EPA’S

NESHAP Subpart W Activitie

Reid J. RosnickEnvironmental Protection Agency Radiation Protection Division (6608J)Washington, DC 20460202-343-9563, rosnick.reid@epa.govJune 30, 2009
Overview

General requirements applicable to SubpaEPA regulatory requirements for operating 

uranium mill tailings (Subpart W)

EPA’s Rulemaking ProcessStatus update on Subpart W activitiesSome Conclusions
General Requirements Applicable to Subp

• Subpart W facilities are subject to the genera

requirements of 40 CFR 61.01 - .19

• Application for construction and modification• Notification of startup• Compliance with monitoring/maintenance requirem

• Subpart W facilities are subject to the design 

ground-water requirements of 40 CFR 192.3

• Ground-water protection standards and impoundm

design requirements similar to hazardous waste fa

• Permanent radon barrier at closure
EPA Regulatory Requirements f

Operating Uranium Mill Tailing

(Subpart W)
EPA Regulatory Requirements for 

Operating Uranium Mill Tailings (Clean Air A

• 40 CFR 61 Subpart W requirements apply to faci

licensed to manage uranium byproduct materials and following the processing of uranium ores

• Preconstruction approval, 40 CFR 61.07• Impoundment construction and operation requ

in 40 CFR 192 cross referenced in Subpart W 

• Limit on number/size of impoundments

• Phased Disposal – lined impoundments no 

than 40 acres, no more than two in operatany time

• Continuous Disposal – tailings are dewate

immediately disposed, no more than 10 acuncovered at any time
EPA Regulatory Requirements for 

Uranium Operations (Clean Air Act)

Subpart W Requirements (continued)

• Radon emission standard of 20 pCi/m

2/sec --

annual reporting requirements, notification in advance of testing

• The radon emission standard is for existing s

only (existing before 12/15/89)

• All operators must comply with 40 CFR 192.3

See http://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/subpaex.html for more information
EPA’s Rulemaking Process

• Tiering

• The lead office submits a request for a new actio

Regulatory Steering Committee (RSC) reviews itRegulatory Policy Officer (RPO) approves; the OPolicy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI) approtier 

• Tier 1: Top actions that demand the ongoing invol

the Administrator – precedent setting and controve

• Tier 2: Include significant science, policy, econom

implementation issues – decision may be based oassessment - Subpart W review is Tier 2

• Tier 3: Generally involves use of well-known and 

science principles
EPA’s Rulemaking Process

• Analytic Blueprint and Early Guidance

• The workgroup creates a Preliminary Analytic Blue

(ABP), management gives Early Guidance, and thworkgroup creates a Detailed ABP

• Analysis and Consultation

• The workgroup gathers scientific, economic, legal, 

stakeholder, enforcement, and compliance informaAlso, the workgroup drafts regulatory options

• Options Selection

• Senior management selects options or narrows th

select few that require further research
EPA’s Rulemaking Process

• Drafting

• The workgroup creates a draft of the action

• Final Agency Review 

• This is the last point for EPA review. Senior manage

from participating offices concur or non-concur with taction as it is written

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) R

• If the action is significant, OPEI submits it to OMB fo

• Signature

• The EPA Administrator, an Assistant/Associate or R

Administrator, or a delegate signs the action
EPA’s Rulemaking Process

• Docketing

• The lead office ensures that the action and 

appropriate supporting documents are depoin the official docket 

• Federal Register Publishing

• The action is published in the Federal Regis

• Public Comments

• The action is open for a formal comment pe

during which the public may submit commerequest public hearings
EPA’s Rulemaking Process

• Final Action

• After the proposed action's public comment 

closes, the workgroup reviews all commentusually starts preparing a final rule 

• The process begins again, usually with a ne

Analytic Blueprint 

• Final actions are often subject to the 

Congressional Review Act and Courtesy CoPolicy
•Status Update on Subpart W Activ
Status of Subpart W Review Activit

• Per Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA 

obligated to review Subpart W

• A workgroup has been established

• Members from across the Agency• Represent ORIA, OGC, ORD, OSWER, O

OPEI, OW, Regions 6, 7, 8 and 10

• Workplan, Communications Plan, Analytic 

Blueprint have been completed, basically, are we going to approach the task
Status of Subpart W Review Activit

• We are conducting historical research on the 

assessment work originally done in support o1989 standard

• We have begun a survey of existing technolo• Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assu

has sent information request letters to numeruranium recovery facilities

• Answers better inform the workgroup of the 

universe of facilities, and the types of uranium recovery processes that exist

• We have also requested that ISL facilities pro

radon flux data from their evaporation ponds 
Status of Subpart W Review Activit

• We are researching if Method 115 continues 

current, or whether other methods could be employed for monitoring and analysis of rado

• We are planning to work with all stakeholders 

reviewing/revising the standards

• The Agency continues to believe that conven

tailings piles, certain evaporation ponds from operations, and heap leach piles, are subject requirements of Subpart W

• We base our decision on a review of existing 

regulatory language
Applicability of Subpart W (Clean Air 

•40 CFR 61.250 –“The provisions of this subpart apply to owners 

operators of facilities licensed to manage uranbyproduct materials during and following the processing of uranium ores, commonly referreuranium mills and their associated tailings. Thsubpart does not apply to the disposal of tailin
Subpart W Definition of Uranium 

Byproduct Material

• 40 CFR 61.251 (g) –

“Uranium byproduct material or tailings means 

waste produced by the extraction or concentof uranium from any ore processed primarily source material content. Ore bodies depleted uranium solution extraction and which remain underground do not constitute byproduct mafor the purposes of this subpart.”
EPA Regulatory Requirements for 

Uranium Operations (Clean Air Act)

• What is an impoundment (per 40 CFR 192.32, w

cross references 40 CFR 260.10)?

• “...a facility or part of a facility which is a natu

topographic depression, man-made excavatiodiked area formed primarily of earthen materi(although it may be lined with man-made matwhich is designed to hold an accumulation of wastes, or wastes containing free liquids, and is not an injection well. Examples of impoundmare holding, storage, settling, and aeration pitponds and lagoons.”
Some Conclusions

• We are in the process of reviewing and poss

revising Subpart W, decision in late 2010

• Owners/operators of ISL facilities that utilize 

evaporation ponds containing byproduct matproduced by the extraction or concentration ouranium should assume you are subject to threquirements of Subpart W

• We appreciate the assistance of all stakehold

inform and enable us to craft a protective and enforceable rule.
Questions?