Vol. 79 Friday, 

No. 85 May 2, 2014 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 61 

Revisions to National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions from 

Operating Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25388 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 61 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0218; FRL–9816–2] 

RIN 2060–AP26 

Revisions to National Emission 

Standards for Radon Emissions From 

Operating Mill Tailings 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise 

certain portions of the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAP) for radon 

emissions from operating uranium mill 

tailings. The proposed revisions are 

based on EPA’s determination as to 

what constitutes generally available 

control technology or management 

practices (GACT) for this area source 

category. We are also proposing to add 

new definitions to this rule, revise 

existing definitions and clarify that the 

rule applies to uranium recovery 

facilities that extract uranium through 

the in-situ leach method and the heap 

leach method. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0218, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744. 

• Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA West Building, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0218. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Office of Air and Radiation Docket, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–1792. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Reid 

J. Rosnick, Office of Radiation and 

Indoor Air, Radiation Protection 

Division, Mailcode 6608J, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–343– 

9290; fax number: 202–343–2304; email 

address: rosnick.reid@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline. The information in this 

preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to EPA? 

C. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

D. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

E. When would a public hearing occur? 

II. Background Information for Proposed Area 

Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority for the 

proposed standards? 

B. What criteria did EPA use in developing 

the proposed GACT standards for these 

area sources? 

C. What source category is affected by the 

proposed standards? 

D. What are the production operations, 

emission sources, and available controls? 

E. What are the existing requirements 

under Subpart W? 

F. How did we gather information for this 

proposed rule? 

G. How does this action relate to other EPA 

standards? 

H. Why did we conduct an updated risk 

assessment? 

III. Summary of the Proposed Requirements 

A. What are the affected sources? 

B. What are the proposed requirements? 

C. What are the monitoring requirements? 

D. What are the notification, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements? 

E. When must I comply with these 

proposed standards? 

IV. Rationale for this Proposed Rule 

A. How did we determine GACT? 

B. Proposed GACT standards for operating 

mill tailings 

V. Other Issues Generated by Our Review of 

Subpart W 

A. Clarification of the Term ‘‘Standby’’ 

B. Amending the Definition of ‘‘Operation’’ 

for Conventional Impoundments 

C. Weather Events 

D. Applicability of 40 CFR 192.32(a) to 

Subpart W 

VI. Summary of Environmental, Cost and 

Economic Impacts 

A. What are the air impacts? 

B. What are the cost and economic 

impacts? 

C. What are the non-air environmental 

impacts? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25389 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

The regulated categories and entities 

potentially affected by the proposed 

standards include: 

Category NAICS 

code 1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry: 

Uranium Ores Mining and/or Beneficiating ............................... 212291 Area source facilities that extract or concentrate uranium from any 

ore processed primarily for its source material content. 

Leaching of Uranium, Radium or Vanadium Ores .................... 212291 Area source facilities that extract or concentrate uranium from any 

ore processed primarily for its source material content. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this proposed action. If you 

have any questions regarding the 

applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult either the air 

permit authority for the entity or your 

EPA regional representative as listed in 

40 CFR 61.04 of subpart A (General 

Provisions). 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information marked as 

CBI will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree, 

suggest alternatives, and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

Make sure to submit your comments by 

the comment period deadline identified. 

C. Acronyms and Abbreviations 

We use many acronyms and 

abbreviations in this document. These 

include: 

AEA—Atomic Energy Act 

ALARA—As low as reasonably achievable 

BID—Background information document 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CAAA—Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 

CCAT—Colorado Citizens Against Toxic 

Waste 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

Ci—Curie, a unit of radioactivity equal to the 

amount of a radioactive isotope that decays 

at the rate of 3.7 × 1010 disintegrations per 

second. 

DOE—U.S. Department of Energy 

EIA—economic impact analysis 

EO—Executive Order 

EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FR—Federal Register 

GACT—Generally Available Control 

Technology 

gpm—Gallons Per Minute 

HAP—Hazardous Air Pollutant 

ICRP—International Commission on 

Radiological Protection 

ISL—In-situ leach uranium recovery, also 

known as in-situ recovery (ISR) 

LCF—Latent Cancer Fatality—Death resulting 

from cancer that became active after a 

latent period following exposure to 

radiation 

NAAQS—National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NCRP—National Council on Radiation 

Protection and Measurements 

mrem—millirem, 1 × 10¥3 rem 

MACT—Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology 

NESHAP—National Emission Standard for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NRC—U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

pCi—picocurie, 1 × 10¥12 curie 

Ra-226—Radium-226 

Rn-222—Radon-222 

Radon flux—A term applied to the amount of 

radon crossing a unit area per unit time, as 

in picocuries per square centimeter per 

second (pCi/m2/sec). 

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

Subpart W—National Emission Standards for 

Radon Emissions from Operating Mill 

Tailings at 40 CFR 61.250–61.256 

TEDE—Total Effective Dose Equivalent 

UMTRCA—Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act of 1978 

U.S.C.—United States Code 

D. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this 

proposed action will also be available 

on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through 

the Technology Transfer Network 

(TTN). Following signature, a copy of 

this proposed action will be posted on 

the TTN’s policy and guidance page for 

newly proposed or promulgated rules at 

the following address: http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN 

provides information and technology 

exchange in various areas of air 

pollution control. 

E. When would a public hearing occur? 

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to 

speak at a public hearing concerning 

this proposed rule by July 1, 2014, we 

will hold a public hearing. If you are 

interested in attending the public 

hearing, contact Mr. Anthony Nesky at 

(202) 343–9597 to verify that a hearing 

will be held and if you wish to speak. 

If a public hearing is held, we will 

announce the date, time and venue on 

our Web site at http://www.epa.gov/

radiation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25390 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1On April 26, 2007, Colorado Citizens Against 

Toxic Waste and Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action 

filed a lawsuit against EPA (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0218–0013) for EPA’s alleged failure to review and, 

if appropriate, revise NESHAP Subpart W under 

CAA section 112(q)(1). A settlement agreement was 

entered into between the parties in November 

2009(EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0218–0019). 

2None of the sources in this source category are 

major sources. 

3Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 

amended, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

defines ‘‘source material’’ as ‘‘(1) Uranium or 

thorium or any combination of uranium or thorium 

in any chemical or physical form; or (2) Ores that 

contain, by weight, one-twentieth of one percent 

(0.05 percent), or more, of uranium or thorium, or 

any combination of uranium or thorium.’’ (10 CFR 

20.1003) For a uranium recovery facility licensed by 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR 

Part 40, ‘‘byproduct material’’ means the ‘‘tailings 

or wastes produced by the extraction or 

concentration of uranium or thorium from ore 

processed primarily for its source material content, 

including discrete surface wastes resulting from 

uranium solution extraction processes.’’ (10 CFR 

20.1003 and 40.4) 

II. Background Information for 

Proposed Area Source Standards 

A. What is the statutory authority for the 

proposed standards? 

Section 112(q)(1) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires that National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(NESHAP) ‘‘in effect before the date of 

enactment of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 [Nov. 15, 1990] 

. . . shall be reviewed and, if 

appropriate, revised, to comply with the 

requirements of subsection (d) of . . . 

section [112].’’ EPA promulgated 40 

CFR part 61, Subpart W, ‘‘National 

Emission Standards for Radon 

Emissions From Operating Mill 

Tailings,’’ (‘‘Subpart W’’) on December 

15, 1989.1 EPA is conducting this 

review of Subpart W under CAA section 

112(q)(1) to determine what revisions, if 

any, are appropriate. 

Section 112(d) of the CAA requires 

EPA to establish emission standards for 

major and area source categories that are 

listed for regulation under CAA section 

112(c). A major source is any stationary 

source that emits or has the potential to 

emit 10 tons per year (tpy) or more of 

any single hazardous air pollutant 

(HAP) or 25 tpy or more of any 

combination of HAP. An area source is 

a stationary source of HAP that is not a 

major source. For the purposes of 

Subpart W, the HAP at issue is radon222 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘radon’’). 

We presently have no data or 

information that shows any other HAPs 

being emitted from these 

impoundments. Calculations of radon 

emissions from operating uranium 

recovery facilities have shown that 

facilities regulated under Subpart W are 

area sources (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0218–0001, 0002). 

Section 112(q)(1) does not dictate how 

EPA must conduct its review of those 

NESHAPs issued prior to 1990. Rather, 

it provides that the Agency must review, 

and if appropriate, revise the standards 

to comply with the requirements of 

section 112(d). Determining what 

revisions, if any, are appropriate for 

these NESHAPs is best assessed through 

a case-by-case consideration of each 

NESHAP. As explained below, in this 

case, we have reviewed Subpart W and 

are revising the standards consistent 

with section 112(d)(5), which provides 

EPA authority to issue standards for 

area sources. 

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the 

Administrator may elect to promulgate 

standards or requirements for area 

sources ‘‘which provide for the use of 

generally available control technologies 

or management practices by such 

sources to reduce emissions of 

hazardous air pollutants.’’ Under 

section 112(d)(5), the Administrator has 

the discretion to use generally available 

control technology or management 

practices (GACT) in lieu of maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

under section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), 

which is required for major sources. 

Pursuant to section 112(d)(5), we are 

proposing revisions to Subpart W to 

reflect GACT. 

B. What criteria did EPA use in 

developing the proposed GACT 

standards for these area sources? 

Additional information on generally 

available control technologies or 

management practices (GACT) is found 

in the Senate report on the legislation 

(Senate Report Number 101–228, 

December 20, 1989), which describes 

GACT as: 

* * * methods, practices and techniques 

which are commercially available and 

appropriate for application by the sources in 

the category considering economic impacts 

and the technical capabilities of the firms to 

operate and maintain the emissions control 

systems. 

Consistent with the legislative history, 

we can consider costs and economic 

impacts in determining GACT, which is 

particularly important when developing 

regulations for source categories, like 

this one, that may include small 

businesses. 

Determining what constitutes GACT 

involves considering the control 

technologies and management practices 

that are generally available to the area 

sources in the source category. We also 

consider the standards applicable to 

major sources 2 in the same industrial 

sector to determine if the control 

technologies and management practices 

are transferable and generally available 

to area sources. In appropriate 

circumstances, we may also consider 

technologies and practices at area and 

major sources in similar categories to 

determine whether such technologies 

and practices could be considered 

generally available for the area source 

category at issue. Finally, as noted 

above, in determining GACT for a 

particular area source category, we 

consider the costs and economic 

impacts of available control 

technologies and management practices 

on that category. 

C. What source category is affected by 

the proposed standards? 

As defined by EPA pursuant to the 

CAA, the source category for Subpart W 

is ‘‘facilities licensed [by the U.S. 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)] 

to manage uranium byproduct material 

during and following the processing of 

uranium ores, commonly referred to as 

uranium mills and their associated 

tailings.’’ 40 CFR 61.250. Subpart W 

defines ‘‘uranium byproduct material or 

tailings’’ as ‘‘the waste produced by the 

extraction or concentration of uranium 

from any ore processed primarily for its 

source material content.’’ 3 40 CFR 

61.251(g). For clarity, in this proposed 

rule we refer to this source category by 

the term ‘‘uranium recovery facilities’’ 

and we are proposing to add this phrase 

to the definitions section of the rule. 

Use of this term encompasses the 

existing universe of facilities whose 

HAP emissions are currently regulated 

under Subpart W. Uranium recovery 

facilities process uranium ore to extract 

uranium. The HAP emissions from any 

type of uranium recovery facility that 

manages uranium byproduct material or 

tailings is subject to regulation under 

Subpart W. This currently includes 

three types of uranium recovery 

facilities: (1) Conventional uranium 

mills; (2) in-situ leach recovery 

facilities; and (3) heap leach facilities. 

Subpart W requirements specifically 

apply to the affected sources at the 

uranium recovery facilities that are used 

to manage or contain the uranium 

byproduct material or tailings. Common 

names for these structures may include, 

but are not limited to, impoundments, 

tailings impoundments, evaporation or 

holding ponds, and heap leach piles. 

However, the name itself is not 

important for determining whether 

Subpart W requirements apply to that 

structure; rather, applicability is based 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25391 

4The term ‘‘yellowcake’’ is still commonly used 

to refer to this material, although in addition to 

yellow the uranium oxide material can also be black 

or grey in color. 

5http://www.epa.gov/radon/risk_

assessment.html. 

6The hydraulic gradient determines which 

direction water in the formation will flow, which 

in this case limits the amount of water that migrates 

away from the ore zone. 7As described later in this preamble, the design 

requirements for these impoundments are derived 

from the RCRA requirements for impoundments. 8By controlling the hydraulic gradient of the 

formation the operator controls the direction of flow 

of water, containing the water within specified 

limits of the formation. 

on the use of these structures to manage 

or contain uranium byproduct material. 

D. What are the production operations, 

emission sources, and available 

controls? 

As noted above, uranium recovery 

and processing currently occurs by one 

of three methods: (1) Conventional 

milling; (2) in-situ leach (ISL); and (3) 

heap leach. Below we present a brief 

explanation of the various uranium 

recovery methods and the usual 

structures that contain uranium 

byproduct materials. 

(1) Conventional Mills 

Conventional milling is one of the two 

primary recovery methods that are 

currently used to extract uranium from 

uranium-bearing ore. Conventional 

mills are typically located in areas of 

low population density. Only one 

conventional mill in the United States is 

currently operating; all others are in 

standby, in decommissioning (closure) 

or have been decommissioned. 

A conventional uranium mill is a 

chemical plant that extracts uranium 

using the following process: 

(A) Trucks deliver uranium ore to the 

mill, where it is crushed before the 

uranium is extracted through a leaching 

process. In most cases, sulfuric acid is 

the leaching agent, but alkaline 

solutions can also be used to leach the 

uranium from the ore. The process 

generally extracts 90 to 95 percent of the 

uranium from the ore. 

(B) The mill then concentrates the 

extracted uranium to produce a uranium 

oxide material which is called 

‘‘yellowcake’’ because of its yellowish 

color.4

(C) Finally, the yellowcake is 

transported to a uranium conversion 

facility where it is processed through 

the stages of the nuclear fuel cycle to 

produce fuel for use in nuclear power 

reactors. 

(D) The extraction process in (A) and 

(B) above produces both solid and 

liquid wastes (i.e., uranium byproduct 

material, or ‘‘tailings’’) which are 

transported from the extraction location 

to an on-site tailings impoundment or a 

pond for temporary storage. 

Uranium byproduct material/tailings 

are typically created in slurry form 

during the crushing, leaching and 

concentration processes and are then 

deposited in an impoundment or ‘‘mill 

tailings pile’’ which must be carefully 

monitored and controlled. This is 

because the mill tailings contain heavy 

metal ore constituents, including 

radium. The radium decays to produce 

radon, which may then be released to 

the environment. Because radon is a 

radioactive gas which may be inhaled 

into the respiratory tract, EPA has 

determined that exposure to radon and 

its daughter products contributes to an 

increased risk of lung cancer.5

The holding or evaporation ponds at 

this type of facility hold liquids 

containing byproduct material from 

which HAP emissions are also regulated 

under Subpart W. These ponds are 

discussed in more detail in the next 

section. 

(2) In-Situ Leach/Recovery 

In-situ leach or recovery sites (ISL/

ISR, in this document we will use ISL) 

represent the majority of the uranium 

recovery operations that currently exist. 

The research and development projects 

and associated pilot projects of the 

1980s demonstrated ISL as a viable 

uranium recovery technique where site 

conditions (e.g., geology) are amenable 

to its use. Economically, this technology 

produces a better return on the 

investment dollar (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0218–0087); therefore, the cost to 

produce uranium is more favorable to 

investors. Due to this, the trend in 

uranium production has been toward 

the ISL process. 

In-situ leaching is defined as the 

underground leaching or recovery of 

uranium from the host rock (typically 

sandstone) by chemicals, followed by 

recovery of uranium at the surface. 

Leaching, or more correctly the remobilization of uranium into solution, 

is accomplished through the 

underground injection of a lixiviant 

(described below) into the host rock 

(i.e., ore body) through wells that are 

connected to the ore formation. A 

lixiviant is a chemical solution used to 

extract (or leach) uranium from 

underground ore bodies. 

The injection of a lixiviant essentially 

reverses the geochemical reactions that 

resulted in the formation of the uranium 

deposit. The lixiviant assures that the 

dissolved uranium, as well as other 

metals, remains in the solution while it 

is collected from the ore zone by 

recovery wells, which pump the 

solution to the surface. At the surface, 

the uranium is recovered in an ionexchange column and further processed 

into yellowcake. The yellowcake is 

packaged and transported to a uranium 

conversion facility where it is processed 

through the stages of the nuclear fuel 

cycle to produce fuel for use in nuclear 

power reactors. 

Two types of lixiviant solutions can 

be used, loosely defined as ‘‘acid’’ or 

‘‘alkaline’’ systems. In the U.S., the 

geology and geochemistry of the 

majority of the uranium ore bodies 

favors the use of alkaline lixiviants such 

as bicarbonate-carbonate lixiviant and 

oxygen. Other factors in the choice of 

the lixiviant are the uranium recovery 

efficiencies, operating costs, and the 

ability to achieve satisfactory groundwater restoration. 

After processing, lixiviant is 

recharged (more carbonate/bicarbonate 

or dissolved carbon dioxide is added to 

the solution) and pumped back down 

into the formation for reuse in extracting 

more uranium. However, a small 

amount of this liquid is held back from 

reinjection to maintain a proper 

hydraulic gradient 6 within the 

wellfield. The amount of liquid held 

back is a function of the characteristics 

of the formation properties (e.g., 

permeability, hydraulic conductivity, 

transmissivity). This excess liquid is 

sent to an impoundment (often called an 

evaporation pond or holding pond) on 

site or injected into a deep well for 

disposal. These impoundments, since 

they contain uranium byproduct 

material, are subject to the requirements 

of Subpart W.7 With respect to the 

lixiviant reinjected into the wellfield, 

there is a possibility of the lixiviant 

spreading beyond the zone of the 

uranium deposit (excursion), and this 

produces a threat of ground-water 

contamination. The operator of the ISL 

facility remediates any excursion by 

pumping large amounts of water in or 

out of the formation (at various wells) to 

contain the excursion, and this water 

(often containing byproduct material 

either before or after injection into or 

withdrawal from the formation) is often 

stored in the evaporation or holding 

ponds.8 Although the excursion control 

operation itself is not regulated under 

Subpart W, the ponds that contain 

byproduct material are regulated under 

that subpart, since they are a potential 

source of radon emissions. After the ore 

body has been depleted, restoration of 

the formation (attempting to return the 

formation back to its original 

geochemical and geophysical 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25392 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9The ore grade is so low that it is not practical 

to invest large sums of capital to extract the 

uranium. Heap leach is a much more passive and 

relatively inexpensive system. 

10Other technology includes drip systems, 

sometimes used at gold extraction heaps, and 

flooding of the heap leach pile. 

11 It is our understanding that either ion-exchange 

or solvent extraction techniques can be used to 

recover uranium at heap leach facilities. The 

decision to use one type or the other depends 

largely on the quality of the ore at a particular site. 12See 54 FR 51689. 

properties) is accomplished by flushing 

the host rock with water and sometimes 

additional chemicals. Since small 

amounts of uranium are still contained 

in the returning water, the restoration 

fluids are also considered byproduct 

material, and are usually sent to 

evaporation ponds for disposition. 

(3) Heap Leaching 

In addition to conventional uranium 

milling and ISL, some facilities may use 

an extraction method known as heap 

leaching. In some instances uranium ore 

is of such low grade, or the geology of 

the ore body is such that it is not costeffective to remove the uranium via 

conventional milling or through ISL.9 In 

this case a heap leaching method may 

be utilized. 

No such facilities currently operate to 

recover uranium in the U.S. However, 

there are plans for at least one facility 

to open in the U.S. within the next few 

years. 

Heap leach operations involve the 

following process: 

A. Small pieces of ore are placed in a large 

pile, or ‘‘heap,’’ on an impervious 

geosynthetic liner with perforated pipes 

under the heap. For the purposes of Subpart 

W the impervious pad will meet the 

requirements for design and construction of 

impoundments found at 40 CFR 192.32(a). 

B. An acidic solution is then sprayed 10

over the ore to dissolve the uranium it 

contains. 

C. The uranium-rich solution drains into 

the perforated pipes, where it is collected 

and transferred to an ion-exchange system. 

D. The heap is ‘‘rested,’’ meaning that there 

is a temporary cessation of application of 

acidic solution to allow for oxidation of the 

ore before leaching begins again. 

E. The ion-exchange system extracts the 

uranium from solution where it is later 

processed into a yellowcake.11

F. Once the uranium has been extracted, 

the remaining solution still contains small 

amounts of uranium byproduct material (the 

extraction process is not 100% effective), and 

this solution is either piped to the heap leach 

pile to be reused or piped to an evaporation 

or holding pond. In the evaporation pond it 

is subject to the Subpart W requirements. 

G. The yellowcake is transported to a 

uranium conversion facility where it is 

processed through the stages of the nuclear 

fuel cycle to produce fuel for use in nuclear 

power reactors. 

H. Finally, there is a final drain down of 

the heap solutions, as well as a possible 

rinsing of the heap. These solutions will 

contain byproduct material and will be piped 

to evaporation or holding ponds, where they 

become subject to the Subpart W 

requirements. The heap leach pile will be 

closed in place according to the requirements 

of 40 CFR 192.32. 

Today we are proposing to regulate 

the HAP emissions from heap leach 

uranium extraction under Subpart W, in 

addition to conventional impoundments 

and evaporation ponds, which are 

already regulated under this Subpart. 

Our rationale (explained in greater 

detail in Section IV.D.4.) is that from the 

moment uranium extraction takes place 

in the heap, uranium byproduct 

material is left behind. Therefore the 

byproduct material must be managed 

with the same design as a conventional 

impoundment, with a liner and leak 

detection system prescribed at 40 CFR 

192.32(a), and an effective method of 

limiting radon emissions while the heap 

leach pile is being used to extract 

uranium. 

As described above, there may also be 

holding or evaporation ponds at this 

type of facility. In many cases these 

ponds hold liquids containing 

byproduct material. The byproduct 

material is contained in the liquids used 

to leach uranium from the ore in the 

heap leach pile as well as draining the 

heap leach pile in preparation for 

closure. The HAP emissions from these 

fluids are currently regulated under 

Subpart W. 

E. What are the existing requirements 

under Subpart W? 

Subpart W was promulgated on 

December 15, 1989 (54 FR 51654). At 

the time of promulgation the 

predominant form of uranium recovery 

was through the use of conventional 

mills. There are two separate standards 

required in Subpart W. The first 

standard is for ‘‘existing’’ 

impoundments, e.g., those in existence 

and licensed by the NRC (or it’s 

Agreement States) on or prior to 

December 15, 1989. Owners or operators 

of existing tailings impoundments must 

ensure that emissions from those 

impoundments do not exceed a radon 

(Rn-222) flux standard of 20 picocuries 

per meter squared per second (pCi/m2/ 

sec). As stated at the time of 

promulgation: ‘‘This rule will have the 

practical effect of requiring the mill 

owners to keep their piles wet or 

covered.’’12 Keeping the piles 

(impoundments) wet or covered with 

soil would reduce radon emissions to a 

level that would meet the standard. This 

is still considered an effective method to 

reduce radon emissions at all uranium 

tailings impoundments. 

The method for monitoring for 

compliance with the radon flux 

standard was prescribed as Method 115, 

found at 40 CFR part 61, Appendix B. 

The owners or operators of existing 

impoundments must report to EPA the 

results of the compliance testing for any 

calendar year by no later than March 31 

of the following year. 

There is currently one existing 

operating mill with impoundments that 

pre-date December 15, 1989, and two 

mills that are currently in standby 

mode. 

The second standard applies to ‘‘new’’ 

impoundments designed and/or 

constructed after December 15, 1989. 

The requirements applicable to new 

impoundments are work practice 

standards that regulate either the size 

and number of impoundments, or the 

amount of tailings that may remain 

uncovered at any time. 40 CFR 61.252(b) 

states that no new tailings 

impoundment can be built after 

December 15, 1989, unless it is 

designed, constructed and operated to 

meet one of the following two work 

practices: 

1. Phased disposal in lined impoundments 

that are no more than 40 acres in area, and 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 192.32(a) as 

determined by the NRC. 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 that are 

dewatered and immediately disposed with 

no more than 10 acres uncovered at any time, 

and operated in accordance with 40 CFR 

192.32(a) as determined by the NRC. 

The basis of the work practice 

standards is to (1) limit the size of the 

impoundment, which limits the radon 

source; or (2) utilize the continuous 

disposal system, which prohibits large 

accumulations of uncovered tailings, 

limiting the amount of radon released. 

The work practice standards 

described above were promulgated after 

EPA considered a number of factors that 

influence the emissions of Rn-222 from 

tailings impoundments, including the 

climate and the size of the 

impoundment. For example, for a given 

concentration of Ra-226 in the tailings, 

and a given grain size of the tailings, the 

moisture content of the tailings will 

control the radon emission rate; the 

higher the moisture content the lower 

the emission rate. In the arid and semiarid areas of the country where most 

impoundments are located or proposed, 

the annual evaporation rate is quite 

high. As a result, the exposed tailings 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25393 

13For detailed information on the design and 

operating requirements, refer to 40 CFR Part 264 

Subpart K—Surface Impoundments. 

14Section 114(a) letters and responses can be 

found at http://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/

subpartw/rulemaking-activity.html. 

15 ‘‘Standby’’ is when a facility impoundment is 

licensed for the continued placement of tailings/

byproduct material but is currently not receiving 

tailings/byproduct material. See Section V.A. for a 

discussion of this definition that we are proposing 

to add to Subpart W. 

16 In this preamble when we use the generic term 

‘‘impoundment,’’ we are using the term as 

described by industry. 

(absent controls like sprinkling) dry 

rapidly. In previous assessments, we 

explicitly took the fact of rapid drying 

into account by using a Rn-222 flux rate 

of 1 pCi/m2/s per pCi/g Ra-226 to 

estimate the Rn-222 source term from 

the dry areas of the impoundments. 

(Note: The estimated source terms from 

the ponded (areas completely covered 

by liquid) and saturated areas of the 

impoundments are considered to be 

zero, reflecting the complete attenuation 

of the Rn-222). 

Another factor we considered was the 

area of the impoundment, which has a 

direct linear relationship with the Rn222 source term, more so than the depth 

or volume of the impoundment. Again, 

assuming the same Ra-226 

concentration and grain sizes in the 

tailings, a 100-acre dry impoundment 

will emit 10 times the radon of a 10-acre 

dry impoundment. This linear 

relationship between size and Rn-222 

source term is one of the main reasons 

that Subpart W imposed size restrictions 

on all future impoundments (40 acres 

per impoundment if phased disposal is 

chosen and 10 acres total uncovered if 

continuous disposal is chosen). 

Subpart W also mandates that all 

tailings impoundments at uranium 

recovery facilities comply with the 

requirements at 40 CFR 192.32(a). EPA 

explained the reason for adding this 

requirement in the preamble as follows: 

‘‘EPA recognizes that in the case of a 

tailings pile which is not synthetically or 

clay lined (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.’’ 

54 FR 51654, 51680 (December 15, 

1989). Therefore, all impoundments are 

required to meet the requirements at 40 

CFR 192.32(a). 

Section 192.32(a) includes a crossreference to the surface impoundment 

design and construction requirements of 

hazardous waste surface impoundments 

regulated under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 

found at 40 CFR 264.221. Those 

requirements state that the 

impoundment shall be designed, 

constructed and installed to prevent any 

migration of wastes out of the 

impoundment to the adjacent 

subsurface soil or ground water or 

surface water at any time during the 

active life of the impoundment. Briefly, 

40 CFR 264.221(c) requires that the liner 

system must include: 

1. A top liner designed and constructed of 

materials (e.g., a geomembrane) to prevent 

the migration of hazardous constituents into 

the liner during the active life of the unit. 

2. A composite bottom liner consisting of 

at least two components. The upper 

component must be designed and 

constructed of materials (e.g., a 

geomembrane) to prevent the migration of 

hazardous constituents into this component 

during the active life of the unit. The lower 

component must be designed and 

constructed of materials to minimize the 

migration of hazardous constituents if a 

breach in the upper component were to 

occur. The lower component must be 

constructed of at least three feet of 

compacted soil material with a hydraulic 

conductivity of no more than 1 x 10 7 cm/ 

sec. 

3. A leachate collection and removal 

system between the liners, which acts as a 

leak detection system. This system must be 

capable of detecting, collecting and removing 

hazardous constituents at the earliest 

practicable time through all areas of the top 

liner likely to be exposed to the waste or 

liquids in the impoundment. 

There are other requirements for the 

design and operation of the 

impoundment, and these include 

construction specifications, slope 

requirements, sump and liquid removal 

requirements.13

F. How did we gather information for 

this proposed rule? 

This section describes the information 

we used as the basis for making the 

determination to revise Subpart W. We 

collected this information using various 

methods. We performed literature 

searches, where appropriate, of the 

engineering methods used by existing 

uranium recovery facilities in the 

United States as well as the rest of the 

world. We used this information to 

determine whether the technology used 

to contain uranium byproduct material 

had advanced since the time of the 

original promulgation of Subpart W. We 

reviewed and compiled a list of existing 

and proposed uranium recovery 

facilities and the containment 

technologies being used, as well as 

those proposed to be used. We 

compared and contrasted those 

technologies with the engineering 

requirements of hazardous waste surface 

impoundments regulated under Subtitle 

C of the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA), which are used as 

the design basis for existing uranium 

byproduct material impoundments. 

We collected information on existing 

uranium mills and in-situ leach 

facilities by issuing information 

collection requests authorized under 

section 114(a) of the CAA to seven 

uranium recovery facilities. At the time, 

this represented 100% of existing 

facilities. Since then, Cotter Corp. has 

closed its Can ̃on City facility. These 

requests required uranium recovery 

companies to provide detailed 

information about the uranium mill 

and/or in-situ leaching facility, as well 

as the number, sizes and types of 

affected sources (tailings 

impoundments, evaporation ponds and 

collection ponds) that now or in the past 

held uranium byproduct material. We 

requested information on the history of 

operation since 1975, ownership 

changes, whether the operation was in 

standby mode and whether plans 

existed for new facilities or reactivated 

operations were expected.14 We also 

reviewed the regulatory history of 

Subpart W and the radon measurement 

methods used to determine compliance 

with the existing standards. Below is a 

synopsis of the information we collected 

and our analyses. 

1. Pre-1989 Conventional Mill 

Impoundments 

We have been able to identify three 

facilities, either operating or on 

standby,15 that have been in operation 

since before the promulgation of 

Subpart W in 1989. These existing 

facilities must ensure that emissions 

from their operational, pre-1989 

impoundments16 not exceed a radon 

(Rn-222) flux standard of 20 pCi/m2/sec. 

The method for monitoring for 

compliance with the radon flux 

standard was prescribed as Method 115, 

found at 40 CFR part 61, Appendix B. 

These facilities must also meet the 

requirements in 40 CFR 61.252(c), 

which cross-references the requirements 

of 40 CFR 192.32(a) 

The White Mesa Conventional Mill in 

Blanding, Utah, has one pre-1989 

impoundment (known by the company 

as Cell 3) that is currently in operation 

and near capacity but is still authorized 

and continues to receive tailings. The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25394 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17The term ‘‘beaches’’ refers to portions of the 

tailings impoundment where the tailings are wet 

but not saturated or covered with liquids. 

18Source: U.S. Energy Information 

Administration, http://www.eia.gov/uranium/

production/quarterly/html/qupd_tbl4.html. 

19The Alta Mesa operation uses deep well 

injection rather than evaporation ponds. 

20Source: http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uraniumrecovery/license-apps/ur-projects-list-public.pdf. 

21http://www.nrc.gov/materials/uraniumrecovery/license-apps/ur-projects-list-public.pdf. 

company is now pumping any residual 

free solution out of the cell and 

contouring the sands. It will then be 

determined whether any more solids 

need to be added to the cell to fill it to 

the specified final elevation. It is 

expected to close in the near future 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0218–0069). The 

mill also uses an impoundment 

constructed before 1989 as an 

evaporation pond (known as Cell 1). To 

the extent this evaporation pond 

contains byproduct material, its HAP 

emissions are also regulated by Subpart 

W. 

The Sweetwater conventional mill is 

located 42 miles northwest of Rawlins, 

Wyoming. The mill operated for a short 

time in the 1980s and is currently in 

standby status. Annual radon values 

collected by the facility indicate that 

there is little measurable radon flux 

from the mill tailings that are currently 

in the lined impoundment. This 

monitoring program remains active at 

the facility. According to company 

records, of the 37 acres of tailings, 

approximately 28.3 acres of tailings are 

covered with soil; the remainder of the 

tailings are continuously covered with 

water. The dry tailings have an earthen 

cover that is maintained as needed. 

During each monitoring event one 

hundred radon flux measurements are 

taken on the tailings continuously 

covered by soil, as required by Method 

115 for compliance with Subpart W. 

The mean radon flux for the exposed 

tailings over the past 21 years was 3.5 

pCi/m 2/sec. The radon flux for the 

entire tailings impoundment was 

calculated to be 6.01 pCi/m 2/sec. The 

calculated radon flux from the entire 

tailings impoundment surface is thus 

approximately 30% of the 20.0 pCi/m 2/ 

sec standard (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0218–0087). 

The Shootaring Canyon project is a 

conventional mill located about 3 miles 

north of Ticaboo, Utah, in Garfield 

County. The approximately 1,900-acre 

site includes an ore pad, a small milling 

building, and a tailings impoundment 

system that is partially constructed. The 

mill operated for a very short period of 

time. Shootaring Canyon did pre-date 

the standard, but the mill was shut 

down prior to the promulgation of the 

standard. The impoundment is in a 

standby status and has an active license 

administered by the Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, Division of 

Radiation Control. The future plans for 

this uranium recovery operation are 

unknown. Current activities at this 

remote site consist of intermittent 

environmental monitoring by 

consultants to the parent company 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0218–0087). 

The Shootaring Canyon mill operated 

for approximately 30 days. Tailings 

were deposited in a portion of the upper 

impoundment. A lower impoundment 

was conceptually designed but has not 

been built. Milling operations in 1982 

produced 25,000 cubic yards of tailings, 

deposited in a 2,508 m 2 (0.62 acres) 

area. The tailings are dry except for 

moisture associated with occasional 

precipitation events; consequently, 

there are no beaches.17 The tailings have 

a soil cover that is maintained by the 

operating company. Radon sampling for 

the 2010 year took place in April. Again, 

one hundred radon flux measurements 

were collected. The average radon flux 

from this sampling event was 11.9 pCi/ 

m 2-sec. 

A fourth mill is Cotter Corporation in 

Can ̃ on City, Colorado. The mill no 

longer exists, and the pre-1989 

impoundments are in closure. 

2. 1989–Present Conventional Mill 

Impoundments 

There currently is only one operating 

conventional mill with an 

impoundment that was constructed after 

December 15, 1989. The White Mesa 

conventional mill in Utah has two 

impoundments (Cell 4A and Cell 4B: 

Cell 4A is currently operating as a 

conventional impoundment and Cell 4B 

is being used as an evaporation pond) 

designed and constructed after 1989. 

The facility uses the phased disposal 

work practice. 

There are several conventional mills 

in the planning and/or permitting stage 

and conventional impoundments at 

these mills will be required to utilize 

one of the current work practice 

standards. 

3. In-Situ Leach Facilities 

After 1989 the price of uranium began 

to fall, and the uranium mining and 

milling industry essentially collapsed, 

with very few operations remaining in 

business. However, several years ago the 

price of uranium began to rise so that it 

became profitable once more for 

companies to consider uranium 

recovery. ISL has become the preferred 

choice for uranium extraction where 

suitable geologic conditions exist. 

Currently there are five ISL facilities 

in operation: (1) The Alta Mesa project 

in Brooks County, Texas; (2) the Crow 

Butte Operation in Dawes County, 

Nebraska; (3) the Hobson/La Palangana 

Operation in South Texas; (4) the 

Willow Creek (formerly Christensen 

Ranch/Irigaray Ranch) Operation in 

Wyoming; and (5) the Smith RanchHighland Operation in Converse 

County, Wyoming.18 These facilities use 

or have used evaporation ponds to hold 

back liquids containing uranium 

byproduct material from reinjection to 

maintain a proper hydraulic gradient 

within the wellfield.19 These ponds are 

subject to the Subpart W requirements 

and range in size from less than an acre 

to up to 40 acres. Based on the 

information provided to us the ponds 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

61.252(c). 

There are approximately 11 additional 

ISL facilities in various stages of 

licensing or on standby. It is anticipated 

that there could be approximately 

another 20–30 license applications over 

the next 5–10 years.20

4. Heap Leach Facilities 

As stated earlier, there are currently 

no operating heap leach facilities in the 

United States. We are aware of two or 

three potential future operations. The 

project most advanced in the 

application process is the Sheep 

Mountain facility in Wyoming. Energy 

Fuels has announced its intent to 

submit a license application to the NRC 

in March 2014. One or two other as yet 

to be determined operations may be 

located in Lander County, Nevada and/ 

or a site in New Mexico.21

5. Flux Requirement Versus 

Management Practices for Conventional 

Impoundments in Operation Before 

December 15, 1989 

In performing our analysis we 

considered the information we received 

from all the existing conventional 

impoundments. We also looked at the 

compliance history of the existing 

conventional impoundments. After this 

review we considered two specific 

questions: (1) Are any of the 

conventional impoundments using any 

novel methods to reduce radon 

emissions? (2) Is there now any reason 

to believe that any of the existing 

conventional impoundments could not 

comply with the management practices 

for new conventional impoundments, in 

which case would we need to continue 

to make the distinction between 

conventional impoundments 

constructed before or after December 15, 

1989? We arrived at the following 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25395 

22An Agreement State is a State that has entered 

into an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission under section 274 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2021)and has 

authority to regulate byproduct materials (as 

defined in section 11e.(2)of the Atomic Energy 

Act)and the disposal of low-level radioactive waste 

under such agreement. 

conclusions: First, we are not aware of 

any conventional impoundment that 

uses any new or different technologies 

to reduce radon emissions. 

Conventional impoundment operators 

continue to use the standard method of 

reducing radon emissions by limiting 

the size of the impoundment and 

covering tailings with soil or keeping 

tailings wet. These are very effective 

methods for limiting the amount of 

radon released to the environment. 

Second, we believe that only one 

existing operating conventional 

impoundment designed and in 

operation before December 15, 1989, 

could not meet the work practice 

standards. This impoundment is Cell 3 

at the White Mesa mill, which is 

expected to close in 2014 (Personal 

communication between EPA staff and 

Utah Department of Environmental 

Quality staff, May 16, 2013, EPA–HQ– 

2008–0218–0081). We were very clear in 

our 1989 rulemaking that all 

conventional mill impoundments must 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

192.32(a), which, in addition to 

requiring ground-water monitoring, also 

required the use of liner systems to 

ensure there would be no leakage from 

the impoundment into the ground 

water. We did this by removing the 

exemption for existing piles from the 40 

CFR 192.32(a) requirements (54 FR 

51680). However, we did not require 

those existing impoundments to meet 

either the phased disposal or 

continuous disposal work practice 

standards, which limit the exposed area 

and/or number of conventional 

impoundments, thereby limiting the 

potential for radon emissions. This is 

because at the time of promulgation of 

the rule, conventional impoundments 

existed that were larger in area than the 

maximum work practice standard of 40 

acres used for the phased disposal work 

practice, or 10 acres for the continuous 

disposal requirement. This area 

limitation was important in reducing 

the amount of exposed tailings that were 

available to emit radon. However, we 

recognized that by instituting a radon 

flux standard we would require owners 

and operators to limit radon emissions 

from these preexisting impoundments 

(usually by placing water or soil on 

exposed portions of the impoundments). 

The presumption was that conventional 

impoundments constructed before this 

date could otherwise be left in a dry and 

uncovered state, which would allow for 

unfettered release of radon. The flux 

standard was promulgated to have the 

practical effect of requiring owners and 

operators of these old impoundments to 

keep their tailings either wet or covered 

with soil, thereby reducing the amount 

of radon that could be emitted (54 FR 

51680). 

We believe that the existing 

conventional impoundments at both the 

Shootaring Canyon and Sweetwater 

facilities can meet the work practice 

standards in the current Subpart W 

regulation. The conventional 

impoundments at both these facilities 

are less than 40 acres in area and are 

synthetically lined as per the 

requirements in 40 CFR 192.32(a). We 

also have information that the new 

conventional impoundments operating 

at the White Mesa mill will utilize the 

phased work practice standard of 

limiting conventional impoundments to 

no more than two, each 40 acres or less 

in area. We also have information that 

Cell 3 at the White Mesa facility will be 

closed in 2014, and the phased disposal 

work method will be used for the 

remaining cells. (Personal 

communication between EPA staff and 

staff of Utah Department of 

Environmental Quality, May 16, 2013 

(EPA–HQ–2008–0218–0081). As a 

result, we find there would be no 

conventional impoundment designed or 

constructed before December 15, 1989 

that could not meet a work practice 

standard. Since the conventional 

impoundments in existence prior to 

December 15, 1989 appear to meet the 

work practice standards, we are 

proposing to eliminate the distinction of 

whether the conventional impoundment 

was constructed before or after 

December 15, 1989. We are also 

proposing that all conventional 

impoundments (including those in 

existence prior to December 15, 1989) 

must meet the requirements of one of 

the two work practice standards, and 

that the flux standard of 20 pCi/m2/sec 

will no longer be required for the 

impoundments in existence prior to 

December 15, 1989. 

G. How does this action relate to other 

EPA standards? 

Under the CAA, EPA promulgated 

Subpart W, which includes standards 

and other requirements for controlling 

radon emissions from operating mill 

tailings at uranium recovery facilities. 

Under our authority in the Uranium 

Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 

1978 (UMTRCA), we have also issued 

standards that are more broadly 

applicable to uranium and thorium 

byproduct materials at active and 

inactive uranium recovery facilities. 

NRC (or Agreement States 22) and DOE 

implement and enforce these standards 

at these uranium recovery facilities as 

directed by UMTRCA. These standards, 

located in 40 CFR part 192, address the 

radiological and non-radiological 

hazards of uranium and thorium 

byproduct materials in ground water 

and soil, in addition to air. For the nonradiological hazards, UMTRCA directed 

us to promulgate standards consistent 

with those used by EPA to regulate nonradiological hazardous materials under 

RCRA. Therefore, our part 192 standards 

incorporate the ground-water protection 

requirements applied to hazardous 

waste management units under RCRA 

and specify the placement of uranium or 

thorium byproduct materials in 

impoundments constructed in 

accordance with RCRA requirements. 

Radon emissions from non-operational 

impoundments (i.e., those with final 

covers) are limited in 40 CFR part 192 

to the emissions levels of 20 pCi/m2/sec. 

We are currently preparing a regulatory 

proposal to update provisions of 40 CFR 

part 192, with emphasis on groundwater protection for ISL facilities. As 

explained in previous sections, Subpart 

W currently contains reference to some 

of the part 192 standards. 

H. Why did we conduct an updated risk 

assessment? 

While not required by or conducted as 

part of our GACT analysis, one of the 

tasks we performed for our own 

purposes was to update the risk analysis 

we performed when we promulgated 

Subpart W in 1989. We performed a 

comparison between the 1989 risk 

assessment and current risk assessment 

approaches, focusing on the adequacy 

and the appropriateness of the original 

assessments. We did this for 

informational purposes only and not for 

or as part of our GACT analysis. Instead, 

we prepared this updated risk 

assessment because we wanted to 

demonstrate that even using updated 

risk analysis procedures (i.e. using 

procedures updated from those used in 

the 1980s), the existing radon flux 

standard appears to be protective of the 

public health and the environment. We 

did this by using the information we 

collected to perform new risk 

assessments for existing facilities, as 

well as two idealized ‘‘generic’’ sites, 

one located in the eastern half of the 

United States and one located in the 

southwest United States. (These two 

model sites do not exist. They are 

idealized using representative features 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25396 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23Technical and Regulatory Support to Develop 

a Rulemaking to Potentially Modify the NESHAP 

Subpart W Standard for Radon Emissions from 

Operating Uranium Mills (40 CFR 61.250). 

24http://www.epa.gov/radiation/assessment/

CAP88 V 3.0/index.html. 

25There is a potential in the future for uranium 

recovery in areas like south-central Virginia. 

26See 54 FR 51656 

27All risks are presented as LCF risks. If it is 

desired to estimate the morbidity risk, simply 

multiply the LCF risk by 1.39. For a more detailed 

analysis of cancer mortality and morbidity, please 

see the Background Information Document, Docket 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–0218–0087. 

of mills in differing climate and 

geography). This information has been 

collected into one document 23 that has 

been placed in the docket (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0218–0087) for this 

proposed rulemaking. 

As part of this work, we evaluated 

various computer models that could be 

used to calculate the doses and risks 

due to the operation of conventional 

and ISL uranium recovery facilities, and 

selected CAP88 V 3.0 for use in this 

analysis. CAP88 V 3.0 was developed in 

1988 from the AIRDOS, RADRISK, and 

DARTAB computer programs, which 

had been developed for the EPA at the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). 

CAP88 V 3.0, which stands for ‘‘Clean 

Air Act Assessment Package-1988 

version 3.0,’’ is used to demonstrate 

compliance with the NESHAP 

requirements applicable to 

radionuclides. CAP88 V 3.0 calculates 

the doses and risk to a designated 

receptor as well as to the surrounding 

population. Exposure pathways 

evaluated by CAP88 V 3.0 are: 

inhalation, air immersion, ingestion of 

vegetables, meat, and milk, and ground 

surface exposure. CAP88 V 3.0 uses a 

modified Gaussian plume equation to 

estimate the average dispersion of 

radionuclides released from up to six 

emitting sources. The sources may be 

either elevated stacks, such as a 

smokestack, or uniform area sources, 

such as the surface of a uranium 

byproduct material impoundment. 

Plume rise can be calculated assuming 

either a momentum or buoyant-driven 

plume. 

At several sites analyzed in this 

evaluation only site-wide releases of 

radon were available to us. This 

assessment was limited by the level of 

detail provided by owners and operators 

of uranium recovery facilities. In 

instances where more specific site data 

were available, site-wide radon releases 

were used as a bounding estimate. 

Assessments are done for a circular grid 

of distances and directions for a radius 

of up to 80 kilometers (50 miles) around 

the facility. The Gaussian plume model 

produces results that agree with 

experimental data as well as any 

comparable model, is fairly easy to work 

with, and is consistent with the random 

nature of turbulence. A description of 

CAP88 V 3.0 and the computer models 

upon which it is based is provided in 

the CAP88 V 3.0 Users Manual.24

The uranium recovery facilities that 

we analyzed included three existing 

conventional mills (Cotter, White Mesa 

and Sweetwater), five operating ISL 

operations (the Alta Mesa project in 

Brooks County, Texas; the Crow Butte 

Operation in Dawes County, Nebraska; 

the Hobson/La Palangana Operation in 

South Texas; the Willow Creek 

(formerly Christensen Ranch/Irigaray 

Ranch) Operation in Wyoming; and the 

Smith Ranch-Highland Operation in 

Converse County, Wyoming), and two 

generic sites assumed for the location of 

conventional mills (we chose 

conventional mills because we believe 

they have the potential for greater radon 

emissions). One generic site was 

modeled in the southwest United States 

(Western Generic) while the other was 

assumed to be located in the eastern 

United States (Eastern Generic).25 An 

Eastern generic site was selected for the 

second generic site to accommodate the 

recognition that a number of uranium 

recovery facilities are expected to apply 

for construction licenses in the future, 

and to determine potential risks in 

geographic areas of the U.S. that 

customarily have not hosted uranium 

recovery facilities. For this assessment 

the conventional mills we were most 

interested in were the White Mesa mill 

and the Sweetwater mill. (The 

Shootaring Canyon mill was not 

analyzed, because the impoundment is 

very small and is soil covered, and the 

Cotter facility is now in closure). These 

conventional mills are either in 

operation or standby and are subject to 

the flux standard of 20 pCi/m2/sec. The 

risk analyses performed for these two 

mills showed that the maximum 

lifetime cancer risks from radon 

emissions from the White Mesa 

impoundments were 1.1 × 10¥4 while 

the maximum lifetime cancer risks from 

radon associated with the 

impoundments at the Sweetwater mill 

were 2.4 × 10¥5. As we indicated in our 

original 1989 risk assessment, in 

protecting public health, EPA strives to 

provide the maximum feasible 

protection by limiting lifetime cancer 

risk from radon exposure to 

approximately 1 in 10,000 (i.e., 10¥4).26

The analyses also estimated that the 

total cancer risk to the populations 

surrounding all ten modeled uranium 

sites (i.e., total cancer fatalities) is 

between 0.0015 and 0.0026 fatal cancers 

per year, or approximately 1 case every 

385 to 667 years for the 4 million 

persons living within 80 km of the 

uranium recovery facilities. Similarly, 

the total cancer incidence for all ten 

modeled sites is between 0.0021 and 

0.0036 cancers per year, or 

approximately 1 case every 278 to 476 

years. The analyses are described in 

more detail in the background 

document generated for this proposal.27

As stated above, we performed this risk 

assessment for informational purposes 

only. The risk assessment was not 

required or considered during our 

analysis for proposing GACT standards 

for uranium recovery facilities (e.g., 

conventional impoundments, nonconventional impoundments or heap 

leach piles). 

III. Summary of the Proposed 

Requirements 

We are proposing to revise Subpart W 

to include requirements we have 

identified that are generally available for 

controlling radon emissions in a costeffective manner, and are not currently 

included in Subpart W. Specifically, we 

are proposing to require that nonconventional impoundments and heap 

leach piles must maintain minimum 

liquid levels to control their radon 

emissions from these affected sources. 

Additionally, we are revising Subpart 

W to propose GACT standards for the 

affected sources at conventional 

uranium mills, ISL facilities and heap 

leach facilities. Given the evolution of 

uranium recovery facilities over the last 

20 years, we believe it is appropriate to 

revise Subpart W to tailor the 

requirements of the rule to the different 

types of facilities in existence at this 

time. We are therefore proposing to 

revise Subpart W to add appropriate 

definitions, standards and other 

requirements that are applicable to HAP 

emissions at these uranium recovery 

facilities. 

Our experience with ensuring that 

uranium recovery facilities are in 

compliance with Subpart W also leads 

us to propose three more changes. First, 

we are proposing to remove certain 

monitoring requirements that we believe 

are no longer necessary for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

proposed GACT standards. Second, we 

are proposing to revise certain 

definitions so that owners and operators 

clearly understand when Subpart W 

applies to their facility. Third, we are 

proposing to clarify what specific liner 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25397 

28Under its CAA authority, EPA requires 

facilities subject to Subpart W to build 

impoundments in a manner that complies with the 

requirements found in 40 CFR 192. As a matter of 

convenience, EPA cross-references the part 192 

requirements in Subpart W instead of copying them 

directly into Subpart W. This cross-referencing 

convention is often used in rulemakings. 

requirements must be met under 

Subpart W.28

Taken altogether, the proposed 

revisions to Subpart W are appropriate 

for updating, clarifying and 

strengthening the management of radon 

emissions from the uranium byproduct 

material generated at uranium recovery 

facilities. 

A. What are the affected sources? 

Today we are proposing to revise 

Subpart W to include requirements for 

affected sources at three types of 

operating uranium recovery facilities: 

(1) Conventional uranium mills; (2) ISL 

facilities; and (3) heap leach facilities. 

The affected sources at these uranium 

recovery facilities include conventional 

impoundments, non-conventional 

impoundments where tailings are 

contained in ponds and covered by 

liquids (examples of these affected 

sources are evaporation or holding 

ponds that may exist at conventional 

mills, ISL facilities and heap leach 

facilities), and heap leach piles. The 

proposed GACT standards and the 

rationale for these proposed standards 

are discussed below and in Section IV. 

We request comment on all aspects of 

these proposed requirements. 

B. What are the proposed requirements? 

1. Conventional Impoundments 

In the 1989 promulgation of Subpart 

W we created two work practice 

standards, phased disposal and 

continuous disposal, for uranium 

tailings impoundments designed and 

constructed after December 15, 1989. 

The work practice standards, which 

limit the exposed area and/or number of 

conventional impoundments at a 

uranium recovery facility, require that 

these impoundments be no larger than 

40 acres (for phased disposal) or 10 

uncovered acres (for continuous 

disposal). We also limited the number of 

conventional impoundments operating 

at any one time to two. We took this 

approach because we recognized that 

the radon emissions from very large 

conventional impoundments could 

impose unacceptable health effects if 

the piles were left dry and uncovered. 

The 1989 promulgation also included 

the requirements in 40 CFR 192.32(a), 

which include design and construction 

requirements for the impoundments as 

well as requirements for prevention and 

mitigation of ground-water 

contamination. 

As discussed earlier, we no longer 

believe that a distinction needs to be 

made for conventional impoundments 

based on the date when they were 

designed and/or constructed. We 

believe that the existing conventional 

impoundments at both the Shootaring 

Canyon and Sweetwater facilities can 

meet the work practice standards in the 

current Subpart W regulation. The 

conventional impoundments at both 

these facilities are less than 40 acres in 

area and are synthetically lined as per 

the requirements in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1). 

The existing cell 3 at the White Mesa 

mill will undergo closure in 2014 and 

will be replaced with the 

impoundments currently under 

construction that meet the phased 

disposal work practice standard. 

Therefore, there is no reason not to 

subject these older impoundments to 

the work practice standards required for 

impoundments designed or constructed 

after December 15, 1989. By 

incorporating these impoundments 

under the work practices provision of 

Subpart W, it is no longer necessary to 

require radon flux monitoring, and we 

are proposing to eliminate that 

requirement. 

The proposed elimination of the 

monitoring requirement in 40 CFR 

61.253 applies only to those facilities 

currently subject to the radon flux 

standard in 40 CFR 61.252(a), which 

applies to only the three conventional 

impoundments in existence prior to the 

original promulgation of Subpart W on 

December 15, 1989. While we are 

proposing to eliminate the radon 

monitoring requirement for these three 

impoundments under Subpart W, this 

action does not relieve the owner or 

operator of the uranium recovery facility 

of the monitoring and maintenance 

requirements of their operating license 

issued by the NRC or its Agreement 

States. These requirements are found at 

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 

8 and 8A. Additionally, NRC, through 

its Regulatory Guide 4.14, may also 

recommend incorporation of 

radionuclide air monitoring at operating 

facility boundaries. 

Further, when the impoundments 

formally close they are subject to the 

radon monitoring requirements of 40 

CFR 192.32(a)(3), also under the NRC 

licensing requirements. 

From a cost standpoint, by not 

requiring radon monitoring we expect 

that for all three sites the total annual 

average cost savings would be $29,200, 

with a range from about $21,000 to 

$37,000. More details on economic costs 

can be found in Section IV.B of this 

preamble. 

For the proposed rule we also 

evaluated the requirements of 40 CFR 

192.32(a) as they pertain to the Subpart 

W standards. The requirements of 40 

CFR 192.32(a) are included in the NRC’s 

regulations and are reviewed for 

compliance by NRC during the licensing 

process for a uranium recovery facility. 

We determined that the requirements at 

40 CFR 192.32(a)(1), which reference 

the RCRA requirements for design and 

operation of surface impoundments at 

40 CFR 264.221, are the only 

requirements necessary for EPA to 

incorporate for Subpart W, as they are 

effective methods of containing tailings 

and protecting ground water while also 

limiting radon emissions. This liner 

requirement, described earlier in this 

preamble, remains in use for the 

permitting of hazardous waste land 

disposal units under RCRA. The 

requirements at 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) 

contain safeguards to allow for the 

placement of tailings and yet provide an 

early warning system in the event of a 

leak in the liner system. We are 

therefore proposing to retain the two 

work practice standards and the 

requirements of 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) as 

GACT for conventional impoundments 

because these methods for limiting 

radon emissions while also protecting 

ground water have proven effective for 

these types of impoundments. 

2. Non-Conventional Impoundments 

Where Tailings Are Contained in Ponds 

and Covered by Liquids 

Today we are proposing a GACT 

standard specifically for nonconventional impoundments where 

uranium byproduct materials are 

contained in ponds and covered by 

liquids. Common names for these 

structures may include, but are not 

limited to, impoundments and 

evaporation or holding ponds. These 

affected sources may be found at any of 

the three types of uranium recovery 

facilities. 

These units meet the existing 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 61.250 

to classify them for regulation under 

Subpart W. The holding or evaporation 

ponds located at conventional mills, ISL 

facilities and potentially heap leach 

facilities contain uranium byproduct 

material, either in solid form or 

dissolved in solution, and therefore 

their emissions are regulated under 

Subpart W. As defined at 40 CFR 

61.251(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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25398 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Therefore, emissions for the ponds at 

uranium recovery facilities that contain 

either uranium byproduct material in 

solid form or radionuclides dissolved in 

liquids are regulated under Subpart W. 

Today we are again stating that 

determination and proposing a GACT 

standard specifically for these 

impoundments. 

Evaporation or holding ponds, while 

sometimes smaller in area than 

conventional impoundments, perform a 

basic task. They hold uranium 

byproduct material until it can be 

disposed. Our survey of existing ponds 

shows that they contain liquids, and, as 

such, this general practice has been 

sufficient to limit the amount of radon 

emitted from the ponds, in many cases, 

to almost zero. Because of the low 

potential for radon emissions from these 

impoundments, we do not believe it is 

necessary to monitor them for radon 

emissions. We have found that as long 

as approximately one meter of liquid is 

maintained in the pond, the effective 

radon emissions from the pond are so 

low that it is difficult to determine 

whether there is any contribution above 

background radon values. EPA has 

stated in the Final Rule for Radon-222 

Emissions from Licensed Uranium Mill 

Tailings: Background Information 

Document (August, 1986): 

‘‘Recent technical assessments of radon 

emission rates from tailings indicate that 

radon emissions from tailings covered with 

less than one meter of water, or merely 

saturated with water, are about 2% of 

emissions from dry tailings. Tailings covered 

with more than one meter of water are 

estimated to have a zero emissions rate. The 

Agency believes this calculated difference 

between 0% and 2% is negligible. The 

Agency used an emission rate of zero for all 

tailings covered with water or saturated with 

water in estimating radon emissions.’’ 

Therefore, we are proposing as GACT 

that these impoundments meet the 

design and construction requirements of 

40 CFR 192.32(a)(1), with no size/area 

restriction, and that during the active 

life of the pond at least one meter of 

liquid be maintained in the pond. 

We are also proposing that no 

monitoring be required for this type of 

impoundment. We have received 

information and collected data that 

show there is no acceptable radon flux 

test method for a pond holding a large 

amount of liquid. (Method 115 does not 

work because a solid surface is needed 

to place the large area activated carbon 

canisters used in the Method). Further, 

even if there was an acceptable method, 

we recognize that radon emissions from 

the pond would be expected to be very 

low because the liquid acts as an 

effective barrier to radon emissions; 

given that radon-222 has a very short 

half-life (3.8 days), there simply is not 

enough time for most of the radon 

produced by the solids or from solution 

to migrate to the water surface and cross 

the water/air interface before 

decaying(EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0218– 

0087). It therefore appears that 

monitoring at these ponds is not 

necessary for demonstrating compliance 

with the proposed standards. We do, 

however, ask for comment and 

supporting information on three issues: 

(1) Whether these impoundments need 

to be monitored with regard to their 

radon emissions, and why; (2) whether 

these impoundments need to be 

monitored to ensure at least one meter 

of liquid is maintained in the pond at 

all times, and (3) if these impoundments 

do need monitoring, what methods 

could a facility use (for example, what 

types of radon collection devices, or 

methods to measure liquid levels) at 

evaporation or holding ponds. 

3. Heap Leach Piles 

The final impoundment category for 

which we are proposing GACT 

standards is heap leach piles. We are 

proposing to require that heap leach 

piles meet the phased disposal work 

practice standard set out in Section III 

B. 1. of this preamble (which limits an 

owner/operator to no more than two 

operating heap leach piles of no more 

than 40 acres each at any time) and the 

design and construction requirements at 

40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) as GACT. We are 

also requiring heap leach piles to 

maintain minimum moisture content of 

30% so that the byproduct material in 

the heap leach pile does not dry out, 

which would increase radon emissions 

from the heap leach pile. 

As noted earlier in the preamble, 

there are currently no operating 

uranium heap leach facilities in the 

United States. We are aware that the one 

currently proposed heap leach facility 

will use the design and operating 

requirements at 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) for 

the design of its heap. Since this 

requirement will be used at the only 

example we have for a heap leach pile, 

it (design and operating requirements at 

40 CFR 192.32(a)(1)), along with the 

phased disposal work practice standard 

(limiting the number and size of heap 

leach piles), will be the standards that 

we propose as GACT for heap leach 

piles. The premise is that the operator 

of a heap would not want to lose any of 

the uranium-bearing solution; thus, it is 

cost effective to maintain a good liner 

system so that there will be no leakage 

and ground water will be protected. 

Also, use of the phased disposal work 

practice standard will limit the amount 

of exposed uranium byproduct material 

that would be available to emit radon. 

If we assume that uranium ore (found in 

the heap leach pile) and the resultant 

leftover byproduct material after 

processing emit radon at the same rate 

as uranium byproduct material in a 

conventional impoundment (a 

conservative estimate), we can also 

assume that the radon emissions will be 

nearly the same as two 40 acre 

conventional impoundments. 

We recognize that owners and 

operators of conventional 

impoundments also limit the amount of 

radon emitted by keeping the tailings in 

the impoundments covered, either with 

soil or liquids. At the same time, 

however, we recognize that keeping the 

uranium byproduct material in the heap 

in a saturated or near-saturated state (in 

order to reduce radon emissions) is not 

a practical solution as it would be at a 

conventional tailings impoundment. In 

the definitions at 40 CFR 61.251(c) we 

have defined ‘‘dewatered’’ tailings as 

those where the water content of the 

tailings does not exceed 30% by weight. 

We are proposing today to require 

operating heaps to maintain moisture 

content of greater than 30% so that the 

byproduct material in the heap is not 

allowed to become dewatered which 

would allow more radon emissions. We 

are specifically asking for comment on 

the amount of liquid that should be 

required in the heap, and whether the 

30% figure is a realistic objective. We 

are also asking for comments on 

precisely where in the heap leach pile 

this requirement must be met. The heap 

leach pile may not be evenly saturated 

during the uranium extraction process. 

The sprayer/drip system commonly 

used on the top of heap leach piles 

usually results in a semi-saturated 

moisture condition at the top of the pile, 

since flow of the lixiviant is not 

uniformly spread across the top of the 

pile. As downward flow continues, the 

internal areas of the pile become 

saturated. We are requesting 

information and comment on where 

specifically in the pile the 30% 

moisture content should apply. 

C. What are the monitoring 

requirements? 

As the rule currently exists, only mills 

with existing conventional 

impoundments in operation on or prior 

to December 15, 1989, are currently 

required to monitor to ensure 

compliance with the radon flux 

standard. The reason for this is because 

at the time of promulgation of the 1989 

rule, EPA stated that no flux monitoring 

would be required for new 

impoundments because the proposed 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25399 

29The one meter liquid requirement pertains to 

having one meter of liquid cover any and all solid 

byproduct material. We do not anticipate a large 

quantity of solid byproduct material in these 

nonconventional impoundments (EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2008–0218–0088). 

work practice standards would be 

effective in reducing radon emissions 

from operating impoundments by 

limiting the amount of tailings exposed 

(54 FR 51681). Since we have now 

determined that existing older 

conventional impoundments can meet 

one of the two work practice standards, 

we are proposing to eliminate the radon 

flux monitoring requirement. 

In reviewing Subpart W we looked 

into whether we should extend radon 

monitoring to all affected sources 

constructed and operated after 1989 so 

that the monitoring requirement would 

apply to all conventional 

impoundments, non-conventional 

impoundments and heap leach piles 

containing uranium byproduct 

materials. We also reviewed how this 

requirement would apply to facilities 

where Method 115 is not applicable, 

such as at impoundments totally 

covered by liquids. We concluded that 

the original work practice standards 

(now proposed as GACT) continue to be 

an effective practice for the limiting of 

radon emissions from conventional 

impoundments and from heap leach 

piles. We also concluded that by 

maintaining an effective water cover on 

non-conventional impoundments the 

radon emissions from those 

impoundments are so low as to be 

difficult to differentiate from 

background radon levels at uranium 

recovery facilities. Therefore, we are 

proposing today that it is not necessary 

to require radon monitoring for any 

affected sources regulated under 

Subpart W. We seek comment on our 

conclusion that radon monitoring is not 

necessary for any of these sources as 

well as on any available cost-effective 

options for monitoring radon at nonconventional impoundments totally 

covered by liquids. 

D. What are the notification, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements? 

New and existing affected sources are 

required to comply with the existing 

requirements of the General Provisions 

(40 CFR part 61, subpart A). The 

General Provisions include specific 

requirements for notifications, 

recordkeeping and reporting, including 

provisions for notification of 

construction and/or modification and 

startup as required by 40 CFR 61.07, 

61.08 and 61.09. 

Today we are also proposing that all 

affected sources will be required to 

maintain certain records pertaining to 

the design, construction and operation 

of the impoundments, both including 

conventional impoundments, and 

nonconventional impoundments, and 

heap leach piles. We are proposing that 

these records be retained at the facility 

and contain information demonstrating 

that the impoundments and/or heap 

leach pile meet the requirements in 

section 192.32(a)(1), including but not 

limited to, all tests performed that prove 

the liner is compatible with the 

material(s) being placed on the liner. 

For nonconventional impoundments we 

are proposing that this requirement 

would also include records showing 

compliance with the continuous one 

meter of liquid in the impoundment; 29

for heap leach piles, we are proposing 

that this requirement would include 

records showing that the 30% moisture 

content of the pile is continuously 

maintained. Documents showing that 

the impoundments and/or heap leach 

pile meet the requirements in section 

192.32(a)(1) are already required as part 

of the pre-construction application 

submitted under 40 CFR 61.07, so these 

records should already be available. 

Records showing compliance with the 

one meter liquid cover requirement for 

nonconventional impoundments and 

records showing compliance with the 

30% moisture level required in heap 

leach piles can be created and stored 

during the daily inspections of the 

tailings and waste retention systems 

required by the NRC (and Agreement 

States) under the inspection 

requirements of 10 CFR 40, Appendix 

A, Criterion 8A. 

Because we are proposing new recordkeeping requirements for uranium 

recovery facilities, we are required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to 

prepare an estimate of the burden of 

such record-keeping on the regulated 

entity, in both cost and hours necessary 

to comply with the requirements. We 

have submitted the Information 

Collection Request (ICR) containing this 

burden estimate and other supporting 

documentation to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). See 

Section VII.B for more discussion of the 

PRA and ICR. 

We believe the record-keeping 

requirements proposed today will not 

create a significant burden for operators 

of uranium recovery facilities. As 

described earlier, we are proposing to 

require retention of three types of 

records: (1) Records demonstrating that 

the impoundments and/or heap leach 

pile meet the requirements in section 

192.32(a)(1) (e.g. the design and liner 

testing information); (2) records 

showing that one meter of water is 

maintained to cover the byproduct 

material stored in nonconventional 

impoundments; and (3) records showing 

that heap leach piles maintain a 

moisture content of at least 30%. 

Documents demonstrating that the 

affected sources comply with section 

192.32(a)(1) requirements are necessary 

for the facility to obtain regulatory 

approval from NRC (or an NRC 

Agreement State) and EPA to construct 

and operate the affected sources (this 

includes any revisions during the period 

of operations). Therefore, these records 

will exist independent of Subpart W 

requirements and will not need to be 

continually updated as a result of this 

record-keeping requirement in Subpart 

W; however, we are proposing to 

include this record-keeping requirement 

in Subpart W to require that the records 

be maintained at the facility during its 

operational lifetime (in some cases the 

records might be stored at a location 

away from the facility, such as corporate 

offices). This might necessitate creating 

copies of the original records and 

providing a location for storing them at 

the facility. 

Keeping a record to provide 

confirmation that water to a depth of 

one meter is maintained above the 

byproduct material stored in 

nonconventional impoundments should 

also be relatively straightforward. This 

would involve placement of a 

measuring device or devices in or at the 

edge of the impoundment to allow 

observation of the water level relative to 

the level of byproduct material in the 

impoundment. Such devices need not 

be highly technical and might consist of, 

for example, measuring sticks with 

easily-observable markings placed at 

various locations, or marking the sides 

of the impoundment to illustrate 

different water depths. As noted earlier, 

NRC and Agreement State licenses 

require operators to inspect the facility 

on a daily basis. Limited effort should 

be necessary to make observations of 

water depth and record the information 

in inspection log books that are already 

kept on site and available to inspectors. 

Similarly, daily inspections would 

provide a mechanism for recording 

moisture content of heap leach piles. 

However, because no heap leach 

facilities are currently operating, there is 

more uncertainty about exactly how the 

operator will determine that the heap 

has maintained a 30% moisture content. 

As discussed in more detail in Section 

IV.E.4 of this preamble, soil moisture 

probes are readily available and could 

be used for this purpose. Such probes 

could be either left in the heap leach 

pile, placed at locations that provide a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25400 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

30See http://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/

subpartw/rulemaking-activity.html for a list of 

presentations made at public meetings held by EPA 

and at various conferences open to the public. 

representative estimate for the heap as 

a whole, or facility personnel could use 

handheld probes to collect readings. 

The facility might also employ massbalance estimates to provide a further 

check on the data collected. 

We estimate the burden in hours and 

cost for uranium recovery facilities to 

comply with the proposed 

recordkeeping requirements are as 

follows: 

TABLE 1—BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS FOR PROPOSED RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

[Annual figures except where noted] 

Activity Hours Costs 

Maintaining Records for the section 192.32(a)(1) requirements ..................................................................................... *20 * $1,360 

Verifying the one meter liquid requirement for nonconventional impoundments ............................................................ 288 12,958 

Verifying the 30% moisture content at heap leach piles using multiple soil probes ...................................................... 2,068 86,548 

* These figures represent a one-time cost to the facility. 

Burden levels for heap leach piles are 

most uncertain because they depend on 

the chosen method of measurement 

(e.g., purchasing and maintaining 

multiple probes or a smaller number of 

handheld units) as well as the personnel 

training involved (e.g., a person using a 

handheld unit will likely need more 

training than someone who is simply 

recording readings from already-placed 

probes). We request comment on our 

estimates of burden, as well as 

suggestions of methods that could 

readily and efficiently be used to collect 

the required information. More 

discussion of the ICR and opportunities 

for comment may be found in Section 

VII.B. 

E. When must I comply with these 

proposed standards? 

All existing affected sources subject to 

this proposed rule would be required to 

comply with the rule requirements upon 

the date of publication of the final rule 

in the Federal Register. To our 

knowledge, there is no existing 

operating uranium recovery facility that 

would be required to modify its affected 

sources to meet the requirements of the 

final rule; however, we request any 

information regarding affected sources 

that would not meet these requirements. 

New sources would be required to 

comply with these rule requirements 

upon the date of publication of the final 

rule in the Federal Register or upon 

startup of the facility, whichever is later. 

IV. Rationale for This Proposed Rule 

A. How did we determine GACT? 

As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), 

we are proposing standards representing 

GACT for this area source category. In 

developing the proposed GACT 

standards, we evaluated the control 

technologies and management practices 

that are available to reduce HAP 

emissions from the affected sources and 

identified those that are generally 

available and utilized by operating 

uranium recovery facilities. 

As noted in Section II.F., for this 

proposal we solicited information on 

the available controls and management 

practices for this area source category 

using written facility surveys (surveys 

authorized by section 114(a) of the 

CAA), reviews of published literature, 

and reviews of existing facilities (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–0218–0066). We also held 

discussions with trade association and 

industry representatives and other 

stakeholders at various public 

meetings.30 Our determination of GACT 

is based on this information. We also 

considered costs and economic impacts 

in determining GACT (See Section VI.). 

We identified two general 

management practices that reduce radon 

emissions from affected sources. These 

general management practices are 

currently being used at all existing 

uranium recovery facilities. First, 

limiting the area of exposed tailings in 

conventional impoundments limits the 

amount of radon that can be emitted. 

The work practice standards currently 

included in Subpart W require owners 

and operators of affected sources to 

implement this management practice by 

either limiting the number and area of 

existing, operating impoundments or 

covering dewatered tailings to allow for 

no more than 10 acres of exposed 

tailings. This is an existing requirement 

of Subpart W and of the NRC licensing 

requirements; hence, owners and 

operators of uranium recovery facilities 

are already incurring the costs 

associated with limiting the area of 

conventional impoundments (and as 

proposed, heap leach piles) to 40 acres 

or less (as well as no more than two 

conventional impoundments in 

operation at any one time), or limiting 

the area of exposed tailings to no more 

than 10 acres. 

Second, covering uranium byproduct 

materials with liquids is a general 

management practice that is an effective 

method for limiting radon emissions. 

This general management practice is 

often used at nonconventional 

impoundments, which, as stated earlier, 

are also known as evaporation or 

holding ponds. These nonconventional 

impoundments also contain byproduct 

material, and thus their HAP emissions 

are regulated under Subpart W. They are 

also regulated under the NRC operating 

license. While they hold mostly liquids, 

they are still designed and constructed 

in the manner of conventional 

impoundments, meaning they meet the 

requirements of section 192.32(a)(1). 

While this management practice of 

covering uranium byproduct materials 

in impoundments with liquids is not 

currently required under Subpart W, 

facilities using this practice have 

generally shown its effectiveness in 

reducing emissions in both 

conventional impoundments (that make 

use of phased disposal) and 

nonconventional impoundments (i.e. 

holding or evaporation ponds). We are 

therefore proposing to require the use of 

liquids in nonconventional 

impoundments as a way to limit radon 

emissions. 

Therefore, after review of the 

available information and from the 

evidence we have examined, we have 

determined that a combination of the 

management practices listed above will 

be effective in limiting radon emissions 

from this source category, and will do 

so in a cost effective manner. We also 

believe that since heap leach piles are 

in many ways similar to the design of 

conventional impoundments, the same 

combination of work practices 

(limitation to no more than two 

operating heap leach piles, each one no 

more than 40 acres) will limit radon 

emissions in heap leach piles. We 

discuss our reasons supporting these 

conclusions in more detail in Section 

IV.B. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25401 

31For our purposes, baseline conditions are 

defined as a reference point that reflects the world 

without the proposed regulation. It is the starting 

point for conducting an economic analysis of the 

potential benefits and costs of a proposed 

regulation. The defined baseline influences first the 

level of emissions expected without regulatory 

intervention. It thereby also influences the 

projected level of emissions reduction that may be 

achieved as a consequence of the proposed 

regulation. Baselines have no standard definition 

besides the fact that they simply provide a reference 

scenario against which changes in economic and 

environmental conditions (in this case radon 

emissions) can be measured. In some instances, 

baselines have been established based on the 

assumption that economic, environmental and/or 

other conditions will continue on the present path 

or trend, purely as time dependant extensions of 

presently observed patterns. In other instances, 

baselines are derived from elaborate modeling 

Continued 

B. Proposed GACT Standards for 

Operating Mill Tailings 

1. Requirements at 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) 

As an initial matter, we determined 

that the requirements at 40 CFR 

192.32(a)(1), which reference the RCRA 

requirements for the design and 

construction of liners at 40 CFR 

264.221, continue to be an effective 

method of containment of tailings for all 

types of affected sources (EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0218–0015). The liner 

requirements, described earlier in this 

document, remain in use for the 

permitting of hazardous waste land 

disposal units under RCRA. Because of 

the requirement for nearly impermeable 

boundaries between the tailings and the 

subsurface, and the requirement for leak 

detection between the liners, we have 

determined that the requirements 

contain enough safeguards to allow for 

the placement of tailings and also 

provide an early warning system in the 

event of a leak in the liner system (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0218–0015). For this 

reason we are proposing to require as 

GACT that conventional 

impoundments, non-conventional 

impoundments and heap leach piles all 

comply with the liner requirements in 

40 CFR 192.32(a)(1). Previously, Subpart 

W contained this requirement but 

included a more general reference to 40 

CFR 192.32(a); we are proposing to 

replace that general reference with a 

more specific reference to 40 CFR 

192.32(a)(1) to narrow the requirements 

under this proposed rule to only the 

design and construction requirements 

for the liner of the impoundment 

contained in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1). 

The estimated average cost of the liner 

requirement for each type of 

impoundment at uranium recovery 

facilities is listed in the table below 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0218–0087): 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED LINER COSTS

Table 2—Proposed GACT standards costs per pound of U3O8

Unit cost ($/lb U3O8) 

Conventional ISL Heap Leach 

GACT—Double Liners for Nonconventional Impoundments ................................................. $1 .04 $3 .07 $0 .22 

GACT—Maintaining 1 Meter of Water in Nonconventional Impoundments ......................... 0 .013 0 .010 0 .0010 

GACT—Liners for Heap Leach Piles .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2 .01 

GACT—Maintaining Heap Leach Piles at 30% Moisture ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 0 .0043 

GACTs—Total for All Four .................................................................................................... 1 .05 3 .08 2 .24 

Table 2 presents a summary of the 

unit cost (per pound of U3O8) for 

implementing each GACT at each of the 

three types of uranium recovery 

facilities. In addition to presenting the 

GACT costs individually, Table 2 

presents the total unit cost to implement 

all relevant GACTs at each type of 

facility. 

Based on the Table 2, implementing 

all four GACTs would result in unit cost 

(per pound of U3O8) increases of about 

2%, 6%, and 5% at conventional mills, 

ISL, and heap leach type uranium 

recovery facilities, respectively. 

In making these cost estimates, we 

have assumed the following: (1) A 

conventional impoundment is no larger 

than 40 acres in size, which is the 

maximum size allowed for the phased 

disposal option; (2) a nonconventional 

impoundment is no larger than 80 acres 

in size (the largest size we have seen); 

and (3) a heap leach pile is no larger 

than 40 acres in size (again, the 

maximum size allowed under the 

phased disposal work practice standard, 

although as with conventional 

impoundments the owner or operator is 

limited to two of these affected sources 

to be in operation at any time). 

We do not have precise data for the 

costs associated with the liner 

requirements at conventional 

impoundments using the continuous 

disposal work practice standard because 

currently none exist, but a reasonable 

maximum approximation would be the 

costs for the 80 acre nonconventional 

impoundment, since it is the largest we 

have seen. We believe that no additional 

costs would be incurred for building a 

conventional impoundment that will 

use the continuous disposal option 

above what we estimated for building a 

nonconventional impoundment but we 

ask for comment on whether this 

assumption is reasonable. We also ask 

for data on the costs of building a 

conventional impoundment using 

continuous disposal, and how those 

costs would differ from the estimates 

provided above, or whether the costs we 

have listed for building a conventional 

impoundment using phased disposal are 

a reasonable approximation of the costs 

for building a conventional 

impoundment using continuous 

disposal. 

These liner systems are already 

required by 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1), which, 

as explained above, are requirements 

promulgated by EPA under UMTRCA 

that are incorporated into NRC 

regulations and implemented and 

enforced by NRC and NRC Agreement 

States through their licensing 

requirements. Therefore, we are not 

placing any additional liner 

requirements on facilities or requiring 

them to incur any additional costs to 

build their conventional or 

nonconventional impoundments or 

heap leach piles above and beyond what 

an owner or operator of these 

impoundments must already incur to 

obtain an NRC or NRC Agreement State 

license. 

The liner systems we are proposing 

that heap leach piles must use are the 

same as those used for conventional and 

nonconventional impoundments. We 

estimate that the average costs 

associated with the construction of a 40 

acre liner that complies with 40 CFR 

192.32(a)(1)is approximately $15.3 

million. When compared to the baseline 

capital costs associated with the facility 

(estimated at $356 million)(EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0218–0087), the costs for 

constructing this type of liner system 

per facility is about 4% of the total 

baseline capital costs of a heap leach 

pile facility (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0218–0087).31

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25402 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

projections. Because in all cases their purpose is to 

project a view of the world without the proposed 

regulatory intervention, baselines are sometimes 

termed ‘‘do nothing’’ or ‘‘business as usual’’ 

scenarios. 

32http://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/

subpartw/rulemaking-activity.html. 

33For a detailed discussion of this topic, which 

includes the effects of pond water mixing, wind and 

convection, please see ‘‘Risk Assessment Revision 

for 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart W-Radon Emissions 

from Operating Mill Tailings, Task 5 Radon 

Emission from Evaporation Ponds,’’(EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2008–0218–0080). 

2. Conventional Impoundments 

In the 1989 promulgation of Subpart 

W we required new conventional 

impoundments to comply with one of 

two work practice standards, phased 

disposal or continuous disposal. These 

work practice standards contain specific 

limits on the exposed area and/or 

number of operating conventional 

impoundments to limit radon emissions 

because we recognized that radon 

emissions from very large 

impoundments could impose 

unacceptable health effects if the piles 

were left dry and uncovered. We are 

proposing as the GACT standard that all 

conventional impoundments—both 

existing impoundments and new 

impoundments—comply with one of the 

two work practice standards, phased 

disposal or continuous disposal, 

because these methods for limiting 

radon emissions by limiting the area of 

exposed tailings continue to be effective 

methods for reducing radon emissions 

from these impoundments (reference 

EPA 520–1–86–009, August 1986). We 

are proposing that existing 

impoundments also comply with one of 

the two work practice standards 

because, as discussed earlier, we no 

longer believe that a distinction needs to 

be made for conventional 

impoundments based on the date when 

they were designed and/or constructed. 

We are also not aware of any 

conventional impoundments either in 

existence or planned that use any other 

technologies or management practices to 

reduce radon emissions. Operators 

continue to use the general management 

practices discussed above for reducing 

radon emissions from their conventional 

impoundments, i.e., limiting the size 

and/or number of the impoundments, 

and covering the tailings with soil or 

keeping the tailings wet. These 

management practices form the basis of 

the work practice standards for 

conventional impoundments and 

continue to be very effective methods 

for limiting the amount of radon 

released to the environment. 

These work practice standards are a 

cost-effective method for reducing radon 

emissions from conventional 

impoundments. In addition, the liner 

requirements for conventional 

impoundments are also required by the 

NRC in their licensing requirements at 

10 CFR part 40. Therefore, we are 

proposing that GACT for conventional 

impoundments will be the same work 

practice standards as were previously 

included in Subpart W. 

3. Non-Conventional Impoundments 

Where Tailings Are Contained in Ponds 

and Covered by Liquids 

Today we are proposing a GACT 

standard specifically for use by any 

operating uranium recovery facility that 

has one or more non-conventional 

impoundments at its facility (i.e., those 

impoundments where tailings are 

contained in ponds and covered by 

liquids). Common names for these 

structures may include, but are not 

limited to, impoundments, evaporation 

ponds and holding ponds. These ponds 

contain uranium byproduct material 

and the HAP emissions are regulated by 

Subpart W. 

Industry has argued in preambles to 

responses to the CAA section 114(a) 

letters 32 and elsewhere that Subpart W 

does not, and was never meant to, 

include these types of evaporation or 

holding ponds under the Subpart W 

requirements. Industry has asserted that 

the original Subpart W did not 

specifically reference evaporation or 

holding ponds but was regulating only 

conventional mill tailings 

impoundments. They argue that the 

ponds are temporary because they hold 

very little solid material but instead 

hold mostly liquids containing 

dissolved radionuclides (which emit 

very little radon), and at the end of the 

facility’s life they are drained, and any 

solid materials, along with the liner 

system, are disposed in a properly 

licensed conventional impoundment. 

EPA has consistently maintained that 

these non-conventional impoundments 

meet the existing applicability criteria 

for regulation under Subpart W. As 

defined at 40 CFR 61.251(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. The holding or 

evaporation ponds located at 

conventional mills, ISL facilities and 

potentially heap leach facilities contain 

uranium byproduct materials, either in 

solid form or dissolved in solution, and 

therefore their HAP emissions are 

regulated under Subpart W. Today we 

reiterate that position and are proposing 

a GACT standard more specifically 

tailored for these types of 

impoundments. 

We are proposing that these nonconventional impoundments (the 

evaporation or holding ponds) must 

maintain a liquid level in the 

impoundment of no less than one meter 

at all times during the operation of the 

impoundment. Maintaining this liquid 

level will ensure that radon-222 

emissions from the uranium byproduct 

material in the pond are minimized. We 

are also proposing that there is no 

maximum area requirement for the size 

of these ponds since the chance of radon 

emissions is small. Our basis for this 

determination is that radon emissions 

from the pond will be expected to be 

very low since the liquid in the ponds 

acts as an effective barrier to radon 

emissions; given that radon-222 has a 

very short half-life (3.8 days), there 

simply is not enough time for 

approximately 98% of the radon 

produced by the solids or from the 

solution to migrate to the water surface 

and cross the water/air interface before 

decaying. 

By requiring a minimum of one meter 

of water in all nonconventional 

impoundments that contain uranium 

byproduct material, the release of radon 

from these impoundments would be 

greatly reduced. Nielson and Rogers 

(1986) present the following equation 

for calculating the radon attenuation: 

Where: 

A = Radon attenuation factor (unit less) 

l = Radon-222 decay constant (sec¥1) 

= 2.1×10¥6 sec¥1

D = Radon diffusion coefficient (cm2/sec) 

= 0.003 cm2/sec in water 

d = Depth of water (cm) 

= 100 cm 

The above equation indicates that the 

attenuation of radon emanation by water 

(i.e., the amount by which a water cover 

will decrease the amount of radon 

emitted from the impoundment) 

depends on how quickly radon-222 

decays, how quickly radon-222 can 

move through water (the diffusion 

coefficient), and the thickness of the 

layer of water.33 Solving the above 

equation shows that one meter of water 

has a radon attenuation factor of about 

0.07. That is, emissions can be expected 

to be reduced by about 93% compared 

to no water cover. 

The benefit incurred by this 

requirement is that significantly less 

radon will be released to the 

atmosphere. The amount varies from 

facility to facility based on the size of 

the nonconventional impoundment, but 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3EP02MY14.072</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25403 

34Municipal sources were the most expensive, 

with average unit costs of $0.0033 per gallon. 

Offsite non-drinking water sources were the 

cheapest, at $0.000069 per gallon on average. 

Various references were used for the comparisons. 

For more detail, please see Section 6.3.3 of the 

Background Information Document. 

across existing facilities radon can be 

expected to be reduced by 

approximately 24,600 curies, a decline 

of approximately 93%. 

The estimated cost associated with 

complying with the proposed one meter 

of liquid that would be required to limit 

the amount of radon emissions to the air 

vary according to the size of the 

impoundment and the geographic area 

in which it is located. We estimate that 

this requirement will cost owners or 

operators of 80 acre nonconventional 

impoundments between $1,042 and 

$9,687 per year. This value varies 

according to the location of the 

impoundment, which will determine 

evaporation rates, which determines 

how much replacement water will be 

required to maintain the minimum 

amount of one meter. If the evaporated 

water is not replaced by naturally 

occurring precipitation, then it would 

need to be replaced with make-up water 

supplied by the nonconventional 

impoundment’s operator. 

The most obvious source of water is 

what is known as ‘‘process water’’ from 

the extraction of uranium from the 

subsurface. Indeed, management of this 

process water is one of the primary 

reasons for constructing the 

impoundment in the first place, as the 

process water contains uranium 

byproduct material that must also be 

managed by the facility. It is possible 

that an operator could maintain one 

meter of water in the impoundment 

solely through the use of process water. 

If so, this would not create any 

additional costs for the facility as the 

cost of the process water can be 

attributed to its use in the uranium 

extraction process. However, for 

purposes of estimating the economic 

impacts associated with our proposal, 

our cost estimate does not include 

process water as a source of water 

potentially added to the impoundment 

to replace water that has evaporated. 

Instead, we estimated the costs of using 

water from other sources. This method 

results in the most conservative cost 

estimate for compliance with the one 

meter requirement. 

In performing the cost impacts for this 

requirement, three potential sources of 

impoundment make-up water were 

considered: (1) Municipal water 

suppliers; (2) offsite non-drinking-water 

suppliers; and (3) on-site water (EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2008–0218–0087). Depending 

on the source of water chosen, we 

estimate that this requirement will cost 

owners or operators of nonconventional 

impoundments between $1,042.00 and 

$9,687.00 per year.34

This value also varies according to the 

size and location of the 

nonconventional impoundment. Such 

impoundments currently range up to 80 

acres in size. The requirement to 

maintain a minimum of one meter of 

liquid in the ponds is estimated to cost 

approximately $0.03 per pound of 

uranium produced. The annual cost of 

makeup water was divided by the base 

case facility yellowcake annual 

production rate to calculate the makeup 

water cost per pound of yellowcake 

produced (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0218– 

0087). We conclude that this proposed 

requirement is a cost-effective way to 

significantly reduce radon emissions 

from nonconventional impoundments, 

and is therefore appropriate to propose 

as a GACT standard for 

nonconventional impoundments. 

4. Heap Leach Piles 

The final affected source type for 

which we are proposing GACT 

standards is heap leach piles. While 

there are currently no operating 

uranium heap leach facilities in the 

United States, we are proposing to 

regulate the HAP emission at any future 

facilities using this type of uranium 

extraction under Subpart W since the 

moment that uranium extraction takes 

place in the heap, uranium byproduct 

materials are left behind. During the 

process of uranium extraction on a 

heap, as the acid drips through the ore, 

uranium is solubilized and carried away 

to the collection system where it is 

further processed. At the point of 

uranium movement out of the heap, 

what remains is uranium byproduct 

materials as defined by 40 CFR 

61.251(g). In other words, what remains 

in the heap is the waste produced by the 

extraction or concentration of uranium 

from ore processed primarily for its 

source material content. Thus, Subpart 

W applies because uranium byproduct 

materials are being generated during 

and following the processing of the 

uranium ore in the heap. 

As a result, we are proposing GACT 

standards for heap leach piles. We are 

proposing that these piles conform to 

the phased disposal work practice 

standard specified for conventional 

impoundments in 40 CFR 

61.252(a)(1)(i)(which limits the number 

of active heap leach piles to two, and 

limits the size of each one to no more 

than 40 acres) and that the moisture 

content of the uranium byproduct 

material in the heap leach pile be 

greater than or equal to 30% moisture 

content. We believe that the phased 

disposal approach can be usefully 

applied here because it limits the 

amount of tailings that can be exposed 

at any one time, which limits the 

amount of radon that can be emitted. 

The phased disposal work practice 

standard is applicable for heap leach 

piles because heap leach piles are 

expected to be managed in a manner 

that is similar in many respects to 

conventional impoundments. Based on 

what we understand about the operation 

of potential future heap leach facilities, 

after the uranium has been removed 

from the heap leach pile, the uranium 

byproduct material that remains would 

be contained in the heap leach structure 

which would be lined according to the 

requirements of 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1). 

The heap leach pile would also be 

covered with soil at the end of its 

operational life to minimize radon 

emissions. 

This is what is required to occur at 

conventional impoundments using the 

phased disposal standard. Limiting the 

size of the operating heap leach pile to 

40 acres or less (and the number of 

operating heap leach piles at any one 

time to two) has the same effect as it 

does on conventional impoundments; 

that is, it limits the area of exposed 

uranium byproduct material and 

therefore limits the radon emissions 

from the heap leach pile. While we 

believe that the 40 acre limitation is 

appropriate for heap leach piles, we are 

requesting comment on what should be 

the maximum size (area) of a heap leach 

pile. 

We are also proposing as GACT that 

the heap leach pile constantly maintain 

a moisture content of at least 30% by 

weight. By requiring a moisture content 

of at least 30%, the byproduct material 

in the heap leach pile will not become 

dewatered, and we think that the heap 

leach pile will be sufficiently saturated 

with liquid to reduce the amount of 

radon that can escape from the heap 

leach pile. However, we request further 

information on all the chemical 

mechanisms in place during the 

leaching operation, and whether the 

30% moisture content is sufficient for 

minimizing radon emissions from the 

heap leach pile. We also request 

comment on the amount of time the 

30% moisture requirement should be 

maintained by a facility. We are 

proposing the term ‘‘operational life’’ of 

the facility. We are aware of several 

operations that take place during the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25404 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

uranium extraction process at a heap 

leach pile. After an initial period of 

several months of allowing lixiviant to 

leach uranium from the pile, the heap 

leach pile is allowed to ‘‘rest,’’ which 

enables the geochemistry in the pile to 

equilibrate. At that point the heap leach 

pile may be subjected to another round 

of extraction by lixiviant, or it may be 

rinsed to flush out any remaining 

uranium that is in solution in the heap 

leach pile. After the rinsing, the pile is 

allowed to drain and a radon barrier 

required by 40 CFR 192.32 can be 

emplaced. We are proposing that the 

operational life of the heap leach pile be 

from the time that lixiviant is first 

placed on the heap leach pile until the 

time of the final rinse. We believe this 

incorporates a majority of the time when 

the heap leach pile is uncovered (no 

radon barrier has been constructed over 

the top of the heap) and when the 

ability for radon to be emitted is the 

greatest. 

Because there is no ‘‘process water’’ 

component to a heap leach operation, as 

there is for an ISL, water for the heap 

leach pile must be supplied from an 

outside source. Even if an ISL and heap 

leach operation were to be located at the 

same site, we consider it unlikely that 

an operator would use ISL process water 

as the basis for an acidic heap leach 

solution. It is possible, in fact likely, 

that the solution used in the heap will 

be recycled (i.e., applied to the heap 

more than once), which could reduce 

the amount of outside water needed to 

some degree, although as we discuss 

later in this section, it would not seem 

that recycling solution would affect the 

overall moisture content. In calculating 

the high-end costs of heap leaching, we 

have not included this possibility in our 

estimates of economic impacts. 

The unit costs for providing liquids to 

a heap leach pile are assumed to be the 

same as the unit costs developed for 

providing water to nonconventional 

impoundments. In estimating the cost 

impacts for this requirement, three 

potential sources of impoundment 

make-up water were considered: (1) 

Municipal water suppliers; (2) offsite 

non-drinking-water suppliers; and (3) 

on-site water. The only cost associated 

with maintaining the moisture level 

within the pile is the cost of the liquid. 

We assume that existing piping used to 

supply lixiviant to the pile during 

leaching would be used to supply water 

necessary for maintaining the moisture 

level. Also, we assume that the facility 

will use the in-soil method for moisture 

monitoring. The in-soil method and its 

costs are described below. 

Soil moisture sensors have been used 

for laboratory and outdoor testing 

purposes and for agricultural 

applications for over 50 years. They are 

mostly used to measure moisture in 

gardens and lawns to determine when it 

is appropriate to turn on irrigation 

systems. Soil moisture sensors can 

either be placed in the soil or held by 

hand. 

For example, one system would bury 

soil moisture sensors to the desired 

depth in the heap. Then, a portable soil 

moisture meter would be connected by 

cable to each buried sensor one at a 

time, i.e., a single meter can read any 

number of sensors. The portable soil 

moisture meter costs about $350, and 

each in-soil sensor about $35 or $45, 

depending on the length of the cable 

(either 5 or 10 ft). Finally, it is assumed 

that moisture readings would be 

performed during the NRC required 

daily inspections of the heap leach pile, 

which would require approximately 

2,000 additional work hours per year 

per facility. Our estimates for costs of 

monitoring the heap include 100 

sensors located within the heap, with a 

meter on each sensor. We chose 100 

sampling stations because heaps are 

generally the same size as conventional 

impoundments, and Method 115 

prescribed 100 measurements for the 

tailings area of a conventional 

impoundment. The total estimated costs 

for using this system, including labor, 

are approximately $86,500 per year per 

facility. 

Alternatively, with a handheld soil 

moisture meter, two rods (up to 8 inches 

long) that are attached to the meter are 

driven into the soil at the desired 

location, and a reading is taken. A 

handheld meter of this type costs about 

$1,065, and replacement rods about $58 

for a pair. A minimum of 100 sampling 

stations for measuring radon could be 

required. We did not estimate costs for 

this method, as we concluded that the 

length of time required walking around 

a heap leach pile and obtaining these 

measurements required more time than 

is found in an average work day, and 

would expose workers to potentially 

hazardous constituents contained in the 

lixiviant. 

The base case heap leach facility 

includes a heap leach pile that will 

occupy up to 80 acres at a height of up 

to 50 feet. With an assumed porosity of 

0.39 and a moisture content of 30% by 

weight, the effective surface area of the 

liquid within the heap pile is 33.7 acres. 

Table 3 presents the calculated cost 

for make-up water to maintain the 

moisture level in the heap leach pile, 

such that the moisture content is at 30% 

by weight, or greater. The unit costs for 

water and the net evaporation rates used 

for these estimates are identical to those 

derived for evaporation ponds. 

TABLE 3—HEAP LEACH PILE ANNUAL MAKEUP WATER COST

Cost type Water cost 

($/gal) 

Net 

evaporation 

(in/yr) 

Makeup water 

cost 

($/yr) 

Makeup water 

rate 

(gpm/ft2) 

Mean .............................................................................................................. $0 .00010 45.7 $4,331 2.3E–05 

Median ........................................................................................................... 0 .00010 41.3 3,946 2.1E–05 

Minimum ........................................................................................................ 0 .000035 6.1 196 3.0E–06 

Maximum ....................................................................................................... 0 .00015 96.5 13,318 4.8E–05 

To place this amount of make-up water 

in perspective, during leaching and 

rinsing of the heap leach pile, liquid is 

dripped onto the pile at a rate of 0.005 

gallons per minute per square foot 

(gpm/ft2). This rate is significantly 

higher than the make-up water rates 

necessary to maintain the moisture 

content at 30% by weight, shown in 

Table 3. We conclude from this analysis 

that the leaching solution applied in a 

typical operation should be sufficient to 

maintain the moisture content of the 

heap leach pile to the required levels, 

and only in unusual circumstances 

(such as during the final rinse and 

draindown of the heap leach pile) 

would additional liquids need to be 

applied. However, in a circumstance 

that would require the additional 

application of liquid to maintain the 

30% moisture limit, such as excessive 

evaporation, we estimate that the cost of 

requiring the owner/operator of a heap 

leach pile to maintain 30% moisture 

content in the pile will average 

approximately $4,000 per year. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25405 

We are asking for comment on exactly 

where in the pile the 30% moisture 

content should be achieved. We are also 

soliciting comments on whether the 

leaching operation itself liberates more 

radon into the air than the equivalent of 

a conventional impoundment. We 

assume that because low-grade ore is 

usually processed by heap leach, there 

would be less radon emitted from a 

heap leach pile than from a 

conventional impoundment of similar 

size. We request information on whether 

this is a correct assumption. 

We are also aware that there could be 

a competing argument against regulating 

the heap leach pile under Subpart W 

while the lixiviant is being placed on 

the heap leach pile. While not directly 

correlative, the process of heap leach 

could be defined as active ‘‘milling.’’ 

The procedure being carried out on the 

heap is the extraction of uranium. In 

this view, the operation is focused on 

the production of uranium rather than 

on managing uranium byproduct 

materials. Therefore, under this view, 

the heap meets the definition of tailings 

under 40 CFR 61.251(g) only after the 

final rinse of the heap solutions occurs 

and the heap is preparing to close. In 

this scenario the heap leach pile would 

close under the requirements at 40 CFR 

part 192.32 and Subpart W would never 

apply. We are requesting comments on 

the relative merits of this interpretation. 

It bears noting that, as with ISL 

facilities, collection and/or evaporation 

ponds (nonconventional 

impoundments) may exist at heap leach 

facilities that will also contain uranium 

byproduct materials. These ponds’ HAP 

emissions will be regulated under 

Subpart W regardless of whether the 

heap leach pile is also subject to 

regulation under that subpart. 

V. Other Issues Generated by Our 

Review of Subpart W 

During our review of Subpart W we 

also identified several issues that need 

clarification in order to be more fully 

understood. The issues that we have 

identified are: 

• Clarification of the term ‘‘standby’’ 

and how it relates to the operational 

phase of an impoundment; 

• Amending the definition of 

‘‘operation’’ of an impoundment so that 

it is clear when the owner or operator 

is subject to the requirements of Subpart 

W; 

• Determining whether Subpart W 

adequately addresses protection from 

extreme weather events; 

• Revising 40 CFR 61.252(b) and (c) 

to accurately reflect that it is only 40 

CFR 192.32(a)(1)that is applicable to 

Subpart W; and 

• Removing the phrase ‘‘as 

determined by the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission’’ in 40 CFR 61.252(b)(1) 

and (2). 

A. Clarification of the Term ‘‘Standby’’ 

There has been some confusion over 

whether the requirements of Subpart W 

apply to an impoundment that is in 

‘‘standby’’ mode. This is the period of 

time that an impoundment may not be 

accepting tailings, but has not yet 

entered the ‘‘closure period’’ as defined 

by 40 CFR 192.31(h). This period of 

time usually takes place when the price 

of uranium is such that it may not be 

cost effective for the uranium recovery 

facility to continue operations, and yet 

the facility has not surrendered its 

operating license, and may re-establish 

operations once the price of uranium 

rises to a point where it is cost effective 

to do so. Since the impoundment has 

not entered the closure period, it could 

continue to accept tailings at any time; 

therefore, Subpart W requirements 

continue to apply to the impoundment. 

Today we are proposing to add a 

definition to 40 CFR 61.251 to define 

‘‘standby’’ as: 

Standby means the period of time that an 

impoundment may not be accepting uranium 

byproduct materials but has not yet entered 

the closure period. 

B. Amending the Definition of 

‘‘Operation’’ for a Conventional 

Impoundment 

As currently written, 40 CFR 

61.251(e) defines the operational period 

of a tailings impoundment. It states that 

‘‘operation’’ means that an 

impoundment is being used for the 

continuing placement of new tailings or 

is in standby status for such placement 

(which means that as long as the facility 

has generated byproduct material at 

some point and placed it in an 

impoundment, it is subject to the 

requirements of Subpart W). An 

impoundment is in operation from the 

day that tailings are first placed in the 

impoundment until the day that final 

closure begins. 

There has been some confusion over 

this definition. For example, a uranium 

mill announced that it was closing a 

pre-December 15, 1989, impoundment. 

Before initiating closure, however, it 

stated that it would keep the 

impoundment open to dispose of 

material generated by other closure 

activities at the site that contained 

byproduct material (liners, 

deconstruction material, etc) but not 

‘‘new tailings.’’ The company argued 

that since it was not disposing of new 

tailings the impoundment was no longer 

subject to Subpart W. We disagree with 

this interpretation. While it may be true 

that the company was no longer 

disposing of new tailings in the 

impoundment, it has not begun closure 

activities; therefore, the impoundment 

is still open to disposal of byproduct 

material that emits radon and continues 

to be subject to all applicable Subpart W 

requirements. 

To prevent future confusion, we are 

proposing today to amend the definition 

of ‘‘operation’’ in the Subpart W 

definitions at 40 CFR 61.251 as follows: 

Operation means that an impoundment is 

being used for the continued placement of 

uranium byproduct material or tailings or is 

in standby status for such placement. An 

impoundment is in operation from the day 

that uranium byproduct materials or tailings 

are first placed in the impoundment until the 

day that final closure begins. 

C. Weather Events 

In the past, uranium recovery 

facilities have been located in the 

western regions of the United States. In 

these areas, the annual precipitation 

falling on the impoundment, and any 

drainage area contributing surface 

runoff to the impoundment, has usually 

been less than the annual evaporation 

from the impoundment. Also, these 

facilities have been located away from 

regions of the country where extreme 

rainfall events (e.g., hurricanes or 

flooding) could jeopardize the structural 

integrity of the impoundment, although 

there is a potential for these facilities to 

be affected by flash floods, tornadoes, 

etc. Now, however, uranium exploration 

and recovery in the U.S. has the 

potential to move eastward, into more 

climatologically temperate regions of 

the country, with south central Virginia 

being considered for a conventional 

uranium mill. In determining whether 

additional measures would be needed 

for impoundments operating in areas 

where precipitation exceeds 

evaporation, a review of the existing 

requirements was necessary. 

The proposed revisions to Subpart W 

will continue to require owners and 

operators of all impoundments to follow 

the requirements of 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1). 

That particular regulation references the 

RCRA surface impoundment design and 

operations requirements of 40 CFR 

264.221. At 40 CFR 264.221(g) and (h) 

are requirements that ensure proper 

design and operation of tailings 

impoundments. Section 264.221(g) 

states that impoundments must be 

designed, constructed, maintained and 

operated to prevent overtopping 

resulting from normal or abnormal 

operations; overfilling; wind and rain 

action (e.g., a two foot freeboard 

requirement); rainfall; run-on; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25406 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

malfunctions of level controllers, alarms 

and other equipment; and human error. 

Section 264.221(h) states that 

impoundments must have dikes that are 

designed, constructed and maintained 

with sufficient structural integrity to 

prevent massive failure of the dikes. In 

ensuring structural integrity, it must not 

be presumed that the liner system will 

function without leakage during the 

active life of the unit. 

Since impoundments at uranium 

recovery facilities have been and will 

continue to be required to comply with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1), 

they are already required to be designed 

to prevent failure during extreme 

weather events. As we stated in Section 

IV B.2., we believe the requirements of 

40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) contain enough 

safeguards to allow for the placement of 

tailings and yet provide an early 

warning system in the event of a leak in 

the liner system. Therefore, we are 

proposing to include these requirements 

in the Subpart W requirements without 

modification. 

D. Applicability of 40 CFR 192.32(a) to 

Subpart W 

The requirements at 40 CFR 61.252(b) 

and (c) require compliance with 40 CFR 

192.32(a). However, we are now 

proposing to focus the Subpart W 

requirements on the impoundment 

design and construction requirements 

found specifically at 40 CFR 

192.32(a)(1). The remainder of 40 CFR 

192.32(a) goes beyond this limited scope 

by including requirements for groundwater detection monitoring systems and 

closure of operating impoundments. 

These other requirements, along with all 

of the part 192 standards, are 

implemented and enforced by the NRC 

through its licensing requirements for 

uranium recovery facilities at 10 CFR 

part 40, Appendix A. However, when 

referenced in Subpart W, the 

requirements in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) 

would also be implemented and 

enforced by EPA as the regulatory 

authority administering Subpart W 

under its CAA authority. Therefore 

today we are proposing to revise 40 CFR 

61.252 (b) and (c) to specifically define 

which portions of 40 CFR 192.32(a) are 

applicable to Subpart W. At the same 

time we are proposing to eliminate the 

phrase ‘‘. . .as determined by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’’ from 

40 CFR 61.252(b). This should eliminate 

confusion regarding what an applicant 

must submit to EPA under the CAA in 

its pre-construction and modification 

approval applications as required by 40 

CFR 61.07, and better explain that EPA 

is the regulatory agency administering 

Subpart W under the CAA. This 

proposed change will have no effect on 

the licensing requirements of the NRC 

or its regulatory authority under 

UMTRCA to implement the part 192 

standards through its licenses. 

VI. Summary of Environmental, Cost 

and Economic Impacts 

As discussed earlier, uranium 

recovery activities are carried out at 

several different types of facilities. We 

are proposing to revise Subpart W based 

on how uranium recovery facilities 

manage uranium byproduct materials 

during and after the processing of 

uranium ore at their particular facility. 

As discussed in Sections III and IV, we 

are proposing GACT requirements for 

three types of affected sources at 

uranium recovery facilities: (1) 

Conventional impoundments; (2) 

nonconventional impoundments; and 

(3) heap leach piles. 

For purposes of analyzing the impacts 

of the proposed rule, we assumed that 

approximately five conventional milling 

facilities, 50 ISL facilities (although this 

is only a projection since only 12 

currently exist) and one heap leach 

facility, each with at least one regulated 

impoundment, would become subject to 

the proposed rule. The following 

sections present our estimates of the 

proposed rule’s air quality, cost and 

economic impacts. For more 

information, please refer to the 

Economic Impact Analysis report that is 

included in the public docket for this 

proposed rule (EPA–HQ–OAR–2008– 

0218–0087). 

A. What are the air quality impacts? 

We project that the proposed 

requirements will maintain or improve 

air quality surrounding the regulated 

facilities. The GACT standards being 

proposed today are based on control 

technologies and management practices 

that have been used at uranium recovery 

facilities for the past twenty or more 

years. These standards will minimize 

the amount of radon that is released to 

the air by keeping the impoundments 

wet or covered with soil and/or by 

limiting the area of exposed tailings. 

The requirements in this proposed rule 

should eliminate or reduce radon 

emissions at all three types of affected 

sources. 

B. What are the cost and economic 

impacts? 

Table 24 presents a summary of the 

unit cost (per pound of U3O8) for 

implementing each GACT at each of the 

three types of uranium recovery 

facilities. In addition to presenting the 

GACT costs individually, Table 24 

presents the total unit cost to implement 

all relevant GACTs at each type of 

facility. 

A reference facility for each type of 

uranium recovery facility is developed 

and described in Section 6.2, including 

the base cost estimate to construct and 

operate (without the GACTs) each of the 

three types of reference facilities. For 

comparison purposes, the unit cost (per 

pound of U3O8) of the three uranium 

recovery reference facilities is presented 

at the bottom of Table 4. 

TABLE 4—PROPOSED GACT STANDARDS COSTS PER POUND OF U3O8

Unit cost ($/lb U3O8) 

Conventional ISL Heap leach 

GACT—Double Liners for Nonconventional Impoundments ................................................. $1 .04 $3 .07 $0 .22 

GACT—Maintaining 1 Meter of Water in Nonconventional Impoundments ......................... 0 .013 0 .010 0 .0010 

GACT—Liners for Heap Leach Piles .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2 .01 

GACT—Maintaining Heap Leach Piles at 30% Moisture ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 0 .0043 

GACTs—Total for All Four .................................................................................................... 1 .05 3 .08 2 .24 

Baseline Facility Costs (Section 6.2) ..................................................................................... 51 .56 52 .49 46 .08 

Based on the information in Table 24, 

implementing all four GACTs would 

result in unit cost (per pound of U3O8) 

increases of about 2%, 6%, and 5% at 

conventional, ISL, and heap leach type 

uranium recovery facilities, 

respectively. 

The baseline costs were estimated 

using recently published cost data for 

actual uranium recovery facilities. For 

the model conventional mill, we used 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25407 

35These liner systems (conventional, 

nonconventional and heap leach piles)are already 

required by 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1), which, as 

explained above, are requirements promulgated by 

EPA under UMTRCA that are incorporated into 

NRC regulations and implemented and enforced by 

NRC through their licensing requirements. 

Therefore, we are not placing any additional liner 

requirements on facilities or requiring them to incur 

any additional costs to build their conventional or 

nonconventional impoundments or heap leach piles 

above and beyond what an owner or operator of 

these impoundments must already incur to obtain 

an NRC license. Therefore, there are no projected 

costs (or benefits) beyond the baseline resulting 

from the inclusion of these requirements in Subpart 

W. 

36Municipal sources were the most expensive, 

with average unit costs of $0.0033 per gallon. 

Offsite non-drinking water sources were the 

cheapest, at $0.000069 per gallon on average. For 

more detail, please see Section 6.3.3 of the 

Background Information Document. 

data from the recently licensed new mill 

at the Pin ̃ on Ridge project in Colorado. 

For the model ISL facility, we used data 

from two proposed new facilities: (1) 

The Centennial Uranium project in 

Colorado; and (2) the Dewey-Burdock 

project in South Dakota. The Centennial 

project is expected to have a 14- to 15- 

year production period, which is a long 

duration for an ISL facility, while the 

Dewey-Burdock project is expected to 

have a shorter production period of 

about 9 years, which is more 

representative of ISL facilities. For the 

heap leach facility, we used data from 

the proposed Sheep Mountain project in 

Wyoming. 

Existing Subpart W required facilities 

to perform annual monitoring using 

Method 115 to demonstrate that the 

radon flux standard at conventional 

impoundments constructed before 

December 15, 1989 was below 20 pCi/ 

m2-sec. The proposed removal of this 

monitoring requirement would result in 

a cost saving to the three facilities for 

which this requirement still applies: (1) 

Sweetwater; (2) White Mesa; and (3) 

Shootaring Canyon. Method 115 

requires 100 measurements as the 

minimum number of flux measurements 

considered necessary to determine a 

representative mean radon flux value. 

For the three sites that are still required 

to perform Method 115 radon flux 

monitoring, the average annual cost to 

perform that monitoring is estimated to 

be about $9,730 for Shootaring and 

Sweetwater, and $19,460 for White 

Mesa. For all three sites the total annual 

average cost is estimated to be $38,920 

per year, with a range from 

approximately $28,000 to $49,500 per 

year. For all three sites the total annual 

average cost savings resulting from 

removal of the flux monitoring 

requirement would be $39,920. 

Baseline costs (explained in Section 

IV.B) for conventional impoundment 

liner construction 35 will remain the 

same, since the proposed rule does not 

impose additional requirements. Liners 

meeting the requirements at 40 CFR 

192.32(a)(1) are already mandated by 

other regulations and, therefore, built 

into the baseline cost estimate. 

Therefore there are consequently no 

costs (or benefits) resulting from the 

inclusion of these requirements in 

Subpart W. 

The average cost to construct one of 

these impoundments is $13.8 million. 

We estimate that this cost is 

approximately 3% of the total baseline 

capital costs to construct a conventional 

mill, estimated at $372 million. 

We have estimated that for an average 

80 acre nonconventional impoundment 

the average cost of construction of an 

impoundment is $23.7 million. 

Requiring impoundments to comply 

with the liner requirements in 40 CFR 

192.32(a)(1) will contain the uranium 

byproduct material and reduce the 

potential for ground water 

contamination. The only economic 

impact attributable to the proposed rule 

is the cost of complying with the new 

requirement to maintain a minimum of 

one meter of water in the 

nonconventional impoundments during 

operation and standby. As shown in 

Section IV.B.3. of this preamble, as long 

as approximately one meter of water is 

maintained in the nonconventional 

impoundments the effective radon 

emissions from the ponds are so low 

that it is difficult to determine if there 

is any contribution above background 

radon values. In order to maintain one 

meter of liquid within a pond, it is 

necessary to replace the water that is 

evaporated from the pond. Depending 

on the source of water chosen,36 we 

estimate that this requirement will cost 

owners or operators of nonconventional 

impoundments between $1,042 and 

$9,687 per year. This value also varies 

according to the size of the 

nonconventional impoundment, up to 

80 acres, and the location of the 

impoundment. Evaporation rates vary 

by geographic location. However, the 

cost to maintain the one meter of liquid 

in a nonconventional impoundment is 

estimated to be less than 1% of the total 

annual production costs, estimated at 

$23.7 million. The requirement to 

maintain a minimum of one meter of 

liquid in the ponds is estimated to cost 

approximately $0.03 per pound of 

uranium produced. 

Designing and constructing heap 

leach piles to meet the requirements at 

40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) would minimize the 

potential for leakage of uranium 

enriched lixiviant into the ground 

water. Specifically, this would require 

that a double liner, with drainage 

collection capabilities, be provided 

under heap leach piles. Baseline costs 

(explained in Section IV.B) for heap 

leach pile liner construction will remain 

the same, since the proposed rule does 

not impose additional requirements. 

Liners meeting the requirements at 40 

CFR 192.32(a)(1) are already mandated 

by other regulations and, therefore, built 

into the baseline cost estimate. 

Therefore there are consequently no 

costs (or benefits) resulting from the 

inclusion of these requirements in 

Subpart W. Baseline costs for 

construction will be essentially the 

same as for conventional 

impoundments. Since the liner systems 

are equivalent to the systems used for 

conventional and nonconventional 

impoundments, we have been able to 

estimate the average costs associated 

with the construction of heap leach pile 

impoundments that meet the liner 

requirements we are proposing, and 

compare them to the costs associated 

with the total production of uranium 

produced by the facility. The average 

cost of constructing such an 

impoundment is estimated to be 

approximately $15.3 million. The costs 

of constructing this type of liner system 

are about 4% of the estimated total 

baseline capital costs of a heap leach 

facility estimated at $356 million. 

For heap leach piles, when the soil 

moisture content in the heap leach pile 

falls below about 30% by weight, the 

radon flux out of the heap leach pile 

increases because radon moves through 

the air faster (with less opportunity to 

decay) than through water. We 

concluded from our analysis that the 

leaching solution applied in a typical 

operation should be sufficient to 

maintain the moisture content of the 

heap leach pile to the required levels, 

and only in unusual circumstances 

would additional liquids need to be 

applied. However, in a circumstance 

that would require the additional 

application of liquid to maintain the 

30% moisture limit, such as excessive 

evaporation, we estimate that the cost of 

requiring the owner/operator of a heap 

leach pile to maintain 30% moisture 

content in the pile will average 

approximately $4,000 per year. We also 

estimate that it will cost approximately 

$86,500 per year (which includes labor 

of approximately 2,000 hours) to 

perform the tests required to verify that 

the moisture content is being 

maintained. These costs are less than 

one percent of the total baseline capital 

costs of a heap leach facility, estimated 

at $356 million. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25408 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

In summary, we estimate that for 

conventional impoundments there will 

be no additional costs incurred through 

this proposed rule. There will be a cost 

savings of approximately $39,900 per 

year for the three existing conventional 

impoundments that are currently 

required to monitor for radon flux 

through the use of Method 115, since we 

are proposing to eliminate this 

requirement. For nonconventional 

impoundments we estimate that the 

additional costs incurred by this 

proposed rule will be to maintain one 

meter of liquid in each nonconventional 

impoundment, and we have estimated 

those costs between approximately 

$1,040 and $9,680 per year. For heap 

leach piles, additional costs incurred by 

this proposed rule would be for the 

maintaining and monitoring of the 

continuous 30% moisture content 

requirement, which we estimate will 

impose a one-time cost of approximately 

$35,000 for equipment and 

approximately $86,000 per year to 

monitor the moisture content. 

C. What are the non-air environmental 

impacts? 

Water quality would be maintained by 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

This proposed rule does contain 

requirements (by reference) related to 

water discharges and spill containment. 

In fact, the liner requirements cross 

referenced at 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1) will 

significantly decrease the possibility of 

contaminated liquids leaking from 

impoundments into ground water 

(which can be a significant source of 

drinking water). Section 192.32(a)(1) 

includes a cross-reference to the surface 

impoundment design and construction 

requirements of hazardous waste surface 

impoundments regulated under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA), found at 40 CFR 264.221. 

Those requirements state that the 

impoundment shall be designed, 

constructed and installed to prevent any 

migration of wastes out of the 

impoundment to the adjacent 

subsurface soil or ground water or 

surface water at any time during the 

active life of the impoundment. There 

are other requirements for the design 

and operation of the impoundment, and 

these include construction 

specifications, slope requirements, 

sump and liquid removal requirements. 

These liner systems (conventional, 

nonconventional and heap leach 

piles)are already required by 40 CFR 

192.32(a)(1), which, as explained above, 

are requirements promulgated by EPA 

under UMTRCA that are incorporated 

into NRC regulations and implemented 

and enforced by NRC through their 

licensing requirements. Therefore, we 

are not placing any additional liner 

requirements on facilities or requiring 

them to incur any additional costs to 

build their conventional or 

nonconventional impoundments or 

heap leach piles above and beyond what 

an owner or operator of these 

impoundments must already incur to 

obtain an NRC license. 

Including a double liner in the design 

of all onsite impoundments that would 

contain uranium byproduct material 

would reduce the potential for groundwater contamination. Although the 

amount of the potential reduction is not 

quantifiable, it is important to take this 

into consideration due to the significant 

use of ground water as a source of 

drinking water. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a 

‘‘significant regulatory action.’’ The 

Executive Order defines ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely 

to result in a rule that may ‘‘raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011) and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations have been 

documented in the docket for this 

action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 2464.01. 

The information to be collected for 

the proposed rulemaking today is based 

on the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act. Section 114 authorizes the 

Administrator of EPA to require any 

person who owns or operates any 

emission source or who is subject to any 

requirements of the Act to: 

—Establish and maintain records 

—Make reports, install, use, and 

maintain monitoring equipment or 

method 

—Sample emissions in accordance with 

EPA-prescribed locations, intervals 

and methods 

—Provide information as may be 

requested 

EPA’s regional offices use the 

information collected to ensure that 

public health continues to be protected 

from the hazards of radionuclides by 

compliance with health based standards 

and/or Generally Available Control 

Technology (GACT). 

The proposed rule would require the 

owner or operator of a uranium recovery 

facility to maintain records that confirm 

that the conventional impoundment(s), 

nonconventional impoundment(s) and 

heap leach pile(s) meet the requirements 

in section 192.32(a)(1). Included in 

these records are the results of liner 

compatibility tests, measurements 

confirming that one meter of liquid has 

been maintained in nonconventional 

impoundments and records confirming 

that heap leach piles have constantly 

maintained at least 30% moisture 

content during the operating life of the 

heap leach pile. This documentation 

should be sufficient to allow an 

independent auditor (such as an EPA 

inspector) to verify the accuracy of the 

determination made concerning the 

facility’s compliance with the standard. 

These records must be kept at the mill 

or facility for the operational life of the 

facility and, upon request, be made 

available for inspection by the 

Administrator, or his/her authorized 

representative. The proposed rule 

would not require the owners or 

operators of operating impoundments 

and heap leach piles to report the 

results of the compliance inspections or 

calculations required in Section 61.255. 

The recordkeeping requirements require 

only the specific information needed to 

determine compliance. We have taken 

this step to minimize the reporting 

requirements for small business 

facilities. 

The annual proposed monitoring and 

recordkeeping burden to affected 

sources for this collection (averaged 

over the first three years after the 

effective date of the proposed rule) is 

estimated to be 10,400 hours with a total 

annual cost of $400,000. This estimate 

includes a total capital and start-up cost 

component annualized over the 

facility’s expected useful life, a total 

operation and maintenance component, 

and a purchase of services component. 

We estimate that this total burden will 

be spread over 21 facilities that will be 

required to keep records. Of this total 

burden, however, 4,150 hours (and 

$93,000) will be incurred by the one 

heap leach uranium recovery facility, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25409 

due to the requirements for purchasing, 

installing and monitoring the soil 

moisture sensors, as well as training 

staff on how to operate the equipment. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, 

and a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The OMB control numbers for 

EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed 

in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the Agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, EPA has established 

a public docket for this rule, which 

includes this ICR, under Docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0218. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to EPA. 

Send comments on the ICR to OMB to 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Office for EPA. Since OMB is required 

to make a decision concerning the ICR 

between 30 and 60 days after May 2, 

2014, a comment to OMB is best assured 

of having its full effect if OMB receives 

it by June 2, 2014. The final rule will 

respond to any OMB or public 

comments on the information collection 

requirements contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

whose company has less than 500 

employees and is primarily engaged in 

leaching or beneficiation of uranium, 

radium or vanadium ores as defined by 

NAIC code 212291; (2) a small 

governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule is estimated to 

impact approximately 18 uranium 

recovery facilities that are currently 

operating or plan to operate in the 

future. 

To evaluate the significance of the 

economic impacts of the proposed 

revisions to Subpart W, separate 

analyses were performed for each of the 

three proposed GACTs. 

The GACT for uranium recovery 

facilities that use conventional milling 

techniques proposes that only phased 

disposal units or continuous disposal 

units be used to manage the tailings. For 

either option, the disposal unit must be 

lined and equipped with a leak 

detection system, designed in 

accordance with part 192.32(a)(1). If 

phased disposal is the option chosen, 

the rule limits the disposal unit to a 

maximum of 40 acres, with no more 

than two units open at any given time. 

If continuous disposal is chosen, no 

more than 10 acres may be open at any 

given time. Finally, the Agency is 

proposing to eliminate the distinction 

that was made in the 1989 rule between 

impoundments constructed pre-1989 

and post-1989 since all of the remaining 

pre-1989 impoundments comply with 

the proposed GACT. The elimination of 

this distinction also eliminates the 

requirement that pre-1989 disposal 

units be monitored on an annual basis 

to demonstrate that the average Rn-222 

flux does not exceed 20 pCi/m2/sec. 

The conventional milling GACT 

applies to three existing mills and one 

proposed mill that is in the process of 

being licensed. The four conventional 

mills are: the White Mesa mill owned by 

Energy Fuels Resources (USA); the 

Shootaring Canyon mill owned by 

Uranium One, Inc.; the Sweetwater mill 

owned by Kennecott Uranium Co.; and 

the proposed Pin ̃ on Ridge mill owned 

by Energy Fuels, Inc. Of the three 

companies that own conventional mills, 

none are classified as small businesses 

using fewer than 500 employees as the 

classification criterion. 

Energy Fuels White Mesa mill uses a 

phased disposal system that complies 

with the proposed GACT. When its 

existing open unit is full it will be 

contoured and covered and a new unit, 

constructed in accordance with the 

proposed GACT, will be opened to 

accept future tailings. Energy Fuels is 

proposing a phased disposal system to 

manage its tailings; this system also 

complies with the proposed GACT. 

Based on the fact that both small 

entities are in compliance with the 

proposed GACT, we conclude that the 

rulemaking will not impose any new 

economic impacts on either facility. For 

Energy Fuels Mines, the proposed rule 

will actually result in a cost saving as 

it will no longer have to perform annual 

monitoring to determine the average 

radon flux from its impoundments. 

The GACT for evaporation ponds at 

uranium recovery facilities requires that 

the evaporation ponds be constructed in 

accordance with design requirements in 

part 192.32(a)(1) and that a minimum of 

1 meter of liquid be maintained in the 

ponds during operation and standby. 

The key design requirements for the 

ponds are for a double-liner with a leak 

detection system between the two 

liners. 

In addition to the four conventional 

mills identified above, the GACT for 

evaporation ponds applies to in-situ 

leach facilities and heap leach facilities. 

Currently, there are five operating ISL 

facilities and no operating heap leach 

facilities. The operating ISLs are Crow 

Butte and Smith Ranch owned by 

Cameco Resources, Alta Mesa owned by 

Mestena Uranium, LLC, Willow Creek 

owned by Uranium One, Inc., and 

Hobson owned by Uranium Energy 

Corp. Again using the fewer than 500 

employees’ criterion, Mestena Uranium, 

LLC and Uranium Energy Corp are both 

small businesses, while Cameco 

Resources and Uranium One, Inc. are 

both large businesses. 

All of the evaporation ponds at the 

four conventional mills and the five ISL 

facilities were built in conformance 

with part 192.32(a)(1). Therefore, the 

only economic impact is the cost of 

complying with the new requirement to 

maintain a minimum of 1 meter of water 

in the ponds during operation and 

standby. 

The proposed revisions to Subpart W 

apply to five currently operating ISL 

facilities. The operating facilities are 

Crow Butte (Nebraska) and Smith Ranch 

(Wyoming), owned by Cameco 

Resources; Alta Mesa (Texas), owned by 

Mestena Uranium, LLC; Willow Creek 

(Wyoming), owned by Uranium One, 

Inc.; and Hobson (Texas), owned by 

Uranium Energy Corp. Again using the 

fewer than 500 employees’ criterion, 

Mestena Uranium, LLC and Uranium 

Energy Corp are both small businesses, 

while Cameco Resources and Uranium 

One, Inc. are both large businesses. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25410 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

In addition to the five operating ISL 

facilities, three additional ISL facilities 

have been licensed, all in the state of 

Wyoming. These are: Lost Creek, owned 

by Ur-Energy Inc.; Moore Ranch, owned 

by Uranium One, Inc.; and Nichols 

Ranch, owned by Uranerz Uranium 

Corp. Of these three companies, both 

Ur-Energy Inc. and Uranerz Uranium 

Corp. are small businesses. 

Eleven other ISL facilities have been 

proposed for licensing. These include: 

Dewey-Burdock (South Dakota) and 

Centennial (Colorado), both owned by 

Powertech Uranium Corp.; and 

Kingsville Dome, Los Finados, Rosito, 

and Vasques (Texas), all owned by 

Uranium Resources Inc.; Crownpoint 

(New Mexico), also owned by Uranium 

Resources Inc., Church Rock (New 

Mexico), owned by Strathmore 

Minerals; Ross (Wyoming), owned by 

Strata Energy, Inc., Goliad (Texas), 

owned by Uranium Energy Corp.; and 

Antelope-Jab (Wyoming), owned by 

Uranium One, Inc. All of these 

companies, except for Uranium One, 

Inc. are small businesses. 

According to the licensing documents 

submitted by the owners of the 

proposed ISL facilities, all will be 

constructed in conformance with part 

192.32(a)(1). Therefore the only 

economic impact is the cost of 

complying with the new requirement to 

maintain a minimum of 1 meter of water 

in the ponds during operation and 

standby. 

The requirement to maintain a 

minimum of 1 meter of liquid in the 

ponds is estimated to cost up to $0.03 

per pound of U3O8 produced. This cost 

is not a significant impact on any of 

these small entities. 

Although there are no heap leach 

facilities currently licensed, Energy 

Fuels, Inc. is expected to submit a 

licensing application for the Sheep 

Mountain Project. From the preliminary 

documentation that Titan presented 

(now owned by Energy Fuels), the 

facility will have an Evaporation Pond, 

a Collection Pond, and a Raffinate Pond. 

All three ponds will be double lined 

with leak detection. However, as Energy 

Fuels is a large business, it does not 

affect the determination of impacts on 

small businesses. 

The GACT for heap leach facilities 

applies the phased disposal option of 

the GACT for conventional mills to 

these facilities and adds the requirement 

that the heap leach pile be maintained 

at a minimum 30 percent moisture 

content by weight during operations. 

As noted previously, there are no 

heap leach facilities currently in 

existence, and the only one that is 

known to be preparing to submit a 

license application is being proposed by 

Energy Fuels, which is a large business. 

Of the 20 facilities identified above, 

15 are owned by small businesses. No 

small organizations or small 

governmental entities have been 

identified that would be impacted by 

the proposed GACTs. We continue to be 

interested in the potential impacts of the 

proposed rule on small entities and 

welcome comments on issues related to 

such impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a Federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 

of $100 million or more for State, local 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or the private sector in any one year. 

The proposed rule imposes no 

enforceable duties on any State, local or 

Tribal governments or the private sector. 

Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. 

This rule is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments 

because it contains no requirements that 

apply to such governments nor does it 

impose obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned and operated by State 

governments, and, nothing in the 

proposed rule will supersede State 

regulations. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this proposed 

rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). The action imposes requirements 

on owners and operators of specified 

area sources and not tribal governments. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the Order has the potential to influence 

the regulation. This action is not subject 

to EO 13045 because it is based solely 

on technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

This proposed rule will not adversely 

directly affect productivity, 

competition, or prices in the energy 

sector. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. This proposed 

rulemaking does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA is not 

considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

We request public comment on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking, and 

specifically, ask you to identify 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards and to explain why 

such standards could be used in this 

regulation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25411 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it increases the level of 

environmental protection for all affected 

populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This proposed rule would reduce toxics 

emissions of radon from 

nonconventional impoundments and 

heap leach piles and thus decrease the 

amount of such emissions to which all 

affected populations are exposed. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Radon, Tailings, Byproduct, 

Uranium, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 17, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend title 40, 

Chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 61—[NATIONAL EMISSION 

STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR 

POLLUTANTS] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 61 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart W—[National Emission 

Standards for Radon Emissions From 

Operating Mill Tailings] 

■ 2. Section 61.251 is amended by 

revising the definition for (e) and adding 

new definitions for (h–m) as follows: 

§ 61.251 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(e) Operation. Operation means that 

an impoundment is being used for the 

continued placement of uranium 

byproduct materials or tailings or is in 

standby status for such placement. An 

impoundment is in operation from the 

day that uranium byproduct materials or 

tailings are first placed in the 

impoundment until the day that final 

closure begins. 

* * * * * 

(h) Conventional Impoundment. A 

conventional impoundment is a 

permanent structure located at any 

uranium recovery facility which 

contains mostly solid uranium 

byproduct material from the extraction 

of uranium from uranium ore. These 

impoundments are left in place at 

facility closure. 

(i) Non-Conventional Impoundment. 

A non-conventional impoundment can 

be located at any uranium recovery 

facility and contains uranium byproduct 

material suspended in and/or covered 

by liquids. These structures are 

commonly known as holding ponds or 

evaporation ponds. They are removed at 

facility closure. 

(j) Heap Leach Pile. A heap leach pile 

is a pile of uranium ore placed on an 

engineered structure and stacked so as 

to allow uranium to be dissolved and 

removed by leaching liquids. 

(k) Standby. Standby means the 

period of time that an impoundment 

may not be accepting uranium 

byproduct materials but has not yet 

entered the closure period. 

(l) Uranium Recovery Facility. A 

uranium recovery facility means a 

facility licensed by the NRC or an NRC 

Agreement State to manage uranium 

byproduct materials during and 

following the processing of uranium 

ores. Common names for these facilities 

are a conventional uranium mill, an insitu leach (or recovery) facility and a 

heap leach facility or pile. 

(m) Heap Leach Pile Operational Life. 

The operational life of a heap leach pile 

means the time that lixiviant is first 

placed on the heap leach pile until the 

time of the final rinse. 

■ 3. Section 61.252 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 61.252 Standard. 

(a) Conventional Impoundments. 

(1) Conventional impoundments shall 

be designed, constructed and operated 

to meet one of the two following 

management practices: 

(i) Phased disposal in lined tailings 

impoundments that are no more than 40 

acres in area and shall comply with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1). 

The owner or operator shall have no 

more than two conventional 

impoundments, including existing 

impoundments, in operation at any one 

time. 

(ii) Continuous disposal of tailings 

such that tailings are dewatered and 

immediately disposed with no more 

than 10 acres uncovered at any time and 

shall comply with the requirements of 

40 CFR 192.32(a)(1). 

(b) Non-Conventional Impoundments. 

Non-conventional impoundments shall 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

192.32(a)(1). During operation and until 

final closure begins, the liquid level in 

the impoundment shall not be less than 

one meter. 

(c) Heap Leach Piles. Heap leach piles 

shall comply with the phased disposal 

management practice in 40 CFR 

61.252(a)(1)(i). Heap leach piles shall be 

constructed in lined impoundments that 

are no more than 40 acres in area and 

shall comply with the requirements of 

40 CFR 192.32(a)(1). The owner or 

operator shall have no more than two 

heap leach piles, including existing 

heap leach piles, in operation at any one 

time. The moisture content of heap 

leach piles shall be maintained at 30% 

or greater. The moisture content shall be 

determined on a daily basis, and 

performed using generally accepted 

geotechnical methods. The moisture 

content requirement shall apply during 

the heap leach pile operational life. 

§ 61.253 [Removed] 

■ 4. Section 61.253 is removed. 

§ 61.254 [Removed] 

■ 5. Section 61.254 is removed. 

■ 6. Section 61.255 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 61.255 Recordkeeping requirements. 

(a) The owner or operator of any 

uranium recovery facility must maintain 

records that confirm that the 

conventional impoundment(s), 

nonconventional impoundment(s) and 

heap leach pile(s) at the facility meet the 

requirements in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(1). 

These records shall include, but not be 

limited to, the results of liner 

compatibility tests. 

(b) The owner or operator of any 

uranium recovery facility with 

nonconventional impoundments must 

maintain records that include 

measurements confirming that one 

meter of liquid has been maintained in 

the nonconventional impoundments at 

the facility. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

25412 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(c) The owner or operator of any heap 

leach facility shall maintain records 

confirming that the heap leach piles 

maintained at least 30% moisture 

content by weight during the heap leach 

pile operational life. 

(d) The records required in 

paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above must be 

kept at the uranium recovery facility for 

the operational life of the facility and 

must be made available for inspection 

by the Administrator, or his authorized 

representative. 

[FR Doc. 2014–09728 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3