94-17089. National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Final Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-17089]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: July 15, 1994]
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part III
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    40 CFR Part 61
    
    
    
    
    National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Final Rule
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 61
    
    [FRL-5011-1]
    RIN 2060-AE23
    
     
    National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: EPA is rescinding 40 CFR part 61, subpart T (subpart T) as it 
    applies to owners and operators of uranium mill tailings disposal sites 
    licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or an affected 
    Agreement State (Agreement States). As required by section 112(d)(9) of 
    the Clean Air Act as amended, EPA has determined that the NRC 
    regulatory program protects public health with an ample margin of 
    safety to the same level as would implementation of subpart T. Subpart 
    T is a National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
    (NESHAPs) which was published on December 15, 1989 and which regulates 
    emissions of radon-222 into the ambient air from uranium mill tailings 
    disposal sites. Subpart T continues to apply to unlicensed uranium mill 
    tailings disposal sites currently regulated under subpart T that are 
    under the control of the Department of Energy (DOE).
    
    DATES: This rule is effective June 29, 1994. The provisions in this 
    rule will be applied immediately to all affected facilities including 
    existing sources. Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 
    judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a 
    petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
    District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of publication of this 
    rule. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the provisions which are the 
    subject of today's rule will not be subject to judicial review in any 
    civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these 
    requirements.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gale C. Bonanno, Risk Assessment and 
    Air Standards Branch, Criteria and Standards Division, 6602J, Office of 
    Radiation and Indoor Air, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
    D.C. 20460 (202) 233-9219.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Docket
    
        Docket A-91-67 contains the rulemaking record. The docket is 
    available for public inspection between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
    Monday through Friday, in room M1500 of Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, 
    SW, Washington, DC 20460. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
    
    Table of Contents
    
    I. Background
    
    A. Description of Uranium Mill Tailings
    B. Regulatory History
    C. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
    D. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA, NRC and affected 
    Agreement States
    E. The Settlement Agreement
    
    II. Rationale for Final Rule to Rescind 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart T for 
    NRC and Agreement State Licensees
    
    A. The Regulatory Scheme Under UMTRCA
    B. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Section 112(d)(9) (``Simpson 
    Amendment'')
    C. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
    D. Settlement Agreement
    E. Actions by NRC and EPA Pursuant to the MOU and Settlement 
    Agreement
        1. EPA Regulatory Actions
        2. NRC Regulatory Action
        3. Amendment of NRC and Agreement State Licenses
    
    III. Final Rule to Rescind 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart T for NRC and 
    Agreement State Licensees
    
    A. EPA Determination under CAA Section 112(d)(9)
        1. Background
        2. EPA's UMTRCA Standards
        3. NRC's Conforming Regulations
        4. License Amendments
        5. Judicial or Administrative Challenges
    B. Reconsideration Provisions
        1. December 31, 1991 Proposed Rule to Rescind subpart T
        2. Reconsideration Options
        3. Reconsideration Provisions Adopted Today
    
    IV. Discussion of Comments and Response to Comments From NPR
    
    V. Miscellaneous
    
    A. Disposition of Pending Judicial Challenges and Petitions for 
    Reconsideration
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    
    1. Background
    
    A. Description of Uranium Mill Tailings
    
        Uranium mill tailings are sand-like wastes that result from the 
    processing of uranium ore. Tailings are stored in large surface 
    impoundments, called piles, in amounts from less than one million tons 
    to over thirty million tons, over areas that may cover hundreds of 
    acres. Most piles are located in the Western United States, and all 
    piles emit radon gas, a decay product of radium in the waste material 
    resulting from the processing of ore to recover uranium at the uranium 
    mills.
    
    B. Regulatory History
    
        To deal specifically with the risks associated with these tailings, 
    Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act 
    (UMTRCA) in 1978 (42 U.S.C. 2022, 7901-7942). In enacting UMTRCA, 
    Congress found that uranium mill tailings may pose a potential and 
    significant radiation health hazard to the public, and that every 
    reasonable effort should be made to provide for the stabilization, 
    disposal, and control in a safe and environmentally sound manner of 
    such tailings in order to prevent or minimize radon diffusion into the 
    environment and to prevent or minimize other environmental hazards from 
    such tailings. See 42 U.S.C. 7901(a). Under UMTRCA, two programs were 
    established to protect public health and the environment from the 
    hazards associated with uranium mill tailings. One program (Title I) 
    required the Department of Energy (DOE) to conduct the necessary 
    remedial actions at designated inactive uranium mill tailing sites to 
    achieve compliance with the general environmental standards to be 
    promulgated by EPA. These sites were generally abandoned uranium 
    processing sites for which a license issued by the NRC or its 
    predecessor, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), was not in effect on 
    January 1, 1978. The other program (Title II) pertained to active 
    sites, which are those that are licensed by the NRC or an affected 
    Agreement State. Requirements for licensed sites include the final 
    disposal of tailings, including the control of radon after milling 
    operations cease. UMTRCA also required that EPA promulgate standards 
    for these licensed sites, including standards that protect human health 
    and the environment in a manner consistent with standards established 
    under Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended. The NRC, 
    or an Agreement State, is responsible for implementing the EPA 
    standards at licensed uranium milling sites.
        As part of NRC's 1982 authorization and appropriations, Congress 
    amended UMTRCA on January 4, 1983. Public Law 97-415, sections 18(a) 
    and 22(b), reprinted in 2 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News (96 Stat.) 
    2077 and 2080. As partially amended thereby, EPA was required to 
    promulgate standards of general applicability for the protection of the 
    public health, safety, and the environment from radiological and 
    nonradiological hazards associated with the processing and with the 
    possession, transfer, and disposal of byproduct material as defined 
    under section 11e(2) of the AEA, e.g., uranium mill tailings. 
    Requirements established by the NRC with respect to byproduct material 
    must conform to the EPA standards. Any requirements of such standards 
    adopted by the NRC shall be amended as the NRC deems necessary to 
    conform to EPA's standards. In establishing such standards, the 
    Administrator was to consider the risk to the public health, safety, 
    and the environment, the environmental and economic costs of applying 
    such standards, and such other factors as the Administrator determines 
    to be appropriate. See 42 U.S.C. 2022(b)(1).
        As promulgated by EPA under subpart D of 40 CFR part 192 in 1983 
    and implemented by NRC pursuant to its regulations at 10 CFR part 40, 
    appendix A, a Title II site licensed by NRC or an Agreement State, 
    could indefinitely continue to emit radon at levels that could result 
    in risks higher than allowed under the CAA. It was this possibility 
    which compelled EPA to promulgate subpart T of 40 CFR part 61 under CAA 
    section 112. In addition, the UMTRCA regulations called for an 
    impoundment design that would achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/
    m2-s flux standard for 1,000 years, or at least 200 years, but 
    prior to the recent EPA amendments did not include any requirement that 
    monitoring occur to verify the efficacy of the design.
        On October 16, 1985, NRC promulgated rules at 10 CFR part 40, 
    appendix A to conform NRC's regulations issued five years earlier to 
    the provisions of EPA's general UMTRCA standards other than those 
    affecting groundwater protection at 40 CFR part 192 (50 FR 41852). NRC 
    completed conforming amendments for groundwater protection in appendix 
    A of 10 CFR part 40 in 1987.
        Neither the UMTRCA standards promulgated by EPA in 1983 nor the NRC 
    standards promulgated in 1980 and amended in 1985, established 
    compliance schedules to ensure that non-operational tailings piles 
    would be closed, and that the 20 pCi/m2-s standard would be met, 
    within a reasonable period of time. Moreover, the EPA standards and NRC 
    criteria also did not require monitoring to ensure compliance with the 
    flux standard. 50 FR 41852 (October 16, 1985). To rectify these 
    shortcomings of the then current EPA and NRC programs regulating 
    uranium mill tailings, EPA promulgated standards under Section 112 of 
    the CAA on October 31, 1989, to ensure that the piles would be closed 
    in a timely manner with monitoring.
        On December 15, 1989, EPA published national standards regulating 
    radionuclide emissions to the ambient air from several source 
    categories, including non-operational sites used for the disposal of 
    uranium mill tailings. (54 FR 51654). These sites are either under the 
    control of the DOE pursuant to Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings 
    Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) of 1978, 42 USC 7901 et. seq., or are 
    under the control of NRC or Agreement State-licensees pursuant to Title 
    II of UMTRCA. These standards--subpart T of 40 CFR part 61 (subpart 
    T)--were promulgated pursuant to the authority of Clean Air Act (CAA or 
    Act) section 112 as it existed in 1989.
        Prior to today's action, subpart T of 40 CFR part 61, limited 
    radon-222 emissions to the ambient air from non-operational uranium 
    mill tailings disposal sites licensed by the NRC or an affected 
    Agreement State. Subpart T required that these sites, which consist of 
    large (i.e., numerous acre) impoundments or piles, comply with a radon 
    flux standard of 20 pCi/m2-s. 40 CFR 61.222(a). Moreover, 
    compliance must be achieved within two years of when the site becomes 
    non-operational, 40 CFR 61.222(b), which for piles which had ceased 
    operation prior to the time of promulgation was no later than December 
    15, 1991. While at the time of promulgation EPA recognized that many 
    sources might not be able to achieve this date, EPA was constrained by 
    then existing CAA section 112(c)(1)(B)(ii) which allows a maximum of 
    two years for facilities to come into compliance. EPA stated that for 
    those sites which could not meet the two-year date, the Agency would 
    negotiate expeditious compliance schedules pursuant to its enforcement 
    authority under CAA section 113. See 54 FR 51683. Subpart T also called 
    for monitoring and recordkeeping to establish and demonstrate 
    compliance. See 40 CFR 61.223 and 61.224.
        Subpart T was part of a larger promulgation of radionuclide NESHAPs 
    that represent the Agency's application of the policy for regulating 
    pollutants under then existing CAA section 112, which was first 
    announced in the benzene NESHAPs. 54 FR 38044 (September 14, 1989). The 
    NESHAPs policy utilized a two-step approach. In the first step, EPA 
    considered the lifetime risk to the maximally exposed individual, and 
    found that it is presumptively acceptable if it is no higher than 
    approximately one in ten thousand. This presumptive level provides a 
    benchmark for judging the acceptability of a category of emissions. 
    This first step also considers other health and risk factors such as 
    projected incidence of cancer, the estimated number of persons exposed 
    within each individual lifetime risk range, the weight of evidence 
    presented in the risk assessment, and the estimated incidence of non-
    fatal cancer and other health effects. After considering all of this 
    information, a final decision on a safe level of acceptable risk is 
    made. This becomes the starting point for the second step, determining 
    the ample margin of safety.
        In the second step, EPA strives to provide protection for the 
    greatest number of persons possible to an individual lifetime risk 
    level no higher than approximately one in one million. In this step, 
    the Agency sets a standard which provides an ample margin of safety, 
    again considering all of the health risk and other health information 
    considered in the first step, as well as additional factors such as 
    costs and economic impacts of controls, technological feasibility, 
    uncertainties, and any other relevant factors.
        EPA noted that standards it had already promulgated pursuant to 
    UMTRCA (42 U.S.C. 2022, 7901-7942) would eventually limit radon 
    emissions from those sites to a flux of 20 pCi/m\2\-s (see 40 CFR part 
    192, subpart D), and thus EPA referred to that level as ``baseline.'' 
    EPA's risk assessment revealed that compliance with the 20 pCi/m\2\-s 
    baseline would result in an estimated lifetime risk to the maximally 
    exposed individual of approximately 1 x 10-4, a level EPA 
    determined to be safe under the first step of the analysis. EPA further 
    concluded in the second step, which considers additional factors such 
    as cost and technological feasibility, that the baseline level also 
    provided an ample margin of safety.
        Even though EPA determined that the baseline was protective of 
    public health with an ample margin of safety, EPA still found it was 
    necessary to promulgate subpart T. This was because the baseline 
    assumed compliance with the UMTRCA regulations even though those 
    regulations did not require that compliance occur in the foreseeable 
    future and, in fact, many sites were not proceeding towards the 
    baseline level at the time subpart T was promulgated. In other words, 
    EPA promulgated subpart T to address the timing issue, which was not 
    addressed in the UMTRCA regulations.
        The primary subpart T standard is the requirement that radon-222 
    emissions not exceed a flux of 20 pCi/m\2\-s. 40 CFR 61.222(a). 
    Additionally, it requires that, once a uranium mill tailings pile or 
    impoundment ceases to be operational, it must be disposed of and 
    brought into compliance with the emission limit 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. 
    Lastly, it requires monitoring of the disposed pile to demonstrate 
    compliance with the radon emission limit. See 40 CFR 61.223 and 61.224. 
    In its 1989 action, EPA recognized that even though NRC implements 
    general EPA standards (promulgated under UMTRCA) which also regulate 
    these sites and call for compliance with a 20 pCi/m\2\-s flux standard 
    (see 40 CFR part 192, subpart D), the UMTRCA regulatory program did not 
    answer the critical timing concern addressed by subpart T.
    
        The existing UMTRCA regulations set no time limits for disposal 
    of the piles. Some piles have remained uncovered for decades 
    emitting radon. Although recent action has been taken to move toward 
    disposal of these piles, some of them may still remain uncovered for 
    years.
    
    54 FR at 51683. However, due to then-existing CAA section 
    112(c)(1)(B)(ii), EPA was constrained to requiring compliance with the 
    20 pCi/m\2\-s baseline within two years, a date the Agency recognized 
    many sites might find impossible to meet. EPA announced that those 
    situations could be dealt with through site-specific enforcement 
    agreements under CAA section 113. Because EPA felt constrained by the 
    CAA as it existed at that time, EPA stated that for those sites the 
    Agency would negotiate expeditious compliance schedules pursuant to its 
    enforcement authority under CAA section 113. See 54 FR 51683. By so 
    doing, subpart T in effect mandated that the cover to meet that 
    emissions level be installed as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility.
        The numerical radon emission limit of subpart T is the same as the 
    UMTRCA standard at 40 CFR part 192, subpart D (subpart D) (although 
    under UMTRCA, the limit is to be met through proper design of the 
    disposal impoundment, and is to be implemented by DOE and NRC for the 
    individual sites, while under the CAA, the standard is an emissions 
    limit with compliance established by EPA through monitoring). However, 
    the two year disposal requirement and the radon monitoring requirement 
    were not separately required by the then existing UMTRCA regulations.
        EPA amended 40 CFR part 192, subpart D on November 15, 1993, (58 FR 
    60340) to fill a specific regulatory gap with respect to timing and 
    monitoring. Under subpart D, sites are now required to construct a 
    permanent radon barrier pursuant to a design to achieve compliance with 
    the 20 pCi/m\2\-s flux standard as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility (including factors beyond the 
    control of the licensee). EPA announced its goal that this occur by 
    December 31, 1997, for those non-operational uranium mill tailings 
    piles listed in the MOU between EPA, NRC and the affected Agreement 
    States (at 56 FR 67568), or seven years after the date on which the 
    impoundments cease operation for all other piles. The new requirement 
    for verifying the flux with monitoring is meant to assure the efficacy 
    of the design of the permanent radon barrier following construction.
        Section 84a(2) of the Atomic Energy Act requires NRC to conform its 
    regulations to EPA's regulations promulgated under UMTRCA. As noted 
    above, the then existing NRC criteria while providing a comprehensive 
    response to EPA's general UMTRCA standards did not compel sites to 
    proceed to final closure by a certain date nor did they require 
    monitoring to confirm the efficacy of the design of the cover. NRC 
    proposed uranium mill tailings regulations to conform the NRC 
    requirements to EPA's proposed amended standards at 40 CFR part 192 
    subpart D. 58 FR 58657 (November 3, 1993). The final NRC regulations 
    amend Criterion 6 and add a new Criterion 6A together with new 
    definitions in the Introduction to appendix A to part 40 of title 10 of 
    the CFR. (59 FR 28220, June 1, 1994).
        These CAA and UMTRCA programs duplicate each other by creating dual 
    regulatory oversight, including independent procedural requirements, 
    while seeking to ensure compliance with the same numerical 20 pCi/m\2\-
    s flux standard. Concern over this duplication inspired several 
    petitions for reconsideration, most notably from NRC, the American 
    Mining Congress (AMC) and Homestake Mining Co. It was also alleged that 
    subpart T was unlawful because it was physically impossible for some 
    sites to come into compliance with subpart T in the time required. 
    While those petitions remained pending before EPA (at least in part), 
    EPA has taken several actions to address the issues they raised, 
    including publishing the proposal to rescind subpart T, as well as the 
    Final Rule to amend 40 CFR part 192, subpart D (UMTRCA regulations) and 
    a Final Rule staying subpart T pending the conclusion of this 
    rulemaking.
    
    C. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
    
        After promulgation of subpart T (and receipt of reconsideration 
    petitions), the Clean Air Act was substantially amended in November 
    1990. Included in the amended Act was an amendment that speaks directly 
    to the duplication issue. Newly enacted section 112(d)(9) provides that 
    no standard for radionuclide emissions from any category or subcategory 
    of facilities licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (or an 
    Agreement State) is required to be promulgated under section 112 if the 
    Administrator determines, by rule, and after consultation with the 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that the regulatory program established 
    by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act 
    for such category or subcategory provides an ample margin of safety to 
    protect the public health. This provision strives to eliminate 
    duplication of effort between EPA and NRC, so long as public health is 
    protected with an ample margin of safety.
        Moreover, Congress expressed sensitivity to the special compliance 
    problems of uranium mill tailings sites through new section 112(i)(3). 
    This provision provides an additional 3-year extension to mining waste 
    operations (e.g., uranium mill tailings) if the 4 years allowed 
    (including a one year extension) for compliance with standards 
    promulgated under the amended section 112 is insufficient to dry and 
    cover the mining waste (thereby controlling emissions).
    
    D. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Between EPA, NRC and Affected 
    Agreement States
    
        In July of 1991, EPA, NRC and the affected Agreement States entered 
    into discussions over 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 Agreement 
    States which outlines the steps each party will take to both eliminate 
    regulatory redundancy and to ensure uranium mill tailings piles are 
    closed as expeditiously as practicable. See 56 FR 55434 (MOU reproduced 
    as part of proposal to stay subpart T); see also 56 FR 67537 (final 
    rule to stay subpart T). The primary purpose of the MOU is to ensure 
    that owners of uranium mill tailings disposal sites that have ceased 
    operation, and owners of sites that will cease operation in the future, 
    bring those piles into compliance with the 20 pCi/m\2\-s flux standard 
    as expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility 
    (including factors beyond the control of the licensee) with the 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 and standby sites enter disposal 
    status. This goal comports with Congress's concern over timing as 
    reflected in CAA section 112(i)(3), as amended.
    
    E. The Settlement Agreement
    
        As contemplated by the MOU, on December 31, 1991, EPA took final 
    action to stay and proposed rescission of subpart T under section 
    112(d)(9), and issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking under 
    UMTRCA. See 55 FR 67537, 67561 and 67569. In order to preserve its 
    rights, EDF filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the stay. EDF 
    v. Reilly, No. 92-1082 (D.C. Cir.). Litigation had previously been 
    filed by EDF, NRDC, AMC, Homestake and others, challenging subpart T. 
    AMC, et al. v. EPA, Nos. 90-1058, 90-1063, 90-1068, and 90-1074 (D.C. 
    Cir.). NRC, AMC and Homestake had also filed an administrative petition 
    for reconsideration of subpart T.
        Discussions continued with the litigants and NRC, and in February 
    1993, an agreement was reached to settle the pending litigation and the 
    administrative proceeding, avoid potential future litigation, and 
    otherwise agree to a potential approach to regulation of NRC-licensed 
    non-operational uranium mill tailings disposal sites. See 58 FR 17230 
    (April 1, 1993) (notice announcing settlement agreement under CAA 
    section 113(g)). NRC agreed in principle with the agreement by letter.
        The settlement agreement adds comprehensive detail to, and thereby 
    continues, the approach set forth in the MOU. Actions implemented under 
    the settlement agreement should result in the expeditious control of 
    radon-222 emissions at non-operational uranium mill tailings disposal 
    sites without the delays and resource expenditures engendered by 
    litigation and contentious administrative process. This enables EPA to 
    satisfy the criteria of section 112(d)(9) that EPA find, by rule, that 
    the NRC regulatory program protects public health with an ample margin 
    of safety. It does this, in part, by providing for changing EPA's 
    UMTRCA regulations such that public health would be as well protected 
    under UMTRCA as would implementation of subpart T under the CAA.
    
    II. Rationale for Final Rule To Rescind 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart T for 
    NRC and Agreement State Licensees
    
        In light of the new statutory authority provided EPA by section 
    112(d)(9) of the Clean Air Act as amended, EPA met with NRC and the 
    affected Agreement States to determine whether, with certain 
    modifications to its regulatory program under UMTRCA, the NRC 
    regulatory program might provide an ample margin of safety. If so, 
    subpart T would be rendered superfluous and, therefore, needlessly 
    duplicative and burdensome such that rescission pursuant to CAA section 
    112(d)(9) would be appropriate.
        In applying the risk methodology for CAA section 112 to the risk 
    assessment for subpart T, EPA has already determined that the baseline 
    that would result once the 20 pCi/m\2\-s UMTRCA standard is met 
    protects public health with an ample margin of safety. Thus, since the 
    regulatory program implemented by NRC assures that sites will achieve 
    the baseline (20 pCi/m\2\-s) as soon as practicable considering 
    technological feasibility and factors beyond the control of the 
    licensee, the NRC program protects the public to the same extent as 
    subpart T, and subpart T is not necessary for these facilities. More 
    specifically, appropriate modifications to the UMTRCA regulatory scheme 
    as implemented by NRC and the affected Agreement States to ensure 
    specific, enforceable closure deadlines and monitoring requirements 
    such that compliance with the baseline occurs as expeditiously as 
    practicable considering technological feasibility and factors beyond 
    the control of the licensee, protect public health with an ample margin 
    of safety. In so concluding, EPA relies wholly upon the risk analysis 
    it conducted in promulgating subpart T. EPA is not revisiting that 
    analysis here.
    
    A. The Regulatory Scheme Under UMTRCA
    
        As a supplement to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
    UMTRCA (42 U.S.C. 2022, 7901-7942) was enacted to comprehensively 
    address the dangers presented by uranium mill tailings, including their 
    disposal:
    
        Uranium mill tailings located at active and inactive mill 
    operations may pose a potential and significant radiation health 
    hazard to the public, and * * * the protection of the public health, 
    safety, and welfare * * * require[s] that every reasonable effort be 
    made to provide for the stabilization, disposal, and control in a 
    safe and environmentally sound manner of such tailings in order to 
    prevent or minimize radon diffusion into the environment * * *.
    
    42 U.S.C. 7901(a); see American Mining Congress v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617 
    (10th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 1158 (1986). As to uranium 
    mill tailings disposal sites in particular, UMTRCA gives the Department 
    of Energy (DOE) the responsibility to clean up and dispose of certain 
    sites (i.e., Title I), and gives NRC the responsibility for regulating 
    those sites that are owned and operated by its licensees (i.e., Title 
    II). EPA is responsible for promulgating the generally applicable 
    environmental standards to be implemented by both NRC and DOE. 42 
    U.S.C. 2022(a), 7911-7924; AMC, 724 F.2d at 621. EPA published its 
    final UMTRCA regulations on December 15, 1982 for Title I sites and on 
    September 30, 1983 for Title II sites. 48 FR 590 and 48 FR 45926 
    (codified at 40 CFR part 192).
        Parts of EPA's final UMTRCA regulations are directed to the 
    permanent disposal of uranium mill tailings. See 40 CFR part 192, 
    subpart D. Among the requirements of subpart D is the mandate that 
    radon releases from the disposal sites not exceed a flux of 20 pCi/
    m\2\-s. 40 CFR 192.32 (a) and (b). Other aspects of subpart D pertain 
    to groundwater, monitoring, design, and duration of closure. See 40 CFR 
    192.32 and 192.33. With the exception of the groundwater provisions at 
    40 CFR 192.20(a)(2)-(3), applicable to Title I sites, all aspects of 
    EPA's regulations were upheld by the Tenth Circuit in AMC v. Thomas. 
    772 F.2d at 640. EPA is currently engaged in rulemaking to address the 
    court's remand of the Title I groundwater provisions.
        Because NRC implements EPA's general UMTRCA standards for its 
    licensees (as do its Agreement States), it has promulgated its own 
    implementing regulations in the form of ``criteria.'' See generally 10 
    CFR part 40, appendix A. While these criteria set forth a variety of 
    specific requirements--financial, technical, and administrative--to 
    govern the final reclamation (i.e., closure) design for each disposal 
    site, they also provide for ``site-specific'' flexibility by 
    authorizing alternatives that are at least as stringent as EPA's 
    general standards and NRC's criteria, ``to the extent practicable'' as 
    provided in section 84c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 
    10 CFR part 40, appendix A, Introduction.
        Overall, NRC's implementation criteria set forth a rigorous program 
    governing the reclamation of the disposal sites so that closure will 
    (1) last for 1,000 years to the extent reasonable, but in any event at 
    least 200 years, and (2) limit radon release to 20 pCi/m2-s 
    throughout that period. The design must be able to withstand extreme 
    weather and other natural forces. Upon review, EPA believed the NRC 
    criteria comprise a comprehensive response to EPA's general standards 
    at 40 CFR part 192, subpart D. However, as noted above, nothing in 
    either EPA's 1983 general standards or NRC's 1985 amended implementing 
    criteria compelled sites to proceed towards final closure by a certain 
    date. This was the reason for EPA's decision in 1989 to promulgate the 
    subpart T NESHAPs under the CAA. Moreover, neither EPA's general UMTRCA 
    regulations, nor NRC's implementing criteria previously required 
    appropriate monitoring to ensure compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s 
    standard.
    
    B. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990: Section 112(d)(9) (``Simpson 
    Amendment'')
    
        The purpose of this provision is to preserve governmental resources 
    and avoid needless, burdensome, and potentially contradictory CAA 
    regulations. Specifically, section 112(d)(9) makes explicit that EPA 
    need not regulate radionuclides under section 112 of the CAA for those 
    radionuclide sources that are sufficiently regulated by NRC or its 
    Agreement States (under the Atomic Energy Act or its component Acts, 
    such as UMTRCA). More particularly, section 112(d)(9) allows EPA to 
    decline to regulate under section 112 if the Administrator determines 
    ``by rule, and after consultation with the [NRC],'' that NRC's 
    regulatory program for a particular source ``category or subcategory 
    provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health.''
        As EPA interprets section 112(d)(9), the Agency may rescind the 
    subpart T NESHAP as it applies to non-operational uranium mill tailings 
    disposal facilities licensed by NRC or an affected Agreement State if 
    the Agency (1) consults with NRC, (2) engages in public notice and 
    comment rulemaking, and (3) finds that the separate NRC regulatory 
    program provides an equivalent level of public health protection (i.e., 
    an ample margin of safety) as would implementation of subpart T. While 
    this rulemaking may commence prior to final development of NRC's 
    regulatory program, that program must fully satisfy the statute at the 
    time EPA takes final action. In so doing, EPA must find that the NRC 
    regulatory program satisfies the CAA standard, not that full and final 
    implementation of that program has already successfully occurred.
    
    C. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
    
        EPA, NRC and the affected Agreement States entered intensive 
    discussions resulting in the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding 
    (MOU), a copy of which was printed at the end of the proposed rule to 
    rescind subpart T published December 31, 1991 (56 FR 67568). The 
    primary purpose of the MOU is to ensure that non-operational uranium 
    mill tailings piles and impoundments licensed by NRC or an affected 
    Agreement State achieve compliance through emplacement of a permanent 
    radon barrier with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard specified in 
    EPA's UMTRCA standards (40 CFR 192.32(b)(1)) as expeditiously as 
    practicable considering technological feasibility (including factors 
    beyond the control of the licensee). The goal is that this occur at all 
    current disposal sites by the end of 1997, or within seven years of 
    when the existing operating and standby sites enter disposal status. 
    The MOU called for EPA to modify its UMTRCA regulations (at 40 CFR part 
    192, subpart D) to address the timing concern that resulted in EPA's 
    1989 decision to promulgate subpart T. In addition, the MOU called for 
    NRC to modify its implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 40, appendix 
    A, as appropriate, and to immediately commence efforts to amend the 
    licenses of the non-operational mill tailings disposal site owners and 
    operators to include reclamation plans that require compliance with the 
    20 pCi/m2-s standard as expeditiously as practicable considering 
    technological feasibility (including factors beyond the control of the 
    licensee). This was to be accomplished either through voluntary 
    cooperation with the licensees, or through administratively enforceable 
    orders. In accordance with the MOU, the NRC and affected Agreement 
    States agreed to amend the licenses of all sites whose milling 
    operations have ceased and whose tailings piles remain partially or 
    totally uncovered. The amended licenses would require each mill 
    operator to establish a detailed tailings closure plan for radon to 
    include key closure milestones and a schedule for timely emplacement of 
    a permanent radon barrier on all non-operational tailings impoundments 
    to ensure that radon emissions do not exceed a flux of 20 pCi/m2-
    s. These actions, coupled with NRC's commitment to enforce the amended 
    licenses, are intended to provide the basis for EPA to make the 
    requisite findings under CAA section 112(d)(9) for rescission of 
    subpart T.
    
    D. Settlement Agreement
    
        In light of CAA section 112(d)(9), and in order to foster a 
    consensus approach to regulation in this area, EPA then commenced 
    discussions with NRC, the American Mining Congress (AMC), and the 
    Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). As a result of discussions after 
    execution of the MOU, a final settlement agreement was executed between 
    EPA, AMC, EDF, NRDC and individual site owners, to which NRC agreed in 
    principle by letter. The settlement agreement continues the regulatory 
    approach set forth in the MOU adding extensive detail to that 
    agreement.
        Under the agreement between EDF, AMC, individual sites and EPA, the 
    pending litigation would not be dismissed until after certain terms in 
    the agreement were fulfilled. The parties agreed that upon rescission 
    of subpart T, they would jointly move the court to dismiss the 
    challenges pertaining solely to subpart T. (Paragraph III.1.) By the 
    terms of the agreement (paragraph III.15.), AMC's pending 
    administrative petition for reconsideration of subpart T becomes moot 
    with the final rescission of subpart T. Moreover, the agreement does 
    not legally bind or otherwise restrict EPA's rights or obligations 
    under law; rather, by its terms (paragraph III.12.), there is no 
    recourse for a court order to implement the agreement. Indeed, the only 
    remedy for failure to meet the terms of the final agreement is 
    activation by the litigants of the underlying litigation.
    
    E. Actions by NRC and EPA Pursuant to the MOU and Settlement Agreement
    
    1. EPA Regulatory Actions
        On December 31, 1991, EPA took several steps towards fulfilling its 
    responsibilities under the MOU and in implementing CAA section 
    112(d)(9) by publishing three Federal Register (FR) notices. In the 
    first notice (56 FR 67537), EPA published a Final Rule to stay the 
    effectiveness of 40 CFR part 61, subpart T, as it applies to owners and 
    operators of non-operational uranium mill tailings disposal sites 
    licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State. The stay will remain in 
    effect until the Agency rescinds the uranium mill tailings NESHAPs at 
    40 CFR part 61, subpart T. However, if EPA fails to complete that 
    rulemaking by June 30, 1994, the stay will expire and the requirements 
    of subpart T will become effective.
        In a second notice published on December 31, 1991, the Agency 
    proposed to rescind the NESHAPs for radionuclides that appears at 40 
    CFR part 61, subpart T, as it applies to non-operational uranium mill 
    tailings disposal sites licensed by the NRC or an Agreement State (56 
    FR 67561).
        In the third notice, EPA published an advanced notice of proposed 
    rulemaking to amend 40 CFR part 192, subpart D (56 FR 67569) to provide 
    for site closure to occur as expeditiously as practicable considering 
    technological feasibility (including factors beyond the control of the 
    licensee), and appropriate monitoring requirements for non-operational 
    uranium mill tailings piles. These amendments would ensure timely 
    compliance and add monitoring requirements currently lacking in the 
    UMTRCA regulations.
        EPA published a notice on June 8, 1993, proposing to amend 40 CFR 
    part 192, subpart D. (58 FR 32174). On November 15, 1993, EPA published 
    the Final Rule amending 40 CFR part 192, subpart D. (58 FR 60340). This 
    Final Rule requires: (1) Emplacement of a permanent radon barrier 
    constructed to achieve compliance with, including attainment of, the 20 
    pCi/m2-s flux standard by all NRC or Agreement State licensed 
    sites that, absent rescission, would be subject to subpart T; (2) 
    interim milestones to assure appropriate progress in emplacing the 
    permanent radon barrier; and (3) closure of the site closure as 
    expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility 
    (including factors beyond the control of the licensee) after the 
    impoundments cease operation. EPA announced a goal that this occur by 
    December 31, 1997, for those non-operational uranium mill tailings 
    piles listed in the MOU between EPA, NRC and affected Agreement States 
    (at 56 FR 67568), or seven years after the date on which the 
    impoundments cease operation for all other piles.
        As intended by EPA, the phrase ``as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility,'' means as quickly as possible 
    considering: (1) The physical characteristics of the tailings and 
    sites; (2) the limits of available technology; (3) the need for 
    consistency with mandatory requirements of other regulatory programs; 
    and (4) factors beyond the control of the licensee. While this phrase 
    does not preclude economic considerations to the extent provided by the 
    phrase ``available technology,'' it also does not contemplate 
    utilization of a cost-benefit analysis in setting compliance schedules. 
    The radon control compliance schedules are to be developed consistent 
    with the targets set forth in the MOU as reasonably applied to the 
    specific circumstances of each site.
        EPA recognized that the UMTRCA regulatory scheme encompasses a 
    design standard. EPA made minor amendments to this scheme to better 
    facilitate implementation of the regulation without fundamentally 
    altering the current method of compliance. Subpart D, as amended, 
    requires site control be carried out in accordance with a written 
    tailings closure plan (radon), and in a manner which ensures that 
    closure activities are initiated as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility (including factors beyond the 
    control of licensees). The tailings closure plan (radon), either as 
    originally written or subsequently amended, will be incorporated into 
    the individual site licenses, including provisions for and amendments 
    to the milestones for control, after NRC or an affected Agreement State 
    finds that the schedule reflects compliance as expeditiously as 
    practicable considering technological feasibility (including factors 
    beyond the control of the licensee). The compliance schedules are to be 
    developed consistent with the targets set forth in the MOU as 
    reasonably applied to the specific circumstances of each site with a 
    goal that final closure occur by December 31, 1997, for those non-
    operational uranium mill tailings piles listed in the MOU between EPA, 
    NRC and affected Agreement States (at 56 FR 67568), or seven years 
    after the date on which the impoundments cease operation for all other 
    piles. These schedules must include key closure milestones and other 
    milestones which are reasonably determined to promote timely compliance 
    with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard. Milestones which are not 
    reasonably determined to advance timely compliance with the radon air 
    emissions standard, e.g. installation of erosion protection and 
    groundwater corrective actions, are not relevant to the tailings 
    closure plans (radon). In addition, subpart D requires that licensees 
    ensure that radon closure milestone activities, such as wind blown 
    tailings retrieval and placement on the pile, interim stabilization 
    (including dewatering or the removal of freestanding liquids and 
    recontouring), and radon barrier construction, are undertaken to 
    achieve compliance with, including attainment of, the 20 pCi/m2-s 
    flux standard as expeditiously as practicable considering technological 
    feasibility.
        The goal of the amendments to subpart D is for existing sites, or 
    those that become non-operational in the future, to achieve compliance 
    as expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility 
    (including factors beyond the control of licensees) within the time 
    periods set forth in the MOU, including Attachment A thereto, and for 
    new sites to achieve compliance no later than seven years after 
    becoming non-operational.
        However, if the NRC or an Agreement State makes a finding that 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard has been 
    demonstrated through appropriate monitoring, after providing an 
    opportunity for public participation, then the performance of the 
    milestone(s) may be extended. If an extension is granted, then during 
    the period of the extension, compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux 
    standard must be demonstrated each year. Additionally, licensees may 
    request, based upon cost, that the final compliance date for 
    emplacement of the permanent radon barrier, or relevant milestone set 
    forth in the applicable license or incorporated in the tailings closure 
    plan (radon), be extended. The NRC or an affected Agreement State may 
    approve such a request if it finds, after providing the opportunity for 
    public participation, that: (1) The licensee is making good faith 
    efforts to emplace a permanent radon barrier constructed to achieve the 
    20 pCi/m2-s flux standard; (2) such delay is consistent with the 
    definition of ``available technology;'' and (3) such delay will not 
    result in radon emissions that are determined to result in significant 
    incremental risk to the public health. Such a finding should be 
    accompanied by new deadlines which reasonably correspond to the target 
    dates identified in Attachment A of the MOU. (56 FR 67569).
        EPA expects the NRC and Agreement States to act consistently with 
    their commitment in the MOU and provide for public notice and comment 
    on proposals or requests to (1) incorporate radon tailings closure 
    plans or other schedules for effecting emplacement of a permanent radon 
    barrier into licenses and (2) amend the radon tailings closure 
    schedules as necessary or appropriate for reasons of technological 
    feasibility (including factors beyond the control of the licensees). 
    Under the terms of the MOU, NRC should do so with notice timely 
    published in the Federal Register. In addition, consistent with the 
    MOU, members of the public may request NRC action on these matters 
    pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206. EPA also expects the Agreement States to 
    provide comparable opportunities for public participation pursuant to 
    their existing authorities and procedures.
        The UMTRCA regulations, as promulgated by EPA and implemented by 
    NRC prior to the 1993 amendments, while ultimately limiting emissions 
    to the same numerical level as subpart T, were supported by a variety 
    of design-based substantive and procedural requirements that speak to 
    UMTRCA's unique concern that final site closure occur in a manner that 
    will last 1,000 years or at least 200 years, but did not require 
    monitoring of emissions to confirm the performance of the earthen 
    cover. See generally 10 CFR part 40, appendix A and 40 CFR part 192. 
    Subpart D, as amended, requires all appropriate monitoring be conducted 
    pursuant to the procedures described in 40 CFR part 61, appendix B, 
    Method 115, or any other measurement method proposed by a licensee and 
    approved by NRC or the affected Agreement State as being at least as 
    effective as EPA Method 115 in demonstrating the effectiveness of the 
    permanent radon barrier in achieving compliance with the 20 pCi/
    m2-s flux standard. After emplacement of a permanent radon barrier 
    designed and constructed to achieve compliance with, including 
    attainment of, the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard, the licensee shall 
    conduct appropriate monitoring and analysis of the radon flux through 
    the barrier. This monitoring will verify that the design of the 
    permanent radon barrier is effective in ensuring that emissions of 
    radon-222 will not exceed compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux 
    standard, as contemplated by 40 CFR 192.32(b)(1)(ii). EPA intends that 
    the permanent radon barrier be designed to ensure sustained compliance 
    with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard by all sites, but does not 
    require continuous emissions monitoring. Rather, a single monitoring 
    event may suffice to verify the design of the permanent radon barrier 
    to ensure continued compliance. Note, however, that if the NRC or an 
    Agreement State extends the time for performance of milestones based on 
    a finding that compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard has 
    been demonstrated by appropriate monitoring, compliance with the 20 
    pCi/m2-s flux standard must be demonstrated each year during the 
    period of the extension.
    2. NRC Regulatory Action
        On May 20, 1994, the Commissioners approved final amendments 
    conforming 10 CFR part 40, appendix A to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D. 
    The final regulations adopted by NRC amend Criterion 6, add a new 
    Criterion 6A and new definitions contained in the Introduction to 
    appendix A. Criterion 6 was revised to provide for appropriate 
    verification that the ``final'' (or ``permanent'' as defined by EPA) 
    radon barrier, as designed and constructed, is effective in controlling 
    releases of radon-222 to a level no greater than 20 pCi/m2-s when 
    averaged over the entire pile or impoundment. Criterion 6(2) (59 FR 
    28220, June 1, 1994). The licensee must use EPA Method 115, or another 
    method approved by the NRC as being at least as effective in 
    demonstrating the effectiveness of the ``final'' radon barrier. Id. If 
    the reclamation plan specifies phased emplacement of the ``final'' 
    radon barrier, the verification must be performed on the portion of the 
    pile or impoundment as the ``final'' radon barrier for that portion is 
    emplaced. Additionally, certain reporting and recordkeeping is required 
    in connection with the verification of the effectiveness of the 
    ``final'' radon barrier. Criterion 6(4) (59 FR 28220, June 1, 1994).
        The Introduction section of appendix A to part 40 was amended by 
    adding the following definitions: as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility, available technology, factors 
    beyond the control of the licensee, final radon barrier, milestone, 
    operation and reclamation plan. While supbart D requires emplacement of 
    the ``permanent'' radon barrier, NRC requires emplacement of the 
    ``final'' radon barrier. According to NRC, the definition of final 
    radon barrier, is intended to ``facilitate the drafting of clear 
    regulatory text and to eliminate any ambiguity with respect to 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s `flux standard' after completion 
    of the final earthen barrier and not as a result of any temporary 
    conditions or interim measures.'' (59 FR 28222, June 1, 1994). The 
    final definitions of factors beyond the control of the licensee and 
    available technology have been revised to include a list of possible 
    factors and examples of grossly excessive costs respectively, 
    consistent with subpart D.
        Criterion 6A paragraph 1 requires completion of the ``final'' radon 
    barrier as expeditiously as practicable considering technological 
    feasibility after a pile or impoundment containing uranium byproduct 
    materials ceases operation, and requires it to be done in accordance 
    with a written Commission-approved reclamation plan. In addition, this 
    paragraph requires inclusion of specified interim milestones as a 
    condition of the individual site license. Criterion 6A also specifies 
    the conditions for Commission approval of extensions for performance of 
    milestones and continued acceptance of uranium byproduct and other 
    materials in the pile or impoundment. 10 CFR part 40, appendix A 
    Criterion 6A (2) and (3) (59 FR 28220, June 1, 1994). These provisions 
    vary somewhat from NRC's proposal, to reflect changes made in EPA's 
    final amendments to subpart D at Secs. 192.32(a)(3) (iv) and (v). The 
    changes are ``(1) that only byproduct material, not `similar' material, 
    will be approved for continued disposal after the final radon barrier 
    is essentially complete 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, in addition to general clarification of the paragraph.'' 
    (59 FR 28224, June 1, 1994).
        Additionally, NRC's final regulations in Criterion 6A provide for 
    public participation consistent with the MOU and the settlement 
    agreement. Such public participation will be provided through a notice 
    published in the Federal Register including the opportunity for public 
    comment on the proposed license amendment and the opportunity to 
    request an informal hearing in accordance with the Commission's 
    regulations at 10 CFR part 2, subpart L. The final regulations contain 
    various revisions to NRC's proposal, both substantive and editorial in 
    nature, primarily for consistency with EPA's final amendments to 
    subpart D.
        EPA believes the final revisions clarify NRC's proposal. EPA 
    further believes that although NRC's conforming regulations are not 
    identical to subpart D, the differences are minor in nature, and 
    properly reflect application of the subpart D requirements to NRC's 
    separate regulatory program. NRC's final rule appropriately conforms 
    its regulations to 40 CFR part 192 subpart D. EPA notes that NRC's 
    conforming amendments are an important consideration in EPA's 
    determination that the NRC regulatory program protects the public 
    health with an ample margin of safety.
    3. Amendment of NRC and Agreement State Licenses
        Consistent with their commitments under the MOU, as well as EPA's 
    previous proposal to rescind subpart T (56 FR 67561 December 31, 1991), 
    NRC and the affected Agreement States agreed to amend the licenses of 
    all non-operational uranium mill tailings sites to ensure inclusion of 
    schedules for emplacing a permanent radon barrier on the tailings 
    impoundments, as well as interim milestones (e.g., wind blown tailings 
    retrieval and placement on the pile, and interim stabilization). To 
    this end, NRC and the Agreement States requested the licensees to 
    voluntarily seek amended licenses and have completed processing those 
    requests. NRC has continued the spirit of cooperation between EPA and 
    NRC by keeping the Agency apprised of the status of the approval of 
    reclamation plans and amendment of licenses.
        As of September 30, 1993, NRC and the Agreement States had 
    completed all license amendments for closure of licensed non-
    operational impoundments, with the exception of the license amendment 
    incorporating the reclamation plan for the Atlas site located in Moab, 
    Utah.
        NRC informed EPA by letter that the Commission received extensive 
    comments on NRC's July 20, 1993 proposal to approve the Atlas 
    reclamation plan, including the closure schedule and interim milestones 
    required by the MOU, and the Environmental Assessment and the Finding 
    of No Significant Impact for the Atlas mill. NRC rescinded its Finding 
    of No Significant Impact for the Atlas mill in October 1993. (58 FR 
    52516, October 8, 1993). One issue appears to be the potential for 
    flooding of the Atlas impoundment if it is reclaimed on-site, due to 
    the proximity of the site to the Colorado River. This concern and 
    others appear to have caused delays in the license amendment for this 
    site. NRC is actively pursuing a timely final decision on the 
    acceptability of the existing Atlas site and its reclamation plan. To 
    this end, NRC informed EPA by letter dated December 28, 1993, that NRC 
    has conducted several meetings with the various representatives 
    enumerated above and has requested additional technical information 
    from the licensee. On March 30, 1994, NRC published a Notice of Intent 
    to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to Conduct a Scoping 
    Process. (59 FR 14912). In that notice, NRC states its determination 
    ``that approval of the revised reclamation plan constitutes a major 
    Federal action and that based on the level of controversy related to 
    the proposed action [on-site reclamation] and uncertainties associated 
    with the unique features of the Moab site, preparation of an EIS in 
    accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 
    NRC's implementing requirements in 10 CFR part 51 is warranted.'' (59 
    FR 14913, March 30, 1994). The notice describes the proposed action, 
    possible alternative approaches and the scoping process. The 
    alternative approaches include moving the pile to one of two 
    alternative sites. Id.
        The near edge of the town of Moab is located about 2 km to the east 
    of the Atlas tailings impoundment. However, it appears the area within 
    a 1.5 km radius of the Atlas mill tailings impoundment site is sparsely 
    populated. An interim cover is being placed over the impoundment for 
    radon emission control as the Atlas tailings impoundment dries 
    sufficiently to allow access of the necessary equipment. As discussed 
    in the Background Information Document (BID) for the amendments to 40 
    CFR part 192 subpart D, interim covers significantly reduce radon 
    emissions. Technical Support for Amending Standards for Management of 
    Uranium Byproduct Materials: 40 CFR Part 192 Background Information 
    Document, EPA 402-R-93-085, October 1993.
        NRC announced on May 11, 1994 (59 FR 24490) that Atlas Corporation 
    applied to amend condition 55 of its source material license. Atlas 
    proposed to amend the milestone dates by extending the dates for 
    windblown tailings retrieval and placement on the pile, placement of 
    the interim cover and placement of the final radon barrier by one year. 
    NRC has informed EPA that the Commission approved the extension of the 
    date for placement of the interim cover to February 15, 1995 and that 
    the milestone for emplacement of the ``final'' radon barrier was not 
    extended. See Docket Entry A91-67 IV-D-50 (Letter from NRC to Atlas).
        Since NRC will notice any proposed change in the milestone date for 
    emplacement of the permanent radon barrier, EPA and others will have 
    the opportunity to monitor such an extension at that time. Under the 
    present circumstances, it appears an extension of the MOU target date 
    of 1996 would be consistent with the factors to be considered under the 
    ``as expeditiously as practicable'' standard at 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3)(i), 
    since NRC has determined there is a need for consistency with mandatory 
    requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and there 
    may be factors beyond the control of the licensee. 40 CFR 192.31(k). 
    Based on representations from NRC, EPA believes that the extra time NRC 
    is taking to further review the proposed Atlas mill site reclamation 
    plan is necessary to address the large amount of public comments 
    received and that it will result in a final solution that is more 
    responsive to public comment.
        NRC and the affected Agreement States have also agreed to enforce 
    the provisions of the amended licenses to ensure compliance with the 
    new schedules for emplacing the permanent radon barriers, including 
    interim milestones, and to ensure (and verify) the efficacy of the 
    design and construction of the barrier to achieve compliance with the 
    20 pCi/m2-s flux standard contained in the amendments to subpart 
    D. (56 FR 67568, December 31, 1991) (MOU, a copy of which was printed 
    at the end of the proposed rule to rescind subpart T).
    
    III. Final Rule to Rescind 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart T for NRC and 
    Agreement State Licensees
    
        EPA is rescinding subpart T as it applies to non-operational 
    uranium mill tailings disposal sites licensed by NRC or an affected 
    Agreement State. The Agency sets forth this Final Rule pursuant to its 
    authority under section 112(d)(9) of the CAA, as amended in 1990. The 
    support for this action includes (1) the MOU, which reflects 
    consultation with NRC and the affected Agreement States and sets forth 
    a course of conduct to bolster NRC's regulatory program under UMTRCA so 
    that it is protective of public health with an ample margin of safety, 
    (2) the settlement agreement which adds comprehensive detail to the 
    MOU, (3) EPA's amendments to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, (4) the 
    relevant NRC and Agreement State actions concerning license amendments, 
    to date, and (5) NRC's amendments to its implementation regulations at 
    appendix A, 10 CFR part 40.
    
    A. EPA Determination Under CAA Section 112(d)(9)
    
    1. Background
        Section 112(d)(9) authorizes EPA to decline to regulate 
    radionuclide emissions from NRC-licensees under the CAA provided that 
    EPA determines, by rule, and after consultation with NRC, that the 
    regulatory scheme established by NRC protects the public health with an 
    ample margin of safety. The legislative history of section 112(d)(9) 
    provides additional guidance as to what is meant by ``an ample margin 
    of safety to protect the public health'' and what process the 
    Administrator should follow in making that determination in a 
    rulemaking proceeding under section 112(d)(9). The Conference Report 
    accompanying S. 1630 points out that the ``ample margin of safety'' 
    finding under section 112(d)(9) is the same ``ample margin of safety'' 
    requirement that was contained in section 112 of the CAA prior to its 
    amendment in 1990. The conferees also made clear that the process the 
    Administrator was expected to follow in making any such determination 
    under section 112(d)(9) was that ``required under the decision of the 
    U.S. Court of Appeals in NRDC v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir 1987) 
    (Vinyl Chloride).'' H. Rep. No. 101-952, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 339 
    (1990), reprinted in 1 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 
    Amendments of 1990, at 1789 (1993) (hereinafter ``Legislative History 
    CAAA90'').
        EPA has already made a determination in promulgating subpart T that 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard protects public 
    health with an ample margin of safety. EPA conducted a risk analysis in 
    promulgating subpart T in 1989. At that time, EPA determined that the 
    20 pCi/m2-s flux standard was a ``baseline'' that was provided by 
    EPA's general UMTRCA standards at 40 CFR part 192, subpart D. EPA 
    further determined that compliance with that baseline would be 
    protective of public health with an ample margin of safety. EPA 
    promulgated subpart T to ensure achievement of the flux standard at 
    non-operational sites in a timely manner. In conducting this rescission 
    rulemaking, EPA is not revisiting either the risk analysis or decision 
    methodology that supported the promulgation of subpart T; rather, EPA 
    is only visiting whether NRC's regulatory program under UMTRCA will 
    result in meeting the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard established in 
    subpart T as being the level that provides an ample margin of safety, 
    with compliance achieved in a timely manner thereby rendering subpart T 
    unnecessarily duplicative.
        EPA's determination that the NRC regulatory program protects public 
    health with an ample margin of safety includes a finding that NRC and 
    the affected Agreement States are implementing and enforcing, in 
    significant part on a programmatic and site-specific basis: (1) The 
    regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings promulgated 
    by EPA and NRC consistent with the settlement agreement described above 
    and (2) the license (i.e., tailings closure plan) requirements that 
    establish milestones for the purpose of emplacing a permanent radon 
    barrier that will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux 
    standard.
    2. EPA's UMTRCA Standards
        As discussed above, EPA has modified its UMTRCA regulations (40 CFR 
    part 192 subpart D) to require compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s 
    flux standard as expeditiously as practicable considering technological 
    feasibility (and factors beyond the control of the licensee), and to 
    require appropriate monitoring to verify the efficacy of the design of 
    the permanent radon barrier. By definition, no more rapid compliance 
    can occur, as a practical matter, because this schedule represents the 
    earliest that the sites could be closed when all factors are 
    considered. EPA expects that these compliance schedules were developed 
    and will be modified consistent with the targets set forth in the MOU 
    as reasonably applied to the specific circumstances of each site. When 
    EPA promulgated subpart T it recognized that many sources might not be 
    able to comply with the two year compliance date then required pursuant 
    to section 112. Based on this, subpart T includes a provision that in 
    such a case EPA would ``establish a compliance agreement which will 
    assure that disposal will be completed as quickly as possible.'' 40 CFR 
    61.222(b). The time period required for closure under subpart D 
    embodies the same approach. In practice, therefore, both subpart T and 
    subpart D establish the same basic timeframes for achievement of the 
    flux standard. Assuming NRC and the Agreement States faithfully 
    implement subpart D and the license amendments required under subpart 
    D, EPA would not expect there to be any significant difference between 
    these two programs in the amount of time required for sites to comply 
    with the flux standard.
        As discussed above, subpart D as amended, provides that NRC may 
    grant an extension of time to comply with either of the following 
    deadlines: (1) Performance of milestones based upon a finding that 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard has been met or (2) 
    final compliance beyond the date or relevant milestone based upon cost. 
    EPA considers these two bases upon which NRC may grant an extension to 
    be mutually exclusive, i.e., a request for a specific extension may be 
    based on one or the other but not both grounds. If a milestone is being 
    extended for a basis other than cost, such an extension may be granted 
    if NRC finds that compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard 
    has been demonstrated using EPA Method 115 or an NRC approved 
    alternative. In addition the site must continue to demonstrate 
    compliance with this flux standard on an annual basis. However, if a 
    licensee requests extension of the final compliance date (or relevant 
    milestone) based upon cost, such an extension may only be granted if 
    NRC finds that the three criteria specified in 40 CFR section 
    192.32(a)(3)(iii) are met. Any extensions of the final compliance date 
    based upon cost will by the nature of the criteria be granted on a 
    site-specific basis.
        If a licensee requests an extension of the final compliance date 
    based upon cost, technology may not be used as a basis for granting the 
    extension unless the costs are grossly excessive, as measured by normal 
    practice within the industry. EPA recognizes that the emissions from 
    the pile may exceed the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard pending final 
    compliance, but believes these increases will be minimal and of limited 
    duration. EPA does not anticipate the short extensions in the time to 
    complete the radon barrier contemplated in subpart D and the NRC 
    conforming amendments to increase the maximum lifetime individual risk 
    beyond 1 in 10,000, the level which EPA found presumptively safe under 
    the benzene policy, and for this category, protective of the public 
    health with an ample margin of safety in promulgating subpart T. 54 FR 
    51656 (December 15, 1989). EPA believes that during the short 
    extensions, this is consistent with the reality of short-term risks 
    from radon emissions during the period of delay, and consistent with 
    the risks associated with negotiated compliance agreements when non-
    operational sites fail to close within the two-year period required by 
    subpart T. EPA believes these emissions should not exceed those 
    emissions which could occur under subpart T if compliance agreements 
    had been negotiated. Extensions based upon cost will only be granted if 
    NRC or an Agreement State finds, after providing an opportunity for 
    public participation, that the emissions caused by the delay will not 
    cause significant incremental risk to the public health. Additionally, 
    a site requesting an extension based upon cost must demonstrate that it 
    is making a good faith effort to emplace the permanent radon barrier. 
    In many situations, where an interim cover is in place, radon emissions 
    are significantly reduced and tailings which are wet or ponded emit no 
    significant levels of radon. If NRC or an Agreement State uses this 
    flexibility, public notice is required, and as appropriate, EPA would 
    be aware of its use and could also monitor extensions under the 
    provisions of Sec. 61.226(c) to determine whether the Agency should 
    reconsider the rescission and seek reinstatement of subpart T, on 
    either a programmatic or site-specific basis. Thus, under the 
    circumstances, EPA believes affording authority for extensions of the 
    final compliance date based upon cost is not inconsistent with 
    protecting the public health.
        Additionally, 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 practicable.'' EPA understands that under subpart D's 
    provisions 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 practicable 
    considering technological feasibility.'' 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 the factors relevant under Sec. 192.32(a)(3)(i) before it 
    changed a previously established milestone or date for emplacement of 
    the final barrier, and any new date would have to meet the standard set 
    out in Sec. 192.32(a)(3)(i). Finally, NRC's and Agreement States' 
    authority to reconsider previously established milestones or dates 
    would include authority to shorten or speed up such dates, as well as 
    extend them. EPA also expects that public participation consistent with 
    that level of participation provided in the MOU and the settlement 
    agreement will be afforded the public by NRC or an Agreement State in 
    amending a license due to ``factors beyond the control of the 
    licensee,'' or for any other basis.
    3. NRC's Conforming Regulations
        As discussed previously, the Commission has approved final 
    regulations to conform appendix A of 10 CFR part 40 to EPA's general 
    standards promulgated under UMTRCA. (59 FR 28220, June 1, 1994.) EPA is 
    today making a determination that NRC's final regulations support 
    rescission. EPA believes NRC's final regulations adequately and 
    appropriately implement EPA's amendments to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D. 
    This determination is supported by the comments received in response to 
    EPA's supplemental proposal to rescind subpart T. (59 FR 5674, February 
    7, 1994.) All commenters agreed that NRC's proposed conforming 
    regulations support EPA's proposal to rescind subpart T by either 
    adequately and appropriately implementing subpart D, or may reasonably 
    be expected to do so when finalized.
    4. License Amendments
        Table 1 illustrates that all NRC and affected Agreement State 
    licenses, except one, have been modified pursuant to the MOU. 
    Attachment A to the MOU, developed in conjunction with each site and 
    considering the particular circumstances of that site, lists target 
    dates for emplacement of the permanent radon barrier with ``a guiding 
    objective that this occur to all current disposal sites by the end of 
    1997, and within seven years of when the existing operating and standby 
    sites cease operation.'' 56 FR 67568 (December 31, 1991). The MOU 
    requires NRC and the Agreement States to ``ensure * * * that cover 
    emplacement on the tailings impoundments occurs as expeditiously as 
    practicable considering both short-term reductions in radon releases 
    and long-term stability of the uranium mill tailings.'' Id. Under the 
    MOU, the compliance schedules (i.e., tailings closure plans (radon) 
    under subpart D, as amended) were to be developed consistent with the 
    MOU targets as reasonably applied to the specific circumstances of each 
    site, with a goal that final closure occur by December 31, 1997, for 
    those non-operational uranium mill tailings piles listed in the MOU. 
    EPA believes the NRC and the Agreement States have acted in good faith 
    to implement their commitments under the MOU by amending the site 
    licenses. EPA also believes that uranium mill tailings disposal site 
    owners and operators have acted in good faith by voluntarily requesting 
    the license amendments. The license amendments by NRC and the affected 
    Agreement States appear to reflect closure as expeditiously as 
    practicable under the terms of the MOU and the requirements of subpart 
    D as amended, thus supporting rescission of subpart T and a 
    determination that the NRC program protects public health with an ample 
    margin of safety. See Docket Entry A91-67 IV-D-46 (NRC Comments in 
    Response to EPA's February 7, 1994 Proposal); Docket Entry A91-67 II-D-
    23 (February 7, 1994, Note to Docket from Gale Bonanno, Office of 
    Radiation and Indoor Air, Criteria and Standards Division detailing 
    approval of NRC licenses and milestone schedules); Docket Entry A91-67 
    II-D-45 (June 1, 1994, Note to Docket from Gale Bonanno, Office of 
    Radiation and Indoor Air, Criteria and Standards Division detailing 
    approval of Agreement State licenses and milestone schedules); Docket 
    Entry A91-67 IV-D-52 (June 13, 1994, Letter to Gail Bonanno from State 
    of Washington); Docket Entry A91-67 IV-D-49 (Letter to Gail Bonnano 
    [sic] providing information for Washington State licensees, Dawn Mining 
    Company and Western Nuclear, Inc.). In addition, consistent with their 
    commitments under the MOU, NRC and the affected Agreement States are 
    providing opportunities for public participation in the license 
    amendment process.
    
             Table 1.--Status of Reclamation Plans for Non-Operational Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments\1\        
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Approval      Approval                              
                                                                date for      date for    MOU date for  License date
                            Facility                           reclamation   reclamation   final radon    for final 
                                                                  plan       milestones      cover       radon cover
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ANC, Gas Hills, WY......................................       4/10/83       11/5/92          1995      12/31/94
                                                                                                          \2\6/30/96
                                                                                                                    
    ARCO Coal, Bluewater, New Mexico........................       1/30/92       11/9/92          1995      12/28/94
    Atlas, Moab, Utah.......................................           \3\       11/4/92          1996      12/31/96
    Conoco, Conquista, Texas................................        9/8/93        9/8/93          1996      12/31/93
    Ford-Dawn Mining, Ford, WA..............................       9/30/93       9/30/93          2010   \4\12/31/18
    Hecla Mining, Duria, CO.................................       9/30/93       9/30/93          1997      12/31/95
    Homestake, Milan, NM....................................       7/23/93       11/9/92  \5\1996/2001   \5\12/31/01
    Pathfinder-Lucky Mc, Gas Hills, Wyoming.................       9/17/93      12/29/92          1998       9/30/98
    Petrotomics, Shirley Basin, WY..........................      10/23/89       1/21/93          1995      12/31/95
    Quivira, Ambrosia Lake, NM..............................       10/5/90       1/22/93          1997   \7\12/31/97
    Rio Algom, Lisbon, UT...................................       9/29/93      12/31/96          1996      12/31/96
    Sohio L-Bar, Cebolleta, New Mexico......................        5/1/89       11/4/92          1992      12/31/92
    UMETCO, Gas Hills, Wyoming..............................           \8\       12/2/92          1995      12/31/95
    UMETCO, Maybell, CO.....................................       7/30/93       7/30/93          1997      12/31/97
    UMETCO, Uravan, CO......................................      12/31/87      12/31/87       \6\2002      12/31/96
    UNC, Church Rock, NM....................................       3/11/92      10/29/92          1997      12/31/97
    Union Pacific, Bear Creek, Wyoming......................        4/3/92       11/5/92          1996      12/31/96
    WNI, Sherwood, WA.......................................       9/30/93       9/30/93          1996    \4\1/31/98
    WNI, Split Rock, WY.....................................       6/17/93       11/5/92          1995     12/31/94 
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\NRC and the affected Agreement States committed to complete review and approval of reclamation plants,       
      including schedules for emplacement of earthen covers on non-operational tailings impoundments by September   
      30, 1993.                                                                                                     
    \2\Two impoundments: 1996 date is for impoundment which was accepting waste from off-site for disposal. Licensee
      has requested an amendment for a one year extension of dates for placement of radon barrier on the two piles. 
    \3\Delayed pending resolution of issues raised in response to Federal Register notice dated July 20, 1993.      
    \4\Closure date change is because of groundwater remediation schedule.                                          
    \5\Two impoundments: large impoundment to be completed by 1996, small impoundment by 2001 except for areas      
      covered by evaporation ponds. Final radon barrier placement over the remainder of the small impoundment shall 
      be completed within two years of completion of groundwater corrective actions.                                
    \6\Date in the MOU is for final reclamation.                                                                    
    \7\Two impoundments: final radon barrier placement on both by December 31, 1997. One active cell.               
    \8\Various early 1980s.                                                                                         
    
        The license amendments noted in Table 1 reflect consistent 
    application of the dates contained in the MOU. Three exceptions are 
    worth noting. First, although the license amendment to incorporate the 
    reclamation plan for the Atlas site is not complete, EPA is confident 
    that NRC is actively pursuing final resolution of the pending 
    reclamation plan. In the notice announcing its intent to prepare an 
    environmental impact statement, NRC published a tentative schedule to: 
    prepare a draft EIS and issue for public comment in October 1994; 
    provide a 45 day comment period; and publish the final EIS in April 
    1995. (59 FR 14914, March 30, 1994). Pending final approval of a 
    reclamation plan, the Atlas site is continuing to emplace an interim 
    cover on the pile to control radon emissions, and recently received 
    approval to extend the date for placement of the interim cover to 
    February 15, 1995. The date for placement of the ``final'' radon 
    barrier was not extended by NRC and remains December 31, 1996. See 
    Docket Entry A91-67 IV-E-5 (Note to Docket from Gale Bonanno, Office of 
    Radiation and Indoor Air, Criteria and Standards Division, summary of 
    telephone conversation with legal counsel to AMC); Docket Entry A91-67 
    IV-D-50 (Letter from NRC to Atlas).
        Second, the license amendments for the ANC Gas Hills site address 
    two separate impoundments. Consistent with the MOU, the license 
    amendment for the non-operational impoundment contains a December 31, 
    1994, date for emplacement of the permanent radon barrier. On February 
    11, 1994, NRC published a notice of receipt of a request to amend the 
    reclamation schedule at the ANC Gas Hills site. (59 FR 6658). ANC has 
    requested a one-year extension of the current date for emplacement of 
    the permanent radon barrier. ANC ``believes [it] cannot begin 
    authorized restoration activities in the time necessary to meet current 
    reclamation milestone dates,'' due to an NRC communication ``that a 
    previous amendment request for a reclamation redesign proposal dated 
    April 16, 1992, would not be reviewed by late 1992 or early 1993.'' Id. 
    NRC notes that ANC is continuing to monitor and maintain the interim 
    cover. Further, NRC states--
    
    Approval of the request will be based on determination there be no 
    harm to human health or the environment, that reclamation will be 
    completed as expeditiously as practical[sic], verification that 
    rescheduling reclamation will not impact the final closure date for 
    the entire facility.
    
    Additionally, an impoundment previously designated as operational for 
    in-situ waste disposal is now non-operational. Emplacement of the 
    permanent radon barrier on this second impoundment is scheduled to be 
    completed by June 30, 1996, well within the seven year goal of the MOU 
    for impoundments which cease operations after December 31, 1991.
        On May 9, 1994, ANC informed NRC by letter that it would be ceasing 
    operations and going out of business by the end of May 1994. On May 13, 
    1994, NRC issued an Order and Demand for Information to ANC. See Docket 
    Entry A91-67 IV-D-47. This Order requires ANC to continue complying 
    with all applicable license conditions, including monitoring and 
    reclamation activities. The Order further states ``[D]iscontinuance of 
    those programs and functions in the manner described by the Licensee in 
    its letter of May 9, 1994, would constitute a willful violation of 
    ANC's license.'' According to the Order, abandonment would constitute a 
    ``deliberate violation'' of section 184 of the AEA of 1954, as amended, 
    10 CFR 40.41.(b), and 10 CFR 40.42. The Order further states that 
    ``such a deliberate act of abandonment would be a serious violation of 
    the AEA * * * NRC regulations, and ANC's license,'' and could subject 
    ANC and the individuals causing the violations to further enforcement 
    actions and potential criminal sanctions. NRC also ordered that ANC 
    submit additional information in order for NRC to determine ``whether 
    enforcement action should be taken to ensure compliance with NRC 
    statutory and regulatory requirements.''
        EPA notes that the actions taken to date by NRC regarding this site 
    indicate a good faith intention to implement the MOU and the 
    requirements of subpart D and to respond quickly as the situation at 
    the ANC Gas Hills site develops. EPA fully expects that NRC will take 
    actions consistent with the Commission's enforcement policy and 
    authority. See 10 CFR part 2, subpart B and appendix C. While difficult 
    enforcement questions are raised about this site, EPA notes that the 
    same questions would be raised if subpart T were not rescinded. Under 
    the provisions of the rule adopted today, if future developments meet 
    the criteria and conditions for reconsideration of rescission, the 
    Agency expects it would receive a petition pursuant to Sec. 61.226(b). 
    EPA would then take action consistent with those provisions at that 
    time. In any case, EPA reserves the right to initiate reconsideration 
    if appropriate.
        Lastly, the license amendment dates for two additional sites, the 
    Ford-Dawn Mining site and the Western Nuclear, Inc. (WNI) site both 
    located in the Agreement State of Washington, are also beyond the dates 
    contained in the MOU. However, Washington State notes that for these 
    sites the closure date was changed because of the groundwater 
    remediation schedule, and the difficulty experienced in drying the 
    piles due to the evaporation and precipitation rates. In sum, EPA 
    believes that the license amendments adopted by the State of Washington 
    for these two sites reflect a good faith attempt to implement the MOU 
    and reflect closure of the sites as expeditiously as practical 
    considering technological feasibility under subpart D.
        While NRC and the Agreement States have obtained license amendments 
    for all but one of the relevant sites, they have not as yet established 
    a record for enforcement of the milestones, including action on 
    requests for extensions. To date, only one extension for placement of 
    the interim cover at the Atlas site has been approved by NRC. Based on 
    NRC representations, no milestones occurring after the date of the MOU, 
    October 1991, have been missed and, as noted in footnote 2 of Table 1, 
    an application for another extension is pending but no action has been 
    taken. However, given their response to the requirements of the MOU, 
    and the rulemaking conducted by NRC to implement the requirements of 
    subpart D, EPA expects that the milestones established in the licenses 
    for emplacement of the permanent radon barrier (i.e., the tailings 
    closure plan (radon)) will be implemented and enforced in significant 
    part on a programmatic and site-specific basis. The relevant portions 
    of the amended licenses have been placed in the docket for this action, 
    as well as letters from NRC to EPA apprising the Agency of the status 
    of the license amendments.
        EPA and NRC have completed almost all of the actions required by 
    the MOU, including: revising the NRC and affected Agreement State 
    licenses to reflect the MOU and regulatory requirements, promulgating 
    amendments to EPA's UMTRCA regulations at 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, 
    and revising the NRC regulations at 10 CFR part 40 to conform to EPA's 
    revised UMTRCA regulations. Based on EPA's review, to date, of the 
    regulatory program established by NRC under UMTRCA (including amended 
    10 CFR part 40, appendix A), EPA has determined that the timing and 
    monitoring concerns are fully addressed consistent with EPA's UMTRCA 
    standards, and the NRC criteria result in reclamation designs and 
    schedules fully adequate to ensure compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s 
    flux standard as expeditiously as practicable considering technological 
    feasibility (including factors beyond the control of the licensee). EPA 
    today finds that NRC and the affected Agreement States are or will be 
    implementing and enforcing, in significant part, the regulations 
    governing disposal of tailings and the license requirements (tailings 
    closure plan (radon)) that establish milestones for emplacement of a 
    permanent radon barrier that will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/
    m2-s flux standard on a programmatic and a site-specific basis. 
    The Agency intends ``in significant part'' to mean that NRC or an 
    affected Agreement State is implementing and enforcing the regulatory 
    and license requirements in a manner that EPA reasonably expected to 
    not materially (i.e., more than de minimis)1 interfere with 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s standard as expeditiously as 
    practicable considering technological feasibility (including factors 
    beyond the control of the licensee).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ The phrase ``de minimis'' as used in this notice is not 
    intended to be restricted to the meaning of section 112(g)(1)(A) of 
    the Clean Air Act, as amended.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        As announced in the February 7, 1994, proposal, EPA is taking 
    today's action since NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 40, appendix A, 
    were effectively revised, as necessary and appropriate to implement the 
    revisions to EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 192, subpart D. As stated 
    in the February 1994 proposal, EPA intended to take final action on the 
    proposed rescission prior to the time compliance with the 20 pCi/
    m2-s flux standard is achieved at all sites.
    5. Judicial or Administrative Challenges
        Neither EPA nor any commenter is aware of any judicial or 
    administrative challenge to these regulations that is pending. Thus, 
    EPA is aware of no challenge which would present a significant risk of 
    interference with the purposes and objectives of the MOU, as reflected 
    in the regulatory changes.
    
    B. Reconsideration Provisions
    
        Under the Atomic Energy Act, NRC has the authority to waive, for 
    reasons of practicability, the dual requirement of the MOU that 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard occur as 
    expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility. 42 
    U.S.C. 2114(c). NRC considers the term ``practicability'' to include 
    certain economic considerations not contemplated by the requirement of 
    the MOU that compliance occur as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility. In promulgating subpart T, the 
    CAA did not permit, and EPA did not consider, site-specific waivers 
    from ultimate compliance with that standard. Thus, as a theoretical 
    matter, EPA recognized in its December 1991 proposal that this waiver 
    authority might be exercised in a manner not addressed in the MOU even 
    after the UMTRCA regulations have been promulgated and each license 
    amended, although EPA has no reason to believe such relaxation of 
    restriction will actually occur. Nevertheless, EPA recognized that this 
    authority would not exist under the CAA and subpart T and, thus, there 
    was some concern over the potential for deviation from the agreements 
    contained in the MOU.
    1. December 31, 1991 Proposed Rule to Rescind subpart T
        In response to the concern over the waiver authority in the Atomic 
    Energy Act, and in order to ensure its exercise does not alter EPA's 
    finding that the NRC regulatory program protects public health with an 
    ample margin of safety, EPA announced in its December 31, 1991, 
    proposal that certain conditions and grounds for reconsideration would 
    be included in any final decision to rescind subpart T. In this way, 
    EPA might base its rescission finding upon its view of the NRC 
    regulatory program contemplated by the MOU at the time of taking final 
    action, while also providing some assurance that EPA would revisit that 
    finding should NRC or the affected Agreement States substantially 
    deviate from that program. Thus, in December 1991, EPA proposed certain 
    conditions and grounds for reconsideration, to provide assurance that 
    any finding by the Agency that the NRC program is sufficient to justify 
    rescission of subpart T under CAA section 112(d)(9) would be revisited 
    if the NRC program is actually implemented in a manner inconsistent 
    with that finding. The specific reconsideration options proposed by EPA 
    were published at 56 FR 67565 (December 31, 1991).
    2. Reconsideration Options
        EPA has reviewed the various options for reconsideration proposed 
    in December 1991 in light of the comprehensive details added to the 
    terms of the MOU by the settlement agreement finalized in April 1993. 
    On February 7, 1994, EPA proposed an additional reconsideration option 
    that is a combination of the options proposed in December 1991. It is 
    in effect a hybrid of that December 1991 proposal. While EPA did not 
    withdraw its prior reconsideration proposal and the reconsideration 
    options contained therein, the additional reconsideration option 
    proposed in February 1994 was preferred by EPA.
    3. Reconsideration Provisions Adopted Today
        EPA believes the following reconsideration provisions adopted 
    today, which include both programmatic and site-specific bases for 
    reinstatement, represent a comprehensive approach under both the MOU 
    and settlement agreement. The Agency notes that the 20 pCi/m2-s 
    flux standard must be met by all sites as provided by 40 CFR part 192, 
    subpart D. EPA does not intend to reconsider the decision to rescind 
    subpart T for any site that is in fact meeting the 20 pCi/m2-s 
    flux standard, absent other factors that would indicate the need for 
    reinstatement. For example, EPA may initiate reconsideration under 
    Sec. 61.226 even if a site is meeting the 20 pCi/ m2-s flux 
    standard if there are factors which show that NRC or an Agreement State 
    failed to implement and enforce in significant part, the applicable 
    regulations, e.g., failure of that site to emplace a permanent radon 
    barrier designed to meet the requirements of subpart D.
        This action amends subpart T and establishes an obligation for the 
    Administrator to reinstate subpart T as applied to owners and operators 
    of non-operational uranium mill tailings disposal sites licensed by NRC 
    or an affected Agreement State provided certain conditions are met. 
    Additionally, this action sets forth the procedures for EPA to act on a 
    petition to reconsider rescission of subpart T which seeks such 
    reinstatement. However, these provisions are not intended to be 
    exclusive. EPA reserves the right to initiate reinstatement of subpart 
    T if appropriate. Pursuant to section 553(e) of the Administrative 
    Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e) interested persons may petition the EPA 
    to initiate reinstatement of subpart T, in addition to petitions for 
    reinstatement under today's procedures.
        The reconsideration provisions set forth in Sec. 61.226 establish 
    procedures for persons to petition EPA for reconsideration of the 
    rescission and seek reinstatement of subpart T and EPA's response to 
    such petitions. Provisions for the substantive conditions for 
    reconsideration of the rescission of this subpart and subsequent 
    reinstatement for NRC-licensees are also included. Under these 
    provisions, a person may petition the Administrator for reconsideration 
    of the rescission and seek reinstatement of subpart T under 
    Sec. 61.226(a) which provides for programmatic and site-specific 
    reinstatement. If reconsideration is initiated it must be conducted 
    pursuant to notice and comment procedures. It is important that any 
    alleged failures by NRC or an affected Agreement State to implement and 
    enforce the regulations governing uranium mill tailings or the 
    applicable license requirements be addressed in a timely manner. These 
    provisions are intended to ensure that persons may seek recourse from 
    the Administrator if they are adversely affected by the failure of NRC 
    or an affected Agreement State to implement and enforce, in significant 
    part, on a programmatic and a site-specific basis the regulations 
    governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings promulgated by EPA and 
    NRC, requirements of the tailings closure plan, or license requirements 
    establishing milestones for the purpose of emplacing a permanent radon 
    barrier that will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux 
    standard. Thus, EPA is establishing a non-discretionary duty to take 
    final action granting or denying an authorized petition for 
    reconsideration of the rescission of subpart T within 300 days of 
    receipt of the petition. If EPA grants such petition it would then 
    proceed to initiate rulemaking to reinstate subpart T. The rulemaking 
    to reinstate subpart T, however, is not subject to the 300-day time 
    period. This schedule is intended to provide EPA and NRC adequate time 
    to resolve any potential problems identified by a petition. Failure to 
    meet this 300-day deadline for a decision on whether to initiate 
    rulemaking or not could lead to a citizen suit action in a federal 
    District Court under CAA section 304 for an order that EPA take final 
    action on the petition. Review of that final response would be in a 
    federal Circuit Court of Appeals under CAA section 307(b). If EPA 
    grants such a petition and initiates rulemaking to reinstate subpart T, 
    then final agency action would not occur until EPA had concluded such 
    rulemaking. Consistent with the settlement agreement, EPA may propose 
    to grant or deny the petition within 120 days of receipt, allow a 
    comment period of at least 60 days, and take final action granting or 
    denying the petition within 120 days of the close of the comment 
    period.
        Under today's procedures, EPA shall summarily dismiss without 
    prejudice a Sec. 61.226(b) petition to reconsider the rescission and 
    seek reinstatement of subpart T on a programmatic basis, unless the 
    petitioner demonstrates that it provided written notice of the alleged 
    failure to NRC or an affected Agreement State at least 60 days before 
    filing its petition with EPA. This notice to NRC must include a 
    statement of the grounds for such a petition. This notice requirement 
    may be satisfied, among other ways, by submissions or pleadings 
    submitted to NRC during a proceeding conducted by NRC. The purpose of 
    this advance notice requirement is to provide NRC or an affected 
    Agreement State with an opportunity to address the concerns raised by 
    the potential petitioner. Additionally, EPA shall summarily dismiss 
    without prejudice a Sec. 61.226(b) petition to reconsider the 
    rescission and seek reinstatement of subpart T on a site-specific 
    basis, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it provided, at least 60 
    days before filing its petition with EPA, a written request to NRC or 
    an affected Agreement State for enforcement or other relief, and unless 
    the petitioner alleges that NRC or the affected Agreement State failed 
    to respond to such request by taking action, as necessary, to assure 
    timely implementation and enforcement of the 20 pCi/m2-s flux 
    standard. This provision is intended to provide NRC or an Agreement 
    State with an opportunity to address the concerns raised by the 
    potential petitioner through its standard enforcement mechanisms.
        The Administrator may also initiate reconsideration of the 
    rescission and reinstatement of subpart T as applied to owners and 
    operators of non-operational uranium mill tailings disposal sites if 
    EPA believes it is appropriate to do so. For example, EPA may initiate 
    such reconsideration if it has reason to believe that NRC or an 
    affected Agreement State has failed to implement and enforce, in 
    significant part, the regulations governing the disposal of uranium 
    mill tailings promulgated by EPA and NRC or the tailings closure plan 
    (radon) requirements establishing milestones for the purpose of 
    emplacing a permanent radon barrier that will achieve compliance with 
    the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard. Before the Administrator initiates 
    reconsideration of the rescission and reinstatement of subpart T, EPA 
    shall consult with NRC to address EPA's concerns. If the consultation 
    does not resolve the concerns, EPA shall provide NRC with 60 days 
    notice of the Agency's intent to initiate rulemaking to reinstate this 
    subpart.
        Upon completion of a reconsideration rulemaking, EPA may: (1) 
    Reinstate subpart T on a programmatic basis if EPA determines, based on 
    the record, that NRC has significantly failed to implement and enforce, 
    in significant part, on a programmatic basis, (a) the regulations 
    governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings promulgated by EPA and 
    NRC or (b) the license requirements establishing milestones for the 
    purpose of emplacing a permanent radon barrier that will achieve 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard; (2) reinstate 
    subpart T on a site-specific basis if EPA determines, based on the 
    record, that NRC or an affected Agreement State has significantly 
    failed to implement and enforce, in significant part, on a site-
    specific basis, (a) the regulations governing the disposal of uranium 
    mill tailings promulgated by EPA and NRC or (b) the license 
    requirements establishing milestones for the purpose of emplacing a 
    permanent radon barrier that will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/
    m2-s flux standard; or (3) issue a finding that NRC is 
    implementing and enforcing on either a site-specific or programmatic 
    basis the regulations and license requirements described above and that 
    reinstatement of subpart T is not appropriate.
        The regulations establish an obligation for the Administrator to 
    reinstate subpart T as applied to owners and operators of non-
    operational uranium mill tailings disposal sites if the Administrator 
    determines by rulemaking, based on the record, that NRC or an affected 
    Agreement State has failed on a programmatic basis to implement and 
    enforce, in significant part, the regulations governing the disposal of 
    uranium mill tailings promulgated by EPA and NRC or the tailings 
    closure plan (radon) requirements establishing milestones for the 
    purpose of emplacing a permanent radon barrier that will achieve 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard. The Administrator 
    also shall reinstate subpart T on a site-specific basis as applied to 
    owners and operators of non-operational uranium mill tailings disposal 
    sites if the Administrator determines by rulemaking, based on the 
    record, that NRC or an affected Agreement State has failed on a site-
    specific basis to achieve compliance by the operator of the site or 
    sites with applicable license requirements, regulations, or standards 
    implemented by NRC and the affected Agreement States. Under today's 
    action, EPA shall be required to reinstate subpart T only for the 
    failures enumerated in the preceding sentence that may reasonably be 
    anticipated to significantly interfere (i.e., more than de minimis) 
    with the timely emplacement of a permanent radon barrier constructed to 
    achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard at uranium 
    mill tailings disposal sites. In rescinding subpart T, EPA intends ``in 
    significant part'' to mean that EPA must find that NRC or an affected 
    Agreement State is implementing and enforcing, on a programmatic and a 
    site-specific basis: (1) The regulations governing the disposal of 
    uranium mill tailings promulgated by EPA and NRC consistent with the 
    MOU and settlement agreement and (2) the tailings closure plan (radon) 
    requirements establishing milestones for the purpose of emplacing a 
    permanent radon barrier that will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/
    m2-s flux standard in a manner that is not reasonably expected to 
    materially (i.e., more than de minimis) interfere with compliance with 
    the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility (including factors beyond the 
    control of the licensee). Reinstatement would require an EPA finding 
    that NRC or an affected Agreement State has failed to implement and 
    enforce in this manner.
    
    IV. Discussion of Comments and Response to Comments From NPR
    
        Public hearings on EPA's December 31, 1991, proposal to rescind 
    subpart T (56 FR 67561) were held on January 15, 1992 in Washington, 
    D.C. and on January 21-22, 1992 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. 
    Representatives of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the 
    American Mining Congress (AMC), the owners and operators of individual 
    sites and the Southwest Research and Information Center (SWRIC) 
    testified at these hearings. Written comments were also received from 
    the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), NRC, AMC, owners and operators of 
    individual sites, the Department of Energy and the SWRIC.
        In February 1993, an agreement was reached between EPA, EDF, NRDC, 
    AMC, and individual uranium mill tailings disposal sites to settle 
    pending litigation and administrative proceedings, avoid potential 
    future litigation, and otherwise agree to a potential approach to 
    regulation of NRC and Agreement State licensed non-operational uranium 
    mill tailings disposal sites. See 58 FR 17230 (April 1, 1993) (notice 
    announcing settlement agreement under CAA section 113(g)). NRC agreed 
    in principle with the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement 
    added comprehensive detail to, and thereby continued, the approach set 
    forth in the MOU published with the 1991 proposal. (56 FR 67568, 
    December 31, 1991).
        Written comments in response to EPA's February 7, 1994 supplemental 
    proposal were received from NRC, EDF, AMC, Homestake Mining Company, 
    Rio Algom Mining Corp., ARCO and Envirocare of Utah, Inc.
        Many of the parties who commented on the December 1991 proposal 
    also signed the settlement agreement and commented on the February 1994 
    proposal. In certain cases, a party's comments to the December 1991 
    proposal are inconsistent with and conflict with comments later 
    submitted in response to the 1994 proposal. Given the intervening 
    settlement agreement and the revisions to EPA's and NRC's UMTRCA 
    regulations, EPA believes that the more recent comments submitted by a 
    party, in response to the 1994 proposal, should be accorded more weight 
    than comments previously submitted by that same party in 1991, where 
    there is inconsistency between the comments.
        In addition, EPA's review of the comments has been limited to the 
    question of whether EPA should rescind subpart T. This rulemaking was 
    not intended to reconsider and did not address whether EPA should have 
    promulgated subpart T in 1989. EPA therefore rejected as irrelevant to 
    this rulemaking, comments addressed to the validity or appropriateness 
    of the promulgation of subpart T.
    1. General
        In response to the 1991 and 1994 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 
    (NPR), NRC, environmental and industry groups generally support EPA's 
    proposal to rescind 40 CFR part 61, subpart T as applied to owners and 
    operators of NRC and Agreement State licensed non-operational uranium 
    mill tailings disposal sites. Various commenters to the 1994 proposal 
    suggested specific revisions to the proposed regulatory text and 
    preamble. The Agency has reviewed all comments and suggested revisions 
    carefully. Revisions to the regulatory text and preamble have been made 
    where deemed appropriate.
    2. Request for Comments Contained in the 1994 NPR
        In the February 1994 proposal, EPA requested comments on its 
    proposed determination that the NRC regulatory program protects public 
    health with an ample margin of safety, including comments on whether: 
    (1) EPA has effectively promulgated appropriate revisions to 40 CFR 
    part 192, subpart D; (2) NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 40, appendix 
    A either already adequately and appropriately implement the revisions 
    to EPA's regulations, or may reasonably be expected to do so prior to 
    rescission of subpart T; (3) the revision of NRC and affected Agreement 
    State licenses reflect the new requirements of subpart D; and (4) any 
    judicial or administrative challenge to EPA or NRC regulations is 
    expected to present a significant risk of interference with full 
    compliance with the MOU and the settlement agreement.
        Several commenters responded to the Agency's request for comments. 
    Commenters believed EPA's amendments to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D 
    fulfill the intent of the settlement agreement with respect to actions 
    required by EPA. However, certain commenters noted that the settlement 
    agreement called for action by both EPA and NRC. The commenters 
    universally agreed that based upon NRC's November 3, 1993 proposal, NRC 
    may reasonably be expected to adequately and appropriately implement 
    the Agency's amendments to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D. These commenters 
    believe that when finalized, NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 40, 
    appendix A should adequately comply with the settlement agreement and 
    conform to EPA's subpart D UMTRCA regulations.
        Many commenters noted that NRC and the Agreement States have 
    faithfully implemented their MOU commitment to complete review and 
    approval by no later than September 1993 of detailed reclamation plans 
    including schedules for emplacing an earthen cover on non-operational 
    tailings impoundments to control emissions of radon-222 to 20 pCi/m\2\-
    s. See 56 FR 67568, December 31, 1991. Several commenters noted that 
    although the license amendment for the Atlas site in Moab, Utah is not 
    yet complete, that site represents a unique situation and should not 
    affect EPA's decision to rescind subpart T.
        No commenter was aware of any pending judicial or administrative 
    challenge that would present a significant risk of interference with 
    the MOU and the settlement agreement.
        Additionally, EPA requested comments on the proposed 
    reconsideration provisions included in a new Sec. 61.226 added to 
    subpart T. In particular EPA requested comments as to whether these 
    provisions effectively implement the regulatory approach of the 
    settlement agreement, especially the terms providing specific time 
    periods for a reconsideration rulemaking. One commenter believed the 
    criteria and procedures for reconsidering the decision to rescind 
    subpart T were consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement. 
    Several other commenters commented as to specific aspects of those 
    provisions and suggested revisions to the regulatory language for 
    consistency with the settlement agreement. Specific comments pertaining 
    to the proposed provisions for reconsideration of the rescission and 
    reinstatement of subpart T are addressed in Section 4 below.
        There was widespread agreement among the commenters that the EPA 
    and NRC regulatory and licensing framework that either has been, or is 
    in the process of being, implemented will ensure that non-operational 
    uranium mill tailings disposal sites will achieve the 20 pCi/m\2\-s 
    flux standard as expeditiously as practicable considering technological 
    feasibility.
    3. Rescission of Subpart T
    3.1  Timing of Rescission
        Comment: In response to the 1991 proposal, one commenter noted EPA 
    should not rescind subpart T until the Agency is assured that the MOU 
    between EPA, NRC and the affected Agreement States is implemented and 
    EPA's amendments to its UMTRCA regulations at 40 CFR part 192, subpart 
    D are complete.
        Response: As stated in the preamble to the 1994 proposal and the 
    final rule amending 40 CFR part 192, subpart D, EPA is now rescinding 
    subpart T for NRC-licensed uranium mill tailings disposal sites due to 
    the completion of the Agency's amendments to subpart D, completion of 
    NRC conforming regulations, and completion by NRC and affected 
    Agreement States of various license amendments containing schedules for 
    emplacement of the permanent radon barrier. EPA believes it is 
    appropriate to rescind subpart T pursuant to the authority of section 
    112(d)(9) of the CAA, as amended, since NRC has established a 
    regulatory program to ensure that non-operational uranium mill tailings 
    piles will be closed as expeditiously as practicable considering 
    technological feasibility.
    3.2  Section 112(d)(9) of the Clean Air Act, As Amended (``Simpson 
    Amendment'')
        Comment: In response to the 1991 proposal, one commenter argued 
    section 112(d)(9) of the CAA, as amended, applies prospectively and 
    does not authorize EPA to rescind a previously promulgated standard.
        Response: The Agency disagrees and believes that section 112(d)(9) 
    of the CAA authorizes EPA to rescind previously promulgated regulations 
    if certain determinations are made by EPA. Congress clearly intended to 
    give the Agency the discretion to rescind certain previously 
    promulgated regulations and thereby relieve affected facilities from 
    the burdens associated with parallel regulation when the NRC regulatory 
    program would protect public health with an ample margin of safety. 
    See, e.g., 136 Cong. Rec. S 3797-99 (daily ed. April 3, 1990), 
    reprinted in 4 A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
    1990, at 7156-7162 (1993). (``Legislative History, CAAA 1990''). This 
    Senate floor debate on Amendment No. 1457 to S. 1630 evidences a clear 
    intention that section 112(d)(9) authorizes rescission of previously 
    promulgated radionuclide NESHAPs. Senator Simpson, the sponsor of the 
    amendment, stated that ``[p]assage of this amendment will allow EPA to 
    replace the emission standards issued by EPA in November 1989, for NRC-
    licensed facilities, including power plants, uranium fuel cycle 
    facilities, and by-product facilities, if that agency concludes that 
    the existing NRC regulatory program adequately protects public 
    health.'' 4 Legislative History, CAAA 1990 at 7158. Also see 1 
    Legislative History, CAAA 1990 at 778 (1993) (statement by Senator 
    Burdick during debate on the Conference Committee Report) (``It is 
    clear that the existing regulatory program under the Atomic Energy Act 
    protects the public health with an ample margin of safety. Under these 
    circumstances, additional or dual regulation under the Clean Air Act 
    does not make any sense.'')
        Additionally, in commenting on the 1994 proposal, this commenter 
    expressed the belief that the 1994 proposal is consistent with the 
    terms of the settlement agreement between EPA, EDF, NRDC, AMC and 
    individual site owners and operators. The settlement agreement, as 
    described in detail above, promotes the objectives of section 112(d)(9) 
    of the CAA by establishing an agreed upon framework for reconsideration 
    of rescinding subpart T and making minor modifications to the AEA 
    regulatory program for closure of the uranium mill tailings disposal 
    sites. Clearly, rescission of the previously promulgated subpart T was 
    contemplated by the parties to the settlement agreement. This 
    particular commenter and EPA were parties to that agreement. EPA 
    continues to implement the terms of the settlement agreement, including 
    today's action rescinding subpart T. Thus, EPA is rejecting the prior 
    comment to the 1991 proposal.
        Comment: In response to the 1991 proposal, a commenter suggested 
    EPA publish its finding that the NRC regulatory program protects the 
    public health with an ample margin of safety.
        Response: Pursuant to the settlement agreement, EPA published and 
    invited comment on its proposed determination that the NRC regulatory 
    program protects public health with an ample margin of safety on 
    February 7, 1994 (59 FR 5674). That determination is also contained in 
    this action, which will be published in the Federal Register.
        Comment: Commenters suggested in response to the 1991 proposal that 
    EPA could not determine that the NRC regulatory program protects public 
    health with an ample margin of safety so long as NRC retains the 
    authority to waive standards and time schedules for compliance, and 
    there are no provisions under the AEA for citizens' suits.
        Response: The commenters suggest that the NRC regulatory program 
    does not ensure that EPA's revised UMTRCA regulations (40 CFR part 192, 
    subpart D) would apply, since NRC has the authority to grant waivers 
    under the AEA due to cost or technological feasibility. EPA recognizes 
    that the NRC has authority under the AEA to waive for economic reasons 
    strict compliance with the requirement that sites meet the 20 pCi/m\2\-
    s standard as expeditiously as practicable considering technological 
    feasibility (including factors beyond the control of the licensee). AEA 
    section 84c., 42 USC 2114c. However, the full exercise of this 
    authority is not contemplated by either the MOU or the settlement 
    agreement, described above. If this waiver authority is used in a 
    manner inconsistent with the purposes and objectives of the MOU and 
    settlement agreement, today's action includes procedural and 
    substantive provisions designed to facilitate reconsideration of the 
    rescission and possible reinstatement of subpart T.
        The amendments to subpart T provide clear authority and procedures 
    for EPA to revisit today's finding should NRC or the affected Agreement 
    States deviate from the regulatory program in place in a manner which 
    materially (i.e., more than de minimis) interferes with compliance with 
    the 20 pCi/m\2\-s flux standard as expeditiously as practicable 
    considering technological feasibility (including factors beyond the 
    control of the licensee). Additionally, EPA believes the actions taken 
    to date by NRC, including the license amendments and the final 
    amendments to the NRC conforming regulations, as described above, 
    reflect the good faith effort on the part of NRC to implement the MOU. 
    Thus, EPA believes under these circumstances NRC's authority to waive 
    strict compliance with the flux standard and the time for compliance 
    does not preclude EPA from finding NRC's regulatory program protects 
    the public health with an ample margin of safety.
        Further, the Agency believes that Congress was aware that the 
    legislative authority under the CAA provided for citizen suits while 
    the AEA did not contain such provisions. Congress clearly envisioned 
    that circumstances might be such that EPA would make the finding 
    required by the Simpson Amendment. In making today's ample margin of 
    safety determination, EPA considered whether NRC is implementing and 
    enforcing, in significant part, the regulations governing disposal of 
    tailings and the license requirements which establish milestones for 
    emplacement of a permanent radon barrier that will achieve compliance 
    with the 20
    pCi/m\2\-s flux standard on a programmatic and site-specific basis. 
    UMTRCA gives NRC and the Agreement States the responsibility to 
    implement and enforce regulations promulgated under UMTRCA. If, in the 
    future, NRC or the Agreement States do not implement and enforce, in 
    significant part, the regulations governing disposal of tailings and 
    the license requirements which establish milestones for emplacement of 
    a permanent radon barrier that will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/
    m\2\-s flux standard on a programmatic or site-specific basis, 
    reconsideration and reinstatement provisions adopted today allow EPA to 
    reconsider its rescission of subpart T, and thus, possibly reinstate 
    the CAA standards. The settlement agreement executed between EPA, EDF, 
    NRDC and AMC which provided the regulatory approach for today's action 
    had as an objective the rescission of subpart T. Moreover, NRC's final 
    amendments to the conforming regulations also provide enhanced 
    opportunities for public participation under certain circumstances.
    3.3  Section 112(q)(3) of the Clean Air Act, As Amended
        Comment: The comments to the 1991 proposal included a comment that 
    the ``Savings Provision'' (section 112(q)(3)) of the CAA requires that 
    subpart T remain in effect.
        Response: Section 112(q)(3) provides
    
    . . . this section, as in effect prior to the date of enactment of the 
    Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, shall remain in effect for 
    radionuclide emissions from . . . disposal of uranium mill tailings 
    piles, unless the Administrator, in the Administrator's discretion, 
    applies the requirements of this section as modified by the Clean Air 
    Act Amendments of 1990 to such sources of radionuclides.
    
        EPA believes the plain language of section 112(q)(3) gives the 
    Administrator the discretion to rescind subpart T pursuant to section 
    112(d)(9) or allow subpart T to remain in effect pursuant to section 
    112 as in effect prior to the CAAA of 1990. In this rulemaking, EPA 
    acted to apply section 112 as modified by the 1990 amendments, and 
    pursuant to section 112(d)(9) to decline to regulate ``radionuclide 
    emissions from any category or subcategory of facilities licensed by 
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (or an Agreement State)'' if the 
    Administrator determines, by rule, and after consultation with the 
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``that the regulatory program 
    established by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pursuant to the Atomic 
    Energy Act for such category or subcategory provides an ample margin of 
    safety to protect the public health.'' This provision strives to 
    eliminate duplication of effort between EPA and NRC, so long as public 
    health is protected with an ample margin of safety. Although the 
    commenter suggests that section 112(q)(3) should cause the 
    Administrator to not rescind subpart T, such an interpretation is not 
    harmonious and is inconsistent with the intent of Congress in enacting 
    the CAAA of 1990.
        Additionally, EPA received comments from this commenter supporting 
    the 1994 proposal, expressing the belief that the 1994 proposal is 
    consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement. The settlement 
    agreement promotes the objectives of section 112(d)(9) of the CAA as 
    amended by establishing an agreed upon framework for consideration of 
    the rescission of subpart T and minor modifications to the AEA 
    regulatory program for closure of uranium mill tailings disposal sites. 
    This commenter, together with EPA and others, was a party to that 
    agreement, which clearly envisions rescission of subpart T.
        Thus, EPA is rejecting this comment, since a plain reading of 
    section 112(q)(3) authorizes EPA to exercise its discretion under 
    section 112(d)(9) and as a party to the settlement agreement the 
    commenter clearly supports the goal of the agreement that subpart T be 
    rescinded.
    3.3  Section 122(a) of the Clean Air Act, as Amended in 1977
        Comment: The commenter asserts in response to the 1991 proposal 
    that EPA should not rescind subpart T because such rescission is 
    inconsistent with section 122(a) of the CAA of 1977. The commenter 
    contends section 122(a) was not repealed by the 1990 amendments to the 
    CAA and that it required the Agency to list radionuclides as a 
    hazardous air pollutant if the Administrator found that public health 
    was threatened due to air emissions of radionuclides.
        Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation that 
    rescission of subpart T pursuant to section 112(d)(9) of the CAA is 
    inconsistent with section 122(a) of the CAA. On December 27, 1979, EPA 
    listed radionuclides, including those defined by the AEA as byproduct 
    material, as a Hazardous Air Pollutant pursuant to section 112(b)(1)(A) 
    of the CAA as amended in 1977. (44 FR 76738). In that notice EPA stated 
    that
    
        [I]n accordance with the requirements of sections 122 and 112, 
    the Agency finds that studies of the biological effects of ionizing 
    radiation indicate that exposure to radionuclides increases the risk 
    of human cancer and genetic damage. . . . Based on this information, 
    the Administrator has concluded that emission of radionuclides may 
    reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health, and that 
    radionuclides constitute hazardous air pollutants within the meaning 
    of the Clean Air Act.
    
    Id. On April 6, 1983 (48 FR 15076) EPA announced proposed standards for 
    four sources of emissions of radionuclides, and its decision to not 
    regulate uranium mill tailings together with other sources. Under court 
    order, EPA finalized the regulations proposed in 1983 on February 6, 
    1985. 50 FR 5190. See also Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus, No. 84-0656 
    (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California). On 
    September 24, 1986, EPA promulgated a final rule regulating radon-222 
    emissions from licensed uranium mill processing sites by establishing 
    work practices for new tailings. (51 FR 34056). On April 1, 1988, EPA 
    requested a remand for this standard. On EPA's motion, the Court placed 
    the uranium mill tailings NESHAPs on the same schedule as the other 
    radionuclide NESHAPs to reconsider the standards in light of Natural 
    Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir 1987) (Vinyl 
    Chloride). EPA subsequently promulgated 40 CFR part 61, subpart T, the 
    subject of today's action.
        EPA believes section 122 of the CAA must be read consistent with 
    and in harmony with the 1990 amendments to the CAA. EPA took action 
    under section 122 when it listed radionuclides. EPA subsequently 
    regulated radionuclides emissions under section 112. Section 112(d)(9) 
    of the CAA authorizes EPA to now decline to regulate radionuclide 
    emissions from any category or subcategory of facilities licensed by 
    the NRC (or an Agreement State) if the Administrator determines, by 
    rule, and after consultation with the NRC, that the regulatory program 
    established by the NRC pursuant to the AEA for such category or 
    subcategory provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public 
    health. This provision strives to eliminate duplication of effort 
    between EPA and NRC, so long as public health is protected with an 
    ample margin of safety. While section 122 addresses whether 
    radionuclides should be listed, section 112(d)(9) addresses a separate 
    issue--whether EPA should continue to regulate or initiate regulation 
    of radionuclide air emissions under section 112 based on the NRC 
    regulatory program.
        Although the commenter suggests EPA should not rescind subpart T 
    based on section 122(a), EPA believes such a reading of sections 
    112(d)(9) and 122(a) is not harmonious and is inconsistent with the 
    intent of Congress in enacting section 112(d)(9).
        Additionally, EPA received comments from this particular commenter 
    in response to the 1994 proposal expressing the belief that the 1994 
    proposal to rescind subpart T is consistent with the terms of the 
    settlement agreement. The settlement agreement promotes the objectives 
    of section 112(d)(9) of the CAA as amended through the rescission of 
    subpart T and minor modifications to the AEA regulatory program for 
    closure of the uranium mill tailings disposal sites. This commenter, 
    together with EPA and others, was a party to that agreement. Through 
    today's action rescinding subpart T, EPA is furthering the goal of the 
    settlement agreement.
        Thus, EPA is rejecting this comment, since a reading of section 
    122(a) apparently preventing such rescission is inconsistent with the 
    intent of Congress in enacting section 112(d)(9), and as a party to the 
    settlement agreement the commenter was aware of and supported the goal 
    of the agreement that subpart T be rescinded.
    4. Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart T
    4.1  General
        Comment: The rationale for adding the definitions residual 
    radioactive material and tailings, while deleting the definition of 
    uranium byproduct material or tailings is not clear. The proposed 
    definitions appear to apply to Title I sites, and significant problems 
    might arise if these definitions were to be applied to Title II sites 
    in the event of reinstatement of subpart T.
        Response: Sec. 61.220(a) as adopted today states that subpart T 
    applies only to Title I sites except for the reconsideration and 
    reinstatement procedures in Sec. 61.226. The phrase ``or uranium 
    byproduct materials'' was deleted to further clarify that subpart T 
    applies to Title I sites. The phrases ``residual radioactive 
    materials'' and ``tailings'' currently appear in Sec. 61.220(a). EPA 
    noted in describing DOE sites in the 1989 BID that the tailings located 
    at these sites contain residual radioactive materials, including traces 
    of unrecovered uranium, various heavy metals and other elements. 
    Background Information Document: Risk Assessments; Environmental Impact 
    Statement; NESHAPs for Radionuclides, Volume 2 at 8-2 (EPA/520/1-89-
    006-1, September 1989).
        EPA believes it appropriate to define residual radioactive material 
    and tailings for purposes of this subpart. The Agency proposed these 
    definitions on December 31, 1991 and February 4, 1994. (56 FR 67561; 59 
    FR 5687). The proposed definitions for these terms were consistent with 
    definitions contained in UMTRCA. 42 U.S.C. 7911, sections 101(7) and 
    101(8). The terms are defined in the Final Rule by expressly 
    referencing UMTRCA, to ensure consistency with that Act. The Agency 
    does not believe these definitions would be problematic if the Agency 
    decided to reinstate subpart T, since EPA would amend subpart T at that 
    time to apply to the Title II sites and to include appropriate 
    definitions.
        Comment: The provisions of subpart T, with the exception of 
    Sec. 61.226, should only apply to Title I sites and some apparent 
    references to Title II sites remain.
        Response: EPA is rescinding subpart T as applied to NRC or 
    Agreement State licensed non-operational uranium mill tailings disposal 
    sites, and thus, does not intend any provision of subpart T, excepting 
    Sec. 61.226 and applicable definitions, to apply to these sites. EPA 
    has revised Sec. 61.220(a) to reflect this intent.
        Comment: Section 61.226(c)(2) as proposed suggests that no future 
    action can be taken to resolve EPA's concerns after EPA notifies NRC of 
    its intent to initiate a rulemaking to reinstate subpart T.
        Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's suggestion that no 
    further action may be taken to resolve the Agency's then existing 
    concerns after EPA notifies NRC of its intent to proceed with a 
    rulemaking to reinstate subpart T. The purpose of consulting with NRC 
    about the Agency's concerns prior to notifying NRC and the subsequent 
    60-day period is to provide EPA and NRC with an opportunity to address 
    EPA's concerns prior to EPA actually initiating such a rulemaking. 
    Additionally, EPA expects that the two agencies would continue 
    consultations during the rulemaking process to attempt to resolve any 
    remaining concerns. Section 61.226(c)(2) would not limit such continued 
    consultations.
    4.2. Provisions for Reconsideration of the Rescission and Reinstatement 
    of Subpart T
        Comment: Many commenters, although generally opposed to the idea of 
    reinstatement of subpart T, favored including provisions for 
    reconsideration and reinstatement of subpart T on either a site-
    specific or programmatic basis, as set forth in the Agency's 1991 
    proposal to rescind subpart T.
        Response: EPA reviewed the various reconsideration options proposed 
    in December 1991, taking into consideration the comprehensive details 
    added to the terms of the MOU by the settlement agreement finalized in 
    April 1993. In its 1994 supplemental proposal, EPA proposed an 
    additional reconsideration option that was a combination of the options 
    originally proposed. EPA did not withdraw the original options, but 
    instead announced the Agency's preference for provisions on 
    reconsideration and reinstatement of subpart T on both programmatic and 
    site-specific bases. The Agency has reviewed carefully all comments 
    submitted on the proposed reconsideration provisions and has revised 
    the regulatory text and preamble where deemed appropriate. The Agency 
    believes the provisions for reconsideration and reinstatement of 
    subpart T adopted today represent a comprehensive approach based on 
    EPA's current evaluation of the NRC regulatory program, and a 
    regulatory structure designed to address future evaluations of the 
    program.
        Comment: EPA received a variety of comments dealing with the 
    consistency of the proposed regulations with the settlement agreement 
    between EPA, EDF, NRDC, AMC, and individual site owners described 
    above; to which NRC agreed in principle. These commenters suggested 
    various minor revisions to the regulations.
        Response: EPA has adopted certain comments and suggested minor 
    language changes while rejecting others, depending on whether they 
    effectively implement the goal of rescission of subpart T.
        Comment: Several commenters contend the site-specific 
    reconsideration and reinstatement options contained in the December 
    1991 proposal would unduly restrict NRC's waiver authority, since EPA 
    proposed a non-discretionary duty to reinstate subpart T on a site-
    specific basis if NRC exercises its waiver authority.
        Response: As described in the proposals, EPA was concerned over the 
    potential for deviation from the agreements contained in the MOU and 
    the requirements of revised subpart D. In response, EPA proposed and is 
    now adopting procedural and substantive provisions for site-specific 
    and programmatic reconsideration and reinstatement if certain criteria 
    are met. In promulgating subpart T, the CAA did not permit, and EPA did 
    not consider, site-specific waivers from ultimate compliance with that 
    standard. Thus, in evaluating NRC's regulatory program, EPA recognized 
    in its December 1991 proposal that NRC's waiver authority under the AEA 
    might be exercised in a manner not addressed in the MOU even after the 
    revisions to 40 CFR part 192, subpart D and 10 CFR part 40, appendix A 
    have been promulgated and the licenses amended. However, EPA has no 
    reason to believe such relaxation of the standards will actually occur. 
    EPA believes the provisions adopted today represent a comprehensive 
    approach based on EPA's current evaluation of the NRC regulatory 
    program, and a regulatory structure designed to address future 
    evaluations of the program.
        Additionally, in response to the 1994 proposal, EPA received 
    subsequent comments from these commenters supporting the rescission of 
    subpart T. Furthermore, these commenters supported the proposed 
    reconsideration and reinstatement provisions with certain 
    modifications. These commenters believe the 1994 proposal to rescind 
    subpart T is consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement 
    between EPA, EDF, NRDC, AMC and individual sites. Thus, based on the 
    above reasons for adopting reconsideration and reinstatement 
    provisions, and due to the inconsistency between the earlier comments 
    received and the subsequent expressions of support for the rescission 
    of subpart T, EPA is rejecting the earlier comments.
        Comment: Many commenters to the 1991 proposal believe that 
    reconsideration of the rescission of subpart T and subsequent 
    reinstatement on a programmatic basis is inappropriate if one site 
    fails to comply.
        Response: Today's action sets forth provisions for the 
    reconsideration of the rescission of subpart T and reinstatement of 
    that subpart. The regulations adopted today include provisions for 
    programmatic and site-specific reinstatement with separate but somewhat 
    parallel criteria. At this time, EPA is not aware of a situation which 
    would cause it to reinstate subpart T on a programmatic basis if one 
    site fails to comply, and would not expect to reinstate subpart T on 
    that basis. However, the Agency cannot predict all future 
    circumstances, and cannot at this time preclude the possibility of such 
    reinstatement. EPA does, however, believe the criteria adopted today 
    appropriately address both programmatic and site-specific 
    reinstatement.
        EPA rejects this comment for the above reasons, and because of the 
    inconsistent responses to the 1991 and 1994 proposals received from the 
    same commenters.
        Comment: Some commenters assert, in response to the 1991 proposal 
    that EPA lacks the authority to reinstate subpart T on a site-specific 
    basis, since section 112(d)(9) is concerned only with NRC's regulatory 
    program.
        Response: EPA believes that section 112(d)(9) does not preclude 
    site-specific reinstatement. Section 112(d)(9) of the CAA as amended 
    authorizes EPA to decline to regulate radionuclide emissions from any 
    category or subcategory of facilities licensed by the Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission (or an Agreement State) if the Administrator 
    determines, by rule, and after consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory 
    Commission, that the regulatory program established by the Nuclear 
    Regulatory Commission pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act for such 
    category or subcategory provides an ample margin of safety to protect 
    the public health. The text of this section does not appear to preclude 
    reinstatement on a site-specific basis. Section 112(d)(9) allows EPA to 
    categorize and subcategorize, and for any such category or subcategory 
    determine whether the public health is protected with an ample margin 
    of safety by the NRC regulatory program from a particular source of 
    radionuclide emissions. EPA believes that under the appropriate 
    circumstances, the Agency may want to specifically categorize sites. 
    The CAA as amended does not appear to preclude such specific categories 
    on its face.
        EPA rejects this comment for the above reasons, and because of the 
    contradictory and inconsistent nature of the comments received from the 
    same commenters in response to the 1991 and 1994 proposals, and the 
    commenters' support of EPA's 1994 proposal which contains provisions 
    for site-specific reinstatement.
        Comment: One commenter appears to recognize EPA's authority for 
    site-specific reinstatement of subpart T but is opposed to EPA's 
    exercise of such authority, and questions its appropriateness, since it 
    appears to the commenter that NRC's existing inspection and enforcement 
    programs address site-specific failures.
        Response: This commenter does not oppose the proposed reinstatement 
    provisions and expresses the clear opinion that EPA committed in the 
    settlement agreement to include provisions for site-specific 
    reconsideration and reinstatement of subpart T. EPA anticipates that 
    before initiating a rulemaking to reinstate subpart T on a site-
    specific basis, there would be extensive consultation with NRC. Based 
    on the actions of NRC to date in implementing the terms of the MOU, EPA 
    hopes that all concerns could be resolved. EPA is adopting the 
    provisions for site-specific reconsideration and reinstatement as part 
    of a comprehensive approach based on EPA's current evaluation of the 
    NRC regulatory program, and a regulatory structure designed to address 
    future evaluations of the program.
        Comment: Some commenters contend that in reconsidering the 
    rescission and reinstatement of subpart T on a programmatic basis, 
    section 112(d)(9) requires EPA to determine whether public health is 
    threatened by the failure of a particular site to meet the 20 pCi/
    m2-s flux standard.
        Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenters' interpretation 
    of section 112(d)(9) as applying to provisions for reinstatement. 
    Section 112(d)(9) does not establish the criteria for reinstatement, 
    rather it authorizes EPA to decline to regulate radionuclide emissions 
    from NRC or Agreement State licensees if the Administrator determines, 
    by rule, and after consultation with the NRC, that the NRC regulatory 
    program protects the public health with an ample margin of safety. 
    Under section 112(d)(9) EPA may rescind subpart T if EPA determines 
    that the NRC regulatory program provides an equivalent level of public 
    health protection (i.e., an ample margin of safety) as would 
    implementation of subpart T in order to rescind subpart T. Section 
    112(d)(9) does not limit EPA's authority to reinstate subpart T. EPA 
    believes the criteria adopted today appropriately address both 
    programmatic and site-specific reinstatement.
        Additionally, this comment was received in response to the 1991 
    proposal. EPA rejects this comment for the above reasons, and because 
    of the inconsistent responses to the 1991 and 1994 proposals received 
    from the same commenters.
        Comment: Some commenters contend in response to the 1994 proposal 
    that EPA should not treat reinstatement at the Administrator's 
    initiative on the same terms as reinstatement based on a third party 
    petition. These comments suggest revising the proposed regulations to 
    reflect the differences between the two, including adding a provision 
    for a third possible result (i.e., a finding that NRC is in 
    compliance).
        Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' suggestion that 
    reinstatement at the Administrator's initiative should be treated 
    differently from reinstatement based on a third party petition.
        The commenters are basing their contentions on the terms of the 
    settlement agreement which the Agency entered into with EDF, NRDC, AMC 
    and individual sites in February 1993. That agreement adds 
    comprehensive details to the regulatory approach of the MOU between 
    EPA, NRC and the affected Agreement States. EPA has reviewed the terms 
    of the settlement agreement pertaining to the reconsideration of 
    rescission and reinstatement of subpart T. The settlement agreement 
    specifies at paragraph III.e. that upon completion of a rulemaking 
    reconsidering the rescission of subpart T, EPA may (1) reinstate 
    subpart T on a programmatic basis if certain criteria are met; (2) 
    reinstate subpart T on a site-specific basis if certain criteria are 
    met; or (3) issue a finding that NRC is in compliance with certain 
    criteria and that reinstatement of subpart T is not appropriate.
        The Agency believes the criteria in Sec. 61.226(a) for requiring 
    reinstatement upon completion of a reconsideration rulemaking should 
    apply whether the rulemaking is at the Administrator's initiative or 
    based on a third party petition. These criteria are: (1) Failure by the 
    NRC or an Agreement State on a programmatic basis to implement and 
    enforce, in significant part, the regulations governing the disposal of 
    uranium mill tailings promulgated by EPA and NRC or the tailings 
    closure plan (radon) requirements (i.e., contained in the license) 
    establishing milestones for the purpose of emplacing a permanent radon 
    barrier that will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux 
    standard; or (2) failure by NRC or an affected Agreement State on a 
    site-specific basis to achieve compliance by the operator of the site 
    or sites with applicable license requirements, regulations, or 
    standards implemented by NRC and the affected Agreement States. 
    Additionally, EPA would not be required to reinstate subpart T under 
    Sec. 61.226(a) unless those failures may reasonably be anticipated to 
    significantly interfere (i.e., more than de minimis) with the timely 
    emplacement of a permanent radon barrier constructed to achieve 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard at uranium mill 
    tailings disposal sites.
        The commenters contend that the nature of the party initiating the 
    reconsideration rulemaking should determine whether reinstatement is 
    discretionary (for initiation by the Administrator) or mandatory (for a 
    third party petition), apparently based on a desire to provide EPA with 
    greater flexibility to address concerns over failures of NRC or an 
    Agreement State to implement or enforce applicable requirements. The 
    Agency believes that the nature of the initiating party properly may 
    trigger different procedural requirements. For example, when a private 
    party initiates the process by filing a petition, EPA has established a 
    requirement that it take final action on such a petition within a set 
    time period. However, EPA believes that the nature of the party 
    initiating the process leading to a rulemaking is not relevant to 
    deciding whether to reinstate, assuming the relevant criteria for 
    reinstatement are met under either circumstance. EPA believes that if 
    the Administrator determines, based on the record, that (1) NRC or an 
    Agreement State failed on a programmatic basis to implement and 
    enforce, in significant part, the regulations governing the disposal of 
    uranium mill tailings promulgated by EPA and NRC or the tailings 
    closure plan (radon) (i.e., contained in the license) requirements 
    establishing milestones for the purpose of emplacing a permanent radon 
    barrier that will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux 
    standard or (2) NRC or an affected Agreement State failed in 
    significant part, on a site-specific basis, to achieve compliance by 
    the operator of the site or sites with applicable license requirements, 
    regulations, or standards implemented by NRC and the affected Agreement 
    States, then there would be the same reason for the Agency to reinstate 
    subpart T whether the process was initiated by a private petition or at 
    EPA's own initiation. If the Agency makes the determination required to 
    reinstate subpart T based on reconsideration of rescission at the 
    Administrator's initiative and such reinstatement is considered 
    discretionary, the Agency is not aware of circumstances which would 
    lead the Agency not to reinstate subpart T. In any case, if the 
    Administrator should make the determination in Sec. 61.226(a) (1) or 
    (2) but decide in her discretion not to reinstate subpart T in a 
    proceeding initiated by the Administrator, then the Agency believes it 
    would promptly receive third party petitions based on the finding made 
    at the Administrator's initiative, and the Agency would then be 
    obligated to reinstate subpart T. Additionally, upon completion of the 
    reconsideration of rescission pursuant to Sec. 61.226(c) the 
    Administrator may in her discretion issue a finding that reinstatement 
    of this subpart is not appropriate if the Administrator makes certain 
    findings. However, the discretion to issue such a finding is not 
    relevant to the situation where the Administrator has found that the 
    criteria for reinstatement have already been met, since the two 
    findings are mutually exclusive. Finally, the commenters apparently 
    believe that reinstatement at the Administrator's initiative should be 
    discretionary so that EPA and NRC can continue attempts to resolve 
    concerns and thereby avoid the need to reinstate. EPA believes that 
    such ongoing consultation is not precluded by the regulations adopted 
    today, and EPA expects the agencies would continue consultations and 
    make all possible efforts to resolve the concerns during the rulemaking 
    process. The regulation does not establish a time limit for final 
    agency action in this case, and the agency would have discretion to 
    extend the rulemaking if appropriate to continue such inter-agency 
    consultations.
        EPA agrees with the commenters that the settlement agreement 
    provides an additional possible result upon completion of a 
    reconsideration rulemaking initiated by the Administrator, namely that 
    the Agency may issue a finding that reinstatement is not appropriate if 
    the Agency finds: (1) NRC and the affected Agreement States are on a 
    programmatic basis implementing and enforcing, in significant part, the 
    regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings promulgated 
    by EPA and NRC or the tailings closure plan (radon) (i.e., contained in 
    the license) requirements establishing milestones for the purpose of 
    emplacing a permanent radon barrier that will achieve compliance with 
    the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard; or (2) NRC or an affected Agreement 
    State are, in significant part, on a site-specific basis achieving 
    compliance by the operator of the site or sites with applicable license 
    requirements, regulations, or standards implemented by NRC and the 
    affected Agreement States. EPA believes addition of this provision to 
    the regulations will clarify the existence of this option and has 
    revised Sec. 61.226(a) of the reinstatement provisions to provide for 
    this additional result.
        Comment: One commenter asserts that EPA's characterization of its 
    authority to reconsider rescission of subpart T in the preamble to the 
    1994 proposal appears overly broad and reinstatement should be clearly 
    limited to those conditions proposed in Sec. 61.226(a).
        Response: EPA believes that the provisions for reconsideration of 
    rescission adopted in Sec. 61.226 represent a comprehensive approach 
    under both the MOU and the settlement agreement. The provisions include 
    substantive and procedural provisions for reconsideration of rescission 
    and the reinstatement of this subpart on a programmatic or site-
    specific basis. The provisions include the obligation to reinstate 
    subpart T if certain conditions are met, procedures for reconsideration 
    and provisions authorizing the Administrator to initiate 
    reconsideration. Although the Agency does not intend to reconsider its 
    decision to rescind subpart T for a site which is in fact meeting the 
    20 pCi/m2-s flux standard absent other factors that would indicate 
    the need for reinstatement, the Agency recognizes that a situation may 
    arise where reconsideration of rescission is nevertheless appropriate. 
    For example, EPA might consider initiating reconsideration under 
    Sec. 61.226 where a site is meeting the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard 
    if there are factors which show that NRC or an Agreement State failed 
    to implement and enforce in significant part, the applicable 
    regulations, e.g., clear failure of that site to emplace the permanent 
    radon barrier within the time periods established in implementing 
    subpart D. EPA is not aware of circumstances under which EPA might 
    reconsider rescission for a site that is meeting the 20 pCi/m2-s 
    flux standard, other than those indicating that the milestone for 
    emplacement of the permanent radon barrier has passed, the delay was 
    not approved by NRC or an Agreement State and the licensee failed to 
    emplace the permanent radon barrier, and there are indications that the 
    licensee does not plan to emplace the barrier and NRC or an Agreement 
    State does not plan to enforce this requirement. EPA does not envision 
    such an unusual situation arising. EPA believes the actions taken to 
    date by NRC, including the license amendments and the final amendments 
    to the NRC conforming regulations, as described above, reflect the good 
    faith effort on the part of NRC and the Agreement States to implement 
    the MOU and EPA's subpart D regulations. However, the Agency is not now 
    in the position to determine that there could be no circumstances which 
    might indicate the need to reconsider the rescission of subpart T for a 
    site that is in fact meeting the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard.
        Additionally, EPA reserves the right to initiate reinstatement of 
    subpart T if appropriate, since although the Sec. 61.226 provisions 
    adopted today establish an obligation for the Administrator to 
    reinstate if certain conditions are met, they are not intended to be 
    the exclusive basis for reinstatement. Under the regulations adopted 
    today, EPA has the authority to reconsider the rescission of subpart T 
    at the Administrator's initiative and upon the petition of a third 
    party. The Agency is obligated to reinstate subpart T on a programmatic 
    basis if the Administrator determines by rulemaking, based on the 
    record, that NRC or an affected Agreement State has failed on a 
    programmatic basis to implement and enforce, in significant part, the 
    regulations governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings promulgated 
    by EPA and NRC or the tailings closure plan (radon) requirements 
    establishing milestones for the purpose of emplacing a permanent radon 
    barrier that will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux 
    standard. Additionally, EPA is obligated to reinstate subpart T on a 
    site-specific basis as applied to owners and operators of non-
    operational uranium mill tailings disposal sites if the Administrator 
    determines by rulemaking, based on the record, that NRC or an affected 
    Agreement State has failed in significant part on a site-specific basis 
    to achieve compliance by the operator of the site or sites with 
    applicable license requirements, regulations, or standards implemented 
    by NRC and the affected Agreement States. The obligation to reinstate 
    subpart T is limited to those failures which may reasonably be 
    anticipated to significantly interfere with timely emplacement of the 
    permanent radon barrier constructed to achieve compliance with the 20 
    pCi/m2-s flux standard. At this time, EPA is not aware of 
    circumstances where it would consider reinstating subpart T if the 
    failure does not significantly interfere with emplacement of the 
    required permanent radon barrier. However, EPA reserves the right to 
    reconsider the rescission where the criteria of Sec. 61.226(a) have not 
    been met, under the Agency's authority to issue NESHAPs contained in 
    section 112 of the CAA. For example, even if the NRC or an Agreement 
    State is implementing and enforcing, in significant part, the 
    applicable regulations and license amendments, the Agency may decide to 
    reconsider the rescission if new information indicated that the public 
    health is not protected with an ample margin of safety. The Agency 
    cannot predict all future circumstances and cannot at this time 
    preclude the possibility of such reconsideration and possible 
    reinstatement. Despite reserving this authority, the Agency believes 
    this is a theoretical situation and has no current intention to act on 
    this authority.
    5. Miscellaneous
    5.1. Monitoring
        Comment: EPA must ensure that the single monitoring event currently 
    required by subpart T would remain in effect if subpart T is 
    reinstated, particularly in light of the recently proposed ``enhanced 
    monitoring'' regulations.
        Response: Subpart T currently requires monitoring to occur only 
    once to demonstrate compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard 
    of Sec. 61.222. However, EPA published a proposed Enhanced Monitoring 
    Program on October 22, 1993, which would require owners and operators 
    of sources subject to existing NESHAPs to perform enhanced monitoring 
    at emissions units. (58 FR 54648). It appears that the proposal applies 
    the enhanced monitoring requirements for hazardous air pollutants to 
    all emissions units which would be required to obtain an operating 
    permit. (58 FR 54651, October 22, 1993). Additionally, although 
    asbestos demolition and renovation projects (subpart M) were exempted 
    from the enhanced monitoring provisions, it does not appear subpart T 
    would be exempted. The rationale for the proposed asbestos demolition 
    exemption, that EPA was not requiring states to permit those sources 
    and the permit program is the established method for implementing the 
    enhanced monitoring program, does not appear to apply to uranium mill 
    tailings disposal sites. It would be premature for EPA to determine 
    today that in the event subpart T is reinstated for Title II sites, the 
    proposed enhanced monitoring provisions would not apply.
    5.2  Discussion of 40 CFR part 192, Subpart D Extension Provisions
        Comment: EPA's discussion of the extension provisions contained in 
    40 CFR 192.32(a)(3)(ii), (iii) is confusing and should be revised to 
    equally consider the possibility of extensions for factors beyond the 
    control of the licensee.
        Response: EPA believes its discussion of the extension provisions 
    contained in the Agency's amendments to its UMTRCA regulations at 40 
    CFR 192.32(a)(3)(ii) and (iii) does not need further clarification. EPA 
    disagrees with the commenter's claim that an extension based upon 
    ``factors beyond the control of the licensee'' should be considered 
    equally with the delay provisions encompassed in EPA's UMTRCA 
    regulations. 40 CFR 192.32(a)(3)(ii) and (iii) specifically provide 
    that NRC may grant an extension on either one of two bases. However, an 
    extension due to ``factors beyond the control of the licensee'' is 
    implicit in the definition of ``as expeditiously as practicable.'' The 
    term ``factors beyond the control of the licensee'' would be one 
    element for NRC to evaluate in reconsidering a prior decision 
    establishing a date for emplacement of the permanent radon barrier that 
    meets the definition of ``as expeditiously as practicable.'' A change 
    in any one of the factors considered in establishing a date that meets 
    the ``as expeditiously as practicable'' standard would not 
    automatically lead to an extension, rather NRC would need to evaluate 
    all the relevant factors under Sec. 192.32(a)(3)(i) before it could 
    change a previously established milestone or date for emplacement of 
    the permanent radon barrier.
    5.3  Discussion of Amendment of NRC and Agreement State Licenses
        Comment: There is some concern that EPA may be over scrutinizing 
    the NRC license amendment process, particularly with respect to the 
    Atlas site located in Moab, Utah.
        Response: In order to determine that the NRC regulatory program 
    protects the public health with an ample margin of safety and rescind 
    subpart T, EPA must conclude, inter alia that NRC and the affected 
    Agreement States are or will be implementing and enforcing the license 
    requirements (tailings closure plan (radon)) that establish the 
    milestones for emplacement of a permanent radon barrier that will 
    achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/m2-s flux standard as 
    expeditiously as practicable considering technological feasibility. The 
    Agency is applying the same basic approach in reviewing all of the 
    license amendments. Presently, Atlas is the only site where the site 
    license has not yet been amended, but the tailings closure plan (radon) 
    milestones are in jeopardy. There is a wealth of information for EPA to 
    review due to the unique circumstances of this site.
        EPA is interested in the Atlas site because the license amendment 
    incorporating the reclamation plan has not yet been completed, and this 
    may jeopardize the dates contained in the tailings closure plan 
    (radon). The MOU established a target closure date of 1996. EPA 
    recognizes that this is the only site for which a license amendment 
    incorporating the reclamation plan has not been established, thereby 
    possibly impacting the dates currently contained in the approved 
    tailings closure plan (radon) adopted pursuant to the MOU and EPA's 
    revised subpart D regulations, and that the circumstances surrounding 
    the delay are unique. EPA believes NRC, the affected Agreement States 
    and the licensees have acted in good faith to amend the site licenses.
        The Agency does not believe it is overly scrutinizing the license 
    amendment process. The Agency believes its interest in the Atlas site 
    reflects EPA's commitment to and review of the applicable criteria in 
    finally determining that NRC and the affected Agreement States are or 
    will be implementing and enforcing the license requirements (tailings 
    closure plan (radon)) to achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/m\2\-s flux 
    standard. EPA is merely reviewing current information and monitoring 
    the progress of NRC in implementing the requirements of subpart D. The 
    Agency has not suggested any course of action to NRC.
    5.4  Public Participation
        Comment: An industrial site, other than a uranium mill tailings 
    disposal site, commented that publishing a notice in the Federal 
    Register does not provide sufficient notice for citizens of communities 
    where uranium mill tailings disposal sites are located.
        Response: The EPA made every effort to notify the affected public 
    of the proposed rulemaking action. EPA published a NPR on December 31, 
    1991, and a supplement to that proposal on February 7, 1994, in the 
    Federal Register. There was a public comment period after each 
    proposal; public hearings were held in Washington, DC and Santa Fe, NM 
    after the 1991 proposal and no request for a hearing was received after 
    the 1994 proposal. EPA believes it has afforded the public with full 
    opportunity to participate in this proceeding, as well as satisfied all 
    such requirements under Clean Air Act section 307.
    
    V. Miscellaneous
    
    A. Disposition of Pending Judicial Challenges and Petitions for 
    Reconsideration
    
        By taking today's action rescinding subpart T as applied to owners 
    and operators of uranium mill tailings disposal sites regulated under 
    Title II of UMTRCA, the stay of subpart T is no longer effective. Thus, 
    the challenge to the stay of subpart T filed by EDF is moot, and EPA 
    expects that the pending litigation will be promptly resolved by 
    dismissal. Based on the terms of the settlement agreement between EDF, 
    NRDC, AMC, individual sites and EPA as described above, and based on 
    today's rescission of subpart T, AMC's pending administrative petition 
    for reconsideration of subpart T is denied as moot. Additionally, all 
    other pending petitions for reconsideration of subpart T as applied to 
    Title II sites are denied as moot under today's action.
    
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        There are no information collection requirements in this rule.
    
    C. Executive Order 12866
    
        Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 57735, October 4, 1993) the 
    Agency must determine whether this regulation, if promulgated, is 
    ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the 
    requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant 
    regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
        (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
    adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
    economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
    health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities;
        (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
    action taken or planned by another agency;
        (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
    user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
    thereof; or
        (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
    mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
    the Executive Order.
        This action is not a significant regulatory action as that term is 
    defined in Executive Order 12866, since it will not result in an annual 
    effect on the economy of $100 million or another adverse economic 
    impact; it does not create a serious inconsistency or interfere with 
    another agency's action; it does not materially alter the budgetary 
    impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, etc.; and it does not raise 
    novel legal or policy issues. Thus, EPA has determined that rescinding 
    subpart T as it applies to owners and operators of uranium mill 
    tailings disposal sites that are licensed by the NRC or an affected 
    Agreement State is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
    terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB 
    review.
    
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    
        Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603, 
    requires EPA to prepare and make available for comment an ``initial 
    regulatory flexibility analysis'' which describes the effect of this 
    rule on small business entities. However, section 604(b) of the Act 
    provides that an analysis not be required when the head of an Agency 
    certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant 
    economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        Most firms that own uranium mill tailings piles are divisions or 
    subsidiaries of major U.S. and international corporations. Many are 
    parts of larger diversified mining firms which are engaged in a number 
    of raw materials industries; the disposal of uranium mill tailings 
    piles represents only a small portion of their overall operations. 
    Others are owned by major oil companies and electric utilities which 
    were engaged in horizontal and vertical integration, respectively, 
    during the industry's growth phase in the 1960s and 1970s.
        It was found in the 1989 rulemaking that there was no significant 
    impact on small business entities. There has been no change in this, 
    and no new tailings piles have been constructed since 1989. I certify 
    that this final rule to rescind 40 CFR part 61, subpart T as applied to 
    owners and operators of NRC licensed non-operational uranium mill 
    tailings disposal sites, will not have significant economic impact on a 
    substantial number of small entities.
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 61
    
        Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Arsenic, Asbestos, 
    Benzene, Beryllium, Hazardous substances, Mercury, Radionuclides, 
    Radon, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Uranium, Vinyl 
    chloride.
    
        Dated: June 29, 1994.
    Carol M. Browner,
    Administrator.
    
        Part 61 of chapter 1 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
    is amended as follows:
    
    PART 61--[AMENDED]
    
        1. The authority citation for part 61 is revised to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, 7601.
    
        2. Section 61.220 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and removing 
    and reserving paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 61.220  Designation of facilities.
    
        (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to owners and operators of 
    all sites that are used for the disposal of tailings, and that managed 
    residual radioactive material during and following the processing of 
    uranium ores, commonly referred to as uranium mills and their 
    associated tailings, that are listed in, or designated by the Secretary 
    of Energy under Title I of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 
    Act of 1978, except Sec. 61.226 of this subpart which applies to owners 
    and operators of all sites that are regulated under Title II of the 
    Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978.
        (b) [Reserved]
        3. Section 61.221 is amended by revising the introductory text, 
    revising paragraphs (a) and (c), and by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) 
    to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 61.221  Definitions.
    
        As used in this subpart, all terms not defined here have the 
    meanings given them in the Clean Air Act or subpart A of Part 61. The 
    following terms shall have the following specific meanings:
        (a) Long term stabilization means the addition of material on a 
    uranium mill tailings pile for the purpose of ensuring compliance with 
    the requirements of 40 CFR 192.02(a). These actions shall be considered 
    complete when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission determines that the 
    requirements of 40 CFR 192.02(a) have been met.
    * * * * *
        (c) Residual radioactive materials shall have the same meaning as 
    in section 101(7) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 
    1978, 42 U.S.C. 7911(7).
        (d) Tailings shall have the same meaning as in section 101(8) of 
    the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. 
    7911(8).
        (e) In significant part means in a manner that is not reasonably 
    expected to materially (i.e., more than de minimis) interfere with 
    compliance with the 20 pCi/m\2\-s flux standard as expeditiously as 
    practicable considering technological feasibility (including factors 
    beyond the control of the licensee).
        4. Section 61.222 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
    follows:
    
    
    Sec. 61.222  Standard.
    
    * * * * *
        (b) Once a uranium mill tailings pile or impoundment ceases to be 
    operational it must be disposed of and brought into compliance with 
    this standard within two years of the effective date of the standard. 
    If it is not physically possible for an owner or operator to complete 
    disposal within that time, EPA shall, after consultation with the owner 
    or operator, establish a compliance agreement which will assure that 
    disposal will be completed as quickly as possible.
        5. Section 61.223 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 61.223  Compliance procedures.
    
    * * * * *
        (b) * * *
        (5) Each report shall be signed and dated by a public official in 
    charge of the facility and contain the following declaration 
    immediately above the signature line:
    
        I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined 
    and am familiar with the information submitted herein and based on 
    my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for 
    obtaining the information. I believe that the submitted information 
    is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are 
    significant penalties for submitting false information including the 
    possibility of fine and imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. 1001.
    * * * * *
        6. Section 61.226 is added to subpart T to read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 61.226  Reconsideration of rescission and reinstatement of this 
    subpart.
    
        (a) Reinstatement of this subpart upon completion of 
    reconsideration of rescission.
        (1) The Administrator shall reinstate 40 CFR part 61, subpart T as 
    applied to owners and operators of non-operational uranium mill 
    tailings disposal sites that are licensed by the NRC or an affected 
    Agreement State if the Administrator determines by rulemaking, based on 
    the record, that NRC or an affected Agreement State has:
        (i) Failed on a programmatic basis to implement and enforce, in 
    significant part, the regulations governing the disposal of uranium 
    mill tailings promulgated by EPA and NRC or the tailings closure plan 
    (radon) (i.e., contained in the license) requirements establishing 
    milestones for the purpose of emplacing a permanent radon barrier that 
    will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/m\2\-s flux standard; and
        (ii) Those failures may reasonably be anticipated to significantly 
    interfere (i.e., more than de minimis) with the timely emplacement of a 
    permanent radon barrier constructed to achieve compliance with the 20 
    pCi/m\2\-s flux standard at the uranium mill tailings disposal site.
        (2) The Administrator shall reinstate 40 CFR part 61 subpart T on a 
    site-specific basis as applied to owners and operators of non-
    operational uranium mill tailings disposal sites that are licensed by 
    the NRC or an affected Agreement State if the Administrator determines 
    by rulemaking, based on the record:
        (i) That NRC or an affected Agreement State has failed in 
    significant part on a site-specific basis to achieve compliance by the 
    operator of the site or sites with applicable license requirements, 
    regulations, or standards implemented by NRC and the affected Agreement 
    States; and
        (ii) Those failures may reasonably be anticipated to significantly 
    interfere (i.e., more than de minimis) with the timely emplacement of a 
    permanent radon barrier constructed to achieve compliance with the 20 
    pCi/m\2\-s flux standard at the uranium mill tailings disposal site.
        (3) Upon completion of the reconsideration of rescission pursuant 
    to Sec. 61.226(c) the Administrator may issue a finding that 
    reinstatement of this subpart is not appropriate if the Administrator 
    finds:
        (i) NRC and the affected Agreement States are on a programmatic 
    basis implementing and enforcing, in significant part, the regulations 
    governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings promulgated by EPA and 
    NRC or the tailings closure plan (radon) (i.e., contained in the 
    license) requirements establishing milestones for the purpose of 
    emplacing a permanent radon barrier that will achieve compliance with 
    the 20 pCi/m\2\-s flux standard; or
        (ii) NRC or an affected Agreement State are on a site-specific 
    basis, in significant part, achieving compliance by the operator of the 
    site or sites with applicable license requirements, regulations, or 
    standards implemented by NRC and the affected Agreement States.
        (b) Procedures to Petition for Reconsideration of Rescission of 
    this subpart.
        (1) A person may petition the Administrator to reconsider the 
    rescission and seek reinstatement of this subpart under Sec. 61.226(a).
        (2) EPA shall summarily dismiss a petition to reconsider rescission 
    and seek reinstatement of this subpart under Sec. 61.226(a)(1) 
    (programmatic basis), without prejudice, unless the petitioner 
    demonstrates that written notice of the alleged failure(s) was provided 
    to NRC at least 60 days before filing the petition with EPA. This 
    notification shall include a statement of the grounds for such a 
    petition and this notice requirement may be satisfied by, but is not 
    limited to, submissions or pleadings submitted to NRC during a 
    proceeding conducted by NRC.
        (3) EPA shall summarily dismiss a petition to reconsider rescission 
    and seek reinstatement of this subpart under Sec. 61.226(a)(2) (site-
    specific basis), without prejudice, unless the petitioner demonstrates 
    that a written request was made to NRC or an affected Agreement State 
    for enforcement or other relief at least 60 days before filing its 
    petition with EPA, and unless the petitioner alleges that NRC or the 
    affected Agreement State failed to respond to such request by taking 
    action, as necessary, to assure timely implementation and enforcement 
    of the 20 pCi/m\2\-s flux standard.
        (4) Upon receipt of a petition under Sec. 61.226(b)(1) that is not 
    dismissed under Sec. 61.226(b)(2) or (b)(3), EPA will propose to grant 
    or deny an authorized petition to reconsider, take comments on the 
    Agency's proposed action, and take final action granting or denying 
    such petition to reconsider within 300 days of receipt.
        (c) Reconsideration of Rescission of this Subpart Initiated by the 
    Administrator.
        (1) The Administrator may initiate reconsideration of the 
    rescission and reinstatement of this subpart as applied to owners and 
    operators of non-operational uranium mill tailings disposal sites if 
    EPA has reason to believe that NRC or an affected Agreement State has 
    failed to implement and enforce, in significant part, the regulations 
    governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings promulgated by EPA and 
    NRC or the tailings closure plan (radon) requirements establishing 
    milestones for the purpose of emplacing a permanent radon barrier that 
    will achieve compliance with the 20 pCi/m\2\-s flux standard.
        (2) Before the Administrator initiates reconsideration of the 
    rescission and reinstatement of this subpart under Sec. 61.226(c)(1), 
    EPA shall consult with NRC to address EPA's concerns and if the 
    consultation does not resolve the concerns, EPA shall provide NRC with 
    60 days notice of the Agency's intent to initiate rulemaking to 
    reinstate this subpart.
    
    [FR Doc. 94-17089 Filed 7-14-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-P