Below are OMB questions/comments on the TSD (EIA), and responses.

Global Comments

 EPA’s Cancer Guidelines, which provide guidance on developing and using cancer risk

assessments, state that the objective of analyzing epidemiological data is to develop a dose

‐

response for cancer incidence. The Cancer Guidelines further state that, because survival rates

vary with different types of cancer, it is good to adjust mortality figures to reflect the

relationship between incidence and mortality. Has EPA done such an analysis for radon? If not,

we’d like to understand the rationale for not doing such an analysis.

Response

‐ In BEIR VI (NAS 1999), the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has performed an

analysis to determine the cancer relationship between incidence and mortality for radon. BEIR VI

points out that the vast majority (98%) of the additional cancers from exposure to radon are

expected to be in the lung. For 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

estimated that there were 172,000 cases of lung cancer, and 153,000 lung cancer fatalities (DHHS

1995). Because of the high fatality rate of lung cancer, NAS concluded that the radon cancer

morbidity would only slightly (i.e., ~12%) exceed its mortality. EPA has relied on the NAS analysis

in the past (e.g., EPA 2003).

In 2013, DHHS published additional lung cancer incidence and fatality data. For 2010, there were

an estimated 220,690 cases of lung cancer and 158,248 deaths, giving a morbidity to mortality

ratio of 1.39.

Footnotes were added in Section 1.3 and to Table 14, indicating that all risks are presented as

mortality risks, if it is desired to estimate the morbidity risk, simply multiply the mortality risk by

1.39.

 Can EPA explain why the FGR 13 risk factor is the most appropriate factor to use? Is there

anything more recent than this 1999 value?

Response

‐ Since Federal Guidance Report 13 (FGR 13, EPA, 1999) was published in 1999, research

into the risk from exposure to radiation has continued. Among the scientific documents that have

been published since 1999, two of the most comprehensive are National Academy of Sciences’

(NAS’) BEIR VII report (NAS 2006) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection

(ICRP’s) Publication 103 (ICRP 2007). The EPA is aware these publications, as well as others, and

continues to evaluate their impact on risk coefficients. In April, 2011, EPA published revised

estimates of cancer incidence and mortality risks due to low doses of ionizing radiation for the

U.S. population, as well as their scientific basis (EPA 2011). Prior to its publication, the EPA’s

Science Advisory Board (SAB) reviewed the draft (EPA 2010), and in the final report, the EPA took

into account the recommendations made by SAB. The revised risk estimates will be applied to

update the radionuclide risk coefficients in a revised FGR 13, however, it is anticipated to take at

least two to three years to complete the FGR 13 revision (EPA 2013).

As the table below demonstrates, although the risk coefficients have evolved since 1999, their

numerical values have not changes significantly during that time period, particularly the mortality

risk coefficient, as the following statement from EPA 2011 shows: “In general, the new EPAmortality estimates do not differ greatly from those in FGR

‐ 13; remarkably, for all sites combined,

the estimates changed by less than 2% for both males and females.”

FGR

‐ 13 (1999) BEIR VII (2006) ICRP 103 (2007) EPA (2011)

(per Gy) (per Gy) (per Sv) (per Gy)

Mortality Table 7.3 Table ES

‐ 1 Table A.4

‐ 18 Table 3

‐ 18

Males 0.0462 0.041 0.0459 0.0469

Females 0.0683 0.061 0.0639 0.0689

Combined 0.0575

― 0.055

―

Morbidity Table 7.6 Table ES

‐ 1 Table A.4

‐ 18 Table 3

‐ 17

Males 0.0651 0.08 0.156 0.0955

Females 0.103 0.13 0.183 0.135

Combined 0.0846

―  ―  ―

Specifically for radon and its progeny, ICRP Publication 115 (ICRP, 2010) recommended use a risk

coefficient of 5×10 ‐ 4 per Working Level Month (WLM), where WLM is an exposure from breathing

air containing a specified concentration of short

‐ lived radon progeny. Publication 115 goes on to

state that the effective dose from inhalation of radon progeny ranges from about 10 to 20 mSv

per WLM depending on the exposure scenario. When these two statements are combined

together, the risk from radon and its progeny can be expressed as ranging from 0.025 to 0.05 Sv ‐ 1

.

EPA 2011 was added as a reference and the following footnote was added to Section 4.2: Since

FGR 13 was published, several organizations have produced updated radiation risk estimates. EPA

2011 reviewed the update risk estimates and concluded that the new mortality estimates do not

differ greatly from those in FGR

‐ 13.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 1999. “Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to

Radionuclides.” Federal Guidance Report 13. EPA Report 402

‐ R

‐ 99

‐ 001, Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.

EPA/SAB (Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board), 2010. “SAB Review of Draft ‘EPA

Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the U.S. Population’.” EPA

‐ SAB

‐ 10

‐ 001, January 5,

2010.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2011. “Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and Projections for the

U.S. Population.” EPA Report 402

‐ R

‐ 11

‐ 001, Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. April 2011.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), 2013. “Blue Book: EPA Radiogenic Cancer Risk Models and

Projections for the U.S. Population.” http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/assessment/ blue

‐ book/

. Updated:

August 22, 2013. Accessed: September 23, 2013.

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 2007. “The 2007 Recommendations of the

International Commission on Radiological Protection.” ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP 37 (2

‐ 4).

ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection), 2010. “Lung Cancer Risk from Radon and

Progeny and Statement on Radon.” ICRP Publication 115, Ann. ICRP 40(1).

NAS (National Academy of Sciences), 2006. “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing

Radiation. BEIR VII Phase 2.” Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

 Comments sent to EPA on 7/18 also apply to this document. Therefore, we request that EPA

make changes to this document as appropriate to address the comments sent on 7/18.

Acknowledged EPA is proposing to regulate the heap leach extraction process. As EPA appropriately described,

the heap leach treatment processes uranium ore in such a manner that the uranium content is

removed. Licensing and regulatory authority over this process rests with the NRC pursuant to

the Atomic Energy Act (AEA).

Please see our response to this question in Interagency Comments Under EOs 13563 and 12866 on

NESHAP Subpart W NPRM

 We recommend that EPA update its cost impact analysis and technical basis to accurately reflect

the decreasing trend in the uranium market price. For example, EPA anticipates that the market

value of uranium will be approximately $65, whereas the actual market value is less than $40.

Response

‐ The cost and economic impact estimates described in Section 6.2 and 6.3 are based on

industry data compiled in 2010

‐ 2011. Therefore, some of the analytical input values would differ

somewhat if they were updated to reflect the latest information available. For example, the

current long

‐ term market price of uranium is approximately 17 percent lower than the $65

estimate that is used in the analysis (Cameco, 2013). The uranium mining industry is currently

experiencing a volatile period resulting from the aftereffects of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. In

particular, uranium demand has suffered from nearly all of Japan’s workable reactors remaining

offline since the March 2011 earthquake and tsunami triggered multiple meltdowns at the

Fukushima Dai

‐ ichi plant. Given the atypical post

‐ Fukushima uranium market situation of the last

couple of years and the prospects for a return to more normal market activity in the mid

‐ term

future, 1 we have decided not to update the analysis to incorporate the latest industry data. The

results of the analyses described in this section are judged to be realistic estimates of the mid

‐ to

long

‐ term impacts of the proposed Subpart W NESHAP.

Specific Comments

 Page 5 of the TSD: Please clarify the statement that an emission limit is not necessary to protect

public health?

Response

‐ This statement has been expanded and revised as follows: By requiring that

conventional impoundments be designed, constructed, and operated to meet one of two 40 CFR

61.252(b) work practices (i.e., phased disposal and continuous disposal), adoption of an emission

limit (e.g., 20 pCi/(m 2

‐ sec)) is not necessary to protect public health.

 Page 34 states “[a]dditionally, moving to seven

‐ spot patterns versus five

‐ spot patterns greatly

increased the control of mobilized solutions and the metals that they contained.” The NRC’s

experience in Wyoming has been that licensees generally use five

‐ spot patterns, and

they’ve seen very little use of seven

‐ spot patterns. If this statement on page 34 is based on

operations in Texas, that aspect should be included.

1 These prospects include: the conclusion of the U. S.-Russia program that annually removes 24 million

pounds of ex-military highly enriched uranium from the market via down-blending for use as U.S. nuclear fuel; the

60 nuclear power plants that are curr ently under construction throughout the world; efforts to reduce climate change

emissions; and expectations that Japan will sl owly begin restarting its 50 nuclear plants.Response

‐ The statement was based on information provided in the Irigaray Project

Environmental Report (WMC 1977) and Final Environmental Statement (NRC 1978). Both

documents state that five

‐ spot and seven

‐ spot well patterns were tested at Irigaray, Johnson

County, Wyoming, in 1975 and 1977, respectively. Based on this testing, it was concluded that

“Because of limited injection flows and economic considerations, the adopted well configuration

for the proposed plant and probably for future Irigaray mine sites is the seven spot pattern”

(WMC 1977, page 18). However, in response to OMB’s comment, further research showed that

“These [seven

‐ spot] patterns were later converted to five

‐ spot patterns during operations in the

1980's and 1990's. Future development at Irigaray and Christensen Ranch will use a combination

of [five

‐ and seven

‐ spot] patterns.” (COMIN 1996, page 3

‐ 8) This, plus the NRC’s recent Wyoming

experience (as pointed out by OMB), shows that there is no longer a basis for the above

statement. Consequently, that sentence has been deleted.

COMIN (COGEMA Mining, Inc.) 1996, “Submittal of Supplemental Information for the Renewal

of Source Material License SUA

‐ 1341, Irigaray and Christensen Ranch Sites and Request for

Performance Based License,” January 5, 1996.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 1978, “Final Environmental Statement Related to the

Wyoming Mineral Corporation, Irigaray Uranium Solution Mining Project (Johnson County,

Wyoming),” Docket No. 40

‐ 8502, NUREG

‐ 0481, September 1978.

WMC (Wyoming Mineral Corporation) 1977, “Environmental Report, Irigaray Project, Johnson

County, Wyoming,” July 29, 1977.

 Table 9 on page 36 is not correct. For example, in this table, EPA identifies Hydro Resources as

an operating facility. Hydro Resources has a license, but no construction activities have

occurred at the site and the site is not operational. This table also omits operating facilities

(e.g., Uranium One Willow Creek and Christensen Ranch). We recommend that EPA verify this

information with Texas.

Response

‐ On August 7, 2013, the Energy Information Administration released 2013 2 nd quarter

data on the In

‐ Situ

‐ Leach Plant Owner, Plant Name, County and State locations, and

Development/Operating Status. Table 9 and Table 10 have been revised to reflect this EIA data.

The text was also revised to be consistent with the tables. The EIS report was added to the list of

references.

 Table 10 on page 36 is not correct. For example, the ownership information for Christensen

Ranch is incorrect. The current owner for Christensen Ranch is Uranium One and the facility has

been operating since late 2010 / early 2011. Uranium One Moore Ranch was licensed in late

2010 and thus doesn’t fit within the category of facilities listed in Table 10. Also, the NRC is no

longer expecting an application for Wildhorse Energy West Alkalai Creek.

Response

‐ On August 7, 2013, the Energy Information Administration released 2013 2 nd quarter

data on the In

‐ Situ

‐ Leach Plant Owner, Plant Name, County and State locations, and

Development/Operating Status. Table 9 and Table 10 have been revised to reflect this EIA data.The text was also revised to be consistent with the tables. The EIS report was added to the list of

references.

 On page 40, EPA identified Homestake as an ISL facility. Homestake operated as a conventional

uranium mill and uses evaporation ponds to dispose of liquid byproduct material. Homestake is

in the process of decommissioning.

Response

‐ Agreed, “Homestake ISL facility” changed to “Homestake Uranium Mill Site ,“ as it is

referred to in Baker and Cox, 2010.

 We recommend that page 42 be revised because solvent extraction can also be used to heap

‐

leach uranium ore, depending on ore grade; a similar comment was made on the draft proposed

rule.

Response

‐ Figure 11 has been replaced with simpler, clearer, more generic depiction of the heap

leach process, from NUREG

‐ 1350, Volume 25. The 5 step description of the heap leach process

that appears above Figure 11 was also changed to be more consistent with the description

provided in NUREG

‐ 1350. NUREG

‐ 1350 was added to the list of references.

 The second sentence of footnote 6 on page 92 should be deleted because it is not accurate.

Congress did not enact the subject legislative language for the reason mentioned. Further, this

language is extraneous to this issue at hand.

Response

‐ Sentence deleted from footnote 6.