On October 9, 2002, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the decommissioning of radioactive sites licensed by NRC. The agreement was requested to alleviate claims of "dual regulation" by the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, the NRC and the nuclear industry, all of whom appear to be dissatisfied with the result because EPA continues to have a role.
Nuclear Information and Resource Service is also dissatisfied with the result because it permits radioactivity to remain at sites after the licensee has left and is relieved of all liability. The NRC thinks it is okay for a "cleaned up" site to give off enough radioactivity to cause 1 in 1144 people exposed for their lifetimes to get fatal cancer and in some circumstances (restricted release) that risk could be 4 to 20 times higher. The EPA thinks 1 in a million to 1 in 10,000 fatal cancers are acceptable. From a public health perspective, we deserve better from our regulators. At least EPA has a goal of complete cleanup even if it is not required. The upshot is that once a nuclear site operates, it will never be fully cleaned up again. The public needs to be absolutely clear on this especially when new nuclear facilities are proposed and when looking for a place to live, work and raise children.
The agreement outlines what reportedly has been the practice already: NRC's decommissioning rules apply but NRC now must simply notify EPA if the water or soil will be more contaminated than EPA levels permit. Then EPA must then work with the NRC and the licensee and provide recommendations for meeting the requirements. If NRC doesn't adopt the EPA's recommendations, NRC must notify EPA. EPA must then consult with NRC on the actions it does intend to take.
The NRC decommissioning rule (10 CFR 20 Subpart E) was adopted in July 1997 despite dissatisfaction of dozens of local, regional and national environmental and public interest groups who actively participated in the "Enhanced Rulemaking on Residual Radioactivity" (dubbed the ERORR process). After months of meetings and comments and discussion, NRC adopted a final rule that including none of the provisions requested by the public groups and supposedly accepted by the NRC.
NRC regulations allow closed nuclear sites to give off as much or more radioactivity as operating sites. NRC continues to reduce public protections in decommissioning through ongoing guidance and implementation documents.
For example, NRC is making a majority of public concerns "generic" in order to remove them from local reviews, making it more difficult for communities left with contaminated sites to have input or information on them.
The least NRC can do is require sites to cleaned up to EPA's levels. It is not "dual regulation" but complete regulation that the nuclear licensees oppose.
Diane D'Arrigo, NIRS radioactive waste project director will call upon NRC to comply with EPA's guidance at the EPA NRC meeting on November 5. "We call on Congress and the States to weigh in in support of more protection from closed nuclear sites, complete cleanup and compliance with existing EPA requirements. Neither agency is making the polluter pay fully as they should. If dual regulation is really a concern, it is obvious that the agency with the greatest protection should prevail. Congress and both regulatory agencies should be protecting the public health and safety, not cow-towing to the nuclear industry polluters who want full relief from liability."