ML20136E674

Requests Commission Approval to Publish Proposed Amends to 10CFR40 Re EPA Final Stds for U & Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Site & Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Further Amends

ML20136E674
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/28/1983
From:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136E683	List: ML20136E674 ML20136E756 ML20136F959 ML20137M731 ML20137M739 ML20137M747 ML20137M750 ML20137M757 ML20137M791 ML20137M831 ML20137M840 ML20137M847 ML20137M854 ML20137M861 ML20137M864 ML20137N130 ML20137N172 ML20137N189 ML20137N206 ML20137N225 ML20137N275 ML20137N289 ML20137N296 ML20137N326
References
FRN-49FR46418, RULE-PR-40, TASK-RINV, TASK-SE AB50-2-03, AB50-2-3, SECY-83-523, NUDOCS 8401120157
Download: ML20136E674 (75)

Text

_

r.., ?_ ,

_ a + . -_ - - -~ - -

= " w

.u - 1 ~ . -~ .. - -: :.

'P M H0

1. ~ '

D% &bkk Lci s P R o u 'n ? #

i s

b G Sb - 1 DDR >

, n .: ..

. .i G ~

'/  ;

o y16

=

~ ; . .s"-\,.l., $

r :

u 'ekp t

sEcy-83-523

..- ,1

'. : ~ * ~*. , .-v.-~, m /

'-~ . nn , , , , l

.M. U

• S*! ' 44. (j ., ' , y , . 2.) ,g C.,

A0p, f ,

December 23. 1983 ,

( .,y.. Cw.i4 . , 2 ,. . , , ,,e'..,

, . . _ ., 1 1

For: The Commissioners Frem: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations subiect: PROPOSED AMEN 0MENTS TO URANIUM MILL TAILINGS REGULATIONS AND ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Purcose: To request Commission accreval to publish procosed amencments to 10 CFR Part 10 conforming to E?A's final standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings at licensed' sites and an Advance Notice of Proposed i

Rulemaking on further amencments to Part 10 Oiscussion: The NRC has two congressional mandatas requiring revision of its regulations acolicaole to uranium mill tailings.

(1) The NRC Autnerization Act for FY 1983 (?ublic Law 97-415) requires :nat NRC conform its uranium mill ailings regulations to final E?A standards within six montns of :ne promulgation of the final E?A standarcs. The final E?A standards were promulgated Sectemoer 30, 1983 and published October 7, 1983 (18 FR 15928).

Thus, NRC is required to conform its regula'tions by March 31, 1984. The E?A standards are contained in new Succarts 0 and E to 40 CFR 192 (see Enclosure C). .

Contact:

D. Martin 427-4032 l

l j

g

. . . . . . .. . _ .. , m .- . -.- -.,,.. _ .,

( --_ _. a;. w,a.> au '2 1 %4: -- ' -h' l.; a .u e-~'C. .,. .w

_ _ _ . w,...,....

~ ' ' - &' '

'****~ 9

l

, s 2

(2) Section Saa (3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 19E4, as amenced by the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), requires the NRC to establisn regulatory requirements for mill tailings comparable, to the maximum extent practical, to requirements for ground water protection set by E?A for hazarocus wastes uncer the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). There is no time scecified for this action in 584 However, E?A's final standarc in 40 CFR 192 specifically identifies portions of its RCRA regulations for hazardous waste which should be applied to managing uranium mill tailings and the date for conforming rulemaking action by NRC may also be viewed as applying to the selected ground water r,equ,irements.

The Commission's existing regulations for uranium mill tailings are contained primarily in Acpendix A of 10 CFR Part 10. Portions of Accendix A are suscended until Acril 1,1984 unless enanges

~ conforming NRC regulations to E?A standards are promulgated before that- date (la FR 35350). The provisions suscended are those that would require a major commitment or major action oy licensees wnich would be unnecessary if the E?A final rules were the same as the oracosed rules and if NRC rules were y conformed. The final EPA stancards differed little from the procosed rules and staff would not have recommenced suscensions different from those now in effect. No other restrictions are currently applicable to Accencix A.

The EPA standara and the Commission's tailings regulations differ in the areas of ground water protection, design lifetime for stacility of tailings control measures, long-term maintenance, and radon releases. The E?A standard mandates that tailings management and disposal not degrace grounc water.

The NRC rules are cased on not degracing ground water beyond its aouifer use category. This difference and otner crovisions of the EPA standarc recuire major socification of NRC rules. The cesign lifetime l

L 1

- . l 3

i differences relate to the length of time tne $

1 reclamation cover and other tailings controi measures should be effective. The EPA stancard scecifies effective controls for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably acnievacle, and, in any case, for at least 200 years. The NRC rule is based on stability for thousands of years. The EPA standard requires minimized maintanance after closure for nonradiological hazards and the NRC rule allows no active maintenance after closure. Both rules accress control of racon releases in terms of flux limits.

It is not difficult to make changes to Apoendix A to conform to the E?A standard for radon release and cover longevity and stability.

A two-steo process is procosed to modify the Commission's rules to fully reflect tne E?A stancard:

(1) anenaments to Apoendix A of 10 CFR Part 40 in tne procosed notice in Enclosure A and (2) further snenements to 10 CFR Part 40 as cascribec in tne procosed Acvance Notice of Procosed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in Enclosure S. The procosed amencments to Appendix A reflect conforming enanges to existing provisions necessary to remove conflicts with tne E?A standard and to incorporate the stability and radon release orovisions and other orovisions of the EPA stancarc not related to ground watar. The ANPRM in Enclosure B outlines plans for further amencments to '

10 CFR Part 40 to incorporate One grounc water provisions imposed by tne E?A stancarc anc estaclisn other requirements as necessary to satisfy the UMTRCA mandate for RCRA-comoaracle standards.

This two-steo accroacn provides a means to meet the statutory cate with respect to conforming the existing provisions of Accendix A. It also allows

' time for neecec coercination with E?A on the muca more difficult creolems attencing tne need to ' conform on grounc water protection stancards.

Ecth NRC anc :ne Agreement Etates nave an coligation under 5275c of the Atomic Ener;y Act to enforce the EPA standards in ne interim wnile conforming rule l

De

4

.. changes are being mace. This coligation has alreacy been factored into NRC anc State regulatory programs and will be acministerec en a case cy-case basis.

Future impacts on NRC staff will include reviewing information frem licensees submitted to cemonstrate c:moliance with tne new E?A standards, cossibly including reviewing revised closure and stabili:ation plans, reviewing and mocifying regulatory guidance documents, and working with states to revise their regulations, as appropriate, to reflect the changes.

Recommendations: That the Commission:

1. Acorove publication of the preposec rule changes to 10 CFR Part 40 as set forth in the draft Federal Register Notice in Enclosure A.

2. In arcer to satisfy recuirements of the Regulat:ry Flexibility Act (PL-96-352) certify that the procosed rule, if premulgated, w1il not nave a significant economic imcact on a suostantial numoer of small entities. The basis for this certification is summarized in the enclosec Feceral Register notice (Enclosure A) uncer the Regulatory Flexibility Certification heacing.

3. Accreve puclication of tne Acyance Notice of

?roposec Rulemaking as set forth in the draft Federal Register Notice in Enclosure E.

2 Note:

a. Licensee comoliance wit.1 Sucparts 0 and E of 20 CFR 192 is an existing requirement and the procosed regulations merely inc:rporate scecific recuirements in 20 CFR 192 into NRC regulations. E?A issuec a cetailed Regulatory Imoact Analysis in succort of its standard and tnere is no significant additional imcact arising from

ne crocosed changes to Accendix A.

Acc:rdingly, no accitienal regulatory i

5 analysis has been precarec for tne changes to Accencix A.

's . EPA precared and issued comorenensive draft and final Environmental Impac Statements in succort of its standarc, respecting control of radon releases, and cover longevity and stability, and the staff does not believe any additional environmental review is needed for these stancards.

c. That the Chief Counsel for Advocacy.of the Small Business Acministration will be informed of the certification and the reasons for it as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

d. That the Succommittee on Nuclear Regulation of tne Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Succommittae on Energy and the Environment of tne House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the Succommittee on Energy and Power of the House Committee on Interstate anc Foreign Commerce, and the Succommittee on Environment, Energy anc Natural Resources of the House Committee on Government Ocerations will be informec by a lettar '

similar to Enclosure E.

e. That Rec. Samuel Stratton, Chairman of :ne House Procurement anc Military Nuclear Systems Succommittee, will also be informed by a letter similar to Enclosure E.

f. That this procosed rule coes not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subiec: to one recuirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (la U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and tnat existing requirements were acoroved by the Office of Management and Budget accroval numcer 3150-0020.

1

5

g. That a Public Announcement sucn as Enclosure 0 will be issued on filing of the notices with tne Office of the Feceral Register.

tr. That copies of the notices will ce distributed to all Commission uranium mill licensees and copies will be provided to Agreement Statas for distribution to their uranium mill licensees.

Seneduling: The six-month completion schedule ceadline of .

March 31, 1984 imcosed by Congreis mandates promot action. Commission aporoval is reouested by no later than January 11, 1984, in order that the preocsed rule can be forsarded to the Office of the Federal Register by January 13, 1984.

Following a 30-day puolic comment period, staff intends to suomit a recommenced final rule to the Commission by March 19, 1984.

Wfiliam J. Dircks Executive Oirector for Cperations

Enclosures:

A. Feceral Regis er Notica of Proposec Rulemaking

3. Advance Notice of Procosed Rulemaking C. E?A Stancarc

0. Oraft Puolic Announcement E. Oraft Congressional Lettar As requested by the IDC, Commissioners' comments (cr consent) shculd be previded directly to the office of the Secretary by c.c.b. Wednesday, January 11, 1984. Commission Staff office comments, :: any, sncu se susm no later than Thursday, January 5, ted to the Ccmmissioners 1984, with an informacien I

copy ec the C::1ca c: :na secrocary. If the paper is of such  !

i a nature that it recuires additional time for analytical review and comment, che Cc==issioners and the Secretariat should be l apprised of when ccmments may be expected.

1 DISTR!3CTICN:

Ccamissioners CGC, 07% , CI, CCA, CIA, OPA Regicnal' offices, IDO, I" D j

m -

ENCLOSURE A:

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING e

t i

i

(7590-013 NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION 10 CFR PART 40 Uranium Mill Tailing Regulations: Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards

' AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings. The proposed rule changes are intended to conform existing NRC regulations to the regulations recently published by the Environmental Protection Agency for the protection of the environment from these wastes. This action is necessary to comaly with the legislative mandate set out in the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and the NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983.

DATE:

The comment period expires on (30 days after publication).

Comments received by the Commission aftar that date will not be considered.

ADDRESSES:

Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Washington, OC 20555, Attention: Occketing and Service 3ranen.

Deliver comments to Room 1'97, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, OC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Fonner, Office of the Executive Legal Director, telepnene (301) 492-8692, or Dan E. Martin, Division of Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, teleonone (301) 427-4642.

1 Enclosure A

(7590-013 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is proposing modifications to its regulations for the purpose of conforming them to generally applicable requirements recantly promul-gated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These new EPA requirements are contained in Subparts 0 and E of 40 CFR Part 192 (48 FR 45926; October 7, 1983), are applicable to the management of uranium and thorium byproduct material, and became effective for NRC and Agreement State licensees and license applicants on Decemcer 6, 1983.

The action proposed herein would modify previously existing regulations of the Commission to conform them to the new EPA requirements, and would incorporate certain of the new EPA requirements into the Commission's regulations. The affected Commission regulations are contained in Appen-dix A to 10 CFR Part 40, which was promulgated in final form on October 3, 1980 (45 FR 65521).

The modifications to Commission regulations proposed herein will incorporata within NRC regulations some of the new EPA requirements. The action that the Commission will take with respect to the remainder of these new EPA requirements is the subject of an Advanced Notics of Pro-posed Rulemaking (ANPRM), which requests comment on that subject, also issued this day. These new EPA requirements were developed and issued by E?A pursuant to section 275b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2022),

as added by Section 206 of Pub. L.95-604, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). Under Section 18(a) of Pub.

L.97-415, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 and 1983, the Commission is required to conform its regula-tions to EPA's by no later than March 31, 1984, with notice and oppor-tunity for_ public comment. Today's proposal furthers fulfillment of that responsibility.

Previous Actions In keeping with Section 18(a) of the NRC Authorization Act, the Commission suspended portions of its October 3, 1980 mill tailings regu-lations after notice and opportunity for puolic comment (48 FR 35350; August 4, 1983). 7his suspension terminates automatically upon the earlier of (1) the conclusion of this conforming rulemaking, or (2) April 1, 1984, i

2 Enclosure A

(7590-011 Those portions of the Commission's regulations wnich are now suscendeo are those that were determined to be in conflict or inconsistent with EPA's proposed requirements. More specifically, the suspenced portions are those that would require a major commitment or major action by licensees which would be unnecessary if (1) the EPA preocsed standards were promulgated in final form without modification, and (2) the Commis-sion's regulations were modified to conform to the EPA standards. The objective of the suspension was to avoid a situation where a Ifeensee or applicant might make a major commitment or take a major action whicn would be unnecessary or ill-advised after this subsequent rulemaking to permanently modify the existing regulations on the basis of EPA's final standards.

The final EPA standards are very similar to those that were proposed.

There is, for that reason, a good deal of similarity between the changes to Commission regulations effected temporarily by suspension and those proposed today to be made permanent. Nevertheless, the Commission has reconsidered the approcriateness of the entirety of Appendix A to 10 CFR l

Part 40 in light of the new EPA standards, and the changes proposed today

are not fully consistent with the previous suscension. affferences, except for additions, are explicitly identified. All additions are differences since nothing was added to Appendix A in the suspension.

Scoce of This Prooosal In addition to conforming its existing regulations to new EPA stan-dards, under the provisions of the UMTRCA, the Commission has a further legislated responsibility; it must establish general requirements, for the management of byproduct material, with EPA concurrerce, which are, to the maximum extent practicaole, at least comparable to recuirements applicable to the management of similar hazardous material regulated by the EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWOA), as amended. The Commission deliberated as to how best to deal with these related rule-saking needs and decided on the course of action resulting in this pro-posal and the accompanying ANPRM. This proposal acdresses all the enanges considered appropriate to the existing Commission regulations in Aopendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. Other changes to the commission's regula-3 Enclosure A t

(TG90-01] ,

tions for mill tailings management resulting from the EPA standard are the subject of the accompanying ANPRM.

The content of these two rulemakings also may be characterized in tarms of the need for EPA concurrence, although that was not the ceciding factor. This proposal consists of modifications not requiring EPA con-currence, including conforming changes to existing NRC rules and incor-paration of EPA requirements not deriving from the SWDA. Those modifi-l cations that are the subject of the ANPRM accompanying this proposal require EPA concurrence pursuant to section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act.

Modifications addressed in the ANPRM include (1) incorporation into NRC regulations of SWDA requirements already imposed by the EPA, and (2) any further modifications to NRC regulations necessary to establish SWOA-comparable requirements as called for by the UMTRCA. Th's course of action was chosen to allow the Cour.ission to both conform its regulations to EPA's and incorporate non-SWDA provisions in a prompt and orderly manner, in accordance with the schedule set by Congress, and deal with the complex of SWOA requirements and issues in a separate, comprehensive and unified rulemaking.

Content of This Procosal The new EPA requirements in 40 CFR Part 192, (48 FR 45926) included by reference several sections from 40 CFR Part 264, oromulgated by tne l E?A pursuant to authority provided by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), whicn modified tne SWOA.

These SWOA (or RCRA) requirements imposed under 40 CFR Part 192 are addressed in the ANPRM accompanying this proposal. The few conforming changes to NRC's exist-l ing Appendix A regulations made necessary by these newly incased SWOA requirements are addressed in this document, as are conforming changes i

and other changes necessary to reflect and incorporate the non-SkDA elements of EPA's new requirements. These non-SWOA provisions include

requirements to--

(1) Adhere to applicable requirements in 40 CFR Part 190, " Environ-mental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations for uranium byproduct material, and essentially the same requirements for thorium byproouct matarial; 1 ,

4 Enclosure A

[7590-01)

(2) Adhere to applicable requirements in 40 CFR Part 440, " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Categorj: Effluent Limitations Guide-lines and New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory."

(3) Maintain releases of radon to the atmosphere during cperations as low as is practicable; (4) Close disposal areas so as to provide reasonable assurance of effective control for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably acnfevable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years; (5) Limit average post closure releases of radioactive radon gas to no more than 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCf/m2.s); and (6) Set limits for residual concentrations of radioactive radium left in soil, above background, in onsite areas not subject to the closure requirements for longevity and radon release control.

Procosed Modifications and Rationale In accordance with the above, the Commission proposes the following modifications to Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40:

1. Introduction, j

(a) In the second sentence of the third paragraph, change " amend-l ability" to " amenability."

Reason: This change corrects a typograpnical error.

(b) Delete the fourth paragraph in its entirety.

Reason: This change deletes an information submittal requirement whicn was established in connection with implementation of the original Appendix A criteria. The due date originally set for submittals is past.

A new due date for revised sucmittals is not considered necessary.

2. Criterion 1.

(a) In the first paragraph delete the phrases "... for thousands of years..." and "...without ongoing active maintenance... ."

Reason: The language conflicts with the 40 CFR 192.32(b) standard of design of control measures to be effective for 1,000 years. Further, although 40 CFR 254.111, which is included by reference in 40 CFR 192.32(b),

requires that for nonradiological hazards the need for maintenance be minimi:ed, the EPA standard itself is silent on maintenance for radio-5 Enclosure A 1

[7590-01]

loo,ical hazard control measures and could thus allow some limited reliance on active maintenance for limited periods of time. The 1,000 year period in the preferred alternative far exceecs the 100 year period the EPA views as reasonacle to rely on institutional controls to provide active i maintenance. On this basis, the Commission would not flatly prohibit, in all cases, planned reliance on active maintenance.

(b) In the second listed item of the first paragraph, delete the word " usable."

Reason: Both 40 CFR 254.221 and 40 CFR 254.92, which are included by reference in 40 CFR 192.32(a), require isolation of contaminants from all qualities of groundwater, not just usable groundwater sources.

(c) Modify the last paragraph reading, " Tailings shall be disposed of in a manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve condi-tions of the site," to read " Tailings shall be disposed of in a manner that minimizes the degree to which active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site."

Reason: The EPA standards in 40 CFR Part 192 do not. prohibit all reliance on maintenance. For nonradiological hazards, 40 CFR 264.111 requires that the need for maintenance after closure be minimized. The change would reduce the stringency of the NRC requirement so as to be consistent with 40 CFR Part 192.

Note: The last paragraph of Criterion 1 was previously suspended in full.

3. Criterion 3.

(a) Delete in its entirety the first sentence which reads "The

' prime option' for disposal of tailings is placement below grade, either i

in mines or specially excavated pits (that is, where ths need for any specially constructed retention structure is eliminated)."

Reason: The sentence has no effect other than to label below grade disposal as the ' prime option.' This is misleading and confusing in that it gives the imoression that above grade disposal could not be acproved.

Under *.he longevity standard of 40 CFR Part 192, it is durability rather i

than disposai mode which determines acceptability.

1 l

1 l

6 Enclosure A l

(7590-01]

(b) Modify the second sehtence where it reads "... consideration of this disposal mode," to read ". .. consideration of the below grade disposal mode."

Reason: The change is of an editorial nature to replace the pronoun

'this' with 'the below grade.' Although the requirement to consider below grade disposal was previously suspended along with the rest of Critarion 3, a requirement for consideration only is not inconsistent with EPA's 40 CFR Part 192 and the Commission believes it should remain.

(c) Delete the third and fourth sentences in their entirety, beginn-ing with "In some instances, ..." and ending with "...are not available."

Reason: The sentences are explanatorj in nature, and do not properly reflect consideration of EPA's new requirements, especially for ground-water protection.

For this reason they are potentially misleading and confusing.

(d) Delete the last sentence beginning with "In these cases, ..."

and ending with ". . . erosional forces."

Reason: The sentence places a generic burden-of proof requirement on above grade disposal which is at odds with the acceptability stan-dards established by EPA's requirement for longevity of control in 40 CFR 192.32(b).

, Note: The entirety of Criterion 3 was previously suspended.

4. Criterion 4.

(a) Revise the first sentence, in its entirety, to read "To the extent necessar/ to meet the closure requirements in Criterion 6, the applicant or licensee shall adhere to the following site and design

! criteria:"

Reason:

l The revision clarifies that the remainder of Criterion 4 i

applies only to the extent necassary to adhere to the Criterion 6 closure standards, which are proposed herein to reflect the new EPA standards for longevity of control and radon release Ifmitations.

(b) Revise paragraph (a) by replacing "minimi::ed" with "sufficiently small," deleting " maximum possible," and adding at the end *...so as to provide reasonable assurance of meeting the longevity standard in Criterion 6. "

7 Enclosure A

[7550-01] ,

Reason:

The changes revise and clarify the restrictions placed on upstream catchment area so as to be consistant with the EPA longevity standard now reflected in proposed Criterion 6.

Nota:

'~

Paragraoh (a) was previously suspended in its entirety.

(c) Delete paragraph (b) in its entirety. l 1

Reason:

It may not be necessary for topographic features to provice good wind protection in order to meet the EPA longevity standard. For example, engineering methods (e.g. , rock armoring) should be able to

! provide sufficient wind protection to meet the EPA design standard of 1,000 years of effective control.

(d) In the first sentence of paragraph (c), delete the phrase

" ..be relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize erosion potential and to..."

Reason: The 1,000 year design lifetime in the EPA longevity stan-dard might be met by engineering or other methods rather than "relatively flat" features, and it may not be necessary to " minimize" erosion poten-tial.

It may be acceptable under the EPA standard, and more practicable, to apply a relatively more erosive but thicker cover.

(e) Deleta the remainder of paragraph (c) beginning with "The broad objective..." and ending with "... identified."

Reason: The deleted language is misleading and at odds with the EPA longevity standard. Under the EPA requirement, acceptability is a function of overall durability rather than specific design features.

Also, the language is unnecessary in view of the proposed retainment of elements of Criterion 3 requiring that steepness of slopes be minimized to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.

(f) Relabel paragraph (c) as paragraph (b).

Reason: For editorial consistency.

(g) Delete the first sentence of paragraph (d), beginning "A full i

self-sustaining vegetative..." and ending "...to negligible levels."

Reason: The first sentence mandates a rock or vegetative cover to reduce erosion. Further language outlines possible exceations but .tne standard is established by the first sentence. While a rock cover or vegetative cover is a very effective way to meet the EPA standard, it may not be the only way to meet the 1000 year effective design oofective.

8 Enclosure A w - ._._y-- ._ . , . -.. _ .- .

4

[7590-012 The Commission believes that this and similar language should be deleted so as to provide maximum flexibility to mill operators in devising plans to meet the EPA longevity standard.

(h) Delete the second and third sentences of paragraon (d) beginning with "Where a full..." and ending with "... pile."

Reason: See (d) and (g) above. l (i) In the fourth sentence of paragraph (d) beginning "The following I factors. . . ," replace the words "the final" in the phrase ". . . in establish- !

ing the final rock cover..." with "any."

Reason: See (g) above. Rock covering is not flatly required.

The words "the final" are modified to clarify this situation.

(j) In the first listed item in paragraph (d), delete the paren-thetical phrase "(excepting bedding material average particles size shall be at least cobble si:e or greater)."

Reason: The phrase specifies technical requirements on rock size that may not be necessary to meet the EPA design objective. This change will allow flexibility to use whatever size rock meets the E?A standard.

(k) Delete in its entirety the fourth paragraph of paragraph (d) beginning with " Individual rock fragments shall..." and ending with

"...shall not be used."

Reason: The fourth paragraph specifies technical recuirements on rock properties that may not o' e necessary to meet the EPA design objec-tive. The enange retains flexibility to accept greater quantities of lesser quality rock, or other designs in keeping with the EPA longevity standard.

(1) Delete the fifth paragraph of paragraph (d) in its entirety, beginning with " Rock covering..." and ending with "...of this Criterion."

Reason: The listing of requirements neeced to sucport a justifica-tion for not using a rock cover is at odds with the form of the EPA longevity standard.

Note: In the fifth paragraph of paragraph (d), the first phrase

" Rock covering of sloces may not te required..." was not previously suspended.

9 Enclosure A

(7590-01]

(m) Delete the first sentence of the last paragraph of para-graph (d) beginning "Furthermore, all impoundments..." and ending

... slope gradient."

Reason: While contouring to minimize concentrated surface runoff or sharp changes in flow will enhance long-term stability, such contour-ing to totally avoid problem areas may not be required in all cases by the EPA design lifetime standard of 1,000 years to the extent practicable and 200 years in any case.

(n) In the second sentence of the last paragraph of paragraph (c) delete "In addition to rock c: .* cn slopes..." and "...with substantial rock cover (rip rap)." Replace " areas toward" with " Areas toward."

Reason: See (g) above.

(o) Relabel paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), as (c), (d), and (e),

respactively.

Reason: For editorial consistency.

(5) Criterion 5.

(a) In the first paragraph, delete the first two sentences beginn-ing " Steps shall be taken..." and ending "... potential uses." and the phrase "...in order to accomplish this oojective." in the third sentence.

Reason: The EPA groundwater protaction standards referenced in 40 CFR 192.32(a) do not permit any seepage to groundwater.

(b) In the first listed item under the first paragraph beginning with " Installation of..." delete the words " low permeability" as a char-acteristic of bottom liners.

Reason: The EPA groundwater protection standard referenced in 40 CFR 192.32(a) requires a liner that prevents migration of wastes out of the impoundment into the adjacent soil and graundwater. Low permea-bility implies that some migration is allowed.

Note: In the first listed item under the first paragraph, the last two full sentences, beginning with '"Where clay liners..." and ending with

... months of exoosure))," were previously suspended.

, (c) In the second paragraph beginning "Where groundwater impacts..."

delete the phrase "to its potential use before milling operations began to the maximum extent practicable."

10 Enclosure A

1 (7290-01]

Reason: The EPA standard in 40 CFR 192.33, by referencing 40 CFR l 254.100, requires a corrective action program to restore groundwater to i

standards established under 40 CFR 254.92-94. This standarc is essan- l tially a nondegradation standard. Restoration of groundwater quality only to the extent necessary to restore its potential use is inconsis-

tent with the EPA standard.

(d) Delete in its entirety the third paragraph beginning "While the primary method of protecting ground water shall be isolation..." and ending ". . .from current or potential uses."

Reason: The EPA standards for groundwater protection in 40 CFR I

192.32(a) protect groundwater primarily on the basis of background-level concentration limits for hazardous constituents, and not in terms of i current or potential uses.

The deleted sentence allowed consideration of tailings in contact with groundwater. The EPA standard permits no seep-age to groundwater.

(e) In the first sentence of the fifth paragraph beginning "This information shall be gathered..." delete the word " usable" where it modifies " groundwater."

i Reason: The EPA standard in 10 CFR 192.32(a) does not distinguish between " usable" and nonusable aquifers. The groundwater protection '

standard applies universally to aquifers of any quality or potential use.

6. Criterion 6.

< (a) Delete the first sentence in entirety, beginning with "Suffi-cient earth cover. . ." and ending with ".. . meter per second.", and in its place insert "In cases where waste byproduct material is to be permanently l disposed, the waste disposal area shall be closed in accordance with a i

design 1 which shall provide reasonable assurance of control of radiologi-cal hazards to (i) be effective for one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and i

(ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and j raden-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as to not exceed an average 2 release rate of 20 picoeuries per square meter

per second (pCf/ms s),a i Reason

The change replaces previous Commission requirements for nini-mum cover thickness and post-closure radon control with the EPA standards l

11 Enclosure A

., -. - . . - . - --._.--.,_.-..n--..-------...,e ..---,,,.--..-..,-,..,----.,-.p,, .

[7590-01]

for 1.ngevity and racon control.

The EPA standard in 40 CFR 192.32(b) for environmental protection after closure does not stipulate a minimum cover, but rather a longevity requirement for whatever control is applied.

The control method must also prov'de i reasonable assurance that releases of radon-222 do not exceed 20 picoeuries per square meter per second, rather than 2 picacuries.

Under the EPA standard the thickness of cover will be a function of longevity and radon release with no set minimum thickness.

(b) Add to Criterion 6 the following two footnotes which accompany the revised first sentence: footnote (1) "The standard appifes to design.

Monitoring for radon after installation of an appropriately designed cover is not required," and footnote (2) "This average shall apply to the entire surface of. each disposal area over periods of at least one year, but short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both uranium byproduct mate-rials and from covering materials. Radon emissions from covering materials should be estimated as part of developing a closure plan for each site.

The standard, however, applies only to emissions from byproduct materials to the atmosphere."

Reason: This change fully incorporates the EPA radon control standard.

Note: In the first sentence in Criterion 6, only the words "but not less than three meters" and "to less than two picacuries per square meter per second" were previously suspended.

(c) In the fifth sentence of the first paragraph, replace "non-soiled" with "non-soil," and delete the words "to reduce tailings covers to less than three meters."

Reason: The changes correct a typographical error, and delete a reference to the three-meter minimum cover thickness requirement which is no longer appropriate.

Note: In the fifth sentence of the first paragraph, the words

... crack on..." were previously suspended.

(d) Delete the second to last and last sentences, beginning with "Near surface cover materials. . ." and ending with ".. . cover material i ts e l f. "

12 Enclosure A

[7590-01]

Reason: The EPA standards for post-closure environmental protec-tion do not provide for, or characterire, the cover material in terms of radioactivity, but only in terms of durability and capacity to reduce radon release from the tailings. However, the EPA standard does indi-cate in a footnote that the cnaracteristics of the cover material should be considered on a site-specific basis.

(e) At the end of Criterion 6, add a new paragraph to read: "The design requirements in this Criterion for longevity and control of radon releases shall apply to any portion of a licensed and/or disposal sita unless such portion contains a concentration of radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a result of byproduct material does not exceed the background level by more than: (i) 5 picocuries per gram (pCf/g) of radium-225, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over the first 15 centimeters (cm) below the surface, and (ii) 15 pCi/g of radium-225, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface."

Reason: This change incorporates the EPA requirements for site cleanup outside the actual disposal area, in areas where the longevity and radon control closure standards are not applicacle (see 40 CFR 192.32(b)(2) and 192.41).

7. Critation 8.

(a) At the end of the first full paragraph, add a new sentance to read "During operations and prior to closure, radiation doses from radon emissions frem surface impoundmerts shall be kept as low as is practicable."

Reason: This change incorporates the EPA requirement imposed under 40 CFR 192.32(a)(4).

(b) Following the third full paragraph of Criterion 3, just before Criterion 8A, insert the following two new paragraphs:

" Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct mate-rial shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assur-anca that tne annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the wnole cocy, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of any memoer of the public as a result of exposures to the planned 13 Enclosure A

(7590-01]

discharge of radioactive materials, radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to the general environment."

" Uranium and thorium byproduct materials shall be managed so as to conform to the applicaole provisions of Title 40 of the Coce of Federal Regulations, Part 440, " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category:

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Sucpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcatcgory," as codified on January 1,1983."

Reason: These new paragraphs incorporate EPA requirements imposed under 40 CFR 192.41(d) and 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3), respectively.

8. Criterion 10.

In the second sentence of the second paragraph, add the words "and control" immediately after the word " surveillance" in both places the -

word " surveillance" appears.

Reason: This change clarifies the need to establish financial arrangements consistent with any requirement for maintenance to main-tain isolation of tailings after closure. This change is necessary and consistent with the absence of a prohibition on reliance on maintenance to provide long-term isolation in 40 CFR 192.32(b). ,

9. Criterion 12.

Delete the first sentence which states that final disposition of tailings should be such that ongoing active maintenance is not necessary to preserve isolation.

Reason:

The standard referenced in 40 CFR 192.32(b) for control of nonradiological hazards, 40 CFR 264.111, requires only that the need for maintenance be minimized; it does not excluce the possibility of ifmited i

l reliance on maintenance following closure of a disposal site.

10. Criteria 2, 7, 9, and 11 are not affected by the new EPA l

standards and no modification is proposed for any portion of those criteria.

L,cact of the Prooosed Amendments Compliance with Subparts 0 and E to 40 CFR Part 192 of EPA's regula-tions is an established requirement. Under Section 275d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Commission is obligated to imolement and enforce the new EPA standards as of Decemoer 6,1983, the date they l

l l '4 Enclosure A l

l

[7590-012 I

became effective. This Commission resconsibility is being carried out on an ad hoc, cass-by-case basis in individual licensing actions The Commission's action in proposing these modifications to .ips regu-

'~

1ations in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 is to confora them to the new E?A standards. These changas are for the purpose of avoiding conflicts and inconsistencies, and for clarifying previously existing language so as to be compatible with the,new requiiaments. In most' instances, the changes revise previous NRC requirements by deleting them or reducint

\

their stringency or effect so as to make NRC's requiren:ents cc patible with EPA's. The action p-oposed here by the Commission is a consequence

' of previous actions taken by the Congress and the EPA, and is legally s

mandated in Section 275b(3) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Commission action in this case is essentially nondiscretionary in nature, and for purposes of environmental analysis, rests upon exijting i

environmental and other imoact e. valuations in the following documents:

(1) " Final Environmental Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of Byproduct '4aterials from Uranium Ore Processing (40 fFR Part 192),"

Volumes 1 and 2, EPA 520/1-92-008-1 and 2, Septamaer 1983, and (2) "Regula-tory Impact Analysis of Final Environmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings at Active Sites," EPA 520/1-83-010, September 1983, both prepared in support of Subparts O sad E of 40 CFR Part 192, and (3) " Final Generic sEnvironmental Impact State 9ent on Uranium Milling,'" NUREG-0706, Septemoer

! 1980, prepared in support of Appendix A of 10 CFR Fart 40. The Commission believes that these sucparting analyses for the new EPA stand $rds and the existing Commission regulations provide a more than adequate environmental review for the standards addressed herein, and that no additional imoact analysis is warranted by the conforming actions proposed herein. The EPA engaged in and comoleted a reasoned decisionmaking process with full con-sideration of environmental concerns, and for the purposes of this rule-making action, can be viewed as the lead agency. "

PAPERWORK REDUCTICN ACT' STATEMENT ,

[

Thisproposedruledoesnotcontainaneworamendedinhormation collection requirement subject to the requirements of the Paperwork k

s s

e -

15 Enclosure A c

\

[7590-01] ,  ;

l I

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

1 Existing recuirements were approved by the Offica of Management and Budget acproval numcer 3150-0020.

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.

605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact uoan a substantial numoer of small entities. Therefore, we have not performed a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The basis for this finding is that of the licensed uranium mills, only one qualifies as a small entity. Almost all the mills are cwned by large corporations. Three of the mills are partly-owned by companies that could qualify as small businesses, according to the Small Business Administration generic small entity definition of 500 employees.

However, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, a small business is one that is independently owned and operated. Since these three mills are not independently owned they do not qualify as small entities.

LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 40 Government contracts, Hazardous materials-transportation, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, and Uranium.

Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorgani:ation Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 553, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, the NRC is proposing the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 40.

l PART 40 00MESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL

1. The authority citation for Part 40 is revised to read as r

follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81,161,182,183,186, 68 Stat.

932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs.11e(2), 33, 84, l

16 Enclosure A

C7590-012 Pub. L.95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2113, e

2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat.

688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as

'~

amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). Section 275, 92 Stat. l 3021, as amended by Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022).

Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. l 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, l 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.

22731; $5 40.3, 40.25(d)(1)-(3), 40.35(a)-(d), 40.41(b) and (c), 40.46, 40.51(a) and (c), and 40.63 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and SS 40.25(c) and (d)(3) and (4),

40.26(c)(2), 40.35(e), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64 and 40.65 are issued i

under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

2. Appendix A to Part 40 is revised to read as follows:

Accendix A to Part 40 - Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extrac-tion or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content.

Introduction. Every applicant for a license to possess and use source material in conjunction with uranium or thorium milling, or bypro-duct material at sites formerly associated with such milling, is required by the provisions of 5 40.31(h) to include in a license application pro-posed specifications relating to milling operations and the disposition of tailings or wastes resulting from such milling activities. This appen-dix establishes technical, financial, ownership, and long-term site i surveillance criteria relating to the siting, operation, decontamination, decommissioning, and reclamation of mills and tailings or waste systems and sites at which such mills and systems are located. As used in this appendix, the term "as low as is reasonably achievable" has the same mean-ing as in 5 20.1(c) of 10 CFR Part 20 of this enapter.

17 Enclosure A

(7590-01p In many cases, flexibility is provided in the criteria to allow achieving an optimum tailings disposal program on a site-specific basis.

However, in such cases the objectives, tecanical altarnatives and con-cerns which must be taken into account in developing a tailings program are identified. As provided by the provisions of 5 40.31(h) applica-tions for licenses must clearly demonstrate how the criteria have been addressed.

The specifications shall be developed considering the expected full capacity of tailings or waste systems and the lifetime of mill operations.

Where later expansions of systems or operations may be likely (for example, where large quantities of ore now marginally uneconomical may be stock-piled), the amenability of the disposal system to accommodate increased capacities without degradation in long-term stability and other perform-ance factors shall be evaluated.

I. Technical Criteria Criterion 1--In selecting among alternative tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing tailings sites, the following site features, which will determine the extent to which a program meets the broad objective of isolating the tailings and associated contaminants from man and the environment during operations and thereafter, shall be l considered:

Remoteness from populated areas; Hydrologic and other natural conditions as they contribute to continued immobili:ation and isolation of contaminants from groundwater sources; and Potential for minimizing erosion, disturcance, and dispersion by natural forces over the long term.

j The site selection process snall be an optimi:ation to the maximum extent reasonably achievable in terms of these features.

In the selection of disposal sites, primary emphasis shall be given tc isolation of tailings or wastes, a matter having long-term impacts, as l

l opposed to consideration only of snort-term convenience or benefits, such I as minimization of transportation or land acquisition costs. While isola-tion of tailings will be a function of both site and engineering design, 18 Enclosure A

(7590-01]

overriding consideration shall be given to siting features given the long-term nature of the tailings hazards.

Tailings shall be disposed of in a manner that minimizes the degree te whicn active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the

-~

site.

Criterion 2--To avoid proliferation of small waste disposal sites and thereby reduce perpetual surveillance obligations, byprocuct material from in situ extraction operations, such as residues from solution evapo-ration or contaminated control processes, and wastes from small remote above ground extraction operations shall be disposed of at existing large mill tailings disposal sites; unless, considering the nature of the wastes, such as their volume and specific activity, and the costs and ..

environmental impacts of transporting the wastes to a large disposal site, such offsite disposal is demonstrated to be impracticable or the advantages of onsite burial clearly outweigh the benefits of reducing the perpetual surveillance obligations.

Criterion 3--The evaluation of alternative sites and disposal methods performed by mill operators in support of their proposed tailings disposal program (provided in applicants' environmental reports) shall reflect serious consideration of the below grade disposal mode. Where full below-grade burial is not practicable, the size of retention structures, and size and steepness of slopes of associated exposed embankments shall be minimized by excavation to the maximum extent reasonably achievable or appropriate given the geologic and hydrologic conditions at a site.

Criterion 4--To the extent necessary to meet the closure require-ments in Criterion 6, the applicant or licensee shall adhere to the following site and design criteria:

(a) Upstream rainfall catchment areas must be sufficiently small to decrease erosion potential and the size of the flood unich could erode or wash out sections of the tailings disposal area so as to provide reasonable assurance of meeting the longevity standard in Criterion 6.

(b) Emoankment and cover sloces shall provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability.

(c) The following factors shall be considered in establishing any rock cover design to avoid displacement of rock particles by human and i

{

19 Enclosure A

[7590-01] l animal traffic or by natural processes, and to preclude undercutting and piping:

Shape, size, composition, and gradation of rock particles; Rock cover thickness and zoning of particles by size; and Steepness of underlying slopes. l Areas toward which surface runoff might be directed shall be well protected.

In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall stability, erosion potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain shall be evaluated to assure that there are not ongoing or potential processes, such as gully erosion, which would lead to impoundment instability.

(d) The impoundment shall not be located near a capable fault tnat could cause a maximum credible earthquake larger than that which the impoundment could reasonably be expected to withstand. As used in this criterion, the term " capable fault" has the same meaning as defined in S III(g) of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 100. The term " maximum credible earthcuake" means that earthquake which would cause the maximum vibratory ground motion based upon an evaluation of earthquake potential consider-ing the regional and local geology and seismology and specific character-istics of local subsurface material.

(e) The impoundment, where feasible, should be designed to incor-porate features which will promote deposition. For example, design features which promote deposition of sediment suspended in any runoff wnich flows into the impoundment area might be utilized; the object of sucn a design feature would be to enhance the thickness of cover over time.

Criterion 5--The following shall be considered:

Installation of bottom liners (Where synthetic liners are used, a leakage detection system shall be installed immediately below the liner to ensure major failures are detected if they occur. This is in acdition to the groundwater monitoring program conducted as provided in Criterion 7.

Where clay liners are proposed or relatively thin, in-situ clay soils ara to be relied upon for seepage control, tests shall be conducted witn representative tailings solutions and clay materials to confirm tnat no significant deterioration of permeability or stability properties will 20 Enclosure A l , _. _

[7590-0Q occur with continuous exposure of clay to tailings solutions. Tests shall be run for a sufficient period of time to reveal any effects if they are going to occur (in some cases deterioration nas been observed to occur rather rapicly after about nine months of exoosure)).

Mill process designs which provide the maximum practicable recycle of solutions and conservation of water to reduce the net input of liquid to the tailings impoundment.

Dewatering of tailings by process devices and/or in-situ drainage systems (At new sites, tailings shall be dewatered by a drainage system installed at the bottom of the impoundment to lower the phreatic surface and reduce the driving head for seepage, unless tests show tailings are not amenable to such a system. Where in-situ dewatering is to be con-ducted, the impoundment bottom shall be graded to assure that the drains are at a low point. The drains shall be protected by suitable filter materials to assure that drains remain free running. The drainage system shall also be adequately sized to assure good drainage).

Neutralization to promote immobilization of toxic substances. .

Where groundwater imoacts are occurring at an existing site due to seepage, action shall be taken to alleviate conditions that lead to excessive seepage impacts and restore groundwater quality. The specific seepage control and grcundwater protection method, or comoination of methods, to be used must be worked out on a site-soecific basis. Tech-nical specifications shall be prepared to control installation of seenage control systems. A quality assurance, testing, and inspection program, which includes supervision by a qualified engineer or scientist, shall be established to assure the specifications are met.

In support of a tailings disposal system proposal, the applicant /

operator shall supply information concerning the following:

The chemical and radioactive characteristics of the waste solutions.

The characteristics of the underlying soil and gaologic forma-tions particularly as they will control transport of contaminants and solutions. This shall include detailed information concerning extent, thickness, uniformity, shape, and orientation of underlying strata.

1 21 Enclosure A

~_ _.

C7590-011;.

Hydraulic gradients and cnductivities of the various formations shall be determined.

This information shall be gathered from borings and field survey

.. methods taken within the proposed imooundment area and in surrounding areas where contaminants might migrate to groundwater. The information gathered on boreholes shall include both geologic and geophysical logs in sufficient ' number and degree of sophistication to allow determining significant discontinuities, fractures, and channeled deposits of high hydraulic conductivity. If field survey methods are used, they should be in addition to and calibrated w.ith borehole logging. Hydrologic param-eters such as permeability shall not be determined on the basis of labora-tory analysis of samples Qone; a sufficient amount of field testing (e.g. , pump tests) shall be conducted to assure actual field properties are adequately understood. Testing shall be conducted to allow estimat-ing chemi sorption attenuation properties of underlying soil and rock.

Location, extent, quality, capacity and current uses of any grounowater at and near the site.

Furthermore, steps shall be taken during stockpiling of are to mini-mize penetration of radionuclides into underlying soils; suitable methods include lining and/or compaction of are storage areas.

Criterion 6--In cases where waste byproduct material is to be perma-nently disposed, the waste disposal area shall be closed in accordance with a design 1 which shall provide reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and t

(ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and racon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as to not exceed an average 2 release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter

'The stancare applies to design. Monitoring for radon after installation of an appropriately designed cover is not required.

l 2This average shall apply to the entire surface of each disposal area over periods of at least 1 year, but short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both uranium byproduct materials and from covering materials.

Radon emissions frem covering materials should be estimated as part of developing a closure plan for each site. The standard, however, apolies only to emissions frem uranium byproduct materials to the atmosphere.

22 Enclosure A l

(7590-01]

per second (pCi/m:s). In computing required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally in similar soils .

in similar circumstances shall not be considered. Direct gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects of any thin synthetic layer shall not be taken into account in deter'nining the calculated radon exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed, it must be demonstrated that such materials will not degrade l by differential settlement, weathering, or other mechanism, over long-term time intervals. '

The design requirements in this criterion for longevity and control of radon releases shall apply to any portion of a licensed and/or dis-posal site unless such portion contains a concentration of radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a result of byproduct material does not exceed the background level by more than: (i) 5 pico-  ;

curies per gram (pci/g) of radium-225, or, in the case of thorium bypro-duct material, radium-228, averaged over the first 15 centimeters (cm) below the surface, and (ii) 15 pC1/g of radium-225, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface.

Criterion 7--At least one full year prior to any major site construc-tion, a preoperational monitoring program shall be conducted to provide complete baseline data on a milling site and its environs. Througnout the construction and operating phases of the mill, an operational monitor-ing program shall be conducted to measure or evaluate compliance with applicaole standards and regulations; to evaluate performance of control systems and procedures; to evaluate environmental impacts of operation; and to detect potential long-term effects.

Criterion 8--Milling operations shall be conducted so that all air-borne effluent releases are reduced to levels as low as is reasonably achievable. The primary means of accomplishing this shall be by means of emission controls. Institutional controls, such as extending the site boundary and exclusion area, may be emoloyed to ensure that offsite expo-sure limits are met, but only after all practicaole measures have been taken to control emissions at the source. Notwithstanding the existence of individual dose standards, strict control of emissions is necessary i to assure that population exposures are reduced to the maximum extent 23 Enclosure A l

__ _ - -- - - .~ _

^

(7590-01],

reasonacly achievable and to avoid site contamination. The greatest potential sources of offsite radiation exposure (aside from radon expo-sure) are dusting frca dry surfaces of the tailings disposal area not covered by tailings solution and emissions from yellowcake drying and packaging operations. During operations and prior to closure, radiation doses from radon emissions from surface impoundments of uranium or thorium byproduct materials shall be kept as low as is practicable.

Checks shall be made and logged hourly of all parameters (e.g. ,

differential pressurts and scrubber water flow rates) which determine the efficiency of yellowcake stack emission control equipment operation.

It shall be determined whether or not conditions are within a range pre-scribed to ensure that the equipment is operating consistently near peak efficiency; corrective action shall be taken when performance is outside of ptescribed ranges. Effluent control devices shall be operative at all times during drying and packaging operations and whenever air is exhausting from the yellowcake stack. Drjing and packaging operations shall terminate when controls are inoperative. When checks indicate the equipment is not operating within the range prescribed for peak effi-ciency, actions shall be taken to restore parameters to the prescribed range. When this cannot be done without shutdown and repairs, drying and packaging operations shall cease as soon as practicable. Operations may not be re-started after cessation due to off normal performance until needed corrective actions have been identified and implemented. All such cessations, corrective actions, and re-starts shall be reported to the appropriate NRC regional office as indicated in Criterion 8A', in writing, I

t within 10 days of the subsequent restart.

i To control dusting from tailings, that portion not covered by stand-ing liquids shall be wetted or chemically stabilized to prevent or mini- l mize blowing and dusting to the maximum extent reasonably achievable.

This requirement may be relaxed if tailings are effectively sheltered from wind, such as may be the case where they are disposed of below grade and the tailings surface is not exposed to wind. Consideration shall be given in planning tailings disposal programs to methods which would allow phased covering and reclamation of tailings impoundments since this will help in controlling particulate and radon emissions during operation. To 24 Enclosure A

(7590-01]

control dusting from diffuse sources, such as tailings and are pads where l

automatic controls do not apply, operators shall develop written operat-ing procedures specifying the methods of control which will be utilized.

Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproouct material shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance that the annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millfrems to any other organ of any member of the public as a result of exposures to the planned discharge of radioactive materials, radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to the general environment.

Uranium and thorium byproduct materials shall be managed so as to conform to the applicable provisions of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 440, " Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category:

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, Subpart C, Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium Ores Subcategory," as codified on January 1, 1983.

Criterion 8A--Daily inspections of tailings or waste retention systems shall be conducted by a qualified engineer or scientist and documented.

, The appropriate NRC regional office as indicated in Appendix 0 of 10 CFR Part 20, or the Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, shall be immediately

(

notified of any failure in a tailings or waste retention system which results in a release of tailings or waste into unrestricted areas, and/or of any unusual conditions (conditions not contemplated in the design of the retention system) which if not corrected could indicate the poten-tial or lead to failure of the system and result in a release of tafi-ings or waste into unrestricted areas.

II. Financial Criteria Criterion 9--Financial surety arrangements shall be estaclisned by each mill operator prior to the commencement of operations to assure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out the decontamination and daccamissioning of the mill and site and for the reclamation of any tail-ings or waste disposal areas. The amount of funds to be ensured by suca l surety arrangements shall be based on Commission-approved cost estimates in a Commission-approved clan for (1) decontamination and decommissioning 25 Enclosure A

[7590-01],

of mill buildings and the milling site to levels which woula allow unre-stricted use of these areas upon decommissioning, and (2) the reclamation of tailings and/or waste disposal areas in accorcance with tecnnical criteria delineated in Section I of this Aapendix. The licensee shall submit this plan in conjunction with an environmental report that addresses the expected environmental impacts of tne milling operation, cecommission-ing and tailings reclamation, and evaluates alternatives for mitigating these impacts. The surety shall also cover the payment of the charge for long-term surveillance and control required by Criterion 10. In estab-lishing specific surety arrangements, the licensee's cost estimates shall take into account total costs that would be incurred if an independent contractor were hired to perform the decommissioning and reclamation work.

In order to avoid unnecessary duplication and expense, the Commission may accept financial sureties that have been consolidated with financial or surety arrangements established to meet requirements of other Federal ar state agencies and/or local governing bodies for such decommissioning,

' decontamination, reclamation, and long-term site surveillance and contrnl, provided such arrangements are considered adequate to satisfy these requirements and that the portion of the surety which covers the decem-missioning and reclamation of the mill, mill tailings site and associated areas, and the long-term funding charge is clearly identified and committed for use in accomplishing these activities. The licensee's surety mech-anism will be reviewed annually by the Commission to assure that sufff-cient funds would be available for comoletion of the reclamation plan if the work had to be performed by an independent contractor. The amount of surety liability should be adjusted to recognize any increases or decreases resulting from inflation, changes in engineering plans, activities per-

! formed, and any other conditions affecting costs. Regardless of whether reclamation is phased through the life of the operation or takes place at the end of operations, an appropriate portion of surety liability shall be retained until final compliance with the reclamation plan is determined.

This will yield a surety that is at least sufficient at all times to cover j

the costs of decommissioning and reclamation of the areas that are expected '

to be disturbed before the cext license renewal. The term of the surety mecnanism must be open ended, unless it can be demonstrated that another 26 Enclosure A l

[7590-01]

arrangement would provide an equivalent level of assurance. This assur-ance could be provided with a surety instrument which is written for a specified period of time (e.g. , 5 years) yet which must be automatically renewed unless the surety notifies the beneficiary (the Commission or the State regulatory agency) and the principal (the licensee) some reasonable time (e.g. , 90 days) prior to the renewal date of their intention not to renew. In such a situation the surety requirement still exists and the licensee would be required to submit an acceptable replacement surety l within a brief period of time to allow at least 60 days for the regulatory agency to collect.

Proo'f of forfeiture must not be necessary to collect the surety so that in the event that the licensee could not provide an acceptable replace-ment surety within the required time, the surety shall be automatically collected prior to its expiration. The conditions described above would have to be clearly stated on any surety instrument which is not open ended, and must be agreed to by all parties. Financial surety arrangements generally acceptable to the Commission are:

(a) Surety bonds; (b) Cash deposits; (c) Certificates of deposit; (d) Deposits of government securities; (e) Irrevocable letters or lines of credit; and (f) Combinations of the above or such other types of arrangements as may be approved by the Commission. However, self insurance, or any arrangement which essentially constitutes self insurance (e.g., a contract with a state or Federal agency), will not satisfy the surety requirement since this provides no additional assurance other than that which already exists througn license requirements.

Criterion 10--A minimum charge of $250,000 (1978 dollars) to cover the costs of long-term surveillance shall be paid by each mill operator to the general treasury of the United States or to an appropriate State agency prior to the tarmination of a uranium or thorium mill license.

If site surveillance or control requirements at a particular site are determined, on the basis of a site-specific evaluation, to be signifi-cantly greater than those specified in Criterion 12 (e.g. , if fencing is 27 Enclosure A

(7590-01].

{

determined to be necessary), variance in funding requirements may be speci-fied by the Commission. In any case, the total charge to cover the costs of long-tarm surveillance and control shall be such that, with an assumed 1 percent annual real interest rate, the collected funds will yield interest in an amount sufficient to cover the annual costs of site surveil-lance and control. The total charge will be adjusted annually prior to

. actual payment to recogni:e inflation. The inflation rate to be used is that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Department of Lacor, Sureau of Labor Statistics.

III. Site and Byproduct Material Cwnership Criterion 11--A. These criteria relating to ownership of tailings and their disposal sites become effective on November 8, 1981, and apply to all licenses terminated, issued, or renewed after that date.

B. Any uranium or thorium milling license or tailings license shall contain such terms and conditions as the Commission determines necessary to assure that prior to termination of the license, the licensee will comply with ownership requirements of this criterion for sites used for tailings disposal.

C. Title to the byproduct material licensed under this Part and land, including any interests therein (other than land owned by the United States or by a State) which is used for the dispcsal of any such byproduct material, or is essential to ensure the long term stability of such disposal site, shall be transferred to the United States or the State in which such land is located, at the option of such State. In view of the fact that physical isolation must be the primary means of long-term control, and Government land ownership is a desirable supple-mentary measure, ownership of certain severable subsurface interests (for example, mineral rights) may be determined to be unnecessary to protect the public health and safety and the environment. In any case, however, the applicant / operator must demonstrate a serious effort to obtain such subsurface rights, and must, in the event that certain rights cannot be obtained, provide notification in local public land records of the fact that the land is being used for the disposal of radioactive material and is sucject to eitner an NRC general or specific license prohibiting the disruotion and disturbance of the tailings. In some 28 Enclosure A

(7590-013 Pare cases, such as may occur with deep burial where no ongoing site surveillance will be required, surface land ownership transfer require-ments may be waived. For licenses issued before Novemoer 8,1981, the Commission say take into account the status of the ownership of sucn land, and interests therein, and the ability of a licensee to transfer title and custooy thereof to the United States or a State.

D. If the Commission subsequent to title transfer determines that use of the surface or subsurface estates, or both, of the land transferred to the United States or to a State will not endanger the public health, l safety, welfare, or environment, the Commission may permit the use of the surface or subsurface estates, or both, of such land in a manner consist-  !

ent with the provisions provided in -these criteria. If the Commission l permits such use of such land, it will provide the person who transferred such land with the right of first refusal with respect to such use of such land.

E.

Material and land transferred to the United States or a State in accordance with this Criterion shall be transferred without cost to the United States or a State other than administrative and legal costs incurred in carrying out such transfer.

F. The provisions of this Part respecting transfer of title and custody to land and tailings and wastes shall not apply in the case of lands held in trust by the United States for any Indian tribe or lands owned by such Indian tribe subject to a restriction against . alienation imposed by the United States.

In the case of such lands which are used for the disposal of byproduct material, as defined in this Part, the licensee shall enter into arrangements with the Ccamission as may be appropriate to assure the long-term surveillance of such lands by the United States.

IV. Long-Term Site Surveillance Criterion 12--As a minimum, annual site inspections shall be con-ducted by the government agency retaining ultimate custody of the site where tailings, or wastes are stored to confirm the integrity of the stacilized tailings or waste systems and to determine the need, if any, l for maintenance and/or monitoring. Results of the inspection shall be reported to the Commission within 60 days following each inspection. The 29 Enclosure A

(7590-01].

Commission may require more frequent site inspections if, on the basis of a site-specific evaluation, such a need apoears necessary due to the features of a particular tailings or waste disposal system.

Dated at Washington, DC, this day of , 1984 For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

l 1

i l

l l 30 Enclosure A

.' ~.

ENCLOSURE 3:

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAXING 1

l i

l I

[7590-01]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION 10 CFR PART 40 Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Ground Water Protection and Other Issues AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTICN: Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.

l l

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering further amendments to its uranium mill tailings regulations. The future rule-making proceeding for which this notice is issued is intended to incorporate ground water protection provisions and other requirements established by the Environmental Protection Agency for similar hazardous wastes into NRC regulations. This action is necessary to make NRC requirements similar to EPA standards as required by provisions of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act. '

DATE:

The comment period expires (60 days after publication). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so but assurance of consideration may not be given except as to comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES:. Mail comments to Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or deliver comments to Room 1121, 1717 H Street NW. , Washington, DC between 8:15 as and 5:00 pm weekdays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Fenner, Office of Executive Legal Director, telephone (301) 492-8692, or Dan E. Martin, Division of Waste Management, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 427-4642.

1 Enclosure B

(7590,01] .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatcry Commission has today proposed modifications to its existing mill tailings regulations in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40 for the purpose of conforming them to

-. generally applicable standards promulgated by the Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) on September 30,1983 (see 48 FR 45926; October 7, 1983). This advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) announces that the Ccamission is considering proposing further modifications to its regulations in 10 CFR Part 40, to satisfy certain provisions of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA), an'd requests public comments on pertinent issues and questions.

On October 7, 1983, the EPA published generally applicable standards for the management of uranium and thorium byproduct material. The stand-ards were developed.by the EPA in a manner to satisfy the provisions of Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, that for nonradiological hazards, the standards "...shall provide for the protection of human health and the environment consistent with the standards required under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, which are applicable to such hazards." To achieve this goal the EPA included within its requirements published October 7,1983, selected provisions from its regulations issued under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) by. cross referencing the SWOA provisions. These specific provisions are now in effect and the NRC is considering undertaking a rulemaking which would clarify its regulations by including within them those SWOA requirements selected by the EPA for application to uranium and thorium mill tailings.

The rulemaking under consideration would also be intended to satisfy a requirement placed upon the NRC under Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to "... insure that the management of any byproduct material. . . is carried out in such manner as. . . conforms to general require-ments established by the Commission, with the concurrence of the (EPA)

Administrator, which are, to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable to requirements applicable to the possession, transfer, and disposal of similar hazardous material regulated by the Administrator j

under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended." The rulemaking under consideration, which is the subject of this ANPRM, would then incorporate 2 Enclosure B

o- _ . - - _

, [7590-01]

within NRC regulations elements of EPA's SWOA requirements already imposed by EPA, and establish any further requirements necessary for the NRC to

( have SWOA-comparable standards as called for by Section 84 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

I. Backcround The SWOA requirements imposed by the EPA in its rule published October 7,1983 (48 FR 45926) were described by the EPA in that Notica as follows: "Consistant with the standards EPA issued under the SWOA for hazardous wastas (47 FR 32274-32388, July 26, 1982) the standard for tailings piles has two parts: (l') A ' primary' standard that requires use of a liner designed to prevent migration of hazardous substances out of the impoundment, and (2) a ' secondary' ground water protection standard requiring, in effect, that any hazardous constituents that leak from the wasta not be allowed to degrade ground water. The primary standard applies to new portions of new or existing wasta depositories. The secondary standard applies to new and existing portions, the point of compliance being at the edge of the waste impoundment. The specific hazardous sub-stancas and concentrations (i.e., background levels) that define non-compliance with the secondary standard at each site will be established for uranium mill tailings by NRC and Agreement States. The SWOA rules, however, permit alternate concentration limits to be established when they will not pose "...a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment" as long as the alternata concentration limit is not exceeded. The rule also allow (sic) ' hazardous constituents' to be exempted from coverage by the permit based on the same criterion. EPA detarmines the alternata concentration standard or exemption under the SWOA; EPA's concurrence would be required under the proposed standards for tailings."

The EPA went on to further describe the primary standard, primarily consisting of the liner design requirements, and clarify the secondary standard, by saying:

"The primary standard, 40 CFR 264.221, can usually be satisfied only by using liner materials (sucn as plastics) that can retain all wastes.

Exemptions permitting use of other liner materials (such as clay) that 3 Enclosure S

(7590-01] -

may release water or small quantities of other substances or, in some cases, permitting no liner may be granted only if migration of hazardous constituents into the ground water or surface water would be prevented indefinitely...."

"Under these standards, all new waste storage areas (whether new waste facilities or expansions of existing piles) are subject to the primary standard--the liner requirement. If new wastes are added to an existing pile, however, the pile must comply with the secondary standard--

4 the hazardous constituent concentration standards for health and environ-i mental protection.

Whether for a new or existing pile, if the secondary standards are found not to be satisfied and subsequent corrective actions fail to achieve compliance in a reasonable time, the operator must cease depositing waste on that pile."

Also in its October 7,1983 Notice, the EPA stated that " EPA's responsibilities to establish standards under Section 206 of UMTRCA are carried out through adoption of all or part of the following sections of the SWOA regulations:

1. Subpart F:

40 CFR 264.92 Ground water protection standard 40 CFR 264.93 Hazardous constituents 40 CFR 264.94 Concentration limits (These three sections are modified and adopted as 6 192.32(a)(2))

40 CFR 264.100 Corrective action program (This section is modified and adopted as 6 192.33) ti. Subpart G:

40 CFR 264.117 Closure performance standard (This section is adopted as part of S 192.32(b)(1))

111. Subpart K:

40 CFR 264.221 Design and operating requirements for surface impoundments d

(This section is modified and adopted as 5 192.32(a)(1))"

"NRC's responsibilities under UMTRCA are to implement EPA's standard and to ' . . . insure that the management of any byproduct material . . . is carried out in sucn a manner as... conforms to general requirements established by the Commission, with the concurrence of the Administrator, which are, to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparacle to 4 Enclosure B

[7590-01]

requirements applicable to the possession, transfer, and disposal of similar hazardous material regulated by the Administrator under the SWOA, as amended.' EPA will insure that NRC's regulations satisfy these admoni-tions througn its concurrence role. Relevant SWOA regulations are those embedded in Subparts A (except Section 254.3), 8, C, 0, E, F, G, H, and K.

Examples of areas which NRC must address in discharging these respon-sibilities involve functions under the six sections listed immediately above which are incorporated into these EPA standards, and the following sections of the SWOA regulations:

1. Subpart F:

40 CFR 254.91 Required programs 40 CFR 264.95 Point of compliance 40 CFR 264.96 Compliance period 40 CFR 264.97 General ground water monitoring requirements 40 CFR 264.98 Detection monitoring program 40 CFR 264.99 Compliance monitoring program ii. Subpart G: -

40 CFR 264.117 Post-closure care and use of property iii. Subpart K:

40 CFR 254.225 Monitoring and inspection (of impoundment liners),

as applicable 40 CFR 264.228 Closure and postclosure care, as applicable."

The above quotations from the EPA's October 7,1983 Notice serve to clarify the substance of EPA's standards, the respective agency responsi-bilities under the UMTRCA, and the nature and scope of the rulemaking the NRC is herein consicering undertaking. The NRC has reviewed the language quoted and believes it to be factually correct and a fair representation of the issues addressed.

II. Issues for Public Comment The NRC requests public comment on the general question of how best to proceed to fulfill its responsibilities under the Atcmic Energy Act, with respect to esta011shing SWDA-comparable requirements for the manage-ment of mill tailings, to the maximum extent practicable. In this context, comments are requested on choices and decisions the NRC must make concerning issues and actions that are within its discretion.

5 Enclosure B

[7590-011 .

1 Comments on the basic value, validity, lawfulness, or appropriateness of the EPA's SWOA regulations, the SWOA, or the UMTRCA are not requested.

A. Tentative NRC Acoreach The NRC has developed a tentative approach to place SWOA-comparable requirements in its regulations, based on planning and development efforts conducted to date. This approach is tentative, and is made a part of i

this public announcement so efforts spent in providing pubife comment might be better guided. It involves the development of a block insert to NRC regulations (either at the end of 10 CFR Part 40 or perhaps by crea- l tion of a n,ew Part 41) which would contain the entire set of SWOA-comparable requirements.

The insert would be organized in terms of design, operating, closure, and post-closure requirements, and would to the fullest extent feasible, be a complete statement of the requirements without refererence to EPA requirements in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In this i way, the requirements could be stated in a self contained, unified manner in one place. Coverage would include at least the SWDA requirements already imposed by EPA (40 CFR 264.92-94, 264.100, 264.111, and 264.221),

and appropriate portions of the SWOA requirements mentioned by the EPA explicitly as " examples of areas which NRC must address'" (these include 40 CFR 264.96-99, 264.117, 264.226, and 264.228).

l The insert being considered for proposal by the NRC would likely include all of Subpart F (40 CFR 264.90-100), due to the close relation-ship and interdependency of the separate provisions, and because all but 40 CFR 264.90, " Applicability," is either imposed or mentioned as an example by the EPA.

The remainder of the EPA's SWOA regulations, including Subparts A (except Section 264.3), B, C, 0, E, F, G, H, and K would be reviewed in developing a proposal to determine which of those requirements would need to be incorporated in NRC regulations to establish NRC requirements which are to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable to the EPA's SWOA requirements for similar hazardous material.

In developing this proposal the NRC would distinguish between substantive requirements and EPA's procedural permitting requirements because it does not believe the UMTRCA mandate requires the NRC to adopt I

l 6 Enclosure B

(7590-01]

any portion of the procedural permitting aspects of EPA's regulations.

The NRC's established procedures for licensing, inspection, and enforce-ment would be used with respect to implementation.

B. Issues and Questions The NRC seeks public input with respect to all aspects of the ques-tion of how best to fulfill its responsibilities under Section 275 and 84 of ghe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for protection of ground water.

The NRC also seeks public comment with respect to the following iscues and questions (In providing public comment, commentors are requested to provide the basis in fact for any opinions offered or asser-tions made):

1) Should the SWDA comparable requirements to be placed in NRC regulations be explicitly restated to precisely duplicate EPA's language, or should substantive requirements be paraphrased?

2) Should all of Subpart F be included? What should not be included?

3) What should be included in a universe of hazardous constituents for mill tailings to replace the 375-ites long list in Appendix VIII to 40 CFR Part 261 referenced in 40 CFR 254.93? Should constituents not usually present or not present above trace levels be included? What criteria should be applied to deciding what constituents should be included?

4) The NRC must establish SWDA-ccmparable requirements to the maximum extent practicable. 'I'n this context, what is practicable given current practice and the current state of technology?

5) Should NRC retain the basic sequence embodied in Subpart F where licensees who detect ground water contamination progress througn a graduated scale of action, from detection monitoring, througn complianca monitoring, and on to corrective action, with significant time delays allowed between steps while plans and programs are being developed, reviewed, and implemented? Would it be advisable, practicable or appro-priate to require, for example, that all NRC licensees have approved compliance monitoring programs that are automatically activated and implemented when needed?

7 Enclosure B

[7590-01] . .

6) Should the basic SWOA scheme for the timing and duration of a

" compliance" period, a " closure" period, and a " post-closure care" period be maintained? What modifications, deletions, additions should be made?

7) To what extent, how, and under what conditions should leak detection systems under single-liner impoundments be allowed to fulfill the requirements for a detection monitoring program that otherwise requires a monitoring well in the uppermost aquifer?

8) How detailed should NRC's regulations be, and wnat should and should not be required in areas such as well construction, sampling and sample analysis, determinations of annual average and seasonal ba.ckground concentrations, minimum detection levels, statistical treatment of data and determinations of statistically significant differences, recordkeeping and reporting, quality assurance, etc.?

9) To what extent must the NRC provide supporting environmental impact analyses considering the nature of the requirements under consid-eration, some of which have already been imposed by EPA and are effective?

If supporting environmental evaluations are needed for SWDA-comparable rule changes except for the requirements already imposed by the EPA,

'should the NRC continue to proceed with only a single rulemaking to establish a ccepleta set of SWOA-comparable requirements?

LIST OF SUBJECTS IN 10 CFR PART 40 i

Government contracts, Hazardous materials-transportation, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, and Uranium.

Dated at Wasnington, DC, this __ day of , 1984.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

i 8 Enclosure.B

ENCLOSURE C:

EPA STANDARD l

i i

i 1

.e l

l

l

- October 7,1983  :

Part IV

% Environmental Protection Agency Thorium MIII Tailings at Ucansed Commercial Processing Stes; Final Rule

l 45925 Federal Rags. ster / Vol. 48. No.19e / Friday. Cc2co' er 7.1983 / Rules and Reguladcas ENVIRCNMENTAL PROTECT:CN Acomessas:Sackprr::-d Cocumem-AGENCY State in which 6e site is incated. when 3ackground infer =:t ort :s given = de mis SWre is an Ag eement 5ts:a cf Tv Final Environmentst Im;:ac: S:2:emerit NRC under Secten . 4 of 6e Arce:c 20 C 44 7srt M2 for Standards fer the Control of Enersy Act).

By;rocuet Matenals fro = Urann:m Cru Tainngs at tna insenve uranium lac-m 2ast-41 Processmg 90 CFR Part 1921. EFA ~.::31 miling sites are dafined in LWCA as Environmental S!sfidsrds for Urar:fum 1 4 an u u residnal cua.fosenve maten:!s. N and Thonum tJiB yaalings at IJeansed ac m m. prwum pn utes an n Canmm %cessang Ses Stamlards for Uraniu= Mill Tad!ngs at 6.sposal of tu.:=gs and $s clean::p c.,

Acuve Sites. EPA 3::D/t-43-.M0 (RIA). castte and effstte locations Acescy: hvironmental P otecdca Single coptes of de FEIS and de RIA. as conemmmsted with tadings. Final Agency. avadable. :nay be obtainec from de c!annup and disposai standarus for .he ag.no,, y;3,; g.de. Program Management C2ce (MR-45al. inactve sites were published by EPA on CEce of Radiation Programs. U.S. January

• 1963 (4a FR 500). The U.S.

sussasaarr:nese are Enal haalth and E..vtronmental Protecton Agency. Ceparunent of Energy (CCE) is-enytroronental standards to govern Wagten. D.C. 204ea: telephone stabdization and cont:vi of byproduct responsible for carrytag out these munber (703) 337-9331. acuvities (n confermance with case matenals (prumanly ::ull tailf r p) at Dockee Docket Number A-a:-:8 l

!! censed commercal uramum and standards with the concurrenca of the contams de rulemaking record.The NRC and in cooperation with the States.

donum processing sites. These docket is available for public inspeedon standarcs were developed pursuant to Tailings at active uranium milling between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.:n Moncay sites are def!ned in UMTRCA as Secuen::"5 of the At mic Energy Act (4: througn Fnday. at EPA's Central Decket uramum byproduct :natenals. na U.S.C. :::::::). as added by Seenon Ice of Secuen (LE-130). West Tower Lobby. program for active sites covers the Ensi Pub. L 95-404. the Uramum Mill Tadings Callery L 401 M Street. SW Radiation Centrol Act of 1978 disposal of taiiings and the control of Wasnington. D.C. 20460 A rs==aanble (UMTRCA). edluents and enussions dunng and after fee may be charged for copyms. :ndling operations. UMTRCA requires The standards apply to t='H= at pon puerrMan asponesances conrract locations dat are lia**=d by de EPA to establish standards for this Nuclear Regulatcry Com=ussten (NRCI Mr. Jack Russell. Cmdes and Cateria program, and dat standanis for Branch (ANR-.4eo). Cf5cs of Raalation nanr=Maadve hazards protect human orse States underTIt!eIIof to Programs. U.S. ~

. - - tal Protecdon health and te environmentin a manner UMTRCA. The standards for tiisposal of Agency. Wasamgton. D.C. :: Deco:

t=ilias= reqmre stahdization so that the conmstant with standards estahlf =nad telepanne number (703) 557-a2:4. under Sabtitle C of de Solid Waste health hazards assocsted with tadings suremssprrany ruponesances wdl be contreiled and !!nuted for at Disposal Act, as amended (SWDA). The least one ta-ad years. They require L L -_ _ - , - = NRC or the H~a-ia- Agreement Stata is tat disposal be designed to limit re--hl- for assurms manH=a~

Cn November S.1978. C:ngress with de standarus at actve mdl sites.

releases of racon to :D picocunes per enacted Pub. L 35-604, is Uramum MlIl square meter per sec=nd, averaged over Tailinr; Radiation Control Act of1973 Cu January 4.1983. Congress de sucace of de cisposed ta:!ings, and amended UMTRCA to provida reqmre measures to avoia rmesses of (hac.fmh daangnated "UMTRCA"}. In =Mtfaad gaid=a~ on de matters to be the Act. Congress stated its Snamg that considered in establishmg these racianneddes and other hazardous suostances from *=iling* to water. The uranma mdl tadings " *

• may pose a standards and to estabdsn new potendal and ===~daat radiation d-d"- for msnr promulgation: "In standarna for tadings at operating sulls. health hazard to the public. * *

• and prior to Snal *-=~4 add two eisments * *

• that every reasonabia edart estabhanmg such stancares. de and a measure of racioactivity to 2e M=smatrator shall consider the risk to should be made to provide for the public health, safety, and de ground water ,u.e- requir=-nr= stabdisadon, di-aa=4 and control in a now spe: Vied uncer the Solid Wasta savtromnant. de enviraa-at=! and safe and enviran==at=Hy sound manner econonne costs of applymg such Disposal Act as a-nd=d.Emsting ?A of such tadings in order to prevent or- standarus, and such otner factors as the reguladons and Federal Radiation .mmm,,= radon ciffusion into the A&tumstrator deter =unes to be Proteccan @d==~ --O envtronment and to prevent or mmm'+= approonate.'* The Act (P:n. L 36-4131 aopucaole to r=ihnts remam aad=a-d The Agency wtil:nomtor continum4 other environmentalhazards from sucs estacilsned a desaline of Ccteost 1.

tadings.*Os Adnumstratorof the 1983 for promulgacon of de stancards.

d...L,, oat cf technical and economic Enytronmental Protecnon Agency (EPA) These Enal stancarca cccform to the macrmanon as the Depar=nent of Energy was directed to set * *

• standards of above requirements.

procesas wita disposal of the inaccve general application for te protection of

• =iHage pdas, and revise these stancarus the puede health, safety, and the IL 4==="7 of se Final Ruis if dis information suggests dat environment * * '" to govern this moCtfcations are Warranted. This finalrule :nodiaes and clanHes process of stabilizatfod. disposal and some of the provistons of ?.e proposed This noCc3 summartzes the enmments cont;ol received on proposed standards standards because ofinfor taCon UMTRCA established two programs obtamed dunny the comment per:od and published on Aard 23.1983, and to protect puotic health, safety, and de at suoiic heanmrs (May 31.1983, in provides a summary of the Agenc/s envir::n=ent frcm uramum mill tadings. Wascington. anc lune 15-.18.1983. In consideration of maior comments. one for cartain assignated-sttes weten Cetaded responses to comments ar* CenverL are now macuve (La at wmch all EPA received a wide range of contatned in de Final Environmental .mlHng has stopped and wcich are not lmpact Statement. comments on de proposed standards under ticensel and another for acuve and :ne supporung documents. Several sars: These Enal standards taka efect sites (those sites licensed by the Nuclear hundred !sttars were recatved and 24 on Decemoer 9.1983. Regulatory Commission (NRCi or the incividuals test 1Hed and/or submitted

Feebral Register / Vol 48. No. Ise / Friday. Octo'oer 7.1983 / Rules and Resuladons 45927

""""""a at the public wrmes. when de normally reqmred levels will water erosion. which may syned I

Comments were recatvec S'em a broad be sansited no further frtnn te edge of radioacnve :: atenais cifsite.

specum of parte: pants. incinding uitings dan de site boundary or withm As of lartuary 17isc. ters were :7 pnvate eti= ens. public :nterest groups. 500 meters of de taihnp. wkchever is 1.icensed uranium :nd's. of which only 14

membes of de scenufic -. - - . . ty. less (Instead of requine:1 EPA were operstmg. By early cas, de '

mpmsentanves of maustry. and State concurrence. as proposed). amount of stored tadings Nd reached and Federal agences. EPA has canddly (8) Reqmras corrvedve ac:fon to about 175 mdlion metnc tcra alt). De reviewed and considered dese .astore pdwater to its background size of individual tadings pdes ranges mnwnants in pnparms is er d. the quality to be in place widin 18 =cuths ' rom accut 2 mdlion MT to about :o R!A. and a aevatoping these !!=al of a deternunadon of none + 'a'*, e udHon MT.

standards. EPA's respcuses to majer (Instead of de proposed 12 mondsI. The fumre d= mand for :ranium is in is (9) Requires equivalent levels ef goiec:ed to be almost exclusively for

• • """*"".a.re

• elecnical;cwer generaden. Based on j g,[gQg',*f* 3,,,,,

roteccan for wet sites (whera precpttanon exceeds recent DCE projecucas it is esu=ated i gg g*

evapotranspiragonl as for dry sites (by dat at least an additional 175 mdHon ;

sa u in hchdese daie - g d e .xe c - pernuttm g a MT of taitings wiii he generated by de ;

,%a,es a,e be,e,s, ,o, , geo,, y year :000 in the United States. This M= =his cap at wet sites).

we discuse de maiorissues M in (10I E"qtures the same level of p oiectan is for the connational millity puhuc m===ne our responses to them. of urania desenbed above. A small protecuan at au sites regardless of and b specac changes in de 8"'"at local populaeons. quandty of uranium is also recovered ej standards that resulted h our a seaandary product in de extracton eq coesideration of public emw==nts. (11) Establishes equivalent oder minerals, such as phosphate and Dese s+=ad=<= are divided into two requirements fn* thormm byproduct copper. and also by solution (m sim) para.& Srst part applies to matanals.

.$mener7 o Background Informat4c um y also i u nce l Efe ptla. and dunn projectons for the domestic uramum '

subgent closure pened."t.a after A. De Uinniumin% industry, eny smca see femgn ]

careedon of operations but peor to a maior deposits of high-grada deposats are richer in uramum. whici- ,

compledon of final disposal. inebing urannun res a de Umted States ar = ;eruuta lower pncmg.

h per:od wnen de udhss are drymg

• cated in the Colorado Plateau. the The United States Govem==nt '

out.has are sandards dat geven Wycesas Basms. and a Cdf Coast purchased large quandues of urams.

Plain of Texas.Most orw is uned by prunardy for use a defense programs

muing h second wh'partpecfes s de either underground at open-pit methods. from 1943 to 1970. Maay of the canafdons ta be achieved by f!nal At de mdl de ore is first crushed, producers of this uranium condneed Ana--I nome standards gmde the blanced. and ground to de proper size operacng after1970 to supply de '

acuvines car..ed out dunne de closure for de teacmns process wmen extrac:s commercal d===nd for uramum. In pened to assuri adequate Smal W most cases the tadings from i Der are stannarns that govem de .uranmm. Sewallasenmg procaw are caed.l= daA== ac:d. alkaline and a Government and commere:alpurchaq design of aisposal systems.

ecmosnada of de two. After uramm is won nuxed and stored in the same $

l The maior provisions of the anal mie These mixed tadinga are now mfernJ t 5 teached from the ora it is mar = nested as "

are withsummarrred enanges from in de rule Hat.j from de IsachIIquor drougnion IcDoams h eW """""g= or solvent extraction.The 4ed" tsdmss.There are _ !

about 31 sdlion MT of defense calated l soted. De Saal rule: concentrated uramum is den stripped or tadings (1) Appdes to ==n=s===we and - 4ed with approxunatsij extracted froIn the concentrat+ tet 74 mdHon MT of other tanings at u of etw==i of bro.t I:natorials at atos :necian. precapitated. dnad, s.od the sites which are now licensed fcr I waere are is sw- :s prunardy to recover its uranium or dortum maten,. "" ^ n i ne depleted are. : the form  ::i! Hag uramum cre.

l

' (:) Appiiss to the restustory activities of tadings. !s peged to a pdaas S. Hasurtis Assocored wrth Ur:mi*

cf NRC and de Statas dat!!conse a shury nuxed with water. ---m__

uramam or dorma nulls. Since the urs sium content of ore -

l averages anir about 0.15 percent. The most important of the hnardom (3) Reqmres dat ground water be consatuants of uramum :ndl tadings is protected f:om uranam tadings to essennaMy ad the bulk of are mmed and processen is contained in the tadings. radium. which is racioscuve. We

- ,v 4 or <wmmmy water leveis to esumate dat c: rrently extsting m presern its !ature uses by incorporating These wastes contaun ---* --t at de Ifesased suas contam a total of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) quannues of radioactive uranam dmy rulee. prooncts. E .*"= thormm-::0 radiam, sacut SELCOO cuaes

• of radium. Radic.n

5. and decay pro'duc:s of radon.2::' in addition to bemg harnrdous itself, (4) Requarse dat disposal of uramum procaces racon. a radioactve gas tadings pdes be desupied so that, after Tadings can also contam si==Maa, l wnoas decay products can cause lung disposal. radon ems.ssions will be linuted quanntes of other hazardous cancer. Because or de long life of to 20 +-a-ima per square meter per substanc  % upon de scurce of the ore and the reagents used in de monum-220 (abour .3.000 years half-second, Ele), de amount of radium in radings.

(5) Reqmres that the disposal of  : ulling process.Most of the tadings are and therefore. de rate at wnich radon uramum tadings be designed to mamtam a sano4ike matenal and because such produced. wdl decay to about 10 perce its integrity,in most cases for st least :netenals are attractw for use in construcdon and sod conditionmg. han of de current amount m several 1000 years. -

(6) Reqmres liners be used for grou:1d been improperiy used in the past.

• hereoy ConO"tbuting to soreading the

' A m is m amoud h mamal Water proteC*.foII. ,.

@ ts the regtdatory 81snCy to rtdioecdve malSrlais o! Istle. Taliings a ,,

s. - l isen alternate ground weter stannares matenals are also subioet to wmd and l

l l l

l

\

l l

45923 Federal Registar / Vol 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules anci Regulatiras j hundred dousand years. C&er Iow doses is direcdy proportional to de underground mmers over de balance of potunnally hazardous consutuants of nsk dat has been demonstrated at detr expectec !ifecmes. nese factors radings .nmne arsame. molybdenum. h:gner doses. We recomune tnat tse data were exciictly considerec by :ne 1980

=iamum. =raniu=L and. usually in Issser avadable preclude ne: der a tresnoid NAS BEIR Comcuttee. Although de amounts. a vanety of other tcuce for some types of damage below wmch NAS Methodoiogy dears kom dat suostances. ne concentrations of all of ders are no harmful efects. nor tse empiored by EPA. ce:r numer: cal mese materials vary hem pda to ;de. ;ossth Hry that !aw doses of gamma esumatse of nsk due to lifenme ne r=<hareytty and toxic matenals racianon may be less harmful to people exposure are essennauy identical to in tadings may cause cancer and otaer dan the lineer model implies. However. dose of EPA. ne most recent and

<"=====s. as weil as genade da= age and de maior radiation hazard kom tulings complete assessmer.t of de =iner data.

teratogemc efec:s. More specScaily, anses not kom gamma radiadon. but dat performed for de AEC3. yields a tadings are hazardous to man pr.mardy raderis due to alpha radiation &cm result withm :0 pertant of de EPA becausse (1) Radioac:tve decay procuc:s :nhaled adca decay procuc:s. As value. Numancal esumates of nsk by ofrados may be inhaled and increase pomted out by de National Academy of vitous other observers difer by up to a de daic ofInns cancer (:l individuals Scences'(NAS) Adytsory Comanttee on factor of eight. We also enamda ed de mey be -wp==d to gamma radiadon the Biological Efects ofIomzmg views of these occor observer and hans the radioac:ivity in tadings: and (3) Radiadon (the BEIR Canumtree)in its ciscuss thar zusults in the M rantonc:tve and toxic mater.als tem isso report. for ~ *

• radiadon. such as ne uncertainees in nsk esumates for tadings may be ingested with food or kom intamaHy deposited alpha-enutting exposure of mmers to radon decay wumr. Our analysts shows the "rst of radia=="id== the application of de products anse from several sources.

these hasards to be by far de =ost I!near hypothesis is less likely to lead to F.+,.-. of:mners were eenmated

,.mmot, overesumates of nsk. and may, in fact.

~

frims the tirne spent in each locatica in a As noted above. de radiation hazard Isad'to underesdmates."- mne and the measured radon decay ham tanings !asts for :nany hundreds of Our quantitadve estimates of de c.sk product levels at thosc locations.

thousands of years. and some due to inhalation of rudos decay However. rados decay procuct oonraatam-ve truce hal perust produe:s are based on our review of measurements were infrequent and maannitely.ne hazard &=m ur= mum epidennological studies. conducted in often -=r=< for exposures of tal!ngs ttierefore smat be viewed in two tne Umtad States and in other countnes, anars pnar to the 19eo's.no ways. Tailings pose a present hazard to of underground muers of uranmm and- acer'amty fac: eases when data for human hemittL Seyond 6is immemate other metals wno have been ==pa==d to aners are used to estunate risk to be summenEy [hmied h==ith drset. 2e radan decay products. We have also :nemners of the general pubile because tadings are vainerable to human sususe ena-d-ed reports by sciennEc groups. dere are diferences in age. paymology, and to dispersal by natural forces for an sucn as llantth 5/fec:s c/ Alpita Emutt:ng exposure conoitions. and other fac: ors .

essendaHyindedmte period. In de long. Parecles la t.he Aespmrtory Tract (:.921 between the two populations.

run de future r.sks to health of and De E#bers on Populminne of We must also make numerous mdanme=ly w* d-d_ rantsmmadan  :'manme tal.awI.evels of Sniemy assumpdens to asumate the rediscon ham usused and dispersed ta2Hngs due Radiadsa (1980) by de NAS: de report dose to incividuals and population to 'a-d-a= control oversnad2ws de of te U2sted Nations Scenuac groupe dne to uranmm : mil *= dine and sinort.tarm danger to public health, na Cantantras on de E5ects of Atonne tnese introcuca additional uncertamtras.

congr===mn=1 report accompanymg Radiation (TJNSCEAR) enutied Sourens For example. .o make r:sz esumates for UMTRCA recogmzad de ex2. stance of . cad 25ecs of Mmemy Aadiadon (19:FC: incividuais who are assumed to reside leagaman naka, and .%. ;d de view Report No. :" /.imuts forIaircladon of at the same locr. tion for detr life spans, i that $emethods used for disposal Rodae Daughaars by Woricars (1981) of and we further assume that people will soonid not be efec:tve for only a short de f+ == ' t%d--" on condnee to have the same life paned of time. It stated: 1:e enntnutt== Radiological Protecdon (IC3P): and Risit. expectancy as the U.S. populadon did in bedeves dat uramum ma tadings Esanursueforthe Hsolth E#acaraf Ism. N,. 2._!.:::. we bedeve de r smould be t: mated * * ' in accorcance Alphe Aadfadan, by D.C. nomas and ininemation avadable supports l with the sonatandal hazard dey will K.G. Mstied! (1982), a decaded review estimates of nsk wmch are sud!cendy i

pressur annilong after existing r.y .J for the Atomac Energy Control reliacia to provide an adequate baats for

nsatadona can be --* to last in Board of Canada (AEC31. Cetads of our dose m~ d standarus.

$ma presentforms * * ** and,in nsk settmates are provided in a previous It is not poemble to recuce de nsk to aa=====+"T on de Federady 6mded EPA report,ladoorRadiadarr Erposure  : ara for people exposed to radiation or.

, progemun to ciman up and dispose of Cue to Aadmm-::V brElaride for dat matter to many other tadings at de inac:tve siten, it stated Ptosainrte Iands (EPA 32D/MM13), caremogens. To decide on a reascombie h'wn mtt== does not want to visit and in aFEIS. !avei of incremental residual nsk. we

$is problem agam with additional ami. AI&ougn 6e studies of und .M evaluated the practicality and bene 5ts ne remecial action must be done egnt anars snow dat ders is a M~at of diferent levels of controi. We also me> 5rst time." (H.R. Rep. No. :4an. 35th asx of tung cancar kom exposiure to considared techmcal di!!!culties Cang :nd Sess Pt. f. p. ~. and Pt. H. p. radon decay produc:s. dare is assocated with implemencng diferent e(1978).) ancartamty in its magn 2tuda. Our 'evels of control.

For de purpose of estacilsning estt=ates of de nsk cue to innsianon of Uramum mdi t=Anp can afect maa stannarcs for tne protecnon of me radon decay products exceed.does of rougn four prmcpai envtronmental amnerai puciic hem radiation. we $e ICRP and UNSCZAR by a. factor of pathways:

assume a linear. scaturesnoid dose- at ! asst two. However. :sather group

• Ci/ fusion of redon-::::'. the decoy eifac:talanensmo as a reasonacie basis considered contmucus exposure for de proeuctofradium-2:r tadleys loro foreenmanng nsas to health. His :iuracon of a person's lifetimenor indoor air. Srwattung raden-:::::. an inert amena we assume dat any radiation documented bat mey properiy projected gas and its snart hatf.ufe decay ctose poses some nsx and that tne nsk of te nsk ocnerved to date in groups of produc:s. wmen attacs to tiny dust i

I Fedeaal Regatar / Vol. 44. No.19e / F= day. Cc cber ?.1983 / Rules and Regulaticas 45929 pardcies, exposee the lungs to alpha focuses largely cn current levels of rrsk taiUngs because detr mamoet is more racianon (prmcpaHy from polomum- to =an ham tadings througn air and dif5c:dt to prenict, even sougn nsk to OS and polonzum-C4). ne exposures water pathways. However. dose current incivicuals from such tadings =ay be involved may be large for persons who aska could bc =a-adad by hture somewcat greater tan from direct have, tadings in or around tetr houses. =2suse of tadings by =ian and by rsdon emissions. By de year ::000.we or wno live very ciose to tadings. uncontroded funzra efec:a of nac:ral asn= ate bat, m*o*. cut controi. me Additional but smaHer. exposures to krees. Our caposal standarca refec'. a=uunt of tailings ex: sung den would  !

alpsa radiation may result Soc long- ecrnsideranon of both c=rrent and cause approx 2mately 600 iu=g ewcae l lind redon-c: decay produe:s potannal future nsks from tadmas. destas per cent:r~. Approx:mately one- l

[ ""'""-ly lead-CD and ;clon:nm-Cc).

half of dese deaths an projected to i c.xposure cue to radon from tadmss in 1,3;,p.g ,78 occur less tan 50 miles from de ;tles.

or around buildings is best estmated We estzmated the hazards posed b7 n:s meresse ts small. aue prunanly to from direct measurements of its decay emissions to aar from tadings.pdss or the large amount of unused capacty at products in indoor atr. imponnenents and from t= ding used in pasent s4tas. so dat most new tadings

• Dispersalofrecianandofsmall and around houses. For es Erst case we could be placed on too of existing Parecise of radings morarmlin mr. used standarci meteoroloccal transoort wa,.y nis analysts assumes dat this Radon emitted from tadings la mdely mocess and -d-ed exposure of wd! be de acmal cases, aldougn it is 1

l dispersed in air. and exposes both ;eople in tne ==~date =gharnood possible that ground water massey residents and 2ose at greater of 6e exisdag tadings sues. 68 cone ==madon problems would h distances. nose doses are populanon in.locairestons, and the severe esougn to require some pues to ady to the lungs. W!nd  :===iad- of the nadonal populadon.

, . - w cia,,4 if gi, i, g, e,,, 31, i erosion cf unstabilized adlap creates For de second. we drew largely upon esumate would h inmui l Iocal aarmorne tadings mater:al ne expertence from houses contammated I D* I' **** **""'I ""C'*I"*7 !"

precomment dose from aarborne tadings by tadings in Grand innedon. Colorado.

a to se bones h udng bods dese esumates because of uncertamties Four - d w w m in se rate of rolesse of radon from contammated by dormm CO. radium- ena=n=ced: mhaled short-!!ved radon

=s. and lead-co, and is small. decay products, gamma radiacon. !ang. I"*E"85 ****** ** **P'" P'"EI "U I'*".its decay products 'and Exposure due to arrectne transoort of "C****

lived radon decay prooec:s. and rados and particidates frota tadings airooms tadings pardculates, hem acomnam mwiedge d de ,

usandy con be cirectly :nessured only Frota this analyss we conclude: edacts on people d tese exposuns. j near the pale orimpounament. but may (a)!.ung cancer caused by the short- ne values pnsented hem apment ,

be reilmhiy endmated for larger Ilved decay procucts of radon is the .best estimates based on current-dfssances asmg:neteoroiopcal % ,_ dommant radiation hazard from t=dinp- 'nowiedge. In additon. mese esumates ,

modes. .

Estimated efects of gamma raciadon, of m based upon enmt sizes and  !

• Cliser exposure ro,gamme long.uved redan decay produe:s. and of geogrepnical cist= hens d rosilac'ca. Many of the radioeceve a2rcorne tadmgs particulates are populanons and esumated produenon of decaygroancts m adm== produce relatively less e=nhat, although high tadings to de year 20. As populanons ganima raciaoon. ne :nost i=tportant g==== radiation doses may somenmes connnue to increase in de htum, and as are leed-C4. btsmuch-C4. anc occur. procucson contmues beyond be year

• =H' -CO. Hazards from g==== (b) Individuals who have tadings in or 30. me escmated tmpac.* wdl be reeiation are Ilarted to persons in de around their houses citan have large larger.

immeciate vicmstycf tadings pdes or exposeres to incoor:adan and henca Many commenters addressed 6e need removed tadings. Exposure cue to high naks oflang cancer. For exampie. to prevent nususe. Most conc:nded tnat gamma ramanon from += din 5= is readily in S3 percent of a sangde of190 houses stscse was the =cet hazardous ascoct esumated from direct ====='usnents. mth tadings in Gcand innerinn. cf tadings and should receive foremost

• Wocesoorne mznsnarrc/rocioccare Colorado, we essmate that the excess attennon. Although most concluded that and azzrc maranel. Dispersei of  !!!stime nak to -pana due to misuse saould be discouraged througn

===adh=d tadags by mad ar water. exposure to short-livedzadon decay :nesas of paserve controia. sems or t S can cary raososenw and products pnar to r=== aeon may have conc adec dat :msuse ccuid be other toxic-=la e sar: ace or been greater can 4 e==- in 100. adequataiy controlled by insututional ground water. C.usent leveis of (clinciivumalalesung.near an :neans. We conciuda dat a pnmary contannnatta= aapear t:3 be low at :nost uncontrolled t= dings pda or ooiecuve of st=nnares fcr concol of sten. However. -aae=-= don of imponnament are also suoject to high hazanis ficm tadings drougnar surface and ground water and . nsks fom short-lived redan decay ;a:nways snould be isola:2cn and consequent intake by aannans has been pruances of raden enutted directly from staatlizanon to prevent tetr :msuse by identtfled at dree.!ocanons. Potendal t= ding =- For examone, we estimate dat man and ciseersal by natural forces.

exposare due en this possibility of pecide Svuts co====a==ay next.to.some sucs as wtnd, ram. and Sood waters. A ground and snnsen wetar ennt=nnnation tadings sites can have acremental second chjecnve is to =mmn= racon is higniy site soecfic and can generally lifenme lung cancer nais as h:gn as * . emissions frem tadings sites. A i:rti caly be detarmmad by a careful servey e-="cas m 00, cotectve ts ce enmmanon of sucuficant program. (d) Based onmaasis for de exposure to gamma radianon hem Cur assessments oinska from 'mitings cumulanve nsk to all exposed t= d ing=-

deal prunanly with asks to man. nis :s poouianons. we esumate tat. without because r:sks to other elements of te control, te racon released directly from , Water Psdways biosonere are ;udged to be suah ' ass all tanings c:rrantly in ex: stance at Water contaminanon does not now sigmficant. and seculd therefore be presently (13831 licensed sites would appear to be a sigmficant sourca of contrailed to acceptable leveis by car.se about 500 lung cancer deaths per racianon exposure at most sitar.

measures adecuate to protect man.In century. His dgare does set account for However. m aedition to radionuclides.

addition. 6e followi=g hmenn any deaths from misuse or wmdblown nonradioscuve texze substances, suen

l 45930

~ Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.1S6 / Friday. Octcher 7.1983 / Rules and Regulaticas an arsenic. molybd.u-o. and selenium, exceed one mde per year. For dose can be leeched kom taiHnp and reasons. contamm=nts &om tadings may andmeasures discoursge by de resistance d!smpden b of control contannnate water. Such contaannscion not afect de quality of nearcy water could afect crops. =ni==la- and people. =easures to sucn naturs1 pnenomena as supply wells for decades or longer after eardquakes. i!ceds. and windstor ns.

P ocess wateris csed to carry tading to day are esleased.However encs the pdes or im . . ..-ents as a slurry. ca.:tammated. de quality of water and to checucal and mechanical Ramwater also may collect on de processes in de pdes er tmpounc=ents.

sappifes cannot usually be easdy tadings. The greatest dreat of ("Pilss" commonly means ta Hngs restored simply by =H=inatmg the simpiy piled up on the ground. and contaannation aopears to be kom source (although. in some cases.

process water discharged with de impoundsents* means pdes

.w-g or isolating de taiHer =ay constramed by dikes made of other tadings hem de mdl. although,in conmbute to improving water quality).

pen--ak it could be han the gradual. Based on resuits hem de NRC genanc matenais. We wdl use de term *pt!a*

edsets of remwater over de indedste model for unil tadings. it is likely dat to mean both henceforth.) Prediccan of

$nare.Most of this weter eventnaHy de observed cases of ground water de long-term integnty of concel evaporates or seeps away. E!aveted """t==madan result hem seepage of de methods becomes less certam as de concentrations of toxic or radioactive Ifquid waste afscharges hem de mdL per:od of ennemen increases.Seyond '

suostances in ground water have been and can be controlled by preventing dis several thousand years. longer. term I oceerved at many acuve sites (seven are seepage until the tafHnp dry out by geomorphological processes and I Id=artMad in de FEIS). and in some natural evaporadon. Addidonal future cilmade chang become the donunant standing surface water ponds (but only cont =nuriadon of ground water after factors. Methods are avadable for rareiy in surface run=ng water). Any dose ifquid wastes are dried up saould projecting pertermance for periods up to i future contammation of water after be much smauer. and in most cases about 1000 years. A recent report disposal would anse hem the efects of would be aM m be eliminated by prepared for de NRC (" Design rain or through Maadtng kom measures reqmrod to control unsuse of es .ia.,ations for Long Term penetrados d tadings front below by disposed tadings by man and discersal Stabilizados of Uramum Mill Tadings t y.*==

• Colorsda State ground water, or htun leacinns of bywmd. rain and!!aod weten.These tadings transported ofsate. measum snould also efeceveiy Universty. ISEI) provides an up to-date A theoredcal analysis ;-- * = -i for, ednunate se dreat dcontaannsdon d detaded review of these matters.

theNEC of alary model tadings surface weter by mnof a kom farmg Methods to prevent misuse by man

'=pa==d===+ with no seepage control dtainnes _ nno ofsite, and and dismpdan by namral p' abgung[ that ennfannnaffan of g. provide a degree,~of protectio 5 of surface may be divided into those whose weer by " - + snifate. ===pn=== and ground water kom cantannnation condnoed @ty @ upon man and fran ungitt exceed current dankzng by MW Howmr. at some sites, and his instrudons ("aceve" controis) waterstandards over an area 2 esoecaHy in areas d hyh rainfaH = and those that do not (";assive*

kdometers wide and a to 30 kilometers weem smund wome tabses intenect is controls). Exam long.More than 95 percent of $1s at ngs, specal considerados d ,,, f,,,,,, ,,,,ples of active controls

,,33,,,,,,,,=,3,,,,,

rotected contammation was attributed P'"""*I #" " '"

3 8 land use. insoecdon and reoair of sema-to imetal seepage of procese water womt may be smng  ;=rman=nt tadings covers, iemporary discnerged wie de tadings durms niill 87

,,,," **** ***"' dikes, and drainage courses. Examples

' operadona. don d of pasenve centseis are tick earden We recogmze that the NRC gen =ac 3, og , " " " covers. rock covers. mamm earth and P

modelis aniy one of several that could for w me. ted ou t 'ot, rock dikes. bunal below grade, and be appifad to transport of con +===="" sew pdm cardul sta selecdon would movmg tadings pues out oflocations in e permde protection of ground water

• hignly subioet m erosmn. such as d-ter. Other marial= couki predict greater or.!sse naks of ground We concinde dat the prunary unstacle rme banks.

i water contaannadou. An ==mple .;f objective of standards for controLof Erosa dtasungs by wmd. rain, and greater risk is a plume of cont =nnama" hazards hans ta Hage throngs water  !!accing can be ininbited by ecm%

that, undercertam -. - pathways is to prevent loss dprocas

. could water the pde and its cover. by stabiliz:ng the sed! move conservely towards a water 2 rough mpage peor to closure. mrrace (with rock. for exampiel to mak=

supply after de !!aw of!!qmd thronga A ==rnadary oblocttve is to avoid it resistant to erosion, and by se tanings has stoppedfallowin4 ,n,4=e= runof and inditradon both constacung cikes m divert nptdly closure of a pde. before and aAer' *==as movtng flood waters. Irosion can be In general se movensent d C Cmoolo/Hazartishner ""azlmgr inhibited even :nore reifabiy by buryme' ts through a pda and subsod tadings in a shadow pit and/or by to ground watee depends on a We raamd-rmethods for control so as 'ocating them away fmm parte:dany to assoas de acmovebdity, ecoconne  !!ood-prone or otherwisa geciogicady combtnation of en=nl= h~! sad impact, and reliabdity of controis to I

' physical properdes, as weil as on local unstacle sites. Thus, esoec:ady in de proepitadon and evacotranscaration meet alternauve standartis. As noted case of new taihnp piles, shailow bunal races. 'Na* ~! and physical processes aoove. the objecuves of *=iHnga cisposal and stres with favoracie long-<erm (and of taillnp management prior to enaractenstics should be given preferred can efec:1vely remove or retard 6e ciscossil are to prevent tmsuse by man, consideration.

flow of many taxsc suostances passmg to reduce radon enussions and gamma Wrougn suosott However. some raciation exposure. and to avoid the Methods to inh &it de releaso ci conrammants, such as arsame, endon range kom appiytng a simpie

nolybdenum. and semmum, can occur in contammacon ofland and' water by barner(sucn as an eartnen covert to prevennng eroston of *silb p by natural sbcs amostious treatments as forms that are not removed. Typicaily, processes and seeeege of waste process ground water can move as slowiy as a emoecding t= dings in cament er weter. The longevity of controlis F= m them to remove racium. de few feet per year and ansy in coarse or parucularty iwi-at. This can be cracked matensis does de speed afec*ed by de degree to whien control p -i of radon. Cavermg tatlings with a permesole (porous) barner. such

Fedent Restseer / Vol 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rdes and Regulations 459 8 as commaced eard. delays radon of the tamnp and cover at equ.2rrum.

diffusion so snat most ofit decaja in and anri the measured diffusion a gene nily feasibie opt or: since it

= therefore effecnve.;y cerau:ec by be would.equire excavation of =est. if not cover. In addinen to st= pie ear:sen c::aracer.snes of cover =atenals. h all of de ta&ngs to assure =txmg. anc COE and NRC have conducted stunies m.ty not :==obdize all hazarcous covers. other less perme4W tr.ater.als whics provide a basts. at least withm a such as asphait. clay, or sotif. ament consuments. Gcound water ihmtedvange of control and (usually :n combmation wt= earmen contam:nsnca is known to bave predic: ability, for addrssamq dese t.=.c cd a sovsn sites. and =ay be covers) could be used. De more facters in the demgn of tadings covers permeable thm cove--a mater:al. the cccu: ng at :nany o6ers. It may not be du:xarit must be to acnieve a given based on locally available mater: mis and possible to ciesnup tne ground water at cimate.

reduccon m aden reinam. However. some sites. In de worst cases a new.

maintaicmg the integ ity of centrol .if Wthods that czmuel radon ennssions lined tadings ;ile may be reqmrad to will also prevent transpert nf ;ravent ten sntinaten fr:m new racon by 1:n. very :=pe .aaW covers. par tculates from the mm p pne to air such as piss c sheets, is unlikely, even tr.1:ints. *n ode- cases. existmg tadings over a pencd as simrt es severai or to surface water. Similarty pa mahle piles =ay reirase essennally no covees sui 5centtythick for effecuve contantnants to pd water because decades. green de-cham: cal and racon con:rol wiH also absaro g=- mm the type of sod dey rest on acts as an physical stresses present at piles. radianon etTectvely (ahhou:;h tin The most likey conent;ents of cover effecnve liner. We have ciscussed de impermeeble covers wtilnot!. range cf ;osstisie costs !ct cleanup of for disposal cf t=mne.are locally Two methods may be considered for ground water in the e E:S and RIA. In avadaW earthen ntaterials. The protacing ground water ut new tadings effeceveness of an carden cover as a pruence. we expec most tadings pties piles. De first is de placemerrt of a wt2 fdt somewne e between these two barr:er to :adon dacends ecst n ac3!y pnysic d earnne. caBed a liccr. betw-en on its moisture content. Typical may "tr::t8. Iess cxpt 2:ve correenve the tailings and de aqmfer:::ce. to action etian a new tmer =ay be soils in de uramum cdCng regions of prevent wster ent==7 hazardous suffic:snt to sensiy gracnd water tne West =v'ihit ambient moisture consatsents from enterms the aquzfer.

contents of 9 percent to L2 percent. For standards for !*anarcous consutuants at Eiber ciay or plastic liners can be many sttes. For example, an actve

-Hay sods amoient motanare contents ennge hum 6 percant to 10 percent.De installed at about se same cost. Both water management program may be have shcrtcommgs. ?!aate !iners are employed to recuce me quantity of exac value depends upon tne mater:al impermeable. but may be suciect to ' water in de tztlian and thus reduce the immived andonlocalclimatic rupture & rough poor mstallation or condinons.The following table provides drtving force fer ground water uneven loading. Cay liners are contammation. or back pumpmg of an example of de changes in cover permesbie to souse constituerits, and water around de pues may prevent

"""'"*.=ms dat might bis required to may requi.e use of addidonal =easures. losses to is surrounc=g ground recuce racon em:ssten to 0 pC/m2s for such as parnal neutrahzation'of de environment. Acnons sucn as dese are de above ranges of sod ttmsture. Four tadings. especally at acd teach md!s. to already ceing taken at certain sites examples of tadings are sitown dat cover the procaole extrema values of sausiactorny protect ground water. but (Cotter.Wi!. Canon Cty. CO. and are expeced to retam the etTecnveness Homestake .WII. Grants. NM. for radon emission hum bare tailings (100 to for long pertods of ema. The second example).

1000 pC/m2sit ,de most common vaine memoc is treatment of process water to f for old tadings ts approx 2mately 500 Control of possible long serm low-pC/m2s. anc for new failing .s mocify its acdity or alkalimty, if such level contammacon of ground water 1

approxunsteiy 300 pC/m*s. treannent were soosvu to prevent may somet:mes be dif!! cult. In cases courannnation. At a neutral level many wnere innusma cf centsmm= con =to

%7,, % %, g a hazarcous consetnants,of tuthny ground or surrace water is a octannally ya % g ,om ligtucs cocome macinhas and cus not segmficant proc {sm. 2ners anc caps may avadable to conr=rnwinte ground water. ;rovice a gooo degree of;:roteccon for However. not all hasardous consntnants at Isast macy decaces. However. mora

• • "' *T,,O" "*

are so affected. and the accon of permanent protecten may,in suca s t e 1 e i is ramwater certana wendermg processes, cases, require caoice or (for new 2 l and mmeralizadon of de son.or recx tadings) or reczoval to (for exzsung saa

$ 1l's matrix can upset titis sentranzadon over t=Wap) a site with more favoracie u ts3 ts M,_sume. derway resessmg .. . -...... .

18 I t' hydrological geoe==l Or

'"""L*,."",."l" '"U,.5,,,",*"".",",,*,","c"2 isi There is little difference in costs for dose two medods. Ln=rs (either ciar or

=eteorciogical enarac:er:stics.

very etTecnve long-term inhibidon of.

= - oa 5 == ,esa 3. = - syntheact are enrrent!y remured by NRC :msuse by man, as well as of reiesses to J.". T.

• as a matter of good engmeerm

. " . " ' " " " " " " " "

• for most new tulings unponn=g pracnce =nts.

ur and surface water. could be achieved by burymg tadings in deep mmed

[.',.".""," $," *.'*'l7 *,.* "t " *""** EPA does oot beneve it is cavstes. In tis case. however, direct

e ac -a = a == =r *=

• * " " * " " " * " " " ' " ' " " ' " = = = = = = = = = - environmentaily densrable to requ2re sil contact with ground water would be new wastes at exzsting antas to.be ciff.cdt to avoid. The potennai hazards These values are for homogeneoes placed on new pdes, because new pues of tmWna could also be reduced by covers. and assume tne t=wnsa have de would increase radon emissions, at least enemically processmg dem to remove same motsture content as de cover. In unni the pre-exzanng pde is covered. and conta=mants. Such processes have

racace. somewnst tickar covers would pernianantlyumtammate more would be roomreo to provideiong-term land. Satzsrymg grotzd water standards

!!=stec efficences. however. so de assuranca of satiarymg any par.cular resional tadines would still require some

. at ex2seng t=Wne sites dat do not have i

level of control. Some ci e factors tnat centroi. F= ner= ore. de extracted

'iners..however, will reemre widaiy suostattees (e.g radium anc tsormm) must be considered for precienng long. varymg accons from stre to sita.

temt performance are moisture contant would be concentretea. and would Neutrusi= anon of exsung tadings !s-not demseives reamre careful control.

45932 Federal Register / Vol 48. No.19a / Friday. Cctooer 7.1983 / Rules and Rem:lations We analy:ed de praedcality of a numoer of possicle contrei mededs. ecm: arable regulations. We note dat Act for exisung and new sources in a de NRC requiscons scecded desum These are desc. bed in de FF.'S. and de ootecnves: tnat is. in values spectned number of ore ammg and cmssmg RIA. no total cost of disposal by subestegones. Cut of 3 = dis in the were to be achieved based on average surface or sesilow bunalis affaced pericrmance: weareas dese DA rules uramu=. radium and vanacium ores  ;

= cst strongly by de type of matenal subcategory exasung at dat time. only '

used to stsodizer de surface of the specfy standarcs wmen designers must one was dischartmg direeny to surface  !

tradings asamst erosion and to inmbit ;ian not to exceed. with a reasonable water. In view of dis, the regular:ons l misuse by man, and by de water degree of assuranca. The NRC has noted did not establish best available '

protecton features requirec. Total cests dat any changes necessary will be technology (EAT) linutations for ex: sting made are less sensieve to de amount of cover pecmulgated. when dese GA standarcs are sources e this subcategory. De one regtured to mmoit radca reiesse. I and has already suspenced dose portions ofits uramum =dl cfreeff discharp:g general. costs of covers usmg =an.n made eH!aents is currently regulated by a

.natanals (e.g. aschalt) are somewnst ,equianons winch an affec:ed by dese afsenary per. it m acccrdance with b2gner dan costs for eartsen covers. and standares (48 FR 35350: August 4.1s83). prenously exist:ng best ;rsencable de reilability is lower. Acuve centrol Under de Agreement State program. centrol technology (HFT) erI!uent measums am usuaHy less condy m de States can issue licenses for uramum linutations contamed in 40 CFR Part 440.

short term dan are passive measures, processmg acuvtties, including control ne new source performance stancards and disposal of by-product matenals.

but are considered mucs less reliaole in (40 CFR 440.34(b)) were based upon de th,e long tern 2. C ne NRC has enumerated in 10 CFR Part demonstration of no discharge to pues or use of en,eep bunal of tailings 150 the autenties reserved to it in its emzcal processmg to surface waters at de 3 other mills.

extract nous am =ucs com coady relations wid Agreement States under. Dese standards apply to locations tan for surfaca or shadow bunal de provtsions of UMTRCA, and has where de annual evapotransstrunon (below grade) disposai usmg covers. and specSed conditions under which rate exceeds the annual preepttacon d e pracdeslity :s not demonstrated. Agreement States may issus licenses rate (as is the case in most uranium under UMTRCA 35 FR M NRC's D. .Drvzreneente/Sandertis end conditions include the specHeation dat of procese wa),ste water to surfacem Cwdence Now Appl / cable to (In: mum State lir=== must ensure compilance Tarlmgs weters from nuils usmg the acd leach.

with DA's standards. Some Arreement alkaline leach. or combtnad acid and DA s ,.-s dat it is establishing States can scept more strmsent rules aikaline teach process for the extraction standards in an area that is already the dan those adopted and enforced by the sunfect of gove - me tal regulaton and NRC. mcmaing mqmmments dat am of uranium. For !ocations where there is more pacpttadon dan has taken into account. where relevant, more stnngent than DA's standarns, e exiseng schemes anc fevels of evapotransetration process waste water DA promulgated 40 CFR Part 30 et can be dkr^=rged up to de diffennce protecten m developmg dese seg,-Standards for Owners and between annual pacpitanon and standards. Operators of Hazardous Wasta evapotranspiration.

DA promulgated 40 CFR Pste 30. Treatment. Storage. and Disposal

"?.nytronmental Racianon Protecten Sciution extracten. or "in sim" Facdities." under Subtitle C of is Solid mining. is a processmg medad in wcich Standarcs for Uramum Fuel Cycle Operations." on January 13.197* (42 FR Waste Disposal Act. as amended on July uramum is recovered from are w thout 3.1982 (47 FR :="4). Although =ovmg or disturoma de are bocy. In 258). These standmecs spec:fy de emper racicacuve matenals centrolled under

!! nuts of raciacon doses to memoers of de Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as dis =ethod holes are dnlled at seleced to general puclic to whics nor=al potnts arcund an are bocy and a solvent arsended. are not covered by de is pumped into some holes and de operadons of de uramum fusi cycia SWDA. UMTRCA requires that the

=zist conform. They cover radiation resulting soluton out other holes. The standarcs proposed harem provide for soivent passes through the cru. cissolves doses due to all environmental reiesses ;retectan of human health and te de uramum, and cames it back to the of urantum by-product matenals durmg envtrenment from nonradioeceve de pecod a stiling s2te is licensed. wid hazards in a manne consistent with surfacs. The uramum is den senpped the exception of emissions of radon gas from the sciution and concentrated. The and its decay ;reaucs. suplicable standards promulgated under soivent. which is stored in holding The Nucisar Reguiamry cwm,. cm Suotitie C of de SWDA.De Act also ponds. can be treated and reused or promulgated rules m :0 CFR Psrt 40 en reamres the NRC to ensure ccnfor-ann = oiscarded. Althougn bis metnod to " *

• 3eneralma.mants  ; reduces no sandy t=Wngt it does Ccober 3.15e0. wmch specfy licensmg reqmruments for uramum and ionum estabiished by de c ==== ton. with de produce sludges dat contam many of concurrence of de Adnumstrator. wmen de same racfeactve and mailing activites,inciucing aradings and are. to de mmmum extent pracncable.

wastes generated from dese actvities at !esst ,,artoie to reqmrements nontacioactive substances found in (48 FR 8532:). These mies soecfy radings piles. Consequently, de acove.

applicaole to de possession. transier.

tocamcal surety, ownership, and long. and disposal of simdar hazardous ground westes from m sim =umng are terns care entena for de management covered in these proposed standarcs.

anc Snal dispostcon of by-procuct satenal under (Subutie C of SWDAl." We ::ote dat because in sim mmmg and EPA promulgated 40 CFR Part 440. convennonal =ulling c=rrently are done n2stenais. Some of these rules are "Ces vinmq and Dressmg Potnt Source aIfected by dose standards. For in ene same regions of de country, Category: Ef!Iuent I.i=2tanons exampia. day soecHed a design disposal of sludees on tadings pties =ay Ceceimes and New Source often be arranged.

co!ecnve of 2 pC/M s and a longevity Performance St=nn=rcs. Succart C-of groster dan 1000 years for cisposal of Rttles for protecnon of ground water tatiings. Due to congressional acnons. Uramt=t. Racium and Vanacium Cres from the uncarground coeranons ofin Suecategorv

• on Decameer 3.1983 (47 sem =mmg are provided by the i tese regulanons have never been FR 54598). The ourpose of 40 C7R Part enferceo by NRC. althougn some Undergrotmd Imecten Control program Agreement States have enferr~t 450 is to estactish efluent limitanons promulgated under Sectons 142: and and stancarts under the Casa Water 142.2 of the Safe Cnnk2nq Water Act.

Federal Register / Vol 48. Noe 19e / Friday. Cetober 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 43333 De associated regulations. 40 CFR Pstts environmental and ec= nonne costs and ccmcly with the requ:rements of this 144.145 and148 tmoose adnumstrative beneSts in a way that assures adequate ruis regardmg eround water protecton.

and techmcal requirements en such protection of the public heald. safety. essennally au ruden emissions w.B ce ooerstions. through either apptoved and de ermronment (:) can be from ex: sung pdes. which have an State programs or DA-implemanted isolemented usmg present!y avadable average ana of ac' out O hectares. as programs.These regulations are not techmques and messunng instr ==ents:

intanced to apply to the underground shown in the c'~r.~e'S. :n addition. radon and (31 are reasonable m terms of may be settted frem on-site areas are bocies depieted by i.a smi uramum overall costs and beneSts.

mmmg operacons. The legisladve record shows dat contammated by windblowrt tadings.

We condwie the area of pues has caen In addition to these rules established Congress intended that EPA set general ander UMTRCA. EPA is requind to standarus and not specfy any particular overesumated t,:3, at most by a facter of estabiisa etmssten standards under de =ethod of control.

• na BA standarcis

. C:esa Air Act (CAA) for hazardous air and entena snould not inter;ect any ne emission rate airsdort per umt poilutants. Although 6ers are no deal cataued or site-soec5c requirements for area of tatlings is directly reisted to the standards for air enusesons amplicable to ,,7 of , ,,,p,.,

"*"*gement.,tecnnology or engmeerms aun tadings pdes a proposed rule for methocs , , (H.R. Reo. No. 1480. 95th Several factors whics are not well r=aiaa=Ades has been published in the Cong. :nd Sess. Pt. L P.17.) UMTRCA md 68 du amom Feoeral Ragwter (48 FR 15078) on Aprd the NRC gives the NRC and the Agreement States In th ]"{ tad g q,,

6.1SEL ne reistionsnip of de C:ean Air tne nsponsibdity to decce what caservg g anns Act of this rule isdi--d in more =ethods wd! assure these standards are ans at a sans5ed at suec5c sites. Giewevw. numoer of sites, the staff has elecad to datad Finally,later in this radiation prean+1e',,nEPA protect p.udance m.ust cencur w.i NRC mgulanens apv emerunn seec5c Sux values to Feoeral agencies for the conduct of est . - a p[e et gecun 3:20) or 0.3 [pCi or racens " er square

" " ' meter.second/pCiof Nium.2 5 per seu the dent on 4y 1 9O k. control s c gram of tadingsj for wet tsiHng, and 1.0 and published on May 18.1300 (25 FR perunent factas empnasize de general Mnp W to met mmt 44021. Federal Radfanon Protecuen charac.*ansdes of uranium :uH tadings .a Q as y in @.g de Cedance Iovens the remdacon e of and de afected sites. casemaan. E age wt2 6 esdioacuve mater:als by de NRC and M. n===W4a= of Majoe Issues Raased in conciusion and believes no correcuan Aarvement States. and includes de 1%gc < -** watch ==na*== 6at some t=iHnp are fodowing gmdaae= "*

• eury effort permanendy wet is appregnate for 6is should be made to encourage the A. Se Basis for 6e Standards factor.

mame=nmar= ot radiacon doses as far 1. Heale R!sk Models Regarding Tanspan models.

benow [the Federal Raciatica Protecnon So m al manters exenssed de ~essemats

" an consistent wid de Guideal as 9racicable * * *" and '-**'h :rsnaport and dismrsion madeis we can a singie petmssstbie or view that the models used by EPA used. This is discussed in detad in de accentaol level cf exposure wttflout overestimate health nsks from breathina FEIS.The mecod used by EPA has been I regare to mden decay products. Cthers believe ressort for per=2tung the the baste work. horse of local dispersion expoenn. H sanid be geneni pac ce EPA undenstmated the nsk. For esamanon for years. In 1977, is to reduce exposure to raciscon. and examole. de Amer:can Mimsg Congress

ar:cpants of an expert n eden carmd (AMCl stated that" EPA has

• o systematically overestmated de facters ' "

~~

[u .ii enc. da for d;,1=d7,a'N,*edadd , Im'"$""" mil"*SA*e'Y'e O'"n*d "

% Afa""f'"**

1

- - ,. ~ da - -

known as se as low as ressenably achievable"(ALARA) pr:ncple. It is

= w . = f m .s.

alleged facan am

-s~ ~

• • "* *" "8* ""*****# " * ***

fac:ce of = 2." Furdarmore. Wese pardculariy suited to mmmmng discersten esumates are based en an radiation exposure under c=ncitons u,,,,,, anymcal approsca dat is inherendy tat very greatly from site to site, or a====a- a-== - ie unctased and that samdd 6mten ce from tzme to tune. and is an integral part O'*",, ,,,,,w ~

, - " as likely to -y ic as m of NRC and Agre.m gr State lir=nemy == e=e - -r to7 underpmuct.

determmanons. **""=""*'"4'- u==== j It should be cated that we are oot ne standards pubilshed here will modeling background concantracons of suopiament the above standards. The total radon enutted from ta Hnp radon. Whde it may be expenmentally guadance and reguladons in creer to is approx:mateiy proporcenal to the di!Ecuh to darnanetrate me mcrement saasiy te purposes of UMUCA to ~

• surface area covered by taiHny- EPA above bacxgrotmd due to a t=iH p pile

• stabdize and control * *

• raiHnne in a used de same area that NRC used in its at distances greater dan i km. dare is safe aan environmentally sound 5 anner FCEIS. 30 hecares, to esumate radon so reason to beifeve dat de casic aan to . . -- or elimmate radiacon enussions. De AMC paiers 50 hectares. physical pnncple of conservation of health hassrcs to the puoifc." and pomts out dat NRC (In NUREG mass does not continue to be valid.

-UMTRACA does not provide specEc 0757. Feb.1981) later revised its estunate Cnce released to the acnosphere radon.

=ttens to be used in determinmg da: to 50 hectares. However. current whicn is a +=audly inert gas.

6ese pw,ses have been satis 5ed.

projectons of uramum producten discerses freely unnl it is removed by EPA's objecuve, when not preempted by incieste that very few new mdls or piles. racicacuve decay. We conciuce that our other statutory reqturaments. has been if any, will start up cetween now and ciscersion esnmates provice a to propose standards thac (1) Take We late isotra. nus, unless a SPA nt reasonable basis for calculaang account of hesith, saiety, and -

cumber of ex2 sting pilas are unable to atmosphene concentracons of radon.

l

, 45934 Federal Register / Vol 48. No.196 / Friday. Octcher T.1983 / Rules and Regulations i

l

! nors appears to be a =isc=nception T=al Canane Enviren= ental != act exa=ple. dey would compare de s tung about de c:nditions to whics DA's Stata= ant en Uranium Milling' (FG7.".Si. cancers ;er year dat DA est=ates assu=puen of a 0.7 equdibnum &accen ne sec:nd pcpuianen. iden= fed as Sr (see 5S1 c uld result & m for raden decay products applies. (ne s " rural" site. is dat for de Ed;sment. uneen'.:ded tadings piles after de year "equ1]!bnum &accon* expresees the S.D. site, and is based en 1970 cansus :000 md: ce 21.000 such cancars a amount of radon decay ;mducts data. We aseu=ed dat a =:x of six ecm= enter esumated as caused acmaily present relauve to the "mral" and 17 " remote" sites would annur.ily by background raciatictu

=axunum dooreccally possible. nis  ;=periy represent de .*3 sites moceied deaths it:m =cter venicle accdents hacdon is important. s=ca de health in de DEIS. We have just received de (3C.000 per year! and h =a ac= dents risk is pr:mardy due to raden decay results of a 1383 populanen survey f:t (25,c00): tornacces (1.0); etc. Based on

reducts not to esdon itself.) Most of all 5

=dl tailings sites perfor=ed for us sucn c:=pansens. dese c == enters tne data cted by c=m= enters to support by Battelle FacEc Northwest concluded dat de asks &cm radon a !cwor soudibnum &acnon are for Laboratenes. This survey, which was emittad & = taumgs are not '

situacons :n wtuch the source of redon Iinuted to incividuals wtthin 5 km of de signtEcant.and that EPA's sr=ndard is cif:sson into houses kom unceriying  ; des, snows =at de totd populatica at should not li=2t such emmamns. j soil. In 61s situacon the tmcal decay de 25 acuve sites was 0054 mthm 2 DA believes dose compansons are product equdibnum &acdon is zero. For i kilometers of all acave tadmgs pdes.

=:.sdireced and do not address a l the arroorne radon &cm tadmgs piles and w 7/ widin 5 kile=eters. central purpose of de legislatiun dat '

consicerad in DA's estimates, the We have re evaluated the Iccal and requ2res this nd-aW _ which is to '

decay procuct equdibnum &acton in M1ponal hesith nsk based upon bis re- -.

• =ake every reasceable etTort '

outdoor air approaches 1.0. beycnd de , survey of current populacons md2n 5 g, . *

• prevent or mimmes radon vienity of a ptfe. After takmg into (m and 1970 census results for difLsion into de account peneds of =e an individual populations from 5 to 80 km at de :s spende indoors and outdoors. penods of acuve sites.ne re-evaluation sucw a environmant * *

• from * *

• tailings."

dme a house is wed.ventdated by small decrease in calculated !ccal DA recesmzas dat radiation edecs. and'an mcmase of equal size in background and oder ccm -nn hazards outdoor air. and de fate of raden and cause far greater tatsi annual harm dan decay precucts in outcoor air when it calculated re1ponal efecs. (Cur innitrates a house, we conclude use of anyone would reasonably estimate esc =ates of esk to =cre distant an average veius of a.7 for de efeccve populations. f.e. to de remainde of de =23ht oc:ur & m uncontrolled raden

,qmn ,,= &acdon br exposure d Umtad States. are '-W ) nese emissions &=n ?=mv However. dese people to aarbome raden &em pdes is data scicate dat wimdal esumate of eg,, ,3g, y, ,,, .de subjut d dis acprepnate kr cistances far kom mtal health efec*s m populanus is mie=aking. Comparisons of the type suggested may be useful for setung

• =mng= ; des. nis value is derefere correct. (We note that we have assumed pnenties fer eferts to reduca de retamec!ct caladauens of totalimpact dat dere will be :ta increases of

cculacons at these sites over the next vansty cf hazards to puhiic health (to of raden relsases bem pties. Very c!ose de extent dat dey are avoidable). but to tadngs pues. however. de decay m years a cleariy noncenservatin

r

duct equdihnum facterin outccor air assu=ptiend they are not useful for decding the In sununary. we do at ben..en de aoprepna:e level of control for a specfc

( is !cw. We conciuce. derefore. after source of hazard.nat decsson =ust be

! ?sbng the same incccr/cutdocr facters .ctal haald efecs in de E han

een overesumated. ne factor of acout based upcn de specEcs pecWar to de into ac

=unt, dat an average eHecuve .

decay precuct equdibimm.&acucn 158 d"* to a sligntly diferent average hazard under consideraten. De W a'a' d der hazuds hs ut.

y '"* . *

• about one. half as large is

• 1. E"E"*** #8**

• EN***'cis grecably lower =cre

]*, of absent Congressional direeden. jusufy DA's daisymg dese standards unci ad value shou!d be applied to esc =ates cf ac:cunted for in our esu=ates) wtthin te a t few daades d de Ilfacme of oder c:ntrcilacia hazarcs are de ""="" n incivmual ask next :o . addressed. or jusufy DA's ignoneg pdes. de hazard posed by dase ta21ings.ne estmate of m= mum individuai nsk for Cany mu dat standards be ut.

na EPA esd=ata of tung cancer =. .sx ne fac dat de heald impact of

&cm rados dacay ;wnes is based ca a =cdel ;tle is afeced pancpally cy our assumsnen Sr de ecudihnum tatiings is in large part attnbutable to smdies durnmum anc oder heavy &acnon for raden daugnters. and snould smad racia, con doses delivered to large metal =mers. is cenststent with de be reduced by about a facter of two. We aumners at pecpte over !ang panocs of 1

nost recent rec ==~ hns of de be ieve dts enange is insuficent to  :=e was %-d when NCA NAS BE3 Cc=mittee (19a01, and is

( within :D ;ercent et me value warrant en-me our basic cenclusions

~

was enscted.De den Chair .an of the regarcing the nsE from emiHngs. NRC tescHed as icilows:"The heeld recommended fer use in a recant. efecs of dis radon producten are tiny exhauseve stucy c:nducted In Canada  :. SigmEcance of Risk from Radon as appiled to any one generzuon. but tne for detr Atenuc Ener;y Control Scard I= tted by Tailings 181es sum of dese exposures can be =ade (13827. We have noted our dif!!cultes Several commenters argued dat EPA large cy counting far into the heure.

with de assu=puans which underiis has not demonstrated :nat de nsx.s large enougn :s fac :o be de dommant other est:=ates ctec by c:mmenters m assecated with raden emissions from raciatica exposure &cm de nuclear bei l cur datatlec responses :o c=mments m tadings are sigm5 cant. and observed cycle. Whemer it is =eamngiui :o attacn 62 F..'.S. We conclude de GA value dat mucn of tse health :=cact sigmEcance to raciacon exposures shotdd be used in de acsance of any at'rduced to tadings ac=nes :a very triousands of years in de future. or c=nvinc:rg evidence dat anctner vaius !arge numcers of people at very low cenversely, weetser it is juscSacie to is more apprepnate. :evets ofinmvidual ask. ney suggested ignore dem. are quesdons witscut easy EPA used :wo regional;ocularicas kr ::st :ne preper test of standicance :s to answers. De =ost sacsfactory its nsk estz=ates: :ne drst :oculation, ccmcare sucn nsks with common acpresen is to require every reasonable idennfed as Sr a * =_...ete site. was hazards. sucn as me esk Som de effort to cispose of tadings in a way dat hypotnetical. and was :aken &cm NRC's :stursi background esdiation. For :mmmtzes racen difhsten into de

Federal Resister / Vol 48. No.19e / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 45935 atmosphem." (H.R. Rep. No. 1480.95th inaenve sull sites. Of de 5 sites popui t'ossJ. a cons 4dersble degree of Cang. :nd Sesa Pt. II. p. 25.) We have sm veyac. only 7 had no peccie liv =g protection agamat muuse. and a conctudec dat mammnm incividual within 5 kilematers (3 = des). Anotner S si;;m!!cs.:t part ci de int:c:ated total IIfecune risk (estimated as :in 100) and sites had 10 or fewer pecple living term of effecuve protect.cn from all the lor'g-term cumulative impact on withm 5 kile=eters. Collecuveiy. hazarcs. due to the gready reduced popidanens (;ctennally many tens of however, de null sites have a nor=aily thickness of de enver. We have tousands of deacs over the long ter=1) distnbuted cont =uous rsnse of kcal <. uncus:c. terefore. Mcependent of due to raden emtssions from tadings are populanens anditis not possdie to uJter c:;. siderations, dat when ecsts for clearfy sigszficant enough to justify disungesh a specal set of sites. De insc=nonal control and compliance controfs. As discussed in de F _*S.

RIA. definition of a remote site is derefore wid SWTA cicsure are added and de and a later seccan of $1s P*eamble. cur dif* cult to achieve. unless it is done net sanng i: applied to only dose sites analysis snows dat edints carz. at a aroitrardy. In addition. damcgragners cat ru;ht be defined as "rc=cte*. de reasonacle cast. be disposed of in a have conciudad dat it is not possibie to potenti.i t:tal cost saved is not manner dat provtdes. acccg other determme dat a populanon at a scocac sim: Scant encuais in c:=;anson to tne banah gnetty recuced racon locanon will remam low in the future, if

~

becetits fc.egonie to jusnfy separate aussmus- it is low now. Herefore, a cnoice of two standards.

3. Standards Based on Current Marant standards impiies a need fer Final!y. with regard to the Agency s Populanons institurtonal oversight of futura legal authorization to establish a l

During the twnew of the standards,for p pulati a shifts and for having to separate level of protecnon at remete is inacnve sites by certain federai

• * **

• I ' * ' "" b*

• ntes by isdg rw ses d standards.

ues '

' n: red same entanon of " remoteness.. C?.!TRCA risariv entscoiates that

,a Presumsbiy. the State or Federal nese st.ndarns be a : equate fer de long nat control stancards fw ganal c=st dian would be respcasible. not de term and dat day accieve the ,censEts application to ail:6 inaceve sites. Some onsina wuer. d radon connot Regaremg dm reviewers suggested dat less rest =cnve ne motivation for cooside .ng chiecuves. we are aware of no ute dat standards m2gnt be appregnate for sites reiaxed standartis at " remote'* sites is to is unmaabited and can also reasonably dat are in currently scarsely-populated mduce de c=st d disposal. Cur analysts be assumed will rematn umnnabited.

areas. Other renewers suggested that snows dat any potannal cost saving nor am w awam at any scannHe casts we eaamriae a raden standard that from less restncuve standards at such for concluding dat dere is no t,mpact on applies at and beyond the fenced sites is not commensurate with the less nanonal poputanons due to racon L, d-u of such a nte. La a standard of benafts. In a later secton we report emissmns frons, remote sttes. We that reiles in part oc dispersion and de costs for several raiaxed radon conc!nce. theretore. dat relaxed institutional mamtenance of concol over sw.s. nese results show. for the standards for remote

• sites are not access. EPA requested public comments esse dao radon emission limit (case fessibi,e on,demograchte grounds. are on dese issues for de inacuve sites (q C11 and with no provtston for the added not detenstole on Lesas grounds and are FR 805. January 5.1383). Dese issues costs of insatutional centrol througn not attracnve. in any case. on te ' casts are most sunoly stated as:(1) Should tne fenc=a. !and.use control and lanc et cost.effecuvely acm, eving de vanous degtwo of ruden control after discosal acqu2sinon (to avoid unacceptably hign puotic health and environ =entai goais depend in part on de size of de current incividual doses to nearoy residentsk of this rulemaicng.

tocalpopulation and(21Should and with no provtston for =cmased 4. passive vs. Institutional Controis

!mplememenon of de disposal costs to :neet closure requirements standards be permitted to depend under SWDA (discussen betow). that w As noted above. EPA also rectested prunanly or in part on samtansnes of percent of the cost at disposal at de comments on wnctuer a acon timit institutional control of access (e.g by level required by these standards (case aoplied at the bouncary ("fenceiine*] of fencas)? We also specEcally requested C3) would be potannally recoverable. de Governent-ownee property around comments on dese issues :n te Apn1 We have exammed the added costs a enWngs ptie. La. a

• dispersion' 29.1983 notice of proposed :uiemaxteg required for matitutional control and

• standar:1. would be an appreonate form for acuve stils, conciuda dat dey may vary from acout of standard for de sites with low nearoy Most commenters wno addressed the 10 to 50 percent of dese potennally populanons. (Sucs consiceranen coutc Erst of dose issues opposed diferent recoversale costs, depenning mostly on also appiy to some more populated standards at remote ntes (althougs most tne cost cfland acquisition at specHe sites.) Such a dispersion standard couid industry comments favored tese sites. Costs for conformance to RCRA be satisned largeiy by uuntunocal restncuve standards for o# sitesi. Many closure requzrmants for a cap under medocs. La. by acousnng and raised de " equity'* :enstderation. i.e I 254 *:S(a)( :(iip (E) range from acout =alntatmns contrei over lanc. ne the faarness of protecung a few people 50 to 140 percent of these potennally precoseo cisposai standarc. by

! ass just because of wnere dey !ive. recoverable costs decencing upon =mparison. would require generally Others commented dat many of these whether or not de pile has an more cest17 paysteal methoc: (sucs as sites are locanons wriere pocole are imoermeable liner under it or not. (nis acplying :mck eartsen covers) that unhkely to live. or, converseiy. dat tne SWDA requarement was excepted under directly control de nn?s and tet; stzes of pooulations in the future are not de proposed standards on de basts emissions wtd :-""mni reilance on predictable and eted examples of recent that it would interfere with de =otsture insatutional methocs (i.e it is a enanges. Finally, commenters who required for radon control nis basts ~=ntrei'* standarn). IPA also requestec addressed the issue of weetner EPA is would no longer exist in de absence of comments on de adequacy of sucu a authot ed to set diferent standards a raden limit.) Any savmgs drough radon ~fenceline' standard to =eet de based on '* emoteness* demed dat tne deienen of radon contrei would be oblecuves of de (SITRCA.

' Agency has sucs authenty. .

achzeved by forgotng approximately Comments on this issue ranged from In 1983 EPA counted de number of one-half of the annual beneft (the entire strong support of pnmary reliance on people living ciese to all the act!ve and lat;act on coaregional national passive staosiination for penocs greater

v 45938 Federal Register / Vol 48. No.19e / Fridsy. Octoba 7.1983 / Rules and Rsgulations dan 1.000 years to protecton for only a ownership of the sites is assumed to S. Discosc/ Stende.-is few decaces wth pnmar/ relianca en preclude such inapprognate uses.

inant:nonal contrais. A malenty of . IlDesign Regmnments fu LongJerm Castr:n of Radon Releases Cunng e otecnon

, commenters recommenced retamm8 Milling Cperations pn=ary reliance on passive centrol Comments on this issue were greatly rader than on institunonal centrol ne ;roposed mie annegated that the civergent. Some ecmmenters beilevec l

Those dat favored use of insatunonal mgulatery agency aspiy de *as low as centrols should be equired to last for c:ntrol(prmcpally of misuse and masonacly aca:evame' [ AIM deusands of years wnde others dought maximum incividual exposure) argued E"8CE" Cf Gaidance m. Federal Racianon estabiishing =anagententP=tecten a few decades would be adequate.

for umtting puclic access $ rough use of Comments from experts in de fields of fences and ah imitranve centrel of procacures and regulations to centrol c:vd engzneermg and geomennology land use. Rose ooposed cred the lac'x raden.% operacng =HsN were usefulin resolving dis issue.

of reilaht!!!y of such c=ntrol especauy appmaca was proposed becam DA Standard design pracdce fer en =d tnat a namencal standard to l drongs use of fences in remote areas of stmemres dat, snould day fad. =culd l de westem United States. """*"I*"*****'"*"'"***I". Iead to loss of Efe or sigm&snt S or ng I

DA considers that protecdon from f # ' '*" P P b a de de Iong-term hazarus assocated with racon emissions dunng operations of le "$t a dY '

radoecdve wasta should pnmanly rely on passive control methods. We note. In ex:stng mdla and pdes vary in effeedveness mth time:it is very I$(3*d , ****' 8 Fe this regard. de intent of Ccngress as dif*! cult to measure, quantitatively, deir gne stated m de congresstenal report e:Ecacy: and cifferent methods are d v that accompanying UMTRCA: "Be appregnate for different sites. The have more dan I ch' ance in 100 of enmminas bedeves dat uramum mdl pnmary means for contreding radon occurrmg mdin. say. Hun.

tadings should be esated in acesrcance emissions from exisetng tading pdes Commemen noted 6t maning water mth de substantial hazard they wdl dunna operations are to keep de - caused by very hign rainfan events t

present unallong after ex: scag radings as wet as possibde or to use ,[ama o estm insatutions can be expeced to last in paased disposal P their present forms." In addition. as Some commenters indicated that the (, cods dat memiy em a wet a pde noted ia de ,--:-- A" secuen. the provtsacas of the proposed mie were are not as sagtnacantmemfas. may costs of!and acqmsttio'n to limit inacequata tc assure dat de public " *-"' de esposal method sizmid mammnm individual axposures can would be pnteced.They argued that be'cagned m mdstand any suca easdy negate a sigm9esnt fracdon of DA has the responstbdity unner both smaH jts dat have aim arms dan ade potannal savmss througn use of dinner UMTRCA and de Caan Air Act to J occurr.=.'.g covers. However. Institutonal c=ntrols provide suitable health protecdon to all pmod fw wnich cacejis e be can play a usand secondary role in members of the public. ney suggested amnably assu.mL cxpert supplemencng passive ceneols and in dat requinng cartam worx praccces or c mmen ars & Hoods a gne er

""P '"anagement practeas would assurmg dnnng de eariy penod of - gm y .

had dat passive controls are provtda greater public health protecten , example, as day are generally danned.

adequate to aca: eve detr design dan da provtstons of de proposed nde. ave a h:gn likelihood of oc=urnng colecuves. For example, dey note dat " staged" or mthin 1000 yurs. nus, m ader m

- hased" disposal d taiHnp and good provide reasonable assuranca dat a pile yon a d de MRCA mpus ,"ater management pracuces could be wtl! mthstand all Soods dat have mers da receral Govemment or e States to acquire and retam c=ntroi of dese deedve ud ruseabit dan some smad chancs oloc=urrms m Engs dsposal sites under Beansas. DA wiu consideraf da de mthin 1000 years. de control system feasibility and practicality of p oviding =ust be designed 2 mthstand much D* Heensor ts audiezed m mqmm

. greater assurance dat radon releases rare events. such as a *prooable perrorm- of any mam'=n=nes "'"*"m Sood." In practce. they momteng, and emergency measures wdlbe "- A-d d'smg mHing operaticus dan would the proposed suggested adequately protectng pdes dat are neeced to protect public heald fer mn a few hudad ynn mqmres amt safety. We boileve that these rule. na Agency has not sufEcently analyzed worz ;racdca and tanHngs dmgnzng control systems to mthstand insatutional provtstons are essannal to all events that are likely to occ2r mthm man =q= ment tecnniques to determ2ne support any protec* wnm objec ve is wnether day are stutacle for dis dousands of years. Furthermore. me as !angaarm as are dose disposal purpose and which attemauves are best. '"""*"m ramfan that m2ght be operacons and for whicn we have as Derefom. de Agency wdl publish an expected to oc= r widm thmsands of little exponence. nis does not :nean we Advance Nonce of Proposed years is vwy nearly the maxunum heHave that ;rimary reliance shotud be Rulemakmg under de Cann Air Act for possible rumf=U 3ere!cre. in pracuca.

placed on insatutional controis: ratter. concideracon of the concel of radon de system would have to be designed dat insatuconal overstght is an emission frem :amum radings pdes for approxunately de same (Ls essenusi backup to passive centrat Fcr 'ot:r ..g tne coeraconal bened of a

. :nax:mumi ratsfail wbeder me centrol examole, as long as the Federal uramum =ill ne ANFR wtil enable de pened is 200 years or 1000 years.

Govemment or tne States exermas detr Agency to gader informanon on the As discussed soove, we beileve ownersmp nghts and otner authenties feastbdity, effecnveness. and cost of protecuca for only a short pened (a few regarcing dese sites. dey should not be vancus alternanves dat would centrol decades) is inccesistent wid the tntent insoproonately used by people. In tais esden releases from operaung mdis, of Congress. Some commenters argued regard. even mtn de cisposal acnons nas will edaele EPA to be better fer penods longer $an 1000 years. We reouzred by dese standards it would not infor=ec wcen judgmg wneder believe dat de spec 5cacon of a design be safe to budd haettacle stme nres on stancarcs are needed, and. if so. de pened of 1000 years wd! acmave de tne discosal sites. Feceral or State most sintacle requirements. ooiecnves of dese c mmenters, wai!e at

l Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. Octc'cer 7.1983 / Rules and Regulttions 459:r/

the same time gavmg engmeers who particulatas.Derefore. de only higher levels, and de likeuhood dat must carry out utese standards a design quanntative esc =stes of efects control to a level of::0 pC!mb is criterion reasonable to assess. We note ciscussed are those for radon emissions. reasonably achievable.

dat commenters did not idennfy any We believe. however, dat efects hem ne nsk to people who live spec:Ec design featums that would Sow msuse or water contammanon could b*

kom a greater dan 1000. year c=terton

u=anently vuy ciose to t=iHnp ; des i oo= parable to dose hm raden . can still be relauvely higs. up to 1 in i that would not already be reqmrod to emissions if long. term pretecton is not '

1000 for lifenme residency. for a H=2t of satisfy a 1000. year requirement. aforded.

Based on dose consideranons we The trunary concem of commenters ll0 pC/mb. However. tne practcaodity i of previcing more radon control by

~~"m4= that de ==e over wiuch wno tLougnt the pmposed redon mqumsg des:gn fer !cwe levels d proteccan should be provided should be emission ar=nnard was too lax was the specSed as proposed, nsk to nearcy indivicuals. The eminion fads rapidly blow ;'O pC/mh.

A closeiy related matter is de degree We e dat no pda has avu hen esumated added lifecme nsk of Stal protectec by sucn a coven dat is, covers of assurance with which controls can be lung cancer for someone,11 vim; 600 damignad to meet de longevity wsth defined leveis of concel and meters num tne center at a model pile is reqmrument.Some fadure modes can be longevity are unnamonstrated t in 1000 due to radon hem a tadings tec=clogy.no design of covers to meet wed quanaded (e.g. ;ericrmanc= of ;tle emitting radon at de level of m a specSc radon amia= ion limit at done dikes. etc.) and others may not be as- pC/mh. if tse coveris deaigned to just weilcharactenzad (e.g. agmg !aw levels =ust be based on achieve that emiseron level without measurements of propernes oflocal

.cnaractensucs of rocx used to stabilize employms additional control to provide cever=g matsnais and predienon of slopes). We recogmza dat. in some reasonable assurance of achievmq it for e====- it may derstore be discuit to locai puamatus such as sd ad 1000 years.

comfy conformance in all respects to a Commenters who thought the tadings moisture. over de long term.

1000. year requirement for longevity of proposed radon emission standard is too Bau d acutam m masq controi.For this reason we have stnct contenced that the cost or ad ;mdic ng dm peamatus, de retamed de Hambdity of de % d compuance would be too bign. in view uncenamty f puformance dsad stus to cerufy for shorter penods (but in of the smail contnbution radon hem c ws incmases captcly as de no case less dan ::00 years). We leave 'sdine makes to a populadon's total 8* 8'**Y b* C "CCA 'W de matter of fudy dehng what exposure to acmoschene radon. They incmasa. Dus. in de case et lower consatutes

• reasonable assurance

• to also generally believed EPA had leve s. de pnmary tasue cec mes the imolemanung governmentai ovenettmated the heald efects hem ""'**' ***I ""'*** !" .a design , ,

as-ne,== but expect dat standard radca. We have addressed dis last stancard for suen I,evels is pracncacty engmeanns (design) critens will be used concemin an earlier secton of dis achievabla. There ts some deid to liant the procacd!!y of fadure over notica. :ntormadon avadable regarning de de reqmren Inngevity period to a value Seiecung a limit for radon emission ;racucanty d mduccon of radon canastent with othat casign situanona hem tadm emisamns to Imis appreac=cg where puclic hesith and safety are objecuves.gs involves in addition four puolic health to reducng background. Tests concucted at a ;de in important enneerna. health efec:s hem radon reieased Grand Juncton. Caiorado. snowec dat direedy hem de pila.nese may allbe test plots of 3. meter tick covers clade

. Radon Esussion I.!mit .

admd by usmg a 'M em covw. from four diEennt earden combmacons Quantitattve estimates of health watch serns to inhibit misuse of reduced radon emissions to values efects hem tadings can reasonacly be taihngs to stabdize tadmgs agamst rana:ng hem 1.0- 1.1 to 1a.3 - 25.2 pCl mace for radon ennssions and erosion and contammanon ofland and mS.ne e5cencies of dese covers wtneblown parnedates. Health efects water, to m4mmi-= gamma exposure. rangee &cm 88.8 percent to 99.:';creent.

( hem =tsuse of *=d'np and water and to avoid contammation of ground nese results apply to de n,rst two

, contammanen cannot be quacuSed water hem tadings. A radon entssion years after emplacement. ano do tot because of de extremely hign degree of '.inut of ::D pC/m% or ! ass would require redact perfor=anca altar long. teen ancartamty assocated with de use of a suEcantly dick earmen cover =cisture equdibnum is achieved (some "bhd and extent to wmen misuse to act m all of these ooiectives. A !!mit moisture contents wem sell and contammaton :nght occur and de of so pC/m% or greater c uld be censiderably elevated over prevading l

consequent degree to wmch people will satiaded in many cases by a cover too tevels). We beneve results like dese can consecuently 52 exocsed to raciation $m to efaceveiy inntbit misuse. Suen a generally be expected. because de and textc sucsunces. (For exampia. cover would also pemut Eigher radon control charac ensucs of earden t= dings usec as all in raarewmted areas individual nsks (up to 3 in 109 and matenals used for covers will vary hem would not result in airect human would leave l0 percent of de potendal site to site. nree of de four covers exposure. (Jams tadings as all for besith imoser on populanons studied satis 5ed .'O pC/oth with a residennel bmidings cames a hign uncontrolled. Cur analysis shows that a reasonsole degree of cartamry over is '

procaculty of very =mh"fy  !! ant of::0 pC/mh !s also cost-efectv, term of is test. De other cover eierstmq raciadon exposure and nak. for ailm'nating most (95%) health efects (18.3 + 23.2 oC/m il was uncomcacted

. De degree to wmen peopie signt be m regional and nanonal;opulations and its poor perter =ance can derefore exposed to contaminants from rashnts hem radan released direedy ham de be disgounted. Exacdy how mucn trougn watercome pathways is suetect ;tle.Sucs a linut would also reduce dicker dose cows would need to be to to swndarty hago uncertamnes.) maxtmum individual risms to residents retiaciy accieve a lower !!=tt (e.g.,5 or 3 The likedhood of hesith efects hem near tatlings piles to less dan one in pc/mS) is not known. Excens exposure to endon and its decay 1000. We conciudec that leveis higher commentec cunng heanngs on de procucts is. consideraciy greater dan dan :3 pC/m4 are not jusufad. based standards that aidough covers can be hem parncnistes. even wnen external on me cost-efeceveness of recucton of designed to meet sucs levels as ::D pC/

radisaon and food cham contnbunens cancer deeds in popuistions. de hign mi. estunacott models are cet railaole are :ncluded m de eenmates for maximum incividual nsus mveivec at at signtScantly lower emissten levels.

45938 Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations We concluded dat achievmg revising these standards tf subsecuent conformance wid a radon emission roots are to be averaged over. smce it :s standard dat is sigmfcantly below ;0 tecan: cal and ec nomic infer.~anen de net radon from de entire tailings

C/mh (6 or

;C/mS. for examoiel shows soci5 canons are warranted. ;tle ::at is of signdcance to hesita.

l cisany would requ:n designers to deal ne standard reqmres dat cisposal be Secot:d. te averageg is spec:ded to designec to prsvide " reasonable  !

with nnssonsoly great uncartamry for apply ove a t:me ;ened of at !aast one t dis undamnmtratec technoiogy. Dat is assurance' dat racon e=2ssions will year. Dus dady and seascual not excud 23 pC/mi (averaged over 1 partculany so because EPA is already vananons :n radon e=tssion are to be w.ug a =argm of safety in emi!!ng for de disposal ans) for:000 years. Some averagec over. sece dose are also not any control system to meet de commenters expnseed de opunon dat of sigmacance to puolic hesith. F.nally, designatec emission level with de =eamng of dis term was not clear.

A key word in this reouzament is dis averag:ng =ay extand over longer reasonable assurance over :000 years. penods to accccunadate normal Gven de precicuve uncertamnes in " designed." smca we do not intend campiiance with a 1000. year  !!ucmadons m sed moisture .cntent due desigmng to meet das stancara. EPA to short-ter= cii=anc vanacons. nus.

reqmrament to be data =n=ed by de lowest recorded values of sod jucged dat to force an acemmtmg for a =omtormq. "Reasonsole assurance

• in second set of prediceve uncertamnes by de design of covers means de radon =ctsmre centent shcuid not be usec:

fors=ng de standard to very low rader, de avenge values are emission limit should be expected to be appropnate. Suen averages saould not.

=nn=IInvels would be to exceed de achieved, ove de required term with a Ilmits of reasonably avadable however. extend to times as long as de technology. degree of assurance commensura,te with normal human lifespan. since dat ceuld The risk from radon emissions the reasonable assuranca'* oflongevity result in a sigm a esnt alterscon in de

• =iah rapidly with distance frem discussed in de preceding section. Bus. level of protecnen of public health.

in designing de cover de uncertamces SI-Marly, avengmg performance over de tadings pde (dec im 3 by a facter of tree for esen doubling of de distance in attenuanon charactenstics of =atenal de encre penco of longevity of de beyond a few hundred meters). Dere used should be taken into account in a coveris not withm de meanmg of de currentiy are onif about :0 individuals conservanve mann=* nis will tend to srmndard.

livmg so near to acuve piles dat dey increase de cover diciness regtured angnt be subject to neany m=vmum over dat calculated hem "best 3. Relanonshin to de Cean Air Act enanal post-disposal asks. We expect esemated" values, which would ytetd an Emission Stancard Reqmnments that the ar n=3 number of approxunately equal probability of ne Cean Air Act also reqtures dat might expenance near m=peepie who acinevmg above or below de design EPA provide public heaid protecton

-1 Ilfetime level. An exampie of uncertamry to be esk wd1 be en=Jne, smco dey would ' rom arr enusstens front tailings ; des, considered is that in de long-term Further. GA !s publishmg an ANFR to have to mamtam lifec=e residence in equdibrmm value of moismre to be de land area i=meciataly adfacent to a consider additional contrel of radon tadmgs ptles.In sum. we believe dat de exnected in de cover matenal (La. over emissions during de operaconal pitase probacdity of a sucstannal m:mber of 1000 years), even dough de cover matenal =sy be sprayed wid water of = dis.nis disc =ssion relates to de incividuals acmally incornng ese disposal phase.

when it is laid down and compacted.

. .. .. calculated naks is small and layers of coarse matenals The Cean Air Act reomres dat de We conclude dat it is not reascnable introduced to inhibst espdlary acton. Admtmstrator estabiish's standard at to reduce me emisazon stancard below Such spraymg and layers incesse de the level which in his judgment provides

'D pC/m's because ob (1) ne an ample margin of safety to protect de uncertamty assocated with de motsture (and derefore attenuanon) of public health kom canardous s2r de cover in the near term. but it is tae j feastbility ofimplementing a poilutants na Agency pucilshed long. term equilibrmm moisture content i w-~=t for a sign:Ecantly lower wmch governs the performanen of de proposed rules for radionuclides as standard. (:) de small increase in total Nanonal E=tssten Standards for cover over :nost of its useful life. Cther health benests assocated with sucs factors include uneartamty in measund Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) iczar covers. and (3) de limited on Apnl s.1983 (48 FR 150 8). De cremnstances in wnich de maxnnum diession charactensdes of the parucular proposed rule sednssed all of de earthen matenals used (for gtven r:sk to individualA mignt be sustamed. sources of enussions of radionuclides mmamre content), and in de long-ta!m dat GA had Idennfed. The ptCoosed As cared above. de 20 pC/m's equdibatun motsture content of the m==w= 11 mat was seiected to :neet de rule either provided standards for

? nun'gs demselven. In summary, we stated ooiecuves of recuc:ng the intena that de design re venous source categones or proposed Uk=W of misusa. sprescing due to reasonable assuranca*quirement for act to regulate dem and provided should Isad to reasons for dat doctsion.

ercemn. and control of radon emissions dici curacle covers dat have a afur a darougn evaluaden of ta In de proposed NESHAPS for current extseng informatica en de substannallikailhood of maintauung radon enussions below de :D pC/ct's racionucides DA did not propose semucal and ec:nomic aspects of "mit for :000 years. additional standards for uranium mdl aitamsuve levels of control. EPA tadings. because de Agency bedeved A related matter is implementa: ion of recogmzes de li=2tations =nerent in de specEcanon dat de stancard for de DA standards to be estaclished dia mformaton. smes no pda has fet under UMTRCA would provice de

-scott emissten appiles to de

• average'*

been ciscosed of. Setter miermanon same cegree of;rotecnon as required by

=sy wed become avadable withm the value of me release rate.This averagmg

.s to os carned out a two ways. First. it Secnon :

• of te Cean Air Act. ne cext several years as CCE proceecs Agen y explamed dat Congress did act wita de ciscosal program for inaceve aopues over the spanal extent of any des:..ae tre oegree of protecnon dat cisposai ans. Thus. annepated pries. nenfore. consistent wid Secnon provides an ampie margut of safety. =ct vananons cue to different

fb)(:) of UMTACA. EPA intends to did it desc=be wnat factors de cencentnnons of racium in different Acmuustrator should consider:n c=nnnus to morutor $ese efforts over paes of tne pile, or minor encxs or tre t:: cext seversi years and will propose etakmg juds=ents en de soprognate etfects of burrowmg animais and piant . standare. The Agency incicatec dat it

Federal Register / Vol 43. No.196 / Friday. Octo'ce: 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 43333 did not believe dat it was reasonable to even dough. if de max: mum individual ne Ac=imstrator can concmca da: !t establish standards for nondreshold dose were censidered alene, one might is act feasdia'* if a hs:ardous poilutant

. poilutants like racionuclides at levels cenclude dat no hrt:er c=necis are dat ;reciude any possible nsk. DA cannot be entted drough a conveyance

eeced. For =ill tati!=gs, although or tne use of tne c nveyance would be cencuded dat it should follow an ;cpulacon doses and bealth i= pac 3 cen=ary to laws, or .f =easurement approacs dat would allow it to censider were as t=portant part eiour metnodofemas are not pracecable due to vanous facers that inHueoce socety's censiceracon. doses to the cost hesith and weil being. Derefore. GA technological or -cenomic !imitacons.

exposed individual were equally chose to censider the followmg facers imoortant. As acted above. we will censider de in deeding whether standards are need fer such stancards for de in aceition. DA considers de operstional phase of = ills.

needed and de Apprepnste level of such potennal for e=2ssiens and .sk to stancarcs: mcrease in the future. even douah de With espect to dese disposal

1. De radiation dose and nsk for entrent projected m==um onoividual stancards. DA has c ccluded dat nearoy incividuals: and popuiscon nsks =tay be von Iow. dg m pde enade assurancs

• He enmulative radiation dese and In bis case, we do not anoc:cate h% hda wdl not M heatth impacts in populanens: szgmfiennt fumre increases in the size of a S A- kr a W d m years is l

3. no potential for radiation its incustry. aathougn populacons ,,7 epp,, g, g.el d de standard emissions and nsk to increase in the around these satas may = crease, as the ,b nW dte emMdm pudd

. 2tum: national populat:en increases. impacts both en individuals a.nd large

4. ne availability. practicality, and ne avadability and practicality of p puladen groups. We consim dat de ecst of centrol tecnnology to recuce c:neci tec .nclog'y are :=;ortant in uncertainces involved m, destgn to ecussions. and judg:ng how mucn controi or em:ssions varms lewis and duradons d concol

5. ne etYect of current standards to require. DA believes tnat the are important factors. Potencal under de Cean Air Act or otaer standard should be established at a inemeses m de number d nun tadings apniicable authorities. level dat wdL at least. require use of piles due to future needs for uranium ne Srst dres facars are used to best avadaels technology. Additional were also censidered. In accation. de assess the likely impac of em:seions on accons, such as fcreng tne use of cest and soco.ec=nomic impact of de  !

te health of inninduals and large undemonstrated technology. c!ceurs of a standard aan atter alternauves were popuistions and to esumate de faclity, or othat excume measures may enssidered. In lisht of all of dose potential for signuicant enussions in de be considered if sigmnesnt emisatona consideranons. GA judges it future. no fourth factor enacies DA to remain after best available technology is apprognate dat the standard requuw a assess whether state-ci.de-art control in place or if dere are sigmHeant level of contrei not beretofore applied.

tecnnologies are currendy in use and e=2ssions and thare is no applicable whether dere are any ;racacal:naans but for whics de design uncertamties demonstrated centrol technolesy. DA dat must be accommodated are wid:n of redncng enussions tarougn control defines t:est avadable demonstrated de range of pracacal feastbdity.

tec:mology or otner connel scatepes. tecnnoicgy as dat which. tn the ne last facter allows DA to assesa It would ce destraele to reduce judgment of the M-trator. is the potencal maxt=um individual nsk wheder agulations or standards dat most advanced level of ccacois krder. However. de uncertamnes bave 'ceen estaclished to control other adequately demonstrated. constdanng pollutants are also m*m releases assocated wtd attempung designs to eccnomsc. energy, and environmental cf racionuclides. acnieve assurance of ccnfor=ance to a ne dose and n,as, for de m, arviduals impacts. We c=ncluded dat requirint sismucantly lower standard through use de use of undemonseated technology

~

seenst a nte are otten de primary of dicker covers are, we believe.

was apprognate for cull tadings, smca unreasonably great, and wculd impose considerations wban evaluacng the dett emissions are sigmHeant and dere

=eed to centrol entssions of large and uncrecietable c:sts.

is no applicabia demanstrated control radionuc!! des. C.sneelling maximum tectaciogy. Somewest dicker covers dan bare (cr ndtwcual dose assures dat ;eople Finally. DA believes it is reasonable average) compilance with a 23 pC/m8s livmg nearest a scu=a ars :ot sueleced standard would recuire wtiL :toreover.

to unreasonably high nsx. rurtner, to consider whethee other DA ,

be called for by de' require ~ent to stancarcs are acmaving approximatasy .

protec:ng individuais often provides an de same goal as da Cean Air Ac. i.a acequate level of protecton to ;revice reasonacia mpliance. assurance (Ctter t/;es of are cf control protecung puciic health with an amole

oputanons living fur *ar away from the =argm or safety. In cases wears otner even more c

stly and do cot ;rowde de source. c= ,37,,,3,,,,p,og,ege ,gueg gay ,,,

standards are prowding comparable UA believes that cumulative dose control. DA baileves tt is appropriate pr need usequendy, we han and hesith imosets in pecuistions are not to propose redundant standards concluded it would be unreasonacle to also an important factor. De cummauve under tne Caan Air Act, nare would be imp se a standard below de 3 pWm:s racianon dose and besith !=:act are so benants bacanse tne puoiic health muwed by 22 nde.

determined by adding togeder all of de would already be protected with an na Agency ceneves that the incivicual doses and nsas dat.everyone ample margm of safety, but dere could standarcs for de ciscosal of urame recaives from an emission sourca.nis be unnecessary c:sts associated wid =di tadings estaousned in this rule factor can sometimes be scre imcortant imeismenung an additional standarc. ;rovide pre tecnon at puot2c sealth tan de -- malvicual nsk a na Cean Air Act suecEes (nat de c:mearacle ta dat whics might be decding wnetner concels are neeced. Mmimatrator promuigste emissions estabtisced under tne Cean Air Act.

partculariy if an extremaiylarge standarcs to protect the puolic health. because de considerscons en wnzch population may be execsed at iow na Acnumstratoris also auder:ned to dese stancares are basea ats levels.no aggregate dose and ;tomuigste dasign, eqtucment worx comparebie to dose de Agency uses in populacon impact can 'ce of such ;raccca or operational standarcs. or a estaoiisnmg standarcs uncer Secuan magmtude dat it would be reasonable combmanon. if it is not feasible to to require a reduccon in de total imcact  ::: cf de Cean Air Act. However. de presenbe or enforce enussten standarus. Enal determmanon wdl be =ade in the

- .. -e 45940 l

l Federal Regtster / Vol. 48. No.196 / Fridsy Cetober 7.1983 / Rt:les and Reguistions Secdon n:r-l=e g on radionuclides. land which wiu be converted to govemment ownership upon desure. accompanytsg de proposed standards

4. Radon Cacent adou vs. Ehon smca a government agency could control $at if uramum =:=ng and mdling ts Rate h use of the land. Also, tey argued taat, conducted in wet regrecs. Se adequacy even tf the govemment allowed use at ar.d appropriateness of 6e stancares A radon entsszen rate linut was =ay han to ce revtewed. parnemany proposed as a design standard ^for de the !and, dci=cing residential use. *:a the weter ;rctecten requ:rs= ants, cisposal of tadings. Some ecmn anters radable evidence exists to incicate dat suggested dat we should instead levels exceecing de proposed cleanus Based on this stata=ent $e ccmmenters st=nriard would =ecessartly convert to were cencarned 6at EPA intended to estaoilah a concentration limit fer radon indcor raden daugi:ter exposures of apply !ess stnngent standarcs for in air at locations wnee people would tauings control at wet sites.

be exuosed..ney expressac de view sufficent magstude to consdrute sism5 cant health nsks." Cur remarxs concammg wet sites in tat EPA should estaoush standards. ~ EPA believes there are good reasons the preamele fer Se proposed st=nr'meds based on health nsk alone and dat a wee intended cuiy to acictowledge that conemanation !!mit appiled weere not to teen contammated land (oth" people can Hw is tarefore more tan areas meedng the disposal all enrrent U.S. uramum muils are satable. standarus) at former mdling sites. F!rst. located in and and semi-erid areas. and A design !!mit for emi== ions adaresses se contammation may spread further. $at we have less expenance with many .

a primary goal of Sese standarcs is and dereoy necesertste ceanup of d de connel measures needed to adjacent land or properces. H!gn indoor comply with de standards under wet W-a-nt of a thick. dorable earthen than under dry connitens.

cover over the tadfags. because de limit radon levels clearfy can result tf houses relates direc-fy to the didmesa of de an budt on cont =mina ted !and. Second, We han soci5ed the Esal standards thwe are sigmacant radiation nsks to require environmental and health cover and remures direct control of radan emzasions. It also is in a form (idennfied in the FEIS and DEIS) from protecnon in all regions of de Umted which conforms to de reqmrements of asthways other dan inhalation of States. EPA developed de basic ground the Casa Air Act which specfies direct Indoor redon decay produc:s. * * induding P'"'C " E ***8 ""' I" * *8 '

extemal(gamma) raciadon and standads for natonal acWeadon m control of emzssions from a source.

Under the suggested azr concentration Inhalaeon of wmdblown paruculates. hazardous waste sites. ne New Source limit. : M calculations would be FinaHy, te government agency Pufm-n=ne Standads. M G W.M.

accepeng ownershzp of contaminated protect surface water by prohibiting needed to endmate enussion rates for use in d L a- cover ** r 2 land would have to unpose additional discnarges born new mius except !w to We conttel and, posenbly. ine:r the costs to anicant by wnich pacpttade.n may

• ' believe no purpose is served by  :

==5 the occartainry of dia extra mamtain saca control. EPA has decded exceed onparanspiranon. Any (t not to enange the proposed lewis which discharged watermust sadsfy a vanable into de r=le-dations for cov,er h- In addfuon. de define on-site land that need not satisfy concentradon sta .dards cotuspending h

of the covw requzad to satisfyanas. de standards applicable to disposal m m d de best avadaMe such a standard could be arostranly demmstrated tmatment technology. We recuced (to zaro in stany cases) by use Finany, some commenters suggested have modi 5ed our preposal m not appiy of fances to restnct are===. Suca a dat we issue standards for de cleanup de .wents of @ CFR 3.=3 tat r;tuation would be unsatisfac:ory of any cH-site land and buddings dat an miennced by M CFR 284.0 because it wouid: (1) Reqmre permanent may enntain tadings from Heensed md!s. ("Dsign and Operacng Regmruments")

(for 1000 years) control of access by There was an implicacon in some in order to avoid the post.cosure -

institunonal means. and (:) would not

.. . that estaoilsamg de bathmb" efect dat could otherwise reqmre a cover sci 5 cent to deter responsibility of any party to perform occur in wet locations. For =d!s mususe. In summary. If such a standard remecial accons for sucs utes could be locadoned m agrans of net precpitacon is com; arable to an entsston limit. it is sfected by wnether or not EPA had e final standard applies e CFR neoalessly complax. due to the .ssued deanup standards. EPA has

54.=s(a)(:XHiKEL weic.h m Meake dosure cover to be less per=qmres of transportcalculations.If issued cleanno standards (40 CFR Part esole $an*e not. it afords less protecton by 122. Subpart B1 for de Federal cleanup any user beneath de t=dinge so de pile permitting dispersion instead of control program for of.e:te t=dinsa from a wdl not 511 with water.

inacuve processmg sites that was 3, , ,""E 3 We believe these and de other estahMad under TItfe I of UMI"ACA. ;rovisions of to Snal standarna provide Commenters crpressed conmsme Sites for waien a ife=a== for uranmm or acequata proteccan for wet and cry

egaraing de purpose and soplicabdity Sornun procuccan was in efect on or after [snuary 1.1978, are exduded hem areas. consider =g diferences a both of 6e proposed i "" 9b)(:). We cet procpttation and populanon density.

intended this secdon to disenguisa coversgo undar Utie !. We note.

disposal areas for *= ding = pdes frettL however. Wat de standards (40 CFR C (mund WererStandards other land areas on disposal and/or part is2. Suopart 3) we have already issued for de Title I program would be 1. Summary of the Proposed Standards He=a==d sites dat are suficaently suitable for appdcation to of-stte 2ncentarmn=ted by tallings as to not Consistent with te standards EPA require appifcadon of de cisposal contarmn=t2cn from setve stils. Issued under de SWDA for hazarocus 2tandards of i T32.=fs). The dadsten S. Wet Sites vs. Dry (And) Sites wastes (47 FR :="4488. luly 28. :082) -

cf"discosai area and We language of te standard for:= dings pties has two 1132.=lb) have caen revised to car:fy Several commenters ham Virg:ma and parts:(1) A ";r:marf stancard tat dese ocjeentes, Sl! nots expressec concern regarcing de mqmres m of a Hner designed b applicabdity of *.**e standa d* to wet prevent =tgrscon of hazarcous Some commenters ooiected to $e sites, i.e. locations wner, annual proposed desmtion. On de assumption aversgo precpttanon exceeds annual suostances out of de impoundment, and

• at it was a cleanuo stantiard $ey (2) a "secondarf ground water 3 average evapotranspiration. EPA stated argued it is not necessary to clean up in de Federal Register notice protecnon standard requir=g. in efect, dat any hazardous conmutuants dat

Federal Register / Vel 48. No. Ic6 / Fetday. Oc:cce: 7 1983 / Rules and Regdadons G341 l leak from the waste net be allowed to large i=pnundments. Other cemmente s degrade g=und water. De pr: mary .md es mronment. Sey noted that

cted dat thtcicer plasne liners dan ander 'ne ; reposed standard virtually standard appdes to new pornons of new or existing waste capositones. De mat have been conventional or deuole sil ex:snng mtd ccersnons would have secondary standard apolies to new and liners would be more successful. A :o eteer enuest exem;t: ens and numcer of ecmmenters argued that ciay altemate stancards and/or begm exisung pcmons. tte poet of liners may have ir portant arivantages compliance bemg at de edge of the over plasnes. but quesconed whether emedial acnces. Cc== enters stated waste imccundment. De scecific dat repletmg by except:ans is ciay liners could satisfy the concinons inaretcynate. NRC and et .ers further hazardous suostances and for att exemetton.

concentrations (i.e backgrcund !evelsi argued ttat an DA concurrence role for ne tulemaicag reccrd does not exemptions and alternanve standards that dedne nonecmpiiance with de establish dat ettner clay or plasde secondary standard at esca site will be mat would be invnked at virtually all liners have unecuivocnt advantages or estabiisned for cranium mtil'adings by disanvantages. F.PA considered dese exisnn: mdts was inecesistent with ,

NRC and Agreement States, ne SWCA UMTRCNs forecicsure of any DA )

tecnnoloines wnen it developed de ;ertmttns for tntlinas uncer U!.GCA rules. however. per=tt altamate '

SWDA Iinar reoutrement and decded to er SWDA.

concentranon linuts to be estabiinhed recere a liner dat is capacie. as a I woen they wdl not pose - * *

• a matter of eneneertng, of prevennng we have made mcdifications of the I substandal pr=sent or potential hazard rule to hnen improve its administration {

mq etirm of waste into de ground and and c!ar:!y its ociectives.

to human hesith or the envrrenment as water. De fact that fadures may occur locg as the altamate concenerscon limit cid not jusnfy astablisamg a less 93 coc3,dered a w:de range of 1 is not exceeded. ne rule also allow preteettve standard. Racesm=n:; mat atte;3any., e,for,4;ggnag e, l 5mrticus consntuents' to be scen licers may sometimes cad. .iA econ %-. e --1--i .Js .; a Mr y exemoted from coverage by de permit also issued de seccacary standard to simziar to NRC's. Whea F' A .ssued the based en the same cr:terton. DA  !!mit the causequeness of such fadures. SWDA rules. tt recogn:nec mat many determmes the altemate ccncentration UMTRCA requires standards :or tadings ex: sung hazardous waste sites had standard or exempoon unner de cperated fcr many years without !!ners I to be conststent with the standards c2A SWDA: DKs concurrence would be estaclisned under SWDA. We have anc would not !=meciare!y sacsfy me required under de preposed standares seccndary stannard. Da. ". eated de for tailmgs. concucea that coc:menters uld not opcortumty fer exa nences and

}

estaclisa dat concitierts at railings DA recosmzed in crocosmg dese impounements are suff!cently ciffannt gay, com., gg g starhda that UMTRCA connnues the from conditions DA considered m avoid remecial acnens where suen dual requiatcry system fcr urac2um fuel developmg tha sWDA standare to excepnons would ' m pose a pce faclities under wmen DA sets iusc!y cepartures from dat standard. subsmal pt or pul brd.-

..esith and enviren= ental standards and Under mese standards. 411 new .vaste In estaoiismng sucs exemettens or NRC estacilsces imcle=encng stcrage areas (whether new waste aitemative standards. a s'CA rules techmcal. eng=eenng. anc =anagement faclities or ex ansions of ex: sung piles) pg y ,,.g g g .

equfations. Under the SWDA. DA are subiect to the prunary star'dard-me sed am M6 em nm perterms all .suca regulatory hmenons

..ner naou:rement.If new wastes are

. g 7 ,. 4g g.ent- gg for enemical hazarcous wastes. aeded to an exisung ode, however, the %34(bi). ..e .a te reim*1 'c ce desuny ci UMTRCA ;remotes umferm Federal ;de must ecmpiy wita de sec ndsrv :cmanunants reMsa: 62 te waste regulanon of wastes. however. by uncer sececSc Wmenemical recurreing NRC's .egulartons fer mese standarc--the hazardous consnruent . , , , .

westes (Le uramum and denum mill concantratica standarns for 'teaita and Tr.PA "-# ag ees car <c=mst aove envirortmental protecuen. Whether for a tadingst to be '*ecmpancie* to DO*883 'M fC ' ,

cew or extsung pde. If the seconcary ~8 eequirements DA establishes for simdat stancards are round not to be sat:sned system uncer CD.M s om?; e be80'7 hazards under de SWDA. and subsequent correcuve acnons fad to W 2 'C ",e We c:-cuded tat it ;,s

~ ' **#IO**d* achieve ecmpilsen in a reasonaole appreonate uncu MCA tat de egulatory agenc:es !!GC and Se pnmary standard. 40 CTR 3.:::*. dne, de operator must cease depositing waste on dat pde. Agreement Statas6 :er :r= Or a: prove can usually be satisded only be usmg analyses of fate. :acause .=s =veaves liner matenais (such as ;iasdes) dat 3. ne Secondary Standard and de Campiementary Roles of DA and NRC pnmar:iy tech ucal anc site-scecdic can recata all westes. F.xempnons iucgments. F.PA does not bedeve.

permittng use of oder liner =ater:als Commenters correedy :oted that (such as ciay) dat may release water or however. dat it can or should delegate virtually all exisung radings piles have its esponsioility for settng hesith and small quantties of other suostances or, centsmmated ground water beyond de envirenmental protecnon stancards.

in some cases per= stung no !!ner nay edge of their unpoundments. ne reason be granted only if magnden of nts was tae ressen for proposmg to

s that =any of dese pdes were recuzre DNs ccccurrence with hazarnous censutuents mte de ground

enstructed without liners and before l exem;tocs and alternanve water or surfacs water would be NRC increased regulatory reqmrs=ents prevented indeamteiy. concentratien stancares recemmended in the late 370's. NRC's recent by regulatory agenc:es for site-seecSe 3 Some ecmmenters stated dat no liner regulatcry practes has been to requ:re tecnnaiogy is avadaois wruen would licenses. Derefore. in deter =mmg )

achteve tne goal of de pnmary remenial accons on a cost /beneSt basis st'uanens recutr:rg ccncur ence. DA wnen underground contaminant ;iu=es will certsicer *ne heaid and standard. i.e prevennng waste frem treaten to degrade or have already entenng de ground or water. Bey envirentnant related factors m degraded the potendal usefulness of <

i statea that syntaenc liners would tear orTstte water.

H W4b) and 254.94(b).  !

! mcer de strams of tadings and heavy Many commenters, including NRC. Ac=Imstrsuve burcens can be furder

[ eousement. or tnat dey ccuad not reduced by ;ermttung the retdatory argued mat de exisung practces for I

reifaciy oe preceny instaded in sucn tasifngs odes suiEcendy ;mtect heCth agency to exerese cisc scen. ;ursuant to ma recutrements ci C C7R 234.34(bl.

1 l

45942 .

Federal Regist:r / Vol. 48. No. !se / Friday. Octoe' tr 7.1983 / Rules and Regulatio l

for establishina alten: ate ccccantracen Adcumstrater, scan cromulgatica of i u=tts as icng as any ccatammacort 40 C a : sus Petne of compuance \

dese standarc's ey DA.

mtted will remam ciese-to me pde Many of thr. factors dat must be 40 C7R

S4.se Comotiance penod and.is widin de boundanes of de constdered by NRC in canymg out its (

licansed site. Sucs situations can be 4 Cnt :54 97 Ceural pound water tdenn5ed scieiy ircugs analysts of fats. responsibtilces for enicremg GA's mmtenng mments stancarns are ciscusand in tne perunent and we have decded not to recutre secnon of me nonce proposmg tnese 40C3t:54.38 Cetecnca momterms ;rogram concurrenca tn suen cases. His avoids g c73 33, g,g,,,, ,,

de dual adnumstrative process for standarns (48 FR 1352:.4). cor 3, I convemence. we re:est here de IIseng .*

alternanve concentrauen standarcs under concitons where dey cartainly of sections of the SWDA's rer.tiations ;f. Subpart C.

whtch relata to de separate DA and would be requested and granted. We bedeve this is apprognate. ne NRC responsibdities. 9A's . 40 CTR mnr Pest-dcaure care and ~.se of responsibdities to establish standards peceerey emammation would be very li:mted in extent and ccccantrauen. can be under Secuca 206 of UMTRCA are lif. Subpart &

expected to evenmady dsstpate aitar camed out drougn adcotton of all or part of de followteg secuena of de a Cnt :s4.=s Momterms and insoeccan te sits is desed in accernance with our SWDA regulances: (oiimpa:oment uners), as appilcaole closure standard, and dese sites wdl be i. Sucpart F:

tmdar efecuve government funsdicton e Cat 242:a Osm and Moeum durmg dis pened. We have chosen 500 40 CMt R92 Crosstd weter protecnon stancard meters as the maximum cfstance fcr be nere are several of these SWDA

arpose of dts seenon of de rule. e CFR

84.93 F.azardous consutunts fegulatons that specfy monttonng after harsnee it linuts contactinanon to a e Cnt **use concemracon U.mts small area. and. censidenng de stce cf dasure of an imoeundment.Momtonna wenons are anodfSed and is a ecmplianca actvtty conducted to disposal areas wdl provide an adequate adopted as i 1924:!a M21) assure that health and envtronmental margm of distanca to tmplement a cag wag ,,3,,, standards are being met. La regulatory c=rrectve acnon programs tf they are - g agency is responsible for establishmg

egmrod to prevent cifsite g ,q sues.eqmrements. including post-enntamma ton, d, . Subpart C. closure momtormg consistent with da ne revised standard !ce extstng pdes SWDA regulacons. De penod over 40 Cat :st:n coeure partormance should be imolemented in a :nancer standard . which post-dosure momtormg is consistent with de followtng scenann. .

=ctmally required untime SWDA is 30

• - ~ q weds shcuid be estacilahed

. (nis esenen is adopted as part of I *** ~bKtU years. The regulatory agency should tt de edge of de es>Iing* 4t de rw w however, that memterms of

--d= !H. Subpart K.

pomt. His =cmtor...g

• grotmd weterfor shorter er ! cager

!ocanon is c::ique in providing de 4 CFR m::: W and opersens penods czay be seeded ler de specSc eariiest pracucal noace of cent =mmarts "9"""*"' I' " ""***'#'""d***** sites where tadings are located and,

mgraung from de !=peund=ent. De As secnon a maad and adopted as wben appregnate. change dis regniatory agenc drougmfurcer =ycmter:ng should and deten=me I M 'NIU regarement, fate NRC's responsibilitfes under A dif!!ccit considerston regardag de analysts wheder ha:ardcus consttuent UMTRCA are to tmplement UA's desure of a tadings = pound =rentis Ievels now and in de futun wtil sacsiy decding wr:en disposal must take piaca.

, de secendary stancard withm 500 standards and to " *

• insure that de management of any bypredtet matenal Several factors must be evaluated in bis meters or any cicser site boundary, regard including:(1) The likelihood dat what correenve actens an acprepnate * *

• is carrted out in sucs a manner as

• *

• conforms to general requirements a mill wdl resume operadons:( l da

'n correct any en-esta centsmmacen, established by the t%=4*= ion, with de specfic concition of the tadings and. if some cent =v madon is fcund to canentrance of de Adnumstrator, which i=ponmiwnt. such as de fracnon of be not practicable to elimmste. de design life reman"eg. and are. to the maxrmum extent practicable.

alternate ccacantration ilmat at de edge at least comparable to environmental contammadon proolems, of de tadings to mn.cata de mrmm rm - ents appucaele to de posses +eson. transter,such as wmchlown tailings and de pracucable on-stte c=nt=mmanon. !! ukedhood dat sigmEcant quannnes of eartynnmsPtal c=gtsmmacon is a and discosal of sumlar nar=rcous 5 matenal rTgulated by the A'tmi-tatrctor tsilings mignt .e spread by doccing; and resusdc possibdity (or fact) beyond 500 (3) the cost of nalntaining releases from

nstars (or the site boundary) remecial under de SWDA. as amended." GA wid insure tat NRC's regulations de inacuve pda in conformance with ecdons must be taken, er alternative satisfy these ac,momcons drough its the regulanens which apply to operscng e- arentranen standards (with DA conentrance role. Relevant SWDA .ndla pact to dsposal (inciuding concurrence) an required. regulanens are those embedded in mamtammy radon emissions at AI. ARA Unlike GA's role in SWDA. EPA's Suopans A (except Seenon 354.31. 3. C. leveis). Evaluacng tasse factors may be reis for c=nceding hazardous matar:21s D. F F. C. H. and K. F.xamples of areas cif!!cuit and ecmplex. However.

from uramum *=tiings undar UMTRCA is wiuch NRC =ust address m disenargm1 althougn an adequate drymg-out penod

!!=uted to setung standarcs and does dese responsibuities invetve funcdons makas possibia long-term iscianon of not inciuce an =cie=enung mcer de six secuens listed me radines and stacdizanon of de pries.

! esconstbdit*. That esponsibdity ts i ==eefsteiy acove wmen are racen emissions will be greater curmg

. vested in de SRC and the States as de incorporated into dese GA standards. das pened dan before er after discosal.

3censmg aseccas uncer TItfe 3 of and me !cilowmg sectens of de SWDA Fer mis reason the requiatery agency UMTRCA (Secuen 34at31) and wdl be f*T218hCn8: . shotud teamre. arce a cale is adowed to carned out trougs regulanens set by i. Sucpart r.: {

begm to dry out aat alsoosal proceeds tne NRC. with me concuranca of tha 40 C7R 24.st X tutreo programs !n an expeciccus fashion. and that oew Uqtuds are not introduced to the pile so

Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1933 / Rules and Ragu!a 45943 that a new iykg-out ; ried wdl be incurred. schedula for all sites. It is de regulatory establkhed its :o!!cy under de SWCA agenc/s respenstbdity however, to ne pened reqmred for the tiilings to W FR at :!=38. fuly S.1084. We co act dry out is highly dependent en local assun that necessary dec: tons are rendend in a timely fashion. Acce: table 2:nk dis m!cmakmg for byereduct meteorology. nisfer preciudes establishing plans for correenve aedons shouit. cifer catenals ;s an approcrtate forum in a smgie ftted time discesal of da whics to reennsider DA's polices for a high likaEhned of achieving l tadinas. We have concluded that ce compliance wita de standards. hazartions waaras. I regulatory agency should exercae the '

responsibdity of datarmmms when Furmermore. corrective acdons wh2ch. E hau..n. den oMedings disposal saould occur. by site- ence begun. show inadequate premise of '

achienng compliance should result in Some c mmenters rec =mmended sat spsefcally judges de advantages and DA recuire neutrafi:ation of tadings as '

d=te.ments assocated with all pernnent the regulatory agency's promptly disallowing the additfon of naw tailings a medec to ,o-atect grcund water.

factors. nis respcusbility is governed Neutruzation is cherrucal treat = ant by the need to conform to regulacons to a noncamelymg tailings pile.

dat would make de tadings nescer establisned to satsiy de SWDA. by 40 5. Nenhazardous Matenals acd act alkalina. Wheti tadings are CFR Part 190 and by the ALARA ceutrali:ad many hazarcous reemram.nr on racon emissions, Comments were received on avo maners regarumg the centsmmat:on of c,nsutuents are taken out clsolution NRCa cosure requiadons must be grcund water by nonhazardna ,,td therecy are !=ss prone to move comparabia, to the mammum extent materials. (They include es!ct des. thtm:3h the earth and into ground water, practicable. to requirements under tne gg sulfates. c:ansanene, and tetal diase!ved gg SWDA. wher-m short closure eenods sciids. amoung oders.) At high g ggg (90 sed ISO days) are spaedbl. Cr .

out of pues will take muen longer.ying ceacantranons, thase matena:4 can is onnfed semai12Jues regarcing Ifowever. disoosal should occur make water unSt for use !cr other than acu rahzanon. Mnt. scme of de hesith related reasons. hazardous conantuents in tadings form promptly when ; des are allowed to dry One view of these materials held dat ecmplex comaunds dat mmain in out. In addition. some of de older mall sitae siready contaux essentially several of them are mors =obde than sciunon over wide rsnses of sedity and completed (EIIedl radings piles, ne 5=z=rdous matanais. nus. day precada alkalimty.Setenmm. arserne and regulatory stency should promptly the hazardous matenal in contacmanng =ctyedanum-ul censutuents of idanufy and require disposal of such ground water. Cround water monitor:ng ta2iings - are particularty trouolesome in ,

tailings, for these matenals allows the predicton bis mgard. Adequate control would DA and NRC are coordinating their of future ground weter contam. nation by mquire caretui opendon of de etTorts to insure health and hasartious matanals.This detection neutralization process. Second. de costs ecytroamental protecten from uranium scheme magnt taenfore provida an early of neutralinng de tadings an byproduct matenals. In perdc=lar. we war:ung of ground water centsmMacon sigmScant. about de same as are worxmg closeiy with the NRC to and allow enriy correenve actons to b, installanon of a liner. Most of de cost is assure dat NRCs general recutaments taken. dereoy effecnvely prevestmg due to the need M s sq c:a storage for ground watar protecnon will be ground contammatica by hazardous !ageori. Enalh , : u:cen would not matenals. preclude e.a nea h.: 2 Mst.

comparable. to the sammum extent GA agrees with this comment.

precucaole. to DA's 4-ents Analynnq water samples !ct de Be structure ciregdatica established under me SWDA for simdat hazardous substances from tadings dat are by UMUCA con:,es of gucerady matenais. applicable envirue.=cntal standards expected to be most = code in a given established by DA and resulances to

( T! ming of Cermedve Acdons gr und weter ertvironment is a very irn;tement cese by NRC. Requ:nments ne proposed standard regmres useful feature of site-specSc momtenng for spec 5c contrei =rethods. sucn as correenve aedons fer ground water to be recuarements. We nota dat i 34.A ceutralizadon. are left to de imdated within one year altar a airsady contains such a regturement and imoiementing agency, to be used, as concompliance determinaden is made. that the implementing regulatory agencies may be expected to establish required. to ensure that DA's general Commenters expressed concern dat it suca (or comcarable) requinments. standares are satisdad. In view of de may take longer dan one year to devise aoove. DA has concluded dat a and implement an effecdve c=rreenve A second view held that = men cf de l ground water in the Western States is standard reemnns neutralizanon of acdon. !ar both techmcal and already contammated with tadings is inappropnate.

l admuustradve reasons.j!ased on dass

) considersuous. DA has revtsed de nochazardous matenals to an extant a #'UC#C'" U3'U'8 tune limit forimplementation of that it is unsuitable for use. These are

( primarily shadow equifers (or 1. Molybdenum and Uramum Improperiy cormcove scdons to eighteen (18) l uppermost aquifers) wnich would be de I.isted Under SWDA Regturements l

months. We also note that 134.99 of Srst to be contammated by tallings SWDA requianons reqture sucmission CJmments were rece2Ved stating DA 1 of corrective action plan within 180 matenals. Since these ground waters are impropeny proposed lisung days. Bis prevision remama unatYected already contammatad de arg'.uneur molybdenum and uramum as hazardous j by the soove revtsion. goes. dets is no need to prevent consutuents, because SWDA !Isang Once correcdvs actons have begun. additional contammation. ;roceduns we-e not fodowed.  ;

the requistory agency should evaluate This comment would reqture chansmg DA !!sted moiyhdenum and uramum de grcund water protecnon policy DA their etTecoveness and determme as hazardous conantuents only for whether to continua. alten or has established for hazardous westes purposes of contreding uramum and discontinue the aedons. Because under the SWDA rules. UMUCA tacrium byproduct matenals. DA does requires standards for tadings to be certsedve actons are very site-specSc. sot ustand tu t!us rulemairmg to add sucn datermmations canrict be =tade consistent with the SWDA standards. molyedenum and cramum to the SWDA DA has afrency considered de views under the same umform. pre- estaoilsned list of hazarcous certsuruants. 40 CTR expressed in these comments wnen it  !

art 31. Appennix VIII, nerefore. ds l

, 45944 .

Federal Register / Vol 48. No.196 / Friday. Octob:r 7.1983 / Rules and Regulttions w~. dure we fcilowed is proper.

Canfcation of tis matter has been for each altamative to de heald efect contammating water and land is present added to 1192.34a)(:) of the Esal est:=ates for direct raden emisstens and conunues indadattely.

standard. alone. Aidcugn dis analysts relates culy one categcry ci benent to de entire Nta=ccre 3. These are "insntucenal cost of discosaL tt provides useful care cases and represent situadens in l 2. Inclusion of nem=t in de Standards weich =amtenanca is nquired to assure Several commenters ;omtad out dat results to the extent tnat dese benen,ts are found to be greater than de total de standard is sausded. 31 scecSes co the CEIS contamed no background :sden entssion !imit, but requires suppordng infer =adon for the donum cost of control Second. we perfor=ed a cost.effecoveness analysis of control of wmd-blown tadings and standards (Subpart El and ga=ms adiaton. 32 specSes raden recewamended deleting de occum alte=attve standards wnich assigns centrollimits of 60 pC/m's and 33 standards from dis rule. Commenters different sets of arbitrary weights tc de spec 5es m pC/m8s: both require also stated that ders are sigmdcant entre range cf bana$ts of tadings disposal To perform dis analysts. we control of wmd-blown tadings and SNerences in de payszcaland chescal gamma radiat:en.

charactansdes and the radological asa also developed an mdex weics quancfes de reladve erTecuveness of Altamocre C nese are " tong-term betwen uranam and done. ns7 the disposal metods in providing passive control" cases and reoresent ma^ dad derfore de EPA snould not destenated types of control whics situations m w'cich design fa f'orlong-substita de same reqmtements fx term protecten usmg engmeered, done as fw uranse. as was correspond to the benefit categenesi The cost-effecuveness analysis does not passive methods requirmg no continued 8" "-

mamtenance.ne radon emisaton11rmts

[a r3 contains appropriate address wheder the cost incnases of aummed are:

' f t ghter controls are word incurnng.

de C* n cadons I Ra er, by examming de senstevity of Cb 60 ; "!/m*s a 5erences between donum and ee a m dWannt enmes d urentum for de level of protecnon " 888 88 8Ch " *8 ' ' '*"888 C3 :D pC/m*s provided. de cost of control and the " '

C4 S pC/m2s feasibdity ofimplemen: acon of dese h*ha le a nonal C3 : pC/m's stannama ese eHecs are sufBc:endy efectvecess start becommg Disposal mededs wuld be designed smad != EPA m ccacmca dat de incrossegly more expensive, it points m be efecen fa 200 years in dia thoman standmeds should be out to wnat degree the chmco of case. in addum m pmvicing canal of promulgated as proposed. standards is sensitive to the relative wmd blown tadings and gamnia IV. *-r - a Impact Analysis

.e assigned to diHarent types adiacon.

of benefts. Based in part on these Altamatin a Dese cases assee Under Executive Order !=21. IPA analyses, w have made a qualitadve staged disposal ney do not require and c' o the tan utwo gh he ocetal un =dar t

sqnn=mant of a Regulatory Impact e h Analysis. We have not classifed this constdenng de legaenn cadming WW and d& %

train of benents to socery frons isoladng operations at new tadings pdes. The rule as maior, since it wdl not cause these de anyt=n=ent. ha:ardous matenals from man and radon emzasion limits ammm=d are:

sigmMeandy large incremental costs Da 60 pC/m:s soove those watch must be facurred in A range of altamatives was evaluated D3 :D pC/mS the obsence of dese regulaticus. We for protec:fon of pubile health and the C4 6 pC/mh have prepared a Regulatory !=pect envimament. nese altamadves 05 2pC/mh Analyets (RIA), however, smca dare are included a range of control =tathods wide venations in views on the extent frem no control to high leveis of control Disposal medads would be designed to of needed environmental controls in the be eEscave fer 1000 years in dis case.

l and are summanzed below. They do not uranfum indusu7 Include diferent levels of grotmd water in addidon to controlling wmd-blown protecdon. since those M4ments t=thrge and gamma radiation. Further.

A. Jose 6t.Czet Analyste must be consistent with standards additional control of radon is achieved De RZA exammes de benefts and already established under de SWDA. dunng the operational pencd at naw coste of selectsd altamauve disposal However. de length of time ground tadings pdes trough use of staged standards. for both casung and new disooent water is expected to be protected is tadings pdes. As dN-M estifer. most i

incicated m de assessment of benants. ne costs and de benedts for dese of de benedt of t=&ge disposal Ensidescnpcons of each alternadve altamauves are listed in de cannot be quannSed. ne benedt w are follow: accompanymg tables. We n=mmed the best able to esumste is the numoer of cost per desta avoided from radon has cancer deaths avoided by Altamecre A. nis is de "no standares* case and represents the enusesons for altemauve controllevels controi!Ing de racon emanation from from several viewpoints. His range of tadings pues. Since de oder benedts of referenca case recrosentmg condinens if viewpoints included de lenge of Sin nothing is dene. ne pdes would remam disposal-preventon of misuse. ground hazarcous for a lcas ums, taking about over wcich health efects snouM e water protecten and prevennon of de related to costs and woether ni.uonwice surface spread of !adings-cannot be

55.000 years for de racicacuvity to ;optdation eHects should be included decay to 10 percent of current levels. wita regional population erTects m quanufad (Ist alone monec:edt we could not ::ake a completely numencal ne enden emissten rate is estimated to m=M benedt-cost compartsons. We be 400 pC/m's from a typical pde. The deter:rmanen. withm tt:e :radir.onal background rate for typical satis is conclude raz

• dt .ncremental cost per benedt. cost analysts framework. raden death . voided at a 20 pC/mh aeout i pC/m's. The concentracca of We dret performed a partal benedt. enussica linut is a reasonacle cost analysis of aitemauve disposal some toxic chemicais in de tadings is expenciture under all scenartos. The standams by relaung de disposal ecsts huncrecs of emes backaround levels m range of incremental costs per death orcinary soils, so dat the potennal!ct 1

avoided at t::2s controllevel is fmrn D

e'

~

, , - -. , , - - . ..-------,,--.--+------,.---w- , _ - , - ,

1 l

Federal Register / Vol. 4a. No.15e / F:iday. Octo'oer 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations 45945

$130.000 (nationwide health efects =dlica doi!ars for all tailings witich estimated for 1000 years) to $2 3 mdllon intent of the Crder. Any comments f=m erst today at licensed sitas. If we CMS to EPA and any EPA response :c (restonal health effects asumsted for =ciuce all dose en&gs winch we only 100 yean). For de next. = ore tose ec==ents are avadaele fer public esumate wdl be generated by *e year c:specnon at de docket cted accve stnngent. 'evel ci control. $ pC/ms de  ::000, based on recent COE projecnons,

.ncremental costs are also higner: unce: "anomassas.*

de total cost to da uramum =dling 5830.000 to $12 .*.dhon per racen death incustry would be icm 210 to $40 C Reg:rlotary flexdility Anc/ysis avoided. nase costs are more uncertam -Men dailars. Los ecsts are ; resent ~~.is r reguis: ion would not have a and more likely to have been worta estmates (ciscounted at a 10 sigmscant impact on a substantial underestimated. Tcr de next. lass pensat rate) exuressed on a 1983 strmsent. !evel of c=ntrol 60 pC/mS. number of smail ennnes. as speciled ennstant dollar bests, ne .ange in cest under Section ecs of te Regulatcry de incremental costs are lower: 37c.c:0 i is due to diferent assumotions on witat Fiembdity Act (RFA). Derefore. we 1 to 31.4 mdlion. Wheder or not ce actions are needed to meet .equire=ents have act ;erf:r=ed a Reguistory expenditure for a contrailevelis for ground water protec::an for new acceptable depends on one's view of de Fienatiity Analysis, ne basis for dis tadings at extscng md!s. *nding

. a cat of de ::? !!cansea uramum reisvant fac:cra to be considered in We estimate dat mcreases in de 22ils, only one quaiifes as a smad ennty valums de benedt stream. Cu a raianve ;nce of urumum could range ! cm 2 to 7 and i:s =di wdl not be impacted by te basis. ca incremental cost increases by percent. In light of de currently poor at least a factor of 3 for somg f=m de standards. Al=ost all de =ulls are 23 pC/milimit to 6 pC/mS. and econonne ccadition of de industry and owned by large corporacons. nree of me treat of foreign competicon. it is de =dls are part!y-ownea by companies increase by only a factor of 2 for going unlikely cat mtils wdl be able to pass dat ceuid qual!!y as smail busmesses.

from 60 pC/mN to 23 pC/mS. rh=ugn substantial peruons of te acc:rdng to de a, mad Business ne results of our cost-efectiveness discosal c=sts. Using our =adels and Ac=mtstrat:en genanc *mmil ennty analyses, which incorporate efferent undec:ne assumption of an average deEnicon of 500 employees. However.

wetshting =ch for ad the beneits of casa flow, we esumate dat tf muls are cisposal. inciicata that the incremental under de RFA. a smail business is one forced to absorb the entire cost of dat is indeoendently owned and costs per umt of overall efecuvenese disposal no mills would cease aceration operated. Since ese trea =dia are not are relanvely msensitive to the choses of due to these standards. Under the independently owned by small wetenting of beoeSts. ne cost.

c ncinens of no pass-througn and!cwer businesses. tasy are not :=all enuties.

efectiveness of obtammg increased cash. flow, one small model mdl =aY beoedts beyood so pC/mh decreases 0. CMS Reg::!ctrons en the Peperworir

nonotonicady by un to factors of two close. However we estmate dat ttus g,ducten Act '

closure can be avoided with de limited for each incr===arsi level of cencel for pnce pase-through stated above. . His nue dees at centain.any

. ad wegattng schemes exammed.

nese c sts and ec=namic impacts are mfonnac a codecnon egmnments B. 7,a= i 'ie Impace Analysis In the RIA. we developed cases f t not all attr:butahle to these stancards.

smca some of these costs would

}", 8[(,$",',))" gg

rocaoly occurin de absence of deze J. 01. et seq.

analy ms te mdustry-wide ecsts and ee*=-:mpacts assos:ated wits standards due to other regulatory requirements at most sitasanese rasa 4 57s ca 4.tmea ms Srwepos tadings disposal methods assumed to be ,c ,73,,,,gg ceur,ci,.e 3 ,yg,,geco reqmrod for ccmoliance with se tactude escating NRC IIcans tg

.equiscons and requirements 3,,,,;eu, e, .se: ces.t.4as atternanve stannards. F.ach case estaclisned by agreement States. and represented a difarent cornemanon of >.-.' = m c.== oo i disposal methods applied to had regutanens recutred under Secnon 64(a) aame= '"" *' " '""' I escatmg and new tadi=gs. ne estimated (1) and (3) of UMTRCA. We did not (= 'aa estimata de c sts imposed by dese """ *"* j ecananne .mpacts ine:uce potencal cull other requirements because dat would a o closurse (on a model r.uil basts) and require a site specSc investiganon and 8' i

uranium price tscreases. We esumated "? '8 m dose reqmrements have been l

$ 5 the unpacts for esen case acecrcing to centimsously H angmg in the past few d

"s

• e no diferent %=-=1 scananos and years (mostly toward more strmgent I

diferent assumpnens on tne aedity of egmrements). Derefore, we could only Z $  ;

cany-- to pase.u:rouan *=% est:= ate es upper bounds of cost and "

4 . :s

• i

• .=

disposal costs to detr customers. De eennen=c impacts imposed by dose -

j 58 '

results from eis analysts are used to stancards, and could not estunate the iso se .a

c. me se us represent de costs and i.mpacts of ta not i= pac: of te standarcs. ' * * *

,,.wi standards, nis regulanen was suenutted to de *%=====aa======== =

• We estimate dat ccmpilance with de standards. if other regulatory Cf!!ce of Management and 3udget !ce 1"." "Y ""'" " "ll"' ~.,' =." O =""*/ *.

review as teamred by F.xecutive Crder

• sqturaments did not exist, would cost 12:'31. We boileve te analysts f*,*,",,,*,i", gll,,,"f , ,,,,,,; ,",l Cl"",,"4" /*

6e uramum =dling industry about :20 h *= x.4 Na == = =* == = ==

&d aboverccmpiles with de " " ' ' ' " ' ' " " " * " " " " * " " = " * " =""" =

43948 Federal Regsster / Vol 48. No.196 / Friday. Octob r 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations tam.E is- ae sprrs op 4 rpeanva Sra, oAmes son Tast , ass Cenrnos. To rwat Yva mn s'amammme ' m j ' '

ann.c a _ _

omar.e i.ma;ms

• a='**= =='=e j ni==s 5 a==== a==== s===ms (se "g', "R"'"" ~

i % c3 g ,,,,, ,,,

i . . ]

v.* *=,

~

4 la i

l .

31 - l 2. vo*-n oto 4 3 4:

1 mear =.use.  : 1 se teue?ci. :Deier?S 8 1.ams sessy =

1 4. ,gs,em '03 es - =

.gg * ,.W2 tCO C1 1

' t se tm== 1"U f Dr3 too

. L.mer P _ ' 1. soa*** 4 Ca ' ars amme -

Jm31 % "93 ca v =

. ..4 . 'O.=ama 4e0 t hense r - d' %rwreas C4 ' ve, wumasy l hamus --- !s n ir-.is . - - '

.cs Sco ! s iM.

i .tow.,Wa=

vo == '

as sei ! .a. > i een os

. Urumany l P __  ! 4 m. to'89m I

• so Souse --

t 023 na ,

os :1 m-en -

m '

te

.v.,

3

=

=

s vo = =

' 1. ta=en *=

we WF

.' ur r

=

> moo

> > :oo

> 1.000 ums

, m n e-i==s ,=====, === an== or as a-same ==s s messee == .an6 an . er == ==,s===e n==, ' emus ======ms = e==.

m . -.. - .. ~a .-.es-Etis standard is promulgated on the Ursamm M13 Ta Hmte Radianoe Cantrol Act purpose of dis Subpart.

date signed. of tars. Pub. t. 25404. as amended. (c) Cant:rl means any action *o List of Subjects in so CFR Part 132 . . . . .

3 ** U' " ** "*' N "** * "#

Air pollution control Radiation reduce enussions or eihants frem uranium byproductmaterials.

proteccon. Hazartious matenals. Suceert N for (d) f.lcansedsite means de area Uramum. Environmental protecten. M w of Uramum Byproduct centamed wisin the boundary of a Hazardous constituents. Groundwater Metenede Pursuant to Secdon $4 of me locadon under the control of persona protecuan. Radon. Radium, and Atorms Energy Act of 1954 as Thormm. Amomsed generaung or stormg urn inm byproduct materials under a 1.! cense fsaued cated SM--:n.13s2. I tes 1e am, pursuant to Seccon 34 c!6e Ac*. Fer wunan n. wh purycees of this subpart. *11 censed sita,,

This subpart applies to the Aamsameer. is equtvalent to " regulated unit'* in management of uraniumi b rduct Subpart F of Part 3 of this chapter.

In 40 CFR Chapter L Part 192 is matenals undar Section 84 of the Atomic (el cisposcisite means a site selected amended by adding Subparts D and E as Energy Ar of1964(henceforth pursuant to Section 83 of Sa Act.

follows: designated "$a Act'1 as amended..

(f) Cisposalatea means de regten during and following processmg of mdin h peruneter d an impo'im+me, t PART 192-HEALTH ANO uranzum ores, anc to restoraton of ENVIRONMENTAL PctOTECTICN or pda contaming uramum by product discosal sites following any use of such STANDAROS FCR URANIUM ANO matanals to which the post-ciosure sites under Section 83(b)(1)(B) of the reqmrements d I is2.3:(b)(1) of this THORIUM MILL Tall.JNGS Act.

suopert apply.

I132.21 Doestsens mes C _ . ,; - - fyj Raytr/atory agervey= cans de U.S.

Support C h in dia subpart m oder Nucisar Regulatory N='a-ton.

fer (h) Castrie penod means in period cf Menegemers of Urensum Byproduct parts of the Code of Federal Regulations uma begmmng mth 5 causdon. ed namesetesa Pursuant to Secoca 44 of me are to thces parts as cocified on January Atomac Energy Act of 1954, ao 1. 1983. rupect to a wasta Wridev arit, d uranium ore procesetag operations and Ameenced (a) Unisms otherwise indicated in this subpart. all tenna shall have de same ending with compiedon of requirements S*'. spec: fled unoer a closure plan.

maarung as in Utle H of the Uranium 182 ~0 Appdcabsuty.

MillTadings Redisson Control Act of (Il Coeureplan means the plan

• st.:t Dafnittens and C.om>rerences.

. reqmrod under i :54.11 of 61s chacter.

ist. 2 Standards. 1973. Suoparts A and 8 d this part oe (j)Irtsc."ypordon means that land Pstts 190. 220. 281. and 054 d ttds g 1s2.33 Cancien Accom W g

.ss.:4 Dete.

ceapter. For the purposes of this subpart. the terms "nasta." "taurdous [ dm o quannues of uranium byproduct hach -- h ' t Support E-Standards for wasta.* and related terms, as used in Parts :80. 231. and :34 of this chapter

=atenals have been placed pr.m *o -

Wenegement of yhorunn Byproduct promulganon of this standani.

to Se 34 of m shad aoofy m byp:nduct matenat Atomac Energy Act of 1954, as (b) Utenittm byproatiet arctstra/ I m2 2 saanema.

Amorecen means We tadings at wastes produced .

(a) Standants ror::plic: tion dunny by me extrscuan or concentrsccn of p:ccassing operations and peror to the 132.40 Acosicaoeury. uramum from any are precessed end of the closure perred. (* ) Surfsce 132.41 T- mssons. pnmardy for it.s source matenal content.

192.42 Suosuture P mamns- announdments (except for an existing Cre bodies depeted by ursmum portion) subject to this suopart m'tst bc 12r.ss mecan Date. so uuan extracdon :oerations and designed, cortstructed. and ins: ailed in Amenanty:sec.rs of the Atoauc Enerity "n'en remata uncarground do not suca manner as to conform to the Act of tes4. 42 U.S.C. 22. as eaded by ute constitute " byproduct matensi" for the requirements of 1254.:::: of :ms cnapter.

Federal Register / Vol. 4a. No.1s6 / Fnday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Resulations 4 945 except dat at sites where the annual (4) The regulatory agency. in i 192.34 meettve cate.

tec;ttation falling en the impoundme

t confor= tty with Federal Radhuen sud any dratnace area centnbut:ng Subpart O scan he effecuve Cecami:e7

? otecten Cuidance (FR. h!ay ;8.1960. i 1981 surfaca runeif to be impoundment is pgs. 4402-3), snail =ake eve.f difcrt :o i inss than the annual evaporanen h= i de im:cund=ent. the regtunments of mamtam mdiaten doses 5= cadoct meta A '

enusstons Sm surface !=pcuan=ents 134.=3(a)(:;(!!!)(El referenced in of uramum byprodue: catena!s as far 'C' "'

l (tS4.=1 do act apply. _ _ _ _

(2) Uramum byproduct matenals sn, ail below de Federal Radianen P etection _ ,,

Guities as ts practeable at each license.! m. r 3

be managed so as to COnlarrn to de site.

e. . rpac,. .

d""- Y ground water protecten standard in (b) Standcrtis for c:plic:non after :he 134.32 of dis chapter, except that for c!crure;errect At de end of de ci:sure me purposes of dis subparn ;ened:

(1) To the list cf hazarceus Succart 1-$tandards for (1) Cisposal areas shall each c mpiv Management of Thonum Syprcduct c=nstituents referencec in i 3.33 of with de c!:sure perf:rmance stancarig 61s chapter are added de chemical Matertada Pursuant to Secton 44 cf the asements =cly cam:m and urum. in 1 W.1:I of this chapter with respect Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as (ii) To de coccantranon Umzts to nonradiological ha:.ards and shad be Amenced provided in Taba 1 of i 34.94 of this designed $to provide reasonacle assurance of control of radiolog: cal I cnapter are added de racioacuvit7 This subpart hes app $* to de umats in Table A of dis subpart. bazards to (iii) Detecten =omtenng prcFacs (1) He effectve fer one dousand years, management of thorium bype= duct regmred uncer i ;54.38 to estamtsh de to the extent reasonably acitavable. 7ater:als undar Secten 84 of the Atemte standares egmnd eder i 5u2 shall and. In any case. for at least =0 years. cerey Act of 1954. as amended. during be completed within one (1) year cf and. d fedem precassmg of de promulgaton. (ii) I.;.mit releases of raden-:= ' rem ores. and to resteranon of disposal sites (iv) The regulatory agency =ay uramum byproduct =atenals to the following any use of such sites under establisa alternate c=ncentraton !!mits atmospnere so as to not exceed an Secten 8 (b)(1)(B) of de Act.

(to be satisded at the peint of aversge 8 release rate of *0 picccunes I tt2.41 provisme, compilance specEed under i m.ss) per square meter per second (pC/m's). ne previsions of Subpart D of dis cader de entana cii 254.94(b). (:) The requirements of Sectan part. including { { 1913.19P and provided that, after considermg U" **'b)(1) shall not apply to any practeable c:rreenve accons, dese 191:3. shad apply to dormm byprecut.t porton of a licensed and/cr disposal ~ =tatenal and:

!!mits are as low as reasonacly site wbich ccatains a cencentranen of achievable. and dat. in any case. the (a) Previstens applicable to de radiuni =S in land. averaged over areas . e!ement uranium sna11 also apply to the standarcs of I 34.34(a) are satisfied at cf 100 square craters. which. as a resuit all poets at a greater cistance than 300 element tenu=u of ursmum byproduct mater:al. does not l

meters Sm the ecge of de disposal (b) Provistor. a:p!icable to raden.::0 exceed de backgrotmd fevel by =cre shad also s;piy :o raden 2.=: and

! ans and/cr outs:de de site boundary, dan:

l and (c) Provtstens accucable to racium-(il 3 picocuries per gram (;C/3). =$ shall also apply to rac2u=.c3.

l (v) The functons and responsibilities averaged over de first 13 centimeters desig=ated in Part 34 of czs chapter as (d) C;srations c vered under (cm) below the surfaca, and dese of de " Reg:enal Admetratcr'* 1 ists::a) shan be c:nducted in suen a (11)13 ;C/g. averaged over 13 cm =an .ar as to provide reasccable wid respect to "facdity per:mts* shall dick layers more dan 13 c=2 below de be carned out by the regulatory agency, assurance that de annual dose surfacs. eqmv11ent does not exceed :s =dllrems except dat exemptions of hazardous conantuents under 134.33 (b) and (c) of I19133 "me Aeson Programe. to de whcle body. ~3 cullite=s to :P.e this chapter and alternate c=ncentracon If de ground water standards dyretd. and 23 adlirems to any other crian of any memcer of de puciic as a limits established under i 254 34 (b) and estabushed under provtsions of Sect:n (c) of this enapter (exce t as otherwise resuit of excesures to the planned 132.04a)(*) are exceeded at any discnarge of racloactive matenais.

reytdee in i 192.=fa)(

)(iv)) snail not  !! censed atte, a entracuve acuca be effecuve unniEPA has concurred raden 03 and its dauanters excepted. :o

regram as specHed in 34.100 of dis de general envtrenment.

darem. chapter shall be put into operation as (3) Ursmum byproduct =atenals shall soon as is practicable, and in no event i 1s2.42 suasinine provimone, he managed so as to conform to the later dan eightaen (18) mands alter a

revtsiens of The regulatory agenc7 =ay, with de anning of exceedance. concurrence of EPA. sussatute for any (a) Ptrt 130 of dis chapter.

• ?svtrertme*talRadiation Protacten provtsions of I 13141 of dis subpart e :he smaded eseuse to design. Monitorm alternative provtstons it deems meu Standards for Nuclear Power rease.nz after tn ind aan of .opn,5cau,sy for C;erations

• and pracecal dat will provtde at least an samenes emr m ase reemroe.

I (b)Part 440 of $is chapter. " Ore "his everegs need sopry to the secte arises of egmvalent level of protecuan !ct human pg8 g Cressmg Pomt gourcs ease 41see.e4 aree ever senoes of as Isaat one year. hesith and the environment.

Categoryr rffluent !.;:mtations W mari comuned to too yewtaana ina cane a

rms oce armame oypnenci,s tensa ene tram 5 m mm Guidelines and New Sor ca' covenne amarms. Aaan oma ons frma emrm, Suopart E sc.all be eu..eenve Cecember Perf rmance Standards. Suneart C. 6.1983.

Uramum. Racium. and Vanacium Cres Subcategory..

"g'"**g**"'d bmamame u can of emmomeg ynso.s e ni te a . '*;,',* g g ,"

w enau = um eae eausse coon me ae e

4 >

ENCLOSURE 0:

DRAFT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT l

The Office of Public Affairs will prepare a public announcement w

e ENCLOSURE E:

ORAFT CONGRESSIONAL LaiicR

~~

e r

~

~

1

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The U. S. Muclear Regulatory Ccmmission (NRC) is proposing amendments to the Commission's rules'in 10 CFR Part 40 for licensing uranium mills and disposal of mill tailings and waste. The NRC is also issuing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on further amendments to 10 CFR Part 40.

The NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 (Pubife Law 97-415, signed January 4,1983) contained the fo11cwing provision:

"Not later than six months after the date on which the Administrator promulgates final standards pursuant to subsection b. of this section, the Commission shall, after notice and opportunity for public connent, amend the October 3 regulations, and adopt such modifications, as the Commission deems necessary to conform to such final standards of the Administrator."

Final standards were signed by the Administrator September 30, 1983 and 4

published on Octcher 7, 1983 (48 FR 95928). The October 3 NRC regulations referenced in the Act are contained primarily in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40, " Domestic Licensing of Source Material."

! The enclosed proposed amendments and advance notice reflect the two i

! rulemakings the NRC is undertaking to modify its rules to make them consistent with the new EPA standards and satisfy provisions of Section i__ _ _-. _ _ __ _ . _ _.,---,._em - , _. - -_.. . -_._~

q

- ~ .

1 2

205 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended. The proposed amendments to Appendix A consist of changes to the existing Ccmmission regulations necessary to conform to the new EPA standards and to incorporate within Commission regulations those provisions of the EPA standards not related to ground water. Minor conforming amendments to Appendix A, as necessary to remove inconsistencies with the ground water protection provisions of EPA's new standards, are included as proposed amendments. The advance notice outlines the NRC's plans for a further rulemaking to consider the incorporation within NRC regulations of these and other EPA ground water protection requirements issued by the EPA pursuant to provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended.

We expect to issue final conforming amendments to existing Commission regulations in accordance with the schedule set in the NRC's Authorization Act. The amendments contemplated in the advance notice cannot be completed on the same schedule.

i

)

l

_ . _ _ _ . - ~ . .

3 l

The enclosed notices are being sent to the Office of the Federal Register

-for publication. A copy of a public announcement to be released by the NRC on this matter is also enclosed.

Sincerely, '

John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards .

Enclosures:

1. FR Notice on proposed amendments

2. FR Notice on advance notice of proposed rulemakir.g

3. Public Announcement t

l l

f

- - - . - . - . , _ - _ _ . . . - . _ . -- ,_.__m . - - - _ ,__