EPA & NRC .. Trascript of Ramona's Speach

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

 STATEMENT ON THE NUCLEAR
REGULATORY COMMISSION'S RULE ON
RADIOLOGICAL CRITERIA FOR LICENSE
TERMINATION 

Ramona Trovato

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Radiation and Indoor Air
Office Director

April 21, 1997



INTRODUCTION

	Good afternoon.  My name is Ramona
Trovato; I am the director of EPA's Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air.  Today I represent
the United States Environmental Protection
Agency in our role of protecting the health of
our fellow Americans from exposure to
environmental radiation.  My responsibilities
include developing standards to protect the
public and the environment from radiation. 
Protecting the public is more than just a duty
to me, it's the right thing to do, even though it
is not always the popular or easy thing to do. 
I know that my colleagues at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission feel the same way. 
That is why my staff and I are troubled by the
NRC draft rule on radiological criteria for
license termination that is before us today. 
We believe the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission started on the right path, in the
development of its decommissioning rule, but
is now on the wrong path.
	For many years, the EPA and NRC
staffs have met on numerous occasions to
discuss issues pertinent to the proper
cleanup of sites contaminated with radiation. 
They reviewed data, and discussed technical
and policy issues.  EPA participated in NRC's
extensive national public workshops on site
cleanup.  Even though they did not always
agree on every point, the result of that
cooperative effort was the NRC's proposed
decommissioning rule.  EPA supported that
rule.  We believed, and continue to believe
that the NRC proposal was protective of
public health and the environment.  EPA was
prepared to exercise its option to exempt
NRC from EPA rulemaking based on a finding
that NRC's proposed rule was sufficiently
protective of public health and the
environment. I regret to say that the rule that
NRC now proposes to finalize would not
adequately protect either the health of our
citizens or our nation's natural resources.   
	In August of 1994, the NRC proposed
new regulations that would have mandated
how clean nuclear power plants and other
radiation facilities would have to be before
they could be released to the general public. 
The proposed regulations were good for
protecting the public and the environment for
two basic reasons.  First, they proposed
sufficiently protective levels for cleaning the
air, soil, and water (including groundwater) of
radioactivity.  The regulation would have
ensured equity for all Americans who might
be exposed to residual contamination, be it a
single family living on the land and drinking
from a well or an entire urban neighborhood
living on released property.  Second, if it was
too difficult to clean up the radioactive
pollution on the property for unrestricted use,
the proposed standard allowed beneficial use
of the land by requiring restrictions on uses
of the land to ensure adequate protection of
the public and the environment.  
	On November 15, 1996, Chairman
Jackson in a letter to OMB, stated that NRC
planned to make significant changes to its
proposed rule.  
	Changes were made, but EPA did not
see these changes until April 1, 1997 (three
weeks ago), when NRC sent copies of its draft
rule to EPA.   We were very disappointed.  The
changes that were made would permit a
significantly increased risk of cancer to the
public, would drastically reduce the
protection of a major national, natural
resource --ground water, and would reduce
public input to the decision process at sites
difficult to clean up.  NRC staff, in the
preamble of the current draft, states its belief
that EPA should find the NRC rule sufficiently
protective.  Let me state clearly and
unequivocally that EPA cannot find NRC's
draft rule to be sufficiently protective.  That
conclusion has been conveyed in writing by
the Administrator of EPA to the Chairman of
the Commission.
	Today, I want to discuss three
fundamental issues, and tell you about EPA's
concerns.  The first is the need to establish a
level of protection from radioactive materials
that is both adequately protective and
consistent with the protection afforded the
public from other environmental carcinogens.
 The second is the issue of adequate
provision for public participation.  The third is
the need to protect our Nation's natural
resources --in this case, ground water that is
a current or potential source of drinking
water.


LEVEL OF PROTECTIVENESS
	Let me first discuss the level of
protectiveness afforded by the current draft
rule.  For unrestricted release of a site to the
public, NRC originally proposed a cleanup
level of 15 millirem per year.  The current NRC
draft increases this to 25 millirem per year,
nearly doubling the allowed level of cancer
risk to the public.  But that is not the whole
story.  NRC has also added a provision that
would allow as high as 100 millirem per year
for unrestricted release.  This level is an
increase of seven times their original
proposal and, by NRC's own assessment,
corresponds to a lifetime risk of cancer of one
in two hundred (5 x 10-3).  Whereas the draft
does have some restrictions that would
prevent some sites from going to 100
mrem/yr, we think it is clear that in practice the
rule often would allow sites to clean up to
only 75, 80, or more.  Although 80 is better
than 100 mrem/yr, it still results in a cancer
risk of 1 in 250, a risk that is simply
unacceptably high.   It is ironic to note that at
the same time the President was saying, in his
State of the Union message, AIf you pollute
the environment, you should clean it up.@,
NRC was loosening up its cleanup standards.
 Why is this relaxation needed for NRC
licensees? 
	Both the proposed and the current draft
provide flexibility for difficult-to-clean up sites
by including criteria for license termination
under restricted use.  The criteria include,
among other things, requirements that the
licensee make  provisions for legally
enforceable institutional controls that will
protect citizens from the higher levels of
contamination that are left in place.  The
licensee must also provide sufficient financial
assurance to enable an independent third
party to provide the necessary control and
maintenance.  We agree with this flexibility
and the efficiency it provides, but believe this
flexibility is sufficient for the tough cases that
NRC is concerned about.  
	EPA's Superfund experience is that
protective levels can be met with creative land
use controls and reasonable cleanup efforts. 
There is simply no need to allow higher risks
to the public just to decommission sites.  We
have repeatedly asked NRC for specific
examples of cleanups where protective levels
cannot be met.  We have yet to see any.  We
would hope that NRC would not change a fine
proposal and expose the public to
unnecessary risks without first allowing us to
work together on a real world example of a
supposedly problem site.
	NRC has expressed the view that this
draft rule would satisfy Federal radiation
protection guidance, proposed for public
comment by EPA on December 24, 1994.  For
the record, I wish to state that it would not. 
EPA's proposal made a clear distinction
between a theoretical upper bound on
exposure of individuals to radiation from all
sources, now and in the future, and limits
applicable to individual sources.  It specified
that regulations applicable to any individual
source of exposure should be limited to well
below that theoretical upper bound.  The
objective of the guidance was to achieve
consistency among the risk management
goals that apply to all environmental
carcinogens, including radiation, under a
wide range of environmental statutes.  The
goal specified was a lifetime risk of no greater
than about one in ten thousand.  Perhaps the
proposed guidance did not make this
adequately clear.  We will ensure that any final
recommendations to the President are
unambiguous on this point.  
	NRC's draft final rule would permit, at
the extreme, release of a site for unrestricted
use with residual radioactive contamination
yielding the full value of the theoretical upper
bound on dose to an individual -100 mrem per
year.   The fact that the rule contemplates that
a lower value, 25 mrem per year, will normally
be met is irrelevant.  The function of a
standard is to provide a limit for the difficult
cases, not to identify the parameters
bounding the easy ones.  
	To illustrate the unreasonableness of
this change in the allowable dose, let me point
out that nuclear power reactors are now
operating successfully under EPA's
standards, set almost 20 years ago, with
maximum releases of radioactive materials
that correspond to doses of approximately 15
mrem per year effective dose equivalent. 
NRC's implementation of this standard has, in
both guidance and practice, been even more
protective.  Under the license termination
draft before us today, a reactor site could be
released for unrestricted use with residual
contamination yielding doses approximately
seven times higher than those permitted from
a reactor during its operating lifetime, when it
was producing the benefit of electrical power
to society --thus promoting inconsistent
protection of the public.  I must also point out
that a 100 mrem dose would result in a risk
that is seven times higher than would be
permitted for other environmental pollutants
under the Nation's laws governing the
cleanup of contaminated sites.   Why should a
citizen who lives on or near a former
NRC-licensed site be exposed to a higher risk
of cancer than one living near an operating
nuclear power plant, or someone living on or
near a former superfund site?  NRC's
proposed rule recognized this dichotomy,
and protected everyone equally.   
	This year's State of the Union address
included an exhortation to protect our
environment in every community so that our
children grow up next to parks, not poison.
There are over 4,500 NRC licensees that
could release contamination into the
environment, and these licensees should live
by a simple rule: If you pollute our
environment, you should pay to clean it up. 
To put it bluntly, radiation should not be
treated as a privileged pollutant.  You and I
should not be exposed to higher risks from
radiation sites than we would be from sites
which had contained any other environmental
pollutant.  
	In a separate, but related issue, on
September 16, 1996 NRC released a series of
Strategic Assessment Issue Papers.  One
dealt with decommissioning of non-reactor
facilities.  That paper included an option for
transferring certain sites to the EPA's
Superfund program.  Among the reasons
cited for the transfer, NRC said that this
option would enable EPA to utilize its greater
legal authority to compel remediation.  NRC
must have known that transferring these sites
to Superfund would ensure that they would
be cleaned up to criteria similar to those set
forth in their proposed rule for radiological
criteria for license termination.  Now, NRC is
suggesting a different, more lenient standard
for the rest of their licensees.  Why should we
have a double standard for these cleanups?
	NRC says in the preamble of their
current draft that EPA should find their rule to
be sufficiently protective.  Let me emphasize
once again, NRC's draft rule is not sufficiently
protective.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
	I know that NRC and EPA share the
view that early, direct, and meaningful public
involvement is essential in decision-making to
protect our environment.  In fact, the
Commission states that public involvement is
a cornerstone of strong, fair regulation of the
nuclear industry. 
	I know, however, that there are
differences in how EPA and NRC translate
policy into action.  In its regulatory
requirements under this decommissioning
rule, NRC does not require itself to
incorporate or respond to public comments
regarding its own license termination actions.
	NRC has weakened public participation
requirements, while at the same time,
loosening the standards that its licensees
must meet.  While we oppose this action, it
seems obvious to us that any regulatory
activity that could result in increased risk to
the public should require public input to the
public entity making that decision, in this
case, the NRC.  The  NRC owes it to the public
to respond to their concerns on the record. 
The public is entitled to know why decisions
are made to put their lives at increased risk.  
	In addition,  NRC has removed the
provision requiring a Site Specific Advisory
Board.  In the proposed rule, this Board was
to have been convened for situations in
which a licensee could not meet the
conditions for unrestricted release, in order to
obtain advice regarding the proposed
restricted decommissioning.  The Advisory
Boards were to provide advice to NRC
licensees on ways to reduce the radioactivity;
on whether institutional controls would
actually meet the standard, would be
enforceable, or would impose undue burdens
on the local community; and on whether the
licensee had provided sufficient financial
assurance.  EPA has found these boards to
be very helpful in improving cleanup
decisions at Superfund sites.  Unfortunately,
the NRC's most recent draft has deleted the
requirement for a Site Specific Advisory
Board.  We believe that both NRC and the
public will suffer from its removal.  

GROUND WATER THAT IS A CURRENT OR
POTENTIAL SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER
	We are deeply concerned over the
inadequate protection of ground water that is
a current or potential source of drinking water
in this draft rule.  NRC has not adequately
addressed the three crucial issues involved in
the protection of ground water.  First, ground
water must be protected as a natural
resource.  Second, protecting ground water
used as drinking water is a human health
issue.  Third, protecting ground water used as
drinking water involves basic issues of
economic fairness.
	EPA's position on protecting ground
water as a natural resource represents a
balanced, reasoned approach.  Not all ground
water, but rather only ground water that is a
current or potential source for drinking water
must be protected.  That protection must meet
the public health requirements set out in the
Safe Drinking Water Act, not because those
requirements were developed for ground
water, but because current and potential
sources of drinking water are an important
national resource.  Finally, there is no
justification to pass the cost of cleanup from
the polluter to the user.  As President Clinton
said in his State of the Union Address,
AAmericans have a right to expect that our
water will be the cleanest in the world.@  
	In 1994, the NRC proposed in their draft
rule a separate ground water standard that
protected ground water to the drinking water
standards.  NRC's current draft rule is
radically different from their original proposal. 
Now, no separate ground water standard
exists.   
	In a November 15, 1996 letter to OMB,
NRC Chairman Jackson asserted that
protecting ground water is too costly.  Part of
the NRC rationale is that much of the ground
water is clean, and that the expensive testing
needed to determine that it is clean would not
result in any saved lives.  But these
arguments (please pardon the pun) don't hold
water.  First of all, in any situation where a
drinking water pathway now exists, NRC
would have to include ground water testing. 
Without it, NRC would be unable to
demonstrate compliance with its own
standard.  
	Secondly, in any situation where
contamination threatens ground water, and
NRC does not require testing, NRC would be
allowing potentially unlimited contamination
of that ground water.  The fact that NRC
thinks there are many places where testing
would not occur illustrates that the draft rule
would allow many places to have
radioactively contaminated ground water.  In
that same letter, NRC says that the cost of
cleaning the water can be justified only when
there is a relatively large population near the
polluted water.  I am certain that NRC does
not mean to suggest that rural citizens have a
lesser right to safe drinking water than do city
dwellers or that whether or not a person is at
a risk for cancer should depend on how many
neighbors he or she has. 
	It is important to note that NRC, in its
rule on uranium mill tailings, already protects
ground water used, now or in the future, as
drinking water to the levels specified under
the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Last August,
when signing the ASafe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996, the President said Athis
Act will provide the American people with
much greater protection for the drinking water
on which we all rely every day of our lives.@ 
Six months later, NRC deleted its requirement
for meeting MCLs from their cleanup rule. 
Why is the NRC changing its policy on
ground water used as drinking water? 
	In looking for guidance on protecting
ground water as a natural resource, we
should look to the precedents on how we
protect our nation's air and surface water.  Air
and surface water are protected as natural
resources through the Clean Air Act and the
Clean Water Act.  Just because ground water
is Aout-of-sight@ doesn't mean that it should
be, or can be Aout-of-mind.@  This vital
resource provides over 50% of the U.S.
population --140 million citizens--with their
drinking water.  Nearly two thirds of all
ground water now in use is used by farmers
for irrigation of the fruits and vegetables that
you and I eat every day.
	The issue of ground water is also a
health issue --our health.  As I stated earlier,
NRC removed the separate ground water
standard from the current draft.  NRC
licensees now would be allowed to pollute
ground water --water that you and I could
drink --with radioactive contaminants at levels
25 times greater than drinking water
standards; this equates to a lifetime fatal
cancer risk of 1 in every 200 people.  For the
50 million people drinking water from private
wells (well water that is infrequently if ever
tested for radionuclides) the NRC draft would
permit unprecedented risk and costs.  
	 This final point, about the economics of
cleaning up contaminated ground water, is of
vital importance.  The concept of
Apolluter-pays@ is ultimately a question of
fairness.  The burden of cleaning up ground
water cannot be allowed to shift from the
polluter to the public, as it would under the
current NRC draft rule.  If the polluter escapes
his responsibility, any number of innocent
property owners could be forced to pay. 
How?  In many localities, private ground
water sources must be tested and, if
necessary, remediated or treated before a
property can be sold.  This could decrease
the value of the home and it could require the
homeowner to pay for expensive systems to
reduce the radionuclides in their water.  On a
broader scale, this same scenario could affect
an entire aquifer or an entire community. 
Don't forget, ground water and pollution in
ground water often move very slowly.  It could
be decades or centuries before the
contamination shows in the wells of
community water systems adjacent to a
former licensee--long after the former NRC
licensee is forgotten or has gone out of
business.  Does the NRC expect that the
responsibility for managing and remediating
such sites should be transferred to EPA's
Superfund program?
	In conclusion, let me summarize our
concerns.  This draft rule would not ensure
adequate protection of the public health and
the environment.  It would not provide the
public the level of protection from residual
radioactive materials from NRC licensees that
they are afforded for other environmental
pollutants under EPA's remediation
programs, including those that involve
radioactive materials.  It would weaken key
opportunities for public input.  Finally, it
would exempt radioactive pollutants from
most NRC licensees from the ground water
protection requirements that others must
meet.  In short, it would create a situation in
which radioactive materials that are subject to
NRC regulation are treated as privileged
pollutants that may meet lesser, more relaxed
goals for protection of the public and natural
resources than other carcinogens.
	As the Administrator advised the
Chairman of the Commission in her letter of
February 7 1997, regarding the current draft of
this rule, EPA would find it necessary to
reconsider its exemption of NRC licensees
from provisions of Superfund.  That
exemption was based on the presumption
that NRC will provide protection of the public
and the Nation's natural resources equivalent
to that provided under Superfund.  This draft
of the rule would not satisfy that test.  We
trust that, upon reconsideration, the NRC will
satisfy EPA's concerns.  If that does not
occur, these issues should be elevated to the
Administrator of EPA and the Chairman of the
NRC for resolution. 
	We know that our colleagues at NRC
consider protecting  human health and the
environment to be a national priority.  We
sincerely hope that they will return to their
earlier proposal on radiological criteria for
license termination as a reaffirmation of that
principle.

Mark Winslow
US EPA - Region II