• December-.15, .1989
-Part, II
40 CFR-Part 61
Hazardous Air Pollutants; • .Radiqhucfides;
Final Rut© and Notice-.of Reconsideration
-------
, ' -j. , • ^ .n , IH; ', i - a * i
51654 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
IFRL-3B57-4]
BIN 2060-AC47
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Afr Pollutants;
Radlonuclldes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA].
ACTION: Final rule and notice of
reconsideration.
SUMMARY: This final rule announces the
Administrator's final decisions on
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
under section 112 of the Clean Air Act
•for emissions of radionuclides from the
following source categories: DOE
Facilities, Licensees of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and Non-DOE
Federal Facilities, Uranium Fuel Cycle
Facilities, Elemental Phosphorus Plants,
Coal-Fired Boilers, High-level Nuclear
Waste Disposal Facilities,
Phosphogypsum Stacks, Underground
and Surface Uranium Mines, and the
operation and disposal of Uranium Mill
Tailings Piles. The final rule also
responds to the major public comments
on the March 7,1989 proposed decisions
for these categories {54 FR 9612). EPA is
conducting this rulemaking pursuant to a
voluntary remand and a schedule issued
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit which requires final action by
October 31,1989. In addition EPA is
granting a reconsideration of the
standards of 40 CFR part 61, subpart I
concerning emissions from facilities
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, with respect to the issues.
of duplicative regulation and possible
effects on medical treatment.
DATES: Effective Date: December 15,
1989. Subpart I is stayed until March 15,
1990. Comments on subpart I may be
submitted on or before February 13,
1990. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the
regulations is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of December
15,1989. Under section 307(bKl) of the
CAA, judicial review of decisions under
section 112 is available only by filing a
petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days of
today's publication of these rules. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements that are the subject of
today's notice may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings
brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.
_ ADDRESS: Comments on subpart I should
be submitted (in duplicate if possible)
to: Central Docket (A-130),
Environmental Protection Agency, Attn:
Docket No. A-79-11, Washington, DC
20460.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James M Hardin, Environmental
Standards Branch, Criteria and
Standards Division (ANR-460), Office of
Radiation Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington DC
20460, [202) 475-9610.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Motion for Reconsideration
For any party who wishes to present
new information to EPA, regarding the .
appropriateness of these rules, a Petition
for Reconsideration may be filed under
section 307(d)(7)(B).
Docket
The rulemaking record is contained in
Docket No. A-79-11 and contains
information considered in determining
health effects, listing radionuclides as
hazardous air pollutants, and setting
standards. It also contains all comments
received from the public during the
comment period. This docket is
available for public inspection and
copying between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
on weekdays. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
A single copy of the Background
Information Document and Economic
Assessment (which, combined, form the
final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)) have been placed in the docket.
Other documents available include: A
Guide for Determining Compliance with
the Clean Air Act Standards for
Radionuclide Emissions from NRC-
Licensed and Non-DOE Federal
Facilities (October 1989); Procedures
Approved for Demonstrating
Compliance with 40 CFR part 61,
subpart I (October 1989); and User's
Guide for the COMPLY Code (October
1989). Copies of these documents may
be obtained by writing to: Director,
Criteria and Standards Division (ANR-
460), Office of Radiation Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460.
Table of Contents
I. Definitions
A. Terms
B. Acronyms
U. EPA NESHAPs Policy
A. Background "
B. General NESHAP Policy Considerations
1. Selection of Approach
2. Format of Standards
III. Historical Background of Radionuclide
NESHAPs
IV. Characterization of the Risks of Radi-
ation
A. Sources of Radiation
B. Health Effects of Radiation
C. Risk Assessment ;
1. Risk Measures Considered in
NESHAP Policy ?*•
2. Uncertainties in Risk Measures -j .
3. Methodology
4. Technology Availability and Plant
Closure Considerations
D. Effective Dose Equivalent
E. Science Advisory Board Review
V. Decision to List Under Section 112
VI. Discussion of Source Categories
A. Department of Energy Facilities
B. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Li-
censed and Non-DOE Federal Facilities
C. Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities
D. Elemental Phosphorus Plants
E. Coal-Fired Utility and Industrial Boilers
F. High-level Nuclear Waste Disposal Fa-
cilities
G. Radon Releases From Department of
Energy Facilities
H. Phosphogypsum Stacks
I. Underground Uranium Mines
J. Surface Uranium Mines ':
K. Operating Uranium Mill Tailings Piles
L. Disposal of Uranium Tailings Piles
VII. Responses to Legal and Policy Com-
ments
VIII. Miscellaneous
I. Definitions
A. Terms
Activity—The amount of a radioactive
material. K is a measure of the
transformation rate of radioactive nuclei
at a given time. The customary unit of
activity, the curie, is 3.7X1010 nuclear
transformations per second.
Agreement State—Any state with
which the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission or the former Atomic
Energy Commission has entered into an
effective agreement under subsection
274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act. •
Annualized Cost—A stream of annual
payments for a determined time period,
equal in value to a one-time payment
based on a selected rate of interest.
By-product Material—Any radioactive
material (except source material and
special nuclear material) yielded in or
made radioactive by exposure to the
radiation incident to the process of
producing or utilizing special nuclear
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No.. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989/Rules and Regulations,., 5165JS
mxmw^viimaum^i^)x&s*s*mfg!vm^^ i»iin. iiL iit''ii"L •u|i||'i'Nr.iri'ii-firiiiiii|^~ir*-Vifi';Tit-inii'iV 'itii«' r'r'Tiii'ir'MiiiiHMiii'l/ ^i^tJi'n" ii-J i\ fiy ' *~*u,w»\""liiiTW^'^i 'i.'t'iii' r'yl'tn'•. v wiii»|u ^Bi'iiiiiiii''!
material and wastes from the processing
of ores primarily to recover their source
material content.
Dose Standard—A regulatory
standard that requires a regulated
facility to limit its emissions to the level
necessary to ensure that no individual
receives an effective dose equivalent
greater than the specified level.
Effective Dose Equivalent fEDEJ—The
sum of the risk-weighted organ dose
equivalent commitments. The effective
dose equivalent has the same risk (for"
the model used to derive the weighting ,
factors) as a uniform dose equivalent to
all organs and tissues. For the purposes_,
of these standards, "effective dose
equivalent", means the result of the-
calculation used to determine the dose
equivalent to the whole body, by taking
into account the specific organs
receiving radiation, the dose each organ ..'
receives, and the risk per unit dose to
that organ. A description of the
weighting factors used in the calculation ,
of the EDE is described in detail in the
International. Commission on
Radiological Protection's Publication
No. 26, Pergamon Press, New York
(1982).' '••:••
Flux standard—A regulatory standard
that limits the amount of radon that can
emanate per square meter of regulated
material per second, averaged over a
single source.
Half-Life—The time in which half the
atoms of a particular radioactive
substapce transform, or decay, tq
another nuclear form.
Incidence-^-This term denotes the
predicted number of fatal cancers in a
population from exposure to a pollutant.
Other health effects (non-fatal cancers,
genetic, and developmental) are noted
separately; . •.
Maximum Individual Risk—The
maximum additional cancer risk of a
person due to exposure to an emitted
pollutant for a 70-year lifetime.
Pathway—A way thatTadionuclides
might contaminate the environment or ;
reach people, e.g. air, water, food.:
Radionuclide—A type of atom which
spontaneously undergoes radioactive
decay.
Source Term—The amount of,
radioactive material emitted to the :
atmosphere from a source, either
estimated, measured or reported, that is
used in the risk assessment.
Transuranic—-An element with an
atomic number greater than the atomic
number of uranium.
Uranium Fuel Cycle—The operations
of milling of uranium ore, chemical
conversion of uranium, isotopic -. • •
enrichment of uranium, fabrication of
uranium fuel, generation of electricity by
a light-water-cooled nuclear power plant
using uranium fuel, and reprocessing of
spent uranium fuel, to the extent that
these directly support the production of
electrical power for public use utilizing -
nuclear energy. This definition does not
include mining operations, operations at
waste disposal sites, transportation of
any radioactive material in support of
these operations, or the reuse of
recovered non-uranium special nuclear
and by-product materials from the cycle.
B. Acronyms-
AEA—Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. ,
2011 efseq. '••:•.•'.'.
ALARA—As low as reasonably
achievable : >I
AMC—American Mining Congress
ANPR—Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking .
CAA—The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401
etseq.
CAP-88—Clean Air Act Assessment
Package-1988 •
CERCIAr-Gomprehensive
Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act, 42
-U.S.C. 9601 etseq."
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
BID—The Background Information
Document prepared in support of this
rulemaking (Volume 1 of the EIS)V
EIA-—The Economic Impact Assessment
prepared in support of this rulemaking
(Volume 2 of the EIS)
EIS—Environmental Impa'ct Statement
DOE—United States Department of
Energy
EDF—Environmental Defense Fund
EPA—United States Environmental
Protection Agency .'.••.
HLW—High-Level Radioactive Waste
ICRP—International Commissioia on
Radiological Protection '
MSHA—Mine Safety and Health
Administration . :
mrem—millirem, lX10~arem
NAAQS—National Ambient Air Quality
Standards .
NESHAP—National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air-Pollutants
; NCRP—National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements
NRG—United States; Nuclear Regulatory
Commission ..•-'•'.
NRDG—Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. ,
pCi—picocurie, IXiO~12 curie
UFC—Uranium Fuel Cycle
UMTRCA—Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978,42
U.S.C. 7901, et seq.
II. EPANESHAPspoliey; '••'. • "V
This section provides a description of
the EPA's approach for the protection of
public health under section: 112. In
protecting public health with an ample
margin of safety under section 112, EPA
strives to provide maximum feasible
protection against risks to health from
hazardous air pollutants by (1)
protecting the greatest number of .
persons possible to an individual
lifetime risk level no higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million and (2)
limiting to no higher than approximately
1 in 10 thousand the maximum
estimated risk that a person living near
a plant would have 'if he or she were :
exposed to the emitted pollutant for 70
years. Implementation of these goals is
by means of a two-step standard-setting
approach, with an analytical first step to
determine an "acceptable risk" thai
considers all health information,
including risk estimation uncertainty,.
and includes a presumptive limit on
maximum individual lifetime risk (MIR)
of approximately 1 in. 10 thousand. A
second step follows in which-the actual
standard is set at a level that provides
"an ample margin of safety" in
consideration; of all health, information,'
including the number of persons at risk
levels higher than approximately 1 inl
milUon, as well as other relevant factors
including costs and economic impacts,
technological feasibility, and other
factors relevant to each particular
decision. Applying this approach to the
radidnuclide.source categories in
today's notice results in controls that
protect over 90 percent of the persons
within 80 kilometers (km) of these
sources at risk levels no higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million.
A principle that accompanies .these
numerical goals is that the state of the
art of risk assessment does not enable,
numerical risk estimates to be made •-
\vith comparableeonfidence. Therefore,
judgment must be used in deciding how
numerical risk estimates are considered
with respect to these goals. As
discussed below, uncertainties arising .'
from such factors:as the lack of
knowledge about the biology of cancer
causation and gaps in data must be
weighed along with other public health
considerations. Many of the factors are
.not the same for different pollutants, or
for different source categories.
A. Background • -.'. ":...
" On March 7,1989, EPA proposed
decisions on standards under section
112 for twelve source categories of
radionuclides. A principal aspect of the
proposal, and the basis for the proposed
decisions on.the-source categories, were
four proposed approaches for decisions
under section 112 as mandated by the
D.C. Circuit's decision in NRDCv. EPA,
• 824 F.2d"at 1146 (1987) (the Vj'nyf .' "
Chloride decision). The Vaiyt Chloride
decision required the Adminisn:atbr to
exercise his judgment under section 112
in two steps: first, a determination of a"
"safe" or "acceptable" level,of risk
-------
51656 Federal Register / Vol.. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
considering only health factors, followed
by a second step to set a standard that
provides an "ample margin of safety", in
which costs, feasibility, and other
relevant factors in addition to health
may be considered.
The four proposed approaches were
designed to provide for consideration of
a variety of health risk measures and *
information in the first step analysis
Under the Vinyl Chloride decision—the
determination of "acceptable risk."
Included in the alternative approaches'
were three that consider only a single
health risk measure in the first step: (1)
Approach B, which considers only total
cancer incidence with 1 case per year as
the limit for acceptability; (2) Approach
C, which considers only the maximum
individual risk ("MIR") with a limit of 1
in 10 thousand for acceptability; and (3)
Approach D, which considers only the
maximum individual risk with 1 in 1
million as the limit. The fourth approach,
Approach A, was a case-by-case
approach that considers all health risk
measures, the uncertainties associated _
with them, and other health information.
In the second step, setting an "ample
margin of safety", each of the four
approaches considers all health risk and
other information, uncertainties
associated with the health estimates, as
well as costs, feasibility, and other
factors which may be relevant in
particular cases. The proposal solicited
comment on each of the approaches for
implementing the Vinyl Chloride
decision. The Agency received many
public comments on the approaches
from citizen's groups, companies and
industry trade groups, state and local
governments, and individuals.
B. General NESHAP Policy
Considerations
The purpose of this section is to
discuss the appropriate criteria for
determining an "acceptable risk" and an
"ample margin of safety". In its
determination, EPA will consider
measures of health risk, and limitations
and uncertainties of the risk estimation
methods and basic data. A discussion of
these factors follows. The framework
adopted in this proceeding has already
boon selected in the Benzene NESHAP
and will also become the policies for
decisions on future NESHAPs but will
not apply to other Agency programs or
other sections of the Clean Air Act.
1. Selection of Approach
Based on the comments and the
record developed in the rulemaking,
EPA selected an approach announced hi
the notice on benzene standards
published on September 14,1989 (54 FR
38044), base'' on Approaches A and C
but also incorporating consideration of
incidence from Approach B and
consideration of health protection for
the general population on the order of 1
in 1 million from Approach D. Thus, in
the first step of the Vinyl Chloride
inquiry, EPA will consider the extent of
the estimated risk were an individual
exposed to the maximum level of a
pollutant for a lifetime. The EPA will
generally presume that if the risk to that
individual is no higher than
approximately 1 in 10 thousand, that
risk level is considered acceptable and
EPA then considers the other health and
risk factors to complete an overall
judgment on acceptability. The
presumptive level provides a benchmark
for judging the acceptability of
maximum individual risk, but does not
constitute a rigid line for making that
determination. -
The Agency recognizes that
consideration of maximum individual
risk—the maximum estimated risk of
contracting cancer following a lifetime
of exposure to the emitted pollutant—
must take into account the strengths and
weaknesses of this measure of risk. It is
estimated based on the assumption of
continuous exposure for 24 hours per
day for 70 years. As such, it does not
necessarily reflect the true risk, but
displays a conservative risk level which
is an upperbound that is unlikely to be
exceeded. The Administrator believes
that an MIR of approximately 1 in 10
thousand should ordinarily be the upper
end of the range of acceptability. As
risks increase above this benchmark,
they become presumptively less
acceptable under section 112. They then
would be weighed with the other health
risk measures and information in *
making an overall judgment on
acceptability. Or, the Agency may find,
in a particular case, that a risk that
includes MIR less than the
presumptively acceptable level is
unacceptable in the light of other health
risk factors.
In establishing a presumption for MIR, '
rather than a rigid line for acceptability,
the Agency intends to weigh it with a
series of other health measures and
factors. These include the overall
incidence of cancer or other serious
health effects within the exposed
population, the numbers of persons
exposed within each individual lifetime
risk range and associated incidence
within a radius around facilities, the
science policy assumptions and
estimation uncertainties associated with
the risk measures, weight of the
scientific evidence for human health
effects, and other quantified or
unquantified health effects.
The EPA also considers incidence to
be an important measure of the health
risk to the exposed population.
Incidence measures the extent of health
risk to the exposed population as a
whole, by providing an estimate of the
occurrence of cancer or other serious
health effects in the exposed population.
The EPA believes that even if the MIR is
low, the overall risk may be
unacceptable if significant numbers of
persons are, exposed to a hazardous air
pollutant, resulting in a significant
estimated incidence. Consideration of
this factor would not be reduced to a
specific limit or range, such as the 1 case
per year limit included in proposed
Approach B, but estimated incidence
would be weighed along with other
health risk information in judging
acceptability.
The limitation of MIR and incidence
are put into perspective by considering
how these risks are distributed within
the exposed population. This
information includes both individual
risk, including the number of persons
exposed within each risk range, as well
as the incidence associated with the
persons exposed within each risk range.
In this manner, the distribution provides
an array of information on individual
risk and incidence for the exposed
population.
Particular attention will also be
accorded to the weight of evidence
presented in the risk assessment of
potential human carcinogenicity or other
health effects of a pollutant. While the
same numerical risk may be estimated
for an exposure to a pollutant judged to
be a known human carcinogen, and to a
pollutant considered a possible human
carcinogen based on limited animal test
data, the same weight cannot be
accorded to both estimates. In
considering the potential public health
effects of the two pollutants, the
Agency's judgment on acceptability,
including the MIR, will be influenced by
the greater weight of evidence for the
known human carcinogen.
In the Vinyl Chloride decision, the
Administrator is directed to determine a
"safe" or "acceptable" risk level, based
on a judgment of "what risks are
acceptable in the world in which we
live." 824 F.2d at 1165. To aid in this
inquiry, the Agency compiled and
presented a "Survey of Societal Risk" in
its March 1989 proposal (54 FR 9621-22).
As described there, the survey
developed information to place risk "
estimates in perspective and to provide
background and context for the
Administrator's judgment on the'
acceptability of risks "in the world in
which we live." Individual risk levels in
-------
': Federal Register / .VpL 54* "
..'/ ^
15; '1989: /<
the survey, ranged from 10"1 to 10~7 (that
.is, the lifetime risk of premature death
ranged from 1 in 10 to 1 in 10 million),
and incidence levels ranged from less
than 1 case per year to estimates as high*
as 5,000 to 20,000 cases/year. Everyday
risks include risks from natural
background radiation as well as risks
from home accidents. Natural
background radiation (excluding radon]
at sea level creates individual lifetime
cancer risks in the range of 3 in 1,000
and an estimated 10,080 cancer cases
per year. Naturally occurring radon in
homes poses an additional source of
radiation risk, and these risks can be as
high as 1 in 100 to 1 in 10. EPA estimates
that this causes an estimated 8,000 to
40,000 cancer cases per year. In the U.S.,
accidents, natural disasters, and rare
diseases pose individual risks of death
from 1 in 10,000 (e.g., tripping and falling
which cause approximately 470 deaths'
per year) to 1 in 10,000,000 (e.g., rabies,
which causes an average of 1.5 deaths
per year).
Judgments on risks have also spanned
a broad range of risk levels. The NCRP,
following recommendations of the
International Commission on
Radiological Protection, has
recommended that maximum individual
exposures from non-medical, manmade
radiation be limited to an amount
corresponding to .risks of 3 in 1,000. It is
important to note that the
recommendations of national and
international bodies are coupled with
recommendations that radiation doses
should be "as low as reasonably
achievable" fALARA). The
implementation of" ALARA requires a
site-specific consideration of the cost
effectiveness of controls that could be
added to reduce radiation doses.
The EPA concluded from the survey
that no specific factor in isolation could
be identified as defining acceptability
under all circumstances, and that the
acceptability of a risk depends on
consideration of a variety of factors and
conditions. However, the presumptive
level established for MIR of
approximately 1 in 10 thousand is within
the range-fof individual risk in the
survey, and provides health protection
at a level lower than many other risks
common "in the world in which we
live." And, this presumptive level also
comports with many previous health
risk decisions by EPA premised on
controlling maximum individual risks to
approximately 1 in 10 thousand and
' below. • .
In today's decisions, EPA is using this
approach based on the judgment that '.
the .first step judgment on acceptability
cannot be reduced to any single factor.
The EPA believes that the level of the
MIR, the" distribution of risks in the
exposed population, incidence, the
science policy assumptions and
uncertainties associated with flie risk '
measures, and the weight of evidence
that a pollutant is harmful to health are
all important factors to be considered in
the acceptability judgment. The EPA
concluded that this approach best
incorporates all vital health information
.and enables the Agency to weigh it
appropriately in making a judgment. In
contrast, the single measure Approaches
B, C, and D, while providing-simple
decisionmaking criteria, provide an
incomplete set of health information for
decisions under section 112. The
Administrator believes that the
acceptability of risk under section 112 is
best judged on the basis, of a broad set
of health risk measures and information.
As applied in practice, the EPA's
approach is more protective of public
health than any single factor approach.
In the case of the radionuclide sources
regulated here,, more than 90 percent of
the population living within 80 km
would be exposed to risks no greater
.than approximately | in 1 million and,
the total number of cases of death or
disease estimated to result would be
kept low.
TJnder.the two-step process specified
in the Vinyl Chloride decision, the .
second step determines an "ample
margin of safety," the level at which the
standard is set. This is the important
step of the standard-setting process at
which the actual level of public health
protection is established. The first step
consideration of acceptability is only a
starting point for the analysis, In which
a ceiling for the ultimate standard is set.
The standard set at the second step is
the legally enforceable limit that must
be .met by a regulated facility.
Even though the risks judged . .
"acceptable" by EPA in the first step of
the Vinyl Chloride inquiry are already
low, the second step of the inquiry,
determining an "ample margin of .
safety," again includes consideration of
all of the health factors, and whether to
reduce the risks even further. In the
second step, EPA strives to provide
protection to the greatest number of
persons possible to an individual
lifetime risk level no higher than
approximately 1 in 1 million. In the
ample margin decision, the Agency
again considers all of the health risk and
other health information considered in
the first step. Beyond that information,
additional factors relating to the
. appropriate level of control will also be
considered, including costs and
economic impacts of controls,
technological feasibility, uncertainties,.
and any other; relevant factors. After
considering all of these factors, the
. Agency wilt establish the standard at a
level that provides an ample margin of
safety ta protect the public health, as
required by section 112. The Agency
terms its approach- the "inultifactor
approach."
2. Format of Standards
•The format of the standards for the
various source categories varies
because of the differing properties of the
sources and the radionuclides they emit.
Area sources emitting radon are best
monitored by flux measurements. Thus,
flux standards are most appropriate. For
other categories, mixtures of ' • '
radionuclides are best related to public
health through the use of the concept of
dose. EPA has promulgated dose
standards to limit emissions in those
cases where it inappropriate. Where, a
single radionuclide is emitted or a single
radioniiclide emission limit would serve .
to limit all others, EPA has promulgated
an emission limit for that radionuclide.
All standards include releases from
accidents and accidental releases can
result in a violation of the standard.
However, releases from accidents shall
not be considered when determining
whether or not a facility should be .
granted permission to construct or
modify under § § 61.07 and 61.08.
Releases that are riot routine but are
more likely than not to occur are :
included in determining whether such
approval shall be granted.
Plants are required to monitor their
operations continuously and keep
records of the results of their monitoring
onsite for five years. Plant owners will
have to certify on a'semiannual basis '
that no changes in operations that
would require new testing have •" '-
occurred. Although the report is based
on a calendar year,_the emission limit
applies to any year, i.e. any period of 12
consecutive months. . :
S1L Historical Background of
Radionuclide NESHAPs
On December 27,197&, EPA listed
radionuclides- as a hazardous air .
pollutant under section 112 of the CAA
(44 FR 76738, December 27,1979). EPA
determined'that radionuclides are a
known cause of cancer and genetic
damage and that radionuclides cause or
contribute to air pollution that may
.reasonably be anticipated to result in an
increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible or incapacitating
reversible illness, arid therefore
constitute a hazardous air pollutant
within, the meaning of section 112(a)[l).
-------
51858 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
EPA then determined that radionuclides
presented a risk warranting regulation
under Section 112, and listed the
pollutant under that section. Once listed,
radionuclides became subject to the
requirement of section 112(b)(l)(B) that
EPA establish National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs) at a "level which (in the
judgment of the Administrator) provides
an ample margin of safety to protect the
public health from such hazardous air
pollutant," or find that they are not
hazardous and delist them.
On April 6,1983, EPA proposed
standards regulating radionuclide
emissions from four source categories:
(1) Elemental phosphorus plants, (2)
DOE facilities, (3) NRC-licensed
facilities and non-DOE federal facilities
(NEC-licensees), and (4) underground x
uranium mines. The Agency
simultaneously proposed decisions not
to regulate several other categories: (1)
Coal-fired boilers, (2) the phosphate
industry, (3) other extraction industries,
(4) uranium fuel cycle facilities, (5)
uranium mill tailings, (6) high level
radioactive waste facilities, and (7) low
energy accelerators (48 FR15076, April
6,1983). In February 1984, the Sierra
Club filed suit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California to
compel EPA to take final action on the
proposed standards. Sierra CJiib v.
Ruckelshaus, No. 84-0656. EPA was
subsequently ordered by the Court to
promulgate final standards or make a
finding that radionuclides are not
hazardous air pollutants and delist
them.
In October 1984, EPA withdrew the
proposed emission standards for
elemental phosphorus plants, DOE
facilities, and NRC licensees, finding
that the control practices already in
effect for those categories protected the
public from exposure to radionuclides
with an ample margin of safety. EPA,
therefore, concluded that no additional
requirements were necessary (49 FR
43906, October 31,1984). In the notice,
EPA also withdrew proposed standards
for underground uranium mines but
stated its intention to promulgate a
different standard for that category and
simultaneously published an Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
for radon-222 emissions from
underground uranium mines to solicit
additional information on control
methods. EPA also published an ANPR
for radon-222 emissions from licensed
uranium mills. EPA affirmed its decision
not to regulate the other categories:
coal-fired boilers, the phosphate
industry, other extraction industries,
uranium fuel cycle facilities, and high
level radioactive waste. The Agency
also decided to study further the
category of phosphogypsum stacks to
determine the need for a standard.
On December 11,1984, the U.S. .
District Court for the Northern District
of California found EPA in contempt of
its order to promulgate final standards
and again directed that EPA issue final
radionuclide emission standards for the
original four categories or make a
finding that radionuclides are not
hazardous air pollutants. EPA complied
with the court order by promulgating
standards for radionuclides emissions
from elemental phosphorus plants, DOE
facilities, and NRC-licensees (50 FR
7280, February 6,1985) and a work
practice standard for radon-222
emissions from underground uranium
mines (50 FR 15385, April 17,1985). On
September 24,1986, EPA promulgated a
final rule regulating radon-222 emissions
from licensed uranium mill processing
sites by establishing work practices for
new tailings (51 FR 34056, September 24,
1988).
The Environmental Defense Fund
(EDF), the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), apd the Sierra Club
filed petitions for review of the October
1984 withdrawals and final decisions
not to regulate, the February 1985
standards for the three source categories
and the April 1985 standard for
underground uranium mines. The April
1985 standard for underground uranium
mines was also challenged by the
American Mining Congress (AMC). In
November 1986, AMC and EDF filed
petitions challenging the standard for
licensed uranium mill processing sites.
On July 28,1987, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded
to the Agency an emissions standard for_
vinyl chloride which had also been
promulgated under Section 112 of the
CAA. Natural Resources Defense
Council, Inc. v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (D.C.
Cir. 1987) (Vinyl Chloride]. The Court in
Vinyl Chloride concluded that the
Agency improperly considered cost and
technological feasibility without first
making a determination based
exclusively on risk to health.
In light of that decision, EPA
concluded that the standards for
elemental phosphorus plants, DOE
facilities, NRC-licensees, and
underground uranium mines should be
reconsidered and on November 16,1987,
moved the D.C. Circuit Court for a
voluntary remand of the challenged
decisions. EPA also agreed to reexamine
all issues raised by the parties to the
litigation. On December 8,1987, the
Court granted EPA's motion for
voluntary remand and established a
time schedule for EPA to propose
regulatory decisions for all radionuclide .
source categories within 180 days and
finalize them within 360 days. On March
17,1988, the Court granted a subsequent
EPA motion and modified the order to
require proposed regulatory decisions
by February 28,1989 and final action by
August 31,1989.
On April 1,1988, EPA also requested a
remand for its standard for licensed
uranium mill tailings. On August 3,1988
the Court granted EPA's motion and put
the uranium mill tailings NESHAP on
the same schedule as the other
radionuclide NESHAPs.
On March 7,1989, EPA published a
proposed NESHAP'which described four
possible policy approaches for
regulating emissions of radionuclides.
Public hearings were held on April 10,
11,13, and 14,1989.
On July 14,1989, the court granted
EPA's request for an extension until
October 31,1989 for final action.
IV, Characterization of the Risks of
Radiation
A. Sources of Radiation '-' ' -
Every day each person is exposed to
radiation from a variety of natural and
manmade sources. Natural sources of
radiation include cosmic rays, radon,
and other terrestrial sources. Manmade
radiation includes medical and dental X-
rays, fallout from above ground nuclear
weapons testing and industrial sources.
The earth's atmosphere acts as a
shield to cosmic rays, absorbing much of
the radiation. People receive a higher
dose of cosmic rays at higher altitudes
because there is less atmosphere to
shield them from cosmic rays. For
example, people living in the mountains
receive a higher dose than people living
at sea level, and people are exposed to
even higher levels when flying in an
airplane. Terrestrial radiation comes
from the small amount, of radionuclides
that are naturally present in all matter:
soil, air, food, clothes, and even our
bodies.
Radon is a radionuclide that is
produced as a radioactive decay product
of the radium which is naturally found
in soil. Radon is always present in the.
ambient air at levels which are
estimated to pose some health risk. In
addition, radon often gets trapped in
homes, leading to even higher estimated
health risks. EPA has issued
recommendations to homeowners for
reducing these risks.
This rulemaking deals with sources of
radionuclide emissions, including radon,
from industrial sources. Although the
amount of radiation dose that most
-------
Federal Register / -Vbl.'';54,";Np.-;S40- /:Frid|fc,^
'' '' ' "'' ' "Jll "" "M-''Ut'^"- ' '''' ~'~'~' •J
people receive as a result of these
emissions is typically lower than their
natural background dose, the resulting
risk can still be significant. A source - •-•'
does not present an acceptable risk
simply by being less than natural
...background. It is important to note that
total background radiation from all
sources, including naturally occurring
radon, results in a calculated individual
lifetime risk of fatal cancer of
approximately one in one hundred. In "
most cases, little can be done to reduce
most of this radiation exposure which
people receive from natural-background.
IndustriaLsources of radionuclide
emissions in the air include a wide
variety of facilities, ranging from nuclear
power facilities to hospitals to uranium
mill tailing piles. Industry uses hundreds
,of different radionuclides in solid, liquid,
and gaseous forms, emitting different
types of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma)
at various energy levels. Industrial ,
sources of radionuclide emissions fall
into two major categories. The first.
include industries that use radioactive
materials and have emissions as a result
of an inability to completely contain the
materials they use. For'example,
hospitals use radionuclides as part of
their radiology departments. Since many
of the radionuclides they use are gases, .
liquids capable of evaporation, or solid v
capable of sublimation, some
radionuclides inevitably are released
into the environment. The other type of •
source is that which releases,
radionuclides (usually radon) as an
unintended consequence of Another '
activity, such as mining or milling. An
example of this is phosphogypsum
stacks (piles). These piles of waste
material emit radon because radium
(from which radon is produced by
radioactive decay) is found naturally in
the same soils that are the source of
phosphate rock; .-•'••-. . ; . .
• B. Health Effects of Radiation . ,
The level and type of hazard posed by
radionuclides vary, depending on such
characteristics as the radionuclide's
. radioactive half-life, the type of
radiation it emits, the energy level of the
emissions), and its ability to
concentrate in the body. Different
radionuclides will irradiate different
parts of the body .causing different types
of cancers. '
There are three major types of-long-
term health impacts from exposure to
radiation:'Cancer, hereditary effects,
and developmental effects on fetuses
such as mental retardation. Since there
is such a strong foundation for
quantifying the risk of fatal cancer,
EPA's consideration of fatal cancers'is;
the principal health consideration in this
rulemaking. However, it is important to
note that other health effects have also
been considered in the rulemaking. The
"other effects .are not specifically
addressed in this discussion because
none of them pose a more severe risk to
health. In addition, risk distribution of
health effects from radiation from most
of the sources considered for regulation
show that fatal cancers occur much
more frequently thairnon-fatal cancers
and cancers generally occur more often
than genetic or developmental effects.
For sources that emit radon, no genetic
or developmental effects, and very few
non-fatal cancers are expected. •
Numerous studies have demonstrated
that radiation is a carcinogen. It is
assumed that there is no completely
risk-free level of exposure to radiation
to cause cancer. Health effects from
radiation have been observed in studies
• of occupationally exp'osed workers and
of the survivors of the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki atomic bombs. This_ _
information has been verified with
studies of animals hi laboratories.
However, the effects of radiation doses
at low levels of exposure can only be
predicted by extrapolating from the
observed effects at higher doses since
we do not have direct evidence of
cancer causation at low exposure levels.
Some pollutants cause diseases that are
unique to the pollutant; for example,
asbestos causes asbestosis. Radiation,
however, causes some of the same types
of cancers, e.g. leukemia and lung and
liver cancer, that are caused by other . .
factors. Since these cancers are not
• uniquely associated with radiation, it is
not possible to differentiate cancers
caused by radiation from other cancers.,
' .-• The second type of effect is the
induction of hereditary effects in
descendants of exposed persons, which
vary in degree and effect and may even
be fatal. It is assumed that there is no
completely risk-free level of exposure
for hereditary effects. Although ; • - •"
hereditary effects have been observed in,
experimental animals at high doses,,
they have not been confirmed at low
doses in studies of humans.
Based on extensive scientific -
evidence, EPA believes it prudent to
assume that carcinogens, including
radionuclides, pose a risk of health
effects even at low levels of exposure.
Based on this science policy judgment,
EPA calculates health risk.estirnates
assuming that the risk of incurring either
cancer or hereditary effects is linearly
proportional to the dose received in the
relevant tissue. However, the severity of
either effect is not related to;the amount'
of dose received. That is, once a cancer
or an hereditary effect has been
induced, its severity is independent of.
the dose. ^ '
Regarding cancer, there continues to
be divided;opinion on how 'o interpolate
between the absence of radiation effect ,
at zero dose and the observed effects of
radiation (mostly at high doses) in order
to estimate the most probable effects at
doses that represent small increases
above natural background radiation.
Most scientists^believe that available •.
data best support use of a linear-model
for estimating such effects. Others,
however, believe that other models, '
which usually predict somewhat lower
risk, provide better estimates. These -
differences of opinion have not been
resolved to date by studies of the effects
of radiation in humans, the most
important of which are those of the
survivors of the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki atomic bombs.
Some studies have recently been
completed, and others are now
underway to reassess radiation dose
calculations for the survivors of the
Hiroshima' and Nagasaki atomic bombs
and to provide improved estimates of
risk. These studies may reduce the
uncertainty associated with
extrapolation from high doses to low
doses. These studies may also resultin
an increase of the estimated risk per
unit dose. But they will not address the
question of whether a threshold exists.
EPA is monitoring the progress of this
work and will initiate reviews of the
risks of .exposure to low levels of
radiation upon its' completion. .
C. Risk Assessment
1. Risk Measures Considered in
' NESHAP Policy V r
In decisions pn:cancer risks from
stationary sources of hazardous air
pollutants, the Agency has estimated
three measures of health risk. These are
termed "niaximum individual risk", "risk
distribution", and "incidence". Each of
these combines an estimate of the dose/
response for a pollutant with estimates
of exposure to the pollutant. The . ;
response estimated is the pollutant-
related increase in the probability that.
an individual xvill contract fatal cancer
in his or her lifetime. The exposure
estimated is the average daily exposure
assuming exposure for 70 years. ;.. •..
a. .Maximum Individual Risk.
Individual risk is expressed as an .-'•"•.'.-
estimated probability, e.g., 1 in 100
(lOf2), 1 in-1,000 (IQT3}, 1 in 10,000 (lb~f).-
Thiis, a-.1 Xlp~3 individual risk is an
added "chance" of 1 in 1,000 of
contracting fatal cancer sometime in the
individual's lifetime. ..
-------
516CO Federal.Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
In this discussion, the maximum
individual lifetime risk is the maximum
additional cancer risk of any person due
to exposure to an emitted pollutant for a
70-year lifetime. The maximum
individual risk is sometimes called the
maximum exposed individual risk. This
estimate is based on the fact that the
concentration of an emission, and the
consequent risk, diminishes with
distance from its source. For
radionuclide NESHAP decisions, the
practice has been to estimate exposure
according to census data on residence
locations. It has also been estimated in
some other Agency decisions as the •
maximum at the source perimeter.
The maximum individual lifetime risk
is different from average individual risk
which is sometimes estimated for
sources like public drinking water
systems or food in which the
concentration of a pollutant and other
factors are assumed to be equal at all
distribution locations. This-distinction is
particularly relevant when considering
the maximum risk one might find •
acceptable from different sources.-In
using the maximum individual risk in
acceptable risk decisions,for hazardous
air pollutants, its limitations should be.
considered. Used alone, the measure
does not tell how many people may be
so affected; it relates only to the risk to
the most exposed individual(s).
b. Risk Distribution. A risk
distribution estimates how many
persons within a certain distance (e.g. 80
km) of a source of pollutant emissions
are at what level of individual risk.
Typically, the distribution is given for
10-fold increments,of individual risk.
Such a distribution provides the
decisionmaker with information on both
the individual risk level for those
exposed and the number of persons
exposed at each level. For NESHAP and
other decisions, the Agency has
examined risk distributions both as
measures of risk and to compare the
effects of various strategies for risk
reductions across a source category.
In making an acceptable risk decision,
one relevant consideration is how many
people are exposed at each risk level,
e.g. a 10~zrisk might be acceptable if
only one person were at that level, but
not if 1000 people were subject to it.
Similarly, the numbers of persons
exposed at various individual risk levels
could be an important element in
deciding on acceptable risk. The risk -
distribution could be used in;similar , ;
ways to consider whether an ample
margin of safety, exists. . fr . ',.. .
c. Incidence. Incidence.is an estimate ..
of population, rather,than individual,
risk. It is derived by multiplying.
individual risk by the estimate of the
number of persons at that level of risk
and summing the results over all risk
levels. This number, which provides a
lifetime population risk figure, is then
divided by 70 (years) to give an annual
fatal cancer incidence estimate. The
incidence parameter can be used as an
estimate of impact on the entire exposed
' population within a given area by
totalling the incidence associated with
each increment of individual risk.
Incidence can also be portrayed along
with individual risk and population
numbers in a risk distribution. Typically,
the Agency weighs incidence estimates
in conjunction with maximum individual
risk or average individual risk estimates.
Estimated incidence generally is a
particularly informative parameter when
looking at aggregate risk from a category
of like sources. One feature to take into
account whenever it is used is its
dependence on the size of the source
category.
2. Uncertainties in Risk Measures
Each of the thr.ee risk parameters
defined above has three elements. These
are the estimated response per unit of
pollutant concentration (e.g. pCi/1 in
air), the estimated exposure
concentration, and the estimation of the
number and location of the population
residing in the area of the sources
(usually taken from census data).
Uncertainties exist in estimating each
of these elements for a variety of
reasons including the fact that the
relevant data and our understanding of
the biological events involved are not
complete. Where data gaps exist,
qualitative and quantitative • -
assumptions are made based on our
present understanding of the biological •
mechanisms of cancer causation,
estimates of air dispersion, engineering
estimates, and other factors. Selection of
certain assumptions to be used is a •.
policy decision. The Agency has - •.
published guidelines covering many of .
these for both cancer risk assessment
and exposure assessment {"Final -. •. .
Guidelines for. Carcinogen Risk- ... .. ••.-.
Assessment," (51 FR 33992, September
24,1986) and "Final Guidelines for
Estimating.Exposures," (51 FR 33042,
September 24,1986)).
The following is a discussion of
methods used to calculate the three
parameters, together with a few
examples of the uncertainties. .. ,.
Risk_ assessment, under EPA
guidelines, takes4nto account.the nature.
and amount of-evidence that the .agent...'
will cause the effect of concern, in ".
humans as .well as me uncertainties of.. .
interrelation pt data and its . ...,.'
quantificatidn.. Wlien the toxicity data !
from human studies are available, as in
the case of radionuclides (which is a
known human carcinogen), there is less
uncertainty about the hazard of dose/
response than when the data is solely
from animal studies. Nevertheless,
important uncertainties enter into, the
analysis even when human data is
available. Examples include the fact that
human epidemiological studies are often
retrospective and measure effects of
exposure that occurred many years in :
the past The level of exposure .to the
agent at that time usually must be
estimated and cannot be verified. Also,
in certain categories of human studies,
the studies are often of workers exposed
to the pollutant. Worker populations are
not representative of the general
population with respect to age or sex.
Workers are also generally the healthier
segment of the population. These factors.
can lead to over- or underestimation of
risk.
. When data from animal..studies are :
used, uncertainties about exposure can
be experimentally controlled, but other
uncertainties arise. Many of these
concern the extrapolation from data
collected in animal tests to estimate
effects on human's. The extrapolation, ;
has to try to account for many factors,
such as the equivalent dose for humans :
and laboratory animals given the size
differences and the potential differences
in metabolism and excretion of a
chemical pollutant.
In addition, uncertainties aris'e in
extrapolating the observed dose/
response relationship from either
workplace or animal test exposures to.
the usually, lower, dose levels of the
general population. , .
In estimating exposure, the dispersion
of a pollutant from a source is usually ...
quantified .by. a predictive mathematical •'
model, using a known or model, source
emission rate,, temperature and velocity .
characteristics, and weather patterns at
a nearby.recording weather station. The. •
model predicts the concentration of the.
dispersed pollutant at various distances.,
from the source. Standard assumptions
are that the population around the - . ., .
source resides there for a 70-year .
lifetime and is continuously exposed to
the modeled concentrations. The amount
of emissions can be derived from
sampling and analysis of emissions at
the source or from engineering
estimates, wi.th more or less uncertainty.
associated vyith each method; according
to the typ.e, of emission.. There, are ,: .
varying degrees;of accuracy and;. 1' c j ,"
precision in sampling, analysis', OT^. ,,.".'.'..
estimates of,emissions. Therefore, the. ; •
uncertainties involved in the method of '..
estimating •individuaLexposure. and tfie- .
number of individuals exposed are
-------
' Federal Kegisfet /
,.L:
numerous. Thus, it is evident that
uncertainty is difficult to quantify.
However, the Agency has completed a -
preliminary uncertainty. analysis of risk
from radionuclide emissions, from a
limited number of facilities using Monte
Carlo simulation techniques. Instead of
discreet values, distributions were used
for factors having a significant effect" on
outcome. The results suggest that the
risks calculated represent essentially
median values if the receptor remains a
that location for 70 years.
3. Methodology
'To take into account the buildup of
radioactivity in the body and ths :
environment, the risk assessment
models incorporate the concepts of ,
committed dose and the dose committed
by an annual release into the . _ '-
environment or, ecjuivalently, the annual
dose received at equilibrium as a result
of constant annual releases over long
p'eriods of time.. : :.
: In attempting to make these estimates,
EPA has tried at all times to give "best
estimates" of the radionuclide - - - -
concentrations in the environment and
individual and population risks.
Wherever possible, measured or . " "
reported data of emissions, meteorology
, and population were used. Where
estimates were used; EPA has feied t
category as it now stands. EPA has sot
estimated the: maximum conceivable
risks that may result from the facilities
analyzed at gome point far the future.
^.utoe risks, may be higher or lower
.depending on whether people move
closer to, or further away from, the
.facilities studied and whether the
• emissions from those facilities Increase
or decrease. This, is not to say that there
is little- or no uncertainty in. the final
results. As in .all such assessments, the
. EPA's analyses are not-designed' to;-.-'.' -• •
•Vcohsistently bveresUmate :or .: , •- •••'•
^underestimate, risks.' ;,i; .'.•'••':'?-. -•''/•• -!'./: ^;.
eVtim.ftte:o^
' .'lisle than iii Aig'estiinate-jpf popwation' .
risk;: Many, possible errors in the ..",
analysis can cancel, put in^assessments
of populations. For example, local }
.meteorological cOnditions:may cause •
'inors radionuclides "'to go iii oiie -. :
direction than aridllier. This effect may
•' "causa; aa overestimate or underestimate
*
depending on where the most exposed
individual is located. However,, this
source of error tends to bs less ,
important in population estimates, since
the analysis integrates individual doses
to a large number of people. If one
person gets a larger risk due to local
dispersion effects, it means that another
person is getting less. Consequently,
when the individual risks are summed,
local conditions will not cause a serious
error in the value for total population
risk. ' , '-'.-••- • .;- .-. :
In estimating the radiation exposure
, to the most exposed individual, EPA
assumes that, the person receiving the
maximum individual risk lives for a 70-
year lifetime at the same site. EPA then
makes its best estimate of the risks to
that individual. ••'.'" . .-..
EPA recognizes that most people will
not actually live their entire life .hi the
same location. Nevertheless, EPA makes
this assumption as a matter of policy
and does not believe that it diminishes
the validity of its risk assessments. EPA
has made tills assumption for several
reasons. First EPA is attempting to
estimate tlie maximum individual risk,
and it is completely possible that an ' '
individual could live in the same plaee
•for Ms or her entire life. Use of different
assumptions could lead, in some cases, .
to underestimating, the actual maximum
risk.'- '';'_•' ',' •'•"';•_.;." [r '-^,':.' i""^-..
• :,' Second, a large fraction of the, risk can
; occur in less than ihe( same fraction of ; ; ".
the. 70 -years.! Risk is not independent of : ;
ege. Children appear-to jb® more "
susceptible to tiia effects of radiation '
than adults. In addition, due to thefe
youthj they generally have a longer tims
in which to develop thti cancer caused :
by the radiatioa {and they are less likely
to die of something else before tSiey
contract and die of the cancer). Due to ••
these two factors, younger peop!e:are at
a greater risk-from the same dose than .
oldeir people. (See Tablei). If EPA were
ta rs?dace tlie number of years of
'assumeci exposure to les's than a .
lifetime", it is uuelear what number of -
years-should be ttsed^pt where to plac0- ;
those yeairs within a
• ;'e'xsimple, shgul4:-EPA assume i ft
' ' ' ' ' -
-•
:' Geaerallyj in ffife'Iirst/Base, 'the 'risk'- is .0'.'
times greater. than in .the second case. ; :
'Finally, the difference that would be!"-'
caused by assuihing a shorter period of
expos.ure is not very sigriifieant-For an * .
assiimed constant rat® of eiposure, : '•_•
:pepple receiye over ,00% of Shek .total -• '
lifetiiie risKJduj'ing tHeirf'fir$t'riiriete,eii; '
Vsaw, To chXng^ fte perfod 6f,expGsare: ;
from 70 years to the .first 19 years of life
would change the final result by less
than a factor of 2.
Many commenters, including the SAB,
disagreed with EPA's decision to use -70
year exposures in calculatLtsg maxim'um
individual risk, However, as stated
above, EPA believes that this is Use
correct method for doing risk
assessments for NESHAPs. Had EPA:
used another method of calculating the
maximum individual jisk, it-might have
found it necessary to,find a different,
possibly more stringent benchmark for
determining acceptable risk. -.;;:
Third, the conservatism of this .-••'.•
assumption countes twa important and
unknown uhcertamties that can-lead, to
an underestimation of risk'. The jSrst is
the susceptibility of some members of
the population to radiation. Scientific :
studies have shown that not all people
respond in ths same way to the game
biological insult; gome members of the
population are more susceptible than the
population as a whole.This problem is
especially acute for the radch-sources; -
Estimates of the risk of exposure to >
radon arelargely based on :• •
epideiniological studies of miners, i.e. -
adult males. It is known that childVeis.
seem to be.mdre eufceptible to radiatioa '
than adults.; In addition, fpfrsppie' . ,; :,
qanpers, women-are more.gusceptibte; ,:
e truefor;hing , .
cancer;.:
.
unable, to quantify, but iyh!ch would
lead to an underestimatioa of the risk,.is
the syn'ergistic effects of radiation with
other pollutants. Radiation is net fi^g
only carcinogen in the environment,
' TMere are large nambers of carcinogess
and potential earclnogeasm the
^environment. Radionuclidba are not ike.
only carpinogens that cause cancer by
first causing genetic damage. In. '..
addition, isdma. chemicals may -dJsrupbor _
stop the Jpdy.'g natural repair .'.',' ; '•..-"
mechanisms. .It is possibls that some of
. these .pollutants .work syjiergfatieall^, ? ;. , •,
;with radJatipa.to iihcrea$ej?he .efte.et of. ^ .
j'radiatipttabpye.what It -VKpuld'be. .,.•.:,•
,.. ,
', -ipodei takes' hitq account j&e'effeci.of ' ;', •
, •chemical^that.Jare widely idistribiited in, •;
."the environment^ there's?® hundreds of ". .
chemicals that are concentratsd 3a Idea!
areas, and the bffects of .tliese chemicals -
account. However, EPAJ;s teabjlitf to
-------
*T I „ t<>< t , •*, ,i * *!"!!' \ "Mail,!!* •»*•, ,ii', J' ,t „* « .,,• J[ '* ,^' ^ HTvr* F--. • ./f/f & Si ,„•,{,'• \,i' '- ,.„'-' • ' .„ , ',,'
51C62 Federal Register /Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15; 1989 / Ruies and Regulations
TABLE 1— AGE DEPENDENCE OF RISK
DUE TO WHOLE BODY RADIATION
Assumed Percentage of Total Lifetime Risk As A
Function Of Ages At Which Radiation Exposure
Occurs '
Period of exposure
(ages)
0 to 9 „
10 to 19 „
20 to 34 ......~~_. .
35 to 50 „.,.. ™
50 + „.„
Percentage
of lifetime
ifek
30
30
20
10
10
Cumulative
percentage
of lifetime
. risk?
30
60
80
90
100
1 Exposure Is at a constant fata lor • lifetima.
4. Technology Availability and Plant'
Closure Considerations •
In the benzene NESHAP, as well as in
this NESHAP for radionuclides, EPA has
considered only factors relating to risks
to public health in deriving alternative
"acceptable" levels of risk. However, in
evaluating whether to further reduce the
risk to provide for an ample margin of
safety, EPA has also considered the
extent to which plants would be forced
to: (a) Install control technologies which
are not cost effective or fully
demonstrated and/or (b) curtail or stop
production. These considerations are
reflected in today's proposal to the
extent that they apply to affected
radionuclide sources.
With regard to the availability of
technology to control air pollutants, EPA
has in this case considered a technology
available if it has been installed on a
commercial scale in the United States
and adequate data have been collected
on plant and control equipment
characteristics and performance.
However, at various times in the past,
EPA has considered emission standards
which force plants to install
technologies which do not meet these
current "availability" criteria or cause
facilities to curtail production or shut
down. For example, EPA has in the past
considered a technology "available" if it
has been commercially demonstrated in
other countries, even if no units have
been installed in the United States.
Also, EPA has considered.bench- or
pilot-scnle'demonstrations in order to
judge reasonableness of expenditures
for commercial demonstration of a given
technology.
D. Effective Dose Equivalent
Since 1985, when EPA proposed dose
standards regulating NRC-licensees and
DOE facilities, a different methodology
for calculating dose has come into
widespread use, the effective dose
equivalent (EDEJ. In 1987, EPA, in
recommending to the President new
guidance for workers occupationally
exposed to radiation, accepted this
methodology for the regulation of risks
from radiation. This method, which was
originally developed by the
International Commission on
Radiological Protection, will be used in
all the dose standards promulgated by
EPA in this notice. In the past, EPA dose
standards were specified in terms of
limits for specific organ doses and the
"whole body dose4', a methodology
which is no longer consistent with
current practices of radiation protection.
The EDE is simple, is more closely
related to risk, and is recommended by
the leading national and international
advisory bodies. By changing to this
new methodology, EPA will be
converting to the commonly accepted
international method for calculating
dose. This will .make it easier for the
regulated community to understand and
comply with our standards.
The EDE is the weighted sum of the
doses to the individual organs of the
body. The dose to each organ is ,
weighted according to the risk that dose
represents. These organ doses are then
added'together, and that total is the
effective dose equivalent. In this
manner, the risk from different sources
of radiation can be controlled by a
single standard. The weighting factors
for the individual organs are listed in
Table 2.
TABLE 2-AA/EiGHTiNG FACTORS FOR
INDIVIDUAL ORGANS
Organ
Breast , .
Thyroid™ _ „...__.„
Gonads'.
Bone Surface „ . . . . v .
Red Bone Marrow ..
Remainder — . — „... . ..„,
Factor
.12
.15
.03
25
.03
.12
.38
EPA's risk iribdels differ from those
underlying the IGRP recommendations,
primarily due to advances in the field of
radiation risk estimation since the ICRP
recommendations were published. As a
result, the risks calculated by EPA are
not strictly proportional to the EDE
derived using ICRP quality factors and
organ weighting factors. While the risk
methodology underlying the ICRP EDE
differs from that used by EPA, the
widespread acceptance of the EDE
approach make it a reasonable basis for
regulation under the CAA,
E. Science Advisory Board Review
Beginning in 1984, EPA's Science
Advisory Board (SAB) has conducted
reviews of the risk assessment methods
used in this rulemaking. EPA has
worked closely with the SAB with
respect to their comments and findings
and believes it has been responsive to
them.
In 1984, the SAB recommended that
available scientific information be
integrated into an assessment document
that would lead from identification of
emission sources through calculation of
radiation dose and health risk and the
associated degrees of uncertainty. This
has been done in the Environmental
Impact Statement accompanying this .
rulemaking.
In 1988 and again in 1989, the SAB
considered the scientific merits of the
EIS prepared by the Agency in support
of this rulemaking. Estimates of health
risk factors were found to be acceptable.
Given below are some important
specific SAB comments and the
Agency's responses.
SAB Comment: EPA should use the
effective dose equivalent concept for -
regulations protecting people from
exposure to radiation.
EPA Response: This has been done in
the final rules.
SAB Comment: EPA should use simple
screening methods in implementation
procedures such that only the largest
users of radionuclides are required to
report annually to EPA.
EPA Response: A simple screening
procedure has been made part of the
final rule.
SAB Comment: EPA should be certain
that the data used to derive its estimates
of risk are the most current available,
and wherever practicable to base their
assessments on consensus documents.
EPA Response: EPA agrees. The SAB
has given specific advice on risk factors
for low-LET radiation and for radon.
The SAB approaches to these risk
factors have been used in the risk
assessments supporting this rulemaking.
The Agency acknowledges that the
BEIR-HI report on which some of the
riskjactors are based may become ;out
of date due to new data that are
becoming available. EPA's risk factors
will be revised to reflect these recent
developments and to incorporate this
newer data as soon as it is practical to
do so. Preliminary information indicates
that the most probable effect of this new
information will be to increase
somewhat the estimate of the number of
health effects due to a unit dose of
radiation. The size of this increase is not
likely to be large enough to affect the
decisions made under this rulemaking.
SAB Comment: The actual objective
of the risk assessment should be made
c'ear.'
-------
Federal Rejpster.-/. Vol. 54, No. 24Q;/ Fridlay, December 15, 198§ / Rules aiid Regulations
EPA Response: EPA has improved the
presentation of risk in the EIS by more
clearly stating overall assessment
objectives* In particular, assessment
objectives are carefully defined in terms
of the individual and populations at risk,-
The number of people at risk and
incidence is presented by range of risk.
Radiation risks are compared with other
risks and other radiation control
recommendations. The objective .of ,
obtaining a best estimate of the dose
and health implications for real persons -
and for populations is now explained in
more detail together with explanations
of how these groups are to be defined.
SAB Comment: EPA should use best
estimates and ranges in the specification
of risk and provide a detailed ,.
, explanation of the uncertainties in the .
estimates themselves.-
' EPA Response: EPA agrees, but this is
a large task. For the short term, we have
performed a sensitivity analysis of the
most important parameters using
. simplifying assumptions aiidhave
performed preliminary uncertainty
analyses using a Monte Carlo
simulation. These analyses have been •
presented in support of the final rule.
• For the long term, an Agency task group
has been formed to plan and conduct
more complete studies of the uncertainty
question. This longer term effort will
take a number of years to complete and
will be dependent on the resources
available. •. . ; .,'..' ;
EPA acknowledges the uncertainty in
risk estimates, considers them when
making risk management decisions and
recognizes that a more complete
quantitative analysis'of uncertainty
would be an improvement. However, it
does not believe that such a complete
analysis would change the decisions
made in this rulemaking. A more
complete .discussion of uncertainty is to
be found in Chapter 7, volume 1 of the
EIS. - - - - . • • • . , ' :
•V. Decision to List Under Section 112
Section 122(a) of the CAA required,
EPA to determine whether or not
"emissions of radioactive
.pollutants * * * will cause, or
contribute to, ah pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health." Once an affirmative
determination is made, that section
requires EPA to list the substance under
section 108(a)(l), governing National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), lll(b)(l)(A), governing New ,
Source Performance Standards, OF
112(b)(l}(A), governing NESHAPs. The
initial decision to iist a substance does
not constitute a decision to regulate any
particular source category. EPA
analyzed numerous studies which
indicated that exposure to radionuclides
can cause three major types of health ..-'
effects: cancer, genetic damage, and
developmental effects. After considering
these health effects, EPA judged that
radionuclides cause or contribute to air
pollution which "may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health"
and that they should be listed under .
section 112{b}(l)(A3 (44 FR 76738, Dec.
27,1979). That decision was the first
step in the regulatory process, arid it
was challenged in the current litigation.
As a result, EPA has reevaluated the;
decision arid the comments from the
public during this rulemaking and has
come to the conclusion that the original
Usting under section 112 is correct.
The first part of the listing decision,
the "hazardousness" of fadibnuclides, is
unchallenged. The evidence that
radionuclides can cause cancer has, if
anything, increased since 1979; see
Volume 1 of the BID. The evidence now.."
suggests that the risks from radiation
exposure are higher than was believed
at that time. While some people haver
expressed the view that, even though .
radiation can cause cancer, the amount
of radionuclides that are released from a
given source or industry is insignificant
and do not present a risk, EPA believes
that the results of the risk assessments :
for the source categories demonstrate
the risk to public health that results from
radionuclide emissions frojn industrial
sources. Furthermore, as already
discussed, EPA assumes radiation to be
a non-threshold pollutant. This .' -
assumption, and EPA's risk " ,
assessments, support the lisiipg ;:
decision. ' ,
Section 112(b)(l)(A) applies not
merely to any "air pollutant" as do
sections 108 and 111, but to a
"hazardous air pollutant" that is defined
as a pollutant that "causes or . .
contributes to air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to result in an
increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible or incapacitating
reversible illness," Once a pollutant is
determined to be a hazardous air
pollutant, the only remaining step is for
the Administrator to determine whether
emissions of the pollutant present a risk
, warranting regulation under section
112—that is, whether it is a hazardous
air pollutant "for which he intends to •
establish an emission standard" under
that section. EPA has determined that
radionuclides riot only pose a risk of,
carcinogenicity and mutageriicity %vhen
emitted into the air (see, National
Academy of Sciences, Commission on
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation,
Reports Number 3 and 4) but also are
emitted in sufficient quantities as to
create a risk warranting listing under
section 112. Therefore, EPA reaffirms its
': prior conclusion that radionuclides
should be listed for regulation under
section 112.
EPA notes that several sources
. included among the source categories
addressed by this rulemaking present -
very small risks when viewed '
individually. Several are predicted to
emit a level resulting in an incidence of
.less than one case of cancer every 1000
years, and an associated MIR well
below 1X 10~*, or even 1X10"6. Based
on this, it has been suggested'thatEPA
should apply a significance test to these
sources, and determine that they do not
warrant regulation based on the
insignificance of the risks presented.
' EPA considers it unnecessary to reach'
that argument here. EPA applied the
significance test of the Supreme Court's
pSHA benzene opinion in its prior
riilemakings on radionuclides to
determine whether each source category
warranted regulation. See Industrial:
Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 807 (19BO)
(interpreting the Occupational Safety'
and Health Act of 1970 as requiring that
benzene sources be regulated only if
they'present "significant" risks); see
also 50 FR 5189-5194 (Feb. 6,1985), 49
FR 43905:-439i5 (Oct.-31,1984)
, [discussing the requirement that risks
froni radionuclide air Emission sources
be significant in order to be regulated
under Clean Air Act Section 112);
. Memorandum of, A. James Barnes, ' '
General Counsel, to the Administrator ef
EPA entitled "Final Action on
Radionuclides" (Oct. 23,1984) (same);
-: but see Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, 602 ,
F. Supp. 892 (N.D. Cal. 1984). However,
EPA believes it is unnecessary to reach
this issue at this time since EPA believes
that its standards should have no
practical effect on the facilities to which
such a test might have applicability. But
'see CAA section 307(d)(7)(B). Based on
the record, EPA judges that the facilities
that might be deemed to pose
~ insignificant risks individually already •
emit radionuclides at levels well below
the final standard; And, implementation .
of a significance test to each individual
source would, for some source .. .-.
categories such as the NRG licensee
category which contains several
thousand sources, present huge
implementation and resource problems
'for the Agency to examine each-source
individually. :
The standards would have no
practical impact on operations of
sources that might be deemed to pose .
insignificant risks, other than to assure
that emissions from these sources could
not increase so as to exceed the
-------
Federal Registdr / Vpi- 5C Np;-24Q
h 15,; 198S / Rules and Regulations
standard Moreover, imposition of
standards assure that EPA would be
notified of significant increases in
emissions at these sources, or other
relevant changes in circumstances, siich
as changes in the location or exposure
of the most exposed individual, that
might require additional regulatory
attention.
VI. Discussion of Source Categories
The regulatory decisions reached
today are based on the risk assessments
and other factors available in the
rulemaking record. This rule is also
based on consideration of information
received during the comment period to
the rulemaking.
A> Department of 'Energy Facilities
1, Introduction
The DOE administers many facilities,
including government-owned,
contractor-operated facilities across the
country. Some facilities conduct imclear
energy and weapons research and
development, some enrich uranium and
produce plutonium for nuclear weapons
and reactors, and some process, store
and dispose of radioactive wastes.
These facilities contain significant
amounts of radioactive material and
emit radionudides into Ihe air. Other
facilities contain large stockpiles of
waste ore which emit large quantities of
radon. A discussion of those DDE
facilities appears as a separate section
later in this Preamble. EPA is
considering the two categories
separately in this rulemaking because
the two categories employ different
control methods. Some of the DOE
facilities emitting radionuclides are on
large sites covering hundreds of square
miles in remote locations. Some of the
smaller sites resemble' typical industrial
facilities and are located in suburban
areas.
In total, DOE has approximately 30
major sites that emit radlonuclides.
These facilities emit a wide variety of
radionuclides in various physical and
chemical states. Emissions from various
DOE facilities represent many types of
radionuclides and both internal and
external dose pathways (although
specific facilities may emit only one or
two radionuclides affecting only one
tathway).
DOE facilities are presently covered
by a radionuclide NESHAP which limits
emissions such that no individual
receives a whole body dose of 25 mrem/
y or receives a dose of 75 mrem/y to any
organ. DOE also controls releases from
these facilities under DOE orders which
limit-calculated doses to the general
public to less than 100 mrem/y from all
sources and pathways. By incorporating
the ALARA concept into Its Orders,
DOE has kept the dose to ths public well
below lDQ,mnein/y. The NESHAP also
mandates that DOE send annual reports
, of emissions to EPA. Ihe information
gathered from these reports contributed
to EPA's risk assessment of DOE
facilities. ..,.,.
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA's risk assessmeat of DOE
facilities is a site-by-site assessment
Emissions are based on DOE's 1986
report of emissions, meteorological data
are from on-site towers 01 &om nearby
weather stations, and population
distributions wilhin 80 km are based on
U.S. census tract data. EPA has updated
its risk assessment with infonnatioii
received during the comment period.
EPA has a high jdegree of confidence in
the results of this risk assessment.
According to EPA's analysis, all DOE
facilities are ia compliance with the
current NESHAP. The risk to the most
exposed individual is .approximately
2.0 X 10~4. DOE facilities axe estimated
to cause 0.28 fatal cancers per year to
the exposed populations within 80 km of
all DOE facilities. Most of ths exposed
population has a lifetime fatal cancer
risk of less than IX 10~8. :
Table 3 presents example scenarios to
show how different emission levels
would result in different health risk
profiles. The table presents the risk
estimates at baseline in terms of
estimated annual fatal cancer incidence,
maximum individual lifetime risk, total
population exposed at or above
particular risklevels {ie., lisk
distribution), and annual incidence
attributable to the population exposed
at each risk level. The table also
presents available estimates of annual
incidence and maximum individual
lifetime risk for a lower emission level.
3. Application of Decision Methodology
to the DOE Facilities Source Category
The decision that results from the
application of the multifactor policy
approach to the DOE source category is
described below.
Decision on Acceptable Risk. As
stated earlier, the maximum individual
risk Jo any individual is 2.0X 10~4. In
establishing the policy for setting
NESHAPs in the context of benzene, the
Agency determined that emissions
resulting in a lifetime MIR no greater
than approximately 1X10" * are
presumptively acceptable* In light of the
numerous uncertainties in belli
establishing the parameters for the risk .
assessment and in modelling actual : ,
emissions and exposure, as well as the.
recognition feat in achieving '•.••'•.. .
compliance, sources will generally
control so as to ensure that a buffer ;
. exists below the actual level >of a •
standard, EPA judges that tile MI? of
2.0X10~*is essentially egnivalent to the !
presumptively safe level :of :
approximately 1 XW* . EPA lb.en;
considered the other risk factors in
order to determine whether the baseline
level is acceptable.
The estimated annual incidence is 0.28
fatal cancers per year, or 1 case eveiy 4
years; in addition, there would be an
approximately equal number of non-
fatal cancers per year, Very few people
are at risks greater than l.OX 10" 4 , and
approximately 98% of people within 80
kin of DOE facilities receive risks of less
than 1X10"*
After examining these factors, the
Administrator has determined that the
baseline emission levels and risks from
DOE facilities are acceptable.
Decision on Ample Margin of Safety*
In addition to reexaminmg all the
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has also examined the -cost,
scientific certainty, and technological
feasibility of control technology :
necessary to lower emissions from DOE
facilities. The results of this analysis
may be seen in Table 4. Alternative I, a
standard of 10 mrem/y, representing the '
current baseline emissions, was
compared with alternative II, a standard
of 3 mrem/y a standard, equivalent to
''
• A comparison of the two alternatives
indicates that only a very small .
reduction in incidence would occur,
from 0.28 to 0.25, or 1 case every 33
years, with a concommitant reduction in
MIR from 2X10"4 to 1X10~4. Based on
this very small reduction in incidence,
the small decrease in .individual risk that
would result, and on the Costs of
achieving Alternative II, EPA has
determined that a 10 mrem standard
provides an ample margin-of safety by
continuing regulation of this category to
insure that the current levels of
emissions are not increased.
Requirements of the rule, such as the
submission of yearly reports and
obtaining prior approval of new
construction or modification, assure that
DOE facilities will keep emissions at or
below an acceptable level insuring an
ample margin of safety. Moreover,
-------
Federal Register/, VoL 54, No. 240 / Friday, "December 15. 1989 / Rules and Regulatioag '".
because each facility subject to this rule;
must demonstrate compliance with the
10 irirem/y ede emissions standard, it is
likely that most, if not all, exposed
individuals will receive a dose
significantly less than 10 mrem/y ede.
Therefore, EPA believes that limiting
emissions to their current level by
imposition of a,standard of 10 mrem/y
EDE to replace the previous standard,
will protect public health with an ample
margin pf safety. EPA is promulgating a
NESHAP mandating that radionuclide
emissions from DOE facilities shall hot
cause any individual to receive a dose. ,
of greater, than JO mrem/y ede. .
TABLE 3.—DOE FACILITIES .
[Description: The facilities owned and controlled by i
DOE. These include nuclear wsapons production, I
testing and research facilities and other nuclear >
research and production facilities. There are 30
major DOE facilities that release radlonucjides into
; the air.] : .
• . _
Maximum
individual risk
(lifetime)
Incidence within
80 km (death/y) •.
Risk Individual
E-2 to E-1 ...;......
• E-3 to E-2 ..
, E-4 to E-3 .........
Alternative I
(baseline)
. - - :
2.0X10-4
0.28
:.'- -'• ' • .0
•: :-• P
(*)
Alternative II
- •• . . '••..-
:ixio-«
•••'-• 0.25
•'•- .• • o
, • • o
, •, n
E-5 to E-4.... —
E-6 to E-5 .........
less E-6 —
Risk Incidence
E-2 to E-1
' E-3 to E-2 ....... ..
E-4 to E-3 .........
E-5 to E-4 ...I
Et*toE-5
less E-6........
Alternative 1
, (baseline)
590,000
1M
,, ' . . 65M
0
0
O
0.23
0.032
0.010
Alternative II
,560,000
250,000
6SM
0
0
'(•)
0.22
0.0074
0.014
Other Health Impacts: Total cancers no more than
twice fatal cancsrs. .. .
* There are :fewsr than 25 people at- this risk.
However, wa" cannot quantify the number because
detailed demographics have not been obtained.
TABLE 4.—DOE FACILITIES
' , i Alternative
! i n
1 /Racplin^
)!-."••• ' . ' .
. MIR
£ IOX1Q-*
1.0X10-'
Incidence
0.28
0.25
• - •• • '
Increment "
incidence
reduction^
0.03
Total
incidence
reduction
. 0.03
Increment
capital cost
$ 5.9M
Increment
ennualized
cost .
-
S0.2M
. Total
annualized
, :COSt
$0.2NS
Comments: Alternative I: Baseline rule, emission limit of 10 mrem/y ede—highest emissions are from Los Alamos and Oak Ridge.
• Alternative it: Emission limit of, 3 mrem/y ede (equivalent to a MIR of 1 x10~ Vrthe following controls are needed: Los Alamos—beam stops and de!ay lines; Oak
Ridge—HEPA filters, particulate scrubbers, and tritiated water capture. ' , . . •
4. Implementation •...'.-
a. Introduction. ORP's experience in
implementing the existing radionuclide
NESHAP covering DOE facilities has
:shown tliat implementation of the
current standard has several problems.
EPA'has developed a new system for
implementing the NESHAJP designed to
overcome the limitations in the;presehf
standard. *
b. Yearly Reports. The
implementation system for the NESHAP
is designed to provide EPA with yearly.
reports on the levels of emissions from
regulated facilities arid resulting doses.
Presently, DOE facilities monitor their
emissions and make annual reports to
EPA. These reports shall continue under
the hew NESHAP. Although the report is
based on a calendar year the dose .
standard applies to any year, i.e. any
period of 12 consecutive months. Since
these reports provide EPA with the
information it needs, DOE facilities are .
exempted from the requirements of
61.10.
o. Methods of Measurement. Because
tha thresholds for measurement are
much lower than'the standard, under
certain circumstances the concentration
and potential doses associated with
release.points that are above the
threshold may be so low that direct
measurement may not be practical. With
prior EPA approval, DOE may determine
these emissions through alternate
procedures.. ; -
d. Definition of a Facility. A problem
in implementing the current standard is
the ambiguity associated with the
present definition of a facility. To
resolve this ambiguity, the new rule
specifies that all the buildings, ......
structures and operations within one
contiguous site shall be considered a
single facility. For example, the entire
DOE facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee
must meet the current standard of 10
mrem/y ede, instead of each individual
building meeting the 10 mrsm/y ede ,
standard. ,
'' e. Distinction Between Construction
and Modification, A potential problem
resulting from EPA's definition of a
facility as all the buildings, structures
and operations within a given plant site,
is confusion over whether the
construction of a hew building is part of
an existing facility, is new construction,
or is a modification of an existing
facility. This rule specifies that the ;
construction of a new building is new
construction at the facility' and not a
modification of the facility. This ••" .
: distinction is important because .all new
construction needs to be checked to see
whether or not it needs prior approval
but modifications which do not cause a
net increase in- the rate, of emissions
from the. facility do not need prior
approval.
L Prior Approval of New Construction
or Modification, EPA will not change
the basic definition of modification that
exists at 40 CFR 61.15. A change that
: will result in any increase in the rate of .
emissions is a modification, no matter
how small that increase is. This includes
cases where the modification has the
potential to increase emissions above -.
prior actual emissions. However, to
reduce unnecessary paperwork, it is
appropriate to avoid applications for
approval in cases of small changes.
Therefore, EPA is promulgating a
system under which D.OE facilities will,
use CAP-88 to determine the dose to the
most exposed indivi3ual due to the
modification or new construction. If the
estimated maximum individual dose
added by the new construction or
modification is less than1% of the :
standard, then the modification'or new •
construction does not need prior.
approval. . • ...; :.'.
In making the determination of dose
for this purpose, DOE must use the. ;
emission factors and source term
determination from "BID: Procedures
Approved for Demonstrating :,
Compliance with the Dose Limits
Established by 40 CFR part 61, subparl
I." (BID: Compliance) or other
procedures for which EPA has granted
prior approval.
-------
and Regulations
D. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Licensed and Non-DOE federal
Facilities
1. Introduction
NRC-Hcensed, Agreement state-
licensed, and non-DOE federal facilities
include over 8,000 different facilities.
These facilities include research and
test reactors, hospitals, clinics, the
radiopharmacealical industry, low level
nuclear waste disposal facilities, and
other research and industrial facilities.
These facilities are located in all fifty
states. EPA estimates that virtually
every American lives within 80 km of an
NRG licensee.
The facilities in this category emit a
large number of radionuclides. These
radionuclides affect individuals by
inhalation, ingestion, ground deposition
and immersion pathways. Individual
facilities may emit only one or two
radionuclides affecting only one or two
pathways.
Emissions from this source category
are presently covered by a radionuclide
NESHAP which mandates that
emissions do not cause any individual to
receive a whole body dose of more than
• 25 mrem/y or receive a dose of 75
mrem/y to any organ. Two categories of
NRC-licensees have been exempted
from coverage by the existing NESHAP:
High-level nuclear waste {HLW)
facilities and uranium fuel cycle (UFC)
facilities. There are two types of HLW
facilities, management and disposal
facilities. The disposal of HLW, .which
occurs at a few unique facilities, is
considered as a separate source
category. The management, processing
and storage of HLW that occurs at a
NRC-licensee is included in the estimate
of emissions of the licensee used in .the
analysis that underlies the rule for this
category, UFC facilities, which are
distinctly different facilities, are being
analyzed as a separate source category,
2, Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA's risk assessment of this category
combined an analysis of the nine sub-
categories that make up this category.
Due to the wide scope of this category,
EPA's risk assessment of this source
category includes both the largest
known emitters and model facilities
with model populations. The estimates
of maximum individual risk are based
on the assessment of the largest known
emitters.
The analysis of the largest sources
was based on information compiled
from previously existing databases and
information received from some of the
sources themselves. The model facilities
were developed after reviewing data
from surveys conducted by the NRG and
the Conference of Radiation Control
Program Directors. The use of model
facilities increases the uncertainty of the
risk assessment. Especially uncertain
are estimates of the population within •
given risk ranges.
The estimates of population risks are
based on extrapolations from model
facilities using census tract data.
Frequency distributions do not take into
account overlapping sources.
The results of this analysis show a
maximum individual risk of 1.6X10"4.
EPA estimates that this category results
in 0.16 fatal cancers per year. Although
virtually the entire U.S. population is
exposed to emissions from this category,
EPA's analysis shows that less than
0.5% of the U.S. population receives a
lifetime fatal cancer risk greater than
1X10-6. Some of the larger NRC-
licensees release small amounts of
iodine-125 and iodine-131; these
radionuclides can cause thyroid cancer,
which is usually non-fatal.
, Table 5 presents example scenarios to.
show how different .emission levels
would result in different health risk '
profiles. The table presents the risk :
estimates at baseline in terms of
estimated annual fatal cancer incidence,
maximum individual lifetime risk, total
population exposed at or above
particular risk levels fie., risk
distribution), and annual incidence
attributable to the population exposed
at each risk level. The table also
presents available estimates of annual
incidence and maximum individual
lifetime risk for a lower emission level.
3. Application of the Decision
Methodology to the NRG Licensees and
non-DOE Federal .Facilities Source
Category
The decision that results from the
application of the multifactor approach
to the rsHC-licensees and non-DOS
Federal facilities source category is
described below.
Decision on Acceptable Risk, As
stated earlier, the maximum individual
risk to any individual is 1,6X10~4. In
establishing the policy for setting
NESHAPs in the context of banzene, the
Agency determined that emissions
resulting in a lifetime MIR no greater
than approximately 1X 1G~4 are
presumptively acceptable, In light of the
numerous uncertainties in both
establishing the parameters for the risk
assessment and in modelling actual
emissions and exposure, as well as the
recognition that in achieving compliance
sources will generally control so as to
ensure a buffer exists below the actual
level of a standard, EPA judges that the
MIR of 1.6X10"4is essentially
equivalent to the presumptively safe
level of approximately IX JO"4. EPA
then considered the other risk factors in
order to make an overall determination
on acceptability.
Very few people are at risks greater
than 1.0xiO~4and approximately 99% of
people Twiihin 80 km of NRG licensees .
are at risk levels of less than 1X10"6.
The estimated annual incidence is 0.16
fatal cancers per year, or 1 case every 8
years. In addition, there would be an
estimated annual incidence of
approximately 0.8 non-fatal cancers per
year, most of which is attributable to
thyroid cancer caused by emissions of
radioactive iodine from hospitals and
radiopharmaceutical manufacturers
(thyroid cancer is also treated with
iodine treatments).
After examining these factors, the
Administrator concludes that baseline
emissions are acceptable for this source
category. *
Decision on Ample Margin of Safety,
In addition to re-examining all the
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has also examined the cost,
scientific certainty, and technological
feasibility of control technology
necessary to lower, emission, from NRG
facilities. The results of this analysis
may be seen in Table 6. Due to. a lack of
detailed information on all NRG
licensees, EPA has analyzed model
facilities. Alternative I, a standard of 10
mrem/y representing the current
baseline emissions, was compared with
Alternative II, a standard of 3 mrem/y, a
standard equivalent to IX 10~4.
EPA's risk assessment indicates that
no reduction in incidence would occur
and only a small reduction of the MIR
wojild occur if reduction of current
emissions to Alternative IITevels were
required. In this source category almost
•all the incidence comes from people
whose risk level is less than 1X10~6.
This means that small reductions in the
emissions of a few licensees have little,
if any, effect on the mcaber of health
effects, both fatal and non-fatal, in ihe
population. The costs associated with
these reductions ane $5,,€!00,OQS with an
annualized cost of $2,400,000 for .
compliance with Alternative II. Based
on the very small reductions in the risks
to public health and the costs of
achieving Alternative II, EPA has
determined that Alternative I protects
the public health with an ample margin
of safety.
EPA has decided to continue
regulation of this category to insure that
the current levels of emissions are not
increased. Requirements of the rule,
such as the submission of yearly reports
and obtaining prior approval of new
construction or modification, will assure
-------
JFednid Registep / Vol. §|/No.. MO-;/. .Friday,'Becember 15.-1989 /'Rules and Regulations ;g!687
that NRG licensees will keep emissions
at or below levels insuring an ample
margin of safety, Moreover, because
each facility subject to this rule must
demonstrate compliance with the 10
mrem/y ede emissions standard, it is
likely that most, if not .all, exposed
individuals will receive a dose
significantly less than 10 mrem/y ede.
EPA believes that limiting emissions
with a baseline standard, represented
by a level of 10 mreni/y ede, will
therefore protect public health with an '
ample margin of safety. Furthermore, to
insure that the risk of nonfatal thyroid
cancer does not increase, the standard
further provides that no more than 3 ,
mrem/y ede out of the 10 mrem/y ed;e
can come from any of the isotopes of
iodine. Therefore, EPA is promulgating a
NESHAP mandating that radionuclide
emissions from NRC licensees shall not
cause any individual to receive a dose
of greater than 10 mrem/y ede, of which
no more than 3 mrem/y ede can come •
from isotopes of iodine.
TABLE 5—NRG LICENSEES
Wescription: There are about 6,000 NRC material
licensees: Radiopharmaceutical manufacturers and
users,7 sealed sources manufacturers, research re-
actors, industrial and university laboratories, and
low-level waste disposal facilities.}
Maximum
individual risk
(lifetime)
Incidence within
80 km (death/y).
Risk individual:
E-2 to E-i '.
E-3 to E-2
E-4toE-3 .....
E-5tpE-4 .
E-6 to E.-5..........
Alternative I
(baseline)
1.6X10'4
0.18
6
0
n
5,000
780,000
Alternative !l.
0.16
"•' - o,
o
n
• g,ooo
780,000
TABLE 8—NRC LICENSEES
TABLE 5—NRC LJCENSEES—-Continued
Wescription: There are about 6,000 NRC material
licensees: Radiopharmaceutical manufacturers and
• users, sealed sources manufacturers, research re-
actors, industrial and university laboratories, and
low-level waste <" '" -•••••
less E-6..... .....
Risk incidence:
E-2 to E-1 .. ......
E-3 to E-2
E-4 to E-3 .. ......
E-5 to E-4. -..
E-6 to E-5 .. ......
less E-6.........:.....
Alternative 1
(baseline)
240M
0
0
O
0.0024
0.027
0.13
Alternative I!
240M
•o
" 0
•-(")
: . 0.0024
0.027
. 0.13
•There are fewer than 25 people at this risk.
However, we cannot quantify the number because
detailed demographics have not been obtaiaed-
Other Health Impacts: Total cancers are approxi-
mately 5 times higher than the number of fata!
cancers because risks from some of the largest
facilities in this source category are caused predomi-
nately by iodine which causes thyroid cancer.
Alternative
ii ' '" ••-• ; ••---.
MIR
1 6x1 0~<
1.0x10-*
Incidence
'* •'• 0.16
0.16
Increment
incidence
reduction
<0.01
Total .
incidence
reduction
<0.01
? •
Increment
capital cost
.'$5M
Increment
annualized
; COSt
$2.4M
Total
'annualized
cost
' $2.4M
Comments: For this category, non-fatal cancer n'sk is appreciably higher than the fatal cancer fisk because most of the risk is due to 1-131 and 1-125 exposure
(thyroid). .-.-•- • . •- ; ......
Alternative I: Baseline rule; 10 mrarn/y ede-^As a practical matter, this alternative is the same as the current NESHAP. ••••..•
Alternative H: Emission limit of 3 mrem/y ed© (equivalent to a MIR of 1x10 -*)—cost estimates are very uncertain. Several hundred facilities would install
cpntrolsor measure emissions to, demonstrate compliance. Thousands would have to report/ to EPA. . • ••-;-. - ' • •. • • .
4'. Implementation
. a. Introduction. The system for
implementing this NESHAP is described
in "A Guide for Determining Compliance
with Clean Air Act Standards for
Radionuclide Emissions From NRG- . .
Licensed and Nori-DOE Federal
Facilities." The Agency has also
developed the COMPLY Computer
Code, for use with "MS-DOS" or "PC-
DOS," computers to assist the regulated
community in determining compliance
with the standard. For more information,
see "Draft User's Guide for the
COMPLY Code" and "Background
Information Document—Procedures
Approved for Demonstrating
Compliance with 40 CFR part 61,
subpart I."
b. Yearly Reports. The
implementation system for the NESHAP
is designed to provide EPA with yearly
. reports on-the levels of emissions and
the dose caused by those emissions from
regulated facilities. There are over 6,000
NRC-licensees, many of which possess
very small amounts of radionuclides.
EPA considers that the emissions from
most sources in this category are so low.
that reporting should not be necessary.
EPA has developed a system to '
determine whether or not reporting is
required by estimating the dose caused
by a facility's emissions. As long as the
dose to the maximum individual is 10%
of the standard or less, the facility does'
not have to report. With this provision,
EPA currently estimates that less than
300 facilities would have to report to
EPA.
The Agency has developed a system
for dose determination that is based on
screening models originally developed
by the NCRP. This system is a series of
screening tests each more complicated
and more realistic than the previous
one. Using this system, each affected
facility will, annually, have to check to
see whether or not it needs to report to
EPA. Even if it does not have to report, it
must keep records of the results for 5
years to demonstrate that it has checked
to see whether or not it needs to report.
Although the report is based on a ;
calendar year, the dose standard applies
to any year, i.e. any period of 12
"consecutive months.
•' In order to simplify calculation, of the
source term, the Agency will allow the •
use of EPA^approved emission factors. !
The derivation of these emission factors
is explained in "BID: Compliance."
These factors are applied to the quantity
of radionuclides used annually at .the , :•
facility. Radionuclides in sealed • :
containers are excluded. The Jesuits of
these calculations are used as the input •
of emissions for the screening model • ••
mentioned above.
For the calculation of d'pse from low
level radioactive waste, facilities must
use CAPP-88 or another model which_
has prior approval from EPA.
Since these reports will provide EPA
with the information it needs, NRC-
licensees are exempted from the
requirements of § 61.10.
c. Prior Approval for Modification of
New Construction. EPA has decided that
the system discussed for DOE facilities
also be used for this source category
. except that the sources will not use
CAP-88 to calculate the doses. Instead
they will use the screening models '
(COMPLY code) described in the BID;
5. Reconsideration of NRC Licensee
Category
Late hi the rulemaking, issues related
to the application of the standard in
Subpart I to NRG licensees were
presented to EPA which raised serious
concerns about possible effects of'
-------
51668 Federal Rggfeter / Voi-5*. No- 240 / Friday, December 15. 1989 / Rules and Regulations
duplicative, and perhaps conflicting,
standards onNRC-licensees, including,
for example, the use of radioisotope
therapies by theNationallnslitutesof
Health (NIH) and other medical
facilities. The concerns arise from the
fact that these licensees would be
regulated by both a Clean Air Act
standard under Subpart I and an
existing NRG standard under 10 CFR
part 20. While the level of health
protection achieved under the NRG
standard is generally comparable to that
required by EPA's rule, the two
standards are very different in form, and
the means of demonstrating compliance
with each standard impose significantly
different regulatory requirements. The
basic issue is whether these different
regulatory requirements will discourage
the use of radioisotopes in medical and
experimental therapies. In addition,
NRG has raised the issue of whether
regulation of its licensees under a Clean
Air Act standard provides any
additional public health benefits.
EPA has expressed similar concerns
in past proceedings on this regulation. In
its Federal Register notice of October 31,
1984, EPA stated, with respect to NRC-
licensed facilities, that the record "does
not support the conclusion that
regulation of (these) * * * facilities is
necessary to protect public health with
an ample margin of safety." 49 Federal
Register at 43912. In its Federal Register
notice of February 6.1985 (50 FR 5190)
EPA stated that:
EPA continues to believe existing
emissions from those sources are already so
low that the public health is already
protected with an ample margin of
safety * * *
Nevertheless, due to the court-ordered
deadline for completion of the
rulemaking by October 31, EPA has
determined that it must promulgate the
final standard under Subpart I at this
time. However, in recognition of the
serious nature of these concerns, and
the need to further investigate and
resolve these matters, EPA has
concluded that it should treat the
comments and information filed by NIH
and NRC as petitions for
reconsideration of the standard with
respect to the range of issues raised by
NRG and NIH, and EPA is granting
reconsideration. For this purpose, a
comment period of SO days from the
date of publication of this notice is
hereby established for the purpose of
receiving further information and
comments on these issues, and a 3
month stay of subpart I, as provided for
under 307(d)(7){B), shall commence on
the [date of publication]. Comments
should be submitted (in duplicate if
possible) to: Central Docket (A-130),
Environmental Protection Agency, Atln:
Docket No. A-79-11, Washington, DC
20400. After considering the information
received, and other available
information pertaining to these issues,
EPA will issue a decision on the need
for further rulemaking on the standard
in subpart I.
C. Uranium Fuel Cycle Facilities
1. Introduction
Uranium Fuel Cycle (UFC) facilities
are the facilities used in the conversion
of uranium ore to electric power. They
include uranium mills and tailings (non-
radon emissions), uranium hexafloride •
conversion plants, light-water uranium
fuel fabrication plants, commercial light-
water nuclear power plants, and fuel
reprocessing plants. These facilities are
licensed by the NRC. (Uranium fuel
enrichment facilities are not included in
this category because they are included
in the DOE facilities source category.
Reprocessing plants are not included
.since the only one ever operated is
being decommissioned and no
reprocessing can occur under current
policies. If a new one were to be opened
in the .future, it would be covered by the
rule.} These facilities involve operations
with the potential for large releases of
radionuclides.
These facilities are not currently
covered by a NESHAP. However, all
releases from these facilities (air, water
and direct gamma radiation] are covered
under the Uranium Fuel Cycle Standard,
40 CFR part 190. This standard was
promulgated by EPA under the authority
of the AEA and is implemented and
enforced by NRC. Under the standard,
the combined releases of all UFC
facilities must not cause any member of
the public to receive a dose of more than
25 mrem/y to the whole body or to any
organ except the thyroid (which can
receive 75 mrem/y). In the past, the
Administrator decided not to regulate
this category under section 112, because
he determined that the AEA standard
protected public health with an ample
margin of safety. EPA's decision not to
regulate this category is one of the
issues in the current litigation.
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA's risk assessment for this
category is the combination of the
results of the assessments of the
different types of facilities included in
this category. The source term for
emissions from uranium mill tailing piles
is estimated for operable mills using
NRCs methodology. Fugitive dust
emissions from a tailing pile are
assumed to be a function of
meteorological conditions (wind,
rainfall, temperature), ore composition,
particle size and other factors. The
estimate does not include radon releases
which are covered by a separate
NESHAP. Meteorological and
population data are based on actual mill
sites. The assessment of the two
uranium hexafluoride conversion plants
. is based on reported emissions and
census population distributions and
meteorological data from nearby
airports.
The assessment for fuel fabrication
plants is based on reported emissions
and census population distributions .
from the largest facility. The emission
estimate for nuclear power plants is
based on actual releases from operating
plants. Population data is taken if om
NRG reference populations.
Assessments consider effects of multiple
reactors at a site, but not the overlap of
multiple sites. The results of the analysis
show that the most exposed individual
receives a dose associated with an
increased risk of fatal cancer of
1.5XiO~4. There is a predicted incidence
of 0.1 fatal cancer per year in the '
population, with almost all the
population risk received by people with
a lifetime risk of less than 1X10"8.
Virtually the entire U.S. population lives
within 80 km of at least one UFC facility.
Table 7 presents example scenarios to
show how different emission levels
would result in different health risk
profiles. The table presents the risk
estimates at baseline in terms of .'
estimated annual fatal cancer incidence,
maximum individual lifetime .risk, total
population exposed at or above
particular risk levels (i.e., risk
distribution), and annual incidence
attributable to the population exposed
at each risk level. The table also
presents available estimates of annual
incidence and maximum individual
lifetime risk for a lower emission level.
3. Application of Decision Methodology
to the Uranium Fuel Cycle Source
Category •
The decision that results from the
application of the multifactor approach
to the UFC facilities source category is
described below. -
Decision on Acceptable Risk, As
stated earlier, the maximum individual
risk to any individual is approximately
1.5X10"4. In establishing the policy for ,
setting NESHAPs in the context of
benzene, the Agency determined that
emissions resulting in a lifetime MIR no
greater than approximately 1X 10~4are
presumptively acceptable. In light of the
numerous uncertainties in both
establishing the parameters for the risk
-------
federal Register / Vol. 54,;;Ng. 240 / _Frida^ Decemte
. assessment and in modelling actual
emissions and exposure, as well as the
recognition that in achieving - '
. compliance, sources will generally
control so as to ensure a buffer exists
below the actual level of a standard,
EPA judges that the MIR of 1.5 X10'4 is
essentially equivalent to the
presumptively safe level of
approximately 1X1(T4. EPA then
considered the other risk factors in
order to make an overall decision on
acceptability. The estimated annual
incidence is 0.1 fatal cancer per year,
and approximately 99% of that risk is
borne by people whose -risk is less than
1X10"°. Only 60 individuals incur a risk
greater than 1X10~4, and the incidence
in the level greater than 1 xlQ~* is only
0.00093.
After examining these factors, the
Administrator has determined that the
baseline risks from UFC facilities are
acceptable. '
TABLE?— URANIUM FUEL CYCLE
FACILITIES
[Description: The facilities thai convert uranium ore
into electric power. They include operating urani-
um mills (nonradon emissions), uranium hexafluor-
kfe conversion plants, fuel fabrication plants, nu-
clear power reactors. About 135 facilities make up
this category.]
Maximum
individual risk
(lifetime)...............
Incidence within
80 km (death/y) .
Risk individual: .
E-2 to E-1
E-3 to E-2
E-4 to E-3
E-5 to E-r4 .........
Alternative I
(baseline)
t.5x10-4
•;• °-1-.
' 0
0
80
6,600
Alternative II
3.0x10-=
0.1
. 0
0
0
4,000
TABLE 7— URANIUM FUEL CYCLE
. FACiLiTiES— Continued
[Description: Tne facilities that convert uranium era
into electric power. They include operating urani-
um mills (nonradon emissions), uranium hexafluor- •
ide conversion plants, fuel fabrication plants, nu-
clear power reactors. About 135 facilities make up
this category.l .
E-8 to E-5
teSSE-6..
Risk, incidence:
E-2 to E-1 .......
' E-3 to E-2 ....... .
E-4 to E-3....
E-5 to E-4........ .
E-6toE-5
". less E-6
Alternative!
(baseline)
42,000
240M
0
0
0.0002
0.0012,
0.0002
0.094
Alternative II
20,000
240M
0
0
0
.' - 0.001
O.OOOS
-0.094
Other Health Impacts: Total cancers no more than
twice fatal cancers. '
TABLE 8—URANIUM FUEL CYCLE FACILITIES
- ~ Alternative ' ..-', ' .
I (Baseline) ;..„.; ...;.... ....
II j ...
MIR
1.5x10~4
30X10"8
• Incidence
01
01
. Increment
incidence
reduction
<001
' Total
incidence
reduction •
<0 01
Increment
capital cost
""sysM
Increment
anhualizsd
cost
$31M
Total
annualized
cost
$31M
Comments: ' ... . .
Alternative I: Baseline rule, 10 mrem/y ede—the dose from one uranium mill is of this magnitude.
' Alternative II: Emission limit of 1 mrem/y ede (equivalent to a MIR of 3x10"^—Most of the incidence is due to power reactors and only a few are affected by
this alternative, so there is little reduction in incidence. Additional controls are required for uranium millsand uranium conversion plants.
.Decision on Ample Margin of Safety.
In addition to reexamining all the
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has also examined the cost,
scientific certainty, and technological
feasibility of control technology
necessa'ry to lower emissions from UFC
facilities. The results of this analysis
may be seen in Table 8. To reduce the
complexity of studying the costs and
benefits of all different control options,
, EPA has concentrated on the facilities
with the largest emissions. Alternative I,
a standard of 10 mrem/y representing
the current baseline emissions, was
compared with Alternative II, a
standard of 1 mrem/y, equivalent to
axle-5. . : * •
EPA's risk assessment indicates that a
small reduction in the MIR and an
estimated reduction of incidence by less
than-one case every 100 years would
occur by reducing emissions from .their
present levels to a level equivalent to
IXIO"4. This occurs'because the
incidence from this source category is *
caused Dy the large number of people,
each of whom is at very low risk levels.
This results in a situation where small
reductions in emissions from a couple of
facilities that are above the level of
Alternative II, achieve effectively no
reduction in the public health impact
from the source category. Based on
these factors and on the costs of
achieving Alternative II (Table 8), EPA
has determined that the current
emission level provides an ample margin
of safety. Therefore, EPA believes that,
limiting "emissions to their current level ~
by imposition of a standard of 10 mrem/
y ede; will protect public health with an
ample margin of safety. •'.-•
EPA has decided to regulate this
category to insure that the current levels
of emissions are not increased. The
requirements of the rule assure that UFC
facilities will keep emissions at or below
the level of the standard, thereby :
insuring an ample margin of safety. The
reporting provisions als.o provide the , ,
public with information on the emissions
from the facility and provides them with
assurance that the emissions will remain
safe with an ample margin of safety,
regardless of changes in the facility or
the local population. Moreover, because
each facility subject to this rule must
demonstrate compliance with the 10
mrem/y ede emissions standard, it is
likely that most, if not all, exposed ,
individuals will receive a dose
significantly less than 10 mrern/y ede.
Therefore, EPA is promulgating a -•.,.•-
NESHAP mandating that radionuclide
emissions from UFC facilities shall not
cause any individual to receive a dose
greater than 10 mrem/y ede.
4. Implementation
EPA has determined that the same
level of regulation is, appropriate for
both UFC facilities and NRC-licensees.
Therefore, EPAhas removed the..
exemption for UFC facilities hi the NRC-
licehsee NESHAP and will regulate
• them exactly fJie same as other
licensees, including reporting and
recordkeepingrequirements.
' EPA approves the use of the current
version of NRC regulatory guidances for
use in determining the emissions from
UFG facilities and will consider making
a technical change to this rule to allow
-use of updated versions when.they
become available.
D, Elemental Phosphorus Plants
1. Introduction '
Elemental phosphorus plants extract
pure phosphorus from ore for use in the
chemical industry; These facilities emit
radionuclides into the air Decause
phosphate ore is high in uranium and its
decay products. These decay products,
especially polonium-210 and lead-210, '
become volatilized during the extraction
process and are released into the
-------
atmosphere. There are eight (5
operational, 3 standby) elemental
phosphorus plants located in four
different states. However, most of the
emissions come from two plants in
Idaho.
Due to the types of radionuclides
emitted by these plants, virtually all the
dose is received by the lung through the
inhalation pathway causing an
increased risk of lung cancer. This risk
can be controlled through the use of a
standard which directly limits emissions
of polonium-210 (control measures
which limit polonium-210 also limit
emissions of lead-210). There is no need
to write dose standards.
Elemental phosphorus plants are
currently regulated by a NESHAP that
limits their emissions to no more than 21
curies of polonium-210 annually.
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA's risk assessment of elemental
phosphorus plants is a site-by-site
assessment of operating and standby
plants, based on monitored data and
throughput. Changes in the risk
assessment since the proposal are the
result of corrected meteorological data.
Maximum individual risks were
assessed at actual residences or at a
location 1500 m in the predominant wind
direction. The location of nearby
populations was taken from census tract
data.
According to the assessment,. EPA
estimates that the most exposed
individual receives a lifetime fatal
cancer risk of 5.7 X 10~ 4. There is an
increased incidence of 0.072 fatal cancer
per year in the nearby (within 80 km)
population, or 1 case every 14 years.
Over 75% of the exposed population
receives risks of less than 1X10~6.
Table 9 presents example scenarios to
show how different emission levels
would result in different health risk
profiles. The table presents the risk
estimates at baseline in terms of
estimated annual fatal cancer incidence,
maximum individual lifetime risk, total *
population exposed at or above
particular risk levels (i.e., risk
distribution), and annual incidence
attributable to the population exposed
at each risk level. The table also
presents available estimates of annual
incidence and maximum individual
lifetime risk for a lower emission level.
3. Application of Decision Methodology
to the Elemental Phosphorus Plants :.
Source Category
The decision that results from the
application of the multifactor approach
TABLE 9—ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS PLANTS
to the elemental phosphorus plants
source category is described below.
Decision on Acceptable Risk. As
stated earlier, the maximum individual
risk to any individual is 5.7X10"4. This
is higher than the presumptively safe
level. The estimated annual incidence is
0.072 fatal cancer per year. There are an
estimated 5000 people that are exposed
to risk -levels greater than ixiO"4, and
an estimated 365,000 people that are
exposed to risk' levels greater than
1X10~8. After examining these factors,
the Administrator has determined that
the risk level represented by the
baseline is unacceptable. EPA then
considered Alternatives II and III to
determine an acceptable risk level. A
reduction in emissions to 2 curies/y Po-
210 would reduce the incidence to 0.024,
or 1 case every 40 years and expose no
one to a risk level greater than 1X10~4.
This equals the level that is
presumptively safe. Therefore., the
acceptable level of emissions of
polonium-210 is a level that limits the
maximum individual risk to any
individual of lxlO~4, represented by an
emissions level of 2 curies/y Po-210.
polonium-210 and lead-210 because these materials are present in
^ P°CBSSl TtWe are 8 *lemental Phosphorus plants, of which 5 are currently operating. The
Maximum Individual risk (lifetime) -
FUsk Individual: " •
E-2toE-1
E-3 to E-2 - ' : -
E-4 to E-3 ...................
E-6toE-5 ;. "
lossE-6 •
Risk lncfdenc«: ' " " ;
E-2toE-1
E-3 to E-2 „ !.!"!" " ' "' ' '
E-5 to E-4 . " :
E-6 to E-5 ,.. - ' * •' "•'
(OSS E-6 : ' "
Other Health Impacts: Non-fatal cancers no more than 5% of deaths.
Alternative I
(baseline)
5.7XIO-*
0.072
0
' 0
5,000
110,000
250,000
1.5M
0
0
0.010
0.040
0.016
0.0058
Alternative II
1X10-'
0.024
0
0
0
20,000
330.000
1.5M.
0
0
0
0.0051
0.013
0.0059
Alternative III
1X10-"
0.0022
0
0
0
0
17,000
1.8M
0
0
0
0
0.00040
0.0018
TABLE 10—ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS PLANTS
Alternative
1 (Basolkio)..,.. „ ' •
II
Ill • " "
MIR
5.7X10-1
1x10 -«
Incidence
0.072
0.024
Increment
incidence
reduction
0.048
0.022
Total
incidence
reduction
. 0.048
0.070
Increment
capital cost
$8.5M
$35M
Increment
annualized
, cost
$2.4M
$18M
Total
annualized
$2.4M
$20M
Alternative III. Fabric filters on the two largest plants. High energy scrubbers on all othet plants.
-------
Federal Register / Vol 54, No 240 [ Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 51671
Decision on Ample Margin of Safety.
In addition to reexamining all the
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has also examined the cost,
scientific certainty, and technological
feasibility of control technology,
necessary to lower emissions from
elemental phosphorus plants. The
results of this analysis may be seen in
Table 10. Alternative II, a standard of 2
curies/y of polonium-210 representing
the acceptable level, was compared with
Alternative III, which would require a
collection of work practices.
A comparison of the, two alternatives
indicates that in absolute terms, a very
small reduction in incidence would
occur, from 0.024 to 0.0022, representing
an estimated savings of 1 life every 45
years. Level HI would also lower the
MIR by one order of magnitude to,
1X 10~5. EPA examined these very small
reductions in risks, and the relatively
large costs of achieving Alternative III,
arid has determined that Alternative H
protects the public health with an ample
margin of safety. Therefore, EPA is
establishing a NESHAP limiting
emissions from elemental phosphorus ,
plants to 2 curies/y of polonium-210, as
compared to the existing standard of 21
curies/y. '• :
4. Implementation
The current NESHAP for elemental
phosphorus plants required each plant
to either conduct an initial test on its
emissions or get a waiver from testing.
After this original report no further
testing was required, unless plant f
operations were changed significantly.
EPA plans to continue'this system,
without the waiver provisions. Tests
conducted Under the current NESHAP
are still valid if conditions have not
changed.
Plants will be required to monitor
their operations continuously and keep
records of the results of their monitoring
onsite for five years. Plant owners will
have to certify on a semiannual basis
that no changes in operations that
would require new testing have
occurred. Although the report is based
on a calendar year the emission limit
applies to any year, i.e. any period of 12
consecutive months.
Since the reports provide EPA with
the information it needs, elemental
phosphorous plants are exempted from
the requirements of § 61.10.
E. Coal-Fired Utility arid Industrial
Boilers : .-,..
1. Introduction ,
This category covers electrical utility
and industrial boilers which emit the
radionuclides naturally present in coal.
Coal contains only minute amounts of
radionuclides. This category is being
considered because large boilers bum
large quantities of coal and are so
widely dispersed throughout the nation
that the radionuclide emissions are
estimated to cause 0.8 fatal cancer a
year among the U.S. population. .
Emissions from coal-fired bailers are
presently regulated under National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for
particulate matter. In additionr the larger
new coal-fired boilers have to meet New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS).
Coal-fired boilers are regulated for the -•
other pollutants they-emit including SOa
and particulates.,
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA's risk assessment of coal-fired
boilers is based on extrapolations of
estimated radionuclide emissions based
on actual particulate emissions with
model populations. Estimates of
emissions are from the reference "
facilities with the largest emissions.
Population risks are based on emissions
from typical plants/These emissions
were analysed on four sites: urban,
suburban, rural and remote. Further
information was received from a recent
.study of emissions from coal-fired - '.•
boilers done by the Office of Air
Quality, Planning aiid Standards. EPA
assumed that the entire U.S. population
lives within 80 km of at least one coal
fired boiler.
EPA estimates that the maximum
individual risk is 2.5X10"5 and that
there are 0.8 fatal cancer a year caused .
by radionuclide emissions from both
utility and industrial coal fired boilers.
Virtually all the fatal cancer risk is
borne by individuals whose lifetime
fatal cancer risk is less than 1 X10~8.
Table 11 presents example scenarios
to show how different emission levels
would:result in different health risk
profiles. The table presents the risk
estimates at baseline in terms of :
TABLE 12—OOAL-FIRED BOILERS
estimated annual fatal cancer incidence,
maximum individual lifetime risk, total
population exposed at or above :
particular'risk levels (i.e., risk
distribution], and annuarincidence
attributable to the population exposed
at each risk level. The table also
presents available estimates of annual
incidence and maximum individual
lifetime risk for a lower emission level.
3. Application of Decision Methodology
to Coal-Fired Boilers Source Category
The decision that results from the
application of the multifactor approach
to the coal-fired boilers source category
is described below. •
Decision on Acceptable Risk. As
stated earlier, the maximum individual
risk to any individual is 2.5X1G~5 which
is below the presumptively safe level.
The estimated annual incidence within
80 km is 0.8 fatal cancer per year. Over
. 99% of the incidence comes from people
whose individual risk is less-than
1 X10"e. Almost everyone in the U.S. .
lives within 80 kilometers of a coal-fired
boiler, which results in'a risk which is
very evenly and equitably distributed.
Therefore, EPA concludes that the
baseline risk level is acceptable.
TABLE 11-^COAL-FIRED BOILERS
[Description: Over 1,500 electrical utility and large
industrial boilers release the small amounts of
radionuclides naturally found in coal along with the
non-radioactive particufatesj
Maximum
individual risk
(lifetime) .'.
Incidence within
80 km (daath/y) .
Risk individual:
E-2toE-1_ .;.
E-3toE-2
E-4 to E-3
-E-5 to E-4 ....,_...
E-6 to E-5 ..........
~less Er6............;..
Risk incidence
'E-210E-1
E-3 to E-2 .........
E-4 to E-3
, E-5 to E-4
E-6 to E-5
less E-6...;..
Alternative 1
(Baseline) ,
2.5X10-5
OS
0
. 0
.V 0
: .-<*)
130,000
- :240M
0
' 0
0
o
0.001
0.8
Alternative I)
1-X10-*.
0.4
0
0
0
0
''(*)
2/OM
0
0
0
0
n
0.4
*We believe that people are at this risk level but
all 1,500 facilities in this category havs not been
characterized. " .
Other Health Impacts: Total cancers no more than
twice fatal cancers. •.'-.-•
Alternative
1 (Baseline): - •-•-''.
(util) .'.;
MIR :
• 2.5x10-"
Incidence
0.4
Increment
incidence
reduction
. Total
incidence
reduction
1. •• -.
Increment
capital cost
r • • — :
Increment
ahnuaiized
cost
-"••""",- -"
-Total
annualized
cost
-------
51672 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 12—COAL-FIRED BOILERS—Continued
Alternative
(inds)
Alternative II:
(util)..« . „.
(tads)
MIR
*7X10~S
1X10"'
*1X10~6
Incidence
*04
0.2
*02
Increment
incidence
reduction
0.2
*02
Total
incidence
reduction
0.2
*02
Increment
capital cost
$138
Increment
annualized
cost
S4.4B
*$1.7B
Total
annualized
' cost '
•
S4.4B
*$1.7B
•Offica of Air Quality Planning and Standards values {Draft—Coal and Oil Combustion Study, 1988). ,
Alternative'): Baseline, no rule—utility boilers: current emissions as controlled by NSPS, PSD, and SIP; industrial boilers: current emissions as controlled by SIP.
AltematfvB II: Utility boilers: retrofit of all sources to meet NSPS (particulate standard). Assumes ESPs are used to retrofit to an emission limit of 13 ng/jpule
{NSPS revised). Retrofit would yield additional health benefits due to reductions in particulate emissions. '...'..
Industrial boilers: retrofit all units >2MM Btu/h with ESPs.
Decision on Ample Margin of Safety.
In addition to reexamining all the
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has also examined the cost,
scientific certainty, and technological
feasibility of control technology
necessary to lower emissions from coal-
fired boilers. The results of this analysis
may be seen in Table 12. Alternative I,
baseline emissions, was compared with
Alternative II, which would require.
retrofitting existing sources to meet the -
NSPS. EPA's risk assessment indicates
that the baseline MIR from coal-fired
boilers, 2.5X10"5, is very low, well
below the presumptively safe level of
approximately 1X10"4. The risk is very
evenly distributed among the
population. The costs of Alternative n
are extremely large. EPA examined the
small risks presented by coal-fired
boilers and the very large costs of
achieving Alternative II, and determined
that the current level of emissions
represents an ample margin of safety. In
addition, since all new facilities will
have to meet NSPS, the effect of the
NESHAP would solely be to require
retrofitting of existing boilers. The NSPS
provides assurance that the risks from
coal-fired boilers will be reduced over
time.
Therefore, EPA has determined that
current levels of radionuclide emissions
from coal-fired boilers represent a level
of risk that protects the public health
with an ample margin of safety.
F. High-Level Nuclear Waste Disposal
Facilities
'l. Introduction
Management and storage operations
for high-level nuclear waste, spent fuel
and transuranic waste are addressed in
the categories for DOE facilities and
NRC-licensed and non-DOE Federal
facilities described above. This category
addresses facilities constructed and
dedicated to long term disposal of such
materials pursuant to regulations to be
promulgated at 40 CFR191. Site
characterization studies for the first
such repository are being conducted by
DOE and currently center on Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. In addition, DOE is
constructing an experimental Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) which may
be dedicated as a disposal facility.
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA's risk assessment of HLW
disposal facilities is based upon DOE
engineering estimates for conceptual
designs for the WIPP in New Mexico,
and a permanent repository at Yucca
Mountain, They were analyzed by EPA
and are believed to be reasonable.
Population data was taken from U.S.
census data at these sites. Although the
decision on Yucca Mountain's
acceptability as a disposal site has not
yet been made, EPA has analyzed the
Yucca Mountain site in order to
incorporate site specific information into
the analysis.
EPA estimates that the maximum
individual risk is 7 X 10~ ' and that there
would be 0.0000043 fatal cancers a year
caused by radionuclide emissions from
HLW disposal facilities to less than 1
million people within 80 km of these
facilities. All the fatal cancer risk is
borne by individuals whose total fatal
cancer risk is less than IX 10~6.
The reason that the emissions and
risks are so low is the nature of the
disposal operations. Most material will
be brought to the site already sealed and
buried below ground. Normal operations
preclude any significant air emissions.
Table 14 presents the risk estimates at
baseline in terms of estimated annual
fatal cancer incidence, maximum .
individual lifetime risk, total population
exposed at or above particular risk
levels (i.e., risk distribution], and annual
incidence attributable to the population
exposed at each risk level.
3. Application of Decision Methodology
to the High Level Waste Source
Category
The decision that results from the
application of the multifactor approach
to the HLW disposal facilities source
category is described below..
Decision on Safe With an Ample
Margin of Safety. As stated above, the
individual risks from HLW disposal
facilities are very small, 7X10"8, much
less than the 1X10" 4 benchmark. In
addition, there would be 0.0000043 fatal
cancer a year from radionuclide
emissions from disposal of HLW, see
Table 13. The emissions and risk levels
are so low that it was not necessary to
evaluate any alternatives. The
Administrator determines that the
estimate of emissions from disposal of
HLW represents a level that will protect
public health with an ample margin of
safety.
Operations involving the -
management, processing or storage of
high-level waste, the operations from
which an increase in emissions are more
likely to occur, are regulated under
NESHAPS controlling emissions from
NRC-licensees, uranium fuel cycle
facilities and DOE facilities. Disposal
operations involve burying sealed
containers of radioactive material,
operations from which emissions are
unlikely to occur. Therefore, EPA
believes that there is no reason to
expect that emissions to air would
significantly increase, and, since the
expected emissions are so low, no
NESHAP is needed. ' .
TABLE 13—HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
[Description: Facilities designed to dispose of high
level nuclear waste. There are no currently operat-
ing facilities. A geological repository is being con-
sidered for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant now under construction in
New Mexico, may also become a disposal facility.
Baseline emissions are estimates of expected
emissions. No alternatives are given due to ex-
pected risks well below 1 x 10~S.J
Maximum individual risk (lifetime).
Incidence within 80 km (death/y).
Risk individual:
E-2 to E-1
E-3 to E-2
Alternative I
(Baseline)
7.0x10-"
•,0000043
0
0
-------
TABLE 13—HIGH LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE
DISPOSAL FACiLiTiES-T-Continued
[Description: Facilities designed to dispose of high
|evel nuclear waste. There are no currently operat-
ing facilities. A geological repository is being con-
sidered for Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant now under construction in
New Mexico, may also become a disposal facility.
Baseline emissions are estimates of expected
emissions. No alternatives are given due to ex-
pected risks well below 1 x10~6.]
E-4 to E-3
E-5 to E-4...
E-6 to E-5 .......'. .
less E-6 _..
Risk incidence:
E-2 to E-1 '.
E-3 to E-2
E-4 to E-3
E-5 to E-4 ;. . ..
E-6 to E-5.... . . .
less E-6
Alternative I
(Baseline)
0
0
0
101 000
0
0
0
0
0
0 0000043
Other Health Impacts: Total cancers no rnors than
twice fatal cancers. , •
G. Radon Releases from Department of
Energy Facilities
1. Introduction ---•..-.-.--
The DOE administers many facilities,
including government-owned,
contractor-operated facilities across the
country. Some of these facilities have
large stockpiles of radium-containing
material. Because this material has a
high radium content it emits large
quantities of radon. This material is •
stored in at least six different sites (at
five locations} owned or controlled by
DOE in Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio and Utah. DOE is presently
in the process of taking remedial action
at these sites to dispose of the material
on a long-term basis under procedures ,
defined by Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act fCERCLA}, or has
completed required action and placed
residues in interim storage. DOE has
entered into or is negotiating a CERCLA
compliance agreement for these .
remedial actions in accordance with
CERCLA requirements, EPA policy and
Executive Order 12580. The agreement
for the DOE Monticello site has
incorporated a 20 pCi/m2—s flux
standard through reference to DOE
guidelines and 40 CFR192. .
The current NESHAP covering DOE
facilities does not regulate radon
emissions. Environmental groups
challenged EPA in court to address the
problem-of radon emissions fronrDOE
facilities. In March, EPA proposed that
these facilities be regulated under a
NESHAP; one option in that proposal
would have limited emissions of radon
fipm DOE facilities to no more than 20
pCi/m2-s. :
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk v
, EPA's risk assessment of DOE
facilities is a site-by-site assessment of
current emissions. Radon emission
estimates were mostly measured values
provided by DOE or estimated from
measured radium-228 concentrations in
the wastes. The meteorological data
were taken from nearby stations and"
populations are based on U.S. census
- tract data. ,
According to EPA's analysis, lifetime
fatal cancer risk to the most exposed
individual is 1.4X10"3. DOE facilities
cause an estimated 0.08 fatal cancer per
year, or approximately 1 case every 12
years to the 28 million persons within 80
km of the DOE facilities. Approximately
75% of the risk to that population comes
from individuals whose risk is over
1X1Q~6. It is noted that this analysis
does not consider the planned remedial
actions which will be implemented
under CERCLA, as amended, in
conjunction with either Interagency
Agreements or Federal Facilities
Agreements with EPA. .
Table 14 presents example scenarios
to show how different emission levels
would result in different health risk
profiles. The table presents the risk
estimates at baseline in terms of
estimated annual fatal cancer incidence,
• maximum individual lifetime risk, total
population exposed at or above
particular risk levels (i.e., risk
distribution), and annual incidence
attributable to the population exposed
at each risk level. The table also
presents available estimates of annual
incidence and maximum individual
lifetime risk for lower emission levels
identified as Alternatives II, and III.
3. Application of Decision Methodology
to the Radon Emissions From DOE
Facilities Source Category .
The decision that results from the
application of the multifactor approach
to the DOE radon source category is
described below.
Decision on Acceptable Risk. As
stated earlier, the maximum individual
risk to any individual is 1.4xlO~3-which
is higher than the presumptively safe
level. EPA has considered other risk ;
factors to determine whether the >
baseline risk is acceptable. The
estimated annual incidence is
approximately 0.072 fatal cancers per
year, and approximately 75% of that risk
is borne by people whose risk is over
IXIO"6. Over 2,000 people are exposed
to risks greater that 1X10~4. Considering
all of these factors, especially the high
level of maximum individual risk, the
baseline is unacceptable.
EPA next examined several ~ ; . -
alternatives before determining the
acceptable level; those alternatives and
the risks they present are presented in
Table 14. After examining these
different options, the Agency
determined that Alternative II, setting a
NESHAP limiting radon emissions to 20
pCi/m2-s, is acceptable. The maximum
individual risk that results from this
alternative, 1.8X10"*, which in light of
the numerous uncertainties in both
establishing the parameters for the risk
assessment and in modelling actual
emission and exposure( as well as the
recognition that in achieving compliance
sources will generally control so as to
ensure that a buffer exists below the
actual level of a standard, is essentially
equivalent to the presumptively safe
level of approximately IX 10~4. Over
99% of the population would be exposed
- to risks of less tharilXlO"6. In addition,
the incidence level is only 0.040 fatal
cancers per year and 0.0021 non-fatal
cancers annually. Only a few people
.(approximately 100) would be exposed
, to risks greater than 1X10"4; the'
• predicted rate of fatal cancer among this
. group is less than 1 every 5,000 years.
'Decision on Ample Margin of. Safety.
In addition to reexamining all of the
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has alsr> examined the cost,
scientific certainty, and technological
feasibility of control, technology
necessary to lower radon emissions
from DOE facilities. The results of this
analysis can be seen in Table 15. When
EPA examined,the control technology
• necessary to lower radon emissions
from DOE facilities it concluded that the
only technologically feasible control is
burying the sources of radon emissions.
The examined options Alternative II,
and Alternative HI, differ only in the
amount of dirt that is used to bury the
radium bearing waste. The costs and
benefits of controlling emissions to
various levels'can be seen in Table 15.
A comparison of the two alternatives
indicates that a very small reduction in
incidence of 0.009, would result from
imposing Alternative HI, representing an
estimated savings of 1 life every 111
years: the change in maximum
individual risk would also be very small.
EPA examined this very small reduction
in incidence and maximum individual
- risk and the costs of achieving
Alternative HI and has,determined that
Alternative H provides an ample margin
of safety. Therefore, EPA has decided to
regulate this category by setting a
-------
51674 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules, and Regulations
NESHAP limiting emissions from these
sources to 20 pCi/m2-s. This rule will
assure that all DOE radon sites [radium-
226 byproduct material disposal and
storage sites) resulting from DOE
cleanup and restoration under CERCLA
TABLE 14—RADON FROM DOE FACILITIES
will be covered by the rule. This
standard will protect public health with
an ample margin of safety.
[Description: Radon released (ram waste materials left behind from the Manhattan project and the early days of the Atomic Energy Commission. These wastes are
currently stored at six facilities controlled by DOE.]
Incidence within 80 km (dcath/y) . • •
Risk Individual:
E-3 to E-2
E-4 to E-3 • •• •• •
E-5 to E-4
tggg E-6
Risk Incidence:
E-3 to E-2
E-4 to E-3 •
E-5 to E-4 - ••"
E-6 to E-5 ~
Alternative I
(baseline)
1.4X10-'
0.072
0
30
2,000
8,200
360,000
28M
0
0.00056
,0.0058
0.0031
0.0087
0.054
Alternative II
1.8X10-4
0.040
0
0
100
3,800
92,000
- 28M
0
0
0.00019
0.0014
0.0026
0.036
Alternative III
1X10-4
0.012
0
0
0
470
19,000
28M
0
0
0
0.00015
0.00052
0.011
.
Ottwr Health Impacts: Non-fatal cancers no more than 5% of deaths.
TABLE IS—RADON FROM DOE FACILITIES
Alternative
it
nim<
MIR
1 4X10'1
1.8X10"4
1.0X10-4
Incidence
0.072
0.040
0.012
Increment
incidence
reduction
0.032
0,028
Total
incidence
reduction
. ,
0.032
0.060
Increment
capital cost
$29M
$26M
Increment
annualizad
cost
$1.5M
S1.3M
Total
annualized
. cost
1.5M
$2.8M
Comments: . ' . .
Alternative I: Baseline, no rule—Self-regulated by DOE. • . -
Alternative II: Cover source to limit emissions to 20 pCi/rr^-s—This is the same level as the current AEA rule set by EPA for uranium mill tailings.
Altemativa III: Cover source to limit emissions to 2 pCi/m^-s—Most of the cost is to control emissions from the Momicello tailings pile.
4. Implementation
This NESHAP is a flux standard that
limits the emission of radon from DOE
facilities. The standard limits the
amount of radon that can be emitted per
unit area (m2) per unit of time (s). This
standard is not an average per facility
but is an average per radon source. This
will require that all radon sources must
be disposed of in a manner that will
reduce the radon flux to meet the
standard.
Currently, all DOE radon sites have
completed construction of interim
storage facilities or have signed or are
negotiating cleanup agreements under
CERCLA with EPA regional offices. All
existing agreements require that the
waste be covered to reduce the radon
flux to 20 pCi/m^-s. This rule will assure
that all future agreements will require
that the radon flux be reduced to at least
this level.
While EPA believes that DOE will be
able to meet this standard, EPA
recognizes that in some cases DOE may
need some time to perform all the
actions necessary to reduce radon
emissions to the required levels. In such
a case, DOE may request a waiver of the
•compliance deadline of up to two years,
under section 112(c)(l)(b)(ii) of the CAA.
If two years is not sufficient time to
complete remediation of the sites, EPA
is prepared to discuss extended
schedules for compliance. EPA
recognizes that the requirements of
CERCLA and other environmental laws
will have to be considered in these
discussions. This process will ensure
that these sites are cleaned up as
quickly as possible.
EPA believes that the existing
oversight of DOE sites through the
CERCLA program is sufficient to protect
the public health, therefore, EPA is
requiring no additional'reporting or
implementation requirements for this
source category; Unlike the other
categories that may be regulated by
other laws, these sites are reporting and
will continue to report to EPA regional
offices, providing EPA with all the
information it needs to assure
compliance with this standard.
Therefore, these DOE facilities are
exempted from the requirements of
§ 61.10.
H. Phosphogypsum Stacks
1. Introduction ,
Phosphogypsum stacks are large piles
of waste from wet acid phosphorus
fertilizer production. Phosphogypsum
stacks are found at 41 different sites hi
12 states. Because phosphate ore
contains a relatively high concentration
of uranium and radium, phosphogypsum
stacks are also high in these elements.
The presence of radium hi the stacks
causes them to release radon into the
atmosphere.
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA has performed a pile-by-pile
assessment of radon releases at 58
phosphogypsum stacks at 41 sites.
Radon emissions are based on measured
radon fluxes at stacks in Florida and
Idaho which, combined with the radium
content of the phosphate rock, allowed
EPA to estimate emissions from the
other stacks. The maximum individual
risks estimates are based on the
-------
. ,.•• ' .,,...,,-—.< <•>*•' .-•••' '.--•••:„--.•- 'i. ;.-,.iK;.-i-, w-t,....n5t^,a . •'*¥»«! J-a
240 / Friday;'-.December 15,1989 /JRuies and Regulations S1875
locations of nearby residents obtained
from industry or topographical maps.
Where information was unavailable,
people were assumed to bs 800 meters
. from the site boundary. Populations
within 80 km were taken from census
tract data. The risk assessment
presented with the proposal has been
updated in response to new information
provided from the comments.
The estimated maximum individual
risk of fatal cancer from radon
emissions from, phosphogypsum stacks
is 9X10~5. The radon emissions are
estimated to cause 0.95 fata! cancers
and 0.047 non-fatal cancers per year to
the 95 million people within 80 km.
Approximately 905% of the risk to the
population is borne by people whose
risk is less thanixiO"5, and 33% of the
risk is borne by people whose risk is
• less than IX 10~s.
Table 16 presents example scenarios
to show how different emission levels
would result in different health risk
profiles. The table presents the risk
estimates at baseline in terms of
estimated annual fatal cancer incidence,
maximum individual lifetime risk; total
population exposed at or above
particular risk levels (i.e., risk
distribution), and annual incidence
•attributable to the population exposed
ateach risk level. The table also
presents available .estimates of annual
incidence and maximum individual
lifetime risk for a lower emission level
identified as Alternative II.
3. Application of Decision Methodology
to Phosphogypsum Source Category
The decision that results from the
application of the multifactor approach
to the phosphogypsum source category
is described below. '
Decision on Acceptable Risk. As
stated earlier,-the maximum individual
risk to any individual is 9X10"5 which is
less than the benchmark of
approximately lX10~4and is, therefore,
presumptively safe. While the incidence
is O.S5, it results from the low levels of
risk to the millions of persons included
within the modelling radius, with the
bulk of the incidence from people whose
individual risk is less than 1X10~5. Over
77% of the population is exposed to risks
of less than 1XIO'6. EPA has concluded
. that the baseline risk is acceptable.
Decision on Ample Margin of Safety.
In addition to reexamining all of the
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has also examined the cost,
scientific certainty, and technological
feasibility of control technology,
necessary to lower radon emissions
from phosphogypsum stacks. The results
of this analysis can be seen in Table 17.
The examined options, Alternative I and
Alternative II, differ only in the amount
of dirt that is used to bury the radium
bearing waste. The costs and benefits of
.controlling emissions to various levels
', can be seen in Table 17.
'. A comparison of the two alternatives
indicates that a small reduction in.
incidence would occur front imposing
Alternative II, 0.16; this represents an.
estimated incidence reduction of 1 life
every 6 years. Simultaneously the
•maximum individual risk would be
reduced only marginally, from 9.1X10"5
to 8.2X10~5. EPA examined this small
reduction in incidence and maximum :
individual risk and the relatively.large
costs to achieve these small reductions
in risks and determined that Alternative
I provides an ample margin of safety.
EPA has concluded that a standard is
, warranted for this category. Setting a
standard will treat phosphogypsum ,
stacks the same way that other radium
bearing wastes [uranium mill tailings)
are being treated. A standard will also
ensure .that the public will be protected
with an ample margin rif safety in all :' , .
cases. Therefore, EPA has decided to
regulate this category by setting a
NESHAP limiting emissions from these
sources to no more than 20'pCi/m2-s.
4. Implementation ,
This standard is in the form of a work
practice standard that initially directs
that the phosphogypsum by-product be
disiDosed into stacks or old phosphate
mines, and imposes on those stacks or
mines a standard to ensure that they do
not emit radon into the ambient air in an
amount greater than a flux of 20 pCi/m2-
s. EPA has settled on this form of a
standard pursuant to its authority under
CAA section 112fe) to- set a work
practice standard when it is "not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard" because the
hazardous air pollutant cannot be' •
emitted through a conveyance designed
or constructed to emit or capture such :
air pollutant. Given the size of the
stacks, use of a conveyance to capture
the radon emitted by the stacks is ;
utterly impractical. Without requiring
the .radium-rich phosphogypsum be first
disposed: into large, manageable stacks *
or mines, which is generally wliat has
been done with the existing
phosphogypsum, the phosphogypsum
may be incorporated into other products
or otherwise diffused throughput the
-. country, such that the Agency will be
unable to ensure that the
phosphogypsum's radon emissions do -••
not present an unacceptable risk to
public health. '
Once the phosphogypsum is deposited
in stacks, an additional requirement of
20 pCi/m2-s is sufficient to ensure the
continued safety of the public with an
ample margin of safety. This numerical
standard simply ensures maintenance of
, the status quo" as EPA believes all
'-, existing phosphogypsum stacks meet
: these requirements without the need for
additional control technology.
•Under this NESHAP, all ": -•-"'-
phosphogypsum stacks will be limited in
the amount of radon they may release.
The standard limits the amount of radon
that can be emitted per unit area [m2)
per unit of time (s). This standard is an
.average per stack.
Ninety days.after the effective date of
; this rule or sixty days after the stack
becomes inactive, whichever is later, the
operator must test the stack to.,.
determine whether or not the stack is in
compliance with the flux standard. The
stack is considered inactive if it is no
longer being used for the disposal of
phosphogypsum or for waste water
management operations associated with
the mining and milling of
phosphogypsum. If a stack has not been
used for two years, it is presumed to ba
inactive,
Once testing demonstrates that the
stack is in compliance, it does not have ,
to be tested again. EPA expects that
few, if any, stacks will be used after
they are tested; however, if the stack is
used again, it ceases to be inactive.
When it ceases to be used subsequently,
it again becomes inactive and must be
retested. '
Since EPA has all the current
information it needs on phosphogypsum
stacks, they are exempted from the
requirements_of § 61.10. *
TABLE 16—DISPOSAL OF
PHOSPHOGYPSUM STACKS
[Description: Lsrgs. piles of waste from wat acid
phosphorous fertilizer production. Radon is re-.
-. leased from the uranium decay product found in
phosphate ore. There are about 60 stacks on 40
sitesj '--' . • . . - ;
Maximum . -
individual risk.
(lifetime)....... „
Incidence within
80 km (death/y) .
Risk individual:
. E-2 to E-1 ...;-„'....
E-3 to E-2 .........
E-4 to E-3 .........
£-5 to E-4
E-6 to E-5
less E-S...............
Risk incidence:
- E-2,10 E-1 ....
E-3 to E-2...
E-4 .to E-3 ..........
E-5 to E-4:
E-e to E-5 ..........
less E-6 ....
Alternative I
. (baseline) •
•', ..-"'-
9.1 X 1 0~5
0.95
0
0
0
, 400,000
.- 17M
77M
. 0
;-.' - - :*.. 0
0
0.092
0.54
0.32
Alternative 1!
8.2X10"5
'0.79
0
' - ; 0
-.-. ...- 0
250,000
14M
81M
0
" " 0
: :• o
. 0.055
0.41
0.33
Other Health Impacts: Non-fatal cancers no more
than 5% deaths. • • -.-;. '
-------
51676 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 17—DISPOSAL OF PHOSPHOGYPSUM STACKS
Alternative
I (Basonrvo) ..»«... .'. ...
II
MIR
91X10"5
8.2X1 0~"
Incidence
095
0.79
- Increment
incidence
reduction
0.16
Total
incidence
reduction
016
Increment
capital cost
$450M
Increment
annualized
cost
$43M
Tital
annualized
cost
S43M
Comments:
Alternative I: Baseline rule, cover source to limit emissions to 20 pCi/m^-s—Stacks have emissions of 4 to 15 pCi/m2-s; no cover would be needed/This rule
Would bo equivalent to the current AEA rule set by EPA for uranium mil! tailings. .
Alternative It: Cover source to limit emissions to 6 pCi/rn2-s—Stacks are covered with 0.5 meters of dirt. Usually dirt is not locally available and must be hauled
to the site. , ......'
7. Underground Uranium Mines
1. Introduction
When these mines are operating, their
ventilation systems emit large amounts
of radon into the atmosphere. The levels
of radon in an unventilated mine are a
hazard to the miners. Ventilating to
reduce radon exposure to the miners
increases exposure to the general
population. . :
Underground uranium mines are
regulated by an existing NESHAP. This
NESHAP requires bulkheading of
unused portions of the mines in an effort
to reduce the internal wall surface area
of the mine and thereby reduce radon
emissions into the mine air. EPA has
found that this system is unworkable for
existing mines, and it is unproven for
new mines. The interiors of existing
mines are so extensively interconnected
that any attempt at bulkheading either
produces no results or prevents fresh air
from getting to the mine/s.
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA's risk assessment of underground
uranium mines is a site-by-site ,
assessment of all operating or operable
mines. Emission estimates were based-
on radon concentration or working level
measurements and ventilation rates'
provided by mine operators. The
meteorological data were taken from
nearby stations and populations from 5
to 80 km are based on U.S. census tract
data. Population distributions within 5
km were taken from site visits or
obtained from mine owners.
The maximum individual risk of fatal
cancer from radon emissions from
underground uranium mines is 4X1CT3.
The radon emissions are estimated to
cause 0.79 fatal cancers per year to the
population within 80 km.
Table 18 presents example scenarios
to show how different emission levels .
would resultin different health risk
profiles. The table presents the risk
estimates at baseline in terms of
estimated annual fatal cancer incidence,
maximum individual lifetime risk, total
population exposed at or above
particular risk levels (i.e., risk
distribution), and annual incidence ,
attributable to the population exposed
at each risk level. The table also
presents available estimates of annual
incidence and maximum individual
lifetime risk for lower emission levels
identified as alternatives II and III.
Unlike other tables in this notice,
Table .18 includes two different
estimates of risks for each option. The
reason for the two calculations is the
large uncertainty of how the regulated
community would comply with a .
standard at the level represented by the
alternative. Options available include
bulkheading, reducing their hours of
operation, or shutting down. The wide
range of options available to mine
owners greatly increases the difficulty of
predicting what will be the impacts of
the various regulatory options.
EPA has calculated the possible risks
resulting from the regulatory options
using two different methods. The first
method assumes that all mines whose
emissions result in doses higher than the
standard will reduce their emissions
sufficiently to meet the standard. EPA
• then uses these reduced emissions to
; calculate the new health impacts. This '
' method creates what EPA considers to
be the expected risks associated with ;
that option. •• •• .
However,'to achieve the standard by.
: reducing emissions, some mines will
have to make very dramatic reductions •
in emissions, reductions that may be too
costly for the mine to remain in
operation. The second method used to '
calculate risks (marked with a + on the
tables) assumes that all mines causing .
"doses hi excess of the standard simply
shut down, except in those cases where
the mine owner could meet the standard
by reducing then1 emissions by less than
25%. EPA believes that this method will
calculate the maximum health benefit
that could occur as a result of this
rulemaking. This second method of
calculating risks shows a lower figure
for the total population exposed because
the mines which are assumed to be shut
down would expose no one.
TABLE 18—UNDERGROUND URANIUM MINES
[(Description: Underground mines used to produce uranium'ore. Only 15 are still operating. Emissions come from operations when mines are ventilated to. reduce
radon exposure to miners.]
Maximum Individual risk (lifetime) , . '. .
InokJenca within 80 km (death/y) ....
R»k Individual: . '
E-2toE-1 -..„. '.'..'''
E-3 toE-2..^.™ ... ' •
E-5 to E-4. . * . • ' .
E,-«toE-5™ „,...! „ .". .'.
tess E-6 «..»..»» ... ..
Alternative I
(baseline)
4.4x10"s
0.79
0
90000
• ^ SM
450,000
. . 51,000
Alternative II
3x10-*'
0.24
0
0
3500
330 000
1.8M
. . 100,000
Alternative 11+
3X10"4
0.05
0
o
3 500
76000
' ; 240JOOO
. 26,000
Alternative III
1X10-'
0.09
o
o
• '0
1.' -^20006
,'.;. ': .1;5M
600,000
Alternative
III +
• 1X10'4
0.009
-0
is
0
• '11 000
110,000
. -20,000
-------
Register /-• Vol. '.S4,..;Np.
• TABLE 18~UNDERGROUNp URANIUM MINES—Continued
tDescription: Underground mines used to produce uranium ore. Only 15 are sSil! Derating. Emissions come from operations when mines are ventilated to reduce
• • radon exposure to miners.] ' '"-,
.."--" _- • '-, ----- . , • ,-. -.
Risk incidence: , ^ - . ' . '
£-2 to E-1 .........................
E-3to-E-2 /. :.;.„.. . .
S-4toE-3 ;...„...,
£-5toE-4. .„; . ' : , - .
E-6 to E-5 „ - - • - - ...,--..•.-
less E-6 .,i.
Alternative !
(baseline)
0
j*\
0 21
0 55
0 00040
Alternative 1)
" 0 008
'0 13
Alternative II+
~ Alternative III
0.055
Altem&tiv©
IH+
.... • 0
o
- 0
0.0047
Cl°SUre °- a" "]l"BS *hat do not fneet ths standare|.-if the wines operate In such a way that they mesJ the standard population risks will
nl£SS«ha«/,2? P80?'6.?,1 to'srtsk.However, we cannot quantify the number because detailed demographics have not been obtained.
Other Health Impacts: Non-fatal cancers no more than 5% of deaths. ' , ---..-...
- : ..'"-..,- . . . TABLE 19—UNDERGROUND URANIUM MINES .: :.".-.'•
: Alternative . ;
.1 (baseline) ., ;.....
114- :... .; . .
in...........; ,;..;. """"'" """•
IM+ • • • ••• • ' \
MIR .-
4.4X10-
3.0X10-
3 Ox10~
1 Ov1O~
Irioidence '
0.79
.0.24
A nc
increment
. incidence
reduction
0.55
Total
incidenca
reduction '
0.55
. Increment
capital cost
. - . :«o
•A1}
so
,-.- - o
Inoremerit.
armualized
cost ;
$0.4M
S0.4M
.(*)-
Total .
annuaJized
cost
S0.4M
(')
- S0.8M
= :
;Thjs dbcisioa that results from the
application of the multifactor approach
to the underground uraniuiivmines
source category is described below.
Decision on Acceptable Risk. As
stated earlier, the maximuin individual
risk to any individual is 4X1Q"3 which is
.much higher than the presumptively safe
level. Considering the high level of •
individual risk, the presumption is very
strong that the baseline is unacceptable.
Theeatipiatedannualmcidenceis
Bpj}rbximate;lyi0.79.fatal eancera per •
; year, and over 9Q percent. of thai flak is, ,
.: borne :by, people, whose risk isVover •
~^ Ovei' 90,0)0 people arb^exposed
,
.'.,;• jfectqps: support &e judghaenVth&t tiie i:!'
. • .rlsK'leyel 'repres'.eiSfed'by the t'a'gfeltae jg ;
uzia'cpeptable. ' '•"'. ' .."• "' ' r r
, EPA examined severa^aitematiYes.
' befp?e determining the acceptable level;
, th:ose alternatives and the risks they
present are illustrated in Table\18. After
I examining these different Alternatives,
the Agency determined that Alternative
; II, setting a NESHAJP limiting emissibiis
from-unddrgrbund urahiuin mines to 10
mreni/y, ede which results lii a ',. • •
. inaximuni.individualnskof,3><10~4jess
than 10 percent of the population
exposed to risks less than! X10~*.(this,
ia due tp the unusual demographics of ''.-
the risk Assessment area, which:
contains unevenly distributed : "
population centers as opposed to the
more normal situationi where the •> .
.population is more evenly distributed),
and an incidence of 0.24 fatal caocers •
per. year is acceptable. - i
In establisliing tlie policy for setting :
NESIiAPS in the context of the. earlier
benzene decision, the Agency . -
determined that emissions resulting in a
lifetimeMHl no;greater thani • • .•; "':•;.'-..
^approximately Ixid'^are; .*/• •"''•';•:- -.\-
r presiunptively acceptable. In light of the
. iiumerousancettainfiea/inb.oth, , : '?':•••:•:'':
'-;'establishing tijej plfijazftgters fdr't&e risk.
.ksse88Bieiii:arid in niddeilinjj adtaal ,-
emission and exposure, as--we;!! as .the '
recognition that in achieving compliance
sources, will generally control so'as to •••
ensure that a buffer exists below" the
actual level of a standard, EPA'judges - r
. thatthe.MIRof3xlO~*isessentiaSly
" equivalent to the presunsptivefy safe • - '.
level of approximately jx iO~s. Next, -,'::-
'' : ' ;
,. iafprmaition. on Aia ^category. Radon :.~ ••••
causes o?ily luhgWncef, which'meanB :,
.tliat emissions from underground :
. uranium mines will cause pnly 0,012
non-fatal. cancel's a year.^In addition, ;it
must be noted that for most of the
people whose risks are above 1X10"*,
'- iVery-few, if any, would receive risks as
high as 3-X10T4, the risk level-equivalent
to 10 mrem/y. Only tlie few individuals
who are closest to the mines would
receive a dose approaching 10 mrem/y.
Everyone, else would receive ; ' :
progressively smaller doses anid risks as
distance from the mine increases. For
the vast majority of people whose risk ia
abpve.l-xiQ-?, their rdose willjbe much '-
.clossrito 3 mrem/y than ifwill be to 10 =
: ' ' "''-
.
' ••i>bcisJQn;QniAmple Margin of Safety. ;
; ^ a4^tio^: to 'reexamjning'all; of the ' ?
* healflirreiatect factors di8cuSsed;ab,QV(B( -i
EPA has also examined the coati: ;
scientific certainty, and technpiogicar .
feasibjlity of control technology ',', "
necessaTy to lower emissions from -
uhdergrbund. iiranium mines. The'results
of thisfaneiysis can be seen in Table 19. '
EPA has considered Alternatives n and
US for underground uranium mines! " ' '••
Since different mine owners may use
-------
»
51678 Federal Renter / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Frictay, fcfecWnb"eTl5^*19$5? / Mules and Regulations
different methods to reduce the risk to
the maximum individual, there is a great
deal of uncertainty in assessing the
costs and the benefits going from
Alternative II to Alternative JII. The
range of the benefits of controlling
emissions to various levels can be seen
in Table 19.
A comparison of the two alternatives
indicates that a small reduction in
incidence would occur, from a range of
0.24 to 0.05 (approximately 1 every 4 to
20 years), to a range of 0.09 to 0.009
(approximately 1 every 11 to 111 years).
This reduction must be compared to the
increased difficulty and expense that
would be incurred by 9 of the 15
underground uranium mines in further
reducing the dose to the maximum
individual by a factor of 3 and the
questionable feasibility of the control
technology. EPA has determined that the
level of Alternative II protects public
health with an ample margin of safety.
Therefore, EPA is setting a NESHAP
limiting the dose to the maximally
exposed individual to 10 mrem/y ede.
4. Implementation'
This standard is an effective dose
equivalent standard. Mines are limited
in the amount of dose their radon
emissions can cause to the nearby
population. Due to Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA)
regulations, which are designed to
protect the miners from high levels of
radon in the mine, the exhaust fans must
be operating whenever there are miners
working in the mine. This limits EPA
flexibility in developing other types of
standards to control radon emissions.
Under this rule, uranium mine owners
will have to measure their emissions of
radon, find the location of the
maximally exposed individual, use that
information as input into the COMPLY
computer code, calculate the dose to the
maximum exposed individual, and
report the results to EPA. Since
enforcement of the standard will be
based on the results of these
calculations, mine owners can comply
with the new limit by whatever method
or combinations of methods they
choose.
/. Surface Uranium Mines
1. Introduction
Surface mining is accomplished by the
excavation of one or more pits to expose
uranium ore for removal. This technique
accounted for about 45 percent, on
average, of the uranium ore tonnage
produced in this country between 195S
and 1985. However, much of today's
uranium production is from underground
mines and other sources.
In the past, annual production from
surface mines ranged from a few
hundred tons of ore to 100,000 tons or
more from as many as 1200 mines. Due
to the dramatic decline in the uranium
industry since 1981, the number of
surface mines in operation in the U.S.
has dropped from 50 in 1981 to just 2 in
1987; one of these is scheduled to close
in 1993.
During surface mining, topsoil (called
overburden) may be segregated and
saved for reclamation; overburden is
piled on land beside the pit. The pit and
overburden represent a large surface
area from which radon can escape into
the atmosphere. Radon emissions from "
the pit and overburden are higher than
normal soil because the rock
surrounding uranium deposits has higher
radium concentrations than normal soil.
Health, safety and environmental
hazards associated with uranium mining
are regulated by a variety of Federal
and State laws. As a result of the laws
and regulations, many of the inactive
uranium mines, are in various stages of
reclamation by the placement of an
earthen cover over the pit and the
overburden. This reclamation of the
mines significantly reduces radon
emissions. In the past, EPA decided not
to promulgate a NESHAP for this
category. That decision was challenged
in litigation and is being reexamined in
this rulemaking. •
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA conducted a field study during
the summer of 1988 to obtain
information with which to model the
surface mining industry so that
estimates of risk from surface mining
could be made. Radiometric surveys
were conducted of the two active mines,
located in Texas and Wyoming, and 25
inactive mines located in Arizona, New
Mexico, Colorado, South Dakota, Texas
and Wyoming. In addition, the
demograj; hie and meteorologic data
were gathered in and around each
mining site.
The maximum individual risk of fatal
cancer from radon emissions from
• surface uranium mines is 5X10"5- The
radon emissions are estimated to cause
0.028 fatal cancers per year to the
population within 80 km. Over 95
percent of, the risk to the population is
borne by people whose risk is less than
1X10~5, and over 75 pessent of the risk
is borne by people whose risk is less
thanlX10-t
Table 20 presents example scenarios
to show how different emission levels
would result in different health risk
profiles. The table presents the risk
estimates at baseline in terms of
estimated annual fatal cancer incidence,
maximum individual lifetime risk, total
population exposed at or above
particular risk levels (i.e., risk
distribution), and annual incidence
attributable to the population exposed
at each risk level. The table also
presents available estimates of annual
incidence and maximum individual
lifetime risk for a lower emission level
identified as Alternative II.
3, Application of Decision Methodology
to Surface Uranium Mine. Source
Category
The decision that results from the
application of the multifactor approach
to the surface uranium mine source
category is described below.
Decision on Acceptable Risk. As
stated earlier, the maximum individual
risk to any individual is 5X10~5 which is
lower than the benchmark of
approximately IX 10~4. The estimated
annual incidence within 80 Ion is 0.026
fatal cancers per year. In addition, only
24,000 people out of 30 million (<0.1
percent) are exposed to risks greater
than 1X10~6. Based on these factors
EPA concludes that the baseline risk is
acceptable. ,
Decision on Ample Margin of Safety.
In addition to reexamining all of the
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has also examined the cost,
scientific certainty, and technological
-feasibility of control technology
necessary to lower radon emissions
from surface uranium mines. The results
of this analysis can be seen in Table 21.
The examined options, Alternative I and
Alternative II, differ only in the amount
of dirt that is used to bury the radium
bearing waste. The costs and benefits of
controlling emissions to various levels
can be seen in Table 21.
A comparison of the two alternatives
indicates that a very small redaction in •
incidence would occur from moving to
Alternative n, 0.022, representing an
estimated incidence reduction of 1 life
every 45 years. In addition, a small
reduction hi maximum individual risk
would result, from 4.8X10"5 to 2.4X10"5.
EPA examined these small reductions in
incidence, and maximum individual risk
and the costs of achieving Alternative II ,
and has determined that Alternative I
would provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health.
In addition, this source category is
already regulated by a host of state and
federal mine reclamation laws. Due to
the depressed state of the uranium
mining industry, there is no reason to
believe that new surface mines will be
constructed. The presence of these laws,
the very low maximum individual risk
and incidence level associated with this
-------
category, and the depressed nature of
the industry lead EPA to the decision
that it is unnecessary for EPA to set a
NESHAP for this source category.
Therefore, no standard is promulgated
regulating emissions from surface
'uranium mines.
TABLE 20.—SURFACE URANIUM MINES
IDesofiption: Open pit minas excavations to unearth
uranium ore. Only two are operating (ona of which
will cioss in 1893); about {waive hundred era
closed and will not reopen.}
Maximum individual
risk (lifetime) .-.
Alternative 1
• (baseline)
4.8xio-»
Alternative
I!
.'*'-"••"
2.4x10-"
TABLE 20.— SURFACE URANIUM MINES—
Cpntinued
[Description: Open pit mines excavations to unearth
uranium ore. Only two are operating (one of which
will close in 1993); about twelve hundred are
closed and will not reopen.] .
Incidence within 80 km
(death/y). ;-...
Risk individual
E-2 to E-i .>..:...
E-3 to E-2 ........
E-4 to E-3..........
E-5 to E-4
E-8 to £-5 ....... ..
loss E-6.. ..............
Risk incidence "
E-2 to E-1
Alternative I
(baseline)
0.026 .
0
0
0
, 4,000
200,000
30M
.-•..•-. . 0
Alternative
II
' -0.0038
• ' .""•.'• o "
0
0
: 3,000
80,000
3QM
.-•.•"• o
TABLE 21.—SURFACE URANIUM MINES ,
TABLE 20.—SURFACE URANIUM MINES—
Continued
Idescription: Open pit mines excavations to unearth
uranium ore. Only two are operating (one of which
will close in 1993); about twelve hundred are
closed and will not reopen.]
-;'•'" ;
E-3 to E-2...;...........
E-4 to E-3 ...............
E-5 to E-4
E-6 to E-5 :.
less EH6
Alternative 1
(baseline)
-.- • • . 'o
0
0.001
, 0,005 '
0.020
Alternative
II
0
0
0.0008
0.0020
0.0010
Other Health Impacts:-Non-fatal
cancers no more than 5% of deaths.
'••••••'.'•'• Alternative v
1 '(Baseline).... .. .
|| ; ;... ., ..._ ;- .....
wia
4.8X10-'
2.4X10-8
Incktence
0.026
0.0038
increment
incidence
reduction
0.022
Total
incidence
reduction
0.022
increment
capital cost
; S1SM
Increment
annuali/sd
cost
$0.8M
Total
annualized
cost -
. $0.8M
Comments:
Alternative I:. Baseline, no rale—State
reclamation rules apply. Analysis
assumes larger production mines
characterize thg risk associated with
surface uranium mining. Analysis is
based on 25 mines. States with
reclamation requirements included
Colorado, Texas, Utah, Wyoniing and
South Dakota.
Alternative H: Cover source to limit
emissions to 40 pCi/m2-s—Assumes 0.2
meters of dirt cover.
K. Operating Uranium Mill Tailmgs
Piles '
I. Introduction
The process of separating uranium
from its ore creates waste material
called uranium mill tailings. Since
uranium ore generally contains less than
1 percent uranium, uranium milling
produces large quantities of tailings.
These tailings are collected in
impoundments that vary in size from 20
to 400 acres. The tailings contain large
amounts of radium, and, therefore, they
emit large quantities of radon; There are
26 NRC-licensed uranium mills hi the
western United States. Due to Hie
depressed state of the uranium industry,
most of these mills are not currently
." operating.
The Uranium Fuel Cycle standard, 40
CFR part 190, does not regulate radon
emissions from the tailings piles. Radon
emissions during operations are
currently regulated by a NESHAP 40
CFR part 81, subpart W, which is a work
practice standard specifying two
methods, one of which must bs used in
the construction of any new tailings
impoundment. The piles must ultimately
be disposed of in accordance with an -
EPA Atomic Energy Act regulation, 40
• CFR part 192, which is implemented by "
the NRG. -.;..:-.. • . •'.. "...
For the current radiomiclides.
NESHAP rulemaking, EPA is
promulgating rules for three different
subcategories that deal with mill
tailings: operating mill-tailings—existing
piles, operating mill tailings—new
technology, and'disposal of uranium mill.
tailings (as a separate source category,
see section VII.L of this notice].
This source category, operating mill
tailings, has two subcategories because
existing and future mill tailings piles
present different problems. Existing mill
tailings piles are large piles of wastes
that emit radon. Radon emissions from
these piles are retarded by,the presence
of water. However, if operations cease,
and the pit is allowed to dry out,
emissions can increase significantly.
New piles can be designed to
overcome this problem in one of two
ivays: {!) Limit the size of the pile, which
limits the radon source; or (2} utilize a
disposal system, continuous disposal,
that does not allow large piles to
accumulate. The new technology is not
feasible for old piles, as it is easier and
cheaper and releases less radon to, .
simply cover up the existing piles, rather
than to break them up into a serie.s of
smaller piles and dispose of them
separately.. '."':...•
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA's risk assessment of operating -
uranium mil! tailings is a site-by-site
assessment of all 12 licensed mills, that
are either currently operating or on
standby. Emissions were estimated from
the radium-228 concentrations in the
tailings, the amount of tailings, and the
assuiription.that 1 pCi/g of radium-228 in
the tailings produces 1 pCi/m2-s of
radon. The meteorological data was
taken from nearby stations and '
populations from 5 to 80 km are based
on U.S. census tract data. Populations
within 5 km were counted at each of the
sites. EPA analyzed corrent emissions
and the emissions that would be
expected when sew tailings
impoundments are created in the future.
EPA estimates that the lifetime fatal
cancer risk to the most exposed
individual is 3X10~Sfrom the-twelve
licensed piles that are either operating
or on standby. Uranium mill tailings are
estimated to cause 0.004 fatal cancers
per year, approximately 1 case every 250
years to the 2 million persons within 80
km,of .the tailings piles. This risk is much
lower than the estimated risks presented
in the proposed rule. The reason for the
gre.at feduction'in the risk calculated is
that EPA has received and confirmed
. information during the comment period
that these piles are mostly wet or
co\rered with clay. This greatly reduces
the rate of radon emissions from the
-------
51680 Federal Register / Vol. , 54, No. 240 / JFnday^ Degeinber .1&, 19ffl /
and Regulations
piles, greatly reducing the risks that they
pose.
EPA's analysis of new technologies is
baaed on one set of model mills. By
creating a set of model mills the analysis
provides a meaningful comparison of the
different technological alternatives,
unaffected by assumptions about the
number and locations where new mills
and new piles might be constructed.
However, this may understate the
incidence from these piles if more mills
are constructed, than are included in
this analysis.
Tables 22, 23, 24 and 25 present
example scenarios to show how
different emission levels would result in
different health risk profiles. Tables 22 .
and 23 provide information on existing
piles; Tables 24 and 25 provide
Information on the options for new piles.
The tables present the risk estimates at
baseline in terms of estimated annual
fatal cancer incidence, maximum
individual lifetime risk, total population
exposed at or above particular risk
levels (i.e., risk distribution], and annual
incidence attributable to the population
exposed at each risk level.
3. Application of Decision Methodology
to the Operating Mill Tailings Piles
Source Category
The decisions that result from the
application of the multifactor approach
to the operating uranium mill tailings
piles source category is described
below. Two separate decisions were
made: one for existing piles and the
other for new piles.
a. Existing Mill Tailings Piles.
Decision on Acceptable Risk. As stated
earlier, the maximum individual risk is
3X10"S which is clearly below the
benchmark level of approximately
1X10"4 and is, therefore, presumptively
safe. The estimated annual incidence
within 80 km is 0.0043 fatal cancers per
year, which is less than one case every
200 years. Only 240 people are exposed
to risks greater than 1X10~5 and 97
percent of the people exposed have risks
less than 1X10"6. Based on these -
factors, EPA has concluded that the
baseline risks are acceptable.
Decision on Ample Margin of Safety.
In addition to re-examining all of the
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has also examined the cost,
scientific certainty, and technological
feasibility of control technology
necessary to lower emissions from
operating uranium mill tailings piles.
The results of this analysis can be seen
in Table 23. As explained above, the
risks from current emissions are very
low. A NESHAP requiring that
emissions from operating mill tailings
piles limit their emissions to no more
than 20 pCi/m2—s represents current
emissions. EPA has determined that the
risks are low enough that it is
unnecessary to reduce the already low
risks from the tailings piles further.
However, EPA recognizes that the
risks from mill tailings piles can
increase dramatically if they are'
allowed to dry and remain uncovered.
An example of how high the risks can
rise if the piles are dry and uncovered
can be seen in the proposed rule, 54 FR
9645. That analysis assumed that the
piles were dry and uncovered and the
risks were as high as 3 X10" 3 with 1.6
fatal cancers per year. Therefore, EPA is
promulgating a standard that will limit
radon emissions to an average of 20
pCi/m2—s. This rule will have the
practical effect of requiring the mill
operators to keep their piles wet or
covered. At the point that a mill decides
to no longer keep the piles emissions
below the standard, the pile should be
disposed of, otherwise the piles
increased radon emissions are likely to
present unacceptably high risks.
EPA recognises that in the case of a
tailings pile which is not synthetically or
clay fined (the clay lining can be the '.
result of natural conditions at the site)
water placed on the tailings in an
amount necessary to reduce radon
levels, can result in ground water
contamination. In addition, in certain
situations the water can run off and
contaminate surface water. EPA cannot
allow a situation where the reduction of
radon emissions comes at the expense
of increased pollution of the ground or
surface water. Therefore, all piles will
be required to meet the requirements of
40 CFR 192.32(a) which protects water
supplies from contamination. Under'the
current rules, existing piles are exempt
from these provisions, this rule will end
that exemption.
b. New Mill Tailing Impoundments.
Decision on Acceptable Risk. In •
establishing the policy for setting
NESHAPS in the context of the earlier
benzene decision, the Agency
determined that emissions resulting in a
lifetime MIR no greater than
approximately 1X 10~4 are
presumptively acceptable. In light of the
numerous uncertainties in both
establishing the parameters for the risk
assessment and in modelling actual
emission and exposure, as well as the
recognition that in achieving compliance
sources will generally control so as to
ensure that a buffer exists below the
actual level of a standard, EPA judges
that the maximum individual risk to any
individual from Alternative I, which
represents a continuation of current
practice, is 1.6 ^C 10" 4 is essentially
equivalent to the presumptively safe
level of approximately 1X10"4. The ;
estimated annual incidence is 0.014 fatal
cancers per year or approximately 1
case every 70 years. In addition there'
would be an estimated 0.0007 non-fatal
cancers per year. Only 20 people are at
risks greater than 1.QX10"4 and
approximately 18 percent of people
within. 80 km of mill tailings piles
receive risks of less than IX10"?.. After ,
examining these factors, the
Administrator has "determined that the
baseline risks from new uranium mill'
tailings impoundments are acceptable.
Decision on Ample Margin of Safety.
In addition to re-examining all of the
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has also examined the cost,
scientific certainty, and technological .
feasibility of control technology
; necessary to lower emissions from new
uranium mill tailings impoundments.
The results of this analysis can be seen
in Table 25. The examined options,
Alternative I, Alternative II, and
Alternative III, represent different
methods of disposal. Alternative I is the
use of one large impoundment,
Alternative II is the use of phased
disposal, and Alternative III is the >use of
continuous disposal.
A comparison of the alternatives
indicates that very small reductions in
incidence would occur, Q.005 in going
from Alternative I to Alternative II, and
0.008 in going from Alternative I to
Alternative III. In addition, the
maximum individual risk would be
reduced from 1.6X10"4 to 9X10"5 or
-6X10~5. In addition both Alternatives II
and III will assure that over 97 percent
of the population will be exposed to,
risks less than 1X10"6. EPA examined
this small reduction in incidence and
maximum individual risk and the small
costs of changing work practices, but
also considered the uncertainties in this
analysis. EPA believes that for this
category, the economic assessment is •
especially uncertain. This uncertainty
make this analysis different from the
other analyses conducted by EPA in this
rulemaking. -
The uncertainty arises because it
assumes a steady state industry over
time. If the uranium market once again
booms there would be-increased risks
associated with Alternative I. If the
industry then experienced another
economic downturn, the costs of
Alternative I would increase because of
the economic waste that occurs when a
large impoundment is constructed and
not filled. The risks can also increase if
a company goes bankrupt and cannot
afford the increased costs of closing a
large impoundment and the pile sits
uncovered emitting radon. The risks can
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 /.Friday, December 15, 1989 /Rules and ^Regulations 51881
also increase if many new piles are
constructed, creating the potential for
the population and individual risks to be
higher than EPA has calculated. .-."••
These uncertainties significantly
affect the accuracy of the analysis and
given the small cost of going to :
Alternatives II and El, EPA has
determined that in order to protect the
public with an ample margin of safety,
both now arid in the future, new mill
tailings impoundments must use phased
or continuous disposal. .
EPA believes that in the long run mill
owners will save money using
continuous disposal, however, this ' ;
technology ha;s not been used in '
uranium operations in this country. •
Given the resulting uncertainty about
the technological feasibility of this
disposal method, EPA is also allowing
them to use Alternative II which is
phased disposal, since it also protects
public health with an ample margin of ~
safety. Either one of these technologies
will assure that future risks will be kept
under control by assuring that only
small amounts of tailings are uncovered
TABLE 22.—OPERATING URANIUM MILL
TAILINGS PILES—EXISTING PILES—Con-
tinued •:•. . .'.•:'.•..•
IDescription: Piles of uranium mill tailings at the il
licensed operating uranium mill sites.]
at any time. This will prevent mill
tailings from becoming a;large problem
in the future.- ' '. -.- :- .'.-..'•
TABLE 22.— OPERATING URANIUM Mill
TAILINGS PILES— EXISTING PILES
[Description: Piles of uranium mil! tailings at the 1 1
licensed operating uranium mill sites,]
• • • - - •
Maximum .individual risk (^lifetime,
exposure)
Incidence within 80 krri .„ ;'. ..
Risk individual
E~2 to E-1. ...„. .-.
Alternative I
(baseline)
2.9X10-6'
0.0043
0
E-3 to .E-2™.™ .
E-4 to E-3
E-5 to E-4 „...;..... .'.;.. ..
E-6 to E-5........ ™....™ ,™.
. '• less E-6 ™ -.
Risk incidence
E-2 to E-1..™..™.™.........™
E-4 to E-3i.. .. "
Er-5 to E-4 -.. .,
E-6 to E-5.; „
less E-6..™,...... „.
" ."' '--•'.
Alternative)
(baseline)
0
0
. . 240
60,000
: 1.9M
0
- ; 0
' • 0
0.000057
0.0023
0.0020
Other Health Impacts: Non-fatal
cancers no more than 5 percent deaths.
TABLE 23.—OPERATING URANIUM MILL TAILINGS—EXISTING PILES
Alternative ... •
1 (Baseline) .......;
MIR •
2.9X10"8
Incidence
0 0043
increment .
incidence
.reduction
Total
incidence
reduction
Increment
capital cost
Increment
annualfeed
cost
Total
annualized.
cost
-
Comments:.' ' •' ; ,-,-.; ', • ' , . .-.•.'.•:•-;-:.• ;•_;. .•. : . ..'.-'.' ". .
Alternative I: Baseline rule-~Fljix-standard for operating piles of 20 pCi/m2-s. '• . ;'-
-'.;'•••;' TABLE 24.—OPERATING URANIUM JvliLL TAILINGS PILES—NEW TECHNOLOGIES
• IDescription: The different methods of disposal that can be used for the construction of new uranium mill tailings piles by uranium milling companies.]
Maximum individual risk (lifetime)... _ ™.......™..
Incidence within 80 km (death/y) .....:. „„ - '
Risk .individual . ;• " •••-:, ;
E-2 to E-1 '
E-3 to E-2 . '
E-4 to E-3..... ....; ...™... ..-.,--.:-
E-5 to E-4 „. ; ._„, ' . '" '" ••--"•"--•• ;--"
E-6 to E-5. ........„,
less E-6 ; ; „-. '-""' •;•—;-•?•»
Risk incidence
, E-2 to E-1... ;.... ....™... ; „..„' , ,
E-3 to E-2 ...™., . •
E-4 to E-3. ..-••••--
E-5 to E-4.'...'.. • - ' • - • • ...-•.,'•:•. .: •..
iE-6 to E-5 :... ..™.....™.....,..™......™... '' •• : : .. - ; •
less E-6 •-••-••'
Alternative 3
(baseline)
1 6x10"*
0 014
0
0
20
' 120 000
0
n nnhnc)
0.0014
0.012
AHsmative II
•QviO~5
0009
0
0'
- ^ - n
' , 0.00009
. 0.0001
Alternative 111
fivin~8
0 COS
' ' o
•0.00005
0.0005
1 Risks are for pniy one model mill. Numbers should be used for comparison purposes only.
: Other Health Impacts: Non-fatal eancars'no more than 5 percent of deaths . ^
TABLE 25.—OPERATING URANIUM MILL TAiLiNGS—NEW TECHNOLOGIES
, Alternative ' ' '-
1 (Baseline) ......'. ; . .
II ...,...; .
III. ;....
•• ,MIR
1.6x10-«
9.0X10-5
Incidence
0.014
0.009
Increment
: incidence
reduction
• . 0.005
Total,
incidence
reduction
0.005
Increment
capital cost
$ 6.3M
<$ i.oiys>
• Increment
annualized
' - cost
$ 0.5M
Total .
annualized .
'cost
,$0.5M
1 All estimates for a single model mill Alternative II and II! are each compared to Alternative I.' !
-------
51682 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday; December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
Comments: '
Alternative I: Baseline, no rule—
current technology is used. Single large
impoundment
Alternative II: Current NESHAP—
several small impoundments with 40
acre limit (phased disposal].
Alternative III: Current NESHAP—
tailings are dried and disposed of
immediately (continuous disposal).
Total capital cost is less than other two
alternatives. Costs and incidence
reductions are compared to baseline
alternative.
4. Implementation
The NESHAP for existing mill tailings
piles is a flux standard that limits the
emission of radon from the piles. The
standard limits the amount of radon that
can be emitted per unit area (m2) per .
unit of time (s). This standard is not an
average per facility but is an average
per radon source. The mill will annually
test its impoundments and report the
results to EPA.
The NESHAP for new impoundments
is a work practice standard that requires
mill operators to manage their tailings in
a way that will reduce radon emissions.
Mill operators will not be allowed to
build any new mill tailings
impoundment which does not meet this
work practice standard. EPA will
receive information on the construction
of new impoundments through the
requirements for EPA to approve of new
construction under 40 CFR part 61,
subpart A.
Since EPA already has or will receive
through these reports the information it
needs, uranium mill tailings are
exempted from the requirements of
§ 61.10.
L Disposal of Uranium Mill Tailings
Piles
1. Introduction
After uranium mill tailings
impoundments can no longer be used,
they must be disposed of. In addition to
the fourteen licensed piles that
commercial licensees are
decommissioning, DOE controls 24
abandoned uranium mill tailings piles.
The 1978 Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) gave
DOE responsibility for remedial actions
at these latter sites. This Act also
required EPA to set environmental
standards to control releases from
uranium mill tailings impoundments.
EPA promulgated standards for both
types of sites at 40 CFR part 192. That
regulation limits post-closure radon
releases to 20 pCi/m2-s from the tailings
piles.
In the past, EPA decided not to
regulate under the CAA the disposal of
uranium mill tailing impoundments
which are regulated under UMTRCA.
That decision was challenged in the
litigation, so EPA is reexamining it.
2. Estimates of Exposure and Risk
EPA's risk assessment of uranium mill
tailings is a site-by-site assessment of
all 24 inactive piles and the 14 licensed
piles that are being decommissioned. An
uncertainty in this risk assessment
occurs because DOE currently has plans
to relocate eleven of the inactive mill
tailings piles to unpopulated areas; in
addition, DOE plans to stabilize the
remaining 13 piles pursuant to the 40
CFR. part 192 standards. EPA has
considered information in the
rulemaking record concerning DOE's
plans hi its determination on this
category.
Emissions were estimated from the
area of each tailings pile and an
assumed radon flux of 20 pCi/m2-s for
reclaimed piles unless information
existed which demonstrated that the
radon flux would be less, and 1 pCi/m2-s
per pCi/g of radium for unreclaimed
piles. Where specific documentation
existed, such as contracts or agreements
with regulatory agencies, EPA assumed .
that piles would be disposed of
according to existing plans at the time
scheduled. Meteorological data were
taken from nearby stations, and
populations from 5 to 80 km are based
on U.S. census tract data. Populations
within 5 km were measured at the sites.
According to EPA's analysis, the lifetime
fatal cancer risk to the most exposed
individual is 3X10~4. These tailings piles
are estimated to cause 0.070 fatal
cancers per year or approximately 1
case every 14 years, to the 9.4 million "
persons within 80 km.
Table 26 presents two alternative
scenarios,to show how different
emission levels would result in different
health risk profiles. The table presents
the risk estimates at baseline,
Alternative I, hi terms of estimated
annual fatal cancer incidence, maximum
individual lifetime risk, total population
exposed at or above particular-risk
levels (i.e., risk distribution), and annual
incidence attributable to the population
exposed at each risk level. The table
also presents available estimates of
annual incidence and maximum
individual lifetime risk for a lower
emission level identified as Alternative
n.
3.' Application of Decision Methodology
to the Disposal of Uranium Mill Tailings
Category
The decision that results from the
application of the multifactor approach
to the disposed uranium mill tailings
source category is described below.
Decision on Acceptable Risk. In
establishing the policy for setting
NESHAPS in the context of the.earlier
benzene decision, the Agency
determined that emissions resulting in a
lifetime MIR no greater than
approximately 1X 10~4 are
•presumptively acceptable. In light of the
numerous uncertainties In both
establishing the parameters for the risk '
assessment and in modelling actual
emission and exposure, as well as the
recognition that in achieving compliance
sources will generally control so as to
ensure that a buffer exists below the -
actual level of a standard, EPA judges
that the maximum individual risk of
3X10~4is essentially equivalent to the
presumptively safe level of
approximately 1X10~4. The estimated
annual incidence is 0.070 fatal cancers
per year or 1 case every 14 years; in
addition, there would be 0.0035 non-fatal
cancers per year. Only 200 people are at
risks greater than 1.0X10"4, and '
approximately 86*percent of the people
within 80 km are at risk levels of less
thanlXlO-6.
After examining these factors, the
Administrator has determined that the
baseline risks from the disposal of
uranium mill tailings impoundments are
acceptable.
Decision on Ample Margin of Safety.
In addition to reexamining all of the •
health-related factors discussed above,
EPA has also examined the cost,
scientific certainty, and technological
feasibility of control technology
necessary to lower radon emissions
from the disposal of uranium mill
tailings piles. The results of this analysis
can be seen in Table 27. The examined
options, Alternative I and Alternative II,
differ only in the amount of dirt that is
used to biiry the radium bearing waste.
A comparison of the two alternatives
indicates that a small reductions in
incidence would occur, 0.044; this
represents an estimated incidence
reduction of 1 life every 23 years. In
addition, the maximum individual risk is
reduced from 3.0X10~4 to 8.7X10~5. EPA
examined these small reduction in
incidence and maximum individual risk
and the relatively large costs of
iachieving Alternative II, $158 million in
capital costs and $13 million in
annualized costs and determined that
-------
Alternative I protects public health with
an ample margin of safety. ;
Although this category is already
regulated under 40 CFR part 192, EPA
believes that a NESHAP would still .. -. •
serve a useful purpose. The existing
UMTRCA regulations set no time limits
for the disposal of the piles. Some piles
have remained uncovered for decades
emitting radon.,Although recent action
has been taken to move toward disposal
of these piles, some of them may still
remain uncovered for years. In addition,
a rale would assure that piles which are
not ready for disposal at this time will
be disposed of in a timely manner after
they are removed from service. As a ,
result, this NESHAP would reduce radon
emissions from uncovered piles and
assure that the public will be protected.
Therefore, EPA has decided to regulate
this category by setting a NESHAP
limiting emissions from these sources to
no more than 20 pCi/
TABLE 26.—DISPOSAL OF URANIUM MILL TAILINGS
[Description: The disposal of uranium mill tailings piles when they are no longer used for the disposition of new tailings. Twenty-four piles are controlled by DOE; 26
.-.-.-, piles are cpntrolled by individual uranium milling companies.!
; •. • '• • ' . 1 - ". . - • ' . . • <'" '
.'. • - . • .. : . . •".... S ' - ... . . •'.,.'•
Maximum individual risk (lifetime) ;..........„.....; . ' • ^
Incidence within 80 km (deatn/y).... ......; :.... i •,...'.
Risk individual ; . ' , . •. - •. , ,
E-2toE-1 . ;
E-3toE-2 :,.... •-•.-.
E-4toE-3 1 ••.'"•'
E-5 to E-4 ...'.'
E-6 to E-5 :..J....v... „. . .
|essE-6..<; ....•••-:
Risk incidence
E-2 to E-1 . .
. E-3toE^-2 ....: ....',.• :
E-4 to E-3 :
E-5 to E-4 ,
E-6 to E-5 ... . ' '
less E-6 :... : .•
Aitemativs 1
(baseline)
3.0x10"*
0070
; 0
0
" 200
' • 33 000
t 3M
8 1M
0
' 0
000052
00089
• 0 030
• 0 031
Alternative I!
87x10~6
0026
'"•'•' Q
0
0-
3 000
138000
S3M
0
0'
' 0 0014
• n nridQ
i" n n?n
Other Health Impacts: Non-fatal cancers no more than 5% of deaths.
','•.•'-: ,'i :•. v ., i..'' ,. , TABLE 27.—DISPOSAL OF URANIUM MILL TAILINGS .
:' ' ' ' . Alternative -. ' " • ' .
l(Baseline) .................. : " :
II . , • . '
MIR '
3.0X10-4
8.7X10-5
Incidence
6.070
0.026
Increment
incidenca
reduction
0.044
Total
incidenca
reduction: ,
; -• !
0.044_
Incrsment
capita! cost
.--' .-'•--
S200M
Increment
annualized
- cost
; $16M
Total
annualizod .
cost
;' ' • $t6M
Comments:
Alternative I: Baseline rule: Cover
source to limit emissions to 20 pCi/m2-
s—rthe same level as the current AEA
rule set by EPA.
Alternative II: Cover source to limit
emissions to 6 pCi/m2-s.
4. Implementation
Under this NESHAP, all uranium mill
tailings will have to be covered to
reduce the amount of radon.they
release. The standard limits the amount
of radon that can be emitted per unit
area (ma) per unit of time (s). This
standard is an average per mill tailings
Pile. '
Piles must be tested when disposal
operations are completed but before the;
disposed pile is turned over to a
government organization charged with
long term ownership. Since these reports
of the testing will provide EPA with the
additional information it needs, uranium
mifl tailings are exempted from the
requirements of § 61,10. .
This standard, like all NESHAPs,
requires .compliance by existing sources
within 90 days after the effective date in
accordance with the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7412(c)(l)(B)(i). However, EPA is aware
that many sources covered by this
subpart will not be able to come into
compliance that quickly. EPA is making
a, generic finding that at least two years
is required for the disposal of uranium
mill tailings and that during that period
all persons will be protected from
imminent endangermeht from uranium
mill tailings piles. This Finding also
applies to piles that are not yet ready for
disposal but will cease to be operational
at some point hi the future.
If the two year period is not enough
time for these piles to dry out and be
co'vered and disposed of then EPA is
prepared to develop expeditious
compliance schedules in consultation \
with affected parties within the
framework of the enforcement
mechanisms of 42 U.S.C. 7413, as
appropriate. In these discussions with
DOE, EPA will consider, the restraints on
DOE discussed in Senate Report No.
100V543, accompanying Pub. L. 100-618,
100th Congress, 2nd Sess., reprinted in
1988 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News, 4329
etseq. EPA^recognizes that the
.requirements of CERCLA and other "
environmental laws will also have to be
considered in these consultations.
Vli. Responses to JLegal and Policy
Comments-: ,'. ..••"'
On March 7,1989, the EPA published
in the Federal Register proposed ':
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs}
for radionuclides emitted to ambient air
from 12 source categories. The Federal
Register notice requested public
comments on the proposed NESHAPs,
and the specific risk management
approaches that were used to develop
the standards. Informal public hearings
were held in Washington DC and Las
Vegas, NV., to give interested parties an
opportunity to present their views, and
-------
51684 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
written comments were solicited.
Comments were received from almost
300 individuals and organizations
representing government agencies,
industry and other members of the
regulated community, environmental
and public interest groups, and the
general public. This section of the
preamble discusses the legal and policy-
related comments received during the
comment period. A separate Response
to Comments Document was prepared
which addresses comments relating to
modeling and compliance procedures, as
well as comments particular to each
source category.
1. Interpretation of Vinyl Chloride
Decision
Comment: Several commenters
discussed the fact that the D.C. Circuit
decision in Natural Resources Def.
Council, Inc. v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (1987)
{Vinyl Chloride) recognizes that EPA
may deem some level of cancer risk as
acceptable, in light of the fact that many
carcinogenic substances are assumed
not to have a threshold value below
which they pose no risk. The issue
raised by these commenters is what
level of risk from radionuclide emissions
could be characterized as "acceptable"
under the Court of Appeals' ruling,
particularly in light of such court
decisions as Alabama Power Co. v.
Costle, 636 F.2d at 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
and Public Citizen v. Young, 831 F.2d at
1108 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
In the context of the Vinyl Chloride
decision, the issue is whether the
"acceptable" risk is equated with de
minimi's risk, and is thereby defined as
"trivial" or "of no value," or whether
some higher level of risk is considered
acceptable under the court's ruling.
It was argued that the Alabama Power
and Public Citizen cases support the
contention that acceptable risk and de
minimi's risk are synonymous, and that,
consequently, only "trivial" risk "of no
value" can be interpreted as "acceptable
risk" under the Vinyl Chloride decision.
Moreover, the risk cannot be dismissed
as "trivial" unless EPA demonstrates a
public consensus that the risk levels are
unworthy of preventive response.
Hazardous air pollutant-induced cancer
risks of 8X10'3,1X10~3, or 1X10~* are
not in this category, and EPA may not
be able to show such consensus even for
risks of 1X10"6. Similarly, it was posited
ihat Public Citizen and Vinyl Chloride
support the position that only a de
minimis level of risk (e.g., 1X10~6 or
lower) can be considered acceptable,
and that this position is consistent with
the CAA focus on public health and
providing an ample margin of safety.
Several commenters disagreed with
the previous comments. These
commenters argued that a safe level is
not the equivalent of a de minimi's risk
level and distinguished between de
minimis risks, which are too trivial to
warrant regulation, and a broad zone of
higher risks that may still satisfy the
court's definition of "acceptable risk."
The commenters pointed to the fact that
the court used the latter term
intentionally in the Vinyl Chloride
decision, and was aware of the differing
legal meaning of de minimis. The
commenters also cited the Alabama
Power and Public Citizen cases, stating
that those decisions held de minimis
risk to be applicable except for those
instances where Congress had already
been "extraordinarily rigid", in
establishing regulatory requirements.
Commenters also pointed out that the
court in the Vinyl Chloride decision
specifically stated that "acceptable risk"
does not necessarily mean risk free.
They argued that the court defined
something as "unsafe" when it exposes
humans to a "significant risk of harm."
The fact that a risk is not de minimis
does not mean that it poses a
"significant risk of harm." For. instance,
the examples of "acceptable risk" cited
by the court, such as driving a car or
breathing city air have a higher than de
minimis risk. Therefore, using this
example as a guide, there is no basis for
regulation of certain categories of
sources since risks significantly above
this level may be judged "acceptable"
under the Vinyl Chloride decision.
Some commenters stated that the
"acceptable risk" finding derives
directly from the text and legislative
history of Section 112 of the CAA, while
the de minimis concept is a nonstatutory
doctrine identified as a risk test by the
court hi the Alabama Power and Public
Citizen cases. Thus, the "acceptable" .
and de minimis risk test serve much
different functions in public health
regulation.
Response: As the commenters
acknowledge, the Vinyl Chloride
decision recognizes that EPA may find
some level of cancer risk to be
"acceptable." In its explanation of the
term, the court cited the preamble to the
Federal Register notice announcing the
final Vinyl Chloride regulations:
Scientific uncertainty, due to the
unavailability of dose/response data and the
20-year latency period between initial
exposure to vinyl chloride and the occurrence
of disease, makes it impossible to establish
any definite threshold below which there are
no adverse effects to human health." [citation
omitted] 824 F.2d 1146, (D.C. Cif. 1987).
The court explained that "the
Congressional mandate to provide "an
ample margin of safety" to "protect the
public health" requires the
Administrator to make an initial
determination of what is "safe." This
determination must be based
exclusivelyTipon the Administrator's
determination of the risk to health at a
particular emission level. The
Administrator's decision does not
require a finding tha't "safe" means "risk
free." 824 F.2d at 1164.
Where the commenters differ is over
what level of risk from radionuclides
emissions can be considered an
"acceptable risk" within the meaning of
the Vinyl Chloride decision. Some argue
that in order to be "acceptable", the risk
must be no more than de minimis within
the meaning of Alabama Power and
Public Citizen, while others dispute this
position.
The EPA does not interpret
"acceptable risk", for purposes of
Section 112, as synonymous .with or
limited to de minimis risk as described
in Alabama Power and Public Citizen. -
The Vinyl Chloride decision, while
going into great detail in discussing the
concepts of both "acceptable risk," and
"ample margin of safety," never
mentioned the concept of de minimis
risk. What the court did say was that
Congress exhibited no intent to require
EPA to prohibit emissions of all
nonthreshold pollutants, and, citing the
Supreme Court decision in Industrial
Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American
Petroleum Institute, 448 U.S. 607 (1980)
stated that "safe does not mean risk
free." 824 F.2d at 1153.
The court declined to restrict the
Administrator to any particular jmethod
of determining what constitutes an
acceptable risk but explained simply
that "the Administrator must determine
what inferences should be drawn from
available scientific data and decide
what risks are acceptable in the world
in which we live." 824 F.2d at 1166.
By way of example, the court referred
to language in the Supreme Court's
Industrial Union decision, to the effect
that driving a car or breathing city air
are risk-laden activities that society
does not consider "unsafe." 824 F.2d at
1165. Thus, the determination of what is
an "acceptable risk" is discretionary
with the Administrator, and involves
evaluation of existing scientific data and
uncertainties concerning that data.
The EPA disagrees with the
commenters' contention that Public
Citizen demonstrates that "acceptable
risk" is limited to de minimis risk.
Public Citizen involved a Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) statute
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No; 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 51685
prohibiting use of any food coloring
additive "found * * * to induce cancer
in man or animal." 831 F.2d at 1109. The
, FDA in that case argued that ade
minimi's exception, allowing use of the
challenged additives when the cancer
risks involved, are trivial, could properly
be interpreted into the statute. The court
however, while acknowledging that the •
cancer risks were indeed trivial, held
that the statute imposed an absolute ban
once a finding of carcinogenicity had
been made, and therefore no de minimi's
. exception could be employed.
The situation in Public Citizen '
involving a "no-risk" statute is markedly
different from the facts of the Vinyl
Chloride case. In the Vinyl Chloride
case the court interpreted the Clean Air
Act as not equating "safe" with "risk
free." 824 F.2d at 1153 [citations
omitted]. Indeed, as explained above,
the Vinyl Chloride court specifically
used examples of activities having «••
acceptable levels of risk "in the world in
which we live" 824 F.2d at 1165
[citations omitted], but which exceed the
de minimi's concept described in
Alabama Power. Thus, unless the Vinyl
Chloride decision is read to broaden the
de minimi's concept from triviality to a
level which is acceptable in the world in
which we live, the dicta in Public
Citizen is an apparent misconstruction
of the en bane Vinyl Chloride opinion.
Furthermore, Public Citizen did not deal
with a statute requiring a determination
of a "safe" level, and therefore cannot
reasonably be compared to Section 112
of the CAA, and the court's analysis of
risk in the Vinyl Chloride opinion.
Finally, the Vinyl Chloride court's
citation of Alabama Power does not
constitute adoption of the de minimi's
concept. As stated above, the Vinyl
Chloride decision makes no mention of
the de minimi's concept, and cites
Alabama Power following a discussion
of risks found acceptable by the
Supreme Court in Industrial Union
which clearly exceed de minimi's.
Therefore, at most, Alabama Power was
apparently cited as an example of a risk
, level, which would, of course, be
considered "acceptable." Obviously, the
enumeration of other, higher, risks
precludes the interpretation that.,the
court was equating the de minimis
concept and "safe" or "acceptable risk"
in Vinyl Chloride. In conclusion, EPA
does not believe that the terms de
minimis and "acceptable risk" are
synonymous. Further, EPA believes that
it is not required by Vinyl Chloride to
reduce risk to a de minimis level.
Comment: One commenter argued
that EPA has ignored the precedent
established in the B.C. Circuit decision
in Ethyl Cozp. • y. EPA, 541 F.2d 1 (1976)
[en band]. This commenter argued that
the decision established a "significant
increment" test that must.be satisfied
before EPA can set a standard under
section 112, a test that Cpngress adopted
in amending section 112 in 1977.
Response: The commenter has
misconstrued not only the teaching of
the D.C. Circuit in Ethyl, but the
Congressional intent in modifying
section 112 to follow the court's ruling.
First, the Ethyl decision does not apply '
directly to section 112, as the court was
construing the language of section
211(c)(l)(A) as it then existed in that
case; in addition, the decision involved
lead, which unlike radionuclides, is a .
threshold pollutant. Second, while the
court did describe a portion of its
reasoning by using the phrase
"significant increment", that was not the
basic holding of the case. In fact, the
court rejected exclusive use of such a
test, in stating that Congress
"• * * * did not mean for'endanger'to
be measured only in incremental terms."
541 F2d. at 30-31. Third,'while Congress
did adopt language for section 112(a)(l)
prescribing the definition of a
"hazardous air pollutant" ("an air
-pollutant * * * which in the judgment of.
the Administrator causes or contributes
to air pollution which may reasonably
.be anticipated to result in") from the
reasoning of the Ethyl court, its purpose
was to emphasize the preventive or •
precautionary nature of the Act. 1977
Legislative History, 2516. In adopting
this approach, the Mouse Report stated
that the " * * * language is intended to
emphasize the necessarily judgmental
element in the task of predicting future
health risks of present action and to ,
confer upon the Administrator the '
requisite authority to exercise such
judgment." Id. at 2518. Finally, the
Administrator has, in this rulemaking,
used a significance test in its decisions
on listing radionuclides and on ,.
standards for each of the source
categories, as described in the Federal
Register notice. But, it has not used it in
the manner that the commenter has
urged, which would eviscerate the true
meaning of the Ethyl decision and
Congressional endorsement of it. EPA
believes that its use of a "significance"
test here is fully consistent with the
statute, its legislative history, and
applicable case law, including the
Supreme Court's decision in the OSHA
benzene case.,
Comment: Several commenters
addressed the Vinyl Chloride court's
finding on acceptable risk versus zero
risk. Several commenters felt that
"acceptable" risk which the court
equated with being "safe" is not zero
risk; while the scientific approach can ,
reduce uncertainty, life cannot be risk
free. "'•-. -- ' '..-.-• ' . •
Response:the D.C. Circuit Court in
Vinyl Chloride held that the
Administrator is required, under section
112, to make an initial determination of
what is "safe." 824 F.2d 1164. The court
went on to state specifically that the
"Administrator's decision does not
require a finding that "safe" means "risk
free" Id., and further stated that the
Administrator must decide "what risks
are acceptable in the world hi which we
live." 824 F.2d at 1165. Thus, the Vinyl
Chloride court made it clear that
"safety" or "acceptable risk" is not to be
equated with zero risk. The Vinyl-
Chloride court cites .the Supreme Court
decision in Industrial Union Dept., AFL-
CIO v. American Petrojeum Institute,
448 U.S. 607 (1980) as support for the
proposition that zero risk is not
mandated, stating that Industrial Union
holds.-that "somethingis 'unsafe' only
when it threatens humans with a •
'significant risk of harm'." 824 F.2d at
1153. Industrial Union is clearly an „
appropriate precedent here.
Comment: The EPA's proposed
approaches were based on a two-step
. decision process, and some commenters
also interpreted the Vinyl Chloride
decision as requiring a two-step process.
Other commenters disagreed, stating
that the the Vinyl Chloride decision
does not mandate a two-step procedure
for making section 112 decisions, but
made clear that an integrated, single-
step procedure could be used as long as
the decision satisfied both the
"acceptable risk" and the "ample margin
of safety" criteria. Thus, for example, if
'existing emissions pose risks that are '
well below the acceptable risk, the
Administrator could determine that ooth
the acceptable risk criterion and the
reasonable degree of protection criterion
are satisfied in one step.
Response: The court in Vinyl Chloride
specifically addressed the one or two-
step process question, stating as follows;
In response to the fads presented in this
case we have analyzed this issue by using a
two-step process. We do not mean to indicate
that the Administrator is bound to employ
this two-step process in setting every
emission standard under section 112. If the >
Administrator finds that some statistical
" methodology removes sufficiently the
scientific uncertainty present in this case,
then the Administrator could conceivably
find that a certain statistically determined;
level of emissions will provide an ample
margin of safety. If the Administrator uses
this methodology, he cannot consider cost
and technological feasibility: these factors
are.no longer relevant because the
J
-------
51686 fffderalRegister /Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 /Rules and Regulations
Administrator has found another method to
provldo an "ample margin" of safety. 824 F.2d
8tlie5n.M.
Thus, Vinyl Chloride does not
mandate a two-step process in all cases.
However, if a one-step process were
utilized, the Administrator could not
consider cost or technological
feasibility.
Comment: One commenter wrote that
the Vinyl Chloride opinion states that
"the Administrator 'may, and perhaps
must' include additional control
measures where technologically
feasible, in order to reduce public ,
exposure by a cancer-causing chemical
'to the lowest feasible level'." The
commenter therefore believed the
correct interpretation of section 112 of
the CAA according to Vinyl Chloride is
that "EPA must provide such additional
protection as is feasible at the second-
step'ample margin of safety1
determination."
Response: In the March 7,1989, notice
proposing emission standards for
radionuclides, EPA raised the question
of whether to require all technically
feasible controls for which costs are
reasonable no matter how small the risk
reduction. The Vinyl Chloride case
provided that technological feasibility
can be considered under section 112, so
long as it is not considered in the
"acceptable risk," determination, but
only in the "ample margin of safety"
determination. ("Since we cannot
discern clear Congressional intent to
preclude consideration of cost and
technological feasibility in setting
emission standards under section 112,
we necessarily find that the
Administrator may consider these
factors." 824 F.2d at 1163.) The court
explained that "it is not the court's
intention to bind the Administrator to
any specific method of determining what
is 'safe' or what constitutes an 'ample
margin'." 824 F.2d at 1166. Thus, the
court provided that technological
feasibility may be considered under
section 112, at the "ample margin of
safety" step in the analysis, and that it
is within the discretion of the
Administrator to determine what weight
it Is to be given, along with other
relevant considerations such as the cost
of additional controls. Because the court
has specifically sanctioned the
consideration of costs as well as
feasibility of controls, it is clear that
Vinyl Chloride does not require
imposition of the maximum feasible
controls without regard to cost or
effectiveness: "Section 112(b}(l)'s
command to provide an ample margin of
safety to protect public health is self-
contained, and the absence of
enumerated criteria may well evince a
Congressional intent for the
Administrator to. supply reasonable
ones." 824 F.2d at 1159.
2. Regulatory Approaches
The comments on the four approaches
proposed by EPA for making the .
acceptable risk decision and for
providing an ample margin of safety
were generally polarized: Approach A
was favored largely by industry;
Approach D was favored by many
private citizens, State regulatory
agencies, and public interest groups;
Approach B received essentially no
support; and, while approach C was
criticized by many industries, private
citizens, State regulatory agencies and
public interest groups, it received some '
support from other commenters within
these groups. In addition, alternative
approaches were suggested by several
commenters with some favoring a higher
acceptable risk level and others a zero
emissions approach.
The EPA considered all of these
comments in selecting the final policy
for setting standards under section 112.
This was done in light of the Vinyl ;
Chloride 'decision; the final policy is
described above in this Federal Register
notice. The EPA response to these
comments are presented below.
In considering the comments on the
proposed approaches,and alternative r
suggestion for a policy under section
112, EPA viewed the comments in the
context that some positions and
concerns expressed by the commenters
were diametrically opposed to one
another. Thus, EPA realized that no
response could completely resolve these
positions and concerns. Accordingly,
after thoroughly viewing and
considering these comments, EPA
selected a final policy for setting
standards under section 112.
The .following sections are split into
discussions of the four alternative
approaches presented in the March 7,
1989 Federal Register notice and by
ancillary issues that were relevant to.
selecting the final policy for setting
NESHAPs. The main position and
concerns presented by commenters are
followed by an EPA response to the.
comments in the context of the final
policy.
Approach A Comments: Many
commenters favored Approach A on the
basis that it would be flexible, not
overly simplistic nor based on a single
risk measure, that it would take into
account all relevant health information
and uncertainties in risk estimation, and
it would be a more balanced and
rational approach than the other
approaches. Many commenters rajected
Approach A because they did not find it
stringent enough. On the other hand,
some commenters felt the preferred
level for the MIR of 10~4 or less was
unnecessarily restrictive. One
commenter suggested that Approach A
should be modified to increase the
maximum lifetime risk limit to 25 mrem/
y ede. Several commenters found
Approach A unacceptable because it
does not establish a consistent and
equitable policy, thereby allowing
different acceptable risk decisions for
different pollutants and source
categories.
• Response: The EPA agrees with many
of these comments and, .thus, the final
policy, like proposed Approach A, is .
flexible, provides an equitable response
to regulation of air toxics under section.
112, and takes into account all the
relevant health information and
uncertainty in the risk assessment. The .
, final policy is not overly simplistic (that
is, based on a single risk measure) and •
is clearly consistent with the EPA's
guidelines for cancer risk assessment for
full disclosure:of risk uncertainties and
quantitative range of risks. The EPA
appreciates the position of commenters
who supported the EPA's concern that
risk estimates less than 1X10~5 should
be given less weight than risk estimates
greater than 1X10"4. The EPA believes,
though, that it should reduce risks to
less than 1X10" 6 for as many exposed
people as reasonably possible. The EPA.
' also agrees with commenters that
proposed Approach A may not be
stringent enough, and, therefore, even
though the final policy is similar to
proposed Approach A, the application to
the final policy results in lower levels of
emissions. Regarding the maximum
lifetime risk limit, the EPA has
considered the recommendation of the
NCRP, ICRP, and other expert advisory
committees and in the context of the
• source categories herein considered, has
concluded that individual dose levels
greater than 10 mrem/y ede'are
inconsistent with the requirements of
section 112.
The EPA also does not agree with
.commenters who said that several
aspects of Approach A (e.g., its
flexibility and consideration of
•uncertainty) would lead to an
inconsistent policy allowing different
acceptable risk decisions for different
pollutants and source categories. The
EPA believes that the uncertainties
within different risk assessments can
appropriately result in different
acceptable risk decisions. For example,
while EPA believes that the risk
assessment may be overstated or
understated in certain cases, there is no
-------
Federal Register/
.
specific way to account for this belief
other than to qualitatively consider it in
the acceptable risk decision; EPA sees '
this as an appropriate use of its expert
judgment. In addition, EPA does not
agree with commenters who said that
the uncertainty of a risk assessment
should only be considered in the ample
margin of safety decision. Risk
assessments are only as good as the
weakest information and modeling tools
used in the assessments, and the value
of the results of these assessments must
be considered every time they are used;
to ignore the uncertainty of these
assessments is scientifically unsound
and could result in similarly unsound
decisions that may be viewed as
inconsistent.
Approach B Comments: No
commenters favored Approach B. The
commenters who opposed this approach
generally fell into two groups: industries,
who generally felt that Approach B was
too conservative and narrow; and State
governments, private citizens, and .
public interest groups, who felt that
Approach B was not stringent enough.
Many commenters rejected Approach
B (also C and D) because it is based on
a single measure of acceptable risk
(incidence in Approach B) and does not
allow EPA to consider the full range of
available health information. Some
commenters opposed Approach B
because the incidence is often greatly
dependent on the definition of the
source category. Most of these ;
commenters felt that Approach B did not
consider the maximum exposed
individual and did not protect smaller
populations from high risk when total
incidence is low.
Response: The EPA agrees with most
of these comments. The final policy,
unlike proposed Approach B, provides
an equitable response to regulation of
air toxics under section 112 by providing
for the consideration of the MIR, yet
takes into account all the other relevant
health information and uncertainty in
the risk assessment, including incidence.
The final policy is not overly simplistic
(that is, based on a'single risk measure).
and is clearly consistent with the EPA's
guidelines for cancer risk assessment for
full disclosure of risk uncertainties" and
quantitative range of risks. The EPA
appreciates the concern of commenters
that incidence is often greatly dependent
on the definition of the source category.
Approach C Comments: Approach C
was supported by several commenters
as being a straight-forward, bright-line
approach. In contrast; some commenters
found Approach C too conservative,
inflexible, and limiting of the
information which could be considered
by the Administrator in making the
acceptable risk decision. Many other
commenters rejected Approach C
because they did riot find it stringent
enough. ": - " .
Response: The EPA agrees with many
of these comments. The EPA utilizes a
level of approximately 1 X10~4 as an
appropriate presumptive benchmark of
acceptability in employing its selected
policy approach. At the same time, EPA
agrees with commenters that Approach
C was inflexible and did not consider all
the relevant health information and
uncertainty hi the risk assessment.
Accordingly, as indicated in the
discussion of the final policy, EPA
believes that MIR levels greater than
approximately 1X10" 4 are
presumptively unacceptable, but that
the risk estimates must be considered in
light of all the relevant health •
information and the uncertainties in the
risk assessment. As part of this
perspective, EPA agrees that exposures
to background concentrations and
multiple sources of a pollutant may be
considered to the extent that it is
practical arid reasonable to do so.
Approach D Comments: A large group
of public interest groups, and private
citizens supported this approach. Their
primary reason for support was because
this was the most stringent approach,
but other reasons included consistency
with existing State air toxics programs
and Federal regulations and accounting
for underestimation of jisk. A few
commenters favored Approach D. in
order to protect public health in a
multiple carcinogen environment. ,
The commenters who rejected
Approach D did so for a variety of - -.
reasons. Some found Approach D too
conservative, inflexible, and limiting in
the information which could be
considered in the acceptable risk
decision. Several commenters disagreed
with those who argue that a IX 10~8
acceptable risk level is justified due to
concern about exposure to multiple
chemicals; these, commenters said that
section 112 regulatory decisions should
not be based on concerns about
chemical exposures that have little
relevance to the pollutant and source
category being regulated. •
Many commenters felt either that
even the risk level of IX 10~~s given in
Approach D was unacceptable or not
protective enough of public health, or "
that "acceptable" risk should mean zero
risk.
Response: The EPA agrees with
commenters that felt that Approach D
was tod conservative, inflexible, and
limiting of the information which could
be considered in the acceptable risk
decision. However, much of the intent of
Approach D has been incorporated in
the methodology adopted which seeks to
protect as large a portion of the exposed
population as possible to risks no higher
than approximately 1X 10~6. The EPA
also agrees with commenters:who stated
that consistency with State and Federal
regulations must be viewed in light of
the purpose and actual implementation
of those regulations and, specifically,
agrees that comparing NESHAP
requirements with State programs (many
of which are guidelines and contain
waivers or flexibility if technology
cannot achieve the programs' stated
goals) is inappropriate. Also, EPA finds
the comment that there is a public
consensus that only an MIR of 1 X10~6
or less is acceptable to be difficult to-..
support given the wide range of
positions expressed in this rulemakmg.
While EPA agrees that multiple "
exposures to hazardous air pollutants
.are important to understand and '^
consider in the EPA's overall ,
implementation of its public health
mandates, EPA disagrees that these
exposures should be routinely evaluated
and considered in selecting standards
under section 112. In taking this
position, EPA is agreeing with
commenters who said using these,
exposures explicitly in selecting
standards would be very difficult and
possibly impractical. The EPA also
disagrees with commenters who said
that even the risk level of 1X 10~6 given
in Approach D was unacceptable or hot.
protective enough of public health, or •
that "acceptable" risk is zero risk.
Alternative Acceptable Risk __ • ' [ '
Approaches: Several commenters .
proposed variations on, or alternatives
to, the EPA's four proposed approaches
for determining acceptable risk. Several
of these were modifications to the case-
by-case approach. Another group argued
for more stringent criteria than -
Approach D, with a ultimate goal of zero
risk. A third group provided various
other alternative acceptable risk levels.
Comment: Several commenters
advocated higher levels of acceptable
risk than those proposed in arty "of the
EPA's approaches. Some did so by
explicitly referencing guidance issued
by the ICRP, the NCRP, or other groups
involved with radiation health
protection that sanction greater risks j
than those proposed by EPA. , 1
Response: The EPA does not agree '
with the commenters who advocated
higher levels of risk than any considered
in the March 7,1989, Federal Register
notice. While some commenters
interpreted the Vinyl Chloride decision
to mandate these high risk levels, EPA
believes that the Vinyl Chloride
decision requires EPA to consider .
-------
51658 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
societal risks in making an expert
judgment on acceptability. The EPA
completed such considerations, made an
expert judgment and, consequently,
selected a presumptive MIR level of
approximately 1X10~4. For the sources
considered in this notice, EPA believes
that associated risks in the range of
lXl
-------
step. Most of these latter cpminenters
believed that the MIR should be the sole
criterion for making the acceptable risk
decision, and that uncertainties and
other factors are best considered in, the
ample margin of safety step. In so doing,
some added that these uncertainties
should not be addressed by
incorporating unscientific, over- •
conservative assumptions into the risk-
assessments. , ^ ,.
Response: The, EPA believes that it is
essential to consider the quality of the
information it uses to make decisions
when the decisions are being made.
Thus, EPA agrees with commenters that
stated that it would be inappropriate to
evaluate the "safe" level and the
"margin of safety" without taking the
uncertainties (both scientific and
technological) into account. Because
EPA has concluded that many factors
should be considered in making the -
acceptable risk decision, the EPA
disagrees with commenters who
believed that MIR should be the sole
criterion for making the acceptable risk
decision and that uncertainties and
other factors are best considered in the
ample margin of safety step.
• Comment: When estimates are
imprecise, accurate quantified
statements of uncertainty are essential;
these factors must be actively involved .
in the decision-making process both for
regulations and site-specific permitting
decisions.
Response: The EPA has initiated a
substantial effort to quantify the
uncertainty in its radiation risk
" estimates. However, until quantitative
uncertainty estimates are available, the
Agency must, base its decisions on the
current measures .of uncertainty at its
disposal.
Comment: It would bei inconsistent
with the EPA's distinction between risk
assessment and risk management for the
Agency to deal with bona fide scientific
questions at the stage of deciding what
probability of contracting cancer is
"acceptable." Risk considerations alone
should be dealt with in this first step.
Moreover, an adequate data base must
be established for technical, scientific,
and economic considerations before
these can be balanced with acceptable
risks.
Response: The EPA disagrees that
bona fide scientific questions are
inappropriate at the risk management .
step. The'EPA's, risk assessments are
based on what it considers the best
available scientific evidence, with
conservative but reasonable
assumptions made when necessary. At
the risk management step, the
decisionmakers need to know the
uncertainties associated with the risk
estimates and the range of scientific
opinion regarding the assumptions that
have been included in the assessment.
CommentiJ3om& commenters
suggested that'the proposed rules are"
improperly based on incomplete , '
technical analyses. '
Response:The final rules are the ...
result of extensive research and
technical analysis conducted over* a
period of several .years, and, thus, the
record underlying the rules is
reasonably complete and accurate.
. Commenters'.technical comments, as
well as those of other commenters, are
incorporated into the record to the
extent they proved pertinent. In arriving
at the acceptable risk decisions under
CAA section 112 for these rules, costs
and technological feasibility were not _\
considered. Such were'considered along
with the health-related factors, however,
in determining whether more stringent
rules were needed hi arriving at the .
statutorily required ample margin of
safety. ,
Comment: Several commenters have
asserted that EPA's risk assessments are
not realistic but are worst case
estimates. Some commenters objected to
EPA's assumption that people living in
the vicinity of radionuclide sources were
exposed continuously, for a 24 hours per
day 70-year lifetime, to predicted long-
term ambient radionuclide levels.
Commenters maintained that the :
average lifetime of an industrial facility
is considerably less than 70 years, and
that few individuals would be expected
_to live in the same location for their
entire lives. ,
Response: The E.PA recognizes that
the assumption of 70 years of continuous
exposure constitutes a simplification of
actual conditions and represents, in
part, a policy judgment by EPA, but feels
that this assumption is preferable fa ',.
other alternatives. Although emissions
of radionuclides from industrial sources
would reasonably be expected to
change over time, such changes cannot
be predicted with any certainty. In lieu .
of closing, plants may elect to replace or
even expand their operations and
subsequently increase their emissions.
The 70-year exposure duration
represents a steady-state emissions
assumption that is consistent with the
way in which the measure of
carcinogenic strength is expressed p.e.>
as the probability of contracting cancer
based upon a lifetime [70 year] exposure
to a unit concentration). Constraining
the analysis to-an "average" plant
lifetime carries ths implication that no
one couldbe exposed for a period longer
than the average. Since by definition,
some plants would be expected to emit
longer than the average, this assumption
would tend to underestimate the .
possible MIR. The EPA agrees that the
.U.S. population is highly mobile.
However, adjusting the exposure
assumptions to constrain the. possibility,,
of exposure. to emissions implies that
- exposure ^during the periods away from
, the residence.are zero. In addition,' a
less-than-lifetime assumption would
also have a proportional impact on the
estimated MIR, suggesting that no
individual could be exposed for 70 ,
years. On balance, EPA believes that,
the present assumption of continuous
exposure is consistent .with the steady-
state nature of the analysis and with the
stated purpose of making plausible, if
conservative, estimates of the potential
health risks. It is the EPA's, opinion that
this assumption, while representing in
part a policy judgment by EPA,
continues to be preferable to adopting a
' shorter lifetime figure, both in view of .
.the shortcomings of such alternatives
and in the absence of compelling
evidence to the contrary,
Comment:The EPA: shouldmeasure
the gain in risk reduction made against
the costs to reach sudh gain and
compare the benefits against the"
increased risk borne by workers.
Response: The EPA does consider
both the incremental reduction in risk
and the costs at.the ample margin of
safety step. The EPA is unaware of any
increase in worker exposure that will be
caused by the promulgated NESHAPs.
6. Scope of the Regulations
Comment: Several commenters stated
that NESHAPS should be developed for
pther sources or categories of
radionuclide emissions including that ^
from Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials (NORM) contamination of oil
and gas production equipment and in
construction materials, and also from
naturally occurring radon in the soil that
underly residences, schools, businesses
and offices. They questioned whether
emanation rates of radon (222 and 220)
from coal stqckpiles,,bouers, fly ash,
and bottom ash significant for regulation ,
under the NESHAP program.
Response: The EPA believes that the .
source categories evaluated in this
rulemaking represent the sources with
, the greatest potential for causing
unacceptable risks from radionuclide
emissions to ambient air. The Agency . .
has examined the potential problem of ,
radon in natural gas provided to homes
and found .that the transit times allow
for the decay of the radon to acceptable
levek. Emissions of radon from coal
piles and coal ash piles has also been
examined, as part of the CERCLA
rulemaking on Reportable Quantities, . .
-------
51699 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday,December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
with similar results. EPA will continue
to look at these and other potential
sources to see if they are appropriate
sources for regulation under section 112.
Finally, it must be noted that EPA's
authority under CAA Section 112 is
limited to the regulation of source
categories of toxics to ambient air and,
thus, lacks authority to regulate or
control naturally ocurring radon in soils
that underly homes or businesses under
this code section.
Comment: Consideration should be
given to the problems presented by
overlapping sources, any increase in the
number of facilities within each
category over time, and the goal of
controlling the total incremental
pollution for all radionuclide emissions
from all source points in all twelve
source categories.
Response: The Agency agrees and its
policies on acceptable risk levels are
based, in part, on assuring that risks
caused by overlapping and multiple
sources do not result in individuals
receiving an unacceptable level of
exposure and risk. Explicitly accounting
for overlapping and multiple sources of
exposure greatly complicates the
calculation of exposures and risks. Since
concentrations of radionuclides decline
rapidly with distance from a source,
however, it is highly unlikely that any •
individual could be the most exposed
individual for more than one source. In •
most cases, members of the public will
receive risks less than lxlO"6from
more than one source.
Comment: The standards should
address cumulative health impacts
resulting from exposures to multiple
radiological and nonradiological
pollutants emitted by the same or
multiple sources located in relative
proximity to one another.
Response: Although EPA has been
unable to quantify cumulative and
synergistic health impacts for multiple
hazardous materials and sources have
not been accurately qualified, it is our
judgment that if such effects could be
accurately quantified, they would not
substantially alter EPA's conclusions in .
this rulemaking.
Comment: The standards Consider.
only fatal cancers and fail to take into
account the entire range of chronic
debilitating and incapacitating diseases
that may result from radionuclide
emissions.
Response: EPA has taken into, account
the entire range of chronic debilitating
and incapacitating diseases that may
result from radionuclide'emissions.
Comment: Proposed standards are
based on what the EPA perceives as
achievable rather than a safe level of
airborne radioactivity emissions; this is
not an appropriate basis for setting air
emission standards under the Act.
Response: The EPA believes that its
standards ensure an acceptable level of
risk to public health with an ample
margin of safety as required by the
Clean Air Act and the decision in Vinyl •
Chloride. The Agency has established a
threshold presumption that lifetime fatal
cancer risks to individuals of
approximately IX10""* are acceptable
under the Vinyl Chloride decision, and
has attempted to assure .that as many
persons as possible do not receive
lifetime risks greater than 1X10"6.
Comment: The potential effect of the
proposed rule on Federal preemption in
the area of regulation of facilities needs
to be carefully considered. Nuclear
facilities are unique and. complex, and
consistent regulation is in the best
interest of the public. Congress
determined that national regulation of
nuclear power plants is appropriate in
establishing the Atomic Energy Act
Response: The Agency agrees that
consistent regulation is in the interest of
the public and has promulgated national
emissions standards that apply to
nuclear power plants. However, the
Clean Air Act does not preempt state
standards that are at least as stringent
as those set by the Federal Government.
Comment: The consistency of -these
standards with other existing and
proposed radiation standards, for air
pathways and other pathways, should
be discussed.
Response: As noted in the March 7,
1989 Federal Register notice for the
proposed standards, the statutory
requirements of CAA section 112 differ
from the requirements.of other
authorities under which the EPA and
other regulatory bodies set radiation
standards. Therefore, the first priority
for EPA is to assure that the regulations
promulgated are in accordance with its
statutory mandate.
Comment: All facilities that emit
similar radionuclides should be held to '
the same emission standards; a remote
facility should not be allowed higher
emission rates than an urban facility,
nor should a government or municipal
facility be allowed higher emission rates
than a private or industrial facility.
Response: The EPA's decisionmaking
approach in setting final rules assures
that all members of the public are
adequately protected, regardless of the
source of their exposure or their choice
of residence in an urban, suburban,
rural, or remote area of the country. The
EPA believes that different source
categories may be treated differently
even if they emit similar pollutants, so
long as the final standard protects
public health with an ample margin of
safety.
Comment: The Clean Air Act does not
allow for dose standards.
Response: We disagree with those
commenters stating that Congress in
directing the Agency to set emission'
standards did not authorize that those
standards be set in terms of dose to an
individual. CAA section 302(k) defines
the term "emission standard" to include
limits on the quantity, rate, or
concentration of an air pollutant and the
Agency views dose standards fully
consistent with that definition. In many
cases, because there are over two
hundred known radionuclides,
numerous different ones are emitted
from an individual source. In addition,
the risk due to each is a further function
of many factors such as particle size and
exact chemical state. An emission
standard for radionuclides based on
quantity at the stack would often be
complex to the point of impracticality. A
dose standard provides a better
approach to protecting the public since
it allows the establishment of a uniform
limit based on consideration of all of the
factors related to the particular mix of
radionuclides emitted from each source.
Moreover, this approach is supported by
radiation protection experts and the
regulated community.
Comment: Some commenters posit
that Clean Air Act Section 112 does not,
or should not, authorize EPA to regulate
radipnuclide air emissions from thoss
sources, or categories of sources, that
are already regulated pursuant to the
Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control
Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-604, 92 Stat.
3021 (codified in scattered sections of 42
U.S.C.) ("UMTRCA"). These
commenters reason that because .
UMTRCA was promulgated subsequent
to the last comprehensive revisions to
the Clean Air Act, and, because
UMTRCA's statutory scheme is more
specifically focused upon the sources to
which it applies than is the Clean Air
Act, EPA's authority under CAA Section
112 is, in effect, preempted.
Response: EPA disagrees that it lacks
authority to regulate, under CAA
Section 112, the radionuclide air
emissions of sources also regulated
under UMTRCA. Indeed, UMTRCA
itself resolves this issue by quite
explicitly stating that "[njothing in this
chapter applicable to byproduct
material * * * shall affect the authority
of the [EPA] under the Clean Air Act of
1970, as amended * s * " 42 U.S.C.
section 2022(e). The legislative history is
similar: "Authorities of the EPA under
other laws would not be abridged by the
new requirements." H. Rep. No. 1480,
-------
- "'>—-9 '
95th Cong., 2d Sess. 8, reprinted in, 1978
U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 7433,
7444. In other words, there is no
indication that Congress intended
UMTRCA to preempt EPA's regulatory
authority under the Clean Air Act;
rather Congress expressly contemplated
EPA authority to simultaneously
regulate under both legislative schemes. :
7. Procedural .
'- r Comment: Many commenters felt that
.the affected parties familiar with the
proposed standards have not had
adequate time to thoroughly review
available documents, and many stated .
that many supporting documents were
not available until mid-April. In '
addition, several stated that the material
contained significant errors.
Response: The EPA made every effort
•to notify affected parties of the
rulemaking action, and it timely '
prepared and distributed the
background materials supporting the
proposed rules. However, the court
order under which this rulemaking has
been conducted necessitated strict
adherence to the schedule for public
comments and hearings. The Agency is
not aware of any significant errors in the
risk assessment. Where additional or
new information was provided or
developed during the comment period, it
has been incorporated into the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS),
also referred to as the Background
Information Document (BID).
Comment: The Proposed Rulemaking
' Notice, published in the Federal Register
on March 7,1989, does not identify those
who participated in its preparation. The
authors of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) do, not appear
to represent the kinds of knowledge,
experience, and expertise necessary for
the task. , .
Response:,The DEIS does identify the
ORE staff members who contributed to
the development of the.background
..material and indicates that S. Cohen
and Associates, Inc., the Office's
Technical Support Contractor, provided
considerable technical support and
analysis. The Agency disagrees strongly
that the participants in this effort lack
the necessary knowledge, experience,
and expertise to prepare the proposal or
final rulemaking packages.
.Comment:-The conclusion of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis that
this rule will have little or no impact on
small businesses because virtually all
small businesses regulated under this
rule already comply with the proposed
standards is unsupported.
Response: The final rule for NRC-
Licensed and Non-DQE Federal
facilities is the only NESHAP with the
potential to affect,small businesses.
That standard is a baseline standard,
which indicates that EPA is unaware of
any particular facility that does not
comply with the final rule. In doing its
risk assessment, EPA looked at model
facilities with relatively large emissions
for that, class of facility to ensure that
the risk was not underestimated.
Therefore, EPA believes that it is highly
unlikely that any small business would
have emissions which would exceed the
standard.
Comment: An international panel of
recognized health professionals and
epidemiologist should review and
comment on the health effects of these
very low levels of proposed radiation
protection standards.
Response: The Agency invited
comments from all .interested parties
during the public comment period.
Further, it has reviewed and considered
the findings and recommendations of the
NCRP, the ICRP, UNSCEAR. and the
NAS in developing its risk coefficients.
Finally, the risk coefficients used in this
risk assessment were reviewed and
approved by the Agency's Science
Advisory Board.
Comment: Even among the various
sources proposed for regulation in this
rulemaking there does not appear to be
an even handed application of the EPA's
own analysis. The different regulatory
standards proposed by the EPA for the
various sources are irrational.
Response: The EPA disagrees. The
proposed regulations were developed on
a consistent basis for each of the four
approaches. For the final rule, the EPA
used a single approach to determine the •
level of each standard it set. The EPA ;
believes that consistency among the
standards has been achieved;' - '
Comment: The EPA should, defer final
action in this rulemaking to permit
public comment on the Science
Advisory Board's Review of EPA's
proposal. .',."..
Response: The court imposed •--''.
schedule for this rulemaking does not
permit the Agency to extend the public
comment period.
Comment: The EPA should propose its
enforcement policy for public review
and comment. .
Response: The EPA does not plan at
this time to create a specific
enforcement policy for these rules, but
instead currently intends to enforce
them in the same manner that it .
enforces other Clean Air Act standards.
8. Decision to List Under Section 112 ,
The FR notice requested comments on
the appropriateness of listing
radionuclides as hazardous air
pollutants under section 112 of the Act.
Comments on this issue ranged from
unequivocal support for listing to
questions as to the justification for,
listing under this section of the Act. ;
Many, while not necessarily opposing
listing, stated that their particular source
or source category should not be .
regulated under the Act due to the "
insignificant risks to public health
presented, or, in light of the existence of;
other regulations.
Comment: Several commenters stated
that the listing -under section 112 is
appropriate because a hazardous air
pollutant includes those substances that
may result in an increase in mortality or
an increase in serious irreversible or
incapacitating reversible illness. The
EPA should apply the same risk
assessment criteria to radionuclides that
are applied to other toxic air pollutants
regulated under section 112. Such an
approach is the only way that the health
protection goals will be achieved.
Response: The EPA agrees that listing
under section 112 is appropriate, and it.
does apply the same approach and ••
criteria to all risk assessments and
standard setting under section 112.
However, differences in our knowledge
about different hazardous materials,
differences in the modes of exposure
(pathways), and differences in the
assessment of exposure lead to different
risk assessment methods.
Comment: Many oppose the listing of
radionuclides for three main reasons: (1)
Radionuclide emissions from all source
categories constitute only Vaoth of
natural background, which is an
insignificant amount; [2) concentrations
released.mtp the general environment as
a matter of routine emissions do not
constitute the degree of hazard which
section 112 was meant to regulate; arid
(3) there is no evidence with.respect to
the health effects of low level
radionuclide emissions.
- Response: The EPA believes that its
listing of radionuclides as hazardous air •
pollutants under section 112 is proper
and is compelled by both the weight of
the scientific .evidence and the
Administrator's statutory duties under ,
the Act. While the EPA agrees that there
is no conclusive human epidemiological
data demonstrating health effects at low
levels of exposure, we believe that the
preponderance of the scientific evidence
(both human epidemiology at higher
levels of exposure and the data from
non-human sources) indicates that the
linear non-threshold dose response
model is consistent with the available
data and its utilization for regulatory
purposes is appropriate. The EPA
disagrees that the levels of risks posed
by releases of radioactive materials into
-------
51692 Federal Register /Vol. 54, Np.j40/ Friday, Pgcember 15, Iffft jj'gulesandReg Nations
the alp are below those the Congress
intended to regulate under section 112.
Finally, the EPA does not consider the
comparison of the risks posed by man-
made sources to the risks from
background to be relevant. The level of
exposure corresponding to safe with an
ample margin of safety, not background,
is the appropriate criterion for
regulation under sectioc 112. Many risks
associated with natural Background
radiation are relatively high and, thus,
are not appropriate as a benchmark for
evaluating the need for regulation.
Comment! Some commenters felt that
regulation of radionuclides under
section 112 is appropriate but that EPA
should exempt some categories of
industries that are regulated under other
authorities, unless the current emissions
within the source category can be
shown to be unsafe.
Response: The Agency has concluded
that for source categories where
emissions present or potentially present
unacceptable risks, it should not defer to
other regulatory authorities.
0, Technological and Economic Factors
Comment: The EPA should not bo
concerned with availability or feasibility
of controls. It should simply establish
the requirement and let industry
determine how if will meet it.
Response: In determining the safe
lisvol, EPA agrees. Thus, at that stage it
doOB not consider either the availability
or feasibility of controls. These are
considered, however, at the second step
ample margin of safely determination.
Moreover, where possible, such as with
the NESHAP for underground uranium
mines, the regulated community is given
wide latitude in selecting the
combination of controls and/or work
practices that will allow them to meet
the mandated level of the standard.
Comment: The factors the EPA should
consider before requiring control •
technology include: commercial vendor
availability, adaptability from other
uses, readily understood and applicable
operating principles, costs and .health
benefits. Availability to U.S. industry
should not be based on foreign ,
commercialization.
Response: In general,, these are the .
factors that the EPA considers, ".,
However, the EPA sees no reason to
automatically preclude a technology
solely because it has been developed
and commercialized only outside of the
: . . . ... .
^ ^
Comment; A technological ]
development thai has been
demonstrated to reduce emissions and is
in use in or outside the U.S.' should be
considered available and required.
Response: The EPA agrees that the
availability of demonstrated control
technology should be considered.
However, the requirement of additional
controls, at the ample margin of safety
step, rests also on consideration of costs
and other factors.
Comment: Because of the existing
regulatory framework that forces the use
of control technology pursuant to the
ALARA principle, the nuclear industry
is already at a very low level of
emissions and further regulation is
merely duplicative.
Response: The EPA agrees that the
emissions from many segments of the
nuclear industry are at low levels. The
EPA does not anticipate that facilities
with state-of-the art control systems will
need additional controls to comply with
the limits of the NESHAP. However,
EPA does not agree that in all
circumstances regulation under CAA
section 112 is unnecessary and.indeed
has determined that final rules are
needed for the radionuclide source
categories identified.
Comment:The EPA should not
promulgate additional radionuclide
emission regulations for the uranium
fuel cycle (UFC) including nuclear
power plants. The industry has a proven
record of protecting' the public health
and safety from airborne radioactive
emissions. This results fro.m Uie ,
Conservative design of the facilities, the
careful operating philosophy employed
in these facilities, and .the existing
framework of EPA arid NRG regulations.
The public already enjoys better
protection from UFC radionuclide
emissions than from almost any other
industry's emissions.
. Response: As stated in the FR notice,
the Administrator has determined that
regulation of potentially significant risks
shouldnot.be deferred to other
regulatory authorities. Based on its
evaluation of the doses and risks caused
by UFC facilities, the EPA does not
believe that non-milling facilities will
have to modify their operations to .'
comply with the NESHAP. However,
EPA has agreed to reconsider the issue
of duplication of regulation as described
in the discussion ,on subpart L
, , Comment.* The, DOE is concerned that
the EPA has proposed an outdoor radon
concentration standard that is fay belpw
the level the EPA, is willing to allow. .'_' . • ,
indoors. . '.''.;.
Response: The authorities under . .
which the NESHAPs and indoor radon ;.
guidance are promulgated are entirely
different. The EPA does not have the. •
authority to mandate indoor radon
levels. Its .guidance to homeowners is :' '.
based on a single, screening : - • ;!
' nigasurement, the protocols for which • •
are designed not to provide an average
exposure level but a maximum exposure
level. Therefore, comparison with the
limits established by the NESHAP is
invalid.
Comment: Regulations that have the
effect of forcing use of control
technology are clearly inappropriate
, where the technology has not been
shown to be currently available.
Response: CAA section 112 requires
EPA to set a safe or acceptable level
without regard to the availability of
control technology. Nevertheless, as a
practical matter, while NESHAPs allow
for use of new technologies, none of the
promulgated NESHAPs requires the
development of new technologies.
Comment: A strong regulatory stance.
by the EPA in requiring pollution
controls will act to stimulate innovation,
reduce prices via increased sales of
control technologies and processes, and
reduce risk.
Response: This stimulation of
innovation and price competition in the
. effluent control industry, while a '
laudable public goal, is not a
requirement under s'ectioa 112 of the
Act. Rather, the purpose and focus of
NESHAPs is to protect public health
with an ample margin of safety.
Comment: EPA should inplude
avoided costs, e.g. possible tort
judgments, including punitive damages,y;
in determining the level of the final -
standard at the ample margin of safety.
. step of the decision-making process.
•Response: In theory, the EPA, agrees. •
However, as a practical matter, it is
often difficult to arrive at even an
approximation of avoided costs when
dealing with specific source categories,
, They are simply too speculative,
especially given that the.source
categories are often comprised of
thousands of individual facilities. "
Comment; Cost as used iii the ample
margin'of safety discussion should
include all of the costs identifiable with
, the decision; this would include value of
the facility, economic effects on the
community, and social effects of-labor
' force" dislocation, : ' . :
Resppnse.-'fp the extent .that.the EPA
is able 'tis dsvelpp quantitative, estimates
of these.ictisV? they are considered , „,..
pursuant to the decieiori-ffiakirig '"•'.'-';:
process,. However, as already netted,
such costs are often only available, if at
all. as'rough, qualitative estimates. :
:. Comirieni: Industry should meet the :
'criteriairrespective of costs or
'technological feasibility.
Response: TB® EPA agrees with
•respecttomejeting the levels determined ,
'to be "safe." Th'e EPA disagrees with
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. :24Q /' Friday, iDectemljCT J5;JL989 7 RUfes anH "feejuJatipnif
respect to the determination of the
needed ample margin of safety.
, Comment: Fundamental fairness
prohibits the EPA from imposing
controls,that cost more than some
ceiling amount per estimated death
prevented. '
Response: Since the Vinyl Chloride
decision precludes consideration of cost
when determining what constitutes
"safe," all sources must meet the
standards or utilize controls to the
degree necessary to bring their ;
emissions into compliance, regardless of
the cost. ,
Comment: EPA has not explained the
basis for abandoning the existing
regulatory program for uranium mill
tailings disposal in favor of regulation
under the CAA. The UMTRCA, passed
subsequent to the CAA, provides , : -
flexibility. . ,
Response: The Administrator has
determined not to defer to other ,
regulatory authorities when the risk
merits issuance of a NESHAP under
section 112 of the Act. Hdwever, the
requirements of the other regulations ' :
must still be met.
, Coinment: if post-closure emissions, ;
are to be actively regulated under the
standard, the EPA should address"
financial assurances for evaluation, ;
monitoring, reporting, facility
modification request, and remedial
actions.
Response: Given the one-time nature
of the post-closure monitoring
requirements for phosphogypsum stacks
and,uranium mill tailings disposal sites,
the EPA does not believe that the small
financial burden requires specific ..
financial assurance requirements.
Details of monitoring and reporting
requirements are included in the
appropriate Subparts. - ..,.-..•„
Comment: The proposal fails to
address the occupational dose . '-
incrementresulting from the installation,
operation, and maintenance :pf the
additional equipment and.systems . •.
required for compliance; the collective
occupational exposures required for ;
some of these additions will be at higher
individual doses and of significantly
more consequence than the questionable
savings in public risk.
Response: The lack''of specific
instances makes it impossible to fully
address this concern. The EPA is not
'aware of any instance where a NESHAP
will require emission controls .that will.
result hi a significant 'occupational
exposure. Where controls may be
required, for •example £t"elemerital
phosphorus plants, they Supplement or
replace existing, less effective, controls.
The expdsure'reSultihg from installation
should'be'mmhriai since thd process will"
be shut down, and exposures received
during maintenance should be • :
comparable.
Com/ne/zfc Consideration should be
given to whether public welfare would
not be improved by diverting moneys
from regulatory procedures with no ;.:
measurable effect on human health, to
research efforts, which have resulted in
considerable advantages to the public
health and well being. Human costs to :
those dependent on the industry as well
as other adverse environmental
repercussions caused by a shift away
from nuclear power toward more
polluting technologies, will far outweigh
any theoretical public health benefit.
Response:The suggested cost-benefit
determination is outside the purview of
the Agency. However, given the
concerns of the National Institutes of
Health thathealth care may be affected,
EPA has agreed to reconsider this issue.
Comment: The statement that demand
for nuclear energy is ,on the decline due
to reduced demand for nuclear
generated electricity is fallacious. Also,
while the analysis recognizes that these
regulations will worsen the already .
weak position of the domestic, uranium-
industry, it does not. examine the ,- :
adverse effects that will have on the
national trade deficit. -... .
/Jesponse/Jmported uranium is a
.trivial component ;of the United States '
trade deficit.
Comment: The EPA estimates costs
associated with the alternative , .
regulatory approaches for each source
category but the total-fuel cycle cost will
be passed through to nuclear utilities
and should be assessed on that basis* '
This includes sources under subparts B,
H, I, K, R, S, T, and W. •
Response: Cbst$ associated with the
final-rule are not significant compared
with the total fuel cycle costs. There '
would be no significant impacts.
VIII. Miscellaneous
A. Docket ,' ..-''.-.''• '..
The docket is .an organized and
complete file of aU information
considered by EPA in the development
of the standards. The docket allows
interested, persons to identify and locate
documents so they can effectively
participate in the rulemaking process. It
also serves as the record for judicial
review. , '"*-',', ' • *; '
Transcripts of the hearings;' all written
statements, the Agency's response to ".--.:
comments,'and other relevarif ' •;'
documents have" been placed in the " ;
docket and are available for inspection
and copying .during normal working v-'"
hours. '.' •••''•.•"-.".• ',- •''••."•'-' '-"•••""'
B. General Provisions "' ,".\
Except where otherwise specifically -
stated, the general provisions of 40 CFR
part 61, subpart A apply to all sources
regulated by this rule. ',-".'
C. Paperwork Reduction Act .
The information collection
requirements hi this final rule have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
have beerfassigned OMB control
number 2060-0191.
D. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA is
. required to judge whether this regulation
is a "major rule" arid therefore subject
to certain requirements of the Order.
The EPA has determined that ,
regulations promulgated today will
result in none of the adverse economic
effects set forth in section I of the Order
as grounds for finding a regulation to be
a "major rule." These regulations are not
major because (1) nationwide annual :
compliance costs do notmeet the $100 .
million threshold; (2) the regulations do
not significantly increase prices or
production costs; and (3) the regulations
do not cause significant adverse effects
on domestic competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or.
competition in foreign markets. • .
- All of the final regulations presented
in this notice were submitted to OMB for
review as required by Executive Order .
12291. Any written comments from OMB
to EPA and any written EPA response to.
those comments, has been.included in'
the docket.; ; :.. " :
E:RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis .'•-••
Section 603 of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, requires
EPA to prepare and make available for
comment an "initial regulatory
flexibility analysis" in connection with
any ruletaaking for which there is a "
statutory requirenaent that a general
notice of proposed rulemaking be '
published. Thi"initial regulatory
flexibility analysis'i'describes the effect
of the proposed rule on small business
entities. " ,
However, section 604(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act provides that
section 603 "shall not apply to any . -. "
proposed . . . rule if the head of the
Agency certifies that the rule will not.'if
promulgated, have a significant . - ?
economic impact on a substantial
number of small ientities." " ." •'''•"'
EPA believes tha:t Virtually all small ;
businesses are .currently in compliance •'
with these rules. In'addittdn, EPA has
placed reporting exemptions in the rule : •;
-------
51694 Federal Register / Vol.' 54, No. 240 / Friday, .December 15, 1989 /Rules and Regulations
for NRC-licensees to limit the amount of
paperwork that would be required by
the smaller operators. Therefore, this
rule will have little or no impact on
small businesses. A small business is
one that has 750 employees or fewer.
For the preceding reasons, I certify
that this rule will not have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, Arsenic,
Asbestos, Beryllium, Benzene,
Incorporation by reference, Mercury,
Radionuclides, Vinyl chloride.
Dated: October 31, 1989.
William G. Rosenberg,
A cting A dmin/strator.
Part 61 of chapter I of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 61— [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 61
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412. 7414, 7416,
7001.
2. Part 61 is amended by revising
subparts B, 1 1, 1, K and W and by adding
subparts R and T to read as follows.
These subparts are effective December
IS, 1989. Subpart I is stayed until March
15, 1989.
Subpart B— National Emission
Standards for Radon Emissions From
Underground Uranium Mines
See.
Designation of facilities.
61.21 Definitions
61,22 Standard.
61,23 Determining compliance.
01,24 Annual reporting requirements.
61.25 Recordkeeping requirements.
61 ,20 Exemption from the reporting and
testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10
§ 61.20 Designation of facilities.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the owner or operator of
an active underground uranium mine
which:
(a) lias mined, will mine or is
designed to mine over 100,000 tons of
ore during the life of the mine; or
(b) Has had or will have an annual ore
production rate greater than 10,000 tons,
unless it can be demonstrated to EPA
that the mine will not exceed total ore
production of 100,000 tons during the life
of the mine.
§61.21 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined here have the meaning given
them in the Clean Air Act or subpart A
of part 61. The following terms shall
have the following specific meanings:
(a] Active mine means an
underground uranium mine which is
being ventilated to allow workers to
enter the mine for any purpose.
(b) Effective dose equivalent means
the sum of the products of absorbed
dose and appropriate factors to account
for differences in biological
effectiveness due to the quality of
radiation and its distribution in the body
of reference man. The unit of the
effective dose equivalent is the rem. The
method for calculating effective dose
equivalent and the definition of
reference man are outlined in the
International Commission on•
Radiological Protection's Publication
No. 26. "
(c) Underground uranium mine means
a man-made underground excavation
made for the purpose of removing
material containing uranium for the
principal purpose of recovering uranium.
§61.22 Standard.
Emissions of radon-222 to the ambient
ah" from an underground uranium mine
shall not exceed those amounts that
would cause any member of the public
to receive in any year an effective dose
equivalent of 10 mrem/y.
§61.23 Determining compliance.
(a) Compliance with the emission
standard in this subpart shall be
determined and the effective dose
equivalent calculated by the EPA
computer code CQMPLY-R. An
underground uranium mine owner or
operator shall calculate the source terms
to be used for input into COMPLY-R by
conducting testing in accordance with
the procedures described in Appendix B,
Method 115, or
(b) Owners pr operators may
demonstrate compliance with the
emission standard in this subpart
through the use of computer models that
are equivalent to COMPLY-R provided
that the model has received prior
approval from EPA headquarters. EPA
may approve a model in whole or in part •
and may limit its use to specific
circumstances.
§ 61.24 Annual Reporting Requirements,
(a) The mine owner or operator shall
annually calculate and report the results
of the compliance calculations in section
61.23 and the input parameters used in
making the calculation. Such report shall
cover the emissions of a calendar year
and shall be sent to EPA by March 31 of
the following year. Each report shaH
also include the following information:
(!) The name and location of the mine.
(2) The name of the person
responsible for the operation of the
facility and the name of the person
preparing the report (if different).
(3) The results of the emissions testing
conducted and the dose calculated using
the procedures in § 61.23.
(4) A list of the stacks or vents or
other points where radioactive materials
are released to the atmosphere,
including their location, diameter, flow
rate, effluent temperature and release .
height.
(5) A description of the effluent
controls that are used on each stack,
vent, or other release point and the
effluent controls used inside the mine,
and an estimate of the efficiency of each
control method or device.
(6) Distances from the points of
release to the nearest residence, school,
business or office and the nearest farms
producing vegetables, milk, and meat.
(7) The values used for all other user-
supplied input parameters for the
computer models (e.g., meteorological
data) and the source of these data.
(8) Each report shall be signed and
dated by a corporate officer hi charge of
the facility and contain the following
declaration immediately above the
signature line: "I certify under penalty of
law that I have personally examined
and am familiar with the information
submitted herein and based on my
inquiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for obtaining the
information, I believe 'that the submitted
information is true, accurate and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment. See, 18 U.S.C.
1001."
(b) If the facility is not in compliance
with the emission standard of 161.22 irt
the calendar year covered by the report,
the facility must then commence
reporting to the Administrator on a
monthly basis the information listed in ,
paragraph (a) of this section for the
preceding month. These reports will
start the month immediately following
the s'ubmittal of the annual report for the
year in noncompliance and will be due
30 days following the end of each
month. This increased level of reporting
will continue until the Administrator has
determined that the.monthly reports are
no longer necessary. In addition to all
the information required in paragraph
(a) of this section, monthly reports shall
also include the following information:
(1) All controls or other changes in
operation of the facility that will be or
are being installed to bring the facility
..into compliance.
-------
/ Vol. 54, No, 240 / Friday^ December 15. 1889 / Rules and Regulations 51695
(2) If the facility is under a judicial or
administrative enforcement decree the
report will describe the facilities '
performance under the terms of the •
decree. : :
(c) The first report will cover the
emissions of calendar year 1990,
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under Control Number 2060-0191.)
§61.25 Recordkeeping requirements.
The owner or operator of a mine must
maintain records documenting the
source of input parameters including the
results of all measurements upon which
they are based, the calculations and/or
analytical methods used to derive
values for input parameters, and the
procedure used to determine . . •
compliance. In addition, the '
documentation should be sufficient to
allow an independent auditor to verify
the accuracy of the determination made
concerning the facility's compliance
with the standard. These records must
be kept at the mine or by the owner or '
operator for at least five years and upon
request be made available for inspection
by the Administrator, or his authorized
representative. •
§ 61.26 Exemption from the reporting and
testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
All facilities designated under this
subpart are exempt from the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
Subpart H—National Emission
Standards for Emissions of
Radionuclides Other Than Radon From
Department of Energy Facilities
Sec. ..• . . . ., ' -,
61.90 Designation of facilities,
61.91 Definitions.
61.92 Standard.
61.93 Emissions monitoring and test
procedures.
61.94 Compliance and reporting.
61.95 Recordkeeping requirements.
61.96 Applications to construct or modify.
61.97 Exemption from the reporting and
testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.m
§61.90 Designation of facilities.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to operations at any facility owned or
operated by the Department of Energy
that emits any radionuclide other than
radon-222 and radon-220 into the air,
except that this subpart does not apply
to disposal at facilities subject to 40 CFR
part 191, subpart B or 40 CFR part 192.
§61.91 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined here have the meaning given
them in the Clean Air Act or 40 CFR part
61, subpart A. The following terms shall
have the following specific meanings:
• (a) Effective dose equivalent-means
• the sum of the products of absorbed
dose and appropriate factors to account
for differences in biological v
effectiveness due to the quality of .
radiation and its distribution in the body
of reference man. The unit of the
effective dose equivalent is the rem. For
purposes of this subpart, doses caused
by radon-222 and its respective decay
products formed after the radon is
released from the facility are not
included. The method for calculating
effective dose equivalent and the
definition Dereference man are Outlined
in the International Commission on -
Radiological Protection's Publication
No. 26. '
(b) Facility means all buildings,
structures and operations on one
contiguous site.
(e) Radionuclide means a type of
atom which spontaneously undergoes
radioactive decay.
(d) Residence means any home,
house, apartment building, or other
place of dwelling which is occupied
during any portion of the relevant year.
§61.92 Standard.
Emissions of radionuclides to the
ambient air from Department of Energy
facilities shall not exceed those amounts
that would cause any member of the
public to receive in any year an effective
dose equivalent of 10,mrem/yr.
§61.93 Emission monitoring and test
procedures. ,
(a) To determine compliance with the
standard, radionuclide emissions shall
be determined and effective dose
equivalent values to members of th.e
public calculated using EPA approved
sampling procedures, computer models
CAP-88'or AIRDOS-PC, or other
procedures for which EPA has granted
prior approval. DOE facilities for which
.the maximally exposed individual lives
witfiin 3 kilometers of all sources of
emissions in the facility, may use EPA's
COMPLY model and associated
procedures for determining dose for
purposes of compliance.
(b) Radionuclide emission rates from
point sources (stacks or vents) shall be
measured in accordance with the
following requirements or other
procedures for which EPA .has granted
prior approval:
(1) Effluent flow rate measurements
shall be made using the following
methods: .
(i) Reference Method 2 of Appendix A
to part 60 shall be used to detennine
velocity and volumetric flow rates for
stacks and large vents. .
(ii) Reference Method 2A of Appendix
A to part 60 shall be used to measure
flow rates through pipes and small ;
vents. , '
(iii) The frequency of the flow rate
.measurements shall depend upon the
variability ot the effluent flow rate. For
variable flow rates, continuous ;or
frequent flow rate measurements shall
be made. For relatively constant flow.
rates only periodic measurements are
necessary.
(2) Radionuclides shall be directly
monitored or extracted, collected and
measured using the following methods:
(i) Reference Method 1 of Appendix A
part 60 shall be used to select
monitoring or sampling sites.
(ii) The effluent stream shall be
directly monitored continuously with an
in-line detector or representative '
samples of the effluent stream shall be
withdrawn continuously from the
sampling site following the guidance
presented in ANSIN13.1-1969 "Guide to
Sampling Airborne Radioactive
Materials in Nuclear. Facilities"
(including the guidance presented in
Appendix A of ANSIN13.1)
(incorporated by reference—see § 61.18)
The requirements for continuous
sampling are applicable to batch
processes when the unit is in operation.
Periodic sampling (grab samples) may
be used only with EPA's prior approval.
Such approval may be granted in cases
where continuous sampling is not
practical and radionuclide emission
rates are relatively constant In such
cases, grab samples shall be collected
with sufficient frequency so as to '
provide a representative sample of the
emissions. -
(iii) Radionuclides shall be collected
. and measured using procedures based
on the principles of measurement
described in Appendix B, Method 114.
Use of methods based on principles of
measurement different from those
described in Appendix B, Method 114
must have prior approval from the
Administrator. EPA reserves the right to
approve measurement procedures.
(iv) A quality assurance program shall
be conducted that meets the
performance requirements described in
-Appendix B, Method 114. ;
(3) When it is impractical to measure
the effluent flow rate at an existing
source in accordance with the
'requirements of paragraph (b)(l) of this
section or to monitor or sample an
effluent stream at arrexisting source in
accordance with the site selection and
sample extraction requirements of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the
facility owner or operator may iise
alternative effluent flow rate
measurement procedures or site
-------
51896 Federal Register./ Vql. 54, No. 240 / Friday, gecem^gr 15, Igg9/ Rules and Regulations
selection and sample extraction
procedures provided that:
(i) It can be shown that the
requirements of paragraph (b) (1) or (2)
of this section are impractical for the
effluent stream.
(ii) The alternative procedure will not
significantly underestimate the
emissions.
(iii) The alternative procedure is fully
documented.
(iv) The owner or operator has
received priqr approval from EPA.
(4)(i) Radionuclide emission
measurements in conformance with the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section shall be made at all release
points which have a potential to
discharge radionuclides into the air in
quantities which could cause an
effective dose equivalent in excess of 1%
of the standard. All radionuclides which
could contribute greater than 10% of the
potential effective dose equivalent for a
release point shall be measured. With
prior EPA approval, DOE may determine
these emissions through alternative
procedures. For other release points
which have a potential to release
radionuclides into the air, periodic
confirmatory measurements shall be
made to verify the low emissions.
(ii) To determine whether a release
point is subject to the emission
measurement requirements of paragraph
(b] of this section, it is necessary to
evaluate the potential for radionuclide
emissions for that release point. In
evaluating the potential of a release
point to discharge radionuclides into the
air for the purposes of this section, the
estimated radionuclide release rates
shall be based on the discharge of the
effluent stream that would result if all
pollution control equipment did not
exist, but the facilities operations were
otherwise normal.
(5) Environmental measurements of
radionuclide air concentrations at
critical receptor locations may be used
as an alternative to air dispersion
calculations in demonstrating
compliance with the standard if the
owner or operator meets the following
criteria:
(i) The air at the point of measurement
shall be continuously sampled for
collection of radionuclides.
(Ii) Those radionuclides released from
the facility, which are the major
contributors to the effective dose
equivalent must be collected and
measured as part of the environmental
measurement program.
(Hi) Radionuclide concentrations
which would cause an effective dose
equivalent of 10% of the standard shall
be readily detectable and
distinguishable from background.
(iv) Net measured radionuclide
concentrations shall be compared to the
concentration levels in Table 2 of
Appendix E to determine compliance
with the standard. In the case of
multiple radionuclides being released
from a facility, compliance shall be
demonstrated if the value for all
radionuclides is less than the.
concentration level in Table 2, and the
sum of the fractions that result when
each measured concentration value is
divided by the value in Table 2 for each
radionuclide is less than 1.
(v) A quality assurance program shall
be conducted that meets the
performance requirements described in
Appendix B, Method 114.
(vi) Use of environmental
measurements to demonstrate ,
compliance with the standard is subject
to prior approval of EPA. Applications
for approval shall include a detailed
description of the sampling and
analytical methodology and show how
the above, criteria will be met.
§ 61.94 Compliance and reporting.
(a) Compliance with this standard
shall be determined by calculating the
highest effective dose equivalent to any
member of the public at any offsite point
where there is a residence, school,
business or office. The owners or
operators of each facility shall submit
an annual report to both EPA
headquarters and the appropriate •
regional office by June 30 which
includes the results of the monitoring as
recorded in DOE's Effluent Information
System and the dose calculations
required by § 61.93(a) for the previous
calendar year.
(b) In addition to the requirements of •
paragraph (a) of this section, an annual
report shall include the following
information:
(1) The name and location of the
facility.
(2) A list of the radioactive materials
used at the facility.
(3) A description of the handling and
processing that the radioactive materials
undergo at the facility.
(4) A list of the stacks or vents "or
other points where radioactive materials
are released to the atmosphere.
(5) A description of the effluent
controls that are used on each stack,
vent, or other release point and an
estimate of the efficiency of each control
device.
(6) Distances from the points of
release to the nearest residence, school,
business or office and the nearest farms
producing vegetables, milk, and meat.
(7) The values used for all other user-
supplied input parameters for the
computer models (e.g., meteorological
data) and the source of these data.
. (8) A brief description of all
construction and modifications which
were completed in the calendar year for
which the report is prepared, but for
which the requirement to apply for
approval to construct or modify was
waived under § 61.96 and associated
documentation developed by DOE to
support the waiver. EPA reserves the
right to require that DOE send to EPA all
the information that normally would be
required in an application to construct
or modify, following receipt of the
description and supporting
documentation.
(9) Each report shall be signed and
dated by a corporate officer or public
official in charge of the facility and
contain the following declaration
immediately above the signature line: "I
certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and am familiar
with the information submitted herein
and based on my inquiry of those
individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining the information, I believe that
the submitted information is true,
accurate and complete. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for
submitting false information including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment.
See, "18 U.S.C. 1001."
(c) If the facility is not in compliance
with the emission limits of § 61.92 in the
calendar year covered by the report,
then the facility must commence
reporting to the Administrator on a
monthly basis the information listed in
paragraph (b) of this section, for the
preceding month. These reports will
start the month immediately following
the submittal of the annual report for the
year in noncompliance and will be due
30 days following the end of each
month. This increased level of reporting
will continue until the Administrator has
determined that the monthly reports are .
no longer necessary. In addition to all
the information required in'paragraph
(b) of this section, monthly reports shall
also include the following information:
(1) All controls or other changes in
operation of the facility that will be or
are being installed to bring the facility
into compliance.
(2) If the facility is under a judicial or
administrative enforcement decree, the
report will describe the facilities
performance under the terms of the
decree.
(d) In those instances where the
information requested is classified, sucl\
information will be made available to
EPA separate from the report and will
be handled and controlled according to
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 54, No. 240 /Friday, December 15, 1989 / Riiiesv and: Resulationa:;- : Sai(Bi97
applicable security and classification,
regulations and requirements.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under Control Number 2060-0191.)
§ 61.95 Recordkeeping requirements.
All facilities must maintain records
- documenting the source of input
- parameters including the results of all .-,
measurements upon .which they are ';
based, the calculations and/or -. ,."
analytical methods used to derive
value's for input parameters, and the
procedure used,to determine effective
dose equivalent. This documentation
should be sufficient to allow an
independent auditor to verify the
, accuracy of the determination made
concerning the facility's compliance
with the standard. These records must
be kept at the site of the facility for at
least five years and, upon request, be
made available for inspection by the •
Administrator, or his authorized
representative.
§61.96 Applications to construct or
modify.
In addition to any activity that is
defined as construction under 40 CFR
, part 61, subpart A, any fabrication, '
erection or installation of a new building
or structure within a facility that emits
radionuclides is also defined as new '
construction for purposes of 40 CFR part
61, subpart A.
(b) An application for approval under
§ 61.07 .or notification of startup under
§ 61.09 does'not need to.be filed for any
new construction of or modification
within an existing facility if the effective
dose equivalent, caused by all emissions
from the new construction or
; modification, is less than 1% of the
standard prescribed in § 61.92. For
purposes of this paragraph the effective
dose equivalent shall be calculated
using the source term derived using
Appendix D as input to the dispersion
and other computer models described in
§ 61.93. DOE may, with prior approval
from EPA, use another procedure for
estimating the. source term for use in this
paragraph. A facility is eligible for this
exemption only if, based on its last
annual report, the facility is in
compliance with this subpart. '.''-"
, (c) 'Conditions to approvals granted
under § 61.08 will not contain -
requirements for post approval reporting
on operating conditions beyond those
specified in § 61.94.
§ 61.97 Exemption from the reporting and
testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
All facilities designated under this
, subpart are exempt from the reporting :
requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
Subpart I—National Emission
Standards for Radiqnuclide Emissions
From Facilities Licensed by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
Federal Facilities Not Covered by
Subpart H
Sec. . - • ' , ;-.'.- ...
61.100 Applicability.
61.101 Definitions. .
61.102 Standard. •
61.103- Determining compliance.
61.104 Reporting requirements.
61.105 Recordkeeping requirements.
61.106 Applications to construct or modify.
61.107 Emission determination.
61.108 Exemption from the reporting and
. testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
§61.100 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to Nuclear Regulatory Commission-
licensed facilities and to facilities
owned or operated by any Federal
agency other than the Department of ,
Energy, except that this subpart does
not apply to disposal at facilities
regulated under 40 CFR part 191, subpart
B, or to any uranium mill tailings pile
after it has been disposed of under 40
CFR part 192, or to low energy
accelerators, or to any NRC-licensee
that possesses and uses radionuclides
only in tiie form of sealed sources.
§61.101 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined here have the meaning given
them in the Clean Air Act or subpart A
of part 61. The following terms shall
have the following specific meanings:
, [a) Agreement State means a State
with which the Atomic Energy . .'
Commission or the Nuclear Regulatory ,
.Commission has entered into an
effective agreement under subsection
274(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended.
(b) Effective dose equivalent means
the sum of the products of absorbed
dose and appropriate factors to account
for differences in biological
effectiveness due to the quality of
radiation and its distribution in the body
of reference man. The unit of the
effective dose equivalent is the rem. For
purposes of this subpart doses caused
by radon-222 and its decay products
formed after the radon is released from
the facility are not included. The method
for calculating effective dose equivalent
and the definition of reference man are
outlined in the faternational
Commission on Radiological
Protection's Publication No. 26. . -'. .
[c] Facility means all buildings,
structures and operations on one
contiguous site.
(d) Federal facility means any. facility
9wned or operated by any department,
commission, agency, office, bureau;or-J; -;
other unit of the government of the
United States.pf America except for
facilities owned or operated by the -.-'.
Department of Energy.
(e) NRC-Iicensed facility means any
facility licensed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission or any
. Agreement State to receive title to,
receive; possess, use, transfer, or deliver
any source, by-product, or special
nuclear material. / -
(f) Radionuclide means a type of atom
which spontaneously undergoes
radioactive decay. '
§61.102 Standard.
(a) Emissions Of radionuclides,
including iodine, to the ambient air from
a facility regulated under this subpart
shall not exceed those amounts that
would cause any member of the public
to receive in any year an effective dose
equivalent of 10 mrem/yf.
(b) Emissions of iodine to the ambient
air from a facility regulated under this
subpart shall not exceed those amounts
that would cause any member of the
public to receive in any year an effective
dose equivalent of 3 mrem/yr. •
§ 61.103 Determining compliance.
(a) Compliance with the emission
standard hi this subpart shall be
determined through the use of either the
EPA computer code COMPLY or the
alternative requirements of Appendix E.
Facilities emitting radionuclides not
listed in COMPLY or Appendix E shall
contact EPA to receive the information
needed to determine dose. The source
terms to be used for input into COMPLY
shall be determined tiirough the use of
the measurement procedures listed hi
§ 61.107 or tie emission factors in
Appendix D or through alternative
procedures for which EPA has granted
prior approval; or, .
(b) Facilities may demonstrate
compliance with the emission standard
in this subpart through the use of
computer models that are equivalent to
COMPLY, provided that the model has
received prior approval from EPA
headquarters. Any facility using a model
other than COMPLY must file an annual
report. EPA may approve an alternative
model in whole or in part and may limit
its use to specific circumstances. ;
§,61.104 Reporting requirements.
(a) The owner or,operator of a facility
subject to this subpart must submit an
annual report to the EPA covering the
emissions of a calendar year by March
31 of the following year.
(1) The report or application for
approval to construct or modify as
-------
51698 Federal Register ;/ Vol. 54,JSTo;. 240,/, :Fr.idaj, -I?epfiinber;45xl989;/ Rules and Regulations
required by 40 CFR part 61, subpart A
and § 61.106, must provide the following
information:
(i) The name of the facility.
(ii) The name of the person
responsible for the operation of the
facility and the name of the person
preparing the report (if different).
(iii) The location of the facility,
including suite and/or building number,
street, city, county, state, and zip code.
(iv) The mailing address of the
facility, if different from item (iii).
(v) A list of the radioactive materials
used at the facility.
(vi) A description, of the handling and
processing that the radioactive materials
undergo at the facility.
(vSi) A list of the stacks or vents or
Other points where radioactive materials
are released to.the atmosphere.
(viii) A description of the effluent
controls that are used on each stack,
vent, or other release point and an
estimate of the efficiency of each device.
(ix) Distances from the point of
release to the nearest residence, school,
business or office and the nearest farms
producing vegetables, milk, and meat
fx) The effective dose equivalent
calculated using the compliance
procedures in § 61.103.
(xi) The physical form and quantity of
each radionuclide emitted from each
slack, vent or other release point, and
the method(s) by which these quantities
were determined.
(xii) The volumetric flow, diameter,
effluent temperature, and release height
for each stack, vent or other release
point where radioactive materials are
emitted, the method(s) by which these .
were determined.
(xiii) The height and width of each
building from which radionuclides are
emitted.
(xiv) The values used for all other
user-supplied input parameters (e.g.,
meteorological data) and the source of
these data,
(xv) A brief description of all
construction and modifications which
were completed hi the calendar year for
which the report is prepared, but for
which the requirement to apply for
approval to construct or modify was
waived under section 61.106, and
associated documentation developed by
the licensee to support the waiver. EPA
reserves the right to require that the
licensee send to EPA all the information
that normally would be required in an
application to construct or modify,
following receipt of the description and
supporting documentation.
(xvi) Each report shall be signed and
dated by a corporate officer or public
official in charge of the facility and
contain the following declaration
immediately above the signature line: "I
certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and am familiar
with the information submitted herein
and based on my inquiry of those
individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining the information, I believe that
the submitted information is true,
accurate and complete. I am aware that
. there are significant penalties for
submitting false information including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment.
See, 18 U.S.C. 1001."
(b) Facilities emitting radionuclides in.
an amount that would cause less than
10% of the dose standard in § 61.102, as
determined by the compliance
procedures from § 61.103(a), are exempt
from the reporting requirements of
§ 61.104(a). Facilities shall annually
make a new determination whether they
are exempt from reporting.
(c) If the facility is not in compliance
with the emission limits of § 61.102 in
the calendar year covered by the report,
the facilitsr must report to the
Administrator on a monthly basis the
information listed in paragraph (a) of
this section, for the preceding month.
These reports will start the month
immediately following the submittal of
the annual report for the year in
noncompliance and will be due 30 days
following the end of each month. This
increased level of reporting will
continue until the Administrator has
determined that the monthly reports are
no longer necessary. In addition to all
the information required hi paragraph
(a) of this section, monthly reports shall
also include the following information:
(1) All controls or other changes in
operation of-the facility that will be or
are being installed to bring the facility
into compliance.
(2) If the facility is under a judicial or
administrative enforcement decree the
report will describe the facilities
performance under the terms of the
decree.
(d) The first report will cover the
emissions of calendar year 1990.
§ 61.105 Recordkeeping requirements.
The owner or operator of any facility
must maintain records documenting the
source of input parameters including the
results of all measurements upon which
they are based, the calculations and/or
analytical methods used to derive
values for input parameters, and the
procedure used to determine
compliance. This documentation should
be sufficient to allow an independent
auditor to verify the accuracy of the .
determination made concerning the
facility's compliance with the standard,
and, if claimed, qualification for
exemption, from reporting. These records
must be kept at the site of the facility for
at least five years and upon request be
made available for inspection by the
Administrator, or his authorized
representative.
§61.106 Applications to construct or
modify.
(a) In addition to any activity that is
defined as construction under 40 CFR
part 61, subpart A, any fabrication,
erection or installation of a new building
or structure Within a facility is also
defined as new construction for
purposes of 40 CFR part 61, subpart A.
(b) An application under § 61.07 does
not need to be filed for any new
construction of or modification within
an existing facility if one of the
following conditions is met:
(1) The effective dose equivalent
calculated by using methods described
in § 61.103, that is caused by all
emissions from the facility including
those potentially emitted by the
proposed new construction or
modification, is less than 10% of the
standard prescribed in' § 61.102.
(2) The effective dose equivalent
calculated by using methods described
in § 61.103, that is caused by all
emissions from the new construction or
modification, is less than 1% of the limit
prescribed in § 61.102. A facility is
eligible for this exemption only if the
facility, based on its last annual report,
is hi compliance with this subpart.
§ 61.107 Emission determination.
(a) Facility owners or operators may,
hi lieu of monitoring, estimate
radionuclide emissions in accordance
with Appendix D, or other procedure for
which EPA has granted prior approval.
(b) Radionuclide emission rates from
point sources (e.g. stacks or vents) shall
•be measured in accordance with the
following requirements:
(1) Effluent flow rate measurements
shall be made using the following
methods:
(i) Reference Method .2 of Appendix A
to part 60 shall be used to determine
velocity and volumetric flow rates for
stacks and large vents.
(ii) Reference Method 2A of Appendix
A to part 60 shall be used to measure
flow rates through pipes and small
vents.
(iii) The frequency of the flow rat?
measurements shall depend upon the
variability of the effluent flow rate. FP-
variable flow rates, continuous or
frequent flow rate measurements shall
be made. For relatively constant flow
rates only periodic measurements a*1
necessary.
-------
Federal Re^ster / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, Ppcembeif 15. 1989 /.Rules a^d Re^tdatioha; ^^
.' (2) Radionuclides shall be-directly '
monitored or extracted, collected,-and
measured using the .following methods:
(i) Reference Method 1 of Appendix A
part 60 shall be used to select
monitoring or sampling sites.
(ii) The effluent stream shall be
directly monitored continuously using,
an in-line detector or representative
samples of the effluent stream shall be
withdrawn continuously from the
sampling site following the guidance
.presented in ANSIN13.1-1969 "Guide to
Sampling Airborne Radioactive...-."
Materials in Nuclear Facilities"
(including the guidance presented in '
Appendix A of ANSIN13.1)
(incorporated by reference—see § 61.18).
The requirements for continuous ;
sampling are applicable to batch
processes when the unit is in operation.
Periodic sampling (grab samples) may
be used only with EPA's prior approval.
Such' approval may.be granted in cases
where continuous sampling is not
practical and radionuclide emission
rates are relatively constant. In such
cases, grab samples shall be collected
with sufficient frequency so as to
provide a representative sample of the -
emissions.
(iii) Radionuclides shall be collected
arid measured using procedures based
on the principles of measurement
described in Appendix B.'Method 114. ;
Use of methods based on principles of,
measurement different from those
described iii Appendix B, Method 114
must have prior approval from the
Administrator. EPA reserves the right to
- approve alternative measurement
procedures in whole or in part. ;
(iv) A quality assurance program shall
be conducted that meets the
performance requirements described in
Appendix B, Method 114;
(3) When it is impractical to measure
the effluent flow rate at an existing •
source .in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (b)(l) of this
section or to monitor or sample an
effluent stream at an existing source in
accordance with the site selection and
sample extraction requirements of
paragraph (b)(2) of this section, the
facility owner or operator may use ,
alternative effluent flow rate
measurement procedures or site .
selection and sample extraction
procedures provided that: .
. (i) It can be shown that the
requirements of paragraphs (b) (1) and
(2) of this section are impractical for the
effluent stream.
(ii) The alternative procedure will not
significantly urderestimate the
emissions. . .
- (iii) The alternative procedure is fully
documented '-.-.
(iv) The owner or operator has -
received prior approval from EPA.
(4)(i) Ra,dioriuclide emission
measurements in conformance with the
requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section shall be made at all release
points which have a potential tp
discharge radionuclides into the ait in
quantities which could cause an
effective dose equivalent in excess of 1%
of the standard. All radionuclides which
could contribute greater than 10% of the
potential effective dose equivalent for a
release point shall be measured. For
other release points which have a
potential to release radionuclides into
the air, periodic confirmatory '
measurements should be made to verify
the low emissions. • :•"•-.
(ii) To determine whether a release -'.'
point is subject to the emission
measurement requirements of paragraph
(b) of this section, it is necessary to
evaluate the potential for radionuclide
emissions for .that release point. In
evaluating, the potential of a release
point to discharge radionuclides into the
air, the-estimated radionuclide release
rates shall be based on the discharge of
the uncontrolled effluent stream into the
air.
(5) Environmental measurements of
radionuclide air concentrations at
critical receptor locations may be used
as an alternative to air dispersion
calculations in demonstrating
compliance with the standards if' the
owner or operator meets the following
criteria: : ,
(i) The air at the point of measurement
shall be continuously sampled for
collection of radionuclides.
(ii) Those radionuclides released from
the facility, which are the major
contributors to the effective dose
equivalent must be collected and.
measured as part of the environmental
measurements' program. ' -
(iii) Radionuclide concentrations
which would cause an effective dose
equivalent greater than or equal to 10%
of the standard shall be readily
detectable and distinguishable from
background.
(iv) Net measured radionuclide
concentrations shall be compared to the
concentration levels in Table 2 of
Appendix E to determine compliance
with the standard. In the case of
multiple radionuclides being released
from a facility, compliance shall be
demonstrated if the value for all
radionuclides is less than the
concentration level in Table 2 and the
sum of the fractions that result when
each measured concentration value is
divided by the value in Table 2 for each
radionuclide is less than 1.
(v) A quality assurance program shall
be conducted that meets the
performance requirements described in
Appendix B, Method114. '
(vi) Use of environmental
measurements to demonstrate
compliance with the standard is subject
to prior approval of EPA. Applications
for approval shall include a detailed
description of the sampling and
. analytical methodology and show how
the above criteria will be met.
(c) The following facilities may use
either the methodologies and quality
assurance programs described in
paragraph (b) of this section or may use
the following: -•--"_".
(1) Nuclear power reactors may :
determine then-radionuclide emissions
in conformance with the Effluent
Technical Specifications contained in
their Operating License issued by .the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In
addition, they may conduct a quality
assurance program as described in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
Regulatory Guide 4.15 dated February
1979; -••". '••'-•"
(2) Fuel processing and fabrication
plafits and uranium hexafuiprideplants
may determine their emissions in ,
conformance with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's Regulatory
Guide 4.16 dated December 1985. In
addition, they may conduct a quality
assurance prograrii as described fir the-
Nucle'ar Regulatory Commission's''
Regulatory Guide' 4.15 dated February
1979, , , •-- ^ ;.. •,.;.; - . "'_
(3) Uranium mills may determine their
emissions in conformance with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
Regulatory Guide 4.14 dated April 1980.
In addition, they may conduct a quality
assurance program as described in the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
Regulatory Guide 4.15 dated February
1979.
61,108 Exemption from the reporting and
testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
All facilities designated under this
subpart are exempt from the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 61.10. .-.-
Subpart K—National Emission
Standards for Radionuclide Emissions
From Elemental Phosphorus Plants
Sec. • -- • -'' •"• •',.• - - -"
61.120 Applicability. > , ".',
61.121 Definitions. •.•.;• ^
61.122 Emissions standard. .
61.123 Emission testing. .
61.124. RecorjUceepihg requirements.
61.125 Test methods and procedures.
61.126 Monitoringiofoperations. , ;
61.127 Exemption from the reporting and . \
testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10- -
-------
51700 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
§61.120 Applicability.
The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to owners or operators of
calciners and npdulizing kilns at
elemental phosphorus plants.
§61.121 Definitions.
(a) Elemental phosphorus plant or
plant means any facility that processes
phosphate rock to produce elemental
phosphorus. A plant includes all
buildings, structures, operations,
calciners and nodulizing kilns on one
contiguous site.
(b) Calciner as Nodulizing kiln means
a unit in which phosphate rock is heated
to high temperatures to remove organic
material and/or to convert it to a
nodular form. For the purpose of this
subpart, calciners and nodulizing kilns
are considered to be similar units.
§ 61.122 Emission standard.
Emissions of polonium-210 to the
ambient air from all calciners and
nodulizing kilns at an elemental
phosphorus plant shall not exceed a
total of 2 curies a year.
§ 61.123 Emission testing.
(a) Each owner or operator of an'
elemental phosphorus plant shall test
emissions from the plant within 90 days
of the effective date of this standard and
annually thereafter. The Administrator
may temporarily or permanently waive
the annual testing requirement or
increase the frequency of testing, if the
Administrator determines that more
testing is required.
(b) The Administrator shall be
notified at least 30 days prior to an
emission test so that EPA may, at its
option, observe the test.
(cj An emission test shall be
conducted at each operational calciner
or nodulizing kiln. If emissions from a
calciner or nodulizing kiln are
discharged through more than one stack,
then an emission test shall be conducted
at each stack and the total emission rate
From the calciner or kiln shall be the
sum of the emission rates from each of
the stacks.
(d) Each emission test shall consist of
three sampling runs that meet the
requirements of § 61.125. The phosphate
rocic processing rate during each ru
shall be recorded. An emission rate in
curies per metric ton of phosphate rock
processed shall be calculated for each
run. The average of all three runs shall
apply in computing the emission rate for
the test. The annual polonium-210
emission rate from a calciner or
nodulizing kiln shall be determined by .
multiplying the measured polonium-210
emission rate in curies per metric ton of
phosphate rock processed by the annual
phosphate rock processing rate in metric
tons. In determining the annual
phosphate rock processing rate, the
values used for operating hours and
operating capacity shall be values that
will maximize the expected processing
rate. For determining compliance with
the emission standard of § 61.122, the
total annual emission rate is the sum of
the annual emission rates for all
operating calciners and nodulizing kilns.
(e) If the owner or operator changes
his operation in such a way as to
increase his emissions of polonium-210,
such as changing the type of rock
processed, the temperature of the
calciners or kilns, or increasing the
annual phosphate rock processing rate,
then a new emission test, meeting the
requirements of this section, shall be
conducted within 45 days under these
conditions.
(f) Each owner or operator of an
elemental phosphorus plant shall furnish
the Administrator with a written report
of the results of the emission test within
60 days of conducting the test. The
report must provide the following
information: . • '
[1] The name and location of the
facility.
(2) The name of the person
responsible for the operation of the
facility and the name of the person
preparing the report (if different).
(3) A description of the effluent
controls that are used on each stack,
vent, or other release point and an
estimate of the efficiency of each device.
(4) The results of the testing, including
the results of each sampling run
completed.
(5) The values used in calculating the
emissions and the source of these data.
(6) Each report shall be signed.and ,
dated by a corporate officer in charge of
the facility and contain the following
declaration immediately above the
signature line: "I certify under penalty of
law that I have personally examined
and am familiar with the information
submitted herein and based on my
inquiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for obtaining the
information, I believe that the submitted
information is true, accurate and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment. See, 18 U.S.C.
1001."
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under Control Number 2060-0191.)
§ 61.124 Reco.-dkseping requirements.
The owner or operator of any plant
must maintain records documenting the
source of input parameters including the
results of all measurements upon which •
they are based, the calculations and/or
analytical methods used to derive
values for input' parameters, and the
procedure used in emission testing. This
documentation should be sufficient to
allow an independent auditor to verify
the accuracy of the results of the
emission testing. These records must be
kept at the site of the plant for at least
five years and, upon request, be made
available for inspection by the
Administrator, or his authorized
representative.
§ 61.125 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Each owner or operator of a source
required to test emissions under
§ 61.123, unless an equivalent or
alternate method has been approved by
the Administrator, shall use the
following test methods:
(1) Test Method 1 of Appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 shall be used to determine
sample and velocity traverses;
(2) Test Method 2 of Appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 shall be used to determine
velocity and volumetric flow rate;
(3) Test Method 3 of Appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 shall be used for gas
analysis;.
(4) Test Method 5 of Appendix A to 40
CFR part 60 shall be used to collect
particulate matter containing the
polonium-210; and
(5) Test Method 111 of Appendix B to
40 CFR part 61 shall be used to
determine the polonium-210 emissions.
§ 61.126 Monitoring of operations.
(a) The owner or operator of any
source subject to this subpart using a
wet-scrubbing emission control device
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring device for the
continuous measurement of the pressure
loss of the gas stream through the
scrubber. The monitoring device-must be
certified by the manufacturer to be
accurate within ±250 pascal (±1 inch of
water). Records of these measurements
shall be maintained at the source and '
made available for inspection by the
Administrator, or his authorized
representative for a minimum of 5 years.
(b) The owner or operator of any
source subject to this subpart using an
electrostatic precipitator control device
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a monitoring device for the
continuous measurement of the primary
and secondary current and the voltage
in each electric field. Records of thesa
measurements shall be maintained at
the source and made available for
inspection by the Administrator, or his
authorized representative for a minimuL
of 5 years. •
-------
Federal
/ Friday. December 15, 1989 / Eules and Regulations
(c) For the purpose of conducting an
emission test under § 61.123, the owner
or operator of any source subject to the .
provisions of this subpari shall install,
calibrate,, maintain, and operate a
device for measuring fee phosphate lock
feed to any affected calciner or
nodulizing kiln. The measuring device
used mast be accurate to within ±5
percent of the mass rate over i'ts
operating range. Records of these
measurements shall be maintained at
the source and made available for
inspection by Ihe Administrator, or his
authorized representative for a minimum
of 5 years. ;
§61.127 Exemption from the reporting
and testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10,
All facilities designated under this
subpart are exempt from the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
• Subpart Q—National Emission
Standards for Radon Emissions From
Department of Energy Facilities
Sec. '.'.'. :. .
61.190 Designation of facilities.
61.191 Definitions.
61.192 Standard.
61.193 Exemption from fiie reporting and
testing jneqainemenls of 40 CER 61.10.
§61.190 Designation of facilities.
The provisions of this subpart apply •
to the design and operation of all'
storage and disposal facilities for
radium-containing material (i.e.,
byproduct material as defined under
section ll.e{23 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 (as amended]) that are owned or
operated by the Department of Energy
that emit radon-222 into air, including
these facilities: The Feed Materials
Production Center, Femald, Ohio; the
Niagara Falls Storage Site, Lewiston,
New York; the Weldon Spring Site,
Weldon Spring, Missouri; the Middlesex
Sampling Plant, Middlesex, New Jersey;
the Monticello Uranium Mill Tailings
Pile, Monticello, Utah. This subpart does
not apply to facilities listed in, or ~
- designated by the Secretary of Energy
under Title I of the Uranium Mill
Tailings Control Act of 197S.
§ 61.191 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms mot
defined here have the meaning given
• them in the Clean Air Act or subpart A
of part 61. The following terms shall
have the following specific meanings:
(a) Facility means all buildings,
structures and operations on one
contiguous site. -
(b) Source means any building,
structure, pile, impoundment or area
used for interim storage or disposal that
is or contains waste material containing
radium in sufficient concentration to
emit radon-222 in excess of this
standard prior to remedial action,
§ 61.192 Standard.
No source at a Department >of Energy
facility shall emit more than 20 pCi/-
m2-s pf .radon-222 as an average for She
entire source, into the air» This
requirement will be part of any Federal
Facilities Agreement neached between
Environmental Protection Agency and
Department of Energy.
§ 61.193 Exemption Irons the reporting
and testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10."'
All facilities .designated under this
subpart are exempt fcom the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR ,61.10.
Subpart R—National Emission
Standards for Radon Emissions 'From
Phosphogypsum Stacks
Sec.
61.200 Designation of facilities. ••
61.201 Definitions. •
61.202 Standard.
61.203 Radon monitoring and compliance
"procedures.
61.204 Recordkeeping requirements.
. 61.205 Exemption from the reporting and '
testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
§ 61.200 Designation of facilities.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to the owners and operators of the
phosphogypsum that is produced as a
result of phosphorus fertilizer
production and all that is contained in
existing phosphogypsum stacks.
§61.201 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined here have the meaning given
them in the Clean Air Act or subpart A
of part 61. The following terms shall
have the following spebific meanings:
• la) Jnactive stack means a stack to
which no further routine additions' of
phosphogypsum will be made and which
is no longer used for water management
associated with the production of
phosphogypsum. If a stack has not been
used for either purpose for two years it
is presumed to be inactive.
(b) Phosphogypsum stacks or stacks
are piles of waste from phosphorus
fertilizer production containing
phosphogypsum. Stacks shall also
include phosphate mines that are used
for the disposal of phosphogypsum,
§ 61.202 Standard. .
All phosphogypsum shall be disposed
of in stacks or in phosphate mines which
shall not emit more than 20 pCi/ma-s of
radon-222 into the air.
§61.203 Radon monitoring and
sosaplianee procedures.
fa] Sixty days following the date at
which a stack becomes an inactive
stack, or ninety days after the effective
dale of this rule if &B 'slack is already
inactive, the owners or operators of
inactive phosphogypsum slacks shall
test the stacks in accordance with the
procedures described in 40 CFR part 61,
. Appendix B, Method 115. EPA shall be
notified at least 30 days prior to an
emissions test so that EPA may, at its
option, observe the test. If
meteorological conditions are such that
a test cannot be properly conducted,
then .the owner ,or operator shall notify
EPA and test as soon as conditions
permit. .
(b| Ninety days after the testing is
required, the owner or operator shall
. provide EPA with a report detailing the
actions taken and the results of the
radoh-222 flux testing. Each report shall
also include the following Information:
(1) The name and location of the
facility,
(2) A list of the stacks at Hhe facility
including the size andidimeasions of &e
stack,
(3) The name of the person
responsible for the operation of the
facility and the name of ithe person
preparing the report (if different),
(4) A description of the control
measures taken to decrease the radon
-flux from fee source and any actions
taken to insure the long term
effectiveness of the control measures,
and
' (5) The results of the testing
conducted, including the results of each••
measurement '-;/•-
[6] Each report shall be signed and
dated by a corporate officer in charge of
the facility and contain the following
declaration immediately above the
.signature line: "I certify under penalty of
law that I have personally examined
and am familiar with the information
submitted herein and based on my
inquiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for obtaining the
information, I believe that the submitted
information is true, accurate -and
complete. 1 am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment. See, 18U.S.C.
1001."
(e) If year-long measurements are
made in accordance with Method 115
Appendix B to part 81 this report shall
include the results of the first
measurement period and provide a
schedule for the measurement frequency
to be used. An additional report
containing all the information in
-------
51702 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Fridayi December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
paragraph (b) of this section shall be
submitted ninety days after completion
of the final measurements.
(d) If at any point an owner or
operator once again uses a stack for the
disposal of phosphogypsum or for water
management, the stack ceases to be in
Inactive status and the owner or
operator must notify EPA in writing
within 45 days. When the owner or
operator ceases to use the stack it •will
once again become inactive and require
retestlng and reporting.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under Control Number 2060-0191.)
§ 61.204 Recordkeeplng requirements.
An owner or operator subject to this
subpart must maintain records
documenting the source of input
parameters including the results of all
measurements upon which they are
based, the calculations and/or
analytical methods used to derive
values for input parameters, and the
procedure used to determine
compliance. This documentation should
be sufficient to allow an independent
auditor to verify the correctness of the
determination made concerning the
facility's compliance with the standard.
These records must be kept by the
owner or operator for at least five years
and upon request be made available for
inspection by the Administrator, or his
authorized representative.
§ 61.205 Exemption from the reporting
and testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
All facilities designated under this
subpart are exempt from the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 61.10. •
Subpart T— National Emission
Standards for Radon Emissions From
the Disposal of Uranium Miil Tailings
Sec.
61.220 Designation of facilities.
61.221 Definitions,
61,222 Standard.
01.223 Compliance procedures.
61,224 Recordkeeping requirements.
61,225 Exemption from the reporting and
testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
§ 61.220 Designation of facilities.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to the owners and operators of all sites
•that are used for the disposal of tailings,
and that managed residual radioactive
material or uranium byproduct materials
during and following the processing of ,
uranium ores, commonly referred to as
uranium mills and their associated
tailings, that are listed in, or designated
by the Secretary of Energy under Title I
of the Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act
of 1970 or regulated under Title II of the
Uranium Mill Tailings Control Act of
1978.
§61.221 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined here have the meaning given
them in the Clean Air Act or subpart A
of part 61. The following terms shall
have the following specific meanings:
(a) Long term stabilization means the
addition of material on a uranium mill
tailings pile for purpose of ensuring
compliance with the requirements of 40
CFR 192.02(3) or 192.32(b)(i). These
actions shall be considered complete
when the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission determines that the
requirements of 40 CFR 192.02[a) or
192.32(b){i) have been met.
,(b) Operational means a uranium mill
tailings pile that is licensed to accept
additional tailings, and those tailings
can be added without violating subpart
W or any other Federal, state or local
rule or law. A pile cannot be considered
operational if it is filled to capacity or
the mill it accepts tailings from has been
dismantled or otherwise
decommissioned. ,
(c) Uranium byproduct material or
tailings means the waste produced by
the extraction or concentration of
•uranium from any ore processed
primarily for its source material content.
Ore bodies depleted by uranium
solution extraction and which remain.
underground do not constitute
byproduct material for the purposes of
this subpart.
§61.222 Standard.
(a) Radon-222 emissions to the
ambient air from uranium mill tailings
pile that are no longer operational shall
not exceed 20 pCi/m2-s of radon-222.
(b) Once a uranium mill tailings pile
or impoundment ceases to be
operational it must be disposed of and
brought into compliance with this
'standard within two ygars of the
effective date or within two years of the
day it ceases to be operational
whichever is later. If it is not physically
possible for a mill owner or operator to
complete disposal within that time, EPA
shall, after consultation with the mill
owne* ur operator, establish a
compliance agreement which will assure
that disposal will be completed as
quickly as possible.
§51,223 Compliance procedures.
(a) Sixty days following the
completion of covering the pile to limit
radon emissions but prior to the long
term stabilization of the pile, the owners
or operators of uranium mill tailings
shall conduct testing for all piles within
the facility in accordance with the
procedures described in 40 CFR part 61,
Appendix B, Method 115, or other"
procedures for which EPA has granted
prior approval.
(b) Ninety days after the testing is
required, each facility shall provide EPA
with a report detailing the actions taken
and the results of the radon-222 flux
testing. EPA shall be notified at least 30
days prior to an emission test so that
EPA may, at its option, observe the test
If meteorological, conditions are such
that a test cannot be properly
conducted, then the owner or operator
shall notify EPA and test as soon as
conditions-permit, Each report shall also
include the following information:
(1) The name and location of the
.facility.
(2) A list of the piles at the facility.
(3) A description of the control
measures taken to decrease the radon
flux from the source and any actions
.taken to insure the long term
effectiveness of the control measures.
(4) The results of the testing
conducted, including the results of each
measurement. .
. (5) Each report shall be signed and
dated by a corporate officer or public
official in charge of the facility and
contain the following declaration
immediately above the signature line: "I
certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and am familiar-
with the information submitted herein
and based on my inquiry of those
individuals immediately responsible for
obtaining the information, I believe that-
the submitted information is true,
accurate and complete. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for •
submitting false information including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment.
See, 18 U.S.C. 1001."
(c) If year long measurements are
made in accordance with Method 115 of
Appendix B of part 61, this report shall
include the results of the first
measurement period and provide a
schedule for the measurement frequency
to be used. An additional report shall be ,
submitted ninety days after completion
of the final measurements.
(d) If long term stabilization has begun
before the effective date of the rule then .
testing may be conducted at any time,
up tq 60 days after the long term
stabilization is completed.
(e) If the testing demonstrates that the
pile meets the requirement of § 61.222(a)
and long term stabilization has been
completed then the pile is considered
disposed for purposes of this rule.
(Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under Control Number 2080-0191.)
§ 61.224 Recordkeeping requirements.
The owner or operator must maintain
records documenting the source of input
-------
jRegulaijoris
parameters including the results of all
measurements upon which they are
based, the calculations and/or
analytical methods used to derive
values for input parameters, and the
procedure used to determine
compliance. This documentation should
be sufficient to allow an independent
auditor to verify the accuracy of the
determination made concerning the
facility's compliance with the standard.
The Administrator shall be kept
apprised of the location of these records
and the records must be kept for at least
•five years and upon request be made
available for inspection by ihe
Administrator, or his authorized
representative. '
§ 61.225 Exemption from the reporting
and testing requirements of 40 CFR S1.10.
All facilities designated under ithis
subpart are exempt from the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
Subpart W—National Emission
Standards for Radon Emissions From
Operating Mill Tailings
Sec. •'•-:."
61.250 Designation of facilities;
61.251 Definitions. ••--:• . •' .
61.252 Standard.
61.253 Determining'compliance.
61.254 Annual repdrtiiig requirements.
61.255 Recordkeeping requirements.
61.258 Exemption foom the reporting and
testing requirements of 40 CFR 81.10.
§61.250 Designation of facilities.
The provisions of this subpart apply
to owners or operators of facilities
licensed to manage uranium byproduct
materials during and following the
processing of uranium ores, commonly
referred to as uranium mills and their
associated tailings. This subpart does
not apply to the disposal :of tailings.
§61.251 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined here have the meaning given
them in the Clean Air Act or 40 GFR part
61, subparl A. The following terms shall
have the following specific meanings;
[a] Area means the wsrMcal projection
of the pile upon the earth's surface.
>{b3 Continuous disposal means a
method of tailings management and
disposal in -which tailings are dewatered
by mechanical methods immediately
after generation. The dried tailings are
then placed in trenches or other disposal
areas and immediately covered to limit
emissions cpnsisteat with applicable
Federal standards.
(c) Dewatered means to remove the
water from recently produced tailings by
mechanical or evaporative methods
such that the water content of the
tailings does not exceed 3G percent by
weight. ,
(d) Existing impoundment means any
uranium mill.taih'ngs impoundment
which is licensed to accept additional
tailings and is in existence as of
December 15,1989.
(e) Operation means that an
impoundment is being used for the
continued placement of new tailings or
is in standby status for such placement.
An impoundment is in operation from
the day that tailings are first placed in
the impoundment until the day that final
closure begins.
[£) Phased disposal means a'method
of tailings management and disposal
which uses lined impoundments which
are filled and then immediately dried
and covered to meet all applicable
Federal standards.
. (g) Uranium byproduct material or
tailings means the waste produced by
the extraction or concentration of
uranium from any ore processed
primarily for its source material content.
Ore bodies depleted by uranium
solution extraction and which remain
underground do not constitute ,
byproduct material for the purposes of
this subpart.
§61.252 Standard.
(a) Radon-222 emissions to the
ambient air from an existing uranium
mill tailings pile shall not exceed 20
pCi/m^-s of radon-222.
(bj After December 15,1989, no new
tailings impoundment can be built
unless it is designed, constructed and
operated to meet one of the two T
following work practices: . .
(1) Phased disposal in lined tailings
impoundments.that are no more than 40
acres in area and meet the requirements
of 40 GFR 192.32(aJ as determined by the
Nuclear-Regulatory Commission. The
owner or operator shall have no more
than two impoundments, including
existing impoundments, in operation at
any one time. •."'''
, (2) Continuous disposal of tailings ."
such that tailings -are dewatered and
immediately disposed wyfa no more than
10 acres uncovered at any time and
operated in accordance with § 192.32(a)
as determined by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
(d) All mill owners or operators shall
comply with the provisions of 40 CFR
192.32(a) in the operation of tailings
piles, the exemption for existing piles in
40 CFR 192.32(a) notwithstanding.
§61.253 Determining compliance.
Compliance with the emission
standard in this subpart shall be
determined annually through the use of
Method 115 of Appendix B. When
measurements are to be made over a
one year period, EPA shall be provided
with a schedule of the measurement
frequency to be used. The schedule may
be submitted to EPA prior to or after the
first measurement period. EPA shall be
notified 30 days prior to any emissions
test so that EPA may, at its option,
observe the test.
§61.254 Annual reporting requirements.
(a) The owners or operators of
operating existing mill impoundments
shall report the results of the compliance
calculations required in § 61.253 and the
input parameters used in making the
calculation for each calendar year shall
be sent to EPA by March 31 of the
folio whig year. Each report shall also
include the following information:
(Ij The name and location of the mill.
(2) The name of the person
responsible for the operation of the
facility and the name of the person
preparing the report {if different).
{3J The results of the testing
conducted, including the results of each
measurement.
(4) Each report shall be signed and
dated by a corporate officer in charge of
the facility and contain the following
declaration immediately above the
signature line: "I certify under penalty of
law that I have personally examined
and am familiar with the information
submitted herein and based on my
inquiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for obtaining the
information, I believe that the submitted
information is true, accurate and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information including the possibility of
fine and imprisonment. See, 18 U.S.C.
1001."
, (b) If the facility is not in compliance
with the emission limits of § 61.252 in
the calendar year covered by the report,
then the facility must commence '
reporting to the Administrator on a
monthly basis the information listed in -
paragraph (a) of this section, for the
preceding month. These reports will
start the month immediately fbillowing
the submitlal of the annual Teport for the
year hi noncompliance and will be due
30 days following the end of each
month. This increased level of reporting
will continue until the Administrator has
determined that the monthly reports are
no longer necessary. In addition to all -
the information required in paragraph
(a) of this section, monthly reports shall .
also include the following information:
(1) All controls or other changes in
operation of ihe facility that will be or
are being installed to bring the facility
into compliance. .
-------
51704 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
(2) If the facility is under a judicial or
administrative enforcement decree, the
report will describe the facilities
performance under the terms of the
decree.
(c) The first report will cover the
emissions of calendar year 1990.
{Approved by the Office of Management and
Budget under Control Number 2060-0191.)
§ 61.255 Recordkeeplng requirements.
The owner or operator of the mill ,
must maintain records documenting the
source of input parameters including the
results of all measurements upon which
they are based, the calculations and/or
analytical methods used to derive
values for input parameters, and the
procedure used to determine
compliance. In addition, the .
documentation should be sufficient to
allow an independent auditor to verify
the accuracy of the determination made
concerning the facility's compliance
with the standard. These records must
be kept at the mill for at least five years
and upon request be made available for
Inspection by the Administrator, or his
authorized representative.
§ 61.256 Exemption from the reporting
and testing requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
All facilities designated under this
subpart are exempt from the reporting
requirements of 40 CFR 61.10.
§61.03 [Amended]
3. By adding to the list of System
International units of measure in
§ 61.03(a) an entry for "m2" following
"m=meter" to read as follows:
ms=square meter
4. By adding to the list of other units
of measure in § 61.03(b) an entry for
"Ci" following "cc"; an entry for "pC;"
following "oz"; and an entry for "mrem"
following "ml" to read as, follows:
C(=- curio
pC! itpicocurie =• 10" " curie
5. Section 01.18 is amended by adding
paragraph (c} to read as follows:
§ 61.18 Incorporations by reference.
***** , -
(c) The following material is available
for purchase from the American
National Standards Institute, Inc., 1430
Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
(1) ANSI N13.1— 1969, "Guide to
Sampling Airborne Radioactive
Materials in Nuclear Facilities." IBR
approved for §§ 61.93(b)(2)(ii);
61.107(bH2p); and Method 114, par. 2J
of Appendix B to part 61.
Appendix B to Part 61—[Amended]
6. By amending Method 111 of
Appendix B as follows:
a. Section 4.1 is revised to read as
follows:
4.1 Sample Preparation.
• The glass fiber filter and acetone rinse
from Method 5 of Appendix A to 40 CFR part
60 are combined and dissolved as described
below. ' '
4.1.1 Add polonium-209 tracer to the
acetone rinse in the glass beaker from
Method 5 in an amount approximately equal
to the amount of pblonium-210 expected in
the total particulate sample. Add 16 M nitric
acid to the beaker to digest and loosen the
residue. . ..
4.1.2 Transfer the residue from the glass
beaker to a teflon beaker containing the glass
fiber filter. Rinse the glass beaker with 16 M
nitric acid. If necessary reduce the volume in
the beaker by evaporation until all of the
nitric acid from the glass beaker has been
transferred to the teflon beaker.
4.1.3 Add 30 ml of 29 M hydrofluoric acid
to the-teflon beaker and evaporate to near , •
dryness on a hot plate in a properly operating
hood. Caution: Do not allow the residue to go
to dryness and overheat; this will result in
loss of polonium.
4.1.4 Repeat step 4.1.3 until filter is
dissolved.
4.1.5 Add 100 ml of 16 M nitric acid to the
residue in the teflon beaker and evaporate to
near dryness. Caution: Do not allow the.
residue to go to dryness.
4.1.6 Add 50 ml of 16 M nitric acid and 10
ml of 12 M perchloric acid to the teflon
beaker and heat until dense fumes of
perchloric acid are evolved.
4.1.7 Repeat steps 4.1.3 to 4.1.6 as
necessary until sample is completely
dissolved.
, 4.1.8 Add 10 ml of 12 M hydrochloric acid
and evaporate to dryness. Repeat additions
and evaporations several times.
4.1.9 Transfer the sample to a 250 ml
volumetric flask and dilute to volume with 3
M hydrochloric acid.
b. Section 4.4.2 is removed and
sections-4.4.3 through 4.4.8 are
redesignated as sections 4.4.2 through
4.4.7 respectively.
c. In section 5.1, Equation 111-3 is
amended by removing "A=picocuries of
polonium-210 per filter" and adding
"A= picocuries of polonium-210 in the,
particulate sample".
d. In section 5.2, Equation 111-4 is
amended by revising the entry for "A="
to read "A— picocuries of polonium-210
in the particulate sample as determined
by A in Equation 111-3".
e. Section 9.1.2 is removed.
7. By adding Method 114 to the
methods in Appendix B to part 61 to !
read as follows:
Method 114—Test Methods for Measuring
Radiomiciide Emissions from Stationary
Sources
1. Purpose and Background
This method provides the requirements for:
(1) Stack monitoring and sample collection
methods appropriate for radionuclides; (2)
radiochemical methods which are'used in
determining the amounts of radionuclides
collected by the stack sampling and; (3)
quality assurance methods which are
conducted in conjunction with these
measurements. These methods are
appropriate for emissions for stationary
sources. A list of references is provided.
Many different types of facilities release
radionuclides into air. These radionuclides
differ in the ghemical and physical forms,,,
half-lives and type of radiation emitted. The
appropriate combination of sample
extraction, collection and analysis for an
individual radionuclide is dependent upon
many interrelated factors including the
mixture of other radionuclides present.
Because of this Wide range of conditions, no
single method for monitoring or sample
collection and analysis of a radionuclide is
applicable to all types of .facilities. Therefore,
a series of methods based on "principles of
measurement" are described for monitoring
. and sample collection and analysis which are
applicable to the measurement of
radionuclides found in effluent streams at
stationary sources. This approach provides
the user with the flexibility to choose the
most appropriate combination of monitoring
and sample collection arid analysis methods
which are applicable to the effluent stream to
be measured. •
2. Stack Monitoring and Sample Collection
Methods
Monitoring and sample collection methods
are described based on "principles of
monitoring and sample collection" which are
applicable to the measurement of
radionuclides from effluent streams at
stationary sources. Radionuclides of most
elements will be in the particulate form in
these effluent streams and can be readily
collected using a suitable filter media.
Radionuclides of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon,
nitrogen, the noble gases and in some
circumstances iodine will be in .the gaseous
form. Radionuclides of these elements will
require either the use of an in-line or off-line
monitor to directly measure the
radionuclides, or suitable sorbers, condensers
or bubblers .to collect the radionuclides.
2.1 Radionuclides as Partipulates. The r
extracted effluent stream is passed through a
filter media to remove the particulates. The
filter must have a high efficiency for removal
of sub-micron particles. The guidance in
"ANSI N13.1—1969 shall be followed in using
filter media to collect particulates
(incorporated by reference—see § 61.18).
2.2 Radionuclides as Gases.
2.2.1 The Radionuclide Tritium [H-3].
Tritium in the form of water vapor is
collected from the extracted effluent sample?
by sorption, condensation or dissolution
techniques. Appropriate collectors may
include silica get, molecular sieves, and
ethylene glycol or water bubblers.
-------
Tritium in the gaseous .form.may be
.measured directly in the sample stream using
Method B-l, collected as a gas sample or
may be oxidized using a metal catalyst to
tritiated water and collected as described
above. ,
2.2,2 Radionuclides of Ipdine.'lodine is
collected from ah extracted sample by
sorption or dissolution techniques.
Appropriate collectors may include charcoal,
impregnated charcoal, "metalzeolite and
caustic solutions.
2.2.3 Radionuclides of Argon, Krypton
and Xenon. Radionuclides of these elements
are either measured directly %y an in-line or •
off-line monitor, or are collected from the
extracted sample by low temperature
sorption techniques, Appropriate Berbers may
include charcoal or metal zeolite.
2,2.4 Radionuclides BI Oxygen, Carbon,
Nitrogen and Radon. Badionuclides of these
•elements are measured directly using an in-
line or off-line monitor. Radiomiclides of
carbon in the form of carbon dioxide may be
collected by dissolution in caustic solutions.
2.3 Definition of Terms ,
Ja-line monitor nxeans a continuous
measurement system in which the detector is
placed directly in or adjacent to the "effluent
stream. This may involve either gross
radioactivity measurements or specific
radionuclide measurements^ Cross
measurements shall be made in conforinance
with the conditions specified in Methods A-4,
B-2andG-4.
Off-line monitor means a measurement
system in which the detector is used to
continuously measure an extracted sample of
the effluent stream. This may involve either
gross radioactivity measurements or specific
radionuclide measurements. Gross
measurements shall bs made in confojniance
with the conditions specified in Methods A-4.
B-2andG-4.
Sample collection means a procedure in
which the radionuclides are removed from an
extracted sample of the effluent using a
collection media. These collecnon media"
include 'filters, absorbers. bubblers and
condensers. The collected sample Is analyzed
using the methods described in Section 3.
3, Radionuclide Analysis Me^ods
A series of methods based da 'principles of
measurement" are described which are
applicable to the analysis of radionuclides
collected from airborne effluent streams at
stationary sources. These methods are
applicable only nnder the conditions stated
and within the limitations described. Some
methods specify that only a single
radionuclide be present in the" sample or the
chemically separated sample. This 'condition
should be interpreted to mean that no other
Tadionuclides are present in quantities -which
would interfere with the measurement.
Also identified {Table ;1J are methods for a
selected list of radionuclides. The listed
. radionuclides are those which are most
commonly used and which have the greatest
potential for causing dose to members of the
public. Use of methods based on principles of
measurement other than those described in
. this section must be approved in advance of
use by the Administrator. For radionuclides
not listed in Table 1, any of the described
methods may be used provided the user can
demonstrate that the applicability conditions
of the method have been met
The Jype of method applicable to the
analysis of a radionuclide is dependent upon
the type of radiation emitted, i.e., alpha, beta
or gamma. Therefore, the methods described
below are grouped according to principles of
measurements for the analysis of alpha, beta
and gamma emitting radionaclides.
3.1 Methods for Alpha Emitting
Radionuclides - .
3.1.1 Method A-l, Sadiochemisliy-Alpha
Spectrometry, . •
Principle: The element of interest is
separated from other elements, and from She
sample matrix using radiochemical
techniques. The procedure may involvss
precipitation, ion exchange, or solvent •
extraction. Carriers (elements chemically
similar to the element of interest] may be
used. The element is deposited onaplanchet
in a very thin film by electrodeposition or by
copracipiiation/ona-very small amount of
carrier, such as lanthanum fluoride. The
deposited element.is then counted with en
alpha spectrometer. The activity of the
nuclide of interest is measured by the immber
of alpha counts in the .appropriate energy
region. A correction for chemical yield and
counting efficiency is made asing a
standardized radioactive uuolide .(tracer) of
the 'same element If !a radioactive tracer is
not available for the element of interest, a
predetermined chemical yield factor may "be
used. . :
Applicability: This method is applicable for
determining the activity of any alpha-emitting .
radionudide, regardless of what other
radionuclides are present in the sample
provided the chemical separation step
produces a very thin sample and removes all
other radionuclides which could Interfere .in
the spectral region of interest. APHA-*05(2),
ASTM-D-3972CL3J.
3.1.2 Method A-2, Radiochemisfay-Alpha
Counting.
Principle: The element of interest is
separated from other elements, and from the
sample matrix using radiochemistry. The :
procedare may involve precipitation, ion
exchange, or solvent extraction. Carriers .
(elements chemically similar to the element
of interest) may be used; The element.is
deposited on a planchet in a thin film and
counted with a alpha counter. A .correction
for chemical yield (if necessary) is made. The
alpha count rate measures the total activity
of all emitting radionuclides of the separated
element. .
Applicability: This method is applicable for
the measurement of any alpha-emitting
radionuclide, provided no other alpha
emitting radionuclide is present in Ihe
separated sample. It may also be applicable
for determining compliance, when other
radionuclides of the separated element are
present; provided that the calculated
emission Tate is assigned to the radionuclide
which could be present in the sample that has
the highest idose conversion factor. IDO-
12098(183. '
3.1.3 Method A-3, Direct Alpha
Spectrometry.
Principle: The sample, collected on a
suitable filter, is counted directly on an alpha
spectrometer. The sample must be thin
enough and collected on 'the surface -of the .
filter so 'that any absorption of alpha particle
energy in the sample or Ihe filter, which
would degrade the spectoam, SB minimal.. „ • '
Applicability This method Is applicable to
simple mixtures of alpha emitting
radionuclides and only when the amount of
pariiculates collected on the filter paper are
relatively small and the alpha spectra is
adequately resolved. Resolutions should be
50 keV (3FWHMJ or belter, ASTMHD-3Q84(16).
3.1.4 Method A-4,DirecS Alpha Counting
(Gross .alpha deterranmtHjn).
Principle:The sample;, collected «n a "
suitable filter, 3s connfed with an alpha
counter. The sample mast fee iMa enough so
toat self-absoipSion is iiot significant -and the
filter nrasl be of sucli a oatee sfliat fee
particles BTB retained on the surface.
Applicability: Gross alpha determinations
may be used to measure emissions of specific
radionuclides only (1) when 51 is known that
the sample contains only B single
radionuclide, or the idenfity and isotopic
ratio of the radionuclides in the sample are
well-known, and (2) measurements using
either Method A-l, A-2 or A-5 have shown
that this method provides a reasonably .
accurate measurement of the emission rate.
- Gross alpha measurements are applicable to
: unidentified mixtures of radionuclides only
for the purposes and under the conditions
described m section 3.7. APHA-eoilS),
ASTM-D-1943(10). .
3.1.5 Method A-r5, Chemical
Determination of Uranium. "' '
Principle: Uranium may be measured
chemically by either colorimetryor
fluorometry. In both procedures, the -sample
is dissolved, the uranium Is oxidized to the
hexavalenl form and extracted into a suitable
solvent. Impurities are removed from the
solvent layer. ¥or colorimetry,
dibenzoylmelhane is added, and the uranium
is measured by the absorbance in a
colorimeter. For fluorometry. a portion of the
solution is fused with a sodium fluoride-
, lithium fluoride flux and the uranium Is
determined by the ultraviolet activated
fluorescence of the fused dialc in a
fluorometer.
ApplictibiLity:^Ms method is applicaHe to
the measurements of emission fates of
uranium when the isotopic ratio, of the
uranium radionuclides is well known. ASTM-
E-318(15). ASTM-D-2907(14).
3J..6 Method A-6, Sadon-222—
Continuous Gas Monitor. ' .
/Wnc/p/e;Radon-222 is measured directly
in a continuously extracted sample stream by
passing the air stream through a calibrated
scintillation cell. Prior to the scintillation .cell,
the air stream is treated to remove
participates and excess moisture. The alpha
particles from radon-222 and its decay
products strike a zinc sulfide coating on the
inside of the scintillation cell producing light
pulses. The light pulses are detected by B
photomultiph'er tube which generates
electrical pulses. These pulses are processed
by the system electronics and the read out ia
inpCi/lof radonT222. ,
Applicability: This method is applicable to
the measurement of xadon-222 in 'effluent
-------
51706 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
streams which do not contain significant
quantities of radon-220. Users of this method
should calibrate the monitor in a radon
calibration chamber at least twice per year.
The background of the monitor should also
be checked periodically by operating the
instrument In a low radon environment. EPA
520/1-83-009(24).
3.1.7 Method A-7, Radon-222-Alpha Track
Detectors
Principle: Radon-222 is measured directly
in the effluent stream using alpha track
detectors (AID). The alpha particles emitted
by radon-222 and its decay products strike a
small plastic strip and produce subznicron
damage tracks. The plastic strip is placed in a
caustic solution that accentuates the damage,
tracks which are counted using a microscopes
or automatic counting system. The number of
tracks per unit area is correlated to the radon
concentration in air using a conversion factor
derived from data generated in a radon
calibration facility.
Applicability: Prior approval from EPA is
required for use of this method. This method
is only applicable to effluent streams which
do not contain significant quantities of radon-
220, unless special detectors are used to
discriminate against radon-220. This method
ntoy be used only when ATDs have been
demonstrated to produce data comparable to
data obtained with Method A-8. Such data
should be submitted to EPA when requesting
approval for the use of this method. EPA 520/
1-89-009(24).
3.2 Methods for Caseous Beta Emitting
Radionuclides.
3.2.1 Method B-l, Direct Counting in
Flow-Through lonlzalion Chambers.
Principle: An ionization chamber
containing a specific volume of gas which
flows at a given flow rate through the
chamber is used. The sample (effluent stream
sample) acts as the counting gas for the
chamber. The activity of the radionuclide is
determined from the current measured in the
Ionization chamber.
Applicability: This method is applicable fos
measuring the activity of a gaseous beta-
emitting radionuclide in an effluent stream
that is suitable as a counting gas, when no
other beta-emitting nuclides are present
DOE/EP-OOQ6(17), NCRP-58(23).
3.2,2 Method B-2, Direct Counting With
In-line or Off-line Beta Detectors.
Principle: The beta detector is placed
direqtly hi the effluent stream (in-line) or an
extracted sample of the effluent stream is
passed '-'trough a chamber containing a beta
detector (off-line). The activities of the
radioituclides present in the effluent stream
ere determined from the beta count rate, and
a knowledge of the radionuclidos present and
tha relationship of the gross beta count rate
and tha specific radionuclide concentration.
Applicability: This method is applicable
only to radionuclidcs with maximum beta
particle energies greater then 0.2 MeV. This
method may be used to measure emissions of
specific radionuclides only when it is known
that the sample contains only a single
radionuclide or the identity and isotopic ratio
of the radionuclides in the effluent stream are
well known. Specific radionuclide analysis of
periodic grab samples may be used to
Identify the types and quantities of
radionuclides present and to establish the
relationship between specific radionuclide
analyses and gross beta count rates.
This method is applicable to unidentified
mixtures of gaseous radionuclides only for
the purposes and under the conditions
described in section 3.7.
3.3 Methods for Non-Gaseous Beta
Emitting Radionuclides.
3.3.1 Method B-3, Radiochemistry-Beta :
Counting.
Principle: The element of interest is
separated from other elements, and from the
sample matrix b'y radiochemistry. This may
involve precipitation, distillation, ion
exchange, or solvent extraction. Carriers
(elements chemically similar to the element
of interest) may be used. The element is
deposited on a planchet, and counted with a
beta counter. Corrections for chemical yield,
and decay (if necessary) are made. The beta
count rate determines the total activity of all
radionuclides of the separated element. This
method may also involve the radiochemical
separation and counting of a daughter
element, after a suitable period of ingrowth,
in which case it is specific for the parent
nuclide.
Applicability: This method is applicable for
measuring the activity of any beta-emitting
radionuclide, \vith a maximum energy greater
than 0.2 MeV, provided no other radionuclide
is present in the separated sample. APHA--
608(5).
3.3.2 Method B-4, Direct Beta Counting
(Gross beta determination).
Principle: The sample, collected on a
suitable filter, is counted with a beta counter.
The sample must be thin enough so that self-
absorption corrections can be made.
Applicability: Gross beta measurements
are applicable only to radionuclides with
maximum beta particle energies greater than
0.2 MeV. Gross beta measurements may be
used to measure emissions of specific
radionuclides only (1) when it is known that
the sample contains only a single
radionuclide, and (2) measurements made
using Method B-3 show reasonable
agreement with the gross beta measurement
Gross beta.measurements are applicable to
mixtures of radionuclides only for the
purposes and under the conditions described
in section 3.7. APHA-602(4), ASTM-D-
1890(11).
3.3.3 Method B-S, Liquid Scintillation
Spectrometry.
Principle: An aliquot of a collected sample
or the result of some other chemical
separation or processing technique is added
to a liquid scintillation "Cocktail" which is
viewed by photomultiplier tubes in a liquid .-
scintillation spectrometer. The spectrometer
is adjusted to establish a channel or
"window" for the pulse energy appropriate to
the nuclide of interest. The activity of the
nuclide of interest ig.measured by the
counting rate in the appropriate energy
channel. Corrections are mads for chemical
yield where separations are made.
Applicability: This method is applicable to
any beta-emitting nuclide when no other
radionuclide is present in the sample or the
separated sample provided that it can be
incorporated in the scintillation cocktail. This
method is also applicable for samples which
contain more than one radionuclide but only
when the energies of the beta particles are
sufficiently separated so that they can be
resolved by the spectrometer. This method ia
most applicable to the measurement of low-
energy beta emitters such as tritium and
carbon-14. APHA-609(6), EML-LV-539-
17(19).
3.4 Gamma Emitting Radionuclides
3.4.1 Method G-l, High Resolution
Gamma Spectrometry.
PrinCiplefTtie sample is counted with a
high resolution gamma detector, usually
either a Ge(Li) or a-high purity Ge detector,
connected to a multichannel analyzer or -
computer. The gamma emitting radionuclides
in the sample are measured from the gamma
count rates in the energy regions
characteristic of the individual radionuclide.
Corrections are made for counts contributed
• by other radionuclides to the spectral regions
of the radionuclides of interest.
Radiochemical separations may be made
prior to counting but are usually not
necessary.
Applicability: This method is applicable to
the measurement of any gamma emitting
radionuclide with gamma energies greater
than 20 keV. It can be applied to complex
mixtures of radionuclidss. The samples
counted may be Sn the form of particulate
filters, absorbers, liquids or gases. The
. method may also ba applied to the analysis
of gaseous gamma emitting radionuclides
directly in an effluent stream by passing the
stream through a chamber or cell containing
the detector. ASTM-3649(9), IDO-12096(18).
3.4.2 Method G-2, Low Resolution
Gamma Spectrometry.
Principle: The sample is counted with a
low resolution gamma detector, a thallium
activated sodium iodide crystal. The detector
is coupled to a photomultiplier tube and
connected to a multichannel analyzer. The
gamma emitting radionuclides in the sample
are measured from the gamma count rates in
the energy regions characteristic of the
individual radionuclides. Corrections are
made for counts contributed by other
radionuclides to the spectral regions of the
radionuclides of interest. Radiochemical
separation may be used prior to counting to
obtain less complex gamma spectra if
needed.
Applicability: This method is applicable to
the measurement of gamma emitting
radionuclides with energies greater than 100
keV. It can be applied only to relatively
simple mixtures of gamma emitting
radionuclides. The samples counted may be
in the form of particulate filters, absorbers,
liquids or gas: The method can be applied to
the analysis of gaseous radionuclides directly
. in an effluent stream by passing the gas
stream through a chamber or cell containing
the detector. ASTM-D-2459(12), EMSL-LV-
0539-17(19).
3.4.3 Method C-3, Single Channel Gamma
Spectrometry. ,
Principle: The sample is counted with a
thallium activated sodium iodide crystal. The
detector is coupled to a photomultiplier tubs
connected to a single channel analyzer. The:
activity of a gamma emitting radiotiuclide is
-------
Federal JKegistef / -¥0!.
:lg89 / .Rules arid; Rggulatipiis • ^51707
determined Irom fhe gamma counts in the
energy range for which the counter is set.
Applicability: This melted is applicable to
the measurement of a single gamma emitting
radionuclide. It is not applicable to mixtures
of radionuclides. The samples counted may
be in the form of jjariidilate filters,
absorbers, liquids; or gas. The method can be
applied to the analysis of gaseous
radionuclides directly in an affluent stream
by passing the gas stream through a chamber
or cell containing the detector.
3.4;4 Method G-4, Gross Gamma
Counting. r
, Principle: The sample is counted with a
gamma detector usually a thallium activated
sodium iodine crystal. The detector is
coupled to a photomultiplier tube and gamma
rays above a specific threshold energy level
are counted.
Applicability: Gross gamma measurements
may be used to measure emissions of specific
radionuclides only when it is known that the
sample contains a single radionuclide or the
identity and isotbpic ratio of the '
radionuclides in the effluent stream are well
known. When gross gamma measurements
are used to determine emissions of specific
radioaueJides periodic measurements using
Methods G-1 or G--2 should be made to
" demonstrate that $he gross gamma '
measurements provide reliable emission
data. This method may be applied to analysis
of gaseous radionuclides 'directly in an
efinerit stream by placing the detector
directly in or adjacent to the effluent stream
or .passing an extracted sample of Hie effluent
stream through a .chamber at cell containing .
the detector.
,3.5 Counting Methods. All of the above
methods with .the exception
-------
51708 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989_ / Rules and Regulations
M»ffi»M«»iff»*BP«iiipiiiMii.MrM|hMlia^
TABLE 1.—LIST OF APPROVED METHODS
FOR SPECIFIC RADIONUCLIDES—Contin-
ued
Radfooocfcja
Kr-88_
Mn-54,,.M...
M0.99.™..
N-13.
O-15.,
P-32™.
Pm-147.
Po-210_
Pu-238,
Pu-238.
Pu-240.
S-35.
S0-75,
Sr-90,
To-99...
T<*-201 ....
Uranium (total alpha),
Uranlom \l3olopfc),
Uranium (Natural)—
Xe-133 .„«..„...,.
Yb-168 „....
Zn-<35 ...........................
Approved methods of
analysis
B-1, B-2. G-1, G-2, G-A
G-4
G-1. G-2, G-3, G-4
G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4
B-1, B-2, G-1, G-2, G-3,
G-4
B-1, B-2, G-1, G-2. G-3,
G-4
B-3, B-4, B-5
B-3, B-4, B-5
A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4
A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4
A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4
A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4
B-5
G-1. G-2, G-3, G-4
B-3, B-4. B-5
B-3. B-4. B-5
G-1, G-2, G-3. G-4
A-1, A-2. A-3, A-4
A-1. A-3
A-5
G-1
G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4
G-1. G-2, G-3, G-4
4. Quality Assurance Methods
Each facility required to measure their
rudlonuclide emissions shall conduct a
quality assurance program in conjunction
, with the radlonuclide emission
measurement*. This program shall assure
that the omission measurements are
representative, and are of known precision
and accuracy and shall include
administrative controls to assure prompt
response when emission measurements
Indicate unexpectedly large emissions. The
program shall consist of a system of policies,
organizations! responsibilities, written
procedures, data quality specifications,
audits, corrective actions and reports. This
quality assurance program shall include the
following program elements:
4.1 The organizational structure,
functional responslbilitlcB, levels of authority
and lines of communications for all activities
related to the emissions measurement
program shall bo Identified end .documented.
4.2 Administrative controls shall be
prescribed to ensure prompt response m the
event that emission levels increase due to
unplanned operations.
4.3 The sample collection and analysis .
procedures udod in measuring the emissions
shall ba described including where
applicable: I-:- • '.' T .; -..-•',•'
4.3.1 Identification of sampling'eltes.and
number of sampling points, including the
rationale for site selection*. ,...•''• ••'"
: 4.3.2 A description of sampling probes
end representativeness of the samples.
4.3.3 A description of any continuous"
< monitoring system used to measure
.emissions, Including the sensitivity of the
system, calibration procedures and frequency
t of calibration, , •• - , • .
,4.3.4 A description of the sample ' .
° collection systems for each radionuclido
zncasurcd, including frequency of collection,
calibration procedures and frequency of
calibration.
4.3.5 A description of the laboratory
analysis procedures used for each
radionuclicle measured, including frequency
of analysis, calibration procedures and
frequency of calibration.
4.3.8 A description of the sample flow
rate measurement systems or procedures,
including calibration procedures and
frequency of calibration.
4.3.7 A description of the effluent flow
rate measurement procedures, including •
frequency of measurements, calibration
procedures and frequency of calibration.
4.4 The objectives of the quality
'assurance program shall be documented and
shall state the required precision, accuracy
and completeness of the emission
measurement data including a description of
the procedures used to assess these
parameters. Accuracy is the degree of
agreement of a measurement with a true or
kpown value. Precision is a measure of the
agreement among individual measurements
of the same parameters under similar
, conditions. Completeness is a measure of the
amount of valid data obtained compared to
the amount expected under normal
conditions."
4.5 A quality control program shall be
established to evaluate and track the quality -
of the emissions measurement data against
preset criteria. The program should include
where applicable a system of replica fes,
spiked samples, split samples, blanks and
control charts. The number and frequency of
such quality control checks shall be-
identified. , •'•••.. •
4.8 A sample tracking system shall be.
established to provide for positive
• identification of samples and data, through all.
phases of the" sample collection, analysis and
reporting system. Sample handling and . •. -
preservation procedures shall be established
to maintain the integrity of samples during
collection, storage and analysis.
4.7 Periodic internal and external audits
shall be performed to monitor compliance
with the quality assurance program. These
audits shall be performed in accordance with
•written procedures and conducted by
personnel who do not have responsibility for
performing any of the operations being
audited.
4.8 A corrective action program shall be
established including criteria for when
corrective action is needed, what corrective •
actions will be taken and who is responsible .
for taking the corrective actio,n. .
' . 4.9 Periiodic.reports'to responsible.
• management shall be prepared on the
, performance of the'emissions; measurement's
program. These reports sh'oujd include
assessment of the quality of the data, results; !
of audits and description of corrective
actions. . • • . ', / •: • : "'. .• '•
4.10, This quality assurance program
should be documented in a quality assurance .
.project plan which should jfddress each of
the above requirements; - ; ....
S. Roferences •• • • .-'
, {1} American National Standards Institute, •;
"Guide to Sampling Airborne Radioactive
Materials in Kucleait Facilities-", ANSI~N13,1~
1909, American National Standards Institute,
New York, New York (1069).
(2] American Public Health Association,
"Methods of Air Sampling", 2nd Edition,
Method 605, "Tentative Method of Analysis
for Plutonium Content of Atmospheric
Particulate Matter". American Public Health
Association, New York, NY (1977).
(3) Ibid, Method 60i; "Tentative Method of
Analysis for Gross Alpha Radioactivity
Content of the Atmosphere".
(4) Ibid, Method 602, "Tentative Method of
the Analysis /or Gross Beta Radioactivity
Content of the Atmosphere".
(5) Ibid, Method 008, 'Tentative Method of
Analysis for Strontium-90 Content of '
Atmospheric Particulate Matter".
(6) Ibid, Method 609, "Tentative Method of
Analysis for Tritium Content of the
Atmosphere".
(7] Ibid, Method 603, "Tentative Method of
Analysis for Iodine-131 Content of the
Atmosphere".
(8) American Society for Testing and
Materials, 1988 Annual Book ASTM •
Standards, Designation D-3848-78, "Standard
Practices for the Measurement of
Radioactivity". American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, PA (1986).
(9) Ibid, Designation D-3649-65, "Standard
Practice for High Resolution Gamma
Spectrometry". • :
(10) Ibid, .Designation D-1943-61, "Standard
Test Method for Alpha Particle Radioactivity
of Water". • ,_' . •
, (11) Ibid, Designation D-1890-8i, "Standard
Test Method for Beta Particle Radioactivity
of Water". '. : ...-.''
(12) Ibid, Designation D-2459-72, '''Standard
Test Method for Gamma Spectrometry of
Water". - . : •.,'•''•
(13) [Ibid, Designation D-3972-82, "Standard
Test Method for-Isotopic Uranium in Water
by Radiochemistry".
' (14) Ibid, Designation D-2907-83, "Standard
Test Methods for Microquantities of Uranium
in Water by Fluorometry".
(15) Ibid, Designation E-318, "Standard \
Test Method for Uranium in Aqueous
Solutions by Colorimetry". .
(16) Ibid, Designation D-3084-75, "Standard
Practice for Alpha Spectrometry of Water".
(17) Corley, J.P. and C.D. Corbit, "A Guide
for Effluent Radiological Measurements at .
DOE Installations", DOE/EP-C096, Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, RicIilanoV
Washington (1983).
(18) Department of Energy, "RESL
Analytical Chemistry Branch; Procedures . .
: Manual", IDO-12095, U.S. Department of • •:, -
Energy, Idaho Palls, Idaho {1982}, ''. ; •-! •
" (1$) Environmental Protection AsPncS'' ".-'
•"fodipchemica! Analytical Procedures fqr ;• ; ' .
' '
.
" ty!-p539-i7, 0;B,;,Environmentarprotecliori. •.';.-'
>: Agency, Environmental Monitoring ind -.-'•
Support Laboratory, Las Vegas; Nevada
(1979).
(20) Environmental Protection Agency,
- "Radiochemistry Procedures Manual", EPA
520/5^8^)08, Eastern Envirohm6ntal '
. Radiation Facility, Montgomery, Alabama , .
' ''
. , .
(21) National Council on Radiation
Protection' and Measurements, NCR? Report
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 /Friday, December 15, 1989 /Rules and Regulations
51709
No. 50, "Environmental Radiation :
Measurements", National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurement,
Bethesda, Maryland (1976).
(22) Ibid, Report No. 47, "Tritium
Measurement Techniques". (1976).
(23) Ibid, Report No. 58 "A Handbook of
Radioactivity Measurement Procedures"
(1985).
(24) Environmental Protection Agency,
"Indoor Radon and Radon Decay Product
Measurement Protocols", EPA 520/1-89-009,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, '•••
Washington, DC (1989).
8. By adding Method 115 to the list of
methods in Appendix B to part 61 to
read as follows:
Method US—Monitoring for Radon-222
Emissions -
This Appendix describes the monitoring
methods which.must be used in determining
the radon-222 emissions from underground
uranium mines, uranium mill tailings piles,
~phosphogypsum stackp, and other piles of
waste material emitting radon. ,
1. Radon-222 Emissions from Underground
Uranium Mine Vents . ••.. .-•. . . .
• 1.1 Sampling Frequericy-and Calculation
of Emissions. Radon-222 emissions from •
underground uranium mine vents shall be
determined using one of the following
, methods: ; '•••'••','
1.1.1 Continuous Measurement. These
measurements shall be made and the
emissions calculated as follows:
(a) The radon-222"concentration shall be
continuously measured at each mine vent
whenever the mine ventilation system is
operational.
(b>Eaoh mine vent exhaust How rate shall
be measured .at least 4 times per year.
(c) A weekly radon-222 emission rate for
the mine shall be calculated and recorded
weekly as follows: . ,' .
Aw= CiQiTi + CaQzTz + , v.CiQiTj
Where: ' - .''•••':
Aw=Tota! radon-222 emitted from the mine '
during week (Ci) V ''.'••'
C'i=Average radon-222 concentration in mine
vent i(Ci/m3) "• ' ' •'
Qi=Volumetric'flow rate from'inine vent
„ i(ni3/hr) .' f " . .-"
Ti=Hours of mine ventilation system
operation during week for mine vent i(hr)
(d) The annual radon-222 emission rate is
the sum of the weekly emission rates during a
calendar year. ,
1.1 2 Periodic Measurement'. This method
is applicable only to mines that continuously
operate their ventilation system except for
extended shutdowns. Mines which start up
and shut down their ventilation system
frequently must use the continuous
measurement method describe in Section '
1.1.1 above. Emission rates determined using
periodic measurements shall be measured
and calculated as follows: ':
(a)'The radon-222 shall be continuously "
measured at.eachmin& vent'for at leaSt one ,1
week'every three months. •-' :•.•.,•-••'•
(b) Each mine vent exhaust flow rate shaft
be measured at least'once during" each" of the"
radon-222 measurement'periods.' ''••"."'-'"":: '
(c) A weekly radon-222 emission rate shall
be calculated for each weekly period
according to the method described in Section
1.1.1. In this calculation T=168 hr.
(d) The annual radon-222'emissioii. rate
from the mine should be calculated as
follows:
52 — W,
"... A,,,)
Where:
Ay=Annual radon-222 emission rate from the
mine(Ci) .
A,rf=Weekry radon-222 emission rate during
the measurement period i (Ci)
n=Number of weekly measurement periods .
per year
Ws=Number of weeks during the year that
the mine ventilation system is shut down in
excess of 7 consecutive days, i.e. the-sum
of the number of weeks each shut down
exceeds 7 days' ' ' :
1.2 Tes.t Methods and Procedures
Each underground mine required to test its
emissions, unless an equivalent or alternative
method has been approved by the
Administrator, shall use. the following test -'
methods: . . .
1.2.1 Test Method! of Appendix A to part
60 shall be used to determine velocity
traverses. The sampling point in the duct
shall be either the centroid of the cross
section or the point of average velocity.
r.2.2 Test Method 2 of Appendix A to part
60 shall be used to determine velocity and
volumetric flow rates.
1.2.3 Test Methods A-6 or A-7 of
Appendix B, Method 114 to part 61 shall be
used for the analysis of radon-222. Use of
Method A-7 requires prior approval of EPA
based on condition's described in Appendix
-B- ' - •-..'" .••-'. . ;
1.2.4, A quality assurance program shall,
be conducted in conformance with the
programs described for Continuous,Radon ' ,:
Monitors arid Alpha Track Detectors in EPA
520/1-89-009. (2) '•
2. Radon-222 Emissions, from Uranium Mill
Tailings Piles , -•..'•••• •• .• -'.
2.1 Measurement and Calculation of
Radon Flux from Uranium Mill Tailings Piles;.
2.1.1 Frequency of Flux Measurement. A
single set of radon flux, measurements niay be
made, of if the owner or operator chiooses, ''
more frequent measurements may be made
over a one year period. These measurements
may involve quarterly, monthly or weekly
intervals. All-radon measurements shall be
made as described in paragraphs 2.1.2
through 2.1.6 except that for measurements
made over a one year period, the requirement
of paragraph 2.1.4(c) shall not apply. The
mean radon flux from the pile shall-be.the, ':
arithmetic mean of the'mean radori flux for
each measurement period. The weather
conditions, moisture content of the tailings
and area of the pile covered by water
existing at the time.of the measurement shall -:
be chosen so as to provide measurements
representative pf the; long term radon flux
from the'pile and shall be^subject to EPA ~ .
review and approval. ' " ': " "''"
2.1.2 Distribution of Flux Measurements.
The distribution and number of radon flux :
.- measurements required'on a pile will depend
on clearly defined areas of the pile (called
regions) that can have significantly different
radori fluxes due to surface conditions. The
mean radon flux shall be determined for each
individual region of the pile. Regions that
shall be considered for operating mill tailings
piles are: .
(a) Water covered areas,
(b) Water saturated area's (beaches),
(c) Dry top surface areas, and
(d) Sides, except where earthen material is
used in dam construction. •
For mill tailings after disposal the pile shall
be considered to consist.of only one region.
2.1.3 Number of Flux Measurements.
Radon flux measurements shall be made
within each region on the pile, except for
those areas covered with water.
Measurements shall be made at regularly
spaced locations across the surface of the
region, realizing that surface roughness will
prohibit measurements in some areas of a
region. The minimum number of flux
measurements considered necessary to
determine a representative mean radon flux
value for e/ich type of region on an operating
pile is: . • , ;-
(a) Water covered area—no measurements
required as radon flux is assumed to be
zero," -- • '-' .-. : ,
(b) Water saturated beaches—100 radori
flux measurements,
(c) Loose and dry top surface—100 radon
flux measurements, .'••_•"'
(d) Sides—100 radon flux measurements,
except where earthern material is used in
dam construction.
For a mill tailings pile after disposal which
consists of only one region a minimum of 100
measurements are required.
2.1.4 Restrictions to Radon Flux , ' •
Measurements, The following restrictions are
placed on making radon.flux measurements:
(a) Measurements shall not be initiated
within 24 hours of a rainfall. . . .
(b) If a rainfall occurs during the 24 hour-
• measurements period, the measurement •
is invalid if the seal around the lip of the
collector has washed away or if the '*
collector is surrounded_by water.
(c) Measurements shall riot be performed if
the ambient temperature is below 35°F or
if the ground is frozen., • ;
2.1,5 Areas of Pile Reg'ions. The ' "'
approximate area of each region of the pile .
shall be determined in units of square meters.
2.1.6 Radon Flux Measurement.
Measuring radon flux involves the adsorption
of radon on activated charcoal in a large-area
collector. The radon collector is placed on the
surface of the pile area to be measured and
allowed to collect radon for a time period of
24 hours. The radon collected on'the charcoal
is measured by gamma-ray spectroscopy. "'
The detailed measurement procedure ; " .
provided in Appendix A of EPA 520/5-85r- !
0029(1) shall be used to measure the radon -
flux on uranium, mill tailings, except the . .'•'••
surface of the' taiflngs shall not .be penetrated
by the lip of the radpri'cojlectdr as directed "in
the procedure,'father'thei cdllectoi shall be" "'
-------
51710 Federal Register / Y^--J4, j^^^
carefully positioned on a flat surface with
soil or tailings used to seal the edge.
2.1.7 Calculations. The mean radon flux
for each region of the pile and for the total
pile shall be calculated and reported as
follows:
(a) The Individual radon flux calculations
, shall be made as provided in Appendix
A EPA 86 (1). The mean radon flux for
each region of the pile shall be calculated
by summing all individual flux
measurements for the region and
dividing by the total number of flux
measurements for the region.
(b) The mean radon flux for the total
uranium mill tailings pile shall be
calculated as follows.
J.-
J,Ai + . . . J»Ai... J,A,
Where:
I.»Mcan flux for the total pile
Ji=Mcan flux measured in region i
Ai=*Area of region i (m^
At=Total area of the pile (m2)
2.1.8 Reporting. The results of individual
flux measurements, the approximate
locations on the pile, and the mean radon flux
for each region and the mean radon flux for
the total stack shall be included in the
emission test report. Any condition or
unusual event that occurred during the"
measurements that could significantly affect
the results should be reported.
3.0 Radon-222 Emissions from
Phosphogypsum Stacks.
3.1 Measurement and Calculation of the.
Mean Radon Flux. Radon flux measurements
shall be made on phosphogypsum stacks as
described below:
3.1.1 Frequency of Measurements. A
single set of radon flux measurements may be
made after the phosphogypsum stack
becomes inactive, or if the owner or operator
chooses, more frequent measurements may '
be mads over a one year period. These
measurements may involve quarterly,
monthly or weekly intervals. All radon
measurements shall be made as described in
paragraphs 3.1.2 through 3.1.6 except that for
measurements made Over a one year period,
the requirement of paragraph 3.1,4(c) shall
not apply. For measurements made over a
one year period, the radon flux shall be the
arithmetic mean of the mean radon flux for
each measurement period.
3.1.2 Distribution and Number of Flux
Measurements. The distribution and number
of radon flux measurements required on a
alack will depend on clearly defined areas of
the stack (called regions) that can have
significantly different radon fluxes due to
surface conditions. The mean radon flux shall
be determined for each individual region of
the stack. Regions that shall be considered
arc:
(a) Water covered areas,
(b} Water saturated areas (beaches],
(c) Looss and dry top surface areas,
(d) Hard-packed roadways, and
(e) Sides.
3.1.3 Number of Flux Measurements.
Radon flux measurements shall be made
\vithin each region on the phosphogypsum
stack, except for those areas covered with
water. Measurements shall be made at
regularly spaced locations across the surface
of the region, realizing that surface roughness
will prohibit measurements in some areas 6f
a region. The minimum number of flux
measurements considered necessary to
determine a representative mean radon flux
value for each type of region is:
(a) Water covered area—no measurements
required as radon flux is assumed to be
zero,
(b} Water saturated beaches—50 radon
flux measurements,
(c) Loose and dry top surface—100 radon
flux measurements,
(d) Hard-packed roadways—50 radon flux
measurements, and
(e) Sides—100 radon flux measurements.
A minimum of 300 measurements are
required. A stack that has no water cover can
be considered to consist of two regions, top
and sides, and will require a minimum of only
200 measurements.
3.1.4 Restrictions to Radon Flux
Measurements. The following restrictions are
placed on making radon flux measurements:
(a) Measurements shall not be initiated
within 24 hours of a rainfall.
(b) If a rainfall qccurs during the 24 hour
measurement period, the measurement is
invalid if the seal around the lip of the
collector has washed away or if the
collector is surrounded by water.
(c) Measurements shall not be performed if
the ambient temperature is below 35 °F
or if the ground is frozen.
3.1.5 Areas of Stack Regions. The
approximate area of each region of the stack
shall be determined in units of square meters.
3.1.6 Radon Flux Measurements.
Measuring radon flux involves the adsorption
of radon on activated charcoal in a large-area
collector.The radon collector is placed on the
surface of the staok area to be measured and
allowed to collect radon for a time period of
24 hours. The radon collected on the charcoal
is measured by gamma-ray spectroscopy. The
detailed measurement procedure provided in
Appendix A of EPA 520/5-85-0029(1) shall be
used to measure the radon flux on
phosphogypsum stacks, except the surface of
the phosphogypsum shall not be penetrated
by the lip of tha radon collector as directed in
the procedure, rather the collector shall be
carefully positioned on a flat surface with
soil or phosphogypsum used to seal the edge.
3.1.7 Calculations. The mean radon flux
for each region of the phosphogypsum stack
and for the total stack shall be calculated and
reported as follows:
(a) The individual radon flux calculations
shall be made as provided in Appendix
A EPA 86 (1). The mean radon flux for
each region of tha stack shall be
calculated by summing all individual flux
measurements for the region and
dividing by the total number of flux
measurements for,the region.
(b) The mean radon flux for the total ;
phosphogypsum stack shall be calculated,
as follows.
JiAi +
J.=
At
Where: •
Js=Mean flux for the total stack (pCi/m2-s)
Ji=Mean flux measured in region i (pGi/m^-s)
AI=Area of region i (m2)
At=Total area of the stack
3.1.8 Reporting. The results of individual
flux measurements, the approximate
locations on the stack, and the mean radon
flux for each region and the mean radon.flux
for the total stack shall be included in the
emission test report. Any condition or
unusual event that occurred during the
measurements that could significantly affect
the results should be reported.
4.0 Quality Assurance Procedures for
Measuring Rn-222 Flux
A. Sampling Procedures
Records of field activities and laboratory
measurements shall be maintained. The
following information shall be recorded for
each charcoal canister measurement:
(a) Site
(b) Name of pile
(c) Sample location
(d) Sample ID number
(ej Date and time on
(f) Date and time off
(g) Observations of meteorological conditions
and comments
Records shall include all applicable
information associated with determining the
sample measurement, calculations,
observations, and comments.
B. Sample Custody
Custodial control of all charcoal samples
exposed in the field shall be maintained in
accordance with EPA chain-of-custody field
procedures. A control record shall document
all custody changes that occur between the
field and laboratory personnel.
C. Calibration Procedures and Frequency
The radioactivity of two standard charcoal
sources, each containing a carefully
determined quantity of radium-226 uniformly
distributed through 180g of activated
charcoal, shall be measured. An efficiency
factor is computed by dividing the average
measured radioactivity of the two standard
charcoal sources, minus the background, in
cpm by the known radioactivity of the
charcoal sources in dpm. The sama two
standard charcoal sources shall be counted at
the beginning and at the end of each day's
counting as a check of the radioactivity
counting equipment. A background count~
using unexposed charcoal should also be
made at the beginning and at the end of each
counting day to check for inadvertent
contamination of the detector or other .
changes affecting the background. The
unexposed charcoal comprising the blank is
changed with each new batch of charcoal
used.
D. Internal Quality Control Checks and
Frequency
The charcoal from every tenth exposed
. canister shall be recounted. Five percent of
the samples analyzed shall be either blanks
(charcoal having no radioactivity added) or
-------
_ Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. ,240 / Friday. December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 51711
: samples spiked with known quantities of
radium-226. :
E. Data Precision, Accuracy, and
Completeness . ,
The precision, accuracy, and completeness
of measurements and analyses shall be
within the following limits for samples
measuring greater than 1.0 pd/m^—s.
(a) Precision: 10% ;
(b) Accuracy: ±10%
(c) Completeness: at least 85% of the
measurements must yield useable results.
5.0 References
{!) Hartley, J.N. and Freeman, H.D., "Radon
Flux Measurements on Gardinier and Royster
Phosphogypsum Piles Near Tampa and
Mulberry, Florida," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Report, EPA 520/5-85-029,
January 1986. ' '•
(2) Environmental Protection Agency,
"Indoor Radon and Radon Decay Product
Measurement Protocols", .EPA 520/1-89-009,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. (1989).
9. By adding Appendix D to part 61 to
read as follows: .
Appendix D to Part 61—Methods for
Estimating Radionuclide Emissions
1. Purpose and Background •_
Facility owners or operators may estimate
radionuclide emissions to the atmosphere for
dose calculations instead of measuring
emissions. Particulate emissions from mill
tailings piles should be estimated using the
procedures listed in reference #2. All other
emissions may be estimated by using the
"Procedures" listed below, or using the
method described in reference #1.
2. Procedure
To estimate emissions to the atmosphere;
(a) Determine the amount (in curies) used
at facilities for the period under
consideration. Radioactive materials in
sealed packages that remain unopened, and
have not leaked during the assessment period
should not be included in the calculation.
(b) Multiply the amount used by the
following factors which depend on the
physical state of the radionuclide. They are:
(i) 1 for gases;
(ii) 10~» for liquids or particulate solids; and
(iii)10-6 for solids.
If any nuclide is heated to.a temperature of
100 degrees Celsius or more, boils at a
temperature of 100 degrees Celsius or less, or
is intentionally dispersed into the
environment, it must be considered to be a
gas.
(c) If a control device is installed between ,
the place of use and the point of release,
multiply.emissions from (b) by an adjustment
factor. These are presented in Table 1.
TABLE 1.—ADJUSTMENT TO EMISSION FACTORS FOR EFFLUENT CONTROLS
. . , Controls . '.'--,.
HEPA filters :
Fabric filter. .....:........ .
Sintered metal....
Activated carbon filters
Douglas bags: Held one week or longer for. decay.......
Douglas bags: Released within one week..... .
Venturi scrubbers.. „ ..
Packed bed scrubbers „....„
Electrostatic preciptetors
Xenon traps
Fume hoods
Vent stacks
Types of ;
radionuclides
controlled
Particulates ',.
Particulates ...<....
Particulates
Iodine gas
Xenon
Xenon
Particulates .
Gases.
Gases
Particulates ...
All "
All
Adjustment factor
to emissions
0.01.
0.1.
01
j
0.05.......
0.1
0.05....
0 1
Comments and conditions
Not applicable to gaseous radionuclides; periodic testing is prudent
to ensure high removal efficiency. ' , •
Monitoring would be prudent to guard against tears in filter.
Insufficient data to make recommendation.
Efficiency is time dependent; monitoring is necessary to ensure
_ effectiveness. . , ,
Based on xenon half-life of 5.3 days;
Provides no reduction of exposure to general public.
Although Venturis may remove gases, variability In gaseous removal
efficiency dictates adjustment factor for particulates only.
Not applicable to particulates.
Not applicable for gaseous radiohucliofes
Efficiency is time dependent; monitoring is necessary, to ensure
effectiveness.
Provides no reduction to general public exposures.
Generally provides no: reduction of exposure to general public.
References
(1) Environmental Protection Agency, "A
Guide for Determining Compliance with the
Clean Air Act Standards for Radionuclides
Emissions from NRC-Licensed and Non-DOE
Federal Facilities", EPA 520/1-89-002,
January 1989.
(2) Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
"Methods.for Estimating Radioactive and
Toxic Airborne Source Terms for Uranium
Milling Operations", U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Regulatory Guide 3.59, March
1987.
10. By adding Appendix E part 61 to
read as follows:
Appendix E to Part 61—Compliance
Procedures Methods for Determining
Compliance With Subpart I
1. Purpose and Background
This Appendix provides simplified
procedures to reduce the burden on Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees, and
non-Department of Energy Federal facilities
in determining compliance with 40 CFR part
61, subpart I. The procedures consist of a
series of increasingly more stringent steps,
depending on the facility's potential to
exceed the standard.
First, a facility can be found in compliance
if the quantity of radioactive material
possessed during the year is less than that
listed in a table of annual possession
quantities. A.facility will also be in
compliance if the average annual
radionuclide emission concentration is less
than that listed in a table of air concentration
levels. If the facility is not in compliance by
these tables, it can establish compliance by
estimating a dose using screening procedure
developed by the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements with
a radiological source term derived using EPA
approved emission factors. These procedures
are described in a "Guide for Determining
Compliance with tie Clean Air Act
Standards for Radionuclide Emissions From
NRC-Licenced and Non-DOE Federal
Facilities."
A user-friendly computer program called
COMPLY has been developed to reduce the
.burden on the regulated community. The
Agency has also prepared a "User's Guide for
the COMPLY Code" to assist the regulated
community in using the code, and in handling
more complex situations such as multiple
release points. The basis for these
compliance procedures are provided in
"Background Information Document:
Procedures Approved for Demonstrating
Compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart I".
The compliance model is the highest level in
the COMPLY computer code and provides for
the most realistic assessment of dose by
allowing the use of site-specific information.
2. Table of Annual Possession Quantity
. (a) Table 1 may be Used for determining if
facilities are in compliance with the standard.
The possession table can only be used if the
following conditions are met:
(i) No person lives within 10 meters of any
release point; and .
(ii) No milk, meat, or vegetables are
produced within 100 meters'of any release
point.
(b) Procedures described in Reference (i)
shall be used to determine compliance or
exemption from reporting by use of Table 2,
-------
51712 Federal Register -/..Vol. 54, No.
TABLE 1.—ANNUAL POSSESSION QUANTI-
TIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
[Annual Possession Quantities (Ci/yr)]
Radfonuclkfa
Ac-225
Ac-227 „..„„._
Ac-228 .„.. .™»™
Ag-106
Ag-106m.«
Ag-108m_..
Ag«1 10m ..»««..».«.....
Ag-111._™_
AI-26 „
An>241 ™
Am-242,.™«.«.......
Am-242m
An>243 ™»™__™
Am-244 „..„ .„„._.
Anv245 ™~..™... _
Am-246
Ar-37 „
Ar-41 „
As-72
As-73 ...„.„
As-74 ..._..„,
As-76
As-77
At-21 1 _™_.™»
Au-1 93 ...........
Au-1 94 «^._,».,m_™.
Au-195 ™..™™...»
Au-1 98
Au-1 99 ™™
Ba-131 ™.™
Ba-133.._ ,
Ba-1 33m ._....,.„
Ba-13Sm~™™...
Ba-139 ...............
Ba-140 ™™....
Ba-141 .
Ba-142 .„
Be-7 ._„„.....„„...„.„
Ba-10 ..™_~...™.
Bi.206 .
BJ.207_«.
Bi-210
Bi-212 „.„„.,„„„„..
BJ-213~i
Bf-214™. ,
Bk-249 ™.™.™.«.._..
Bk-250 ._. . .
Br-77 „„..„..„.,„„...
Bf -SO „,,,„,„,,,„, ,,,,,,,L1
Br-80m .„....„..„..„....
Br-82_™_ ™
BC-83.T™...,
Br-84.™.
C-11
C-14 „„.„, „..„„
Ca-41 .„...„_.
Ca-45 „.„
Ca-47. .™™_.«
Cd-109.™
Cd-1 1 3 -,..,.,..., -...,,.,...,
Cd-113m _._ ..
Cd-115
Cd-1 15m..- ...
Cd-1 17..
Cd-117m.™.™m™_~
Ca-139 .
Ca-141 m.
Ce-143.™..
Cs-1 44
Cf-248...™.™....,.........
Cf-249 ,..„.....„....„,.„..
Cf-250.™.. „..„...
Cf-251 ......... .......
Cf-252 ..._„ ™.
Cf-253 ........ ....
Gase-
ous
form*
9.6E-05
1.6E-07
3.4E-03
1.6E+00
2.6E-03
6.5E-06
9.4E-05
6.7E-02
4.0E-06
.2.3E-06
1.8E-02
2.5E-06
2.3E-05
4.8E-02
7.0E+00
9.8E-01
1.4E+06
1.4E+00
2.9E-02
6.0E-02
4.3E-03
8.8E-02
7.9E-01
1.0E-02
4.2E-01
3.5E-02
3.3E-03
4.6E-02
1.5E-01
1.0E-02
4.9E-05
9.3E-02
5.8E-01
4.7E+00
2.1E-03
1.3E+00
1.1E+00
2.3E— 02
3.0E-03
3.1E-03
8.4E-06
4.2E-03
4.7E-02
6.0E-02
1.4E-01
7.0E-04
1 OE 01
7.5E-02
1.2E+01
1.5E+00
1.6E-02
9.9E+00
5.6E-01
1.3E+00
2.9E-01
2.7E-02
5.8E-02
1.1E— 02
5.0E-03
3.3E-04
4.4E— 04
5.4E-02
1.0E-02
5.6E-02
1.3E-01
2.6E-03
1.8E-02
1.0E-01
1.7E-03
2.0E-05
1.7E-06
4.0E-06
1.7E-06
6.4E-06
3.3E-04
Liquid/
powder
forms
9.6E-02
1.6E-04
3.4E+00
1.6E+03
2!6E+00
6.5E-03
9.4E-02
6.7E+01
4.0E-03
2.3E-03
1.8E+01
2.5E-03
2.3E-03
4.6E+01
7.0E+03
9.8E+02
,
....«.,..
2.9E+01
6.0E+01
4.3E+00
8.8E+01
7.9E+02
1.0E+01
4.2E+02
3.5E+01
3.3E+00
4.8E+01
1.5E+02
1.0E+01
4.9E-02
9.3E+01'
5.8E+02
4.7E+03
2.1E+00
1.3E+03
1.1E+03
2.3E+01
3.0E+00
3.1E+00
8.4E-03
4.2E+00
4.7E+01
6.0E+01
1.4E+02
7.0E-01
1. OE+02
7.5E+01
1.2E+04
1.5E+03
1.6E+01
9.9E+03
5.6E+02
1.3E+03
2.9E+02
2.7E+01
5.8E+01
1.1E+01
5.0E+00
3.3E-01
4.4E— 01
5.4E+01
1.0E+01
5.6E+01
1.3E+02
2.6E+00
1.8E+01
1.0E+02
1.7E+00
2.0E-02
1.7E-03
4.0E-03
1.7E-03
6.4E-03
3.3E-01
Solid
form'
9.6E+01
1.6E-01
3.4E+03
1.6E+06
2.6E+03
6.5E+00
9.4E+01
6.7E+04
4.0E+00
2.3E+00
1.8E+04
2.5E+00
2.3E+00
4.6E+04
7.0E+06
9.8E+05
2.DE+04
6.0E+04
4.3E+03
8.8E+04
7.9E+05
1.0E+04
4.2E+05
3.5E+04
3.3E+03
4.6E+04
1.5E+05
1.0E+04
4.9E+01
9.3E+04
5.8E+05
4.7E+06
2.1E+03
1.3E+OS
1.1E+06
2.3E+04
3.0E+03
3.1E+03
8.4E+00
4.2E+03
4.7E+04
6.0'E+04
1.4E+05
7.0E+02
1.0E+05
7.5E+04
1.2E+07
1.5E+06
1.6E+04
9.9E+08
5.6E+05
1.3E+06
2.9E+05
2.7E+04
5.8E+04
1.1E+04
5.0E+03
3.3E+02
4.4E+02
S.4E+04
1.0E+04
5.6E+04
1.3E+05
2.6E+03
1.8E+04
1.0E+05
1.7E+03
2.0E+01
1.7E+00
4.0E+00
1.7E+00
6.4E+00
3.3E+02
TABLE 1.—ANNUAL POSSESSION QUANTI-
TIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLI-
ANCE—Continued
[Annual Possession Quantities (Ci/yr)3
Radionuclids
Cf-254
CI-36
CI-38
Cm-242
Cm-243
Cm-244
Cm-245
Cm-246
Cm-247
Cm-248
Cm-2^9
Cm-250
Co-56
Co-57
Co-58
Co-58m
Co-60
Co-61
Cr-49
Cr-51
Cs-129
cs-131 : — ....
Cs-132
Cs-1 34 ...........
Cs-1 34m
Cs-135.._ ,
CS-13&
Cs-1 37
Cs-1 38 _
Cu-81
Cu-64
Cu-67 ....
Dy-157
Dy.-J65.
Dy-166
Er-169
Er-171
Es-253
Es-254
Es-254m
Eu-152
Eu-1 52m
Eu-154.
Eu-1 55
Eu-1 58
F-18
Fe-52
Fe-55
Fe-59
Fm-254
Fm-255 .
Fr-223
Ga-6S
Ga-67
Ga-68
Ga-72 .
Gd-152
Gd-153
Gd-159
Ge-68
Ge-71
Ge-77
H-3
Hf-181 ,. ...
Hg-193m
Hg-197 :..:
Hg-197m
Hg-203
Ho-166
Ho-1 66m.....
1-123
1-124
1-125.. .!.
Gase-
ous
form*
36E 08
1 9E 04
6.5E-01
6.0E-05
3.3E-06
4.2E-06
2.3E-05
2.3E-06
2.3E-06
6.4E-07
4.6E+00
1 1E 07
24E 04
1.6E— 03
90E 04
1.7E-01
1 6E 05
4 OE+00
3.8E+00
90E 01
6.3E-02
1.SE-01
2.8E-01
1 3E 02
5.2E-05
3.2E-01
2.4E-02
21E 03
2.3E-05
4.4E-01
4.0E-01
5.2E-01
1.5E-01
44E 01
5.6E+00
8 1E 02
40E 01
36E 01
26E 04
2.3E-05
1 8E 03
1 6E 05
3.5E-01
2.0E-05
52E 04
3.2E-03
5.6E-01
49E 02
1.4E-01
1 3E 03
1.8E-02
4.0E-03
1.4E-01
5.6E-02
1 1E 01
76E 01
36E 02
4.4E-06
2.0E-03
6.8E 01
2.3E-04
2.6E+00
1.0E 01
1.5E+01
2.5E-03
9.5E-02
2.4E 01
2.5E-01
52E 03
2.8E-01
6.0E-06
4.9E-01
9.3E-03
6.2E-03
Liquid/
powder
forms
36E 03
1 9E 01
6.5E+02
6.DE-02
3.3E-03
4.2E-03
2.3E-03
2.3E-03
2.3E-03
6.4E-04
4.6E+03
1.1E 04
24E 01
1.6E+00
9.0E-01
1.7E+02
1.6E 02
4.0E+03
3.8E+03
9 OE+02
6.3E+01
1.5E+02
2.8E+02
1.3E+01
5.2E-02
3.2E+02
2.4E+01
21E+00
2.3E-02
4.4E+02
4.0E+02
5.2E+02
1.5E+02
4 4E+02
5.6E+03
8 1E+01
4 OE+02
36E+02
26E 01
2.3E-02
1 8E+00
1 6E 02
3.5E+02
2.0E-02
52E 01
3.2E+00
5.6E+0'
49E+01
1.4E+02
1 3E+00
1.8E+01
4.0E+00
1.4E+02
5.6E+01
1.1E+02
7.6E+02
3.6E+01
4.4E-03
2.0E+00
S.8E+02
2.3E-01
2.6E+03
1.0E+02
1.5E+04
2.5E+00
9.5E+01
2.4E+02
2.5E+02
52E+00
2.8E+02
6.0E-03
4.9E+02
9.3E+00
6.2E+00
Solid
form*
3 6E+00
1 9E+02
6.5E+05
6.0E+01
3.3E+00
4.2E+00
2.3E+00
2.3E+00
2.3E+00
6.4E-01
4.6E+06
1.1 E— 01
2.4E+02
1.6E+03
9.0E+02
1.7E+05
1.6E+01
4.0E+06
3.8E+06
9 OE+05
6.3E+04
1.5E+05.
2.8E+05
1.3E+04
5.2E+01
3.2E+05
2.4E+04
2.1E+03
2.3E+01
4.4E+05
4.0E+05
5.2E+05
1.5E+05
4 4E+05
5.6E+08
81E+04
4.0E+05
36E+05
2.6E+02
2.3E+01
1 8E+03
1 6E+01
3.5E+05
2-.OE+01
5.2E+02
3.2E+03
5.6E+05
4 9E+04
1.4E+05
1 3E+03
1.8E+04
4.0E+03
1.4E+05
5.6E+04
1.1E+05
7.6E+05
3.6E+04
4.4E+00
2.0E+03
6.8E+05
2.3E+02
2.6E+06
1. OE+05
1.5E+07
2.5E+03
9.5E+04
2.4E+05
2.5E+05
52E+03
2.8E+05
6.0E+00
4.9E+05
9.3E+03
6.2E+03
TABLE 1.—ANNUAL POSSESSION QUANTI-
TIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLI-
ANCE—Continued
- [Annual Possession Quantities (Ci/yr)]
Radionuclide
1-126
H28
1-129
1-130
1-131
1-132
M33
1-134
1-135 : i
ln-111
ln-113m ....,-.
ln-114m
ln-115
ln-115m ;..
ln-116m
ln-117
ln-117m
lr-190
lr-192 :.
lr-194
lr-194m
K-40
K-42
K-43
K-44
Kr-79
Kr-81 ...
Kr-83m
Kr-85 ;..
Kr-85m
Kr-87
Kr-88...-.
La-140 . ...
La-141
La-142
Lu-177
Mg-28..:
Mn-52
Mn-53 , :
Mn-54
Mn-56
Mo-93
Mo-99** .....
Mo-101
Na-22
Na-24
Nb-90
Nb-93m :.
Nb-94
fgb-95 „..
Nb-95m
Nb-96
Nb-97
Nd-147.......
Nd-149 :...
Ni-56
Ni-57
Ni-59
Ni-63
Ni-65
Np-235
Np-237
Np-238
Np-239
Np-240
Os-185
Os-191
Os-193
p-32
p-33
Gase-
ous
form*
3.7E 03
9.3E+00
26E 04
4;6E 02
67E 03
2.0E 01
6.7E-02
3.2E-01
1.2E-01
4.9E-02
2.1 E +00
49E 03
27E— 04
1.4E+00
3.5E-01
1.3E+00
7.6E-02
35E 03
9.7E-04
2.5E 01
1.5E-04
6.8E 05
2.9E-01
60E 02
4.9E-01
7 OE+00
1.8E+02
2 OE+04
8.4E+02
1.1E+01
2 OE+00
4.2E-01
1.6E 02
1.1E+00
23E 01
1.4E-01
35E 04
2.1E-02
35E 03
52E 01
5.7E-02
2.5E-04
2.5E-01
1.5E-03
5.7E-02
8.4E-01
3.2E-05
26E 02
2.5E 02
1.2E-02
6.0E-06
2.3E-03
2.0E-02
2.5E-02
1. OE+00
3.0E-02
1.1E+00
2.0E-03
2.1 E— 02
2.2E-02
1 4E 01
7.0E-01
3.0E-02
1 8E 06
1 9E 02
1 OE 01
6.5E-01
4.7E+00
9.2E-04
90E 01
3.8E-02
29E 01
1.7E-02
1.2E-01
Liquid/
powder
forms
3.7E+00
9.3E+03
2 6E 01 -
4.6E+01
67E+00
2.0E+02
6.7E+01
3.2E+02
1.2E+02
49E+01
2.1E+03
4 9E+00
27E 01
1.4E+03
3.5E+02
1.3E+03
7.6E+01
3.5E+00
9.7E-01
2.5E+02
1.5E^-01
68E 02
2.9E+02
6.0E+01
4.9E+02
1.6E+01
1.1E+03
2.3E+02
1.4E+02
35E 01
2.1E + 01
3.5E+00
5 2E+Q2
5.7E + 01
2.5E-01
2.5E+02
1.5E+00
5.7E+01
8.4E+02
3.2E-02
2.SE+01
2.BE+01
1.2E+01
6.0E-03
2.3E+00
2.0E+01
2.5E+01
1.0E+03
3.0E+01
1.1E+03
2.0E+00
2.1E+01
2:2E+01
1.4E+02
7.0E+02
3.0E+01
1 8E 03
1.9E+01
1 OE+02
6.5E+02
4.7E+03
9.2E-01
9 OE+02
3.8E+01
2.9E+02
1.7E+01
1.2E+02
Solid
form*
3.7E+03
9.3E+06
2 6F+0?
4.6E+04
6 7F+03
2.0E+05
6.7E+04
3.2E+05
1.2E+05
4.9E+04
2.1E+06
49F+03
2.7F+02
1.4E+06
3.5E+05
1.3E+06
7.6E+04
3.5E+03
9.7E+02
2.5E+05
1.5E+02
6.8F+01
2.9E+05
6.0F+04
4.9E+05
1.6F+04
1.1E+06
2.3E+05
1.4E+05
3 5F+02
2lli+04
3 5F+03
5 2F+05
5.7E + 04
2.5E+02
2.5E+05
1.5E+03
5.7E+04
8.4E+05
3.2E+01
2.6E+04
2.5E+04
1.2E+04
6.0E+00
2.3E+03
2.0E+04
2.5E+04
1.0E+06
3.0E+04
1.1E+06
2.0IE+03
2.1E+04
2.2E+04
1.4E+05
7.0E+05
3.0E+04
1 8E + 00
•1.9E+04
1.0E+05
6.5E+05
4.7E+OS
9.2E+02
9 OF +05
3.8E+04
2 9F+05
1.7E+04
1.2E+05
-------
F^eral Renter / «^ .51713^
TABLE 1.— ANNUAL POSSESSION QUANTI-
TIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLY
ANCE— Continued ', ;
[Annual Possession Quantities (Ci/yr)]
Radionuclida
Pa-230 '. ;.
Pa-231 ......i.......:....
Pa-233..
Pa-234 .....................
Pb-203.
Pb-205
Pb-209 .. . ...
Pb-210.
Pb-21 1
Pb-212.: ........
Pb-214 .„......;...
Pd-103
Pd-107
Pd-1 09
Pm-143
Pm-144
Pm-145
Pm-146...
Pm-147.... ;.
Pm-148
Pm-148m
Pm-1 49 .......... .....
Pm-151
Po-210
PM42
Pr-143™.
Pr-144.
PJ-191
Pt-193 „...
Pt-193m
Pt-195m
Pt-1 97
Pt-197m..
Pu-236 ....
Pu-237..
Pu-238 .,...,
Pu:239 ;.
Pu-240 .
Pu-241
Pu-242 :
Pu-243
Pu-245 ....
Pu-246
Ra-223....
Ra-224
Ra-225
Ra-226........... '.'.
Ra-228
Rb-81
Rb-83
Rb-84
Rb-86
Rb-87 ;.
Rb-88
Rb-89..
Re-184
Re-184m
Re-186
Re-187..;
Re-188....
Rh-103m
Rh-105 ..;
Ru-97 ........
Ru-103
Ru-105
Ru-106
S-35
Sb-117
Sb-122 .....
Sb-124
Sb-1 26 ......
Sb-126m „...
Gase-
ous
form*
6.3E-04
8.3E 07
9.3E-03
9.3E 02
8.3E 0!
1.2E-02
1.1E+01
5.5E-05
1.2E-01
6.0E-03
1.2E 01
2.1E-01
82E 02
9.4E-01
7.6E-04
1.1 E 04
5.2E 04
4.4E-05
2.6E-02
1.7E-02
7.6E-04
2.8E-01
1.2E— 01
9.3E 05
2.8E-01
1.0E-01
1.5E+01
6.4E-02
2.1 E 02
4.8E-01
1.4E-01
1.1E+00
3.6E+00
7.0E 06
2.3E-02
2.7E-06
2.5E-06
2.5E-06
.3E-04
2.5E-06
3.8E+00
2.4E-06
2.1E-01
4.8E-03
.3E-04
3.2E-04
.3E-04
55E 06
.3E OS
4.2E 01
.4E 03
2.0E 03
.7E-02
.OE 02
.7E+00
.4E 01
.8E-03
.6E 04
.9E-01
.3E+00
.7E 01
.7E+02
.4E 01
.3E-02
.1E-03
.9E 01
.9E 04
.5E 02
.OE+00
.9E-02
.OE-04
.8E 03
.6E-01,
Liquid/
powder
forms
6.3E-01
8.3E-04
9.3E+00
9.3E+01
8.3E+01
1.2E+01
1.1E+04
5.5E-02
1.2E+02
6.0E+00
1.2E+02
£1E+02
8.2E+01
9.4E+02
7.6E-01
1.1E-01
5.2E-01
4.4E-02
2.6E+01
1.7E+01
7.6E-0.1
2.8E+02
1.2E+02
9.3E 02
2.8E+02
1.0E+02
1.5E+04
6.4E+01
2.1E+01
4.8E+02
1.4E+02
1.1E+03
3.6E+03
70E 03
2.3E+01
2.7E 03
2.5E-03
2.5E-03
.3E^-01
2.5E 03
3.8E+03
2.4E— 03
2.1E+02
4.8E+00
.3E 01
3.2E-01
.3E-01
5 5E 03
.3E-02
4.2E+02
.4E+00
2.0E+00
.7E+01
.OE+01
.7E+03
.4E+02
.8E+00
.6E 01
.9E+02
.3E+03
.7E+02
.7E+05
.4E+02
-3E+01
.1E+00
.9E+02
.9E 01
.5E+01
.OE+03
.9E+01
.OE-01
.4E— 01
-8E+00
.6E+02:
Solid
form*
6.3E+02
8:3E-01
9.3E+03
9.3E+04
8.3E+04
1.2E+04
1.1E+07
5.5E+01
1.2E+05
6.0E+03
1.2E+05
2.1E+05
8.2E+04
9.4E+05
7.6E+02
1.1E+02
5.2E+02
4.4E+01
2.6E+04
1.7E+04
7.6E+02
2.8E+05
1.2E+05
9.3E+01
2.8E+05
1.0E+05
1.5E+07
6.4E+04
2.1E+04
4.8E+05 •
1.4E+05
1.1E+06
3.6E+06
7.0E+00
2.3E+04
2.7E+00
2.5E+00
2.5E+00
.3E+02
2.5E+00
3.8E+06
2.4E+00
2.1E+05
4.8E+03
.3E+02
3.2E+02
.3E+02
5.5E+00
.3E+01
4.2E+05
.4E+03
2- OE+03
.7E+04
.OE+04
-7E+06
6.4E+05
.8E+03
.6E+02
.9E+05
.3E+06
.7E+05
.7E+08
.4E+05
.3E+04
.1E+03
.9E+05
-9E+02
.5E+04
.OE+06
.9E+04
-OE+02
.4E+02
.8E+03
.6E+05
: TABLE 1 .—ANNUAL POSSESSION QUANTI-
. TIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLI-
ANCE— Continued :
; lAnnual Possession Quantifies (Q'/yf)]
Raclionuclide
Sb-1 27
Sb-129. .........
Sc-44:...
So-46
Sc-47....
So-48
Sc-49....
Se-73..... „.
Se-75 ..„
Se-79
Si-31 ......
Si-32
Sm-147
Sm-151
Sm-153
Sn-113
Sn-117m
Sn-119rn...»
Sn-123
Sn-125 .......v. .
Sn-126
Sr-82
Sr-85 .........
Sr-85m_
Sr-87m •.
Sr-89
Sr-90 ........
Sr-91 „... ..
Sr-92
Ta-182
Tb-157
Tb-160
Tc-95..
To-96
Tc-96m
Tc-97
Tc-97m
To-98 .. .
Tc-99
To-99m
Tc-101
Te-121
Te-1 21m.
Te-123...'.
Te-1 23m.....
Te-1 25m
Te-1 27m
Te-1 29
Te-1 29m
Te-131m ...
Te-1 32
Te-1 33
Th-226
Th-227 -.
Th-228..., -....*..
Th-229
Th-230
Th-231
Th-232..... .
Th-234.
Ti-44
Ti-45
TI-200
TI-201
TI-202 .
TI-204..........
"m-170....: '
U-230 „...
Gase-
ous
form*
2.0E-02
1.8E-01
1.4E-01
4.0E^04
1.1 E 01
1.1E-02
1.0E+01
1.6E 01
1.1E 03
6.9E 03
4.7E+00
7.2E-04
3.5E 02
2.4E 01
1 9E 03
2.3E-02
2 8E 02
1.8E-02
7.2E 03
4.7E-06
1.9E-03
1.9E 03
1.5E+00
1.2E+00
2.1E 02
52E 04
1.2E 01
25E 01
4.4E-04
2.2E-03
8.4E-04
9.0E-02
5.6E-03
7 OE 01
.5E-03
6.4E-06
9.0E-03
.4E+00
3.8E+00
6 OE 03
.2E-03
2.7E 03
.5E 02
2.9E+00
7.3E-03
6.5E+00
-8E-02
.2E+00
.4E-05
9E 06
.9E-07
2E 06
.OE-07
OE 02
.2E-06
.4E-02
OE-02
5E-02
.4E 02
Liquid/
powder
forms
2.0E+01
1.8E+02
1.4E+02
4.0E-01
1.1E+02
1.1E+01
1.0E+04
1.6E+02
1.1E+00
6.9E+00
4.7E+03
7.2E-01
1.4E— 02
3.5E+01
2.4E+02
1.9E+00
2.3E+01
2.8E+01
1.8E+01
7.2E+00
4.7E 03
1.9E+00
1.9E+00
1.5E+03
1.2E+03
2.1E.+01
5.2E-01
1.2E+02
V CC _i_ rto
2.2E+00
8.4E-01
9.0E+01
1.4E+00
5.6E+00
7.0E+02
1.5E+00
7.2E+01
6.4E-03
9.0E+00
.4E+03
3.8E+03
6.0E+00
.2E+00
2.7E+00
.5E+01
2.9E+03
7.3E+00
.5E+03
.1E+00.
.4E+02
-8E+01
.2E+00
.2E+03
.9E+02
.4E+02
.OE+01
.4E-02
9E 03
2E 03
.4E+02
.OE-04
OE+01
.2E-03
.OE+02
.4E+01
.8E+02
.OE+01
5E+01
4E+01
9E+01
OE-02
Solid
form*
2.0E+04
1.8E+05
1.4E+05
4.0E+02
1.1E+05
1.1E+04
1.0E+07
1.6E+05
1.1E+03
6.9E+03
4.7E+06
7.2E+02
1.4E+01
3.5E+04
2.4E+05
1.9E+03
2.3E+04
2.8E+04
1.8E+04
7.2E+03
4.7E+00
I.9E+03
1.9E+03
1.5E+06
1.2E+06
2.1E+04
8.2E+02
1.2E+05
2.5E+05
4.4E+02
2.2E+03
8.4E+02
9.0E+04
1.4E+03
S.6E+03
7.0E+05
.5E+03
7.2E+04
6.4E+00
9.0E+03
.4E+06
3.8E+06
6.0E+03
.2E+03
.7E+03
.5E+04
.96+06
.3E+03
.5E+06
.1E+03
.4E+05
.8E+04
.2E+03,
.2E+06
.9E+05
.4E+05
.OE+04
.4E+01
.9E+00
.9E-01
.2E+00
.4E+05
.OE-01
.OE+04
2E+00
OE+05
4E+04
8E+05
OE+04
5E+04
4E+04
9E+04
OE+01
TABLE 1;— ANNUAL POSSESSION QUANTI-
TIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLI-
ANCE— Continued
[Annual Possession Quantifies (Ci/yr)3 : ; .-
Radionuclide
U-231 ...,,. ......
U-232 .....'.
U-233
U-234 ..........
U-235.;...
U-236..
U-237
U-238 ..........
U-239
U-240
V-48
V-49 „
W-181
W-185 ..
W-1 87 ........
W-188
Xe-122...i..
YoulOQ
Xe-125..
Xe-127
Xe-129m...
Xe-131m .....;
Xe-133
Xe-133m.....
Xe-1 35
Xe-135m.
Xe-1 38
Y-86
Y-87
Y-88
• Y-90
Y-90m
Y-91 .
Y-91m....
Y-92 „....: :
Y-93
Yb-169 „
•Yb-175
Zn-62
Zn-65
Zn-69
Zn-69m
Zr-86
Zr-89 .
Zr-93 ...„
Zr-95... .
Gase-
ous
form*
1.4E-01
1.3E-06
7.6E-06
76E 08
7.0E 06
8.4E 06
4.7E-02
8.6E-06
8.3E+00
1 8E 01
1.4E-03
1.3E+00
1.1E-02
1.6E-01
1.1E-01
1.6E+00
7.0E+00.
7.6E+01
2.2E+02
5.2E+01
6.0E+01
7.6E+00
4.2E+00
q QET n-i
2 8E 02
2.5E-04
1 1E 01
1 8E 02
1.6E+00
5.5E-03
8.6E-02
4.4E-04
2.7E+01
2.0E-01
o AC n>
.6E-02
P8E-03
6.4E 04
Liquid/
powder
forms
1.4E+02
1.3E 03
7.6E 03
76E 03
7.0E 03
8.4E-03
4.7E+01
8 6E 03
8.3E+03
1.8E+02
1.4E+00
1.3E+03
1.1E+01
1.6E+02
1.1E+02
1.0E+01
7.6E+01
1.6E+03
. ..
2.8E+Ol"
2.3E+01
1.1E+02
4.3E+02
1.8E+01
1.6E+03
7.0E+02
3.8E+02
5.5E+00
2.1E+02
8.6E+01
4.4E-01
2.7E+04
? OE+02
2.4E+01
.6E+01
.8E+00
.4E-01
Solid
form*
1.4E+05
1.3E+00
7.6E+00
7.6E+00
7.0E+00
8.4E+00
4.7E+04
8.6E+00
8.3E+06
1.8E+05,
1.4E+03
1.3E+06.
1.1E+04
1.6E+05
1.1E+05
1.0E+04
7.6E+04
1.6E+06.
2.8E+04
2.5E+02-
1.1E+05
4.3E+05
1.8E+04
1.6E+08
7.0E+05
3.8E+05
5.5E+03
2.1E+05
8.6E+04
4.4E+02
2.7E+07
2.0E+05
2.4E+04
2.7E+02
.6E+04
.8E+03
.4E+02
Zr-97 4.6E-02 4.6E+01 4.6E+04
•Radionuclides boiling at 100 °C or less, or ex-
posed to a temperature of 100°C, must be consid-
•ered a gas. Capsules containing radionuolides in
liquid or powder form can be considered to be
solids. ,
**Mo-99 contained in a generator to produce
Technetium-99 can be assumed to be a solid.
3. Table of Concentration Levels '
[a) Table 2 may be used for determining if
facilities are in compliance with the standard.
1. The concentration table as applied to
emission estimates can only be used if all
releases are from point sources and
concentrations have been measured at the -
stack or vent using EPA-approved methods,
and the distance between each stack or vent
and the nearest resident is greater than 3
times the diameter of the stack or vent.
Procedures provided in Ref. (1) shall be used
to determine compliance or exemption from
reporting by ,use of Table 2. . :
-------
r
51714 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, Deceinber 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations
2. The concentration table may be used to
determine compliance with the standard
based on environmental measurements
provided these measurements are made in
conformance with the requirements of
§ 61.107[b)(5).
4. NCRP Screening Model
The procedures described in Reference (4)
may be used to determine doses to members
of the general public from emissions of
radionuclides to the atmosphere. Both the
total dose from all radionuclides emitted, and
the dose caused by radioactive iodine must
be considered in accordance with the
procedures in Ref. (1).
5. The COMPLY Computer Code
The COMPLY computer code may be used
to determine compliance with subpart I. The
compliance model in the COMPLY computer
code .may be used to determine the dose to
members of the general public from emissions
of radionuclides to the atmosphere. The EPA
may add radionuclides to all or any part of *
COMPLY to cover radionuclides that may be
used by the regulated community.
TABLE 2.— CONCENTRATION LEVELS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Radto-
nucdde
Ac-225...
Ac-227~
Ac-228»
Ag-106™
Aa-
r*\f~
106m.
Ao-
***»
108m.
Ag-
110m.
AI-26™
Am-241..
An>242..
Am-
242m.
Am-243..
Am-244..
Am-245..
Anv246..
Ar-37 —
Ar-41™..
As-72™..
As-73
As-74™.
As-76™.
As-77»_
At-211™
Au-193«.
Au-194...
AU-195™,
AtKlSB...
Au-199...
Ba-131m
Ba-133™
Ba-
133m.
B&.
135m.
Ba-139...
Ba-140.»
Ba-141...
Concen-
tration
(Ci/m3) .
8.1E-14
1.6E-16
3.7E-12
1.9E-09
1.2E— 12
7.1 E— 15
9.1E-14
aSE-12
4.8E— 15
1.8E-15
1.5E-11
2.0E— 15
1.8E-15
4.0E-11
8.3E-09
1.2E-09
1.6E-03
1.7E-03
2.4E-11
1.1E-11
5.0E-11
1.6E-10
1.1E-11
3.8E-10
3.2E-11
3.1E-12
2.1E-11
4.GE-11
7.1E-12
5.9E-14
5.9E-11
1.8E-10
5.6E-09
1.3E-12
1.4E-09
Radio-
nuclido
Bi-207™.
Bi-210....
Bi-212....
Bi-213™.
Bi-214~.
Bk-249~.
Bk-250-.
Br-77
Br-80
Br-80m_.
Br-82
Br-83
Br-84
C-11
C-14_
Ca-41
Ca-45
Ca-47
Cd-109._
Cd-113...
Cd- '
113m.
Cd-115...
Cd-
115m.
Cd-117...
Cd-
117m.
Ce-139...
Ca-141...
Ca-143...
Ce-144...
Cf-248....
Cf-249™.
Cf-250....
Cf-251™.
Cf-252....
Cf-253....
CT-254.._
Concentration
(Ci/ms)
1.0E-14
2.9E— 13
5.6E-11
7.1E-11
1.4E— 10
5.6E— 13
9.-1E-11
4.2E-11
1.4E— 08
1.8E-09
1.2E-11
1.2E-OS
6.7E-10
1.5E-09
1.0E-11
4.2E-13
1.3E-12
2.4E-12
5.9E-13*
9.1E-15
1.7E-14
1.6E-.11
8.3E-13
6.7E-11
1.6E-10
2.6E-12
6.3E-12
3.0E-11
6.2E-13
1.8E-14
1.4E-15
3.2E-15
1.4E-15
5.6E-15
3.1E-13
3.0E-15
TABLE 2.— CONCENTRATION LEVELS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE— Contin-
'
Radio-
nuclide
Ba-142...
Be-7
Be-10
Bi-206....
Cm-244..
Cm-245..
Cm-246..
Cm-247..
Cm-248..
Cm-249..
Cm-250..
Co-56
Co-57.....
Co-58
Co-58m..
Co-60
Co-60m..
Cc-61
Cr-49
Cr-51 .
Cs-129...
Cs-131...
Cs-132...
Cs-134...
Cs-
134m.
Cs-135...
Cs-136...
Cs-137...
Cs-138...
Cu-61 .....
Cu-64.....
Cu-67.....
Dy-157...
Dy-165...
Dy-168...
Er-169....
Er-171....
Es-253...
Es-254...
Es-
254m.
Eu-152...
Eu-
152m.
Eu-154...
Eu-155...
In-
114m.
in-115
In-
115m.
In-
116m.
ln-117....
In-
117m.
lr-190...:.
lr-192
lr-194.....
lr-194m..
K-40
K-42.
K-43
K-44.
Kr-79
Kr-81
l
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 240 / Friday, December 15, 1989 / Rules and Regulations 51715
TABLE 2.— CONCENTRATION LEVELS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE— Contin-
ued
Radio-
nuclide
. Sr-90.....
Sr-91
.Sr-92 ..-.'..
Ta-182..
Tb-157..
Tb-160...
Tc-95
Tc-95m..
Tc-96
Tc-96m..
Tc-97.....
Tc-97m..
Tc-98.....
Tc-99
Tc-99m..
Tc-101 ...
Te-121...
Te-
121m.
Te-123...
Te-
123m.
Te-
125m.
Te-127...
Te-
127m.
Te-129...
Te-
•fOQm
Concen-
tration
(Ci/m3)
1.9E-14
9.1E-11
2.9E-10
4.5E-13
2.5E-12
7.7E-13
1.0E-10
. 1.4E-12
5.6E-12
6.7E-10
.7.1 E- 13
7.1E-12
6.7E-15
1.4E-13
1.7E-09
4.5E-09
1.0E-12
1.2E-13
1.4E-13
2.0E-13
3.6E-13
' 1.0E-09
1.5E-13
7.7E-09
1.4E-13
Radio-
nuclide
Ti-45.....
TI-200...
TI-201 ...
TI-202...
TI-204...
Tm-170.
Tm-171.
U-230....
U-231....
U-232
U-233..'...
U-234
U-235
U-236.....
U-237
U-238
U-239
U-240
V-48
V-49
W-181....
W-185...'.
W-187....
W-188....
Xe-122...
Concentration
(Ci/m3)
4.8E-10
4.5E-11
1.0E-10
5.0E-12
1.2E-12
3.3E-12
2.6E-11
1.5E-14
4.2E-11
1.3E-15
7.1E-15
7.7E-15
7.1 E- 15
7.7E-15
1.0E-11
8.3E— 15
4.3E-09
1.3E-10
1.0E-12
1.6E-10
-6.7E-12
2.6E-12
7.7E-11
SiSE-IS
9.1E-11
TABLE 2. — CONCENTRATION LEVELS FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE— Contin-
ued '
Radio-
nuclide
Te-131..
Te-
131m.
Te-132..
Te-133..
Te-
133m.
Te-134...
Th-226...
Th-227...
Th-228...
Th-229...
Th-230...
Th-231...
Y-88 .......
Y-90
Y-90m....
Y-91
Y-91m....
Y-92
Y-93 .......
Yb-169...
Yb-175...
Zn-62.....
Concen-
tration
(Ci/m3)
9.1E-11
1.0E-12
7.1E-13
9.1E-1Q
2.2E-10
5.3E-10
3.4E-11
3.8E-14
3.1E-15
5.3E-16
3.4E-15
;2.9E-10
2.7E-13
1.3E-11
1.9E-10
2.1E-12
1.3E-09
8.3E-10
2.9E-10
3.7E-12
4.3E-11
9.1E-11
Radio-
nuclide
Xe-123..
Xe-125..
Xa-127..
Xe-
1OQm
i£0in<
Xe-
131m.
Xe-133...
Xe-
133m.
Xe-135...
Xe-
135m.
Xe-138...
Y-86
Y-87
Zn-65
Zn-69
Zn-69m..
Zr-86 ......
Zr-88
Zr-89
Zr-93
Zr-95......
Zr-97 ......
Concentration
(Ci/m3)
1.6E— 09
1.1E-11
8.3E-,09
9.1E-08
2.6E-07
6.2E-08
7.1E-08
9.1E-09
5.0E-OS
1.2E-09
3.0E-11
1.7E-11
9.1E-14
3.2E-08
1.7E-10
2.4E-11
• 3.1E-13
1.3E-11
2.6E-12
6.7E-13
3.8E-11
6, References ; :
(1) jEnvironmental Protection Agency, "A
Guide for Determining Compliance with the
Clean Air Act Standards for Radionuclides
Emissions fromNRC-Licensed and Non-DOE
Federal Facilities", EPA 520/1-89-002,
October 1989.
(2J Environmental Protection Agency,
"User's Guide for the COMPLY Code", EPA
520/1-89-003, October 1989.
(3) Environmental Protection Agency,
"Background Information Document:
Procedures Approved'for Demonstrating
Compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart I",
EPA 520/1-89-001, January 1989.
[4] National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurement, "Screening
Techniques for Determining Compliance with
Environmental Standards" NCRP
Commentary No. 3, Revision of January~1989
with addendum of October, 1989.
[FR Doc. 89-26330 Filed 12-11-89; 11:12 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M •
-------
------- |