Revision of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart WEPA Subpart W Rulemaking•Legal Considerations•Scientific/Technical Considerations•Real World Implications2Revision of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart WLegal ConsiderationsLegal Issues•EPA has no legal or regulatory bases toapply 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W toevaporation ponds at uranium recoveryfacilities.•After 20 years of consistentinterpretation that Subpart W is onlyapplicable to uranium mill tailingsimpoundments, EPA is inexplicablyasserting that Subpart W applies toevaporation ponds atin-siturecoveryand conventional mill tailings facilities.•EPA’s position is inconsistent with thelanguage and the rulemaking historyassociated with Subpart W.•By its very language, Subpart W onlyapplies to active uranium mill tailingsimpoundments and makes no mentionof evaporation ponds•Specific language in Subpart Wreferences uranium mills and theirassociated tailings•EPA regulations discuss mill tailings“piles”•Specific examples provided inregulations to which Subpart W appliesdo not include evaporation ponds.•Rule specifically discusses the presenceof water (i.e., such as in evaporationponds) as a reason not to be concernedabout radon emissions since the waterminimizes or eliminates emissions•In Subpart W rule, EPA notes that itdoes not intend to apply theexpeditious radon cover requirementthat derived from Subpart T’s rescissionto apply to evaporation ponds locatedon top of tailings piles/impoundments4Revision of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart WTechnical ConsiderationsPotential RevisionsInclusion of Waste Fluid Retention Impoundments•One potential revision is the inclusion of waste fluid retentionimpoundments (evaporation ponds, holding ponds andother lined wasteimpoundments) not containing uranium mill tailingsunder 40 CFR Part 61Subpart W•This is not justified due to the insignificant emissions of radon from fluidretention impoundments as described in the slides that follow.Radon Emissions from Tailings PondsDoug Chambers SENES Consultants Limited - 2009•Rn-222 gas exchange via diffusion from surface of small lake has been measured(Experimental lakes, Ontario).•The data is shown below:• These fluxes are very low.• Given the worst case regarding turbulent mixing (50 centimeters) with a Radium-226activity of the water of 1000 pCi/L the flux is only 1 pCi/m2-sec.• Fluid retention ponds do not present a substantialrisk regarding of dose to a member ofthe general public from radon releases.• Based on the above flux rates, any Radon-222 emanating from fluid retention ponds wouldbe lost in the natural variability of background.Radon Flux from Evaporation PondsDr. Kenneth Baker – ERG - 2010•The flux rates for water containing 165 pCi/L Radium-226 were very low as shown below:• These fluxes were measured by floating Large AreaActivated Charcoal Canisters (LAACCs) onRadium-226 bearing water in a pond at Homestake’s site North of Milan, New Mexico. A floatingcanister is shown below:Experimental Determination of Radon Fluxes over WaterNational Mining Association (NMA) 2012•Experimental work funded by the National Mining Association (NMA) and conducted byEnergy Laboratories, Inc. to determine radon fluxesover water in a laboratory setting wasconducted.•Large Area Activated Charcoal Canisters (LAACCs) were floated over water in barrelscontaining activities of Radium-226 and Radon-222 varying from 0 to 20,000 pCi/L in 5,000pCi/L increments.•A floating Large Area Activated Charcoal Canister (LAACC) as used in the experiment is shownbelow:Experimental Determination of Radon Fluxes over WaterNational Mining Association (NMA) 2012 (con’t)•The results are shown below:**Maximum and Minimum Radon-222 Fluxes versus Radium 226 Activity** 0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.0014.000 4,580 9,450 13,900 19,200**Radium-226 Activity (pCi/L)**

**R a d o n - 2 2 2 F lu x ( p C i/ M 2 - s e c )**Maximum Radon-222 Flux (pCi/M2-sec)Minimum Radon-222 Flux (pCi/M2-sec)Experimental Determination of Radon Fluxes over WaterNational Mining Association (NMA) 2012 (con’t)**Maximum and Minimum Radon-222 Fluxes versus Radon-222 Activity** 0.002.004.006.008.0010.0012.0014.0032 5500 11000 16600 21500**Radon-222 Activity (pCi/L)**

**Radon-222 Flux (pCi/M2-sec)**Maximum Radon-222 Flux (pCi/M2-sec)Minimum Radon-222 Flux (pci/M2-sec)Experimental Determination of Radon Fluxes over WaterNational Mining Association (NMA) 2012 (con’t)•Radon flux rates are low even at relatively high Radium-226 and Radon-222 activities for thewater.•Radon flux rates in pCi/m2-sec were approximately 0.0004 times the Radium-226 or Radon222 activity of the water.•At a Radium-226/Radon-222 activity of 5,000 pCi/L radon fluxes ranged from 1.9 to 2.8pCi/m2-sec.•According toNUREG-1910 - Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ LeachUranium Milling Facilities –May -2009 over 96.9% of the liquid wastes at in-situ leachuranium recovery operations are restoration wasteswith Radium-226 activities of 50 to 100picoCuries per liter.•This is vastly lower than 5,000 pCi/L and would yield proportionately lower fluxes that wouldfor all intents and purposes be insignificant.**Determination of Radon-222 Fluxes from Fluid Filled Lagoons –** **Kennecott Uranium Company 2010**•Kennecott Uranium Company conducted experiments using floating Large Area ActivatedCharcoal Canister (LAACC) units to determine radonfluxes from the lagoons.•Floating Large Area Activated Charcoal Canisters (LAACCs) are depicted below:**Determination of Radon-222 Fluxes from Fluid Filled Lagoons – Kennecott Uranium** **Company 2010**PoolRadium-226ActivityRadon-222Activity inLAACNumber Placed Retrieved CharcoalMeasuredFluxName Fluid Fluid Date Time Date Time Moisture(pCi/L) (pCi/L)(Percent) (pCi/M2-sec)1-E 26 570 116 8/10/2010 11:24 8/11/2010 12:53 3.1 0.831-E 26 570 117 8/10/2010 11:27 8/11/2010 12:54 2.0 0.821-E 26 570 1 8/11/2010 12:53 8/12/2010 13:18 3.1 <0.051-E 26 570 2 8/11/2010 12:54 8/12/2010 13:18 3.1 0.505-E 39 1750 118 8/10/2010 11:33 8/11/2010 12:57 2.9 0.785-E 39 1750 119 8/10/2010 11:37 8/11/2010 12:58 2.4 0.785-E 39 1750 3 8/11/2010 12:57 8/12/2010 13:20 3.0 <0.055-E 39 1750 4 8/11/2010 12:58 8/12/2010 13:22 2.9 0.579-W 22 772 120 8/10/2010 11:43 8/11/2010 13:01 2.8 0.769-W 22 772 121 8/10/2010 11:49 8/11/2010 13:03 2.6 0.679-W 22 772 122 8/10/2010 11:53 8/11/2010 13:04 1.7 0.639-W 22 772 5 8/11/2010 13:01 8/12/2010 13:25 3.5 0.519-W 22 772 6 8/11/2010 13:03 8/12/2010 13:27 3.5 0.519-W 22 772 7 8/11/2010 13:04 8/12/2010 13:27 2.5 0.56SE Pool 15 446 123 8/10/2010 12:00 8/11/2010 13:09 3.6 0.64SE Pool 15 446 124 8/10/2010 12:03 8/11/2010 13:11 2.5 0.61SE Pool 15 446 125 8/10/2010 12:07 8/11/2010 13:12 2.0 0.64SE Pool 15 446 8 8/11/2010 13:09 8/12/2010 13:32 3.3 <0.05SE Pool 15 446 9 8/11/2010 13:11 8/12/2010 13:34 3.0 0.51SE Pool 15 446 10 8/11/2010 13:12 8/12/2010 13:33 2.3 0.53**Determination of Radon-222 Fluxes from Fluid Filled Lagoons – Kennecott Uranium Company 2010** (con’t)15•Radon fluxes from these ponds were very low.•In no case did a radon flux measurement exceed 1.0pCi/m2-sec.•These fluxes do not exceed and are indistinguishable from natural background fluxes.Risks Related to Radon from Uranium Recovery•The following three (3) papers discuss epidemiologyin three (3) uranium producing areas (Karnes County,Texas; Montrose County, Colorado and the Grants Area in New Mexico:•Cancer Mortality in a Texas County with Prior Uranium Mining and Milling Activities 1950 to 2001(Boice, J.D. Jr. et al September 8, 2003)•Cancer and Noncancer Mortality in Persons Living nearUranium and Vanadium Mining and MillingOperations in Montrose County, Colorado 1950 – 2000(Boice, J.D. Jr. et al 2007)•A cohort study of uranium millers and miners of Grants, New Mexico, 1979–2005dated August 28,2008•Cancer Mortality in a Texas County with Prior Uranium Mining and Milling Activities 1950 to 2001(Boice,J.D. Jr. et al September 8, 2003) concludes:•Overall, 1223 cancer deaths occurred in the population residing in Karnes County from1950 to 2001 compared with 1392 expected based on general population rates for theUS. There were 3857 cancer deaths in the four control counties during the same 52 yearperiod compared with4389 expected. There was no difference between the total cancermortality rates in KarnesCounty and those in the control counties (RR = 1.0; 95%confidence interval 0.9–1.1). There were no significant increases in Karnes County forany cancer when comparisons were made with either the US population, the State ofTexas or the control counties.Risks Related to Radon from Uranium Recovery(con’t)•Cancer and Noncancer Mortality in Persons Living near Uranium and Vanadium Mining and MillingOperations in Montrose County, Colorado 1950 – 2000(Boice, J.D. Jr. et al 2007) concludes:•Between 1950 and 2000 a total of 1,877 cancer deaths occurred in the population residing inMontrose County, compared with 1,903 expected basedon general population rates for Colorado(SMRCO 0.99). There were 11,837 cancer deaths in the five comparison counties during the same 51-year period compared with 12,135 expected (SMRCO 0.98). These was no difference between thetotal cancer mortality rates in Montrose county andthose in the comparison counties (RR= 1.01; 95%CI 0.96-1.06).•A cohort study of uranium millers and miners of Grants, New Mexico, 1979–2005dated August 28, 2008concludes:•No statistically significant elevation in any causeof death was seen among the 904 nonminers employed at the Grants uranium mill. Among 718 mill workers with the greatestpotential for exposure to uranium ore, no statistically significant increase in any cause ofdeath of a priori interest was seen, i.e., cancersof the lung, kidney, liver, or bone,lymphoma, non-malignant respiratory disease, renal disease or liver disease. Althoughthe population studied was relatively small, the follow-up was long (up to 50 yrs) andcomplete.•Three epidemiological studies show no risks to maximally exposed population groupsspecifically those living in areas hosting uraniumprocessing.Revision of 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart WReal World ImplicationsReal World Implications•Regulation of fluid retention impoundments under Subpart W will limit or halturanium recovery operations•To operate, both conventional mills and in-situ recovery facilities can require largeareas of evaporation ponds•Inclusion of evaporation ponds within existing arealimitations would halt existingoperations and prevent new ones from starting.•It would force current and future operators to consider alternate methods forhandling fluids such as deep well injection which may not be approved haltingcurrent or planned operations. Even if approved, these alternate methods may becost prohibitive.•Conflicts with existing approvals•Example: Kennecott Uranium has a license amendmentin place allowing it to add asecond (40 acre) tailings impoundment plus eight 10-acre evaporation ponds•Regulation of evaporation ponds under 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W and inclusion of their area inthe maximum allowable area would interfere with previously reviewed and approved plans.These approved plans have undergone NEPA review.Real World Implications (con’t)•Alternatives to evaporation ponds may be in certaincircumstances lessdesirable from an environmental perspective than evaporation ponds.•Evaporation ponds are a proven, environmentally sound method formanaging wastewater especially in the arid West where most uraniumproduction occurs.•Uranium recovery operations both conventional and in-situ, require anenvironmentally sound, proven and cost effective means to handle andstore wastewater even where final disposition (deepdisposal or irrigation)may be utilized. Evaporation ponds fill those requirements.•Regulation of evaporation ponds and fluid retentionimpoundments under40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W will severely constrain existing operations andproposed ones, in some cases halting them. This ispoor policy in light ofthe very small risk and the need for domestically produced uranium topower this nation’s reactors.20