[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20775-20779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11165]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 61
[FRL-5468-4]
RIN 2060-AF04
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants;
National Emission Standard for Radon Emissions From Phosphogypsum
Stacks
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of Reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On March 24, 1994, EPA announced its decision concerning a
petition by The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) seeking reconsideration of a
June 3, 1992 final rule revising the National Emission Standard for
Radon Emissions from Phosphogypsum Stacks, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart R.
EPA partially granted and partially denied the TFI petition for
reconsideration. Pursuant to that decision, EPA is convening a
rulemaking to reconsider 40 CFR 61.205, the provision of the final rule
which governs distribution and use of phosphogypsum for research and
development, and the methodology utilized under 40 CFR 61.207 to
establish the average radium-226 concentration for phosphogypsum
removed from a phosphogypsum stack. This document identifies proposed
changes to be considered as part of this reconsideration and specific
underlying issues on which EPA seeks further comment.
DATES: Comments concerning this proposed rule must be received by EPA
on or before July 8, 1996. EPA will hold a public hearing concerning
this proposed rule in Washington, D.C. if a request for a hearing is
received by EPA by June 7, 1996. In the event a hearing is requested,
EPA will publish a separate notice specifying the date and location of
the hearing.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to:
Air and Radiation Docket and
[[Page 20776]]
Information Center, 6102, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, Attn: Air Docket No. A-94-57.
Requests for a public hearing should be made in writing to the
Director, Radiation Protection Division, 6602J, Office of Radiation and
Indoor Air, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Requests may also be faxed to EPA at (202) 233-
9629.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacolyn Dziuban, Center for Federal
Guidance and Air Standards (6602J), Office of Radiation and Indoor Air,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460 (202) 233-9474.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Docket
Docket No. A-79-11 contains the public record supporting the final
rule revising 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart R, which EPA issued in 1992 (57
FR 23305, June 3, 1992). It also contains the August 3, 1992 TFI
petition which led to the initiation of this rulemaking, and the EPA
response partially granting and partially denying the TFI petition (59
FR 14040, March 24, 1994). Docket No. A-94-57 contains certain
documents upon which this proposal is based. These dockets are
available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, in room M1500 of Waterside Mall, 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
I. Background
A. Description of Phosphogypsum
Phosphogypsum is a waste byproduct which results from the wet
process of producing phosphoric acid from phosphate rock. Phosphogypsum
stacks are piles of waste or mines utilized to store and dispose of
phosphogypsum. Because phosphate ore contains a relatively high
concentration of uranium and radium, phosphogypsum piles also contain
high levels of these elements. The vast majority of piles are located
in Florida, although other states also involved in phosphate rock
production include Idaho, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Alabama and
Wyoming.
B. Regulatory History
1. The December 15, 1989 Standard
On December 15, 1989, EPA published a National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) applicable to radon emissions
from phosphogypsum stacks, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart R (54 FR 51654,
December 15, 1989) (Subpart R). As part of that standard, EPA adopted a
work practice requirement that all phosphogypsum be disposed of in
stacks, thereby permitting control and measurement of gaseous radon-222
which is emitted when the radium present in the phosphogypsum decays.
Subsequent to the issuance of Subpart R, EPA received petitions for
reconsideration from The Fertilizer Institute (TFI), Consolidated
Minerals, Inc., and U.S. Gypsum Company. These petitioners objected to
the requirement that all phosphogypsum be disposed and managed in
stacks, because it precluded various alternative uses of phosphogypsum,
including use of phosphogypsum in agriculture, construction, and
research and development. Because EPA had not fully considered the
implications of its work practice standard for alternative uses, EPA
agreed to convene a reconsideration proceeding in which the risks
associated with alternative uses and the procedures under which
alternative uses might be permitted could be evaluated (54 FR 9612,
March 7, 1989).
Rather than setting forth one specific proposal for revision of
Subpart R, EPA requested comment on a variety of substantive issues,
including specific types of proposed alternative uses of phosphogypsum
and the health risks associated with these alternative uses. EPA also
requested comment on four general options for regulation of alternative
uses: (1) no change in the work practice requirement, (2) changing the
definition of phosphogypsum to exclude from the work practice
requirement material with radium-226 concentrations up to 10
picocuries/gram (pCi/g), (3) permitting use of phosphogypsum in
research and development on processes to remove radium from the
phosphogypsum, and (4) permitting alternative use of phosphogypsum only
after specific permission from EPA.
2. The June 3, 1992 Revision of Subpart R
After analyzing the risks associated with the various alternative
uses of phosphogypsum which were proposed and evaluating the comments
which were received, EPA issued a final rule revising Subpart R (57 FR
23305, June 3, 1992). The approach which EPA ultimately adopted was a
hybrid of the options it had previously identified. For phosphogypsum
use in agriculture, EPA decided that it would be impractical to require
case-by-case approval. Based on its analysis of potential risks
associated with long-term use of phosphogypsum in agriculture, EPA set
a maximum upper limit of 10 pCi/g for radium-226 in phosphogypsum
distributed for use in agriculture. Rather than excluding material at
or below 10 pCi/g from the standard, EPA established sampling,
measurement, and certification procedures permitting such material to
be removed from stacks and sold for agricultural use. Based on an
analysis of potential risks associated with the research and
development use, EPA decided to permit the use of up to 700 pounds of
phosphogypsum for a particular research and development activity. EPA
also decided to adopt procedures permitting approval of other uses of
phosphogypsum on a case-by-case basis.
After EPA issued its final rule concluding the reconsideration
proceeding and revising Subpart R, The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
sought judicial review of the 1992 revisions of Subpart R in The
Fertilizer Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 92-1320
(D.C. Cir.). TFI also filed a petition dated August 3, 1992 seeking
further reconsideration of the revisions of the rule pursuant to Clean
Air Act Section 307(d)(7)(B). TFI, EPA, and ManaSota-88, another
petitioner who sought review of the 1992 rule in ManaSota-88 v.
Browner, No. 92-1330 (D.C. Cir.), later reached an agreement to jointly
move the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay judicial review of the
1992 rule, and the Court granted the motion. As part of that agreement,
EPA agreed to make a final decision whether to grant or to deny the TFI
petition for reconsideration. After a careful review of all of the
objections set forth in the petition for reconsideration, EPA decided
to partially deny and to partially grant the petition (59 FR 14040,
March 24, 1994).
II. Standard for Reconsideration
Under Clean Air Act Section 307(d)(7)(B), the EPA Administrator is
required to convene a reconsideration proceeding if: (1) the person
raising an objection to a rule can demonstrate to the Administrator
that it was impracticable to raise such objection within the time
permitted for public comment or the grounds for the objection arose
after the period for public comment, and (2) if the Administrator
determines that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of
the rule. Therefore, reconsideration is not required if the objections
by a petitioner were raised or could reasonably have been raised during
the pendency of the rulemaking. Moreover, even in the circumstance
[[Page 20777]]
where a particular objection could not have been raised earlier,
reconsideration is not required if EPA determines that such objections
would not have altered the outcome of the rule had they been raised
earlier.
In the notice announcing the Agency's decision to partially deny
and partially grant TFI's Petition for Reconsideration (59 FR 14040,
March 24, 1994), EPA concluded that most of the objections raised by
TFI did not warrant convening a reconsideration proceeding, but that
some of the objections by TFI did warrant reconsideration of certain
provisions of the 1992 rule. EPA found that many of the technical and
policy objections by TFI to the EPA analysis of the potential risks of
phosphogypsum use were not of central relevance to the outcome of the
1992 rule, and that some of the other policy objections could have been
raised during the public comment period. Therefore, EPA denied the
petition for those objections.
EPA also determined, as explained in the March 24, 1994 notice,
that it was not practicable for TFI to raise some of its objections
during the previous reconsideration proceeding, and that these
objections might have affected the content of the 1992 rule had they
been raised during the comment period. EPA therefore concluded that
these specific objections were of central relevance to the outcome of
the 1992 rule for the specific provisions of the rule which they
concern, and stated that the Agency would convene a rulemaking to
reconsider these provisions of the rule.
III. Issues To Be Reconsidered
A. The 700 Pound Limitation
In the EPA analysis of potential risks associated with the research
and development use of phosphogypsum upon which the 1992 revisions of
Subpart R were based, EPA assumed that all of the free radon generated
by phosphogypsum containing 26 pCi/g radium-226 would be released to
one small laboratory room. As part of its analysis of the TFI petition,
EPA concluded that most laboratory experiments using phosphogypsum
would not result in such a high emanation rate. In addition, EPA
discovered during its review of the TFI petition that the EPA analysis
upon which the 1992 rule was based erroneously assumed that five 700
pound drums would be stored or utilized in the same area of the
laboratory, even though only a single 700 pound drum limit was
permitted by the 1992 rule. Based on these two factors, EPA decided
that it would be appropriate to reassess the risks associated with the
use of phosphogypsum in laboratory research and development activities
and to reconsider the 700 pound limitation in light of that
reassessment. The Agency's new risk assessment for laboratory use of
phosphogypsum entitled ``Addendum--Risk Assessment for Research and
Development Uses'' of Phosphogypsum has been included in the docket for
this proposed rule and may also be obtained from the EPA contact person
listed at the beginning of this notice.
The new EPA risk assessment for laboratory use of phosphogypsum
concludes that use of 700 pounds of phosphogypsum is expected to cause
an increase in lifetime cancer risk for the researchers working with
this material of approximately 1.2 x 10-6 for each year of
exposure. If it is assumed that a researcher might work with this
phosphogypsum in a laboratory for 10 years, this would result in a
total increase in lifetime cancer risk for that researcher of
approximately 1 x 10-5. Utilizing the two-step process for
determining the emission level which would provide an ``ample margin of
safety'' which was established by the Court in the vinyl chloride
decision, Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (D.C.
Cir. 1987), EPA has determined in some prior instances that increases
in lifetime cancer risk of approximately 1 x 10-4 are acceptable.
However, the second step of the methodology required by the vinyl
chloride decision involves considering the economic feasibility of
further reductions in exposure and the associated risks. Therefore, to
properly apply this methodology in selecting an appropriate limit, EPA
must determine whether there are circumstances where it would be
helpful to researchers to utilize quantities of phosphogypsum greater
than 700 pounds in a laboratory setting. EPA is specifically requesting
comments on whether any individual believes it would be useful to use
more than the current limit of 700 pounds of phosphogypsum in any
single laboratory research and development project and if so, what
practical advantages a higher limit would provide.
In its petition, TFI also argued that it was not clear from the
text of the 1992 rule whether more than one research and development
activity utilizing 700 pounds of phosphogypsum would be permitted at a
single facility, as well as whether or not a single research activity
would be limited to a total of 700 pounds or only to 700 pounds at any
given time for a given activity. EPA responded that multiple research
and development activities each utilizing 700 pounds of phosphogypsum
would be permitted at a single facility, and that the 700 pound limit
applies only to the amount of phosphogypsum on hand at any given time.
However, the request for clarification by TFI also underscores another
limitation in the risk assessment supporting the 1992 rule. The EPA
risk analysis failed to consider that a given laboratory worker might
be exposed to radiation as a result of more than one research and
development activity utilizing phosphogypsum. Therefore, EPA is
requesting comment on whether there should be any limit on multiple
research and development activities at a single facility or by a
particular investigator.
Since multiple research and development activities involving use of
phosphogypsum may be undertaken in the same laboratory or at the same
facility, EPA believes that it may be difficult for researchers, as
well as enforcement personnel, to clearly distinguish between the
phosphogypsum intended for use in different research and development
activities. In view of this difficulty, it may be simpler and less
cumbersome to establish a single quantitative limit for the total
amount of phosphogypsum which may be utilized for all research and
development activities at a single facility. If quantities of
phosphogypsum in excess of the present limit of 700 pounds would be
useful for a particular research activity, a single larger limit for
all activities could afford greater flexibility, while still limiting
the overall radon exposure and cancer risk. The Agency's new risk
assessment for laboratory use of phosphogypsum suggests that an overall
limit per facility of 7000 pounds of phosphogypsum would assure that no
individual has an increased cancer risk over a ten year period in
excess of 1 x 10-4. Therefore, EPA is requesting comment on
whether it would be preferable to establish a single aggregate limit on
laboratory use of phosphogypsum for research and development purposes
at each facility, rather than a separate limit for each individual
experiment.
B. Use Outside of a Laboratory Setting
In its petition for reconsideration, TFI argued that the limitation
of 700 pounds of phosphogypsum for each specific research and
development activity effectively bans research activities in the field.
EPA responded that 40 CFR Section 61.205 was designed to permit
research and development activities involving phosphogypsum to proceed
in the laboratory, not to authorize large scale field research. The
risk assessment
[[Page 20778]]
underlying the research and development provision in the 1992 rule
considered the potential hazard of radon exposure for laboratory
workers, but it did not and could not consider those other risks to
humans or the environment which might result from research activities
utilizing phosphogypsum in the field. It was always the Agency's
expectation that proposals to conduct field studies utilizing
phosphogypsum would be submitted for EPA approval pursuant to 40 CFR
Section 61.206, and EPA has in fact approved field research under this
provision since promulgation of the 1992 rule. Accordingly, EPA is also
proposing to clarify the language of 40 CFR Section 61.205 to limit
that provision to research and development activities undertaken in a
controlled laboratory setting.
C. Sampling and Certification Requirements for Laboratory Use
In its petition, TFI objected to the requirement that owners or
operators conduct sampling or measurement of radium-226 and include
such information in certification documents accompanying the
phosphogypsum distributed for use in research and development. TFI
noted correctly that there is no quantitative limit on the amount of
radium-226 which phosphogypsum distributed for the research and
development use may contain. Because there is no upper limit on the
amount of radium permitted in phosphogypsum distributed for research
and development use, EPA has assumed in its analysis of potential risks
associated with such use that the phosphogypsum would contain high
levels of radium. EPA believes that in most instances analysis of the
radium-226 content in phosphogypsum distributed for use by laboratories
in research and development projects will be necessary as part of the
research activity. However, EPA has concluded that requiring
certification documents accompanying phosphogypsum distributed for use
in research and development to include quantitative analyses of radium
content is not necessary to monitor compliance. Thus EPA is proposing
to eliminate the requirement that owners or operators of phosphogypsum
stacks analyze the radium-226 content of phosphogypsum distributed for
research and development and the requirement that certification
documents accompanying phosphogypsum distributed for research and
development include information on radium-226 content. EPA requests
comment on this proposal.
D. Sampling Statistics
In its petition, TFI objected that the formula set forth in 40 CFR
Section 61.207(d), which is used to establish the number of samples
necessary to determine a representative average radium-226
concentration, is ambiguous, because it does not specify the amount of
allowable error. EPA agreed with this objection and stated it would
reconsider this issue.
EPA has carefully evaluated the methods which can be utilized to
demonstrate that the radium-226 concentration is less than 10 pCi/g in
phosphogypsum removed from a stack for agricultural purposes, under the
provisions of 40 CFR Section 61.204, and to measure the radium-226
concentration in phosphogypsum to be used for other purposes, under the
provisions of 40 CFR Section 61.206. EPA has concluded that the
equations used for determining the radium-226 concentration in the
phosphogypsum should be clarified, and that the methods for determining
the sample size and testing needed to demonstrate that the
concentration is less than 10 pCi/g should be revised. The revised
techniques do not utilize the error term required by the present
version of 40 CFR Section 61.207.
The proposed revisions of these methods are set forth in a document
entitled ``Statistical Procedures for Certifying Phosphogypsum for
Entry into Commerce, as Required by Section 61.207 of 40 CFR Part 61,
Subpart R.'' A copy of this document has been included in the docket
for this rulemaking and is also available from the EPA contact person
listed at the beginning of this notice. EPA requests comments
concerning the proposed revisions of the statistical methods described
in this document.
IV. Miscellaneous
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
Eliminating the requirement that owners or operators of
phosphogypsum stacks analyze the radium-226 content of phosphogypsum
distributed for research and development and the associated
certification documents will eliminate the current burden, of 100 hours
per year per stack.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 57735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether this regulation, if promulgated, is
``significant'' and therefore subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under 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.
This action will not result in an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or another adverse economic impact; it does not create a
serious inconsistency or interfere with another agency's action; it
does not materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements,
grants, user fees, etc.; and it does not raise novel legal or policy
issues. Thus, EPA has determined that this proposal to reconsider
Subpart R is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603,
requires EPA to prepare and make available for comment an ``initial
regulatory flexibility analysis'' which describes the effect of the
proposed rule on small business entities. However, Section 604(b) of
the Act provides that an analysis not be required when the head of an
Agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA has determined that there will be no significant impact on any
of the institutions and businesses affected by the revisions proposed
in this notice. Accordingly, I certify that the revisions proposed in
this notice, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written
[[Page 20779]]
statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final
rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures to
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Under section
203 of the UMRA, before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must develop a small government agency plan.
The intended purpose of this proposed rule is to relax existing
regulatory requirements, rather than to impose any new enforceable
duties on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. In
any event, EPA has determined that none of the options discussed in
this proposal would, if adopted, include any Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one
year. EPA has also determined that none of the options discussed in
this proposal might, if adopted, significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Dated: April 26, 1996.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-11165 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P