ML20199E793
| ML20199E793 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/28/1998 |
| From: | Greeves J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Michael Clark, Marcinowski F, Oconner D ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9802020248 | |
| Download: ML20199E793 (29) | |
Text
f f
k
. . January 28, 1998
Dear Members of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards:
Enclosed is a summary of the December 11,1997, meeting of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards. Call me at (301) 415-7437 or Phyllis Sobel at (301) 415-6714, if you have any questions or comments on the meeting summary. I look forward to seeing you at the next Committee meeting, which will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency on March 12,1998.
Sincerely,
[0riginalsignedby]
John T. Greeves, Director Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Meeting Summary cc: See attached list L DISTRIBUTION (Central File NMSS r/f DWM r/f VHolahan ,
.,4g HNew'ame JHolenich FCameron RBangart KStablein NOrlando RMeck MBell .k h FCardile SMcGuire RJohnson gm-DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\LLDP\ PAS \MTGSUM.D11
^
OFC LLDP LLDd/h LLQP A DWM i DWM'Ik NAME PSobel(( RNelson JNey MWeber hb[ree[es DATE 1/4/98 N 1/h/98 il /98 il /98 /1/lN98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY PUBLIC: YES 1 NO _ Category: Proprietary _ or CF Only _
ACNW: YES 1 NO _
IG: YES _ NO 1 Delete file after distribution: Yes _ No 1 Illll lllllll111lll 9002020248 9 80128 9i9/
A "^*" eon NRCFU CBjTEBCOPY
January 28, 1998
Dear Members of the interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards:
Enclosed is a summary of the December 11,1997, meeting of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards. Call me at (301) 415-7437 or Phyllis Sobel at (301) 415-6714, i.' you have any questions or comments on the meeting summary. I look forward to seeing you at the next Committee meeting, which will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency on March 12,1998.
Sir.cerely, a
[0ritinal signed by]
John T. Greeves, Director Division of Waste Management Office cf Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Meeting Summary i
cc. See attached list DISTRIBUTION: Central File NMSS r/f DWM r/f VHolahan HNewsome FCameron KStablein RMeck MBell g JHolonich RBangart NOrlando FCardile SMcGuire RJohnson DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\LLDP\ PAS \MTGSUM.D11 OFC LLDP l LLDT//
ir '
LLOP d -DWM DVyM , k NAME PSobel'(( RNelson J ey MWeber ehree[es DATE # 8 il 79 1/ 4 /98 1/h/98 il /98 /1/lN98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY PUBLIC: YES 1 NO _ Category: Proprietarv _ or CF Only _
ACNW: YES 1 NO _
IG: YES _ NO 1 Delete file after distribution: Yes _ No 1
o ne oq
.*4 i k UNITED STATES
[
j t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, 9.C. 206MM001 p,
/
- January 28, 1998
Dear Members of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards:
Enclosed is a summary of the December 11,1997, meeting of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards Call me at (301) 415-7437 or Phyllis Sobel at (301) 415-6714, if you have any questions or comments on the meeting summary. I look forward to seeing you at the next Committee meeting. which will be held at the Environmental Protection Agency on March 12,1998.
Sincerely, y f) ( p
.(/ h 'l i 'M' t
[ ' John T. Greeves, Director Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
Meeting summary cc: Ses enclosed list
e . .
cc: List for let er dated. 1/28/98 Mary Clark, EPA /ORIA Frank Marcinowski, EPA /ORIA Dennis O'Connor, EPA /ORIA Allan Richardson, EPA /OSIA Vicki Lloyd, EPNORIA John Karhnak, EPNORIA Stephen Luftig, EPA /OERR Chuck Sands, EPA /OERR Bruce Means, EPA /OERR Michael Shapiro, EPA /OOW MN Craig Hooks, EPA /OcFE j David Levenstein, EPNOFFE l Cynthia Dougherty, EPNOGWDW Michael B. Cook, EPA /OWWM Bob Bastian, EPA /OWWM Jeffrey Phi"ips, EPA /OSWER Matt Hale, EPNOSW Nancy Hunt, EPA /OSW Carl Psperiello, NRC/NMSS Cynthia Jones, NRC/NMSS Margaret Federline, NRC/NMSS Cheryl Trottier, NRC/RES David Auton, DOD/DNA Muhammad Owals, DOD/DNA Colonel Robert Cherry, DOD/DNA Lewis D. Walker, DOD/ Army Andy Wallo, DOE /EH-41 Peter Brush, DOE /EH 1 John Tseng, DOE /EH-6 Paul 3eligman, DOE /EH 6 Mark Frel, DOE /EM 30 7
James Fiore, DOE /EM-40 Jim Owendoff, DOE /EM-40 Randal Scott, DOE /EM-60 James Antizzo, DOE /EM 70 Rick Jones, DOE Caroline Freeman, DOL / OSHA Jeffrey Syndtr. DOL / OSHA Rick Boyle, DG f/ Room 8430 Fred Ferate, DOT /MS DHM 23 Phil Frappmolo, FDA Carrie Jelsma OMB/ Room 8026 Miriam Forman, OSTP
DISTRIBUTE TO: ,
Mr. Lawrence Weinstock, Director Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (6601J)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, S.W. .
Washington, DC 20460 Mr. Michael Schaeffer, Chairman U.S. Department of Defense Radiation Rosestch and Policy Working Group Defense SpecialWeapons Agency 6801 Telegraph Road Alexandria, VA 22310 3398 Mr. Raymond P. Berube, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment
-U.S. Department of Energy Washington. DC 20585 Mr. Joseph E. Fitzgerald, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Worker Health and Safety U.S. Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 Dr. Adam Finkel, Director Health Standards Programs, N 3718 Occupational Safety and Health Administration 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210 Mr. Alan Roberts Associate Administratcr for F'azardous Materials Safety Department of Transportation, Room 8422 400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20590 Dr. Bruce Wachholz, Chief Radiation Effects Branch National Cancer Institute Executive Plaza North, Suite 530 Bethesda, MD 20892 Dr. Marvin Rosenstein Center for Devices and Radiological HeaJh Mail Code HFZ-60 Food and Drug Administration 16071 Industrial Drive -
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
i l
l .
1 , .
Mr. Art Frnas Office of Management and Budget Room 10202 '
- New Executive Office Building Washington, DC 20503 Dr. Beverly Hartline .
Office of Science and Technology Policy 17th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20500-Dr. Jill Lipoti, Assistant Director for Radiation Protectbn Prv, .ms Division of Environmental Safety, Health and Analytical Programs Department of Environmental Protection CN 415 Trenton, NJ 08625-0415
=
?
INTERAGENCY STEERING COMMITTEE ON RADIATION STANDARDS MEETING
SUMMARY
Date: December 11,1997 Time: 9.00 a.m. to noon Location: U S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC Attendees: See Attachment i Agenda:
INTRODUCTION Introduce meeting attendees, confirm member distribution list ano Nency staff contacts TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION NRC draft on evaluating risk 'tandards; ELI workshop; Keystone workshop Distribution of information before the quarterly ISCORS meetings Priorities and performance measures for ISCORS Consider annual public ISCORS meetings.
EPA's NORM program Status of commercial LLW disposal sites Liaisons for external regulation of DOE SUBCOMMITTEE PROGRESS REPORTS Cleanup Subcommittee NRC regulatory guide Model parameter / assumption comparison Mixed Waste Subcommittee Recycle Subcommittee Update on CRCPD's initiative on orphan sources Enclosure ,
4 l
Risk Harmonization Subcommittee Institutional controls workshop Intergenerational equity Sewage Sludge / Ash Subcommittee NRC/ EPA survey NRC/ EPA guidance document for POTWs ACTION ITEMS /NEXT STEPS Review of action items Date/Jme/ place of next meeting Topics for next meeting Summary:
ISCORS welcomed a new State representative - Dr. Jill Lipoti from the State of New Jersey.
Dr. Lipoti will be replacing Mr. Bill Domsife as the State representative to ISCORS.
John Greeves, tlRC. distributed a draft proposal for setting uniform risk standards. This proposalincluded the suggestion that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) could develop a position on uniform radiation protection standards. The ISCORS Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will censider this proposal following the June 1998 Environmental Law Institute (Ell) risk management workshop. The ELI workshop, funded by EPA, will discuss the similarities and differences in risk management paradigms for chemical and radiation under environmentu protection statutes, in a related activity, DOE is considering organizing a meeting in the next few months with some of the ISCORS agencies and Keystone staff to mediate a discussion between the agencies. ISCORS members agreed to review the planned agencies' activities and provide comments to the respective agency (NRC, ELI or DOE) by the end of January 1998, with the objective of coordinating the activities to enhance their utility and interagency cooperation.
John Greeves urged the members to distribute relevant information early on to the other ISCORS members between meetings, by emailif necessary, to facilitate discussions between the agencies and preparations for the meetings.
John Greeves distributed draft 1998 ISCORS planned accomplishments, which had been developed with Larry Weinstock of EPA and Ray Berube of DOE. The members will provide comments on the list of planned accomplishments to John Greeves by the end of Janaury so a final draft can be prepared before the next ISCORS meeting. One of the ten planned accomplishments was that the Risk Harmonization Subcommittee would review the results of the BEIR Vil scoping study and provide a summary to the full ISCORS committee. Another planned accomplishment was that the Risk Harmonization Suocommittee was asked to form a working group for Federal Guidance Report 14, which will provide guidance for calculating radiation doses. Agencies were asked to review their membership on the subcommittee working group and make recommendations to ensure that relevant staff are included. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee's working group on BEIR Vll includes Andy Wallo from DOE:
Vince Holahan, Cynthia Jones and Charlie Willis from NRC; and Jerry Puskin from EPA.
2
Federal Guidance Report 13 and its potential application and the review process for the document were discossed. Representatives from DOD and HHS, as well as the State of New Jersey, expressed interest in reviewing the doedment before it is issued by EPA. Larry Weinstock agreed to distribute Federal Guidance Report 13 to the ISCORS members and observers who had not yet received copies with a summary of the devalopment/ review of the documen' Comments providedby NRC and DOE in September were addressed and those responses are currently being reviewed by those agencies.
Beverly Hartline of OSTP asked the members to consider generating a list of ' thorny' issues related to radiation protection standards and stating why they are problematic. Mike Weber noted that many of these issues are discussed in the NRC/ EPA White Paper on Risk Harmonization and the recommendations which resulted from the White Paper. Carl Paperiello of NRC noted that this list of issues should include the scientific basis for institutional controls and the differences between chemical (non radiological) and radiological waste standards. The members agreed to develop inputs for this list by the end of January so the list can be distributed before the next ISCORS meeting. This list will also be useful baokground inforrr,ation for the ELI conference in June 1998.
The members and observers discussed whether to I ave one ISCORS meeting each year open to the public. It was acknowledged that a public meeting could inhibit an open dialogue, but most members favored a public meeting because ISCORS could hear the public's concems, NRC volunteered to have the next meeting at NRC be the first of the public meetings if agreed upon by the other agencies. The OMB representative committed to provide a perspective on whether ISCORS meetings should be public in a follow up phone to NRC The discussion of this issue, including the proposed meeting format, will continue at the next ISCORS meeting.
Loren Setlow of EPA discussed the status of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) activities at EPA. EPA is revising its 1993 diffuse NORM report. The NAS study on the scientific basis for EPA's guidances that are applicable to NORM will be complete this Winter.
EPA will send a report to Congress by the F.fl of 1998 which outlines its NORM program, in light of the NAS recommendations, other EPA contract studies, plus Science Advisory Board and stakeholder consultations. EPA !:, on adviser to the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) NORM Commission. CRCPD plans to hold public workshops on
, its draft NORM model state regulation. ISCORS members discussed the need to establish l another subcommittee to focus on NORM. The Committee agreed to form an ISCORS NORM subcommittee, with the understanding that the mope of the committee could be broadened in the future to address waste management issues. Each agency will provide a point of contact to i
Loren Setlow.
l l
Bob Nelson of NRC provided handouts on the status of the low level radioactive waste (LLW) compacts. Due to lack of time, his presentation will be rescheduled for a later ISCORS meeting.
NRC summarized its activities related to external regulation of DOE. The agency liaisons are Ray Berube at DOE, John Austin at NRC and Julit Rosenberg at EPA.
! 3
Cheryl Trottier of NRC reported on the Cleanup Subcommittee's activities. This subcommittee is currently reviewing'NRC's draft regulatory guide for decommissioning. The subcommittee will begin comparisons of model parameters and moct, assumptions in the March / April timeframe.
The Multi Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) will be published later this month.
Andy Wallo discussed the Mixed Waste Subcommittee': activities. This subcommittee is reviewing two parallel efforts DOE's proposed Radiation Control Cnteria and EPA's proposed regulatory framework to allow low level radioactive mixed waste to be disposed at Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C facilities. DOE is asking CRCPD to review the DOE proposal to place LLW in landfills. Carl Paperiello indicated that the NRC Commission would need to approve the development of NRC regulations implementing EPA's standard establishing levels of radionuclides that could be disposed of in a RCRA facility, Neil Naraine of EPA, representing tae Recycle Gubcommittee, updated the members on CRCPD's program to link orphan sources at scrap yards and steel mills with organizations which can recover them. CRCPD is picnning a workshop du*ing the 1998 CRCPD annual ,
meeting in May 1998. EPA's recycle rulemaking is currently suspended while EPA is considering publ'c comments. NRC and EPA are stll trying to resolve differences in recycle scenarios. DOE plans to inform EPA of DOE's need for a recycle rule.
Dennis O'Connor of EPA reported that tne Risk Harmonization Subcommittee is still collecting information on applications of institutional controls in waste disposal programs and will have a compendium of this information available at the next ISCORS meeting. Andy Wallo distributed a related report by the National Academy of Public Administration entitled " Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks, Costs, and Benefits Fairly Across Generations." This report was developed under a grant from DOE.
Bob Bastian of EPA reported on the Sewage Subcommittee activities. NRC published the revised Office of Manatoment and Budget (OMB) supporting statement on the joint NRC/ EPA sewage survey in the Federal Reaister on December 2,1997, and OMB has begun its review of the survey. A report on the samples from nine test sewage treatment plants will be completed in the next few months. The subcommittee is reviewing public comments on the draft guidance document for publicly owned troaiment works. F:.yllis Sobel suggested that John Greens and Larry Weinstock be briefed on the subcommittee's activities, including industry's request to form a steering committee 'uith NRC and EPA.
Larry Weinstock reported that the proposed Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for >
Exposure of the General Public is on hold until the EPA, NRC and DOE differences are resolved. EPA is still accepting comments on this document.
The next ISCORS meeting will be at EPA on March 12,1998. - EPA will develop the invitation.
The agenda will include reports from the subcommittees, an update on the ELI workshop, and continued discussion of a possible annual public meeting.
4
Action items:
- 1. Members will provide comments on the NRC's draft uniform nsk proposal to John Greeves by late January 1998.
- 2. EPA will discuss the status of the ELI workshop at the March 1998 ISCORS meeting. ELI will accept comments on the workshop announcement up to the end of January 1998.
- 3. By the end of December, DOE will circulate to ISCORS members a proposal for the Keystone meeting, and the members will provide comments to Andy Wallo by the end of January.
- 4. Members will provide comments to John Greeves on the draft 1998 ISCORS planned accomplishments by the end of January so the revised list can be discussed at the next ISCORS meeting.
- 5. Julie Rosenberg will provide a summary of the Federal Guidance Reports to the members.
- 6. Larry Weinstock will distribute Federal Guidance Report 13 to the ISCORS members and observers who had not yet received copies. (Copies of the report and a summary of the development / review process were provided to ail lSCORS members and observers on December 12,1997.),
- 7. The members will send Larry Weinstock, John Greeves, and Phyllis Sobel suggestions for a list of thomy issues on radiation protection standards by the end of January so the draft list can be distributed before the next ISCORS meeting.
- 8. OMB will provide comments to Larry Weinstock and John Greeves on the possibility of an annual public meeting. The discussion of this issue, including the proposed meeting format, will contint i at the next ISCORS meeting.
- 9. Each agency will provide a point of contact for the NORM subcommittee to Loren Setlow.
- 10. Each agency will review their membership on the Risk Harmonization Subcommittee's working group and, if changes are needed, provide a point of contact for the working group on Federal Guidance Report 14 to Dennis O'Connor.
- 11. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will distribute a compendium of information on application; of institutional controls in waste disposal programs at the next ISOORS neeting.
- 12. Phyllis Sobel, Bob Bastian and Loren Setlow will brief John Greeves and Larry Weinstock on the Sewage Subcommittee activities and current issues requiring management attention.
E
l Attachments: '
- 1. Attendance list .
- 2. Proposal for setting uniform U.S. risk standards. .
- 3. ELI risk management workshop announcement.
- 4. : Draft 1998 ISCORS planned accomplishments
- 5. LLW waste compact status
- 6. Extemal regulation of DOE
- 7. Cleanup subcommittee meeting minutes
- 8. CRCPD orphan source initiative
- 9. NAPA report
_ ==. = =-_
6
a.5,..bhd.w.v-u,4wa. ,.4 #,., =-ahap-a.e- .4we r, 4._pr. d.A4_ ..h...-.ca,,, _m,_r.
.Cw__A a_._a_._4. _ .A s.-4_m _ ama. -.s._-meu as_4 a..A s 1 s 4-n,,_heh#A .,-ia- . - -
. N )
+.
4 z 1 b e c c . -
,; 3 s
\
4 d
e ;
i t '
a 4 *
< t b
4 }* '
s i l .h $ e v t
a % e t >
1 .;
nl wa - da
~;
- me 4 3s s L, .g n. . :
k- 4
~
- qk{
$ 9
- 2 2
a .] d e d e
g k
13 s
a I
6 @a -
w1 s:
f i GJ m
- 4 qp 3
{ c b j ji D di It
$M $ h k p
z uo o r RA y
- M m ,g 0 m As , A N s% @W w N h m y w i
% NC IN
& N N o
\
g > D b I l
- F y a soi 4 g u , n i
f M n-a- I y N Q 3': 9 g4%
a g >? ) e r p p.Q 'O L@ S
$gh 1 A to M
w a(4 < i 5 7 1, '
k gm~. A s a g e$u.1 x A r LAJ kM-fg5 N 4 eMI s- < s as b t'
-' " o ,
2 w d,3 ,
h H u y N
~
k b k k kk e WN A $ d 3 Q .
3 e 6 N. $ E 4 3 s x ;t cx 0 %
N ,
z o a 2 3 o rg g ty (Q a{ { ,
- et
-4 s -
Ju 4
E N b 4(/) d 3$ g
= v 0
-' e a
? \d x
3 +.
w s 'i $ Je i5 : d s$ 5 5 ,.s o c
- s. .a w - 8a m ':t
'39 44tu M .
d7 e g s Y.. d e 2
i b
4: 5- d k kh j fd
, --.r v. --% , . - - m -~ , -.
._._ --- - - , - . - :..- - - , , - . . -r--- -- -- --. ~ . .
a-4 m .m_ 4 a.__ma,__ 21h__, a_ d h-e- e m __.___._,,,.._,e,. _ . _ . . __ ,,__J. .em._ah,. ,%.4 & ,ju, , , ,.. .i. 4 .. ,., _., ,_y 4 4-.
t >
C"'" 0 8 %
A
)b ?>
b- :.
- h. @.e, &
. .J n
, > h * *C k Y' 7 j 7 *f 0
4 Y. 'p. 4i g I 't r
1
<L - .
4 .
4 ,. - 1 4 L Q }g ,
E 4u T
,4
! 'E { r ,1 a .
Lf d,'a N $ 4., 2 ~ r
- d w ec g ;
3%'9iv k I C r q
- g 9 i W
I. , s N 4 -
d ,5 QJ \) M 'I E $ N 2 Y c e e
, .3ds Nx.
D .k ,
'$..?a J l:
A w v1'- p \-) v U a g: .
A b N $
1 Dh d 3 i
~
(T -t /, $ O
% 0 n Oc *> q. Q
'J M r
r d t* S k h s
$ j. ? T 74 i; W S ? '
E &
E o . < c ; y 1 T r 9 7 -
a re s o r ;
5 s I w* s 4 T r, g >b 7c f V
_g@
.n ,_, ,8 -
t y e. , \ V r e t'
q c;
O g N
., W i e
., s r- 1 c4
, ,e N
$g%,H 5 C J < s smg o a
_m o a e q"g h Ne d
- f2 0
- = vo s .as 1
$, d. 3q C
c 7tu 4 5 .~
9 s
"' G" p $ 3 2
@ s[Z
- o. , c c c * .
e s s e %'
Q k 4 < 0 V ( 4- * .
f $ hI I (g
'k
! 3 5
c
3 7 c) 3 R
W
- j <-
.A .S d J =
4u g 'E , 9
/
d Tcs 'NT<A j Eg g I ] .E e
's g y 5,a e z
m
- r ,
=
C n '
t d o g l
n g.
,, M T t' e G.N W $M e U >
~[3) x$ l 0 o g d J E, e i g f9 5 < g e i
y -
e ,. ._y ,-w. -- ___ y m. r-_.
ATTENDANCE ROSTER _
ISCORS MEETING DECEMBER 11, 1997 NAME ORGANIZATION PHONE E-MAIL bOE/DP-% <a%c. 2222;4eco 1.al
% ~I II. J ( % GQ Yo?-Ho7 RAe r+ ?usRou EPA / ou)M o~ slat.o a vT h'h?b&l*
Norma bu..kL O Mb fo.*1 naIiO Zoz l 39 5 -3 r 7 d u E d ( a t.coe.s a Ao % ons / 4 bialtrA '
zr 2./ aa 4 - SoF4 % L ._Da, e k 1. Ece.6oV me sesewa ME wkr 7917 r r k 1.(D ivee- <+ 0 V Ltn , hswo e m fe eewam .u J - mmu a. ~ .o , e, as a
y
.________-.._.m -
A PROPOSAL FOR SETTING UNIFORM U S RISK STANDARDS:
EVALUATION OF CURRENT U.S RISK METHODOLOGIES IN DEVELOPING A UNITED FEDERAL POSITION FOR FUTURE UNIFORM RADIATION PROTECTION STANUARDS BACKGROUNQ:
The public's health and safety, potentially costly regulatory decisions, and the general credibility of nuclear regulation depend, in part, on the federal and sate agencies to work toward achieving a more unified federal framework for risk-based federal radiation protection standards. As radiation standards have become more stringent over the years, regulators have been faced in an era of budgetary constraints with decisions involving difficult, judgmental trade-offs between limiting expenditures and reducing potential radiath risks to the public.
There has consistently been a strong show of support throughout the U.S. for effecti(e environmental management in identifying and addressing risks to the public from environmental impacts arising from chemicals and radiation. At the same time, many citizens and local official
- are den'ancing greater attention to prioritie 5 and costs. The current framework for risk management in the federal regulatory agencies is ::urrently a fragmented risk management approach that has resulted from the patchwork of Congressional statues that have been enacted over the last 25 years to address individual risks. Coordination within and among the many federal agencies involved in risk-based standards, and among Congress!onal committees and subcommittees should be strengthened.
To address an increasing concern by the public and members of Congress regarding the effectiveness of using risk assessments and management in federal agencies, a bipartisan Presidential / Congressional Commission was established in 1940 entitled the Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management to address the assessment and management of risks that are regulated under the many laws aimed at both protecting the environment and the public health and safety from potentially hazardous substances in air, water, food, the workplace, and consumer products, in part, the Commission's mandate was to review strategies for risk-based decisions, and review desirability of consistency of the various Federal programs. The Commission finalized its recommendations in 1997 and recommended that traditional approaches to assessing and reducing risks that relied on a chemical-by-chemical, medium-by-medium, risk-by risk strategy be modified. In addition, in 1994, the General Accounting Office reviewed the various federal radiation exposure limits and found a lack of consensus on acceptable radiation risk to the public.
During recent ISCORS meetings, as well as throughout the radiation protection community, there is growing concern that limited resources which are available to mitigato public health and safety risks may not be directed to those radiation sources which can be more effectively controlled from a cost-benefit basis. Agencies are considering asNng an independent committee, such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), in evaluating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of state and federal programs in reducing or controlling radiation risk, in having such an independent group evaluate the current risk framework and meinodology in the U.S., federal and state agencies could benefit greatly from a clear, rigorous discussion and definition of ' risk," as well as provide a comprehensive discussion of how different govemment agencies, with different regulatory oversight responsibilities can establish a coherent, integrated
framework for cost-benefit risk management. In putting risk decision-making in context, decisions abo'ut regulating a particular source of a hazardous carcinogen (be it radiation or chemicals) could then be reached in the context of other sources of the same type in nearby environs PROPOSED TASKS: .
An independent committee should examine the national guidelines and methodologies of the DOE, EPA, NRC, NCRP, and intemational recommendations of the ICRP regarding the use of risk based assessments in the development of radiation standards and rulemakings, including Congressionaliy-mandated standards. In addition, similar to the NAS NORM review, this committee should address the overall validity of applyirg risk estimates derived from general assessment of radiation risk, such as those of BEIR V and UNSCEAR, to the estimation of chemical and radiation risks. Harmonization of the fields of radiation and chemical risk assessments should be a goal of this study.
As part of this review, the committee should addrest, the major differences or similarities between the methods and approaches used to assess radiation and chemical risks, including the differences in methodology, da a, and assumptions from which standards or rulemakings have been derived.
The committee should make a fullinvestigation of the policy implications and appropriate uses of risk management in regulatory programs under various Federal laws to prevent cancer and other chronic as well as acute human health effects which may results from exposure to hazardous substances. Much of the implementing state and federal regulatory agencies concerns are with acute risks caused by unlikely, but potentially severe consequences. In reviewing the uses of risk based methodologies, the committee should try to provide a degree of harmonization in risk management practices for carcinogens and other hazards to human health in order to prevent further uneven resource allocations and potential conflicts in regulations that may continue to rise in this broader context.
The committee should also recommend whether revisions to Congressionally mandated Acts or current standards should be revised to incorporate unique and universally-acceptable approaches in the application of risk in developing radiation protection standards.
REFERENCES:
- 1. Framenvrk for Environmental Health Risk Management, The PresidentiallCongressional Commission on Risk Assesment and Risk Management, Volume 1 (1997).
- 2. Risk Assessmcnt and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making, The Presidential / Congressional Commission on Risk Assesment and Risk Management, Volume 2 (1997).
- 3. GAO/ RECD-94190 Report, Lack of Consensus on Public Radiation Risk"(1994).
- 4. U.S. EPA and U.S. NRC, " White Paper on Risk Harmonization," (1995).
- 5. Domsife, William P. and Bhattacharyya, " "A Risk Based Methodology for Assessing the Efficacy and Priorities for the Control of Various Radiation Sources," Pennsylvania
1 .
Department of Environmental Protection (Rev 2,6/2/97)
- 6. Envirorimental Goals %r America,with Milestones for 2005. EPA draft report for full government review, acember 1996.
- 7. Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protectiott EPA SAB-EC,90-021, September 1990.
a Announcing A Workshop Addressing the Similarities and Differences in Chemical and Radiation Environmental Risk Management About the The Erwironmental Law Institute, in partnership with the Johns Workshop Hopkins University Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute, is convening a workshop to discuss the similarities and differences in risk management paradigms for chemicals and radiation under environmental protection statutes.
The workshop will be held in June, and is being supported through a cooperative agreement with the Environmental Protectbn Agency. Due to the highly interactive format, attendance will be limited to about 35 invited participants.
Focus of The focus of the discuss'ons will be to clarify the foundations, Discussions enhance the consistency, ano improve the cost effectiveness of risk management decisions regarding radiation and chemical carcinogens in the environment. The workshop will not address differences in risk assessment, except as they directt, affect management decisions.
Discussion Warkshop participants will discuss the public health, legal, Objectives regulatory, and policy issues surrounding chemical and radiation risk management under key environmental protection statutes. Specific objectives of the discussions are to
- examine the legal and regulatory bases for chemical and radiation risk management paradigms,
- compare the principles underlying these risk management paradigms across existing key environmental statutes, and
- examine whether opportunities exist to harmonize them.
Workshop The findings from the workshop will be widely disseminated.
Findings For More Contact Dr. Paul Locke, Director, Center for Public Health and Information Law, Environmental Law Institute, at (202) 939-3842 or lockc@eli.org
i I
DPK T 1998 ISCORS PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS Decenber 11. 1997
- 1. The Cleanup Subcommittee will participate in the review of the NRC's decommissioning regulatory guide.
- 2. The Cleanup Subcomittee will review cleanup codes in terms of assumptions and parameters.
- 3. The Mixed Waste Subcommittee will share information on treatment a "
disposal of commercial mixed waste.
- 4. The Recycle Subcomittee will review and compare the NRC and EPA techni 71 bases and cost benefit aralyses for recycle of radioactive material.
- 5. The Risk Harmonization Subcomittee will make a recomendation on whether to hold a workshop on institutional controls.
- 6. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will review the proposal on evaluating uniform risk standards, including'the possibility of an NAS study, after the Environmental Law Institute s risk workshop in June 1998 and a dispute resolution mediation on this topic.
- 7. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will review the results of the BEIR VII scoping study and provide a sumary to the full ISCORS comittee.
- 8. The Risk Harmonization Subcommittee will form a working group for Federal Guidance Report 14.
- 9. The Sewage Subcomittee will review the results of the sewage survey uestionnaire, which is expected to be distributed in the first half of 998.
- 10. The Sewage Subcomittee will revise the guidance document to take into account industry and State coments and distribute die document for public comment.
LOWeLEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE COMPACT STATUS -
OCTOBER 1997 t#90AFFBLEATED STATES n. n a e t 7% National RW (ti States) ,
- SC has arte - 2% Nsteortat LLW - SLD
- NY to host .ste - 4% Nateones Lt W - SLH benried
- ME to compact weth TX - = 1% Nationes LLW
& Ax
- W ^ ** h *t State
- vi to compact =.en Tx - - t w. Nationas uW
- ""****L*
- NH. ns. oc. en .=h se than 1% nanon.: uW MOEMWEST
- "'"
- M' - 8% "***'"' RW
,M, . s,. Na,,ons aw
- SL8 b""""5 m /- 90 0 0tT H E A S T wa
' ^ T g
g y 40
- NJ and CT are pany States
. eu .nd cT .e - _t-t e nost ur ,
. f1 S..t
/ ,, 9; ,,
u . e% u.t.on uw f
- ' p>f 9
4-. .o pn % +,o. tot-
,y IA 1
m _f
-[ , _ ,,, CT t.t,.__, t ._.t St.t-
"{
No \ ,,J ,
,)
) *Q oe uo s
w a CENTMAL M8ENWEST W . el .. noot state APPALACHE.sN c4
/ I W e 12% National uw
- D'Spo5a' '*chao'ooy
- PA ** "*** S'*'*
N STERM -
to be detenmned e M NatW LLW eCA to host State NV
- EMAGv. sLB two-s ue it
- SL 8 baa'*$
q D'
.s% Nat.onse uw
.= ,
( jy, r
. cor,t,,t.o
...oed a
,enned . 3% National LLW
.....g.._.__..-_, ._
Actual and Estimated Dates for Completing Steps in Facility Development -
(Estimated Dates Obtained from Compacts / States)
+ mnwe.;c .
.~ c. w w w- a y s ...
~asm .., - _.: , .~
.'j;y
..n.. '
(g .
.w -
n U. da f ':d 2000 2002 h -
- - 8+J--S_i
.u .
_ .ania
"~..
j Dec --19s9. lui1990 7 pggi,99
.R _ = W. _ 6 Mn--n an_. _ -
A ,- a i;3. s n..c.. _
- ~-
- .-- --n Unscheduled 2009 2012 Central Midwest /lllinois
... . ; .. . ~U "- M ' :' Unscheduled
.*o.b s 7 Mide -- n, + Un. scheduled an ma.t%.i.i.m.e O(JG E. . +m - - w - w - --_ - ~
Unscheduled 2002-2004 2005-2009 Northeast /Connectiast &
Unscheduled Unscheduled Ur Ja f_":d m)J No ea me m . . . - c. -
m -
mm..-.idr "fcr.z. <No Am,.a 1 <
~.m Dec 1993 Dec 1993 Aug 2001 Southeast / North Carolina
. . - Mar 1988 Oec19s9 Mid-1999-a Wh n un,-~~~~
wm _n
_ A r ~ ~ ~ - ~ , - -
- '*g.,,*yve. - ,.. -' i #- 4 9., -p # j
-l.',_*,_
.,.. _T y' ,
?* WN - ~
& .f ; .
n.
g.. . -> ,3 m;m...,a-2 .~ q 2 a:n ~,e n n.x.4. . ...
a.
ca ws em 1w1n- ,.;m-w.m, c s , ,.m~,.sw .s. w , ;,
m +a .-y.- ,. -
w
~m y
Almf Q__vM ~~g%X _ u w:), , y , , ,
_.__._.._.7_4 , .
Main (See Note) 9_ ~=_ ,. _ _U , nscheduled n_M,anneshannik t_ @;4_t;;ggpfg;p:e_J_n n,- __ _. ._
h . u: _.. _ Un_ sche _duled
. aw ._.
Unscheduled Unsdaf_':d Unscheduled l M:4 UcA*a fi':d
+a j QQ~M2k:a$b Sf --.$~h ~
S
. Iimaramadislad - ~ .- , _ w x,. . .
Unscheduled
- . . - --- w.-_w.-
Late 1999 Aug 1991 Mar 1992 Texas j.s g,
,,. m
% s ,ms
.. ~ + n,~x.~"
"."..-..4."
,, * .. ,"" ~3 g en.
h ;
- m .a
.r , , , .
a .a . _ w . a. . .
~ , a ..w, Oa.wim a. .
- x. ._ .
Note: Fonnation of a contpact pending with Texas as the host State.
- Contingent upon land transfer from federal g;~...as" h
1
- - e---- --.6
s i ._
I LLW DISPOSED AT COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL SITES (
' ~
kA -
.n, .. h:N wi Ln ;+-+La
. f a, t EW :?f oASpeCIIIC - '- - - . . . v Non. Utility Utility l
3M M ledustrial . W f [ ,1 Total hl
[kidd ~ p-*;W[,N(Cgagggnei/$c)y.M[JN .Gomunent pMh{d sw D E.
W12s&w (ygl}[(Act)g(%l}
- (Act);j(g[)1 (Act}j(yel)'f(Act)3M (Act) N)(M)
- . $ M M d $ d W /w & gj O s c a.2 g a d d A m J M d ;;g-L u h M g g -g ,,,
2,680,650 748,874 9.9 1.7 0.1 33 1.0 36.8 21.1 1.2 <0.1 43.0 22.2 57.0 77.8 1985 1,804,998 , . ' '233,740 4.6 1.6 <0.1 4.5 2.1 35.3 24.9 13 <0.1 42.7 27.0 573 73.0 1996
- = w x -.: x wauw:a a :-a w a = a .. 2 1,841,637 269,550 5.2 2.6 <0.1 7.2 2.7 36 3 15.7 1.5 <0.1 47.6 18.5 52.4 81.5 1987 43.4 17.8 56.6 82.2 lVi 259,661 3.1 0.7 6.1 3.0 32.7 133 1.5 <0.1
~..6.4 .
t,1988 c= x:,427,850Lv aCzazz msr. ~%; G.u ':/ =
1 *
~ .
866,868 18.8 4.1 0.2 7.0 1.4 .54.7 14.7 2.1 <0.1 47.9 163 52.1 83.7 1989 1,625,862 a -
~
..m 43.8 20.9 56.2 79.1 1990 ; 1,143,315 % . 43 .0.2 63 .1.9 31.2 18.7- 2.0 <0.1 yw:.m ::Mk:.;a'::,,cM. ; 547,9029 .:.,:ns..s *
% 214tW % 16.9**~*~' % c
, - ~
799,811 20.6 3.5 0.1 7.6 2.4 40.2 9.0 2.1 <0.1 53.4 11.5 46.6 88.5 1991 1,369,162 20.2 9.1 4.1 52.1 10.0 1.5 .<0.1 65.2 143 34.8 85.7 z1992. 41,744,539ff;1,000,103 : ,
2.5 _ 0.2-~ :~ -. L . > ~ ::
2.:.r ..s.wlx r u L.cLMe h u K W =: n :w .
642,909 28.7 1.5 0 12.1 4.5 35 03 0.6 0 49.2 4.0 50.8 95.2 1993 792,275
-4 30.9 .. 2.1 0.1 13.4 4.4 39.9 4.2 0.6 0.1 56.0 8.8 44.0 91.2 1994; . 858 681 e li ' 751,379.;
tsu e n d ,.c 3 inzG w= L L.C 4:R M A k = .'e L ' '~ ~ > -.~. D 171,816 8.8 1.1 <0.1 19.0 43.7 24.5 14.6 03 <0.1 44.9 58.2 55.1 41.8 1995 689,957
. ; 38.2 = 2.4 . <0.1 10.1 9.7 25.2 14.4 0.4 <0.1 38.1 24.1 61.9 75.9 1h96 - gj 422,013,. ; 3456,209..- 4
- 'L '
'M- ~ ' ' '
n:a:M6%Anambruz:A XM K: :: = a = 1 7 -
h I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
Status of New State / Compact LLW Disposal Facilities Submit License Operate Facility Come,ents Host StatelCompact Select Site Application .
1988 1989 Md-1999' Cahfomia has been unable to obtain the land from Cairfomaa/Southwestem the 001 to begin construction of thrs facihty. In its Compact 1995 report for DOI the NAS reccnunw4ed that Pddtbonal testing for intrum be perfonned at the ste. DOI issued an EA for this testing with pubic comment penod closing on Dec. 8,1997, after years of unsuccesful nggoteboc with Cahfomsa on who should conduct the tests Approxirnately a year will be needed to collect data. analyze results, and for DOI to deode whether to transfer the site.
In the meantime. U S. Ecology and Cahfomia have filed lawsutts against DOI. and the Senate wdl hold f heanngs in early 1998 to investigate DOI reasons for not transfemog the land 1992 1. ate 1999 Texas is to begin its adjudcatory licensing heanng Texas 1991 in January 1998. Texas compact legislaton (approving the joining *ogether of Texas. Marne and Vermont) has passed in House, to be taken I up m Senate in earty 1998.
1990 Fall 1999 Nebraska recently issued its draft SER and
- Nebraska / Central 1989 environmental report for pubic com ncnt, after 7 Compact years of review. Comments are due in Feb rary However, on December 5.1997. Govemor Nelson wrote to 49 other Govemors advocating reexamining the compact system Govemor Nelson wants to expiore other optons
' Contingent upon Department of Intenor transferrmg Federal land to the State of Cahfomia
2 .
t 1993 2001 The State of NC and SE COTvact Cun.v.ssaon North Carchna/ Southeast 1993 reached an impasse on adddenal funding for the Compact facdity in earty December 1997. More than 3100 million has been spent to date, but licensir'g issues reman . It is not clear how the project wdl VM 2000 2002 PA is in the earty stages of a volunteer wing Pennsylvania / Appalachian Unscheduled program.
2009 2012 in 1997, libnois announced an 8 year delay in its libnois/ Central Medwest Unscheduled guvir=Tt Unscheduled Unscheduled in May 1997, the Midwest CviTvact dew to No Host State /Mdwest Unscheduled discontmue the Ohc LLW sting program because of reduced waste volumes, the avadabihty of Bamwell and Envirocare, and the uncertaintes regaramg future success of such a project Unscheduled CT-2002-2004 CT-2005-2009 CT & NJ/ Northeast NJ-unscheduled NJ-unscheduled Compact Maine and Vermont have formeo a wTpact with Maine and Vermont the State of Texas. Legislaton has passed the House, and is expected to be voted on m the Senate in earfy 1998.
Unscheduled Unscheduled U. Muted Miciigan Unscheduled Unscheduled Massachusetts Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled New York Unscheduled t
s:Vfwm\lidpyek\ status.wpd L_________
4 External Regulation of DOE Nuclear Facility Safety
. . 12/11/97
Background
. Currently DOE is self regulating for worker health and safety and the design, operation, l and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. NRC regulates uranium tailing sites and I certifies gaseous diffusion
- plants and willlicense DOE developed high-level waste storage or disposal site
. Secretary O' Leary convened the Advisory Committee on Extemal Regulation which recommended that there be external regulation of safety at DOE nuclear facilities. The committee made other significant recommendations as well but did not recommend a preferred regulator.
. A DOE Working Group on External Regulations was charged with identifying the implementation methodology of the Advisory Committee recommendations and findings.
The DOE working group recommended that NRC be the extemal nuclear safety regulator, and that the move to external regulation should be phased-in over several years. Both the Advisory Committee and the Working Group concluded that the transition to NRC regulation would involve s.gnificant legal, financial, technical and procedural adjustments for both agencies.
. In March 1997, after considering public comments, ao sell as the December 1996 DOE decision to seek transfer of oversight to NRC, the Commission endorsed seeking the transfer to NRC of responsibility for the regulatory oversight of certain DOE nuclear facilities, contingent on adequate funding, staffing and a clear delineation of the authority NRC would exercise over these facilities. In addition, the Commission directed the staff to convene a high level NRC Task Force to identify, in conjunction with DOE, the policy and regulatory issues needing analysis and resolution.
Current Status
. In June 1997, both DOE Secretary Pena and NRC Chairman Jackson agreed to pursue NRC regulation of DOE nuclear facilities, on a pilot program basis. The Memorandum of Understanding between the DOE and NDC was signed in November 1997.
. The pilot program of simulated regulation will be conducted at a number of DOE nuclear facilities over the next two years. The objectives of the pilot program are to determine the desirability of NRC regulatory oversight of DOE nuclear facilities and to support a decision on whether to seek legislation to authorize NRC regulation of DOE nuclear facilities. This program is designed to gather quantitative and qualitative infonnation on extemal regulation, upon which to base a legislative. Three initial pilot sites were chosen to be completed in 1998: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory Radiochemical Engineeriag Development Center, and Savannah River Site independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.
. The LBNL pilot began in November. This week a Stakeholder meeting was held in Oakland and the mutually agreed upon work plan for the pilot completed. The site report for LBNL is due April 1998. Regular updates will be posted on the web site, http://www.nrc. gov /NRC/NMSS/doepilot.html, including updates on the next two pilots.
l
~' - - - - - . - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . ,
l e ei
- From Stephen McGuire To
- DECOM GUIDE GROUP, TWP7.AMH1, JAM 1, CHD1. CH P 2 . B LJ , . .
Dates 10/3/97 3:29pm Subjects Minutes: ISCORS meeting on restricted release ,
On October 2, the ISCORS cleanup subcommittee met to discuss the NRC's Decommissioning Guide working paper (October 11 draft) on License Termination under Restricted Conditions.
In attendance were NRC: Trottier, Cardile, McGuire, Fauver, Rhone (contractor)
EPA: Kahrnack, Doenert, Hull, Nega, Kossick, Boyd DOE: Wallo, Domoter, Bachmaier DOD: George DOE supported the working paper quite strongly, but EPA had some reservations as diccussed below.
EPA main concern was that the public participation was not sufficient. Th1y thought that we should not limit the public input to obtaining advice, but that we shou'd also obtain input on public concetnr. They objected to a provision that would allow the licensee to replace SSAB members who did not meet their responsibilities.
Part of the EPA cor,cern arose because they did not understand that the guide section addresses only part of the public participation, the part in which the licensee, in preparing the decommissioning plan, seeks assistance from the public in developing institutional controls that will function effectively given local conditions. The additional public participation requited by 20.1405 after NRC receives the decommicsioning plan is not described in the guide because L is an NRC responsibility rather than a licensee responsibility. We can help others to avoid the EPA misconception by adding a paragraph in the guide to make it clear that there is additional public participation after the decommissioning plan has been submitted in addition to the participation during preparation of the decommissioning plan.
EPA thoui..t NRC should ae directly involved with the licensee by helping the licensee develop the institutional controls that would be used.
EPA were also concerned that the NRC involvement in the 5-year rechecks was less than what EPA does under CERCLA.
EPA gave us 6 documents that described how EPA operates under CERCLA that they thought would be useful to us.
Some of the EPA concerns can be addressed by some reasonable modifications in the guide. However, other concerns are caused by the wording of the final decommissioning regulation and the guide cannot satisfy these concerns.
m.__m.______.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~__ _ _ . _ . _
., n.
- CRCPD ORPHAN SOURCE INITIATIVE
(- Program funded by EPA (ORIA). Action items and milestones developed during November 13, 1997 meeting which included Cindy Cardwell (TX, CRCPD Chair) and DOE, NRC, EPA, and CRCPD Maff participation.
Goal: To develop and &cilitate =' b- ^e'on of a dynamic nationwide systen that wtle l effectively manage orphan sources.
1
- Aetlen Itemet
- l
+' Develop the criteria for application and use of the system define the roles, responsibilities, and procedures for the major stakeholders to the system (CRCPD, EPA, DOE, NRC, State radiation control programs, the steel-and scrap industries, and the source manufacturers) this item should include a definition of orphan source (ex. sources (materials) not traceable to a responsible party and not constituting a public health and safety emergency) this item should also include a description of concentration averaging that should
' take into account NRC's policy statement on concentration and waste acceptance
- criteria from the current and proposed disposal sites ,
3 ,, ,
4 . Develop a materials management program for the system
_the management program should include descriptions of broke T
and an outreach program to the source manufacturers for recycling options for future funding of the system should be explored - .
the program should be developed to be continuous and consist,ent .,~
- i l '
+ ' Develop and implement an odtreach program for the system ,
. , :p - , outreach for system should be a phased-in approach with the initial s**aah i i"B' being the state radiation. control programs ...m. ,
4 c -' the outreach program should include a feedback loop', i.e., an incident' databand, f _
l <
(containing what occurred and was involved, the cost, and the disposition)? Tliel '
- 4 wrrent NMED system should be used for this phrpose " '" " '
i
' aller " buy in" by the state RCPs of the system, outre 9ch to the steel'and scrap industry should be conducted through informational meetings o m p ,-
, , _ , . .f . - ~ p .*
.n 5 .~
A. : -?? - 4 A jlmplementation of a pilot pr9 gram for the system l -
- ff,7 p .
- implementation of the system'should be timely 1. ,. ; & , J , j , .
J%
'? $y( _j a database co' n tainl4 the implementation' data should be e' stablished as a^means ofw.*
~ , ' w.@p f pm' eesluating the pilot program '
m4CRM
- J3. -
~8 -
, 3 . o s,.
.. . sto . . r m
.- s t ;. s ,
w- t
+ +
,f __._'u g a =+ +
- A _#
- T.
4 j 5
= '
A
- u
.f.,- q-
- ,e , -
4 '
N
~
4 ,
' i j .
- M' "
_jd .f'ab
. 3 g g, _.
, .g
, t s ,..
i Q }f.7 -
- v. qg. d.+ , ;;s j<
- 3b [." k '9' ~ ," d* -
i} 5 'y
"* ' . 1
- s. -
gg((g
- + k[h [ '
^
S '
b '
'U M 3 . , . .
Ylm'eline:
(- ASAP *
-crehte CRCPD Ad Hoc Committee on the Orphan Source initiative by May,1998 -complete the first action item
-develop a straw man for the materials management program
-plan and condues a "round table" or similar type meeting of the states during the 1998 CRCPD Annual meeting to 'mform ofgoal and discuss straw man -
by June 30,1998 -committee will finalize materials management program -
by August 1,1998 wiraR final product (action item. I and 2) to states with 45 days for -
comment by December,1998 -product out to scrap /steelindustry January, l9' 99 -conduct informational meeting for above industry
-create database to include data sn implementation of pilot program May,1999
- presentation on orphan source initiative at Annual meeting i
July,1999 -
implement pilot program -
e , .
t .
v 6 g
r A. f
- Y y 1 i
.k E . *.
, , , +, s .
4' T c ' . .
f- a s 1
- y '. g/ .
a (; ii 4 24 ' .*t' -y
, e g; '
4 s %i I
0, s
{- '- #
, ' , ,. , e
. c a , , y. . w.%" ,&f:yC: .
.t I '
s .
3 .. y ?
( _, e e, 7 3,.g G 4
,2 -
f , , .-g t '
J ' ( s;; ,
3 s
.g, r f A. ) 1- e s
, * .4,-'
i
] 4
~}
3 .t-- .
p.: . 1, c4 -
o kgyggU fyy: .
. s .
,e r a
>< r i; >
l ly --
%J-' d, , ,. [Aq ; _3. ; % _ lJ[ ggij ih,.):
- , e m . 4s - - .
e .
a eq'Q<
i, j. . )
.ki '. - . _/ ' ,
l '. .
. - ' '" [ '-
s , , c v- - -
s * ,
h- *'_ O b'M ' -
,' "- ,' l
? 4
, . -h , , n
- .. -s
, r , . -
a ! S i9 O ?
. s- - , ,
- .) ; *
+ ' f;_
- d' f(4y
- = s :4- +
? )J .
, ; {l
- , 4
- v~
'f } ' #
E'" 9
- V
$ 4 4 e
, . I '- -- I .< -
4' b.
4
'j i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --