94-13248. Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 104 (Wednesday, June 1, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-13248]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: June 1, 1994]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
    
    10 CFR Part 40
    
    RIN 3150-AE77
    
     
    
    Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Conforming NRC Requirements to 
    EPA Standards
    
    AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its 
    regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings. These 
    changes conform existing NRC regulations to regulations published by 
    the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The conforming amendments 
    are intended to clarify the existing rules by ensuring timely 
    emplacement of the final radon barrier and by requiring appropriate 
    verification of the radon flux through that barrier. This action is 
    related to another action by EPA to rescind its National Emissions 
    Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) for radon emissions 
    from the licensed disposal of uranium mill tailings at non-operational 
    sites.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective on July 1, 1994.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine R. Mattsen, Office of 
    Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
    Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6264.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        On April 29, 1983 (48 FR 19584), EPA proposed general environmental 
    standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings sites licensed by NRC 
    or one of its Agreement States. Final standards were published on 
    September 30, 1983 (48 FR 45926), and codified in 40 CFR part 192, 
    subparts D and E. On October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41852), NRC published 
    amendments to 10 CFR part 40 to conform its rules to EPA's general 
    standards in 40 CFR part 192, as it affected matters other than ground 
    water protection. Both NRC and EPA regulations included a design 
    standard requiring that the tailings or wastes from mill operations be 
    covered to provide reasonable assurance that radon released to the 
    atmosphere from the tailings or wastes will not exceed an average of 20 
    picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m\2\s) for 1000 years, to 
    the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case, for 200 years.
        Neither the EPA standards of 1983 nor NRC's conforming standards of 
    1985 established compliance schedules to ensure that the tailings piles 
    would be expeditiously closed and the 20 pCi/m\2\s standard would be 
    met within a reasonable period of time. Criterion 6 of appendix A to 
    part 40 was initially only a design standard and did not require 
    verification that the radon releases meet this ``flux standard.''
        In response to the separate requirements of the Clean Air Act 
    (CAA), EPA promulgated additional standards in 40 CFR part 61 (subpart 
    T for non-operational sites) to ensure that the piles would be closed 
    in a timely manner (December 15, 1989; 54 FR 51654). This regulation 
    applies only to uranium mill tailings and requires, in addition to the 
    flux standard of 20 pCi/m\2\s, that once a uranium mill tailings pile 
    or impoundment ceases to be operational, it must be closed and brought 
    into compliance with the standard within two years of the effective 
    date of the standard (by December 15, 1991) or within two years of the 
    day it ceases to be operational, whichever is later. If it were not 
    physically possible for the mill owner or operator to complete disposal 
    within that time, EPA contemplated a negotiated compliance agreement 
    with the mill owner or operator pursuant to EPA's enforcement authority 
    in order to assure that disposal would be completed as quickly as 
    possible. Subpart T of 40 CFR part 61 also requires testing for all 
    piles within the facility to demonstrate compliance with the emission 
    limit and specifies reporting and recordkeeping associated with this 
    demonstration.
        Subpart T was challenged by a number of parties including the 
    American Mining Congress (AMC), the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), 
    and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In addition, AMC, the 
    NRC, and others filed an administrative petition for reconsideration of 
    subpart T. Among the concerns of these parties was the argument that 
    the overlap between EPA's subpart D of 40 CFR part 192 (based on the 
    Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA)) and subpart T of 
    40 CFR part 61 (based on the CAA) resulted in regulations that are 
    unnecessarily burdensome and duplicative. Among other things, the 
    industry also alleged that subpart T was unlawful because it was 
    physically impossible to come into compliance with subpart T in the 
    time required. In November 1990, Congress amended the CAA by including 
    a new provision, section 112(d)(9). This provision authorized EPA to 
    decline to regulate radionuclide emissions from NRC licensees under the 
    CAA if EPA found, by rule, after consultation with NRC, that the 
    regulatory program implemented by NRC protects the public health with 
    an ample margin of safety.
        In July 1991, EPA, NRC, and the affected Agreement States began 
    discussions concerning the dual regulatory programs established under 
    UMTRCA and the CAA. In October 1991, those discussions resulted in a 
    Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA, NRC, and the affected 
    Agreement States. The MOU outlines the steps each party would take to 
    both eliminate regulatory redundancy and to ensure uranium mill 
    tailings piles are closed as expeditiously as practicable. (The MOU was 
    published by EPA on October 25, 1991 (56 FR 55434) as part of a 
    proposal to stay subpart T.) The primary purpose of the MOU is to 
    ensure that the owners and operators of all disposal sites that have 
    ceased operation and those owners and operators of sites that will 
    cease operation in the future effect emplacement of a final earthen 
    cover to limit radon emissions to a flux of no more than 20 pCi/m\2\s 
    as expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility. 
    The MOU presents a goal that all current disposal sites be closed and 
    in compliance with the radon emission standard by the end of 1997 or 
    within seven years of the date on which existing operations cease and 
    standby sites enter disposal status. The attachment to the MOU lists 
    specific target dates for completing emplacement of final earthen 
    covers to limit radon emissions from non-operational tailings 
    impoundments. These target dates were based on consultations with the 
    licensed mill operators.
        On December 31, 1991, the EPA published three Federal Register 
    notices: a final rule to stay the effectiveness of 40 CFR part 61, 
    subpart T, as it applies to owners and operators of uranium mill 
    tailings disposal sites licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State (56 
    FR 67537); a proposed rule to rescind 40 CFR part 61, subpart T, as it 
    applies to uranium mill tailings disposal sites licensed by the NRC or 
    an Agreement State (56 FR 67561); and an advance notice of proposed 
    rulemaking to amend 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, to require that site 
    closure occur as expeditiously as practicable considering technological 
    feasibility and to add a demonstration of compliance with the design 
    standard for radon releases (56 FR 67569). The stay of effectiveness of 
    subpart T is to remain in effect until EPA takes final action to 
    rescind subpart T and amend 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, to ensure that 
    the remaining rules are as protective of the public health with an 
    ample margin of safety as implementation of subpart T, or until June 
    30, 1994. If EPA fails to complete these rulemakings by that date, the 
    stay will expire and the requirements of subpart T will become 
    effective.
        The stay of effectiveness of subpart T was also challenged. 
    Discussions continued between EPA, the litigants, and the NRC. In 
    February 1993, final agreement was reached to settle the pending 
    litigation and the administrative proceeding, avoid potential future 
    litigation, and otherwise agree to a consensus approach to regulation 
    of licensed non-operational uranium mill tailings disposal sites. EPA 
    announced the settlement agreement in a notice of April 1, 1993 (58 FR 
    17230). The NRC was not a signatory to this agreement but agreed in 
    principle with the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement 
    further defined steps for implementing the MOU. It called for the NRC 
    to amend its regulations in appendix A of part 40 to be substantially 
    consistent with a specific regulatory approach described in the 
    settlement agreement. It also described actions to be taken by the 
    parties to the agreement which were intended to implement the MOU and 
    eliminate further litigation with respect to subpart T.
        On June 8, 1993 (58 FR 32174), the EPA proposed minor amendments to 
    40 CFR part 192, subpart D, to ensure timely emplacement of the final 
    radon barrier and to require monitoring to verify radon flux levels (a 
    one-time verification). In that notice, the EPA stated its tentative 
    conclusion that if those amendments to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, were 
    properly implemented by NRC and the Agreement States to ensure 
    specific, enforceable closure schedules and radon level monitoring, the 
    NRC's regulatory program for non-operational uranium mill tailings 
    piles would protect the public health with an ample margin of safety. 
    The EPA also noted its intent to publish a proposed finding for public 
    comment on whether the NRC program protects public health with an ample 
    margin of safety before taking final action on rescission of 40 CFR 
    part 61, subpart T.
        On November 3, 1993 (58 FR 58657), the NRC published a proposed 
    revision to appendix A of part 40 intended to conform to EPA's proposed 
    revisions to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D. On November 15, 1993 (58 FR 
    60340), the EPA published a final effective rule amending 40 CFR part 
    192, subpart D. This final amendment to appendix A of 10 CFR part 40 
    must conform to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, as amended on November 15, 
    1993. Changes in this final rule that relate to changes made in EPA's 
    final rule are noted in the detailed discussion.
        On February 7, 1994 (59 FR 5674), the EPA published a supplement to 
    its proposed rescission of subpart T as it applies to owners and 
    operators of uranium mill tailings disposal sites licensed by the NRC 
    or an Agreement State. That action was also taken in accordance with 
    the settlement agreement. That notice did not present a change from 
    EPA's plans, strategies, or findings as discussed in the actions 
    pertaining to the revision of 40 CFR part 192, subpart D. EPA invited 
    comments on the proposed rescission of subpart T and on its 
    determination that the NRC regulatory program protects public health 
    and safety with an ample margin. It does not specifically address NRC 
    actions except that EPA has again stated that this conforming rule is 
    necessary to support the rescission of 40 CFR part 61, subpart T.
        EPA's revision to 40 CFR part 192 is not intended to change EPA's 
    original rationale or scheme set forth in its 1983 rule. The EPA rule 
    ``seeks to clarify and supplement that scheme in a manner that will 
    better support its original intent.'' EPA's final rule and this NRC 
    conforming rule require that when a uranium mill becomes non-
    operational, the final barrier to control radon will be emplaced as 
    expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility 
    (including factors beyond the control of the licensee). Setting interim 
    dates for achieving milestones towards emplacement will support and 
    better assure this progress. Also, post-emplacement determination of 
    radon flux will serve as confirmation that the design of the cover is 
    working as intended. EPA's June 8, 1993 (58 FR 32174), notice of 
    proposed rulemaking and its November 15, 1993 (58 FR 60340), notice of 
    final rulemaking provide detailed discussion of the rationale for the 
    action and the legislative and regulatory history leading to its 
    proposal.
    
    Coordination With Affected NRC Agreement States
    
        The affected Agreement States of Colorado, Texas, and Washington, 
    as well as the State of Illinois, were provided a draft of the proposed 
    rule before its promulgation. These States' comments and the 
    Commission's responses were discussed in the notice of proposed 
    rulemaking of November 3, 1993 (58 FR 58657). Copies of that notice 
    were sent to the affected States. One State submitted comments, which 
    are addressed below along with the other comments received.
    
    Issue of Compatibility With Agreement States
    
        The Commission has determined that these changes are a Division 2 
    matter of compatibility. Under Division 2, States must adopt the 
    provisions of an NRC rule but can adopt more stringent provisions. A 
    State may not adopt less stringent ones. This designation (Division 2) 
    is compatible with section 274o of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
    amended (AEA).
    
    Description of the Rule
    
        Section 84a(2) of the AEA requires the Commission to conform its 
    regulations governing uranium mill tailings to applicable EPA 
    requirements and standards. Based on this requirement and the plans and 
    schedules related to the rescission discussed in this document, the NRC 
    proposed to amend appendix A of 10 CFR part 40 to conform to EPA 
    proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, concerning non-
    operational, NRC or Agreement State licensed mill tailings sites. 
    Criterion 6 of appendix A to part 40 requires that an earthen cover (or 
    approved alternative cover) be placed over uranium mill tailings to 
    control the release of radon-222 at the end of milling operations. This 
    cover is to be designed to provide reasonable assurance that releases 
    of radon will not exceed an average of 20 pCi/m2s and that the 
    barrier will be effective in controlling radon releases to this level 
    for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, 
    for at least 200 years. The design for satisfying the longevity 
    requirement includes features for erosion control such as the placement 
    of riprap over the earthen cover itself. (Criterion 6 is also 
    applicable to thorium mill tailings. These amendments to Criterion 6 
    apply to uranium mill tailings only.)
        This rule, both as proposed and as now being adopted, amends 
    Criterion 6, adds a new Criterion 6A, and adds to the definitions 
    contained in the Introduction to appendix A to part 40.
        Paragraphs (1), (5), (6), and (7) of revised Criterion 6 contain 
    the previously existing requirements of Criterion 6. These provisions 
    were not the subject of or affected by this rulemaking. These 
    preexisting portions of Criterion 6 appear in this notice only for the 
    purpose of numbering the paragraphs for ease of reference to specific 
    requirements contained within the criterion. However, minor conforming 
    revisions, as proposed, have been made to paragraph (1) of Criterion 6 
    and its footnotes for clarity and consistency with the new 
    requirements.
        This rule adds a requirement to Criterion 6 for a one-time 
    verification that the barrier, as constructed, is effective in 
    controlling releases of radon from uranium byproduct material to levels 
    no greater than 20 pCi/m\2\s when averaged over the pile or 
    impoundment. This provision, which appears at paragraph (2), also 
    specifies EPA method 115, as described in 40 CFR part 61, appendix B, 
    as a standard for adequate demonstration of compliance. As is required 
    by the recent amendments to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, the licensee 
    must use this method or another approved by the NRC as being at least 
    as effective in demonstrating the effectiveness of the final radon 
    barrier. A copy of 40 CFR part 61, appendix B, has been made available 
    for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. 
    (Lower Level), Washington, DC.
        Because of practical reasons, the verification of radon flux levels 
    must take place after emplacement of the final radon barrier but before 
    completion of erosion protection features. In order for the results of 
    the verification to remain valid, erosion protection features must be 
    completed before significant degradation of the earthen barrier occurs. 
    The NRC will consider this in a final determination of compliance with 
    Criterion 6. The NRC could require, among other things, repetition of 
    part or all of the verification procedures on a case-by-case basis if 
    significant delay occurs before completion of erosion protection 
    features.
        Paragraph (3) of revised Criterion 6 adds a requirement that, if 
    the reclamation plan calls for phased emplacement of the final radon 
    barrier, the verification of radon flux be performed on each portion of 
    the pile or impoundment as the final radon barrier is completed.
        Paragraph (4) specifies the reporting and recordkeeping to be made 
    in connection with this demonstration of effectiveness of the final 
    radon barrier. A one-time report that details the method of 
    verification is to be made within 90 days of completion of the final 
    determination of radon flux levels. Records will be required to be kept 
    until license termination documenting the source of input parameters 
    and the results of all measurements on which they are based, the 
    calculations and/or analytical methods used to derive values for input 
    parameters, and the procedure used to determine compliance. These 
    reporting and recordkeeping requirements are comparable to the EPA 
    requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart T.
        The Commission notes that the proper implementation of the design 
    standard of paragraph (1) of Criterion 6 is of primary importance in 
    the control of radon releases. The addition of the requirement for 
    verification of radon flux levels does not replace or detract from the 
    importance of the radon attenuation tailings cover design standard.
        The new Criterion 6A addresses the timeliness of achieving radon 
    emission control in the case of uranium mill tailings. Criterion 6A 
    requires that the emplacement of the earthen cover (or approved 
    alternative cover) be carried out in accordance with a written, 
    Commission-approved, reclamation plan that includes enforceable dates 
    for the completion of key reclamation milestones. This plan will be 
    incorporated as a condition of the individual license. This plan must 
    provide for the completion of the final radon barrier as expeditiously 
    as practicable considering technological feasibility after the pile or 
    impoundment ceases operation. This timeliness requirement has the same 
    goals for completing the final radon barrier as were in the MOU 
    discussed above. In addition, erosion protection features must also be 
    completed in a timely manner in accordance with the Commission-approved 
    reclamation plan.
        For the purposes of Criterion 6A, definitions are being added to 
    the Introduction of appendix A to part 40 (in alphabetical order with 
    the preexisting definitions) for: as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility, available technology, factors 
    beyond the control of the licensee, final radon barrier, milestone, 
    operation, and reclamation plan. These definitions are substantively 
    the same as contained in the EPA's recent amendment to 40 CFR part 192, 
    subpart D. However, reclamation plan covers a broader range of 
    activities than required in EPA's tailings closure plan (radon). 
    Reclamation of the tailings in accordance with appendix A to part 40 
    includes activities also occurring after the end of operation that are 
    beyond those involved in the control of radon releases, such as 
    groundwater remediation. Thus, it is appropriate and efficient for 
    planning if these activities are addressed in a single document. (This 
    rule would also allow the reclamation plan to be incorporated into the 
    pre-existing closure plan, also required by appendix A, which includes 
    other activities associated with decommissioning of the mill.)
        A definition of final radon barrier was also included in the 
    Commission's proposed rule to facilitate the drafting of clear 
    regulatory text and to eliminate any ambiguity with respect to 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m2s ``flux standard'' after completion 
    of the final earthen barrier and not as a result of any temporary 
    conditions or interim measures. This definition excludes the erosion 
    protection features which were not a subject of EPA's amendment to 40 
    CFR part 192. The EPA's proposed rule had not provided a definition of 
    this term or comparable term. However, in its final rule, the EPA added 
    a definition of the term permanent radon barrier, also to reduce 
    ambiguity. The EPA's definition is substantively the same as the NRC 
    definition of final radon barrier. The EPA used the word ``permanent'' 
    in keeping with the terminology of the settlement agreement but defined 
    ``permanent radon barrier'' as ``the final radon barrier constructed to 
    achieve compliance with, including attainment of, the limit on releases 
    of radon-222 in Sec. 192.32(b)(1)(ii).'' Both definitions refer to 
    comparable standards requiring control of radon releases to levels not 
    exceeding 20 pCi/m2s after closure. This final NRC rule continues 
    to use the word ``final'' as proposed, because it is more appropriate. 
    The word ``final'' more accurately describes the last earthen cover 
    over the tailings pile without the erosion protection features. The 
    barrier would not provide permanent protection without the erosion 
    protection features. Even after these features are completed, the 
    applicable long-term design standard in paragraph (1) of Criterion 6 is 
    ``effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, 
    in any case, for at least 200 years.'' Although not intended by EPA, 
    the term ``permanent'' could be interpreted to imply ``forever.''
        Factors beyond the control of the licensee are defined as factors 
    proximately causing delay in meeting the schedule in the applicable 
    reclamation plan for the timely emplacement of the final radon barrier 
    notwithstanding the good faith efforts of the licensee to complete the 
    barrier. Consistent with the final version of EPA's rule, the following 
    description of possible factors beyond the control of the licensee has 
    been added to the definition in this final rule: these factors may 
    include, but are not limited to:
        Physical conditions at the site;
        Inclement weather or climatic conditions;
        An act of God;
        An act of war;
        A judicial or administrative order or decision, or change to the 
    statutory, regulatory, or other legal requirements applicable to the 
    licensee's facility that would preclude or delay the performance of 
    activities required for compliance;
        Labor disturbances;
        Any modifications, cessation, or delay ordered by State, Federal, 
    or local agencies;
        Delays beyond the time reasonably required in obtaining necessary 
    government permits, licenses, approvals, or consent for activities 
    described in the reclamation plan proposed by the licensee that result 
    from agency failure to take final action after the licensee has made a 
    good faith, timely effort to submit legally sufficient applications, 
    responses to requests (including relevant data requested by the 
    agencies), or other information, including approval of the reclamation 
    plan; and
        An act or omission of any third party over whom the licensee has no 
    control.
        In the definition of available technology, the phrase ``and 
    provided there is reasonable progress toward emplacement of a permanent 
    radon barrier'' was not included in the Commission's proposed rule as 
    it seemed inappropriate within the definition and the concept is 
    incorporated into the standard itself, i.e., Criterion 6A. This phrase 
    has been included in the final definition with the word ``final'' in 
    place of ``permanent'' in keeping with the terminology used in this 
    rule. A parenthetical with illustrative examples of grossly excessive 
    costs has also been added consistent with EPA's final amendments.
        The definitions for as expeditiously as practicable considering 
    technological feasibility and reclamation plan have been specifically 
    identified as applying to only Criterion 6A to prevent any potential 
    misapplication. This has not been done in the case of the other 
    definitions because either the terms are not used elsewhere in appendix 
    A or are used consistently with the definitions being added.
        This rule goes beyond EPA's rule by requiring that the erosion 
    protection barriers (or other features for longevity) be completed in a 
    timely manner. However, the rule does not require that enforceable 
    dates be established for completion of erosion protection as a 
    condition of license. (The key reclamation activities or ``milestones'' 
    for which enforceable dates are to be established are the same as in 
    EPA's rule.) The reason for this difference is so that the NRC can 
    assure that erosion protection is completed before the barrier could 
    degrade significantly while allowing more flexibility in this regard 
    than for the ``key reclamation milestones.'' Allowing significant 
    degradation of the cover before completion of other aspects of the 
    design could violate the design basis.
        As a result of the MOU, most affected licensees (those facilities 
    that were non-operational at the time of the MOU) have voluntarily 
    submitted reclamation plans which include proposed dates for attainment 
    of key reclamation milestones. (Planning for reclamation activities 
    with Commission approval was required by previously existing 
    regulations.) The process of approving those reclamation plans, at 
    least those portions dealing with control of radon emissions, and 
    amending the licenses to make the dates for completion of key 
    reclamation milestones a condition of license is complete with the 
    exception of the Atlas site in Moab, Utah. (In this case, license 
    amendment has been delayed pending resolution of issues raised when the 
    action was noticed in the Federal Register.) These impoundments are in 
    the process of being reclaimed with varying degrees of completion. 
    Other affected NRC licensees include one whose impoundment has ceased 
    operation since the MOU and who is in the process of preparing a 
    reclamation plan, and four with operational impoundments who will be 
    affected at the time the impoundments cease to be operational.
        The considerations made in these recent licensing actions have been 
    consistent with those reflected in this rule, i.e., paragraph (1) of 
    Criterion 6A has essentially been implemented prior to promulgation as 
    a result of the MOU and the settlement agreement and in anticipation of 
    the amendments to 40 CFR part 192 and this rulemaking. Thus, the 
    deadlines for completion of milestones established in licenses will not 
    need to be reconsidered as a result of this rule. Also, the actions 
    taken since the MOU in the case of the Atlas site in Moab, Utah are 
    consistent with this rulemaking. The licensee has submitted proposed 
    revisions to its reclamation plans. The licensee has also supplied 
    further information and proposed modifications to address concerns that 
    have been raised. Notices of proposed amendments to the license to 
    provide for public participation have been published. The most recent 
    of these was published on April 7, 1994 (58 FR 16665). Delays in the 
    schedule for radon barrier emplacement are as a result of difficulties 
    in resolving technical issues related to the adequacy of plans for 
    erosion protection and groundwater protection and the consideration of 
    alternatives under the National Environmental Policy Act. Thus, delays 
    result from a combination of ``the need for consistency with mandatory 
    requirements of other regulatory programs'' and ``factors beyond the 
    control of the licensee.'' This case is primarily an example of factor 
    number (8) in the definition of factors beyond the control of the 
    licensee concerning delays in obtaining necessary approvals. The issues 
    of concern in the approval of this revised reclamation plan are yet to 
    be resolved and further delays are possible. However, no new issues 
    with regard to the scheduling of final radon barrier emplacement are 
    added as a result of this rule. The license amendment process and the 
    approval of the reclamation plans will not be adversely affected. The 
    NRC staff is continuing to provide timely attention to the resolution 
    of this case.
        Paragraph (2) of Criterion 6A adds specific criteria for certain 
    circumstances under which the NRC may extend the time allowed for 
    completion of key milestones once enforceable dates have been 
    established. An opportunity for public participation will be provided 
    in a decision to extend the time allowed in these cases. The Commission 
    may approve an extension of the schedule for meeting milestones if it 
    is demonstrated that radon emissions do not exceed 20 pCi/m2s 
    averaged over the entire impoundment. The intent of this provision is 
    that, if the radon release rates are as low as will be required after 
    closure, there is no need for complex justifications for delaying 
    completion of reclamation. However, the Commission may not necessarily 
    extend deadlines for completion of milestones indefinitely on this 
    basis alone. In addition, the Commission may approve an extension of 
    the final compliance date for completion of the final radon barrier 
    based upon cost if the Commission finds that the licensee is making 
    good faith efforts to emplace the final radon barrier, that the delay 
    is consistent with the definition of available technology, and that the 
    radon releases caused by the delay will not result in a significant 
    incremental risk to the public health. If the basis for approving a 
    delay is that the radon levels do not exceed 20 pCi/m2s, 
    verification of radon levels will be required annually. Any other 
    reconsideration of deadlines once established as a result of changing 
    circumstances would be evaluated under paragraph (1) of Criterion 6A 
    giving consideration to all factors relevant to the ``as expeditiously 
    as practicable considering technological feasibility'' standard.
        Paragraph (3) of Criterion 6A, as proposed, was to allow for the 
    continued acceptance of uranium byproduct material or such materials 
    that are similar in physical, chemical, and radiological 
    characteristics to the uranium mill tailings and associated wastes in 
    the pile or impoundment, from other sources, for disposal into a 
    portion of the impoundment after the end of operation but during 
    closure activities. This authorization was to be made only after 
    providing an opportunity for public participation. This paragraph was 
    intended to conform with proposed 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3)(iii). In the 
    context of appendix A, ``during closure activities'' could include the 
    period after emplacement of the final radon barrier. In this 
    circumstance, the Commission may except completion of reclamation 
    activities for a small portion of the impoundment from the deadlines 
    established in the license. The proposed rule specified that the 
    verification requirements for radon releases may still be satisfied in 
    this case if the Commission finds that the impoundment will continue to 
    achieve a level of radon releases not exceeding 20 pCi/m2s 
    averaged over the entire impoundment. However, reclamation of the 
    remaining disposal area, as appropriate, would be required in a timely 
    manner once the waste disposal operations cease.
        This paragraph has been somewhat revised in the final rule 
    consistent with revisions made in EPA's final rule; these provisions 
    now appear at 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3) (iv) and (v). Both final rules are 
    more consistent with the settlement agreement in this regard. The 
    revisions are (1) that only byproduct material, not ``similar'' 
    material, will be approved for disposal after the final radon barrier 
    is complete except for the continuing disposal area and the 
    verification of radon flux levels has been made, and (2) that public 
    participation is specifically to be provided for only in the case of 
    continued disposal after radon flux verification.
        The final rule has also been modified by changing the words ``as 
    expeditiously as practicable'' in the last sentence of this paragraph 
    to ``in a timely manner'' to avoid the unintended application of the 
    definition of the term ``as expeditiously as practicable considering 
    technological feasibility'' to activities beyond the emplacement of the 
    final radon barrier. Additional clarifying language has also been added 
    to this paragraph.
        Note, as discussed in EPA's statements of consideration for its 
    amendment of 40 CFR part 192 (at 58 FR 32183; June 8, 1993 and 
    reiterated at 58 FR 60354; November 15, 1993), the reclamation of 
    evaporation ponds may be dealt with separately from meeting the 
    expeditious radon cover requirements if deemed appropriate by the 
    Commission or the regulating Agreement State. This may be the case 
    whether or not the evaporation pond area is being used for continued 
    disposal of byproduct material.
        The opportunities for public participation specified in Criterion 
    6A are in keeping with the MOU and the settlement agreement, and will 
    be made through a notice in the Federal Register providing an 
    opportunity for public comment on the proposed license amendment. This 
    notice will also provide the opportunity to request an informal hearing 
    in accordance with the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 2, 
    subpart L.
    
    Analysis of Comments
    
        In response to the proposed rule, the Commission received comments 
    from seven organizations including one State regulatory agency, the 
    Environmental Protection Agency, and five industry organizations. 
    Copies of the comments may be examined and copied for a fee at the 
    Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), 
    Washington, DC. The following discussion summarizes and responds to the 
    comments.
    
    General: Need and Basis for Rule
    
        Comment. The commenters were generally in favor of the proposed 
    rule. However, most had some suggestions for modifications. Many of 
    these proposed modifications reflected a desire for stricter adherence 
    to the words of the settlement agreement or to EPA's final rule. One 
    commenter said that it understood the proposal to be consistent with 
    the terms that industry litigants accepted in the related EPA 
    proceedings. The American Mining Congress (AMC) and the Atlantic 
    Richfield Company (ARCO), which incorporated all of the AMC comments by 
    reference in its comments, specifically supported the rule for the 
    purpose of implementing the settlement agreement and in order that the 
    ``duplicative'' Clean Air Act requirements in 40 CFR part 61, subpart 
    T, would be rescinded. AMC and ARCO contended that the rule was not 
    needed to protect public health with the ample margin of safety 
    required as a basis for rescinding subpart T, but that it would 
    strengthen existing protection. Specifically, it was suggested that 
    Sec. 40.63 gives NRC the ability to provide post-closure testing; that 
    Sec. 40.42(c)(2)(i), (iii), and (iv) can provide for timely reclamation 
    of the tailings; that proper milestones have been added to licenses 
    under the existing regulatory program; and that EPA has never issued a 
    finding of unacceptable risk. In addition, AMC provided extensive 
    background and support for rescission of subpart T and elimination of 
    dual regulation.
        Response. The Commission has stated and continues to believe that 
    its program provides an adequate degree of protection of the public 
    health and safety but that this rule provides greater assurance that 
    the final radon barrier will be completed in a timely manner and in 
    accordance with the design standard. The Commission disagrees with 
    certain statements made by commenters to support their contention that 
    this rule was not necessary to support the rescission of subpart T. 
    With regard to Sec. 40.63 and post-closure testing, because footnote 1 
    to Criterion 6 specifically indicated that no radon monitoring was 
    required, the Commission would not have considered it appropriate to 
    use Sec. 40.63 to require post-closure testing to verify that radon 
    flux levels do not exceed 20 pCi/m\2\s. It was also suggested that 
    Sec. 40.42 adequately addresses the timeliness of tailings reclamation. 
    Although decommissioning normally includes cleanup of a site, appendix 
    A provides the detailed closure requirements for mills in which the 
    reclamation of tailings is covered as a separate activity and, thus, is 
    an exception to the general requirements for decommissioning. This is a 
    result of the unique treatment of tailings under UMTRCA, which provides 
    for the ultimate custodial care of tailings by the Federal government 
    rather than a return to unrestricted use. The timeliness statement in 
    Sec. 40.42(c)(2)(iv) is interpreted as applying to the decommissioning 
    of the mill not to reclamation of the tailings. The background 
    materials submitted by AMC have been reviewed to assure that there are 
    no gaps in the information previously available to the Commission in 
    its deliberations.
        As a general response concerning the use of the exact words of the 
    settlement agreement and the EPA regulations, the Commission notes that 
    it is required to ``conform'' to 40 CFR part 192 by section 84a(2) of 
    the AEA and has agreed in principle to, but was not a party to, the 
    settlement agreement. In past conforming changes, conformance has not 
    been viewed as requiring identical wording and flexibility has been 
    used for clarity and to account for different formats and contents of 
    rules. Thus, the Commission is not bound to the exact words in either 
    case. Some differences are necessary to avoid ambiguity or confusion. 
    For example, with regard to this rulemaking, the scope of both the 
    settlement agreement and the EPA amendments were limited to the 
    completion of the final radon barrier and did not extend to the 
    longevity aspect of radon control nor to other aspects of reclamation. 
    The terms ``reclamation'' and ``closure'' have a broader meaning in 
    appendix A than as used in the settlement agreement or in EPA's 
    amendments to 40 CFR part 192. It would not be practical to limit the 
    use of these terms for the purpose of these specific amendments to 
    appendix A. There are other terms that must also be used carefully 
    because of their use in NRC regulations or by the regulated industry. 
    Beyond what was considered necessary to avoid ambiguity and to provide 
    appropriate expansion beyond the scope of EPA's amendments, the 
    Commission has attempted to be consistent with the words of the 
    settlement agreement and 40 CFR part 192.
    
    Definitions
    
        Comment. The four industry commenters who suggested that changes 
    were needed all believed it was important that the definitions of 
    factors beyond the control of the licensee and available technology be 
    completely consistent with the settlement agreement and the final 
    amendments to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, and specifically, to include 
    all the illustrative examples within the definition, not just in the 
    statement of considerations. Some also suggested that the words 
    ``complete the barrier'' in the definition of factors beyond the 
    control of the licensee be changed to ``achieve compliance.'' They were 
    concerned that the intent of the parties to the settlement agreement 
    would not be carried out in the interpretation of these terms in the 
    future. Some specifically noted the loss of personnel familiar with the 
    issues that will accompany the close of the NRC uranium recovery field 
    office (URFO). The EPA did not suggest that including all of the 
    illustrative text was necessary for conformance but suggested it would 
    be best to include the phrase ``provided there is reasonable progress 
    toward emplacement of the final radon barrier'' (from 40 CFR 192.31(m)) 
    in NRC's definition of available technology. The EPA also suggested 
    adding ``in compliance with Criterion 6A-(1)'' after ``complete the 
    barrier'' in the definition of factors beyond the control of the 
    licensee for clarity and to assure proper implementation of subpart D 
    of 40 CFR part 192.
        Response. Explanations concerning the Commission's intent regarding 
    its interpretation of its regulations that appear in statements of 
    consideration stand as a record of the Commission's intent. However, 
    inclusion within the regulatory text makes the illustrative examples 
    more readily available so that questions of interpretation are less 
    likely to arise. Consistent with EPA's final amendments to 40 CFR part 
    192, all of the illustrative examples have been added in the final 
    definitions. The additional text suggested by EPA has also been 
    included in these definitions.
        Comment. Most of the industry commenters also wanted the definition 
    of milestone to be worded exactly as in 40 CFR part 192. The concern 
    was primarily that milestones not be required to be established for 
    actions beyond meeting the radon ``flux standard.'' Some of the 
    commenters also suggested that the use in the preamble of varying 
    modifiers, ``key,'' ``interim,'' and ``reclamation,'' to ``milestones'' 
    and ``milestone activities,'' which are used interchangeably, was 
    confusing.
        Response. The definition of milestone has not been changed because 
    the Commission believes it is less confusing in that it is in better 
    agreement with normal usage. There is no substantive difference in the 
    standard as a result of this difference and it gives the Commission the 
    flexibility to use the term generically. The concerns expressed are 
    addressed alternatively through minor revisions to the definition of 
    reclamation plan and paragraph (2) of Criterion 6A to further clarify 
    that no deadlines are required to be established in the licenses beyond 
    completing the final radon barrier as a result of this rulemaking and 
    that any other schedules established in a license do not come under the 
    specific provisions of paragraph (2) of Criterion 6A. The term 
    ``milestone activities'' has been avoided in this final rule as it is 
    redundant given this definition. The terms ``key,'' ``interim,'' and 
    ``reclamation'' are used in accordance with their dictionary 
    definitions and require no further definition. As is clear from the 
    definition of reclamation plan, the term ``reclamation'' is not limited 
    to radon control measures.
        No comments were received concerning the definitions of: as 
    expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility, 
    final radon barrier, and operation.
    
    Criterion 6--Verification of Radon Release Levels
    
        Comment. Some commenters suggested that paragraph (4) of Criterion 
    6 could be interpreted to require submission of the results of radon 
    measurements after measurements are made on a portion of an impoundment 
    in the case of phased emplacement of the radon barrier. Two commenters 
    suggested that interim reports might be required in a particular case 
    subject to the agreement of the licensee, but objected to the possible 
    interpretation that separate reports be required routinely on each 
    portion. One suggested that it should be clarified that the testing 
    need not be done on each portion as the cover is completed.
        Response. Paragraph (3) specifically requires testing to be done on 
    each portion of the impoundment as the cover is completed in the case 
    of phased emplacement. This was made a requirement rather than simply 
    being allowed as in 40 CFR 192.32(b)(4)(ii) because of the requirement 
    in paragraph (2) of this Criterion to conduct testing and analysis 
    prior to placement of erosion protection features and the importance of 
    timeliness in completing erosion protection features. There is, 
    however, no specific time limit established in the regulation for these 
    measurements on the individual portions of the impoundment.
        Paragraph (4) requires submittal of a report 90 days after 
    completion of the testing and analysis. Because this verification is of 
    radon flux levels averaged over the impoundment, it is not complete 
    until all testing and analysis is complete for the whole impoundment. 
    Thus, only one report is required, although further testing and 
    analysis with associated reporting could be required in a particular 
    case if the initial report is not acceptable. Minor editorial changes 
    have been made to further clarify this point. Note, although it is 
    impractical to do so routinely, riprap or other erosion protection 
    barriers can be disturbed in order to take a radon emission measurement 
    if necessary.
        Comment. One commenter suggested that paragraph (2) of Criterion 6 
    should contain details such as are contained in 40 CFR part 61 on the 
    one-time measurement which are intended to assure that conditions under 
    which the flux is measured lead to a reasonable average flux. It was 
    suggested that this would eliminate confusion with footnote 2 that 
    applies to the design criterion. Related to this, some commenters 
    argued for deletion of part of existing footnote 2 regarding average 
    radon emissions being ``over a period of at least one year, but a 
    period short compared to 100 years.'' These commenters were concerned 
    that long-term monitoring could be implied. Also, two commenters said 
    the footnote was contrary to the settlement agreement and the EPA rule. 
    One said specifically that it was inconsistent with language of 40 CFR 
    192.12(b)(2).
        Response. Footnote 2 applies only to the design criterion. Although 
    the new testing and analysis is intended to verify the effectiveness of 
    the radon barrier, it does not need to take place over the period of 
    time specified in footnote 2. However, it should be reasonably 
    representative of long-term radon releases. The details concerning 
    conditions for flux measurements in 40 CFR part 61 are contained in the 
    description of Method 115 in appendix B and address such matters as the 
    weather conditions at the time measurements are performed. Method 115 
    is specifically identified in this standard as acceptable and, if used, 
    the conditions embodied in the description in appendix B of 40 CFR part 
    61 would apply. Because Method 115 is also a standard for the adequacy 
    of other verification methods in Criterion 6, alternative methods must 
    be approved by the Commission as being at least as effective as Method 
    115. Similar considerations to those embodied in Method 115 concerning 
    the representiveness of the measurement results of the long term radon 
    releases will be made in judging alternative methods. Details of 
    conditions for measurement need not be specified in this rule.
        Modifying footnote 2 substantively, as was suggested by the 
    commenters, would be outside the scope of this rulemaking. Footnote 2 
    is consistent with 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, which contains the same 
    footnote (in the comparable design standard, 40 CFR 192.32(b)(1)(ii)). 
    The footnote was not intended to and does not require long-term 
    monitoring. The Commission agrees that long-term monitoring would be 
    contrary to the settlement agreement.
        Comment. One commenter argued that the existing requirement to 
    reduce gamma exposure to background levels should be eliminated or 
    applied only at the site boundary. This commenter stated that this 
    requirement appears to be a misinterpretation of the intent of 40 CFR 
    part 192, subpart A. This commenter also said that the radon cover will 
    attenuate gamma radiation to near background levels in most cases; and 
    that in an unusual case, adding to the cover to control gamma exposure 
    levels could be unnecessarily expensive, as access is restricted. The 
    commenter believed that, as a minimum, the Commission should specify a 
    limit based on acceptable risk to the maximum-exposed individual that 
    can be supported by a cost-benefit analysis.
        Response. The criterion on gamma exposure levels is not based on 40 
    CFR part 192 nor any other EPA regulation. It has been in appendix A to 
    part 40 since it was originally added to part 40 on October 3, 1980 (45 
    FR 65521). This aspect of Criterion 6 is outside the scope of this 
    rulemaking. However, if the cost of meeting any criterion in appendix A 
    is excessive in a specific case due to unique conditions, the licensee 
    may request an alternative approach in accordance with the Introduction 
    to appendix A.
    
    Criterion 6A, Paragraph (1)--Requirement for Timeliness
    
        Comment. Two commenters were concerned that the parenthetical 
    ``(including factors beyond the control of the licensee)'' was not 
    included in the standard following, ``as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility'' as in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3)(i) 
    even though it is contained in the definition of as expeditiously as 
    practicable considering technological feasibility. They claimed that 
    this could lead to misinterpretation that the standard deletes this 
    essential concept.
        Response. A parenthetical statement noting that the term as 
    expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility is 
    specifically defined in the Introduction and includes ``factors beyond 
    the control of the licensee'' has been added.
        Comment. Some of the commenters opposed the establishment of 
    separate milestone deadlines for dewatering and recontouring, saying 
    that the settlement agreement and 40 CFR part 192 specify only three 
    required milestones including just one for interim stabilization. 
    Dewatering and recontouring are part of interim stabilization. These 
    commenters said that this was also inconsistent with the practice with 
    existing licenses. The EPA noted that it agreed with NRC's statement in 
    the preamble of its proposed rule that the concept of milestones could 
    not be omitted.
        Response. The final rule has been changed to specifically require 
    the establishment of deadlines for only three milestones: Wind blown 
    tailings retrieval and placement on the pile, interim stabilization 
    (including dewatering or the removal of freestanding liquids and 
    recontouring), and final radon barrier construction. The Commission, 
    however, retains the authority to require the establishment of 
    additional milestones determined to be ``key'' to the completion of the 
    final radon barrier in an individual case (note the words ``but not 
    limited to'' in the definition of reclamation plan). This is consistent 
    with 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, and with the settlement agreement. The 
    Commission has no intent at this time to change the milestones for 
    which deadlines have already been approved in individual licensing 
    actions.
        Comment. The EPA noted that it understands that emplacement of the 
    final radon barrier is a requisite milestone but was concerned that it 
    could be interpreted otherwise, and suggested clarification. The EPA 
    also noted that it understands ``deadlines'' to mean dates by which 
    actions must be completed and ``established as a condition of an 
    individual license'' to mean incorporation of a condition into a 
    license by the Commission. However, the EPA was concerned that 
    paragraph (1) of Criterion 6A may be ambiguous and provided specific 
    suggested edits.
        Response. Paragraph (1) of Criterion 6A has been modified slightly 
    to address EPA's concerns, although not exactly as suggested. The 
    Commission believes it is clear that completion of the final radon 
    barrier is a requisite milestone, that ``deadlines'' means dates by 
    which actions must be completed, and that deadlines are to be 
    established on the basis that the barrier is to be completed as 
    expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility. The 
    Commission also believes that its regulations are less subject to 
    misinterpretation if there is consistency of style and terminology.
        Comment. Two commenters were concerned about the NRC extending the 
    scope of the timeliness requirement from that of 40 CFR part 192, 
    subpart D, stating that the ``as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility'' requirement should not be 
    extended to erosion protection. They contended that this is a term of 
    art limited to radon emissions, that EPA used this term to eliminate 
    the cost-balancing standards of the AEA from radon control measures, 
    and that applying it to erosion protection would constrain the use of 
    AEA cost considerations. They also noted that NRC has adequate 
    authority under other aspects of its UMTRCA program to deal with 
    concern for degradation of the barrier and stated that NRC should 
    handle this on a site-specific basis through license amendment.
        Response. The final rule has been modified so that the terminology 
    ``as expeditiously as practicable considering technological 
    feasibility'' is used only for emplacement of the final radon barrier. 
    A general timeliness standard for completing erosion protection 
    features is retained. Thus, it is clear that the licensee must complete 
    these actions in a timely way and that the NRC has the authority to 
    take action if necessary in this regard. However, the restrictive cost 
    considerations specified for the completion of the final radon barrier 
    do not apply to decisions concerning the timeliness of completion of 
    erosion protection features. Instead, the more flexible, general cost 
    considerations of the AEA (Section 84a(1)) apply.
        Comment. The same commenters sought clarification of NRC's intent 
    in extending reclamation plans to cover groundwater protection. They 
    asked whether the NRC could prevent licensees from continuing surface 
    reclamation until groundwater issues are resolved, stating that this 
    was not past practice. However, they also wanted the Commission to 
    confirm that groundwater concerns could constitute a legitimate cause 
    for delay.
        Response.  It is important for all aspects of reclamation to be 
    addressed in one plan so that potential interactions of various 
    activities can be accounted for and that reclamation can be planned for 
    overall efficiency. Nonetheless, all aspects of a reclamation plan 
    would not necessarily be approved at the same time. Past licensing 
    practice has not necessarily required all details of reclamation 
    planning to be in one document; however, approvals of activities have 
    included consideration of impacts to other aspects of reclamation. The 
    NRC would not necessarily prevent licensees from continuing surface 
    reclamation until groundwater issues are resolved. However, the words 
    ``the need for consistency with mandatory requirements of other 
    regulatory programs'' in the definition of ``as expeditiously as 
    practicable considering technological feasibility'' make it clear that 
    groundwater concerns could constitute a legitimate cause for delay. 
    Whether or not a groundwater issue would be considered a legitimate 
    cause for delay of radon control measures under paragraph (1) of 
    Criterion 6A would depend on the nature of the interaction of the 
    various reclamation activities in a particular case.
    
    Criterion 6A, Paragraph (2)--Special Criteria for Approval of Delays
    
        Comment.  Two commenters stated that paragraph (2) of Criterion 6A 
    does not fully implement the settlement agreement. They stated that the 
    settlement agreement and 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3)(iii) include delay of 
    interim milestones for reason of cost not just the dates for completion 
    of the final radon barrier. These same commenters were concerned that 
    it was not clear from paragraph (2) of Criterion 6A that deadlines for 
    milestones could also be extended because of factors beyond the control 
    of the licensee and also expressed strong agreement with the statement 
    that there is ``no need for complex justifications for delaying 
    completion of reclamation'' if the licensee demonstrates that the site 
    meets 20 pCi/m2s prior to final closure. These two commenters also 
    stated that the intent of the settlement agreement is that interim 
    milestones may be changed without meeting 20 pCi/m2s, if there is 
    no delay in final closure date. On this subject, the EPA specifically 
    supported paragraph (2) of Criterion 6A as drafted. The EPA also 
    specifically confirmed our interpretation of its amendments to 40 CFR 
    part 192 in this regard and clarified that there may be other instances 
    under which NRC may reconsider a date established for completion of a 
    milestone. The EPA also stated in its comments that the alternative 
    interpretation of its proposed amendments suggested in the Commission's 
    preamble to its proposed rule (that meeting the 20 pCi/m2s ``flux 
    standard'' might be required in all cases) was incorrect.
        Response.  The Commission does not agree that the words ``or 
    relevant milestone'' in section III.2.j of the settlement agreement and 
    40 CFR 192.32(a)(3)(iii) should be interpreted to mean that these 
    paragraphs address delay of interim milestones for reason of cost. 
    Also, approvals of extensions of interim milestones without meeting 20 
    pCi/m2s are not necessarily limited to cases where there is no 
    delay in final closure date.
        Paragraph (2) of Criterion 6A and 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3)(ii) and (iii) 
    set forth specific criteria for extensions of deadlines under certain 
    circumstances. These provisions do not cover all circumstances under 
    which extensions may be approved. This interpretation was confirmed by 
    EPA in the preamble of its final rule and in its comments submitted on 
    NRC's proposed rule. All other approvals of extensions must be made 
    under paragraph (1) of Criterion 6A through applying all of the 
    concepts involved in the requirement for completion of the final radon 
    barrier ``as expeditiously as practicable considering technological 
    feasibility'' (including within its definition ``factors beyond the 
    control of the licensee''). This was stressed in EPA's final rule 
    notice of November 15, 1993, at 58 FR 60351. In response to a commenter 
    that noted that NRC or an Agreement State may extend the date for 
    emplacement of the radon barrier based on ``factors beyond the control 
    of the licensee'' as that term is implicit in the definition of ``as 
    expeditiously as possible,'' EPA stated in part that ``there is no bar 
    to NRC or an Agreement State reconsidering a prior decision 
    establishing a date for emplacement of the radon barrier that meets the 
    standard of `as expeditiously as possible.' Such reconsideration could, 
    for example, be based on the existence of factors beyond the control of 
    the licensee, or on a change in any of the various factors that must be 
    considered in establishing a date that meets the `as expeditiously as 
    practicable' standard of Sec. 192.32(a)(3)(i). However, EPA stresses 
    that such a change in circumstances would not automatically lead to an 
    extension. It would be incumbent on NRC or an Agreement State to 
    evaluate all of the factors relevant under Sec. 192.32(a)(3)(i) before 
    it could change a previously established milestone or date for the 
    emplacement of the final barrier, and any new date would have to meet 
    the standard set out in Sec. 192.32(a)(3)(i).'' The comparable standard 
    in this NRC rule is set out in paragraph (1) of Criterion 6A.
    
    Criterion 6A, Paragraph (3)--Continuing Disposal During Closure
    
        Comment.  Some commenters noted that Criterion 6A, paragraph 3, as 
    proposed, was inconsistent with the final EPA rule. Some also suggested 
    that it was inconsistent with the settlement agreement, could lead to 
    premature closure, and would require radon monitoring during closure. 
    One commenter said that ``during closure activities'' does not include 
    the period after emplacement of the final radon barrier according to 
    the EPA rule and the settlement agreement, and that the intent should 
    be that ``once the final radon barrier has been placed over the 
    impoundment, excluding the area receiving byproduct material, the 
    `closure process' ceases.'' Two of the commenters specifically agreed 
    with the interpretation that ``during closure activities'' could 
    include the period after emplacement of the final radon barrier and 
    wanted the NRC to confirm this so that similar materials would still be 
    allowed at that time. These two commenters did not want paragraph (3) 
    of Criterion 6A to require an opportunity for public participation in 
    approving acceptance of byproduct material ``during closure.'' The EPA 
    submitted suggested revisions to make final paragraph (3) of Criterion 
    6A consistent with the final amendments in 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3)(iv) and 
    (v).
        Response.  EPA, in its proposed revision of 40 CFR part 192, 
    subpart D, combined the provisions of sections III.2.c (i) and (ii) of 
    the settlement agreement in one paragraph. In so doing, EPA, apparently 
    inadvertently, differed somewhat from the settlement agreement but 
    modified the final rule so that it is now consistent with the 
    settlement agreement. The Commission must conform appendix A to 40 CFR 
    part 192, as adopted, and has thus revised its final rule accordingly. 
    The differences from the proposed rule are that (1) materials similar 
    to byproduct material will not be approved for continued disposal after 
    the verification of radon flux levels and (2) an opportunity for public 
    participation will not specifically be provided in the case of 
    continued disposal during closure prior to this point in time. Note, 
    however, opportunity for public participation exists in any case under 
    10 CFR part 2, subpart L. The exact words suggested in EPA's comments 
    have not been used but the revisions are substantively the same. The 
    reasons for differing are the same as when the proposed rule was 
    drafted: (1) the term ``closure'' in appendix A has a broader meaning 
    than the scope of EPA's rule, and (2) the final radon barrier is not 
    absolutely complete while disposal is continuing even though it may be 
    adequate to demonstrate that average radon release levels meet the 20 
    pCi/m2s ``flux standard.''
    
    Miscellaneous comments
    
        Comment.  One State commenter strongly recommended that NRC offer 
    guidance (not necessarily in the rule) on paragraph (3) of Criterion 6A 
    on what materials are appropriately similar. The commenter suggested 
    specification of limits to the range of variation of a critical 
    property or concentration or activity.
        Response. Guidance on considerations for the approval of disposal 
    of non-11e(2) materials in tailings impoundments was published May 13, 
    1992 (57 FR 20525). This notice also presented a staff analysis on 
    which the guidance is based and requested public comment to be 
    considered in a decision on whether the guidance should be revised.
        Comment. Two commenters stated, for the record, that they agreed 
    with NRC that the implementation details of EPA's 40 CFR part 192, 
    subpart D, are a special case and go beyond ``generally applicable 
    standards,'' and that these provisions should not set a precedent with 
    regard to what constitutes a generally applicable standard. They 
    contended that certain aspects of subpart D exceed EPA's statutory 
    authority.
        Response. The Commission noted in the preamble of the proposed rule 
    that the nature of the revisions to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, were 
    influenced by the settlement agreement, that the settlement agreement 
    included considerable detail concerning the specifics of the 
    regulations that were to be developed, and that apparently as a result 
    of this, 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, includes numerous details of 
    implementation. The Commission also stated its view, which it still 
    holds, that the inclusion of these implementation details is a special 
    case because of the settlement agreement and does not establish any 
    precedent with regard to what constitutes a generally applicable 
    standard. With regard to the question of the limits of EPA's statutory 
    authority, any challenge to EPA's authority to issue the November 15, 
    1993, final amendments to 40 CFR part 192 is outside the scope of this 
    conforming action.
        Comment. The AMC stated that even if the Commission makes this rule 
    a Division 2 matter of compatibility, AMC will return to litigation if 
    an Agreement State adopts more stringent provisions.
        Response. UMTRCA provides the States an option for alternative, 
    more stringent standards. The settlement agreement cannot eliminate 
    this option. However, notice for comment and approval by NRC is 
    required and AMC can raise appropriate issues at that time should a 
    State propose more stringent standards. The Division 2 matter of 
    compatibility is maintained.
        Comment. The AMC contended that some statements in the preamble to 
    the proposed rule were in error or in need of clarification. Among 
    these contentions were that the summary of bases for AMC's challenge to 
    subpart T implied that the limited bases mentioned were all inclusive.
        Response. The primary bases for the various litigants' challenges 
    were mentioned in a brief historical summary that was not presented as 
    a complete background. The EPA's various notices are referenced in the 
    background section of this notice for more details concerning subpart T 
    and the related litigation.
        Comment. AMC also stated that NRC had implied that EPA could not 
    rescind subpart T if the planned rulemakings were not completed, 
    arguing that EPA has adequate bases to rescind absent these 
    rulemakings.
        Response. NRC did not mean to imply that EPA could not rescind 
    subpart T absent the planned rulemakings. However, EPA had made 
    statements that it would not rescind subpart T unless comparable 
    provisions were added to 40 CFR part 192 and 10 CFR part 40.
        Comment. The AMC also stated that the timeliness of decommissioning 
    rule should not have been suggested as in any way relevant and 
    requested that NRC note that Chairman Selin is on record suggesting 
    that a blanket exemption of uranium recovery facilities may make sense.
        Response. Final action on the proposed NRC rule to require 
    timeliness in decommissioning (January 13, 1993; 58 FR 4099) would be 
    expected to impact the timing of decommissioning of the mill, not 
    necessarily the timing of the impoundment going from operational status 
    to closure. (``Closure'' in appendix A does include both 
    decommissioning of the mill and reclamation of the tailings and/or 
    waste disposal areas.) If subpart T is rescinded, there will be no 
    regulatory requirement for the tailings impoundment to change from 
    operational to non-operational status within any specified time after 
    the mill ceases operation. The definition of ``operational'' in subpart 
    T would have restricted the continued use of the impoundment for 
    extended periods after the associated mill was decommissioned.
        No comments were received on the regulatory analysis or the 
    environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact.
    
    Conclusion
    
        As indicated in the responses to the comments, the Commission has 
    decided to adopt the rule as proposed with minor modifications, which 
    consist of revisions to conform to the final effective amendments to 40 
    CFR part 192 and clarifications.
    
    Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability
    
        The Commission has determined under the National Environmental 
    Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 
    subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal 
    action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and 
    therefore an environmental impact statement is not required. This final 
    rule requires that enforceable dates be established for certain interim 
    milestones and completion of the final radon barrier on non-operational 
    mill tailings piles through an approved reclamation plan and that a 
    determination of the radon flux levels be made to verify compliance 
    with the existing design standard for the final radon barrier. It is 
    intended to better assure that the final radon barrier is completed in 
    a timely manner and is adequately constructed to comply with the 
    applicable design standard. Thus, it provides an additional assurance 
    that public health and the environment are adequately protected. 
    Because the final rule is not expected to change the basic procedures 
    or construction of the radon barrier, there should be no adverse 
    environmental impacts. The environmental assessment and finding of no 
    significant impact on which this determination is based are available 
    for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. 
    (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the environmental 
    assessment and finding of no significant impact are available from 
    Catherine R. Mattsen, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
    DC 20555, Phone: (301) 415-6264.
    
    Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
    
        This final rule amends information collection requirements that are 
    subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
    seq.). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and 
    Budget approval number 3150-0020.
        Public reporting burden for this collection of information is 
    estimated to average 156 hours per response, including the time for 
    reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
    maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
    collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate 
    or any other aspect of this collection of information, including 
    suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records 
    Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
    Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information 
    and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019 (3150-0020), Office of Management and 
    Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
    
    Regulatory Analysis
    
        The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final 
    regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the 
    alternatives considered by the Commission. The analysis is available 
    for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. 
    (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be 
    obtained from Catherine R. Mattsen, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
    Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-6264.
    
    Regulatory Flexibility Certification
    
        In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 
    U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a 
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
    There are only 19 NRC uranium mill licensees. Almost all of these mills 
    are owned by large corporations. Although a few of the mills are 
    partly-owned by companies that might qualify as small businesses under 
    the Small Business Administration size standards, the Regulatory 
    Flexibility Act incorporates the definition of small business presented 
    in the Small Business Act. Under this definition, a small business is 
    one that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its 
    field. Because these mills are not independently owned, they do not 
    qualify as small entities.
    
    List of Subjects in 10 CFR part 40
    
        Criminal penalties, Government contracts, Hazardous materials 
    transportation, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping 
    requirements, Source material, Uranium.
    
        For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of 
    the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization 
    Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting 
    the following amendments to 10 CFR part 40.
    
    PART 40--LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL
    
        1. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows:
    
        Authority: Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 
    Stat. 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs. 11e(2), 
    83, 84, Pub. L. 95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 
    83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 
    2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274, 
    Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as 
    amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 
    5841, 5842, 5846); sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amended by Pub. L. 
    97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022).
        Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 
    2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g) also issued under sec. 122, 
    68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec. 
    184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also 
    issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
    
        2. In appendix A, add the definitions of as expeditiously as 
    practicable considering technological feasibility, available 
    technology, factors beyond the control of the licensee, final radon 
    barrier, milestone, operation, and reclamation plan to the Introduction 
    in alphabetical order; revise Criterion 6; and add Criterion 6A to read 
    as follows:
    
    Appendix A to Part 40--Criteria Relating to the Operation of 
    Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by 
    the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores 
    Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content
    
    Introduction
    
    * * * * *
        As expeditiously as practicable considering technological 
    feasibility, for the purposes of Criterion 6A, means as quickly as 
    possible considering: the physical characteristics of the tailings 
    and the site; the limits of available technology; the need for 
    consistency with mandatory requirements of other regulatory 
    programs; and factors beyond the control of the licensee. The phrase 
    permits consideration of the cost of compliance only to the extent 
    specifically provided for by use of the term available technology.
        Available technology means technologies and methods for 
    emplacing a final radon barrier on uranium mill tailings piles or 
    impoundments. This term shall not be construed to include 
    extraordinary measures or techniques that would impose costs that 
    are grossly excessive as measured by practice within the industry 
    (or one that is reasonably analogous), (such as, by way of 
    illustration only, unreasonable overtime, staffing, or 
    transportation requirements, etc., considering normal practice in 
    the industry; laser fusion of soils, etc.), provided there is 
    reasonable progress toward emplacement of the final radon barrier. 
    To determine grossly excessive costs, the relevant baseline against 
    which cost shall be compared is the cost estimate for tailings 
    impoundment closure contained in the licensee's approved reclamation 
    plan, but costs beyond these estimates shall not automatically be 
    considered grossly excessive.
    * * * * *
        Factors beyond the control of the licensee means factors 
    proximately causing delay in meeting the schedule in the applicable 
    reclamation plan for the timely emplacement of the final radon 
    barrier notwithstanding the good faith efforts of the licensee to 
    complete the barrier in compliance with paragraph (1) of Criterion 
    6A. These factors may include, but are not limited to--
        (1) Physical conditions at the site;
        (2) Inclement weather or climatic conditions;
        (3) An act of God;
        (4) An act of war;
        (5) A judicial or administrative order or decision, or change to 
    the statutory, regulatory, or other legal requirements applicable to 
    the licensee's facility that would preclude or delay the performance 
    of activities required for compliance;
        (6) Labor disturbances;
        (7) Any modifications, cessation or delay ordered by State, 
    Federal, or local agencies;
        (8) Delays beyond the time reasonably required in obtaining 
    necessary government permits, licenses, approvals, or consent for 
    activities described in the reclamation plan proposed by the 
    licensee that result from agency failure to take final action after 
    the licensee has made a good faith, timely effort to submit legally 
    sufficient applications, responses to requests (including relevant 
    data requested by the agencies), or other information, including 
    approval of the reclamation plan; and
        (9) An act or omission of any third party over whom the licensee 
    has no control.
        Final radon barrier means the earthen cover (or approved 
    alternative cover) over tailings or waste constructed to comply with 
    Criterion 6 of this appendix (excluding erosion protection 
    features).
    * * * * *
        Milestone means an action or event that is required to occur by 
    an enforceable date.
    * * * * *
        Operation means that a uranium or thorium mill tailings pile or 
    impoundment is being used for the continued placement of byproduct 
    material or is in standby status for such placement. A pile or 
    impoundment is in operation from the day that byproduct material is 
    first placed in the pile or impoundment until the day final closure 
    begins.
    * * * * *
        Reclamation plan, for the purposes of Criterion 6A, means the 
    plan detailing activities to accomplish reclamation of the tailings 
    or waste disposal area in accordance with the technical criteria of 
    this appendix. The reclamation plan must include a schedule for 
    reclamation milestones that are key to the completion of the final 
    radon barrier including as appropriate, but not limited to, wind 
    blown tailings retrieval and placement on the pile, interim 
    stabilization (including dewatering or the removal of freestanding 
    liquids and recontouring), and final radon barrier construction. 
    (Reclamation of tailings must also be addressed in the closure plan; 
    the detailed reclamation plan may be incorporated into the closure 
    plan.)
    * * * * *
        Criterion 6 (1) In disposing of waste byproduct material, 
    licensees shall place an earthen cover (or approved alternative) 
    over tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall 
    close the waste disposal area in accordance with a design1 
    which provides reasonable assurance of control of radiological 
    hazards to (i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent 
    reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and 
    (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, 
    and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so 
    as not to exceed an average2 release rate of 20 picocuries per 
    square meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the extent practicable 
    throughout the effective design life determined pursuant to (1)(i) 
    of this Criterion. In computing required tailings cover thicknesses, 
    moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally in similar 
    soils in similar circumstances may not be considered. Direct gamma 
    exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background 
    levels. The effects of any thin synthetic layer may not be taken 
    into account in determining the calculated radon exhalation level. 
    If non-soil materials are proposed as cover materials, it must be 
    demonstrated that these materials will not crack or degrade by 
    differential settlement, weathering, or other mechanism, over long-
    term intervals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\In the case of thorium byproduct materials, the standard 
    applies only to design. Monitoring for radon emissions from thorium 
    byproduct materials after installation of an appropriately designed 
    cover is not required.
        \2\This average applies to the entire surface of each disposal 
    area over a period of a least one year, but a period short compared 
    to 100 years. Radon will come from both byproduct materials and from 
    covering materials. Radon emissions from covering materials should 
    be estimated as part of developing a closure plan for each site. The 
    standard, however, applies only to emissions from byproduct 
    materials to the atmosphere.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        (2) As soon as reasonably achievable after emplacement of the 
    final cover to limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct 
    material and prior to placement of erosion protection barriers or 
    other features necessary for long-term control of the tailings, the 
    licensee shall verify through appropriate testing and analysis that 
    the design and construction of the final radon barrier is effective 
    in limiting releases of radon-222 to a level not exceeding 20 pCi/
    m\2\s averaged over the entire pile or impoundment using the 
    procedures described in 40 CFR part 61, appendix B, Method 115, or 
    another method of verification approved by the Commission as being 
    at least as effective in demonstrating the effectiveness of the 
    final radon barrier.
        (3) When phased emplacement of the final radon barrier is 
    included in the applicable reclamation plan, the verification of 
    radon-222 release rates required in paragraph (2) of this criterion 
    must be conducted for each portion of the pile or impoundment as the 
    final radon barrier for that portion is emplaced.
        (4) Within ninety days of the completion of all testing and 
    analysis relevant to the required verification in paragraphs (2) and 
    (3) of this criterion, the uranium mill licensee shall report to the 
    Commission the results detailing the actions taken to verify that 
    levels of release of radon-222 do not exceed 20 pCi/m\2\s when 
    averaged over the entire pile or impoundment. The licensee shall 
    maintain records until termination of the license documenting the 
    source of input parameters including the results of all measurements 
    on which they are based, the calculations and/or analytical methods 
    used to derive values for input parameters, and the procedure used 
    to determine compliance. These records shall be kept in a form 
    suitable for transfer to the custodial agency at the time of 
    transfer of the site to DOE or a State for long-term care if 
    requested.
        (5) Near surface cover materials (i.e., within the top three 
    meters) may not include waste or rock that contains elevated levels 
    of radium; soils used for near surface cover must be essentially the 
    same, as far as radioactivity is concerned, as that of surrounding 
    surface soils. This is to ensure that surface radon exhalation is 
    not significantly above background because of the cover material 
    itself.
        (6) The design requirements in this criterion for longevity and 
    control of radon releases apply to any portion of a licensed and/or 
    disposal site unless such portion contains a concentration of radium 
    in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a 
    result of byproduct material, does not exceed the background level 
    by more than: (i) 5 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) of radium-226, or, 
    in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over 
    the first 15 centimeters (cm) below the surface, and (ii) 15 pCi/g 
    of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, 
    radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below 
    the surface.
        (7) The licensee shall also address the nonradiological hazards 
    associated with the wastes in planning and implementing closure. The 
    licensee shall ensure that disposal areas are closed in a manner 
    that minimizes the need for further maintenance. To the extent 
    necessary to prevent threats to human health and the environment, 
    the licensee shall control, minimize, or eliminate post-closure 
    escape of nonradiological hazardous constituents, leachate, 
    contaminated rainwater, or waste decomposition products to the 
    ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere.
        Criterion 6A (1) For impoundments containing uranium byproduct 
    materials, the final radon barrier must be completed as 
    expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility 
    after the pile or impoundment ceases operation in accordance with a 
    written, Commission-approved reclamation plan. (The term as 
    expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility 
    as specifically defined in the Introduction of this appendix 
    includes factors beyond the control of the licensee.) Deadlines for 
    completion of the final radon barrier and, if applicable, the 
    following interim milestones must be established as a condition of 
    the individual license: windblown tailings retrieval and placement 
    on the pile and interim stabilization (including dewatering or the 
    removal of freestanding liquids and recontouring). The placement of 
    erosion protection barriers or other features necessary for long-
    term control of the tailings must also be completed in a timely 
    manner in accordance with a written, Commission-approved reclamation 
    plan.
        (2) The Commission may approve a licensee's request to extend 
    the time for performance of milestones related to emplacement of the 
    final radon barrier if, after providing an opportunity for public 
    participation, the Commission finds that the licensee has adequately 
    demonstrated in the manner required in paragraph (2) of Criterion 6 
    that releases of radon-222 do not exceed an average of 20 pCi/m\2\s. 
    If the delay is approved on the basis that the radon releases do not 
    exceed 20 pCi/m\2\s, a verification of radon levels, as required by 
    paragraph (2) of Criterion 6, must be made annually during the 
    period of delay. In addition, once the Commission has established 
    the date in the reclamation plan for the milestone for completion of 
    the final radon barrier, the Commission may extend that date based 
    on cost if, after providing an opportunity for public participation, 
    the Commission finds that the licensee is making good faith efforts 
    to emplace the final radon barrier, the delay is consistent with the 
    definition of available technology, and the radon releases caused by 
    the delay will not result in a significant incremental risk to the 
    public health.
        (3) The Commission may authorize by license amendment, upon 
    licensee request, a portion of the impoundment to accept uranium 
    byproduct material or such materials that are similar in physical, 
    chemical, and radiological characteristics to the uranium mill 
    tailings and associated wastes already in the pile or impoundment, 
    from other sources, during the closure process. No such 
    authorization will be made if it results in a delay or impediment to 
    emplacement of the final radon barrier over the remainder of the 
    impoundment in a manner that will achieve levels of radon-222 
    releases not exceeding 20 pCi/m\2\s averaged over the entire 
    impoundment. The verification required in paragraph (2) of Criterion 
    6 may be completed with a portion of the impoundment being used for 
    further disposal if the Commission makes a final finding that the 
    impoundment will continue to achieve a level of radon-222 releases 
    not exceeding 20 pCi/m2s averaged over the entire impoundment. 
    In this case, after the final radon barrier is complete except for 
    the continuing disposal area, (a) only byproduct material will be 
    authorized for disposal, (b) the disposal will be limited to the 
    specified existing disposal area, and (c) this authorization will 
    only be made after providing opportunity for public participation. 
    Reclamation of the disposal area, as appropriate, must be completed 
    in a timely manner after disposal operations cease in accordance 
    with paragraph (1) of Criterion 6; however, these actions are not 
    required to be complete as part of meeting the deadline for final 
    radon barrier construction.
    
        Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of May, 1994.
    
        For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
    John C. Hoyle,
    Acting Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 94-13248 Filed 5-31-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
7/1/1994
Published:
06/01/1994
Department:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
94-13248
Dates:
This regulation becomes effective on July 1, 1994.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: June 1, 1994
RINs:
3150-AE77
CFR: (4)
40 CFR 40.42(c)(2)(i)
40 CFR 40.42(c)(2)(iv)
40 CFR 40.42
40 CFR 40.63