ML20127H518
| ML20127H518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/06/1984 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Asselstine, Bernthal, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A611 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-709 NUDOCS 8506260367 | |
| Download: ML20127H518 (26) | |
Text
I d
UNITED STATES
.. g" 'g, y.[::$
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
% =ca e Commissioner Asselstine's' D
comens on page 2.
cx Ai me..au MEMORANDUM FOR:
Commissioner Roberts
~
Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech FROM:
Nunzio J. Palladino S UBJ ECT :
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS AND ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING The purpose of this memorandum is to document my individual meetings with each of you yesterday on the above subject.
I met with each of you to discuss the proposed amendments and the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking sent to the Federal Register on July 30, 1984. f 8506260367 B50416 FOIA PDR PDR BERICKB4-709
.g.
o.. -
P J
'c c :
SECY EDO OGC OPE OCA August 6, 1984 OPA Joe-- This accurately reflects my position on 4
the issue.
However, I continue to be very distressed that the Conmission would change a final position based upon the type of pressure from the staff of one of our oversight committees that you discribe in.this draft memorandum.
Sb SKn J
cc:
Comm. Roberts Comm. Bernthal Comm. Zech
l r 7,1983 i
e 6+
Part IV Environmental Protection Agency Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites; Final Rule JL.
w
45928 Federal Register / Vol 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Aconessas[Back;rc=d Cocure.m-State in which the site is incated. M AGENCY Background infor-.at on is given in the this St.te is an Agreement Suta cf i
Final Environmental Impact 5:steme st NRC under Section 4 of the Atm-ic 40 CFR Part 192 for Standards for the Control of Energy Act).
Byproduct Matenals from Urarnm O*e Taihngs at the inacme uranium (A m -2431-al Processing (40 CFR Part 19:1. EF.Wu/
mdling sites are defined in UMTRCA as Environmental Standards for Uranium 1-83-008 (FEIS) and the Reenhtory residual radioactive materials. The and Thorium tJill Tallings at 1.icansed Inpact Analysts of Enviremacntal program fer inactive sites covers M Commercial Processing Sites Standards for Uramum Mill Tailings at disposal cf tm'.ings and the cleam:p cf Active Sites. EPA 5:0/1-83-010 (RIA).
onsite and offsite locations Aosmcy: Environmental Protection Single copies of the FEIS and the RIA. as contaminated with tailings. Final Agency.
available, may be obtained from the cleanup and disposal standards for the Action: Final rule.
Pmgram Management Office (ANR-458). inactive sites were published by FPA on Office of Radiation Programs. U.S.
January 5.1983 (48 FR 500). The U.S.
suasesAny:These are final health and Environmental Protection Agency.
Department of Energy (DOE)is environmental standards to govern Washington. D.C. 20460: telephone responsible for carrying out these stabilization and control of byproduct number (703) 557-9351.
activities in confermance with these materials (primanly mill tailings) at Docket: Docket Number A-82-26 standards, with the concurrence of the licensed commercial aranium and contains the rulemaking record. The NRC, and in cooperation with the States, thorium processing sites. These docket is available for public inspection Tadings at active uranium milling standards were developed pursuant to between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday sites are defined in UMTRCA as Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act (4: through Friday. at EPA's Central Decket uranium byproduct mater:als. The U.S.C. 20 2), as added by Section 200 of Section (LE-130). West Tower Lobby.
program for active sites covers the final Pub. L 95-604, the Uranium Mill Tailings Callery L 401 M Street. SW.,
disposal of tailings and the control of Radiation Control Act of1978 Washington, D.C. 20460. A reasonable effluents and emissions during and after (UMTRCA).
fee may be charged for copying.
mining operations. UMTRCA requires The standards apply to tailings at Pon PtmerHan swronMArioN Cosf7ACT:
EPA to establish standards for this locations that are licensed by the Mr. Jack Russell. Guides and Criteria program, and that standards for e
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Branch (ANR-460). Office of Radiation nonradioactive hazards protect human or the States under Title II of the Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection health and the environment in a manner UMI'RCA. The standards for disposal of Agency. Washington, D.C. 20400:
consistent with standards established tailings require stabilization so that the telephone number (703) 557-8224.
under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste health hazards associated with tailings suppuMaNTARY INPonMATiott Disposal Act, as amended (SWDA).
wdl be controlled and limited for at NRC or the licensing Agreement State least one thousand years. They require L Introduction responsible for assuring compliance that disposal be designed to limit On November 8.1978. Congress with the standards at active mill sites.
releases of radon to 20 picoeuries per enacted Pub. L 95-604, the Uranium Mill On January 4.1983. Congress
~
square meter per second, averaged over Tallings Radiation Control Act of 1278 amended UMTRCA to provide the surface of the disposed tailings, and (henceforth designated "UMTRCA"). In additional guidance on the matters to be require measures to avoid releases of the Act. Congress stated its finding that considered in establishing these radionuclides and other hazardous uranium mill tailings "* *
- may pose a standards and to establish new substances from tailings to water. The potential and significant radiation deadlines for their promulgation:"In standards for tailings at operating mills, health hazard to the public. * *
- and establishing such standards, the prior to final disposal add two elements
- *
- that every reasonable effort Adntinistrator shall censider the risk to and a measure of radioactivity to the should be made to provide for the public health, safety, and the ground water protection requirements stabilization, disposal and control in a environment the environmental and now specified under the Solid Weste safe and environmentally sound manner economic costs of applymg such Disposal Act. as amended. Existing I?A of such tailings in order to prevent or standards, and such other factors as the i
regulations and Federal Radiation mhumize radon diffusion into the Administrator determines to be Protection Guidance currently environment and to prevent or minimize appropriate.".The Act (Pub. L 96-415) applicable to tailings remain unchanged. other environmental hazards from such established a deadline of October 1.
The Agency will monitor continuing tailings."The Administrator of the 1983 for promulgation of the standards.
development of technical and economic Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
These final standards conform to the information as the Department of Energy was directed to set "* *
- standards of above requirements.
proceeds with disposal of the inactive general application for the protection of IL Summary of the Final Rule tailings piles, and revise these standards the public health, safety, and the if this information suggests that environment * * '" to govern this This final rule modifies and clanfies modifications are warranted.
process of stabilization. disposal and some of the provisions of the proposed This notice summarizes the comments control.
standards because of information received on proposed standards UMTRCA established two programs obtained dunng the ccmment period and published on Apnl 29.1983, and to protect public health. safety, and the at pubile hearings (May 31.1983, in provides a summary of the Agency's environment from uranium mill tailings, Washington. and June 15-16.1983, in consideration of major comments.
one for certain designated sites which Denver).
Detailed responses to comments are are now inactive (i.e., at which all EPA received a wide range of contained in the Final Environmental milling has stopped and which are not comments on the proposed standards Impact Statement.
uncier license) and another for active and the supporting documents. Several oats:These final standards take effect sites (those sites licensed by the Nuclear hundred letters were received and 34 on December S.1983.
Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the individuals testified and/or submitted
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday Octob:r 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 45927 comments at the public hearings.
when thebormally required levels will water erosion, which may spread Comments were received from a broad be satisfied no further from the edge of radioactive materials offsite.
spectrum of participants. including tailings than the site boundary, or within As of January 1983, there were 27 private citizens. public interest groups.
500 meters of the tailings whicheveris licensed uranium mills of which only 14 members of the scientific community.
less (instead of requiring EPA were operating. By early 1983, the representatives of industry, and State concurrence, as proposed).
amount of stored tailings had reached and Federal agencies. EPA has carefully (8) Requires corrective action to about 175 million metric tons (MT). The reviewed and considered these restore groundwater to its background size ofindividual tailings piles ranges comments in prepanns the FEIS, the quality to be in place within 18 months from about 2 mi!! ion MT to about 30 RIA and in developing these final of a determination of noncompliance million MT.
The future demand for uranium is stardards. EPA's responses to malor (instead of the proposed 12 months).
projected to be almost exclusively for connents an discussed in this (9) Requires equivalent levels of electrical power generation. Based on preamble and comments are protection for wet sites (where recent DOE projections, it is estimated discussed in detail in the FEIS. Section precipitation exceeds that at least an additional 175 million III of this preamble summanzes the evapotranspiration) as for dry sites (by MT of tailings will be ge terated by the major considerations upon which these deleting the exception permitting a year 2000 in the United States.This standards are based, and in Section W nonpermeable cap at wet sites).
projection is for the conventional milling we discuss the maior issues raised in (10) Requires the same level of of uranium described above. A small protection at all sites regardless of waW obranium is abo mcoged as f
the sp fic g sin e curant local populations.
consideration of ublic comments.
(11) Establishes equivalent a[econdary product in the extracti standards that resulted from our uch as o hat ad l
These standards are dividedinto two requirements for thorium byproduct
,"I"e ra I
p
,nd matenals.
Md F M
parts.The first part applies to management of tailings during the active gig,Somm,y of BackgroundInformation uranium may also influence demand pr jections for the domestic uranium u
ent "clo o "i.e., after A. The Uranium Indus ry industry, especially stace some foreign asb p o to The major deposits of high-grade deposits are richer in uranium. which
{'*; tion of p p
po hg urantum ores in the United States are permits lower pncm, g.
l I
the period when the tailings are drying located in the Colorado Plateau, the The United States Government out.These are standards that govem Wyoming Basins. and the Gulf Coast purchased large quantities of uranium.
Plain of Texas. Most ore is mined by primanly for use in defense programs.
e sec nd part specifies the either underground or open-pit methods.
from 1943 to 1970. Many of the conditions to be achieved by final At the mill the ore is first crushed.
producers of this uranium continued disposal.Those standards guide the blended, and ground to the proper size operating after 1970 to supply the i
activities carried out during the closure for the leaching process which extracts commercial demand for uranium. In period to assure adequate final disposal. uranium.Severalleaching processes are most cases the tailings from They are standards ' hat govem the used, meluding acid. alkaline and a Govemment and commercial purchases design of disposal systems.
c mbination of the two. After uranium is were mixed and stored in the same pile.
The mafor provisions of the final rule leached from the ore it is concentrated These mixed tailings are now referred to list. !
are summarized in the followinf rule i from the leach liquor through Ion as " commingled" tailings. There are about 51 million MT of defense-related with changes from the propose exchange or solvent extraction.The tailings commingled with approximately noted.'Ihe final rule:
concentrated uranium is then stripped or 74 million MT of other tailings at 13 of (1) Applies to management and extracted from the concentrating disposal of byproduct materials at sites medium. precipitated. dried, and the sites which are now licensed for where ore is processed primarily to packaged.The depleted are.jn the form milling uranium ore.
I recover its uranium or thorium content.
of tailings,is pumped to a tailings pils as B. Hazards Associated with Uranium (2) Applies to the regulatory activities a slurry mixed with water.
' yproductMaterials S
l of NRC and the States that license Since the uranium content of ore The most important of the hazardous uranium or thorium mills.
(3) Requires that yound water be averages only about 0.15 percent.
constituents of uranium mill tailings is essentially all the bulk of are mined and radm, m. which is radioactive. We protected from uresdom tailings to processed is contained in the tailings.
estimate that currently existing tailings background or drinidag water levels to These wastes contain significant at the licensed sites contain a total of preserve its future uses by incorporating l
I the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) quantities of radioactive uranium decay about 90.000 cunes of radium. Radica 8
products, including thorium-230. radium. In addition to being hazardous itseil rules.
226 and decay products of radon-222.
produces radon, a radioactive gas (4) Requires that disposal of uranium tailings piles be designed so that, after Tailings can also contain significant whose decay products can cause lung disposal. redon emissions will be limited quantities of other hazardous cancer. Because of the long life of substances. depending upon the source to 20 picoeuries per square meter per of the ore and the reagents used in the thorium-230 (about 75.000 years half-lifeJ. the amount of radium in tailings.
second.
(5) Requires that the disposal of milling process.Most of the tailings are and therefore. the rate at which radon is uranium tailings be designed to maintain a sand-like material and. because such produced, will decay to about 10 percent its integnty, in most cases, for at least materials are attractive for use in of the current amount in several construction and soil conditioning. have 1000 years.
(6) Requires liners be used for ground been improperly used in the past.
thereby contnbuting to spreading the dA4"g*jgog*j** 'g*l g
water protection.
(7) Permits the regulatory agency to radioactive matenals offsite. Tailings te s dismtesretions of re tium mio redon) per issue attemate ground water standards materials are also subject to wind and wond.
I
~
45938 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Faiday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations hundred thousand years. Other low doses is directly proportional to the underground miners over the balance of pot:ntially hazardous constituents of risk that has been demonstrated at their expected lifetimes. These factors t:ilings include arsenic, molybdenum.
higher doses. We recognize that the data were explicitly considered by the 1980 selenium, uranium, and. usually in lesser available preclude neither a threshold NAS BEIR Committee. Although the amounts. a variety of other toxic for some types of damage below which NAS Methodology differs from that substances.The concentrations of all of there are no harmful effects, nor the employed by EPA. their numerical these materials very from pile to pile.
possibility that low doses of gamma estimates of risk due to lifetime De radioactivity and toxic materials radiation may be less harmful to people exposure are essentially identical to in tailings may cause cancer and other than the lineer model implies. However, those of EPA.The most recent and dise:ses, as well as genetic damage and the major radiation hazard from tailings complete assessment of the miner data, teratogenic effects. More specifically, arises not from gamma radiation, but that performed for the AECB. yields a t:ilings are hazardous to man primarily rather is due to alpha radiation from result within 20 percent of the epa because: (1) Radioactive decay products inhaled redon decay products. As value. Numerical estimates of risk by cf redon may be inhaled and increase pointed out by the National Academy of various other observers differ by up to a th2 risk of lung cancer: (2) individuals Sciences'(NAS) Advisory Committee on factor of eight. We also considered the may be exposed to gamma radiation the Biological Effects ofIoniang views of these other observers and from the radioactivity in tailings: and (3) Radiation (the BEIR Committee) in its discuss their results in the FEIS.
radioactive and toxic materials from 1980 report. for "* *
- radiation. such as The uncertainties in risk estimates for tailings may be ingested with food or from internally deposited alpha-emitting exposure of miners to redon decay water. Our analysis shows the first of radionuclides, the application of the products arise from several sources.
these hazards to be by far the most linear hypothesis is less likely to lead to Exposures of miners were estimated important.
overestimates of risk, and may, in fact.
from the time spent in each location in a As noted above. the radiation hazard lead to underestimates."-
mine and the measured radon decay from tailings lasts for many hundreds of Our quantitative estimates of the risk product levels at those locations.
th:usands of years, and some due to inhalation of radon decay However, redon decay product nonradioactive toxic chemiesla persist products are based on our review of measurements were infrequent and indefinitely.The hazard from uranium epidemiological studies, conducted in often nonexistent for exposures of tiilings therefore must be viewed in two the United States and in other countries, miners prior to the 1980's.ne w:ys. Tailings pose a present hazard to of underground miners of uranium and-uncertainty increases when data for lr human health.Beyond this immediate other metals who have been exposed to mmers are used to estimate risk to but generally limited health threat. the radon decay products. We have also members of the general public, because e
t ilings are vulnerable to human misuse considered reports by scientific groups, there are differences in age physiology, c
and to dispersal by natural forces for an such as Health Effects of Alpha Easitting exposure conditions, and other factors
, essentially indefinite period. In the long Pbrticles in the Respimtory Tract (1978/ between the two populations.
run the future riska to health of and The Effects on Populations of We must also make numerous l
ind:flaitely-extended contamination Exposure to Low Levels ofIonizing assumptions to estimate the radiation from misused and dispersed tailings due Radiation (1980) by the NAS: the report dose to individuals and population to inadequate control overshadows the of the United Nations Scientific groups due to uranium mill tailings, and short. term danger to public health. no Committee on the Effects of Atomic these introduce additional uncertainties.
congressional report accompanying Radiation (UNSCEAR) entitled Sources For example, we make risk estimates for UMI'RCA ree i he existencts of and Effects oflonizing Radiation (1977);
individuals who are assumed to reside t
1:ng. term risks. and expressed the view Report No. 32. I.ianits forInhalation of at the same location for their life spans.
that the methods used for disposal Radoa Daughtere by Workarr (1981) of and we further assume that people will should not be effective for only a short the International Comnussion on continue to have the same life period of time. It stated:"ne committee Radiological Protection (ICRP): and Risk-expectancy as the U.S. population did in believes that uranium mill tailings Estimatesfor the Health Effects of 1970. Nevertheless, we belleve the should be treated * *
- In accordance Alpha Radiation, by D.C.Romas and information available supports i
with the substantial hazard they will K.G. McNeill (1982), a detailed review estimates of nsk which are sufHeiently
)
present untillong after existing prepared for the Atomic Energy Control reliable to provide an adequate basis for l
institutions can be expected to last in Board of Canada (AECB). Details of our these proposed standards.
i l
I their present forms * * '" and. in risk estimates are provided in a previous It is not possible to reduce the risk to commenting on the Federally. funded EPA report. Indoor Radiation Exposurs zero for people exposed to radiation or, program to clean up and dispose of Due to Radium-226in Florida for that matter to many other tzilings at the inactive sites, it stated Phosphate I. ands (EPA $20/4-78-013).
caremogens. To decide on a reasonable "Th) committee does not want to visit and in the FEIS.
level of incremental residual risk, we this problem again with additional aid.
Although the studies of underground evaluated the practicality and benefits Th2 remedial action must be done right miners show that there is a sigruficant of different levels of control We also 1
thz first time." (H.R. Rep. No.14a0. 95th risk of lung cancer from exposure to considered technical difficulties Cons 2nd Sess., Pt. L p.17 and Pt. II. p.
redon decay products, there is associated with implementing different 40 (1978).)
uncertainty in its magnitude. Our levels of control i
For the purpose of establishing estimates of the risk due to inhalation of Uranium mill tailings can affect man standards for the protection of the radon decay products exceed.those of through four principal envtronmental j
general public from radiation. we the ICRP and UNSCEAR by a factor of pathways:
i assume a linear. nonthreshold dose-at least two. However. neither group
- Diffusion of rodon-222. the decay effIct relationship as a reasonable basis considered continuous exposure for the product ofendium-228 tailings into for estimating risks to health.This duration of a person's lifetime nor indoor air. Breathing redon-222. an inert i
misas we assume that any radiation documented that they properly projected gas, and its short half. life deca'y dosi poses some risk and that the risk of the risk observed to date in groups of products, which attach to tiny dust
Federal Register / Vol 4a. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 45929 particles, exposes the lungs to alpha focuses largely on current levels of risk tailings because their number is more radiation (principally from polonium-to man from tailings through air and difficult to predict, even though nok to 218 and polonium-214).De exposures water pathways. However, these current individuals from such tailings may be involved may be large for persons who risks could be expanded by future somewhat greater than from direct have tailings in or around their houses.
misuse of tailings by man and by redon emissions. By the year 2000. we or who live very close to tadings.
uncontrolled future effects of natural estimate that, without control. the Additional. but smaller, exposures to forces. Our disposal standards reflect smuunt of tailings existing then would alpha radiation may result from long-consideration of both current and cause approximately 600 tung cancer lived redon-222 decay products potential future risks from taihngs.
deaths per century. Approximately one-half of these deaths are projected to (principally lead-210 and polonium-210).
1* Air Pag **Y' Exposure due to radon from tailings in occur less than 50 miles from the piles.
or around buildings is best estimated We estimated the hazards posed bY This increase is small. due primanly to from direct measurements of its decay emissions to air from tadings piles or the large amount of unused capacity at products in indoor air, impoundments and from tailings used in present sites, so that most new tailings
- Dispersalofmdon andofsmall and around houses. For the first case we could be placed on top of existing l
- particles of tailings materialin air.
used stanniard meteorological transport tailings. This analysis assumes that this l
Redon emitted from tallings is widely models and considered exposure of will be the actual case, although it is dispersed in air. and exposes both people in the immediate neighborhood possible that ground water nearby residents and those at greater of the existing tailings sites, the contammation problems would be distances.nese doses are population in local regions, and the severe enough to require some piles to l
predominantly to the lungs. Wind remainder of the nationalpopulation.
be closed. If this is the case. this erosion of unstabilized tailings creates For the second. we drew largely upon estimate would be increased.
local airborne tailings material.The expenence from houses contaminated D
predorn nant dose from airborne tailings by tadings in Grand lunction. Colorado.
g,,,"d',"
' ",ncet
,g n des is to the bones from eating foods Four sources of exposure were in &e rate of reIesse of radon from i
contammated by thorium-230. radium-considered: inhalani short-lived redon tadings sites. de exposure people will
. 22s. and lead-210. and is small, decay products, samma radiation,long-receive from its decay products, and Exposure due to strborne transport of lived redon decay products, and Imm incanplete knowledge of the redon and particulates from tadings airborne tailings particulates.
effects on people of these exposures.
- usselly can be directly measured only From this analysis we conclude:
near the pd' e orimpoundment, but may (a)I.ung cancer caused by the short-De values presented here represent best estimates based on current
. be reliably estimated for larger lived decay products of redon is the distances using meteorological transport dominant radiation hazard from tailings. knowledge. In addition, these estimates models.
Estimated effects of gamma radiation. of are based upon current sizes and
= Direct exposure tosomma long-lived redon decay products. and of geographical distnbutions of ind!ation. Many of the radioactive airborne tailings particulates are populations and estimated production of Idecay products in tailings produce relatively less ^=*mnt, although high tailings to the year 2000. As populations continue to increase in the future, and as
. gamma radiation.He mostimportant gamma radiation doses may sometimes production continues beyond the year
.are lead-214. bismuth-214. and occur.
~ ~ thallium-210. Hazards from gamma (b) Individuals who have tailings in or 2000, the estimated impacf wdl be i
radiation are liarted to persons in the around their houses often have large larger.
immediate vicinity of tailings piles or exposures to indoorradon and hence Many commenters addressed the need removed tadings. Exposure due to high risks of lung cancer. For example.
to prevent misuse. Most concluded that gamma radiation from tailings is readily in 50 percent of a sampla of190 houses nususe was the most hazardous aspect estimated from direct measurements.
with 'ailings in Grand Junction, of tailings and should receive foremost
- Wotarborne inmsport ofindiocerive Colorado, we estimate that the excess attention. Although most concluded that and toxic material Dispersal of lifetime risk to occupants due to misuse should be discouraged through unstabilized taillags by wind ar water, exposure to shost41ved radon decay means of passive controls, some or leaching can ossry radioactive and products prior to remediation may have concluded that misuse could be other toxic maearials to surface or been greater than 4 chancas in 100, adequately controlled by institutional ground water. Current levels of (c) Individuals Joving naar an means. We conclude that a primary contam== tion appear to be low at most uncontrolled tailings pas or objective of standards for control of sites. However, raata= i== tion of impoundment are also subject to high hazards frem tailings throughair surface and ground water and risks fom short-lived redon decay pathways should be isolation and consequent intake by animale has been products of raden aantted directly from stabilization to prevent their misuse by identiSed at three locations. potentsal tailings. For example, we estimate that man and dispersal by natural forces; exposure due to this possibility of people living contineously next to.some such as wind. rain. and flood waters. A ground and surface water contamination tailings sites can have incremental second objective is to mmimme redon is highly site-specinc and can generally lifetime lung cascar risks as high as 2 emissions from tailings sites. A third only be determined by a careful survey chances in 100, objective is the eliminanon of significant program.
(d) Based on models for the exposure to gamma radiation from Our assessments of risks from tailings cumulative risk to all exposed tailings.
deal primarily with risks to man.This is populations. we estimate that. without
- 2. Water pathways because risks to other elements of the control the redon released directly from biosphere are judged to be mush less all tailings currently in existence at Water contamination does not now sigmficant, and would therefore be presently (1983) licensed sites would appear to be a significant source of controlled to acceptable levels by cause about 500 lung cancer deaths per radiation exposure at most sites.
measures adequate to protect man. In century This figure does not account for However, in addition to radionuclides.
addition. the following discussion any deaths from misuse or windblown nonradioactive toxic substances, such
_4
,.-,.,m.m-._..
m,_
45930 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations as arsenic, molybdenum, and selenium.
exceed one mile per year. For these measures discourage disruption by can be leached from tailings and reasons, contaminants from tailings may and by the resistance of control contaminate water. Such contamination not affect the quality of nearby water measures to such natural phenomena as could affect crops, animals, and people.
supply wells for decades or longer after earthquakes, floods. and windstorms.
Process wateris used to carry tailings to they are released. However. once and to chemical and mechanical the piles orimpoundments as a slurry, contaminated, the quality of water processes in the piles or impoundments.
Rainwater also may cellect on the supplies cannot usually be easily
(" Piles" commonly means tailings i
tailings. The greatest threat of restored simply by eliminating the simply piled up on the ground. and t
contamination appears to be from source (although. in some cases.
" impoundments" means piles process water discharged with the removing or isolating the tai!ings may constrained by dikes made of other tailings from the mill. although,in contnbute to improving water quality).
materials. We will use the term " piles" I
prmeiple, it could be from the gradual Based on results from the NRC generic to mean both henceforth.) Prediction of effects of rainwater over the indefinite model for mill tailings, it is likely that the long-term integnty of control future.Most of this water eventually the observed cases of ground water methods becomes less certain as the evaporates or seeps away. Elevated contamination result from seepage of the concentrations of toxic or radioactive liquid waste discharges from the mill, period of concern increases. Beyond several thousand years. longer. term substances in ground water have been and can be controlled by preventing this geomorphological processes and observed at many active sites (seven are sepage until the tailligs dry out by climatic change become the dominant
)
identified in the FEIS), and in some natural evaporation. Additional future factors. Methods are available for i
standing surface water ponds (but only contamination of ground water after rarely in surface running water). Any these liquid wastes are dried up should projecting performance for periods up to future contamination of water after be much smaller, and in most cases about 1000 years. A recent report prepared for the NRC (" Design disposal would arise from the effects of would be expected to be eliminated bY Considerations for Long-Term rain or through flooding, from measures required to control misuse of Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings penetration of tailings from below by disposed tailings by man and dispersal Impoundments." Colorado State
)
ground water, or from leaching of by wind, rain, and flood waters. These University,1963) provides an up-to-date tailings transported offsite.
measures should also effectively detailed review of these matters.
l A theoretical analysis perfo :::ed for eHminate the emat of contaminadori of Methods to prevent misuse by man E he NRC of a large model tadings surface water by runoff or from leaching and disruption by natural phenomena t
impoundment with no seepage control of tailings transported offsite, and showed that contamination of ground provide a degree of protection of surface may be divided into those whose water by selenium, sulfate, manganese, and ground water from contamination continued integrity depends upon maw 1
and iron might exceed current driddng by flooding. However, at some sites, and his institutions (" active" control water standards over an area 2 e
a n amas o r
an a and those that do not (" passive" kilometers wide and 8 to 30 kilometers 8"
t tb c ntr Is). Examples of active controls are fences, warning signs, restrictions on t
s ecial cons d ti n long. More than 95 percent of this land use. inspection and repair of semi-projected contamination was attributed P
8" to initial seepage of process water water may be needed in designit g permanent tailings covers, temporary dikes, and drainage courses. Examples discharged with the tailings during mill f passive contnis are thick earthen operadons.
ters s et in rati n of "Y'" ""'I"
'"d We recognize that the NRC generic the SWDA rules for impoundment caps modelis only one of several that could for wet sites. Others pointed out that for r ck dikes, bunal b' low grade, and e
be applied to transport of contaminants new piles careful site selection would m vmg tadings pun out odocadons in groundwater. Other models could provide protection of ground water.
N ' M ** ' " N "'
We conclude that the primary unstable river banks.
j predict greater or less risks of ground objective of standards for controlmf Erosion of tailings by wind, rain. and water contamination. An example of greater risk is a plume of contamination hazards from tailings through water flo ding can be inhibited by contouring i
that, under certain circumstances, could pathways is to prevent loss of process the pile and its cover, by stabilizing the water through seepage. prior to closure.
surface (with rock, for example) to make still move cohesively towards a water A secondary objective is to avoid it resistant to erosion. and by supply after the Dow ofliquid through surface runoff and infiltration both constructing dikes to divert rapidly the tailings has stopped followin8 before and after disposal.
moving flood waters. Erosion can be closure of a pile.
Inhibited even more reliably by burying In general, the movement of C ControlofHazanisfrom Tailings tailings in a shallow pit and/or by contaminants through a pile and subsoil We consider methods for control so as locating them away from particularly to ground water depends on a to assess the achievability, economic flood-prone or otherwise geologically combination of complex chemical and impact, and reliability of controls to unstable sites. Thus, especially in the physical properties, as well as on local meet alternative standards. As noted case of new tailings piles, shallow burial precipitation and evapotranspiration above. the objectives of tailings disposal and sites with favorable long-term rates. Chemical and physical processes (and of tailings management prior to characteristics should be given preferred can effectively remove or retard the disposal) are to prevent misuse by man.
consideration.
flow of many toxic substances passing to reduce radon emissions and gamma Methods to inhibit the release of through subsoil. However some radiation exposure, and to avoid the radon range from applymg a simple contaminants, such as arsenic, contamination ofland and' water by.
barrier (such as an earthen cover) to molybdenum, and selenium, can occur in preventing erosion of tailings by natural such ambitious treatments as forms that are not removed. Typically, processes and seepage of waste process embedding tailings in cement or ground water can move as slowly as a water. The longevity of controlis processing them to remove radium, the few feet per year, and only in coarse or particularly important. This can be precursor of radon. Covering tailings cracked materials does the speed affected by the degree to which control with a permeable (porous) barrier, such
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 45931
.ns compacted earth, delays radon of the tailings and ::over at eqtu!!bnum, a gene ally feasible option since it diffusion so that most ofit decays in and anri the measured diffusion would requite excavation of most. if not is therefore effectively retained by the characteristics of cover materials. The all of the tailmgs to assure mixing. and cover. In addition to simple earthen DOE and NRC have conducted studies may not immobilize all hazardous covers, other less permeable rnatcrials which provide a basis. at least within a constituents. Ground water such as asphalt. clay, or soil cement limited range of control and contamination is known to have (usually in combination eth ear: hen predictabili*y for addressing these ocured ai sena sites, and may be covers) could be used. The more facters in the design of tailings cove s cccu ng sc r..cy othe-s. It may not be permeable the covering material the based on locally available materials and possible to ciesnup the ground water at thicker it must be to achieve a given climate.
some sites. In the worst cases a new, reduction in radon release. However.
Methods that control radon emissions lined tailings pile may be required to maintaining the integ-ity of contrni of will also prevent transport of prevent wrta rinutien from new radon by thin. very impe-meable covers. particuletes from the tai!ings pile to air tci:ings. In other cases existmg tallings such as plastic sheets. is unbkely, even or to surface water. Similarly. pe meable piles may re! ease essentiaily no over a period as short as several covers sufficiently thick for effective contum:nants to ground water because l
decades, given the chemical a:1d radon control will also absorb gamma the type of soil they rest on acts as an physical stresses present et mies.
radicion effectively (ahhou;h tin effec *ive liner. We have discussed the The must likely const:tuents of cover impermeable covers will not).
range cf possible costs for cleanup of I
for disposal of tailings are locally Two methods may be considered for ground water in the l'EIS and RL\\. In available earthen mate.ri. ' The protecting ground water ut new tailings pr ctice. we expect rnost tailings piles effectiveness of an ear *.heni over es a piles. The first is the placemert of a w:J f..ii somewt:ere between these two l
barrier to radon dependa mo t s:nnjy phym! barner, called a liner, betwaen NNma Less W.mNve correc:ive on its noisture content Typitel cwy the tailings and the aquifer :oce, to actmn than a new imer may be soils in the uranium culling regions of prevent water containing hazardous sufficient to satisfy ground water i
the West exhibit ambient moisture constituents from entenng the aquifer.
standards for hazardous constituents at contents of 9 percent to 12 percenL For Either clay or plastic liners can be many sites. For example, an active nonclay soils ambient moisture contents installed at about the same cost. Both water management program may be runge from 6 percent to 10 percent. The have shortcomings. Plastic liners are employed to reduce e quantity of exuct value depends upon the matenal impermeable. but may be subject to water in the tailings and thus reduce the involved. and on local climatic cupture through poorinstallation or driving force for ground water conditions. The following table provides uneven loading. Clay liners are contamination. or back pumping of an example of the changes in cover permeable to some constituents, and water around the piles may prevent thicknesses that might be required to may require use of additional measures, losses to the surrouncing ground reduce radon emission to 20 pCi/m8s for such as partial neutralization'of the environment. Actions such as these are the above ranges of soil moisture. Four tailings, especially at acid teach mills, to already being taken at certain sites examples of tailings are shown that satisfactority protect ground water, but (Cotter Mill, Canon City. CO, and cover the probable extreme values of are expected to retain their effectiveness Homestake Mill Grants. NM. for radon emission from bare tailings (100 to for long penods of time. The second example).
1000 pC1/m8 ); the most common value method is treatment of process water to Control of possible long-term low-s for old tailings is approximately 500 modify its acidity or alkalinity, if such level contamination of ground water
(
pCi/m8s. and for new tailings is treatment were shown to prevent may sometimes be difficult. In cases l
approximately 300 pCi/m8s.
contamination. At a neutral level many where m ntsion of contanunation into EsTwareo Coven THICKNESS * (,N METERS) azaMs Con &M d tabqs pd M dce wsW b a @Mah to have 20 eCws..
liquids become insoluble and thus not significant proolem. 2ners and caps may available to contammate ground water, provide a gooc degree of protection for e
However, not all hazardous consntuents at least many decades. However. more
""'"' T,g" *'#
are so affected and the action of permanent protection may,in such als I io l va rainwater, certana weatherms processes, cases. require choice of(for new and mineralization of the soil or rock tailinss or removal to (for existing E
U U
', ' U matrix can upset this neutralization over tailinis)) a site with more favorable soo u
as-2.o i.s time, thereby releasing contaminants.
hyderslogical geochemical. or M
88 2*
's l
There is littie difference in costs for meteorological charactenstics.
m
,, a these two methods. Liners (either clay or Very effective long-term inhibition of 2,', u",E $"[7'u'I fa'"".". ;%,,d' synthetic) are currently required by NRC misuse by man. as well as of releases to
' " " ' " ' =
=,=,= g f
d air and surface water, could be achieved enu
,:.3,gg g
,,g as a matter o goo engineering pracuce for most new tallings impoundments-by burying tailings in deep mined
- e. a
,",..,,",'"',.3 7.'";7 8 ' *" C"' "S EPA does not believe it is cavities. In this case, however, direct y.cy4 environmentally desirable to require all contact with ground water would be new wastes at existing sites to be difficult to avoid. The potential hazards These values are for homogeneous placed on new piles, because new piles of tailings could also be reduced by covers. and assume the tallings have the would increase raden emissions. at least chemically processing them to remove same moisture content as the cover. In until the pre-existing pile is covered. and contaminants. Such processes have practice, somewhat thicker covers would permanently contaminate more limited efficiencies. however, so the would be required to provide long-term land. Satisfying ground water standards residual tailings would still require some assurance of satisfying any particular at existing tailings sites that do not have control. Furthermore. the extracted level of control Some of the factors that liners however, will require widely substances (e.g radium and thorium) l must be considered for predicting long-varying actions from site to site.
would be concentrated. and would l
term performance are moisture content Neutralization of existing tailings is not themselves require careful control
45932 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations We analyzed the practicality of a comparable regulations. We note that Act for existing and new sources in a number of possible control methods, the NRC regulations soecified design number of ore mimng and dressing These are described in the FEIS and the objectives: that is, the values specified subcategones. Out of r mills in the RIA. The total cost of disposal by were to be achieved based on average uranium, radium and vanadium cres surface or shallow burialis affected performance: whereas these EPA rules subcategory exating at that time, only most strongly by the type of material specify standards, which designh must one was discharging directly to surface used to staoilizer the surface of the plan not to exceed, with a reasona'ble water. In view of this, the regulations trailings against erosion and to inhibit degree of assurance.The NRC has noted did not establish best available misuse by man, and by the water that any changes necessary will be technology (BAT) limitations for existing protection features required. Total costs made when these EPA standards are sources in this subcategory. The one tre less sensitive to the amount of cover promulgated, and has already uranium mill directly discharging required to inhibit radon release. In suspended those portions ofits effluents is currently regulated by a general. costs of covers using man-made m;terials (e.g asphalt) are somewhat regulations which are affected by these discharge permit in accordance with higher than costs for earthen covers and standards (48 FR 35350: August 4.1983).
previously existing best practicable th2 reliability is lower. Active control Under the Agreement State program.
control technology (BPT) effluent States can issue licenses for uranium limitations contained in 40 CFR Part 440.
m:ssures are usually less costly in the shirt term than are passive measures, processing activities, including control The new source performance standards but are considered much less reliable in and disposal of by. product materials.
(40 CFR 440.34(b)) were based upon the th2 fong term. Deep burial of tamngs The NRC has enumerated in 10 CFR Part demonstration of no discharge to piles or use of chemical processing to 150 the authorities reserved to it in its surface waters at the 26 other mills.
extract radium are much more costly relations with Agreement States under.
These standards apply to locations thin for surface or shallow burial the provisions of UMTRCA. and has where the annual evapotranspiratton (below grade) disposal using covers, and specified conditions under which rate exceeds the annual precipitation th2 practicality is not demonstrated.
Agreement States may issue licenses rate (as is the case in most uranium under UMTRCA (45 FR 65521). NRC's milling areas of process wa),ste water to surfaceand requ D. Environmenta/ Standards and conditions include the specification that Cuidance Now Applicable to Uranium State licenses must ensure compliance waters from mills using the acid teach.
Tailings with EPA's standards. Some Agreement alkaline leach or combined acid and States can adopt more stringent rules alkaline !each process for the extraction n area h t s a ea y t e than those adopted and enforced by the of uranium. For locations where there is st s
subject of governmental regulation and NRC. including requirements that are more precipitation than h:s taken into account, where relevant.
m re stringent than EPA's standards, evapotranspiration process waste water th2 existing schemes and levels of EPA promulgated 40 CFR Part 260 et can be discharged up to the difference protection in developing these seq.," Standards for Owners and between annual precipitation and st:ndards.
Operators of Hazardous Waste evapotranspiration.
EPA promulgated 40 CFR Part 190.
Treatment. Storage. and Disposal Solution extraction or "in situ"
" Environmental Radiation Protection Facilities." under Subtitle C of the Solid mining. is a processing method in which Standards for Uranium Fuel Cycle Waste Disposal Act as amended on July uranium is recovered from ore without Operations." on January 13.1977 (42 FR 28.1982 (47 FR 32274). Although moving or disturbing the ore body. In 2858). These standards specify the upper rauloactive materials controlled under this method holes are dnlled at selected limits of radiation doses to members of the Atomic Energy Act of1954, as points around an ore body and a solvent tha general public to which normal amended are not covered by the is pumped into some holes and the operations of the uranium fuel cycle SWDA. UMTRCA requires that the resulting solution nut other holes. The must conform.They cover radiation standards proposed herein provide for solvent passes through the ore. dissolves d:ses due to all environmental releases protection of human health and the the uranium. and carnes it back to the of uranium by-product materials dunng environment from nonradioactive surface. The uranium is then stnpped th2 period a milling site is licensed with hazards in a manner consistent with from the solution and concentrated. The thuxception of emissions of radon gas applicable standards promulgated under solvent, which is stored in holding and its decay products.
Subtitle C of the SWDA.The Act also ponds, can be treated and reused or The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires the NRC to ensure conformance discarded. Although this method promulgated rules in 10 CFR Part 40 on to "* *
- general requirements produces no sandy tailings. it does Oct:ber 3.1980. which specify licensing established by the Commission. with the produce sludges that contain many of requirements for uranium and thorium concurrence of the Administrator, which the same radioactive and milling activities. including trailings and are, to the maximum extent practicable, nonradioactive substances found in wastes generated from these activities at least comparable to requirements tailings piles. Consequently the above-(45 FR 85521). These rules specify applicable to the possession, transfer.
ground wastes from in situ mining are technical surety, ownership, and long-and disposal of similar hazardous covered in these proposed standards.
term care critena for the management material under (Subtitle C of SWDAj."
We note that because in situ mining and and final disposition of by-product EPA promulgated 40 CFR part 440.
conventional milling currently are done m.t: rials. Some of these rules are
" Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source in the same regions of the country, affected by these standards. For Category: Effluent f. imitations disposal of sludaes on tailings piles may ex mple, they specified a design Guidelines and New Source often be arranged.
obi;ctive of 2 pCi/M2s and a longevity Performance Standards. Subpart C-Rules for protection of ground water of greater than 1000 years for disposal of Uranium. Radium and Vanadium Ores from the underground operations ofin tiilings. Due to congressional actions.
Subcategory." on December 3.1983 (47 situ mining are provided by the these regulations have never been FR 54598). The purpose of 40 CFR Part Underground Injection Control program enforced by NRC. although some 440 is to establish effluent limitations promuigated under Sections 1421 and Agre: ment States have enforrad and standards un fer the Clean Water 1422 of the Safe Dnnking Water Act.
Federal Register / Vol 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 45933 De associated regulations. 40 CFR Parts environmental and economic costs and comply with the requirements of this 144.145 and 146, impose administrative benefits in a way that assures adequate rule regarding ground water protection.
and technical requirements on such protection of the public health, safety, essennally all radon emissions will be operations, through either approved and the environment:(2) can be from existing piles, which have an State programs or EPA implemented implemented using presently available average area of about 70 hectares, as programs. These regulations are not techniques and measunns instruments:
shown in the FEIS. In addition. radon intended to apply to the underground and (3) are reasonable in terms of may be emitted from on-site areas are bodies depleted by in situ uranium overall costs and benefits.
contaminated by windblown tailings.
mining operations.
The legislative record shows that We conclude the area of piles has been In addition to these rules established Congress intended that EPA set general overestimated at most by a factor of under UlWI'RCA. EPA is required to standards and not specify any particular 1.16.
establish emission standards under the method of control"The EPA standards The emission rate of radon per unit
. Clean Air Act (CAA) for hazardous air and criteria should not interject any pollutants. Although there are no final cetailed or site-specific requirements for area of tailmgs is directly related to the activity of radium-226 in tailings.
j stalidards for air emissions applicable to managementgechnology or engmeen.ng Several factors which are not well mill tailings piles, a proposed rule for methods (H.R. Rep. No.14a0. 95th understood influence this emission rate' l
radionuclides has been published in the Cong. 2nd Sess.. Pt. I. P.171 UMTRCA Federal Register (48 FR 15076) on April gives the NRC and the Agreement States In the report cited above, the NRC l
6.1983.The relationship of the Clean Air the responsibility to decide what concluded: "Conside""8 the variation e
ea c
etail! ter n t. is Ere ble' au t sp ci si s c e r i
st concur w.6 NRC reauWict s q;:v conserva:ive srecific flux values l
Finally, radiation protection ge: dance EPA &j,hed to implement See: ion 82a(3) ef 0.5 ipCi of racenc per square t
,,t,3; to Federal agencies for the conduct of their radiation protection activities was of UMTRCA.) Therefore' our analyses of meter.second/pCi of racium-226 per risk. control methods costs' and o'ther gram of tadingsj for wet tailings and 1.0 pu Is ed a 18.19 (2 pertinent factors emphasize the general for dry tailings and to count moist recten f uranium mill tailings tail ss ma mg th 4402). Federal Radiation Protec* ion Guidance governs the regulation of conclusion and beileves no correction cadioactive materials by the NRC and IV. Resolution of Major Issues Raised in which assumes that some tailings are Agreement States, and includes the Pubile N===nts permanently wet is appropriate for this following guidance:"* *
- every effort A.no Basis foe the Standards factor.
should be made to encourage the maintenance of radiation doses as far
- 1. Health Risk Models Regarding transport models.
measurements are consistent with the below W Federal Radiation Protection Several commenters expressed the transport and dispersion models we Guides] as practicable,, and 'There view that the models used by EPA used. This is discussed in detail in the can be no single permissible or overestimate health risks from breathin8 FEIS. The method used by EPA has been acceptable level of exposure without radon decay products. Others believe the basic work. horse of local dispersion regard to the reason for permitting the EPA underestimated the nsk. For estimation for years. In 1977, the exposure. It should be general practice example, the American Mining Congress participants of an expert group to reduce exposure to radiation. and (AMC) stated that " EPA has assessing atmospheric transport of positive effort should be carned out to systematically overestimated the factors radionuclides concluded that for l
fulfill the sense of [this Guidance). It is which determine potential health effects distances out to 10 km m reasonably flat basic that exposure to radiation should from mill tailings. In the aggregate. these
- errain, and given good local wind result from a real determination of its overestimates combine to yield an observations:" Accura 7 for the usual necessity. This guidance is currently overestimate factor of about 60." These i
- """****8'*""**#**
known as the "as low as reasonably a11eged fact rs are factor of 2 2." Furthermore,"these l
rchievable" (ALARA) principle. It is l
particularly suited to minimiring dispersion estimates are based on an l
radiation exposure under conditions empirical approach that is inherently u,,,,,
unbiased and that should therefore be l
that very greatly from site to site, or a===* o=r====av ie from time to time, and is an integral part ' C '",*, C,,",","g" g as likely to overpredict as to underpredict.,
of NRC and Agreement State licensing am a was c=ier s.o determinations.
- ""' """""'en es=
un===a It should be noted that we are not ne standards published here will modeling background concentrations of supplement the above standards.
The total radon emitted from tailings radon. While it may be expenmentally guidance, and regulations in order to is approximately proportional to the difficult to demonstrate the increment satisfy the purposes of UMTRCA to "*
- surface area covered by tailings. EPA above background due to a tailings pile
- stabiliza and control * *
- tailings in a used the same area that NRC used in its at distances greater than 1 km. there is safe and environmentally sound manner FGEIS. 80 hectares to estimate radon no reason to believe that the basic and to minmuze or eliminate radiation emissions. De AMC prefers 50 hectares, physical principle of conservation of health hazards to the public."
and points out that NRC (in NtJREG-.
mass does not continue to be valid.
UMTRACA does not provide specific 0757. Feb.1961) later revised its estimate Once released to the atmosphere, radon.
criteria to be used in determining that to 50 hectares. However, current which is a chemically inert gas, these purposes have been satisfied.
projections of uranium production disperses freely untilit is removed by EPA's objective, when not preempted by indicate that very few new mills or piles, radioactive decay. We conclude that our other statutory requirements, has been if any, will start up between now and dispersion estimates provide a to propose standards that:(1) Take the late 1990's. Dus. unless a sigmficant reasonable basis for calculating account of health. safety, and number of existing piles are unable to atmospheric concentrations of radon.
45934 Federal Register / Vol. 48. Nc.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations There appears to be a misconception
" Final Generic Environ = ental Impact example. they would compare the 6 lung about the conditions to which EPNs Statement on Uranium Milling" (FGEIS).
cancers per year that EPA estimates (ssumption of a 0.7 equilibrium fraction The second population. identified as for (see FEIS) could result from for radon decay products applies. (The a " rural" site,is that for the Edgemont.
uncantrailed tailings piles after the year
" equilibrium fraction" expresses the S.D. site, and is based on 1970 census 2000 with: the 21.000 such cancers a cmount of radon decay products data. We assumed that a mix of six commenter estimated as caused cetually present relative to the
" rural" and 17 " remote" sites would annually by background radiation:
maximum theoretically possible. This properly represent the 23 sites modeled deaths from motor vehic!e accidents fraction is important. since the health in the DEIS. We have just received the (50.000 per year) and home accidents risk is primanly due to radon decay results of a 1983 population survey for (25.000); tornadoes (130): etc. Based on products, not to radon itself.) Most of all 52 mill tailings sites performed for us such comparisons, these commenters th] data cited by commenters to support by Battelle Pacific Northwest concluded that the risks from radon a lower equilibrium fraction are for laboratories. "Diis survey, which was emitted from tailings are not situations in which the source of radon limited to individuals within 5 km of the significant.and that EPNs standard is diffusion into houses from underlying piles, shows that the total population at should not limit such emissions.
so!!. In this situation the trutfal decay the 28 active sites was 2054 within 2 EPA believes these compansons are product equilibrium fraction is zero. For kilometers of all active tatlings piles, misdirected and do not address a th) airborne radon from tailings piles and 14.737 within 5 kilometers.
central purpose of the legislation that considered in EPA's estimates, the We have re-evaluated the local and requires this rulemaking. which is to decay product equilibnum fraction in regional health risk based upon this re-
"* *
- make every reasonable effort outdoor air approaches 1.0. beyond the survey of current populations within 5 to * *
- prevent or minimize radon vicmity of a pile. After taking into km and 1970 census results for diffaion into the recount periods of time an individual populations from 5 to 80 km of the 26 environment * *
- from
- tailings."
spends indoors and outdoors, periods of active sites. The re-evaluation snow a EPA recogtizes that radiation time a house is well-ventilated by small decrease m calculated local background and other common hazards outdoor air. and the fate of radon and effects, and'an increase of equal size in cause far greater total annual harm than decay products in outdoor air when it calculated regional effects. (Our anyone would reasonably estimate infiltrates a house, we conclude use of estimates of risk to more distant might occur from uncontrolled radon an average value of o.7 for the eHective populations,i.e., to the remainder of the emissions from tailings. However, these equilibrium fraction for exposure of United States, are unaffected.) These other risks are not the subject of this people to airborne radan from piles is dr.ta indicate that our initial estimate of ruiemaking. Comparisons of the type appropriate for distances far from total health effects to populations is suggested may be useful for setting trilings piles. This value is therefore correct. (We note that we have assumed pnonties for efforts to reduce the retained for calculations of totalimpact that there will be no increases of variety of hazards to public health (to of radon releases from piles. Very close populations at these sites over the next the extent that they are avoidable), but t3 raihngs piles, however, the decay 1000 years, a clearly nonconservative they are not useful for deciding the product equilibrium factor in outdoor air assumption.)
appropriate level of control for a specific
,,,fg h be source of hazard.That decision must be s
is low. We conclude, therefore, after in e ave t: king the same indoor / outdoor factors based upon the specifics peculiar to the been overestimated.The factor of about ints secount that an average effective hazard under consideration. The d:ca / product equilibnum fraction 1.16 due to a slightly different average ex stence of other hazards does not.
e y to be negat y
c bout one-half as large is probably more
- ]a is absent Congressional direction justify p
,g appropriate next to pues. This lower v:.lue should be applied to estimates of accounted for in our estimates) within EPA s delaymg these standards until all ther controllable hazards are the first few decades of the lifetime of th3 maximum individual risk next to pill the hazard posed by these tailings. The addressed, or justify EPA's ignoring estimate of maximum individual risk for Congress will that standards be set.
The EPA estimate oflung cancer n..sa a model pile is affected principally by The fact that the health impact of l
from radon decay products is based on our assumption for the equilibnum tailings is in large part attnbutable to studies of uranium and other heavy fraction for radon daughters, and should small radiation doses delivered to large l
m:tal mmers. is consistent with the be reduced by about a factor of two. We numbers of people over long periods of most recent recommendations of the believe this change is insufficient to t:me was recognized when UMTRCA NAS BEIR Committee (1980), and is warrant changing our basic conclusions was enacted. The then Chairman of the within 20 percent of the value regarding the nsk from tailings.
NRC tesufied as follows:"The health recommended for use in a recent.
effects of this radon production are tiny exhaustive study conducted in Canada
- 2. Significance of Risk from Radon as applied to any one generation, but the for their Atomic Energy Control Board Emitted by Tailings Piles sum of these exposures can be made (1982). We have noted our difficulties Several commenters argued that EPA large by counting far into the future.
with the assumptions which underlie has not demonstrated that the nsks large enough in fact to be the dominant (ther estimates cited by commenters in associated with radon emissions from radiation exposure from the nuclear fuel cur detailed responses to comments in tailings are significant. and observed cycle. Whether it is meaningful to attach th2 FEIS. We conclude the EPA value that much of the health impact significance to radiation exposures sh:uld be used in the absence of any attnbuted to tailings accrues to very thousands of years in the future. or l
convincing evidence that another value large numbers of people at very low conversely. whether it is justifiable to j
is more appropriate.
levels of individual risk. They suggested ignore them, are questions wit! out easy EPA used two regional populations for that the proper test of significance is to answers. The most satisfactory its risk estimates: the first population.
compare such risks with common approach is to require every reasonable identified as for a " remote site, was hazards. such as the risk from the effort to dispose of tailings in a way that hypothetical. and was taken from NRC's natural background radiation. For mmimizes radon diffusion into the
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 45935 a tmosphere." (H.R. Rep. No.1480. 95th inactive m:11 sites. Of the 52 saes populat'oas), a conoderable degree of Cong.,2nd Sess., Pt. II. p. 25.) We have su veyed. only 7 had no people living protection asamst misuse. and a concluded that maximum in:tividual within 5 kilometers (3 rmles). Another 6 signdica::t part of the inticipated total lifetime risk (estimated as 2 in 100) and sites had 10 or fewer people living term of effective protection from all the lorig-term cumulative impact on within 5 kilometers. Collectively, hazards, due to the greatly reduced poptilations (potentially many tens of however, the rnill sites have a normally thickness of the cover. We have thousands of deaths over the long term) distributed continuous range of local wncdad. therefore, independent of due to radon emissions from tailings are populations, ar.d it is not possible to uiher cc. siderations, that when costs for ciently signiEcant enough to justify distinguish a special set of sites. The insutu ional control and compliance controls. As discussed in the FEIS. RIA, definition of a remote site is therefore with SWDA closure are added and the and a later section of this Preamble, our difficult to achieve, unless tt is done net saving i: applied to only those sites analysis shows that t iilings can, at a arbitrarily. In addition. demographers that mqht be defined as " remote" the reasonable cost, be disposed of in a have concluded that it is not possible to potential total cost saved is not manner that provides. amor g other determine that a population at a specific significant enough in ecmparison to the benef'ts. greatly reduced radon location will remain low in the future. if benetits foregone to justify separate emissions.
It is low now. Herefore. a chotce of two standards.
- 3. Standards Based on Current dif.'erent standards implies a need for Finally. with regt.rd to the Agency's Populations insti'utional oversight of future legal authorization to establish a population shifts and for having to separate !* vel of protec: ion at remote "8
'f upyade the disposal at those sites that sites by issuing two sats of standards.
j bY mred snrce enterion of 'remoten*ss.,
C ifRCA rinariv met mmates that agencies. questions were raised Frmmably. the State or Federal mese standarcs 'be a icquate for the long ap pna n ss of the
]*
custodian would be responsible, not the term and that they achieve the benefits r'ginal owner.
of radon control Regarding those application to all 24 inactive sites. Some The motivation for conside icq objectives, we are aware of no site that reviewers suggested that less restnctive relaxed standards at " remote" sites is to is uninhabited and can also reasonably standards might be appropriate for sites that are in currently sparsely-populated reduce the cost of disposal. Our analysis be assumed will remain unmhabited.
areas. Other reviewers suggested that shows that any potential cost saving nor are we aware of any scientific basis we consider a radon standard that from less restrictive standards at such for conciuding that there is no impact on sites is not commensurate with the loss national populations due to radon applies at and beyond the fenced boundary of such a site. i.e a standard of benefits. In a later section we report emissions from remote sites. We the costs for several relaxed radon conclude. therefore, that relaxed that relies in part on dispersion and institutional maintenance of control over standards. These results show, for the standards for " remote" sites are not access. EPA requested public comments case of no radon emission limit (case feasible on demograohic grounds, are on these issues for the inactive sites (48 C1l and with no provision for the added not defensible on legal grounds. and are FR 605 January 5.1983).These issues costs of institutional centrol through not attractive in any case. on the easts
- are most simply stated as: (1) Should the fencing, land-use control, and land cf cost. effectively achieving the vancus degree of radon control after disposal acquisition (to avoid unacceptably high public health and environmental goals depend in part on the size of the current individual doses to nearby residents).
of this rulemaking.
local population. and (2) Should and with no provision for increased
- 4. passive vs. Institutional Controls implementation of the disposal costs to meet closure requirements standards be permitted to depend under SWDA (discussed below), that 46 As noted above. EPA also requested primanly or in part on maintenance of percent of the cost of disposal at the comments on whether a radon limit institutional control of access (e.g by level required by these standards (case aoplied at the boundary ("fenceline") of fences)? We also specifically requested C3) would be potentially recoverable, the Government-owned property around comments on these issues in the Apnl We have examined the added costs a tailings pile. i.e., a " dispersion" 29,1963 notice of proposed ruiemaking required for institutional control and standard. would be an apprepnate form for active mills.
conclude that they may vary from about of standard for the sites with low nearby Most commenters who addressed the 10 to 50 percent of these potentially populations. (Such consideration could i
first of these issues opposed different recoverable costs, depending mostly on also apply to some more populated standards at remote sites (although most the cost of !and acquisition at specific sites.) Such a dispersion standard could l
industry comments favored less sites. Costs for conformance to RCRA be satisfied largely by institutional restrictive standards for o# sites). Many closure requirements for a cap under methods. l.e by acquiring and raised the " equity" consideration, i.e.,
i 264.228(a)(2)(iii)(E) range from about maintaining control over land.The the fairness of protecting a few people 50 to 140 percent of these potentially proposed disposal standard. by less just because of where they live, recoverable costs, depending upon companson would require generally Others commented that many of these whether or not the pile has an more cestly physical methods (such as sites are locations where people are impermeable liner under it or not. (This applymg thick earthen covers) that unlikely to live, or, conversely, that the SWDA requirement was excepted under directly control the tailings and their j
sizes of populations in the future are not the proposed standards. on the basis emissions with minimal reliance on predictable and cited examples of recent that it would interfere with the moisture inst:tutional methods (i.e., it is a changes. Final'y, commenters who required for radon control. This basis
" control" standard). EPA also requested addressed the issue of whether EPA is would no longer exist in the absence of comments on the adequacy of such a authorized to set different standards a radon limit.) Any savings through radon "fenceline" standard to meet the based on " remoteness" denied that the deletion of redon control would be objectives of the UMTRCA.
Agency has such authority.
achieved by forgoing approximately Comments on this issue ranged from l
In 1983 EPA counted the nuniber of one-half of the annual benefit (the entire strong support of primary reliance on j
people living close to all the active and impact on nonregional national passive stabilization for periods greater 1
45936 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations than 1.000 years to protection for only a ownership of'the sites is assumed to B. DisposalStendards few decades wih pnmary reliance on preclude such inappropnate uses.
- 1. Design Requirements for Long.Terrr.
institutional controls. A majority of
- 5. Control of Radon Releases Dunng protection commenters recommended retammg Milling Operations Comments on this issue were greatly pnmary reliance on passive control rather than on institutional control.
The pmposed rule anticipated that the divergent. Some commenters believed Those that favored use ofinstitutional regulatory agency apply the "as low as controls should be required to last for control (principally of misuse and reasonably achievable"(ALARA) thousands of years while others thought maximum individual exposure) argued pnnciple o,f Federal Radiation Protection a few decades would be adequate.
for limiting public access through use of Guidance m establishing management Comments from expe~s in the fields of fences and administrative control of procedures and regulations to control civil engineering and geomorphology land use. nose opposed cited the lack radon from operstmg nulls.This were usefulin resolving this issue.
approach was proposed because EPA Standard design practice for of reliability of such control, especially c neluded that a numerical standard to structures that, should they fail, could through use of fences in remote areas of c ntr I radon was inappropriate for.
lead to loss oflife or sigmficant the western United States.
application during operations. This is de C ' n f pmperp based on the EPA considers that protection from because practical methods for reducmg
- * '"##'"N d'"N" the long. term hazards associated with radon emissions durms operations of
'"" I8"
- 0 "#"*8"'I " D radioactive waste should primanly rely existing mills and piles vary in cur within a specified time.For on passive control methods. We note, in effectiveness with time:it is very exam #. a se maDe desgnd to this regard. the intent of Congress as difficult to measure, quantitata ely, their w
tan a dismpun ennts dat stated in the congressional report efficacy: and different methods are han mm dian 1 chance in 100 of accompanymg UMTRCA:"The appropriate for different sites. The ccurnng @. say. 50 yeaa committee believes that uranium null primary means for controlling radon Commenters noted that rushing water tailings should be treated in accordance emissions from existing tailing piles with the substantial hazard they will during operations are to keep the hfd i$
C present untillong after existing tailings as wet as possibile or to use containment system that lies in its path
-institutions can be expected to last in phased disposal.
(floods that merely cover or wet a pile their present forms.** In addition, as Some commenters indicated that the am not as significant).Thenfm. they noted in the proceeding section, the provisions of the proposed rule were suggested. the disposal method should costs ofland acquisition to limit inadequate to assure that the public be designed to withstand any such maximum individual exposures can would be protected.They argued that easily negate a significant fraction of EPA has the responsibility under both rainfall events that have more than a, -
smalllikelihood of occurnng dunng t, potential savings through use of thinner UMTRCA and the Claan Air Act to covers. However institutional controls provide suitable health protection to all period for which controlis to be can play a useful secondary role in members of the public.They suggested reasonably assured. Expert supplementing passive controls and in that requinng certain work practices or commenters noted that floods of gre,ater assuring dunng the early period of tailings management practices would magmtude than a 1000 year flood for disposal, that passive controls are provide greater public health protection example, as they are generally defined, adequate to achieve their design than the provisions of the proposed rule. have a high likelihood of occurring objectives' For example, they note that " staged" or within 1000 years. Thus, in order to
" phased" disposal of tailings and good provide reasonable assurance that a pile Section 202 of the IAITRCA requires water management practices could be will withstand all floods that have more the Federal Government or the States t effective and reasonable.
than some small chance of occurnng acquire and retain control of these EPA will consider further the within 1000 years, the control system tailings disposal sites under licenses.
feasibility and practicality of providing must be designed to withstand much The licensor is authorized to require greater assurance that radon releases rarer events, such as a " probable performance of any maintenance, will be minimized during milling maxinmm flood."In practice they monitoring, and emergency measures operations than would the proposed suggested. adequately protecting piles that are needed to protect public health rule.The Agency has not sufficiently for even a few hundred years requires and safety. We believe that these analyzed work practice and tailings designing control systems to withstand institutional provisions are essential to management techniques to determme all events that are likely to occur within support any project whose objective is whether they are suitable for this thousands of years. Furthermore, the i
as long-term as are these disposal purpose and which alternatives are best. maximum rainfall that might be operations and for which we have as Therefore, the Agency will publish an expected to occur within thousands of i
little experience. This does not mean we Advance Notice of Proposed years is very nearly the maximum believe that primary reliance should be Rulemaking under the Clean Air Act for possible rainfall. Therefore, in practice.
placed on institutional controls: rather.
condideration of the control of radon the system would have to be designed that institutional oversight is an emission from uranium tailings piles for approximately the same (i.e..
j essential backup to passive control. For
'dunng the operational Seriod of a maximum) rainfall whether the control example as long as the Federal uranium mill. The ANFR will enable the period is 200 years or 1000 years.
Govemment or the States exercise their Agency to gather information on the As discussed above, we believe ownership rights and other authorities feasibility. effectiveness, and cost of protection for only a short period (a f regarding these sites. they should not be vanous altenatives that would control decades) is inconsistent with the inte inappropriately used by people. In this radon releases from operating mills.
of Congress. Some commenters argueo i
regard. even with the disposal actions This will eitable EPA to be better for penods longer than 1000 years. We required by these standards it would not informed when judging whether believe that the specification of a design be safe to build habitable structures on standards are needed. and. if so the period of 1000 years will achieve the the disposal sites. Federal or State most suitable requirements.
objectives of these commenters, while at
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rul:s and Regultti:ns 45937 the same time giving engineers who particulates.-Therefore, the only higher levels, and the likelihood that must carry out these standards a design quantitative estimates of effects cont ol to a level of 20 pCi/mS is enterion reasonable to assess. We note discussed are those for radon emissions. reasonably achievable.
that commenters did not identify any We believe. however, that effects from The risk to people who live specific design features that would flow misuse or water contamination could be permanently very close to tailings piles from a greater than 1000. year criterion comparable to those from radon can still be relatively high. up to l in that would not already be required to emissions if long term protection is not 1000 for lifetime residency for a limit of satisfy a 1000. year requirement.
afforded.
20 pCi/m%. However. the practicability Based on these considerations we The primary concern of commenters of providing more radon control by conclude that the time over which who thought the proposed radon requiring design for lower levels of protection should be provided should be emission standard was too tax was the emission falls rapidly below 20 pC1/m4.
specified as proposed.
nsk to nearby individuals.The We note that no pile has ever been A closely related matter is the degree estimated added lifetime risk of fatal protected by such a cover: that is, covers of assurance with which controls can be lung cancer for someone living 800 with defined levels of control and designed to meet the longevity meters from the center of a model pile is longevity are undemonstrated requirement. Some failure modes can be 1in 1000 due to redon from a tailings technology. The design of covers to meet well quantified (e.g., performance of pue emitting radon at the level of 20 a specif c radon emission limit at these dikes, etc.) and others may not be as pC1/m%. if the cover is designed to just low level mUt be b d
well charactenzed (e.g., aging achieve that emission level without measuremen of properties oflocal characteristics of rock used to stabilize employing additional control to provide covering matenals and prediction of slopes). We recogmze that,in some reasonable assurance of achieving it for local parameters, such as soil and cases, it may therefore be difficult to 1000 years.
certify conformance m all respects to a Commenters who thought the tailings moisture, over the long term.
Because of uncenainties in measunng 1000. year requirement for longevity of proposed radon emission standard is too and predicting these parameters, the control. For this reason we have stnct contended that the cost of retained the flexibility of the proposed compliance would be too high. In view uncertainty of performance of sod rule to certify for shorter periods (but in of the small contribution redon from covers increases rapidly as the no case less than 200 years). We leave tailings makes to a population's total stnngency of the, control required increases.Thus, m the case oflower the matter of fully defining what exposure to atmospher;c radon.They constitutes " reasonable assurance" to also generally believed EPA had levels, the pn. mary issue becomes the implementing governmental overestimated the health effects from whether conformance to a design agencies, but expect that standard radon. We have addremd this last standard for such levels is pracucab,yl achievable.There is some field engineering (design) cnteria wdl be used concern in an earlier section of this to limit the probability of failure over notics.
information avadable regarding the the required longevity period to a value Selecting a limit for radon emission practicality of reduction of radon consistent with other design situations from tailings involves four public health emissions to levels approaching where public health and safety are objectives. in addition to reducing background. Tests conducted at a pile in important concerns.
health effects from radon released Grand Junction. Colorado, showed that
- 2. Radon Emission Limit directly from the ptle. These may all be test plots of 3-meter thick covers made from four different earthen combinations achieved by using a thick earthen cover, Quantitative estimates of health which serves to inhibit misuse of reduced radon emissions to values effects from tailings can reasonably be tailings, to stabilize tathnga against ranging from 1.0 + 1.1 to 18.3 + 25.2 pCil made for radon emissions and erosion and contammation ofland and mS.The ef!Iciencies of these covers windblown particulates. Health effects water, to mmimirm gamma exposure, ranged from 88.8 percent to 99.7 percent.
from misuse of tailings and water and to avoid contamination of ground These results apply to the first two contamination cannot be quantified water from tailings. A radon emission years after emplacement. and do not because of the extremely high degree of limit of 20 pCi/m4 or less would require reflect performance after long-term uncertainty associated with the use of a sufHeiently th'ck earthen cover moisture equilibrium is achieved (some likelihood and extent to which misuse to achieve all of these objectives. A limit moisture contents were stdl and contamination might occur and the of 60 pCI/m% or greater could be considerably elevated over prevailing consequent degree to which people will satisSed in many cases by a cover too levels). We believe results like these can consequently be exposed to radiation thin to effectively inhibit misuse. Such a generally be expected. because the and toxic substances. (For example, cover would also permit higher radon control characteristics of earthen tailings used as fillin unoccupied areas individual risks (up to 3 in 108) and materials used for covers wd! vary from would not result in direct human would leave 20 percent of the potential site to site. Three of the four covers l
exposure. Using tailings as fill for health impact on populations studied satisfied 20 pC1/m% with a residential buildings carries a high uncontrolled. Our analysis shows that a reasonable degree of certainty over the probability of very significantly limit of 20 pCI/m% is also cost. effective term of the test.The other cover elevating radiittion exposure and nok.
for eliminating most (95%) health effects (18.3 + 25.2 pC1/m b) was uncompacted j
The degree to which people might be in regional and national populations and its poor performance can therefore exposed to contammants from tailings from radon released directly from the be dispounted. Exactly how much l
through waterborne pathways is subject pile. Such a limit would also reduce thicker these covers would need to be to to similarly high uncertainties.)
maximum individual risks to residents reliably achieve a lower limit (e.g.,6 or 2 The likelihood of health effects from near tailings piles to less than one in pC1/m%)is not known. Experts exposure to redon and its decay 1000. We concluded that levels higher commented dunng hearings on the products is, considerably greater than than 20 pCi/m% are not justified based standards that. although covers can be I
from particulates, even when external on the cost-effectiveness of reduction of designed to meet such levels as 20 pCi/
radiation and food chain contributions cancer deaths in populations, the high mS. estimation models are not reliable are included in the estimates for maximum individual risks involved at at significantly lower emission levels.
l l
l
45938 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations We concluded that achieving revising these standards if subsequent roots am to be averaged over. smce it is conformance with a radon emission technical and economic information the net radon from the entire tailings standard that is significantly below 20 shows modifications are warranted.
pile that is of significance to hedth'.
pC1/m's (6 or 2 pC1/m:s. for example! L The standard requires that disposal be Second, the averaging is spec:fied to clearly would require designers to deal designed to propde " reasonable apply over a time penod of at le.ast one with unreasonably great uncertainty for assurance" that radon emissions will year. Thus, daily and seasonal this undemonstrated technology. That is rot exceed 20 pO/m8s (averaged over variations in radon emission are to be p:rticularly so be :ause EPA is already she disposal areal for 1000 years. Some averaged over, since these are also not requiring a margin of safety to calling for commenters expressed the opinion that of sigmficance to public healtn. Finally, any control system to meet the the meaning of this term was not clear.
this averaging may extend ovsr longer designated emission level with A key word in this requirement is periods to accommodate normal reasonable assurance oger 1000 years.
"designedi"since we do not intend fluctuatioma soil moisture content due Given the predictive uncertainties in compliance with a 1000-year to short-tena climatic variations. Thus.
designing to meet this standard. EPA requirement to be determined by the lowest recorded values of soil judged that to force an accounting for a monitorinv. " Reasonable assurance
- In moisture content should not be used:
second set of predictive uncertainties by the desiga of covers means the radon rather. the average values are forcing the standard to very low emission limit should be expected to be appropriate. Such averages should not. ;
n:minallevels would be to exceed the achieved. over the required term, with a however, extend to times as long as the limits of reasonably available degree of assurance commensurate with normal humm lifespan. since that could technology.
the " reasonable assurance" oflongevity result in a significant alteration in the The risk from radon emissions discussed in the preceding section. Thus, level of protection of public health.
diminishes rapidly with distance from in designing the cover the uncertainties Similarly, averaging performance over tha tailings pile (declining by a factor of in attenuation characteristics of material the entire period oflongevity of the three for each doubling of the distance used should be taken inn account in a coveris not within the meaning of the beyond a few hundred meters). There conservative manner. This will tend to standard.
currently are only about 30 individuals increase the cover thickness required living so near to active ptles that they over that calculated from "best
- 3. Relationship to the Clean Air Act might be subject to nearly maximum estimated" values, which would yield an Emission Standard Requirements annual post-disposal risks. We expect approximately equal probability of The Clean Air Act also requires that that the actual number of people who achieving above or below the design EPA provide public health protection might experience near maximal lifetime level. An example of uncertainty to be from air emissions from tailings piles.
nsk will be smaller. since they would considered is that in the long-term Further. EPA is publishing an ANpR to have to maintain lifetime residence in equilibrium value of moisture to be consider additional control of radon the land area immediately adjacent to a expected in the cover material (i.e over emissions duting the operational phase t:ilings piles. In sum we believe that the 1000 years), even though the cover of mWs. This discussion relates to the probability of a substantial number of material may be sprayed with water disposal phase.
individuals actually incurring these when it is laid down and compacted.
The Clean Air Act requires that the maximum calculated risks is small.
and layers of coarse materials Administrator establish a standard at We conclude that it is not reasonable introduced to inhibit capillary action.
the level which in his judgment provides ta reduce the emission standard below Such spraying and layers increase the an ample margin of safety to protect the 20 pCl/m's because of:(1) The moisture (and therefore attenuation) of public health f om hazardous air uncertainty associated with the the cover in the near term, but it is the pollutants.The Agency published frsibility ofimplementing a long. term equilibrium moisture content proposed rules for radior'uclides as requirement for a significantly lower which governs the performance,f the National Emission Itandards for standard. (2) the smallincrease in total cover over most ofits useful & Other Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS)
]
health benefits associated with such factors include uncertaire a r resuwd on April 6.1983 (48 FR 150"B). The thicker covers, and (3) the limited diffusion characterie i th < trticular proposed rule addressed all of the circumstances in which the maximum earthen materials ir < f.'1 n t
sources of emissions of radionuclides risk to individuals might be sustained.
moisture content).M 4 c,4-term that EPA had identified. The proposed As noted above the 20 pCI/m8s equilib6um moisture content of ttle rule either provided standards for mission limit was selected to meet the tailings themselves. In summary, we varion souxe categones or proposed st:ted objectives of reducing the intend that the design requirement for not to ryulate them and provided lik lihood of misuse, spreading due to
" reasonable assurance" should lead to reasons for sat decision.
erosion and control of radon emissions thick durable covers that have a In the prcposed NEEHAPS for after a thorough evaluation of the substantial likelihood cf maintaining radionuclides EPA did act propose current existing information on the radon emissions below the 20 pCl/m8s additional standards for uranium mill technical and economic aspects of 15 nit for 1000 years.
tailings, because the Agen'cy believed alternative levels of control. EPA A related matter is implementation of the EPA standards te be established recognizes the limitations inherent in the specification that the standard for under UMTRCA would provide the this information. since no pile haryet radon emission applies to the " average" same degree of protection as required by be:n disposed of. Better information value of the release rate. This averaging Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. The m:y well become available within the is to be carried out in two ways. First. it Agency explained that Congress did not nIxt several years as DOE proceeds applies over the spatial extent of any desenbe the degree of protection that with the disposal program for inactive disposal area. Thus. anticipated provides an ample margin of safety, nor pil:s.Therefore consistent with Section vanations due to different did it desenbe what factors the 275(b)(2) of UMTRCA. EPA intends to concentrations of radium in different Administrator should consider in c:ntinue to monitor these efforts over parts of the pile, or minor cracks or the making judgments on the appropnate tha nIxt several years and will propose effects of burrowing animals and plant.
standard. The Agency indicated that it
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 45939 did not believe that it was reasonable to even though. if the maximum individual The Administrator can conclude that "it establish standards for nonthreshold dose were considered alone, one might is not feasible"if s hazardous pollutant pollutants like radionuclides at levels conclude that no further controls are cannot be emitted through a conveyance that preclude any possible risk. EPA needed. For mill tailings, aithough or the use of the conveyance would be concluded that it should follow an population doses and health impacts contrary to laws. or if measurement approach that would allow it to consider were an important part ef our methodologies are not practicable due to various factors that influence society's consideration. doses to the c'ost technological or economic limitations.
health and well being. Therefore. EPA exposed individual were equally As noted above, we will consider the chose to consider the following factors important.
need for such standards for the in deciding whether standards are In addition. EPA considers the operational phase of mills.
needed and the appropriate level of such potential for emissions and nsk t With respect to these disposal standards:
increase in the future. even though the standards. EPA has concluded that
- 1. ne radiation dose and risk for current projected maximum individual design to provide reasonable assurance nearby individuals:
and population risks may be very low.
that the release of radon will not exceed 2.The cumulative radiation dose and In this case. we do not anticipate
- "1 pci/m's for a period of 1000 years is health impacts in populations:
significant future increases in the size of sa ard
- 3. The potential for radiation this industry, although populations
[(P[{ fd d
g emissions and risk to increase,m the around these sites may increase, as the future.
na tional population increases.
impacts bcth on individuals and large
- 4. The availability, practicality, and The availability and practicality of p pulation groups. We consider that the cost of control technology to reduce control technology are :mportant in uncertainties involved in design to emissions, and judging how much control ot emissions iuus inels and durations of control
- 5. The effect of current standards to require. EPA believes that the are important factors. Potential under the Clean Air Act or other standard should be established at a increases in the number of mill tailings applicable authonties.
level that will at least. require use of piles due to future needs for uranium The first three factors are used to best available technology. Additional were also considered. In addition, the assess the likely impact of emissions on actions, such as forcing the use of cost and socio-economic impact of the the health of individuals and large undemonstrated technology, closure of a standard and other alternatives were populations and to estimate the facility, or other extreme measures may considered. In light of all of these potential for significant emissions in the be considered if significant emissions considerations. EPA judges it future. The fourth factor enables EPA to remain after best available technology is appropriate that the standard require a assess whether state-of-the-art control in place orif there are sigmficant level of control not heretofore applied, technologies are currently in use and emissions and there is no applicable but for which the design uncertainties whether there are any practical means demonstrated control technology. EPA that must be accommodated are within of reducing emissions through control defines best available demonstrated the range of practical feasibility.
technology or other control strategies.
technology as that which in the It would be desirable to reduce
=
The last factor allows EPA to assess judgment of the Administrator,is the potential maximum individual risk whether regulations or standards that most advanced level of controls further. However, the uncertainties have been established to control other adequately demonstrated. considering associated with attempting designs to pollutants are also mirnri,iririg releases economic. energy. and environmental achieve assurance of conformance to a of radionuclides.
impacts. We concluded that requiring significantly lower standard through use The dose and risk for the individuals the use of undemonstrated technology of thicker covers are, we believe, nearest a site are often the primary was appropriate for mill tatlings, since unreasonably great. and would impose considerations when evaluating the their emissions are significant and there large and unpredictable costs.
need to control emissions of is no applicable demonstrated control Somewhat thicker covers than bare (or radionuclides. Controlling maximum technology.
average) compliance with a 20 pC1/m s 8
individual dose assures that people Finally. EPA believes it is reasonable standard would require will. moreover.
living nearest a source are not subjected to consider whether other EPA be called for by the requirement to to unreasonably high risk. Further.
standards are achieving approximately E"
"'bl'"""#*" ' f protecting individuals often provides an the same goal as the Clean Air Act,i.e compHance.' Aer types of cond are adequate level of protection to protecting public health with an ample do de the populations living further away from the margin of safety. In cases where other 3 pre ns y pm c on ck ov,,,
source.
standards are providing comparable EPA believes that cumulative dose control. EPA believes it is appropriate pr vide.) Consequently, we have concluded it would be unreasonable to and health impacts in populations are not to propose redundant standards also an important factor. The cumulative under the Clean Air Act.There would be impose a standard below the 20 pC1/m s 2
radiation dose and health impact are no benefits because the public health required by this rule.
determined by adding together allof the would already be protected with an The Agency believes that the individual doses and risks that everyone ample margin of safety. but there could standards for the disposal of uranium receives from an emission source.This be unnecessary costs associated with mill tailings established in this rule factor can sometimes be more imponant implementing an additional standard.
provide protection of public health than the maximum individual risk in The Clean Air Act specifies that the comparable to that which might be deci' ding whether controls are needed.
Administrator promulgate emissions established under the Clean Air Act, particularly if an extremely large standards to protect the public health.
because the considerations on which population may be exposed at low The Administrator is also authorized to these standards are based are levels.The aggregate dose and promulgate design. equipment, work comparable to those the Agency uses in population impact can be of such practice, or operational standards, or a establishing standards under Section magnitude that it would be reasonable combination,if it is not feasible to n2 of the Clean Air Act. However. the to require a reduction in the totalimpact prescnbe or enforce emission standards. final determmation wtll be made in the
g' 45940 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 296 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations Section 112 rulemaking on land which will be converted to accompanying the proposed standards radionuclides.
govemment ownership upon closure, that if uranium mining and milling is
- 4. Radon Concentration vs. Emission-since a government agency could control conducted in wet regions, the adequacy Rate Wnits use of the land. Also, they argued that and appropriateness of the standards even f the government allowed use of may have to be reviewed. particularly A radon emission rate limit was the land, including residential use. "no the water protection requirements.
proposed as a design standard'for the reliable evidence exists to indicate that Based on this statement the commenters disposal of tailings. Some e.ommenters levels exceeding the proposed cleanup were concerned that EPA intended to suggested that we should instead standard would necessanly convert to apply less stringent standards for establish a concentration limit for radon indoor radon daughter exposures of tailings control at wet sites.
in air at locations where people would sufficient magnitude to constitute be exposed.?I11ey expressed the view significant heelth risks?
Our remarks concerning wet sites in that epa should establish standards.
EPA believes there are good reasons the preamble for the proposed standards based on health risk alone and that a not to leave contaminated land (other were intended only to acknowledge that concentration limit applied where than areas meeting the disposal all current U.S. uranium mills are people can live is therefore more standards) at former milling sites. First.
located in arid and semi.and are' s, and a
suitable.
the contamination may spread further.
that we have less experience with many -
A, design limit for emissions addresses and thereby necessitate cleanup of of the control measures needed to a pnmary goal of these standards, the adjacent land or properties. High indoor comply with the standards under wet
~
placement of a thick, durable earthen radon levels clearly can result if houses than under dry conditions.
cover over the tailings, because the limit are built on contaminated land. Second.
We have modified the final standards relates directly to the thickness of the there are significant radiation risks t require envir nmental and health cover and requires direct control of (identified in the FEIS and DEIS) from protection m all regions of the United radon emissions. It also is in a form pathways other than inhalation of Sa s.
ey l pe e basi und which conforms to the requirements of the Clean Air Act, which specifies direct indoor radon decay products, mcluding ter p gn p external (gamma) radiation and standards for national application to control of emissions from a source.
Inhalation of windblovm particulates.
hazardous >vaste s,ites. The New Source Under the suggested air concentration Finally, the government agency performance Stanuards. 40 CFR 440.34.
limit, transport calculations would be accepting ownership of contaminated protect surface water by prohibiting needed to estimate emission rates for land would have to impose additional discharges from new mills except for the i
use in determimag cover thicknesses.
control and, possibly, incur the costs to amount by which precipitation may We believe no purpose is served by maintain such control EPA has decided exceed evapotranspirittion. Any E
introducing the uncertainty of this extra not to change the proposed levels which discharged water must satisfy
(
(transport) variable into the calculations for cover thickness. In addition, the define on-site land that need not satisfy concentration standards corresponang the standards applicable to disposal to use of the best available thickness of the coverrequired to satisfy areas.
demonstrated treatment technology. We such a standard could be arbitrarily Finally, some commenters suggested have modified our proposal to not apply reduced (to zero in many cases) by use that we issue standards for the cleanup the requirements of 40 CFR 264 228 that of fences to restrict access.Such a of any off. site land and buildings that are referenced by 40 CFR 284.221
=
situation would be unsatisfactory may contain tailings from licensed mills.
(" Design and Operating Requirements,)
because it would: (1) Require permanent There was an implication in some in order to avoid the post-closure (for 1000 years) control of access by comments that establishing the
" bathtub" effect that could otherwise i
institutional means, and (2) would not responsibility of any party to perform occur in wet locations. For mills
=
=
require a cover sufficient to deter remedial actions for such sites codd be locationed in regions of net precipitation misuse. In summary,if such a standard affected by whether or not EPA had the final standard applies 40 CFR is comparable to an emission limit, it is issued cleanup standards. EPA has 264.228(a)(2)(iii)(E1. which requires the needlessly complex, due to the issued cleanup standards (40 CFR Part closure cover to be less permeable than introduction of transport calculations. If 192. Subpart B) for the Federal cleanup any liner beneath the tailings so the pile
=
not,it affords less protection by program for off. site tailings from 24 will not fill with water.
permitting dispersion instead of control inactive processing sites that was We believe these and the other
- 5. Cleanup Standards established under Title I of UMTRCA.
provisions of the final standards provide Sites for which a license for uranium or adequate protection for wet and dry Commenters expressed confusion thorium production was in effect on or areas, considering differences in both I
regarding the purpose and applicability after January 1.1978 are excluded from net precipitation and population density.
of the proposed i 192.32(b)(2). We coverage under Title I. We note, intended this section to distinguish however, that the standards (40 CFR C Ground WaterStandards disposal areas for tailings piles from Part 192. Subpart B) we have already
- 1. Summary of the Proposed Standards otherland areas on disposal and/or issued for the Title I program would be licensed sites that are sufficiently suitable for application to off. site Consistent with the standards EPA uncontaminated by tailings as to not centamination from active mills.
issued under the SWDA for hazardous require application of the disposal wastes (47 FR 32274-388. July 26.1982) standards of i 192.32(a). The definition
- 6. Wet Sites vs. Dry (Arid) Sites the standard for tailings piles has two of" disposal area" and the language of Several commenters from Virginia arid parts:(1) A " primary" standard that i 192.32(b) have been revised to clanfy Illinois expressed concern regarding the requires use of a liner designed to these objectives, applicability of the standards to wet prevent migration of hazardous i
Some commenters objected to the sites. i.e.. locations where annual substances out of the impoundment, and
- s 3
proposed definition. On the assumption average precipitation exceeds annual (2) a " secondary" ground water that it was a cleanup standard they everage evapotranspiration. EPA stated protection standard requiring, in effect, argued it is not necessary to clean up in the Federal Register notice that any hazardous constituents that 8
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.198 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 43941 leak from the waste not be allowed to large impoundments. Other commenters and de er.ironment They noted that degrade ground water.The primary nnted that thicker plastic liners than under the propc:,ed standard virtually standard applies to new portions of new that have been conventional or double a!! exisung mill operations would have or existing waste depositories. The liners would be more successful. A to either renuest exemptions and secondary standard applies to new and number of commenters argued that clay attemate standards and/or begin existing portions, the point of liners may have important advantages remedial actica.=. Commenters stated compliance being at the ed;;e of the over plastics. but questioned whether that reculating by exceptions is waste impoundment.The specific clay liners could satisfy the conditions marorepriate. NRC and others further hazardous substances and for an exemption.
argued that an EPA concurrence role for concentrations (i.e., background levels)
The rulemaking record does not exernptions and alternative standards that define noncompliance with the establish that either clay or plastic that would be invoked at virtually all secondary standard at each site will be liners have unequivocal advantages or existma m:1!s was incons: stent with established for cranium mill tailings by disadvantages. EPA considered these UMTP.CA's foree!osure of anv EPA NRC and Agreement States.The SWDA technologies when it developed the permitting for tailings under OMTRCA rules, however. permit attemate SWDA liner requirement and decided to or SWDA.
concentration limits to be established require a liner that is capable as a We have made rredifications of the when they wi!! not pose " * *
- a matter of engineering. of preventing rule to both improve its administration substantial ; resent or potential hazard raia,ratinri of waste into the ground and and c!anfy its objectives.
to human hesith or the environment" as water. The fact that failures may occur long as the altemate concentration limit did not jusnfy astablishing a less EPA conedered a wide range of is not exceeded. The rule also allow pentretive sisaderd. Recognier2 t.at attematives !wfore abpttag the ce, on 8 e y r W -!
n'a a a plW-
" hazardous constituents ' to !;e scen anars msy sometimes tan, dA Gxempted from coverage by the permit also issued the secondary standard to similar to NRC1 Whea. EP A.ssued the based on the same criterion. EPA limit the consequences of such failures.
SWDA rules. it recot;nized tat many determines the alternate concentration UMTRCA requires standards for tatlings existmg hazardous weste sites had standard or exemption under the to be consistent with the standards EPA operated for many years wtiout !!ners established under SWDA. W and would not immediately satisfy the SWDA: EPA's concurrence wouhi be required under the proposed standards concluded trtat commenters u,e have secondary standard. EP A creatcd the ld not for tailings.
establish that conditions at tailings opportunity for exe nptions and s!temative concentration standards to EPA recognized in proposing these impoundments are sufficiently different standards that UMTRCA contmues the from conditions EPA considered :n avoid remedial actior's where such deve cping the SWDA standard to exceptions would "nct pose a lual regulatory system for uranium fuel 8
.:ycle facilities under which EPA sets justify departures from dat standard.
substantial present or pegential hazard."
health and environmental standards and Under these standards. all new waste In establishing such exemotions or NRC establishes implementing storage areas [whether new waste alternative standards, t.'a SWDA rules technical. engineering, and management
.ac:lities or exoansions of existing pilest require EPA to consirier seecified fate-regulations. Under the SWDA. EPA are subiect to the primarv standard 'ne related and health ami e a. ronment-performs all such regulatory functions liner requ:rement. If new wastes are related factc,(see V) CTR 2S474b) and for chemical hazardous wastes, added to an existing oile, however, the 4.. Fate" refers tc 6e destiny of UMTRCA promotes uniform Federal pile must comp centaminants released frcm te waste standard-the n,1y with the secondary regulation of wastes. however, by azardous constituent uncer siteepecific l'etrosenchemical requireing NRC's regulations for these concentration standards for health and 200C0*
wastes (i.e., uranium and thorium mill environmental protection. Whether for a
. EPA ag*ees that scmm:strative tallings) to be " comparable" to new or existing pile,if the secondary curdens rewed te a m: regat:ry requirements EPA establishes for similar standards are found not to be satisfied system under U'.GCA should be hazards under the SWDA.
and subsequent corrective actions fail to mmimized. We W c:ncluded iat it is 2.ne Primary Standard achieve compliance in a reasonable appropnate under U'.GCA 2at the time. the operator must cease depositmg regulatory agencies (NRC and he primary standard. 40 CFR 264.221.
waste on that pile.
Agreement Statesi per::rm er approve can usually be satisfied only be using analyses of fate. because this invcives liner materials (such as plastics) that
- 3. The Secondary Standard and the pnmanly techmcal and site-specific can retain all wastes. Exemptions Complementary Roles of EPA and NRC judgments. EPA does not believe, permitting use of other liner materials Commenters correctly noted that however, that it can or should delegate (such as clay) that may release water or virtually all existing tailings piles have its responsibility fer setting health and small quantities of other substances or, contammated ground water beyond the environmental protection standards.
in some cases, permitting no liner may edge of their impoundments. The reason This was the reason for proposing to be granted only if migration of is that many of these piles were require EPA's concurrence with hazardous constituents into the ground constructed without liners and before exemptions and alternative water or surface water would be NRC increased regulatory requirements concentration standards recommended prevented indefinitely, in the late 1970's. NRC's recent by regulatory agencies for site-specific Some commenters stated that no liner regulatory practice has been to require licenses. Therefore. in determining chnology is available which would remedial actions on a cost / benefit basis situations requiring cencur ence. EPA chieve the goal of the primary when underground contaminant plumes will consider the health and standard. i.e., preventing waste from threaten to degrade or have already environment-related factors in entering the ground or water. They degraded the potential usefulness of li 264 93(b) and 264.94(b).
stated that synthetic liners would tear offsite water.
Administrative burdens can be further under the strains of tailings and heavy Many commenters, including NRC.
reduced by permitting the regulatory equipment. or that they could not arried that the existing practteet fc,r agency to exercise discretien, pursuant reliably be properly installed in such tailings piles sufficiently orntect has!th to the recuirements ci c CFR :S4.94(b).
1 l
45942 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations for establishing alternate concentration Administrator.'upon promulgation of 40 CFR :64 95 Pomt of compiiance limits, as long as any contamination these standards by EPA.
40 CFR 264.96 Compliance period permitted will remain close to the pile Many of the factors that must be and is within the boundaries of the considered by NRC in carrying out its 40 CFR
- 97 General ground water licensed site. Such situations can be responsibilities for enforcing EPA's monitenng requirements identified solely through analysis of fate. standards are discussed in the pertinent 40 CFR 264.98 Detection momtonng program and we have decided not to require section of the notice proposing these 40 CFR :64.99 Compliance momtonng concurrence m such cases. This avoids standards (48 FR 19522-5). For the dual administrative process for convenience, we repeat here the listing
.,rogra alternative concentration standards of sections of the SWDA's regulations
- 11. Subpart G:
under conditions where they certainly which relate to the separate EPA and 40 CFR 264.117 post. closure care and use of would be requested and granted. We NRC responsibilities. EPA's.
property believe this is appropriate.The responsibilities to establish standards cont.mination would be very limited in under Section 206 of UMTRCA are lii. Subpart K:
extent and concentration. can be carried out through adoption of all or 40 CFR 264.226 Monitonng and inspection cxpected to eventually dissipate after part of the following sections of the (of impoundment liners), as applicable the site is closed in accordance with our SWDA regulations:
closure standard, and these sites will be
- i. Subpart F:
40 CFR 264.228 Closure and postclosure under effective government junsdiction 40 CFR :64.92 Cround water protection during this period. We have chosen 500 standard There are several of these SWDA meters as the maximum distance for the 40 CFR 264.93 Hazardous constituents regulations that specify monitoring after purpose of this secticn of the rule.
40 Cm 264.94 Concentration limits closure of an impoundment. Monitormg because it limits contamination to a small area and, considering the size of (These three sections are modified and is a compliance activity conducted to adopted as i 192.32(a)(2)]
assure that health and environmental disposal areas, will provide an adequate 40 CFR 64.100 Corrective action program standards are being met. The regulatory margin of distance to implement A
is MM ud adW d agency is responsible for establishing c:rrective action programs if they are required to prevent offsite i 192.3 0 such requirements, including post-closure monitoring consistent with the contamination.
ii. Subpart G:
SWDA regulations. The period over The revised standard for existing piles 40 CFR 264.111 Closure performance which post-closure monitoring is should be implemented in a manner standard normally required under SWDA is 30 consistent with the following scenario.
(This section is adopted as part of years.De regulatory agency should Monitoring wells should be established i 192.32(b)(1)]
recogmze. however, that monitoring of ct the edge of the tailings at the 111. Subpart K:
ground water for shorter or longer c:mpliance point.This monitoring periods may be needed for the specific location is unique in providing the 40 CR 264.221 Design sad operating ccrliest practical notice of contaminants requirement 8 f r surface impoundments sites where tailings are located and.
when appropriate, change this m: grating froin the impoundment. De (This section is modif!ed and adopted as regulatory agency should determine 1192.32(an1D requirement.
A difficult consideration regarding the throughtfurther monitoring and fate NRC's responsibilities under closure of a tailings impoundment is analysid whether hazardous constituent UMTRCA are to implement EPA's deciding when disposal must take place.
1;vels now and in the future will satisfy standards and to "* *
- Insure that the Several factors must be evaluated in this the secondary standard within 500 management of any byproditet material regard. including: (1) The likelihood that
, meters or any closer site boundary.
- *
- is carried out in such a manner as a mill will resume operations: (2) the what corrective actions are appropriate
- *
- conforms to generalrequirements specific condition of the tailings to correct any on-site contamination, established by the Commission. with the impoundment. such as the fraction of and,if some contamination is found to concurrence of the Administrator, which design life remaining. and be not practicable to eliminate, the are, to the maximum extent practicable, environmental contamination problems.
altemate concentrstion limit at the edge at least comparable to requirements such as wmdblown tailings and the cf the tailings to indicate the mimmum applicable to the possession, transfer.
likelihood that significant quantities of practicable on-site contamination. If and disposal of similar hazardous tailings might be spread by flooding: and environmental contamination is a material replated by the Administrator (3) the cost of maintaining releases from realistic possibility (or fact) beyond 500 under the SWDA. as amended." EPA the inactive pde in conformance with meters (or the site boundary), remedial willinsure that NRC's regulations the regulations which apply to operating actions must be taken, or alternative satisfy these admonitions through its mills prior to disposal (including concentration standards (with EPA concurrence role. Relevant SWDA maintaining radon emissions at ALARA c;ncurrence) are required.
regulations are those embedded in Unlike EPA's role in SWDA. EPA's Subparts A (except Section 264.3). B. C.
levels). Evaluating these factors may be difficult and complex. However, role for controlling hazardous materials D. E. F. G. H. and K. Examples of areas although an s.dequate drymg-out period from uraruum tailings under UMTRCA is which NRC must address in dischargin8 makes possible long-term isolation of limited to setting standards and does these responsibilities involve func:fons not include an implementing under the six sections listed the tailings and stabilization of the piles, radon emissions will be greater dunng responsibility. That responsibility is immediately above which are this period than before or after disposal.
vtsted in the NRC and the States as the incorporated into these EPA standards.
For this reason the reguletory agency licensing agencies under Title II of and the following sections of the SWDA should require, once a pile is allowed to UMTRCA (Section 84a(3)) and will be regulations:
begin to dry out, that disposal proceeds c rried out through regulations set by
- i. Subpart F:
in an expeditious fashion. and that new tha NRC. with the concurrence of the 40 CFR 264.91 Reequired programs liquids are not introduced to the pile so
r 4
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 f Friday October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 45043 that a new drying-out p?riod will be incurred.
schedule for all sites. It is the regulatory establahed its pdicy under the SWDA agency's respcnsibility. however, to (47 FR at 22:36 July 20.1982). We do not
%e period required for the tailings to assure that necessary decisions are think this rulemaking for byproduct dry out is highly dependent on local rendered in a timely fashion. Acceptable materials is an appropriate forum in meteorology. This preclude 1 establishing plans for corrective actions should offer which to reconsider EPA's policies for a single fixed time for disposal of tha a high like!ihned of achieving hazardous waes.
taihnas. We have concluded that the compliance with the standards.
regulatory agency should exercise the Furthermore. corrective actions which.
G. '.htraliz. tion of Tcilings responsibility of determining when cnce begun, show inadequate promise of disposal should occur. by site-achieving compliance should result in Some commenters recommended that specifically judging the advantages and the regulatory agency's promptly EPA require neutralization of tailings as detnments associated with all pertment disallowing the addition of new tailings a rnethed to pentect ground water, factors.nis responsibility is governed by the need to conform to regulations to a noncomplying tailings pile.
Neutrahzation is chemical treatment that would make the tailings neither established to satisfy the SWDA. by 40 5 Nonhazardous Materials acid nor alkalme. Wheritailings are CFR Part 190. and by the ALARA Comments were received on two neutrali:ed many hazardous requirement on radon emissions.
matters regaraing the contamination of constituents are taken out of solution NRC*a closure regulations must be ground water by nonhazardous and thereby are less prene to move comparable, to the maximum extent materials. (They melude cMorides, thrm:gh the earth and into ground water.
practicable to requirements under the sulfates. manganese. and tetal dusdved An WA starly of ta:!iqus SWDA. whemin short closu e periods sciids, amoung others.) At hhrh
".S.%3% in 1W. Asmsed in the (90 ami 180 days) are spec.fied. Dr out cf piles yval take much longer. ying cc.icentrations these materi.9s can his ecenuIied seve:ai esaues regarcing make water unfit for use for other than
[u ra However, disposal should occur health related reasons.
d s const tu ts in tailin8s form promptly when piles are allowed to dry One view of these materials held that complex compounds that remain in out. In addition. some of the older mill several of them are more mobile than solution over wide rang-s of acidity and sites already contain essentially hazardous materials. Hus, they precede alkalinity. Selenium, arsenic, and completed (filled) tailings piles. The the hazardqus material in contaminating molybdenum-ail constituents of regulatory agency should promptly identify and require disposal of such ground water. Ground water monitoring tailings-are particularly troublesome m, for these materials allows the prediction this regard. Adequate control would tailings.
of future ground water contaminatiort by require careful operation of the EPA and NRC are coordinating their hazardous materials. This detectiori neutralization process. Second. the costs efforts to insure health and scheme might therefore provide an early of neutralizing the tailings are environmental protection from uranium warning of ground water contamination significant. about the same as byproduct materials. In particular, we and allow early corrective actions to be installation of a tiner. Most of the cost is are working closely with the NRC to taken, thereby effectively preventing due to the need Er a s! edge storage assure that NRC's general requirements ground contamination by hazardous
!agoon. Fina!!y m ea* en would not for ground water protection will be materials.
preclude the nem n.: 3. Wr.
comparable. to the maximum extent EPA agrees with this comment.
The structure of.w.btion established practicable. to EPA's requirements Analyzing water samples for the by UMTRCA con >w(2 Of generally under the SWDA for similar hazardous substances from tailings that are applicable envirucecc.tal standards materials.
expected to be most mobile in a given established by EPA and regulations to
- 4. Timing of Corrective Actions ground water environment is a very implement these by NRC. Requirements The proposed standard requires useful feature of site-specific monitoring for specific control methods, such as corrective actions for ground water to be requirements. We note that i 264.98 neutralization, are left to the ini*iated within one year after a already contains such a requirement and implementing agency, to be used, as noncompliance determination is made.
that the implementing regulatory Commenters expressed concern that it agencies may be expected to establish required, to ecsure that EPA's general standards are satisfied. In view of the may take longer than one year to devise such (or comparable) requirements.
above. EPA has concluded that a A second view held that much of the and implement an effective corrective ground water in the Western States is standard requinns neutralization of action. for both technical and already contaminated with tailings is inappropriate.
administrative reasons. Eased on these nonhazardous materials to an extent D. Procedurullssues considerations. EPA has revised the that it is unsuitable for use. These are time limit for implementation of primanly shallow aquifers (or
- 1. Molybdenum and Uranium Improperly corrective actions to eighteen (18) uppermost aquifers) which would be the I.isted Under SWDA Requirements months. We also note that i 264.99 of SWDA regulations require submission first to be contaminated by tailings Comments were received stating EPA of corrective action plan within 180 materials. Since these ground waters are improperly proposed listing already contaminated, the argument molybdenum and uranium as hazardous days. This provision remains unaffected goes. there is no need to prevent constituents, because SWDA listing by the above revision.
additional contamination.
procedures were not followed.
Once corrective actions have begun.
This comment would require changing EPA IIsted molybdenum and uranium
- he regulatory agency should evaluate the ground water protection policy EPA as hazardous constituents only for their effectiveness and determine has established for hazardous wastes purposes of controlling uranium and whether to continue, alter. or under the SWDA rules. UMTRCA thonum byproduct materials. EPA does discontinue the actions. Because requires standards for tailings to be not intend in this rulemaking to add corrective actions are very site-specific-consistent with the SWDA standards.
molybdenum and uranium to the SWDA such determinations cannot be made EPA has already considered the views list of hazardous constituents. 40 CFR under the same uniform. pre-established expressed in these comments when it part 281. Appendix VIII. Derefore. the
45944 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations procedure we followed is proper.
for each alternative to the health effect contaminating water and land is prese:
Clarification of this matter has been estimates for direct radon emissions and conunues indefinitely.
added to $ 192.32(a)(2) of the final alone. Although this analysis relates Altemative B. These are " institutional standard.
only one category of benefit to the entire care" cases and represent situations in
- 2. Inclusion of Thorium in the Standards c st of disposal. it provides useful which maintenance is required to assure Several commenters pointe' out that results to the extent that these benefits the standard is satisfied. B1 specifies no d
the DEIS contained no background are found to be greater than the total radon emission limit, but requires supporting information for the thorium cost of control Second, we performed a control of wind-blown tailings and standards (Subpart E) and cost-effectiveness analysis of gamma radiation. B2 specifies radon altemative standards which assigns controllimits of 60 pC/m8s and B3 recommended deleting the thon.um standards from this rule. Commenters different sets of arbitrary weights to the specifies 20 pC/m8s: both require dso stated that there are significant entire range of benefits of tailings control of wind. blown tailings and differences in the physical and chemical disposal To perform this analysis, we gamma radiation.
characteristics and the radiological risk also developed an index which Altemative C. These are "long-term between uranium and thorium. They quantifies the relative effectiveness of passive control" cases and represent concluded. therfore, the EPA should not the disposal methods in providing situations in which design is forlong-gorium a foruranium. as wasbstitute the same requirements for designated types of control which term protection using engineered.
correspcad to the benefit categoriesi passive methods requinng no continued The cost-effectiveness analysis does not maintenance. The radon emission limits e 'EIS contains appropriate address whether the cost increases of examined are:
discussions of thorium and a review cf tighte contals am wonh incumng.
C1 none the implications of the radiological athu. by examining the sensinvity ot C2 60 pCi/m8s differences between thonum and the results to different chm,ces of C3 20 pCI/m's uranium for the level of protection weighung schemes for the vanus C4 6 pCl/m8s rovided, the cost of control. and the benefits. In addition to identifying at C5 2 pCi/m8s casibility ofimplementation of these what level additional gains in standards. These effects are sufficiently effectiveness start becoming Disposal methods would be designed small for EPA to conclude that the increasingly more expensive, it points to be effective for 1000 years in this thorium standards should be out to what degree the choice of case in addition to providing control of promulgated as proposed.
standards is sensitive to the relative wind. blown tallings and gamma importance assigned to different types radiadon.
IV.RegulatoryImpact Analysis of benefits. Based in part on these Alternative D. These cases assume Under Executive Order 12291 EPA analyses, we have made a qualitative staged disposal.They do not require must judge whether a regulation is judgment that the societal benefits of the c ntinued maintenance and achieve
" Major" and therefore subject to the standards outweigh the societal costs, control similar to Altemative C plus ty$mi gb a sifiedIs tra a ne a Ana
. ehve t ting a
e rule as major, since it will not cause these hazardous materials from man and radon emission limits exammed are:
significantly large incremental costs the envinnment.
D2 80 pC/m8s cbove those which must be incurred in A range of.ilternatives was evaluated D3 20 pCI/mb the absence of these regulations. We for protection of public health and the D4 6 pCl/mb h;ve prepared a Regulatory Impact environment. These altematives D5 2 pCI/m%
Analysis (RIA). however, since there are included a range of control methods Disposal methods would be designed to wide variations in views on the extent from no control to high levels of control be effective for 1000 years in this case, cf needed environmental controls in the and are summarized below. They do not in addition to controlling wind. blown uranium industry, include different levels of ground water tailings and gamma radiation. Further.
protection, since those requirements additional control of radon is achieved A. Benefit-Cost Analysis must be consistent with standards during the operational period at new The RIA examines the benefits and already established under the SWDA.
tailings piles through use of sta8ed costs of selected attemative disposal However, the length of time ground disposal.
standards, for both existing and new water is expected to be protected is The costs and the benefits for these tailings piles. As discussed earlier, most indicated in the assessment of benefits.
altematives are listed in the
<f the benefits of tailings disposal Brief descriptions of each attemative accompanying tables. We examined the cannot be qiiantified. The benefit we are follow:
cost per death avoided from radon best able to estimate is the number of Alternative A. This is the "no emissions for attemative control levels lung cancer deaths avoided by standards case and represents the from several viewpoints. This range of controlling the radon emanation from reference case representing conditions if viewpoints included the length of time tailings piles. Since the other benefits of nothing is done. The piles would remain over which health effects should be disposal-prevention of misuse, ground hazardous for a long time, taking about related to costs and whether nationwide w:ter protection and prevention of the 285.000 years for the radioactivity to population effects should be included surface spread of tailings-cannot be decay to 10 percent of current levels, with regional population effects in quintified (let alone monetized), we The radon emission rate is estimated to making benefit. cost comparisons. We c:uld not make a completely numerical be 400 pCi/m8s from a typical pile. The conclude that the incremental cost per d: termination, within the traditSnal background rate for typical soils is radon death avoided at a 20 pC1/m%
benefit-cost analysis framework.
about I pC1/m8. The concentration of enussion limit is a reasonable s
We first performed a partial benefit.
soms toxic chemicals in the tailings is expenditure under all scenarios. The cost analysis of sitemative disposal hundreds of times background levels in range ofincremental costs per death st:ndards by relating the disposal costs ordinary soils, so that the potential for avoided at this controllevelis from I
t t
t Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 45945 1130.000 (nationwide health effects mt!! ion dollars for all tailings which intent of the Order. Any comments from stimated for 1000 years) to $2.5 million exist today at licensed sites. If we OMB to EPA and any epa response to
, regional health effects estimated for include all those tailings which we those comments are ava lable for pub!!c caly 100 years). For the next, more estimate will be generated by the year inspection at the docket cited above stnngent. level of control. e pC1/m %. the 2000, based on recent DOE projections, under "aconessas."
incremental costs are also highen the total cost to the uranium milling 3630.000 to $12 million per radon death industry would be from 310 to 540 C. Regulatory E/exibility Analysis cvoided. These costs are more uncertain million dollars. These costs are present This regulation would not have a and more likely to have been worth estimates (discounted at a 10 significant impact on a substantial underestimated. For the next. less percent rate) expressed on a 1983 number of small entities, as specified stringent. level of control. 80 pC1/m4.
constant dollar basis. The range in cost under Section 605 of the Regulatory the incremental costs are lowen $70.000 is due to different assumptions on what Flexibility Act (RFA). Therefore, we to 31.4 million. Whether or not the actions are needed to meet requirements have not performed a Regulatory expenditure for a controllevelis for ground water protection for new Flexibility Analysis. The basis for this acceptable depends on one's view of the tailings at existing mills, finding is that of the 27 licensed uranium r= levant factors to be considered in We estimate that increases in the
'niils, only one qualifies as a small entity v-luing the benefit stream. On a relative price of uranium could range f om 2 to 7 and this mill wt11 not be impacted by the basis, the incremental cost increases by percent. In light of the currently poor standards. Almost all the mills are at least a factor of 5 for going from the economic condition of the industry and owned by large corporations. Three of 20 pC1/m% limit to 6 pCl/m%. and the threat of foreign competition. it is the mills are partly. owned by companies increase by only a factor of 2 for going unlikely that mills wtll be able to pass that could qualify as small businesses.
from 80 pC1/m% to 20 pC1/m%.
through substantial portions of the acecrding to the Small Business The results of our cost-effectiveness disposal costs. Using our models and Administration generic small entity analyses, which incorporate different under,the assumption of an average definition of 500 employees. However, weighting schemes for all the benefits of cash flow, we estimate that if mills are under the RFA. a small business is one disposal, indicate that the incremental forced to absorb the entire cost of that is independently owned and costs per unit of overall effectiveness disposal no mills would cease operation operated. Since these three nulls are not are relatively insensitive to the choice of due to these standards. Under the independently owned by small weighting of benefits. The cost.
conditions of no pass.through and lower businesses, they are not small entities.
effectiveness of obtaining increased cash-flow, one small model mill maY D. OMB Regulations on the Paperwor/r benefits beyond 80 pC1/m% decreases close. However, we estimate that this Reduction Act monotonically by up to factors of two closure can be avoided with the limited
' r each incrementallevel of control for price pass-through stated above.
This rule does not containeany I weighting schemes examined.
These costs and economic impacts are n o%a o ectic" e
er th 8.EconomicImpact Analysis not all attributable to these standards.
since some of these costs would Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 U.S.C.
in the RIA. we developed cases for probably occur in the absence of these 3501. et seq.
analyzing the industry-wide costs and standards due to other regulatory Tasos t-OcsTs cc ALTSNATNa STANoAAos economic tmpacts associated witti requirements at most sites.@tese rea TAoNos Cournot To Tua YEAa 2000 trilings disposal methods assumed to be include existing NRC licen,s:13 MwcNs er 1983 couAns) required for compliance with the regulations and requirements alternative standards. Each case established by agreement States, and
- m..cems no l represented a different combination of regulations required under Section 84(a)
- a. maw.
' r,.m,,,
disposal methods applied to bmh (1) and (3) of UMTRCA. We did not W
o "l
cxisting and new tailings. The estimated estimate the costs imposed by these economic impacts include potential mill other requirements because that would 4
o i
i claures (on a model mill basis) and require a site-specific investigation and 8'
"7 n
8" uranium prica increases. We estimated these requirements have been N
E different financial scenarios and years (mostly toward more stringent "5
tha impacts for each case according to continuously changing in the past few c'
l
- s no g y E
different assumptions on the ability of requirements). Therefore. we could only c4 m
{
i.e asa companies to pass-through tailings estimate the upper bounds of cost and C8,.
j g
disposal costs to their customers. The economic impacts imposed by these es_.
2.o iso 42a
~
l results from this analysis are used to standards, and could not estimate the o*
'w 522 represent the costs and impacts of the net impact of the standards.
l proposed standards.
This regulation was submitted to the
@ g' y s,jg g* g*hgt We estimate that compliance with the Office of Management and Budget for
.m c-=
e um
, a
- =e =a 6.
st:ndards. If other regulatory review as required by Executive Order
$'L *7; %#,T"',"Z7,*u'/O"J4' %
requirements did not exist. would cost 12291. We believe the analysis g Th gy, gygy th2 uranium milling industry about 200 discussed abovercomplies with the l
I 45946 Federal Register / Vcl. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and R:gulations TAat.E Il-BENEFTTS OF A4.TEarsArnsa STAnoAAoS FOR TAruaG3 CorerAOL To T9a YEta 20000
_i
'"*"eeveswesrs chance as rrumme Erosen e.ouse (yt
[,$
," l Fest TC0 l l
l On A.
Werv seiesr 0
2 n 10*fm. _ _.
0 0....._
O si pe.,.
woe.
i. m.s m i m.
m
!.M3 g
8 82 Less hkefy.
4 m ICh00$
430 2.030.
I30 f
eB3
- f.
- 00 I a tev!
$ *Q 100
._., i ci w
19.u,
i. tom
.w % ___
t-Mess a
C2
( Lose ahesy 4 m 10'teet aso um., enmarv'a.
~
c3 l urenes, i a 50 ftsi s70 re,=anom rs NGO C4 J voy wumesy._
Marey enemmmes
- ) 3 m 10*f90 $n 500
.J p li'00
.cs
- n ao i = 10*f9e st Mr
. ao _ _ _ _
> i Ocn 02
_ urukesy rtummarvss e s. to 'I'fot med Severus niousaros 1.000 os namper vunmeros Int 0999
$70 Tone or enouam-
> t 000 04 Very wunes, 3 m 10*f30 $5 590
.de
> i.000
=
q oS 1 m t0*tes 5-597 do
> I.000
=
Tess.,
,icewas ow reswerie earn coreas or as e seg ores aris e proscane as. one.L we crest e tamen inr nr., avre g newy #ecora sanscrzmo e crowse n w e,
e i _..
..e 8
.m i
,s nis standard is promulgated on the Uranium MillTailings Radiation Control Act purpose of this Subpart.
date signed.
of 1978. Pub. L 95-604. as amended.
(c) Contrr'l meens any ac:foa 's stabilize. ;nhibit future 'nisuse cf. cr
!.!st of Subjects in 40 CFR Part ts2 reduce emissions or effluents from Air pollution control. Radiation uranium byproduct matenals.
protection. Hazardous materials.
Sutpart D-Standards for (d)I.icensedsite means the area Uranium. Environmental protectiors.
Management of Uranium Byproduct centained within the boundary of a Hazardous constituents. Groundwater Materints Pursuant to Cection 84 of the location under the control of persons protection. Radon. Radium, and Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as generating or storing uranium 'oyproduct Thorium.
Amended materials under a license issued Deted: September 7,o 1983.
I 192.30 agym, hany, pursuant to Section 84 cf the Act. For,
purposes of this subpart. Licensed site,
. Mll*" Mu'I'aishaus, his subpart applies to the is equivalent to " regulated unit ** in Admmistmtor.
management of uranium byproduct Subpart F of Part 264 of this chapter.
In 40 CFR Chapter I. Part 192 is matenals under Section 84 of the Atomic (e) Disposalsite means a site select.
amended by adding Subparts D and E as Energy Act of1954 (henceforth pursuant to Section 83 of the Act.
follows:
destgnated "the Act"), as amended.
(f) Disposalarea means the region during and following processing of within the perimeter of an impoundment PART 192-HEAL.TH AMD uranium ores, and to restoration of or pile containing uranium by product
- ENVIRONMENTAI. PROTECTION disposal sites following any use of such materials to which the post-closure STANDARDS FOR URANIUM AND sites under Section 83(b)(1)(B) of the requirements of i 192.32(b}(1) of this THORIUM MILT.TAIUNGS Act.
subpart apply.
l i 192.3t Definitions and Crose references.
(g) ReplaMry agency means the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(
References in this subpar
- to other (h) Closure penod means the period cf Subpart D 6m for Management of Uranium Byproduct parts of the Code of Federal Regulations time beginning with the cessation. with r
Matertats Pursuant to Section 84 of the are to those parts as codified on January respect to a waste impoundment. cf I* 1883*
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as uranium ore processing operations and Amended (a) Unless otherwise indicated in this ending with completion of requirements subpart, all terms shall have the same specified under a closure plan.
Sec.
meaning as in Title II of the Uranium (i) Closure p/an means the plan tJ2.30 Applicability.
Mill Tailings Rediation Control Act of required under i 264.112 of this chapter.
l 192.3t Defimtions and Cross. references.
1973. Subparts A and B of this part, or (j) Exrsting portion means that land e Acuan Pmgrams.
a ter Fo p
se o.ht o $ e*n on hi nt subpart, the terms ' waste, hazardous quantaties of uramum byproduct waste." and related terms, as used in matenals have been placed pner to Subpert E-Standards for r
Parts 280. 261, and 234 of this chapter promu!getion of this standard.
Management of Thorfum Byproduct shall apoly to byproduct material.
I Materials Pursuant to Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1554, as (b) Umnium bypmduct material I 192.32 stancaros.
Amended means the tailings or wastes produced (a) Standards /or app /!cario<r during by the extraction se concentranon of pmcassing opcrutions and peror to the 192.40 Applicability.
uranium from any ute prccessed end of the closure period. (1) Surface 192.41 Provisions.
pnmanly for its source matenal content.
impoundments (except for an existina.
l 192.42 Substitute Pmvivoris Ore bodies denieted by uranium portion) subject to this subpart m'ist be 192.43 Effecuve Date.
solution extr1ction sperations and designed. constructed. and tnstalled in t
Authenty:Sec.2 5 of the Atornie Energy which remain underground do not such manner as to conform to the Ar.. *f 1964. 42 U.S.C. 2022. as added by the constitute " byproduct material" for the requirements of 1264.221 of this chapter.
~
c.
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 45947 except that at sites where the annual (4) The regulatory agency in i G2.34 Effective date.
precipitation falling en the impoundment conformity with Fedent Radii:ica Subpar: D Shall be effective December and any drainase are.1 contributing protectien Cuidance (FR. Ey 18.1960.
3 1981 surface runoff to the impoundment is pgs. 4402-3), shall make ever, effort to less than the annual evaporation from maintain radiation doses from radon Taed A the impoundment, the requirements of emissions from surface impoundments 1264.228(a)(2)(lii)(E) referenced in of uranium byproduct matena:s as far i 264.221 do not apply.
below the Federal Radiation ProtecMon oc *
(2) Uranium byproduct matenals shall Guides as is practicable at ea.:h licensed c,en.,ce.m. % ewp.acn.3a.
be managed so as to conform to the site.
m
's ground water protection standard in (b) Standards for aaplication after the i 264.92 of this chapter, except that for closure;eriod. At the end of the closure the purposes of this subpart:
period:
Subpart E-Stane.ards for (1) To the list of hazardous (1) Disposal areas shall each comply Management of Thorium Byproduct constituents referenced in i 264.93 of with the clasure performance standard Materials Pursuant to Section 84 cf the this chapter are added the chemical elements molybdenum and uranium, in 12n111 of this chapter with respect Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as (ii) To the concentration limits to nonradiological ha:ards and shall be Amended provided in Table 1 of I 2S4.94 of this designed ' to provide reasonable I "'# #8"4 chapter are added the radioactivity assurance of control of radiological hazards to This subpart applies to the limits inTable A of this subpart.
(iii) Detection monitonng programs
(!) Be effective for one thousand years. management of thorium byproduct required under i 064.98 to establish the
, " at eas.
g' matenals under Section M of the Atcrc b
n y
eEs.
Energy Act of 1954, as amendad. dunng standards required under i 264.92 shall
""d.
and follcwing processmg of thonum be completed within one (1) year of ores, and to restoration of disposal sites promulgation.
(ii) Limit releases of radon 222 from (iv) The regulatory agency may uranium byproduct materials to the following any use of such sites under
- establish alternate concentration Ilmits atmosphere so as to not exceed an Section 83(b)(1)(B) of the Act.
- (to be satisfied at the point of average release rate of 20 picoeuries i 192.41 Provisions.
8 compilance specified under 9 264.95) per square meter per second (pC1/m8 )-
The provisions of Subpart D of this s
under the criteria of i 264.94(b).
(2) The requirements of Section part. including ii 192.31,192.30. and provided that, after considering 192.32(b)(1) shall not apply to any 192.33, shall apply to thorium byproduct practicable corrective actions, these portion of a licensed and/cr disposal material and:
limits are as low as reasonably site which contains a concentration of (a) Provisions applicable to the achievable, and that, in any case, the radium 2 6 in land. averaged over areas e!ement uranium snall also apply to the standards of I 264.94(a) are satisfied at of100 square meters, which as a result element thonum:
all pomts at a greater distance than 500 of uranium byproduct matenal does not (b) Provisions acplicable to radon.222 meters from the edge of the disposal exceed the background level by more shall also apply a ndon-200: and area and/or outside the site boundary, than:
(c) Provisions applicable to radium-and (i) 5 picocuries per gram (pCi/s).
208 shall also apply to racium-2 8.
(v) The functions and responsibilities averaged over the first is centimeters (d) Operations covered under designated in Part 64 of this chapter as (cm) below the surface, and i 192.32fa) shall be conducted in such a those of the " Regional Administrator *
(ii) 15 pC1/g. averaged over 15 cm manner as to provide reasonab!e with respect to " facility permits" shall thick layers more than 15 cm below the assurance that the annual dose be carried out by the regulatory agency, surface.
equivalent does not exceed :$ millitems except that exemptions of hazardous to the whole body. 75 millitems to the constituents under i 264.93 (b) and (c) of f 192.33 Corrective Action Programs.
thyrotd and 25 millitems to any other this chapter and alternate concentration If the ground water standards organ of any member of the public as a linuts established under i 264.94 (b) and established under provtsions of Section result of exposures to the planned (c) of this chapter (except as otherwise 102.32(a)(2) are exceeded at any discnarge of radioactive materials, provided in i 192.32(a)(2)[lv)) shall not licensed site, a corrective action radona.00 and its daughters excepted to be effective until EPA has concurred program as specified in 264.100 of this the general environment.
therein.
chapter shall be put into operation as (3) Uranium byproduct materials shall soon as is practicable, and in no event i 192.42 substitute provisions.
bt managed so as to conform to the later than eighteen (18) months after a The regulatory agency may, with the gravi.fons of:
finding of exceedance.
concurrence of EPA substitute for any (a) Part 190 of this chapter, provisions of i 192.41 of this subpart
" Environmental Radiation Protection ine standard applies to design. Monitortas fo, alternative provisions it deems more Standards for Nuclear Power redon.22 afterinerauauan of an apprupneteiy practical that will provide at least an Operations
- and d**'sned coar is not rouind.
equivalent level of protection for human (b) Part 440 of this chapter. " Ore
'W""r'8"han apply to thunitre surface of health and the environment.
Mining and Dressing Point Source each disposal area over penods of at leest one year.
but short compared to too years. Radon will come j 192.43 Effective date-Category: Effluent Limitations from noth uranium byproduct instanais and from Guidelines and New Source
- Subpart E shall be effective December counne manals. Radon emissions from covenn.ns Performance Standards. Subpart C.
- tenals should be esumsted as part of develop 6.1983.
Subcategory.',ium, and Vanadium Ores
',','7,l3,'",',',',,'",,';'[$',,'"d'%h*",','7
- n on. n.m m.4 to
- u. ass.m Uranium. Rad manais to the euno.pam.
e w so caos sees.ao.as L