EPA’SNESHAP Subpart W ActivitiesAn Internet WebinarReid J. RosnickEnvironmental Protection AgencyRadiation Protection Division (6608J)Washington, DC 20460rosnick.reid@epa.gov2Ask Questions•If you have a question during this presentation,please send it to:•SubpartW@epa.gov•After the presentation, we’ll try to answer as manyquestions as possible, time permitting3OverviewWhat is NESHAP?EPA regulatory requirements for operatinguranium mill tailings (Subpart W)General requirements applicable to Subpart WInformation on review of UMTRCA standardsEPA’s rulemaking processStatus update on Subpart W activitiesCommunicationsSome conclusions4What is NESHAP?•NationalEmissionStandards forHazardousAirPollutants•Mandated by the Clean Air Act•Standards set by EPA for air pollutants to protecthuman health and the environment•Radionuclides are in this category (Rad-NESHAP)•Various sources regulated under Rad-NESHAP,including radon emissions from operation uraniummill tailings (NESHAP Subpart W)5EPA Regulatory Requirements forOperating Uranium Mill Tailings(Subpart W)6EPA Regulatory Requirements forOperating Uranium Mill Tailings (Clean Air Act)•40 CFR 61 Subpart W requirements apply to facilitieslicensed to manage uranium byproduct materials duringand following the processing of uranium ores•Preconstruction approval, 40 CFR 61.07•Impoundment construction and operation requirementsin 40 CFR 192 cross referenced in Subpart W•Limit on number/size of impoundments•Phased Disposal – lined impoundments no morethan 40 acres, no more than two in operation atany time•Continuous Disposal – tailings are dewatered andimmediately disposed, no more than 10 acresuncovered at any time7EPA Regulatory Requirements forUranium Operations (Clean Air Act)Subpart W Requirements (continued)•Radon emission standard of 20 pCi/m2/sec --annual reporting requirements, notification inadvance of testing•The radon emission standard is for existing sourcesonly (existing before 12/15/89)•All operators must comply with 40 CFR 192.32(a)Seehttp://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/subpartw/rulemaking-activity.html for more information8General Requirements Applicable to Subpart W•Subpart W facilities are subject to the generalrequirements of 40 CFR 61.01 - .19•Application for construction and modification•Notification of startup•Compliance with monitoring/maintenance requirements•Subpart W facilities are subject to the design andground-water requirements of 40 CFR 192.32(a)•Ground-water protection standards and impoundmentdesign requirements similar to hazardous waste facilities•Permanent radon barrier at closure9Review of 40 CFR 192 Regulations ImplementingUMTRCAEPA reviewing regulations implementing the UraniumMill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA)Establishes health/environmental protection standardsutilized by NRC and Agreement States, and DOE fortheir oversight of uranium extraction facility licensing,operations, sites, and wastesIncludes conventional uranium mills, ISL recoveryfacilities, heap leach facilities, but not conventionalmines (open pit or underground)10Review of 40 CFR 192 RegulationsImplementing UMTRCAInternet site:Members of the public interested in this issueshould visit http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/and sign up to receive notification of changes to thepage at the envelope icon: Get e-mail updateswhen this information changes.)11EPA’s Rulemaking Process•Tiering•The lead office submits a request for a new action; theRegulatory Steering Committee (RSC) reviews it; theRegulatory Policy Officer (RPO) approves; the Office ofPolicy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI) approves thetier•Tier 1: Top actions that demand the ongoing involvement ofthe Administrator – precedent setting and controversial•Tier 2: Include significant science, policy, economic and/orimplementation issues – decision may be based on a riskassessment - Subpart W review is Tier 2•Tier 3: Generally involves use of well-known and acceptedscience principles12EPA’s Rulemaking Process•Analytic Blueprint and Early Guidance•The workgroup creates a Preliminary Analytic Blueprint(ABP), management gives Early Guidance, and theworkgroup creates a Detailed ABP•Analysis and Consultation•The workgroup gathers scientific, economic, legal,stakeholder, enforcement, and compliance information.Also, the workgroup drafts regulatory options•Options Selection•Senior management selects optionsor narrows the list to aselect few that require further research13EPA’s Rulemaking Process•Drafting•The workgroup creates a draft of the action•Final Agency Review•This is the last point for EPA review. Senior managementfrom participating offices concur or non-concur with theaction as it is written•Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review•If the action is significant, OPEIsubmits it to OMB for review•Signature•The EPA Administrator, an Assistant/Associate or RegionalAdministrator, or a delegate signs the action14EPA’s Rulemaking Process•Docketing•The lead office ensures that the action andappropriate supporting documents are depositedin the official docket•Federal Register Publishing•The action is published in the Federal Register•Public Comments•The action is open for a formal comment period,during which the public may submit comments andrequest public hearings15EPA’s Rulemaking Process•Final Action•After the proposed action's public comment periodcloses, the workgroup reviews all comments andusually starts preparing a final rule•The process begins again, usually with a newAnalytic Blueprint•Final actions are often subject to theCongressional Review Act and Courtesy CopyPolicy16•Status Update on Subpart W Activities17Status of Subpart W Review Activities•Per Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA isobligated to review Subpart W•A workgroup has been established•Members from across the Agency•Represent ORIA, OGC, ORD, OSWER, OECA,OPEI, OW, Regions 6, 7, 8 and 10•Workplan, Communications Plan, AnalyticBlueprint have been completed, basically, howare we going to approach the task18Status of Subpart W Review Activities•We have conducted historical research on the risk assessmentwork originally done in support of the 1989 standard•We have completed a surveyof existing technologies•Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance sentinformation request letters to numerous uranium recoveryfacilities•Answers better inform the workgroup of the universe offacilities, and the types of uranium recovery processes thatexist•We have also requested that ISL facilities provide radon fluxdata from their evaporation ponds19Status of Subpart W Review Activities•We are researching if Method 115 continues to becurrent, or whether other methods could beemployed for monitoring and analysis of radon flux•We are beginning the process of performing riskassessments at all existing facilities•Purpose is to update risk numbers used in 1989rulemaking to reflect state of the science•Stylized scenarios will also be developed forrepresentative future sites•Scenarios would include varied climate, heap leach20Status of Subpart W Review Activities•1989 rule used AIRDOS to calculate dose and risk•Determination which model is appropriate•Candidate models include CAP88, GENII,RESRAD, MILDOS-AREA, MEPAS, GASPAR•We welcome any other candidates you may knowabout21Status of Subpart W Review Activities•Risk estimates will be developed for each SubpartW facility•Estimates will be presented on a facility-by-facilitybasis, the same format used in the 1989 rulemaking•Source category, radionuclides released, existing controls•Bases for the risk estimate•Results of the dose and risk calculations•Description of supplementary emissions controls and costeffectiveness in reducing dose and risk22•COMMUNICATIONS23Communications•We have developed a website dedicated to SubpartW which provides internet access to backgroundinformation already compiled by EPA•Provides public access to all non-privileged records,especially technical documents, as well as usefullinks to sites relevant to Subpart W•http://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/subpartw/rulemaking-activity.html24Communications•We are conducting quarterly conference calls tobrief the public on the review of Subpart W•Next Call is scheduled for Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at11:00 AM EDT•Phone-in number – 1-866-299-3188•Conference Code 202343956325Some Conclusions•We are in the process of reviewing and possiblyrevising Subpart W, decision in winter 2011•Owners/operators of ISL facilities that utilizeevaporation ponds containing byproduct materialproduced by the extraction or concentration ofuranium should assume you are subject to therequirements of Subpart W•We appreciate the assistance of all stakeholders toinform and enable us to craft a protective andenforceable rule.26Questions?