ML20023C159
| ML20023C159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/29/1983 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 8305110604 | |
| Download: ML20023C159 (62) | |
Text
~
~
.~
t t
f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION m.
In the matter of:
c
~; - -
a
~-.
^
COMMISSION MEETING.
~ Docket No.
~
BRIEFING ON URANIUM MILLS TAILINGS STANDARDS h-I i
w Location: Washington, D.C.
Pages: _1 - 61 Date: Friday, April 29,1983
\\
b;'
TAYLOE ASSOCIATES '
Court Reporters 1625 I Senet. N.W. Suite 1004 8305110604 830429 Wuhington, D.C. 20006 PDR 10CFR (202) 293-3950 PT9.7 PDR a
1 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 BRIEFING ON URANIUM MILL TAILINGS STANDARDS 5
6 PUBLIC MEETING 7
8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 1130 9
1717 H Street, N.
W.
Washington, D. C.
10 Friday, April 29, 1983 11 12 The Commission convened, pursuant to notice, at 13 2:05 p.m.
14 BEFORE:
NUNZIO PALLADINO, Chairman of the Commission 16 JOHN AHEARNE, Commissioner THOMAS ROBERTS, Commissioner 17 JAMES ASSELSTINE, Commissioner 18 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT COMMISSION TABLE:
19 S. CHILK 20 H.
PLAINE S. TRUBATCH 21 G. SJOBLOM l
A.
RICHARDSON 22 J.
RUSSELL 23 24 l
25 i
s P
~.
(-
~
i O
{
DISCLAIMER iltis is. an ~unw.^. icial transcript of a cesting of the Unitad Statas.
- Nuclear Regulatory Cc=sission held on April 29, 1983 in the
.Cw :ssi'on's officas at 1717 H 5traet, N. W., 'riasnu. gun, D. C.
Tne
.maating was open. ta public attendance and obser/ation.
Tnis transcMpt.
has not bee.n rev.i.ewed, correctad, or editad, and it. may c::ntain inacaracies 3
The transc'ript is intadded solely for ganaral infermationaT purposas
...As. previded by 10 CFR 9.lC2,. it is not part of tha forinal or informai racard of decision of the cat ers discussad.
Sprassions of op. inion in 5 this. transcript de not na~sariTy reflect fina.T detarminaticas or TbaTiefs He plea. ding or cther paper may be filed witir the Cc..dssion in-
' any.croceeding as tha ras' ult of or addressed. to any statement or ars:r.ent
- e_w.gined. herein, except. as the C =nission cay auth,orize.
_-e,.,
=
L e
G
=
e.
e
2 i
1 PROCEED INGS 2
Cd41RNM1 PALLADINO:
Goon afterncon, ladies and 3
gen t le. men.
4 Ae have with.us today Mr. Glen Sjoclom, 5
Director of Radiation Progra:as of the Environmental 6
Protection Agency and two cf his colleagues wncm he will 7
introduce.
They are here today to discuss that agency's d
proposea stancarcs for uranidm mill tailings.
9 Last year hP4 finalized the stanuards for lo inactive mill tailing sites, and I understand the proposed 11 standaros for active or new nill tailing sites have been 12 puclisnec tocay.
13 In accordance with our latest Authorization 14 Act, Puoltc Law 97-415, the HRc has 90 days from this date
(\\
15 in wnich to suspenu certain portions cd our existing 16 regulations contained in Appendix A to lu CER Part 40.
17 Our meeting today shculd assist tne is Commissioners in understanain; the scope of the EPA 19 standards anc the technical issues involved.
That will in 20 turn also assist us in ur.derstancing~the specific actions 21 v.e noen to take-in order to comply wicn Puolic Law 97-415.
22 Do any of my tellow Comatissicners have any 23 opening comments?
24 (ao response.)
33 C. AIRNIAN PALLADIlso:
If not, I will turn the
- =
-3 3
1 meeting over to Mr. Sjoblem.
2 M3. SJOSLCM:
I am Glen 6joblom. On ny left is 3
Alan Richarason, who ia the Chiet at tae Guices and 4
Criteria Branen within the Criterion stanuaras Division, 5
anu on my right is Dr. Bill Ellot wno is the Cnief of the 6
Bioectects anc Analysia Branen.
7
^e also have two additional gentlemen in the 3
audience, Jack Rusaell, who is Project Officer for this 9
particular active standard, anu Stanley Lichtman, wno was 19 his counterpart for the inactive stanuara.
11 CGAIRMAN CALLADIh0:
dell, we are pleased that 12 they could all join us today.
~
13 MR. dJ02 LOV.:
he did today publisn in the 4
14 Feceral Register Lne proposed standards-for the active l(
i 15 uranium milling operations.
We in aoing so have built on 16 the inforcation cacherau curing tne preparation and 17 promulgation in early January of the stancarus for the to inactive sites that tue government.ill be recponsible for 19 unuar ritle I cf the Urania:a :.illings Control Act.
20 Under Title Il EPA sets stanaards and tne NRC at implementa in its regulations our standards for the active-22 uitea that are licensed by the i<kC.
- ,3 What I would like to de is have Alan Ricnardson i
? ve you a rundown-cf the standards anu some of the issues 24-23 involvec a-ceacripticn of scme ot the work that we have 4
f
- sJ 4
~
l 1
been doing-with the NRC staf f 'to assist them in carrying 2-out the NRC mission in this regard, some at tae interface 3
ioaues that have been discussed ano at that point then I d
4 think it would be very useful if we could get any 5
cuestions tnat you nave to try to help you understand 6
whera we ara an i so forth in our views.
7 Ae I entn.< nave identified one issue that we a
would be veri auch interested in getting Commission input 9
on during the public ccmment period wnich will about tne la naxt.ncnta.
11 The i.uue is over what kinu of liner,is 12 appropriate.
The basic two alternatives that are being 13 considered are clay liners and man-made plastic liners. It 14 woula be very useful to us it we coulo get as mucn ci tne
(
13 experience the Commission nas haa into our pecceedings as 14 we go towaru aeveloping tne ' lina l stanuards.
17 I would like to at tais time' introduce Alan le Richarason wno will give ycu the rundown.
19
.v.R. AICHARD60N:
rhan'< you.
2e I will try to ce brict. I would lt<e to cover 1-21 think rive difterent items, a little bit on cur scnedule, 22 a brief ra;ure of tne requirements of the Act as,they 23 acfact tneco standarte and tae (sc i:e.r ict ion wita us fcr 24 these stancards, a little cit about cac.<g'round x. ate rial on 25 our hataru assesament,.I will briefly tal< aoout the
5 i
stancards tnemselves anc then finally mention the issues 2
en wnien we nave raquested.public com. ment.
3 As Mr. Sjobica saio, the stancards were 4
puolishec tocay and we nave scheculea puolic hearings for i
5 May 31st throuyn June 2nu nere in Washington.
4e are t-6 requireu by your Authorization Act.co promulate these 7
stanuards bedcre October 1st of tnis year.
So tnat just i
e gives us a scant four months to go from the end cf public i
l 9
hearings to promulgation.
ig curing tnat perloo, as you mentioned earlier, 11 the ba0 is requirec to suspend those portions of its 12 existing regulaticns which would cause suostantial cost to 13 toe industry if toe EPA proposed stancaras were 14 promulgatec as proceseu.
l(
{
15 The Act requires two sets of standards, as I am i
l l
16 sure you all are aware, one set for the inactive sites.
17 Those standarcs were promulgated on January Stn of tnis l
lo year and they are carriea out by the Department of energy ly with concurrence of the Euclear Regulatory Ccmtia3 ion oc L
20 ene Laplementation.
l 21 rhe standaras ter active uites, and I nave 22 altsauy nentioned the scheaule, t'aey apply to all licensed l
23 sitea, wnether tney are licensed cy tne Comniasion 24 directly or through the agreement states.
25 The Act has really three things to say about I
l e
1 the stancards.
Tne first is that tne standards snould be 2-generally aoplicable.
You ara all familiar with tne Fart 3
190.40 CFR 190 standards for nuclear power operations a
which are the previously example of previously applicable 5
acanaards.
6 Tne characteristics of those standards is tnat 7
they are not cetailed regulations.
They are just general d
numbers tnat have to be met in the environment.
They are 9
not site specific.
Tney are not specific as to 4 hat 10 control methcos are to be usec to acnieve them. They don't 11 contain.cenitoring requirements or reporting requirements.
12 They are just numbers to be met in the enviornment.
13 The second thing that the Act says is that the 14 stancaras anall ce consistent with existing regulations of
(-
is EPA under the Aesource Conservation anu Aecovery Act, also-16 sncwn as the Solid Wasta Cisposal Act, depending en which 4
17 part af it you are tal<ing about. That second point nas a 13 ratner profound effect on the proposed standards.
13 The enird thing that the Act says, and tnis hau 20 aciscted EPA standara setting in theLprocess, _is that it 21 te4uires under Section 34 of the Act that regulations be 22 set by tne Conmission unuer Section as and 63 "wnich are 23 to' cue maxix.um extent practicable at least comparable to i
24 requirements applicacle to possession, transfer anc 25 disposal ot similar nazardous. materials regulated by the i
~
~
7-
, c.1
-1 4dainistrator" -- that is of EPA under the Solic Waste-f
'2
- Disposal Act'as amended.
3 In the-case ef ground water'and surtace water, 4
we set.in taese geaerally applicable standaraa the general i
L 5
numerical requiremants and-leave all of tne other 4
6 regulatory meenaniam to toe NRC to ce establisned, enese i
7 regulations recurred under this section.
i i
t d
COMMISi tCNEa %c.iaa.Nd:
But there'is another 9
prov is ic::, isn't there enat says that our ragulations, r
la however, hava to be concerrad in.by tne Administrator.
I 11-M.s. 9ICHAdotOh:
That is right. That particular 12-sectlan recuires that those be concurred'in.
13 Cnald'iAh P4LLADIh0:
By EPA?
I i
14 CONSIS3IGNER AcEARNE:
'Yes.
l kt I
15 4:et. 4LCHARDSOh:
Right.
L I
]
16 CHAI4"An PALLACINC: These numbers, for example, r
i 17 on urcuan water, tney are cae. set oc nuiacera 'for all i
+
t to circumstar.cas?
i i
l ',
Ma. RICH 680503:. ho, tney ara. net, and I will f
4 2e
'get-to that when 11ue3crice the stancaris.
Iney.are very r
21 restrictive-standaras.- Ihey ara. basically-non-degracation
.I F
-;.2 stanuariv for gecar.ceat r.
So-thay ara site specitic.in 1
23-tar.e of ' tt:e actual 'numvers.
2, A little nit ot cackgrouna'wnien I am sure you 25 are'al1J taciliar sita..
Inere are rcuunly two' dozen sites t
k w
.v-.w~r e
a n
e-
o' a
a 1
nere involvea and sometning over-150 million t$ns of 2
tailings covering 3,000 acres.
3 de used the low growth projection of nuclear 4
1:cwe r for estimating the impact of these standards, tne 5
most recent low groata projection.
I tning it is for 120 6
gigawatt electric by tne year 2000. Under that project 7
there would be a growth to about three times as much by s
the year 2000.
9 COMMISSIO :ER AHEARNE:.
I smile because in some la way is prouably a high growth.
11 MR. RICH ARDSO.s :
Well, we started out witn a 12 madian dose projection.
13 (Laughter.)
14 i4R. RICnARCSON:
Yes, I unuerstand~the new low ic 15 growth prcjection is 110 anu last year's was 120.
16 MR. SJobLOM:
he of course nave to do an 17 analysis.
13 COMMISdIONER AdEARNE:
Sure.
19 Ma. SJOBLOX:
ne don't make'an. independent 20 estis. ace of any of these~ bases and-we u=e what is 21 censicered creuible at the time we de tne work.
22 MR.
.4 icd A R06CN :
Actually the answers.tnat ycu
/
23 get turn out to be ralatively insensitive to these growth 24 projections cacause se _use present worth anni tha t 25 discounts stur in cne distant 'uture.
J
S 1
Inese tailings snich are sand-liae materials 2
centain raaium, thorium anu give off radon.
They contain 3
texte materials sucn as arsenic anc eclybdenum, seleniara 4
anu uranium.
3 Tne radiation hazard drops to a'ecut one tenta 6
od its initial nazard pctantial in two to tiiree hunured 7
thousand years cecause it is governed by the nalf lif e ot e
9 Tne hazards we nave sought to control are rauen ic emissions tro.a the piles or'tarcugh misuse of tailings. To 1
11
.:iva you an example of.nisuse, the hazards associated witn 12 misuse, anu I a: reviewing here, and I know you are all 13 faciliar with tnis, but I am giving you tnese numbers so t e, ycu <new the numcers that se used to do our a=sessments, f
13 but in Grand Junction the levels in nouses reached a3 nign t,;
as one worsina level.
The average is a'ecut a tenth of 17 that.
le Near piles at a num'er of sites the li f e tlice a
19 rias. -- well, let me ' ac:s up.
the hazard asacciatec with o
go a tanto of a worsing level is scout at ten percent, give 21 or tase a factor oc two or taree cy our assessment, about 42.
a ten perant lifetime riss oJ long cancer.
So that is a 23 very hign ri.2c.
24 The levela near piles at locations wners there 23 ara people living at a nu.T'er of the inactive piles were o
i
10 o
1 assesaea oy us at about three to four percent lifetime 2
rises in the worst cases.
Ihat is for eatssions directly 3
froia the piles.
4 The Cther way oC looAing at emissions directly from the piles to as.< yourself the question what is the 6
total impact of those releases of all the racon if you i
7 follow it wheraever it goes?
For existing piles, anu this is now spearing only or the active tailings piles and not e
9 the inactive ones, we estimate about 450 potential cases 10 of Catal lung cancer per hundred years from all the 11 existing piles.
12 CHAIRMAi; PALLAOINO: What was that number acain?
j_
13 MR. RICHARDSON:
45v.
14 CONMISSIONER AhEARNE:
That is worldwide?
15
- M. R ICH.n 40 SOP :
Ido,. that is nationwide.
16 Worldwide is mayte 25 percent greater.
17
.CahIdMau PALLA01,0:
What was tnat, cer now 13 long?
19
.'4 R. RICHARDSCh:
That is per hundred. years. So g
it you want to look at 1,006 year impact or tne 10,u00 a
21 impact you multiply by_10 or 10u. Fcr releases of tallings 22 that we woulo project +ould te in existence by'the year ~
23 2000-under tne icw-growth curve, that numoer if 1200 for 24 each century.
25 Just to give you some idea of the way we looked
11-l' at this, if you project a cover requirement.as being a 2
requirement for a tacusana year longevity ano then the 3
cover trickles off after tnat over some thousands ef' 4
years, we would tnerefore estimate that there would ce 5
some tens of thousands at potential lung cancer.ceaths 6
avertea by putttag a cover on it.
7 ChaIRiaN PALLADINO: Dic you say how big a cover o
or just a cover?
3 Mn. RICHARDSON:
Ihat is a cover wnich reduces 10 90 to e5 percent of the emissions, a suustantial cover.
11 Taera is not a let cf difterence between a cover that 12 ta.ces cut 90 percent and 99 percent.wnen you are. dealing 13 witn these :cinas of numbers over tnese periods of tine 14 with tne uncertainties that are asacciated with both the
(
~
is health riax estimates and the longevity of tne cover.
16 COS.EISSIONES AdEARNE: If the cover. stays thera.
17 MR. AICHARDS0<:-
If the cover stays there.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLACIh0:
I raised the question 19 beca us e that wac one at tne icams at controversy in some-2c oC our prujections.
'lR. aICnARDSOX: It is a difticult. matter anu it-21 22 has aad an ecdect on how.se have expressed.tne standard.
23-The otner hazarcs associatec with tailings are 24 tne possiLility ot.yround contamination.
de have that at 23
'the inactive sitas.
'Iney aren't large areas cy they are
12 1
significant areas of some thousands of acres.over a period 2
cr several decaues.
We haven't estimated how t:.at 3
contaminatien would grow for longer periods ot time than 4
that because we have assumed that the tailings would ce 5
staoilizec.
6 There is also the potential for water 7
contamination.
Ihat potential is greatest during the e
active life of the mill because the tailings pile has a 9
large nydraulic head of processed liquide in it and that lo is when most seepage in the'grounwater is expected to 11 cccur ic there is not a liner present.
12 Well, that is the background.
13 If I may I-would li<e to pass around a enart.
14 (The caart was distributea to the la Coanissicners.)
16
- '.R. RICnARCSON:
Sy the way, betore we get to 17 the stancaras, if you havE any questions about our nealth le risA ea t iira te s, Dr. Eliot is here to answer tnosa anc 19 perhaps could'atter we get tarouch with this part of toe 20 presentation.
21 This sheet shows a suramary of the standards for 22 the active and inactive sites. It brea<s doon the vertical 23 colua.n= c2 tne harzari pathway by groundwater, surt' ace 24 water ano air, and there is a nearling fcr len.sevity of 25 control.
e
e e ~
11 1
For active mills we list bcth Operaticaal and i
aisposal components of the secnaarus and for the' inactive 3
mills for cc.nparison. Since that was just a disposal esse, 4
there are only disposal stancards.
_5 Going down the table, starting with I
i e
grounawater, for the operational phase ot.the mill, whica 7
is when the largest potential of ground water-e contamination exists, there are two parts to the stancard.
9 This has oeen written upsidedown.
la The primary requirement under acaA, and this 11 was act something in wnich we nao very much flexibility in 12 cealing with, ycu will notice that enero are asteris<s.
13 be ice a number at these, an tne ones with single l
14 asteris4s are existing requirements of RCHA.
l 13 The design requirement is that there ce a i
s 16 liner and the objecties is no seepace..
- 1. 7 CiAIRMAM PALLADINO:
co.what?
i 13 MR. RICHARD 3ON:
The objective is that thera he tg no seepage inte the grounu.
That i:4 tne reJuirament 20 designated au 40 CFR 264.221. A? a bacxup to that, because 21 Liners do laak, thera are also numerical:grcanowater 22 stancards.
They are the ones specified at the top oC~the 23 heaaing there as.264.92.
l 24 1 hose standards consist of a list of potential 25 toxic materials and a list of numbers which are the
14 1
drinking water standards.
The procedura that is required 2
by these atandards is tnat there ce measurements mace of 3
the backgrcund levels at all these contamiaants ana'the i
4 standarc is established at that bac'< ground level. In other 3
.crds, it is a requirement that there ce no contamination 6
of grouna water.
7 The only case in wnich-a higaer number if 6
permittec is wnen tae axisting level is lower than tne 3
drinking water standard.
Ine existing grounowater level.
11 Md. AICnARCSON: Tha existing groundwater lev 61, I
12 yeo.
13 ChAIHMAa PALLADINO:
When their level is lower 14 than the drin.<ing water stanaard wnat happens?
- (
15 MR. 11CH A RD.30N :
Then the standard is the 16 driasing water level.
17 CS A I RMA:. EpLLADIaO:
But now suppose there is le g r ous.dwa te r, this brackish, do you use the same 19 riquirsment?
JL MR. RICHARDSON:
You use the cac< ground l
9,1 naaber. You use tne 'rac4ish n u. ale r.
c 22 On AI WCA;. P 4 L T.A D ia0 :
Oh, you use tne brackish 23 nu.ber.
You can't have to go to a octable numaer.
24 XR. xICHARDSON:
You don't have to clean uo the.
23 enviro ment, rignt.
15 1
CHAIRMA:. PALLALING:
That seemed to be an item 2
oc conf usion in something I read from our staf f.
l 3
MR. xICnadDSON:
he have made some small 4
additions to those numerical standards.
%e have added 3
.nolybdenum anct uranium to the list of materials that had 6
to ce consicered.
To the drinking water numbers we added 7
the radioactivity numoers for radium.
They were a
preexisting urin <ing water standards.
9 Under surface water there is already an la effluent guieline tnat specifies tnere should be no 11 releases to surface waters from mill tailings ponds.
That 12 is not changed by these proposed regulations, and that is-13 current mocern practice.
14 Moving on cowr. to air ---
i' l$
Onnl.<Ma:1 PALLADINC:
Could I unuerstano what 16 that means?
You can't auu anything to surface water 17 wiiat soeve r ?
MR. AICHARDSON:
That is riant. It is a ao Ac 19 release requirement to surface water.
au MR. dJ06 L0s.:
You use ovaporation.hasically, 21 evaporation ponds and most of tne places are out in the 22 West where it is very arid and so the evaporation is 23. promoted very well.
24 ChAIRMad PALLADINO:
Is tnat practical' level?
25 MR. SJ03LOM:
It is being done.
L.__.
'16 1
MR.'RICHARDSCN:
That is current practice. That 2
again is a1 requirement that is'not changed by these 3'
proposals.
he won't get to the new things until we get 4
half way do.vn ene secono column here.
5 Under air their alreauy exists 40 CFM'190 whica 6
in effect limits the release or airborne particulates.
7 Ihat is not changea also by these prcpesals.
6 Sow tne last thing under this coluan is tne 9
question of radon emissions from an operating site.
That 10 aas an issue anu it is-sciaething on wnich we have 4
11 requesteel comment.
h'e have not established a numerical i
12 stanuarc for radon emissions during the operational phase lj in these proposals.
14 It is our feeling taat the radon emissions are IIi' 15 Ear too site specitic to be subjected to a single nuit;cer.
16 It depenac on the particular practice tcat is being i
17 followeu at the.nllt.
It cepends on wnich year you are f
13 loc ~ing at tne mill, whether it is during the-dry-out phrase or during active operations wnen taings are all 19 20
<ePt det.
It is a very variable.T.atter.
21 What ne have done i3 just re-cr. uncia teu 'the 22 r2quiraicent chat you alreacy nave, that emissions he.kept 23 as low as practicable and that it ce looked at on a site 24 specitic basis.
25 we have requested. comment on.t!ue advisability t
'w p
re
'M
17 l' ef leaving it as loose as that.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you expect to come up 3
wita specific stancaras on radoa etnissions?
4 XR. RICHAROSON:
Ne haven't proposed any.
5 COMe;Isd Ic:;ER AnEARt;E; Ihese are for operating 6
plles.
':R. A ICundD80'; :
This is for operating piles.
7 6
Cn A I.t%A.N PALLADINO:
But again, you are asking 9
for comments cn whetner or not a number should be 10 ectatlished er is icw as practicable good enough?
11
<d.
RICHAhCSON:'Or perhaps a-work practice. One l
12 of the alternatives that se have is to estaclish a 13 stancard under the Clean Air Act which permits a wor.<
14 standard and that may be tne most practical way.
15 ia. -JUE LOei:
In answer to tne question, we
- 6 r6 ally are not acticely persuing an alternative at this 17 poiat.
ne ha v= si:r. ply assed for the puolic to coiament on le our Juagment in tnis.na tte r.
T 13 C O.'G il d d I O N E R A.-;E A R F E :
When you woulc; interpret e
ycur phrase "ac low as gracticaule, vnat *culd determine, 2
21 in vour judgment, wnether sce.ething is practical or not?
22 s!R. e J C P LO.h :
Eell, one of the practices whicn 23 in ny un.iers tar.:2ing is fairly gractical.is that soee o.
29 the co;rjanies dc spray the beach a little'bic'ana that 25 keeps i-wet.
Xe ;r.cw that the moisture content is very
lh f
1 usetul in the upcer layers in innioiting radon release ana 2
in dusting a= well.
Sc there are two reasons.hy that ts t
3 practiced at some of the locations toaay.
4 MR. d1CHARDSON:
Another.nethod tnac is coming 3
into use is the use of shallow stage disposal with 6
covering of the. piles on a successive basis so that only a 7
fraction of the total area of the pile is exposed at any e
glean ti.ne.
9 COMMISSIONER AdEARNE:
Does that mean that 10 essentially you would be looking for the application of 11 already in use tecnnology as opposed to the development'cf i
12 new teconclogy?
13 MR. SJOBLON: The former, and we understand that.
14 NRC has been doing cheaa kinus of things in its licensing 15 process.
e 16 ChnIRMAl. PALLADIt.0:
But if new technology 17 develops, would you expect that.to ce applied?
id Mh. SJOE LOM:
<.e haven't taken anything specific 19 towarus tilat.
20 MR. RICdARDSON:
Moving en to the secona najor, 21 column, wnich is lisposal -- I am going to skip cver tne 22 first two items waien are tne narrative RC&A standard 43 cecause they are really alreacy taaen care of.
It is just 24 the narrative stanuara that says put things away so'they 25 don't nave to be lc0ked after on a continuing basis.
The t.
19 o
1 last two items uncer-air and longetity will take care of 2
that in most cases.
3 Tne proposec standard for radon release and for 4
longevity, which is 20 pico curies per meter squared 5
second racon emission, that corresponds to a tsc to three e
meter cover, depending on the activity in the pile, and 7
tne 1,000 year longevity requirement, these are proocsed g
to acnieve a number of objectives simultaneously.
9 One of them is to staoilize the pile against 10 erosion.
Another is to discourage aisuse by requiring a 11 tnic< enough and stable enough cover so that people won't 12 get into it.
A third one is to reduce radon emissions so 13 tnat people living near piles will not be subject to nign 14 incividual risks and, finally the cumulative impact at 15 radon raleases trom the piles we feel justifies this 16 de3reo of cover.
17 CO.NMISSIONts AMEAanE: Can I :ack you a couple of la questions on that.
19 First, let's say you nava a large pile and you 20 have oeen adding in some places and have not touched at others, it is an average over tue wnole pile?-
42
- M. RIChAROSON:
Yes. Over time as well.
23 CONNI:iSIONER AdEARsE: eut equilibrium should be 24 reached at some point and then you are over the time 25 scale ---
e,J 4
1 Ma. RICnARDSCN:
Tnere can be seasonal 2
fluctuations aus to rainfall ana tnings 11\\e tnat.
~
3 COT.WISSIONER AdEARNE:
In talkir.g.to our staff 4
.cbviously I would adX a difterent questien, cutione of the 3
issueu that we nave to ancerstana is our staff used to 6
have a 2 as the number.
So if you coulu say a few words 7
accut shy or hc. yo reach tne number 20.
O Mh. AICdARCSON:
we have a numoer of objectives 9
that the ccvsr ce chics encugh to last a long tiir.e.
Let's lu say firct wnat i 10 pico curie per meter squared second-11 ccver iir. plies in tara or thicknes.,s and viha t aces a 2 12 imply in terms o2 cnicknen3.
13 CO:wilSS ION La AdEakNE:
I realize thera is not 14 much uifterence.
15 NR..IICHAdOSO.'.: there really isn' t a lot.;Well, l.s thera can be a fair ancunt, depending on the nature of the 17 soil.
53 C O:lh 1 3.i l O N E R A n d A RiiE :
And the cciature content 19 cf the soil.
20 MR. dICnndDSCN: Ana t.'.e aciature content of the 21
. scil.
For average soils we soulc estimate that procaoly.
22 between toc and tnree matars would be requitec-to :aeec a 23 2u pico curie, and c.robably between three and fiva for 2.
24 eut w= are not so esure about the 2 and that-was one of our 23 proclems.
21 O
e 1
I think since the KRC staff ragulations were 2
promulgated we have learned a little bit more about the 3
behavior of covers,'and one of the things we nave learned 4
is that onen you get down to within a factor of one or two 5
or three of natural background, it is not so easy to 6
predict the performance of covers.
That is one thing.
7 Another is that.e feel enat 20 pico curies per d
meter Squared second achieves all of the objectives that-9 we nave.
It would eliminate about 95 percent of the radon lo emissions.
It would be thick enough to require a cover 11 that is going to be a goou ceterrent to misuse and should 12 last for a thousana years easily.
13 MR. SJOt LON.:
I was just going to add a coint 14 that prior to putting the cover on, at least for the 15 inactive uites, the average emission rate was estimated to 16 be about 500 pico curies per iteter squareu second.
17 If you are coming down to 20, you ara comina down li'<e 95 percent. If ycu are coming down to 2, you are 13 19 coming down 99. some percent.
So tne Ocmparison cetween 2 go and 2C is nct really a factor of 10, but it is li<e four 2t percent adaitional fece the original.
It puts it into 22-better perJpective than I think a comparison of 2 and 20.
23 CHAIRMA:. P4LLADIh0:
Let's see, you said two to 24 three meters in one case anc tarec to five in the otner.
25 Then how did you get four percent?
I' don't-get the feel l
~22 1
for four percent.
7 MR. SJOBLOM:
If you start with an average pile 3
pri r to putting a cover on of 500 roughly pico curies per 4
meter squared second, and tnen you come down to 20, that is 3
a certain percentage.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Then I am interpreting your 7
percentage differently.
g COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
One of the difficulties I 3_
have had in even trying to figure out on the two is~our 13 people tend to look at in the way of implementing, because 11 that is obviously where we are trying to regulate the 12 People who actually had the piles, so they have tended to 13 talk more in terms of the ground cover, the type of cover, 14 the way, the way you build the pile, and the effects of 13 that have been sometimes followed after thinking through 16 that process, 17 As I understand your process in setting up tg standards you look first at what is the overall effect and 19 then you are trying to establish a standard that achieves 20 the goals that you have laid out.
21 So in that conceptual approach I would thinx 22 that that in addition to looking at how much of a reduction 23 from the 500, you still'have to talk about what.is the f
24 effect of the 20, cecause what you are left with with.your 25 standard is what kind of health hazard is associated with
.m mm m
e-y v.
23 I
whatever number you are left with.
3 MR. SJOBLOM:
Whatever health effect you would 3
have from direct radon emissions would be reduced by 96 4
percent.
In addition, though we have been unable to 5
quantify how much avoidance of risk through misuse of 6
materials we would also gain, you would have whatever that 7
would be.
6 It is hard to predict how much misuse there is 9
going to be in the future.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Sure.
11 MR. SJOBLOM:
de all know about the Grand 12 Junction experience.
That is certainly a reason to want to 13 put this material away in itself and cover it up and with 14 rock cover and whatnot, so that people will not be able to 15 back up witn their pickup trucks and get the material.
16 We keep getting told, for example, well, 17 everybody knows about this stuff in the West now and we 13 don't have to worry about this.
19 Well, I visited Utah just a little over a week 20 ago and I had never been to the site in Salt Lake City up 21 until that point and the health and safety officer of the 22 state took me around and showed me where in fact somebody 23 had indeed just recently cut the fence down and backed in 24 with a pickup truck and gotten some material.
He doesn't 25 know how much.
So it can still happen until you make that
24 l
1 pile so it is difficult to get to.
2 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I am in no way arguing 3
with that side of it.
It is coming in the other direction 4
that I am trying to understand.
5 I have difficulty with saying that it cuts 95 6
percent =of it because when one is starting with a situation 7
the first question is will a mill be allowed to operate. If the mill is not allowed to operate, there is nothing. So it o
9 isn't a comparison with respect to 500- or 300 I guess was 13 your average for new ones, but it is a comparison with 11 natural background.
12 So I still think that the 20 is a more 13 interesting numbe r to try to look at.
14 MR. SJOBLOM:
It is a design requirement. In i
15 other words, in determining from a design point of view 16 what cover to require, we envision that there would be a li oetermination of avtilable materials in the area and what it effectiveness they would have at meeting the longevity 13 requirements and so forth, and also the radon reduction 20 requirements.
21 We have developed more. confidence in that kind
(
22 of a procedure due to the DOE engineering work.
They have i
23 been for several years now working on this kind of thing l
l 24 and have developed quite a bit of understanding of how the 25 various things interact.
I l
~
25 1
So we have some confidence now that one can 2
actually go and design ahead of time something that will 3
meet the standards. But we do not require anyone to monitor 4
for 20 pico curies per meter squared second.
It is not 5
monitorability thing.
There is nothing particularly wrong 5
with a given spot being 20 or more.
It is an average value 7
of the entire pile.
6 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The calculation is that 9
this design should give you 20.
10 MR. SJOBLOM:
Right.
Il CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
On the average.
12 MR. SJOBLOM: On the average over the pile. It is 13 simply a design thing and we envision in the NRC process 14 that during the text spec, or whatever definition for that k
1 5 particular action, you would do a carryout in a design 15 mode.
'7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me ask a hypothetica?.
13 question.
One possible way of trying to estimate what is 19 the acceptable level is to try to do a calculation of the 2d potential health effects of a given standard.
So you can 21 say that new piles would have 300 pico curies per square 22-meter per second, or you could to go 100 or you could go to 23 20 or you could go to 2, and then I guess you could co a 24 calculation of health ef fects making an assumption of how 25 many piles you have.
At some point you would have a curve
-~
26 1
that would plot health effects versus allowable release 2
rate.
3 Do you then have some acceptable level at which 4
you conclude this is an acceptable level of heath effects or do you have a second rough estimate of the cost to a
6 achieve tnis and there is a cross-over point?
7 MR. SJOBLOM:
I think you should describe the d
case studies that we nave done.
We didn't derive in a 9
closed form some equation that relates those things because 10 of course there are many objectives involved.
11 MR. RICHARDSON:
I think wnat you are asxing is i
12 the question of how do you decide when to stop.
13 COMMISSIONER AdEARNE:
Correct.
14 MR. RICdARDSON:
When you are dealing with a k'
13 non-threshold pollutant like tnis, at what point do you 16 decide to stop and you can do it'---
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
To put it another way, at le some later stage I am sure we will be hearing an argument 19 from people who believe that 2 is right.
20 MR. RICHARDSON:
Sure,'and if 2.had been the EPA 21 proposal, somebody would be arguing that 1 was right.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Or some people might argue 23 that 2 is-too much or too restrictive.
24 MR. RICnARDSON: Right, or the other way. It.is a 25 very difficult matter.
There are two ways of going about L.
v
\\
27 I
l l
tnis business, i
l 2
One of them is to arbitrarily say that a certain 3
level of risk is acceptable and then try to decide where 4
the nearest most risk prone person is going to be located 5
and then protect him.
6 We fina that very difficult for a number of 7
reasons.
Nobody has come up with an acceptable number for o
that and it is very hard to decide who that person is and 9
where he is going to live and make sure that somebody else 10 doesn't come along that is in a worse position.
Il Reme.nber that these piles are going to be 12 hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years.
So we can't A
'3 9
depend on fences and control of that sort even for the 14 thousand year period that we are talking about here.
(
15 The other way of doing it is to look at what you 16 get for what you spend to do the cost benefit tradeoff, and 17 k think there is more of a flavor of that in what we bave i
la done than in the former.
19 We looked at a whole series of cases which are 20 described in the background documents you got. To give just 21 'one example, if you look at the difference in cost between 22 a two pico curie per meter squared standard and a 20 pico 23 curie per meter squared standard, if you assume our models 24 are right for what you need for a cover for two pico curies 25 per meter squared standard, you get about a 50 percent n
26 1
higner cost for a four pecent reduction in the heath 2
effects.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
How much?
4 MR. RICHARDSON:
Fifty percent higher for a four 5
percent reduction in the heath effects.
That is hard to 6
imagine when you look at the difference in the thickness.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Wait. How do you get a 6
four percent reduction in health effects if you have an 9
order of magnitude reduction in release?
j 10 MR. RICHARDSON:
Because you have gone from 96 11 percent to 99 percent.
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
From 20 to 2 ---
i 13 MR. RICHARDSON:
20 represents 96 percent of the i
l
- 14 effects being taken care of from a bare pile, starting with i4(
15 a bare pile you have a hundred percent of the effects.
4 16 If you put on a 20 pico curie per meter squared i
17 second requirement, and tnis is an existing tailing.which li is 500 pico curies per gram material, you will eliminate 96 19 percent percent of the effects.
20 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And you say that for 21 double the cost you could go to ---
22 MR. RICHARDSON: For 50 percent more cost you can 23 go from 96 percent to 99 percent of the health effects 24 removed.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
And I guess it really
29 1
depends which base you start from.
2 MR. RICHARDSON:
Right. If you are going to say 3
you have gone from four percent to one percent, which is 4
the other way of looking at it, from four/ tenths of a 5
percent, then you can say you get a tenfold reduction of 6
the remaining impact.
7 COMMISSIONER AMEARNE:
Okay. Two questions.
6 What is the magnitude of the operation that you 9
are talking about in the following sense.
You had some 10 numoera in the order of magnitude of $500 million in your 11 studies, total cost.
This'is on an industry whose annual 12 volume of business is what or annual profits are what?
I 13 need something to compare that with.
MR. RICHARDSON: I will have to give you that for
. o i
l
'3 the record.
I don't have that.
16 MR. SJOBLOM:
he did do a regulatory impact 17 analysis on this even though we concluded it was not a i
lo major regulation examiniag these case st'udies in detail. It i
19 is a percent or two of the cost of uranium, a few percent 20 of the cost of uranium.
l 21 MR. RICHARDSON:
The cost of the proposed 22 stanaards for existing tailings is $174 million present 23-worth.
That is in the Federal-Register notice.
2*-
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Glen just mentioned that.-
25 That is one or two percent you are saying.-
1 -
~
30 1
MR. SJOBLOM:
We can'give the precise numbers. I 2
just don't have them on the tip of my tongue.
3 COMMISSIONEM ASSELSTINE:
That is at present 4
prices, Glen?
5 MR. SJOBLOM:
Yes, even at present prices.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let me ask you two 7
questions. You have the 20 pico curies per square meter per 6
second as an average requirement. Do you say anything about
')
the degree of variation you could have on a particular site 10 or don't you feel that is ---
11 MR. RICHARDSON:
No, we say nothing about that 12 because wnat we are interested in doing is having control 13 over the total release from the pile, f
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Secondly, can you give me
(
IS some feel for what these numbers mean in terms of 16 background?
17 MR. RICHARDSON: Yes. Background is approximately ID one.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Approximately one pico 20
- curie, 21 MR. SJOSLOM:
I have found it in the Federal 22 Register notice. It says "We estimate that increases in the 23 price of uranium could range from two to eight-percent."
24 COMMISSIONER ASEARNE:
I guess I have another 23 hypothetical question.
In the relative benefit cost do you
31 1
make an assumption that the mills will be run so that not 2
running the mills is not one of the alternatives?
3 MR. SJOBLOM:
In the regulatory impact analysis 4
there is a series of cases, including some very, very 5
restrictive cases where the economic conditions that exist 6
might result in closing a small mill, according to the kind 7
of standards that are projected.
But at the selected 6
standard, that was not the case.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I was just trying to think lJ through and trying to put in in our construct when we do il our NEPA analysis, for example, for a nuclear power plant.
12 We have to start with trying to look at the benefits of 13 running the plant. So that having the plant is not a given.
14 The plant has to have some benefit to be there, k
'5 I was wondering whether your analysis makes the-3 16 starting assumption that the mill is going to be there and 17 so the tailings will be generated.
Then the question is 1c wnat are the various regulatory impacts of reducing the 19 emissions from those tailings that will be there.
20 MR. SJOBLOM:
We did assume in fact that they 21 would be generated. I would think we could characterize our 22 analysis more as a tradeoff between the health costs and 23 the economic costs rather than one of a tradeoff of the 24 benefits and the costs.
25 COMMISSIONER AdEARNE:
Right. A good point.
32 I
i 1
Now could I ask you a question.on your 200 to 2
1,000 years?
3 MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
When I read the phrase 5
that you nave, and I think the phrase you have is "the 6
control of radiological hazards will be designed to be 4
7 effective for 1,000 years to the extent reasonable j
u achievable, and in any case for at least 200 years.
's MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes.
f 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
So I guess first, could 11 you say a few words about the meaning of that.
One is 12 interpretation is that the 200 years is now determining 13 because it is at least for 200 years.
, 14 MR. RICHARDSON:
I am very glad to have a chance
' (
15 to correct that.
let me just say it this way. I think that L6 j
we would be very surprised if there were found a case for a 17 new mill in which a thousand years could not be met.
The ic intent is a thousand years.
19 The reason for the flexibility to 200 years is 2d to take care of any possible cases where there might be i
21 extreme difficulty assuring a thousand year longevity 22 because of a location near a ' flood plain er something like 23 that.
Dikes are not that well predictable.
24 We did not want to require that existing 25 tailings be moved to new sites except in extreme i
33 I
circumstances in expectation that 100 or 200 year flood 2
would wash them out.
So that is an escape valve, the 200 3
years.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
This sounds like more than 5
an escape valve.
It sounds like it could be used to be the 6
norm.
I presume the mill owners will react with varying 7
degrees of reluctance to try to have their protection for a d
thousand years and say well, we got it for 250 years and I 9
expect that is all we can achieve.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: I guess the question would 11 be when you have to the extent reasonably achievable, does 12 that mean when you take into account technology or when you 13 take into account economics?
14 MR. RICHARDSON:
Technology. Well, economics to 15 the extent that you wouldn't move a pile to reduce a 16 raasonably small hazard to a minute one.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
But for example, if it 10 required building a new embankment around it or putting 19 over an additional layer of cover.
20 MR. RICHARDSON:
That is expected to be done.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
But practicality rests 22 largely on economics and even high technology rests of 23 economics.
This is one where I got hung up a little bit 24 myself because this would say well, you know, I just can't 25 afford it and it is just not practical for me to do that i
34 1
and I will go bankrupt.
I say well, I have got 300 years 2
and that is good enough. I think it would be worth clearing 3
that up if what you mean is you want a thousand years and 4
only under very exceptional circumstances.
5 MR. RICHARDSON: That is the intent. Now there is 6
language in the preamble which goes in that direction, but 7
I think it is becoming clear that we need to clarify that.
8 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think our previous 9
approach had been to talk in terms of thousands of years. I lu gather that is one of the concerns on our staff in this 11 particular area. I know right now obviously they have to be 12 looKing at what are the parts of our regulations to pull 13 out.
~
14 Could you say a few words about when you say a
(
A5 thousand years, what do you see as that being in the sense 16 of more liberal tnan our previous thousands of years?
17 MR. RICHARDSON: The whole science or art I guess 16 what it is more properly called of designing things for 19 thousands of years is not well defined.
Since this is a 20 standard that has to be met by people, we stated something 21 that we think people can certify to.
22 We have not identified any specific difference, 23 any specific item which would be different under the NRC 24 regulations and these standards.
25 COMMISSIONER-AHEARNE:
Really?
i
35 1
MR. RICHARDSON:
No.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Say that again?
3 MR. RICHARDSON:
We have not identified any 4
specific practice which would be carried out differently 5
under these standards than under the NRC thousands of years 6
requirement, no specific item.
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
May I ask you then a very l
6 pointed question. Let us suppose that we were to submit our 9
existing regulations as they stand now. Are you saying that 10 at least insofar as that portion that talks about the 11 longevity you would find that our regulations are 12 consistent with this?
13 MR. RICHARDSON:
Again, I would say we have not 14 identified any specific requirement that would be imposed.
(
15 that doesn't mean that somebody couldn't identify such a 10 one, but we haven't found one.
17 MR. SJOBLOM: What we are trying to do is project 1d in an engineering sense the performance of something for a 19 long period of time with some confidence.
While the people du in Detroit have learned how to design cars to fail at 10 21 miles after the requirement, we don't know how to do that 22 in a geological sense, j
23 But it is also, on the other hand, hard to 24 project with certainty the performance of that kind of a 25 system for thousands of years.
l
36 1
COMMISSIONER AdEARNE:
Right.
2 MR. SJOBLOM:
We concluded that you would get 3
almost the same longevity projecting for a thousand years 4
and you would probably get considerable protection beyond 5
that in any event because of tne nature.
But it would be 6
hard to certify something for 10,000 years.
One should 7
reserve having to do that for something like high level u
waste perhaps, but not for something like uranium mill 9
tailings.
10 MR. RICHARDSON:
Would you like me to go ahead?
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Yes.
12 MR. RICHARDSON:
I have just one last category 13 here.
I think we have finished discussing that table. The 14 other column covers the inactive standards. As you can see,
(
15 the requirements on disposal, on the cover of the tailings 16 are the same.
The groundwater requirements are different 17 because there are different requirements in the act.
id Issues that we have asked for comment on. I have 19 already mentioned one of them and that is the question of 2v radon emissions during active operations of tne mill.
21 Another matter that has been rhther contentious 22 is the question should there be different standards for 23 sites that are in very remote areas and, if so, how do you
.14 define remote?
Do the cost savings that you might get by 25 having, say, a relaxed thickness of cover requirement for
37 1
radon emissions justify a relaxed standard?
Should you 2
allow different risks to the nearest individuals, depending 3
on whether it is a remote or non-remote site? If you are 4
going to allow a relaxed standard for remote sites, should 5
it be based on current or' future populations. projections 6
and so on.
7 We have asked for comment on that issue.
As you 6
probably know, we have also asked for comment on that issue 9
with respect to the standards for the inactive sites.
10 Another issue that came up in parallel with that 11 is the question of snould we allow the performance of the 12 standa.rd to depend upon institutional controls?
13 We have made the assumption in these standards 14 that are proposed that there will not be any primary
(
15 reliance on institutional controls for conforming with the 16 standards.
That does not rule out the use of maintenance 17 and to fix things that shouldn't have broken, but the 4
13 design is intended to be met without reliance on 19 institutional controls.
20 COMMISSIONER AdEARNE:
Does that mean after so 21 many years, implicitly after a hundred years that you 22 should not rely on institutional controls?
23 MR. RICHARDSON:
It means that the initial 24 control design should not contemplate maintenance.
25 COMMISSIONER AdEARNE:
A fence?
m w
38 1
MR. RICHARDSON:
No.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Markers.
3 HR. RICHARDSON: Markers, fine, but that is not a 4
primary control.
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
A passive control.
6 MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes, a passive control.
7 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I want to see if I O
understand.
How does what you do differ because you have 9
passive or active controls?
10 MR. RICHARDSON:
Well, you may have a much less 11 stiff surface on the cover and provide for repairing it if 12 it gets eroded by surface water if you rely on 13 institutional control.
14 MR. SJOBLOM:
You might not cover the surface k
15 with rocks, which is one of the features that would 16 probably be cranked into thd design.
17 MR. RICHARDSON:
'At least on the sites that are lo subject to errosion.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
To what extent is the 20 amount of cover driven by enat assumption?
21 MR. RICHARDSON:
I would say not really at all l
22 once you have decided what level of radon emission is 23 appropriate and tnickness to prevent misuse.
l 24 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I have been asked why can!t i
25 you put one or two feet of dirt and put plastic with a lot i
39 1
of tires on top, and so they tear and so a little bit of 2
radon gets out.
3 (Laughter.)
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
As long as it meets the 5
standards, why can't you count on that?
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Particularly if you are 7
going to maintain the plastic and replace it any time it d
tears, why doesn't that significantly ---
9 MR. SJOBLOM:
You will have the whole West t
10 covered with visqueen all over, 11 (Laughter.)
12 MR. RICHARDSON:
Visqueen will cover the earth 13 and it will be all over.
Down near our building last fall 14 they were digging an area out and they put all the top soil
(-
15 in a pile about 40 feet high and did just like you suggest.
16 By December it was literally gone and there were these 17 tires all there and plastic all over, and that is just lo ridiculous.
19 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But it is conceivable 20 that with maintenance you could substitute some other type 21 of cover that would satisfy tne radon emission limitations
]
22 entirely as long as it is properly maintained.
23 MR. RICHARDSON:
That is just the issue. Should 24 you allow dependence on institutional control.
25 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
I grant you, that may l
(
i
40 o
1 not be a reasonable conclusion to reach, but it does seem i
2 to me tnat the assumption you have made about minimizing or 3
eliminating reliance upon any maintenance does tend to 4
drive a decision in terms of the amount and type of cover 3
that you are' going to use very heavily, i
6 MR. RICHARDSON:
Of course.
(
7 MR. SJOBLOM:
We just felt that it was O
unreasonable to expect in these very remote areas out in 9
the West that we are going to have somebody coming by 10 periodically and essentially bringing heavy equipment in 11 periodically anc covering the erosion areas back up and so 12 forth, and that it is best to do this job once, as the 13 Congress contemplated in the Act, do what we think is best 14 now and not depending on and in effect requiring future i
15 people to maintain' constant vigilance on these piles.
16 Frankly, 24 inactive sites and roughly the same-17 number of active sites, once this slate of active sites is io decommissioned in the next 20 to so many years, it would 19 just be a burden, I think, that would probably end up 20 costing more people and we would be looked back on as some 21 shortsighted people I think to not have taken care of this 22 problem now.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I am not trying to make you l
24 uncomfortable.
I am just r'emembering sitting on the other 25 sidelof the table while some of the Congressmen that didn't~
L
41 1
believe we had to go this far.
2 MR. SJOBLOM:
Yes, I Know.
3 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Their feeling was we had 4
gone too far because we hadn't taken advantage of the 5
compensating steps that could be taken and we were trying 6
to relieve all future generations of any responsibility.
7 That is the context from which we were asking the d
questions.
9 MR. SJOBLOM:
And I'am sure we will have to 10 answer that question a few more times while the Congress 11 contemplates DOE's budget over the next seven years or so 12 and we are ready to do that.
13 (Laughter.)
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you have any provisions k
15 for the slopes that must be met to assure no undue erosion?
16 MR. SJOBLOM:
That would be of course in NRC's 17 province.
13 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I recognize that.
19 MR. SJOBLOM:
In the analysis that we have done 20 we have varied the slopes and so forth over the ranges 21 consistent with frankly some of the engineering work that 22 your waste division has done and in concert with the 23 licensees.
Sc we have dcne nothing new there, but we have l
>4 incorporated some of that in our economic analysis.
l 25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Now on this institutional l
l L
1
42 1
question, I gather that at least at some point the NRC 2
staff ' felt that you were allowing reliance on some 3
institutional control after the closure.
t 4
MR. RICli ARDSON :
I think there was a confusion 5
that was easy to come by there.
One of the requirements of 6
RCRA that we quoted in here has a phrase in it that one 7
should minimize the reliance on instititonal control which 3
could be taken as implying that you can have some.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
10 MR. RICHARDSON: The question I think that has to 11 be answered there is what does minimize mean and is there 12 a need for any institutional control?
The set of all 13 possible alternatives includes none for minimization, t 4 14 we nave discussed that with tne staff.
(
4 15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Let me make sure I 16 understand something you said earlier because I think it is 17 very important on our side. I gatner that so far you do not le see any basic incompatibility witn our current regulations 19 in your proposed rule; is that correct?
2U MR. RICHARDSON:
I think the only significance 21 difference is the number 2 and 20.
There is one other, and 22 that is the groundwater protection requirements under our 23 standards are more stringent.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, right.
25 MR. RICHARDSON:
You preserve use.
43 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, that is right.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
In what way are you more 3
stringent?
I was trying to get at tnat before.
4 MR. RICHARDSON:
Well, our requirement is for 3
non-degradation basically and your requirement is to 6
preserve an existing use, and there are some categories of 7
use which, you know, if you are this far below that now you 6
could get up to ---
9 MR. SJOt3LOM:
And that is where you bring in I 10 tnink the question of clay versus plastic.
The EPA 11 preference by the solid waste Office, based on the 12 experience they have had, is for the plastic.
he know of 13 course you have had some experience with both and hope that 14 you bring to bear in your comments all the technical 15 information there that will help us in working the 16 remainder of the summer to try to come to a decision as to 17 whether re are going to in this specific instance be able lo to because of that experience allow either of those types 19 of liners.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Explain again the use versus 21 the non-degradation principle.
If I am using it for 22 drinking water ---
23 MR. RICHARDSON: In the case of drinking water our 2*
regulations, there is no difference between yours and ours.
25 In the case of other uses, there are ---
44 l
1 MR. ELLOT: Watering livestock is a common use out 2
there.
You could degrade it and it would still be fit for 3
using it for live' stock and that would be all right under 4
your regulations.
5 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
But not under your 6
approach?
7 MR. SJOBLOM:
That is ri,ht.
3 MR. RICHARDSON:
- Right, 9
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes, because the existing 10 level would be a higner quality than that, 11 MR. ELLOT:
It could be of drinking water quality 14 for humans now, but it is only being used for livestock 13 now.
We don't asssume that that would remain so in the 14 future.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Your point of view is you 16 shouldn't make it worse than what it is.
17 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Or rather than what it is 14 currently being used for.
15 MR. SJOBLOM:
Yes.
20 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Let me just say well, what is 21 wrong with using it 22 MR. ELLOT:
Well, uses may change over time. It 23 may be used for livestock now and used for humans tomorrow.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
This is a long-time 25
- problem,
45 1
MR. SJOBLOM:
Once you contaminate the plume, if 2
you will, then it moves as the ground water moves and 3
carries with it conceptually what it has in it.
4 MR. RICHARDSON:
I should point out that the RCRA 5
regulations contain provision for exceptions.
If you can 6
demonstrate that thert is no environmental or human hazard 7
with a different level than the non-degradation level, the Regional Administrator is empowered to grant exceptions or o
9 special standards.
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Why would he do that?
11 MR. RICHARDSON:
One example might be is if you 12 have an existing mill where there is a plume of 13 contamination in the groundwater and it is in an area where 14 there is just no foreseeable use of the water and other li conditions under RCRA that is all spelled out in there or 16 met.
17 Under taese proposals the NRC can propose and the ic EPA Administrator can concur in certain kinds of 19 exceptions to deal with obviously ---
4 'u CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That goes counter to your 21 concept that these requirements are established on a 22 long-term basis and that the use might change and so might 23 the circumstances.
I am trying to understand.
24 MR. RICHARDSON:
That would an innibiting factor 25 which the Regional Adr.inistrator would have to take into
46 1
account.
But perhaps the geology of the region would make 2
it possible to make a projection for a long period of time.
I 3
MR. ELLOT:
These plumes are very persistent.
4 MR. SJOBLOM:
One issue that has been discussed 5
with your staff is a procedural one. Does NRC have to go to 6
each of our Regional Administrators to do this, or should 7
we do this at headquarters, and we can work that out I 6
think this summer.
9 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I hope you can work it out 10 so that we can go ahead on it.
11 MR. SJOBLOM: Well, you ought to recognize I think 12 that there is probably only a couple regions involved.
So 13 in any event, it wouldn't be all ten, but we can work on 14 that.
15 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I was struck by the degree of 16 flexibility that was provided near the end of your 17 regulations. It says "The regulatory agency and the NRC may la with the concurrence of EPA substitute for any provisions 19 or section 192.41 of this subpart any provision it deems 20 more practical that will provide at least an equivalent 21 level of protection 22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
That is for thorium.
23 MR. SJOBLOM:
That is for thorium only.
24 MR. RICHARDSON: We don't admit to a great deal of 25 experience with thorium.
So we thought that was i
47 1
an inappropriate thing to do.
2 Mr. Sjoblom mentioned tne liner issue on which we 3
have requested public comment and it is basically there, 4
the issue of clay versus plastic.
5 A final thing that we have asked for comment on 5'
is the question of is there a need for a more restrictive 7
form of the thing that you just pointed out with respect to 6
uranium tailings, and that is supplemental standards to 9
cover special cases.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Like you have in the 11 inactive standards.
12 MR. RICHARDSON:
In the inactive standards, that 13 is right.
14 Now there there was a clear need for them because 15 a lot of tnat standard had to do with remedial work.
This 16 is all disposal.
17 The only provision, aside from some obvious 18 things like life were endanged and something like that, the 19 only substantive provision in the inactive standards for 20 disposal has to do with cases where you would do a lot of 21 environmental harm like stripping the dirt that
- 'a s 24 required to create cover.
23 We haven't made any such provision in here 21 because we haven't seen a need for it, but we have asked 25 for comment on that,
48 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Why did you put this 2
flexibility in only for thorium?
3 MR. RICHARDSON:
If you look at the substitute 4
provision that you were reading, which was 192.42, it is 5
under the heading Subpart E which applies to thorium.
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I said why did you limit it t
7 to thorium or why did you allow it for thorium?
D MR. RICHARDSON: We allowed it for thorium because 9
we don't have a great deal of experience with thorium and 10 didn't feel that we could be clairvoyant in this area.
11 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you think you have enough 12 experience for all the'others?
13 MR. RICHARDSON:
Well, we hope we do, and we are 14 sure we will get comment if we were wrong on that.
~
15 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Could you say a few words 16 about how you do your health effects calculation?
17 MR. ELLOT:
Sure Our estimates of the health risk lo are based strictly on occupational data, the studies of 11 uranium miners in various parts of the world.
I think we 20 recognize, as other people do, that it is very difficult to 21 take an occupational situation where you have measured 22 risks,and this is true of shipyard workers and asbestos 23 workers, and then apply it to a general population of all 24 ages and quite different exposure conditions.
25 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
With much lower exposure.
49 1
MR. ELLOT:
Yes, not only lower levers, but there 2
are different aerosols. There are differences between mines 3
in the general environment.-We recognize this, but there is 4
no other data.
We can make corrections for the breathing 3
rate and length of exposure and things like that in general 6
exposure in the general population.
7 We have looked at age a little bit, but basically 8
we take this occuational data and the risk coefficients 9
that we get from this using a relative risk model and we 10 apply it to the general population and that is our risk 11 prediction for exposure to radon indoors.
12 We assume that people are outdoors 25 percent of 13 the time and indoors 75 percent of the time.
J 14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Did I understand you to say k-15 that you project the occupational doses being applied to 16 all people?
17 MR. ELLOT:
No. We take the risk-coefficient we 18 get from the occupational studies.and apply that to the i9 lifetime exposure to a civilian population or a general 20 population.
21 MR. SJOBLOM:
I think you ought to spell it out a 22 little bit more.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
What is this risk l
24 coefficient?.
25 liR. ELLOT: Well, the way we analyzed the studies, w
50 1
we decided that every hundred working level month, I 2
believe, was a three percent increase in lung cancer.
This 3
seems to be a pretty good average from the mine studies.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Do you apply that three 5
percent then to the whole?
6 MR. ELLOT:
We put that in a life table analysis 7
where you follow of cohort of a hundred thousand people 8
from birth to death and you have an appropriate latent 9
period for after exposure.
Then you increase the cancers 1U that would normally occur by three percent for every 11 hundred worxing level months each person in that population 12 has incurred throughout their lifetime.
13 Now you don't have everybody live to the same 14 number of years.
They die off at U.
S. death rates I
'5 believe in 1976.
Eventually you come down with so many 16 excess cancers, lung cancers, tnat wouldn't normally occur L7 in that population.
l'o COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Do you assume linearity r
19 backwards so that at 50 worker level months you have a one 20 and a half percent increase and so on down?
21 MR. ELLOT:
Yes.
22 COMMISSIONER ASEARNE:
You have to get to a lot 23 less than a hundred worker level months for the typical 24 person you are going to get exposed.
25 MR. ELLOT:
Oh, yes, yes. You are projecting this
51 1
risk coefficient all the way down.
You can get 10 or 20 2
working level months though in an ordinary lifetime.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
If you are close'to the 4
bottom.
5 MR. ELLOT:
Or basement.
6 (Laughter.)
7 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
6 MR. ELLOT:
But basements that have been 9
identified.
4 10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Yes.
11 MR. SJOBLOM:
There is some overlap in the range 12 of exposure to the uranium miners in some of the worst 13 cases.
14
.I.
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Oh, sure, for the cases if
'\\
'S you are going to live on a pile or take the material and 16 use it or live rignt next to a pile.
17 MR. ELLOT:
Yes.
15 COMMISSIONER AdEARNE:
But for the typical 19 county-wide individual it is a lot less than that.
20 MR. ELLOT:
Oh, of course.
21 MR. SJOBLOM: Most of the projected health effects i
22 do occur fairly close in though obviously.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Have you explored radon 24 concentrations in homes in various parts of the country?
25 MR. SJOBLOM: That is of course an area which is a R
52 1
big deal.
EPA is getting increased interest on the part of 2
the healta physics community on the part of the National 3
Council on Radiological Protection and measurements 4
suggesting that we do a national-study.
5 We are presently doing research to determine the d
techniques by which one might approach that.
We feel that 7
that is something we should be considering doing.
I do not 3
have the authority to conduct a national survey, if you 9
will, at this point.
1" You get into tne question of indoor air pollution 11 and there is no enabling statute and the like.
12 Nevertheless, some various people have made estimates of 13 tne total risk to the population of indoor radon and it is 14 something that we will have to be spending more time on in
(.
15 the future to try to understand at least.
16 The institutional questions of course of what one 17 might do about that are considerable..Nevertheless, we know 15 that thera have been cases where there have been 19 substantial levels in individual homes where remedial 20 action has been taken on a case bases.
21 You might have read in the Wastington Post a 22 month or so ago about a house up in Pennsylvania, 23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I was thinking specifically 24 of Pennsylvania where they seem to have very high levels.
25 MR. SJO8LOM:
And it is anomalous apparently in i
I l
l l
53 1
tnat particular location.
I know we helped the State of i
2 Pennsylvania by loaning them some equipment in one of those 3
cases recently.
We are conducting a study in Butte, Montana to 3
deterine the best way, the easiest way to make measurements 6
in homes other than to bring big machines in and leave them 7
plugged in and so forth.
We are trying to utilize passive o
equipment if possible and hopefully we will be able to know 9
how best to work into that problem without frankly alarming 10 too much the general public on the matter.
That is il something we are getting interest in on the part of the 12 health physics community and others as we learn more about 13 radon.
14 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
I understand that at Penn
(-
15 State they have got a program to test background on radon 16 on various parts of the campus primarily to get a feel for 17 what the background levels and how they might vary and how 13 they differ on the average.
19 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Since we have an expert 20 here, could you walk me from the pico curie per square 21 meter per second dose rate coming out to the working level 22 calculation?
23 MR. ELLOT:
I can't do that very well. Pathways 2*
are not my specialty at all, but the work was done in my l
25 Branch and I will try to.
54 1
What they do is, and I will use this source term 2
just like the, stack of a reactor building, if you will.
3 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Oh, I am not asking a very 4
sophisticated question.
I am just asking a question of 5
units.
6 MR. ELLOr:
Oh. Well, the emission rate becomes 7
the concentration in the air and then that is time integrated to get rid of the seconds and that gives you the o
9 concentration in the air.
10 Now you want to know how we go from pico curies 11 to working levels?
12 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
13 MR. ELLOT:
Well, this is funny, too, because the
(-
14 working level if 170 hours0.00197 days <br />0.0472 hours <br />2.810847e-4 weeks <br />6.4685e-5 months <br /> a month, working level month.
'3 People spend more time in their houses than miners do in 15 mines.
So there is a factor that allows for the time of 17 exposure.
It we our model we also allow for differences in the 19 breathing rate between people working in mines, heavy 20 labor, and the general population.
We also allow for the 21 different equilibrium factor between the amount of l
22 radon ---
23 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Because of the air flow?
24 MR. ELLOT:
Yes, and the ventilation rate in 25 homes.
In this case we are currently estimating a rather
55 I
hign equilibrium factor, abcut
.7, wnich I think is 2
probably on the high side.
3 We have this described I think in our report for 4
the inactive tailings where it is outlined in some detail 5
and perhaps I could have that sent to you.
6 I would lixe to mention one more thing on the 7
risk estimates.
Everybody has a dif ferent radon risk b
estimate and you can kind of pick your expert and get the 3
risks that you perfer, 10 The BEIR III committee looked at radon separate 11 from the low LET radiation business which was based on the 12 atomic bomb data.
They looked at the miner data. They used acompletelhdifferentmodelthanwedid.
They used 13 14 something called an absolute risk model and we used a
- k-l$
relative risk model.
16 Because there were different effects observed in 17 miners of"different ages at death, they used what is called le an' age dependent absolute risk model. The older you get the
~
19 bigger the risk as the appearance of cancers.
20 Numerically when you grind it all through the 21 same machine their estimate came out very close to ours, 22 surprisingly,close.
That doesn't mean that either of the s
23 two estimates is right, but at lesat we are not way out in w
s J
24 left field compared to BEIR III, or.right field for that 25 matter.
'yy m,
aN
\\..
N' y
w.
,5
56 1
CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Did you have more to present?
2 HR. SJOBLOM:
I think that is all we had.
3 would you care to comment on the extent to which 4
the Commission may want to have your ideas regarding those 5
parts which should be vacated of the NRC regulations with 6
modifications.
7 This is an area where of course there have been 6
meetings between the staff and some exchange of view there, 9
and it might be useful.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: That would be very helpful.
11 MR. RICHARDSON:
My understanding of the statute 12 is that it calls for suspension only of those areas which 13 would lead to major impacts.
14 COMMISSIONER AdEARNE:
Major impacts if ---
l 15 MR. RICnARDSON:
If the EPA standard were 10 promulgated as proposed and if the NRC regs were unchanged.
17 You always have the right to be more restrictive than we 16 tare.
~
19 The only differences that I have been able t 20 identify are the two that we talked about, the one having 1
21 to do with water requirements and tne other one having to 22 do with 2 to 20 pico curies per meter squared second.
23 The ones that are the subject of some discussion, 24 we also touched on.
One is the question of what does 2 to 25 1,000 mean compared to thousands, and the last one is the
57 1
question of reliance on institutional control.
2 My understanding of your regulations is that you 3
frown on that.
4 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: Right, and my understanding 5
of your answer is so do you.
O MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes.
7 (Laughter.)
o MR. RICHARDSON: So I think we have covered all of 9
the areas, lu COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I was trying to have 11 you ---
12 MR. RICHARDSON:
Would you like me to reiterate 13 that?
14 COMMISSIONER AHEAdNE:
No, that is jitst fine.
15 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
Well, wait a minute.
16 (Laughter.)
17 COMMISSIONER ASSELSPINE: If I understood what you ic said before, which of those areas that are more stringent 19 in our regulations ---
20 MR. RICHARDSON:
The only one that is more 21 stringent that I am aware of is the 2 to 20.
22 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
The others were less 23 stringent.
24 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
In the water area, that 25 is right, we are less stringent.
50 1
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
What I asked was where are 2
our regulations inconsistent witn their proposed, and as 3
far as I gathered it was 2 to 20 and tne water.
4 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
That is right, but in 5
terms of the question of which of those areas are 6
inconsistent and where our requirement might result in a 7
higher expenditure, the one area really is in the 2 pico 3
curies.
I 9
MR. RICHARDSON:
Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Right.
El COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE: Because the requirements 12 on longevity, while the basis may be more stringent, the 13 effect isn't, or at least wouldn't result in major 14 additional expenditures.
15 MR. SJOBLOM:
As I look in my mental calendar, we 10 are required by our Congress to promulgate tiiese by 1 U
October.
'O COMMIESIONER AHEARNE:
Rignt.
19 MR. SJOBLOM:
We have every intention of doing db that.
The requirement for you to vacate those parts within 2L a certain period of time after our proposal, which is 22 today, if you track between now and tnat period of time, 23 which I think was said to be 90 days, that puts us almost 2*
to October 1.
If you vacated certain things in that period 25 of tima.and then had to come back and change them somewhat,
59 l
that means two changes in your regulations generated by i
that requirement of the Authorization Act.
3 Now I don't know how you want to work that, but I 4
would certainly look at the desirabilility of making a 3
change once if it is at all feasible given ---
6 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We may vacate when we get out 7
our amenced regulations.
Can we do that?
O COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
There may be a 3
desirability in doing that, but whether it is possible ---
10 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
That is want I meant. Are we 11 permitted to do that?
12 MR. SJOBLOM:
This is something that I would 13 certainly hope there would be a way so that you could avoid
'4 changing it twice.
(
1:
COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
I think certainly, or at it least the message I was getting from what-you were saying i7 is that we ought to be very careful.
If we do make the ic changes, we ought to be very caref ul and make sure those 1
are changes that are really ones that are related directly 2L to your proposed regulation.
2l MR. SJOBLOM:
Right.
22 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Let's see, we have got to 23 suspend these regulations by July 29th or there abouts.
24 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE:
Ninety days, :right.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Then I gather the way we lift
60 1
them is after your final which may be April of next year.
2-MR. SJO8 LOM:
No, 1 October. You have six months 3
after that.
4 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We have six months, that is 3
right.
6 MR. ELLOT:
It might be that your regulations 7
would go from August 1st to October 1st.
3 MR. SJOBLOM:
And then another change. I am not 9
sure that tne Congress had in mind endless ratcheting 10 around of tne regs, but 11 CHAIRMA:. PALLADINO: The way it is written, are we 12 permitted to say ---
13 MR. SJOBLOM:
I would hope that you wouldn't have 14 to move around too much is all I am saying. We fully intend
(
15 to meet that 1 Octocer date.
16 COMMISSIONER AHEARNE: But I think it is certainly 17 correct, at least from this meeting this afternoon, I know li my position would be that I would be very leary of making 19 any changes other than ones to track the 2 to 20 and the 20 water standard.
2l COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
And any requirements 22 that are based upon the two pico curies.
23 COMMISSIONER AdEARNE:
Rignt,.but even with that 24 you have to be-very cautious on because of the difference 25 between the effects of 2 and the effects of 20 are in many
61
.o.
1 cases rather marginal.
2 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Any other questions or 3
comments?
4 (No response.)
5 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: We we thank you very much for 6
coming.
7 MR. SJOBLOM:
We appreciate the opportunity.
O CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: I have a pile of documents on 9
the table ana I don ' t know where they came from.
10 COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE:
From them, il (Laughter.)
12 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO: Could you just highlight what 1
13 they are.
14 MR. SJOBLOM:
The top one there above the two red k
15 documents is our press. release of a few days ago.
16 MR. RICHARDSON:
They have the Federal Register 17 notice of which you have a more official copy of.
1:
HR. SJOBLOM: Then below that is the environmental 11 impact statement and the regulatory impact analysis which 20 gives all those case studies that we talxed about.
21 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
Okay. Well, thans you.
22 MR. SJOBLOM:
Thank you.
23 CHAIRMAN PALLADINO:
We will stand adjourned.
2s (Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m.,
the meeting adjourned.)
23 i
i
l
..s l
CERTIFICATE OF PROCEEDINGS 3
t 2
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the l
3 NRC COMMISSION 4
In the matter of:
Briefing on Uranium Mill Tailings Stand ards 5
Date of Proceeding: April 29, 1983 Place of Proceeding:
Washington, D.'C.
7 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original a
transcript for the file of the Commission.
10 Mary C. Simons Official Reporter - Typed 12 A
83 h-L-
A -177 6 Officiad Reporter - Signature i4 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4
25 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
APRIL 29, 1983 (REVISED)
SCHEDULING NOTES TITLE:
BRIEFING ON URANIUM MILL IAILINGS STANDARDS SCHEDULED:
2:00 P.M., FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1983 DURATION:
1-1/2 HRS PURPOSE:
THE COMMISSION REQUESTED A BRIEFING BY EPA REPRESENTATIVES TO REVIEW THE NEW STANDARDS.
SPEAKERS:
1.
GLEN SJ0 BLOM, DIRECTOR OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMS, EPA 2.
ALLAN RICHARDSON., CHIEF GUIDES AND CRITERIA BRANCH OFFICE OF RADIATION PROGRAMS, EPA 3.
JACK RUSSELL, PROJECT MANA5ER GUIDES AND CRITERIA BRANCH ll.
HILLIAM ELLETT, STAFF 0FFICER, M Cfh DOCUMENTS:
PROPOSED RULE TO BE' PUBLISHED BY EPA IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER ON APRIL 29, 1983 4
Attachment II t
There are two parts to the standards: standards for releases during operations, and standards for disposal.
The proposed standards are summarized in the following table, and also compared with the standards we have issued for inactive sites:
Summary of Standards for Ac tive and Inactive Sites Active Mills Inactive Sites (proposed)
(final)
Operational Disposal Disposal Ground water Numerical RCRA Narrative RCRA Not needed--
Standards Standard guidance provided 40 CFR 264.92*
40 CFR 264.111*
(augmented) and Design Requirement 40 CFR 264.2 21" Surface water Effluent Narrative RCRA Not needed--
Guidelines Standard guidance provided 40 CFR 440**
40 CFR 264.111*
2 2
Air a) Nuclear Power 20 pCi/m s 20 pCi/m,
Operations radon emission radon emission Standards limit limit 40 CFR 190**
b) Radon emissions kept as low as practicable **
Longevity of control Not applicable 200-1000 years 200-1000 years Supplementing Standards none none included 1
o',, The Act requires standards consistent with RCRA regulations.
,,, Provision that already applies independently of this action.
Alternative in terms of air concentraticn at edge of' pile provided.
\\
E Friday April 29,1983 Y
iir = N E
,,r-e.- -a De
- @M emme um r7
'n 8-e I....
M
'i Part VI
~
a u
Environmental
~
Protection Agency g
s mE Standards for Uranium and Thorlum Mill Tallings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites
~~
i e
t ai 2
N
[
~
. k -Q
=
E E
19584 Fed:ral Regist:r / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Frid ;y. April 29,1983 / Proposed Rul;s ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Aoonassts-the Act. Congress stated its finding that AGENCY Written Comments. Comments should uranium mill tailings "* *
- may pose a be submitted to Docket No A-82-26 at potential and significant radiation 40 CFR Part 192 the address specified for the docket health hazard to the public. * *
- and below. We would appreciate an
- *
- that every reasonable effort
( AH-FRL 3219-61 additional copy sent to hit. Jack Russell should be made to provide for Environmental Standards for Uranium at the address listed below (see the stabilization, disposal. and control in a and Thorium Mill Tailirigs at Licensed heading "roR FURTHER INPoRMATtoN. )
safe and environmentally sound manner Commercial Processing Sites; Public Hearings. Requests to of such tailings in order to prevent or minimize radon diffusion into the Invitation for Comment participate in the public hearings should be submitted in writing to the Director, environment and to prevent or minimize other environmental hazards from such AGENCY:U.S. Environmental Protection Criteria and Standards Division (ANR ~
i AgIncy.
4601. Office of Radiation Programs.
tailings."The Administrator of the ACDON: Proposed rule.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was directed to set "* *
- standards of i
Washington. D.C. 20460. All requests for.
suwuAny:In this notice we propose participation must include at least an general application for the protection of hielth and environmental standards to outline of the topics to be addressed, the the public health. safety, and ths govern stabilization and control of amount of time requested, and the environment * * *" to govem this byproduct materials (primarily mill names of the participan:s. Statements process of stabilization. disposal and control tiilings) at licensed commercial uranium should not repeat information already UhtTRCA established two programs cnd thorium processing sites.These presented in written comments, but.,
. atandards were developed pursuant to should address additional matters.
to protect public health, safety and the Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act(42 Public hearings on this proposed rule
, environment from uranium mill tailings.
U.S.C. 2022), as added by Section 206 of will be held at the DuPont Plaza Hotel. 3r. : rone for certain designated sites which thi Uranium hiill Tailings Radiation Embassy Hall.1500 New Hampshire are now inactive (i.e at which all C:ntrol Act of 1978 (Pub. L 95-604).
Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20038.
milling has stopped and which are not The standards would apply to tailm.gs All hearings will commence at 9:30 A.ht.
under license.) and another for active 1
ct locations that are licensed by the BackgroundDocuments. Backgrourid sites (those sites licensed by the Nuclear '
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) information is contained in the reports Regulatory Commission or the State in er the States under Title 11 of the Act, which the site is loccted. when this The standards for disposal of tailir.gs entitled Dm/tEnvironmental/mpact Statement forStancards for the Control. State is an Agreement State of the NRC w:uld require stabilization so that the ofByproduct.Materialsfrom Umniun ~. under Section 274 of the Atomic Erergy health hazards associated with tailings
^
Act)'
will be controlled and limited,in rost Tailings at the inactive uranium Re ort 5 /1 2 2-. and eg / ry ctsis, for at least one thousand years Impact Analysis ofEnvimamental mt!!ing sites are defined in UhfTRCA as They would limit releases of radon to 20 residual radioactive materials.ne pCl/m s. averaged over the su: face of
. Standards for Uranium Mill Tallings at 2
Active Sites. EPA Report $20/1-82-023.
program for inactive sites covers the t)e ptles, and require mea *.ures to avoid Single copies of these reports, as disposal of tailings and the cleanup of relnses of other hazardous substances
. onsite and offsite locatlons available.may be obtained from the.
from taihngs to water.%e standards for. Program hfanagement Office (ANR-458)* ^ contaminated with tailings. EPA has trilings at operating mills, prior t Office of Radiation Programs. U.S.
astablished health and environmental disposal would add limits on the 1
rzdiation levels in effluents to ground Enyhmal PhiMm'
' stmiards to govern each of these w:ter to the limits now specified under Washington. D.C. 20460: telephon activities.The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) s reponsible for carrying
_ _., umber (703) 557-9351.
out these activities in conformance with n
ths Solid Waste Disposal Act as cmended. Existing EPA regulations and Docket. Docket Number A-82-28 these standards, with the concurrence of F(deral Radiation Protection Guidance contams the rulemaking record.The
..- the NRC and in cooperation with the currently applicable to tailings would docket is available for public inspection.
States remain unchanged.
. between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m AfondayJ EPA proposed standards for cleanup This notice summarizes the tdd.a; through Friday, at EPA Headquarters.
of residual radioactive materials from information and other considerations The address is: Central Docket Section.
~
open lands and buildings and made up:n which these proposed standards (1.F,-130). West Tower Lobby,401 hi.
them effective on an interim basis on tre based. Afore detailed beckground Street. SW., Washington. D.C. 20450. A April 22.1980 (45 FR 25682 and 45 FR m:terialis contained in a Draft reasonable fee may be charged for 27370), and proposed standards for Environmental Impact Sta tement (DEIS) copymg.
disposalof these materials at inactive end in a Regulatory impact Analysis FoR PURTHER INFORMATION:
uranium processing sites on January 9.
(RIA). We invite written comments on Contact h!r. Jack Russell. Guides and 1981 (46 FR 2556). Final cleanup and all e f this material and, in addition, will Criteria Branch (ANR-460). Office of; I disposal standar.ls for the inactive sites bold public hearings on these proposed Radiation Programs. U.S. Environmental ~ were pub!!shed on january 5.1983 (48 st:ndards.
Protectiort Agency. Washington. D.C.
FR 590).
EATEs:
2M60: telephone number (703) 557-8810.
Tailings at active uranium milling Written Comments. Comments should -
sites are defined in Uh1TRCA as be received on or before hiay 31,1983.
SUPPt.EMENTARY INFORM ATION uranium byproduct materials.The Public Hearings. Requests to program for active sites covers the final I. Introduction p:rticipate in the public hearings should disposal of tailings and the control of be received on or before hiay 20.1983.
On November 8.1978. Congress effluents and emissions during and after Public hearings on this proposed rule enacted Pub. L.95-604, the Uranium hiill milling operations, but does not address will begin on hiay 31.1983. All hearings Tailings Radiation Control Act of1978 cleanup of contaminated offsite will commence at 9:30 a.m.
(henceforth designated "Uh!TRCA"). In locations. Uh1TRCA requires EPA to
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Friday. April 29. 1983 / Proposed Rules 19585 establish standards for this program, and that standards for nonradioactive in 1980 there were 21 operating uranium may also influence demand hazards protect human health and the uranium mills located in Colorado. New projections for the domestic uranium Mexico. Texas. Utah. Washington, and industry, especially since some foreign environment in a manner consistent Wyoming. All of these mills have deposits are richer in uranium. which with standards established under tailings stored at their sites, as have two permits lower pricing.
Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal additional licensed mills in Edgemont.
The United States Government Act. as amended. The NRC or the South Dakota, and Ray Point. Texas, purchased large quantities or uranium, licensing Agreement State is responsible which were no longer operating in 1980, pnraanly for use in defense programs.
for assunng compliance with the The total quantity of tailings was about from 1943 to 1970. Many of the standards at active mill sites.
146 million metric tons [htT) at these 23 producers of this uranium continued UMTRCA was amended by the NRC sites as of January 1980.
operating after 1970 to supply the '
Authorization Act during December As of September 1982 there were 27 commercial demand for uranium. In 1982. Dese amendments changed the licensed uranium mills, of which only 16 most cases the tailings from date by which these standards must be were operating. Eight mills closed during Government and commercial purchases promulgated (Cong. Record. 515310: Dec.
the period from January 1981 to were mixed and stored in the same pile.
16.1982). The amendments also provide September 1982, and the two mills with These mixed tailings are now referred to that "If the Administrator fails to tailings piles which were not operating as "conimingled" tailings. There are promulgate standards in final form * *
- in 1980 remained closed. Another mill about 56 million MT of defense-related by October 1.1983. the authority of the has been constructed and licensed, but tailings commingled with approximately Administrator to promulgate such has not started operation. By early 1982.
82 million MT of other tailings at 13 sites standards shall terminate, and the the amount of stored tailings had which are now licensed for milling Commission may take acticn under this reached about 170 million MT. The size uranium ore.
Act without regard to any provision of of individual tailings piles ranges from~
this Act requiring such actions to about 2 million MT to about 30 million R. Hazards Associated With Uranium comply with, or to be taken in MT.
Byproduct Materiots accordance with, standards promulgated The future demand for uranium is by the Admtmstrator. WE are therefore projected to be almost exclusively for The most important of the hazardous proceeding to establish these standards elec'ncal power generation. nus, the constituents of uranium mill tiilings is expeditiously, demand should be stable and raium, which is radioactive. We A. The UraniumIndust,,
reas nably predictable, dependm.g estimate 4.at currently existing tailings mainly on the number of operatmg at the licensed sites contain a total of The majordeposits of high-grade nuclear power reactors. Based on recent about 85.000 curies 8 of radium. Radium.
uranium ores in the United States are DOE projections, it is estimated that at in addition to being hazardous itself*
located in the Colorado Plateau, the least an additional 350 million MT of.o produces radon, a radioactive gas Wycming Basins and the Gulf Coast tailings will be generated by the year whose decay products can cause lung plan of Texas.Most ore is mined by 2000 in the United States. This
,]7c~t o sither underground or open-pit methods. p-ojection is for the conventional milling f tai ng as fun t on of At the mill tne ore is first crushed, of urasium described above. A small time' blanded, and ground to the proper size quantity of urtnium is also recovered as for the leaching process which extracts a secondary product in the extraction of uramum. Several leaching processes are other minerals, such a s 1.hosphate and d^,L"l;*,$'Q""$';dj'$'"*,[",*l used. including acid, alkaline and a copper, and also by solution (in situ) ie-s. disiniesrations or radium into raden) per second.
combination of the two. After uranium is mming methods. Foreign sources of Inched from the ore it is concentrated frotri the teach liquor through ion exchange or solvent extraction. The concentrated uranium is then stripped or sxtracted from the concentrating 00' medium. precipitated. dried, and packaged.The depleted cre,in the form cf tailings. Is pumped to a tailings pile as 43 A "
~
c slurry mixed with water.
gj Since the uranium content of are 2e cvIrages only about 0.15 percent.
3 30 cssentially all the bulk of ore mmed and
- O processed is contained in the tailings, j4 Thise wastes contain significant o 2 25 -
quantities of radioactive uranium decay 4 a.
products, including thorium-230 radium-226. and decay products of radon.222.
O' I
I I
I I
Teilings can also contain significant 10 100 1,000 10,000 100.000 1,000.000 quintities of other hazardous substances. depending upon the so"rce ef the ore and the reagents used in the m, S,,)
milling process.Most of the tailings are sind-like material and are attractive rigure 1.
Waden production in a tailings pile.
for use in construction and soil j
conditioning.
l l
19586 Feder-1 Register / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Friday. April 29. 1983 / Propos:d Rul:s
% e amount of radium in tailings, and, their present forms * * *" and,in Nations Scientific Committee on the th2refore, the rate at which redon is commenting on the Federally-funded Effects of Atomic Radiation entitled produced, will decay to about 10 percent program to clean up and dispose of Souxes andEffects ofIonizing of the current amount in several tailings at the inactive sites. it stated Radiation (1977). Details of our risk hundred thousand years. Other "The committee does not want to visit -
estimates.are provided in a previous potIntially hazardous constituents of this problem again with additional aid.
EPA report. Indoor Radiction Exposure trilings include arsenic, molybdenum.
The remedial action must be done right Due to Radium-226 /n Florida Phosphate selenium, uranium and, usually in lesser the first time." (H.R. Rep. No.1480. 95th Lands (epa 5:0/4-78-413), and in the cmounts, a variety of other toxic Cong 2nd Sess Pt. I. p.17. and Pt. II. p.
DEIS.
substances. ne concentrations of all of 40 (1978).)
Although the studies of underground thcse materials vary from pile to pile.
For the purpose of establishing miners show that there is a significant The radioactivity and toxic materials standards for the protection of the risk oflung cancer from exposure to -
in tailings may cause cancer and other general public from radiation. we redon decay products, there is some dis:ases, as well as genetic damage and assume a linear, nonthreshold dose-uncertainty about its magnitude, teratogenic effects.hiore specifically, effect relationship as a reasonable bas.is Exposures of miners were estimated tailings are hazardous to man primarily for estimating risks to health.This from the time spent in ea'ch location in a baccuse: (1) Radioactive decay products means we assume that any radiation mine and the measured radon decay' of r don may be inhaled and increase dose poses some risk and that the risk of product levels at those locations.
th2 risk of lung cancer: (2) individuals low doses is directly proportional to the However, radon decay product m:y be exposed to gamma radiation risk that has been demonstrated at measurements were infrequent and from the radioactivity in tailings: and (3) higher doses. We recognize that the data often nonexistent for exposures of r:dioactive and toxic materials from available preclude neither a threshold miners prior to the 1960's.The t ilings may be ingested with food or for some types of damage below which uncertainty increases when data for water.The first of these hazards is by there are no harmful effects, nor the miners are used to estimate risk to fir the most important.
possibility thatlow doses of gamma members of the general public, because As noted above, the radiation hazard radiation may be less harmful to people there are differences in age. physiology, from tailings lasts for many hundreds of than the linear moda! implies. However, exposure conditions, and other factors thousands of years, and some the maior radiation hazard from tailings between the two populations.
nonradioactive toxic chemicels persist anses from alpha radiation, and t.s the indefinitely. ne hazara from uranium Nabonal Academy of Sciences
- In addition, we must make numerous trilings therefore must be viewed in two Advisory Committee en the Biological assumptions when estimating the ways. Tailings pose a present hazard to n.ffects of Ionizing Radiation (the BEIR radiation dose to individuais and human health. Beyond this immediate Committee) stated in its 1980 report, for population groups whch 5trodace other but generally limited health threat, the "V
- radiation. such as from uncertainties. For ext.nple, we make ot:r trilings are vulcerable to human misuse internally deposited alpha-emitting estimates for individuals who are and to dispersal by natural farces for an radionuc' ides, the e, plication cf the assumed to spend their lifetimes in the ssnntially indefinite period. In the long linear hypothesis is less likely to lead to same location and we assume that run the future risks to health of overestimates of risk, end may. L's fact, people wil' cor.tmue to have the same
. Indefinitely extended contamination lead to undere edmates."
li'e expectancy as the U.S. population from misused and dispersed tailings Our quantitative estimates of did in 1970. Nevertheless, we believe the overshadows the short. term danger to radiation risk are based on our review Information availebis supprts an public health. The Congressional report of epidemiological studies, conducted in estimate cirisk which is su!!idently eccompanying UhfI'RCA recognized the the United States and in other countries, reliable to provide an adequate basis for sxistence oflong-term risks and of underground miners of uranium and these p oposed standards. epa's risk expressed the view that the methods other metals who have been exposed to estimates are to be viewed as "best usid for dieposal should not be effective radon decay products, and on three estimates." considering the above for only a short period of time. It stated:
reports: The E#ects on Populations of factors.
"The committee believes that uranium Exposunt to Low Levels oflonizing It is not possible to reduce the risk to mill tailings should be treated * *
- in Radiation (1972) and Health Effects of 2em f r people exposed to radiation or, accordance with the substantial hazard Alpha Emitting Particlesin the f r that matter, to many other hazardous they will present until long after existing Respiratory Tract (1976) by the BEIR institutions can be expected to last in Committee, and the report of the United g
l l
l l
Fcd;nt Rw,istir / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Fridiy. April 29, 1983 / Propos1d Rules 19587._
materials. To decide on an appropriste (SWDA) on July 26.1982 (47 FR 32274).
Guidance governs the regulation of level of(small) residual risk. we Although radioactive materials radioactive materials by the NRC and svaluated the costs and benefits of different levels of control. We also controlled under the Atomic Energy Act Agreement States, and includes the of 1954, as amended. are not coverad by considered technical difficulties the SWDA. UMTRCA requires that the following guidance:"* *
- cvery effort associated with implementing different.
standards proposed herem provide for should be made to encourage the 2
hvels of control, protection of human health and the maintenance of radiation doses as far C. EnvironmentalStandards and environment fr m nonradi active below [the Federal Radiation Protection Gui.3.ance Now Applicable to Uraniumhazards in a manner consistent with Guides) as practicable * * *"and d
g "8,
applicable standards promulgated under There can be no single permissible or Subtitle C of the SWDA.The Act also acceptable level of exposure without EPA recognizes that it is establishing standards in an area mat is already the requires the NRC to ensure conformance regard to the reason for permitting the subject of governmental regulation and to "* *
- general requirements exposure. It should be general practice has taken into account the existing established by the Commission. with the t reduce exposure to radiation, and schemes and levels of protection in concurrence of the Administrator, which p sitive effort should be carried out to are. to the maximum extent practicable, fulfill the sense of[this Guidancel. It is developing this proposal.
at least comparable to requirements basic that exposure to radiation should EPA promulgated 40 CFR Part 190
" Environmental Radiation Protection applicable to the possession, transfer, result from a real determination ofits Standards for Uranium Fuel Cycle and disposal of similar hazardous necessity." This guidance is currently materialunder[ Subtitle C of the known as the "as low as reasonably Operations." on January 13.1977 (42 FR - SWDA)."
2858). These standards specify the upper achievable" (ALARA) principle. It is limits of radiation doses to members of EPA promulgated 40 CFR Part 440.
particularly suited to mNmeg the general public to which normal
" Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source radiation exposure in situations which Categoryt Effluent Limitations c'perations of the uranium fuel cycle Guidelines and New Source vary greatly from site to site, or from must conform. They cover radiation doses due to all environmental releases Performance Standards. Subpart C-time to time, and is an integral part of Uranium. Radium and Vanadium Ores NRC and Agreement State licensing cf uranium byproduct materials during Subcategory." on December 3.1982 (47 determinations.
the period a milhrg ute is licensed, with th) exception of emissions of radon and FR 545981.The purpose of 40 CFR Part The standards preposed bere would its decay predacts.
440 :s to establish effluent lirnitations, sup lement the above standards The Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines, and standards under the guidance, and regula*fons in order to promulgated rules in to CFR Part 40 on Clean Water Act for existing and new satisfy the purposes of UMTRCA to October 3.1980. which specify licensing sources in a number of ore mining and
" * *
- stabilize and control * *
- requirements for uranium and thorium dressing subcategories. Out of 27 mills tailings in a safe and emironmentally milling activities, including tailings and in the uranium, radium and vanadium sound manner and to mirimfre or a
westes generated from these activities ores subcategory existing at that time, eliminate radiation beslth hazards to the (45 FR 65321).These rules specif/
only one was discharging directly to public." UhfIRCA does not provide tIchnical. surety, ownership, and long-surface water. In sfew of tids, the specific criteria to be used in term care criteria for the management regulations d'd not establish best determining that these purposes have i
and final disposition of uranium available technology (BAT)limitat: ens been satisfied. EPA's objective, when i
for existing sourcer in this subcategory.
byproduct mate-ials. Some of these rules ^The cue direct discharging uranium mill not prermpted by other statutory would be affected by these proposed standards, and the NRC has noted that is currently regulated by a discharge requirements, has been to propose cny chaages nere.sary will be made permit in accordance with previously stardards that (1) take account of the when these EPA standards are existing best practicable control tradeoffs between health, safety, and a
promulgated.
technology pFT) effluent limitations environmental and economic costs and The NRC has also enumerated in 10 contained in 40 CFR Part 440.The new benefits in a way that assures adequate CFR Part 150 the authorities reserved to source performance standards were protection of the public health, safety.
it in its relations with Agreement States based upon the demonstration of no and the environment;(2) can be under the provisions of UMTRCA. and discharge to surface waters at the 28 implemented using presently available techniques and measuring instruments; his specified conditions under which other mills. These standards were -
Agreement States may issue licenses derived forlocations where the annual and (3) are reasonable in terms of under Uh1TRCA (45 FR 65321). Under evaporation raie exceeds the annual overall costs and benefits.
thi Agreement State program. States precipitation rate (as is the case in most The legislative record shows that can issue licenses for uranium uranium milling areas), and require that Congress intends that EPA set general processing activities, including control "There shall be no discharge of process standards and not specify sny particular waste water from mills using the acid cnd dispasal of uranium byproduct leach, alkaline leach, or combined acid method of control. Therefore, our analyses of control metho'ds, costs, m:terials. These NRC conditions include and alkaline teach process for the risks, and other pertinent factors tha specification that State licenses extraction of uranium or from mines and must ensure that the standards proposed cuns using in. situ leach materials." That emphasize the general characteristics of here are adhered to when they have bnn promulgated.
is. It prohibts any contamination of uranium mill tailings and the affected epa promulgated 40 CFR Part 260 et surface waters by these activities.
sites. UMTRCA gives the NRC and the siq " Standards for Owners and Finally, radiation protection guidance Agreement States the responsibility to Operators of Hazardous Waste to Federal agencies for the conduct of decide what methods will assure these their radiation protection activities was standards are satisfied at specific sites.
Treatment. Storage, and Disposal issued by the President on h!ay 13.1960 (However. EPA must concur with NRC Fac!!ities." under Subtitle C of the Solid and published on hiay 18.1960 (25 FR regulations established to implement Weste Disposal Act, as amended 4402). Federal Radiatien Protection Section 82a(3) of UhfTRACA.)
e l
19588 Fed:r:1 Regist:r / Vol 48. No. 84 / Frid:y. April 29, 1983 / Preposrd Rul:s II. Summary of Background Information surface or ground water. Current levels radon decay products of radon emitted The information upon which we have f c ntamination appear to be low.
directly from tailings piles. For example, However, contammation of surface and we estimate that people hving bised these proposed health and environmental standards for tailings as ground water and consequent intake by continuouslynext to some tailings piles lic:nsed commercial uranium processing man ad amals y pon& NeMal may han Medme excen bg cancu sites is summarized below. Additional exposure due to this possibility of risks as high as 4 chances m 100.
background information and more ground and surface water contamm, ation (d) Based on models for the is highly site-specific and can generally cumulative nsk to all exposed complete presentations are given in our DEIS and RIA.
nly be determined by a careful survey populations, we estimate that, without program.
remedial action. the radon released A. Tl:e Risks from Tailings Our assessments of nsks from tailings directly from all tailings at presently Uranium mill tailings can affect man deal primarily with risks to man. This is (1982) Licensed sites together would because nsks to other elements of the cause about 500 lung cancer deaths per thr ugh four principal environmental pithways:
environment are judged to be much less century. This figure does not account for
- Diffusion afiadon-2r. the decay sig ficant and would therefore be any likely additional deaths from misuse product ofradium-228, from tailings into controlled to acceptable levels by or windblown tailings because their indoor air. Breathing radon-222. an inert measures adequate to protect man. In number is difficult to predict, even gas, and its short half-life decay addition. the following discussion though risk to individuals from such products, which attach to tiny dust f cuses largely on current levels of risk tailings may be somewhat greater than prrticles, exposes the lungs to alpha to man from tailings through air and from direct radon emissions. By the year rcdiation (principally from polonium-218 watu paeways. However, these current 2000, we estimate that, without remedial and polonium-214). The exposures r sks could be expanded by future action. then-existing tallings would involved may be large for persons who nususe of tailings by man and by cause approximately 1200 to 1400 lung une ntr lled future effects of natural cancer deaths per century, depending on h:v2 tahss in or around their houses, f rees. Our propossd disposal standards the amount of tailings generated by er who Ilve very close ot tailings piles. -
reflect consideration of both current and future demand for uranium. Of these, Additional, but smaller, exposures to potential future risks from tailings.
roughly 50 percent are projected to clpha radiation may result from long.
'*"# I"*
N lived radon-222 decay products
- E "'
ha at oe e
ion si fr
[ principally lead-210 and polonium-210).
uuings pun an[from tallings used in There is substantial uncertainty in,
these estimates because of uncertain *ies Exposure due to daden frcm tailings in and around houses. Fcr the first case we.
in the rate of release of radon from or a:ound buildings !s best estimated used standard meteorological transport tangs pHu. 6e expostre people will frocs direct measurements of its cecay models and considered representative receive from its decay products, and products in indoor ai.
- Disposalofredon andofsmall examples of ehsure of people in thefr m incomplete knowledge of the immediate nei orhood of a pile, the particles of failings materialin of^ lypopulation in the local region and the effects on people of these exposures.
Rador emitted from tauings is wide remainder of the national population.
W values presented here represent best estimates based on cuarent dispersed in air, and exposes both For the second, we drew largely upon nrarby residents and those at greater experience from houses contaminated knowledge. In addition. these estimates by tailings in Grand Junction. Colorado.
are based upon current sizes and distances.These doses are predominately to trie lungs. Wind Four source s of exposure were ge graphicaldistributions of -
crosion of unstabilized taihngs pries considered: Inhaled short-lived radon populations. If populations contm, ue u increase in the future, the estunated crestes local airborne tailings material.
decay products, gamma radiation.long-h predominant dose from airborne I ved radon decay products, and impact would be larger.
tillings is to the bones from eating foods airborne tailings particulates.
We conclude that the primary contaminated by thorium-230, radium-From this analysis we conclude:
objective cf standards for control of 228. and lead-210. and is small. Exposure (a) Lung cancer caused by the short.
hazards from tailings through air due to airborne transport of radon and' lived decay products of radon is the pathways is isolation and stabilization pirticulates from a pile usually can be dominant radiation hazard from tallings. to prevent their misuse by man and directly measured only near the pile but Estimated effects of gamma radiation of dispersal by natural forces such as m:y be reliably estimated for larger long-lived radon decay products, and of wind, rain and flood waters. The dist:nces using meteorological transport airborn tailings particulates from the second objective is to minimize radon models.
piles are generally muchless significant. emissions from tailings piles. A third a Directe.tposuretogamma although high gamma radiation doses objective is the elimination of significant rediation. Many of the radioactive may sometimes occur.
exposure to gamma radiation from decay products in tailings produce (b) Individuals who have tauings in or tailings.
gimma radiation.'ne most important around their houses often have large
- 2. Water Pathways. Water are lead-214. bismuth-214. and thallium-exposures to indoor radon and h(nce contamination does not now appear to 210. Hazards from gamma radiation are high risks oflung cancer. For example, be a significant source of radiation
. limited to persons in the immediate in 50 percent of a sample of190 houses exposure at most piles. However,in vicinity of piles or removed tailings.
with tailings in Grand Junction, addition to radionuclides.
Exposure due to gamma radiation from Colorado.*we estimate that the excess nonradioactive toxic substances, such tallings is readily estimated from direct lifetime risk to occupants due to as arsenic, molybdenum, and selenium, measurements.
exposure to short-lived radon decay can be leached from tailings and
- Waterborne transport of
- products prior to remediation may have contaminate water. Such contamination radioactive andtoxic material.
been greater than 4 chances in 100.
could affect crops, animals, and people.
Dispersal of unstabilized tauings by (c) Individuals living near an Process wateris used to carry tailings to wind or water, or leaching. can carry uncontrolled tailings pile are also the piles as a slurry. Rainwater also may r:dioactive and other toxic materials to subject to high risks from short. lived collect on the piles.~nie greatest threat
Fcderal R1gistir / Vol. 4a. No. 84 / Friday. April 29, 1983 / Proposed Rules 19589 of contamination appean to be from tailings may contribute to improving instititions (" active" controls) and those process water discharged to the piles water quality).
that do not (" passive" controls) fm the mil' although,in principle it Based on results fcom the NRC generic could be from the gradual effects of model for mill tailings piles, it is likely Examples of active controls are fences..
warning signs. restrictions on land use.
rainwater over the indefinite future.
that the observed cases of ground wster inspectior. and repair of semi. permanent Est of this water eventually contamination result from seepage of the tailings covers, temporary dikes. and evaporates or seeps away. Eievated liquid waste discharges from the mill.
concentrations of toxic or radioactive and can be controlled by preventing this drainage courses. Examples of passive substances in ground water have been seepage until the piles dry cut by controls are thick earthen covers, rock observed at many ac:!ve sites (seven are natural evaporation. Additional future covers, massive earth and rock dikes.
identified in the DEIS), and in some contamination of ground water after burial below grade. and moving piles out of locations highly subject to erosion.
standing surface water ponds (but only these liquid wastes are dried up should such as unstable river banks.
rarely in surface runmng water). Any be much smaller, and in most cases future contamination of water after would be expected to be eliminated by Erosion of tailings by wind rain, and disposal would arise from the effects of measures required to control misuse of Gooding can be inhibited by contouring rain or through flooding of a pile, from disposed taHines by man and dispersal the pile and its cover, by stabilizing the pentration of a pile from below by by wind, rain, and flood waters. These surface (with rock, for example) to make ground water. or from leaching of measures should also effectively it resistant to crosion, and by tailings transported off a pile.
amniate the threat of contamination of constructing dikes to divert rapidl A theoretical analysis performed for surface water by runoN or from leaching moving flood waters. lf necessary the NRC of a large model pile with no of tailings transported off piles, and erosion can be inhibited by burying seepage control showed that provide a degree of protection of surface tailings in a shallow pit or by locating contamination of ground water by and ground water from contamination them away from particularly flood. prone selenium, sulfate, managese, and iron by flooding. However, at some sites.
or otherwise geologically unstab:e sites.
might exceed current dnnking water especially in areas of high rainfall or Methods to inhibit the release of standards over an area 2 kilometers where ground water tables intersect the radon range from applying a simple wide and 2 to 30 leilcmeters long. More piles, sWal cons,ideration of potential barrier (such as an earthen cover) to than 95 percent of this projected futum contadnat!on gf gMm,d water such ambitious treatments as contamination was attributed to initial may be needed in designing cisposal embedding tallings in cement or ceeprge of process water discharged to systems.
processing them to remove radium, the the pile during mill operations.
c P,r precu sor of radon. Covering tailings cn e a h
dd with a permechle (porous) barrier, such We recogm:e that the NRC generic model is only one of several that could haza-ds from tailings tnrough water as earth, delays radon diffusion so that be applied to contaminant transport in pathways is to prevent loss of pass m st ofit decays m and is therefore groundwater. O her models could water through seeptge, prior to closure.
eHecthely re,tained by the cover. In predict greater or h.ss risks of gre md A secondary objective is to avoid addition to simp:e earthen covers. other
'vafer contammation. An example of surface runoff and inflitration both less penueable n.aterials such as greater risk is a pluma of co.atarunation before and after disposal.
asphalt, clay. or soil cement (preferably in combinatica w,th earthen ccvers) that, under certain circumetances, could B.Methodsfor CoctnicfHazordsFrom i
still move cohesively towanis a water Tailings may be used.The more permeable the supply after the flow ofliquid through ccvering material, the thicker it must be the tailings has stopped following As noted above, the objectives of to achieve a given reduction in redon cl:sure of a pile-tailings disposal (and of tailings release. However. maintaining the management prior to dis in general, the mo vement of prevent misuse by mcn. posal) are to integrity of control of radon by thin, to reduce radon very impermeable covers. such as contaminants through a pile and subsoil to ground water depends on a emissions and gamma radiation plastic sheets. is unlikely. even over a combination of complex chemical and exposure, and to avoid the period as short as several decades, physicalproperties, as wellas onlocal contambation ofland and water by given the chemical and physical stresses precipitation and evaporation rates.
prevenitng erosion of piles by natural present at piles, Chemical and physical processes can processes and seepage of process water.
Tne most likely constituents of cover cffectively remove or retard the flow of
'Ihe longevity of control is particularly many toxic substances passing through important. This can be affected by the for disposal of tailings are locally available earthen materials.The subsoil. However. some contaminants, degree to which control measures effectiveness of an earthen cover as a such as arsenic, molybdenum and discourage disruption byman: and by barrier to radon depends most strongly the resistance of control measures to sinium, can occur in forms that are not such natural phenomena as on its moisture content. Typical clay removed. Typically. ground water can earthquakes, floods, windstorms, and soils in the uranium milling regions of
)
1 move as slowly as a few feet per year, glaciers, and to chemical and the West exhibit ambient moisture and only in coarse or cracked materials contents of 9 percent to 12 percent. For does the speed exceed one mile per mechanical processes in the piles.
nonclay soils ambient moisture contents Prediction of the long-term integrit of y:ar.For these reasons, contaminants control methods becomes less certain as range from a percent to 10 percent. The of nearby water supply wells for the period of concern increases. Beyond following table provides, as an example, from tailings may not affect the quality the cover thicknesses that would be d: cades or longer after they are several thousand years,long-term required to reduce the radon emission to j
released. However, once contaminated.
geological processes and climatic 20 pC1/m8s for the above ranges of scil the quality of water supplies cannot change become the dominant factors.
Methods to prevent misuse by man moisture.Four examples of tailings are
)
usually be easily restored simpiy by and disruption by natural phenomena shown that cover the probable extreme clic:ina ting the source (although. In may be divided into those whose values of radon emission from bare some cases. removing or isolating the integrity depends upon man and his tailings (100 to 1000 pCl/m8 ); the most s
common value for new tailings is l
i
19590 Fedtr:1 Register / Vol. 48 No. 84 / Friday, April 29, 1983 / Proposed Rules tpproximately 300 pC1/m8s. These practice for most new tailings We analyzed the costs of a number of v: lues are for homogeneous covers. In impoundments.
possible control methods.These are pr ctice, multi. layer covers using clay epa does not believe it is necessary described in the DEIS and the RIA.The nIxt to the tailings can significantly to require all new wastes at existing total cost is affected most strongly by reduce the total thickness required.The sites to be placed on new piles.
t: e type of material used to stabilize the DOE and NRC have conducted Satisfying ground water standards at surface of the tailings against erosion sxtensive studies which provide a basis existing tailings sites without liners, and to inhibit misu.e by man, by the for optimum design of tailings covers however, will require widely varying water protection features required, and based on the locally available materials, actions from site to site. Ground water by the number of piles that must be contamination is known to have moved to new sites. In general, costs of EsnuATEo COVER THICKNESS: (IN METERS) occurred at seven sites, and may be Covers using man-made materials (e.g.,
To ACHIEVE 20 PCvu8s occurrmg at many others. It may not be asphalt) are somewhat higher than costs possible to clean up the ground water at for earthen ccvers. Active control Rooon En sen #om
- ****"'888"'
some sites.In the Worst Cases a neW, measures are usually less Costly in the Y'W'5"**
lined tailings pile may be required tc short term than are passive measures.
s s
so sr prevent future contamination. In other The costs for deep burial of tailings piles E
U U
U U cases existing tailings piles may release or for using chemical processing to 500 34 e
to is essentially no contaminants to ground extract radium are much higher than
- 00 83 82 1*
water because the type of soil they rest those for surface or shallow burial in u
emmes.eeam mean m 9 on acts as an affective liner. In practice, disposal using covers.
8llll"M/C,,j, L'n,;,,,,g,Q*c'g most tallings ponds will fall somewhere III. Scope of the Proposed Standards e
NU CM7 between these two extremes. I.ess news arou=. usi r v versione.ao,. p, m%
expensive corrective action than a new UhfrRCA defines the term *, byproduct
$1.".*,,7*,,,' '.',*,,q"' " * '""*" *" liner may be suff'cient to satisfy ground material" as " * *
- the tailings or water standards for hazardous wastes produced by the extraction or hiethods that control radon emissions constitusats at many sitas. For example, concentration of uranium or thorium will also prevent transport of an tctive water management program fro:n ar.y ore processed primarily for its p1rticulates from the tailings pile to air a ay b emyleyed to reduce the quantity tou.v.e c:aterial content." ne or to surface w ater. Similarly, permeable of watr*t in the tailings and thus reduce procersing wastes included in this covers sufficiently thick for effective the dnving force for grornd water prorcsed rule are the taihngs from
(
radon control will a?so absorb gam:na centaminatien, or back pumping of uranium or thorium ore milling radiation effectively (although thin water around the piles may prevent processes and from cres wnich have
(
irtpermeable covers will not).
losses to the surrounding ground been heap leached primrily to recover Two methods may be considered for enviconment. Corrective pions are source material, and solid wastes from protecting ground water at new tailings already being taken at certain sites in sita mining. It is clear from the piles.The firstis the placement of a (Cotter Mill, Canon City. Co., and defimtion of byproduct material, physical barrier, called a liner, betwcen Homestake Mill, Cetnts, KM., for however, that C,or.gress intended the tallings and the aquifer zone, to example)
UhfTRCA te apply to the cenventional i
prevent water containmg hazardous Contrcl of possible longterm low.
uraniuu fe-thori'un) in h'stry and not to l
constituents from entering the aquifer.
level contamination of ground water indust /es where source materialis Either clay or plastic liners can be used may sometimes be difficult. In cases recovered as a secondary prt. duct.Thus, at about the same cost. plastic liners are where intrusion of contamina*fon in;o tailings from the phosphate and coppe;
~
Expected to perform satisfactorily ground or surface water is a potentially extraction industries are not covered by throughout the lifetime of a model mill, significant problem, liners and/or raps these proposed standards.
i.e., about is years. Clay liners may may provide a good degree of protection Solution extraction, or "in situ" i
require use of additional measures, such for at least many decades. However, mining, is a processing method in which cs partial neutralization of the tailings, more permanent protection may,in such uranium is recovered from ors without aspicially at acid leach mills, to cases, require choice of(for new moving or disturbing the ore body. In i
satisfactorily protect ground water, but tailings) or re'noval to (for existing this method holes are drilled at selected I
cre expected to retain their effectiveness tailings) a site with more favorable points around an ore body and a solvent forlonger periods of time.The second hydrological, geochemical, or is pumped into some holes and the mIthod could be treatment of process meteorological characteristics.
resulting solution out other holes. The water to modify its acidity or alkalinity, Very effective long. term inhibition of' solvent passes through the ore, dissolves if such treatment were shown to prevent misuse by man, as well as of releases to the uranium, and carries it back to the contamination. At a neutrallevel many air and surface water, could be achieved surface. The uranium is then stripped hazardous constituents of tailings by burying tailings in deep mined from the solution and concentrated. The liquids become insoluble and thus not cavities. In this case, however, direct solvent, which is stored in holding available to contaminate ground water.
contact with ground water would be ponds, can be treated and reused or However, not all hazardous constituents difficult to avoid. The potential hazards discarded. Although this method are so affected, and the action of of tailings could also be reduced by produces no sandy tailings,it does rainwater, selected weathering chemically processing them to remove produce sludges that contain many of processes, and mineralization of the soil contaminants. Such processes have the same radioactive and or rock matrix can upset this limited efficiencies, however, so the nonradioactive substances found in neutralization over time, thereby residual tailings would still require some tailings piles. Consequently, the above-releasing contaminants. There is little control. Furthermore, the extracted ground wastes fromin situ mining are difference in costs fer these two substances (e.g., radium and thorium) covered in these proposed standards.
methods. l.iners are currently required would be concentrated, and would We note that because in situ mining and by NRC as a matter of good engineering themselves require careful control.
conventional milling currently are done
a Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Friday. April 29, 1983 / Proposed Rules 19591 in the same regions of the country, nere are four parts to the standards disposal of sludges on tailings piles may for operations prior to completion of radiation exposure to levels that are "as often be arran6ed.
closure. These limit particulate low as practicable." based on Protection of ground water from the emissions, radon emissions, and consideration of the particula'r underground operations ofin situ mining circumstances associated with control is provided by the Underground contamination of surface and ground of exposures from any specific source water.
Injection Control program promulgated (the so-called ALARA principle).
under Sections 1421 and 1422 of the Safe A. Paniculate Emissions Neither of the above limits were derived Drinking Water Act.The associated Radionuclides in particulate emissions for appbcation to the specific case of j
regulations. 40 CFR Parts 122.123. and from uranimum mill tailings piles during uranium mill tailings.
148. impose administrative and techmcal the period a millis bcensed are M
ds e n W M y requirements on such operations, currently limited by standards under 40 reduce radon emissions during the through either approved State programs CFR Part 190. Rese standards limit the operational phase of existing mills are l
i er EPA. implemented programs. The annual radiation dose to members of the management schemes limited in their underground are bodies depleted byin public to 25 millirem to the whole body effectiveness and can achieve, at most, situ urnaium mimng operations are or any organ (except the thyroid, which factors of 2 or 3 reduction.The degree of excluded from these proposed standards is limited to 75 millirem) as a result of reduction possible through such
- under UMTRCA.
discharges to the general environment 1
We are proposing standards for from uranium fuel cycle facility management schemes depends heavily on the characteristics of a given site.
thorium byproduct material that are operations.
derived from and comparable to the Such controlinvolves keeping the proposed standards for uranium on Emissions tailings wet (usually with process liquids) or covering with earth those byproduct material To our knowledge Limits on radon emissions from active portions of the pile that are notin active there is currently no processing of ore uranium mill tailings sites during primarily to recover its thorium content.
operation are not currently included in use. (Another control method is to acquire additional land adjacent to a Projections of thorium demand indicate EPA standards. Radon and its decay site so as to exclude public access, and there will be little need for thorium pcoducts were excluded form 40 CFR during the next decade. Nuclear power Part 190 because at the time those thus limit the potentially high level of progr.ms using thorium consist of only regulations were established risk which could occurifpeople live ene power riant. Fort St. Vrain in considerable uncertainty existed about very close to an ope. rating tailings pile.)
Colorado. There is a facility processiag the feasibllity of control of radon EPA believes that milling operations are monazite sands for recovery of rare emissions from Mirngs piles. We too diverse to permit establishment of a earths operated by the W.R. Grace Co concluded then that the c.casiderations geaeral numerical standard without the near Chattanooga. Tennessee. This associated with controlling radon need for so many exceptions that the ftcilny can also recover thorium from emissions were sufficiently different standard itself would be meaningless..
this ore, which is tha primary source of from those for other radmnuclide Based on all of the above we have thorium. However, tnorium 1. a cmis sions froen uranium fuel cycle tentatively concluded that a more uce.,ndary prcouct at this faci'ity. We facilities to warrant seoarate restrictive general radon standard than wCl keep informed of the situation consideration at a future time.
now exists !ct the operating phase of a involving thorium and.If additional Radon concentrations in airin 7g). is not practical or necessary and '
information on thorium-related talling unrestricted areas are currently limited that application of the ALARA principle dwelops, will consider the need for only by the NRC's general regualtions by the agulatory ageng wW assure revising the general environmental for protection against radiation (10 CFR adequate control of radon releases stsadards proposed here for the wastes Part 20).nese standards, which are during the operating phase of a milt from thorium processing activities.
based on the Federal Radiation However, we are soliciting comments on IV. The Proposed Standards for Protection Guides (25 FR 4402). provide this and alternative means to limit.
Operations an upprlimit on the radon radon: see Section VI below.Our concentration of 3 pC1/1 in air in areas tentative conclusion is based in large These proposed standards are divided to which individual members of the into two parts. The first part. described public have nnhmited access.
part on EPA's assumption that existing and future management schemes will immediately below, would apply to Unrestricted areas in which permanent reflect ALARA principles and will m nagement of tailings during the active access by more than a few identified involve the specific measures described life of the pile and during the subsequent people'is possible are further limited to above.The regulatory agency should "cl;sure period." Le, after cessation of op; rations but prior to completion of an upper limit of one third of this value, assure that exposure to radon emissions final disposal, including the period when ori pCi/1 through the operation of is mmimwed at each site, as far below the tailings are drying out. These are Federal Radiation Protecton Guidance existinglimits as is reasonably standards that govern milling for situations in which individual deses. achievable, through the choice of are not monitored.The incremental optimized tallings management operations. Most are already in effect.
increase in the working level.
procedures and site boundaries, 3
i but these proposed standards would concentration inside houses caused by 1 mtke some small additions for the pC1/1 of radon in indoor a:r is about C, Discharges to Surface Waters
{
protection of ground water.
The second part specifies the 0.005 WL Such an increase maintained Only one site currently discharges t
over a 15-year period conditions to be achieved by final period of an average m(the operational wastes to surface waters. Such illl would cause discharges are unnecessary where disposal. Those standards would guide an incrementallifetime risk of lung annual natural evaporation is greater tha activities carried out during the cancer of 1 in 1000.
closure period to assure adequate final than precipitation because liquid wastes disposat They are standards that In addition to these upper limits, can be stored in a pond which has been Federal Radiation Protection Guidance gov:rn the design of disposal systems.
calls for the further reduction of lined to prevent seepage into ground water and allowed to evaporate.
4 l
19592 Fid:rd Regist;r / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Friday. April 29, 1983 / Propos d Rules Discharges to turface waters are that the proposed UMTRCA standards program includes identification and currently govemed by the provisions of differ from the SWDA standards in listing of hazardous materials; a tha Clean Water Act. EPA regulations some respects.This also means that the manifest system to track hazardous tre in effect which define best UMTRCA standards do not address materials from cradle to grave: controls practicable technology (BPT), and new some areas addressed by the SWDA for the transportation of hazardous source performance standards (NSPS) regulations. EPA expects that a materials; standards for owners and for control of discharges from mills comparable degree of operators of hazardous waste treatment.
using the acid leach, alkaline teach or comprehensiveness would be afforded storage and disposal facilities; and a combined acid and alkaline leach under UMTRCA when the companion permitting system for the treatment.
process for the extraction of uranium (40 NRC regulations are in place.
storage and disposal of hazardous CFR Part 440).
Congress in 1978 excluded the active waste.
In view of the comprehensiveness and uranium mill tailing waste it was Unlike EPNs role in SWDA. EPA's' cdequacy of the regulatory program in addressing in UMTRCA from the ambit role for controlling hazardous materials plrce for surface water discharges from of SWDA to avoid duplication of NRC from uranium tailings under UMTRCA is the uranium milling industry, we beheve licensing and EPA permitting functions.
limited to setting standards and does na addinonal standards for surface w:ter are needed under UMTRCA.
in requiring " consistency." Congress not include an implementing could not have meant that the UMTRCA responsibility. That responsibility is D. Protection of Ground Water standards bs those applicable to active vestd in the NRC and the States as the Section 275b f the AtomicEn uranium mill tailings under SWDA since licensing agencies under Title II of-by its own definition there would be UMTRCA (Section 84a(3)) and would be Act, as added t y the UMTRCA. req s
th t these standards protect human none. What Congress intended. EPA carried out through regulations set by hE:alth and the environment from believes,is that EPA bring to bear on the NRC. with the concurrence of the n:nradiological hazards in a manner the non-radioactive hazards associated Admmistrator, upon promulgation of consistent with the standards required with wastes regulated under UMTRCA -
these standards by EPA.
w -
. primarily but not exclusively De primary purpose of the SWDA
(
under subtitle C cf the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). Section 84a(3) groundwater contamination) the same ground water regulations is to protect directs the NRC to "* *
- Insure that the protection principles it applies to similar ground water quality so as to provide management of any byproduct material hazards associated with the waste reasonable assurance that human health
- *
- conforms to general requiremente regulated under SWDA.
and the environment will be protected.
est:blished by 6e Commission, with the Since Cosgress in 'JMTRCA was To accoa'plish this. the goal of the concurrence cf the administrator, which addressicg the hazards assoc!ated with reNations is to minimize the migntion cre, to the maximum extent prac:icsole, rLdioactivity in waste, as well as any of hazardous components of wastes.The et leest comparable to requirements non-radioactive hazards. it follows that SWDA strategy for achieving this goal cpplicable to the possession, transfer.
EPA should take cognizance of both has two basic elements.The first i,s a cnd disposal of similar hazardous kinds of hazahlin Bese regulations _
liquids management strategy that is intended to mmumze lenhate m terial regulated by the Administrator Likewise. EPA may take cognizhnce of under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, at any differemes betwean tha generation and to remove teachate before it enters tne subsurface.
amended.*
nonradioactive hazeris prownted by envi nment. This is the "first line of In considering standards for these wastes and those addressed by groundwater protection for active SWDA. Bath these considerations lead defense "in the sense that it seeks to uranium mill tailings piles in relation to EPA to believe that Congress did not prevent ground water contamination by SWDA regulations. EPA was guided by intend that the UMTRCA standards.
centroHing the source of the contamination. The second element,s a two considerations, each of which is achieve a purely mechanical i
discussed in some detail below. The first consistency with SWDA regulations ground witer menitoring and response consideration is that unlike the which ignores differences in the hazards program that is designed to remove statutory scheme of SWDA. the presented. EPA believes instead that leachate from ground water if.
contamination is detected in excess of statutory scheme of UMTRCA shares Congress intended the UMTRCA responsibility between EPA and NRC.
standards to be consistent with SWDA specified standards. This monitoring Under UMTRCA. NRC is responsible for standards where possible and that EPA and response program serves as a i
promulgating regulations to implement explain differences where it believes a backup to liquids management..
thz EPA standards, subject to EPA -
different standard to be appropriate.
The SWDA strategy for groundwater concurrence that the NRC regulations That is the course which EPA has,
protection is carried out differently are consistent with SWDA.
pursued in these regulations.
depending on the nature of the facility EPA's requirements to protect health inv Ived. Subpart K of Part 264 applies The second consideration is EPA's this strategy to surfan impoundments.
view that Congress intended that EPA and the environment form radiological Subpart L applies it to waste piles.
edhere to the protection principles and hazards in groundwater are discussed in Supart N appUes it to landEs. EPA was st:ndards reflected and embodied in the the context ofits treatment of faced with the question which of these SWDA regulations where appropriate nonradiological hazards through the end, where adherence seems appHeadons provided the best model to SWDA requirements.The SWDA follow in regulating hazards associated inappropriate, to explain why deviation requirements (47 FR 32274. July 28,1982) from the SWDA regulations in particular are a comprehensive regulatory program with waste disposed of at uranium mill tailings piles.
Instances is reasonable:
to protect human health and the The proposed regulations are environment from hazardous waste Waste piles under SWDA are disoposalin or on the land.* This considered a storage rather than strndards which EPA considers cppropriate to the divided EPA and NRC disposal facility and thus do not provide responsibilities and as consistent as is an appropriate model.
resui.i3 n..hau.s. any refmnces to swDA Surface impoundments under SWDA
. In the tonowin rersonable with the standards promulgated under SWDA.nis means amended.es of January 1.issa. sulation..
function primarily to store or dispose of pply to ino. re l
L - -
Fzdml Rtgist:r / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Friday. April 29. 1983 / Proposed Rules 19593 solid and liquid waste. Regulations Agency ultimately rejected this same liner requirements (or their addressing surface impoundments used alternative in favor of a no migration equivalent) as a new impoundment. If only for storage require a liner which is policy based on a synthetic liner hazardous constituent concentrations removed (along with the waste) after closure. Since the liner will be requirement because (1) it prevents' exceed the ground water standards.
escape of all hazardous constituents.
removed.the regulations permit liner design involving permeable ma terials and (2) causes constituents reaching the continued deposition of tailings on an existing pile would not be permissible that. vill allow liquid into but not liner to be retained so that they can be unless corrective actions are expected to through the liner. Regulations more readily removed before closure.
achieve compliance or alternate However, under 5 264.221 an exemption addressing suface impoundments used to the liner requirement may be g anted standards have been established for the for disposal require use of a liner daring if the owner or operator demonstrates site.The epa Regional Administrator could concur in such alternate standards cctive use of the facility which will that alternate design and operating only if doing so would result in no prevent permeation of liquid into the practices together with location liner and rernoval of free liquid and characteristics, will prevent the substantial present or potential hazard installation of a cover at closure. The migration of any hazardous constituents to human health or the erwironment.
cover is required to be equally or more into ground or surface water. Uranium While modeled on Subpart K. the e
impermeable than the liner, Landfills under RCRA function mill tailings are produced at primarily proposed standards modify the Subpart primarily to dispose of solid waste. The ' arid western sites. For specific waste /
K requirements to take cognizance of site combinations of this type it may be two characteristics of. active mill tailing regulations require that such units have that clay liners, natural soils. or sites: their arid location and their o liner and a leachate collection and combinations thereof may afford an association with radon emissions. epa removal system and. after closure, a equivalent level of protection and recognizes that disposal facilities cover. Both liner and cover are required provide substantial advantages in terms. located in arid areas.
regulated under SWDA may also be to have permeability characteristics of cost.
i similar to those for impoundments.
Section 264.221 also exempts tn.e pre-As part of that consideration. Epd'is i
in both cases, the liner must be dIsigned to prevent migration ofliquid existmg portion of an impoundment and considering whether the arid location of into the liner. For surface new wastes placed upon it from the liner the wastes allows post-closure removal impoundments, postclosure migration of requirement.The existing portion under of the liquid by evaportation. It is also lig zid waste is prevented by removal of these regulations is defined as the land considering wriether net evaporatica the hquid. For landfills, which are not surface area on which wastes (in this makes it less important that the liner be und for storage of liquid wastes, it is case tailings) have been plated prict to of impermeable rather than relatively
=
im the date of publication of these 1[ permeable inaterials so long a expected that any leachate will be standards in final form.
',d
prix m b s d th t I d at removed before closure by the leachate d
cdlection and removal system. In both i wo points are important here. i"rzt.
cases, teaching after closure is by providing an exemption procedure closure, the pile will be drying out and minimized by minimizin under SWDA to the liner requirement.
reducir.g the Pressure head which through use of a cover g infi.'tration epa recognized that adequate ground -
font 8
f water protec*fon can be achieved at i ation.Tre ti"3 'le P e as ifit The standards proposed here are some locations throu h alternative were a surface impoundme.nt used for modeled on Subpart K. Act've mill facility designs (whick nught ir. this swrage would s!!owdesigners to tailings pties typically contain large application include use cf clay liners, or, capuab on possible advantages clay
- c. mounts of waste liquids. I.eachate in some cases the elimination of a liner may have over synthetic Uners: e.g. ti.e, coIIection and removal systems such a3 tho'e required in Subpart N are rot requirement through use of natural viccosity of the mateiral, wnich allows it cppropr:ste for such situations.
satis). Although the presence or absance to flow into gaps: and the chemical The standard proposed here would of these factors should not be deemed interaction with hquids, which fixes.
put into effect the first element of the conclusive, an example of a situation for filters out, and chelates hazardous ground water protection strategy as to which this exemption may be constituents in the liquid. epa solicits n1w piles or lateral extensions of appropriate is when the. unsaturated comment on these considerations.
cxist gpiles byincorporating the zone below the impoundment is The radiological hazard affects the standard of 40 CFR Section 264.221 of composed of materials that are capable permeability characteristics desirable th) SWDA regulations, relating to of fixing any hazardous constituents in for the cap. Subpart K requires the cap surf:ce impoundments. 711is section the process liquid before it reaches to be at least as impermeable as the requires a liner that is designed.
ground or surface water (e.g holding up liper to prevent build-up ofliquid in the hazardous constituents through ion facility and increase of hydrostatic c:nstructed, and installed to prevent
. exchange).
pressure. In theory, therefore, an migration of wastes out of the impoundment to the adjacent subsurface Second, the requirement for a liner impermeable liner necessitates an soil, or ground water, or surface water does not aprioriapply to the land
- Impermeable cap. However,long-term during the active life (inclu~ ding the surface areas where tailings are radiological protection requires a thick cirsure period) of the impoundment. In.
currently placed, i.e., liners would not cover that retains some moisture (6-12%),
cstiblishing the SWDA regulations. EPA usually have to be instal!ed under in order to function as an effective c:nsidered as an alternative a existing tailings. Depositing tailings on barrier to radon. Such a cover requires a requirement that the liner for waste existing piles could continue as long as relatively stable foundation. For this the pile surface area is not expanded f:cilities be designed, constructed and and the secondary standards for reason EPA considers it appropriate to specify a cover permeability inst:lled to minimize migration of concentrations of hazardous wzst:s out of the impoundment.
requirement for these wastes which constituents in groundwater Operators would have been ab!, to are not exceeded. However, a(see below) differs from that of Subpart K.
c:mply with this alternative by using expanded portion of an existing Thus, the proposed standard would ny cithtr a clay or a synthetic liner. The impoundment would be subject to the not apply the surface closure requirements of 1204.228 to uranium S
195M Federal Registir / Vol. 48, No. 84 / Friday April 29, 1983 / Propostd Rults j
byproduct material impour dments. This constituents that are reasonably believe flexibility in this respect is the modiScation is proposed since the expected to be in or derived from the only practical course. Once corrective proposed standards for disposal of tailings. Standards would be established actions have begun, the regulatory trilings ({ 192.32(b)) are adequate to for most constituents at the background agency shc.uld evaluate their protect ground water. The ground water concentrations, except in ' effectiveness and determine whether to cbnsiderations involved are discussed in the case of materials listed in Table 1 of continue, alter. or discontinue the m:re detail below, i 264.94. Those standards would be actions. Because corrective actions are In summary, we propose here, as a established as the higher of the very site. specific such determinations primary ground water protection background levels or the Table I should not be made under a uniform.
requ'rement for tailings placed on new concentration.
pre. established schedule. It is the piles, a liner to prevent seepage of The SWDA regulations provide that regulatory agency's responsibility, luchate from tailings into ground water. the epa Regional Admmistrator may however, to assure that necessary H: wever, consistent with the primary exclude a hazardous constituent from decisions are rendered in a timely ground water protection standard the list of hazardous constituents fashion. Acceptable plans for corrective specified in the SWDA regulat;ons, we applicable to a site if he finds that the actions should offer a high likelihood of also permit exceptions to be granted to constituent is not capable of posing a achieving compliance with the this requirement. (We propose as a substantial present or potential hazard standards. Furthermore, corrective ground water protection standard for to human health or the environment actions which, once begun show cxisting tailings, and new tailings added - () 264.93(b) and (c)). He is also allowed inadequate promise of achieving tnxisting piles, the secondary to establish an alternate concentration compliance, should result in the numerical ground water standards -
limit for a hazardous constituent if he regulatory agency's promptly l
discussed below.11n Section VI below finds that the constituent will not pose a disallowing the addition of new tailings w2 request comment on what exceptions substantial present or potential hazard to a noncomplying tailings pile.
tra appropriate to this liner requirement, to human health or the environment as Under ourproposed standard,all new cnd cn how the exception procedure long as the alternate concentration is - waste storage areas (whether new sh uld be applied. We also request not exceeded (1264.94(b) and (c)T. epa waste facilities or expansions of existing comm:nt on whether these proposed believes that determinations as to what piles) are subject to the primary primary liner requirements are constituent levels pose a health hazard standard-the liner requirement. If appropriate for application to 'hese are a primary responsibility of epa sad new wastes are a.dded to an existing t.:ilings sites.
cannot be del? gated te other agenc;es.
pile, however, the pile must comply The standard proposed here to carry Therefore we pre,poce to n.tein effective with the secondary standard-the cut the second element of the SWDA cont-ci cver granting cf enraptions and hazardous constituent ccncentration -
ground water protection strategy is that establishmen: of alternate standinis for standards for health and.
contilned in existing SWDA regulations, ground water by requiring epa environmental protection. Whether for at 40 CFR 264.92 (and related sections).
concurrence in regulatory decisions a new or existing pile,if the seandary This proposed standard has several regard;ng such exemptions and alternate standards are found not to be satisfied ptrts. The first part is contained in standards.
and subsequent corrective actions fail i 264.93 and identifies hazardcus Section 2%100 of the SWDA to achieve compliance in a reasonable constituents as those listed in Append.x resulttions requires that a corrective time, the operator must cease VIII cf Part 261. We propose to add two action program be initiated when depositing waste on that pils.
h:2ardous chemical elements, hazardous constituent concentration We considered treating all new molybdenum and uranium, commonly limits are exceeded in ground water.
wastes the same, without regard to presint in tailings. A second part is The regulatory agency will review the whether they would be placed on new contzined in i 264.94 and requires that plans for such corrective actions, and or ex' sting piles. We did not select this
" * *
- no increase over background approve them only if they provide a alternative because we concluded it IIvils" be allowed for most listed reasonable degree of confidence that the would result in less overall constituents. Dis approach is consistent proposed corrective actions will environmental protection than the with a ground water protection succeed.The SWDA regulations do not proposed standard.That is. exempting philosophy that seeks to naintain specify a numerical time limit within '
new waste added to existing piles from ground water quality.The second part which such corrective actions are to be the primary standard is environmentally rIs3 contains Table 1 " Maximum in operation. We prapose to require preferable because the alternative, Concentration of Constituents for corrective actions ta be in operation as - creating new piles, would increase Gmund water Protection."These soon as is practicable, but in no case radon emissions by increasing surface to sttndards are maximum concentration later than within one year of a finding volume ratios. If the primary standard limits for a particular set of toxic metals by the licensor that a concentration limit were applied to all new waste,we and pesticides, and were first has been exceeded. This requirement is - believe mill operators would genera!Iy estsblished in the National Interira reasonable for tailings sites because the choose to create new lined primary Drinking Water Regulations fewer than 30 licensed sites all contain impoundments and discontinue the use (NIPDWR) as health-based similar materials.The SWDA of existing piles. (Our economic analysis cemc:ntraticn limits. We propose to add regulations require only that corrective indicates that refitting existing tailings ta thiTable 1 standards the IIIPDWR action begin within a " reasonable" time with liners is not cost effective.)
limit for alpha radioactivity, to cover the period. However, the SWDA regulations Therefore, until disposal of the r<dioactive materials found in tailings.
are applicable to thousands of sites.
discontinued piles occured, which These proposed standards would be with a wide variety of hazardous usually would take several years, two sstab!!shed through the measurement of constituents.
tailings pile surfaces would be exposed bickground concentrations of hazardous ne SWDA regulations similarly do instead of one. Under availab!e controls.
constituents in ground water at each not specify a time by which corrective radon and particulate releases to the air tillings site for those hazardous actions should be completed. We from two piles would exceed releases from one by approximately a factor of
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 84 / Friday, April 29, 1983./ Proposed Rules 19595 two. Furthermore post. disposal radon emissions from two piles will continue additional piles produces a health 40 CFR 264.221 Design and operating indefinitely to be about twice those from detriment from airborne radioactivity requirements for surface only one Congress stated in UMTRCA that exceeds any benefits from that "* *
- every reasonable effort improved water protection and creates impoundments (this section is (should) be made to provide for the the possibility of additional modified and adopted as stabilization, disposal and control * *
- contamination of subsurface soil. We (192.32(a)(1))
of such tailmgs in order to prevent cr find, therefore. th st requiring liners (the NRC's responsibilities under UMTRCA minimize radon diffusion uito the
" primary" standard) for all future are to implement epa's standards and environment * * *"(Section 2.(a)).
operations of existing piles rather than to " insure that the management of any Creating additional tailings piles would Conformance to gf ound water standards byproduct material * *
- is carried out not satisfy this primary objective of (the secondary standard) would be in such a manner as * *
- conforms to Congress.
likely to:(1) Increase radon and general requirements established by the A second objective of Congress under particulate releases: [2] not materially Commission, with the concurrence of the UhfrRCA is that these standards be improve protec*;on of the ground water; Administrator, which are. to the conistent with standards under and (3) commit additionalland surface maximum extent practicable, at least UMTRCA so as to permanently to waste disposal.
comparable to requirements applicable prevent or minimize other environmental hazards
- Therefore. on balance, it appears that to the possession, transfer, and disposal from such tailings If the primary exempting new waste added to existing of similar hazardous material regulated
' andard were applied to all new uranium mill tailings piles from the by the Administrator under the SWDA.
tailings, most operators would be likely primary requirement if preferable for as amended " EPA willlasure that both health and environmental NRC's regulations satisfy these t2 choose to construct new, lined impoundments and discontinue use of protection.
admonitions through its concurrence cxisting piles. We believe this would not Here are several SWDA regulations role. Relevant SWDA regulations are increase protection of the underground that specify monitoring after closure of those embedded in Subparts A (except environment, but would create potential an impoundment. Monitoring is a i 264.3). B, C D, E, F, G. H, and K.
for additional contamination.
compliance activity conducted to assure Examples of areas which NRC must Subsurface soils beneath existing.
that health and environmental address in discharging these unlined impoundments are usually standards are being met. The regulatory responsibilities involve functions under agency is responsible for establishing the six sections htmediately above a
a1 e
r such requirements, including post-which are incorporated into these
. stay or rray not also be contaminated.
closure monitoring consistent with the proposed EPA standards, and the H: wever. Ifit is corrective aetions must SWDA regulations. The period over following sections of the SWDA re lations-which post-closure monitoring is n rmaDy required under SWDA is 30 Sub art F-d water cc o stan rs s
situation (contaminated subsurface soil years. e regulator 40 CFR 64.91 Required programs end.possibly ground water exists recognize, however,y agency shr.,uld thet monitoring of 40 CFR 264E Point of compliance regard?ess of whether or no)t new 40 CFR 264.96 Compliance period t ilings are added to existing
""f,*may( e 3
for ecific impoundm ents.
sites where tallings are located and.
- "" #i"I "S" ""*
- Placmg new tallingr in new, lined when appropriate, change this e
a Demcdon mochng impounc'ments would cover additional.
reqdrement.
program land surface with tailings, beneath The SWDA regulations are complex 40 CFR 264.99 Compliance monitoring ~
which soils are not initially as well as comprehensive. In order to progra
~
g g,
e ent e pag fh us e
a eo ec so
- N
"*d constituents into the subsurface, those regulatons which relate to the.
use o7 property However, if the liner fails, the separate EPA and NRC responsibilities.
liL Subpart K:
underlying soils, and perhaps, ground EPA's responsibilities to establish 40 CFR 264.226 Monitoring and water. would become contaminated.
standards under Section 206 of basically requires that ground water not UMTRCA would be carried out through inspection (of impoundment Imers), a s Since the secondary standard applicable be degraded, the major additional effect adoptation of all or part of the following of a fully successfulliner would be to sections of the SWDA regulations:
EPA and NRC are coordinating their
- 1. Subpart F:
efforts to insure health and prevent hazardous constituents from 40 CFR 264.92 Ground water protection byproduct materials. In particular, we environmental protection from uranium intering the ground beneath a pile.
standard Th1refore, applying the primary 40 CFR 264.93 Hazardous constituents are working closely with the NRC to i
strnr ard to existing piles would force 40 CIE 264.94 Concentration limits for ground water protection will be assure that NRC's general requirements th;ir replacement with new lined piles.
which, if they are fully effective, would (these three sections are modified and comparable, to the maximum extent 1:ava the underground environment at adopted as 192.32(a)(2))
practicable, to EPA's requirements the facility as it is, and if not fully 40 CFR 264.100 Corrective action under the SWDA for similar hazardous sffective, could approximately double program (this section is modified and. materials.
th2 contaminated area.
adopted as 192.33)
The secondary standard assures that
- 11. Subpart C:
V. The Proposed Standards for Disposal any 1:akage from either lined or unlined 40 CFR 264.111 Closure performance The objectives of tailings disposal and pilts will not significantly degrade the standard (this section is adopted as measures available to achieve these environment or pose a hazard to human part of $ 192.32(b)(1))
objectives have been described in health. In our judg nent. creating ill. Subpart IQ Section IL We evaluated a range of alternatives for disposal standards
19506 Fediral Register / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Friday. April 29, 1983 / Propos.d Ruhs bas;d on these objectives and control measures used to meet this limit should attematives. very thick covers or mnsures. These alternatives are prevent contamination of ground water asphalt and/or cement fixation would presInted below.The rango of the for at least a few hundred years.
be required.
controls vary widely, from to control Alternative D. In this altemative We concluded that a (Altemative A) to high lev is of control control measures are required to be "nondegradation" attemative would be (Alt:mative F).They do nc: include designed to be effective for 1.000 years difficult to justify, since the small different levels of ground water to the extent reasonably achievable and, incremental health and environmental pactection. since those requirements in any case, for at least 200 years.
benefits, when compared to the benefits must be consistent with standards that (Therefore it is assumed control may not for less stringent attematives, do not hav2 already been established under the rely pnmarily on institutional appear to justify the relatively large SWDA. However, the length of time maintenance.) The radon emission limit additional costs.
ground water is expected to be is 20 pCl/m's. nis would usually We selected a " cost-effective" rather protected is indicated.
require an earthen cover cf 2 to 3 meters than a "least cost" alternative for the Uranium mill taihngs will remain thickness. Ground water would be h:z rdous for hundreds of thousands protected for at least 1.000 years.
proposed standards, in part because it yxrs. due to the 75.000-year half-Ilfe of Altemative E Passive control provides much greater protection of thorium-230. Protection of public health measures are required to be effective for. health and the environment for only a small cost increase above the least cost by dispo, sal of these talhngs for such at least 1.000 years at new tailings piles.
periods is difficult to conceptualize.
This longevity is aclueved by making -
alternatives, and in part because it does much less assure. On h practical basis, any new impoundments below grade.
not place primsry reliance on Institutional methods of control. ne wa have assumed that the different Existing tailings would be subject to -
types of controls can be reasonably controls similar to those required under proposed standards provide for control relied on for the following typical Altemative D. The radon emission limit and stabilization which would ensure. to is 20 pCi/m's.This would usuali the extent reasonably achievaNe, fully,
periods:
- Active controls-ebout 100fs ars.' ~
require an earthen cover (up to the..- - effective c ntr 1I r1000 years,and in g e
- Practical engineered contro from original ground level) of 2 to 3 meters any casa. for at least 200 years. Some s
a few hundred years to greater than thickness. Ground water would be effectivec.asa of control would be 1.000 years.
protected for thousands ofyears.
expected to continue for much,1,onger
- Controls featuring great isolation--
Alternative E. Passive controj periods. This control and staut.1:stion runy thousand= of years, limited only r measures are required to be effective for weald be designed to provide a bwee by mafor geological ectivity.
at least 1.00cyears.His locgedty is that will effectively minimize the Drief descriptions of esch alte. native achieved through application of a very
~ potential for misuse and spread of the f;110w:
thick earthen cover usually 4 to 5 meters', ta.lingsdimit the average radon Atlernative A. This is the "no ~
thick. The radon emission limit is 2 pCi/. emission from the surface of tailings st.ndards" case and represer.ts m*s. Ground water would be protected conditions if nothing ta done.The pues for many thousands of years.
~
piles to no more than 20 pCi/ct's, protect against 14cding, and protect from wind would remain hazardous for e long time.
These alternative cleanup and control and wat r erostous tning about 265.000 years for the standards can be genatally categorized it was net poss b!e to carry out a aadi:ectivity to decay to 10 percent of as:
fcrmal quanitadve i.ost-be tefit analyCs current levels. The radon emirsica rate (1) Least cost alternatives wMch,
to reach these conchisions.Many of the is (stimated to be 500 pCi/m's from a provide mimmum accepable health and harards reduced (cr avoided) through typical existing pile and 330 pCi/m8s environmental protection, and depend -
applicationof alternative standards can from a typical new pile.ne background upon the use of active metheds of neither be evaluated quantitatively nor r:te for typical soils is about 1 pCl/m's.
control (B and C):
restated in terms of a common index of "Ib concentration of some toxic (2) Cost. effective altematives which
' value.The major hazard, the extent of ch:micals in the tailings is hundreds of provide greater and longer term health
- possible future misase of tailings by tim:s background levels in ordinary and environmental protection without soils, so that the potential for relience on active controls, but at a nne propond redan emission and lansevery c:ntiminating water and land is somewhat higher costs (D and E): and standards for disposal of tailins from acave nu!!e present and continues indefinitely.
(3) Nondegradation atternatives which
"""nu.W idenucal so me cormspondins
'"d
Alternative B. Control measures attempt to achieve'close to the saine -
l'i,,dy pr$
for$sNIkp'"es^)ttacd.
Include a mimmal, thin earthen cover health andenvironmental protection as siin as m sem lanury s.tses).subpan A. -
l that is subject to' active inspection and Jmight exist if the ore had not been however. containa en approximately equivalent I
m:intenance for 100 years. Active mined; these entail much higher costs alternauwe standard. expressed in terms of the l
controls would also be required to (F).
','d["w';"'//JlM"[,*Nl,',d8,' l' *l,$
i prevint significant contamination of The analysis was based on assnming the Department of Energy, which will perform the I
ground water, or ground water would be - that remedial actions to satisfy a "least scuans nuded to comply with that standard.The tre;ted before use.Noradon emission
. cont" tamnes pile control standard concentradon alternanve in subpan A requires rata is speciSed.
would entail applying a thin earthen baw a same inel of em as a, zo pci/m s
. - ~
Alternative C. A radon emission limit cover over the tailings and stabilizitg it.
',*'l[M'a"iNe[lr"*i.",,"dn"dE d
' d '
f.f 100 pCI/m's is specified. This would Integrity of the cover would be assured the aversye radon emission rate from its surf.sce. By usuilly require an earthen cover of through active maintenance for 100 con'r**t. *n ambient concentration standard about 1 meter thickness. The number of years. Only minimal flood protection
',P,Py,g'$3g",y,,j$','j,$
d '
ye:rs for which the control measures measures would be applied. Covers without necessanly reducms its redon emissions.
shall be designed to be effective is not would be progressively thicker and since the special form of concentration standard in spIcified, but control systems would be much less dependent upon care under Subpart A may be readily confused with ambient tctively maintained for 100 years, and the more stringent alternatives, with
["',*[*'j'"y,*,"d'd*,a[hn a; N mr t
should have some effectiveness for commensurate upgrading of flood
,,,i,ernanv to the eminion standard for ac:ive sev1ral centuries. Engineered control protection. LJnder the "nondegradation" mills.
o
Fediral R: girt;r / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Friday. April 29, 1983 / Proposed Ri&s
'19597 man. is almost impossible to quantify. A (1981 dollars. present worth)).
further complication is that the benefits Altemative D. however, provides intrusion for misuse for much longer of successful control accrue over a very significantly greater protection than than 1000 years. Those few piles that are long period of time, whereas the costs Altemative C. a five fold lower nsk to susceptible to flood damage would be occur now. We can only roughly individuals and an ortler of magnitude protected for at least 200 years, and are sstimate how long control will last and (about a factor of ten) greater cumber of u=likely to suffer real da wge for much how many cases oflung cancer might be avoided over the full term of effective cancer deaths avoided over the lifetime looser.'During the period of fu!I control.
control.
of the cover. This accrues from the th,~ maximum risk for individuals hving instead of a quantitative cost-benefit difference m degree and longevity of very near a tailings pile from exposure enalysis, we have etted examples of the radon control alone. Thick covers, which to its radon emissions wou!d be redtreed i= pact of misuse and dispersal by wind do not regmre continuing inspection and by ebout 95 percent from about 4 and waterin the DEIS, and have mMataence activities,also offer grestiv chances hi 100 to about 2 chances in increased benefits by inhibiting misusey 2000 An estimated 1200 potential estimated the impact of radon emissions and increasing thelongevity of the premature deaths per century would be frora unstabilized piles. We have then cover's effectiveness against erosional avoided during the period of full control estimated the extent to which these spreading.
(assmned here to be 2.000 years), for a impacts might be avoided over the long Cost and benefit estimates forthe total of man ttrm under realistic alternative alternative stardards we considered are the covers. y thousands over the life of stadards, and made judgments about reported in detailin the R1A and DEIS.
which alternatives offer the most cost.
efLctive reduction of these impacts. The These are snmrnarized in the following costs or ALTERNATTVE STANoARoS FoR two tables. ne estimates are based on TAONGS CONTROL TO THE YEAR 2000 proposed standards are based on the a low-growth scenario for uranium results of such an analysis of tman e test eerst citernatives including a detailed production prepared by DOE.The low-consideration of their costs.
growth a-rio currently appears to be
, Eo"p '8.ri%7 the most likely c.ase due to the recent
'One notable conclusion from our cancellation of reacter orders and the M
^'
=~e cnalysis is that applying thin covers that long lead time 114 years) for lic ensing Eseng { "Furuse wi'l require active maintenanca and last and const ucting new reactJrs.
a shorter time results in a smali saving We estimated be.efits under ths a
O s
e over providing hilings pilas with thick, a
se 22s 32s durable covers. This conchision follows assumption, when appropriate, that C
tailings pile control systems will be y
y
[
from the initial expenditures required to partia[ly effective longer than a ira a
ao E
und;rtake any significant level of F
ros au (
tac standard requires.For aample. if disposal at itell rites. For example, the control systems are required to be -
o.ms ec.n
===, r sc,ars,a,. nw.a M saving in trast u only 20% for Alternaive effective for as long as reasonably O',"*o"'f,7 C over Alte-native D. (Other things achievable up to 1000 years. but for not que ('*h7 C.'L".7,,7s*"O O O being equal. we estimate the cost of less than 200 years, as under Alternative sm ob ena sw,,o,g,,f.*~,,=,ra "'*cem wegg eddmg 1 cieter of earthen cover to all D. most of the tadmgs piles will be c m twom m
Cld.,,","n' ",,eb"".'"e',*,n*e',!e cxisting tailings to be 36 million dollars stable against erosion and casual
'a= *asaa sa== *== *="=,",eE8, *"* i*e, ",4 e
=aa=*
BENEFITS oF CONTROt.UNG URAnua Mu TAUNGS Ar ACnVE MG SITES THRouGr# THE ss,- ^ -
Raaon ve Chereceaf atesse Meme Wetmea EfUema swoufed M
M A
M
- ifary hkasy
'0 0
9 thefr 1Q0 4 si 108 (01 0
n
' Maured 2 to 10'f501 a
C tsen emes, Fear 900
' Mauseds t en 10'am 100 600 2.800 D
Urenser iA00 T" - _ ^
2 si nos gga 1.200 Tone et inauneries -
1Sco Severas s -
E unmeser
> 1.000 100's per r thouser*
1.000 r
un.'rr _
,2 e 10'(95).
, verr r,
> io00 1.200 Toms or ancisneruna
> 1.000
.io no>een t.200 Tenea. n - _
- I'" liereis.l.,,E'hnt "*"
- Y"e. E ',' sare.'f"co".TrML"",',',"2* *"" " '"* "" *** "*'"" *** "*""*
> i.o0o j
i Ourestimatesof the numberaf deaths from all the piles were estimated l
potentiallung cancer deaths due to by assuming that:5% of the piles are against the purposeful works of man, can guarantee absoluta protection uncoirtrolled radon emissions from two located in "turaI" areas.) Most piles are inod;l sites provides some perspective located in areas where the population and these proposed standards would not on the health benef'rts from control of falls somewhere between these two require such protection. Protection radon releases at differently populated cases.
against natura' brces requires (identified as a rural site in the DEIS),39 The longevity of tailings controlis consideration of wind and surface water sitIs. For a moderately populated site inng cancer deaths per century were governed primarily by natural forces.
erosion,and of the possibility of flood damage. Wind and surface water projteted. and for a sparsely popAted Reasonable assurance of avoiding erosion are relatively well-understood i
i sita (identified as a remote site in the casual intrusion by man can be provided and predictable, and are easily inhibited through the use of reistively thick and/
DElS),131ung cancer deaths percentury or difficult-to-penetrate. covers (such as through the use of rock or,in some wira projected. (Total lung cancer soil. rock. or soil-cemen,). No standard Similarly, a body of scientific and cases. vegetative surface stabilization.
19598 Federal Registrr / Vol 48 No. 84 / Friday, April 29, 1983 / Proposed Rules engineering knowledge exists to predict The proposed standard woul' require cancer in addition to normal d
the frequency and magnitude of floods that control measures be carried out in a expectations. The fact that increases in for penods of many hundreds of years, manner that provides reasonable radon levels due to the piles cannot be and to provide the engineering controls assurance that they willlast, to the distinguished relative to background 13 protect against such floods (including extent reasonably achievable. up to levels further away from a pile does not the possibility of moving a pile if this is 1.000 years and. in any case, for a mean that radon is not present or that more economical). We considered minimum of 00 years. The widely there is no increased risk from this longevity requirements ranging from 100 varying characteristics of the active radon--it merely means that to 10.000 years and have concluded that sites, the uncertainties involved in measurements are not capable of existing knowledge permits the design of projecting performance of control unambiguously detecting such levels.
economically feasible control systems measures over long periods of time, and For individuals at greater distances the for these tailings for up to periods of the large costs involved in moving some risks are smaller, but the total number of 1.000 years. We recogniz: that it may tailings piles to provide a very high people exposed is so large and exposure not always be practical. however, to degree of assurance oflongevity make continues for so long that the collective project such performance with a high this choice appropriate. The choice does risk is clearly significant (many d gree of certainty, because oflimited not signify that there are circumstances thousands of fatallung cancers over the engineering experience with such long under which the maximum term of duration of emission control for all of time periods.
protection contemplated by the the piles).
We are aware of no historical proposed standards is not appropriate.
On January 5,1983. epa published examples of societies successfully "Ilie choice merely acknowledges that disposal standart's for inactive tailings miintaining active case of decentralized implementing agencies may in some piles (48 FR 590). On the basis of the m:terials through public institutions for cases have diffi: ulty certifying that record before us in that proceeding we periods extending to many hundreds or control measures that are appropriate concluded that radon emission was:
thousands of years. We have concluded can reasonably be expected to endure
- *
- The preferred quantity to be that primary reliance on passive without degradation for 1,000 years.
specified by the standard because unlike mrasures is preferable. since their long.
Man's ability to predict the future is ambient air concentration at the site term performance can be projected with noto-io tsly limited. That fact, which on boundary, it is directly related to the degree mo e assurance than that of measures the one hand warrants cur making of radon coctrol achieved and therefore which re'y on institutions and on responsibie societal efforts to limit risk d:rectly fulf.11s the statutory is. tent tc reduca con'inu d expenditures for active to future generaticas, else warrants our e nission s. A site boundamp stancard would maintes.ance.
refraining from tetionJ unciertaken nrve merely as an encouragement to rely on Section 20 of the UMTRCA requires merely in the name of necessarily dispersion because it would not necessarily,
the Federal Government or the States to artificial levels of statistical certainty.
jvb'k' h
d k
Ecquire and retain control of these We selected this penod of wculd rely for compdance on indefinitely tilhngs disposal sites under licenses, performance because we believe there is excluding access to the site.
The licensor is authorized to require a reasonable expectation that readily pttformance of any maintenance, achievable controls will rerain effectiv, We also cencluded that:
memtoring, and emergency messt'res for at least this peric f. Everj r-a69nable
- *
- A limit en a redon emission fe the
- that are needed to protect pubhc health effort should be made to design controls most direct and t4 p'.up iate means for end safety. We believe that these to achieve this expectation. However, furthering the Congressional object.ve of institutional provisions are essential to we recognize that uncertahties ir. crease adequate and reliable long. term controlof support any project whose objective is significantly beyond a thousand years, tailings. Such a limit as sures a sufficent as long. term as are these disposal and we conclude it would be earthen coser (or its equiv=Jertl to provide pta operations, and for which we have as unreasonable to require assurance that
- " g*a#
,o tion of ta ng ov on pe i d of little experience.This does not mean we the controls will be effective for longer time. Congress did not intend that EPA set believe that primary reliance should be periods, such as up to 10.000 years.
standards for one generation or.ly, or that it placed on institutional controls: rather, We believe that limiting radon set standards without consideration of the thtt institutional oversight is an emissions from tailings piles serves long.tenn reliability of whatever means are Essential backup to passive control. For several important functions: reducing available for implementing them. (Similarly, example, as long as the Federal the risk to nearby individuals: reducing Congress anticipated that short. term Government or the States exercise their the impact of radon on large institutional controls would not provide the,
p ownership rights and other authorities populations: and furthering the goals of im eme ge es e de wh c regarding these sites, they should not be reliable long. term deterrence of misuse specific controls to employ, this does not inappropriately used by people. In this of tailings by man and control of erosion preclude our considering. in accordance with regard, even with the disposal actions of piles by natural processes.The degree Congress' directive the effect of a particular required by these standards it would not of reduction of radon emissions numerical limit on the maintenance of future ba safe to build habitable structures on achieved by a disposal system is more controlTherefore. in selecting the value for the disposal sites. Federal or State or less directly related to the degree of redon emissions, an important consideration ownership of the sites is assumed to abatement bf each of these hazards.
was that the standard promote the objectives preclude such inappropriate uses.
Our analysis predicts significant risk h*h"t
" d$b11 n by
,n o iody In the proposed standard we have to people hving next to tailings piles, natural forces.
designed the requirement forlongevity and field raeasurements confirm of control so as to assure that it is elevated levels of radon in air close to We have reached, on a tentative basis, practical for agencies to certify that the the piles. If radon emissions are not the same conclusions for these proposed stindards are implemented in all cases.
reduced, we estimate that individuals standards for active sites.
We recognize that our ability to predict residing permanently near some of the However, during the review of the tha longevity of engineered designs is piles could incur as much as three to standards for inactive sites by certain not always adequate to the task at hand. four chances in a hundred of a fatallung Federal agencies required by Section I
W I
4 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Friday, April 29. 1953 / Proposed Rules 19599
':06(a) of the Act and Executive Order 12:31 questions were raised regarding provide a greater assurance oflong-term Protection at the facility.
will resume operations: (2) the specific the appropriateness of the comrol w hile liners may remam effective at condition of the tailings impoundment, standards for general application to all prevennng mi such as the fraction of design life N"' ' 'gration from (a tailings pilel 24 inactive sites. These questions were
[
scNe PNh pi e contamination problems, such as remaining, and environmental L.I focused on the degree to which these t
o standards should depend upon After closure. EPA believes that a protective windblown tailings and the likelihood T
institutional control, and on the cap becomes the prime element of the liquids that significant quantities of tailings management strategy. A well-designed and
~
assumption that all piles should be carefully maintained cap can be quite might be spread by flooding: and (3) the treated equally, regardless of the size of effective at reducing the volume of lignids cost of maintaining releases from the i
the nearby population. In view of these
' $" 8dah d le po 'enb for regulations which apply to operating nactive pile in conformance with the t
concerns. EPA requested public F
comments on this issue in an advanced teachate generation at the unit for long mills prior to disposal (including iii penods.
notice of proposed rulemaking (48 FR maintaining radon emissions at AI. ARA 605rjanuary 5,1983). We believe that We believe that complying with the levels). Evaluating these factors may be these questions are relevant as wellin post. closure standards we are proposing difficult and complex. However, establishiag disposal standards for mill for u um m tadngs pues wW although an adequate drymg-out period tailings at the active sites. In Section VI makes possible long. term isolation of 0'
below we request comment on these 3
,8 1 for dou waste.
the tailings and stabilization of the piles, i
issues and on whether the standards The SWDA regulations, however, were radon emissions will be greater during
{
should reflect different judgments.
f",*t]c s {g oun water For this reason the regulatory agency this period than before or after disposal.
i Primary ground water protection after g
disposal of tailings is best provided by a precipitation seeping through wastes should require, once a pile is allowed to well-designed cover.The requirements might pose a continuing long-term begin to dry out, that disposal proceeds for closure (disposal) of surface hazard. In contrast. most tailings piles in an expeditious fashion. and that new i
p impoundments under EPA's regulations are in arid regions, and providing liquids are not introduced to the pde so p
for hazardous waste include a cover physical barners against removal of that a new drying-out period will be designed and constructed to:(a) Provide tailings and reducing the piles' gaseoes incurred.
long-term minimization of the migration (radon) emissions to air are important The pe fod re quired fer the tailiigs te g
of 14uids through the closed concomitant cbjectives of our standards dry out is highly dependent on local impo.mdent: (b) func ion with minimum under UMTRCA.
meteomlogy. TMs precludes esta%sMng g
maintenance: (c) promote drainage and Certain closure and post-closure care a single fixed tme for cisposal of the q
mimm!ze erosion er abraston of the finai requirements in i 264.228 of the SWDA taihags. We have cone:nded set the 4
cover:[d) acccmraodate settling and regulations. such as the requirements to regulatory agency should exerciss the s
subsidence so that the cover's integrity elimmate free liquids imm the waste responsibilitv of deternining when l
is claintained, and (e) have a e '
and for the cover to be less permeable disposal saould occur, by site.
l i per:neability less than or equal to the than any bottom liner er natural specifically judging the advantages and i
permeabiSty of any bottem liner system stwsoils. may be unnecessary.*cr detriments associated with allpe.r+1nent L{
or natural subsods presen!(40 C?R tailings piles or interfere with control factors. This responsibility is govi:taed 2 28).
objectives other than ground water by the need to conform to regulatimts I
EPA's psicy on icng. term protection protection. (For example, allowing established to satisf( the SWDA. by 40 moisture into a cover increases its CFR 190.and by the ALARA b
of ground water la state'! in the effectiveness as a barrier to radon requirement on redon emissions.
preamble of the notice estahishing the
(
above regulations (47 FR 32 74):
release.) Other requirements in i 254.228 NRC's c.losdre regulaticris must be are not standards so much as broad comparable, to the maximum extwt
[
EPA's view of the function of a liner objectives that are already implicit ir.
practicable. to requirements under the contrasts somewhat with that of some i M.111, which we have incorporated members of the public and the regulated in the proposed standards or tailings SWDA. wherein short closure periods i
(90 and 180 days) are specified. Dr community. Some have argued that liners are management rules that fall under NRC's out of piles will take much longer. ying devices that provide a perpetual seal against regulatory authority.Therefore, we have However, disposal should occur.
any crigration from a waste taanagement unit. EPA has concluded that the more not incorporated i 264.228 in the reasonable assumption, based on what is proposed standards.
Promptly when piles are allowed to dry known about the pressuras placed on liners The proposed rules are based on out. In addition. some of the older mill sites already contain essentially
{
over time. is that any liner will begin to leak experience and an analysis of tailings -
completed (filled) tailings piles.The management in arid regions. We know E
thers have argued that liners should be of no plans for construction of new mills regulatory agency should promptly viewed as a means of retarding the in regions that are not arid, although identify and require disposal of such movement ofliquids from a unit for som, tallings.
-i penod of tima. While this view accords with some firms have conducted exploration
'Ilie proposed post. closure standards how liners do in fact operate. EPA does not in such regions. However,if uranium are intended for control of tailings piles:
believe that this is a sound regulatory mining and milling is conducted in such strategy for ground. water protection because regions the adequacy and 1.e., bulk tailings with elevated radium concentrations relative to those of appropriateness of these standards may common soils and rocks. Such post.
it le pnncipally designed to delay the.
have to be reviewed, particularly the closure control criteria need not apply to appearance oiground. water contarnination water protection requirements, portions of a mill site that may contain so lo eco g!y A ews in rs as a
.The final consideration regarding the low enough residuallevels of byproduct barrier technology that can be best used to disposal of tailings is specification of facilitate the removal ofliquids from a waste when disposal must take place. Several matonal(tailings) to not warrant taking action for environmental or public management unit durmg its active life factors must be evaluated in this regard, health protection. Tailings that have
=
liaclud.ng the closure period) and thereby including- (1) The likelihood that a mill been distributed over the mill site by m
y
19600 Fedxl Regist:r / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Fridty, April 29. 1983 / ProposId Rults wind or water can read!!y be cleaned our model sites are significant:1.8 lung should consider? We request comments up. Therefore, we propose to apply the cancer deaths for our model remote site on all of these issues with respect to post-closure standards only where the and 5.5 for our model rural site. We these proposed standards, to aid us in radium concentrations exceed the estimate the total cancer deaths due 10 determining final standards for active criteria stated in i 192.32(b)(21.These emissions from all sites to the year 2000 mills.
critena are equivalent to the final could range from fk! to 160 if there is no The primary reason to consider cleanup standards (40 CFR part 192, control of radon prior to disposal.
revising the standards as the Federal Subpart B) for land that is affected by We estimate that appiying the most reviewers suggested is to reduce tailings from inactive sites. Unless effective control methsds, such as disposal costs. Savings of up to 30 special c.tcumstances prevail that staged disposal of new tailings, would percent could be realized by applying would indicate otherwise. land that reduce these effects to about 30. Seventy the most relaxed standards at all sites.
s:tisfies the enteria should be usable percent of these residual effects would The actual savings would be less than without restriction.
be from existing tailings, for which little this since such relaxed standards would Eection 83 of the Atomic Energy Act, improvement in current practices is apply at only a subset of all sites.This es amended by UMTRCA. provides that possible.The DEIS contains a Notice and the supporting documents-the ownership ofland used for disposal discussion of the effectiveness of the DEIS and the RIA-provide detailed cf tailings shall be transferred to the various pre-disposal radon control information on the costs and benefits of United States or to the State in which it methods and their costs.
a wide range of alternative standards, is located, unless the Nuclear Regulatory In Section IV we discussed the including examples of standards that Commission determines that such reasons we are proposing that these pre-permit reliance on institutional control transfer is not necessary.
disposal radon releases contmue to be methods. We invite comments on regulated under the ALARA ("as low as whether the cost savings from applying VI. Solicitation of Comments reasonably actuevable ) principle, relaxed standards at remote sites or These proposed standards are.
rather than by proposing a generally ?
relying primarily on institutional.
suppor:ed by two documents, a Draft applicable numerical requirement. '
contro!s is sufficient to justify any Environmentsl impact Statement for the Alternatively, under authority of the reduced level of health and Centrol of Byproduct Matedals from Clean Air Act, as amended, we could envirocmental protection. We solicit Uranium Ore Processing (40 CFR Part consider " work practice" standards, comments on what criteria the Agency 1
n2). EPA 5:41-82-022 and a which, for present purposes, are could use to define popalation levels Regglatcry Impact Analysis of narrative specifications of tallings below whi-h a less restrictive standard Environmertal Sta.da ds for Uranium managemeat techniques to ecntrol enight awly, and on whether there l
Mill Tailings 6t Active Sites. EPA 520/1-radon emissions during mill operations hould be k le ele, pe d
82-023. We invite the submission of and ddring the dry out period preceding fo the mos sed dividual, written comments on these prcposed disposal.
caseshse le no reUaMe way to standards and on these scpporting During the review of the standards for documents. Whenever appropriate, it the inactive sites by certain Federal
{,y t wfat Y re i es S uld will be most usefulif these are agencies, questions were raised standard be predicated on the I
suppor:ed by factual materia!. We are regarding the appromiateness of the assumption that current distributioris of tiso holding a public hearfng. Times and controlst ndards forgeneral s
cddresses for both written comments applicat'on to all 24 inactive sites. Son.e popaMens Mey steh preaict future.
and the public hearings are specified reviewers suggested that !ess restrictive p puls ticns, or 's it su'ficieat to protect under the headings " dates and 6tendards might ba appropriate for sites only ecrrent popula; ions?
"cddresses" at the beginning of this that are in currently sparsely populated itis also important to consic,er the i
notice.
areas. Other reviewers suggested that other goals.(other than control of radon in addition to comments on the above. we consider a radon standard that emissions) of these proposed standards we are interested in receiving comments applies at and beyond the fenced when assessing the cost savings ihat cnd data on three specific matters:(1) boundary of such a site,i.e., a standard could be achieved by applying less Should the radon control standards -
that relles in part on institutional restrictive standards at remote require a specific level of control of maintenance of control of access. In locations. He greatest risks from radon redon from tailings prior to disposal, view of these concerns EPA requested.
occur when tailings are misused in and and, if so, how: (2) should the health and public comments on these issues for the around buildings, and an objective of environmental goals for standards for inactive sites (48 FR 605 January 5, the proposed radon emission standard is remote sites be different from those in 1983).These issues are most simply to require a thick enough cover to l
more populated areas. and,if so, how; stated as:(1) Should the degree of radon discourage such misuse. !: the likelihood l
and (3) should the provisions of these control after disposal depend in part er of misuse of tailings from remote sites j
proposed standards for a liner under on the size of the current local greater or smaller? Prevention of tailings (new or existing) be modif.ed for population, and (2) Should spreading of tallings and protection of this specific category of wastes, and,if implementatic 1of the disposal water depends on either the integrity so, how.
standards be permitted to depend and thickness of the cover or the
%e proposed standards do not primarily or in part un maintenance of reliability ofinstitutional control. Are i
specify an emission rate limit nor an institutional control of access (e.g., by there differences in the likelihood of I
cirborne concentration limit for radon fences)? We believe it is also necessary success of institutional controls at from tailings piles during the period to examine these issues for the active remote vs. populated sites? Commenters when tailings are being pumped into the sites, both in relation to the public are asked to consider each of the goals pond. nor while it is drying out.The health and environmental objectives of these proposed standards when estimated numbers of cancer deaths enunciated in this Notice and with commenting on the suitability of cttributable to uncontrolled radon repect to the objectives of the UMTRCA. applying less restrictive standards to cmissions during the assumed 15-year Also, are there any.other forms of the tallings located in currently remote cperating and 5. year dry-out periods of standard or control methods that EPA areas.
Fed:r:) Regist:r / Vol. 48. No. 84 / Friday. April 29. 1983 / Proposed Rules 19601 Institutional controls have been suggested that would apply a redon Regulatoryimpact Analysis of misuse, ground water protection and concentration limit at the boundary Under Executive Order 1:291, we prevention of the surface spread of t fenceline") of the government. owned must judge whether a regulation is tailings-cannot be quantified (let alone property around a tailings pile located in " Major" and therefore subject to the-monetired) we could not make a a sparsely populated area. Such a requirement of a Regulatoryimpact numerical determination, within the st2ndard could be satisfied largely by Analysis. We have classified this traditional benefit-cost analysis acquir:ng and maintaining control wer proposed rule as minor, since it will not framework, that the societal benefits access to land: e.g., through use of I
cause significant incremental costs outweigh the societal costs. Instead. we, fences or other restrictions. These above those which must be incurred for have made a qualitative judgment that proposed standards c:a be satisfied compliance with existing regulations.
this is the case. based on our enly by generally more costly physical We have prepared a Regulatory Impact assessment of the long. term continuing mithods (such as applying thick earthen Analysis (RIA) however, since there are train of benefits to society from isolating covers) that control tailings and thett wide variations in views regarding the these hazardous materials from man and cmissions with minimal reliance on need for environmental controls in the the environment.
institutional methods. EPA is uranium industry. The RIA provides an We performed a cost-effectiveness additional basis for our conclusions. To analysis of the alternative disposal particularly interested in receiving meet the general reguirements of the methods to determine the optimallevel c mments regarding the adequacy of a crder, an RIA must show that:
of control for disposal of mill tailings. To st:ndard which places primary reliance
- There is adequate information perform this analysis, we developed an en the maintenance ofinstitutional as concerning the need for and index which quantifies the relative epposed to passive control to meet the consequences of the proposed action:
effectiveness of the disposal methods in 1:ng. term disposal objectives of INmCA.
- The potential benefits to society providing designated classes of control outweigh the potential costs; and which correspond to the benefit "Ite primary standard'for ground
- Of all the altnerative approaches to water protection under the SWDA is a the given regulatory objective, the categories. We evaluated the changes in incremental cost of alternative levels of requirement for a liner. Because the Proposed action will maxunize net control and determined which level SWDA covers rr.anY kinds of wastes' oenefits to society.
would be optimal. Once this level was those regulations provide a mechanism There is a need for the proposed determined. we chose values for these standard beyond the fact that Congress proposed environmental standards ani n m 11 ta$ ling directed the Agency to develop them.
which would require this level of eve.
te a w:II. characterized waste that is Since uranium militallings are control produced in relatively weII.
essentially a waste product with no in the RIA we developed 22 cases for cnaracterized regions of the country value, there is no market to assure that analyzing the industry. wide costs and mill operators on their own accord will topos d e u mets r e :be isolate the tailings and provide health economic impacts associated with modified for these mill tailings sites, and protection to the public. Consequently, tailings disposal. Each case represented e different combination of disposal if so, how? How should the exemption the Government must intervene to methods applied to both existing and procedure be applied to this category of protect the public from the hazards new tailings. The estimated economic westes? Should all uranium mill tailings associated with the tailings. Federal -
be placed on liners? If so, what Government intevention is necessary impacts include potential mill closures (on a model mill basis) and uranium specifications are appropriate for such because some mills are licensed by state price increases. We estimated the linirs? lf not, what types of exceptions authorities while others are licensed by impacts for each case according to are appropriate? Finally, should existing the NRC directly. Four of the seven different industry demand projections, tribag piles be exempted from a liner states with currently licensed mills are requirement if new tailings are placed NR0 Agreement States and have several financial scenarios, and en them? We invite comments on each devloped their own licensing regulations different assumptions on the ability of companies to pass.through tailings cf these subissues.
for uranium mills. Therefore, relying on disposal costs to their customers. The Finally,in establishing standards for State regulations would address only remedial actions at inactive uranium about one. half of the tailings problem.
results from this analysis are used to proc:ssing sites, we provided a Furthermore. the Act requires that represent the costs and impacts of the*
procedure for applying " supplemental regulations for r ill tailings developed.
proposed standards.
standards" where circumstances may by the Agreement States be " equivalent, We estimate that compliance with the require some adjustment in our final to the extent practicable, or more proposed standards, if other regulatory standards.Because of the varied stringent than standards" promulgated requirements did not exist, would cost the uranium milling industry about US conditions at the designated sites and by NRC and EPA.Therefore, the State million dollars for all tailings which tha limited experience with remedial regulations are also dependent on the acti:ns, we felt our standards for EPA standards.
exist today at licensed sites. If we include all those tallings which we inactive sites might be too strict fit some The RIA examines the benefits and -
estimate will be generated by the year circumstances. We have not proposed costs of selected tailings disposal
" supplemental standards as a part of methods for.both existing and new 2000, under low. growth projection conditions the total cost to the uranium this rulemaking. However, we are tallings piles, on a model pile basis. As milling industry would be from 400 to soliciting comments on the need for such discussed earlier, most of the benefits of 700 million dollars.These costs are st*_nda ds. ls thue a need for tailings disposal cannot be quantified, suppl;ciental standards because of The benefit we are best able to estimate present worth estimates (discounted at a is the number oflung cancer deaths 10 percent rate) expressed on a 1981 diff;rinces in conditions at these active avoided by controlling the radon constant dollar basis. The range in cost sit',s? If so what form should such supplemental standards take?
emanation from tailings piles. Since the is due to different assumptions on what other benefits of disposal-prevention actions are needed to meet requirements for ground water protection for new
+
19602 Federal Register / Vcl 48. Nr. 84 / Friday. April 29]83 / Proposed Rul:s tailings at existing mills.The range of highly site specific. It is reasodable to Authority:Section : s of the Atomic industry costs becomes 500 million to assume that these proposed standards Energy Act of 1954. 42 U.S.C. to:2. as added 750 million dollars under baseline lead to lower costs than current b
e a um ! a g tion g
projection conditions. Due to recent regulations.
'"'"ded.
cancellations of nuclear power plants.
This regulation was submitted to the 1 ck of orders for new plants, and the Office of Management and Budget for Subpart D--Standards for 1:ng lead time (14 years) for licensing review as required by Executive Order Management of Uranium Byproduct and construction, we believe the low.
12091. We believe the analysis Materials Pursuant to Section 84 of the growth scenario is the most likely, discussed above complies with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,as we estimate that increases in the intent of the Order. Any comments from Amended price of uranium could range from 2 to 8 OMB to EPA and any EPA response to percent. In light of the currently poor those comments are available for public 5 192.30 Applicabihty.
economic condition of the industry and inspection at the docket cited above This subpart applies to the the threat of foreign competition. it is under " addresses."
management of uranium byproduct unlikely that mins will be able to pass-through substantial portions of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis materials under Section 64 of the Atomic Energy Act of1954 (henceforth disposal costs. Using our models, we This regulation would not have a designated "the Act"), as amended.
cstimate that if mills are forced to significantimpact on a substantial during and following processing of cbsorb the entire cost of disposal, one nurnber of small entities, as specified uranium ores and to restoration of small model mill may cease operation, under Section 005 of the R. gulatory disposal sites following any use of such d:pending on the implementation of Flexibility Act (RFA). Therefore, we sites under Section 83(b)(1)(B) of the ground water protection requirements.
have not performed a Regulatory Act.
We further estimate that under the Flexibility Analysis.The basis for this conditions of a more favorable cash.
finding is that of the 27 licensed uranium i 192.31 cennitions and cross-references.
flow or a limited price pass.through. this mil!s. only one qualifies as a small entity References in this subpart to other single rr.ill closure would be avoided. On and thisinill will not be impacted by the parts of the Code of Federal Regulations th2 other hand, with no pass.through standards. Almost all the mills are are to those parts as codified on January cad a lower cash-flow, two small model owned by large corporations.Three of 3,1983, mills and a large model mill may close.
the mills are partly-owTied by companies (a) Unless otherwise' indicated in this Dese costs and economic impacts are that could qualify as small businesses, n:tincrementalcosts of the proposed according to the Small Business subpart, all terms shall have the same stIndards, since much of this cost would Administration generic small entf ty meaning as in Title 11 of the Uranium probably occur in the absence of the definition of 500 employees. However.
Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of st:ndards due to other regulatory under the RFA. a small business is one 1978. Subparts A and B of this part, or requirements. nese other requirements that is independently owned and Parts 260. 001, and 264 of this chapter.
tra NRC licensing regulations and State operated. Since these three rnills are not. For the purposes of this subpart.the terms " waste." " hazardous waste." etc..
regulation =. We did not estimate the independently owned by small as used in Parts 260. 061, and :64 of this costs imposed by these other regulations businesses, they,are not small entities.
chapter shall apply to byproduct b;cause that would require a site-1.Ist of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 192 material.
sfan rd are equ ed y on ress to Environmental protection. Radiation (b) Uronium byproduct material be of general application. we deciced to protection., Uranium.
means the tallings or wastes produced develop a genene analysis based on Dated: April 20.1983.
by 6e exuacUon or concenuadon of uranium from any are processed model facil. ties.Therefore, we could not New Subparts D and E are proposed primarily forits source material content estimate the net impact of the proposed to be added to 40 CFR Chapter 1.
Ore bodies depleted by uranium standards.
Subchapter F. Part 192. Health and solutlor, extraction operations which However, these proposed standards Environmental Protection Standards for remain underground do not constitute are less restrictive than existing NRC Uranium MillTailings, to read as
" byproduct material" within this regalations.Therefore, costs of follows:
definition.
a ards are kelY to e se th n Subpart IbStandards for Management of (c) Controlmeans any action intended implementation on the current NRC 1.'ranlum Byproduct Materials Pursuant to to stabilize, inhibit future misuse of or Section se of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
reduce emissions or effluents from regulations. For example, the thickness u Amended cf earthen cover to achieve the 20 pCi/
uranium byproduct materis's.
sec.
m8s proposed herein is estimated to (d)I.icensedsite means the area CM"'r 'renC" -
ach v t
- R regula on f 2 p /
ca on un e e con o
rs ns m8s is estimated to range from 4 to 5 192.33 Corrective action programs.
geraung a Mng uradum Whet m1ters, and the NRC regulations specify 192.34 Effective dats.
materials under a license issued a minimum thickness to 3 meters.These pursuant to Section 84 of the Act. For Subpart E-standards for Management of purposes of this subpart. "llcensed site"
- proposed standards specify a design _
Thorium Byproduct Materials Pursuant to is equivalent to " regulated unit"in lifetime of 1.000 years, but in any case at Section s4 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 least 200 years.%e cost of providmg as Amended SubPart F of Part 264 of this chapter
- lang. term protection under these (e) Disposa/ site means a site selected 3,
proposals will be less than under the 19 to Apphcabihty.
pesuant to Secdon 83 of ee Act.
NRC regulations, which specify a 192.41 Provisions.
(f) Disposa/ area means the region minimum design lifetime of 1.000 years.
192.42 Substitute provisions, within the perimeter of uranium While actual disposal costs will be 192.43 Effecute date.
byproduct materials to which the post-
Feder! Regist:r / Vol. 48. Ns. 84 / Friday, April 29. 1983 / Proposed Rules 19603 closure requirements of i 192.32(bl(1) of Nuclear Power Operations." Part 440 of this subpart apply, this chapter. " Ore Mining and Dressing chapter shall be put into operation as program as specified in i 264.100 of this (g) Regulatory agency means the U.S.
Point Source Category: Effluent soon as is practicable, and in no event Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Limitations Guidelines and New Source later than one (1) year after the date of a (b) Closureperiodmeans the period of Performance Standards. Subpart C.
noncompliance determination by the time beginning with the cessation. with Uranium. Radium. and Vanadium Ores regulatory agency.
respect to a waste impoundment, of Subcategory." and any other applicable uranium ore processing operations and environmental and public health i 192.34 Effective data.
cnding with completion of a closure plan protection standards. regulations, or,
Subpart D shall be effective 60 days th:t satisfies the requirements of guidelines. In addition. the regulatory after promulgation.
I 192.32(b) of this subpart.
agency shall make every effort to (1) Existingportion means that land maintain radiation doses from radon Tants A surface area of an existing surface emissions from surface impoundments impoundment on which sigmficant of uranium bypmduct materials as far I*
qumtities of uranium byproduct below the Federal Radiation Protection matedals have been placed prior to Culdes as is practicable at each licensed % _m,_m promulgation of this standard.
site.
om.
n ma..cw i.uwe an
- a8 ""'
'S
$ 192.32 standarda, (b) Standards for application after the closure period. (1) Uranium byproduct (a) Standards for application during material subject to this subpart shall be Subpart E-Standards for processing opemtions andprior to the managed so as to comply with the Management of Thorium Byproduct endof the closureperiod. (1) Surface closure performance standards in Materials Pursuant to Section 84 of the impoundments (except for an existing i 284.111 of this chapter with respect to Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as portion) subject to this subpart must be designed in such manner as to conform nonradiological hazards and disposal of Amended such materials shall provide for control ta the requirements of I 264.221 of this of radiological hazards designed
- to l 192.40 AppucabHHy.
chapter, except that the requirements of (i) Be effective for one thousand years.
This subpart applies to the 1264.228 referenced in i 264.221 do not to the extent reasonably achievable, cpply.
and, in any case, for at least 200 years, management of thorium byproduct (2) Uranium byproduct materials shall and.
materials under Section 84 of the Atomic be managed so as to conform to the (ii) Provide reasonable assurance that Energy Act of1954, as amended, during ground water protection standard in releases of radon-222 from uranium and following processing of thorium ores, and to restoration of disposal sites i 284.92 of this chapter, except that:
byproduct materials to the atmosphere following any use of such sites under (i) To the list of hazardous will not exceed an average ' release constituents referenced in i 264.93 of rate of 20 picoeuries per square meter Section 83(b)(1)(B) of the Act, this chapter are added the chemical per second.
I 192.41 ProWalona, elIments molybdenum and uranium.
(2) Section 192.32(b)(1) shall not apply The provisions of Subpart D of this' (ii)To the concentation limits to any portion of a licensed and/or provided in Table 1 of I 264.94 of this disposal site in which the concentration part. including il 192.31,192.32, and chrpter are added the radioactivity of radium 226 in land averaged over an 192.33, shall apply to thorium byprodi.ct Limits in Table A of this subpart, area of100 square meters exceeds the material except that:
(iii) Monitoring programs required to background level by less than-(a) Provisions applicable to the cstsblish the standards required under (i) SpC1/g. averaged over the first 15 element uranium shall apply instead to l 264.92 shall be completed within one em of soil below the surface, and the element thorium:
(1) yzar of promulgation.
(ii) 15pC1/g. sveraged over 15 cm thick (b) Provisioris applicable to radon-222 sur[ ace.I'Y rs of soil more than 15 cm below the shall apply instead to radon-220: s (iv) The functions and responsibilities dIsignated in Part 264 of this chapter as (c) Provisions applicable to radium-those of the " Regional Administrator" 228 shall apply to radium-228.
$ 192.33 corrective action program, with respect to " facility permits" shall be ctrried out by the regulatory agency.
If the ground water standards of I "I'##
8"""" P"#'#*"
~
exc pt that no exemptions of hazardous I192.32(a)(2) are exceeded at any The regulatory agency may, with the constituents under i 2St.93(b) and (c) of licensed site, a corrective action concurrence of EPA substitute for any this chapter and no alternate provisions of i 192.41 of this subpart any concentration limits established under Th.iandard opptme to design. Monnonns for pr visi ns it deems more practical that I :$4.94(b) and (c) of this chapter shall r don-2:2 afterinstauanon et en appropnetely Will provide at least an equivalent level destsned cover is noi required.
be final unless EPA has concurred
' we aversee shau apply over the enure surface of proteciton for human health and the environment.
g 7,gg, of the disposal area and over at least a one. year (3) Nothing in this 'section shall be
$Y**d"Na*nN*nY,'",7,'$*,ne, I " 183
"'*"D*'*-
. te d:emid to alter or affect the them. nadon emissions from the covenns maiena:.
Subpart E shall be effective 60 days app!!cability of the provisions of Part shovid t= esumated as part of developins a closure after promulgation.
190 oI this chapter " Environmental
@,','$'j',-[',,*,"jaib ner;appje.
tra cor. p.uso ru,o-a t :es.mi R diation Protection Standards for c,
to the aunosphere.
anasso cooe ***o-so-as
bb h _k kh g hhhhhhh hhh hh TRANSMITmL TO:
Doctznent Control Desk, 016 Phillips I
ADVANOD COPY TO: /
/
The Public Doctanent Itx2n DATE:
8
/[ 3 I
3:
f cc: OPS File Ct.R (Natalie) 2:
Attached are copies of a Comnission meeting transcript (s) and related meeting 3 l h=mt(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List l
l and p1mt in the Public Document Itxxn. No other distribution is requested s
or required. Existing DCS identification numbers are listed on the individual l
g a~,-mes wherever knam.
ll:
b l a h Q w k t n >< u m J YlL W i
Neeting
Title:
a:
g L.NwJ A;2emJ l
j Meeting Date:
79//3 open Closed 2
DCS Copies 35 (1 of each checked) j Item
Description:
Copies j
3:
Advanced original May Duplicate; 3:
To PDR W - 1t be Dup
- Copy
- 1.
TRANSCRIPT 1
1 l
hhen checked, DCS should send a C
l copy of this transcript to the LPDR for:
j l
) k k,l u s, n %%>
/
/
l 2.
AM 4/> 9 /k 3 E
/
l Gg
[htLmw4L I
/
I
/
k 3.
l m
Ae l
L X/2 A) - (hO Y/2'jff3
/
/
l 4.
l l
y :
3 3
i (PDR is advanced one copy of each doctanent,
- Verify if in DCS, and 3
l two of each SICr paper.)
Change to "PDR Available."
3 l
3 I
3
'i 3
l