-chairs are

John T. Greeves, NRC, and Lawrence G. Weinstock, EPA. In addition to NRC and EPA,

ISCORS membership also includes senior managers from the Department of Defense, the

Department of Energy, the Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Health and Human

Services. Representatives of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), OSTP, and the

States are observers at meetings.

Committee meetings involve pre-decisional intragovernmental discussions and, as such, are

not normally open for observation by members of the public or media. However, summary

meeting notes are available in NRC's Public Document Room. The committee does not act

as a decision-making body. Instead, it provides recommendations on specific issues to the

heads of member agencies, OMB, and OSTP. The committee meets approximately once

each calendar quarter. ISCORS held its first meeting on April 5, 1995.

The full ISCORS committee establishes subcommittees to conduct the committee's technical

work. The full committee establishes these subcommittees as needed to address specific issues of

concern or significant interest to ISCORS. ISCORS has formed the following subcommittees:

cleanup; mixed waste; recycle; risk harmonization; sewage sludge; Naturally Occurring

Radioactive Materials (NORM); and Federal Guidance. The subcommittee activity section of this

report summarizes the activities of each of the subcommittees.
4

FOREWORD

The Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) prepared this document to report

to ISCORS member agencies on ISCORS' activities and plans. It identifies both past accomplishments, and

goals for the future that will be a basis for assessing performance in 1999. We wish to take this opportunity

to thank the members of ISCORS for their participation and contributions to many topics discussed over

the past year regarding radiation issues important to the public; federal, state and local agencies; and

national and international communities. In addition, we extend compliments to all the subcommittee chairs

and their members for significant support and accomplishments within the past year on numerous radiation

issues, and for developing useful information, examples of which are attached in this report. The full

ISCORS met in March, June, September, and December 1998. The June 1998 meeting was open to the

public for observation. At each full committee meeting, the subcommittees report on their yearly activities

and progress. The full committee also reviews special topics, some of which included federal agency

comment and consensus on the U.S. Department of Energy's Order on Radiological Control Criteria for

hazardous waste, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) branch technical position on

Cs-137-contaminated steel mill baghouse dust, and the development of Freedom of Information Act

procedures for committee members.

The ISCORS Charter (see appendix) states that the chair's role be revisited every two years and

consideration be given to rotating the chair to other agencies. At the December 1998 ISCORS meeting,

members reviewed the chair's role and agreed that the NRC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) should continue as co-chairs for another two years. In addition, in 1998 ISCORS extended

membership to the Department of State (DOS) because of new DOS initiatives regarding the control of

radioactive sources. Procedurally the ISCORS membership also agreed that the official agency

representative may delegate the role of agency representative to another employee of that agency. EPA and

NRC coordinators separated the host and chair responsibilities for efficiency and committed to announce

meeting locations one month in advance to allow maximum membership attendance.

The ISCORS members' also proposed to continue to nominate annual activities for the subcommittees and

added "Federal Guidance" as a new subcommittee. The "ISCORS Annual Summary Report" is a new

collaboration to document activities of ISCORS and its subcommittees. We expect to issue future annual

reports that can be used as a ready reference and broad overview of committee activities by all participating

members and stakeholders. You may send comments on the report to Ms. Patricia A. Santiago, NRC, Mail

Stop T7F27, Washington, D.C. 20555; or Mr. F. James Cumberland, EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor

Air (6602J), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

ISCORS Co-chairs:

Mr. John T. Greeve', Director

Division of Waste Management, Mail Stop T-7J8

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

Mr. Lawrence Weinstock, Director

Radiation Protection Division

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (6601J)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, S.W

Washington, DC 20460
5

1998 ISCORS PLANNED ACTIVITIES

1. The Cleanup Subcommittee will participate in the review of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission's (NRC's) decommissioning regulatory guide.

2. The Cleanup Subcommittee will review cleanup codes in terms of assumptions and parameters.

3. The Mixed Waste Subcommittee will share information on treatment and disposal of commercial

mixed waste.

4. The Recycle Subcommittee will review and compare the NRC and EPA technical bases and

cost-benefit analysis for recycling of radioactive material.

5. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will make a recommendation on whether to hold a

workshop on institutional controls.

6. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will review the proposal on evaluating uniform risk

standards, after reviewing the results of the Environmental Law Institute's risk workshop in June 1998.

7. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will review the results of the Biological Effects of Ionizing

Radiation (BEIR) VI and the BEIR VII scoping studies and provide a summary to the full ISCORS.

8. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will form a working group for Federal Guidance Report 14.

9. The Sewage Subcommittee will review the results of the sewage survey questionnaire, which is

expected to be distributed in the first half of 1998.

10. The Sewage Subcommittee will revise the guidance document to take into account industry and

State comments and distribute the document for public comment.

11. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will review public comments received on Federal Guidance

Report 13 and provide a summary to the full ISCORS.
6

LIST OF ISCORS PLANNED 1999 ACTIVITIES

Clean-up Subcommittee (CTrottier)

1. Participate in the review of NRC's decommissioning regulatory guide.

2. Review clean-up codes in terms of assumptions and parameters.

3. Review and compile list of models.

Mixed Waste (AWallo)

4. Complete technical analysis of DOE RCC supporting documentation.

5. Provide input to resolving any RCC issues.

6. Provide input to CRCPD reviews and workshops on RCC concept.

7. Coordinate on EPA “Generally Applicable standard on RCRA Mixed Waste Disposal.”

Recycle (Clean Metals) Subcommittee (J Karhnak)

8. Discuss the need for NRC and EPA to develop a consistent set of normalized dose tables for

carbon steel.

9. Initiate discussions for normalized dose tables for aluminum and copper.

10. Review and participate in, as appropriate, NRC rule making for recycling of materials.

11. Monitor DOS initiative on source control.

Risk Harmonization Subcommittee (DO'Connor)

12. Update Institutional Control Fact Sheets and provide a recommendation on whether to hold a

workshop on institutional controls.

13. Provide recommendations for Phase II of evaluating uniform risk standards after reviewing the

results of the ELI risk workshop in June 1998.

Sewage Sludge Subcommittee (RBastian)

14. Complete final “Report on Survey Design and Test Sites” (including “Radiation Reference

Document") for public release on the EPA home page website.

15. Complete FOIA appeal response.

16. AMSA/WEF letter & guidance sent to candidate POTWs for survey effort.

17. Mail out full survey questionnaire.

18. Issue updated “Joint NRC/EPA Guidance Document for POTWs"

19. Initiate full survey sample collection/analysis.

20. Continue activities of Dose Modeling Subgroup.

NORM Subcommittee (LSetlow)

21. Input to development of EPA NORM Strategy.

22. Review ANSI proposed standards for NORM.

23. Review CRCPD proposed standards for NORM.

24. Evaluate need to update existing regulations/standards affecting TENORM, in coordination with

Federal Guidance Subcommittee.

25. Consider recommendation to OSHA to update its standard to adopt NRC 10CFR20.
7

Federal Guidance Subcommittee (J Rosenberq)

26. Develop a ranked list of Federal Guidance projects to undertake (short and long term).

27. Maintain a process for communicating and coordinating on FG projects and activities.

28. Review comments on Federal Guidance Report 13 and provide summary to ISCORS.

1998 and 1999 SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIVITIES AND

SUMMARY OF 1998 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Cleanup Subcommittee Hiqhliqhts

Subcommittee Chair: Cheryl Trottier, NRC 301-415-6232

The Cleanup Subcommittee is evaluating radionuclide concentrations for screening

decommissioning sites.

1998 Planned Activities and Accomplishments:

1. The Cleanup Subcommittee will participate in the review of the NRC's decommissioning

regulatory guide.

At a telecon meeting on July 15,1998, subcommittee members were asked to comment on

NRC's regulatory guide. The subcommittee will continue discussions on the regulatory

guide at its next meeting in early 1999. The subcommittee plans on providing complete

comment to NRC, on its regulatory guide, by the end of 1999. The subcommittee plans to

provide a summary of its comments to the full ISCORS.

2. The Cleanup Subcommittee will review cleanup codes in terms of assumptions and

parameters.

Initial discussions of cleanup code assumptions and parameters began in July 1998. The

subcommittee held a second meeting on September 2, 1998. Although there has been

extensive discussion on the approach that the subcommittee should use, the subcommittee

has not reached any conclusions on its preferred approach. The subcommittee plans to

carry this item as an activity in 1999. It plans to make a recommendation to the full

ISCORS by the end of 1999.

1999 Planned Activities:

1. Participate in the review of NRC's decommissioning regulatory guide.

2. Review cleanup codes in terms of assumptions and parameters.

3. Review and compile a list of models.
8

Mixed Waste Subcommittee Highlights

Subcommittee 1998 chair: Andy WaIIo, DOE 202-586-4996

 1999 chair: Gus Vazquez, DOE 202-586-7629

The Mixed Waste Subcommittee is a forum for exchanging information on mixed waste.

1998 Planned Activities and Accomplishments:

3. The Mixed Waste Subcommittee will share information on treatment and disposal of

commercial mixed waste.

During the year, subcommittee members shared information on the status of their various

agency initiatives. The subcommittee provided this information to ISCORS at its quarterly

meetings. Major agency activities that the subcommittee discussed included:

S Information on the status of EPA’s storage and disposal of commercial mixed waste

(MW) rule making, and its extension of the policy of lower enforcement priority for

storage of untreatable MW.

S EPA’s low activity MW initiative. In addition to briefings on the concept, plans and

status, the members provided insights and technical suggestions to EPA and shared

related technical information.

S NRC's branch technical position on Cesium-l37-contaminated steel mill bag house

dust. EPA, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), and other members agreed on the

NRC position. 

In addition, the subcommittee received several briefings on DOE's Radiological Control Criteria

(RCC) for hazardous waste. The subcommittee members provided suggestions and technical

advice, which DOE incorporated into the draft “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA)

analysis. DOE provided the revised ALARA analysis technical review. In addition, members will

participate in a liaison role in the on-going States' Conference of Radiation Control Program

Directors (CRCPD) review of the RCC approach. DOE also briefed the sub committee on, and

provided it with copies of, TSD-Dose, a newly developed DOE dose assessment computer model 

for hazardous waste streams.

1999 Planned Activities:

4. Complete technical analysis of DOE RCC supporting documentation.

5. Provide input to resolving any RCC issues.

6. Provide input to CRCPD reviews & workshops on RCC concept.

7. Coordinate on EPA’s “Generally Applicable standard on RCRA Mixed Waste Disposal”
9

Recycle Subcommittee Highlights

Subcommittee chair: John Karhnak, EPA 202-564-9280

The Recycle Subcommittee is evaluating rule making scenarios and parameters.

1998 Planned Activities and Accomplishments:

4. The Recycle Subcommittee will review and compare the NRC and EPA technical bases

and cost-benefit analysis for recycling of radioactive material.

The subcommittee members continued to analyze differences in scenarios for the recycling

of scrap metal. As a result of this work, EPA and NRC scenarios and resulting doses are

very close in most instances. Both agencies have benefitted from the investigations.

Subcommittee members are also honorary members of the CRCPD subcommittee on

Orphaned Sources. Members participated in several CRCPD meetings to assist in

developing the program to dispose of orphaned radioactive sources. Subcommittee

members also participated in the first meeting of the DOS initiative to address the problem

of radioactively contaminated materials world-wide. The subcommittee briefed the full

ISCORS on its activities each quarter. The full ISCORS received a presentation on the

DOS initiative at the December 1998 ISCORS meeting.

1999 Planned Activities:

8. Discuss the need for NRC and EPA to develop a consistent set of normalized dose tables 

for carbon steel.

9. Initiate discussions for normalized dose tables for aluminum and copper.

10. Review and participate in, as appropriate, NRC rule making for recycling of materials.

11. Monitor DOS initiative on source control.
10

Risk Harmonization Subcommittee Highlights

Subcommittee Chair: Dennis O'Connor, EPA 202-564-9486

The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee was initiated to review similarities and differences

between NRC and EPA risk assessment and risk management approaches.

1998 Planned Activities and Accomplishments:

5. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will make a recommendation on whether to hold a

workshop on institutional controls.

The Institutional Control group produced draft Institutional Control Fact Sheets to

provide an understanding of the use of institutional controls by various agencies. This

group also produced a summary table regarding the use of institutional controls in various

regulations. A draft of this summary table was available for review by the full ISCORS in

December 1998.

Based on comments from the members the summary table will be revised and presented to

ISCORS in March 1999. The recommendation on whether to hold a workshop on

institutional controls will be made in 1999.

6. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will review the proposal on evaluating uniform

risk standards, after reviewing the results of the Environmental Law Institute's (ELI's) risk

workshop in June 1998.

The results of the June 1998 ELI/Johns Hopkins Workshop on Chemical and Radiation

Environmental Risk Management were presented at the June, 1998 ISCORS meeting. This

workshop benefitted from input by the Risk Harmonization Subcommittee and active

participation of several ISCORS members. An overview of the findings of the July 1995

EPA/NRC "White Paper on Risk Harmonization" and the September 1995 "Risk

Harmonization Recommendations" was given at the September, 1998 ISCORS meeting.

ISCORS members received the 1998 Workshop proceedings, Similarities and Differences

in Chemical and Radiation Risk Management (dated Dec. 1, 1998) at the December 1998

ISCORS meeting.

A discussion on the 1998 Workshop Proceedings will be given to ISCORS at the March

1999 meeting. The subcommittee will present recommendations for Phase II activities to

the ISCORS in 1999. 
11

Risk Harmonization Subcommittee Highliqhts (continued)

7. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will review the results of BEIR VI and the BEIR

VII scoping study and provide a summary to the ISCORS.

The subcommittee made a presentation regarding BEIR VI to the ISCORS at the

June1998 meeting. This presentation summarized the key elements and findings of BEIR

VI. The subcommittee formed a BEIR VII subgroup, which met to identify issues to be

addressed in the National Academy of Science (NAS) BEIR VII study and to solidify

cooperative funding of the NAS effort. NAS incorporated the subgroup recommendations

in the scoping study, and obtained funding for the effort.

8. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will form a working group for Federal Guidance

Report 14.

Federal Guidance Report 14 will not proceed at the present time. The subcommittee

transferred federal guidance activities, such as this one, to the newly formed Federal

Guidance Subcommittee.

NOTE: 1998 ACTIVITIES 9 and 10 were Sewerage Sludge activities

11. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will review public comments received on Federal

Guidance Report 13 and provide a summary to the full ISCORS. The Federal Guidance

Subcommittee chair will present comments received on Federal Guidance to the ISCORS

at the ISCORS's March, 1999 meeting. In the future, this subcommittee will handle

Federal Guidance issues.

1999 Planned Activities

12. Update Institutional Control Fact Sheets and Summary Table and provide a

recommendation on whether to hold a workshop on institutional controls.

13. Provide recommendations for Phase II of evaluating uniform risk standards after

reviewing the results of the ELI/Johns Hopkins's chemical and radiation risk management

workshop in June 1998.
12

Sewage Sludge Subcommittee Highlights

Subcommittee co-chairs: Bob Bastian, EPA 202-260-7378;

Mary Thomas, NRC, 301-415-6230

The Sewage Sludge Subcommittee is assisting in the development of an NRC/EPA sewage

survey and a sewage guidance document.

1998 Planned Activities and Accomplishments:

9. The Sewage Subcommittee will review the results of the sewage survey questionnaire,

which it expected to distribute in the first half of 1998.

The subcommittee reviewed data from nine Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTW)

test sites and a final report on the analysis of samples from the test sites developed for the

subcommittee by EPA’s National Air and Radiation Environmental Laboratory (NAREL)

and the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). In addition, members of

the subcommittee developed a draft final report on the survey design and test site results,

which will be placed on EPAs home page website. The subcommittee developed

recommended changes to the questionnaire and full survey procedures from experience

with nine test sites' survey efforts. The subcommittee received Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) clearance for the full 300-POTW survey effort in June 1998. The

subcommittee presented to ISCORS at the December 1998 meeting. The subcommittee

anticipates distributing questionnaires to candidate POTWs for the full survey during

March 1999 and sample kits to the initial group of POTWs during July 1999.

10. The Sewage Subcommittee will revise the guidance document for POTWs to take into

account industry and State comments and will distribute the document for public

comment.

The subcommittee received comments from industry and other stakeholders on the

guidance document distributed in July 1997 and developed responses to these comments.

In October and November 1998, the subcommittee sent letters to all states (Agreement

and non-Agreement-radiation control and water quality control program directors) with an

update on the survey effort and to obtain State comments on the existing draft guidance

document. The subcommittee anticipates distributing a revised draft guidance document in

July 1999.
13

1999 Planned Activities:

14. Complete final “Report on Survey Design and Test Sites” (including “Radiation

Reference Document”) for public release on the EPA home page website.

15. Complete the Freedom of Information Act appeal response.

16. Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies/Water Environment Foundation

(AMSA/WEF) letter and guidance sent to candidate POTWs for survey effort

17. Mail out full survey questionnaire.

18. Issue updated “Joint NRC/EPA Guidance Document for POTWs”

19. Initiate full survey sample collection/analysis.

20. Continue activities of Dose Modeling Subgroup. 
14

NORM Subcommittee Hiqhliqhts

Subcommittee chair: Loren Setlow, EPA 202-564-9445

The Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) subcommittee is reviewing reports

on NORM regulation and evaluating EPA guidelines for exposure to NORM.

1998 Planned Activities and Accomplishments:

ISCORS initially proposed the NORM Subcommittee in December 1997. The subcommittee held

its first meeting in March 1998.

It did not have previously planned activities for 1998. The subcommittee held its first

organizational meeting on March 9, 1998, and by end of the year, had members from seven

Federal agencies, and one State agency. The subcommittee established a mission statement:

“The mission of the ISCORS NORM Subcommittee is to ensure effective communication

and coordination among member agencies involved with regulatory, oversight, and

disposal issues for NORM wastes, and products containing NORM. At the direction of the

full ISCORS, the Subcommittee may take on responsibility for issues on other types of

radioactive waste and materials”

During its meetings, the subcommittee provided a forum for exchanging information on

current agency activities, proposed regulations, and new reports. It also planned international

meetings at which NORM issues were to be discussed. The latter included holding a preparatory

session, for the U.S. attendees, for an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting, to be

held in Vienna, in December 1998, to discuss revision of “TECDOC 855 on Exemption,

Exclusion and Clearance of Low-Activity Radioactive Materials.”

At the November 1998 subcommittee meeting, principals briefed member agencies on the

proposed CRCPD model regulation, "Part N-Regulation and Licensing of Technologically

Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM)," and the National

Academy of Sciences report "Evaluation of Guidelines for Exposures to Technologically

Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials". The subcommittee briefed ISCORS

on these topics at the June 1998 and December 1998 meetings, respectively.

1999 Planned Activities

21. Input to development of EPA NORM Strategy.

22. Review of American National Standards Institute (ANSI) proposed standards for

 NORM.

23. Review of CRCPD proposed standards for NORM.

24. Evaluate need to update existing regulations/standards affecting TENORM (in

 coordination with the Federal Guidance Subcommittee).

25. Consider recommendation to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

 (OSHA) to update its standard to adopt NRC 10 CFR Part 20.
15

Federal Guidance Subcommittee Highlights

Subcommittee chair: Julie Rosenberg, EPA 202-564-9154

 co-chair: Hal Peterson, DOE 202-564-9640

The Federal Guidance subcommittee was newly formed in 1998 and will be reviewing

presidential directives and guidance reports on control of occupational exposure.

1998 Accomplishments:

ISCORS received a proposal to create a Federal Guidance Subcommittee in June 1998.

Each ISCORS member agency assigned a person to participate in developing a plan for the

subcommittee. The ISCORS membership officially approved the formation of the subcommittee at

the September 1998 ISCORS meeting.

The subcommittee developed and finalized a charter in September 1998. The subcommittee

officially met for the first time in October 1998 and discussed how it would function, its

mission statement, maintaining communications with the states, and outreach to professional groups. At the second meeting, held in November 1998, the subcommittee discussed

and began to review priorities for the list of Federal Guidance topics developed during the

October brainstorming session. This prioritization of potential Federal Guidance topics will

continue in 1999.

1999 Planned Activities:

26. Develop a ranked list of Federal Guidance projects to undertake -- both short and long 

term.

27. Maintain a process for communicating and coordinating on Federal Guidance projects

 and activities.

28. Review public comments on Federal Guidance Report 13 and provide a summary to the 

ISCORS.
16

ISCORS MEMBER LIST

EPA

Mr. Stephen Page, Director

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, S.W Washington, DC 20460

202-564-9340

Mr. Lawrence Weinstock, Director (ISCORS Co-chair)

Radiation Protection Division

Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (6602J)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M Street, S.W

Washington, DC 20460

202-564-9290

fax - 565-2042

Weinstock.Larry@epa.gov

Jim Cumberland/Deborah Kopsick,

EPA (ISCORS coordinator)

ORIA (6601J)

401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

202-564-2266/202-564-9238

fax - 565-2065

cumberland.jim@epa.gov /

Kopsick.Deborah@epa.gov

NRC

Dr. Carl Paperiello, Director

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards (NMSS), Mail Stop T-8A23

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

301-415-7800

Mr. John T Greeves, Director (ISCORS Co-chair)

Division of Waste Management (DWM), Mail Stop T-7J8

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

301-415-7437

fax - 415-5397

JTG1@nrc.gov

Patricia A. Santiago (ISCORS coordinator)

NRC/NMSS/DWM

Mail stop T7F27

Washington, D.C. 20555

301-415-7269

fax - 415-5398

PAS2@nrc.gov
17

DOD

Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer

Defense Threat Reduction Agency/NSSN

6801 Telegraph Road

Alexandria, VA 22310-3398

703-325-2407

fax - 2951

dennis.schaeffer@dtra.mil

COL Robert Cherry (alternate)

HQDA (DACS-SF)

200 Army Pentagon

Washington, DC 20310-0200

703-695-1973

cherrn@hqda.army.mil

DOE

Andy Wallo, EH-41 (ISCORS contact)

Director, Air, Water and Radiation Division

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

202-586-4996

fax-3915

andrew.wallo@eh.doe.gov

Colleen Ostrowski 202-586-4997

colleen.ostrowski@eh.doe.gov

DOL/OSHA

Dr. Adam Finkel, Director

Health Standards Programs, N-3718

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

Chia Chen, Industrial Hygienist (ISCORS contact) 202-693-2090

fax- 1678

chia.chen@osha-no.osha.gov
18

DOT

Mr. Alan Roberts

Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety

Department of Transportation, Room 8422

400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20590

202-366-4469

fax- 5713

cc: Rick Boyle, Room 8430 (ISCORS Contact) 202-366-4545

fax-3753

rick.boyle@rspa.gov

DHHS

Dr. Bruce Wachholz, Chief

Radiation Effects Branch

National Cancer Institute

Executive Plaza North, Suite 530, Bethesda, MD 20892

301-496-9326

fax- 1224

bw36i@nih.gov

cc: Dr. Marvin Rosenstein

Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Mail Code HFZ-60

Food and Drug Administration

16071 Industrial Drive

Gaithersburg, MD 20877

301-827-3568

fax - 3775

mxr@cdrh.fda.gov
19

OBSERVER MEMBERS

OSTP*

Robert Marianelli

Office of Science and Technology Policy

17th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20500

202-456-6134

fax-6027

rmariane@ostp.eop.gov

cc: Peter Bond 202-456-6128

pbond@ostp.eop.gov

OMB

Dr. Art Fraas

Office of Management and Budget

Room 10202

New Executive Office Building

Washington, DC 20503

202-395-3084

fax - 7285

day_l@a1.eop.gov

cc: Carrie Jelsma, Room 8026 202-395-4727

fax - 5836

jelsma_c@a1.eop.gov

Erik Godwin, Room 10202 202-395-5129

States (observer)

Dr. Jill Lipoti, Assistant Director

for Radiation Protection Programs

Division of Environmental Safety, Health

and Analytical Programs

Department of Environmental Protection

CN415

Trenton, NJ 08625-0415

609-984-5636

fax-7513

JLipoti@dep.state.nj.us

Steve Collins

Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety

Office of Radiation Safety

1035 Outer Park Drive

Springfield, IL 62704

217-785-6982

FAX: 217-782-1328

Collins@idns.state.il.us

*Office of Science and Technology Policy
20

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBER LIST

CLEANUP SUBCOMMITTEE

ORGANIZATIONS MEMBERS

NRC Cheryl Trottier, Chair 301-415-6232 

Christine Daily

EPA John Karhnak

Michael Boyd

Ben Hull

Mark Doenert

DOD CAPT J. David George, MSC, USN

DOE Andy Wallo

Stephen Domotor

DOL/OSHA

States

Chia Chen

Debra McBaugh, State of WA

MIXED WASTE SUBCOMMITTEE

ORGANIZATIONS MEMBERS

DOE Andy Wallo, Chair 202-586-4996

Gus Vazquez, Chair (3/99)/EH-412

Henry Himpler

Jerry Coalgate

Ed Regnier

Jim Antizzo

EPA Nancy Hunt

Dan Schultheisz

David Levenstein

NRC Nick Orlando

DOD Kelly Crooks

DOT 

States

Fred Ferate

Paul Merges, NY State
21

RECYCLE SUBCOMMITTEE

ORGANIZATIONS MEMBERS

EPA John Karhnak, Chair 202-564-9280

Neil Narine

Deborah Kopsick

Glenna Shields

Rafie Ferguson

NRC Robert Meck

Doug Broaddus

DOD LCDR Greg Gorsuch, MSC, USN

DOE Ken Duvall

Vincent Adams

Jud Lilly

Lee Bishop

DOL/OSHA

States

Chia Chen

Steve Collins, Illinois

RISK HARMONIZATION SUBCOMMITTEE

ORGANIZATIONS MEMBERS

EPA Dennis O'Connor,Chair 202-564-9486

Subijoy Dutta

Mike Boyd

Jackie Dziuban

Jerry Puskin

Ernie Brown

Stewart Walker

NRC Vince Holahan

Cyndi Jones

James Kennedy

DOD Michael Schaeffer

DOE Andy Wallo

Edward Regnier

Gary Roles

Stephen Domotor

Colleen Ostrowski

DOL/OSHA Chia Chen

DOT

States

Fred Ferate

Jill Lipoti, New Jersey
22

SEWAGE SLUDGE SUBCOMMITTEE

ORGANIZATIONS MEMBERS

EPA Bob Bastian, Co-Chair 202-260-7378

Loren Setlow

Behram Shroff

Mark Doehnert

Alan Rubin

Dale Hoffmeyer

David Saunders

NRC Mary Thomas, Co-Chair 301-415-6230

Ed Powers

Phyllis Sobel

Tom O'Brien

DOD Roy Lovett

DOE James Bachmaier

ORISE

States

Dale Condra

Jill Lipoti, New Jersey

Local Government

Authorities

Tom Lenhart, NEORSD*

Kevin Aiello, MCUA**

NORM SUBCOMMITTEE

ORGANIZATIONS MEMBERS

EPA Loren Setlow, Chair 202-564-9445

Mike Boyd

Ben Hull

Alan Rubin

Mark Schuknecht

NRC Cynthia Jones

DOE William Murphie

Alexander Williams

Hank Himpler

Bill Hochheiser

DOT Wendall Carriker

Rick Boyle

OSHA/DOL Chia Chen

DOD Commander David Farrand

Captain Julie Coleman

HHS

States

Commander Shawn Googins

Ray D. Paris, State of Oregon

* Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District

** Middlesex County Utilities Authority
23

FEDERAL GUIDANCE SUBCOMMITTEE

ORGANIZATIONS MEMBERS

EPA Julie Rosenberg,Co-Chair 202-564-9154

Mike Boyd (Acting Co-Chair) 202-564-9395

Ben Hull

Jerry Puskin

Neil Nelson

Chris Nelson

Lowell Ralston

Loren Setlow

Stuart Walker

NRC Cynthia Jones

DOE Hal Peterson, Co-Chair 202-564-9640

Steve Domotor

Andy Wallo

DOT Rick Boyle

HHS/FDA Marvin Rosenstein

OSHA/DOL Chia Chen

DOD

States

Mike Schaeffer

Cynthia Cardwell, Texas
24
25

APPENDIX A
26

CHARTER FOR

INTERAGENCY STEERING COMMITTEE ON RADIATION STANDARDS (ISCORS)

Purpose of Committee

The purpose of this committee is to foster early resolution and coordination of

regulatory issues associated with radiation standards. 

Membership

1. Agencies represented on the committee include the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of

Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor,

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and any successor

agencies.

2. The Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and

Budget will be invited observers at meetings because of their responsibilities for

coordination of science policy and regulation policy, respectively. 

3. The committee will be co-chaired by the EPA and NRC representatives for the

first two years, after which the committee will determine whether the

chairmanship should be rotated among additional agencies, or whether the

chairmanship should be held by a single agency.

4. Other departments and agencies will be invited to participate in forming

consensus for specific issues as voting members when their interests and

responsibilities are involved.

Objectives

The objectives of the committee include the following:

1. Facilitate a consensus on allowable levels of radiation risk to the public and

workers.

2. Promote consistent and scientifically sound risk assessment and risk

management approaches in setting and implementing standards for occupational

and public protection from ionizing radiation.

3. Promote completeness and coherence of Federal standards for radiation
27

protection.

4. Identify interagency radiation protection issues and coordinate their resolution.

Implementation

The committee will conduct its activities in accordance with the attached

understandings and procedures.
28

Attachment

UNDERSTANDINGS AND PROCEDURES FOR

THE INTERAGENCY STEERING COMMITTEE ON RADIATION STANDARDS

Participation

1. Various offices and agencies within each agency may participate in the committee

meetings. Each agency will develop a unified position and present that position at

committee meetings. Each agency representative is responsible for developing their

coordinated agency position in preparation for reaching committee consensus.

2. Agencies will be represented at the meetings by senior level, career government

employees, who are engaged in policy matters for the agency.

3. Official agency representatives will be identified in writing to the co-chairpersons by

the Assistant Administrator, Secretary, or Commissioner, as appropriate.

4. Committee meetings involve pre-decisional intragovernmental discussions and, as

such, are not open for observation by members of the public or media.

5. The committee may, from time to time, revise the charter based on the consensus

views of the committee, including such items as membership, responsibility for chairing

the committee, and objectives.

Decisions

1. The committee has not been delegated any authorities established by law,

regulation, Executive Order, or other administrative mechanism to act in lieu of formal

agency action. The objectives of the committee are described in the committee charter.

2. The committee will make every effort to base decisions on consensus. Consensus

reflects acceptance among the voting agencies.

3. Each agency will have a single vote in reaching consensus on specific issues. If a

consensus cannot be reached, committee recommendations will reflect the lack thereof

and include the opportunity for agencies to attach minority views to any documentation

of the recommendations.
29

4. Recommendations on specific issues will be provided to the heads of member

agencies, OMB, and OSTP.

Meetings

1. Responsibility for hosting the meetings will rotate among the agencies. The host

agency is responsible for developing a mutually agreeable meeting date and time,

informing the agencies at least two weeks in advance of the meeting date, distributing a

draft agenda for the meeting, arranging for a meeting facility, and documenting and

distributing summary meeting notes.

2. Summary meeting notes will be provided by the host agency to designated

representatives of each of the member agencies, OMB, OSTP, and, as appropriate,

Congressional contacts and other groups. The host agency will distribute draft notes

within one week of the committee meeting and final meeting notes at least two weeks

before the next committee meeting. NRC will also place a copy of the summary

meeting notes in the Public Document Room.

3. The committee will establish a plan for approximately a six-month period. Specific

agendas will be developed for each meeting based on the general plan.

4. The committee will meet approximately once each calendar quarter, with more

frequent meetings, as needed to address specific issues.

Subcommittees

1. The committee may create subcommittees to focus on specific issues or activities

(e.g., recycling criteria, risk harmonization, cleanup standards). Subcommittees will

follow the same understandings and procedures as the full committee.

2. Subcommittees will meet at a frequency and location as determined necessary by

the subcommittee.
30

FOR THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,

 

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr. Date

Deputy Executive Director for

 Nuclear Materials Safety,

 Safeguards and Operations Support

FOR THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

 

Mary Nichols Date

Assistant Administrator

Office of Air and Radiation

FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,

 

Tara O'Toole, M.D., M.P.H. Date

Assistant Secretary for

 Environment, Safety and

 Health

FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

 

Paul G. Kaminski Date

Under Secretary of Defense

 (Acquisition & Technology) 

FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

 

Dr. Dharmendra K. Sharma Date

Administrator

Research and Special Programs

 Administration
31

FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

 

Greg Watchman Date

Assistant Secretary for

 Occupational, Safety and

 Health Administration

FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

 

Jo Ivey Boufford, M. D. Date

Acting Assistant Secretary for Health
32

APPENDIX B
33

DOE LLW Disposal Requirements, Order DOE 5820.2A

Applicability: DOE requirements for disposal of low-level waste (LLW), which is radioactive waste not HLW, spent nuclear fuel, TRU

waste, or 11(e).2 byproduct material. LLW includes NORM and accelerator-produced waste except for large quantities of NORM waste

which are addressed under DOE 5400.5. Requirements are provided in DOE 5820.2A (plus DOE 5400.1 and DOE 5400.5, and

eventually 10 CFR 834), which was issued under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Interpretation of DOE

5820.2A is based on DOE guidance issued 1 November 1996. This order is being revised and will be re-issued as Order 435.1.

Approach: Predictive performance assessment (PA) approach. Reasonable expectation of projected compliance with performance

(design) objectives, for waste disposed after 26 September 1988:

 o 25 mrem (ede) in a year from all pathways, excluding Rn and progeny released to air.

 o 10 mrem in a year from air pathway alone, excluding Rn and progeny.

 o For Rn, either 20 pCi/m2-s at surface or 0.5 pCi/L at compliance point for all sources.

 o Maintain releases of radioactivity in effluents to the general environment as low as is reasonably achievable.

 o Inadvertent intrusion: 500 mrem/yr for acute exposures and 100 mrem/yr for chronic (few years) exposures.

 o Groundwater protection targets consistent with site groundwater protection management program plan. 

Plus, a predictive composite analysis (CA) must be prepared for other sources of radioactive material that might contribute to calculated

dose, using 100 mrem/yr as an upper bound plus ALARA analysis (target: <30 mrem/yr), and consistent with April 1996 DOE guidance. 

For CA and PA, assume that current environmental processes and events, and reasonable variations, may be extrapolated to future.

Monitor to ensure public protection standards (DOE 5400.5 and 10 CFR 834 when issued) are met throughout DOE control (indefinitely

long oversight).

Institutional Controls: Actual - DOE maintains control of a disposal site for as long as the waste is hazardous (AEA/NWPA

responsibilities). Monitor and maintain consistent with radiation protection requirements (e.g., DOE 5400.1, DOE 5400.5, 10 CFR 834

when issued). PA assumptions - Design to meet intrusion design objectives assuming temporary lapses in active control after 100

years. Undisturbed performance is assumed for other design objectives. Site maintenance (against burrowing animals, subsidence,

etc.) is assumed to be less than perfect.

Time Period: DOE guidance indicates that design should provide reasonable expectation of compliance for 1000 years of undisturbed

performance. Longer periods may be assessed for comparing alternatives. This time period does not signal an end to site control. 

Oversight and monitoring are required (DOE 5400.5 and eventually 10 CFR 834) until site meets appropriate release criteria.

Point of Compliance: For PAs, a distance of 100 m from the waste disposal unit is the point of departure for assessment. May be

closer or farther if justified (but must be within DOE controlled property). For CAs, recognize that land to be controlled by DOE may

shrink in the future. Assume points of compliance consistent with site-specific plans required by DOE policy for land and facility use. 

Groundwater Protection: Based on assumption of no human intervention to preclude release or human dose (not the actual planned or

expected case), a PA must provide a reasonable expectation that ground water will be protected using the DOE groundwater protection

management program plan to define site specific design objectives. Monitoring and other controls are required to ensure that exposures

are averted.

Intruder Assumptions: Temporary intruder events evaluated as part of PA process to establish design, operating, and especially waste

acceptance criteria.

Waste Form Requirements: Among others, minimize voids and liquids. Using the PA, CA, and other considerations such as the

Safety Analysis Report, determine additional requirements for site specific use including waste acceptance criteria. 
34

Documentation: Use CA and PA to derive HQ-issued disposal authorization statements. Field Offices review and approve Safety

Analysis Reports. Also: PA and CA maintenance and re-review, and annual DOE site environmental reports and worker dose reports. 
35

NRC Restricted Release of Decommissioned Sites (Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20)

Applicability: To provide for termination of NRC licenses at facilities with some residual

radioactive material remaining onsite. Institutional controls would be relied on to limit doses to

control land use and thereby limit doses to members of the public. Applies to residual source,

byproduct and special nuclear material. 

Approach: Two tiered approach. Dose limit from all pathways of 25 mrem/yr to average

member of critical group, assuming that institutional controls are functioning. Compliance with

higher dose limit of 100 mrem/yr or 500 mrem/yr (under certain specified circumstances)

assuming that institutional controls fail. ALARA also applies. Compliance demonstration

similar to Part 61 in NRC LLW disposal regulation, and involves use of a performance

assessment of the site to determine compliance with dose limits in future, for up to 1000 years. 

The 100 mrem/yr cap applies when institutional controls are assumed to fail. A 500 mrem/yr

cap could apply if:

a) licensee demonstrates that further reductions in residual radioactivity to comply with the

100 mrem/yr limit are not technically achievable, would be prohibitively expensive, or would

result in net public harm. 

b) Licensee makes provisions for durable institutional controls.

c) Licensee sets aside sufficient financial assurance to enable a responsible third party to carry

out controls and 5 year rechecks of the site.

Institutional controls: 

Controls must be legally enforceable. Details on types of controls are being developed by

NRC staff in a Regulatory Guide. At this time, the controls are generally passive, land-use

controls.

Time period:

A 1000 year time period is specified in the rule.

Point-of-compliance:

Both on-site and offsite. For sites that have a restricted release (i.e. that rely on institutional

controls to limit doses), a 25 mrem/yr dose limit applies onsite and offsite when the controls are

functioning. These controls could, for example, prohibit certain land uses on-site, such as

farming or excavating soil, but would permit members of the public to be on-site for authorized

uses of the property. For the restricted release scenario, the NRC rule requires that the

institutional controls be postulated to fail and that the resulting dose to a member of the public

be no more than 100 mrem/year, or 500 mrem/yr in unusual site-specific circumstances. This

dose would be expected to be for an onsite member of the public. 

Groundwater protection: 
36

As in other NRC regulations, ground water protection is provided for by the all pathways

standard, in this case both 25 mem/yr and 100 or 500 mrem/yr. No specific ground water

provisions are specified.

Intruder assumptions: 

Intruder could come onto site, after institutional controls fail, and take up residence without a

time limit. More specific guidance on exposure scenarios is being developed in staff guidance

documents. “Intruder” (or average member of the critical group that becomes exposed when

the institutional controls fail) cannot receive dose of greater than 100 mrem/yr, or 500 mrem/yr

under certain circumstances.

Waste form requirements:

No waste form requirements apply. The rule applies to residual radioactivity in soil, slag,

building surfaces, etc. left at site.

Documentation: 

Licensee must submit a decommissioning plan that provides all of the dose analyses, scenario

assumptions, etc. An environmental report may also be required, and NRC may have to

prepare an EIS.
37

NRC HLW Disposal Regulation, 10 CFR Part 60

Applicability: Disposal of high-level radioactive wastes (and spent nuclear fuel) in a geologic

repository. Will most likely not apply to Yucca Mountain. Separate, site-specific criteria are

being developed [at 10 CFR Part 63] to implement new dose- or risk-based standards for

Yucca Mountain that will be established, consistent with the requirements of the Energy Policy

Act of 1992.

Approach: Uses both predictive performance assessments and currently measurable design

and siting criteria. Reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable EPA containment

standards (none currently in effect for NRC-licensed repositories sited and characterized under

the NWPA) plus substantially complete containment and gradual release requirements require

predictive analysis. Siting criteria based on historical and current conditions are potentially

measurable. Some design criteria are currently determinable and others require predictive

analysis. 

Institutional controls: The repository is to be sited, marked, and documented to discourage

intrusion. Land is required to be permanently withdrawn and reserved for repository use. DOE

is required to exercise any jurisdiction and controls over surface and subsurface estates (i.e.

passive controls), as necessary to prevent adverse human actions. However, effectiveness of

active controls may not be assumed for longer than 100 years following permanent closure for

purposes of compliance demonstration. Monuments and records are required to prevent

activities which could impair long term isolation and to assure that information is preserved for

future generations. 

Time period: Compliance with applicable EPA standards (none currently in effect for NRClicensed repositories sited and characterized under the NWPA) is required. Containment is to

be substantially complete for a period of between 300 and 1,000 years. Following this

containment period, any releases are required to be gradual; no time period is specified for this

requirement. Other siting and design requirements are generally dependent on past or current

conditions. 

Point of compliance: As defined by applicable EPA standards (none currently in effect for

NRC-licensed repositories sited and characterized under the NWPA). The substantially

complete containment requirement is evaluated at the exterior of the waste packages. The

gradual release requirement is evaluated at the outer boundary of the engineered barrier

system. Siting criteria are applied both within the controlled area and in its general vicinity. 

Ground water protection: There is no separate ground water protection requirement.

Intruder assumptions: The repository will be sited, marked, and documented to discourage

intrusion. Inadvertent human intrusion into the repository must be addressed. Processes and

events initiated by human activities are to be considered as part of quantitative performance

assessments for sufficiently credible scenarios, subject to specified assumptions. These

assumptions include: (a) required monuments are sufficiently permanent to serve their

intended purpose; (b) value of resources to future generations can be adequately assessed;

(c) institutions will continue to exist that retain knowledge of radiation and its hazards; (d)
38

institutions will exist that can assess risk and take remedial action at the same, or superior

level of technological competence as that which initiated the intrusion; and (e) relevant records

and archives remain intact and are accessible for several hundreds of years. 

Documentation: Extensive documentation is required including: a site characterization plan,

a license application, an environmental impact statement, license application updates, and

permanent records in local, national, and international archives and land record systems. 
39

NRC LLW Disposal Regulation, 10 CFR 61

Applicability: Radioactive waste not HLW, spent nuclear fuel, TRU waste, 11(e).2 byproduct

material, NORM waste, or accelerator-produced material (small quantities of 11(e).2 byproduct

material are acceptable in LLW disposal facilities).

Approach: Combines performance assessment and specified design approach. Requires

performance assessment of projected doses to public. As used here, performance

assessment is a type of systematic analysis that addresses, among other things, what can

happen and what the resulting impacts (i.e., radiation dose) might be. It includes the site,

engineered features, and scenarios that could cause radiation doses to humans. For all

pathways except direct exposure, the performance objective (design) limit is 75 mrem/yr to

thyroid and 25 mrem/yr to whole body or any other organ. Reduce effluents to ALARA levels. 

Direct exposure pathway is subject to 10 CFR 20 limits (100 mrem(ede)/yr plus ALARA). Also

requires acceptance and disposal of waste based on specified waste classification limits and

procedures and waste form requirements.

A principal objective for waste disposal is to ensure long-term stability of the disposal site to

eliminate to the extent practicable the need for ongoing active maintenance following closure.

A monitoring program is required and will be established on a site-specific basis. 

Institutional controls: State or Federal government must own site land. Rule indicates that

monitoring and other active measures would be replaced after 100 years by passive

institutional control measures. Owner of facility could continue active controls for longer

periods, if desired. However, as noted below, no credit is allowed for active institutional

controls after 100 years in the demonstration of compliance with the dose limit in the rule. 

PA assumptions--assume "no credit for active institutional controls after 100 years."

Draft guidance recommends reasonable extrapolation of current processes and events to

future. 

Time period: Not stated in rule, but draft PA guidance has recommended consideration up to

10,000 years, and beyond if needed. No final guidance is available. 

Point-of-compliance: Draft PA (and earlier) guidance recommends a point of compliance

outside of a buffer zone around waste. The buffer zone is to be specified on a site-specific

basis but would normally be only a few hundred yards wide. 

Groundwater protection: No specific Part 61 requirement to protect groundwater as a

separate entity. Groundwater is a pathway considered in PAs for assessment of 25/75/25-

mrem/yr design objective. NRC considers this and other Part 61 requirements including those

for long-term disposal facility stability, institutional controls, monitoring, and waste form to be

adequate for groundwater protection. 

Intruder assumptions: Rule includes a performance (design) objective to protect an

inadvertent intruder. In most cases, no analysis need be performed. Intrusion protection
40

results from generic waste classification system including requirements for waste form, limits

on concentrations of specific radionuclides, and requirements for segregation and deeper

disposal of highest-activity (Class C) wastes. An intruder barrier may be substituted for deeper

disposal. A rule “construct” is that a exposure of an intruder (i.e. a person who intrudes

directly into a disposal cell, by building a house foundation, e.g.) and exposure of a member

of the general public (a resident farmer, e.g.) outside of the boundaries of the site occur

independently, and not simultaneously or sequentially. 

Waste form requirements: In addition to minimum requirements pertaining to worker safety

considerations (e.g., cardboard boxes are prohibited, as is free-standing liquid above 1%

volume), higher activity (Class B and C) wastes must be disposed in a manner providing

structural stability. Performance requirements for structural stability are specified. 

Documentation: Operations take place in accordance with a licence developed from an

application that includes a Safety Analysis Report and an Environmental Report. 
 AEA - 1 41

August 24, 1998

Atomic Energy Act (AEA - 1)

Subchapter F Radiation Protection Programs 

40 CFR 191 Subpart A - Environmental Standards for Management and Storage, 

Subpart B - Environmental Standards for Disposal, and Subpart C - Environmental

Standards for Ground-Water Protection

Applicability 

Any facility regulated by the NRC or Agreement State, other than Yucca Mountain, engaged in

the management, storage, and/or disposal of spent nuclear fuel or high-level, transuranic

radioactive waste. 

Any disposal facility operated by DOE, other than Yucca Mountain, engaged in the management,

storage, and disposal, of spent nuclear fuel, high-level or transuranic radioactive waste. 

Performance Criteria

All exposure pathways from the disposal system to individuals shall be considered. Shall assume

individuals consume 2 liters per day of drinking water from any underground source of drinking

water in the accessible environment.

Approach

The standard incorporates limits for (1) radioactive releases to the accessible environment, (2)

contamination of ground water in the vicinity of the disposal system, and (3) radiation doses to

members of the public.

Subpart A of the standard limits the annual radiation dose equivalent to members of the public

during facility management and storage phase to 25 mrem whole body, 75 mrem thyroid, and 25

mrem to any organ from the combined (1) discharges of radioactive materials and direct radiation

from waste management and storage and (2) all operations covered by 40 CFR 190.

Subpart B establishes requirements for the disposal of waste materials that include (1) facility

siting criteria, (2) engineering designs for waste containers, and (3) a geophysical barrier system. 

The regulations specify a set of six qualitative assurance requirements that provide confidence that

containment requirements will be met and reasonable expectations that exposures to individual

members of the public for a period of 10,000 years from all potential pathways are not likely to

exceed 15 mrem /year.

The standards incorporate limits for

C Radioactive releases to the accessible environment for 10,000 years after disposal

less than 1/10 chance of exceeding specified quantities

less than 1/1000 chance of exceeding 10 times the specified quantities

C Contamination of ground water in the vicinity of the disposal system (see below)

Institutional Controls
 AEA - 1 42

(Do not apply to facilities regulated by the NRC - see 10 CFR Part 60 for comparable provisions)

• Monitoring and assessment of waste isolation by engineered and natural barriers to detect

substantial and detrimental deviations from expected performance.

• Use of permanent markers and other passive measures to indicate dangers of the waste and

waste locations.

C Maintenance of records pertaining to disposal facility (e.g., location, design, contents, etc.

• Federal government ownership of disposal sites and regulations regarding future land/resource

use.

Time Period

Active institutional controls over a disposal site should be maintained for as long a period of time

as is practicable after disposal.

 

Performance assessments that evaluate isolation of wastes from the accessible environment shall

not consider any contributions from active institutional controls for more than 100 years after

disposal.

Point of Compliance 

Implementing agencies must demonstrate compliance with containment standard and exposure

limits, and the individual and groundwater standards.

Ground-Water Protection: The disposal system must provide a reasonable expectation that

10,000 years of undisturbed performance after disposal shall not cause the levels of radioactivity

in any underground source of drinking water in the accessible environment to exceed the limits

specified in 40 CFR 141 as they existed on January 19, 1994.

Intruder Assumptions

Site selection criteria that avoid sites with known minerals, petroleum, gas, water, or other natural

exploitable resources; waste form requirements; containment requirements; and permanent

markers to alert potential future intruders to the presence of hazardous materials.

Intrusion must be considered for the containment standard as follows:

C The potential for inadvertent intrusion is reduced by site selection criteria that avoid sites

with known minerals, petroleum, gas, water, or other natural exploitable resources. 

C As long as passive institutional controls endure and are understood, they may reduce the

likelihood of inadvertent, intermittent human intrusion. An implementing agency may not

assume that passive controls entirely eliminate human intrusion.

C Drilling of exploratory wells need not exceed 30 boreholes per square kilometer of

repository area over the 10,000-year period for repositories in sedimentary rock

formations, or more than 3 boreholes per square kilometer of repository area in other

geologic formations. 
 AEA - 1 43

Waste-Form Requirements: Waste form as defined in this standard means the materials

comprising the radioactive components of waste and any encapsulating or stabilizing matrix. 

Waste materials include spent nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and transuranic waste.

Documentation: None specified.
 AEA - 2 44

August 24, 1998

Atomic Energy Act (AEA -2)

40 CFR 192 Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium

Mill Tailings; Subpart A - Standards for the Control of Residual Radioactive Materials

from Inactive Uranium Processing Sites

Applicability

Designated inactive uranium processing/depository sites.

Approach

The standard incorporates limits for

• Releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials to the atmosphere (on average

will not exceed 20 pCi/m2-s), or

C The radon concentration at any location outside the disposal area (will not increase by

more than 0.5 pCi/R).

C See ground-water protection (below).

The objectives of this standard are achieved by constructing the facility in accordance with

specific design and location controls. 

Institutional Controls

Federal or State governments are required to acquire and retain control of Title II sites. The

Federal government is required to retain control of Title I sites under the general NRC license.

Regulations require

• Ground-water monitoring.

• Long-term stabilization and isolation of waste material that control releases of radon to air

and inhibits misuse and spreading of residual radioactive materials.

This is achieved by 

C Eliminating free liquids in waste piles.

C Stabilizing the wastes.

C Engineering designs that include a permanent radon barrier. 

Time Period 

• Disposal areas must provide reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards for

1,000 years and in any case for at least 200 years, for the design of the engineered barriers.

• Ground-water monitoring is done for a duration which is adequate to demonstrate that

future performance of the disposal system can be expected to comply with the

concentration limits.

Point of Compliance

C Upon emplacement of a permanent radon barrier, the licensee must conduct appropriate

monitoring and analyses of radon-222 releases that demonstrate compliance with

regulatory standards using the methodology defined in 40 CFR 61, Appendix B, Method

115.

C For the purposes of groundwater protection, the intersection of a vertical plane with the

uppermost aquifer underlying the site, located at the hydraulically downgradient limit of
 AEA - 2 45

the disposal area plus the area taken up by any liner, dike, or other barrier designed to

contain the residual radioactive material.

Ground-Water Protection

C Monitor for constituents contained in Appendix I of 40 CFR 192 and determine

background levels.

C Disposal system designed to meet ground water standard in uppermost aquifer underlying

the site beyond the point of compliance.

C For any constituent listed in Appendix I to Part 192, concentration limits must not exceed

background levels or Subpart A Table 1 values.

C Allows use of supplemental standards if greater harm to workers, public health, or

environment; unreasonably high cost; no known remedial action; GW restoration is

technically impracticable; GW is "limited use"; or presence of other radionuclides;

C Supplemental standards must be as close to primary standards as possible; must apply

ALARA; must protect human health and the environment; and, must preserve reasonably

expected future use of ground water.

Intruder Assumptions

Engineering design and government land control and management are deemed adequate and

intruder analysis is not required.

Waste-Form Requirements

Waste in the form of tailings from the processing of uranium or thorium must be dewatered and

sufficiently stabilized to a bearing capacity sufficient to support a permanent cover.

Documentation

A remediation plan(s) for disposal and cleanup of residual radioactive materials associated with a

processing site that incorporates the results of (1) site characterization studies, (2) environmental

assessments or impact statements, and (3) engineering assessments so as to satisfy the

requirements of Subparts A and B.

A closure plan that documents (1) ground-water monitoring and (2) radon emissions and

demonstrates compliance with applicable standards.
 AEA - 3 46

August 24,1998

Atomic Energy Act (AEA - 3)

40 CFR 192 Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium

Mill Tailings; Subpart B - Standards for Cleanup of Land and Buildings Contaminated

with Residual Radioactive Materials from Inactive Uranium Processing sites

Applicability

Land and buildings that are part of any inactive uranium processing site.

Approach

The standard incorporates limits for

C The concentration of radium-226 in “land” (i.e., any surface or subsurface land that is not

part of the disposal site) shall not exceed the background level by more than 5 pCi/g in the

first 15 cm of soil and 15 pCi/g more than 15 cm below the surface.

C Occupied or habitable buildings shall not yield annual average concentrations in excess of

0.02 WL (including background) and a gamma radiation dose rate of 20 FR/hr above

background.

C Groundwater protection standard (see below).

Institutional Controls

Must meet the following criteria for contaminated groundwater.

C Have a high degree of permanence. 

C Effectively protect public health and the environment. 

C Satisfy beneficial uses of groundwater during the extended period (up to 100 years).

C Be enforceable by the administrative or judicial branches of government entities, 

C Be instituted and maintained, as part of the remedial action, at the processing site and

wherever contamination by listed constituents from residual radioactive materials is found

in groundwater, or is projected to be found.

Time Period

Remediation is performed for as long as is necessary to meet the standard. Natural flushing, if

used, must result in the standard being met in less than 100 years.

Point of Compliance

Uppermost aquifer and throughout the contaminant plume, that is not beneath the disposal site

and its cover.

Ground-Water Protection

C Monitor to define backgroundwater quality and the areal extent and magnitude of

groundwater contamination by constituents listed in Subpart A.

C Natural flushing may more reasonably achieve the standard;

C Concentration limits will be achieved within 100 years;

C Institutional controls are established; and,

C Ground water is not a Underground Source of Drinking Water.

Waste-Form Requirements: N/A
 AEA - 3 47

Documentation: Plan for remedial action 
AEA- 4 48

August 24, 1998

Atomic Energy Act (AEA -4)

40 CFR 192 Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium

Mill Tailings; Subpart D - Standards for Management of Uranium Byproduct Materials

Pursuant to Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1994, as Amended

Applicability

Tailings and wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium by Title II facilities

(i.e., facilities licensed by the NRC under Section 84 of the AEA)

Approach

Identical to Subpart A except:

C The alternative of complying with 0.5 pCi/l concentration standard in lieu of the 

20 pCi/m2-sec design flux standard available at Title I sites is not permitted.

C Title II sites are required to perform measurements to confirm that the design flux for

radon has been attained.

Institutional Controls

Identical to Subpart A

Time Period

Identical to Subpart A

Point of Compliance

Identical to Subpart A

Groundwater Protection

Identical to Subpart A

Intruder Assumptions

Identical to Subpart A

Waste-Form Requirements

Identical to Subpart A

Documentation

Identical to Subpart A
AEA - 5 49

August 24, 1998

Atomic Energy Act (AEA -5)

40 CFR 192 Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium

Mill Tailings; Subpart E - Standards for Management of Thorium Byproduct Materials

Pursuant to Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1994, as Amended

Applicability

Thorium byproduct materials at facilities licensed by the NRC under Section 84 of the AEA.

Approach

Similar to Subpart D, but with the following additional provision:

C Operations conducted in a manner that provides assurance that annual doses do not

exceed 25 mrem to the whole body, 75 mrem to the thyroid, and 25 mrem to any other

organ of any member of the public from planned discharges, not including Rn-220 and its

progeny.

In addition, provisions in Subpart D applicable to Radon-222 also apply to radon-220, provisions

applicable to uranium also apply to thorium, and provisions applicable to Ra-226 also apply to

Ra-228.

Institutional Control

Identical to Subpart A

Time Period

Identical to Subpart A

Point of Compliance

Identical to Subpart A

Groundwater Protection

Identical to Subpart A

Intruder Assumptions

Identical to Subpart A

Waste-Form Requirements

Identical to Subpart A

Documentation

Identical to Subpart A
 WIPP - 1 50

August 24, 1998

1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (as amended) (WIPP 1)

40 CFR 194 Criteria for the Certification and Re-Certification of the Waste Isolation Pilot

Plant’s Compliance With the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations

Applicability

By WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, EPA certifies, by rule, DOE compliance with 40 CFR Part 191 at WIPP.

Approach

Part 194 was promulgated based on the requirements of the 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act, revised by

the Defense Appropriations Act of 1996. DOE must submit a Compliance Certification Application for

approval by EPA. EPA then certifies, by rule, whether WIPP will comply with 40 CFR Parts 191 and

194. Thereafter until repository closure, DOE must submit documentation to EPA that demonstrates the

WIPP’s continued compliance. 

Institutional Controls

Part 194 requires DOE to implement two types of institutional controls at the WIPP (defined in Part 191)

C Active controls (e.g. signs, fencing, and site patrols).

C Passive controls (e.g. site markers, record archival, government ownership of the site, and other

measures intended to ward off intrusion for the long term). These controls must be designed to be

as permanent as practicable.

Time period Time of compliance is specified in 40 CFR 191.

Point-of-compliance Point of compliance is specified in 40 CFR 191. Compliance with 191.15

(individual protection requirements) shall assume that an individual resides at the single geographic point

on the surface of the accessible environment where that individual would be expected to receive the highest

dose from radionuclide releases from the disposal system. For compliance with 191 subpart C, all

underground sources of drinking water in the accessible environment that are expected to be affected by the

disposal system over the regulatory time frame shall be considered.

Groundwater protection Addressed in 40 CFR 191. All significant modeling parameters must be treated

in a probabilistic manner.

Intruder assumptions Performance assessments must consider activities occurring near the WIPP prior to

and soon after closure, including existing boreholes and development of existing leases. Events with less

than a one in 10,000 chance of occurring need not be considered. Mining must be assumed to occur once

every century, and may be limited to changes in hydraulic conductivity. DOE may propose that

institutional controls will reduce human intrusion for up to several hundred years after closure. 

Intrusion must be considered as follows:

C As long as passive institutional controls endure and are understood, they may reduce the likelihood

of inadvertent, intermittent human intrusion. An implementing agency may not assume that

passive controls entirely eliminate human intrusion.

C Performance assessments shall examine deep drilling and shallow drilling that may potentially

affect the disposal system during the regulatory time frame.

Waste form requirements DOE is required to show that it considered waste form alternatives.
 WIPP - 1 51

Documentation Considerable documentation is required. DOE must provide a recertification

document on a five-year basis.
52

August 24, 1998

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous and

Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984; 40 CFR Part 264.101; RCRA Corrective

Action (CA) Statutory Authorities: §7003, §3004(u), §3004(v), §3008(h), and §3005(c)(3)

In a Notice published May 1, 1996, EPA stated that it is “committed to consistency of results between the

RCRA corrective action and Superfund remedial programs” and stated expectations for corrective action

that were based on those published in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act (CERCLA), National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). 

Accordingly, the expectation for the use of institutional controls in corrective action are the same as those

under the CERCLA NCP.

Applicability

Any facility regulated by RCRA engaged in the management, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. 

RCRA CA applies to the control and cleanup of releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents

from these facilities into the environment.

Approach

The purpose of the Corrective Action Program is to implement remedies that eliminate, reduce, or control

risks to human health and the environment. The remedy selection process includes the evaluation of

remedies that: (1) remove or destroy hazardous substances (if possible), eliminating the need for long-term

management; (2) prevent exposures by containing the hazardous substances using engineering controls; and

(3) prevent exposures by institutional controls. 

Institutional Controls

EPA expects to use institutional controls such as water use and deed restrictions to supplement engineering

controls as appropriate for short- and long-term management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous

waste or hazardous constituents. Institutional controls may be used during the RCRA Facility

Investigation, Corrective Measures Study/Implementation; and where necessary as a component of the

completed corrective action. The use of institutional controls does not substitute for active response

measures (e.g., treatment and/or containment of source material, restoration of ground waters to the

beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless such active measures are determined not to be practical, based on

the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives.

Examples of institutional controls, which generally limit human activities at or near RCRA facilities where

contamination remains on-site, at greater than residential concentrations, include land and resource (e.g.,

water) use and deed restrictions, well-drilling prohibitions, building permits, and well use advisories and

deed notices. 

Documentation

The decision to use the institutional controls in a corrective action remedy is documented in the HSWA

Corrective Action Permit, Enforcement Order, or other Enforceable Agreement. Also, institutional controls

should be documented in the Administrative Record for the facility. The type of institutional control will

determine the type documentation necessary to implement it.
53

August 24, 1998

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

(SARA); 40 CFR Part 300, National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan (NCP); Section 300.430 Remedial Investigation/feasibility Study and Selection of

Remedy.

Applicability

The NCP applies to the control and cleanup of releases into the environment of hazardous

substances, and pollutants or contaminants which may present an imminent and substantial danger

to public health or welfare of the United States. 

Approach

The purpose of the remedy selection process is to implement remedies that eliminate, reduce, or

control risks to human health and the environment. The national goal of the remedy selection

process is to select remedies that are protective of human health and the environment, that

maintain protection over time, and that minimize untreated waste.

The remedy selection process includes the evaluation of remedies that: (1) remove or destroy

hazardous substances (if possible), eliminating the need for long-term management; (2) prevent

exposures by containing the hazardous substances using engineering controls; and (3) Prevent

exposures by institutional controls. Each remedy is evaluated using the following nine criteria: 

overall protection of human health and the environment; compliance with applicable or relevant

and appropriate requirements (ARARs); long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of

toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; cost;

state/support agency acceptance; and community acceptance.

Institutional Controls: EPA expects to use institutional controls such as water use and deed

restrictions to supplement engineering controls as appropriate for short- and long-term

management to prevent or limit exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

Institutional controls may be used during the conduct of the remedial investigation/feasibility

study (RI/FS), and implementation of the remedial action and, where necessary as a component of

the completed remedy. The use of institutional controls shall not substitute for active response

measures (e.g., treatment and/or containment of source material, restoration of ground waters to

the beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless such active measures are determined not to be

practical, based on the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives.

Examples of institutional controls, which generally limit human activities at or near facilities where

hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants exist or will remain on-site, include land and

resource (e.g., water) use and deed restrictions, well-drilling prohibitions, building permits, and

well use advisories and deed notices. EPA believes, however, that institutional controls have a

valid role in remediation and are allowed under CERCLA.

Time Period:
54

Where waste is left on-site at levels that would require limited use and restricted exposure, EPA

will conduct reviews at least every five years to monitor the site for any changes. Such reviews

should analyze the implementation and effectiveness of institutional controls with the same degree

of care as other parts of the remedy. Should land use change, it will be necessary to evaluate the

implications of that change for the selected remedy, and whether the remedy remains protective. 

Documentation: The decision to use the institutional control is documented in the Record of

decision (ROD). The type of institutional control will determine the type documentation

necessary to implement it.