ML20138P459

Discusses Suit Filed by Three U Millers on 831014 Against EPA & Nrc.Attachment a Concerns EPA Failure to Meet 831001 Deadline for Promulgating Stds for U Mill Tailings.Portions Deleted

ML20138P459
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/03/1983
From:	Slaggie E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136D839	List: IA-84-709, Requests Options Paper Assigned on 840103 Re SECY-85-450 on United Nuclear Corp Vs EPA, Before Commission Decision on Conforming NRC Regulations to EPA Stds ML20136D834 ML20136D842 ML20136D849 ML20136E826 ML20138P410 ML20138P429 ML20138P445 ML20138P449 ML20138P459 ML20138P470 ML20138P481 ML20138P541 ML20138P556 ML20138P577
References
FOIA-84-709, TASK-AINC, TASK-SE SECY-83-450, NUDOCS 8511070169
Download: ML20138P459 (46)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:y. p~p p p 77 n n n n n n n n n n r C 7" i.A ' '. s... pnnauqk i) [ j 8 e i.,...../ ADJUDICATORY ISSUE 1 November 3, 1983 (NEGATIVE CONSENT) SECY-83-450 j For: The Commission From: E. Leo Slaggie, Acting Solicitor

Subject:

UNITED NUCLEAR CORP., ET AL. V. U.S. EPA, ET AL., CIV. NO. 83-1602C, D.N.M. Discussion: On October 14, 1983, three uranium millers (" Millers")

• filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency l

(" EPA") and the NRC in the U.S. District l Court in New Mexico (" Court") contending l that EPA failed to meet the October 1, 1983 deadline for promulgating final environmental standards for uranium mill I tailings [ Attachment Al. Among other things, the Millers have asked the Court to enjoin the NRC from implementing and enforcing EPA's standards and to adjudge and declare the respective respon-sibilities and obligations of the EPA and the NRC with regard to the future regulation of mill tailings under section 275 (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (" Atomic Energy Act"). 05110J0169051010 PDR h1CKB -709

e t I 4 a 1 (( E. Leo Slaggie Acting Solicitor Attachments: j A. Complaint B. Analysis

C.

Memo, 9/20/83, Barnes to Sjoblem .D. Ltr, 10/5/83, Trubatch to Phillips E. Ltr, Trubatch to Phillips LIMITED DISTRIBUTION 9 e e n,- n -- ---,,-, + - - - - -, - - -. ~ -,e ~--n.-, - -

^ * - f. __h _rg [~ .s r : ~ v s tR. toisu SUMMONS IN A GIVIL ACTION Knitch $tatts pistrict Claurt d '" NEu Mexico i United Nuclear Corporation, Homestake Q ] ~,,,, } Q { p' p Mining Company, and Kerr-McGee Nuclearp -- - ,t V 7 *("^"***

• "*** ' " ^""

Corporation, Plaintiffs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency v. William D. Ruckelshaus 401 M St., SW United States Environmental Protection Washington, D.C. 20460 Agency, William D..Ruckelshaus, and' United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm. United States Nuclear Regulatory NW Commission, Defendants' 1717 H Street'C. vWashingt on. D 20555 /' YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to serve upon PLA4NTIFF*S ATTCRMEY (NAME AND AOCRE55) G. Stanley Crout, Sunny J. Nixon, Michael S. Yesley (Stephenson, Carpe,nter, Crout & Olmsted), P.O. Box 669, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501; Peter J. Nickles, Theodore Voorhees, Jr., Richard A. Meserve (Covington & Burling), P.O. Box 7566, Washington, D.C. 20044 u.1 AM fe"\\b* $) gs @(* an answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 60 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. JESSN CASAUS, dierk OCT I 4 sg t.n ae~,r en L 7h-A U l

NoN, s'ak ClVit. COVER SHEET The JS44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace not supplement the filing and service of (* pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by tne Juqicial Conference of the United States in September 1974,is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of insosting the civil docket sheet. (For more cetailed instructions, see senarate instruction sheet.) i Pt.AINTIFFS DEFENDANTS United Nuclear Corporation, United States Environ = ental Homestake Mining Company, and Protection Agency, William D. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation Ruckelshaus, and United States Nuclear Regulatory Cocmission CO"r-cIv83 46 m COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LIST.ED PLAINTIFF COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT ' (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIPP CASES)~ (IN UA PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTEstN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES.USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LANO INVOL.VED F ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME. ACORESS. AND TELEPHONE NUMSER) ATTORNEYS (IP KNOWN) --- -(see-Comments,-reverse side) (PLACE AN 3 IN ONE BOX ONLY) BASIS OF JURISDICTION IF DIVERSITY. INDICA TE 0 1uA PLA NT FF IS 2 uA cEFENDANT 03 FEoERAL cuEsTioN 04 osvERs:TY CITIZENSNIP ON REVERSE. (U.S. NOT A PARTV) [28 USC I332,1447) CAUSE OF ACTION (C TE THE uA Cavn.sTATvTE unoER wwsCN You ARE F UNG Ar40 WRITE A SRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE) Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.; 28 U.S.C. $ $ 1331(a),1361, 2201 and 2202. Cc= plaint seeks declaration that EPA failed to pro =algate emen s*nndards before statuterv ' deadline and iniunction against en-forceCent of saCe. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN 3 IN ONE BOX ONLY) ACTloNS UNDER STATUTES 00 CIYll RIGHTS FORFUTURE/PENALIT SAMKRUPTCT OT)iER STATUTES Cc,t [ 120 MARINE PEASchAL tluuRT 420 TRUSTEE O 450 CouuERCE iCC 110 INSURANCE l 0441 voriNo OE10AcReutTuRE 42i taAusFEn c,,,,g RATES. ETC. E i30 MuER AC' Oarms O'2ao'oa= - 422 ^aP= O*cea=^= 140 nEcoriAstE urs=JTv O s30 u uoR LAWS PROPERT1 RIGHTS O 810 SELECTIVE ~ INSTRUMe(T O 320 AssAutT, uSEL O 443 ACCOsanama- $ v 0130aECovEnvoF & S ANGER TIONs O 5'OA.R.& TRUCK $20 CoPvRGHT Omg,gL,,,. O 444 WELFARE O sso Aa:NE Recs. 320 PATENT Omsgg WERP WENT& 40 "8'uTY OssooCCuPATieNa s40TRAoEuARx ExCxANcE u oF JUDGMENT 0 u0 c,mER,Crve. 5^'E"E^ 151 MEDCARE ACT 45 cn sociAt stcuRity OIs1 AcacutTuRAL 152 RECOVERY oF PAoOUCT O 633 omER ACTS 461 HlA (139M DEFAULTED uAelury sTuCENT LCANs 350 uoron vecCLE 882 BLACx tuNo O att ECoNouc 8'^*'uz^" 0153 RECovERv oF 255 aoTCa veaCLE (Szs> AC OVERPAYMENT PRoouCT I" $$3 OfWC (405 (g)) I 863 aww teos (s)) MN oFVETERANs O 360 gg,g paiscuta PcTiTic,is,

tino, ss4 sse T xvi "E.N BENEFITS 013sToaxoteERs iNauay 0 3:2 PERso".u^e'o-0 710 FAia tasoa assRsi(.os<,ii 0$$4 ENERGY surTs

.uuRv O $10 VACATE sTANCAA03 W $UITa. Au.oCAN Ol]omEa ^ CONTRACT MAU'RACTCE SENTENCE 8870 taxes o m E"o"o,? m ias.m. O'85g,Egerg O ns C,,o,,u,Ta,A,C,T 0 3ss =A' mm T uA uT, =~ Os30NAam O no u.oR~ cut. r,^,a,n sa usC ACT REAL PROPEATT PERSCllAL PROPERTT g ugg O875CusrouER O SCO APPEAL OF FEE RE mGt gyEi: gg@ C 210 CoNCEMNATioN [ 370 oTHER FRAUD Omya ,CT a F 220 FonECtosumE 371 TRum os O 740 RAn.wAY usoR OGER STATUTES JusTiCg ACCESS To [ 230 AENT t. East & O 3:0 W D550CrvitRionTsi AC7 E.eCmEur Peas * ' 0780 cmER tAsoa O m swE O ssacoNsm EAPPoRT)ON. TiosAyyy cF ]245TonTPaoouCT 0 3:5 U Tv 0 711 EuPt aET. aC. 4:O ANT 1. trust y133oNER 240 TonTS To t.MC PROPERTY UTIGATioN 8 '' * *'8 j UAsa;TV

• OAMAGE sECuRrTY ACT

-~ 0250 Att oTweR ar.AL PacouCT 430 SAN .n' Tm tr CII o.n, w O 2 w e=ai O : a.--ae a a ' O4a-== dor O 5 or== *ar=orn Osum u s Paoseong Stano Cowt Appemme Court Roopense (spoofy) Ubganon Jmynore UNITED STATES DISTRICT court (Continued on Reverse Side) l l t

V FI13D UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SANTA FF, NEW AgXICO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OCT-141983 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ,/ fl 4 ^^ m""" i - UNITED NUCLEAR CORPORATION, HOMESTAKE MINING COMPANY, and l KERR-McGEE NUCLEAR CORPORATION, PliTutiffs, u.L i - Q Q O O T TIo.G v _ 'l C A O. G._.. __ v. x v v di = ~- THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS, and THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ..._. = - - - - - - ~ ~ - - Defendants. / COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ~ ~ ' ' - - - - ~ 1---- This imn action for a declarator 9 JU'dgment' 'a'nd fo~r ~injunctive'~T',' ~ ~ " relief arising from the failure of the Environmental Protection Agency to ' ' promulgate standards for licensed uranium processing sites before the dead-line established by Congress in Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended. 42 U.S.C. A. 5 2022(b). The jurisdiction of this Court is based on ~ 28 U.S.C. SS 1331(a) and 1361. Declaratory relief is authorized by 28 l U.S.C. SS 2201 and 2202. . 2. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. S 1391(e)(1) and ^" ~~ (4). Plaintiff United Nuclear Corporation owns a mining and milling facility near Churchrock, New Mexico. Plaintiff Homestake Mining Company owns and operates a uranium mining and milling facility near Grants, New Mexico. 4 Plaintiff Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation own, and operates a uranium mining and milling facility near Grants, New Mexico. All of the plaintiffs thus reside ~ in this District within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. $ 1391(e)(4). Defendants ~ 6 e

United States Environmental Protection Agency and United States ' Nuclear Regulatory Commission reside in this District with.in the meaning of 28 U.S.C.f 5 1391(e)(1). -

11. THE PARTIES 3.

Plaintiff United Nuclear Corporation ("U NC") is a corporation or- . ganized ar.d existing i.nder the laws of the State of Delaware with its prin-T - cipal place of business in Falls Church, Virginia. UNC is the owner of uranium mining and milling facilities. 4. Plaintiff Homestake Mining Company ("Homestak'e") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its - principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Homestake is the owner and operato'r of uranium mining and milling facilities. ~ 5. . Plaintiff Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation ("Kerr-McGee") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware ~ with its principal place of business in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Kerr-McGee is the owner and operator of uranium and thorium mining and. milling facilities. 6. Defendant Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA") is an agency of the Federal Government. Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, 84 Stat. 2086. . 7. - Defendant William D. Ruckelshaus is Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and is named as a defendant in his official capacity. 8. Defendant Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") is an agency of i ~ the Federal Government'. 42 U.S.C. 55 5841 et seg. 'lli. FACTUAL BACKGROUND' 9. Uranium and th'orium milling is regulated generally by the Federal Government and 'certain states (termed " Agreement States") pursuant to the g 2 I

l Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. $ 2011 et seq., as amended. The Atomic Energy Act authorized the Atomic Energy.Commissioc ("AEC"), and itsj successor agency the NRC, to regulate and license the use oi, Inter alla, " source material," which is defined to include uranium and thorium, and ores containing uranium and thorium, as well as " byproduct material." Prior to 1978, neither. the AEC, the NRC, nor the Agreement States defined source niatorial or byproduct material to include the tailings (or wastes) resulting from the milling of uranium or thorium ores. As a re'sult, mill tailings at uranium and thorium mills were regulated only as an incident to mill licensing. 10. In 1978,' Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act. Pub. L. No. 95-604, 92 Stat. 3021. Title ll of the UMTRC Act I amended the Atomic Energy Act to include mill tailings in 'the definition of " byproduct material." Title 11 also amended Section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act so as to delegate to the EPA the responsibility for promulga' ting " standards of general application" to protect the public health, safety and environment from the radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with mil' tailings. 42 U.S.C. 5 2022(b)(1). The NRC and the Agreement States were to be responsible for the " implementation and enforcement" of the standards promulgated by EPA. 42 U.S.C. 5 2022(d). 11. As originally enacted, the UMTRC Act provided that EPA was to promulgate standards "[a]s soon as. practicable, but not later than eighteen j ~ . months after... enactment." UMTRC Act, Pub. L. No. 95-604, E 206, 92 Stat. 3039. The UMTRC Act was enacted on November 8,1978, and thus the i EPA standards.were to be promulgated by May '8, 1980. EPA failed 'to 4 promulgate standards by the deadline. l 12. Congress subsequently amended the deadline set out in Section 275 to provide that "[a]s soon as practicable, but not later than October 31, 3 l. - -

a o { t 1982, the Administrator (of EPA) shall... propose, and within 11 months . thereafter promulgate in final form. ." standards governing mill tailings./ NRC Authorization Act, Pub. L. No. 97-415, i 18(a), 96* Stat. 2067, 2077. Congress thereby directed EPA to promulgate final standar'ds by October 1, x. 1983. J 13.. .in order to assure that the establishm.ent of the regulatory system' l ii-governing mill tailings was not unduly delayed by further tardiness by EPA, l the Congress explicitly stated in Section 275: 1 l standards in final form by October 1, 1983, the "If the Administrator (of EPA] fails to promulgate i authority of the Administrator to promulgate such j standards shall terminate, and the [ Nuclear Regulatory] Commission may take actions under this chapter without regard.to any provision of this chapter requiring such actions to comply with, or be taken in accordance with, standards promulgated by the Administrator." ' -r... - Id. Thus, Congress directed that if EPA were to fall to meet the statutory i 4 ..s. deadline, EPA should no longer have the authority to promulgate standards and its jurisdiction would end. ~ 14. Piir~siia5I~td the Administrative'. Piocedure Act, - publiEation 'in the-4 aus e s. ~_ Jedir~allegisteEs~a~n~ecessarfs~tW In' thi promulgation ' of' firial ' rules. 5 ~ U.S.C. $$ 552, 553. The EPA standards governing mill tallings were first published in the Federal Register on October 7,1983 '-- one week after the l statutory deadline. 48 Fed. Reg. 45926. (A copy of the notice in the Federal Register is attached as Exhibit 1.) The statutory provisions governing the operation of the Office of' 15. the Federal Register provide in part: l "The original. and two duplicate originals. or.certi'ied copies of a document required or authorized to be pub- { lished shall be filed with the Office of the Fe.deral j . Register. The Administrator of General Services shall cause to - be noted on the original and duplicate originals or certified copies of each document the day and hour of filing...,. Upon filing,.at least one copy shall 4 t .m... ,_e_. - ~__,-__ _,.. _ _... _. ,_,._..,_m,.w-..~._.,-..--_._,,,,,7

.e be immediately available for public inspection in the ^ Office." l 44 U.S.C. I 1503. The signature page of the standards governing mill - tailings filed by EPA with the Office of the Federal Register includes the notation: ]~ ~ J~~ - NATIONAL ARCHIVES & RECORDS SERVICE FILED 4 r - & MADE AVAILABLE ~- . FROM [ sic] PUBLIC INSPECTION i ~ Oct 6 8 45 AM '83 IN THE OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL 4 i REGISTER" (The signature page is attached as Exhibit 2.) The publication in the Federal Register includes a similar notation: "[FR Doc. 83-27177 Filed 10-6-83; 8:45 am]." 48 Fed. Reg. at 45947. Thus the final standards wer,e_, ,-t filed with thef Offii-F of thii %,r1Regish7[de~ terr $'6$ i98$ --]ix' days f afj;eghe statGitory dea ~dliiieT ~~; ~ - - 16. A Senior Attorney with the NRC has filed a Report on Recent Developments with the' United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where a case that might be affected by the standards is currently pending , for oral argument en bone. The Report provides in part: r "The question has been raised whether to be promulgated on time EPA's standards had to be filed in the Office of the Federal Register by the statutory dead-i line in UMTRCA. The regulations were not filed by the deadline. Thus, there is currently some uncertainty . regarding EPA's belief that the final standards have been promulgated before the statutory deadline passed." l, (The Report is attached as Exhibit 3.) l CLAIM FOR RELIEF 17. paragraphs 1 through 16 are incorporated herein by reference. l 5

~ i 18. EPA failed to promulgate standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings as required by Section 275(b) of the Atomic Energy Act by thej F - statutory deadline of October 1,1983. i 19. tee!s^tsnd&ds were not promulgated in accor' dance w _.__,,,,,,,_....-.ith Sectids'.~.'.~. ? 275(b) because' thufwe.re. ". n..o_t'pubils.hed. u.nt.il Oc.to..b. e.r. 7. 7"1. 983',7 aiid'. weri~ not -~ ',7 m _ _ _ ____ 7 l DHeif'wi.th'J;EhOEicolof,,tfe'fe~deralfe~giite'r tinfil"Octob'4F 6,~19.83Cr ' ~~ 20. EPA's authority to promulgate standards has terminated and the l l standards that were published in the Federal Register are null and void. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court: 1. Adjudge and declare that EPA failed to' promulgate standards pur-j l suant to Section 275 of'the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, by the statutory \\ deadline of October 1,1983; l l l 2. Adjudge and. declare that EPA's authority to promulgate such i standards has terminated, and that the standards published in the Federal i Register on October 7,1983 are null and void; { 1 3. Ehjoin the EPA and.NRC_from proceeding to implem.ierit..~and enforce a the_- sta.ndards..that..were publ_i.shed in the Fede.ral Register,'on,,0.ctober 7, '; r

1_983 @

9djudsie and~dsclare..the'.~ respe.ct..ive responsibilities and obligations 7 4. of'the EPA and the NRC with regard to theluture regulation.of_ uranium and e thorium sili 611ings purs~u'an.t to Section 275(b) of the Atomic Energy Act,; i ~ .,,.,,,, _,,,,,, 3,, 7 5. Grant the plaintiffs their costs and disbursements associated with l this action; and i 9 I i i l I I I t a l c -.. -. - -. - -.. - -- -. - -...~.

6. Provide the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Cour't may deem just and proper. j Respectfully submitted, (W o f t e. ]. 23 TG. Stanley Cro6t wSV fatef J. Nickles wy Sunny J. Nixon Theodore Voorhees, Jr. ] Michael S. Yesley Richard A. Meserve - '~ STEPHENSON, CARPENTER, COVINGTON & BURLING l CROUT &OLMSTED 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW i 142 W. Palace Avenue Post Office Box 7566 Post Office Box 669 Washington, D.C. 20044 1 Santa Fe, N.M. 87504-0669 Counsel for Counsel for 1 United Nuclear Corporation Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation Homestake Mining Company United Nuclear Corporation Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corporation Homestake Mining Company e e 6 f I >a e 6 O 4 ( I h j h y l

... 3 re '? .e ~ f.... s ..,",I !.:1: i . n.. l E M'" a grie,y . October 7,1983 h. M g. yj wwJlFa

}!

\\

• .. l 1 4 a >t o

. i a m na w p O &l t m ,.n, I r ~, 4.g.J ..~ p, .. f _ __ D, ..l ? ~ ~ e e-r m Part IV '..

i l' n

n.p - - 3.7.' Protectidi1 Agency g[w . Environmental i f l ' p-Environtnental Standards for. Uranium and.

' t..

l $l Thorium Mill Tailings at Ucensed 3 Commercial Processing Sites; Final Rule .d. . n ,n g%

f..r!

g.e. ,\\ i 9 m IG 6 o a E

I EXHIBIT 1 l 6 f.,

r .g .u-

m isf.. - ~ - - M.s f ."45325 Federal Reps;nt / Vol. 48. No. iss / Friday. Octobtr y.103 / Rules and Regulations

-t.$ n e:

N* ENYlRCNM!NTAt.FROTECTICN accatsnzs: SeckgecundDee::ments-State in which de site is locate f. when di AGENCY Back; :und infor=stics is gwen in the this Stata is an Agreement Str.:e cf the Tmal Enviren= ental !=;act Stata=ent NRC cader Secuca 274 cf the Ata=ic 40 CFR Part 152 for Standards for the Centrol of Enegy Actl. Byproduct Mate:ials fr== Uramu= Ore Tailinzs at the lasetice unni.:n

• i (aD-M.2431-4)

Processing (40 CFR Part 13:). EPA 5:0/ mi!!ing sites are defined in 1.7. TRCA as .lt ; Envicentnental Standards for Uranium 1-43-ca (FT.IS) and the Regulatory residu.1 radioacave matenals. De - In;act Analysis of Enytre::= ental program for insenvs sites covers tne and Thonum M ainngs at t.icanaed .g ; StandaMs for Uranium MillTailin s at disposal of tailings and the cleanup of Commermal Procasaing Sites Actre Sites. epa $20/1-a0-010 (RIA). cnsste and cffsita Icentions- - M. acancy: Enviren= ental Prctection Single copies of the FE:S and the FJA. as contammated with tailings. Final j!*l Agency. available. may be obtained frem the cleanup and disposal standaMs fer de f.. acno,c T=al rule. Program Management Office (ANR-438). Inacuve sites were published by EPA on f[dl g 05ce of Radiadon Pregams. U.S. January s.19a3 (48 FR 5901. The U.S. t sumasAar:These are Enalhealth and EnvironmentalProtecusa Agency. Department of Energy (DOE)la ennren= ental standads to govern-Washingten.D.C :0460: telephene responsible for carrytag out these stabili:aten and control cf byprodnet number (703) 337-6351. acuddes in cen!cemance with these .% [. ij matenals (pet =anly min tanings) at Dockee Docket Number A-a:-:S standards with de concurnnes of the IIcensed commercial uranium and ; contains the rulemaldag ncord.The NRC and in cooperation with the States. thonum processing sites.These docket is available for public inspecton Tainngs at actve uranium miinns standads were developed pursuant *to between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.= Monday sites are de5 sed in UMTRCA as Secden.: 3 of the Atomic Energy Actf42 thnugh Friday, at EPNs Central Decket uraniu= byproduct =atarials.The [d;i . U.S.C==). as added by Secnen =e of Secten (1.E-130). West Tower Lobby, r program for acnve sites covers de Ensi Pub. L 55-604. de Uranium MH1 Tallings GaUery 1. 401 M Staet. SW. disposal of tailings and the cent ci of d ? RadiadenC strel ActcfiS*a Washi ston D.C.*0460. A reasonable efSuents and e=tssions during and altar y4 (UMTRCA).. fee may be charged for copymg. nuu!ng operanens. UMCA requins The standads a;;ly to tal!!ngs at een ruwrwan Neonuanon courac rt EPA to estabush standards for cis -2d '., !ccatices that an Ecensed by the Ms Jack Russeu. Culdes and Cntena preps =. and dat standards fer g. - Nuc!sar Regulatcry Cc==issics (NRC) Branch (ANR-460). 05ce of Radiation nonradioactre ha:ards protec: hu=an g-or the States under Title II of the Propa=s. U.S. Enytren= ental Protecten health and the envinn=ent in a manner 1 g.. UMTF.Ct The standards for dsposal of Agency. Washington. D.C :sseot censistent with standards established L z.,.:.h 7tailbss require stabili:ation so that the. telepicne number (703) 537-4=t. tzder Subtitle C of the Solid Waste j . hes!th hazards associsted with tailbgs' surnassmny wronmanoic Disposal Act. as amended (SWDA).De i t wiH be cenricHed andlimited for at . NRC or the Ucensing Agree =ent State is ~ leut one ccusand yean.They require !.Incoduedan terpensible fer assurmg co=p!!ance that disposal be designed to li=it. On November 8.1778. Congass with the standards at activs efU sites. g, roleases cf radon to 20 picocuries per enacted Pub. L 95-E4. the Uracru= Ml!1 On January 4.1983. Congess square =eter per second, averaged ove. Tailings Radiacon Control Act of1278 . amended UMTRCA to provide

• f,i the surface of the dispcsed tai!Mgs, and (henceforth designated "UMTRCA"). In addtional guidance on de carters to k regire =essuns to avoid nisases of de Act. Congress stated its Ending that censidered in estabushing dese radienuctides and othe: hazardous uranim =in ta:Engs -* * * =ay pose a standards and to estabush new

p, substan es frem tailings to water.The

~ potential and siguiScant radf ation desdunes fer their promulgation:"In _ 13 1, standards for tainngs at openting mills, heald hazard to the puhuc. * *

• and establishing such standarus, the prior to !!nal disposal add two elementa ' '
• that every reasonable effert AN-4trator shall consider the risk to p

. and a measure of radioec: vityto the should be made to provide for the puhuc health, safety, and the

ag.,t ground water protectosrequeements stabuhation. disposat and contro! 6 a enntenment. the environ =ents

and new spec 5ed under de EcHd Waste safe and environmentaHy scund =anner-economic ecsts of applying such hn.7 Disposal Act. as a= ended. Existing EPA of such tainngs in order to prevent or standards, and such other facters as the q

regulatiens and Federal Radiation %. H= rsden diffusion into the Ad=inistrator dete*es to be .is e,, . Prctecten CWanes ci.rrent!T envtrenment and to prevent or '-*-9-4. approprtste." The Act (Pub. L 96-413) qy .;appuceble to tai! bas remain unchanged. other enviran= ental hazards from such established a deadline of October 1. J. '. The Agency wtB monitor contnuing tauings."The Administratorof the 1983 forpromulgation of the standards. 't. devolepment of teeWI and economic Enytmn= ental Protecuen Agency (EPA) nese Snal' standards corJorm to the

• Infor=aton as the Department of Energy was directed to set"* *
• standards of above require =ents.

mem. preceeds with disposal of the inactive general apEealm, safety, and the-11 canon for the protecten of the public II. Summary of the 71nal Rule 3 taufngs ;t!ea, and revise these standarda

s

. ' !! this infor=ation suggests that envtreament * * '" to govern this This Saal rule modi $es and c! art.*es J moc5 cations are warranted. - process of stabilizanon. disposal.snd some of the provisicas chhe preposed .) This acaca summarizes the con.ments centrol standards because ofinfor saan - 4.. received en proposed standards UMTRCA established two pregams obtained during the com=ent period and k y. Published on April:2.1383,and to protect puhuc health, safety, and the at public heanngs (May 3.1983. La p provides a summary of the-Agency's enytronment from uranium mill tailings, Washington, and lune 15-18.1943, in consideration of safer con:=ents. one fer certata designated attes which Denver). e Detailed responses to comments are am now inacuve (La. at which all EPA received a wide range of M contained in the final Enytronmental milung has stopped and which an not comments on the proposed itsadards g Impact Statement. underlicense) and another for acuve and the eupporung documents.Several t Ji cars:These final standards take effect. sites (those attes Ucensed by the Nuclear hundred letters were recetred and 34 W os December 3.1983. Regulatory Commission (NRC) or the Individuals testined and/or submitted . I' %.~ j'dj-

\\ l .i - Federal Register / Vol. 44, N. tes / Friday.. October 7,1933 / Rules and Regulatfena 45927 { v i j esamente at 3he public heartage, when the manndy required levels will water erosion. which may spread i Comments were received hem a broad be sans5ed ne further from the edge of radioactive materials offsite. spectrum of participante. 6=d=eng tahge than the site boundary. er within As of January 1963.there were 27 l j private cittseas, public interest groepe. 500 metere of the tailings, whicheverle ' !! censed uranium m!!!s. of which only to j membero of the seestific semmunity. less (lastead of requinas EPA were operanas.By early 1983, the l mpresesitatives of ladustry, and State sencurrence, as proposed). ameuat of etered tallings had reached ( and Federal agencies.DA has carefdy (s) Requires correceve seden to about 175 million metric tone (MT).The. i miewed and essendered these restore groundwater te its background eine of Individual tahge piles rences l RIA. sad in _yngartas to FIIS, the quality to be la place within te months from about 2 million MT to about 30 t commentla j , _; these Anal of a determinaten of aan-m--- million MT. l standards. IPA *e reopeases to major 1 I esmoseats aMdesussedla the (lasteadof theproposedumeats). De future demand forarealumis l

3 "pmamble" and sammenn m (g) gequi,es equi,elengle,els og projected to be almeet smalusively for.

l essessed la dated la the FEIS.Seedom preteetles for wet sites (where electrical power genereties, asaed en l ) i . El of this pseeable summerases the ,,,,,,a,5==enesede recent DOE preteenena, it is estimated mparansparsues) m for dry sites (by that at least as adetional 175 saillion

j I mandade andla Seedom W

in$e niNies the ,,, g,,, year I. (101Regares the samelevelof is se nev adHag puhus reopeases ,gg --a:;ae -*-< q.antity a urnai.ie me,ecoverd u i w a s,m* *ge = h e.,res ies IId (11) Establishin equivdent ] ,g"","d*'Fg,d*"g,l" S* $*"aw" g, he These are divided into two require.ments for therium .7,.- g;see,alesgb eeluties(lesi,an) and - h nrot,atappimet. mai. mar, ef - 1 ,ammaeut.urenha n.per the demeetic uranium ;i i i s. ,vi,meou,es, a ,,,,ge= d p, s,,g. * -*e e move.ce desaa _m -- -.,g,,,,gg,. g,, gg, 4, m g,,,j,, %. Industry, especially since some forega ,l ,e r~ - - t ""***" d P *** be I **'

• cha W 8aal esp #al.fasisdag.

De m8let depeests of high srede deposite 'are richer la uranium, which j .L [I*'",d* hen tauingeameyhg loonad la the Celerede misse, the ne United states Gevmament uranium eres la b United States are . permite lower pricing. { j ,,, s,,, g 8""" h:g. j W Basina, and b Go

==, e.as.M.m are is uslf Coast perehseed large t"daense - tities of arealum, g:=,g a by ,rotaruy for u.e

l 3e,

,m,,,,,,,e, se esagdene a be seideved by Saal either underground er spes ptt methods, from 1948 to 1970.Many of the espaal.hu moedade guide te - At the alu the are is Bret crushed. produsere of this armatum esotimmed,' {: l asevisesomrid om te almare blended, and yound to the proper size operating after1870 to supply the b l w,,,,,, a g,,,g, for theleashing which estracto commercial deseand for ureatum.la Us - 3 J urasien. leseldag presseems are meet cases the tadings been are standards t seven to ased la deelga W espaal symmas, enesbina% acid, alkaiime and a Government and commercial purchases ne major provisions W em Analrule ties et the two. Afterurentua le were mixed and stored la the same pila. e 6 L am summarked la to fonewtag Est. lesebed hem the oreitle coseenanted Dese mixed Radings are new referred to I i with changes toes to proposedrule tem thelemah Equerthreeghles se " ed" tedings.Dere are l eeud. & Anal mim enehaage er selvent enrestism.h abest at MT et defenee.nlated as(p)eest d byprodum metadals a sites monstrand maatuals them satyped se esamingled wie appresdnetely. ld.! 1 Applies to management and f r i entreated hem the esassatre 74 MT et other tahse at is of,, i where arele presseeed h

medium, ted, dried, the sites whink are new lleensed for I

recoverits uranium er

semiset, pecha h depleted ere,la the form milllas urastum ers.

j i l l (2) Appiles to the regulatory amtvities d tadiage. le peped to a laulage pas,as of 70tc and the States thatlieease a almsy mixed with water. I#aeandr Asese,, lend wie Urualuer II 1l g,,,g,,,, y,,, g, 1 m nimaerme am. su a se u.amm m.matatme y l. (3) that yound waterbe . overages only sheet aLis pareest. Themeetimpwtantof thehenardens i te m urensu m taalage to seesseaRy all the bulk of are mined and esamtemente er urentesi min taillage le tI + I, ! ' a dnahms weerlevels to le essassedla te nadings, radium.which is reseemtve, we { prese'rveitsinsure uses by eng westes aestata sipisanat estimate that astrustly exiseng sadlage Ca Solid Weste Disposa! Aet ) geamaties of redeemtve uranium deoey at the lieemoed sites aestein a total d 4 ~reles. gredmens,inciseng eerium 330. redess, sheet elLms sustes 8 et radies. Rasen. 4 ge. ; [4] Requires that esposal of urnaisse ass, and deoey produsse of reden. ass. In ddless to being beenrdens itself, talange be designed se that, after Tsuines een else esatain sipd8esat , predecesreden,aradienstvesee wheee doesy padsom can senselung die redes seetseless wiB beIhneted quaesties of other hasard<.us es ao pisoseries her square meter per substasses. dependag spes the seures saaeer.Seesuse of es longlife of g

essend, of the are and the reageste usedla the eeum.aso (eboet 75.000 yeere half.

4 j (s) Requires that the disposalof - isilling presses.Most of the taalage are life), the amenet of redum la tailings. 1 urashim tailings be deaf psed to maintain a sand.ime metertal and. beessee each .and therefore. the rete et wheek rodea le in t.tegrity,la meet cases for et leest astertale are attractive for use in produced. wdl desey to about to percent i 1000 years. esastreetten and seu cenetieming, have d me mnet, amount la serwel (0) Reg 1eres linere be used for pound been !w..l1 used la the past, g 'Agb*"*"*M' ** weer preteetten, thereby seatributtag to spreadist the go.e,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,4.".,*,",,,,,",,' (7) permits the regniatory essesy to redieestive metonale egotte. Tadings lesse altemete ground water standards matertale are elee subiest te wtad and esen,e, 7 ~

== +-e. -,-----me,.-,--~~,-- .m. _---m,er_ ..--m,,y-.

h I' ,II ' 439::3 Tederal Register / Vgl. 48. N:.196 / Friday. Octab:r 7.19a3 / Rules and Regulatiens ( }y,;, - hundred thousand years. Other Iow doses is directly pt:portional to the underground miners oser thebalance of ~ potentiauy hazardous constituents of nsk that has been de==nstrated at their expected lifecces. These factors 4. tailingq include arsenic. =olybdenu=. higher doses. We recep!:e dat the data were explicitly considartd by the 1980 selenium, uraniu=. and. usually in lesser available ptselude ne:::er a threshold NAS BEIR Cc==sttes. Abcugh the a t. amounta, a vanety of oder toxic for some types of damage below whrch NAS Methodology d:! fen from that substances.De concentrations of allof there are no harmful ef!ects, nor de emp;oyed by EPA. their nutr. enc 21 g. these caterials vary from pile to pile. possibility that low doses of gamma esta=ates of nsk due to lifetime et The radioacantgand taxic matenals radianon may be less har=ful to people exposure are essenuaCy idanucal to ~, is; in tanings may cause cancar and other than the linear model implie s. However, those of EPA. ne =cs: recent and &3 diseases, as weil as genetic damage and, the msjor radiation hazard from tai!!ags complete assessment of the miner data. h. teratogenic effects. More speci5cally, anses not from gamma radation, but that performed for the AEC3 yields a 4 tallings are hazardous to man primartly ratheris due to alpha radiation from result within 20 percent cf the EPA h, because: (1) Radloactve decay product.: inhaled redon decay products. As value. Numencal estimetes of risk by si of redan may be inhaled and increase pointed out by b National Academy of vanous other observers difar by up to a l,j the nsk oflung cancen (2) individuala Sdences'(NAST Advisory Com=tttu on factor of eight. We also considered the

p may be exposed te samma radiation the Biological Efects oflenines views of these obe observers and i

from the radioactivity in tai!Ings: and (3) Radiation (the BEIR Committee) in its discuss their results in 5 TEIS. I' radioacdve and tome materials from 19eo report. for " *

• radiation. such as The uncertainnes in risk estimates for

_f tainags may be ingested with food oc from internally deposited alpha. emitting exposure of miners to redon decay i e4 water.Our analysis shows the Srst of radionuclides. the app!! cation of the products arise from seraral sources. 4 these hasards to be by far the most *. linear hypothesis la less laely to lesd to Exposures of miners wee estimated } 1mportant, overestimates of riak, and may, in fact. frorn the time spentin each location in a $p; i.s noted above, the rad!ation hazard lead to underesumates." mine and the measured reden decay from tal!!ags lasts for many hundreds of Our quanutative esti=ates of the risk product levels se thow locacons. ) thousands of years, and some dne to inhalation of redon decay Mowever. radon decay product '%I nonradioacsve toxic chemicals persist . products are based on our review of inessurs=ents was fr. frequent and k inde5r.itely. De hazard from uranium epidesfological studies, conducted la often nonexistent for exposures of (2 y

• tallings therefore nr.st be viewed in two i

the Ucited Statas and in other countnes. miners pnor to tu 1960's. The h ways.Tanings pose a present hazard to of underground miners of uranium and uncertatary lacnsos when data for ,p

• hu=as health. Beycad this immaste other metals who have been exposed to tniners are used to essrsate risk to but genersUy limited health threat. the rados decay products. We have also members of 6 general pihlic, because

- j,; talungs are vulnerable to human misuse ' considered reports by scientia smups, there are differe sces in ste. payc!c gi1 and to diepersal by natural forces for an such as Health Effecu o/ Alpha Eautang exposure conditions, sad other facters rg q - esseneally indeSnite period. In the long

• Particlee la the Assp/rutary Tract (Md/

between the two populadcas. it ; run the fumre risks to health of and Mie Effecu on Popu!: dens of We must also make ac=erous q* Lade 5mitely. extended centaminadon. Erposi.:te !: Low Levels of/artiz!ng assumpucas to estimate 6 rsdiaden **

• i;, :

from misused and dispersed taLIIngs dus Addiados (1940) by the NAS, the report dose to incividuals and population .4 to inadequate contr:1 overshadows the - of the United Natoes Sdant Sc groups due to uranium cu" 'ailings. and y short term danger to puhuc health. na ' Com=f t:ee os b E2 acts cf Atomic these ineoduce additienal uncertaindes. cens*essional report accompacytag Radiation (UNSCIAR) enutled Sources Tor exa=ple we make nsk esumates for 3 g UMTRCA recognized the existence of and Egecu oflonizmy Radiat! n (ISTT): Individuals whD are assumed to reside long term ttsks. and ressed the view Report No. 32. Llauts for 4 tac /arion of at the same locadon for their Ele spans. -b that the metoda use oc disposal'. the Internauoaal Commission on continue to have h same IJfe . 2 e, should not be efutve for only a short Aadaa Daughters by Woriers (1941) of and we further assume that people wt!! n Mrted of t!as. !! stated:"na commuttee Radiological Protectan (ICRP): and Risk expectancy as the U.S. populadon d at believes that ursalum m1H tainnas Est! mores [orthe Realth Efee:s of 1970.Nevertheless, we be!Ieve the E];. should be treated * * *In accordance Alphe Rediction, by D.C. Thomas and informanon aval!able supports with the substantial hazard by wt!! K.G. McNetI!(1942). a deta!Ied revtew esumates of risk which are sus!ciently peseent unu!!ang after existing prepared for the Atomic E:erTy Control tellable to provide as adet;uata basis Ier 8 j ,.. Institutions can be expected to last la Board of Canada (AECE). Detat!s of out these proposed standards. F' - their present forma * * *" and. la' risk estimates are provided la a previous It is not possible to reduce the risk to 3 i I;.

commerJing on the Federally. funded EPA report. ladoer Aad!at/sn Eepesure reto for people exposed to radiation er.

profram to c!saa ep and dispose of Due to Aedium-::8 /n Flor!!a for that matter, to many other ^ 12,. tallings at the lascuve sitas it stated

• Phosphate f. ands (EPA $20/4-78-013).

carcinogens. To decide on a teasonable "The cornatttee does not went to visit and la the TI:3. ' level of tacremental res! dual nsk. we .:. d. this problem again with add!!!onal aid. Although the studies of underground evaluated the practical!ty and bece0ts .l

• The remedial action must be done right miners show that tiers is a signincant of diferentlevels of conecL We also 1

. [' the flest time 00. Rep. No.1440. 95th nsk ollung cancer from exposure to considered-techt teal d!!feu!!es

• *.Cong.,2nd Sese Pt L p.17, and pt.C. p.

1 redan decay products, there la associated wtth implacenting d134 rent G* 4c t:srs).1 nacertainty ta lts magnitude. our levels of control. For the purpose of establishing eenmates of the risk due to inhalation of Uratuum mill tailla ul. standards for the protection of the redon decay products exceed those of through four principaf e can affect man g general pubt;c from radiation. we the ICRP and UNSCZAR by a factor of pathways: anytronmental assume a linear, nonthreshold dose. at leset two. Howevet, neither group

• Difusion ofredon-:U. the decer

.3 f. eHect relationship as a reasonable basis considered continuous exposure for the product ofrodium.cs for/ings enta for estimattag itska to health.DJs duracon of a person's lifetime nor indoor otr. Bree thing redon-2:. an Laert I mesas we assurne that.emyrediatioe documented that they properly projected gas. and its short half life decay dose .k 'posee some risk and that the risk of the risk observed to date is groups of products, which attach to Eny dust l, [ I 3- .r.

j \\ Federal Regisear./ Vol 40. Ns.1sg / Friday. Oct:bar 7: 1g33 / Rules cad Regul:tione J 48929 t I pardeles. exposes the lunge to alpha radiaties (pnagipaDy tem peleatum-fossees largely en current levels of nok takes beesuse their numberle mere t tomanhem through air and difficult to predict, even though risk to I ata and penealue-ate). The expeessee, water pathways. ' ever.these currest ladividuale frere such taalage may be lavelved may belarge forpermeas who

• have tattlage la er eseuad their housen, riska eenid be expanded by futum somewhat greater than hem direet misuse of taillage by man and by rodea endestems.3y the year 2000, we er who live very ciese to taillage.

unesseelled feenre offsete of natural estamate that, without centrol, the I Add!dessL but smaller, espesures to forene. our dispenal standards re6est ameust of tailings emisung then would }I3 alpha radiaales may result been leeg. ammanderaties of both murent and t ! l lind redeo-a:t desey predseen poteada! Ainse risks hem taillage. deaths per santury. Apprezimately see. ll cause appremissately eco lung eeneer { lead-ateand;:' " _ =an to redes bem tanlagela 1.Airpeswers half of these deaths are profested to esserless ihm 30 miles hem the piles. !j 6 er around buildlageis best seemsted We eedmated the haenada pened b u t tem enest maneuremesse ofits doesy amissia**

• air tos iastings piles =y Die immeen is emeu,due primedly =

I L l pudsets la ladser air. impoundmasmand hem tatilagsusedla the lage eme=t of unneed espeety n i

• Dispemefe/reden ensfefamer,

and around houses. For the Arut ease we present estes. se that meet new tamage i gemheedtem taillageis widely und standard memoreissisel asseport seuld be placed as up of amisens I of asi5pgrmesersialis adr. modele and seasidered espeemse of tsumps. This analysis assumes that this I li essenedis air,and esposen b sh peoplein meimmeente =ghw. win be the estual ease, although it is 6 ' neutrroeidseseand meseatsreeser ofthe umsen enes *e ,eenkne est yound womr-i i

• i i m aiemens. n ees desse are papelademia regisme,and se contaminenes poblems would b.

i I - ~'. to the lenge. Wlad remainderof theaseenalpopulaslea. e.va eneegh m somepum a i eseelen of unstabased toelage erseten For the seemed.we drew largely apes be ciesed.lf h is sese,this !i leenleirbesmo teGings metanaLDe empenense temhouses aestaminated adman would h lemonew. .(! { Et3 the bemos tem onensfeede" r dose tem alrhesse tamage by taGings la Grand Juanties. Celseeds, g,,, g,,,wg,g g,,,,,g g, g, a ; Fouremesses of exposure wue een mememe beesmedassemiada 4, enesaminated by therium-me, seems. eensidered. inhaled ehert-lived redes h es '*" d rei**** d edes hem 1'f ! 4 4 j . ass. andleeHaa, and le eman. doesy predesa,

• d rd "* samma radiados.lsme,

h"**[g,*,*,P**" M *E tc=,/,=e,*,,ut: gem:g,s' i P,e.. e.a.compiemin.'Cg'!"P.,. g Dv(ed desay predemo of redenle thea) Lees senserasused by se shen. D* "3*** P'"**'*d h" "P'""** t. al,be,,, useeu ses be dimsey measured suly From this analreis we eagsbedet. r 'I"8 ** P**PI' d **** ** aser se erimpoundment.but may - P"**** be seemetedlerlarger !"8 emame bened es earmat diesemese using n. ' transpore deadmant redlades hasard hem tedings. 7 la addison, these admetes medeia. Esemated eSesse of gamma redensa,d areimeed upea essmet eines and ,t; . Or,ser agoom,,e m,.,s leeg.and twee dasy pew m. ud g... sagraphiai * -*-'"- d4 3*r .. reasssen.Manyof toredoessve airborne teWage perd=='an== are. tiene and eosimetod peedesifen of,_, 4; damerprodusela tamage pedoes reladwely less semissant. although hisk m the yurance. As populemens g ;;g j } samma messen.no met sammasesades enes mey semesmes annan m inmeen m me base, ud = 'are lee 41.a. biometh-ce. esser. pedusses essenses beyond the ymr 4 4.tia Monards tem gamme i 4 tamadiate vinaisy of temage pdes ar* around theirhouses eftenhave large larger,,

• j (.qh ssaties arelim6ted to peressein the (b)Inevideals who have mulagela = acon.the estimated impoet win be I

i I espesures to ladsersedes and kenen Maar essmamere addressed alw seed i removed teamis.Espesure due to high nahs of lung eenser. For example, to prevent misuse. Meet eensiedad that ,o gesena seestem tem temapla readey la se pasenet of a sample of1se houses misuse wee the meet besardeos espost e seemseed tosseram menemomenes, with temagela Caned Juneden, of tadings and should rersive foremost i sa

• $Feeerterneaussportafredessefre Celefede,we seemees sat the eneses attesses. Although meet semsluded that la s.Westemodersef Disposselof lifeene nok to een,penas due to misuse should be " _

f tlwee s er leasides. een carry radiosenve and espesure to shanlived enden doesy seemsofpossinesseela,some gh '8 l In,'g asseahGaed tamage by wind erweser, ] esber touls matemale to euriese er peier to semeesties may have -- _^ f1 the misuse asuid be g rb l' than 4 shamese la too, adequessly essentied by insatutimaal 3 !,;1 yound water.Caseetlevels of (el livtag aser as seems, we seesleJe that a petsmary

===a== imam== espeer to be low airseet

==a===="-4 taanse pee er ebloselve of seenderde for sentrei of rtes. Neweves.eseemedaseen of -. are aise embteet to high hasards tem tategs through air

f, [

surfees and seemd =mer and. neEs som eben.uved mden peewere sammad hisoisses and i es natake br saimale hee been psedenes of reden emitted y bom etahdisease to prevuot their misuse b at thseelesseena.Peteneal tedlege. For enemple, we esamese that man and espersalbynoeuralfemme, y _ i '.' .t asrpeews due to this poembery of.- hvias eeneoueuely neat to sense, seek as wind, sein, and Seed waters. A l. pound and sustees weser eenenadaanlee elese een howincremessel seesad obleselve le to minimise redes e H highly sete speetta and een generegy lifetimelung esseer ruhe se high as 2 endosions bem tallings sites. A third ea'y be determined by a sereful survey ahonesela tee,

program, tdlResedas models for the obleselve le the eliminemen of sisedSenat e

le gemme redenes bosa Durasessemeses'ef dehe tem tedinge cumplative risk to eu expeeed i feel prtmart:y wie nahe to men. This is pepeistione, we eedmate that, withmet { . hts:se sfsks le seer elemense of the scritrel, the redes reisseed ditoedy hem g,gg.M w Pe6 weF* t t it:s#ere are badged is.be mask!sse at tedlage eenentlyla emessesse et Water sentamisseen dose set new [ l l etp=ftest. and weeld therefers be preeendy (1sent liesased ettee would appear to be e negadesat sourse of sestr:Hed la esseptablelevels by sease sheet 900 lung aaneer deaths per redeteen espesure et meet sites. i enrme asetum a protea man.:a esseury.nie ague a e am emeuse tw Mewe w. In edeces a remesesudes. .dttles. 2e feu,ewtag desueeses any deathe hem misuse se wiedhiews nonroessative tente embetanees, seek t g w e e f \\ {". i m= ew. ,m. . _ _ g p wm

U E f43930 Federal Redster / Vcl. 48. Nr.196 / Friday. Octob:r 7.1983 / Rules and Ryu!:tiens 1 as anonic. =clybdenum. and selenium, exceed one mile per year. For these measures disecurage dis.2;tien by man: can be.lesched team taill:gs and reasons, centammants frorn tailin;s may and by the resista:ce of centrol

• contaminate water. Such contacunation not affect de quality of nearby water measures to such r.atura!;henomer.a as could affect c eps. ardmals, and people.

su;;iy wells for decades or 'onger after eartht;uskes. Eceds. and windstc=s. Process wateris used to carry tailings to they are nlessed. However. once and to chemical and me:ha:ical the piles ori=;cund=ents as a slurry, cc:taminated. the quality of water precesses in the piles orimpound=ents. Rainwater also may collect on the supplies cannot usually be easily ("P!!es" cernmonly c:eans ta 1 ngs tailings.The greatest thnat of restored simply by eliennating the simply piled up on the groud. and conta=ination appears to be from scurce (although,in soma cases. "Imround=ents" meses piles. pxcess water discharged with the removing or isolating the tailings may ccastrained by dikes made of other 4' taiEngs from the min although,in. cencibute to !=aroving water quality). matenals. We wiu un de term " piles" princple,it ceu!d be hm the gradual Based on results from the NRC genene to mean both henceforth.) Pndicton of h effec:a of rai: water over the lade!! it, model for mi!! tailings. it is like!y that the long-term integnty of control I :. future.Most of this water eventually the obser ed cases of grcund water methods bec:mes less certain as the f evaporates or seeps away. E:evated contamisation result from seepage of the penod of concern 1 creases.Beyond concentrauens of toxic or radoacuve liquid waste discharges from the =u2. sevual thousand yean. loeger-term

• i substances in greed water have been and can be concelled by prevennst dis gec=orpholcgical processes and

I obsernd at =a y acave sites (seven are mpage ustil the tailings dry out by cE=aue change become the docunant

3. '

idenufed in the FE:Si. and in some natural evaporation. Adduonal future factors.Metods tre available for ~T standl=g surface water ponds (but only conte!nacon of ground water after.dprojecting perfer=asce for perioda up to -2 rarely in surfaca t -"!** water). Any then liquid wastes are dried up shee 1 future contaminaden of'wacet after.. be much sc:alle. and in =ost cases about 1000 years. A recent report. 8 E t disposal would anse from the effects of would be expected to be e!Iminated bY Considerations fer t.ong Term prepared for de NRC (" Design EI f rain or through Scodi:3. from measures required to concol =isuse cf Stabdization of Uranium Mill Taili ;s j peeration of taumgs frem be!ow by disposed taill:gs by c:an and diseersal !=poed= cts.* Colcrado State greu=d wa ter. or from luchi=g of by wind. rain, and flood waters. These. i ' H taiH=gs transported of !!e. messuns should also effectve!Y IJninnity. ss3) provido an up-to-date Lla A theentical analysis pufctmed for eD-" ate ce enant en:acinaten of detailed review of these =atters. ?[ the NRC of a large model tailings gurface wstu by macEa fmm luc ing Methods to ;revent =isun by man tmpoed: est with no seepage cent =1 cf taulegs cansported cEsite. and and di:..pton by natural pheno =ena F I. . showed thai centa=ination of greusd provide a des " of patecton of surf *c' may be Wdedinta con when S '.!

• water by seleniu=. sulfca, manganese.

and grocd weter fracs contam!=aton c nezued i=tegnty depends upon can ,A and tr:n =lght exceed cu: rest danking by Bood:gJowan. at um situ. and his inzututiens ("acuve" contrcia) aS or and dose that do not (" passive" }. ' water standards over as ana 2 "9 Y l8 s kr e, gent,3, gx,=7g,, eg gegy, g,3 7,g, g-allometers wide and a to 30 ktIcceters, 3 3M.d gl- .,g long More than $5 percent of this I' . are fences. war:1:3 signs. restictens en projected contaminaden was attnbuted d co do of 5 d land use.inspecucn and repair of semi. 3 to initial seepage of process water water =ay be needed La designi:3 pe: nanent tad 1:ss covers, te=pora.y n( discharged wita de tad:gs dun =g cu3 dikes, and drabase c:urses. F.xsc:;tes j opustena. co ters sugge ed c ran a of chanin en an dick ear hu 3 We recegnize that de fGC generic the SWDA rules for impound =ent caps conn, me conts, massin urd and y model ts only one of seversi cat could fer wet sites. Others poisted out that for rock dikes, bmal below grade. and gg be applied to transport of contaminants new piles careful site selecten would enonsa tam:ss pun out cuocacons

g.

In groundwater.Other models could provide protecten of ground water. MgMy suheet to emston. neh as We conc!ude that the p:.=ary unstaMe nur banks. .g predet greater orless risks of ground objectve of standards for control of Erosica of tailings by wisd. rain, and b, water centa=inaten. Am. example of g greater riak is a plume of contamination hazards frecs taH!sgs thrc agh water Cooding can be inhibited by contou. 3 al44 that, tmder certain circu=staneet, could pathways is to prevent loss of process de pde and its cow. by stabihfng the , sti!! move comestvely towards a water water through supage, prior to closure. surfa ce (wid rock. for exac:;le) to make 97. - supply after the Saw of!! quid through A secondary objectve is to avoid it resistant to erosion, and by surface runoE and inf.!:racon both conseucung dike: to dvett rapidly _ +h : the tadings has stopped following before and after dsposal movmg food waters. Eroston can be

• closure of a ptls.

C C888tol*/# creeds /hrm Ta///ess inhibited even more reliably by buryms lY l In gueral. the monment of tadings in a snailow pit and/or by M ' contaminants through a pde and subsod We consider methods for conco! so se locatsg them away from parteu!ar!y .to ground wster depends on a ta asuss the scafevabdiry, econo =tc Cood. prone or otherwise gseloyfcally '} combinaton of complex chemical and impact. and re!Jabdity of controls to unstable sites. Thus, especta!!y in de - ~* physical propertes, as well as on local meet attemative standards. As noted case of new tadings piles. shallow buttal precipitation and evapotranspiracon above. the objecuves of tadings deposal and sites with favorable long term J, rates. Chem! cal and physical procesus (and of tailings reanagement pnot to charactertatics should be given prelstred d can effectvely re=ove or retard the disposell are to prevent misuse by c:an, considerstion. lg Qow of many toxic substances passing to reduce redon emissions and gam =a Medads to inhibit the release of through subsoil. However.some radiadon erposure, and to avoid the reden range from applying a sics le U 'contarninants.auch as arsenic, contaminstfort ofland and water by barrier (such as an earcen cover;) to molybdenum, and selenium, can occut in preventing erosion of tadi:gs by natural such ambiticus treatments as forms that are not ter oved. Typically, processes and seepage of waste process embedding tadings in cement or ground water can mon as slowly as a water.The longevity of controlls . processms them to remove radfum the few feet per year, and only in coarse or 'parucularly importar.t. TE: can be precursor of radon. Contmg tadags cracked materiale does the speed ,afected by the degru to which control with a pensesble (porous) barner, such L 1. Le

a ( 1 l i Federal Register / Vcl 43. No.19g / Friday. October y.1933 / Rules and Regulations 45331 } as==y==d earth, delays rados of the tadmes and sever at equiHbaum, a generally feasible op6en since it j difusion se that most ofit decays in and and the measured diffusion would require excavatica of nost. If not is $eretare ediactively retained by the charactensu:s of cover materials. ne all of the tanless to assu' re m4xing. and cover.la addition to simple earsen DCE and NRC have conducted studies may not immobilize su hazardous j covers. otherless permeaW matanals which provida a basis, at le ut within a consutuants. Ground weter such as asphalt. clay. or soil cement limited tense of control and contam:nanonis known to have (usuaEy la combination with earthen prs 'istability, for add essing these occurred at seven sites, and may be { covers) could be used.no more factere la thh design of tailings covers' s.e.. et many others.1:may not be permeable the covoq material, the based on locally availaW materials and possible,to cleansp the ground water at j i i i thickerit must be to ac=leve a given climate. i { t=~eiam is redes release Howme.. Methods that control rados mal==8a== llaed talungs pue may be required te i some sites.In the worst cases a new, f . : maintalaingthe lategrity of essas! es will also prevent transport of prevent contamfandon from new 1- } redom by thia, very impermesh nevers, p" 'm: hem the taillags pGe to air talhass. In other cases, amisting tahs: - seca as places sheets. ls unhhel, aves or to surfao. water. SimGarty, permonole piles mayrek ase essentiaDy no t 2 - sver e pened as ehere as ses so,ma - ml, eick for eseceve contaminanu to ground wear became desades.gives the chamacaland todes sentrolwn! else abeero gamma the type of seu day rest on acts as an -. 38tpicalacesses present at pues. redisses efecdvely(although thtm ' effective llaec We have discussed the i 1 Jae meetlikely ceaseteemas of sever j fordispeest of tanlags arelacelly i=r====Ma covers wdl astJ. ' range of pessit:e ests for cleanup of 1 available earthen matenala.The Two methods maybe considered for ground weterla the FEIS and RIA.la protocess ground water at new ta!!! ass practice we expet most tailings piles effectiveness of an earthem enver as a . pues.The Erst is the placemeer of a win fan somewnere between these two ( } barrier to rados depends most strongly - physical barrier. caBed a liner. between extremss. I.e s expensive corrective j enlis meistare content.TWical clay ) soils la the urnamn suiling regions of the tauings and the aquifer asse. to action than a new!!=st=sy be the West eahibit ambient meistmo prevent water containing hasardous suf5cient to satisfy ground water g! consuments kom entering the aquifer. - standards for hazartious constituents at 1 t seassets of s percent is 12 pereest.For EltherciererplasesHaars een be many sites. For example, an active - .i j concia range {seils ambient mosseure==e==e= lastaued at about the same cost. Both '. water management program may be g; a percent to to percent.Tha have seer +- "a-a yhde Haers are employed to reduce the quantity of exaer value depends upes the mate ial Impermesh, bdmay be subpet to waterla the tahss and thus reduce the g t levelved, and as local clima#8 repaare duossa poort=sta5ades er drivtag force forground water emedations.The ' "x', taw provides unevenleadies.Clayliners ag contamiastion, or back pumping of I 3 as example of the changeslaesver penaeaW to some esastinnents and weter around te pGes may prevent i! ews. .a= skatmight be required to may require see of addkunnal measures.. losses to the A-.4.s ground t I reduce redes a=i==n= to 20 pCl/m's for {* t.' t above ranges of seu moisture. Four.-tanhags,parnal neutralmados of the -., - environment. Actions sucs as e T[ I such as j exampes of tadings are shawa that apenaDy at said leech mula.'to already being taken at certain sites 7 ( severthe prehable extreme valaes of satisfactenly protect ground water, but (Cotter Mul. Canon City. CO and are exposted to retain theit efecoveness Homestake h6H. Grants.NM. for l ~ redos emissies from kare tahss (100 to for periods of tima,hesemond-example). 2005 pCym8sh te most commen value

• , i me is treatment of process weter to Control of possible long-term low-l for old taAlags la apptsminately 300 modify its acidity er ausahaity. if such level aanta-adan of ground water pCVa s,andfornew taillagsis
• s treannent were shows to prevent may sometimes be d.fBault.la cases approaimately 300 pCl/m's.,

mm .=4.. taa At a neutrallevelstasy where latrusies of contamination late t i j Esfumves C eres h uosmees* > merunes hasardens emmentuests of taniser ground er surfsee weteris a potentiauy-I m aniews 30 s w ee*s liquide beamme lasoluble and thus set significaat probles. liners and seps may ( available to contaminate ground water. provide a good degree of protecnica for

s However. net all hasardoue cessdamests at least many decades.However.more 1

i """* *h* *""* _ are se a5essed, and the sedes of siermaneet protecties usey.la such

• *="
• l*iwIe islaweier, eartain wee pressenes, cases requirechoiceof(fornew andmiserolisatiesof the erreek

- E l'j, U U U' maniaenaupset thiesentrausados ever tauings) erremoval te(forexisting ,a taulass) a site with more favorsk ) l ses se as as u use, thereby rolessag osataminents.

.J.1;'d r==^=='aal er 4

u na a4 is l Therele urtle di5erense la oests for meteorolegical charamensties. "m y' g. e. these two methods. !Joere (either clay er Very e5essive laneterm inhibition of a C' synthetic) are estrostly required by NILC misuse by maa.as weH as of releases to i l '=== 6"E=3,,r., ;, %i M as a metterof good engineertas pressies j.

== ess, v {' air and seriese water, seuld be schieved, F* * '.' ,,,,,,. " 7u for meet new tauines '=yah-aea byburytag taulagsla deep mined (

===e,

• ss-a==

M * ' *** 8"' """,".'. DA does set heiasve it le envites, la this case, bewever, direet i . we w s= === j ' " " * " ". ' " * ' " " ' ' * " " = " ' = = = = = = = = = envtressestany desireh to require su esotest with greemd waterwould be new weseos et existlag e6tes to be difBenit to avoid.The potential hasards* These vahaos are fer" ;_- 2 pleend es new pdea beesuse new piles of taillass seuld aise be reduced by i i esvers, and asesmo the tadlage have the

• would increase reden emisstees, et lasst chemically processing them to reineve s me meistere seatest as the esvar.la until the pre existing pele is cesered, and contamtaants. Sesh see have pras: ice. somewhat thisker severs would per==aady esataminate more llenited efBetencies.

ever. se the - wet.;d be reituired te provide long terta land. Se:; fpas ground water standards residual taillags would seu requis, some s assers se etsatisfying any perveular at esisass tailtags sites that de tot have sentrol. Furthermore, the entracted i !avel af sentrol. Some of the facars that liners.

• swever, wel require widely.

substances (e.g. redium and thertam) i a i stust be cessailered for predieslag lene. va essene from site to site, would be seassatrated, and would i term ;erformaase are meisaare oestest Neu sies of existing tadings le set themselves require enreful seemet. ii \\,. i % ? ~

_-_ _ -. _ ___-_-_ _ _---.~. l ;([ ' 4333C Federal Resistse / Vel 48. Ne.136 / Friday. Octobt: 7.1983 / R !ss and Regulations j." We analysed the practicality of a cemearable regulations. We note dat Act for existing and new s cces in s number of posstb!e control methods. the NRC regulation: speci".ed des:gn number of ore mining and dressi.g . These are desc.. bed in the FIIS end the objeenves: thatis, the values snecfied subcategenes. Out of :7 cH!s in ene j RLA.The total cost of disposal by were to be achieved based on average urantum. radium and vassdium cris sciace er shsHow burialis afected peric =ance:whereas these EPA rules subcattgery exisung at that ume, cr.!y most strongly 'cy the type of material specfy standards wh:ch designers must one was discharitng direc-!y to surfa:a used to s:aciHaar the surface of the plan not to exceed. with a reasonable water. In view of this, the regulatio:s I li. traiungs against erosion and to inhibit degree of assurance.The NRC has noted did not establish best available misuse by man, and by the water that any changes necessary will be technology (BAT)! Imitations fer exisdag j i..h protecton features required. Total costs made when these EPA standart.: are sources in this subcate; cry. He one i are less sensitive to the amount of cover j required to inhibit redon release. In ~ promulgated. and has already uranium mi!! directly discharrns suspended those pordons ofits e&ents is currently regu!ated by a i general, costs of covers using man-made regulations which are afected by these discharge permit in accordance with !. "k. materials (e.g. asphalt) are somewhat standards (44 FR 35350: August 4.1943). previously exitting best practicable ij.g' higher than costs for earthen covers, and Under the Agreement State program. control technology (BFT) ehent the reliability is lower. Acave control States can issue licenses for uranium limitations contatned in 40 CFR Part 440. I p) r measures are usuaDyless costly in the processing actinties, including control The new source. performance standards short term than are passive measures, and disoosal of by. product materials. (40 CFR 440.34(b)) were based upcn the i..jg,i - but are consicered muck less renable la ne NRC has enumerated in to CFR P6tt demonstration of no discharge to -5;t the long term. Deep burial of tai!!ngs 150 the authorities reserved to it in its surface waters at the 25 othermills. i b:. piles or use of chemical processing ta relations with Agreement States under These standards apply to locations i gg. extract radium are much more costly ' the provisions of UMIRCA. and has where the annual evapotranspirsuon p thaa for surface or shaHow burta! spec 5ed conditions under which rate exceeds the annual preepitaten yt (below grade) disposal using covers. and Agreement States may issue licenses rate (as is the case in most uranium . the practicauty is not demonstrated. under UMTRCA (45 FR 63321).NRC's mining areas). and require no discharge d.!I a Environmenra/ Standards and conditions include the specification that of process waste water to : face l 98 ? Cuid=nce Now Applicoide to f./ranium Statelicenses must ensure compliance waters from mills using the acid !each. h-Teilicge with EPA s standards. Some Agreement alkaline leaA. or combined acid and "i DA recognizes that it is establishis' States can adopt more stringent rules alkaline Ie. a process for the extracton .A j standards in an ares thatis already ths. than those adopted and enforced by the of uranium. For locations where there is 3 1 Nj subject of gover= mental regulation and NRC. !ncluding requirements that are more precipitation than gj ]. has taken into account. where relevant. more sc.ngent than EPA's standards. evapotrans tratica process waste water the existing schemes andlevels of EPA promulgated 40 CFR Part :80 et, can be dis arged up to the diference k* protection in developing these seq -Standards for Owners and between annual precipitation and Operstors of Hazardous Waste - - standards. } 3 EPA promulgated 40 CFR Part 190. Tresunent. Storage. and Disposal ._. evapetranspiranon_ - - - Solution extraction, or"la situ" - ~ j .+

• 1antonmental Radiation Protection.

Facilities." under Subet!e C of the Solid mining. !s a processing =ethod != which t t Standards for Uranium Fuel Cycle Waste Disposal Act, as amended on July uraniumis recovered, ore without l Q-Operations." on January 13.1977 (42 FR 28.1982 (47 FR 32274). Although moving or discarbing the cre body.In 4d !

134).nese standards spee!!y the upper ranicactive materials controlled under this method holes are dri!!ed at selected

!!mits of radiation doses to members of the Atomic Energy Act of1954. as points around an ore body and a solvent 1 6; t. the geners! public to which normal amended, are not covered by the is pumped into some hc!es and the 1 operations of the uranium fuel cycle SWDA.UMTRCA requires that the resultmg solution out other holes. no i =ust conform. ney cover radiation standards proposed herein provide for solvent passes through the ore, dissolves doses due to all santonmental releases protect!an of human health and the the uranium, and cames it back to the gg.d of uranium by. product materials during environment from nonradicactive surface. The uranium is then etnpped 1 j

f. -

the period a milIIng site is IIcensed. with hazards in a manner consistent with from the solution and concentrated.The j H 'the excepden of emissions of redon gas appilcable standards promulgated under solvent. which is stored in holding D l ~ TJ.~,' and its decay products. Subtitle C of the SWDA.The Act also ponds, can be treated and reused or The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires the NRC to ensure conformance discarded. Although this medod ty 5e !gsted rules in 10 CFR Port 40 on to *

• generalrequirements
• produces no sandy tailings.it does 1_'h;

. October 3.19e0, which specfy licensing established by the Commission, wtth the produce sludges that contain many of

• requirements forurantunt and thorium.

concurrence of the Administrator. which the same radioactive and j M. muling s'cavtties. including trailings and are to the maximum extent practicable, nonradioactive substances found in $q i westes genereted from these activides at least comparable to requirements tailings piles. Consequently, the above. l l(48 m 48821).These rules spectfy applicable to the possession. transfer. ground westes fromin situ mining are f . technical, surety, ownership.and long. and disposal of similar hasardous covered in these proposed standards. l-M , term care critena for the management matenal under(Subdtle C of SWDA)." We note that because in situ mimes sad F p!;.*. and flaal disposition of by. product EPA promulgated 40 CTR Part 440.. conventional milling currently are done 1 I tasterials. Some of these rules are " Ore Mining sad Dressing Point Source In the same regions of the country. %.I affected by these standards. For Category: E!!!uent !. imitations disposal of sludges on ta!!1ags piles may 'Ill example, they specfled a design Guidelines and New Source often be arranged. 'frtp, ' r objective of 2 pCI/ Mis and a longevtty Performance Standards. Subpart C-.- Rules for protection of ground water q . of greater than 2000 years for disposal of Uranium. Radium and Vanadium Ores frorn the underground operstions ofin

• y*

1 ) tallings. Due to congressional actions. Subcategoryn" on Decernber 3.1983 (47 situ mining are provided by the 'i Y these regulations have never been-m sesgek The purpose of 40 CFR Part Underground Infection Control program E enforced by NRC. altlieugh some ,440 is to establish effluent limitations prornulgated under Sections 1421 and j g Agreement States have enforced and standards under the C!ssa Water 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 'jo i I .o 3 MI L

q t, Federal Register / Vol; 48. No.196 / Frfd y. Oct:b:e y.1983 / Rul:s and Regulations C333 The associated ngs!atens. 40 CFR Parts encon= ental and economic costs and comply with the aqui.e=ents of this 14i.143, and. tis. i= pose ac -i*trative benefits in a way that assures adequate rule regarding ground water protection. 8 rad technical requirements on such-protection of the public heal 2. safety. essential!) aH rados e=issicas will be operatio=s. througn eider approved and the envirenment (:) can be fro = existig piles, which have as Stato prog-:=s er EPA-i=ple=ented 1=p!emented using present!y available average ares of about 70 hectares, as i pre; a:ns.These regulations are not techniques and measuring insat=ents: shown in the r*T.iS. b aditier raden int;nded to ap;1y to the unde 3:ound and (:) are reasonable in ter=s of-may be emitted f:om on. site areas cre bodi:s depleted byin sit:r uranium overall cests and beneSts. contaminated by windh!cwn tailings. l sin"; operat:cus.

• The legislative record shows that We conclude ce area of piles has bun te addition te dese rules estab!!shed Congress intended that EPA set geners!

overestimated at most by a factor of under UMirRCA. DA is required to . standards and not specify any par:icular g,gg, i astah!ish e=ission standards under the, medod of control."The EPA standards Caan Air Act (CAA) for hazardous air and cataria should not interjeci any The e=lssion rate of radon per unit poiktants. A! tac:gh there are no final catailed or site-specfic requiremats for ana of tailings is directly related to the I ac of ndum.m u% standards for air emissions applicable to managecent;,tec:nology or ensioecting Sn en! fa wMd an ncWW t3[ tj,"bo das een pu the Co nd Su th 7 . Federal Repster(46 FR :5076) on April gim the NRC and the Agreement States 8.1552.he reiatienship cf the Clean Air the re nsibility to decide what de6'Cdde@Wh Act cf this ruIe is Escussed in more mi will assure these standards are,. ad e staff n.xh m e 'i dotad latar 6 this Ena= hie. satisfied at specific sites. (However. nu=ber of sites, tn. as elected to t nea!!y. radiacon protectica gufdance EPA must concur wid NRC regulations apply conservadre speci5c cx values estab!!shed to i=;;ement Section 8:a(3 of 0.3 f.pC of rsden.::: per square .l of UMTRCA.) Therefere. our analyses o)f meter-second/pC cf rar" -::S per i to receral agencies for tne cencuct of 3 d*,"p risk. control methods ccsts. and cther gnm of taiHags] for wet ta!Hngs and 1.0 l: pt g, { ten 12.1 thing ete a ec to P c n la t Guicance geve=s tne ngulaeca of conclusien and belie' es no correction, racicacave =aterials by t.e NRC and. IV. Resolution of Major Issues Raind in which assumes that some taili..ps an Agreement States, and bc!udes the Pubue Comnents fcilomag gdwe " *

• every effort pe _.amently wet is appropriate for this h,

shca d be made to encoursge the A.The Basis for the Standards factor. maintenance cf radatica doses as far

1. Health Risk Models Regarding transport models.

l vifw$t e$cdelsusN EPA Gut si e ad us is is as a b e C28 "' Ag8 Permissrele or overestimate hea16 risks f:om bnething MS.De method used by EPA has been

• • • • U" d

ngan t: de m, aso_ _, _g ye raden decay products. Others be!! eve the basic we.-k. horse oflocal dispersion }U 1 EPA underesu=ated the risk:For esti=ation for years. !:19 7. the exposure. it saould be general prac*ica exa=ple. the A=erican Mining Congress #artici ants of an exE*# 8 I! to recuce exp;sure to refation. and (AMC) stated that" EPA has i e ga th d give d necessity." This gn: dance is curnst!y $eresu-.a fa rof about 60.* Dese

• • • 1. • • I known as the "as low as ressenablY an'Ied factors '":

annual aversse concentratica is about a a dievable" (A1.8.RA) principle. It is factor of = 2 " Furdermore, these .[ g partic larly suited to e' 3-4--w-, dispersion estimates an based on an c radation exposure undercond! ions empirical approach thet is inherently j e I; j;4 u . that vary g estly from site to site. or a==.a=~=.--- u unbiased and that should therefore be ! r fro =1 time to t=s. and is an bregral part 'C'",",C,",=,=~ = _ ss as likely to overpredict as to { i of NRC and Ag ee=ent State licensing a = = w,=as-s, tmde:pndict. determinaticas.

• ='==.

It should be noted that we are not g The standards mblished here wig - wpalesvent the a;bcve standards. modeling backsround concentrations of I' The total rados emitted from tafungs radon. Wh!!e it may be experimentaHy g:ic[ance, and regulations to order to. Is approximately proportional to the difDeult to demonstrete the incnment 1 3 e satisfy de purposes cf UMTRCA to " ' scrface area covered by tailings. EPA above background due to a tailings pile

• stabil!=e and contro! * *
• tailings in a osed do sa=e ares that NRC used in its at dlstances snater than i km. there is sah and env.ron=entally scund manner FCEIS. 30 hects-ts, to estimate redon no reason to believe that the basic anc to r-8-'W or e!!=inate radiation emissions.The AMC prefers 50 hectares. physical panciple of conservation of i::!$ hasards to da pub'ic."

and points out that NRC(In NUREG. = sis does not centinue to be valM. ULTF.8.CA d:ss n:. ;r: vide specffic 0737.Feb.:531)later revised its estimate Cace re!assed ts the atmesphere.raden. c : ::a fo be used te dete ining that to 50 hectr es. However. cu.nnt which is a chemically inert gas. thase pu ;;str have been satisfied. prcjections cf uranium prcduction disperses free radioactive de,1y untillt is removed by EPA's object;ve, w t not ;rtempted by ! dsc:te that vs./ few new :::fHs er piles. cay. We c:nclude the t our etna: stat: tory nquirec:ents.has been if any, wtIl start cp harneen now and dispersion es::= stas provide a l

,repcse standards cat

(1)Take the late 1990's.Thus. urJes: a signi!! cant reasonsh! basis fer calen!ating account sIhole. safaty, and r==ber of exis In;;tles are unable to atmospheric concentrstions cf radon.

D 8 g

Y . 45334 Federal Regis:er / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1933 / Rules and Regulatizns There appears to be a miseencaption " final Genede Environc: ectal !=;act exsttple. they would ccmpre de a lung about Se conditions to which DNs State:nent on Uraniu.= Mi:11ng" lFC'c.~.5). cancers per year that epa estimatas assum; ton of a 0.7 squi:Ibrium fraction ne second populatioc.identtfied as for (see F"d15) ceuld resdt fic: for raden decay products applies. (The a %:s!" site. is dat f:: the Edgement. uncantrated tailings pdes after the year "equilicrium fraction

• expresses the S.D. sha, andis based on 1570 census

000 wit.:Se:1.000 sa::h cas:ars a amount otrados decsy products data. We assumed that arzix of ::x com=anter estimated as caused acmany present relatve to the "rcral"* and 17 " remote' sites wadd an=ual: b mammu= theoretically 7essible.This properly represent the ::3 sites modeled deaGa.7 y backgesu:d radia:!.v -

rom motor veh2cle accidents l I fraction is impor.ast. since 2e health in the DEIS. We have just received the (50.0C0 pr year) and'r.o=e acadants riait is pnmanly due to rados decay results of a 1983 popdatica survey for (25.000); tornadoes (120); etc., Based on l prodects, not to redon itself.) Most of all 32 asi;l tas~.'. a sites performed for us such c:=parisons tasse commesters the data cited by commenters to support by Batta!!e Paci(nc Norsweet conc! dad dat the naks from redon

i. -

a lower M'.in which the-source of redon. E-ww. fraction are for Laboratories.nis survey, which was emitted from tauings are not -*I situations Ilmited to Ladividuals within s km of the significa:t.acd that DA's standard n t~ is difhmos into houses from underlying piles shows that the total populatian at should not limit such emissions. l ^^q' sed.la his danad= te kudd decay the :s active sites was 054 within : DA.hdiaves these compensons are pruden P_ --zfrecSon.is sero. For kilomatans of all active tadings piles, a:isdirected.and do not address a . i.! the alsborne rados from. tailings yttes and 1C737 wt$in 5 klionneteen-central pu:pese of the legislagon that .r-commedssed is.DNs endmates/te: we have co evaluated the local and ,eg.dr.a das >ia==Wt which is to (.?,,'i W equdibetum freceanin regional health risk based upon this.re. 1: setdoor air.approachas 1.0, beyond 4he survey of cussent populauons within 5 g,,...make everyseasonable effort prevent or minisuas radon vicimary of a pile.Jtiter takhts into. km and1970 census usults for d!Ibsion ints the . f' ' ' CI accountyeriods of time en individual. populat!=ns ham 5 to 8Dhm of de s environmast * *

• from * *
• tailings."

){* spends '..doossand outdoors. p-iods of acave sites.The re-evaluation show a EPA receguzes datradiation . uma aAouse is wou.vantdaud by seat decrease in ca!=: dated local backpeur.d and other common hazards .1.* outdoor air. s=d the fate of raden a:d dec s. and a: increase d equal siza in decay products in ouaiser air 4 hen it caledated regtonal efees. put ca4se far ;reatar tetal assual harm thas a -f. la51traans a house. we conclude use of esemates of ask to more distant anyone would reascnably estmate might occur.fromascontrsued radon 4[ an everage value of C.7 for-b efecove populadons.Ls to the remainder of the eqi.il;brium hacson for exposure of Unimd States.are unanected.)Due emissions Anm. tailings. Mcwever. $ne i jd. pople to arbornendes fromydn is data indicate that ourinitial esumate of. other esks are not the subject of this appropriate for distances far from - total haald efects to populanons is demakmg. Ccapaans d 6 typ ' ' "3 muings pues.Dia.vduele therefore correct. (We note that we have assumed suggestad may be usehl!or setur.g p,.Mdu fu afs-ts m eeduce b jl .retaaned.far eat,-itadaan of totallapact that there wiu be no increases of populadens at.hsesites over the next vadety C m-uds a pAU:hd6( o f gr.a

..aes.hos pi!as. Very clu.e..,1000 yee a.a cleanlymancomnauwe ~ the exta=2 that by are avoidable), but

.};! tosallings piles.hosevn. theJacay r3 ..psoduct:equalib itur factoria osadoer air.nsmungdon.)- dey are act usah!!st desid!:g de (, j g, ;,,,, g,,,,,g.m g,,g ,,gg,,, la summary. weda act believe the ,pp,,,,g,,, 3,y,i,g,,,,,,g g,,,,,,,g., 2 U: taidag he same Moutdou facons totalhealth afacts la se DEISAave source ofAazard.Dat decision.must be 1 loto accoue+. that as.auers-e:afective h ovesasumatedme factor d4out g g, gg g, y}t decay.dum m F4ri.un b eden 1.18 due to a. lightly 4.ifarsat average hazard u:dar consideratioc.no existance of 4dar hazards does :st.

• P 8
  • 88

I about one-half as1.argela probably more j ,d

• anosopriate.samt to piles.nis lower PP

,I absentCs=gresalanaldirectier Justify vidne sheadh app!!dJo esumaan.d accounted.foris.our estimates) within EFNs 44Lawy1.r,.3. these standards unta au

• j j te maximumladiv'3 J *=k a-me

,4= he m J addressed, or lusu7y.EFNs ipos!=g h e l l . ne2EA==+ataWW cancar.dsk estimate of maximumindLvidual risk for Congress w!U thatstandards be set. .p kom radonlacay pro &acsisbased4a a model pue is affected principally by neIse that the haaldtimpact of out assumption for the equilibrium tamags.!s talarge part attdbutaY.e to , i studies of nemaM.aad other heavy hacdos for redon daughters. and should sma3 radiation. doses delivered 24 !stre f .t . metal m:ners.is consistentwith Go % redad Ay about slactwM two. We surr.bers of people overlong periods of . f. L! . ssoot recent raa==aael= Haaa af.the hEeve his changes msWScim m daw w a.reco when W.tTP.C.A ,; NAS BER Committee (1980), andAs warrent changing our basic.conciasions was enacted. than Chairman of b , wtthin 2: per.ent of the value .segardise the ask hem tatiings. NRC tesnSed as follows: *The healih

• ; secommended for use la a.recent.

7 i exhausttre study conducted.la Canada 2.5!pificar.ce of Risk frosi Radon edests of this.rsden producdos are tiny -i, as appued to any one generetton, but the I }Td ... for their AtomicEnergy ControlBoasd Einittedby Tailings piles sum of these exposures can be mads 1 '.*h.. (1sst).We have noted our difEculties Seversi co=== awes argued that EPA large by cauaung farlato the hture. - . with the assumptions which undertie has not demonstrated that the risks-large enough Ja fact to.he the dominant I-other estumates 4ted'byxomenesters in asuciated w!2 :sden emisalons from radiation exposure from the suc!aarfuel eur detsted responses to comments la tadings are sipificant, and. observed cycle. Whetherit is maanlagful to attach fq:*. the FE!5.We conchniethe DA value thatauchof thehealthlatpact alanincance to radlanos emposures

• sbeeld be usedla the absence of any attributed.to tainags accrues to very thousands of years la the future.4r

.e i evidenes that anothervalue large numbers of people at very low conversely, whether.it is jusunable to tat.. g is more approprtata.: y [ levels of individual nok.They suggested Ignore them. are questions without easy ~ 11 DA used two regionalpopelstions for. that the proper test of sipi5cance is to answers.The most sadsfactory I fts risk estimates: the Arst population, coa pare euch risks with common approach is to requite every ressor.able P identiSed as isr;a "feaste" site, was baseds, such as the risk froar the eNatt to dispose of tailless la a way that 4L, bypothetisel, and was enken heim NRC's

• netural background radiation. For minimises redon dithsion late the 2.1 d'

.c t e tl. i l d.l - r.

t y Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.195 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulations 43935 1 a=:csphere." (M.R. R ep. No.1480. 93th inactive mill sites.Of the 3' sites popu!stions), a censide!able deg ee of t Cont. '. d Sess. Pt. !I. p. 23.) We have surveyed. o:!y 7 had no pecple living protecuen #;t. inst =suse. and a cenduded that =axi=um indiddual wtdin ! kile=eters (3 miles). Another a sig. Scant part of the anticipated total , lifati=e risk (esumsted as :in Icc) and sites had to or fewer people living term of effa:::ve ;rotectics from all 'he 12:; term c:=ulative i= pact on within 3 kile= ters. Collectively, hazards, due to the 3 eatly reduced pepulauens (petentia!!y many tens of however, the =i!! aites have a normaDy thickness of de c:ver. We have l th:urands of desds over the Ices term) distributed contruous rangs o!!ocal concluded. therefere. ! dependest of cue to radon a=issions from tailmss are populations, and it is not possible to other censiderauess. that when costs for I c!: arty sig:uccast enough tc lustify cc rels. AW.Isenssed is the F.".S. RIA.. distirguish a special set of sitas,ne institut6:al ecstrel and compliance definico: of a remote site is therefore wd.6 SWDA c! scre are added and the anc a later section of cis Preamble, our difDeult to achieve, unless it is done cet suing is aap!!ad to cr.!y those sites ace.17Ms shews that tailings cas. at a . arbitrarily.In adition. demes sphers that might be defined as "racota", the recsocacas cest. be disposed ofin a have cc:c!uded that it is not possible to pote:t:a! total cost saved is not ma.se: that proddes, a== 3 other determ!=e that a populatio: at a r;ect$c sd;:ifkast e ough != c:=parison to the be:e.".ts. ; ready reduced racon locaton will remain low in the future, if benefits foregese to justi'y separate . emissic=s-- it is low now. nere!cre. a choice of two sta:dards.

3. Standards Based on Current differest standardsImpiles a need for Finally, with regard to.the Age::cy's l':;r.! ate s instituesnal oversight of fut::re legal authenzatics to establish a Durie; 6e review of de standards fer.populatics shifts and for having to separate level of p otecten at remote e inac:ve sites by certain Fede-al uppada the disposal at those sates that sites by issuing two sets cf standarda.

Cis:=es. quesuces wars raised exceed some enterion cf"remotenes:.* IJMTRCA c!early cente=;1stes that Pretu=thly, the State or Federal these standards be adequate for the long [" [ h.E]. P,rda ajsd de custod!an would be responsible. not the term and that they achieve de benefits l-cp;!! atto:to aII:4 i=actve sites. Some

1. 8 Wner.

Mndon coneoh Regardng dou reytewers sug ested thatless restriceve ne c:otvatiert fer consideri:3 objectses. we an aware of no sits that ,sta dards =fg;:t be appro;rtate for sites relaxed standards at "re=ote* sites is to is ci: habited and ca: also reasonably that ara I: c:- e:dy sparsely-pepulated reduce the ecst cf dispesa!. Our analysis be assumed wi!! remam uninhabited, areas. O$3r reviewers sultgested that shows that any ;ntential ecst sav6; nor are we awan of any scientific basis we c= sider a radon standard that frca less restrictfve standards at such for concludhz dat thare is no i= pact on appiles at and beyond te fenced sites is not c:mmensurate with the loss naticnal pcpmations due to radon r bo=dary of su:h a site. Le. a standard of benefts. !s a later section we report scissions from remote sites. We { th:t relies is part on dispersion and the costs for several relaxed rad:s 'cenckde, cerefert. dat relaxed fasttutionalmaiste asca cf control over standards. Lese results show, fer the standards for "re=ota* rites are not acces:. EPA requested public co=ments case of no rados e=fssion limit (case feasible on demographle :; rounds, are on ::ese issues for the inactve sites (48 C1) and with no provision fer the added not defensible on legal g ounds, and are IR 5C5. ja: nary 3.U23).nese issues costs of 1:.stituttenal control through not attraedvs. In any case. on the basis Ars mest si= ply stated as:(1) Should the fencing. !and.use control and land of cost.ef'ecdvely achieving the various de*;ee of rsdes c:strol after disposal acquisition (to avoid unacceptably h!gh public health and envitenmer.tal scala - de;e d is part on the st:e of the cu.reng individual deses to cearby tesidents). of this ru!amakbg. 'e Iccalpopulstion and(2)Should and w12 no provisten forincreased implementa:cs of the disposal costs to meet closure requirements ' t Passive vs. Esttudonal Qarols 8 standards he per=ttted to depend under SWDA (discussed below). that 4a As noted above. EPA also requested, pet =ari!y or in part on =afarenance of percent of the cost of disposal at the comments on whether a redon !!=tt i 1:sta:tional control of access (e.g., by level required by these :tandards (ca se applied ae the boundary ("fonceline") of a fences)? We also specifically requested - C3) would be potentia!!y recoverable. the Government. owned property arcund [ com=ents oc dese issues in the April We have examined the added cents a tai!Ings pue. La. a " dispersion" e 21253 nouce of proposed rulemaedng required !cr ins titutional control and standard. would be an appropnate ferrn for active cllIs. . conclude that they esay vary frem about of standard for the sites with low nearby [ Most comme: tars who addressed the to to 50 percent of these potentia!!y populations. (Such consideration could Erst of these inces opposed different recoverable costs, depend 6g mostly on also apply to some more populated standards at remote sites (although most the ecst ofland accusation at spec 5c attes.) Such a dispersion standard could industry coct=ents favored less sites. Costs for conformance to RCRA be sansfled largely by institutional restrictve s tandards for c/l sites). Many closure requitec:ents for a cap under medods. Le, by acquiring and rais ed de " equity" consideradon. La l."Mrs(a)(2)(III)(El renge from about mamtaining cor.tret overland no the fairness of protecting a few people $0 to too percent of these potentially proposed disposalstandard by '~,, less just because of where theylive. recoverable costs. depending upon compartson would require generally Cthers commented that many of these whether or not the pde has an more costly physical methods (such as sites are locatiens where people are impermeable liner under it or net, frhis applytag dlck earthen covers) that untaalv tolive or conversely, that the 'SWDA reqcfrernest was excepted under directly control the tal!!ngs and their C:ss r). pcpslatic.s in the future are not the proposed standards. on the basis , emissions with minimal relianca on p*edetable and cited exarnples of recent that it would late *fers with the moisture inst!tutinnal methods (Le,it is a changes. Ficsi!y.ecmmenters who required for redon centro!.nis basis " control

• atsadardi. EPA also requested addressed $s issue of whether EPA is would no tunger esist in the absence of c1ements un the adequacy cf such a authori: d to set different standards a redon lieft.) Any savings through radon "fenceline" stand.rd to meet the

~ based on rt=oteness' denied that the deletion of raden centrol would be ablectises of the t!MTRCA. Agency has such autortty. schieved by forgsing approidmetely Cominents on this issue ranged frern In im !.FA cr.,usted the number of one-half of the an.nuall,enefit Phe entire strong sugsport of.pnmary reliance on people living close to all the active and Impact on nonregional national , passive stalailization for pertods greater i l

7.. + ~ h. 15936 Ted;ral Regist:r / Vgl. 48. Nc.196 / Friday. October 7.1383 / Rules and Reculauens i .. ;l than 1.000 years to protection fer only a ownership of de sites is assumed to S. Dis;rs:/Stonc'erc:t l few decades wih pnmary renance on precluce such laappropriate uses.

1. Og Nuim.a br W.Fe-m institutional controis. A mefonty of

3. Control of Tudon Release: Dunn Protect::n com= ente s rseummended retain 6;

.Mding OpenAns I pn=ary reliance on passive centrel Comments on this issue were cresti rather taan en institutional control ne proposed rule antic:;sted that the diser;ent.Sc=e commenta s beieve; nose that favored use of tastitutional ngulat: y aseeny a,pply the "as low as con.rcis should be required talast far i )3: i conto!(ptmet;aUy of resuse end nasocamy amnesamle"(A!.MI thousanns of yean wai e c6ts bought maximum !=dividual exposure) a.gued princpia cf Fadaral Radiamon Protecnon a few decanes would be adequata. t Y fct im:iths public access trough use of Guidance in establish 1=g manage =ent Coctmants frem experts in the l'. !ds of T* fences and a&=rtistrattve coment of pmcecuras and segulauns to ce.rmi cM1 e4=unng and geomorph-kg i land use. nose opposed citedthe lack redon fmm opersung mdis.Thts were usefulla resoiMag this issue.

1. 3 of r Ilabihty of such control,aspecal!y approach was proposed hacause DA Standard design practice for i

conciuned that a znune= cal standard to structurs: that.ahould the fal!. could through use of fencesin remote areas of cant:nliedonwassnapptegnate for lead toicas of3fe or sig=Ly: cant . g;; the western United States. .s 4 applicanon during operations. nas is destrucuan of property is based an.the %.g-DA considers that protectiondrosa because procncalmathods for reducing ukdihood dat a sufaciutly dist: pun the longaarm hazards associated with rados em:ssionsdurms operacoms of event (e.g. a food or hurricane 1 =lght t redlescure wasta should prunanly rely exisung mills.and piles vary in occur wtthin a specifed time. For .,.l en paanive aantrol ma$ods. We nota.Jn effeceveness mth timeJtis very examp!a. a bridge may be designad to this regard the intent of Congress as. dif5 cult to measure.quantitanvely, their withstand all disruptive ennis $at stated in the congnssional report escacy: and dl& rent madods are have more thana chance in 100 cf g. acco=panying (SCRCA:"D.e appropnate for differern sites. De 30 yea s. occu;gg w.dd..ny' hat rush 23 wster g. cce=1use believes dat uran'um mt!! pcmary means for controd!ng radon Comrnenters noted t Sq tainngs shouldte treatedin acentdance emissions from exisung tailing pues

• ty, with the substantial hazard they will duru:g operanons are to keep tne caused by very high reir. fall eve:ts E[u wat untillong after axisting talungs as wet as.possibi!e or to use alight damage or destrey a taill::gs I

their ; resent forms.*qecad to last la phased d'sposal. em system ht llu 61.s pad l G' ntutions can be e .n Aidition, as Some commenters indicated that de (!! cods thatmerely coverorwet a pue S are not u cantWrefo.t dey _ 94 noted la the procaeding section. the provinicas of the proposedeule were y costs ofland acquisition to umit inadequate to assure that he public suggested. the disposa! method she:id be casigned to wtdstand any such mam=umindividual exposures can would be ptacted.ney argued that rainfall events at have =cre than a Mq f 4 t usily negate 4 signEcant fractfon of DA hae tne responsibility tederteth M* cones.Rowever. institunanal concola provide sultable.heald protectien taall - Eartodi:t dchce ~ 8 d[' ~ 6' Z% ' pctential. savings tarough use of thinaer (SCRCA and the CleanAirAct to

• Mb d f to e -

i %'T, can play a useful seccadary role in membenof the public.neyausgested cf te.h j *. hat ds c!gn. ate-supplementing passive controls and in that reqairing certain work prac=cas or .g g fy l spo tha sive con is rc 3e ru ee pr. con [ as h .h o ! a uate to achieve their design Le; ns of be ;r posed r a.

g. l, g.

5ecuan m of de NCA nquine

• phased" disposal of talungs and good prodde reasonable esautance that a phe p.

the Federal Gennunent or the.$tatu to water.:r.anagement ;rsences could be will withstand an Goods that have more, e!!ecen and reasonable. than some sman chance of ca..nz i i acqmre and retain corr:rolsf these DA will consider further the wteta 20 yeen. me coccol system i , tainngs disposal sita under!!censa. ] R. , De licensorts authonzed to require feasiht!!ry and practicality of providds must be designed to with tand much t greeter assurance that redon releases rarereunts. such as a " probable l 4 performance of any mainterrance, will.be mini =1zad during mlHing maxt=u:n flood.* In pract!ca. they pc , monitoeng, sad emergency measume operaticas can would ce proposed suggested. adequately protecung piles il d , that are nuded to protect pubite health rule.no Agency has not sumcantly for enn a few hundred years re;mres -g

j. and safety.We bellen met the" analynd work practice and talungs dulgning control systems to withstand lasutunonal provtsions are essential to

(. ~, management techniques to determine a!! ennts that an Rhely to occur within l support anyproject wasse objecun is wheuter they are suitable for this mousands of years. Furthermore the fl e as long-term as are these dispoul purpose and which alternauves are best. maximum retafall that might be ,Mt operations. and forwhich we have as herefore. the Agency wt!! pub'Ish ao espected to occurwtthin tacusacds of litt's exponence.? tis does not mean v e Advance Notice of Proposed yeersis very tearly the c:aximum , _ @l.-<, ', believe that primary reliance shouldbe Rulemsking under the Clean Alt Ast for possible retalall.Therefore, la pneuce. l 9 placed on lasttr:tionel controlst rather. condideraticn of the centrolof raama the systern would ban to be destsned

• • ?,.g that institution 41 oversight le an emission from uranium tatungs ptles for approximately the same (I.e.

dijll. essential backup to possive control For * 'during the operational certed of a - maximuml reinfall whether the centrol pg example. as le::: as me Federal arentum min.no ANFR will enable the pened ts 200 yeen or 1000 years. i { g Cournment or the States wercfse their Agency to gatherinformation on the As discussed above, we bellen '[. - 'e ownership rtshts arut other authenties feestbtllry, effecuveness, and cost of proteenen for only a short perted (a few regarding these sites. they shoold not be vertous alternauves that would control decades)is inconsistent wt* the !ntent f 8,. Insppropriately used by peop!e. In this reden releases from operaung mills. el Congress. Some commente:s arped no regard even with the dispoul actions This willenable DA to be better.. for pertade longer than 1000 years. We El' requAred by these standards tt would act informed when judsteg whether believe that the spectf! cation of a design t1 l be esfe to triald habitable structures c.a standards are needed, and. lf so. the perted of1000 years will acilen de g the dispoul setes. Federst er State most suitable requirements, objecuvu of these commenters, while at &lp l

l os. Federal Register / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulations *

• 43937 f a same t=e' giving engineers who part!culates.nerefore, the only higher levels, and the Eelihood that must ca. y out these standarda a design quanntatin estimates of effecs control to aIml of:c pC/m% is e.tanca reasonable to asuss. We note discussed an those for raden eminions. reasenably sch!evable.

that :cm= enters did act identify any We believe.however.that eUsets from s;eciE: destp features that would IIow misme or weter contaminatica could be The risk to people who live from a greeter dan 1000. year criterion comparable to those from rsdon permanently very close to taub s pues t that would not a!reac'y be required to. etnisaions if long-term prote cuan is not can still be relauvely h!gh. up to 1 to I satis.') a 1000.yest requirement.

afforded, 1000 for11!st!=e tesidency, for a !mut of I

Based on taese considentions we The primary concern of commenters m pC/m$s. Howevu. h procucabdity. i cenclude that the time over which who thougnt the proposed redon of providbg more rsdos control by protecdos should be provided should be emiseico standard wea too tax was the requfrtng desig for lower levels of speciSed as proposed, risk to nearby individuala.ne ec:!ssion fans rapidly below 20 pC/m's. A closely resated matteris the degrw estimated added lifetime risk of fatal We note that no pile has ever been cf assurance with which controla can be lung cdacerfor someone living 800-protected by suen a cover: that is, coven designed to meet the longevity meters from the centar of a model pile (e with defbed levels of control and requiremant. Some faEure modea can be I fn 1000 due to redon from a tauings longeviry are undamonstrated ~ a well quantSed (e.g. performance of pile emitting todon at the level of:D technolegy. no du!gn of covers to meet dikaa. well en,etc.) and othere may not be as pC/m8. if the cover is designed to just a speci2c radon emission 11rnit at these s characterisuca of rock used to stabuiza, achiere that emission level without lowlevels must be based on atacarized (e.g., aging emplo%ng additional control to provide measurements of pro;erties oflocal slopes). We recogr.!za that.in some reasonable assurance of achieving it for coverba matertals and prediction of ca ses. it may therefore be dif5 cult to 1000 years, local par Jneters. such as soll and cus.*y coch=ance in all respects to a Com=uters who thought the gg38 " g8* "* " " g g**8**

• 1000 year nquirement for longevtry of proposed redon escission stand.trd is too

,h'[* ,"."., "$8 6.* control Fcr this reason we have st:fet contended that the cost of retabed the Eexibdity of the proposed complianca would be too hfsh.in view '""**#I*h'I'fE"f"****'I'"I )~

• rule to cert!y for shorter periods (but in of the small contnbution radon from

"'" "EN "' 08 no case less tan 200 yeta).We leave tauings males to a population's total strinacey of the controinquired the matter of fully defbing what exposure to atmospheric radon.ney incnasu.nus. In me can odown consstitas " reasonable assurance

• to also generaDy believed EPA had levels, the primary issus beco=es the i=.!e=e:nns governmental overesemated the health eNects from whether conformance to a dasip g

agences.but expect that standard radon. We bave addrened this last standard fu uchImts is practcably o ea seri:4 (dasip) critaris wGl be used concern in an eart!er sectica of this sch!evable.nere is sees P.ejd l O ' t the *istanWry of fal!ure over notica. blumat!on avadable regarding the the requi edicuevitypened to a valua Selecting a !!=it for rsdos emission pracucality of reduedas of radon censistant wit othat sesip situations hem ta!!!: e=!sskas 2 Imis approach 63 g objecevu,gs involves font publ!c health background. Tests conducted at a r e in

i.;

where pub!!c health and safety are in addition to reduc =g u Important c:ncarna. health afects frcm radon relaand Crand Juncton. Colorado, showed that 1 Q. a cnsEcuseien t dinctly from the pils.nue may all be test plots of 3. meter thick covers made Qua:titative est=ates sihealth

• achteved by using a thick earthen cover, kom four Mennt earthu combbacons 3

g efeets frem talun which serves to inhibit misuse of nduced radon emiulons 2 valuu made f:r raden e=gs can touenably be taH!ngs.to stabill:e rainge aeahst rs nsina from 1.0 + 1.1 to 18.3 4 25.2 pC/ tssions and wtadblewn partculares. Health efects eroston and contaminaton ofla:4 and m's.no eccincies of these covers hem cususe cf tanhas and water water, to +% ga=ma expcaure, ranged from os.a percent to 99J per:ent. j, co;taminaten ca=ot be quantined and to avoid contaminauen of ground. Dese resdts apply to the first two because of the extre=ely high degree of water frecs tauings. A redon e=asion years after e= place =ent. and do not !!mit of:D pQ/m4 orless would require reflect performance efterlong tans encertat: tty anociated with the use of a suf5ciently thick earthes cover moisture equi!1bitum is achjeved (some

i.,g likelihood and extent to which misuse to achieve all of these objectins. A lim!: moisture contents wue stCI

[t and cc:ta=ination might occur and the . of 80 pC/m% or enster could be considersbly elevated ovu prvvaulag 3 . consequent degree to whict. people will sattafled in many cases by a cover too levels). We believe resulta like these can j consequently be exposed to radiation thin to efectvely tahlbit misuse.Such a genwally be upacted, because the and toxic substances.(yor example. cover woc!d also permit higher redon control charactertstics of earthen tat!1 age used as !!!! in unoccupied areas Inditidual rtska (up to 3 in 10') and materials used for covers will vary from i would not ress!t la direct human. would leave 20 percent of the potendal site to site. Three of the four covns i . exposure. Ustas taulags se f!!! for health impact os populations stud!ed satisfled:D pC/m% with a residental buildings cames a hil s ' uncontrolled. Our analysis shows that a roe sonable de; tee of certainty over the l ,i probabliity of very :(ptf!cantly limit of 20 pC/m% le also cost e!#ctive tertn of the test.De other cover elevattag radianon esposure and risk. for elimina ting most (ts's) health affeeta (18.3

• 23J pCVm sl was uncompacted,,,

e na desterto which people might be in regional and neuenalpopulatens and its poor performance can therefore uposed to contaminants from taillets from radca teles sed directly from the be discou.tsd. Exactly how much tircuta. watert.sr.e pathways le subbet pile. Such a limit would also redgee thicker these corns would need to be to O strm!stly h!sh uncertainties.) maximum latvidual rtsks ta residents tella tily achleve a lower ll=lt (e.g. 8 or 2 ne Methcod of health effects trom nearfelltats pttes to less than one la pC/rs%)is not known. Ea;nts t*>osare to raden a.d its decay 1000. We conctoded that levals h!;ner commented durtrig heutngs en the

roducts is, considere bly gneter than than 20 pC/rnN ere not tusn!!ed. based etendards that, althocsh covers can be from ; art

s!stes. even wnen extert,al on the cost.effectinness of reducton of desiped to meet such lents as 20 pC/

radlation and food chain contributions cancer desthe in populations. the high m%, esetmation etodels are not reliable are tac!uded in the esumates for maalmucs indMdual ris' s invoind at at sig.ificantly lower entsston lents. a 1 \\

51

• t Ctf

'45933 Federal Redster / Vct. 48. No.19$ / Friday. October y.1933 / Rules and Rev.:!a:fo ts

9...

-(t We conch:ded that achiedag revistas these standards if siosecuant roots are to be evers ted es er. sir.ce it o conformance with a radon emission technical and econemte informat:en the net radon from the entire ta:h; standard dat is s!T.ificantly below :0 shows modifications are war 2nted, pue tr.at is of signi'Ic2..ce to hesi::1. pC/m% (6 or pC/=%. for exam;!*) ne standard requtiss that dis;csel be, Secend. de averes:nz as s;*chd to clearly would require dullners to deal designed to provide " reasonable apply over a time pe.ed of at Isast one with unreasonab.y great ut. certainty for assurance

• that raden emissicas wti!

year. Dus, daily sad seasonal this undemonstrated technolegy. nat is not exceed 0 pC/m% (averaged over vananons in todon em:ssion are to be partcularly so because EPA is already the dsposal steal for 1000 years. Sorne averaged over, since these ars also not requinn3 a margin of safety in calling for commenters expressed the opuuon that of signtficance to puhuc health. yinally. any control system to meet the the meaning of this term was not clear. this averaging may extend overlonger designated emission level with-A key word in this requirement is penods to accommodate normal . c' reasonable assurance over 1000 years.

• designed." since we do not intend fluctuations in soil moisture ccatant due Civen the predcuve uncertainties in compliance with a 1000 year to short. term climaue vartartons. nas.

deelsning to meet this standard DA requirement to be determined by the lowest recorded values of sol! ..u. hedged that to force an accounurig for a monitortng. " Reasonable assurance

• La moisture content should not be ese6 second set of pred!cuve uncertainties by the design of covers means the radon -

rather. the averste values are b, - ~ formas the standard to very low : emission ilmat should be expected to be apprepnate.Such averages should not. acednallevels wou!d be to exceed the achieved over the reqmted term, with a however, extend to ti=es as long as the y limits of reasonably available degree of assurance commensurate with nonnal human lifespan. since thst could N techan!cgy.' th's " reasonable assurance" of longevtry result in a sig.111 cant alteranon in the 7],i na risk from redon emissfor.s.' ' discussed la the precedag section.Thus, level of protecton of pubuc ben!th. s d!=hishes re-tdy with distance from. 6 desigtung the cover the uncertamtist Similarly, everag'es ;erformanes over the tai!!ngs pt[a (dec11. '..g by a factor of in attenusuon charactensucs of matenal the enttre perted oflongertry of the

• w N' *';. '
• three for each doubling of the distanceund should be taken into account in a cover is not within de meaning of the beyond a few hundred meters). Dere conservative manner. His wt!! tend to standari

. -f. currently are on!y abcut 30 individuals lacrease the cover thickness required

3. Relancaship to the Casa Air Act 9[;*

11vtag so neat to active piles that they over that calculated from "best might be subject to nearly maximum esumated" values, which would yield an emission Standard Regwrecien's r:' e nnual post-dsposal riska. We expect approximately equal probabtury of Da Cesa Air Act also requires dat 11, ; .that the actual number of people who scafevtng above or below the design DA provtda public health proter.non y afght e.nertence near maxtmallifetime level. An example of uncertainty to be from air emissions frors tat.'inas piles. .,, } risk wtu be smauer. since they would

• considered is that in the long term Further. DA la pub!!shfag an ANFR to have to maintain Bleu=e residence in equilibrium value of moisture to be consider add 1donal controlof radon I

thalar.d arts immedstely ediacant to a expected in the cover material fl.a. over emissions duitng the operstonal phase ,f.v. probabi.pdes. !n su= we believe that the 1000 years), even though the cover of mdis. nle dscussten relates to the tacings .'r. ity of a substancal number of matertal rnay be sprayed with water disposal phase. tadividuals ac~. ally tecurring these. when it fs laid down and compacted. The Cean Alt Act requires that the man =u:n calculated riska is smau. andlayers of coarse matenals Adm!mstrator establish a standard at ..?* We conclude thatitis not reasonable introduced to inhibit capdlary action. the level which in his ludgment provtdes ? to reduce the eetssten standard below Such spraytag and layers increase the an ample margin of safety to protect the

• ls '.

23 pC/m% because ot(1)The malerute (and therefore attenuation) of puhuc health from hazardous att rig inneertainty associated with the the cover in the neat term, but it la the pouutants.De Agency publishedt feselbtury of tmplementag a long. term equt!!brium moisture content proposed rules for radionuc!!das as 4.t.5 require =ent for a sig.t: cantir tower which govems the perfor.ance of the saisonaleminion standarda for standart (2) the smaQ tacrease in total cover over most of its useful life. Other Hazardous Alt Pouutants (NTsHArs) health benefits anocf sted with such factors lac!ude uncertatary in meesured on Apnl 3. In3 (44 TR 15078). no thicker covers. and (3) the umited d! fusion charactenstica of the particmar proposed rule addressed ail of the i circumstances la which the maximum earthen matsnala und(for given sources of emisalons cf rad!anuc!! des . risk to ind!viduals aught be sustained. motsture coctent), and to the long tenn that DA had idenulled. The proposed As noted above, the 20 pC/m's equihbrium moisrun content of the rule etther provided standards fer ' miseloa!!mit was selected to meet the

• tadings themselves. In sumrnary. we various source catesones or proposed stated objecuves of reducios the latend that the design requirement for not to regulate them and provided likeuhood of misuse spresd!as due to

" reasonable assurance

• should lead to reasons for that dectston.

erosten, and control of redon emissions thick durable covers that have a Ln the proposed bT.5 HAPS for ,, after a thorough evaluation of the substantiallthelihood of malataining radionuclides DA did not propose current existlog telormation on the redon emissions below the 20 pC/m's addinonal standards fer urattiurn mul techAlcal and econornic aspects of unut for 1000 years. the UA standards to b(e establishedt siternative levels of control DA A related matter to implementation of recognisse the !!mitations inherent in the specificauen that the standard for under Lfhf7ECA would provtde the this utformation, since no pils has yet reden emission applies to the " average

• same degree of protecuan as required by been depend of. 8etter trlormanen value of the release rate.This aversong Section 112 of the Cean Air Act.The

,;{., may well become stellable within the la to be carrted out in two ways. First. it Agency espistned that Congress ed not next several years se DOC procude applies over the spaualentent of any duentie the degree of protec* ton that with the disposal program for inactive disposal area. Thus, anucipated provido an ample maron of niety, nor piles. Therefore. conststent with Section vertauens due to different did it describe what factors the 273(b)(2l of LD.f7EA. DA Intende to

• concentrations of redum la different Admitustrator should consider in canunue to monJtot these efforts over parts of the pile, or truner cracks or the making judrments en the appropriate 9

the nest uveral years and will propose effects of burrowing snamala and plant standard. The Agency indicated that it t.#. 9 181 ~

%r ../ 1 Federal Register / Vol. 44. No.196 / Frity. October 7,1983 / Rules and Regulat!cns s 45932 a d!d not believe that it was reasonable to estah24h sta:dards for nanthreshold non though.if the maximum ladvidual po0utants like rad!ani.clides at levela dose were coc.sidered alona. cne might De Ad=!aistrator can conclude that tt I dat conclude that no htther centro!a are is not fessible"if a ha:ardous po!!ctant c:n:peclude any posrible risk. DA needed. For mdl tallinss, although or the use of the conveyance would be i cannot be emitted through a conveyance .eded dat it shodd follow an ap;rtsch that would a!!owit to consider po;ulation doses and healsimpacts var.cus factors that incuence society's wns an imporust part of our contrary to laws, er if masseernent considerattoa. doses to the most methodoiosies are not practicable due to heals and weil being. Derefore.DA exposed individual were equs2y technological or ec nornic!!=:tattons. g chose to :casider the fotowing factora important. As noted above, we wt:1 consider the la deeding who het standards are In addinon. DA considers the need for such standards for de needed and the appropriate level of such potential for emisalons and risk to operationalphase of tatua. .I standards: . With res 1.no rettation don and risk for Increase in the future, even though the standards.pect to these d! posal DA has concluded that current projected maximum IsdMdual ne,arny individuals: and populadon rtska may be vs.ylow. de a proe nuenable aumca De cumulative radiation dow and health impacts in populations in this case, we do not anticipate 6de nuase of nden wGl nom.aed L De potential for radiation sig:u5 cant future increases is de stas of 2pCjmts fu a pen,3,g1 Wean la thia indu -ussion. and nsk io acna.e w a,ou,.d stry, although populatioc.s apopnats.De Iml of the standard

4. no aval!abtfiry, practicality, and national populanon incesses.

gE;gtg, = egsg'tI [, future: .se aues may.ncrees as me s i-cost o! control technotoSY to reduce ne avallat uiry and practicality of popula tlon groups. We esasider that the e=Isstans. asd control technology are important in uncertalaties lavolved in duap to L ne e!!ect of current standards ludstng how cuca control of emissions

• • rious levels and durst'cas of control to to uire. DA beileves that the stanfard should be established at a an importast factors. Potendal tsdar the Cean A!r Act or othat increasas is th ac=ber of mn! tallbas

! l, applicable audentlas. De nest three factors are used to level that wi!!. at least. require use of pihs dua to fun:re ceeda for urasium , useu ce likely Lcpact of eminicas on best available technology. Addinor.aj . were also considered. in addittoa. the the health ofindividuals and large acticas, such as formns the use of , cost and socio.econoc:!c Impact of the 3.J poptdations a:d to est!= ate the undemonstrated techselogy, closure of a,' standard and other alternatives were potent lal for sf gt'. cant emissions in the facility. or other entreme c:aasures may considered.InIfghtof allof these fur.are. The fourth tactor enables DA to be considered if signL5 cast emissions considerations. DA judges it assess whethat state <f.the.att control ramals aftat best available technology la appr:priate that the standard require, a technologies are curnatlyin use asd tn; lace orildere are signi8 cant level of control not h3retofore applied. g' wbetter there are any practcal snessa nunions and there la no applicable but for which the desip uscertainties of reducing e=1ssiens through control doctonstrated control technology. DA that c:ust be acccm=odated are within [. 1 technology or other control stategfes. dennes but svagable de:nonattsted the range of practical feasibi!.w. ne last facter aUows DA to assess technology as that which. in the. whethernguladena or standards that judgment of the Administrator is the It would be desirable to reduce y;- . hase teen established to centrolother tsost advanced level of controls potential raaximum bdiddual risk pollutants are also e**q releases adequately demonstrated, considating further. However, the uncertatrittes of radlonucUdes. econornic, anergy. and environmental associated with attetepting designs to l The dose and stak for theindividuals Impacts. We concludad that taquirtog achieve assurance of conformance to a g. s!gnificantly lower standard throu saarest a sita are often the primary the use of undemonstrated technology of thicker coves are. we boueve. gh use 'F was appropttate fotindi talungs, since censiderations when evaluating the their emiastorts are slpt$ cant and there unnesonably gnet and would t= pose seed to control emissler.s of radionucudes.Contro!!!ag maximum. is no appucable demonstested control larp and unpredletable costs. wchnology. Somewhat thicker covers than bare (er tadvidual dose assures that people l !!ving nearest a acurce are not sub T1n4Hy. DA believes la la reasonable avenM compunce with a M pQ/in's o unte ssonably high risk. Turther.jected to consider whether othee DA standard would requite wsI!. moreover. I't [ etandards are achieving approxistately be called for by the requirement to I adequate levelof protection to the same goal se the Cean Alt Act.Ls provfde reasonable assurance of I ' *i protecting ladtviduals often provides as populations 11ving further away fr,om the protecting pubus health with as ampl* compliance.(Other,es of centrol are 3 source. maryta of safety. !a czaes where other even more costly an do not provide the s L A believes that cumuladve dose standards are provid!ng compassble comprehensive protecuon thich covers u a de ) Ce d h and health impacts la pcpulations are control. DA believu 6:la appropriate {,"n lud'ed it wo be asonable to I c!se sa important factor. no cumulauwe not to propose redundant standards red!stion dose sad health tapact are under the Cean Alt Act.There would be tmPose a standard below the M pC/m's determined by adding together all of the no benefits because the pubus health required by this rule. lg I IndMdual doses and riske that everyone would already be proucud with sa The Agency believu that the 8f recalves from en estaston sautce.This ample tsarsta et safety. but there could standards for the disposal of uranhun facter can someumes bs reore laiportant be annecessary costa suociated with mill tellings established in this rule n tasa the maxi =um intvidual risit in implementtrig an additional standard. provide protec'lon of pubtle health deeding whether to:stcle are rteeded. na Clean Air Act specifles that the comparable to that which might be J ; sit:ular!yif an entremelv farge Administrator promulgate emissions estabushed under the Cean Ali Act. standards to protect trae pubhc health, because the censiderselons so wr#ch -r Janen may be espond atlow The Administratoris also authorized to thess standards are based are [es;e!s. De suregate dose and l

spi.lauen !=; set can be of such promulgete dettsn. equipment work comparable to those the Agency uses in practics. or operational standards, or a r.sputude that it wcWd be teasonable combinettofu sf it la riot feasible to estat,lishing standards under Secuan 112 of the Q en ALr Act. Hswever, the j

ta retsite a reductics in the totallenpact pruertbe or enforca em4Hion standards, final determinauen will be made I \\ t,

c t; j'y 43Mo Federal Revister / Vct. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7.1083 / Rules and Regulations

W.*'

• 1,.

Secton 112 ru!: making on land which wiU be conve ted to accom;anying the pre;osed at:::ards D. radionucUdes. goverr. ment ownership upon c!:sure, that if uranium mining and min'ng is

4. R'adon Concentraton vs.. mission since a govemment ags.cy ecu;d control conducted in wet regtens. the ade ustc p

Rau Umi's use of tne land. Also, tney artued that and appregnateness of the standa 4 even if the governmert a!! awed use of may have to be revtewed. ;artedar!/ A radon err.tssion rate limit was the land. taciuding residentist use. "no ' the water protecden r2quirements. proposed as a desist standard for the reliable evidence exists to mdicate that Based on this statement tne commente s r. 4.P disposalof tatungs.Some commenters levels exceeding Se proposed cleanup were concerned that EPA intended to 1.11 auggested that we should instead. standard would necessanly convert to apply less stangent standards fer pstablish a cencentracon !!mit for redon indoor redon daughter exposures of tailings centrol at wet sites. - 33

• in att at locatens where people would suf5:ient magnitude to consstute Our remarks conceming wet si es i=

g be exposed. Dey expressed the vtew sig-l!! cant health riska." t the preamble for the proposed standards

. s, that F.PA should establ sh standarda EPA believes there an good reasons were intended only to acknowledge that

., t!. ;. based on heald risk alone and that a not to leave conta=fnated land (other all current U.S.unnium mills are c 2' concanescon11=st applied where than anos meeting &a disposal located in arid and semi arid areas, and g people can live is thenfore more standards) at for=er c:ll!bs sites. First. that we have less experience with many g-suitable. the contamination may spread furcer. of the cone:1m'assuns needed to P, A design limit for e=issions addresses and thereby necessitata c!sanup of comply with the standards under wet a pr= nary goal of Sese standards.the ad acent land or properties. High indoor placacent of a thick. durable earthen raden levels clearly can result if houses than under d.y condtions.

._, {i cover over the tanbgs, because the !Imit an built on centaminated land. Second.

We have modified the final standarda p relates drectly to the thick =ess of the there an signif! cant radation nska. to require envtrenmental and hes!d r, cover and requires drect coneo! of * (identif!ed in the M and DEIS) hcs Ef**** '" !" #!I "3!'"8 "IIh* U^II'd q4 raden e=issions. It also is in a fcts pathways other than (chalation of States. EPA developed the bas!c grou:d g which ces!ar=: to the requfre=ents of bdoor raden decay prcducts. includicg watu pmtecnon pasions b Sese m the Cean Air Act, which spectSes dinct extemal(gam =:41 radiaton and standards for naconal a:puc hazardous waste sites. ne h,aten to

• 7 ceneel of emissions from a source.

Inhalaten of windblows parnedstes. ew Source 1 i Under the suggested air concenenten Finally, de government agency Puformance Standards. 40 CTR 44C.34. n1 !!=!t. transport calculatons would be accepeng ownersh!p of contaminated pmtect surface watu by pmntWat S 7:Qt. i [ needed to est=sta e=ission rates for land would have to (=;ose addtfonal discharges from new mius except for,,.e nse in detu--*g cover thicknesses. coce:1 and. possibly. lac.. the costs to amount by which precipitation cay

• We beneve no purpose is served by maintain such concol DA has decided exceed evapotranspiration. Any ea. e W

inecducing the uncertal:ty of this exta act to change the proposed fevels which discharged water must sausfy (transport) vanable into tse ca!cdacons det!: on.stta land that need not sat!s!y cencen=aton standarda c=rnspondag for ccver thickness.In addiden. the the standards applicab!e to disposal to use of the best ava!!able p@,. thicksass of de cover required to satsfy anas. demonseated 2:stment technology. We 7 such a standard could be arbitnrily F5aUy. soc:e co=.= enters suggested have mod 5ed our proposal to not a;;iy reduced (to rem in =any cases) by use that we issue standards for the cleanup the requirements et 40 CFR 254.:.:S that e$.l. of fences to resmet access. Such a of any off. site land and build!:gs that are referenced by 40 CFR :54.::1 situatica wou!d be unsacafactory may contain tat!In;s frem licerned mills. ("Cest;n and Operating Require =ents") 4e,,, because it wedd:(t) Require permanent ners was an implica:ca in so=e in crder to avoid the post.closun (for1000 years) conect of access by-ce=ments that establishing the

• tathtub" effect that could otherwise s'
• '~q tnsttutional c:eans. and (2) would not respenstbuity of any;4ny to perform occur in wet locadoes. For = ills

",'n require a caver su!5cient to deter re=edal acnons fer such sites could be locationed in regions of net prect;ttaten, o=3 misuse.In su==ary,if such a standard afected by whethe. or not DA had the Sal standard applies 40 CFR pg is c mparable to an e=ission h=it. it !r. Issued cleanup stan.ards. DA has

t Wa}(:](LIO(G whfeh requires de

.y a needessly com; lex. due to the issued cleanus standards (40 CTR Part closure cover to be less pu=eable ca.n .tv L Introducson of eansport calculadons. !f 192. Subpart 31 for the Federal cleanup anyliner beneath the tat 11sts so the pile f*g not. it a!!crds less protecton by program for off. site talEngs from 24 will not !!!! with water, c pu=1ttag dsperston lastead of control insenve processing sites that was We beIIeve these and the other inst.. -

• L Caanup Standards established under Title ! of (MDLCA.

provisions of the final standards provide e*. Sites for which a license for urarJum or adequate protection for wet anddry g.J ',, Commenters express'ed con!asion thortum production was la effect on or areas. ecosidering difereness in both .gg retarding the purpose and a;;licabihty after January 1.1978, are exc!uded from net preef pita tion and populanon density. 4.r1 of de proposed i 192.::lb)(2).We coverage under Utle L We note. ., Intended this secten to distcrufsh however that the standards (40 CFR C. Cround WaterStendards it es. - "F. disposal areas for tadings piles from Part 192. Subpart B) we have already Th oderland areas on disposal and/or issued for the Tit!s ! pregram would be

1. Summary of the Proposed Standards th Heansed sites cat are suf5ciently-suttable for application to off site Consistent with the standards DA g*.

uncontaminated by tallings as to not contamination from actve rnal!s. Issued under the SWDA for hazardous bU require applicat!on of the disposal ssandards of I 192.3:(41. The definition

8. Wet Sites vs. Dry (Arid) Sites wastes (47 FR 3***4-338. July 2s.1982) the standard for tailings piles has two

? of " disposal ares" and tha laeguage of Several ecmmenters from Virpnf a and parts:(t) A ";rtrnsry* standard est .Mr i 121.::(b) have been revised to clarify !Ulaats espressed concern retarding the requires use of,.it.er desigt.ed to e p' these objecuves. epplicabilleyof the standards to wet prevent migra tion of hazardous a ll. Some commenters objected to the attes.Ls locations where annual substances out of the impoundmer.t. and .g3 f{. ,{*g proposed def!nition. On the assumption aversgo precipitation exceeds annual (2) a " secondary" ground water that it was a c!eentp standard they average evepotranspiration. DA stated protection standard requiring. in effec'. Ai'. argued it is not necessary in clesn up t.1 In the federal Reststas nodce that any hazardous constitutats that ~.. w ]fC. Rt

~ ] g t. Federal Registir / Vol. 48. No.196 / rriday. Octobre 7.'1983 / Rules end Regulations 459u fesk frc:a the hste not be allowed to large impoundments. Other commenten and the environment.ney noted ht degrade 5round water.The primary noted that thicker plastic linen than under the proposed star:dard n.-tuany i 1 standard sp;iies to new portions of new that have been conventional or double all existing mul operations would have er exisd g wr.ste depositories.The liners would be more successfu!. A to eider request exem;nens and seco=dtry standard applies to new and number of commenters argued dat clay alternate standards and/or begin i existing pertier.s. the point of liners may have important advantages remedial acticas. Cc== enters stated 1 compilance being at the edge of the over plastics, but questioned whether that regs!st=g by exceptions is wasteimp 3--t.The speci5c clay liners could satisfy the conditions inapproprints. NRC a=d others further ha:ardous substances and for an exemption. argued that an DA cc c=rence role for i concentrations (La. liackground levels) De rulemaking record does net exe=ptions and a!!a=ative standards that dear.e noncompliance with the establish that either clay or plastic that would be invoked at virtually all secondary standard at each site w!H be liners have unequivocal adva=tages or existing mfHs was ir.onsistent with i established for uranium miH tailings by disadvantages.DA considered these UMTRCNs ferecionre cf any DA NRC and Agreement States.The SWDA technologies when it developed the permittag for tam ='s under UMTRCA rules, however, permit alternate SWDAlinerm L. -.t and decided to or SWDA. conce=tration !imits to be established require a liner that is capable,as a We have made med!$caticas of te when they wi!! not pose " * * ? a matter of engmeerms. or preventi=t rt.le to boilmprove its admmistration-a substantial present or poteotial hazard migration of waste into the grou=d and and c!a.-Jyits objectives. i n to h e mn heahh or & enat" as water.Tae fact that failures ::ay occur EPA considered a wide range of long as the alternate concentration !!mit did not justi.y establishing a less is not exceeded.The rule also aBow . protective standard.Rae~-W that alter =atives before adopt!=g the -hazar:ious constituents" to be such liners may sometimes fa!L DA secc=dary standard.1::!uding a policy I a: tempted from coverage by the pe:mit also issued the seccadary standard to similar to NRC's.When DA issued the i bases o= the same citerfoa.DA limit the conseque ::as cf such fauures. SWCA r:les.it reco;tized 6at many l dete+== the altamate concentration INTRCA requires standards for taill=gs existi=g hazardous waste sites had standard er exemption under the to be co=s stent with the sta=dards EPA operated fer many years wthout liners -CWDA:EPNs cosc=rence would be established unde SWD4s_ We ha" and would not i= mediately satisfy the ) .requsred u= der de proposed standards concluded that commesters did not -' opportunity for exem[tions and secondary standardT*A created the for tailings.. establish that conditions at tam.T altarent ve c=ncentratics standards to r DA g.w ,,n proposiaglhese, impoundmests are sN-tiy de:erent 4 t 4 Y atandards that UMTRCA connsues the from conditions DA cons.dered in avoid remedial actions where such Id ~

• i dual regulatory rystem for ura=fum fuel develeping the SWDA standard to h

,",,, "*,p T, h hazard." l cytle fac!!ities under which DA sets justify deparmres from dat standard. In estabEshing such ex"~ b'dA rule.-- heal & and ~.La i.tal standards and Under these standards, all new waste alternen ='= 'd=-d* ea' NRC estatushes implementing - - - storage areasr(whethernew waste ~ ' ~ - ~ ~ te..hsical. e=;i=eci=g. and :nasagement faciuties or expansie=s of existing pilest Qh$a regulations. Under de SWDA.DA are subject to the pri=ary standard--.the - and ne per:::=s au such regulatory functions liner requirement.If new westes are Matd facto M CFR W) ud ~ ' i ~ for chemi:a! hazardous wastes. added to an exasung pile, however. the. -), Fate" refers to the deseny of j UMTRCA prc==tes n=iform Federal pile must comply with the secondary contaminants misased hem es waste regulatio= of wastas. however. by standard -the hazardous constituent undu sWpeci5c hm,-emical 2 requirefag NRC's regulations for dese concentration standards for health and c a dinons. i wastes !!.s. uranium and therium min envirc= mental protection. Whether for a DA ag ees eat ad=inistradn tauingst to be " comparable to new or existing pue.if the seconcary burnens related to the d=al regr.! story requirements epa establishes for similar standards are found not to be satisSd system s= der UMIRCA should be 8 l ha=ards u= der the SWDA. ~ and subsequent correctin actions fail to mi=imizad. We han concluded that it is i j 2.The Wary Standard achieve co4tane= in a reasonable appropriate under UMTRCA that the / time, the tor n=st cease depositing. regulatory agencies (NRC and i ne primary standerd.40 CFR 264.22n waste on t pila. Agreecient States) perform or approve I can usually be satis 6ed only be using analyses of fate because this involves '~ liner materials (s ach as plastics) that 3.The, Secondary Standard and the primarily tA-8-=' and *f ta-anaem- / eaa retain au westes. Exemptions C, w Roles of EPA andNRC od - -JDA does not beneve. / 1 l pe: nitting use of other liner materials Commenters oo:rectly noted that " 7 sowever, dat it can orshould delegate (such as ciay) that may release water or -virtually an existing tadings piles have f its responsibility for setung health and smal! quantines of other substances or. contammated ground water beyond the environmental protection standards. la some cases. pert =itting no liner may edge of their '= - --' ='= The reason This was the reason for proposing to be granted oc!y if migretion of-is tnat many of these piles were require EPA's conc =rence with hazardous constituents into the ground constructed without liners and before exemptions and alter =ative i weter or su: face waterwould be NRC increased rest.latcry requirements concentradon standards rec== mended preventedinnennitely. In the late IStrs.NRC's recent by regulatory agencies for site-specille i Sorne comme:ters stated that no liner regulatcry pesctice has been to req: ire licenses. Therefore. in deter =ining tecn=oicgyis available which would remedial ac:icas c= a ccst/ bene".t basis situatio:s requirt=g A.. ca. EPA schieve de scal of de primary when unde 3. mnd contamina=! pium will consider de health and i

.t:..dard. i.s preveseng weste from threaten to degrade or have already

=vironment-re'.ated factors in cateri=g the s.ou=d or water.They degraded the potential usefulness of If:S4.92fb) and "S4Jr4thi. / stated that sy=detic !!aers would tear effsite water. 'Ad=inist a-ive 'mr:ia:s can be f=ther u= der ce s rains of tailings and heavy . Many commenters. includ!:; NRC. reduced by permitting the regulatory eqdgmeer.or that they ceu!d not argued that the existing practices for agency to exercise dis =etion, pursuant - rvUeb8y bt properiy installed in such tailings piles suf!!ciently protect health to the requirements of 40 CFR 264.94(bl. 9 z _=

U.: 4S942 Fedtral Regist:r / Vcl. 48 h*c.196 / Friday. October 7.1983 / Rules and Regulatiens iu s ' *? for establishing alternate concentration Administ:st:r. upon promulgation of R CTR ass Point of =m=;;ia..ce j3,. limits, as long as any contamination these standards by EPA. O CTR N Co p h epe-M pe:mitted will te= tis close to de pile Many of the facters dat must be and is within the boundaries of the censidend by NRC in carrying out its e m.w Cestal; s;.::d wa:er ?- 1 Iicensed :ite. Such situaticas can be

esponsibilities for enforems EPNs C:Pl:C":3W:8m idactiSed solely thr: ugh analysis of fate, stasdstds are discussed in de pertinent-4 C7K:54ss Detecne: =:ni:c=;;rm=

L. and we have decided not to require section of the notice proposing these -40 CTR m.99 E Co=;!!a s senit:nr.; c ncu.rence in such cases.His avoids standards (43 FR 19522-31. For '-[' the dual ad= isis:rative process for convenience. we repeat her' the listir g e alternative ec: centration standards of sections of the SWDNs regulations ii. Sebpart C: t under conditions where they certably which relate to the separate EPA and M CFR254.117 P st.ciosire~ cars and use of Z! would be requested and granted We NRC responsibilities. EPNs g p.ny F believe this is appropriate.The responsibilities to establish standards

M.

contammation would be very limited in under Section 206 of UMTRCA are 111.Subpart X: j.@l 4 extent and concentration. can be. carried out thecush adoption of all or e CFA 64.=s Monitorms andinspec. ion g,. . expected to eventuaDy dissipate sher part of the following secnons of the (of L . Lent liners), as applicable i i S. ~ the site is c!osed b ac=o.-dance with our SWDA regulaticas: closure standard, and these sites will be

1. Subpart F:

c CFR mms casun and pos:closum l t

g. ~

under effecuve gevemment junsdicdon eo CFR 234.s2 cmand wetw protec: ion I Tg durmg this period. We have chosen 500 standard Then are several of these SWDA

• i j.

meters as the maximum afstance.for the .30 CrR 254.93 Hazardous constituents regulations that specify monitoring after-h. purpose of this section of the rule'.a. # CyR :04m Concentstion tid *,s closure cf as impound =ent.Monitcring because itli=its ecstamM= tion to gj (nese three secdons are modined and is a compliance activity condneted to U, 3 i , smaH arts. and. ecasidering the size of adopted as 112:.2: a {:;l assure that healts and envirec=eatal y;, disposal areas. will provide as adequate g-ma. gin of dista=e to imple=ent e CTR m Coireme aden ymm standards are being =et.The regula: cry cc :ec=ve ac:fo:pregrams if they are (This sectonis modiSed and adepted as agends msponsfele fu estabusni:3 such reqmreme:ts. includhg post-g 3, 3y l 2 required to prevent offsite closure monitoring cc:sistent wid the. conta mi-= ?f on. !!.Subpart C: SWDA regulations. The period over' k,i ne revised standard for exisd:g piles # CFK:54.tn Cosure perfermance which post.closum =ocitering is b**2 should be != pie =ested in a masse standard mor= ally requimd under SWDA is 30 consistent wid de foHowing sca:ario. (nis secuen is adopted as part of years.The regulatory agency shoc!d O Mcnitar=g weEs should be established i 19:.32(bXin reces=fze, however, dat =c t:r. g of gj at the edge of de ta!!!=gs at the IE. Subpart K. 3 cu=d weter for scorter or to:ger w : a=ce point.nis monitori=g - et.. ~ locaiian is u:ique i:;:oviding thel -- # CIA mrt Duisa and cowanas * - " ' periods =ay be needed for the speciSc sites where taH!=gs are !ccated and. ear!!ast praed:a! =edes cf ecnts-+=n*= "N'******I"'*d*'**"'*"^d"**** ' when apprcpriate. change this =fgrat..g hem the i=pou=dment.Le fThis section is modifed and adopted as requi e=ct. M.;! regulatory agency should deter =ine I I" I*N A di!!! cult censiderados regarding the l g' 'drough f:::da:=ositating and fate NRC's responsibiMdes under c!asure of a taill:gs !=;ou d= antis analysia whetherha:a:dous constit:est UMTRCA are to i=ple=ent EPNs decidhg when dispesal must take place. . levels now and b de hture wiH satisfy standards and to "* *

• insure that the Several factors mu.st be evaluated in this

~415) - the seconda:y sta-d=-d within 500 management of a=y bypro, duct =sterial regard. Including: (1) The likelihood da W meters or any closer site boundary.

• *
• is carried out in sucn a manner as a miu willresu=a operations:(21 the k.

. what corrective actions are appropriata

• *
• conforms to general requirements speciSc condition of the tallhas to correct any o=. site contaminadon, established by the Commission. with th,e i=peusdment. such as de frac: ion of 7,,

and. If some contamination la found to ccacurrenceof the Administrator,whica desig= !ife re=aining. and i acq be not practicable to eli=isate, the are. to the maximum extent practicable, environmental conta unation proble=s. 3c; alternate concentrationli=it at the edge at least c = parable to require =ents such as windblown tailings and the eM [%., . of the tailings to indicatethe mimmm applicable to the pcssession. transfer. likelihood that signiReant quantities of practicable on. site cent==n= tion.If and disposal of similar hazardous tatlings might be spread by floodi=g: and =. environmentalcontammation is a materialregulated by the Administrator (3) the cost of maintaining reiseses frem

knA.

realistic possibility (or fact) beyond 500 under the SWDA. as amended." EPA the inactive pile in conformanca with .- meters (or the site boundary).r-.edial willinsure dat NRC's regulations the regulations which apply to operating 1 "=. =. ~ concentration standards (with EPA concurrence role. Relevant SWDA actions must be taken. oralternative satisfy dese admonitions thrcugh its mills prior to disposal (including i maintaining radon emissions at A!. ARA ! ~' concurrence) are requind. regulaticas are those embedded in levels). Evaluanns these factors may be Unlika EPNs role in SWDA.EPNs Subparts A (except Section 264.31. B. C-difficult and complex. However. -59 role for controlling hazardous materials D. E. F. G. H. and K. Examples of areas although an adequate' drying.out period 4. from uranium tailings under CMTRCA is which NRC must addresa in discharging makes possible long. term isolation of Mi limited to setting s?mndards and does these responsibilities involve functions the tailings and stabiliza:!on of the piles. 4 y. notinclude an implementing under the six sections listed radon emissions will be greeter during h responsibility. Tha t responstbility is s= mediately above which an dis period than before or after disposal vested in the NRC and the States as the !ncorporated into these EPA standards, eor this reason the regulatory agency 1 licensing agencies un'derTitle II of. and the fonowing sections of the SWDA should require. once a pile is allowed to .. ~~ g,f ** .' UERCA(Section 84a(31) and wi!!be agulations: begin to dry out that disposal proceeds ', -h. - carried out throygh regulations set by

1. Subpart F:

In an expeditious fashion. and that new j p the NRC. with the concurrence of the'

1. Cnt:sa.et Rectuuwd programs

!! quids are not introduced to the pile so j ag g% hn

j 'd. Federal Register / VoE 48. No.106 / Fridey,' October 7.1o23 / Rules and. Reg !ations

• . 33 e

$st a new clrying.out period'wi!! be isottred. schedu! fcr a!! sites. It is the regulatory established Its policy t= der de SWDA The perted required for the tallines to agency's respcasibi!!ty, howsver. to d:y cur is highly dependent on local assure that necessary decisicas are (47 FR at ::23. July 2.1932). We do not think dis n:!asaking ferbyproduct rendered in a d=-ty fashion. Acceptable materials is an ap;tepriata f: rum in mates:nk;y. Tais prec!cdes estab;ishing p! ass for c:rrective actions shculd efierwhich to re==siderDA's policies for a sin;de Exed time for disposal of the tc.r.sgs.We have cencluded. hat the a high likelihood of achievir. tazardaus wastas. co=plic::: with da standards. re;u atory agency should axercise the respo:sitetty of c'eter:r.ini:3 when ~ Furder=:re cornedre actices which. 6.Ne52nde.: of Tamags dier: sal should occ=r. by site-on:e bey =. show inadequate promise of So.n, commenters recoe=e ded that achievin specifically.}cdging da advantages and ' the regu!g comp!!an:e should result inDArequire neutmHzatio:cf tailings as story agency's promp:ly det=ments associated with a5 pertinent fa==ra, his responsibility is governed disanowing the addition of caw tamn9 a mesod to protect greusd watu. i by the need to conform to ngulations to a acaccmplying tailings pCe-g,g7,g,ggo,g,eg,=ig,3. eat = ant that would =ake de tailings neither established to satisfy de SWDA.by 40 3.Nc4 ardous Materials ocid ser arntire Whas ta&gs a e 4 G Part 190. a=d by da AI.2.RA Cc==ents were received on two neutral!=ed many hazardocs r requeement on radon w..L n. manars regarding the coctamisation of const:tuents are taken out cf soluticar T NP.C's ciosure regulations must be ground water bynochazardous a:d dereby are less prone to move ce=,.ars,e::. to the maxL :cm extent materials.(Theyinemde ch!: rides. 6 ccsh 6 eard and hto g and wate. p sed Lie.to requirements under the sulfates. =anzanese, asd total dissolved MA cdy dtam gs ShtA.whereis short ekture periods so: ds, a=cu:ig ochers.) At high neuttan=a::en in 1930. discussed in the (90 and 1SC days) are speciSed.Dr . cut of piles win take much ic gar.ying ' concentrations, these c:aterials can FF_S. Idendfied severalissues regarding =ake water u=St for use for cear than nadaE:ae:Rst. sa c. e Ecwent,dispesal should occur healch related reasons. haza.-dous constmuts in tau =gs fo=n pr:mpt'y when pUes an aEowed to dry One view of dese materials held that. compia coc:peu:ds dat maain is out.b additics.some of the older min several of them an mon mobile than < so!um ove wide mages dacpty and - l' sites alteady contain esse tiacy hazardous materials. Thus, they precedi aikaHa ty. Selenium. arsenic a:. molybe} mum-an conseuests cf cc=;ieted(Ened) taEiegs piles.The the ha:ardeus materialin coma =i=sti=g repiatory agency should promptly idemify a:d requi.e disposal of such-d water.Creund water== itori:3 tamaw particulady desc=e in 4 tai":gs. r these =aterials allows the prediction this agard. Adequate control would of future smund water centa=isatica by aqm careful opeadon of the DA and NRCare coordisating their efkrts to insure health and hazardous materials.This detection mtralization process. Second. the costs 9 scheem might therefore provide an sady cf nec=ali:i:3 de taE=gs an hyprocuct ma terials. In par =c=lar, weaedrenmen:a! protection from uranium. warning of g ound wate {__ are working closely with the NRC to and aHow esdycernedre aedoes to be Insta!!ation of a liser.Most of the costis p J taken, thersby effectively preve= ting cue to the seed for a slue,ge storage i assare dat NRC s general reqmre=ents ground contamin= tion by ha:ardous la goes. FinaHy. seuralizatien would not 1 for ground waterproteedsn wi2 he materials. preclude the need for a !!:er. comparable. to the n:ari--a extent DA agrees with this corr =oant. j prs =i:abis. to DA's requirements Analyzing water samples for the by ChfGCA co=sists of geser1Hy Q De structure cf reg:!ation established l underse SWDA for simuar hazardous substances from tailings that an appucable entroc:nental stadrds matenals. expected to be most mcbile in a given estah!!shed by DA and regulaticas to y G,,,,=3 d Carmche Acdons grcu=d water environ =ent is a very ic:plement these by NRC.Fe ns;mposed standard requires usefr.1 feature of site-speci5e me:itoring for speciSc centro! methods.quirements * ] such as corrective actions for grec=d water to be requireme=ts. We note that 1 :st.se neutra!!:stion, are left to the i Initiated within c:a year shar a already cc:tains such a requin=er.t and !=pleme: ting agency, to be used. as noncoc:p!!ance determmation is made. that the implementing regulatory re' quired. to ecsure that DA's general Coatme=tersw. 4 concern thatit agencies may be expected to establish standards are satis 5ed. In view of the may take longer than one year to devise such (or coc: parable) requirements. above. EPA has concluded that a i A second view held that much of the t l . and imp'.e=ent an effective correcdve ground waterin the Western States is standard requir;ng neutrali=ation of action. for bod techmcal and acministr:dre reasons. Based en these aleady conmmnated with tailings is inappropnate. i nonhazardous materials to an extent A Mitr=Ussaar considerat!ons.DA has revised the that it is u= suitable for use.nese are t=e limit torimplementation of Cor vetive actions to eightets (18) primarily shaHow aquifers (or

1. Molybdenum and Uranhun Improperly.

J months. We also note that i 264.99 of uppermost aquifers) which would be the 1.lsted Under SWDA Requirements SWDA regulatic.s require submission first to be contaminated by tallicts Comments wen aceived stating EPA-of corrective action plan within 180 materials.Since these ground waters are improperly proposed listing days. This ;;revisica remains unaffected already contaminated.the argument molybdenum and uranium as ha:ardous by the above revision. goes. there is no need to prevent constituents, because SWDA listing additional cestamisation. procedcas were not!c!!cwed. 05:e c:- ec*ive actices have begun. This cornment wculd requ!.e changing. EPA listad melybdemim and uran!um t).e reichtory :,ency should evaluate the gmund water protection policy EPA as hazar'fous consdruents oc!y!sr e ) 1.dr e!!=ctiveness a :d deter =ir.e has established ~for hazardeus westes purposes of controning uranium and i shathar 4: centface. alter. or under the SWDA rules. UhtT?.CA thonum by;rodu:t estarials. ETA does dis::stirne the actions. Because requires sta dards ist tainn;s to be not intend in this ruiemaking to add corre:t.ve actises are very site spemfic censistest with de SWDA standards. molybdenu= and crasic= to the SWDA sa:h determinations cancot be made epa haa already censidered the views er. der the wr:te uni!n m, pre-established expressed i= bese comments when it list of hazardcus constitue:ts, sc CFR ~ part 081. Appendix VUI.Therefore, the t n

"r. f*" 45944 Tcd:ral Regist r / Vol. 48. No.19e / Friday. October 7.1383 / Rules and Rc;ulations .er.

h.,

pc.d we followedia proper. for each alternative to the besl6 effect contacinating water and land is prese.: Carif! cation of this matter has been estimates for direct raden emissions and cont:nues indefinitely; "M :, added to I is:.3:(a)(:) of de Snal alone. Althcugh this analysis relates Nieme:!re S. Dese are " inst:::ticas: + standard. only one category of cenefit to the entire care" cases and represent situaticas in'

2. Incision of Thorium in the Standards cost of disposal. it provides useful which main:enance is required :o s results to the extent that these cenefits the standard is sat:sned. 31 spec:n,e, s::.

es n: l Several commenters pointed out that are found to be greater than de total raden e=ission limit, but requires. the DEIS aaama > no background cost of control. Second. we perfor=ed a ccatrol of wind blown tailings and ) E suppornas information for the thorium cost-eHectiveness analysis of gam =a radiation.B2 spec 5es raden L standards (Subpart E) and alternadve standards which assigns controllimits of 60 pC/m8s and 33 remn-wmind deleting the thorium diferent sets of arbitrary weights to the spec 5es a pC/m8s: beth reqc:re Q]. standards from this rule. Commenten entire range of benents of tailings control of wmd-blown tailings and -g, also stated that there are signi5 cant disposal.To perform this analysis, we gamma radiation. i diferences in the physical and chemical also developed an index which A temcove C These are *!ang-term 'g{. A-- -% tics and the radiolo between uraamm and thomm.gicalriskquanufin the relative efectiveness of passive control" cases and repnsent i TheT the disposalmethods in providing situatioca in which design is for!cng. A.. '.h. concinded, therfore, the EPA should not designated types of control whics term prctecnon using engineered.. subsetate de samerequssements for thome as foewanmm.as was correspond to the benant catesones. passive methods requiring no continued The cost-efectiveness analysis does not maintenance. The rsdon emission ll=its 2:M propond. address whether the costinceases of examined an:

5

• r

- MEIS contains appropriats.. g.g .h--" of thocium and a review of tighter controls are worth incu=2g. C1 none 2eimplications of the radiological. Rabe by===' iaias the sensitivity of C: So'C/m8' l I }, differe=cas between thorium and the results to different choices of C3 p / 8s

• 9 aramum for thelevelof protection weighdag uhema for 6 vadeus C

• E

, taj provided the cost of control, and th* benents in addition to identifying at @gy feastbility ofimplementation of these what level additional gains in

• E
• s*

st. i standards.Then efects are suficently efecdvuus cart hcoming Disposal methods would be daigned t re

=a!1for EPA to conclude thatthe iccreasingly more expensive. it points to be eEective for1000 years in $is f -[ji IV.RegulatoryImpact Analysis of benefts. Based in part on these Alternetne a nue casa anu=e 6

f case,in addtion to provi6sg control of, &ocu=sstandards should be h$d' ' $'e relative win,d-blown tani=gs and gumm ,e tive t t promulgated as proposed. importance assigned to different types racanon., M JudgmenIt t .afbIn ~ i ts of the a tu a dge 6e " Major" and therefore suciect to tha , standards outweigh de socical costs.

y. *

• reouirement of a RegulatoryImpact considering the long-term contmuing improved control of raden during ~ "" '

Analysts.We bave not c!assi5ed &is train of benents to society from Isolat=g p gs b! rule as maior.since it wi!Lnot cause these hazardous mate-ials from =an and raden emissicalimits exa=ined a : EiM. - sis =if!cutfr la:ge in=emental casts U- *E l= i 22P-above thou which =ust be incurred In-A range of alternativer was evaluated D3 3 pClm s h the absence of these regulations.We for protection of puh!!c health and the D4 6 pC/= s l have prepand a RegulatoryI. pact environment.Dese alternanves D3 2 pC/m s aa Analysis (RIA), however. since there are Inc!nded a range of co= trol methods Disposal me6cds would be designed to. pas'. - wide variations in views on the extent from no control to high levels of control be effective for 1000 years i= this case. of naded - ' controls in & and are su=marized below, ney d'o not in addden to centrolling wind. blown wamumindusey. Include different levels of ground wair tailings and gam =a radiation. Furdet, A.Resefit.CostAnalysis protecdon. since dose requin=ents addinosal control of rados is achieved umst be consistent wfi standards during the operational period at new .i' The RIA exas ter thebenefts and already established under the SWDA. tailings piles through use of staged r.*'il. ] costs of selected alternative disposal However.the length of dme ground disposal. . standards for both existing and new, indicated in the assessment of bene 5ts. alternativa an listed in the k rl'

• tailings piles. As hM earhu.most wateris expected to be protected is The costs and the benefits for these

  ' of the benents of tai!Ings disposal-Brief descriptions of each alternative ac

  ompanying tables. We examined the itE

.5 '===e"===8'd

• ba=*5t ="a foum cou pe dum avoided frem raeon g ;;..best able to estimateis the mzmberof Alteractfre A. This is the "no etnissions for alternative cent.ollevels F k - 4.t.' has cancer deaths avoided by.

' standards" case and represents the from several viewpoints. This range of controlling the redan emanation from reference case represen.'ng conditions if viewpoints included the lengd of time j;. tai!!ngs piles. 51 ace the other benents of nothing is done. The piles would remain over which health effects should be 'h*,..disE--' ,.... tion of misuse. ground hazardous for a long time, taking about related to costs and whether nationwide waterprotection and prevention of S 285.000 years for the radioactivity to population effects should be included surface spread of taht be decay to 10 percent of current levels. wid tegional population ' erects in c. quanti 5ed (let alone monetized). we ne redon emission rate is esti=ated to making benefit. cost comparisons. We e 1 Ntr could notmake a completely numeical be 400 pC/m8s from a typical pile.The conclude that theincremental cost per 4 determi=ation.within the traditional background rate for typical soils is radon death avoided at a 20 pC/m:s ,q,

• beneft-cost analysis framework.

abouti pC/m8.The concentranon of emission limit is a russonable s We first performed a partial benefit. some toxic chemicals in the tailings is expenditure under all scenarios.The cost analysis of siternative disposal hundreds of times background levels in range olincremental costs per desth g,., standards by relating the disposal costs ordinary soils. so that the potential for avoided at this controllevelis frorn )' w.g. ~u.... d*. 41#

...a.. .h - r i Federal Register / Vd. 48. No.196 7 Fridzy Detcher 7.1983 i Ruhs end Reguhtions 45945 .?E .c f -{ h 3 30.000(nationwide health effects - million doDars for aH taillags which latent of the Order. Any comments f.om .( .i esamatedfor:000 years) to $2.5 mihn exist today at licensed sites.If we. CMB to EPA and any EPKresponse to tregionalhealtli effects estimated for include su those tauings which we. - those comments are wailable for public p j ,jF only 100 years). For the next.more ' estimate wiH be generated by the year inspection at the docket cited above o E. i str= gent. level of control. e PC/m%. the 2000, based on recent COE projec:f ons, uncer "Aconsssas " ~ theJotalcost to b uranium mihg.. 9 Regiuomr$emyAaclysis . l inces= ental costs are also higher: emvrito si:mihn per radon daath industry would be from 210 to 540 i

r. voided.nese costs are more nacertain minion douars.nese costs are present -

his regulation would not have .: g J

t. :

and more likely to have been worth estimates (discounted at a to signi$ cant impact on a substantial -;[ naderestt:nated.For the next.! ass ~ percent rate) exmassed on a1983. sia'mber of amau entities, as spechd stringent. level of control. so pCi/m's, constant doiler basis.ne range in cos: under Section.005 cf the Regulatory ...I t b incremental costs are lowee 370.000 la due to dt5erent assumptions on what IIaxibintyAct(RFA).nerefora,we to 31A mihn.Whether or not the acticos are needed to meet requirements have not pe: formed a Regulatory j i

==d!* e for a controllevel!

forground waterprotecdon fornew Flexibluty Analysis.Le basis for this - ;j acceptab$t depends on one's view of this tailings at existing mins. finding is that of the 27 Ilcensed uranium r=ievant factors to be cons 6deredia We estimate thatincreases in the mi!h:. only one quaH5es as a sman entity i i vahang the beneat stream. On a relative prios of uramem could range from 2 to y and this miH ma mot be i-aa--d by the 1} basis, se incremental cost inc:sases by percent.Jnlight of the currently poor standards.Ahnost au the mins are [ g 1-at least a factor of 5 for going from the economic condition of the industry and owned bylarge corporations.nm of - 1 20 pC/m% limit to e pC/m%.and the threat of foreign competition. it is the mius are partly. owned by companies ii increase by only a factor of 2 forgoing undikely that utills win be able to pass that oauld qualify as smaD businesses; ?;

• . rom 60 PC/m% to 20pC/m8 through substanHa! portions of the according to the Small Business jj j s

Th2 results of our cost-effectiveness disposal costs.Using our models and Mmwestion generic.sman entity a analyses, which R r..te difEerent under the assumption of an average deEnition of 500 e=ployees.However.

i weighting =Am== for aH the benants of cash flow, we estimate that if = ins are under the RFA.a small basiness is one jj

. disposal. indicate that the incremantal forced to absorb the entire cost of that is *W --d-dy owned and-

uar

• costs per unit of overen effectrveness.

disposal, no miHs would cease operation' in=frated. Since these thm mills are not yl} 'P are relatively i=.*=mve to the choice of due to these standards. Underthe 7- =cy owned by sman l weignnes of benents.no cour. conditions of no pass.through and!ower b,usinesses, eey a e not sma!! etities. ,j ,,e effecoveness of obtaming in...sased cash-flow one smaH model mill maF benefhs beyond so pC/m% decreases close.However, we estimate that this D.OMNRegulations on the Paperwarir f ?'.1 Reduction Act - ~ monotonicaDyby up to factors of two closure can be avoided with the limited -"3 for each incr===a allevel of control for. au w g schemes exammed. ' price pass-through stated above. His rule does not contain any - 4 B.Ecomenzic imps Analysis These costs and economic!=p' cts are I*I *** U** **U**U " "T"i"'"'" . '.. *d a ^ a wo k ed: nA U.S.C., j-ce f co In the RIA.we developed cases for probably occ=rin de absence of these.,,5 35M. et seq. .enalym=g the industry mde costs and. standards due to other regulatory i.- Tam. I hosn er Acresurrw srancumos ' 'p economicimpacts assocated with require =ents atmost sitas.These I taihngs cisposal methods assumed to be - facinde exisd=g NRC'tr==iny (e ompes ocu.ams) 3 som Tauses Coomstm.To rue Ysaa 2000- - -5 required forcompliance with the-regulatier.s and;.6 sts altamatve sta=dards.F.*ach case estabushed by agreement States, and 1 f

== c - ne ~ represented a di!!arent==hin= tion of regulations required under Secnon 64(a)

=

" " " " " " " " " " " " r' l52 disposal methods appiled to both (2) and (3) of UMTRCA.We did not s==g ='""* [ *a-

M i -

emsting and new taihnes.The esamated estintate the costs imposed by these TT econom.c impacts incinde parand=1 miH otherrequirenants because that would I N-closures (on a modelmin basis) and require a site-specifeinvestigation and g d, a e s uranium price iw We esdmated these requirements have been E. -E the hapacts for each case --~% to continuously diangmg in the past few U mi u g. ci its as m

,.' t a dif!srent Fnmaal scenarios and years (most!y'toward more stri= gent.

E ',2 . E. i d!!Terent assumptions on the ability of I @. sts).Derefore, we could only c, as we ,. me ., i 4 l companies to i-.As ta&gs estimate the apper bounds of cost a=d ~, " "f.3 i discosal costs to their ea=='s.De .w. Jcimpacts imposed by these ' see as T m results from this analysis are used to standards, and could not estimate the = = m

• t'?

4 represent the costs and hupsets of the - ~ 1 4 l ' p oposed standards. - netimpact of the standards. I' Die regulation was submitted to the .'na.=='====-*a***=*'d* W estimate that aa T"-- with the Office of Management and Badget for "."."=7""" '"""* L"O* "f U.Ua""e's ! I standards.if otherregulatory review as required by Executive Order ' CO,,",g,'",,',,,,,,, -,"',*"","",,1".,**. F 5.' reqmrements did not exist, would cost 222si.We believe the analysis .== ecu s. r- - = -

===== w. - tha uranium inilling industry about 280-discussed above complies with the ,ji '.i

l. h i i;

... g( J. . g! l 1 - i l 1 .j m. ,.,w,--.. -...~.,-.-..-.e-, - - - + - ,e.,

- - - - = eeo .e .alg._l =P ~ M i,4SMS Federal Rep.stcr / Vol. 48. No. tP6 / [riday. Oc:c*ber 7. Ic'3 / Rules and Revuhtices $fe i

• q I *'

tam.8 E--80seMTs Car ALTI8ts.arN1 $7AssoMIos PCe Tuu,vos Covet.C4 70 riat YEAR 2M3("! ti, l a.sy. Care. wes-f m-I M* l

o. ore e wa.e l

w Cie.s. s me M posesto N , p,,,g3 i y r'->* 8 l j

y.. l h.c,,.,

!s I J 2 r a ie a a e s ) si aa. w.= i. e. sci i sm i.m = go - f st ' Liu toe, t 4entemma eeO 1.se3 traa !- p t i 33 e. ei t, t en se.a:3m 57e Umm W

=.e n

r a R; Q Less m.y 4 se tow

• ee0

eden, saweecs O

tamm-. I se te*f=* $79 re. ersi t.na3 j ca v., - m-see i ._ q

a cs s

,e e.= = m > i.m i ' so es = ser m >t eco E m T'- 4 et te*='m

==e0 seaurus --. _ _ 1.llU0 .. Q m' ER if no 1 = tea-m= . s70 rem e _ _ > t.2:0 i os voyion y s a te=t== = See - $1 e plECO as + ati i. ie - est > uma _E!.;

o..n v.n e a.-- - e s p.==e

==ais si. u e. ,.,===,==-r==== - .=- . n w s

i.== a-g on

- i.,es. .g .r. ~

Uds standardIs promulgated o' the Ursosam Mu1TaiHags Itadiatica Control Act. purpose of this Subpart..'

l. date agned.

• ef tsrs. Pub.I.95 e04 as amendaf-(c) Controlmeans any acden to

) },[ y. - Use of Sabjects != 40 C2R Part is* 'stabili e. Inhibit future cisuse ci cr ' AirpoEutioncoct:=!.Radiatica reduce emissions or ef".cacts from uranies byproduct:=aterials.

35. I 8

.' protection. Ha=ardous matenals. 5:2 pert D-Stancards for (d) Licenseds!!e means the area } Ai-' Uranium. Environmental prota=ica.. Managemen:of uranaam Byproeuct contained withis the boundary of a S. t Hazanicus consdruents. Groundwatec. Materiais Pursuant to Seetion 84 of t:te locadon under de control cf persens protecnon. Radon. Radium and. its. Atomic Energy Actof,1954,as - {K [:;' ': - DumE sepessoerso'isss. '. '. '.. .J. Amended. generati::g or stori g uraniu= byproduct 2 -

Thonu=

matenals under a license issued I i gist.no 'a ty. pursuant to Secdon 84 of the A=.For ' s-{1'. """D * " *". , ; c, *. . 'This subpartapplies to the is equivalent to " regulated u=it"in purposes of this subpart "11 censed site" "{, ne - M *'- -esor. .- manage =ent of urs=iu= byproduct. Scbpart F of Part 254 of dis chapter. - -. ~ In 40 CFR CzaptarI.Past192is c L... materials under Section 84 of de Ata=ic- - - (e)Disposalsite maans a site selected-

• c._

amended by adding Sobparts D and E as. E=ergy Act of1954 (hef -sicrth pursuant to Secdon 83 of & Act. . follows: - 3 designated"the Act"),as ame=ded. (f) Disposalcrea means the regien da.ing and followingprocessing of within the perimeter of an ic:poucd=ent

2,.

p'v pARTTS2-.NEA!.TH ANDI . uranium ores, and to restoraten of J or pile coatsi-i 3 uranics by product sfJe ENVIRONMDiTA!. PROTECT:CN - cisposal sites fo!!owicg any use'of such materials to which the post-c!csure g STANCARDS pCS URAN UM ANG sites under Section 83(b)(1)(B) of the g,q.drements of i IS*.3:'(b)(1) of dis . THCRR#d MR t.TA!UNGS Act. subpart apply. / '.I.* :'.J.." g 1s2.21 Devireens and crome rweeranoma. (g) Regu/ cay ageneym=s the U.S. ' a! r Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ss2pm* D.--Standards for' References in this subpart to other . (h) Cesareperiod means de period of ". '. Matensas Pursuant to Seccan 84 of the are to &cae parts as codlSed ca January re Management of Uranium Sm.m parts of the Code of Federal Regulances d e hg.ning with th cess.ede wid 8831 I*1883* Atomic Ersorgy Act of 1954,as uranium ore processing operadens and i. ~. .. Assenoed. .. (a) Unless otherwise Indicated in'this ending with completice of requirements i." 1* - $]

j,is..a

...'.. 1 suopart all terms ssallhave the sam

• speedded under a closure plan.

. : meaning as inTitle H of the Uranium (I) Coeurs ple:rmeans the plan " a . tatso Aopiscability. f' M111Tadings Radiation Control Act of. required under 1254.1:2 of dis chapter. yJf; Ddainans and Cnmdernemen. ... 1st31 1978. Subparts A and B of this part, or g ggi,gj# -en =sans **.a* !a id '. _- - F.t. tat.nz Saadania. .g. Parts 190.220.281. and 254 of this ,9,.; M A8 ~ chapter.For the purposes of this on whi t' .g-Dam. 2. -. ,sabpart. the terms " waste. " hazardous quannties of uranium byproduct . J, 3,g,.t E'-Standa'ds'Nr_,'. - waste " and related terms, as used in .?. materials have been placed prict to p .t - _ - % of Thorium 2,7.y Parts 2e0. 2e1. and :54 of this chapter promQadou of this studard. ~ Matertais Pursuoritto Secdon Sal of the 'h*U *PPI ** byproduct matettal T. i Atomic Energy Act of 1354,as. (b) Uraniacr hyproduct materia} g 1s7.32 sanneanna, Amended - means the tadings orwastes produced (a) Standards fer applicotton d= ring

• *:P by the extracuan or concentration cf processing operations andprior to the b, ;.'. "

tar.4e Appileshary.. ~ aranium fmm any are processed endof the cloeure period. (1) S= face !. g tar.41' Prodoises.. .!~ primarily for its source material content. Impo i ests (except for an edsting 1sr.4: subsetete Provimean-Ore bodies depleted by uranium portion) subject to this subpart must be tales E!!ecchDetac * {. ~,.s.e.zi's of the AtomicEnergy

• which remain underground do not such manner as to conform to the solution extraction operatioes and,

designed, constructed, and installed in

• Act et tas4. 4: u.5.C.2czt. as asidad by the '.. coastitute " byproduct material" for the regarements of I 284 2n of dis chepter.

j .g4 . r .a.. ^ ~ g

l' I Federal Rettist:r / Vol. 48. No.196 / Friday. October 7."19c3 / Rules and R*egulatfees /.53C a' except dat at sites where the annual -(4) The regulatory. agency,in.' I ts2.3a Effective date. precipitaten faHing on the impoundment conformity with Federal Radiation Subpart D shall be effec:!ve Dees =ber ~ and any drainage area concibuting Protection Guidance (FR. May 1a.19s0.

6. isal.

~ surface runci!to the impoundment is pgs. 4402-3), shall make every effort to less than the annual avaporatics from.

• maintainradiktion doses from radon

~- the impoundment.1he requirements of emissions from surface impcundmens Tast.a A. ~,' l :s4. 28(a)(:)(iii)(E) referenced in of uranium hyp'roduct matsrials as far e asm [I IIs4.::: do not apply.

• below the Federal Radiation Protec:fon. -

t (2) Uramum byproduct materials sha!!. Guides as is practicable at each Ucensed c-IJ be managed so as to conform to the. site. o, = - - ground water protection standard in. closu)reperiod. At the and of the closure (b Standardsforcpplicc: ~ y_ i 284.92 of this chapter. except that for. the purposes of this subpart period: Subpart E-Standards for m - (1) To the list of hazardous constitients referenced in i 264.23 of (2; pg,p,,,1,,eas shall each comply Management of Thorium syproeuct ~ '~ this chapter are added the chemical with the closure performance standard Matettals Pursuant to Section 84 of the f~ in i 2s4.111 of this chapter with respect Atomic Energy Act of 1954,as l' elements molybdenum and uranium.. to nonradiological hmeds and shall be-Amad*d - designed 8 o provide reasonable ~.. I DI)To the concentretienlimits t i' provided in Table 1 cf i:s4.94 of this assurance of control of radiological-chapter are added the radioactivity. hazards to Es subpart applies e the limits inTable A of Gis subpart. ~ (iii) Detec:fon monitor =g programs Ti)Be eHeedve for one thousand yean. =anagementof therimsWu nquired under i :54.sa to establish the

• • ** '***** *** **** gY
• c3Ig**.

matenals under See: ion 84.of de A:cmic standar:is aquired under 1:54.92 shall ., any case. kr at least 2@ y ars. W A m f W s a n dad. W and foHowing processing of tnern=n be campleted withi= cue (1) year of III) Ibnit releases of raden-::: from ores.and to restcratioh of disposal sites .i. g t -r yromulgaden. (iv) ne regulatory ag'ency'may' urani=n byproditet matenals to the fogowigg.,=yg,,,f,,cg it,,,3c,;. establish al:emate concentratica E=its atmosphe.e so as to not exceed an. Secten 83(b)(1)(B) of the Act.. 3[;t (to be satis *ed at de point of amage

• release rate of:0 picocunes I 1s2.41 Provenions.

%h-specified under l':54.SS) per square meter per second (pCi/m:s). The provisions of Subpart D of this under the criteria of I 254.94(b). (2) The reqatrements of Section part. including li 122.31.192. 2. and p provided $at,afterconsidermg - 192.3:(b)(1) shallnot apply to any-192.33. shall apply.to thorium . uct btacticable corrective a'ctions. these* Portion of a licensed and/or disposal material and: ts are as low as reasonably site which contains a concentration of - - (a) Provisions applicabfetode-- -- + ~' ~~ achievable. and that, fn any case, the radimn-2:8 in land, averaged over areas ele =ent uranium shall also ap;iy to the ' I standards of 1284.94(a) are sausfied at of 100 square meters, which. as a result. element thoriu=c. I all points at a greater distance than 500 of uramum byproduct material does not (b) Provisions applicable to raden-2:2. d) =eters fre= de edge of de disposal exceed the background levelby.more shall also apply to raden-2:0: and ares and/or outside the site bou:idary. - than: (c) Previsions app!! cable to rac=n-P i and ..U) 3 picoeuries per gram (pCi/z).. 2:s shall also apply to rad:nm-::3. - (v) The % - uns and respe=sibilities - averaged over the !!:st is centimeters (d) Operations covered unde-designated in Part :s4 of this chapter as (cm) below the surface, and i 192.2:ta) shall be conductedin s==i.s a those of the Regional Ad:mmstrator" (ii)15 pCI/g. averaged over15 cm manner as to provide reasonabi.e id respecno facility per=tts" shah thicklayers more than is cm below the assurance that the annual dose e w be carried out by the regulatory agency,. surface. equivalent does not exceed 25 -* zms i except that ex =ptions of ha=ardous consutuants under i 264.93 (b) and (c) of,. I tns: M Accon W to the whole body 75 d e=s to the thpoid, and 25 mfHirems to any c::. er i! this chapterand altemate concentration If the ground' water standards. - prgan of any member of the public a.s a limits established under $ 2S4.94 (b) and established under provisions of Sect!ca result of exposures to the plac=sd I (c) of this chapter (except as otherwise 192.32(a)(2) are exceeded at any - discharge of radioaceve matemala. provided in i 192.32(a)(2)(iv)) shan not licensed sata a corrective acdon raden 2:0 and its daughters ex=epted, to i be efac:ive unt! IPA has c w..i program as specfied in 2S4.100 of this the general environment. therein. chapter'shall be putinto operation as i - (3) Uranima byproduct materials shall soon as is practicable, and in no event Iin42 suasotum prwissene. be managed so as to conform to the later than eighteen (18) months after a The regulatory agency may, wid the provisions of: Sadingef exceedance. concurrence of epa. substitate for any.. I "', (a) Part190 of this chapter. provisions of i 192.41 of this st=pa.-c "EnMronmental Radiation Protecdon. ym 4,,i,,n . goi,,y n, r., alternative provisions it deems = ors Standards forNuclearPower red aumaarin s.n neres apprenne=r practical that will provide at least a=. Operaticas* and de***d omr = not m.n.d. equivalent level of protection f::!. an i M=. b) Part 440 of this chapter. -Ore ' - ( 's..ww.han,,iy a e. ar. rf.o.f health and the environment, i .h e., a m. , p.n.d..t.: i.us r.

ng and Dressing Point Source bus.h.n eistooy med in r '

i Category: E!!!uent 1.tmitations e, hoe was=m trr,md se sm nais med tres g m g m em i Guidelines ar.d New Source' anne mwn t Rade= esuu== fr.= cowvis Subpart E shall be effec:ive l.';ei:e=ber P-rfer. ance Standards.Sahpart C. -

• • '*"*'* *h'.3d t* "**d u P." *f d"***e 6.1983.

,,','",,","d**,,'",,',*,*,*,*,".y,*,,"**,*,'"' - pun e m nru.4m e.s i - Urseism. Radium, and Vanadiurn Ores Subcategory. n m a m.. ,h an.sie caos e.se a l l l I -_,, - - -,,, - - -. - - - - -, - ~ - - - c- -y- - -. - -. - - -

m. ~. e saa -O pue m. a 4-1 7:cz This standard is promulgated on the date signed. .,si ' f'3 Q 4macAL, f WW s .. m. - &[ h s .r. - t W /f 1h Ad= h istrator ~ ... William D. S kelsh m .11e.g., '.u. 3.c..,. to ....= e .n. EB,ih'sk g

9. ag ps 51 1::: t.

e d j V..ic. :.;,,u,p30 ' nnIBIT 2 = ta.*.;?.;;i ean;y i

• ik e.'2 r,

e NUCLEAM Mt:UULATORY COMMISSION N ,,. 5, - e wAs,4f NCTCN. D. C. 20555 h. Tg 4! n nn , N \\.s. x i _v. October 5, 1983' Mr. Howard K.' Phillies, Clerk United States' Court of Appeals /' Tenth Circuit ,, 3. ' Office of the Clerk C404 United States Courthouse Denver,. Colorado 80294 Re: KERR-MCGEE NUCLEAR CORPORATION, i IT AL. V. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY Co m SSION, ET AL'.., NO. 80-2043 AND CONSOLIDATED CASIS

Dear Mr. Phillips:

I ~ Inclosed please find an original and'nine copies of- " Respondent Nuclear Regulatory Co-i sien's Report en Recent s Developments" to be filed in the above matte - Please have your office stamp the enclosed copy of this letter indicating -the date of-filing anc return it to.me. at your earlie n convenience. Thank you for ycni cooperation in this =atter. Sincerely, f r A = ,4m Sheldon L. Trubatch Senior Attorney Enclosures as. stated ec: All parties of record d W. g O ? EXHIBIT 3 m. 2 ....r.t m, e..-

• • • .-........e.=..+

,e.s......

_= ~ [I, g e IN'THE UNITED T, CATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR TES TIN"E CIRCUIT ). KIRR-MCGEE NOCLEAR CORPORATION, ) _ET _AL. ) ) Petitioners, .) } v. ) No. 80-2043' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY ) ' AND CONSOLIDATED ) CASES COMMISSION, E AL., ) ) Respondents. ) ~ ~~ ) r-RbSPONDENT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COFce.ISSION'S REPORT ON RECENT DEVELOPMINTS ~ v OnSeptembkr 30, 1983 the snvironmental Protection i ] Agency's (" EPA" ) final uranium mill tailings standards were signed by EPA's Administrator. There app' ears to be a question whether this signing constituted pro:::algation of the standards.- We understand that EPA believes that the AAm4n(strator's signature was the operative act for prnmTgating s'tandards within the October 1,1983 deadline i . established by the amendments to. the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 ("UMTRCA"). The question has been raised, however, whether to be promulgated on. time EPA's standards had to be filed i'n the Office of the Federal Register by the.statuto.m.f deadline in'UMTRCA. The regulations were not filed by the deadline. Thus, there is currdntly some uncertainty regarding EPA's belief thitt the e e I s i ,n.--, e,---

u ..a t .c final'. standards have been premulgated before the statutory deadline passed. The Com4ssion will prc=ctly inform the Court when this uncertainty has been resolved, and then will address the matter of what future proceedings =ay be appropriate in this case. 4 1f Respectfully submitted, ,[ t SEILDON L. TRUBATCH Senior' Attorney U.S. Ndelear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

c..

- - Dated.

' 0ctober'S, 1983 O

e e -o

+

9 e O O .e= e e I i w. O e O e b g

s. e CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing " Respondent Nuclear .m Regulatory Commission's Report on Recent Developments" was served on counsel for all parties by placing a copy in the mail, postage _. prepaid, on October 5, 1983, as follows: Peter J. Nickles Richard A. Meserve Covington & Burling 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20044 t Luke J. Danielson Danielsen & Euser 1738 Pearl Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Gale A. Norton-Mountain States Legal Foundation 1200 Lincoln Street, Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80203 Anthony J. Thompson Charles E. Sliter Robert F. Reklaitis Ea.mel, Park, McCabe & Saunders 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 - Kelly Stansfield s O'Donnell 900 Public Service' Building Denver, Colorado 80202 Alice Hector Southwest Research and Information Center P.O. Box 4524 Albuquerque, N.M. 87106 I - ~...

....w. ~ f *. ~.*} y.

'C s

Weldon L. Merritt Environmental Improvement Division = Health & Enviren= ental Departdent P.O. Box 968 Santa Fe, N.M. 87503 }, Jeff Bingn=r.n, Attorney General I Bruce S. Garber, Asst Attorney General Drawer 1508. Santa Fe, N.M. 87504 Thomas H. Pacheco 4 i Land and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 I Lii GEELDON L. TRUSATCH office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~ Washington, D.C. 20555 October 5, 1983 I i e F *, O f w e w e 4 P l l e 2 en ,n.- .-,.,-m--. ,w,,._,. e...---_.--___n_

'- f,(p2 as:y y jo, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L j WASHINGTON, D. C. 2C555 n '%.... #j 4 October 5, 1983 Mr.'Howard K. Phillips, Clerk United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit Office of the Clerk C404 United States Courthouse Denver, Colorado 80294 Re: KERR-MCGEE NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ET AL. V. UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, ET AL., No. 80-2043 AND CONSOLIDATED CASES

Dear Mr. Phillips:

Enclosed please find an original and nine copies of " Respondent Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Report on Recent Developments" to be filed in the above matter. Please have your office stamp the enclosed copy-of this letter. indicating the date of filing and return it to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, NI A - Sheldon L. Trubatch Senior Attorney Enclosures as stated cc: All parties of record. l I e l l l

j i IN THE UNITED'0TATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE TENTE CIRCUIT ) KERR-MCGEE NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ) E AL- ) ) i Petitioners, ) ) v. ) No. 80-2043 ) AND CONSOLIDATED UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY ) CASES COMMISSION, E M., ) ) Respondents. ) ) RESPONDENT NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S REPORT ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS On ieptember 30, 1983 the Environmental Protection Agency's (" EPA') final uranium mill tailings standards were signed by EPA's Administrator. There appears to be a question whether this signing constituted promulgation of the standards. We understand that EPA believes that the Administrator's signature was the operative act for pronulgating standards within the October 1, 1983 deadline i established by the amendments to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 ("UMTRCA"). The question has been raised, however, whether to be promulgated on time ~ 3 EPA's standards had to be filed in the Office of the Federal Register by the statutory deadline in UMTRCA. The i ~ ' regulations were not filed by the deadline. Thus, there is currently some uncertainty regarding EPA's belief that the 9 v.- -.< e ~ --v-,, - - - -.. .-------n- - - - ,------r- -,e n --...e-- ,,w.

final st'andards have been promulgated before the statutory deadline passed.,The Commission will promptly inform the Court when this uncertainty has been resolved, and then will address the matter of what future proceedings'may be appropriate in this case. ~ T-Respectfully submitted, SHELDON L. TRUBATCH Senior Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dated: October 5, 1983 1 O w e t 6 t .y. -y --.v.._, ..-e-.

s 'M CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i I hereby certify that the foregoing " Respondent Nuclear i Regulatory Commission's Report on Recent Developments" was served on counsel for all parties by placing a copy in the mail, postage _ _. prepaid, on October 5, 1983, as follows: 4 Peter J. Nickles ( Richard A. Meserve Covington & Burling 1 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. j Washington, D.C. 20044 Luke J. Danielson '~ Danielson & Euser 1738 Pearl Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Gale A. Norton i Mountain States Legal Foundation 4 1200 Lincoln Street, Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80203 1 Anthony J. Thompson Charles E. Sliter Robert F. Reklaitis Hamel, Park, McCabe & Saunders 888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 Kelly Stansfield & O'Donnell 900 Public S.ervice Building Denver, Colorado 80202 Alice Hector Southwest Research and Information Center P.O. Box 4524 Albuquerque, N.M. 87106 l e Go .---_,_.--y ~.m. m ....c_,- -..m_.- --r,.~-.__,,-.___.m, --r..-_.-

1 Weldon L. Merritt Environmental Improvement Division Health & Environmental Department P.O. Box 968 Santa Fe, N.M. 87503 Jeff Bingaman, Attorney General Bruce S. Garber, Asst Attorney General Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, N.M. d7504 Thomas H. Pacheco Land and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C.' 20530 1 11 GHELDON L. TRUBATCH Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 October 5,1983 1 - e i t' 2 _._.-_____,-.m

5 8 9 4 l J at D w e + 9

• -= -

ATTACHMENT E e e h I e F G l ' ' ~ ' t'

i , j a nee 8 0, UNITED STATES . ~y e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION tg jj WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 v..ov/ Mr. Howard K. Phillips, Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Room C-404, U.S. Courthouse 1929 Stout Street Denver, CO 80294

SUBJECT:

KERR-McGEE NUCLEAR CORPORATION V. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, NO. 80-2043 and CONS. CASES

Dear Mr. Phillips:

On October 3,1983 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Com-mission") informed the court that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (" EPA") had signed environ-mental standards for uranium mill tailings but that there was a question-whether-that-signing constituted promulgation of the standards by the~ statutory deadline. Af ter' fttrther consideration, the Commission believes that EPA's final environmental standards were promulgated by the statutory deadline. Accordingly, the Commission believes that those standards are valid and will initiate a rulemaking proceed-ing to modify its Uranium Mill' Licensing Requirements to be consistent with those environmental standards. Sincerely, Sheldon L. Trubatch Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel e V ,,}}