m environmental protection agency · 2015. 9. 16. · terrence a. mclaughlin, chief, environmental...

FridayFebruary 21, 1986

Part VI

EnvironmentalProtection Agency40 CFR Part 61National Emissions Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants; Standard forRadon-222 Emissions From LicensedUranium Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule andAnnouncement of Public Hearing

m

m m

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1986 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 61

[AD-FRL 2961-81

National Emissions Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants; Standard forRadon-222 Emissions From LicensedUranium Mill Tailings

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).ACTION: Proposed Rule andAnnouncement of Public Hearing.

SUMMARY: This proposed standardconsiders alternative work practicestandards for limiting radon-222emissions from tailings at licenseduranium mill sites. EPA is taking theaction because EPA has preliminarilyconcluded that radon-222 emissionsfrom uranium mill tailings causesignificant risks to nearby people and topopulations. The proposed rule isintended to reduce these risks to levelsthat are protective of public health withan ample margin of safety.DATES: A public hearing on the proposedrule will be held on February 27 and 28,1986, in Denver, Colorado. Interestedparties are invited to testify. Requests toparticipate in the hearing should bemade in writing by February 25, 1986.Written statements and comments onthe proposed rule may be entered intothe record by March 31, 1986.ADDRESSES: The hearing will be held atthe Holiday Inn, 1450 Glenerm Place,Denver, Colorado, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00p.m. each day. Requests to participate inthe hearing should be made in writing toRichard J. Guimond, Director, Criteriaand Standards Division (ANR-460), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC 20460. All requestsshould include an outline of the topics tobe addressed in the opening statementsand the names of the participants.Presentations should be limited to 30minutes. Please indicate a preferred datefor testimony.

Comments should be submitted to:Central Docket Section (LE-131), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC 20460, Attention:Docket No. A-79-11. The rulemakingdocket, containing information used byEPA in developing the proposedstandard, is available for publicinspection between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00p.m., Monday through Friday at EPA'sCentral Docket Section, West TowerLobby, Gallery One, Waterside Mall,401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC20460. A reasonable fee may be chargedfor copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Terrence A. McLaughlin, Chief,Environmental Standards Branch,Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-460), Office of Radiation Programs, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, DC 20460, (703) 557-8977.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Supporting DocumentsA draft background information

document and a draft economic analysishave been prepared and are titledrespectively "Draft BackgroundInformation Document-ProposedStandard for Radon-222 Emissions fromLicensed Uranium Mill Tailings" (EPA520/1-85-001) and "Draft EconomicAnalysis-Proposed Standard forRadon-222 Emissions from LicensedUranium Mill Tailings" (EPA 520/1-86-002). Single copies of these documentsmay be obtained from the ProgramManagement Office (ANR-458), Officeof Radiation Programs, EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DC20460; (703) 557-9351.

The documents contain projections ofradon-222 emissions and the resultingrisks to nearby individuals and topopulations due to the operation of theuranium milling industry, a descriptionof radon-222 control technology andassociated costs, and an environmentaland economic analysis of the effects ofalternative control strategies on theindustry.

II. History of Standards DevelopmentThe Agency's standards for Nuclear

Power Operation (40 CFR Part 190)issued under the Atomic Energy Act (42FR 2858, January 13, 1977) limit the totalindividual radiation dose caused byemissions from facilities that make upthe uranium fuel cyle, including licenseduranium mills. However, when 40 CFRPart 190 was promulgated, considerableuncertainty existed about the publichealth impact of existing levels ofradon-222 in the air, as well asuncertainty about the best method formanagement of new man-made soursesof radon-222. EPA then exempted radon-222 from control since the problemsassociated with emissions of thisradionuclide were sufficiently differentfrom those of other radioactivematerials associated with the fuel cycleto warrant separate consideration.

Control of radon-222 emissions fromuranium mill tailings was laterconsidered under the Uranium MillTailings Radiation Control Act(UMTRCA). EPA standards (50 CFR Part192, subparts D and E) issued for themanagement of tailings at locations thatare licensed by the NRC or the Statesunder Title II of the UMTRCA, limit

radon-222 emissions from mill tailingspiles after closure of the facility (40 FR45926; October 7, 1983). Included inthese standards was an Agencycommitment to issue an Advance Noticeof Proposed Rulemaking under section112 of the Clean Air Act to considercontrolling radon-222 emissions fromuranium mill tailings piles during theoperational period of a mill. In 1977,Congress amended the Clean Air Act(the Act) to address airborne emissionsof radioactive materials. TheAdministrator of EPA, after seekingpublic comment (44 FR 21704), April 11,1979), then listed radionuclides ashazardous air pollutants under section112 of the Act (44 FR 76738, December27, 1979). EPA has promulgated emissionstandards for Department of Energy(DOE) facilities, NRC-licensed facilitiesand non-DOE Federal facilities,elemental phosphorus plants andunderground uranium mines (50 FR 5190,February 6, 1985 and 50 FR 15386, April17, 1985).

On October 31, 1984, EPA issued anAdvance Notice of ProposedRulemaking to inform interested partiesthat the Agency was considering issuingstandards under the Clean Air Act tolimit radon-222 emissions from licenseduranium mill tailings. (49 FR 43916,October 31, 1984). Subsequently, EPAentered into an agreement with theSierra Club to promulgate suchstandards by May 1, 1988. Thisagreement was formalized as a Courtstipulation by the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District ofCalifornia (Civil No. C-84--0656 WHO).

III. Comments Received in Response tothe Advance Notice of ProposedRulemaking

In its advance Notice of ProposedRulemaking, the Agency requestedinformation on:

(1) Radon-222 emissions from uraniummills;

(2) Applicable control options andstrategies, including work practices;

(3) Feasibility and cost of controloptions and strategies;

(4) Local and regional impacts due toemissions of radon-222 for licenseduranium mills;

(5) Methods of determinirgcompliance with a work practice type ofstandard; and

(6) Effect on the industry if controlsare required.

Only the American Mining Congressresponded to this request. It made threemajor points in its comments: (1) TheAgency has no jurisdiction to issuestandards that are effective within theboundaries of mill site locations or that

6382


impose management, design orengineering requirements; (2) radon-222emissions from tailings piles during theoperational phase of uranium mills donot pose a significant risk of harm topublic health or the environment; and (3)even if the potential risks fromuncontrolled tailings could becharacterized as significant, currentNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)standards and practices provide morethan adequate protection to the publichealth and the environment.

The Agency considered thesecomments in the preparation of thisproposed standard. In response to eachpoint the Agency found:

(1) The 1977 Clean Air Actamendments give EPA and the Statesauthority to regulate all airborneemissions of radioactive materials,including those occurring within siteboundaries;

(2) The lifetime risk of lung cancer to aperson living near a uranium mill isabout one chance in one hundred and,even if a person lives near a pile only afew years, the risk is still significant;and

(3) Existing NRC standards andpractices allow a lifetime risk of greaterthan one in one hundred to individualsliving near the largest tailings piles. Thenumber of fatal cancers each year to theU.S. population from all existinglicensed piles is estimated to bebetween 3 and 6, depending on thecondition of piles. Consequently, theAgency does not consider existingstandards and practices to besufficiently protective of public health.

The Agency preliminarily concludedthat development of the standard shouldcontinue.

IV. Basic Terms Used in this Notice

Definitions of basic terms used in thisnotice are given below:

1. Radon-222-An inert radioactivegas.

2. Radon-222 decay products-Theseven principal radionuclides that areproduced as radon-222 decays tononradioactive lead. Radon-222 short-lived decay products means the fourradionuclides produced as radon-222decays to lead-210.

3. Mill tailings-The waste resultingfrom conventional milling of uraniumore. Tailings are classified as eithersands or slimes depending on size.Processing one ton of ore producesapproximately one ton of tailings.

4. Tailings pile-The on-site wasteimpoundment in which tailings aredeposited.

5. Sihgle cell disposal-A method oftailings management which uses a largeimpoundment designed to contain all

tailings generated during the lifetime ofthe mill. At the end of the mill life theimpoundment is actively dewatered bymeans of pumps or allowed to air dryand then is immediately reclaimed.

6. Phased disposal--A method oftailings management and disposal whichuses a series of small impoundments.Tailings are pumped to oneimpoundment until it is filled and thenpumped to the next impoundment. Thefilled impoundment is dried, or allowedto dry naturally, and then immediatelyreclaimed.

7. Continuous disposal-A method oftailings management and disposal inwhich tailings are dewatered bymechanical methods soon aftergeneration. The dried tailings are thenplaced in trenches or other disposalareas and immediately reclaimed.

8. Covered or reclaimed-Disposal oftailings to specifications required by 40CFR Part 199 (UMTRCA].

9. ALARA-A practice in radiationprotection which encourages thatradionuclide emissions be kept "as lowas reasonably achievable."V. Summary of Proposed Standard

Based on currently availableinformation, EPA has determined that itis not feasible to prescribe an emissionstandard for radon-222 emissions fromuranium mills. Therefore, the Agency isproposing a work practice standard tolimit radon-222 emissions from licenseduranium mills.

EPA is presenting three workpractices, including improved methodsof disposal for newly generated tailings,various timing requirements for -use ofthese improved methods, and interimcovers. The improved methods ofdisposal are a large single pile withimmediate closure, phased disposal, andcontinuous disposal involvingdewatering and covering of tailings. Inaddition EPA is considering alternativesallowing new tailings to be added toexisting piles over a range of times,including 5 years, 10 years, 15 years andan indefinite period into the future.Costs and benefits are presented insupporting documents to assist thosewho wish to comment on a specificalternative. Multiple alternatives areproposed for public comment due to theAgency's desire to maximizeinformation received through the publiccomment period before making a finaldecision.

In thosecases where the Agencywould ban the addition of tailings to apile at a specified future date, theAgency would provide an exemption forexisting tailings impoundments whichare lined. However, any exemption mustbe approved by the Administrator.

These lined impoundments are capable,in many cases, of maintaining a watercover over most of the tailings to controlradon-222 emissions.

VI. Rationale for the Proposed Standard

A. Industry Description

Uranium milling involves the handlingof large quantities of ore containinguranium and its decay products. Theconcentration of uranium and its decayproducts is about one thousand timesgreater in ore than in other rocks andsoils. Conventional uranium millinginvolves the recovery of the uraniumcontent of the ore by mechanical andchemical processes that generate wastetailings. The ore is first crushed,blended, and ground to the proper sizefor the leaching process which extractsuranium. Several leaching process: s areused, including acid, alkaline, and acombination of the two. After uranium isleached from the ore, it is concentratedfrom the leachate through ion exchangeor solvent extraction. The concentrateduranium is then stripped or extractedfrom the concentrating medium,precipitated, dried, and packaged. Thedepleted ore, in the form of tailings, ispumped to a tailings pile as a slurrymixed with water.

Since ore generally contains less than0.5 percent uranium by weight, every tonof ore processed results in almost a tonof tailings. The tailings contain virtuallyall of the uranium decay productspresent in the ore, including thorium-230and radium-226, which decay to radon-222. Previous risk analyses have shownthat radon-222 is the most significantradionuclide released to air at uraniummills, and that the tailings pile is themost significant source of radon-222.[See draft Background InformationDocument-Proposed Standard forRadon-222 Emissions from LicensedUranium Mill Tailings (EPA 52011-86-001).]

The 26 licensed uranium mills in theUnited States are located in Colorado,New Mexico, South Dakota. Texas.Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Inaddition, four mills have been licensedbut not built, and one unconventionalmill has had its license suspended. Themilling industry is depressed due to adecline in the demand for uranium andcompetition from low-cost foreignsources. Three mills are activelyprocessing ore; 17 are on standby andcould process ore in the future if marketconditions improve, six are beingdecommissioned and will no longerprocess ore. The 20 licensed mills thatare actively processing ore or are onstandby were considered in the

6383


analyses reported in the supportingdocumentation. These 20 mills haveabout 35 tailings impoundmentsassociated with them.

Past milling activities have generatedabout 175 million tons of tailings.Production at conventional mills peakedin 1980, when 21 mills recovered morethan 17 thousand tons of uranium andgenerated more than 14 million tons oftailings. The industry is currentlyoperating at less than 10 percent ofcapacity due to the depressed market.At this level of production, theindustry is recovering about 1.8thousand tons of uranium andgenerating about 1.4 million tors ofnew tailings annually. At full capacity,the industry could generateapproximately 14 million tons oftailings a year.

B. Estimates of Exposure and Risk

Exposure estimates are based solelyon radon-222 emissions from the tailingspiles since emissions and risks fromother parts of a uranium mill are smallin comparison. Radon-222 emission rateestimates are based on the radium-226concentration in the tailings using therelationships: One picocurie ofradon-222 per square meter-second toone picocurie of radium-226 per gramof tailings. It is assumed that theradium-226 is evenly mixedthroughout the tailings and thatradon-222 is emitted from all exposedsurfaces of tailings. The radium-226content of the tailings is derived fromthe relationship: one-tenth ofone percent of uranium in ore equals280 picocuries of radium-226 per gramof ore.

Standard meteorological transportmodels are used to estimate radon-222concentrations in air at variousdistances from the piles. Exposure toradon-222 decay products is thenestimated from the radon-222concentration in air. The final riskestimates are a product of the units ofradon-222 decay product exposurelevels and a risk factor that relates riskto a single unit of exposure.

Two summary measures are ofparticular interest: "nearby individualrisk" and "total population impact." Theformer refers to the estimated increasedlifetime risk to individuals who spendtheir entire life at the point wherepredicted concentrations of the pollutantare highest. Nearby individual risk isexpressed as a probability; a risk of onein one thousand, for example, meansthat a person spending his lifetime at thepoint of maximum exposure has anestimated increased risk of developing afatal cancer of one in one thousand.Estimates of nearby individual risk are

upper bound estimates and must beinterpreted cautiously.

The second measure, "totalpopulation impact," considers peopleexposed at all concentrations, low aswell as high, and it considers peopleexposed throughout the United States,as appropriate. It is expressed in termsof annual number of cancer cases, andprovides a measure of the overall impacton public health. A total populationimpact of 0.5 fatal cancer cases per year,for example, means that emissions ofthe specific pollutant are expected tocause one case of cancer every twoyears. At distance from a source, risksto specific persons are extremely small,but considering the total populationexposed, the sums of these risks may besignificant.

The two estimates together provide abetter description of the magnitude anddistribution of risk in a community thaneither number alone. "Nearby individualrisk" tells us the highest risk, but nothow many people may bear that risk."Total population impact" describes theoverall health impact on the entireexposed population, but not how muchrisk the most exposed persons may bear.Two sources of radionuclide or chemicalemissions could have similar populationimpacts, but very different maximumindividual risks, or vice versa. Bothestimates are important and are used inmaking risk management decisions. Therisk estimates should not be viewed asprecise estimates of likely healthdamage, but rather as a generalindication of a reasonable upper-limitestimate.

EPA's analysis of risks due to radon-222 emissions from existing uraniumtailings piles concluded:

(a) Lung cancer caused by the short-lived decay products of radon-222 is thedominant radiation hazard from tailings.Estimated effects of gamma radiationand of long-lived decay products ofradon-222 are less significant, althoughhigh gamma radiation exposures maysometimes occur.

(b) Individuals living near anuncontrolled tailings pile are subject tohigh risks due to radon-222 emitted fromtailings. Radon-222 contained in theoutside air enters homes and otherstructures built near the mill throughdoors and windows, as well as otheropenings in the structure. The resultingradon-222 decay products tend toconcentrate indoors, thus exposing theoccupants to potentially harmful levelsof these radionuclides. It is estimatedthat persons living continuously next tosome tailing sites can have lifetime lungcancer risks as high as about one in ahundred due to the radon-222 emissionsfrom the tailings.

(c) Based on models for the risk to all

exposed populations (local, regional,and national), about one to three fatalcancers per year are estimated fromemissions of radon-222 from tailings atthe 20 mill sites being considered here, ifno controls are present. If the tailings atall sites were to dry out completely, thisdetriment is estimated to be about twoto six fatal cancers per year.Approximately one-half of these deathsare estimated to occur within 80kilometers of the tailings piles.

There is substantial uncertainty inthese estimates because of uncertaintiesin the emission rates of radon-222 fromtailings sites, the exposure people willreceive from it decay products, and fromincomplete knowledge of the effects onpeople due to these exposures. Thevalues presented here represent bestestimates based on current knowledge.Additionally, these estimates are basedon current (1980 and 1983) pile sizes andgeographical distributions ofpopulations. As populations increase inthe future, the estimated impacts will belarger.

Several factors suggest that actualexposure levels to nearby individualswill be lower than those estimated. Inestimating exposure, the most exposedindividuals are hypothetically subjectedto the maximum annual averageconcentration of the emissions for 24hours every day for 70 years (roughly alifetime). This does not consider, forinstance, the fact that most people intheir daily routines move in and out ofthe specific areas where the radon-222decay product concentrations are thehighest or that tailings may be reclaimedbefore a lifetime exposure occurs.

Much more is known about the risksfrom exposure to radiation thanexposure to most chemicals. While thereis uncertainty in risk estimates fromassessments of chemical emissions andradionuclide emissions, there is likely tobe much less uncertainty in estimates ofrisk from radionuclide emissionsbecause of the extensive data base onhuman exposure to radiation. Therefore,a risk estimate of one in one thousandresulting from exposure to radionuclidesis likely to be more accurate than thesame estimate for chemical exposures.Estimates of risk from radionuclides aremuch less likely to exaggeratehypothetical maximum risks than areestimates made for chemical exposure.

C. Control Technology

Water is very effective in controllingradon-222 emissions. It is estimated thatsaturated tailings and tailings coveredwith a thin layer of water emit only twopercent of the radon-222 emitted by drytailings. Deeper water covers (greater

m

I

6384


than about 1 meter) effectively eliminateradon-222 emissions.

For most existing piles, radon-222control using a water cover is not viablebecause keeping the tailings saturatedor covered with water causes seriousground water contamination at mostlocations. Also, some tailings piles'retention dikes were not designed toretain water since they lack clay cores.However, if impermeable liners areplaced on the sides and bottom oftailings impoundments, water cannoteasily escape. Thus, ground waterresources are protected and the pile cansuccessfully be covered with water toprevent emissions of radon-222. Onlyfive of the 35 existing impoundmentsconsidered in developing this rule havesynthetic liners.

Earthen covers are also effective incontrolling radon-222 if they are thickenough. It is estimated that one thirdmeter of earthen material reducesradon-222 emissions by about 20percent, one meter by about 65 percentand three meters about 95 percent, onthe average. The amount of moistureheld in this material determines itseffectiveness in delaying the movementof radon-222. Since clay material (finesize particles) retain moisture muchbetter than sandy materials (larger sizeparticles), clays are more effective incontrolling radon-222 than sands. Themajor problem with earthen coverswhen used on an interim basis is thattheir retention value is negated onceadditional tailings are placed on top ofthem, as frequently occurs at anoperating mill. However, earthen coversshould be effective on an interim basiswhen covering those portions of a pilethat will not be used for extendedperiods.

Federal standards for disposal(reclamation) of tailings piles (40 CFRPart 192 and 10 CFR Part 40) require thatdisposal methods be designed so thatradon-222 emissions do not exceed-20pico-curies per square meter-secondaveraged over the entire tailings area forone thousand years. The Agencyexpects this to be accomplished in mostcases by grading the tailings to gentleslopes, placing a cover of about three"meters of earthen material over thetailings, and fortifying this cover withrock (rip rap) and gravel to last a longtime. In a few existing cases, additionalstabilization may be needed to assurelong-term protection against flooding.The licensing agencies (NRC and theStates) will approve disposal plans andthe timing of reclamation. Currently, nolicensed tailings impoundments havebeen disposed of.

The Agency reviewed various optionsfor controlling radon-222 emissions from

currently licensed piles. It wasconcluded that two options wereavailable. First, earthen covers could beplaced over dry tailings beaches andover embankments constructed of sandtailings. Dry beaches typically cover 60%of the total tailings area during theoperating phase of a mill and may coversignificantly larger areas during periodsof extended shutdown. Twelve tailingspiles constructed early in the industry'shistory have sand tailings embankmentswhich, if covered with earth, wouldhave reduced radon-222 emissions.Water covers were judged impracticalunless the pile has an impermeableliner. Where there is a liner, piles tendto remain saturated with water andradon-222 emissions are greatlyreduced.

Second, use of existing tailings pilescould be terminated. The pile wouldthen be disposed of expeditiously,following dry out. Newly generatedtailings would then be managed by oneof the three methods discussed below. Itis estimated that radon-222 emissionsare about 7,000 curies per year for anaverage site under typical operatingconditions. Emissions would increase toabout 12,000 curies per year when thepiles dry out. Disposal of the tailings toFederal standards would reduceemissions to about 440 curies per year.Different termination times wereconsidered as options in estimating theresidual risk.

The Agency reviewed technologiesthat would reduce radon-222 emissionsduring the operating phase of a newuranium mill tailings pile. Threemethods were selected for analysis:single cell impoundment; phaseddisposal; and continuous disposal.

Single cell impoundment

Using this method of disposal, a largeimpoundment would be constructed ofearthen materials with clay cores andan impermeable liner. Thisimpoundment would cover about 120acres and have capacity to store alltailing generated during the life of themill. [Previous NRC and EPA analysesassume the lifetime of the averageuranium mill to be 15 years.] This designpermits the impoundment to retainwater without contaminating groundwater.

During the operating life of the mill,the tailings would be covered withwater thus minimizing radon-222emissions. During the five-year dry outperiod necessary to allow finalreclamation, the Agency estimatesradon-222 emissions would graduallyincrease until they were similar toemissions from existing dry piles. Oncethe pile. was dry, disposal to Federal

standards would be performedimmediately.

The Agency estimates radon-222emissions would be about 800 curies peryear during the operational period of themill and about 2,500 curies per yearduring the dry out period for a total of'24,000 curies over the lifetime of the pile.If the tailings were not covered,emissions would be about 4,200 curiesper year. Emissions would be about 300curies per year, once the pile has beendisposed of in accordance with existingFederal standards.

Phased Disposal

In this disposal'scheme, series ofsmall impoundments would beconstructed over the lifetime of the mill.Each small impoundment would beconstructed with clay-core earthen dikesor in an excavated pit and would havean impermeable liner. As eachimpoundment filled it would be driedout and covered with earthen materialsimmediately. The total area of allimpoundments would be about 120 acresat the end of the average mill's lifetime.The design permits the use of a watercover over all tailings without the risk ofcontaminating ground water. It alsogreatly reduces the amount ofunreclaimed tailings at the end of mill'slifetime because only one or two smallimpoundments would still requireclosure.

Radon-222 emissions are estimated toaverage about 700 curies per year overthe lifetime (15 years use and 5 yearsdry out) of the mill; total emissionswould be about 14,000 curies of radon-222.

Continuous Disposal

This disposal method calls for tailingsto be dewatered as they are generated,placed in pits or on pads, and coveredwith about three meters of earthenmaterials on a continuous basis.Disposal pits or pads would beconstructed with impermeable liners.This method would rely on the thickearthen cover to reduce radon-222emissions, rather than water as in theprevious two methods. The total areahaving covered tailings at the end of amill's lifetime would be limited to about120 acres. Since this method does notrely on water to reduce emissions ofradon-222, the potential for groundwater contamination is negligible.

The Agency estimates that only aboutten acres of tailings would not becovered at any given time duringoperations. This method would have anaverage emission rate of about 500curies per year.for a total lifetimeemission of about 10,000 curies.

6385

6386 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1986 / Proposed Rules

D. The Proposed StandardEPA is proposing a number of work

practice standards for radon-222emissions from licensed uranium milltailings. Based on currently availableinformation, EPA believes that it is notfeasible to prescribe an emissionsstandard since most of the radon-222emitted by a uranium mill comes mainlyfrom the surface of mill tailings piles. Atypical pile may be hundreds of acres inarea and emissions from its surfacecannot be controlled through aconveyance designed and constructed toemit or capture radon-2Z2. EPA,however, requests commentsspecifically on whether an emissionstandard or standards for some tailingspiles is appropriate in somecircumstances. For instance, is anemission standard appropriate in thecase of existing piles that are onstandby for long periods?

The Agency has drafted a proposedrule that encompasses a range ofalternative work practices consideredfeasible to control radon-222 emissionsfrom uranium mill tailings.

The proposed rule displays, in theformat of a rule, the alternativesconsidered. The Agency believes thatthe best way to explain thesealternatives is to pose a series ofquestions with alternative answersfollowed by a discussion.

1. New Tailings ManagementShould uranium mill tailings

generated in the future be manageddifferently than in the past? If so, whatimproved methods should be used? Thethree alternatives considered are thesingle cell impoundment, phaseddisposal, and continuous disposal.

It is clear that past practices usingunlined impoundments with dams madeof mill tailings will not be allowed in thefuture due to other existing EPA andNRC requirements. However, thereremains considerable licensed capacityin existing impoundments, many ofwhich are unlined. Some have damsmade of tailings.

The Agency estimated the costs andbenefits of the alternatives based on ascenario that describes how the industrymight operate over the next 100 years. Abase situation was used for comparisonthat assumed single large impoundmentswere constructed, operated for 15 years,dried for 5 years and then remained onstandby uncovered for an additional 40years. The number of new single largeimpoundments required was estimatedusing a scenario for yellowcake demandbased primarily on the Department ofEnergy's low growth projections for thenuclear power industry with reasonable

assumptions made as to the amount ofuranium required to be produced byuranium mills located in the UnitedStates. These estimates cannot be madeprecise due to the numerousassumptions necessary to make distantfuture projections.

The continuous method of disposal isthe alternative that avoids the most fatalcancers (about 276) in the industryscenario selected, but is the mostuncertain alternative because it hasnever been carried out in practice.However, this method has been licensedfor use by State regulatory agencies andNRC requires its consideration. Theassumption that 10 acres of dry tailingsare exposed at one time, the efficiencyand reliability of dewatering equipmentand the costs of this alternative arequite uncertain. However, thisalternative may be the most protectiveof groundwater, which is a very seriousproblem with some existing systems.

Phased disposal is intermediate inavoiding fatal cancers (about 268),appears to be the least costly and is thelatest technology licensed by the NRCand Agreement States that has beenused by industry. The Agencyconsidered a series of 20-acreimpoundments for analysis which issomewhat smaller than those phasedsystems now in use.

The single large impoundment is theleast protective of public health (about251 fatal cancers avoided) and betweenthe others in cost. The practicality ofmaintaining the integrity of the liner in alarge pond for 15 years (as opposed to 3years for each cell of the phaseddisposal) is uncertain. Failures in linersfor both this alternative method and thephased disposal alternative (to a lesserdegree) can lead to groundwatercontamination and costly measures tomitigate such groundwatercontamination. Such costs were notconsidered quantitatively in theAgency's analyses.2. Timing of New Tailings Managementby an Improved Method

Should mill operators be required tobegin managing new tailings by animproved method? As alternatives EPAis considering requiring mill operators tomanage new tailings with improvedmethods immediately, in five years (athree-year requirement plus a potentialwaiver of compliance for two additionalyears), in ten years (eight plus two), infifteen years (thirteen plus two) and nospecific timing requirement (existingpiles would be closed at the end of theiruseful life).

The Agency estimated the costs andbenefits of the timing alternatives withrespect to existing piles by comparing

them to a base situaton which assumedthat existing piles reached the end oftheir useful lives over the next 15 years,then dried out over.the next 5 years andremained unreclaimed for the next 40years. This condition is consideredconservative, but could arise if existingmills and, thus their tailings. are kept onstandby on and off for extended periodsas has happened in the past, sinceoperators have a strong economicincentive to delay reclamation.

The costs attributed to an alternativeare due to actions being required soonerin time than might ordinarily haveoccurred (i.e., the opportunity value ofthe money required to cover piles thatmight not have been required for about40 years later), the costs of replacementimpoundments for the capacity of theexisting piles that could no longer beused, and costs of interim covers whenconsidered. Costs of remedial actionsrequired when groundwater iscontaminated were not estimated.

As might be expected, as the time formanaging the new tailings by a newmethod is extended, less public healthprotection is afforded. If an immediatechange to a new method is made, thenabout 177 fatal cancers would beaverted. In a five-year time frame about158 would be avoided, about 140 for 10years, and about 121 for 15 years. Also,the present value costs decrease as thetime is extended. The costs involve acomponent for replacing lost pilecapacity (to the extent that capacity isprojected to be used before reclamation)and a component for disposal of thetailings pile earlier than would normallybe done.

There may also be importantimplications for groundwatercontamination. Management of tailingspiles under improved methods willrequire opening piles at new locations.What are the groundwater implicationsof this requirement? What are otherenvironmental implications of openingother tailings piles? At the same time,the Agency is -concerned thatgroundwater contamination could beexacerbated by any extended use of theexisting unlined tailings impoundments.It is estimated that 95% of thegroundwater contamination is caused byseepage of water used to pump tailingsto the pile during mill operation. Atevery mill tailings site studied forpotential groundwater contaminationsuch contamination has been found. Theearliest practical time to design, licenseby the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionand build a new lined tailingsimpoundment is approximately threeyears and perhaps longer if extensiveNEPA review is required. We


specifically request comment on thegroundwater issue.

3. Interim Earth Cover of ExistingTailings

Should an immediate interim earthcover be used to decrease radon-222emissions at existing piles until finalcover at disposal? If so, how much? TheAgency has considered: (1) One-thirdmeter of earth cover on the top, drypcrtions of existing piles with norequirement to shift to new tailingsmanagement techniques; (2) one meterof earth cover on the top, dry areas andsides (if sides are constructed oftailings) of existing piles with norequirement to shift to new tailingsmanagement techniques; and (3) interimcover of one meter as in (2) above butwith newly generated tailings beingmanaged by a new technology in fifteenyears, ten years, five years, and atpromulgation.

The Agency estimated the costs andbenefits of these alternatives withrespect to existing piles in a fashionequivalent to the anlysis for the requireduse of new management methods fornewly generated tailings. For thosecases where no requirement forimproved management methods for newtailings was specified, a five-year dryout and forty years lag to disposal wereassumed. The assumed time lag todisposal may be a conservativeassumption, but there are some very oldpiles in existence and there isconsiderable economic incentive forowners to delay final disposal. Ifcapacity remains for an existing pile, anowner avoids economic loss byremaining open. Also, postponing finalclosure costs reduces present valuecosts of closure.

The number of fatal cancers avoidedfor each of the alternatives increase inOrder of the alternative given; fromabout 30 deaths avoided for one-thirdmeter of earth cover, about 114 avoideddeaths for one meter of cover, about 159avoided deaths for one meter of coverand requirement of 15 years to improvemanagement methods, about 166avoided deaths for one meter and a 10-year requirement, about 174 avoided

deaths for one meter and a 5-yearrequirement, and about 182 avoideddeaths for one meter and immediatenew tailings management by improvedm~thods.

As would be expected, costs rise with,but not in proportion to, the rise in fatalcancers avoided. The alternatives withan application of a single interim covercan be more costly than those without. Ifthe pile is used to manage new tailings,then multiple interim covers arerequired, raising costs and loweringbenefits.

A number of concerns anduncertainties arise from theconsideration of interim earth cover.The interim cover would have to beimmediate to be effective, coverage ofsteep tailings dams may not bepractical, there may be extensivemaintenance requirements, and suchrequirements may prove difficult toimplement and enforce.

The use of an interim cover impliesthat all existing piles would have toplace earth cover immediately (perhapswith a waiver of compliance for twoyears). The immediate cost to industry is$34 to $110 million, the value of whichwould probably be lost when finaldisposal takes place. This is becausemost piles should be recontoured beforefinal cover is added. In addition, interimcovers on the tops of piles could be lostif the pile is reactivated:

The use of interim cover for control ofradon-222 has not been practiced. Thereare concerns regarding the difficulties ofcovering steep tailings slopes and theexpected need for frequent inspectionand repair of erosions caused by windand water.

EPA would have to enter into anagreement with the NRC in order toavoid inconsistent duplication ofrequirements for NRC licensees. NRCrequires cover for different purposessuch as prevention of wind blowntailings to meet 40 CFR Part 190 orheavier earth covers to compress thetailings and thus dewater. Also, for NRCAgreement States that license such sitesunder their own laws, the Agency wouldhave to decide if the States' rules werecompatible with EPA's. Thus, there is

the potential for unnecessaryduplication of regulation and inspection.For the final rule, EPA will estimate theeffects of current NRC requirements.

4. Selection of a Final RuleI The Agency has arrayed the

alternatives in Tables I and 2, in whichis presented the basic information onbenefits and costs for each alternativeand combinations of alternatives.Additional details may be found in theeconomic assessment produced duringthe development of this rule. In selectingthe final rule, EPA will consider risks,feasibility, and cost.

Additionally, an extremely importantconsideration is the risk to individualsliving near tailings piles. A surveyconducted in 1983 found a small numberof occupied dwellings within twokilometers of existing tailings piles. Forcurrent conditions of partial water coveron the piles, individual maximumlifetime risks are estimated to be as highas one in one hundred with the potentialto two in one hundred if the piles wereallowed to completely dry out. If interimcovers were placed on the dry portionsof the piles as they currently exist, aone-third meter cover could reduce themaximum individual risks to about eightin one thousand; a one meter cover toabout four in one thousand; and finalcover of approximately three meters toabout five in ten thousand. Only a fewpiles actually expose people to suchrisks. Most tailing piles are in remoteareas.

Another consideration is the impact ofthis rule on groundwater protection.Contamination of groundwater has beendiscovered at sites that have beeninvestigated for contamination and thereis no reason to believe that such •contamination does not exist at alltailing piles that are unlined.Radionuclides, selenium arsenic, sulfate,molybdenum, and other contaminantshave been found. Remedial actions havebeen taken at some sites by drillingwells to interdict groundwater and pumpit back to the pond. In one case citywater was provided to about 200 peopleand the use of wells stopped.BILUING CODE 8560-50-M

6387

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 35 / Friday, February 21, 1986 / Proposed Ruleg

Table I

Benefits and Costs ofAlternative Work Practices - Interim Cover Not Included (a)

PopulationBenefit

OtherBenefits

Deaths Time SpanAvoided (years)

Present Valueof Costs($ Million)

52 10Discount Discount

Annualized Cost($ Million)

5% 102Discount Discount

Work practices forexisting piles -Cease placingtailings on piles at:

15 years

10 years

5 years

Promulgation

Work practicesfor new piles:

Single large pile

Phased disposal

Continuous disposal

(a) Numbers are given in three significant figures for comparison purposes only.

Table 2

Benefits and Costs ofAlternative Work Practices - Interim Cover Included (a)

PopulationBene fit

OtherBenefits

Deaths Time SpanAvoided (years)

Present Valueof Costs

($ Million)

52 10%Discount Discount

Annualized Cost($ Million)

5% 102Discount Discount

Work practices forexisting piles -Cease placingtailings on piles at:

Not specified -

1 foot cover

Not specified -1 meter cover

15 years - 1 metercover



Promulgation -I meter cover

30 60

114 -

159 60 Increasingprotectionof ground

166 60 waterdependingon time.

174 60

182 60

2.8

9.0

17.8

20.1 25.6

(a) Interim covers placed as soon

for comparison purposes only.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

as possible. Numbers are given in three significant figures

6388

Alternative

Increasingprotectionof groundwaterdependingon time.

No largetailingspile toreclaim.

179

280

424

608

25.6

22.2

94.8

89

170

311

538

3.4

-13.4

8.3

Alternative


E. Request for Comments

EPA is particularly interested inreceiving comments andrecommendations on the followingissues:

1. Is it feasible to dewater (or dry)tailings, as would be required under thecontinuous disposal alternative? Whatpercent of water by volume can beremoved from the associated waste? Tothe Agency's knowledge, dewateringlarge volumes of uranium mill wastes isunproven technology. The Agencyspecifically requests information relatedto tailings dewatering from pilot plants,laboratory experiments, or otherfeasibility studies.

2. What is the minimum period for thedesign, licensing, and construction ofnew tailings management processes?The Agency considers a three-yearperiod reasonable, based on two yearsfor the design and licensing phase andone year for construction. The views ofthe regulatory agencies (NRC and theStates) are of interest to'the Agency,particularly the experience gained inprevious licensing actions.

3. Is the size limit of 20 acres for thephased disposal method reasonable?This limit was selected from previousNRC and EPA analyses. The assessmentpresented in the BackgroundInformation Document indicates thislimit provides significant radon-222control without a cost penalty. TheAgency is particularly interested in anystudies that support a differentmaximum size for this phased disposalmethod.

4. Are current levels or potentialincreases in levels of radionuclide orother contaminants in ground wateraround uranium mills sufficientlyelevated to warrant immediatetermination of pumping tailings intounlined impoundments? Ground watercontamination is occurring at all tailingssites where groundwater has beenevaluated and the existing impoundmenthas no liner. The most effective long-term solution to this problem, other thanpumping and treatment, is to stopplacing tailings into unlinedimpoundments. The Agency requestsmore information on concentrationlevels of hazardous constituents inground water around uranium mills andthe potential public health andenvironmental effects. Also, informationis needed on the impact on the uraniumindustry if this action is taken.

5. Are there any unidentified publichealth or environmental problems withevaporation ponds? Both the phaseddisposal and continuous disposalmethods require evaporation ponds todispose of excess water. The Agency

believes most existing evaporationponds have synthetic liners to preventinfiltration of hazardous constituentsinto ground water. However, some ofthese ponds may contain significantquantities of tailings, which are likely tobe carried over from the impoundmentarea. The Agency seeks any informationthat may be pertinent to the potentialpublic health and environmental impactfrom evaporation ponds at uraniummilling sites. •

6. Are interim controls for tailingspiles a practical alternative? Inparticular, can dikes made of tailingssands be successfully covered on aninterim basis? If so, are theremaintenance problems? If not, whatrisks would result if they remainuncovered? Also, are dry tailings beachareas frequently flooded with additionaltailings, or does a dry beach tend toremain dry until the end ofimpoundment design capacity? TheAgency believes a variety of tailingsmanagement practices are conducted, sothat in some cases interim controlswould be effective for only a few yearswhile in other cases interim controlswould be effective until closure. Anyinformation that pertains to theeffectiveness of interim controls orengineering and maintenance problemsis requested.

7. EPA's assessment of the costs andbenefits associated with the enactmentof UMTRCA assumed that existing pileswould be promptly closed and coveredwhen they are no longer of use.However, for the analysis of the costsand benefits of the various regulatoryalternatives for licensed uranium milltailings piles, the Agency has alteredthis assumption to reflect a 40 year lagbefore existing piles, once they are nolonger used, are covered with the finalcovers prescribed by UMTRCA.Furthermore, the Agency has assumed inits analysis of the various regulatoryoptions for licensed uranium milltailings piles that if these regulationsprevent further use of existing tailingspiles, those existing piles will bepromptly covered with the final coversprescribed by UMTRCA. Theopportunity costs and the reductions inhealth effects which result from themoving forward in time of theapplication of UMTRCA final covers aresignificantly large contributors to thecosts and benefits, respectively, of thevarious regulatory options. Thereforethe specific assumptions madeconcerning the likely promptness ofUMTRCA compliance under variousregulatory scenarios may stronglyinfluence the estimated costs andbenefits of the regulatory options.

The Agency seeks comments on twoquestions: Is it reasonable to assume, asa reference case condition, a 40 year lagbefore compliance with UMTRCA oncean existing pile is no longer used? Is itreasonable to assume that once existingpiles are no longer used they will bepromptly covered with the final coversprescribed by UMTRCA?

8. Tables 1 and 2 show the costs andrisk reductions associated with ceasingto place tailings in existing piles atdifferent points in time. The riskreductions of the alternative options forceasing to place tailings on existing pilesreflect the assumption that the earlierthe date that new tailings cannot beadded to existing piles, the earlier those'piles will be covered under currentUMTRCA requirements. The costs ofthese alternatives are attributable to (1)the increased cost of final cover undercurrent UMTRCA requirements causedby incurring these costs sooner, (2] thecost of pile capacity replacement wherecurrent useable capacity was eliminatedby the work practice requirements, and(3) the cost of interim covers whereconsidered. EPA invites comment on theextent to which the timing of UMTRCArequirements should be factored into thedecision-making associated with thechoice of a control option.

VII. Miscellaneous

A. Docket

The docket is an organized andcomplete file of all informationconsidered by EPA in the developmentof this proposed standard. The docketallows interested persons to identifyand locate documents so they canparticipate effectively in the rulemakingprocess. It also serves as the record forjudicial review.

Transcripts of the hearings, all writtenstatements, the Agency's response tocomments, and other relevantdocuments will be placed in the docketand will be available for inspection andcopying during normal working hours.

B. Executive Order 12291

Under Executive Order 12291, issuedFebruary 17, 1981, EPA must judgewhether a rule is a "major rule" and,therefore, subject to the requirement of aRegulatory Impact Analysis. EPA hasdetermined that this rule is not a majorrule as defined in section 1(b) of theExecutive Order because the annualeffect of the rule on the economy will beless than $100 million per year. Also, itwill not cause a major increase in costsor prices for any geographic region.Further, it will not result in anysignificant adverse effects on

6389


competition, employment, investment,productivity, innovation, or the ability ofUnited States enterprises to competewith foreign enterprises in domestic orforeign markets. Under Executive Order12291, this proposed rule was submittedto the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) for review. Any comments fromOMB to EPA and any response to thosecomments are included in the docket.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The proposed rule does not imposeany reporting or recordkeepingrequirements on operators or unraniummills tailings piles. (However, if theinterim control alternative is selected,there will be reporting andrecordkeeping requirements and FormSF 83 will be submitted to OMB.)

D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Section 603 of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, requiresEPA to prepare and make available forcomment an "initial regulatoryflexibility analysis" in connection withany rulemaking for which there is astatutory requirement that a generalnotice of proposed rulemaking bepublished.

However, section 604(b) of theRegulatory Flexibility Act provides thatsection 603 "shall not apply to anyproposed. . . rule if the head of theAgency certifies that the rule will not, ifpromulgated have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities."

EPA believes this proposed rule willhave little or no impact on smallbusiness because the total costsassociated with the standards will haverelatively little impact on the total costof producing uranium oxide.

For the preceding reasons, I certifythat this rule, if promulgated, will nothave a significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61

Air pollution control, Hazardousmaterials, Asbestos, Beryllium, Mercury,Vinyl chloride, Benzene, Arsenic andRadionuclides.

Dated: February 14, 1985.Lee M. Thomas,Administrator.

PART 61-[AMENDED]

It is proposed to amend Part 61 ofChapter I of title 40 of the Code ofFederal Regulations as follows:

.1. The authority Citation for Part 61continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 112 and 301(a) Clean AirAct, as amended [42 U.S.C. 7412, 7601 (a)].

2. By adding a new Subpart W to readas follows:

Subpart W-National EmissionStandard for Radon-222 EmissionsFrom Licensed Uranium Mill Tailings

Sec.61.250 Applicability.61.251 Definitions.61.252 Standard.61.253 Recordkeeping and reporting

requirements.61.254 Source reporting and waiver

requests.

Subpart W-National EmissionStandard for Radon-222 EmissionsFrom Licensed Uranium Mill Tailings

§ 61.250 Applicability.This subpart applies to licensed sites

that manage uranium byproductmaterials during and following theprocessing of uranium ores, commonlyreferred to as uranium mills and theirassociated tailings.

§ 61.251 Definitions.As used in this subpart, all terms not

defined here shall have the meaninggiven them in the Clean Air Act orSubpart A of Part 61. The followingterms shall have the following specificmeanings given below:

(a) "Covered" or "reclaimed" meansto cover with earth sufficient to meetFederal standards for the managementof uranium byproduct materialspursuant to section 84 of the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended.

(b) "Dewatered" means to remove thewater from recently produced tailings bymechanical or evaporative methodssuch that the remaining water does notexceed 30 percent by weight.

(c) "Licensed site" means the areacontained within the boundary of alocation under the control of personsgenerating or storing uranium byproductmaterials under a license issuedpursuant to section 89 of the AtomicEnergy Act of 1954, as amended. Thisincludes such areas licensed byAgreement States, i.e., those Stateswhich have entered into an effectiveagreement under section 274(b) of theAtomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

( (d) "Liner" means the material placedin the bottom and sides of a wastemanagement area. This material mustmeet the requirements of 40 CFR Parts264.220, 264.221, 264.300, and 264.301.

(e) "New tailings" means uraniumtailings produced after the promulgationof this rule.

(f) "Single cell impoundment" means amethod of tailings management whichuses a large lined impoundmentdesigned to contain all tailingsgenerated during the lifetime of the mill.

At the end of the mill life theimpoundment is actively dewatered bymeans of pumps or allowed to air dry,and immediately reclaimed.

(g) "Phased disposal" means a methodof tailings management and disposalwhich uses lined impoundments, nogreater than 20 acres in area, which arefilled, dried, and immediately reclaimed -to Federal standards in series.

(h) "Continuous disposal" means amethod of tailings management anddisposal in which tailings are dewateredby mechanical methods immediatelyafter generation. The dried tailings arethen placed in trenches or other disposalareas and immediately reclaimed.

(i) "Uranium byproduct material" or"tailings" means the wastes producedby the extraction or concentration ofuranium from any ore processedprimarily for its source material content.Ore bodies depleted by uraniumsolution extractions and which remainunderground do not constitutebyproduct material for the purposes ofthis subpart.

§ 61.252 Standard.[Note.-A final rule will be made by

selecting one of the various alternatives orcombination of alternatives placed in each ofthe brackets.]

(a) Owners or operators of licenseduranium mill sites subject to this subpartshall process new tailings by [single cellimpoundment; phased disposal;continuous disposal]. An exception isgranted to new tailings added to existingpiles as allowed by paragraph (b) of thissection.

Alternative 1

[(b)(1) Owners or operators oflicensed uranium mill sites subject tothis subpart shall not add new tailingsto any existing tailings pile after theeffective date of this paragraph. Forexisting tailings piles, owners oroperators shall begin negotiating areclamation plan and an agreement toimplement the plan with the NuclearRegulatory Commission within one yearof the effective date of this subsection.The effective date of this subsectionshall be [at promulgation of this rule;three (3) years from May 1, 1986; eight(8) years from May 1, 1986; thirteen (13)years from May 1, 1986; or indefinite].

[(2) An exception with regard tocontinued use of an existing tailings pilemay be granted upon petition to theAdministrator provided the existingtailings pile has an Impermeable liner.]

Alternative 2

[(b)(1] Owners or operators oflicensed uranium mill sites subject to

C390


this subpart shall not add new tailingsto any existing tailings pile after theeffective date of this paragraph. Forexisting tailings piles, owners oroperators shall begin negotiating areclamation plan and an agreement toimplement the plan with the NuclearRegulatory Commission within one yearof the effective date of this subsection.The effective date of this subsectionshall be [at promulgation of this rule,three (3) years from May 1, 1986; eight(8) years from May 1, 1986; thirteen (13)years from May 1, 1986; or indefinite].

[(2) An exception with regard tocontinued use of an existing tailings pilemay be granted upon petition to theAdministrator provided the existingtailings pile has an impermeable liner.]

(3) Owners or operators of existingtailings piles shall add an interim coverby May 1, 1987. This interim cover shallconsist of no less than [one-third (0.33)meter of earth on all dry areas on top ofthe pile; one (1) meter of earth on all dryareas on top of the pile and on the sidesof the piles where sides are constructedof tailings sands.]

§ 61.253 Recordkeeping and reportingrequirements.

There are no recordkeeping orreporting requirements associated with§ § 61.252(a) and 61.252(b), alternative 1,of this subpart. Section 61.252 (b),alternative 2, has the following

recordkeeping and reportingrequirements:

(a) Records of the application ofinterim covers required under § 61.252(b), alternative 2 shall be maintained asdescribed below:

(1) A current map of each tailings pileshowing the locations of dry, wet, andponded areas and the interim covers.

(2) A record of interim cover appliedincluding depth, approximate moisturecontent, date of application, location ofapplication.

(3) A record of past (last 5 years)operations that placed tailings on thepile.

(4) A record of inspections made toinsure the integrity of the interim cover.

(b) An owner or operator of anuranium mill site subject to therequirements of § 61.252(b), alternative 2shall submit a certification to theAdministrator by May 1, 1987, andannually thereafter. This certificationshall be based on informationconcerning the calendar yearimmediately preceding. The certificationshall consist of a statement that theinterim cover requirements of§ 61.252(b), alternative 2, have beenimplemented.

If a waiver of compliance is granted,this certification is to be submitted on adate scheduled by the Administrator.

§ 61.254 Source reporting and waiverrequests.

(a) Source reporting is not requiredsince the information is a matter ofpublic record for licensed uranium millsites.

(b) An owner or operator of anexisting uranium mill site (i.e., existingsource) unable to operate in compliancewith the standard prescribed under thissubpart may request a waiver ofcompliance with such standard for aperiod not exceeding two years from theeffective date. Any request shall be inwriting and shall include the followinginformation:

(1) The reasons for requesting thewaiver:

(2) A schedule for achievingcompliance with this subpart, includingthe steps which will be taken to comeinto compliance and a date by whicheach step will be achieved; and

(3) Interim emission control steps thatwill be taken during the waiver period.

(c) Changes in the informationprovided under paragraph (a) of thissection shall be provided to theAdministrator within 30 days after suchchange, except that if changes will resultfrom modification of the source, asdefined in § 61.02, the provisions of§ § 61.07 and 61.08 are applicable.

[FR Doc. 86-3834 Filed 2-20-86; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6580-50-M

6391