Clean Up Rule Info

[MARK WINSLOW <WINSLOW.MARK@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV>]

FYI - Sorry to create several head aches out
there but here is some info.

 The following is a copy of the text of the letter
dated 2/7/97 from 
     Browner to Jackson:
     
     
     Shirley Ann Jackson
     Chairman
     Nuclear Regulatory Commission
     etc.
     
     I am writing regarding the NRC rule on
radiological criteria for 
     license termination that is expected to be
finalized early this year.  
     We are concerned that NRC may choose to
take a more lenient position 
     than it previously proposed concerning
ground water remediation and 
     cleanup levels.
     
     We understand that NRC is giving particular
consideration to making 
     significant changes from its proposed rule of
August 22, 1994.  The 
     EPA finds these changes, such as
increasing the proposed dose limit 
     from 15 mrem/yr to as much as 30 mrem/yr
and eliminating a separate 
     requirement for protecting ground water that
could be used as drinking 
     water to the Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) established under the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act, to be disturbing.
     
     With regards to ground water, this
Administrations's position is that 
     current or potential furure sources of
drinking water are a valued 
     national resource and should be protected to
levels suitable for 
     drinking (e.g., MCLs).  A cleanup standard
based solely on a 
     multipathway dose limit (either 15 or 30
mrem/yr) does not ensure that 
     ground water is cleaned up within the
aquifer, but instead could rely 
     solely on exposure controls.  Therefore,
EPA thinks that it is vital 
     that the NRC rule protect ground water that
is a current or potential 
     future source of drinking water.
     
     If in fact our understanding is correct, then
EPA would also consider 
     NRC's rule to be not protective under
CERCLA and not consistent with 
     this and previous Administrations' Ground
Water Policy.  EPA has the 
     authority to choose not to respond to certain
types of releases under 
     CERCLA because existing regulatory or
other authority under other 
     Federal statutes provides for an appropriate
response.  EPA has 
     previously chosen not to list on its National
Priorities List (NPL) 
     for CERCLA releases of source,
by-product, or special nuclear material 
     from any facility with a current license
issued by the NRC.  This 
     decision was made on the grounds that the
NRC has full authority to 
     require cleanup of releases from such
facilities.
     
     If NRC were to promulgate its rule with the
above-referenced changes, 
     EPA would be forced to reconsider its policy
of exempting NRC sites 
     from the NPL.  This change in EPA listing
policy for the NPL would 
     reflect the EPA view that NRC regulation
would not be adequately 
     protective of human health and the
environment under CERCLA and the 
     National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan 
     (NCP).
     
     In addition to the issues raised by the NRC
rulemaking, there appear 
     to be consistency issues with two existing
NRC guidance (NRC Branch 
     Technical Position "Disposal of On-Site
Storage of Thorium or Uranium 
     from Past Operations," 46 FR 52061,
October, 1981, and Policy and 
     Guidance Directive FC 83-23 "Guidelines
for Decontamination of 
     Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release
for Unrestricted Use or 
     Termination of License for Byproduct,
Source, or Special Nuclear 
     Material License," August 1987) and the
NCP and Superfund guidance 
     since they recommend cleanup levels for
some radionuclides that may 
     result in doses higher than 15 mrem/yr.
     
     I view these changes to the NRC rulemaking
on radiological criteria 
     for license termination, and the potential
action that may be required 
     of EPA, to be very serious matters.  We will
be happy to work with 
     your staff to ensure the promulgation of a
rule, and the development 
     of related guidance, that are consistent with
CERCLA.
     
     Sincerely,
     
     Carol Browner


Mark P. Winslow
US EPA - Region II
winslow.mark@epamail.epa.gov

ps.  None of this stuff is confedential.  You can
get it through a freedom of information act
request anyway.