[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40042-40051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-19194]
[[Page 40041]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 302 and 355
_______________________________________________________________________
Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide Releases;
Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 40042]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 302 and 355
[FRL-5268-9]
Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain Radionuclide
Releases
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice of proposed rulemaking requests comments on
broader administrative exemptions from the release reporting
requirements under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. In particular, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant reporting
exemptions for releases of naturally occurring radionuclides associated
with land disturbance incidental to extraction activities at certain
kinds of mines, and coal and coal ash piles at all kinds of sites. EPA
also is requesting comments on two alternatives to these exemptions.
These reporting exemptions are being proposed in response to
comments on a November 30, 1992 proposed rule on administrative
reporting exemptions (57 FR 56726).
EPA thoroughly evaluated the radionuclide concentrations in various
mining materials, coal, and coal ash relative to background levels to
determine the scope of the proposed reporting exemptions; thus, this
document reflects a sound, scientific approach. The exemptions would be
consistent with the Agency's common sense goals in that they would
eliminate unnecessary reporting burdens and allow EPA to focus its
resources on the most serious releases. The reporting exemptions would
result in an estimated net cost savings to industry of approximately
$455,000 annually.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 3, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Submittal of Comments: Comments should be submitted in
triplicate (no facsimiles or tapes) to: Docket Coordinator,
Headquarters; U.S. EPA; CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code 5201G); 401 M
Street, SW; Washington, DC 20460; 703/603-8917. Please note that this
is the mailing address only. Documents are available for viewing, by
appointment only, at the address provided below in the ``Document
Viewing'' section.
Document Viewing: Copies of materials relevant to this rulemaking
are contained in Docket Number 102RQ-RN-2 at EPA Headquarters at the
following address: U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G),
Crystal Gateway #1, 12th Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202. The docket is available for viewing, by
appointment only, after the appearance of this rule. An appointment to
view the docket can be made by calling the Docket Coordinator at 703/
603-8917. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Please note that this is the visiting address only. Mail comments to
the address listed above in the ``Submittal of Comments'' section.
The public may copy a maximum of 266 pages from any regulatory
docket at no cost. If the number of pages copied exceeds 266, however,
an administrative fee of $25 and a charge of $0.15 per page for each
page after page 266 will be incurred. The docket will mail copies of
materials to requestors who are outside the Washington, DC metropolitan
area.
Release Notification: The toll-free telephone number of the
National Response Center is 800/424-8802; in the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, the number is 202/267-2675. The facsimile number for
the National Response Center is 202/267-2165 and the telex number is
892427.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RCRA/UST, Superfund, and EPCRA
Hotline at 800/424-9346 (in the Washington, DC metropolitan area,
contact 703/412-9810); the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD)
Hotline at 800/553-7672 (in the Washington, DC metropolitan area,
contact 703/486-3323); or Ms. Gerain H. Perry, Response Standards and
Criteria Branch, Emergency Response Division (5202G), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC
20460, or at 703/603-8760.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The contents of today's preamble are listed
in the following outline:
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
B. Background of this Rulemaking
C. Consultation and Outreach Activities
II. Regulatory Reporting Exemptions
A. Proposed Exemptions
B. Alternative Exemptions
III. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates
I. Introduction
A. Statutory Authority
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (Pub. L. 96-510), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et
seq., as amended, established broad Federal authority to respond to
releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances from vessels
and facilities. Section 101(14) of CERCLA defines the term ``hazardous
substance'' primarily by reference to various Federal environmental
statutes.
Under section 103(a) of CERCLA, the person in charge of a vessel or
facility from which a CERCLA hazardous substance has been released in
an amount equal to or greater than its reportable quantity (RQ) must
immediately notify the National Response Center (see 40 CFR 302.6). In
addition, the person in charge of a facility from which a CERCLA
hazardous substance has been released in an amount equal to or greater
than its RQ must immediately notify State and local response
authorities, as required by section 304 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) (Pub. L. 99-499), 42 U.S.C.
11001 et seq. (see 40 CFR 355.40). As established by EPA in an earlier
RQ rulemaking (50 FR 13463, April 4, 1985), a 24-hour period is used
for measuring whether an RQ or more of a hazardous substance has been
released (i.e., only releases of an RQ or more within 24 hours need to
be reported) (see 40 CFR 302.6(a)).
Section 102(b) of CERCLA establishes RQs at one pound for releases
of hazardous substances, except for those substances for which RQs were
established pursuant to section 311(b)(4) of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Section 102(a) of CERCLA authorizes EPA to adjust the RQs for all
hazardous substances by regulation.
A major purpose of the section 103(a) notification requirements is
to alert the appropriate government officials to releases of hazardous
substances that may require a response to protect public health or
welfare or the environment. EPA emphasizes that an RQ is merely a
trigger for informing the government of a release so that the
appropriate government personnel can evaluate the need for a response
action and can undertake any necessary response action in a timely
fashion. Federal personnel evaluate all reported releases, but in some
cases will not initiate a response because the release of an RQ does
not pose a hazard in all circumstances. Government personnel assess
each reported release on a case-
[[Page 40043]]
by-case basis to determine the appropriate response action, if any.
CERCLA sections 102(a), 103, and 115 (the general rulemaking
authority under CERCLA) together provide EPA with authority to grant
administrative reporting exemptions. Such exemptions may be granted for
releases of hazardous substances that pose little or no risk or to
which a Federal response is infeasible or inappropriate. Requiring
reports of such releases serves little or no useful purpose and could,
instead, impose a significant burden on the Federal response system and
on the persons responsible for notifying the Federal government of the
release. Through such reporting exemptions, therefore, the Federal
response system is able to more efficiently implement CERCLA and EPCRA
and more effectively focus on reports of releases that are more likely
to pose a significant hazard to human health and the environment.
B. Background of This Rulemaking
Radionuclides are CERCLA hazardous substances because they are
listed as hazardous air pollutants under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act. Radionuclides initially had a one-pound RQ as established by
CERCLA section 102(b). EPA recognized that an RQ of one pound for
radionuclides was not appropriate because radionuclides are not
generally measured in units of pounds, and releases of much less than
one pound of radionuclides may present a substantial threat to public
health or welfare or the environment. On March 16, 1987, EPA published
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to adjust the RQ for
radionuclide releases (52 FR 8172), with the comment period ending on
May 15, 1987. A total of 28 comment letters, totaling about 150 pages,
were received. The comments received, together with the Agency's
responses, are contained in ``Responses to Comments on the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on the Adjustment of Reportable Quantities for
Radionuclides'' (Responses to Comments), which is available for
inspection in Docket Number 102RQ-RN located at the U.S. EPA CERCLA
Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G), Crystal Gateway #1, 12th Floor, 1235
Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
The Agency promulgated a final rule (54 FR 22524; May 24, 1989) to
adjust the RQs for all (approximately 1,500) radionuclides. In
preparing the final rule, EPA considered carefully all of the public
comments submitted on the proposals made in the March 16, 1987 NPRM.
The final rule granted four administrative exemptions from CERCLA
section 103 and EPCRA section 304 reporting requirements based on those
comments. In particular, the Agency exempted: (1) Releases of naturally
occurring radionuclides from large generally undisturbed land holdings,
such as golf courses and parks; (2) releases of radionuclides naturally
occurring from the disturbance of large areas of land for purposes
other than mining, such as farming or building construction; (3)
releases of radionuclides from the dumping of coal and coal ash at
utility and industrial facilities with coal-fired boilers; and (4)
radionuclide releases to all media from coal and coal ash piles at
utility and industrial facilities with coal-fired boilers.
Following the final rulemaking, the American Mining Congress (AMC),
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), and others challenged the rule in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in TFI v.
EPA (935 F2d 1303). In the litigation, AMC and TFI argued that EPA
violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to provide
notice and opportunity to comment on the proposed exemptions. The
petitioners also argued that it was arbitrary and capricious for EPA to
discriminate against mining by excluding it from the land disturbance
exemption.
The Court found that the administrative reporting exemptions were
improperly promulgated because EPA failed to provide adequate notice
of, and opportunity for public comment on, those exemptions. The Court,
however, left the four exemptions in place while the Agency undertakes
a new round of notice and comment rulemaking.
In a proposed rule published on November 30, 1992 (57 FR 56726),
the Agency complied with the Court's decision by providing notice of,
and requesting comment on, the same four exemptions from CERCLA section
103 and EPCRA section 304 notification requirements that were
promulgated in the 1989 final radionuclide RQ adjustment regulation.
EPA requested that public comments on the November 30, 1992 proposal be
submitted by January 29, 1993. In response to several requests for an
extension to the comment period, and in the interest of allowing the
public greater opportunity to evaluate the issues raised in the
November 30, 1992 NPRM, EPA re-opened the public comment period for an
additional 60 days beginning on March 5, 1993 (58 FR 12876). All
background materials and public comments related to the November 30,
1992 proposal are available for inspection in Docket Number 102RQ-RN-1
located at the U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G), Crystal
Gateway #1, 12th Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA
22202.
A total of 27 comment letters, totalling more than 750 pages, were
received on the November 30, 1992 NPRM, including two after the initial
deadline and one after the close of the second comment period. These
comments raised a number of issues that the Agency cannot resolve
without additional information and analysis. Chief among these issues
are:
--Do radionuclide releases from land disturbance incidental to
extraction activities at mines pose a greater risk than such releases
from farming and construction?
--Do coal and coal ash piles at sites without coal-fired boilers (e.g.,
coal piles at mines, railroad stockyards, and steel mills, and coal ash
disposed of in off-site landfills) pose a greater radiological threat
than such piles at boiler sites?
--Is the government likely to respond to radionuclide releases from
land disturbance incidental to extraction activities or coal and coal
ash piles at non-boiler sites, and if so, what response realistically
can be taken?
After reviewing the public comment letters and evaluating these
issues, the Agency has decided to issue this supplemental proposal
requesting information and comment on expanded reporting exemptions for
certain radionuclide releases.
C. Consultation and Outreach Activities
EPA has undertaken a number of activities to involve interested
stakeholders in considering and developing this supplemental proposal.
The November 30, 1992 NPRM served as a basis for informing and
soliciting comments from all parties on the original reporting
exemptions for four categories of radionuclide releases. Comment
letters from mining trade organizations, individual mining companies,
electric power generators and trade organizations, railroads, steel
manufacturers, private citizens, States, and others were received and
served as the prime impetus for considering broader exemptions. At
their request, EPA met with representatives of AMC and TFI on January
22, 1993 to hear their issues and concerns regarding the November 30,
1992 NPRM. Following this meeting and the receipt of requests submitted
by commenters, EPA re-opened the public comment period for an
additional 60 days to give
[[Page 40044]]
stakeholders ample opportunity to fully address their concerns. EPA
then met again with representatives of AMC and TFI, at their request,
on February 25, 1994 to receive further information and hear their
views on the matter.
This supplemental proposal was developed based on careful
consideration of all information and comments received since the
reporting exemptions for certain radionuclide releases were originally
promulgated. EPA will develop a final rule on this matter based on
combined information and comments received on both the November 30,
1992, NPRM and this supplemental proposal.
II. Regulatory Reporting Exemptions
A. Proposed Exemptions
EPA is proposing to broaden the present reporting exemption for
land disturbance activities to include land disturbance incidental to
extraction activities at all mines except certain categories of mines
that are likely to handle raw materials with ``elevated'' radionuclide
concentrations. The particular types of mines that would not be within
the scope of the reporting exemption would be uranium, phosphate, tin,
titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth mines. For the
purpose of this preamble and proposed rule, mines that extract monazite
(a particular kind of rare earth mineral) for its thorium content are
considered rare earth mines. Releases of naturally occurring
radionuclides from land disturbance at all other types of mines would
be exempted from CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 reporting
requirements. For the purpose of this proposal, land disturbance
incidental to extraction activities would include land clearing,
overburden removal and stockpiling, and excavating, handling,
transporting, and storing ores and other raw materials. Beneficiation
and mineral processing activities, including the associated handling,
transporting, and storing of bulk materials, would not be included
within the scope of the exemption because such operations may tend to
(1) concentrate radionuclides in waste streams or other materials well
above natural background levels, and/or (2) result in substantially
greater releases than associated with land disturbance incidental to
extraction (e.g., smokestack emissions from smelters may far exceed
fugitive releases from mining). Additionally, this broader exemption
would exempt radionuclide releases from the subject land disturbance
activities only from CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 reporting
requirements, not from CERCLA response or liability provisions.
EPA also is proposing to broaden the existing exemptions for coal
and coal ash piles to include radionuclide releases to and from coal
and coal ash piles at all kinds of sites, not just sites where there is
a coal-fired boiler. As with the broader land disturbance exemption,
this exemption for coal and coal ash piles would apply only to CERCLA
section 103 and EPCRA section 304 reporting requirements, not to the
related response or liability provisions. In the 1989 final
radionuclide RQ adjustment rulemaking, the reporting exemptions for
radionuclide releases to and from coal and coal ash piles at boiler
sites were granted based both upon the risks posed and the
appropriateness of a federal response to such releases under CERCLA (54
FR 22529, May 24, 1989). The exemptions were limited to only boiler
sites because there was sufficient information available to quantify
the radiological risks of coal and coal ash piles at boiler sites, but
not other kinds of sites. As discussed in more detail below, EPA is
proposing today that a quantitative risk assessment is not necessary to
support a CERCLA and EPCRA reporting exemption, if threshold questions
about the appropriateness and feasibility of a federal response can be
answered by a simple determination that radionuclide releases are at or
near natural background levels. While this approach would be a
departure from the detailed risk analysis performed for coal and coal
ash piles at boiler sites, it would in fact be consistent with the
original exemptions granted for undisturbed land holdings and land
disturbance activities such as farming and construction, which were
based on a qualitative review of radionuclide releases relative to
background rather than a quantitative risk assessment.
EPA is proposing these broader exemptions for three primary
reasons, which apply equally to both land disturbance at certain mines
and to coal and coal ash piles at non-boiler sites. First, the
concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides in the different
materials that would be subject to the exemption (e.g., overburden and
ores in the subject mining sectors, coal, and coal ash) are generally
within the range of ``typical'' background concentrations in surficial
rocks and soils in the U.S. Second, EPA believes that a CERCLA
response, to the release otherwise reportable, would be very unlikely
and possibly infeasible or inappropriate, because (1) the
concentrations of materials being handled are at or near background,
and (2) the resulting radionuclide releases are expected to be
continuously low, spread over large areas, and widely dispersed in the
environment. Third, the submission of individual notifications of these
releases does not appear necessary for the government to assess whether
a response action is needed, since the releases should be similarly low
across all sites subject to the broader exemptions. As a result, the
broader reporting exemptions are intended to allow EPA to focus its
resources on the most serious releases and to protect public health and
welfare and the environment more effectively and efficiently. At the
same time, the exemptions would eliminate unnecessary reporting burdens
on persons responsible for land disturbance at certain mine sites and
any sites where coal or coal ash is stored or disposed.
With respect to radionuclide concentrations, EPA reviewed available
data on the concentrations of naturally occurring radionuclides in
surficial rocks and soils, as well as in various ores, coal, and coal
ash. These data are presented in a Technical Background Document
(``Technical Background Document Supporting Proposed Administrative
Reporting Exemptions for Certain Releases of Radionuclides'') available
for inspection in the U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G),
Crystal Gateway #1, 12th Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA 22202. As discussed in more detail in this document,
typical concentrations of uranium-238, thorium-232, and their
respective decay products in surficial rocks and soils in the U.S.
hover around 1 picocurie per gram (pCi/g), although data developed by
Myrick et al.1 and other researchers show that uranium-238
concentrations may range from 0.12 to 3.8 pCi/g and thorium-232
concentrations may range from 0.10 to 3.4 pCi/g. Concentrations well
above these typical values, however, are known to occur in certain hot
spot areas of the country. For example, elevated radioactivity has been
observed in association with certain faults and shear zones in the
Reading Prong region of Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, with
uranium-238 concentrations as high as 27 pCi/g being reported in one
``profound case.'' 2 Similarly, uranium-238 concentrations
[[Page 40045]]
of 20 pCi/g or more have been observed in isolated spots in central
Florida where phosphate deposits are exposed or near the land surface.
\1\ Myrick, T.E., B.A. Berven, and F.F. Haywood, ``Determination
of Concentrations of Selected Radionuclides in Surface Soil in the
U.S.,'' Health Physics, Vol. 45, No. 3 (September), pp. 631-642,
1983.
\2\ Smith et al., ``Radon: A Profound Case,'' Pennsylvania
Geology, Volume 18, No. 2, p. 1-7, 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available data indicate that the radionuclide concentrations in
many mining materials, coal, and coal ash are generally within the
range reported for typical background. For example, as shown in the
Technical Background Document supporting this proposed rule, all
available data on the uranium-238 and thorium-232 concentrations in
iron ore, zinc ore, limestone, clay, and fluorspar are within the range
reported by Myrick et al. for background surface soils. Ninety-eight
percent of all coal samples analyzed in support of EPA's 1989 final
airborne emission standards for radionuclides were also within the
typical background range; concentrations significantly above this range
(between 20 and 43 pCi/g of uranium-238) were observed in only two out
of more than 3,700 coal samples analyzed. The radioactivity of coal ash
is usually higher than that of coal (estimated to be about ten times
higher). However, typical coal ashes are expected to contain 4.3 pCi/g
of uranium-238 and 3.5 pCi/g of thorium-232, which are only slightly
higher than the background range reported by Myrick et al. Bauxite
(aluminum) ore also can contain radionuclide concentrations that are
slightly elevated compared to normal background (around 6 pCi/g of
thorium-232 and 7 pCi/g of uranium-238), but still relatively low
compared to the levels that naturally exist in surface rocks and soils
in some areas of the country.
Most data indicate that radionuclide concentrations in copper ores
are at or near typical background levels. For example, a 1982 EPA study
3 reports that the uranium-238 concentration in copper ore ranges
from 0.79 pCi/g at an underground mine to 2.2 pCi/g at a surface mine.
The concentration of thorium-232 is reported to range from 0.62 pCi/g
at an underground mine to 3.1 pCi/g at a surface mine. These levels
fall within the background ranges for surficial soils as reported by
Myrick et al. Elevated levels, however, have been observed in certain
copper ores from Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico (see the Technical
Background Document for more information). Based on current information
and understanding, EPA believes that many of these elevated readings
are probably reflective of a biased sampling program, and that large
site averages are likely to be lower and approaching typical background
levels. EPA requests more reliable and current data on the radionuclide
concentrations in copper ores along with comments on how these ores
should be treated for the purpose of the final reporting exemption
rule. If found to be necessary based on data and other information
submitted during the comment period, land disturbance incidental to
copper mining could be grouped with those mining sectors that would not
be granted a reporting exemption in the final rule.
\3\ U.S. EPA, ``Emissions of Naturally Occurring Radioactivity
from Aluminum and Copper Facilities,'' Office of Radiation Programs,
Las Vegas Facility, NV, EPA-520/6-82-018, 1982.
The relatively low radionuclide concentrations reported for these
different materials do not necessarily mean that the risks associated
with radionuclide releases from many types of extraction sites and coal
and coal ash piles are low or representative of undisturbed background.
Indeed, many factors associated with the nature of the materials,
management practices, and environmental and population characteristics
at these sites would need to be studied in substantially more detail
before it could be demonstrated that such risks are low in all or most
cases. However, based on the relatively low radionuclide concentrations
and the generally low-level, diffuse releases associated with the
activities involved (land disturbance incidental to mining extraction;
transporting, dumping, and storing coal; and transporting, dumping,
storing, and disposing of coal ash), EPA believes that a CERCLA removal
or remedial response to such radionuclide releases would very rarely,
if ever, be necessary. Moreover, it is not clear that it would be
feasible or practical to mount a CERCLA response at these types of
sites, since the materials in question already have radionuclide
concentrations that are likely to be at or near background and CERCLA
responses would not normally clean up to below background levels. Any
effort to remove the subject extraction materials, coal, or coal ash or
cover these materials with soil, for example, would leave exposed soils
that would have comparable concentrations of naturally occurring
radionuclides. Therefore, EPA believes that reporting exemptions are
warranted because continued evaluation and reporting of such
radionuclide releases serves no useful purpose and, in fact, places an
unnecessary burden on society. CERCLA response and liability
provisions, however, would remain intact, enabling a response if a
serious radiation threat is ever discovered by other means (e.g.,
Regional and State inspections) at an exempted mine or coal or coal ash
pile.
This same logic does not necessarily hold for other types of
extraction sites that handle ores and other raw materials that
routinely have radionuclide concentrations well above background
levels. As discussed in more detail in the Technical Background
Document supporting this proposed rule (``Technical Background Document
Supporting Proposed Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain
Releases of Radionuclides,'' available for inspection in the Superfund
Docket), the materials extracted at uranium, phosphate, tin, titanium,
zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth mines can have elevated
concentrations of uranium-238 and/or thorium-232, along with their
respective decay products. For example:
-- Uranium ore has a uranium-238 concentration on the order of 280-560
pCi/g, although concentrations as high as 760 pCi/g are reported in the
literature.
-- Uranium-238 concentrations in phosphate rock range from 3-4 pCi/g in
Tennessee to 20-60 pCi/g in other States (Florida, North Carolina,
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah). Concentrations as high as 270 pCi/g
of uranium-238 have been reported.
--No data are available on the radionuclide concentrations in
domestically mined tin ores. However, available data show that tin slag
(produced from tin ore processing) contains 17-34 pCi/g of uranium-238.
In addition, concentrated processed ores from Malaysia have been shown
to contain 1,160 to 8,830 pCi/g of thorium-238.
-- Some titanium ores (rutile and leucoxene) are reported to contain
12-14 pCi/g of uranium-238 and 1-10 pCi/g of thorium-232.
-- Zircon (zirconium and hafnium ore) has been measured to contain 13
pCi/g of radium-226, a decay product of uranium-238 (which would be
expected to be present at about the same concentration as radium-226).
Measurements of radium-226 concentrations in processed ore concentrates
from South Africa are as high as 200 pCi/g.
-- Vanadium-bearing ores are commonly the same as uranium ores, because
vanadium is often recovered as a coproduct from uranium ore. Ores
recovered primarily for their vanadium content contain lower
radionuclide concentrations than uranium ore, but still appear to
contain uranium at levels higher than typical background (in the 30 to
58 pCi/g range).
--Monazite, an ore mined for its rare earth and thorium content,
typically
[[Page 40046]]
contains 3,900 pCi/g of thorium and 1,800 pCi/g of uranium. Another
rare earth ore, bastnasite, typically contains less than 97 pCi/g of
thorium.
These concentrations generally are far above typical background
concentrations expected in surface soils across most of the U.S. (i.e.,
uranium-238 ranging from 0.12 to 3.8 pCi/g, with an average of 1 pCi/g,
and thorium-232 ranging from 0.10 to 3.4 pCi/g, with an average of 1
pCi/g). The concentrations in uranium ore, phosphate rock, and rare
earth ores (including monazite mined for its thorium content) also are
above the elevated background concentrations known to exist at or near
the land surface in certain hot spot regions of the country, such as
the Reading Prong region.
Just as the relatively low concentrations in iron, zinc, limestone,
copper, and other mining sectors proposed to be exempted do not
necessarily mean that the radiation risks are low, the relatively high
concentrations encountered during uranium, phosphate, tin, titanium,
zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth mining do not necessarily
mean that the radiation risks at these sites are high. To the contrary,
EPA's risk analysis 4 supporting the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) shows that airborne emissions of
radionuclides from surface uranium mines result in a maximally exposed
individual risk of fatal cancer of 5 x 10-5. Furthermore, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses control radionuclide releases to
all media from in-situ uranium mines and an EPA NESHAP limits radon
emissions to the air from underground uranium mines (40 CFR part 61,
subpart B); as a consequence, releases in compliance with these limits
may be federally permitted under CERCLA and thus excluded from CERCLA
reporting and liability requirements.
\4\ U.S. EPA, ``Risk Assessments, Environmental Impact
Statement, NESHAPS for Radionuclides, Background Information
Document--Volume 2,'' Office of Radiation Programs, EPA/520/1-89-
006-1, Chapter 12, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes, however, that the elevated radionuclide
concentrations in raw materials handled at uranium, phosphate, tin,
titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth mines
distinguish such materials from the soil and rock disturbed at the vast
majority of farming and construction sites across the U.S. When these
elevated radionuclide concentrations are coupled with other factors
that tend to distinguish mining from farming and construction--
generally much larger sites, larger quantities of earthen materials
moved and stockpiled, longer-term and more frequent land disturbances
at a given site, and frequently substantially greater depths uncovered
(see the Technical Background Document for more detail)--EPA believes
there is a reasonable basis for not including uranium, phosphate, tin,
titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth mining in the
reporting exemption for land disturbance activities. Again, this does
not mean that the radiation risks at such mines are necessarily high,
but only that, in EPA's judgment, further evaluation would be required
before it can be concluded with a sufficient degree of confidence that
such risks are indeed low and that a government response would be
unwarranted or infeasible.
Commenters wishing to support exemptions for uranium, phosphate,
tin, titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth mining and
wishing to obtain a reporting exemption are requested to submit
particular kinds of information along with their comments on this
proposal. Data and analyses regarding the radionuclide concentrations
in ores and other raw materials handled in these mining sectors
relative to the undisturbed, naturally occurring levels at or near the
land surface around the mine sites would be especially helpful. If such
data and analyses can demonstrate that the radionuclide concentrations
in the ores and raw materials being handled are generally within the
normal background range for surficial rocks and soils in the same area,
a basis for broadening the reporting exemptions further to include
these mining sectors may exist. If such a demonstration cannot be made,
EPA requests information on special circumstances that would make a
CERCLA response to radionuclide releases at these mine sites very
unlikely, infeasible, and/or inappropriate.
These special circumstances could include a demonstration that the
radiation exposures and risks, for all radionuclides and all possible
exposure pathways (not just radon and not just the air pathway), are
low (e.g., 10-4 or lower lifetime cancer risk) for reasonably
maximally exposed individuals, including closest offsite residents and
onsite workers. Any analysis of risks should focus either on all sites
within a given mining sector or on a model site that is demonstrated to
conservatively represent other sites. Anecdotal information or basic
assertions regarding independent factors that might influence risk,
such as generalized statements that mines are commonly located in
remote areas or that radon released from mines disperses rapidly and
causes no incremental exposure above natural background radiation, are
not convincing unless supported by data and an integrated risk
analysis. Moreover, EPA believes that broad comparisons of the
cumulative amount of soil moved or the cumulative amount of radon
released at all mines versus all farming and construction sites are
immaterial, since the need for a CERCLA response hinges on the
particular conditions at any individual site, not all like sites in
aggregate.
Other special circumstances that might argue for additional
reporting exemptions include a demonstration that a CERCLA response is
infeasible or inappropriate at a particular type of mine. With respect
to this issue, the Agency wishes to point out that appropriate CERCLA
responses at mines can fall well short of covering the entire site with
soil or water, which would defeat the very purpose of extraction. For
example, it may be feasible or appropriate to cover certain waste piles
or inactive mine areas with soil or water. Many other types of response
actions have actually been taken at mine sites on the National
Priorities List, although not in response to releases of radionuclides.
These actions have included measures to control and treat mine water,
diverting and controlling stormwater runoff, dumping materials in areas
engineered for waste disposal, isolating contaminated areas with fences
and signs, providing nearby communities with alternate sources of
drinking water, excavating and removing contaminated soil, and
injecting concrete into inactive underground mine workings. If these or
other responses to radionuclide releases at mines would be infeasible
or inappropriate, EPA requests information explaining why.
B. Alternative Exemptions
As outlined below, EPA is considering two alternative approaches
for broadening the existing reporting exemptions for certain
radionuclide releases. EPA solicits comments and data to assist in
consideration of these alternatives with regard to differences in
protection of public health and welfare and the environment. All
comments on these alternatives, together with comments on the proposed
approach described above, will be considered in developing the final
rule.
[[Page 40047]]
1. Alternative 1: Exempt All Extraction and Coal and Coal Ash Piles
Under one alternative, EPA would exempt from CERCLA section 103 and
EPCRA section 304 reporting requirements radionuclide releases from
land disturbance incidental to extraction activities at all mines, as
well as coal and coal ash piles at all kinds of sites. As in the
proposed exemptions, this alternative would not exempt radionuclide
releases associated with beneficiation or processing operations that
may be located at mine sites, nor would it exempt the disposal of high
concentration materials, for example, in inactive mines.
This alternative recognizes that reporting may not serve a useful
purpose if a CERCLA response would be infeasible or inappropriate and
if a response would rarely be undertaken. A broad exemption would allow
the Agency to focus its resources on the most serious releases, and
this alternative could result in a greater reduction in reporting
burden for both industry and government and a greater cost savings
compared to the proposed exemptions.
Another factor possibly in favor of this approach is that
individual release reports and responses under CERCLA may not be the
most appropriate Federal regulatory response to radionuclide releases
from mines. EPA and other government agencies are already aware that
all mines in the U.S. are continuously releasing radionuclides to the
environment, usually in relatively low concentrations. Rather than
requiring release reports and evaluating the need for response on a
facility-by-facility basis, it may be more effective for the Agency to
study radiation threats at mines categorically and, if found to be
necessary, develop more stringent regulations under other statutes.
Such investigations focusing primarily on mining and mineral processing
wastes are already underway within EPA, including the Office of
Radiation and Indoor Air's study of diffuse naturally occurring
radioactive material (NORM) wastes and the Office of Solid Waste's
evaluation of extraction and beneficiation wastes under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Under this alternative, CERCLA response
and liability provisions would remain intact to respond to any serious
radiation threats at mine sites that are not being adequately
controlled under the existing network of regulations, but release
reporting requirements would be eliminated in deference to these or
other studies designed to address radiation threats at mines more
categorically.
Compared to the proposed exemptions, this alternative may be less
successful in contributing to CERCLA's overall goal of protecting
public health and welfare and the environment. This could be
particularly true at the few categories of mines discussed above that
are believed to handle materials with elevated concentrations of
radionuclides.
To assist in the evaluation of this alternative, EPA specifically
requests information and comment on the need to obtain reports of
radionuclide releases from uranium, phosphate, tin, titanium,
zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth mines (including monazite
mined for its thorium content), which would have to be submitted under
the proposed exemptions but would not be required under this
alternative. Data and analyses regarding the magnitude and extent of
radiation threats (if any) at these types of mines, as well as the
feasibility and appropriateness of a CERCLA response, would be
particularly helpful in this regard. Information and comment on the
degree to which other existing regulations and programs adequately
control any radiation threats at these types of mines also would assist
in evaluating the need for CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304
reporting.
2. Alternative 2: Exempt All Land Disturbance Incidental to Extraction
During Mining Activities and All Piles of Diffuse Naturally Occurring
Radioactive Material Below a Concentration Cutoff
Under another alternative, EPA would eliminate the requirement to
report releases of radionuclides from land disturbance incidental to
extraction and releases of radionuclides to and from all piles of
diffuse naturally occurring radioactive material (including extraction,
beneficiation, and mineral processing materials and wastes as well as
coal and coal ash piles at any kind of site), as long as the
concentration of naturally occurring radionuclides was below a certain
concentration threshold. Persons in charge of sites where such
materials are disturbed and/or stockpiled would have to determine the
radionuclide concentration of the material that they move or handle. If
the concentration fell below the pre-established threshold, it would
not be necessary to determine total quantities of radionuclides
released for comparison with the RQs (i.e., no release report would be
required, regardless of the total quantity released). However, if the
concentration exceeded the threshold, it then would be necessary to
determine quantities released and to submit a report if the RQs were
met or exceeded.
EPA is considering a concentration cutoff because there may be very
little benefit in requiring reports when more than an RQ of naturally
occurring radionuclides is released from diffuse sources (such as land
clearing, overburden removal and stockpiling, and excavating, handling,
transporting, dumping, and storing ores, beneficiation or mineral
processing materials and wastes, coal, and coal ash) that continuously
emit radionuclides in low concentrations spread over large areas. In
developing the adjusted radionuclide RQs, the Agency determined
quantities that may result in unacceptable human exposures under a
conservative hypothetical scenario in which radionuclides are released
from a ground-level, point source (54 FR 22524, May 24, 1989). In
essence, this assumes that radionuclides are released in a concentrated
form and unable to undergo substantial dilution as they migrate to a
point where a person might be exposed. This conservative approach was
taken to develop adjusted RQs that would ensure timely reporting in
most circumstances. EPA recognizes, however, that the RQs based on this
scenario may be unnecessarily low when radionuclides are actually
released in more dilute form from a large area source.
In the radionuclide RQ adjustment NPRM (52 FR 8182, March 16,
1987), EPA requested comments on such a concentration cutoff concept in
general and, in particular, on the use of 0.002 microcuries per gram
(or 2,000 pCi/g) established by the Department of Transportation (DOT)
for the purpose of defining radioactive material in hazardous material
transport regulations (49 CFR parts 171-177). All commenters who
addressed this issue (slightly over half of all commenters) favored a
concentration cutoff. However, EPA decided not to pursue the issue
further through the radionuclide RQ adjustment rulemaking primarily
because: (1) There was not a pre-existing concentration threshold that
was widely believed to be acceptable for all possible radionuclide
release scenarios (the DOT level of 2,000 pCi/g was generally regarded
as too high for many release and exposure situations); (2) EPA did not
have a sufficient technical basis at that time for determining an
appropriate concentration cutoff; and (3) an RQ adjustment regulation
was not viewed as the appropriate forum for conducting the complex
analysis needed to determine such a level (54 FR 22528, May 24, 1989).
[[Page 40048]]
Nevertheless, after reviewing public comments on the November 30,
1992, NPRM on administrative reporting exemptions, EPA would like to
revisit the idea of a concentration cutoff to be applied specifically
to land disturbance and piles of diffuse naturally occurring
radioactive material (rather than all possible radionuclide releases,
as originally envisioned in the radionuclide RQ adjustment NPRM). In
particular, EPA requests information and comment on two major issues
associated with such an approach. First, what would be an appropriate
concentration cutoff level (or levels)? EPA believes that such a level
would best be expressed as some increment to natural background.
Second, what would be the best way to determine natural background
levels?
With regard to the question of an appropriate level, 5 pCi/g of
radium-226 above background is one possibility. This is EPA's standard
in 40 CFR part 192 for the cleanup of surface soil contaminated with
residual radioactive material from inactive uranium processing sites
(i.e., uranium mill tailings). As stated in 40 CFR 192.12, remedial
actions at such sites shall be conducted to provide reasonable
assurance that the concentration of radium-226 in land averaged over
any area of 100 square meters shall not exceed the background level by
more than 5 pCi/g, averaged over the first 15 centimeters of soil below
the surface. In promulgating this cleanup standard, the Agency stated:
The purpose of this standard is to limit the risk from
inhalation of radon decay products in houses built on land
contaminated with tailings, and to limit gamma radiation exposure of
people using contaminated land. * * * Because the risks from soils
contaminated with radium-226 are potentially so great, the proposed
standard was set at a level as close to background as we believed
reasonable, taking into consideration the difficulties in measuring
this level and distinguishing it from natural background. (48 FR
600, January 5, 1983)
EPA believes this underlying purpose and rationale make the 5 pCi/g
standard a candidate for possible use as a lower-bound concentration
cutoff for the purpose of reporting exemptions for land disturbance and
piles of diffuse naturally occurring radioactive material, such as
extraction, beneficiation, and mineral processing materials and wastes,
as well as coal and coal ash.
EPA recognizes, however, that this number would have some
limitations if applied in this context. Most notably, the standard was
developed based on conditions that represent an inactive uranium mill
tailings site, which would not necessarily represent the conditions at
other kinds of sites where naturally occurring radioactive materials
are disturbed and handled (e.g., there may be differences in the
physical properties and radionuclide concentrations of the materials
being handled, as well as in potential human exposure scenarios). In
addition, the 40 CFR part 192 standard was developed using risk
assessment techniques and standards in place during the early 1980s.
More recently, EPA has established guidelines for determining
remediation goals for radioactively contaminated soils at Superfund
sites.5 Depending on the particular conditions at a site, use of
these more recent guidelines may result in a cleanup target that
differs from 5 pCi/g of radium-226 above background.
\5\ U.S. EPA, ``Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume
I--Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-based
Preliminary Remediation Goals),'' Interim, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Publication 9285.7-01B, December 1991.
Nevertheless, these potential limitations may not seriously
undermine the utility of 5 pCi/g above background as an administrative
cutoff level for the purpose of establishing CERCLA section 103 and
EPCRA section 304 reporting exemptions. If this approach is adopted,
EPA could establish this level as an interim cutoff pending the
development of a better value or set of values. As part of a separate
rulemaking, the Agency is presently developing new cleanup levels for
radioactively contaminated soil and ground water. Once these or other
levels are finalized, and if they are considered appropriate for the
purpose of CERCLA and EPCRA reporting exemptions, they could be adopted
as updated concentration cutoffs.
The Agency specifically requests information and comment on the
appropriateness of using 5 pCi/g of radium-226 above background as a
concentration cutoff for the purpose of establishing CERCLA section 103
and EPCRA section 304 reporting exemptions for land disturbance and
piles of diffuse naturally occurring radioactive material. EPA also
requests proposals and supporting rationale for any alternative values.
Major issues of interest that have a bearing on the appropriateness of
any candidate value include its level of protectiveness, the ability to
detect the value and distinguish it from natural background, and
consistency with other existing regulations and controls.
With regard to the question of determining background, EPA believes
that it would be appropriate to use a concentration that represents
undisturbed background radioactivity in surface rocks and soils (to
which the public is already exposed). EPA presently is considering
three alternatives, but invites information and comment on the
practicality and appropriateness of any other possibilities. The three
alternatives presently being considered are: (1) Using site-specific
values; (2) establishing a single value for the nation as a whole to be
used when site-specific data are not available, or (3) establishing
regional or State-specific values to be used when site-specific data
are not available.
The first alternative, using site-specific values, recognizes the
variability in background radioactivity that exists across different
sites and the difficulties in determining representative, undisturbed
background values. Under this alternative, reporting would depend on
site-specific background levels of radionuclides in surface soils.
Existing and emerging EPA guidance for determining background
concentrations of radionuclides could be used to establish these
levels. For example, EPA's Guidance for Data Useability in Risk
Assessment 6 provides general guidance on how to discriminate
radioactive site contamination from background. Chapter 10 of the
Agency's Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund 7 also discusses
general issues concerning the determination of background
concentrations of radionuclides. In cooperation with the Department of
Energy, Department of Defense, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EPA
is in the process of developing more specific guidelines for surveying
radioactively contaminated sites and determining radiological
background levels (as part of the Multi-Agency Manual for Environmental
Radiological Surveys). Once completed, these guidelines could be
adopted for use in determining background levels under the RQ program.
\6\ U.S. EPA, ``Guidance for Data Useability in Risk
Assessment,'' Part A (Publication 9285.7-09A, April 1992) and Part B
(Publication 9285.7-09B, May 1992), Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. For example, see Section 6.2 of Part B.
\7\ U.S. EPA, ``Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume
I--Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A), Interim Final,'' Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA/540/1-89/002, December 1989.
For example, see Sections 10.3.4 and 10.3.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the second and third alternatives, EPA would establish
default values that site owners or operators would use in the absence
of reliable site-specific data. If either of these alternatives were
adopted, the Agency could use the background
[[Page 40049]]
concentrations of radium-226 developed by Myrick et al. (1983), shown
in Table 1. If a single default value were adopted for the nation as a
whole, EPA could adopt either a central value (the arithmetic or
geometric mean of approximately 1 pCi/g of radium-226) or the maximum
value reported for all samples analyzed (4.2 pCi/g). Adding a 5 pCi/g
concentration cutoff to these background values would result in an
overall threshold for reporting purposes of either 6 pCi/g or 9.2 pCi/g
of radium-226. Alternatively, site owners or operators could use the
background values for their specific State (again, central or upper end
values are candidates). If a site were located in a State not covered
by the Myrick et al. data, background values could be estimated by
averaging values reported for adjacent States.
Compared to the proposal and the first alternative discussed above,
this alternative would result in more uniform treatment of diffuse
naturally occurring radioactive material. The distinction created above
between land disturbance incidental to extraction and other activities
that may occur at extraction, beneficiation, and/or mineral processing
sites would be lost. Instead, the excavation, movement, dumping,
stockpiling, and disposal of any kind of diffuse naturally occurring
radioactive material handled at any kind of site would qualify for a
reporting exemption if it was below the concentration cutoff.
Table 1.--State Background Concentrations of Radium-226 in Surface Soil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# of Samples Range of values Arithmetic Geometric mean
State analyzed (pCi/g) mean (pCi/g) (pCi/g)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................... 8 0.47-1.4 0.82 0.77
Alaska..................................... 6 0.43-0.92 0.65 0.64
Arizona.................................... 6 0.23-2.0 0.95 0.70
California................................. 3 0.24-1.3 0.77 0.62
Colorado................................... 32 0.48-3.4 1.4 1.3
Delaware................................... 2 1.1-1.2 1.2 1.2
Florida.................................... 11 0.25-2.3 0.84 0.67
Georgia.................................... 9 0.46-1.6 0.88 0.81
Idaho...................................... 12 0.64-1.6 1.1 1.1
Illinois................................... 7 0.65-1.2 0.97 0.95
Indiana.................................... 2 1.0-1.1 1.1 1.1
Kansas..................................... 6 0.34-1.4 0.97 0.86
Kentucky................................... 13 0.81-4.2 1.5 1.4
Louisiana.................................. 2 0.58-0.84 0.71 0.70
Maryland................................... 6 0.49-1.2 0.72 0.69
Michigan................................... 10 0.46-2.0 1.1 0.95
Mississippi................................ 3 0.77-1.6 1.2 1.2
Missouri................................... 10 0.31-1.4 1.1 1.0
Nevada..................................... 6 0.89-2.0 1.5 1.5
New Jersey................................. 24 0.24-1.4 0.87 0.78
New Mexico................................. 13 0.72-2.7 1.5 1.5
New York................................... 6 0.48-1.2 0.85 0.81
North Carolina............................. 8 0.48-1.2 0.78 0.74
Ohio....................................... 12 0.81-2.5 1.5 1.4
Oregon..................................... 8 0.24-2.1 0.82 0.68
Pennsylvania............................... 33 0.46-2.4 1.2 1.1
Tennessee.................................. 10 0.65-1.4 1.1 1.0
Texas...................................... 10 0.54-1.4 0.89 0.85
Utah....................................... 32 0.53-1.9 1.3 1.2
Virginia................................... 13 0.60-1.1 0.85 0.83
West Virginia.............................. 11 0.78-1.6 1.3 1.2
Wyoming.................................... 13 0.65-1.7 1.0 1.0
U.S. Average............................... 327 0.23-4.2 1.1 1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Myrick, T.E., B.A. Berven, and F.F. Haywood, ``Determination of Concentrations of Selected Radionuclides
in Surface Soil in the U.S.,'' Health Physics, Vol. 45, No. 3 (September), pp. 631-642, 1983.
EPA also believes that the use of such a concentration cutoff would
be more protective than the proposed exemptions. Under this approach,
all sites excavating and/or handling diffuse naturally occurring
radioactive materials (e.g., all mining, beneficiation, and mineral
processing sites and all sites that handle coal and coal ash) would be
required to evaluate the radionuclide concentration of those materials.
Release reports then could be required not only from those sites in
mining sectors that commonly extract and handle materials with elevated
radionuclide concentrations, as in the proposed exemptions, but also
other types of mining sites that happen to be extracting and handling
raw materials with unusually high concentrations of radionuclides. At
the same time, EPA recognizes that there may be instances when
continued releases below some concentration cutoff (and thus exempt
from CERCLA section 103 and EPCRA section 304 reporting requirements)
could pose a threat, by resulting in the long-term build up of elevated
levels of radioactivity in the environment.
Finally, the Agency recognizes that this approach would impose a
greater burden on individual site owners or operators than the proposed
approach, since facilities would have to determine concentrations
relative to background, as well as releases relative to the RQs if the
concentration cutoff is exceeded. However, determining radionuclide
concentrations of the materials being extracted and/or handled at a
site should be much simpler than estimating total releases into the
environment (concentrations likely would be determined anyway when
estimating releases relative to the RQs), and burdens associated with
determining background levels can be reduced
[[Page 40050]]
substantially through the use of national or regional default values.
III. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
The Agency has determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
These proposed exemptions will result in an estimated net cost
savings to the regulated community of $455,000 annually, as
demonstrated by an economic analysis (Estimated Economic Effects of
Administrative Reporting Exemptions for Certain Releases of
Radionuclides) performed by the Agency, available for inspection in the
U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G), Crystal Gateway #1,
12th Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires that a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis be performed for all rules that are likely to have
a ``significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.''
Because this proposed rule would grant reporting relief to certain
sources of radionuclide releases, the rule would not result in a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA
certifies that this proposed rule is not likely to have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, that a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not necessary.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
Because this rule provides an exemption from CERCLA section 103 and
EPCRA section 304 reporting requirements for certain radionuclide
releases, there are no unique reporting or recordkeeping provisions
that require approval from OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq.
Approval has previously been granted by OMB for other release
reporting requirements referenced in this rule: collection of
information pursuant to CERCLA section 103 for releases of hazardous
substances equal to or greater than their RQs (OMB control # 2050-
0046).
D. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a statement to
accompany any rule in which the estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, will be
$100 million or more in any one year. Under section 205 of this Act,
EPA must select the most cost-effective and least-burdensome
alternative that achieves the objective of the rule and that is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 of the Act requires
EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that this rule does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 302
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Extremely hazardous
substances, Hazardous chemicals, Hazardous materials, Hazardous
materials transportation, Hazardous substances, Hazardous wastes,
Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Pesticides and pests,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Waste treatment
and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 355
Air pollution control, Chemical accident prevention, Chemical
emergency preparedness, Chemicals, Community emergency response plan,
Community right-to-know, Contingency planning, Disaster assistance,
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Extremely hazardous
substances, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Penalties, Reportable quantity, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Threshold planning quantity, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
Dated: July 25, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed to amend
title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 302--DESIGNATION, REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND NOTIFICATION
1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, and 9604; 33 U.S.C. 1321 and
1361.
2. Section 302.6 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 302.6 Notification requirements.
* * * * *
(c) The following categories of releases are exempt from the
notification requirements of this section:
(1) Releases of those radionuclides that occur naturally in the
soil from land holdings such as parks, golf courses, or other large
tracts of land;
(2) Releases of naturally occurring radionuclides from land
disturbance activities, including farming, construction, and land
disturbance incidental to extraction activities, except that which
occurs at uranium, phosphate, tin, titanium, zirconium, hafnium,
vanadium, and rare earth mines (including monazite mined for its
thorium content);
(3) Releases of radionuclides from the dumping of coal and coal
ash; and
(4) Releases of radionuclides from coal and coal ash piles.
* * * * *
PART 355--EMERGENCY PLANNING AND NOTIFICATION
3. The authority citation for part 355 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11002, 11004, and 11048.
4. Section 355.40 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(vi) to
read as follows:
Sec. 355.40 Emergency release notification.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
[[Page 40051]]
(vi) Any radionuclide release which occurs:
(A) Naturally in soil from land holdings such as parks, golf
courses, or other large tracts of land;
(B) Naturally from land disturbance activities, including farming,
construction, and land disturbance incidental to extraction activities,
except that which occurs at uranium, phosphate, tin, titanium,
zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, and rare earth mines (including monazite
mined for its thorium content);
(C) From the dumping of coal and coal ash; and
(D) From coal and coal ash piles.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-19194 Filed 8-3-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
