EPA’S

NESHAP Subpart W Activitie

An Internet Webinar

Reid J. RosnickEnvironmental Protection Agency Radiation Protection Division (6608J)Washington, DC 20460rosnick.reid@epa.gov
Ask Questions

• If you have a question during this presentatio

please send it to:

• SubpartW@epa.gov• After the presentation, we’ll try to answer as 

questions as possible, time permitting
Overview

What is NESHAP?EPA regulatory requirements for operating 

uranium mill tailings (Subpart W)

General requirements applicable to SubpaInformation on review of UMTRCA standaEPA’s rulemaking processStatus update on Subpart W activitiesCommunicationsSome conclusions
What is NESHAP?

•

National 

Emission 

Standards for 

Hazardous 

Pollutants

• Mandated by the Clean Air Act• Standards set by EPA for air pollutants to pro

human health and the environment

• Radionuclides are in this category (Rad-NES• Various sources regulated under Rad-NESH

including radon emissions from operation uramill tailings (NESHAP Subpart W)
EPA Regulatory Requirements f

Operating Uranium Mill Tailing

(Subpart W)
EPA Regulatory Requirements for 

Operating Uranium Mill Tailings (Clean Air A

• 40 CFR 61 Subpart W requirements apply to faci

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

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

in 40 CFR 192 cross referenced in Subpart W 

• Limit on number/size of impoundments

• Phased Disposal – lined impoundments no 

than 40 acres, no more than two in operatany time

• Continuous Disposal – tailings are dewate

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

Uranium Operations (Clean Air Act)

Subpart W Requirements (continued)

• Radon emission standard of 20 pCi/m

2/sec --

annual reporting requirements, notification in advance of testing

• The radon emission standard is for existing s

only (existing before 12/15/89)

• All operators must comply with 40 CFR 192.3

See http://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/subpamaking-activity.html for more information
General Requirements Applicable to Subp

• Subpart W facilities are subject to the genera

requirements of 40 CFR 61.01 - .19

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

• Subpart W facilities are subject to the design 

ground-water requirements of 40 CFR 192.3

• Ground-water protection standards and impoundm

design requirements similar to hazardous waste fa

• Permanent radon barrier at closure
Review of 40 CFR 192 Regulations Implemen

UMTRCA

EPA reviewing regulations implementing the Uran

Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA)

 Establishes health/environmental protection stan

utilized by NRC and Agreement States, and DOE their oversight of uranium extraction facility licensoperations, sites, and wastes

Includes conventional uranium mills, ISL recovery 

facilities, heap leach facilities, but not conventionamines (open pit or underground

)
Review of 40 CFR 192 Regulations 

Implementing UMTRCA

Internet site:

 Members of the public interested in this issue 

should visit http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenoand sign up to receive notification of changes page at the envelope icon: Get e-mail updatewhen this information changes.

)
EPA’s Rulemaking Process

• Tiering

• The lead office submits a request for a new actio

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

• Tier 1: Top actions that demand the ongoing invol

the Administrator – precedent setting and controve

• Tier 2: Include significant science, policy, econom

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

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

science principles
EPA’s Rulemaking Process

• Analytic Blueprint and Early Guidance

• The workgroup creates a Preliminary Analytic Blue

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

• Analysis and Consultation

• The workgroup gathers scientific, economic, legal, 

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

• Options Selection

• Senior management selects options or narrows th

select few that require further research
EPA’s Rulemaking Process

• Drafting

• The workgroup creates a draft of the action

• Final Agency Review 

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

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

• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) R

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

• Signature

• The EPA Administrator, an Assistant/Associate or R

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

• Docketing

• The lead office ensures that the action and 

appropriate supporting documents are depoin the official docket 

• Federal Register Publishing

• The action is published in the Federal Regis

• Public Comments

• The action is open for a formal comment pe

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

• Final Action

• After the proposed action's public comment 

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

• The process begins again, usually with a ne

Analytic Blueprint 

• Final actions are often subject to the 

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

• Per Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA 

obligated to review Subpart W

• A workgroup has been established

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

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

• Workplan, Communications Plan, Analytic 

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

• We have conducted historical research on the risk ass

work originally done in support of the 1989 standard

• We have completed a survey of existing technologies• Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance sen

information request letters to numerous uranium recovfacilities

• Answers better inform the workgroup of the universe o

facilities, and the types of uranium recovery processes exist

• We have also requested that ISL facilities provide rad

data from their evaporation ponds 
Status of Subpart W Review Activit

• We are researching if Method 115 continues 

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

• We are beginning the process of performing 

assessments at all existing facilities

• Purpose is to update risk numbers used in 19

rulemaking to reflect state of the science

• Stylized scenarios will also be developed for 

representative future sites

• Scenarios would include varied climate, heap 
Status of Subpart W Review Activit

• 1989 rule used AIRDOS to calculate dose an• Determination which model is appropriate• Candidate models include CAP88, GENII, 

RESRAD, MILDOS-AREA, MEPAS, GASPA

• We welcome any other candidates you may 

about
Status of Subpart W Review Activit

• Risk estimates will be developed for each Su

W facility 

• Estimates will be presented on a facility-by-fa

basis, the same format used in the 1989 rule

• Source category, radionuclides released, existing • Bases for the risk estimate• Results of the dose and risk calculations• Description of supplementary emissions controls a

effectiveness in reducing dose and risk
•COMMUNICATIONS
Communications

• We have developed a website dedicated to S

W which provides internet access to backgroinformation already compiled by EPA

• Provides public access to all non-privileged r

especially technical documents, as well as uslinks to sites relevant to Subpart W

• http://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/subpa

making-activity.html
Communications

• We are conducting quarterly conference calls 

brief the public on the review of Subpart W

• Next Call is scheduled for Tuesday, July 6, 2

11:00 AM EDT

• Phone-in number – 1-866-299-3188• Conference Code 2023439563
Some Conclusions

• We are in the process of reviewing and poss

revising Subpart W, decision in winter 2011

• Owners/operators of ISL facilities that utilize 

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

• We appreciate the assistance of all stakehold

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