1995-03-09 – NRC – EPA – West Lake Landfill – Policy Issue – Deferral of Regulatory oversight to EPA


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 2 1995
March 9, 1995
(Notation Vote) SECY-95-056
The Commissioners
James M. Taylor
Executive Director for Operations **
To obtain the Commission’s approval for the staff to defer to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the oversight of remediation
activities involving radioactive contamination at two sites and for staff’s
intent to allow disposal of licensed radioactive material in a hazardous waste
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and EPA conduct regulatory programs for site
remediation under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), respectively. Under certain
conditions, NRC staff believes it would be appropriate for NRC to defer to
EPA, or an authorized State environmental protection program, for the
oversight of remediation of radioactively contaminated sites under NRC
Contact: Heather M. Astwood, NMSS
The Commissioners – 2 –
jurisdiction. The staff is proposing to defer, to ERA and an authorized State
environmental program, regulation of remediation of two unlicensed sites:
E.I. DuPont, Newport, DE; and West Lake Landfill, Bridgeton, MO. In addition,
the staff intends to authorize disposal of licensed material generated from
remediating Dow Chemical sites in Midland and Bay City, MI, in a hazardous
waste landfill regulated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources under
the EPA-authorized RCRA program. Remediation activities at these sites are at
various stages of completion. Based on reviews to date, the staff believes
that the remedial actions and disposal required by ERA, or the authorized
State program, will be sufficient to protect the public and the environment
from the risks associated with the radioactive contamination at these sites.
Deferral would conserve Federal and licensee resources, streamline the
remediation process by eliminating duplicative agency reviews, and simplify
the review process by consolidating regulatory oversight within a single
agency. If the Commission approves deferral and disposal, the staff would:
continue to provide limited technical assistance to ERA or State agencies, on
request, for all sites (licensed and non-licensed); monitor remediation
activities; and review all relevant documents developed by the licensee and
ERA or State for each site with an NRC license.
As part of NRC’s decommissioning program for nuclear facilities under the AEA,
some contaminated facilities pose special problems because of the presence of
both non-radiological and radiological hazards, limited technical and
financial viability of licensees, and concurrent regulatory jurisdiction over
various aspects of decommissioning. Some of the sites are being, or w i l l be,
remediated under EPA’s Superfund Program, in accordance with CERCLA and the
National Contingency Plan in 40 CFR Part 300. Other sites involve assessment
and disposal of hazardous waste under EPA’s RCRA Program. Similar interfaces
exist between NRC and State regulatory programs, in which EPA’s authority
under CERCLA and RCRA has been delegated to States. ERA actively promotes
delegation of the RCRA program to authorized States and tends to defer to
States that are w i l l i n g to oversee preparation of the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS) for individual sites.
Although the RCRA and CERCLA Programs both address hazards to the environment,
CERCLA is the more comprehensive statute because it addresses both operating
and inactive facilities and includes hazardous materials, as well as source,
special nuclear, and byproduct material as defined in the AEA. The staff
previously discussed EPA’s RCRA and CERCLA Programs in SECYs 93-235 and
93-322. RCRA uses a general regulatory program to manage hazardous waste from
generation to ultimate disposal. CERCLA provides authority to respond
whenever there is a release or potential release of hazardous material. The
facility owner or operator implements RCRA corrective action, whereas CERCLA
responses may be implemented by a number of different parties, including
private or public responsible parties, States, or Federal authorities. CERCLA
“hazardous substances” include RCRA “hazardous wastes,” as well as toxic
pollutants under the Clean Water Act (CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), and Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although source, special nuclear, and
byproduct materials are excluded from regulation under CWA, TSCA, and RCRA,
they are included under the CAA, so they are included within the scope of
CERCLA. Consequently, ERA can require remediation of both non-radiological
The Commissioners – 3 –
and radiological contamination, including source, special nuclear, and
byproduct material, in accordance with CERCLA.1
As a general policy, ERA has declined listing NRC-licensed sites for
remediation on the National Priorities List (NPL), in deference to NRC
regulation under the AEA, provided that remediation is progressing under an
NRC license. However, ERA has required remediation under RCRA or CERCLA at
sites that exhibited non-radiological contamination (e.g., chromium
contamination at the Shieldalloy facility in Newfield, NJ) or that were
licensed by Agreement States (e.g., Homestake uranium mill in Milan, NM).
Based on the most recent version of the NPL (February 1994), the total number
of sites listed on the NPL is 1191. The Superfund Program is wellestablished,
and has defined remediation procedures and criteria, including
those that address radioactive materials. Although the remediation process
and criteria are not identical to NRC’s, they are parallel in scope and
purpose, and in the staff’s judgment, are generally adequate for the
protection of the public and the environment. A detailed explanation of the
Superfund site remediation and closure process is given in Enclosure 1 of
The Commission has previously considered staff recommendations to establish
procedures for transferring sites from NRC to EPA, for remediation under the
Superfund Program. In a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) concerning
SECY-89-224, dated August 22, 1989, the Commission stated that it w i l l decide
whether to pursue the transfer of sites, to EPA, for remediation, on a
case-by-case basis, or through a memorandum of understanding (MOD). The
March 16, 1992, general MOD between EPA and NRC explicitly excludes matters
arising under CERCLA and RCRA. Since the general MOU was signed, NRC staff
has negotiated site-specific cooperative agreements for remediation of the
Homestake uranium m i l l , under CERCLA, and the Sequoyah Fuels and Engelhard
Corporation facilities, under RCRA. The staff is also currently discussing
cooperative agreements with State agencies in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
In another SRM dated December 21, 1989, the Commission rejected the staff’s
recommendation to develop a protocol with EPA to govern the application of
Superfund to contaminated sites. Instead of developing a protocol, the
Commission directed the staff to provide, for each site the staff proposes to
defer to EPA or a State agency, under Superfund, analyses of: (1) the cleanup
standard that would apply under Superfund, and the differences between that
standard and the AEA standard; (2) the rights and authorities the State would
have if Superfund were extended to the site; and (3) the rights and
authorities that private citizens would have to sue the Federal Government or
the licensee(s), using the citizen-suit provisions of Superfund.
More recently, the staff proposed to the Commission, in SECY 93-235, to
communicate with EPA about transferring the Safety Light Corporation (SLC)
site at Bloomsburg, PA, to EPA, to supervise site remediation under Superfund.
The rationale for the transfer was to accelerate the remediation of the site
1 CERCLA does not cover releases that are subject to NRC required
financial protection pursuant to Section 170 of the AE Act (i.e., Price
Anderson), nor releases from a processing site under Title I of the Uranium
Mill Tailing Radiation Control Act of 1978.
The Commissioners – 4 –
and limit the Federal resources devoted to the litigation to compel SLC to
remediate the site. The paper explained that during the first half of 1993,
the staff and the licensee tried unsuccessfully to settle the litigation and
the staff believed, as of the date of the paper, that further negotiations
would be futile and litigation would resume shortly. While the Commission was
considering SECY-93-235, the parties resumed negotiations; and in an SRM dated
November 2, 1993, the Commission returned SECY-93-235 to the staff,
“…pending the outcome of the negotiations,” and instructed the staff to
“…keep the Commission informed of further developments and, based on the
outcome of the negotiations, submit recommendations for further action to the
Commission, should that be necessary.” The staff recently completed
negotiations with SLC and successfully concluded a settlement agreement that
governs characterization and remediation planning for the Bloomsburg site.
In a related matter, SECY-93-136 presented the Commission with an analysis of
the State of Utah decision to allow Envirocare of Utah to use only
institutional controls as a means of reducing the risk to the public health
and safety after closure, without government land ownership. ERA regulations
do not always require government land ownership of sites such as these. The
Commission determined that this approach was adequate for protection of the
public health and safety in this particular case, and in a Director’s Decision
under 10 CFR 2.206 issued by the Office of State Programs on January 26, 1995,
the Commission did not revoke Utah’s Agreement State status.
At sites where radioactive and non-radioactive materials are located in
distinct and separate areas, NRC and ERA oversight and regulation of remedial
actions can proceed effectively and efficiently. Although the effectiveness
of the government’s response and oversight can be strengthened through
interagency cooperation, each area can be remediated independently in
accordance with each agency’s requirements and administrative process.
However, independent regulation of remedial activities is not always possible.
There are some sites that contain commingled radioactive and non-radioactive
contamination. At other sites, the contamination is not commingled, but
remediation of one type of contamination would affect the responsible party’s
ability or approach to characterization and remediation of the other type of
contamination. In other cases, although the predominant hazard may be
associated with one type of contamination, the licensee or property owner is
not capable, technically or financially, to remediate either type of
contamination, thus preventing timely and effective completion of necessary
decommissioning or remedial actions. In yet other cases, the responsible
party desires a coordinated government response to reduce overall costs,
improve efficiency, and promote a compatible solution for both types of
Under certain circumstances, the staff believes it would be appropriate for
NRC to defer to ERA or authorized State oversight of remediation efforts,
under CERCLA, RCRA, or State statutes. Deferral at these sites would reduce
the amount of duplicative effort by both agencies and by the site owners. For
example, the types of analyses performed by ERA as part of the development of
the RI/FS, under CERCLA (40 CFR 300.430), are very similar to the analyses
The Commissioners – 5 –
conducted by NRC in developing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51. Both
agencies require submission of fairly extensive information on the
environmental characteristics of the contaminated sites and the nature and
extent of contamination. In addition, the agencies require preparation and
submission of a plan for implementing remedial measures found necessary to
remove or contain contamination in accordance with applicable remediation
criteria. EPA’s plan is called a Remedial Design; NRC calls this a
decommissioning plan.
Without cooperation between the agencies, therefore, it is conceivable that
site owners could be required by the government to develop separate reports
for each agency on site characterization, assessment of remediation
alternatives, projected environmental impacts, plans for remedial measures,
and documentation that the remedial measures were appropriately implemented.
Such an approach could result in an unnecessarily duplicative and burdensome
effort by the site owners and by the agencies.
At worst, the requirements of one agency could explicitly conflict with those
of the other agency, thus frustrating the government’s overall intent to
ensure protection of the public and the environment from residual
contamination. If, for example, EPA decided to allow hazardous waste to
remain onsite, to avoid excessive worker exposure and cost, and NRC decided
that commingled radioactive waste would have to be exhumed and disposed of
offsite, it would be difficult and burdensome, if not impossible, for the site
owner to simultaneously comply with-the requirements of both agencies. The
conflict would be especially significant if one action preceded the other
(e.g., EPA requires a cover to be placed over the waste; NRC later determines
that the radioactive waste needs to be removed for off-site disposal).
The staff believes that it is appropriate to rely on EPA’s environmental
remediation programs to ensure protection of the public and environment at the
DuPont and Westlake Landfill sites. Both cases may rely, at least in part, on
institutional controls to ensure long-term protection. As discussed
previously and in the attachments, such reliance on institutional controls is
somewhat inconsistent with NRC’s established policies for low-level
radioactive waste disposal (cf. State or Federal land ownership requirement
for low level waste disposal in 10 CFR 61.59(a)). However, the staff believes
that EPA remediation will be sufficient to provide adequate protection under
the Atomic Energy Act.
In addition, deferral to EPA provides numerous savings in terms of reducing
the administrative and regulatory burden on responsible parties conducting the
remediation and in conserving NRC staff resources. The staff estimates that
deferral of each site should save between 0.25 and 0.5 FTE per year in direct
staff resources required to oversee remediation at the sites. These resources
would partially duplicate the oversight functions that EPA staff will provide
in overseeing the safe and protective execution of the planned remedial
actions. In addition, deferral should save NRC an additional 0.5 FTE per year
and S600K in program support that could be necessary at each site to prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to support consideration of exemptions
from NRC’s existing requirements for decommissioning for unrestricted use.
The Commissioners – 6 –
Since November 1993, the staff has initiated several EISs to consider
exemption requests as appropriate considering the requirements in 10 CFR Part
51. Deferral should also improve the timeliness of remediation by avoiding
the potential delay that could be associated with administration of
independent and complementary regulatory approval processes for remediation.
Remediation could be further delayed by opportunities for legal challenges to
NRC approval of remedial actions.
Allowing disposal of the Dow wastes in the hazardous waste landfill cells in
Midland may also allow a small increase in the long-term risk to the public
and environment due to some reliance on institutional controls. As previously
described for the Westlake and DuPont site remediation projects, however, NRC
staff believes that such disposal would provide adequate protection of the
public, and any small increase in the associated risk is counterbalanced by
the improvements in efficiency, reduction in regulatory and administrative
burden, and savings of NRC and responsible party resources.
The staff does not consider, however, that these cases would necessarily
establish a precedent for resolution of other waste disposal and
decommissioning cases or establishment of general requirements in these areas.
The decisions on deferral and on approving waste disposal are specific to
these cases. In the cases of DuPont and Westlake Landfill, the radioactive
components appear to be intimately mixed with non-radiological contaminants
and wastes that are not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. In fact, at
least for some of the wastes, the dominant risks to the public and environment
may be attributable to the non-radiological contaminants. In addition, both
sites are already listed on the National Priorities List for remediation under
CERCLA, and the basis for listing and selection of the remedies included
consideration of the radiological contaminants.
In the Dow case, the staff has considered the merits of disposing of the
specific wastes present at the Dow sites and under the specified conditions
for disposal as proposed by the licensee and the State. Staff has already
approved other disposals of radioactive waste in or adjacent to hazardous
waste landfill cells in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 20.302 and
20.2002. Each of these disposals has been based on a site-specific review by
the NRC staff to ensure adequate protection of the public and that potential
radiological doses do not exceed NRC’s limits in 10 CFR Part 20. In most
cases, the staff has assured that the potential doses do not exceed a small
fraction of the public dose l i m i t . The Dow case is especially significant,
however, because it involves the disposal of a relatively large volume of
radioactive waste that will be generated in decommissioning an SDMP site and
that intrusion into the waste, if it were to occur, could result in doses that
may exceed the public dose limit (e.g., if the intruder were to live on top of
exposed waste for an extended period). The staff believes that the likelihood
of such intrusion is remote in the Dow case because of the design of the
disposal cells and the use of the general area for disposal of hazardous
waste. It is likely that an intruder into the waste would recognize that a
waste disposal cell had been breached and could suffer risk from the nonradiological
contaminants in adjacent cells even if the NRC did not authorize
disposal of the radioactive waste.
The staff would be prepared to entertain similar requests to the Dow request
from licensees to dispose of licensed material in hazardous waste landfills or
The Commissioners – 7 –
other suitable disposal facilities (e.g., monofills, sanitary landfills) in
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 20.2002. In such cases, as with
the Dow case, the burden would rest with the licensee to demonstrate that the
requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 will be satisfied, specifically that the
potential doses will be consistent with the Part 20 limits and are as low as
is reasonably achievable. Credit for institutional controls, such as those
that accompany Dow’s proposal, would also be considered on a site-specific
basi s.
For these reasons, the staff believes that NRC should defer to EPA or State
oversight regulatory programs for specific aspects of the remediation of two
contaminated sites: E.I. DuPont, Newport, DE; Cotter Corporation (West Lake
Landfill), Bridgeton, MO; and allow disposal of radioactive waste from
remediation in a RCRA permitted landfill for Dow Chemical, Midland and Bay
City (Salzburg Landfill), MI. By deferral, the staff means a variety of
approaches depending on the specific status of the contaminated sites.
For the DuPont site, the staff proposes to recognize EPA’s approved remedial
measures under CERCLA as being sufficiently protective of the public and
environment. The site is not currently licensed by NRC; NRC licensing and
oversight of the remediation of a small quantity of thorium waste in a
landfill would not be necessary, nor required, under the AEA. No further
action would be taken by the NRC staff, unless specifically requested by EPA.
For the West Lake Landfill site, EPA has already agreed to assume lead
responsibility for the site. The West Lake Landfill is listed in NRC’s Site
Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP). The NRC staff is proposing to defer
to EPA oversight of remedial measures under CERCLA. EPA’s remediation of the
site already considers both radioactive and non-radioactive materials. The
site is not currently licensed by NRC; the staff would take no further action
at the site after deferral, unless specifically requested by EPA. NRC would
remove the site from the SDMP after EPA completes remedial measures at the
Regarding the Dow Chemical sites in Midland and Bay City, Michigan, the staff
proposes to allow the licensee to dispose of thorium-contaminated waste in a
licensee-owned and permitted hazardous waste landfill designed and operated in
accordance with the RCRA requirements administered by EPA and the State of
Michigan. The staff would authorize disposal in accordance with NRC
requirements in 10 CFR 20.2002 and support the decision with an Environmental
Assessment that would presume the effectiveness of RCRA controls in ensuring
protection of the public and environment. Regulatory responsibility for the
management and long-term control of the thorium in the disposal site would, in
theory rest with NRC. However, in terminating the license, NRC would
recognize that controls for the hazardous waste, developed under RCRA, while
relying on land use restrictions which are not dependant on State or EPA
regulatory power, w i l l be adequate for the thorium as well. In allowing
disposal in the Salzburg Landfill, NRC would be recognizing that disposal of
thorium-contaminated wastes in a hazardous waste landfill may be acceptable
under the AEA, instead of requiring offsite disposal at a licensed radioactive
waste disposal facility. The Dow storage sites are listed in the SDMP and are
being remediated under an NRC license. NRC staff would continue to license
and regulate the remedial measures directed at removing the thorium waste from
its present locations. At such time as all waste has been satisfactorily
The Commissioners – 8 –
disposed of in the hazardous waste landfill and residual radioactivity has
been reduced in accordance with existing criteria, the staff would terminate
Dow’s license for the Midland and Bay City sites and no further action would
be taken by the NRC staff.
Background information for the DuPont, Westlake Landfill, and Dow sites is
provided in Attachments 1 to 3, respectively. The potential advantages and
disadvantages of deferral for each site are summarized in Attachment 4.
Requested Analysis:
In accordance with the Commission’s previous direction on information to
support deferral decisions, the staff provides the following analyses of:
(1) the cleanup standard that would apply under Superfund and the differences
between that standard and the AEA standard; (2) the rights and authorities the
State would have if Superfund were extended to the site; and (3) the rights
and authorities that private citizens would have to sue the Federal Government
or the licensee(s), using the citizen-suit provisions of Superfund. The
following analyses are presented in generic terms that would apply to all
three sites. The discussion about remediation criteria is only pertinent at
this time to the West Lake Landfill site; ERA has already decided to stabilize
the thorium waste in place at the Dupont site, and the thorium waste from Dow
would be disposed of in an RCRA-regulated landfill cell. To compare specific
EPA and NRC remediation standards for the West Lake Landfill, more information
would be needed on the remediation criteria EPA intends to implement at that
site. EPA will determine these criteria through the RI/FS and Record of
Decision (ROD) process, as described below.
(1) Remediation Standard
As previously stated, both NRC and EPA have been granted the authority
to regulate radioactive materials, in certain situations. To determine
what remediation standards would govern the remedial actions at a
specific site, EPA would perform a Feasibility Study (FS). This study
is the basis for the development of a ROD that establishes remediation
standards and remedial actions for each site. EPA would prepare the FS
after the site had been scored and entered on the NPL, as explained in
Enclosure 1 of SECY-93-235.
EPA’s requirements for FSs in 40 CFR 300.430(e)(2)(i) require that the
lead agency establish remedial action alternatives, including
remediation objectives and goals. The remediation goals establish
acceptable exposure levels to protect human health and the environment
and are developed considering: applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) under Federal or State environmental laws,
drinking-water standards and goals, water-quality criteria, and other
factors. For known or suspected carcinogens (including ionizing
radiation), acceptable exposure levels are generally concentration
levels that represent an excess upper-bound lifetime cancer probability,
for an individual, of about 10″A and a cancer probability of 10″6 for as
many in the population as practical. The 10″6 probability is used as
the point of departure for determining remediation goals when ARARs are
not available or are not sufficiently protective, because of the
presence of multiple contaminants or multiple pathways.
The Commissioners – 9 –
These risk goals do not necessarily take into account human intrusion in
the future. If human intrusion were to be considered in the dose
pathway analysis, the calculated dose for thorium contaminated sites
could be in excess of 100 mrem/yr assuming standard exposure scenarios
(e.g., resident farmer scenario). Therefore, sites with significantly
elevated thorium concentrations would not necessarily meet the
provisions of the proposed NRC rule on radiological criteria for
decommissioning (proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 20; 59 FR 43200).
The statement of considerations for the proposed rule acknowledges that
some sites could not meet the limits proposed in the rule. Deferral to
the Federal Superfund/RCRA approach is a possible way to address these
NRC risk analyses differ from ERA risk analyses in several ways. ERA
calculates risk based on the chance of developing cancer. NRC relates
risk to both the chance of developing cancer and the chance of a
fatality as a result of cancer. NRC staff calculated the risk to a
maximally exposed member of the public who at some time in the future,
could reside on top of the site. By using a general risk estimate of
5xlO”2 fatal cancers per sievert (5xlO~4 per rem) of received dose
developed for exposure of a large population, NRC can estimate a
potential risk, to an individual, produced by a specific exposure.
Nevertheless, were an actual measured exposure to occur, the staff
recognizes that it would be more appropriate to estimate the risk to
that individual using the cancer risk tables developed by the National
Cancer Institute.
In general, NRC has not relied on institutional controls as a means for
protecting the public or the environment for decommissioning purposes.
However, ERA and DOE have relied on institutional controls to prevent or
reduce the likelihood for human intrusion and otherwise protect the
public (e.g., restrictions on groundwater use). Staff compared
regulatory considerations of institutional controls in SECY-93-322,
dated November 26, 1993. Reliance on institutional controls directly
affects projected risks to exposed humans.
Based on information provided by the ERA staff, NRC has reviewed 19 RODs
for sites that include some radiological contamination. Most cases
involved contamination by radium-226 and its decay products and other
naturally-occurring radionuclides. In most of the RODs, ERA selected
ARARs based on EPA’s standard, for remedial action, at uranium mill
tailings sites in 40 CFR Part 192. In many cases, ERA also identified
NRC guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.86 “Termination of Operating Licenses
for Nuclear Reactors,” as an ARAR for surface contamination on buildings
and equipment. Other sources of ARARs for radiological contamination
include: NRC’s air concentration limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B;
State guidance on acceptable surface contamination; DOE orders for
acceptable public and worker doses; Federal and State water quality
standards; and Federal and State air-emission limits.
The Commissioners – 10 –
(2) State Authority under Superfund
For facilities covered by CERCLA, 42 USC 9605, et sec?., the States are
encouraged to enter into cooperative agreements to enable them to
undertake certain actions, under the National Contingency Plan (NCR), as
the lead agencies. State and local response organizations are expected
to initiate measures necessary to protect the public health and safety,
consistent with the containment and cleanup requirements in the NCR.
The RI/FS required under 40 CFR 300.430(d) and (e) are to be performed
by a lead agency, in coordination with any support agencies. Under
40 CFR 300.5, the State may be designated as the lead agency to plan and
implement a response, if it is operating pursuant to a contract or
cooperative agreement, under Section 104(d)(l) of CERCLA, or designated
as the lead agency in a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA) or
other agreement. In addition, even if the State does not serve as lead
agency, the lead agency is required to consult with the local officials
and community representatives before commencing field work for the
remedial investigation. Under 40 CFR 300.430(c), support agencies are
afforded an opportunity to identify their own ARARs, under 40 CFR
300.430(d)(3). Support agencies are to be notified, by the lead agency,
of the alternatives that will be evaluated in detail, to facilitate the
identification of ARARs and any appropriate guidance to be considered,
under 40 CFR 300.430(e)(8).
In addition to the above, 40 CFR 300.430(e)(9)(iii)(H) requires that the
State’s concerns be assessed, including its views on the preferred and
other alternatives for remedial action and the ARARs or proposed use of
Further, 40 CFR 300.430(f)(1)(i)(C) provides that the lead agency must
consult with the State, and that State and community acceptance are
modifying criteria that are to be considered in the remedy selection.
Section 300.430(f)(4)(i) provides that the State’s views are to be
considered by the lead agency in its final remedy selection from among
the various alternatives.
(3) The Rights of Private Citizens under Superfund
As discussed above, ERA is to solicit community participation in the
identification of ARARs and other aspects of the RI/FS process. In
addition, private citizens are authorized under CERCLA to undertake a
response action to eliminate a release of a hazardous substance,
pollutant, or contaminant, subject to the citizens’ compliance with the
provisions of 40 CFR 300.700. Various mechanisms are provided in CERCLA
for a private citizen to recover the cost of such response action.
These mechanisms are summarized in 40 CFR 300.700, and include:
(a) recovery of the response cost, plus interest, from the
parties found to be liable; and (b) recovery from Superfund of the
private citizen’s reasonable costs, plus interest.
In addition, “citizens suits” are authorized under Section 310 of
CERCLA. Private citizens are authorized to commence a civil action, on
The Commissioners – 11 –
their own behalf, against: (a) any person who is alleged to be in
violation of any standard, regulation, condition, requirement, or order
under CERCLA; and (b) any Federal official who is alleged to have failed
to perform a required duty, under CERCLA. Judicial relief, in such
actions, may consist of an order to enforce and/or correct the violation
or an order imposing any civil penalty provided for the violation; and
the court may award the prevailing party his costs of litigation,
including reasonable attorney and expert witness fees.
That the Commission:
1. Approve deferral to EPA’s CERCLA program for the remediation of the
thorium waste located on the E. I. DuPont Superfund site in Newport, DE.
2. Approve deferral to EPA’s Superfund program for remediation of the West
Lake Landfi11/Cotter Corporation site in Bridgeton, MO.
3. Approve staff’s plans to pursue a request submitted by Dow
Chemical Company for an exemption from the unrestricted release
provisions of 10 CFR 40.42(f)(3) and to authorize disposal of
thorium waste from remediation in a landfill in accordance with
10 CFR 20.2002. The landfill would be regulated under Michigan
hazardous waste regulations that implement the RCRA program for
long term control of the waste in the Salzburg Landfill cells,
including reliance on institutional and State control and longterm
monitoring of the Salzburg Landfill site in Midland, MI.
4. Note:
a. That although EPA is authorized to regulate byproduct, source, and
special nuclear material under CERCLA and CAA, the State agencies, if
they are not NRC Agreement States, are not authorized except under CAA.
That even though NRC is allowing disposal under the RCRA program
administered by EPA and Michigan Department of Natural Resources, NRC
staff will continue to regulate remediation of the Dow Chemical storage
sites in Michigan, which are currently licensed by NRC. With respect to
the disposal in the Salzburg landfill, the staff will continue to review
pertinent documents to ensure Michigan is not applying significantly
less stringent waste disposal requirements than NRC.
b. That reliance on institutional controls over the long term may not
provide as high a level of protection for the public health and
environment as that attained if there were no reliance on institutional
controls. This lower level of assurance results from the lack of a
guarantee that there will always be a responsible party to maintain the
The Commissioners – 12 –
The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal
objection. NRC staff consulted with ERA and the States of Delaware, Missouri,
and Michigan in preparing this paper. Neither ERA nor the States objected to
the staff’s proposed approach.
x , „„ /A- -^*yl^-^
/J^mes M. Ta/lor
(ecutive Director
for Operations
1. Bkgd Info for E.I. DuPont
2. Bkgd Info for Cotter Corporation
West Lake Landfill
3. Bkgd Info for Dow Chemical
4. Adv/Disadv of Prop Options by Site
Commissioners’ comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office
of the Secretary by COB Friday, March 24, 1995.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners
NLT March 17, 1995, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment,
the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may
be expected.
Region I
Region III
The E.I. DuPont site is located in Newport, Delaware, near 1-95, 1-495, and
the Christina River. The entire site is approximately 485,600 m2 (120 acres)
and contains a paint pigment production facility, a chromium dioxide
production facility, and two industrial landfills (North and South) which are
DuPont was licensed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and began using
radioactive materials at this site in 1961, for the processing of thorium into
metal alloys. The alloys consisted mostly of nickel, some chromium and
molybdenum, and thorium (approximately 2 to 5 percent by weight thorium-232).
Waste materials from this process were buried in the North Landfill,
reportedly, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.304 regulations that were in effect
at the time. According to DuPont, the thorium waste was placed in glass jars
that were subsequently placed in 55-gallon barrels together with disposable
protective clothing and debris from the waste-handling operations. The
barrels were then buried in a specific, although uncertain, section of the
North Landfill and covered with 3 m (10 feet) of soil. The area where the
thorium was buried is estimated to be 40 m by 10 m (130 ft by 35 ft) and
contains approximately 20 tons of thorium metal, which were placed in the
North Landfill over a 7 year period.
DuPont believes most of the thorium in the North Landfill consists of thorium
oxide, a relatively insoluble form of thorium. However, DuPont’s records, as
well as information in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s docket files,
indicate that thorium nitrate, a more soluble form of thorium, and other salts
could also have been disposed of in the North Landfill. Long-term releases
from these other forms of the thorium waste could be greater than from the
thorium oxide. They could also pose a greater threat to shallow groundwater
beneath the North Landfill site, because of leaching and subsequent transport.
The thorium burials comprised a small portion of the North Landfill area. The
remaining portion of the North Landfill was used for the disposal of
lithophone wastes (an inorganic paint pigment based on zinc and barium),
organic pigment wastes, chromium wastes, and other miscellaneous wastes,
including the off-specification thoriated nickel and other thorium wastes.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Program for
remediation of the site in the 1980s and proposed the site for inclusion on
the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1987. EPA proposed the site for
remediation under CERCLA because of extensive non-radiological contamination.
DuPont used historical records and interviews with retired employees to
estimate the quantity of thorium that was buried in the l a n d f i l l . However,
the records are not complete and the exact quantity and form of the thorium
are not known. Although the entire DuPont site is currently undergoing
remediation, remediation of the North Landfill is of the most concern to NRC
because of the thorium buried in the landfill. The North Landfill is only a
small section of the entire 120-acre site.
Attachment 1
Based on available records of the burials, NRC staff believes that at least
some of the thorium wastes in the North Landfill exceeds the concentration
criteria in Options 1 and 2 of the 1981 Branch Technical Position (BTP)
entitled: “Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past
Operations” (46 FR 52061). NRC identified these criteria as the pertinent
release criteria in the Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) Action
Plan of April 16, 1992 (57 FR 13389) coupled with the principle that residual
radiation be reduced to as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA). Because
thorium concentrations are expected to exceed these criteria in some areas by
a substantial margin (e.g., 10,000 pCi/g thorium-232), the NRC staff would
generally not consider onsite disposal as a viable disposal action.
In addition, as described above, it is possible that there are soluble forms
of thorium in the landfill, which could become mobile and enter the
groundwater beneath the site or the river adjacent to the site. DuPont has
not attempted to characterize the thorium waste in the landfill for the
following reasons: (1) the exact location of the thorium in the landfill is
not known; (2) intrusive and extrusive sampling may be necessary because the
waste is very heterogeneous, which would make accurate sampling through a
limited number of boreholes difficult; and (3) exposure to the hazardous
material in the landfill would cause risks to workers during the
characterization and sampling process.
Monitoring well sampling found slightly elevated levels of radium-226 and
radium-228 in the groundwater adjacent to the landfill. DuPont believes the
elevated levels are representative of background. Elevated levels of radium
were not found in surrounding wells or in wells located between the landfill
and the well containing the elevated readings.
EPA w i l l require DuPont to place a low-permeability cover system over the
landfill, capable of reducing infiltration by over 99 percent, to minimize
groundwater contamination below the site. In addition, DuPont is required to
construct a physical barrier wall extending from the top on the landfill,
along the river bank and down to the base of the Columbia aquifer. This wall
w i l l cause mounding of the groundwater in the landfill. Groundwater
extraction wells w i l l be installed to control this mounding. The recovered
groundwater shall be treated. This wall will prevent the contaminated
groundwater from entering the river. Monitoring will be needed to ensure
there will not be erosion of the river bank and the potential for erosion from
the river into the landfill itself.
The potential risks produced by the thorium contamination are small compared
with the risks posed by the other hazardous waste in the North Landfill, as
well as the materials on the remaining portions of the site. EPA’s risk
assessment supporting the ROD concluded that non-radiological risks
predominate over radiological risks associated with the thorium waste buried
in the landfill. EPA requires in the ROD that DuPont: monitor groundwater to
detect any potential migration of thorium or its decay products; apply
institutional controls to restrict public access to the waste and to
groundwater beneath and adjacent to the site; and assess the existence of
radiological contamination at other locations onsite. The remedial action
identified in the ROD was developed through a public process that involved
DuPont, State of Delaware, local community officials, members of the public,
and other interested parties.
The NRC staff believes that the remedial action required by EPA, under CERCLA,
would be sufficient to protect the public and the environment from the risks
associated with the thorium waste. Although NRC and ERA staffs suspect that a
majority of the thorium is in the relatively insoluble oxide form, there is a
possibility that some more soluble thorium compounds exist in the landfill.
However, with the cap, wall along the river bank, groundwater monitoring,
institutional controls, and groundwater use restrictions, the staff believes
that any significant contamination of the groundwater by thorium is unlikely
to occur. However, if it does, the staff believes the contamination would be
accompanied by other contaminants, promptly detected, and mitigated before
causing any significant health or environmental hazards.
Since the site is not currently licensed by NRC, the staff would not undertake
any other activities directly related to remediation of the site, including:
performing reviews of licensing (Superfund-required) documents; undertaking
site visits or inspections; monitoring ERA progress on the remediation; and
examining the completion of cleanup activities.
The West Lake Landfill is a 809,000 m2 (200-acre) tract located in St. Louis
County, Missouri, approximately 16 miles northwest of downtown St. Louis.
Beginning in 1962, portions of the property were used as an unregulated dump
for solid and liquid industrial wastes, municipal refuse, and construction
debris. In 1973, Cotter Corporation, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission
licensee, disposed of over 39,000 metric tons of uranium ore processing
residues and contaminated soil in two areas covering about 64,750 m2 (16
acres) of the site. This is a relatively small portion of the larger
809,000 m2 (200-acre) site. In 1976, the unregulated landfill was closed, and
in following years, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources issued
several permits for various portions of the 809,000 m2 site. Efforts to
remediate the site included NRC survey and site characterization work in the
1980s. In 1990, the Environmental Protection Agency (ERA) listed West Lake
Landfill as a Superfund site by adding it to the National Priorities List.
Under Superfund, EPA is now regulating remediation of the site for both
radiological and other hazardous wastes.
The radioactive wastes in the two soil areas are mostly covered by other
landfill materials. The site poses no immediate radiological threat to the
public. Radioactive wastes, in concentrations greater than the current NRC
standards for unrestricted release, are found in two soil piles and include
uranium-238, thorium-230, and radium-226. Elevated levels of radioactivity
(gross alpha particle contamination) have been detected in groundwater
monitoring wells onsite, indicating slight contamination above background.
The NRC staff proposes to defer to EPA’s Superfund Program for the remediation
of uranium contamination. NRC staff has already acknowledged that EPA’s
Superfund Program is responsible for the remediation of the radioactive waste
on this site. A letter dated May 1991 states that “. . . EPA is taking the
lead for site remediation activities . . . .” NRC staff has performed limited
reviews of EPA-required documents, including the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study for the site, that included considerations of both
radiological and non-radiological material onsite. The NRC staff believes the
remedial actions that would be required by EPA, under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), would be
sufficient to protect the public and the environment from the risks associated
with the uranium contamination.
Under this deferral scenario, NRC staff would continue to provide certain
technical support to EPA, at the specific request of EPA. In addition, NRC
would retain a copy of the Record of Decision in the permanent files for the
site. The staff would take no further action at the site after deferral to
EPA, since the site is not currently licensed by the NRC.
Attachment 2
Dow Chemical Company possesses thorium-contaminated waste under a Nuclear
Regulatory Commission license at two sites in Michigan: Bay City and Midland.
The Bay City site is located 1 mile south of Saginaw Bay and is 20 miles east
of Midland, Michigan. The thorium-contaminated waste at this site is stored
in a fenced-in area owned by Dow Chemical Company. Approximately 30,500 m3
(40,000 yd3) of thorium-contaminated waste is estimated to be stored at the
Bay City site. This waste has an average concentration of 188 pCi/g thorium-
232, with a range of from 2 to 7000 pCi/g thorium-232. Dow estimates that
there are about 9.2 Ci of thorium-232 and an equivalent amount of thorium-228
at the Bay City location.
The estimated volume of the thorium-contaminated waste at the Midland site is
over 9000 m3 (12,000 yd3). The area where the waste is stored at the Midland
site measures 50 m by 90 m (160 ft by 300 ft) and is roped off. The waste is
covered by a clay cover that is approximately 1-meter thick. The thoriumcontaminated
waste storage area is located within a larger industrial complex
that Dow owns and controls access to. The radioactivity in the waste varies
substantially and ranges up to 2000 pCi/g, with an average of 29 pCi/g
thorium-232 and an equivalent activity concentration of thorium-228. Dow
estimates that there is approximately 0.46 Ci of thorium-232 in the waste at
this site.
In 1956, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission gave Dow Chemical Company a license
to use thorium metal and compounds to produce thorium-magnesium alloys. The
alloying process produced a thorium-contaminated waste. In 1973, the license
was amended to authorize storage only at Dow’s Bay City and Midland sites in
Michigan, and at the Madison site in Illinois. The Madison site is now under
the regulatory authority of the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety.
Thorium-contaminated waste and associated contaminated soil are currently
being stored at both sites. Dow proposes to dispose of its thoriumcontaminated
waste in two dedicated disposal cells at the Dow-owned and
operated Salzburg Landfill in Midland. The Salzburg Landfill is permitted by
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection
Agency (ERA), for the disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous solid wastes.
The Salzburg Landfill, is relatively large [615,100 m2 (152 acres)], and is
located 1.5 miles from the Midland site and 20 miles from the Bay City site.
The proposed disposal cell design, for the thorium-contaminated waste, would
be comprised of, from the bottom, a 6 meter clay underliner with a hydraulic
conductivity of less than 10″6 cm/s; 1 meter of recompacted clay with
hydraulic conductivity of less than 10″7 cm/s; a synthetic liner with a leak
detection and removal system consisting of a 0.33-meter sand drainage layer;
1.5 meters of clay; a geosynthetic liner; and a 0.33-meter sand leachate
drainage layer. This liner would underlie the thorium-contaminated waste
which would be covered by 1 meter of clay; a 100-mil HOPE synthetic liner;
0.33 meters of drainage medium; almost a meter (91 cm) of a frost protection
layer; and 0.66 meters of top soil. No liquid wastes are allowed to be
disposed of at the Salzburg Landfill. The approximate design area for one of
the proposed thorium-contaminated waste disposal cells is 61 m (200 ft) long
by 40 m (125 ft) wide, and the other is 221 m (725 ft) long by 23 m (75 ft)
Attachment 3
wide. Both disposal cells will be covered by a unified cover. There are 16
shallow monitoring wells around the proposed disposal cells. These monitoring
wells are required under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and
State of Michigan hazardous waste requirements. Groundwater monitoring wells
and domestic wells in the area are sampled as part of the Salzburg Landfill
monitoring program.
The NRC staff proposes to allow Dow Chemical Company to dispose of licensed
material in EPA-approved RCRA designed cells in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002
and thereby be exempt from NRC’s unrestricted release criteria of 10 CFR
40.42(j)(3) [Although the amended rule does not refer to unrestricted release,
but to release in accordance with NRC requirements, the criteria of the SDMP
Action Plan apply. These are essentially unrestricted release criteria.] Dow
has requested to bury thorium-contaminated waste in the Salzburg landfill, per
10 CFR 20.2002, at concentrations above NRC’s SDMP Action Plan criteria for
unrestricted release.
There is a parallel between what is being proposed by Dow and the burial of
low-level waste under 10 CFR Part 61. The performance objectives for the
disposal of low-level radioactive waste, as stated in 10 CFR Part 61 and the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for Part 61 (NUREG-0945), are to: 1)
protect public health and safety (and the environment) over the long term; 2)
protect the inadvertent intruder; 3) protect workers and the public during the
short-term operational phase; and 4) provide long-term stability, to eliminate
the need for active long-term maintenance after operations cease. The staff
believes that disposal of the thorium waste in the landfill would be generally
consistent with these objectives, although the staff has not completed the
kind of detailed review that would be required for a license application under
10 CFR Part 61.
For thorium contamination of the type presently stored by Dow under its
license, the dominant exposure pathway is direct exposure from human
intrusion. Thorium-232 has an extremely long half-life (in excess of 14
b i l l i o n years). Thus, the potential hazard will continue to exist whether the
material is excavated and shipped to a licensed disposal site (at an estimated
cost of about $28 million if disposed at Envirocare or significantly more if
disposed at a licensed low-level waste disposal facility) or excavated and
shipped to the Salzburg Landfill (at a cost of about $5 million). The primary
safety issue then becomes how to minimize the potential for human intrusion
over the long term under either disposal alternative. Dilution of the
contamination was not considered due to the significant increases in waste
volume that would be required to substantially reduce thorium concentrations
down to levels approaching natural background for soils in the Midland area.
As a regulated hazardous waste disposal facility, institutional controls would
be required to be maintained over the Salzburg Landfill under hazardous and
solid waste regulations. Dow states that, even though the concentration of
thorium in the waste exceeds NRC’s criteria for unrestricted release, the colocation
of the thorium waste disposal cells with the hazardous and solid
waste disposal cells would offer sufficient institutional control to deter
intrusion over the long term. The institutional controls offered by hazardous
and solid waste regulations involve environmental monitoring and reporting,
maintenance and release control, and controls on the post-closure use of the
land (i.e., no disturbance of the waste or any components of the disposal
unit). There are additional requirements for post-closure financial assurance
and a schedule for closure. Dow estimates that the pre-closure operational
period for the Salzburg Landfill will extend until approximately the year
2045. The post-closure institutional control period generally lasts 30 years
and can be extended by the ERA Regional Administrator or State agency. The
Salzburg Landfill is not a remote site, but because of the existence of the
hazardous waste already buried there, the land can never be used productively
again for farming and other non-industrial applications without extensive
remediation. Dow has already imposed restrictive covenants in the Salzburg
Landfill deed, in accordance with ERA requirements for hazardous waste
landfills. If the thorium wastes are buried in the Salzburg Landfill, Dow
proposes a requirement (to be inserted into the deed) to notify NRC (or its
successor) before disturbing the landfill.
On balance, the staff believes that disposing of the thorium wastes at the
Salzburg Landfill constitutes an as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA)
approach to remediation of the Bay City and Midland sites, and that the
conditions and restrictions placed on the landfill, combined with the RCRA
regulatory and cell design provisions, provide a comparable level of
protection of human health and the environment, as is provided at other
licensed low-level waste disposal sites. In the Office of the General
Counsel’s opinion, Dow’s proposed restrictive covenants appear adequate to
support an exemption. With one exception, the restrictive covenants, and the
co-location of the thorium-contaminated waste disposal cells with hazardous
and solid waste disposal cells, appear to achieve the same effect as if this
thorium-contaminated waste were buried at a location where State or Federal
control alone is considered sufficient to guarantee institutional care.
Inadvertent intrusion into the thorium waste disposal cells would be
controlled by the restrictive covenants on the deed as proposed by Dow in its
exemption request. The one exception is that, as with the Envirocare facility
in Utah, there is no assurance that, for the very long term, there will be a
responsible party with the obligation to take additional remedial action
should this become necessary.
Therefore, NRC staff proposes to allow disposal of licensed radioactive
material in the landfill operated by Dow and regulated by ERA and the State of
Michigan. This decision would be supported by an appropriate Environmental
Assessment, which would presume the adequacy of the cell design and
institutional controls (including ERA and Michigan regulation) in protecting
humans and the environment. NRC staff would notice in the Federal Register
its intent to issue a license amendment to allow the disposal of the waste in
the Salzburg Landfill, including the exemption. Pursuant to Subpart L of 10
CFR Part 2, the notice will offer an opportunity for an informal hearing. The
hearing would include approval of the decommissioning plan and the transfer
and disposal under 20.2002 at the Salzburg l a n d f i l l . Following completion of
the necessary safety and environmental reviews, NRC staff anticipates issuing
the amendment, provided the safety and environmental reviews are favorable.
Because the Dow storage sites are currently licensed by the NRC, the staff
would monitor the remedial activities being performed by Dow to ensure that
NRC requirements are satisfied. The staff would review all pertinent
documents and would terminate the license after disposal of the radioactive
material currently in storage at the Bay City and Midland sites and the
storage sites are cleaned up to unrestricted use standards.
Attachment 4
Administrative Alternatives for the
Remediation of the Newport, Delaware, Site
Deferral to EPA Superfund NRC Maintains Responsibility
• Allows DuPont to continue remediation activities
in a timely and effective manner.
• Reduces delays and expense produced from
duplicative regulation.
• Ensures consistency in remediation decision for
both radiological and non-radiological waste.
• Avoids need for an NRC license.
• Promotes interagency cooperation and consistency
in selection of remedial actions.
Remediation of the thorium contamination down to
Option 1 or 2 levels2 would reduce risk to
inadvertent intruders.
Provides higher level of assurance that remediation
is conducted in a satisfactory manner, from NRC’s
2 Option 1 or 2 of the 1981 Branch Technical Position “Disposal or Onsite Storage
of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past Operations.”
Relies on institutional controls for protection
of the public.
Could require removal at some point in the
future, if the thorium contaminates the
Reduces assurance of satisfactory remediation
from NRC’s perspective.
May ultimately find that current proposed
remediation is acceptable and preferable, after
additional expense and time.
If exhumation would be required, could result in
increased risk to workers from exposure to nonradiological
and radiological wastes in the landfill
and extended storage of waste pending access to
disposal facilities.
Increases costs for DuPont, ERA, and NRC.
May require additional effort to establish location
of thorium waste in landfill.
Could require NRC license.
Could delay or impair remedial actions for the other
wastes onsite, pending resolution of the thorium
waste disposal issue._____________________
Administrative Alternatives for the
Remediation of the Bridgeton, Missouri, Site
Deferral to ERA Superfund NRC Maintains Responsibility
• Continues established lead responsibilities
between NRC and ERA (ERA lead).
• Reduces costs and delays produced from duplicative
regulat ion.
• Avoids need for an NRC license.
• Promotes consistency in NRC and ERA remedial
deci sions.
• Maintains NRC control of the remediation under Atomic
Energy Act.
• May result in lower risk to public and environment if
site is remediated to Option 1 or 2 levels.
• Avoids reliance on institutional controls.
• Reduces assurance that NRC w i l l find the remedial
action satisfactory because ERA has not yet
selected remedial action for the uranium
• Introduces possibility that additional remediation
may be necessary in the future.
• Places remediation outside of NRC control; no
assurance when remedial actions w i l l occur.
• Increases costs and duplicative effort for regulating
agencies and Cotter Corporation.
• May delay the remediation of the non-radioactive
materials onsite.
• May produce conflicts for Cotter if NRC and ERA
approve inconsistent remedial actions.
• May require imposition of a license through order, if
Cotter objects to license and one is required.
Administrative Alternatives for the
Remediation of the Midland and Bay City, Michigan, Sites
Approve Site Disposal Request Removal & Offsite Disposal
Advantages Advantages
Reduces costs and delays from duplicative
Allows timely completion of remediation and
termination of NRC licenses for the Midland and
Bay City sites.
Could reduce public and worker risks
from near site disposal as compared to
transporting waste across country.
Promotes consistency between NRC and ERA in terms
of remediation decisions.
Maintains NRC control of the disposal of the
radioactive waste.
May reduce long-term risks if wastes were disposed
of at a licensed disposal facility for radioactive
waste that does not rely on institutional controls.
Reduces by one the number of radioactive waste
disposal sites in the country.
Additional remediation under NRC control may be
necessary at the Salzburg Landfill at some point
in the future, if warranted.
Establishes precedent for disposal of radioactive
wastes in hazardous waste landfill and for
reliance on institutional controls.
• Relies on limited disposal capacity for radioactive
• Increases costs for regulating agencies and Dow
• May delay remediation of the Midland and Bay City
sites, pending resolution of waste disposal