Re: 15 or 25 mrem per year?

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 2/11/2004 6:25:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, 

RadConDean@comcast.net writes:

Since the NRC limits only deal with radioactive materials, it begs the

question as to whether or not the EPA risk assessment ignore chemicals as

well when they are dealing with radioactive materials, or is some total site

risk calculated?



Since many site involve both toxic and radioactive materials, maybe someone

out there can comment on EPAs total site risk concept, if one exists.

I am not from the EPA, and if anyone out there is, I expect they'll jump in 

and criticize or correct me as they see fit, but I have taken a long and hard 

look at the regulations and policy in this area, and here is my take:



Jurisdiction makes all the difference.  Decommissioning criteria and 

processes will vary, depending on whether or not you are cleaning up a DOE site, a DOD 

site, an NRC site, an Agreement State site, or a site subject for whatever 

reason to CERCLA.



The October 2002 MOU between the NRC and the EPA bound the NRC to "consult" 

with the EPA under certain conditions, but did not in any real sense bind the 

EPA to anything.  The table included in the MOU presents concentrations of 

radioactive material in soil, which if they are proposed to be exceeded or 

actually exceeded in any decommissioning action, require the NRC to invite the EPA 

into the cleanup process.  



By comparing the concentration levels in the MOU with the EPA's published 

"Preliminary Remediation Goals" (PRGs), it is quite obvious that the 

concentrations correspond to the EPA's generic residential scenario at a risk level of 

1E-4 increased risk of cancer over a lifetime, or in a generic conversion to risk 

(which the EPA generally abhors and disclaims) about 5 millirem per year.



Essentially, in my opinion, the NRC and the EPA went to the table with a 

disagreement in cleanup levels that amounted to a difference between 15 and 25 

millirem, and walked away agreeing to 5 millirem.  Somebody got taken for a ride. 

 In addition, while not explicit on the face of the MOU, the MOU does not 

apply to Agreement State decommissioning actions, but only to those in states 

where the NRC retains authority over radioactive materials licensing.  That's 

pretty significant when one considers that about 80% of the licensees in the US 

are Agreement State licensees.



And, don't be fooled by the EPA's conservatism in this rather public 

negotiation - on a case by case basis, they're generally quite willing to push the 

envelope on acceptable criteria.  The West Valley site in NY is a case in point, 

where they agree that NRC's decommissioning criteria of 25 millirem per year 

will generally be protective.



I have researched this issue quite well and thoroughly, and would be happy to 

provide citations and support for every assertion, and further explain EPA's 

convoluted methodology for arriving at a cleanup criteria in the context of 

actual cleanups.



Barbara L. Hamrick, CHP, JD