P.3 

. ^ 

/ 0 XK & ^ /?/u-£-~3d , 

Fairfax. Virginia ^^5^ ^ C d>1~T. 

9300 Lee Highway 

Fairfax. Viri 

'22031-1207 

703/934-3000 

ICF INCORPORATED 

November 2, 1987 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Barbara Hostage, EPA 

FROM: Steve Wyngarden and Ellen Warhit, ICF 

SUBJECT: Administrative Exemptions for Radionuclide RQs 

This memorandum summarizes the information we have collected so far to 

help determine whether certain radionuclide releases can be exempted 

administratively from the RQ reporting requirements. Based on your review of 

this information, we can discuss whether there appears to be a sufficient 

justification to warrant any exemptions and whether further research in this 

area is needed. 

The memo is divided into sections addressing different industries and 

specific releases from those industries that are considered "candidates" for 

exemption at this time. Specifically, these releases are not federally 

permitted, and they are among the releases that commenters on che NPRM 

requested to be exempted. Also, the releases discussed below are the ones 

that, based on available information, appear to be of sufficient size to 

exceed the adjusted RQs on a daily basis. Unfortunately, only information on 

releases through stockpiling (i.e., placing and storing large volumes of 

contaminated waste on the ground) and emissions of radon to the air is 

summarized because no data on releases to other environmental media have been 

obtained yet. Therefore, it is possible that other releases from the listed 

induscries, such as seepage into ground water or discharges to surface water, 

also may exceed che RQ frequencly. The principal conclusions from che 

discussion chac follows are summarized in Exhibit 1. 

As you will notice, some types of facilities have certain releases chac 

appear Co warranc an exemption and other releases that do not appear co 

qualify for an exemption at this time. For example, at some facilities it 

appears that stockpiling certain waste material could be exempted but chac 

chere is lictle information Co juscify an exemption for stockpiles of other 

waste material. In these cases, it is questionable if any real benefits would 

be gained by exempting some but not all releases from a given facilicy -- che 

facilicy would still have to submit an annual report under the requirement of 

section 103(f)(2), and the additional burden of reporting two cypes of 

releases as opposed Co one is noc great. This is a point chac is useful co 

consider in deciding whecher some of che releases lisced below should accually 

be exempced. 
P.4 

Memorandum 

Savmbms 2. 

Page 2 

1987 

EXHIBIT 1 

SUMMRY CF INFORMATION 

ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXEMPTIONS 

Ralaaaa Sourc• 

Category Stockpiling Radon Emissions 

Fhoaphate Rock Minaa 

and Beneficiation Plantl 

Phosphate Ora Drying 

and Grinding Facilitia* 

Probably sufficient justification to 

exempt atockpilea of mining overburden, 

but not tailings or other waata* that 

could be atockpiled 

No information obtained ao far on any 

atockpilea; uncertain if waate ever 

stockpiled at theae facilitiaa 

Foaaibly aufficient Juatificatlan to 

exempt radon aoUaaiona 

Probably sufficient Justification to 

exempt radon missions 

Wet Procesa Fertilizer 

Plants 

Coal-Fired Utility and 

Industrial Bollera 

Metal and Nonaatal 

Extraction Induatriea 

(Aluminua, Copper, Zinc, 

Lead, Iron, Clay, 

Limeatone, and 

Fluorspar) 

ORP has requested that gypsum pilea 

not be exempted 

Doea not appear to be aufficient 

Justification for exempting solid 

waste piles at this time 

Possibly sufficient Justification to 

exempt waate atockpilea at all but 

aluminum facilitiaa 

Probably sufficient Justification to 

exempt radon emissions with the possible 

exception of those from gypsum piles snd 

phosphate rock calciners 

Probably sufficient Justification to 

exempt radon emissions 

Probably sufficient Justification to 

exempt radon emissions from all induatriea 

Production of Oil and 

Gas and Geothermal 

Energy 

Land Disturbance 

Activities 

No information obtained on any stockpiles; doubtful that atockpilea per se 

ever exist 

Not applicable 

Possibly aufficiant Justification to 

exempt radon amissions 

Probably sufficient Justification for 

exempting radon emissions, although a 

formal regulatory determination haa not 

been found for support 
P.5 

Memorandum 

November 2, 1987 

Page 3 

Phosphate Rock Mining and Processing (Beneficiation, Drying, and Grinding) 

Stockpiling 

At phosphate rock mines and beneficiation plants, a variety of "waste" 

materials are placed on the land surface for storage and/or disposition. 

These materials include mining overburden, leached material, and tailings. 

Ore drying and grinding facilities may stockpile raw and ground phosphate rock 

as part of the production process, but it is not known if these facilities 

ever stockpile wastes. 

The hazards associated with wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, 

and processing of phosphate rock have been studied under RCRA. In a Report to 

Congress (EPA, 1985), EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) noted that a 

relatively large fraction of the waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and 

processing of phosphate rock contains more than 5 pCi/gm of radium-226, which 

might qualify it for regulation as "hazardous waste" under RCRA. 

Nevertheless, in a Regulatory Determination published in the Federal Register 

(51 f£ 24496), EPA concluded that radioactivity is not a current RCRA 

characteristic and that regulating these wastes as hazardous under RCRA is 

"environmentally unnecessary, technically infeasible, and economically 

impractical." As an alternative, EPA proposed to develop a program for 

regulating phosphate rock mining and processing wastes under Subtitle D of 

RCRA. Interestingly, the Regulatory Determination goes on to say that, until 

the Subtitle D program is in place, EPA will use sections 104 and 106 of 

CERCLA "to seek relief in those cases where wastes from mining sites pose 

substantial threats or imminent hazards to human health and the environment" 

(51 Fg 24501). Therefore, these analyses under RCRA do not appear to provide 

a clear justification for exempting the stockpiling of phosphate rock waste 

from che RQ reporcing requirements. 

Background information developed in support of the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) provides additional data 

related co stockpiling. One background document (EPA, 1980) reporcs che 

radionuclide concentration in overburden and leached material at model (i.e., 

typical) phosphate mines and beneficiation plants. The reported concentration 

of radium-226 in overburden is less than 5 pCi/gm, which is EPA's cleanup 

standard for che land surface ac uranium processing sices (48 FE 590). The 

purpose of Chis scandard is Co limit the risk from inhalation of radon decay 

products in houses builc on concaminated land, and to limit gamma radiation 

exposure of people using contaminated land. Therefore, even if homes were 

built on land backfilled with phosphate rock overburden or if people stood on 

che overburden for extended periods, the radiation hazards would be small. 

This analysis suggests that the placement of overburden on the ground could be 

exempted from the RQ reporting requirements. 

•'•Overburden is defined as soil or rock overlying a useful geological 

deposit, such as phosphace ore, coal, or uranium. 
P.6 

Memorandum 

November 2, 1987 

Page 4 

The reported radionuclide concentration of leached material at a model 

mine and beneficiation plant exceeds the EPA standard noted above. The 

NESHAPs document does not report the radionuclide concentration in phosphate 

rock tailings but it would probably be about the same concentration found in 

phosphate ore, which is reported to exceed the EPA standard also. This 

analysis suggests that leached material and tailings at phosphate rock 

facilities could present a radiation hazard if managed improperly and, 

therefore, Chat a reporting exemption for stockpiles of these materials may 

not be justified. 

Radon Releases 

i. 

Radon emissions from large area sources at phosphate mines, beneficiation 

plants, and ore drying and grinding facilities vill apparently exceed Che RQ 

on a daily basis. While it is conceivable that releases of ocher 

radionuclides in che form of parciculaces from large area sources could also 

exceed che RQ, mosc of the comments on the NPRM implied that only the radon RQ 

would be a problem. 

A NESHAPs background document (EPA, 1980) reports chac Che radon flux for 

callings and overburden piles ac model mines and beneficiacion planes is less 

than 20 pCi/m^-sec, which is EPA's radon emission standard for uranium mill 

tailings piles. The reported daily emission of radon from phosphate ore 

drying and grinding facilities is less than the RQ, but it is unclear if this 

emission rate includes the radon emitted from ore piles ac these facilicies. 

Also, Che document reporcs chac escimaced risks due Co radon emissions from 

model mines, beneficiacion planes, and ore drying and grinding facilicies are 

generally low. Ac mining and beneficiacion facilicies, che maximum individual 

lifecime risk is 3x10 , wich 0.1 expecced facal cancers per year of 

operacion. AC ore drying and grinding faicilicies, che maximum individual 

lifecime risk from radon emissions is 8x10 , wich 0.002 expecced facal 

cancers per year. 

Based in pare on chese findings, che Office of Radiacion Programs (ORP) 

announced in che Federal Register chac che risks from radionuclide emissions 

from drying and grinding facilicies are insignificanc and chac regulacion of 

chese emissions under NESHAPs is noc warranced (49 FR, 43914). Because che 

announcemenc does noc address releases of specific radionuclides from specific 

sources at drying and grinding facilities, it appears to be referring to all 

radionuclide emissions from these facilities (including radon from any piles). 

This determination, therefore, may provide a juscificacion for exempcing radon 

releases from ore piles and any ocher source at phosphate ore drying and 

grinding facilities from the RQ reporting requirements. The Federal Register 

nocice does noc provide a formal decerminacion wich respecc Co phosphace rock 

mines and beneficiacion planes; however, chis source cacegory was noc included 

in the lisc of sources co be regulaced under NESHAPs. 
P.7 

Memorandum 

November 2, 1987 

Page 5 

Vet Process Fertilizer Plants (Phosphoric Acid Plants) 

Stockpiling 

Stockpiles of gypsum, a waste material generated from the production of 

phosphoric acid, will contain more Chan an RQ of many naturally occurring 

radionuclides. As we have discussed, ORP (Bill Gunter and Jim Hardin) has 

requested that gypsum piles not be exempted from the RQ reporting requirements 

at this time. 

Radon Releases 

A NESHAPs background document (EPA, 1980) reports thaC ocher operations 

at a model fertilizer plant, separate from the gypsum pile, will emit more 

than an RQ of radon per day. The estimated risks caused by this radon 

emission, however, are reported to be low (a maximum individual lifetime risk 

of 2x10 , with 0.007 expected fatal cancers per year of operation). 

After analyzing the risks caused by radon and ocher radionuclide 

emissions from fercilizer planes, ORP sCaced in che Federal Register chac che 

risks are insignificant and chac regulacion of chese emissions under NESHAPs 

is noc warranCed (49 F_g 43914). Much of Che supporcing discussion in che 

Federal Register addresses parciculace (i.e., noc radon) releases, buc che 

scacemenc chac che risks caused by radionuclide emissions are low appears co 

refer Co all radionuclide emissions, including radon emissions as evaluaced in 

che background documenc. In making Chis scacemenc, however, EPA clarified 

chac che emissions from phosphace rock calciners ac fercilizer planes are 

still under study and chac a decision regarding Che need co regulace emissions 

from calciners will be made ae a later time. Therefore, the NESHAPs 

information appears to provide a justification for exempting radon emissions 

from fertilizer plant operations, excepc che emissions from phosphace rock 

calciners. 

Coal-Fired Utility and Industrial Boilers 

Stockpiling 

Solid wasce piles at coal-fired boilers may include piles of fly ash, 

bottom ash, slag, and scrubber sludges. One background document (EPA, 1980) 

reports that some solid wastes may contain more than 5 pCi/gm of radium-226. 

Again, this is EPA's standard for the cleanup of the land surface at uranium 

processing sites, and is designed to mainly prevent elevated levels of radon 

decay products in homes built on contaminated land. Accordingly, it appears 

that these materials could present a radiation hazard if not managed properly. 

Based on chese daca, che informacion reviewed so far does noc clearly support 

an exemption for coal waste stockpiles. 
^ 8 ^ 

Memorandum 

,. November 2, 1987 

Page 6 

Radon Releases 

Radon releases from some coal and ash piles may exceed che RQ on a daily 

basis. It may be possible Co exempt these emissions, however, because the 

NESHAPs background information states that "analyses of fugicive emission daca 

from chese piles indicate ... that the radon 'exhalation rate' is less than 

that for soil" (EPA, 1984). Risk estimates for these radon emissions are 

never presented explicitly, but one background document (EPA, 1980) states 

that "che risks from radon-222 are noc significant in comparison co che risks 

from radionuclides in particulate materials." ORP concluded in the Federal 

Register chac che risks caused by parciculace radionuclide emissions from 

coal-fired boilers are relatively insignificant and chat ie is not necessary 

to regulate these emissions under NESHAPs (49 F_g 43913). By analogy, 

therefore, it appears that the risks from radon releases from all sources at 

coal-fired boilers are even less significant. 

Metal and Nonaetal Mining, Milling, and Saelting (Excluding Uraniua) 

Stockpiling 

NESHAPs background documents (EPA, 1980 and EPA, 1984) provide data on 

model mines, mills, and smelters in che aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, iron, 

clay, limestone, and fluorspar induscries. While Chese documents do not 

report the radionuclide concentrations of tailings or any other wastes that 

might be stockpiled at these facilities, the documents do provide data on the 

radionuclide concentration found in raw ore processed by the different 

industries. Because the concentrations in tailings and other wastes are 

probably comparable to those in the ore, the hazards of waste piles can be 

assessed by analyzing the radionuclide concentrations of the ore. 

Of the various industries noted above, the ores in all but the aluminum 

industry contain less Chan 5 pCi/gm of radium-226, EPA's cleanup standard 

described previously. Therefore, even if homes were builc on ore piles ac 

chese induscries or if people sCood on Che piles for excended periods, che 

radiacion hazards would be small. Because callings and ocher wasces are 

expecced Co have similar radionuclide concentrations as the ore, this same 

conclusion would apply to tailings or other waste piles produced by these 

industries. This analysis could be used to justify a reporting exemption for 

tailings and other waste stockpiles at all but aluminum facilities, although a 

formal regulatory determination that could be referenced for support has not 

been found so. far. 

Radon Releases 

Based on the NESHAPs background documents, it appears that radon 

emissions from a variety of sources at mines, mills, and smelters may exceed 

the RQ on a daily basis. These sources include tailings and probably ore 

piles at aluminum, copper, zinc, lead, iron, and fluorspar mines and mills. 
P.9 

Memorandum 

November 2, 19«7 

Page 7 

It also appears that smokestacks at copper and lead smelters as well as zinc 

mines and mills in general may emit more than an RQ of radon per day. 

The NESHAPs background information presents spotty data on these radon 

emissions that may or may not be useable to support reporting exemptions. In 

summary, the NESHAPs information: 

o states that the radon emissions from Callings 

piles aC model copper, zinc, and fluorspar mills 

"do noc differ from background;" 

o sCaCes chat the radon emissions from model iron 

and aluminum tailings piles may exceed 

background, buc chac che emission rate from 

these piles is less than 20 pCi/m2-sec (EPA's 

radon emission standard for uranium mill 

tailings piles) and causes generally lov risks 

(a maximum individual risk of 5 x 10** with 0.01 

expected fatal cancers per year); 

o provides no informacion on radon emissions from 

lead mines, mills, or Callings piles; 

o does noc provide an explicic evaluacion of che 

hazards associated with radon emissions from 

copper and lead smelters; and 

o states that radon emissions from model zinc 

mines and mills presenc a maximum individual 

risk of 2 x 10"^ and cause 0.008 faCal cancers 

per year of operation. 

In the Federal Register (49 £& 43914), ORP stated that it was not 

necessary to regulate radioaccive emissions from several exeraceion induscries 

under NESHAPs. The racionale presented for this decision was as follows: 

EPA has conducted studies of airborne radioactive 

emissions from the mining, milling, and smelting of iron, 

copper, zinc, clay, limestone, fluorspar, and bauxite 

[aluminum]. These are relatively large industries and are 

considered to have the greatest potential for air 

emissions of radionuclides. EPA proposes noc to regulate 

these extraction industries because the available data 

showed that che risks Co individuals and populacions from 

radionuclide emissions from chese facilicies are 

insignificanc. 

The Federal Regiscer nocice also says chac mosc comraencers concurred wich chis 

decision and chac no informacion juscifying a reversal of che decision was . 
P.10 

Memorandum 

NovwabtBT 2, 19S7 

Page 8 

provided to EPA during the public comment period. It is important to note 

that the above statement is presented in the Federal Register unequivocally; 

ic implies that releases of all radionuclides from all sources at these 

industries present insignificant risks (even chough che supporting background 

documenes do noc address che risks of radon from all sources as noted above). 

Production of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Energy 

In che produccion of oil and gas and geochermal energy, radon is broughe 

Co che land surface in waeer or naCural gas. How much of chis radon escapes 

inco che environmenc is noc known buc, based on comments from Chevron, it 

appears chat more Chan an RQ may be released commonly. 

No daca or regulacory deCerminacions wich respecc Co Che hazards of chese 

radon releases have been obcained so far. This source cacegory has noC been 

explicicly scudied under NESHAPs. As described previously, however, emissions 

from several ocher exeraceion induscries (copper, zinc, clay, limesCone, 

fluorspar, aluminum, and lead) have been scudied by ORP Co decermine if ehey 

warrane regulacion under NESHAPs. In background documenes and Federal 

Regiseer nocices supporcing decisions noc Co regulace emissions from chese 

induscries, chere are several statements to the effect chat these other 

extraction industries are considered to have the greatest potential for air 

emissions of radionuclides. Therefore, it is implied that radionuclide 

emissions from Che produccion of oil, gas, and geothermal energy are even less 

of a concern and would also noc warrant regulacion under NESHAPs. This line 

of reasoning could possibly be used co exempt chese radon emissions from che 

RQ reporcing requiremencs. 

Land Disturbance and General Land Use Activities 

Any activicy chac involves che discurbance of che earch's surface can 

resulc in releases of naCurally occurring radionuclides co che atmosphere. 

Radon, because it is a gas, is expected to be emitted in the largest 

quantities, and any activicy disturbing a relatively large area (e.g., 

agricultural and conscruction accivicies) will probably emic more Chan an RQ 

of radon per day. 

Alchough we have noc found any formal regulacory deCerminacions chac 

scace such radon releases will never be a problem, we believe a scrong 

qualicacive argumenc can be made for exempcing chese releases from che RQ 

reporcing requiremencs. Specifically, che following poincs argue in favor of 

an exempcion: 

o When released oucdoors, radon mixes wich che 

large amounc of oucside air and is widely 

dispersed. Radiacion hazards principally arise 

when radon (and ics decay produces) encers a 

building and concencraces in che indoor air. 

Radon from land discurbance accivicies will be 
_E_JJ 

Memorandum 

November 2, 1967 

Page 9 

emicced inco che ambienc air, where ic should 

noC presenc a significanc hazard. 

While radon released from land discurbance 

accivicies could seep inco nearby buildings, 

chis seepage would probably concribuce 

negligibly co che radon already presenc from 

naCural background. 

Radon emissions from land discurbance accivicies 

generally are noc monicored, so releasers would 

probably never know when an RQ has been 

exceeded. 

Even if che Nacional Response Cencer received a 

reporc of such a radon release, chere would be 

very liccle eo noehing chac che federal 

governmenc could do in response. In Chis sense, 

reports of radon releases from land discurbance 

accivicies could cie up Nacional Response Cencer 

resources unnecessarily, prevenCing cimely 

responses co chose releases chac cruly warrant a 

response. 
P.12 

FT 

Memorandum 

November 2, 1987 

Page 10 

REFERENCES 

EPA, 1980. Radiological Impact Caused by Emissions of Radionuclides into Air 

in the United States -- Preliminary Report. EPA 520/7-79-006. 

EPA, 1984. Radionuclides -- Background Information Document for Final Rule, 

Volume II. EPA 520/1-84-022-2. 

EPA, 1985. Wastes from the Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic Ores, 

Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden from Uranium Mining, and Oil Shale 

-- Report to Congress. EPA/530-SW-85-033.