ML20236Q724

Proposed Rule 10CFR40, U...Tailings Regulations:Groundwater Protection & Other Issues. Action Taken to Comply W/Mandate in U Mill Tailings Radiation Act & NRC Authorization Act for FY83

ML20236Q724
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/06/1987
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
References
FRN-49FR46425, RULE-PR-40 PR-871106, NUDOCS 8711200249
Download: ML20236Q724 (77)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:M [78'U'U13 ] DOCKET NUMBER vd M*w h56 { PROPOSED RUi.E N[ 00dD 3 USNRC ) FUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W IEW 16 P153 j i 10 CFR PART 40 0FrtCE Ci Siuit iu, ' DOCMETING A 5[4VlC(' Uranium Hill Tailings Regulations: Ground-Water Prote @ @ ( and Other Issues i AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ] l ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regula-j tions governing the disposal of uranium mill tailings. The changes incorporate into existing NRC regulations'the ground-water protection j regulations publis'hed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for these wastes. This action is being taken to' comply with the mandate in-the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act and,the NRC Authorization Act for FY 1983 to conform the NRC regulations to the standards promul-I gated by the EPA. I EFFECTIVE DATE: ( December 12,1987 ). i ADDRESSES: Comments received on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking and proposed rule may be examined at the Commission's Public Docket Room, i 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC between 7:30 a'm and 4:15 pm weekdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Fonner, Office of the General Counsel, telephone (301) 492-8692, or Kitty S. Dragonette, Div.ision of ~ $bltO 1 'aw k wwwd n" 1 8711200249 871106 4 49 46425 PDR .- l

.[7590-01]' o. Low-Level Waste. Management and Decommissioning, U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory. p o,C g igi_o g Washington, DC 20555,' telephone (301)'427-4763. SUPPLEMENTAkYINFORMATION: I. Background. II. Description of Proposed Amendments. .III. Overview of Comments in Response to the Proposed Rule. IV. ' General Issues. l V. Comments on Specific Proposed Modifications to Appendix A'of. 10 CFR Part 40. J VI. Coordination with EPA.- 9 VII. Impact of the Amendments. A. Finding of flo Significant Environmental Impact. J B. ImpactsPresentedinProp5sedRule.- VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. l IX. ' Regulatory Flexibility Certification'. X. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 40, i XI. Modi fication,s. j ..i j 1 I.

Background

1 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) is issuing l .i additional modifications to its regulations for the purpose.of conforming j them to generally applicab,le requirements promulgated by the. Environmental i Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA requirements: contained in Subparts.O l l i 1 2 I l '*

c -[7590-01] 4 .e and E.of 40 CFR Part 192 (48 FR 45926; October 7, 1983) apply to the management of uranium and thorium byproduct material.and became~ effective for NRC and Agreement State licensees.and license applicants.on Decemberc6, 1983. This action. modifies existing regulations of the' Commission to ~ incorporate the EPA ground-water protection requirements found'in 40 CFR' Part 192. The affected. Commission regulations are contained in Appendix A to 10'CFR Part 40, which was promulgated in-final form on October 3,'1980 1 (45 FR 65521) and amended on October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41852) to' conform-to the provisions of the EPA standards affecting matters other than' ground-water protection. EPA developed and issued its regulations pursuant to Section 275b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ~(AEA)'(42 U.S.C. 2022); section 275b was added by section 206 of Pub. L. 95-604, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA). These EPA regulations. included, by cross-reference, certain regulations issued by-EPA under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA). Under section 18(a) of Pub. L. 97-415, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act for fiscal years 1982 and'1983, the Commission was directed to conform its regulations to EPA's with notice and opportunity for public comment. ~ The additional action that the Commission might take to amend its mill tailings regulations for ground-water protection was the subject of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) published for comment on November 26, 1984 (49 FR 46425). The NRC issue'd a notice of proposed rulemaking on ground-water protection on July 8, 1986 (51 FR 24697). O f i 3 __.________..__..__m

[7590-01) II. Description of Proposed Amendments The EPA requirements in 40 CFR Part 192 (48 FR 45926) included, by cross-reference, ground-water protection standards in 40 CFR Part 264. Part 264 was promulgated by the EPA pursuant to authority provided by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which amended the SWDA. Part 264 itself contains references to other EPA rules and a number of internal cross references. The proposed modifications were intended to conform the NRC rules to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 192 not addressed in the earlier conforming action (50 FR 41852; October 16, 1985). The following specific sections of 40 CFR Part 264 were proposed for incor-poration in modified text form into Appendix A. (Note that 40 CFR. Part 192 incorporated SWDA rules as codified on January 1, 1983.) EPA. imposed these sections in its final standards published October 7,1983 (48 FR.45942). Subpart F 40 CFR 264.92 Ground-water protection standard. 40 CFR 264.93 Hazardous constituents. 40 CFR 264.94 Concentration limits. 40 CFR 264.100 Corrective action program. Subpart G 40 CFR 264.111 Closure performance standard. Subpart K 40,CFR 264.221 Design and operating requirements for surface impoundments. 4

[7590-01] j EPA s'uggested that NRC address the-following specific sections in ~ implementing the-listed imposed sections. However, EPA'did not make.them . legally binding requireme~nt's on NRC and Agreement States mill licensees and they were not included in the proposed rule. NRC will review these and other SWDA regulations intensively for their potential application to i mill tailings disposal in complying with Section 84a(3). This provision i of the Atomic Energy Act requires the NRC to review the full suite of SWDA requirements for comparable hazardous materials in order to ascertain 1 i which, if any, should be applied to mill tailings, in addition'to the specific SWDA rules referenced in 40 CFR Part 192. These later are sub-4 ject to conformance pursuant to Sections 84a(2) and 275f(3) of the Atomic Energy Act. Some of the additional matters to be reviewed are found.in the following EPA ruies: Subpart F 40 CFR 264.91 Required programs. 40 CFR 264.95 Point of compliance. 40 CFR 264.96 Compliance period. i 40 CFR 264.97 Genera 1' ground-water monitoring requirements. 40 CFR 264.98 Detection monitoring program. l 40 CFR 264.99 Compliance monitoring program. Subpart G 40 CFR 264.117 Post-closure care and use of property. Subpart X 40 CFR 264.226 Monitoring and inspection. 40 CFR 264.228 Closure and post-closure care. 5

[7590-01]' e The information set out in Table lshows the' status'of the specific ground-water provisions' imposed by EPA regulations and indicates the location of the provision in the changes;to NRC's rules. (Note.that the clarifying changes to the final rule'do not affect the information provided in the table.) TABLE 1 RELATIONSHIP OF 40 CFR'AND 10 CFR-PROVISIONS NRC Designation in. Appendix A to'10 CFR EPA Designation Subject 'Part 40 SUBPART 0 (URANIUM) 40 CFR 192/30 Applicability ' Introduction 40 CFR 192.31 Definitions and c.ross-Introduction references 40'CFR 192.32 Impoundment design. SA(1) (a)(1) (primary ground-water. standard) 40 CFR 192.32 Secondary ground-water SB(1) standard (a)(2) (i) Mo*and U added-Criterion 13 (ii) Radioactivity limits SC (iii) Detection monitoring 7A l (iv) ACL conditions Deleted I (v) EPA concurrences Deleted 40 CFR 192,32 (Non ground-water) Criterion 8 (a)(3) and (4) 40 CFR 192.32 (b)(1) and (2) Closure standard Criterion 6 40 CFR 192.33 Corrective actions 50 i l l 40 CFR 192.34 Effective date t 6

[7590-01) TABLE 1 (Continued) SUBPART E (THORIUM). 40 CFR 192.40 Applicability. Introduction 40 CFR 192.41 (a) Thorium same as uranium Factored into text -(b) (Non ground-water) Criterion 6 (c) Radium 228 same as 226 Factored into text (d) (Non ground-water) Criterion 8 NRC Designation in ~ Appendix.A to 10 CFR. EPA Designation Subject Part 40 40 CFR 192.42 Procedure for alternate Deleted . standards 40 CFR 192.43 Effective date REFERENCED REGULATIONS 40 CFR 264.92 Ground-water standa'rd 5B(1) 40 CFR 264.93 (a) Hazardous constituents 5B(2)(a)-(c),. Criterion 13 and Appendix VIII of 40 CFR 261 (b) ' Excluding hazardous SB(3) constituents (1)(1)-(ix) Ground-water factors 5B(3)(a)(i)-(ix) (2)(i)-(x) Surface water factors SB(3)(b)(i)-(x) (c) Aquifer status 5B(4)- ~ 40 CFR'264.94 (a)(1)-(3) Concentration limits 5B(5)(a)-(c), SC (b) Alternate concentration 5B(6) limits (1)(i)-(ix) Ground-water factors 5B(6)(a)(i)-(ix) (2)(i)-(x) Surface water factors 5B(6)(b)(i)-(x) (c) Aquifer status SB(4) 40 CFR 264.100 (a) Corrective action 50 (1)-(4) Procedural Deleted (b) Remove or treat SD (c) Procedural Deleted (d) Monitoring program 7A (e) Action to site boundary 50 (1) Procedural Deleted (2) Terminating program 5D (f) Terminating program SD -(g) Procedural Deleted (h)' Procedural . Deleted 7 e

_7_ _ l [7590-D1] TABLE 1 (Continued) NRC Designation in Appendix A to 10 CFR EPA Designation Subject Part 40 REFERENCED' REG'ULATIONS (cont'd) 40 CFR 264.111 Closure' standard Criterion 6 (a) & (b) 40 CFR 264.221-

(a)

Liner. designs SA(1) ') (1)' Liner properties SA(2)(a) i .(2) Liner foundation 5A(2)(b) (3) Liner. area SA(2)(c). (b) Exemption from 264.221(a) 5A(3) (1)-(4) Factors in exemption SA(3)(a)-(d) (c) Impoundment overtopping-5A(4) (d) Dike design 5A(5) (e) Procedural Deleted-I j 'l 1 3 i 8 'I

^ [7590-01] 'III. Overview of. Comments in Response to the Proposed Rule I The NRC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on' ground-water protection for uranium mills on July 8, 1986 (51 FR 24697). The comment period on the proposed rule originally expired on September 8, 1986 but. was extended until November 7, 1986 (51 FR 32217; September 10,.1986). Twelve commenters responded with thirteen sets of comments. Respondents included three environmental or public interest groups, four industrial-representatives, three states, the EPA, and the Department'of the Interior. l L Comments were offered on both general issues and the specific changes in the proposed rule and reflected diverse views. The general I issues included the scope of the rulemaking, the EPA standards, implemen-1 tation and enforcement of.the' standards, and'other miscellaneous topics. l Host of the general issue comments were restatements of, earlier views on the same issue. No major new issues were raised that had not been aired l in one or more of the previous, rulemaking actions associated with NRC's conformance to the EPA standards. The scope of the proposed rule was limited to incorporating require-ments legally imposed by 40 CFR Part 192 into NRC-rules. General requirements to address Section 84a(3) of the AEA requirements for comparability with EPA requirements for similar materials under SWDA'were not proposed. Some commenters urged NRC to expand the scop'e of the rulemaking and others agreed with NRC's proposed rule. Commenters offered both supportive and opposing comments on the overall strategy reflected by the EPA regulations and on specific provisions of those regulations. e 4 9 ( 1 l l

-[7590-01) ~ ' Implementation and enforcement is' sues included concern about the dual regulation resulting from recent EPA rulemaking in '40 'CFR' Part 61 on mill operations. The proposed rule included changes to the Introduction and Criteria '5, 6, and 7 of Appendix A and the addition of new Criterion 13. Comments were offerad on each. Comments addressed four of the 14 proposed I definitions in the Introduction. Industry was concerned.about the consequences of defining.the saturated zones from. leaking impoundments as I aquifers. Environmental'commenters urged a point of compliance closer to the impoundments. Comments on the primary design standard were extensive and divergent. For example, environmental groups objected to flexibility for alternatives to synthetic liners and' industry opposed the use of-synthetic liners. ' Comments on.the secondary standard were also extensive. Industry commented that the focus of the standard is ground I water naturally present before operations began. The provisions dealing j with how to establish which constituents to monitor were particularly confusing to commenters. The exclusion of EPA site-specific concurrences ] l on alternate concentration limits and delisting of hazardous constituents-j l was opposed by EPA and environmental groups and supported by industry. l 1 NRC's interpretation of the flexibility afforded by Section 84c of the AEA continues to be controversial. Environmental commente'rs opposed the option for alternate concentrations and expresse'd concern over delays in implementing corrective action programs. The only area where' consensus appeared was that the list of constituents in proposed Criterion 13 should be shortened to focus on constituents of concern at mill tailings sites. l i. 10 .m.mm

(7590-01]- 1 i j A staff.' analysis.of all.the comments received.is available-in the NRC's Public Document. Room.. The following discussion summarizes and: responds to all comments of major or.. generic-significance and to' all comments that prompted additional rule. changes. 1 1 1 IV. General' Issues i Scope of Rulemaking l b l Comments. An environmental group urgad NRC not.to defer. development-of detailed prescriptive RCRA. comparable requirements under.'Section 84a'(3) of the AEA. EPA urged NRC to promptly schedule a third rulemaking or other action requiring EPA. concurrence to comply with:Section,84a(3) if. the proposed rule is not expanded. The Department.of the' Interior suggested that a five year delay in re-examining the.need.for comparable rulemaking may be too long in view of, the rapid ch,anges occurring in the. field and suggested re-examination in two years. Industry,commenters ~ supported deferring discretionary rulemaking to add additional RCRA requirements. Arguments.in support of expanded scope included the existing and 1 potential ground-water contamination at mill sites,.the view that licensees ~ will contest site specific decisions and guidance documents.and delay implementation, and expectation that the industry will recover from. its depressed state based on Department of Energy (00E) actions. EPA comment'ed that the proposed rule does not fulfill NRC's responsibilities under Section 84a(3) of the AEA. EPA restated the view that NRC should incor-porate those additional provisions of the SWDA rules lished as' appropriate l .i 11-l

[7590-01) for.NRC to address in EPA's October 7,.1983 final rule notice (see 48 FR 45942).. EPA objected to NRC's. reliance on policies or license. conditions to fulfill SWDA comparability until additional rulemaking is undertaken because of lack of opportunity for EPA concurrence!as. required-by Section 84a(3). EPA also commented.that none of EPA's regulatory decisions concerning other mining or milling wastes have-any relevance to .NRC's decisions on scope and industry commented that these EPA decisions are relevant and' support deferring discretionary rulemaking by. NRC. Response. The. Commission agrees'that this conforming action does not fully satisfy Section 84a(3) and that' a third round of, rulemaking will - probably be necessary to comply fully. The Commission also agrees that' regulation of ground-water contamination from. mill tailings. impoundments is warranted but. considers the real issue to be best use of resources.and' ~ the level of detail needed to accomplish effective regulation., The Commission considers that.the most responsible use of limited resources-is to: (1) complete'conformance, (2) not duplicate major work EPA is doing, (3) focus on site specific implementation and enforcement'of'the basic i standards at existing sites, and (4) use the collective NRC and Agreement State implementation experience to provide a more sound basis for future 1 Section 84a(3) rulemaking. Detailed regulations would not eliminate the licensee's~right to propose alternative implementation requirements under Section 84c and use l l this means to contest and delay implementation. The Commission agrees with' commenters that detailed regulationsEcould provide licensees with a better understanding of what is expected and could reduce the burden on licensees n 9 f 9 - 12 W 9

-[7590-01] i e to develop alternatives. However, the site specific and technical problems described by commenters, emphasize che difficulty of addressing these matters in regulations. ' j The view that the nonviability of the industry is a temporary matter is not reflected in the Secretary of Energy's latest finding on viability j or with the State of Wyoming's' assessment of the future of the. industry in that State. In Secretary John S. Herrington's letter to the President dated December 19, 1986, he stated that "I have det' ermined that for the calendar year 1985, the domestic uranium mining and milling q industry was not viable." In a November 1986 report, Wyoming stated ] "...it seems unlikely that the-uranium mining and milling industry will ever again play a significant-role in Wyoming's mineral economy. The i reserves are here, but market and competition factors make the future appear bleak, to say the least." The additional regulations that EPA and others suggested NRC address are undergoing major revision by EPA. 40 CFR 264.98 dnd 264.99 are two sections suggested _for incorporation into NRC rules to address Section 84a(3) SWDA comparability. However, a final EPA rule (Jttly 8, 1987; 52 FR 25942) significantly changed these provisions. They did require analyses of all 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII constituents (i.e., the list in Criterion 13 of this rulemaking without the 40 CFR 192 additions). In "the proposed rule (July 24, 1986; 51 FR 26632) EPA acknowledged major. practical and technical problems with these analyses. The final rule notes the evolving nature of these specific provisions. An advance notice of proposed rulemaking published by EPA August 20, 1986 (51 FR 29812) addresses technical difficulties with the prescriptive: statistical test included in 40 CFR Part 264. This test is included in 13 9

[7590-01] the regulations EPA indicated NRC should address. A proposed EPA fule addressing some of the difficulties was published August 24, 1987 (52 FR 31948) for public comment. The Commission views the acknowledged I technical difficulties with these provisions of 40 CFR Part 264 to be sufficient reason to delay conformance to them. NRC should not duplicate the EPA effort by trying to develop the technical, environmental, and cost / benefit analyses to support similar rulemakings. Prior to NRC's establishment of " general requirements," NRC can monitor EPA's rulemaking and consult on specific issues as necessary. { EPA has issued two notices on regulation of other mining and milling wastes: (1) 51 FR 24496; July 3, 1986 and (2) 51 FR 36233; October 9, 1986. EPA is correct that these notices have no direct legal bearing on NRC and i Agreement State licensees. EPA is addressing how it plans to regulate mining and milling wastes other than uranium and thorium mill tailings. Based on technical considerations, however, the Commission continues to j anticipate that EPA's developments in this area may be relevant to imple-mentation of 40 CFR 192 and to additional requirements that the Commission may establish under Section 84a(3) of the AEA. Common' technical aspects apparent from these 1986 notices concern volumes, impoundment size, climate, remote location, deep ground water, and backfitting to existing sites. When NRC should initiate a third rulemaking is difficult to specify. For example, EPA hopes to propose regulations for.other mining and milling wastes by mid-1988. The timing for a final EPA rule statistical tests is uncertain. EPA may also initiate additional rulemaking on monitoring on other relevant topics as these standards are implemented. Recovery of 14 0

[7590-01]- the industry remains uncertain. The recommendation to reassess in two years instead of five has merit.. The Commission will periodically reassess (e.g., about every two years) the question-of when a third rulemaking should be initiated. Comments on 40 CFR Part 192 Comments. Comments on the basic value, validity, lawfulness, or appropriateness of. EPA's regulations were explicitly.not' requested. .I However, commenters offered comments on the overall strategy reflected by the EPA regulations and on specific. parts of the regulations imposed. The latter are discussed later under the specific proposed modifications. A 1 public interest group commented that a more clearly defined and protective-i purpose is needed based on protection of all ground water regardless of quality with no provisions for any flexibility. l Response. Such a change in strategy would. require' EPA to change 40 CFR Part 192 and referenced regulations and is therefore outside the l l scope of this action. l Implementation and Enforcement Comments. An environmental group urged the NRC to reiterate that 40 CFR 192 is directly in force on NRC and Agreement State. licensees and to aggressively enforce those standards. Industry urged more respon-siveness to site specific alternatives proposed. by licensees. Industry l. 15 l

[7590-01). identified the overlap between recent' EPA Clean Air Act' work practice. l 'o standardsfor.millsiaddecfto40CFRPart61(51FR34056; September 24, 1986) and NRC's implementation-and. enforcement of 40 CFR Part 192 and. expressed concern about'NRC's continued ability to consider site specific. alternatives. Response. The Commission is implementing and enforcing the EPA standards as required by law. The language in-Section 84c of the AEA was incorporated into the Introduction.of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40. The NRC is thus obligated to consider site-specific alternatives proposed by-licensces by law and agency rules. If a. licensee disagrees with the site specific decision on the proposed alternative, agency procedures provide an avenue for review. ' Industry is correct that EPA's Clean Air Act standards in 40 CFR. j Part61requiresite-specificEPAactions,e.g., EPA'approvaitoconstruct a new impoundment. The EPA 40 CFR Part 61 standards' incorporate the ground-water protection standards in 40 CFR~192.32(a); thus, both EPA and NRC will be implementing and enforcing these standards. NRC has no legal basis to challenge this dual regulation. NRC jurisdictional arguments rejecting EPA site specific actions are based on EPA actions under the Atomic Energy Act and have no applicability to EPA Clean Air Act actions. 16

] {7590-01] Other ~ l ) Comments. A State' commented that NRC should view the requirement for compatible Agreement State regulation, to the extent practicable, as giving 4 Agreement States rulemaking latitude when warranted by the economic burden I on State agencies. Another State commented that "it should be clear that where States standards are more stringent than Federal standards then the State standards should apply." i Response. The first State appears to be suggesting that the resource l l burden of issuing regulations that are compatible with the Commission's ) i should be considered and might be sufficient grounds for the State not to I adopt compatible regulations. The Commission does not read Section 2740 { of the AEA as providing this consideration. Agreement States will need to amend their regulations. However,asreflectedin10CFR150.31(d), States may adopt alternative generic or site-specific standards wi,th Commission approval and public notice. The second State seems to be addressing the circumstance when NRC and a non-Agreement State are regulating the same constituent under concurrent jurisdiction but have different numerical limits and legal bases. NRC would have no authority to implement and enforce the more stringent State limit. NRC has not asserted Federal pre-emption that would preclude the State from implementing and enforcing its ground-water protection requirements at mill sites for non radiological contaminants. State standards would be preempted only if in direct con-flict with the Federal standards. 17 ~ _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _

L.: -{7590-01] + Comment.. Only one commenter. addressed the cost / benefit"informati.o'n' in the' notice and that' comment was limited to.-a legal. view t' hat the - analysis was not required. I Response. The' Commission agrees that no analysis was. required'and so stated in the proposed rule.' .V. Comments on Specific Proposed Modifications to: Appendix-A of-10 CFR Part 40 Introduction Definitions of 14 terms were. proposed as ad'ditions to theDIntroduction. Comments were' received on four-of:the definitions 'a'quifer, existing ~ portion,. ground water, and. point of compliance. Comments.. Industry comments urged changes t' clarifyTthat temporary o aquifers from impoundment seepage should not be considered ".aq'uifers" and that a beneficial use criterion be a'pplied to " ground water." j l 3:i Response. The proposed definitions of " aquifer" and " ground water" were quoted verbatim from 40 CFR 260.10. The comments on " aquifer" and. i " ground water" are addre'ssing the same concepts because aquifers contain: ~ ground water. l i The Commission agrees that a reasonable reading of the EPA secondary l standard would allow flexibility in how the saturated zone _from operations at existing sites is considered. The Commission: agrees with commenters h 18 '..______m

[7590-01] f that the fundamental role of background levels of constituents-(i.e., background is a baseline level that triggers action and background is one of the options for setting protective concentration limits for constituents) in the EPA standards contributes to a view that operationally created zones are not the aquifers of primary concern. This view is further supported by the prescriptive requirements EPA has adopted for its own implementation of the standards. For example, the EPA rules address how to obtain upgradient values and how to determine statistical increases over background. For new facilities or impoundments, the situation is clear that the. uppermost aquifer of concern is the naturally occurring one. The Commission does not agree with the commenters that the saturated zones can be dismissed generically. Decisions will be site specific and the Commission notes that there may be circum' stances where corrective actions involving these zones may be required under the provisions of paragraph 50 whether or not t'he zones are defined as aquifers. The Commission is adding a sentence to the EPA definition of aquifer to address when the saturated zones are of sufficient direct' concern to be 1 - i l designated as aquifers. The clarification is based on present and poten-tial impacts from the zones and is consistent with EPA's consideration of the system of aquifers at the site in.the definition of uppermost aquifer and EPA's " Groundwater Protection Strategy," August 1984 provided by EPA in the agency's comments on the ANPRM. It is also consistent with the EPA discussion of comments on the term "3quifer" in the July 26, 1982 l rulemaking on 40 CFR Parts 123, 260, 264, and 265 (47 FR 32289) in that near-surface soils saturated only as a result of disposal activity may not be the uppermost aquifer of concern. i 19. j

n [7590-01] Licensees,would.be expected to show that the zones'are not and will not be. interconnected to naturalJaquifers,'that.the. zones do'not' and will not discharge to surface waters,'and that the zone'will-remain confined to land under long-term government ownership and: control. For. example, licen - ~ sees may be able to demonstrate that once the-hydraulic head from the' impoundment-is gone,. the zone will remain potentially ' yielding for only a t short period of time and that the additional movement after' closure will be limited. Under the regulatory scheme'aiready'in place.for' tailings. (e.g., see Criterion 11 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40),Llong term' govern-ment' ownership and control is authorized and expected. Institutional con-trol.of access to the area directly beneath theLimpoundme'nts'and associated ~ features neces.sary to comply with.the long-term stability portionsfof the ~ standard could be reasonably expected to prevent access and use of water from these zones. The Commission notes that this view-of'the'saturat'edl zones 's.related i to the secondary standard and has no bearina on decisions concerning the-primary standard. The primary standard' (use of l impermeable l'iners)-is intended to prevent the occurrence of-such saturated zones. Commenters also addressed the qualitative' test'of'an aquifer yield'ing. a "significant amount" of water, but the Commission has conclu'ded, as did i EPA (e.g., see 47 FR 32289; July 26, 1982), that a quantitative definition, i is a regional decision and sometimes even a site' specific decision. This aspect of the definition remains unch'anged. 'The Commission is'also adding a cross reference to the definition of aquifer in the definition of " ground water." 0 4 20 4

[7590-01) Comment. An industry commenter objected to the September 30, 1983 date in the definition of " existing portion" based on the legal view that NRC could not include a retroactive date. Response. The Commission has consistently held that the standards in 40 CFR Part 192 were effective for NRC and Agreement State licensees I 1 on their effective date of December 6, 1983. Thus licensees were bound by the September date whether so' stated in NRC's regulations or not; therefore, the date is not retroactive. Comment. One commenter suggested that NRC develop more stringent requirements for " point of compliance" than those imposed by EPA's full suite of SWDA regulations. For example, designation of a horizontal plane in the unsaturated zone under the impoundment rather than EPA's uppermos aquifer and a location that provides at least two years of. plume travel l time before the plume would reach the site boundary were suggested l Response. No definition for " point of compliance" was imposed by 40 CFR Part 192. The proposed definition was intended to be procedural and was included in order to fully reflect 40 CFR 264.92, which was i i imposed. The objective of the point of compliance is described in para-j graph SB(1) being added to Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 40. The Commission considers any additional requirements to be outside the scope of this nondiscretionary rulemaking. The Commission notes that an existing provi-sion in NRC rules in 10 CFR Part 40 is related to the commenter This existing provision that requires a leakage detection system under synthetic liners to detect major failures is being designated as SE(1) by this action. 21 ^

[7590-01) L Criterion 5 I l Paragraph 5A I Comments. Comments were received only on paragraphs SA(1) and (3). One commenter objected to the exemption from an impermeable liner because contaminated soils would be allowed and the contamination would eventually migrate. A general recommendation was made that impoundments be designed with treatment systems to deal with liner failure. Industry repeated views that the' EPA primary design standard does not reflect a reasonable balanc-ing of costs and benefits or provide sufficient site specific flexibility to meet Congressional intent and it exceeds EPA's authority. Industry argued the merits of clay liners over synthetic ones and urged the addition of realistic flexibility to approve clay liners. One commenter suggested that the Commission use its authority to establish levels below which regulation is required (i.e., de minimis levels) to accommodate clay liners and provide relief from the absolute language for i alternatives findings. Addition of a liner exemption if wastes will not I enter an aquifer or reach surface water because of local site conditions and revisions of the primary standard to a goal aimed at preventing only "significant" migration were suggested.- One commenter suggested an editorial reference in 5A(1) to the exemption in 5A(3). Response. The language in paragraphs 5A(1)-(5) incorporate the text-imposed by 40 CFR Part 192 virtually without change. Thus most of the comments are actually directed at 40 CFR Part 192, not NRC's action. 22

[7590-01). l The Commission agrees that a finding that residual contamination will l ~ not migrate to ground or surface water at any future time will be very i difficult but has no basis to conclude that such a finding could not be 4 t made and defended. Addition of treatment system requirements for leaks would.be discretionary and outside the scope of this action. As noted earlier, Appendix A already requires a leakage detection system under new . synthetic liners. Industry arguments on the merits of clay' liners repeated comments made on the proposed EPA standards-and' rejected by EPA in its fina1 rule. EPA acknowledged and discussed the pros and cons of synthetic liners and liners of natural materials'(e.g., 48 FR 45931; October 7, 1983) and concluded that the disadvantages of synthetic liners.were not sufficient to deviate from the SWDA requirements. Use of de minimis findings to modify the text being incorporated would lead to substantive changes. The Commission considers that it has legal flexibility in implementation and enforcement of the standards to consider de minimis quantities but cannot substantively alter the standards them-selves. This view is supported by EPA's indication that synthetic liners meet the intent of the standard of no migration into the ' liner even though. 1 migration into properly functioning liners made of these materials will occur at very slow rates during the operation and closure phases. A generic exemption from liners if wastes will not enter an aquifer-or reach surface water is not~ completely consistent with the EPA stancards. NRC must find that the basic standard for granting exemptions is met on a site specific basis and consider the prescribed factors in making that finding. The suggested language is a simplified paraphrase of the basic EPA standard and unnecessary. 23 4 4 e __m______._________..______2. L-

[7590-01] l The suggested editorial cross reference is being made. 1 Paragraph 5B j l Paragraph SB consists of Paragraphs 5B(1)-(6) and comments were i received on all paragraphs except 5B(4). f Comments. Industry commenters suggested editorial changes to l Paragraph 5B(1) to clarify that the focus of protection is ground water { that was naturally present before operations began.- Response. The editorial comments are in the nature of reinforcement of earlier comments on the definitions of " ground water" and " aquifer." The clarifying sentences being added to the definitions of these terms address the issue of when the seepage from an impoundment would be con-sideredanaquiferforpurposesofAppendixAofIdCFRPart40andno additional changes are needed. On its own volition, the Commission is also clarifying the last sentence of 5B(1) to. indicate that the intended l purpose of adjusting the point of compliance is to locate the point of l compliance in the center of the flow of contaminated ground water based l up:n developed data and site information as to the flow of ground water f or contaminants. Comments. Paragraph 5B(2) cutlines the three definitional tests from 40 CFR Part 264 that a constituent must meet in order to qualify as a j hazardous constituent for which protective concentration limits must be set. One commenter emphasized that efficient implementation of the definitional scheme in 5B(2) requires serious consideration of the test to determine 24 i i

[7590-01] what is reasonably expected to be in or derived from the byproduct material i and that licensees should not have to monitor for all the constituents listed in proposed Criterion:13. i Response. The Commission agrees that reasonable implementation of 5B(2) ] requires serious consideration of what is reasonably expected to be in or derived from the tailings..The proposed rule was not intended to require that licensees monitor for the full list. Monitoring for the full list 1 is contained in 40 CFR 264.97.99, sections not imposed by EPA. The Commission is clarifying 5B(2) to emphasize that all three tests must be met before a concentration limit must be set for a constituent. Specifying which constituents a licensee will monitor for will be a site-specific decision. A reasonable approach to developing a site-specific list for monitoring at an existing site might involve the following steps: (1) Use information on the constituents such as that contained in EPA's proposed rule (51 FR 26632; July 24, 1986) and final rule (52 FR 25942; July 9, 1987) to eliminate constituents that are unstable in water or not amenable to standard assay. (2) Consider indicators for families or groups.of compounds on the i list. (3) Carefujly review administrative records and data to determine how defensible this information is in defini g which constituents-may and may Not be 3 resent and where the uncertainties are and, (4) Sacole existing tailings to establish which constituents are 3 present. 1 m 25 i i _---___--u

[7590-01] The Commission recognizes that for new impoundments, administrative controls coupled with analyses of the ore con provide an effective means of controlling and identifying which constituents are being added to the I new impoundment. NRC is conducting an impoundment liquidt, sampling program. Results to date confirm the general consensus that many of the listed constituents are not present in the sampled impoundments. NRC's experience may be useful to licensees in developing sampling programs and it will facilitate review of licensee programs and results. NRC's program suggests that j impoundment sampling is a feasible option for a licensee to pursue to help address which constituents could be expected to be in or derived from ) existing impoundments. 1 Comments. Two commenters suggested deleting Paragraph 5B(3) which 1 b l incorporates the provision to exclude detected' constituents if they will l not pose a significant present or potential hazard to human health or the environment. One objected to any unregulated pollution by a known hazard-1 ous material and one read the incorporated language as giving NRC author-l } ity exceeding that EPA intended for itself. The commenter stated that EPA l use of this exemption is limited to exclusion from monitoring only. An } environmental commenter disagreed with NRC's legal view that EPA exceeded l j its jurisdiction in 40 CFR Part 192 by requiring site-specific concur-j rences before any exemption of constituents is final. Industry commenters supported NRC's view. Both positions claimed support in the legislative history and statutory language. One commenter disagreed with the i 1 26 9

- [7590-01] i Commission's view that EPA concurrence is a procedural rather than substan-tive matter. Industry commenters suggested consideration of natural geo-j chemical processes in exempting constituents and establishing background i values for constituents. j 1 Response. The imposed standards include the provision to exclude detected constituents and NRC must include it for completeness. The second j l commenter's reading.of the provision is flawed. Being' absent from the-tailings leachate is sufficient basis to exclude the constituent from any further consideration. Evaluation of factors such as ground-water flow or health risks would not be needed if the constituent is not present. In the 1 l Commission's view, paragraph 5B(3) is a health and safety finding based on 1 a pathway analysis that a constituent known to be in the wastes will not pose a short or long term hazard even though it has been released to the uppermost aquifer 'and therefore no restrictions on its concentration are l 1 l l needed. The Commission is clarifying this point. Commenters offered no substantive new legal arguments or considera-tions that were not considered in the Commission's earlier decisiun on the i matter of EPA site-specific concurrences. See the final rule notice for the first step conformance p0blished October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41853 and i 41861). As the Commission said in the prior-rulemaking: "The Commi,ssion historically has had the authority and responsibility l to regulate the activities of persons licensed under the Atomic Energy 1 Act of 1954, as amended. Consistent with that authority and in I l l accordance with Section 84c of that Act, the Commission has the l l discretion to review and approve site specific alternatives to. l standards promulgated by the Commission and by the Administrator of l i 27 9 _...____._m._._

[7590-01] the Environmental Protection Agency. In the exercise of this authority, Secton 84c does not. require the Commission to obtain the concurrence of the Administrator in.any site specific alternative which satisfies Commission requirements for the level of protection for public health, safety, and.the environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards at uranium mill tailings sites. As an ~ example, the Commission need not' seek concurrence of the.Adminis-i trator~in case-by-case determinations'of alternative concentration: lim.its and delisting of hazardous constituents for specific sites." ' In the October rulemaking, the Commission also noted that' site i specific concurrences contradict the procedural prohibition on EPA's issuance of a permit in Section 275b(2) of the Atomic Energy Act. For both delisting or. excluding. constituents under paragraph 5B(3)' and approving alternate concentration limits under paragraph 5B(6)~, the CommissionisboundbythebasicEPAstandardthatnosubstantialprese,nt or potential hazard to the public health or the environment be posed. The- ~ 1 Commission is also required to consider a comprehensive list of factors relating to protection of ground and surface-water as part of the secondary stan'dard. 40 CFR Part 192 also added requirements for constituent levels

• to be as low as is reasonably achievable and for all' practicable corrective action to be taken.

Delisting and approval of alternate concentration I limits are a normal and integral part of the implementation and enforcement of the substantive-EPA secondary standard. EPA concurrences would'merely be a review of the adequacy of NRC's site specific implementation of the overall secondary standard in licensing decisions. l Commenters' concerns over NRC's application of Section 84c of the AEA and independent action on delisting constituents and alternate concentration 28 i .--a

[7590-01] limits may stem from'a misconception of what the Commission understands j alternative site specific standards to be. The Commission would expect a licensee, first, to attempt to meet all regulations and standards as issued. If site-specific circumstances would make compliance physically impossible, technically impracticable, or excessively costly in relation to the benefits to be gained from the reduction of risks, then alterna-tives should be considered. The alternatives proposed should meet the oLjectives of the established standards so that NRC can find that the alternatives provide a level of health and environmental protection equiva-1 lent, to the extent practicable,.to promulgated standards. The Commission i i l l does not view the provision as an open invitation to disregard the stand-l j ards and set new goals, and believes that the language in Section 84c requiring an equivalency or more stringent finding precludes such a view. l To illustrate, assume the standard has a numerical value of X but meeting X instead of Y.would require extraordinary expense or might compromise the soundness of the impoundment structure or safety monitoring features. The alternative limit to be proposed may be Y for the specific circumstances. NRC must find that Y provides equivalent protection, to the extent practic-1 able, to X. l The,commenters rejected the Commission's position that site specific concurrences detract from the Commission's statutory discretion under Section 84c of the AEA and that the matter is primarily a procedural one. ) Nevertheless, the Commission continues to believe that rejection of EPA 1 site specific concurrences is the correct legal position. Therefore, the Commission is issuing the final rule without any provision for EPA concur-rence in delisting constituents or alternate concentration limits. I 29 i

[7590-01] The Commission agrees that determining background is difficult at many existing sites. However, it is not completely clear what the diffi-culties have to do with excluding constituents and how natural geochemical processes are to be considered. In the Commission's view, background measurement problems are not a sufficient basis to exclude constituents when the levels present are clearly higher than background in the area and may pose a significant hazard. Comments. Two commenters objected to the flexibility provided in paragraph 5B(5) for unspecified site-specific alternate concentration limits that may exceed background or drinking water levels. Views on the legality of deleting the provision for EPA concurrences were repeated. Industry expressed concern about the lack of definition of " background." The Department.of Interior commented that neither the preamble nor the text make it clear when alternate concentrations are to be applied (e.g., only when background levels are not available). Response. Suggestions to delete the provision for alternate concentration limits are comments on 40 CFR Part 192. The option for alternate concentration limits was legally imposed and NRC must include this substantive provision. From a technical point of view, the alternate concentration limit option is crucial to practical implementation. As stated earlier, the Commission agrees that determining background may be difficult but commenters offered no generic solutions to the difficulty. Decisions on background values will have to be made on a site specific basis. Y 30 -m

[7590-01] The EPA secoridary standard in SB(5) is a site-specific choice of three equal options: background, referenced drinking water limits (see SC), or alternate concentration limits. However, if the licensee chooses to pursue l ) the alternate concentration limit option, then the licensee must expend the resources to collect the information and do the analyses to support an alternate concentration. The licensee may choose the basic background or drinking water options as the more economic or timely. The licensee would not have to address health and environmental risks with the basic choices because these are conceded to involve acceptable risks. The j Commission would be required to independently review e proposed ) alternate limit and the supporting rationale and agre. or set a different I limit based on,the information available. Alternate concentration limits may be requested without regard to.the a' availability of background values. The Commission is clarifying this point. Comments. Comments were divided on the language in paragraph 5B(6) referring to contaminate levels being as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). One commenter objected to ALARA based on a view that ALARA levels might still pose significant hazards. The provision was considered unnecessary and inappropriately applying ALARA to nonradiological constituents. EPA expressed a contrary view that ALARA was not clearly applied to the nonradiological constituents as EPA intended. EPA als'o viewed the proposed language as giving the'ALARA finding primacy over the listed factors to be considered. Response. The issue of how and when ALARA was intended to apply is not completely clear from the preamble to EPA's final rules (48 FR 45941-2; 31

[7590-01) l I October 7,1983) or from the text of the rule itself. However, there is l no apparent reason to conclude that any distinction was being made between radioactive and nonradioactive constituents and the Commission accepts ] EPA's views. The Commission's proposed rule included ALARA for emphasis ] but there was no intent to have ALARA dominate the factors to be considered l or the fundamental standard that the " constituent will not pose a substan-tial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the alternate concentration is not exceeded." The Commission is clarifying those points. Comments: Industry and EPA addressed the development of a generic methodology for evaluating alternate concentration limits. Inductry asked for comment opportunity. EPA noted that the two agencies had agreed that j the development and use of such guidance would provide a means of addressing the differing agency views on the legality of EPA site specific concurrences and suggested that the final. regulations recognize that the agencies are committed to such a course of action, c 1 Response. Industry's request to review any guidance documents or joint methodologies before they are finalized has merit and NRC usually issues guidance documents for public comment. When the proposed rule was published, both agencies e"xpected that publication of a comprehensive EPA SWDA guidance document on alternate concentration limits was imminent and staffs were optimistic that the methodology approach would work. However, completion and publication of l the SWDA document was delayed until July 1987..(See 52 FR 27579; 32

1 ) [7590-01] July 22, 1987.) Major changes were made to the earlier draft which formed the basis for NRC's expectations. The major changes flowed in part from 3 i additional legislation (e.g.,1984 amendments to RCRA and Section 121 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986) and other i Congressional direction (e.g., a-letter to EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas dated March 4, 1986 from John Dingell and 10 other members of Congress). The changes appear to make the SWDA guidance impracticable for uranium recovery and inconsistent with the SWDA standards as they stood when EPA incorporated them into 40 CFR Part 192 (EPA incorporated the SWDA standards as codified on January 1, 1983). For the reasons given above, NRC may well need to develop a new methodology clearly unique for tailings. Nonetheless, the Commission will continue to consult with EPA on any methodology developed and still favors resolving the EPA concurrence role called for in'40 CFR Part 192 by adoption of a mutually acceptable generic methodology. As discussed earlier, the Commission is issuing the final rule without any provision for EPA concurrence in delisting constitueo. or alternate concentration limits. l l Paragraph SC Comment. The only comment on this paragraph, which incorporated the drinking water values imposed with supplemental radioactivity limits added, was a suggestion to develop numerical limits for the constituents of concern at tailings sites. i Response. As the commenter conceded, the proposed action fulfilled the conformance requirement. Development of limits is outside the scope of this action. i 33 l

[7590-01] 4 Paragraph 50 Comments. Two commenters recommended that corrective action begin before hazardous constituents reach the point of compliance and objected to the potential for an 18-month delay before action begins. One commenter suggested that licensees be required to submit corrective action plans in advance for automatic activation to reduce delays. A two year time limit . for corrective actions was also suggested. Industry suggested clarifying that licensees do not have to cleanup naturally occurring contamination or contamination from someone else's operations. Industry views the correc-tive action programs to be aimed at cleaning up the preoperational aquifers, not the seepage zones from leaking impoundments. Response. The concerns for corrective action before reaching the aquifer are similar to concerns discussed earlier on the definition of " point of compliance." The comments on allowing up to 18 months te begin ) l corrective action programs is a rejection of EPA's change from a 12 month I limit in the proposed 40 CFR 192 to 18 months in the final rule. The l Commission has no basis to overrule this EPA decision. Commenter concerns may stem from a misconception that no actions have been taken or will be taken except in response to the EPA standards. However, NRC licensees had extensive monitoring programs in place and many licensees were conducting mitigative actions prior to the EPA standards. The comment that corrective action plans be submitted in advance does have merit, particularly for new sites. However, advance plans would be conceptual and may need modification to adequately address the actual circumstances of the failure event. Decisions on this matter will be made i P 34

[7590-01] J on a site-specific basis. The suggestion to impose a two year time limit for corrective action programs before requiring removal to new impoundments I presumes that' short-term solutions would always be the best choice. The j ~ Commission views the nature and. duration of corrective' action programs to 1 1 be a very site specific matter and is unable to defend a discretionary requirement for a two year limit. Concern that licensees not have to cleanup natural.or' third party ) contamination is valid if this type'of distinction can be made. The difficulty in establishing background would appear to be partially respon-sible for this comment. The. Commission is concerned that arguments over mining seepage versus tailings seepage or similar uncertainties not prevent an orderly implementation of the EPA standards. The concern that the j corrective action program be directed at:the natural aquifers is addresrod I i in part by the. clarifying addition to the definition of " aquifer." Rocause these decisions are so site specific, the Commission is concerned that I attempts to further clarify the matter in the rule may create more problems ] than they would solve. I l . Paragraphs SE-H Comments. The only purpose in including.these paragraphs in the proposed rule was to designate them as SE-H for consistency. Industry commenters suggested that SH be deleted based on the legal view that NRC does not have regulatory authority over ore storage at mills. Response. Since paragraph SH was unaffected by the EPA standards being incorporated, substantive change to delete is outside the scope of this action. However, the Commission views the provision as valid. 1 35 4

[7590-01) Criterion 6 I l Comments. The proposed addition to Criterion 6 incorporated the 1 imposed nonradiological hazard closure requirement. One commenter suggested application of the closure requirement to radioactive constituents and properties. One noted that the closure standard and the design and operational liner standards may conflict and suggested that the closure requirements have priority. Editorial suggestio'ns addressed the lack of definition or quantification of the term " threat" and the lack of clarity resulting from the use of *he three parallel terms " control, minimize or eliminate." Response. The language in 40 CFR 192(b)(1) clearly identifies 40 CFR I 264.111 as the closure standard I'or nonradiological hazards. The addition of the radiological constituents and properties to Criteria SC and 13 assures that these aspects must be addressed in corrective action plans ~ when they are of concern. No additional changes are needed. The comment on potential conflicts is more of an observation and reflects concerns with the primary design standard. The editorial suggestions are not consistent with the language imposed. The suggested changes appear to be less protective and do not provide j quantifi' cation 6r use alternate terms that are defined in EPA's standards. Consequently they are not being made. l r 36

[7590-01] Criterion 7 Comments. The proposed addition to Criterion 7 incorporated the requirements for a detection monitoring program and other information requirements needed to comply with,the secondary ground-water standard. One commenter viewed 40 CFR 264.98 as legallp imposed and suggested the additica of detailed prescriptive monitoring requirements: An industry commenter urged the Commission to direct staff to consider site specific alternatives for monitoring proposed by licensees. i Response. The sentence viewed as imposing 40 CFR 264.98 is: " Detection monitoring programs required under S 264.92 shall be completed within one (1) year of promulgation." While imposition of S 264.98 is one way this language could be read, the Commission believes that a better reading is that' detection monitoring should be established within one year. This view is supported by the fact that the imposed standards in S 264.92 are dependant on site specific data, except for the drinking water values, so that tne reference to S 264.98 only serves to illustrate that a monitoring program is necessary to implement S 264.92. This view is also supported by EPA's listing in the preamble to the October 7, 1983 rule of S 264.98 as a section NRC is to address, but not one EPA expressly incorporated in whole or in part. The issue of discretionary rules has already been discussed a number of times. The comment addressing staff consideration of alternatives does not require any change in the proposed rule. The provision to consider licensee alternatives in accordance with Section 84c of the AEA was incorporated in NRC's October 16, 1985 final rule. 37

q [7590-011 1 ~ A pervasive theme in the comments is the erroneous view that routine monitoring of 'all Criterion 13 constituents is required.- The Commission - is clarifying that monitoring for constituents Yill.be determined on a site I specific basis. Criterion 13 -1 Comments. Commenters agreed that the proposed Criterion 13 contains i many constituents that will not be of concern at tailings sites and urged NRC to tailor the list for application to tailings. One commenter suggested' adding additional constituents such sulfates,. chlorides, total dissolved solids, and pH because they degrade water quality. Response'. Although the Commission agrees that'the list in Criterion 13 includes many constituents that will likely never be of concern, shortening the list is outside the scope of this action. If the list is shortened, it would'have to be based on one of two findings. One is that the constituent is not inherently hazardous which is not at issue here. The second is that the constituent would never be present in uranium and thorium byproduct material and wastes or t.he impoundments. Making the second finding would include uncertainties that presently available information does not address (e.g., that ore bodies would not. contain new constituents, that new solvents will-not be introduced, and that operational or decommissioning wastes will not introduce new constit-uents). The clarifying language being added to emphasize that licensees are not expected to routinely monitor for all the constituents should reduce concerns that prompted the comments. 38 k

[7590-01] The Commission does not believe that the addition of the suggested l parameters is technically appropriate. These parameters may only affect the potability of ground water and not qualify as hazardous. Although the list imposed by EPA does not include nitrates, the EPA drinking water i I regulations for community water supplies include a limit for nitrates. The Commission considers it prudent to add a reference to NRC's authority to add constituents on a site specific basis to allow for a more aggres-l l sive approach for contaminants such as nitrates and is doing so.

Also, the indicator parameters suggested for addition are likely candidates for NRC attention under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and many l

State ground-water programs address these parameters. VI. Agency Concurrences The action covered in this notice is undertaken pursuant to sections 84a(2) and 275f(3) of the'AEA and reflects requirements already impos,ed by EPA, and already subject to implementation and enforcement by NRC under section 275d of the AEA. The Comnission considers it inappropriate to consider this rulemaking as requiring EPA concurrence under Section 84a(3) of the AEA. Section 84a(3) of the AEA requires NRC to assure that by-product material is managed in a manner that " conforms to general require-ments established by the Commission, with the concurrence of the Admini-strator, which are, to the maximum extent practicable, at least comparable to requirements applicable to the possession transfer, and disposal of s similar hazardous material regulated by the Administrator under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended." No discretionary general requirements pursuant to Section 84a(3) are being issued. 39

[7590-01] . VII. - Impact of the Amendments A. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact The Commission has determined under NEPA and the Commission's regula-tions in 10 CFR Part 51 that NRC's incorporation of the EPA standards by this action is not a major Federal action.significantly affecting the quality of the environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required. The significant Federal action was the promulgation by EPA of.its regulations _on September 30l 1983. In issuing these additional modifications to its regulations in-l Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 40, the Commission'is completing the action to-l l conform them to the EPA standards'. The purpose'of these changes is to-l clarify previously existing language in promulgated EPA standards and I l l incorporate mandatory requirements into NRC's regulations. -This action by l l the Commission is a conse'quence'of previous actions taken by the Congress j and the EPA, and is legally required by sections'84a(2) and 275f(3) of the l 1 Atomic Energy Act of 1954,.as amended. Commission action in this case-'is essentially nondiscretionary in nature, and EPA is viewed as the lead agency. For purposes of' environ-mental analysis, this action rests upon existing environmental and other impact evaluations prepared by EPA in the following-documents: (1) " Final Environmental _ Impact Statement for Standards for the Control of Byproduct Materials from Uranium Ore Processing (40'CFR Part 192)," Volumes 1 and 2, i l-40 gi

[7590-01] EPA 520/1-83-008-1 and 2, September 1983,1 (2) " Regulatory Impact Analysis of Final Environmental Standards for Uranium Mill Tailings at Active Sites," EPA 520/1-83-010, September 1983, and (3) Supplementary Information, Interim Final Rulemaking for 40 CFR Parts 122, 260, 264 and 265, " Hazardous Waste Management System; Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities; and EPA Administered Permit Programs," published July 26, 1982 (47 FR 32274)*. NRC also prepared an overview of the potential actions that might be required of NRC and Agreement state licensees by the EPA standards entitled, " Summary of the Waste Management Programs at Uranium Recovery Facilities as They Relate to the 40 CFR Part 192 Standards," NUREG/CR-4403.2 B. Impacts Presented in Proposed Rule The Commission published an overview and update of the impacts on the environtrent and uranium and thorium milling industry associated with the ground-water protection standards when they were proposed for incorpora- ~ tion (51 FR 24703-24709; July 8, 1986). The discussion also addressed in general terms the economic and other factors that would be addressed in a i l 1 Single copies of the Final Environmental Impact and the Regulatory Impact ] Analysis may be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, j U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,.VA 22161. A copy of each document is also available for inspection and/or copying in NRC's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20555. 2 Copies of NUREG/CR-4403 and NUREG 0706 may be purchased through the U.S. I Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Copies are available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20555. I 41 l

1 [7590-01) comprehensive Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if one was' required by'this I action to meet the requirements of.the Regulatory. Flexibility Act..The summary information was not intended to be a strict cost / benefit analysis-or.a technical justification for the standards. It' generally related economic cost'to the benefit expected.from complianceiwith the standard. The summary'information was also intended to help.the reader more fully understand the nature and potential impacts of.the proposes action. ] l VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This ' final rule ' amends information collection requirements that' are-q

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Agt of 1980 (44.U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

[ These requirements were approved-by the Office of Management and Budget under approval number 3150-0020. 1 IX. Regulatory Flexibility' Certification i As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.'S.C.- q ~ 605(b), the Commission certifies that'this rule.will not have a signif-icant economic. impact upon a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not-been prepared. The basis for this finding includes'the nature of the' licensees as well as the nondiscretionary nature of this action. Of the 27 licensed uranium mills. that have produced tailings, only one qualifies as small' entity. i I 1 42:

1 [7590-01] X. List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 40 i Government contracts, Hazardous materials-transportation, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, and Uranium. XI. Modifications l Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganiza-tion Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 553, and the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, as amended, the NRC is issuing the follow-( ing amendments to 10 CFR Part 40. PART 40 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL i ,1. The authority citation for Part 40 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. j 932, 933, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs. 11e(2), 83, 84, Pub. L. 95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). Sec. 275, 92 Stat. 3021, as amended by Pub. L. 97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S.C. 2022). 43

[7590-01] l Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31(g).also issued under sec. 122, l I 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. '2152). Section'40.46 also issued under sec. 184, I 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued { f under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237). l For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273); SS 40.3, 40.25(d)(1)-(3), 40.35(a)-(d), 40.41(b) and (c), 40.46, 40.51(a) and (c), and 40.63 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and SS 40.25(c) and (d)(3) and (4), l 40.26(c)(2), 40.35(e), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64 and 40.65 are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, es amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)). l Appendix A to Part 40.is amended to read as fol]ows: ) 1 Appendix A to Part 40 - Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium i Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their' Source Material Content. 2. Introduction to Appendix A is amended by adding the following text at the end of the

Introduction:

Introduction.*** The following definitions apply to the specified terms as used-in this Appendix: l l " Aquifer" means a geologic formation, group of formations, or part of 1 a formation capable of yielding a significant amount of ground water to l wells or springs. Any saturated zone created by uranium or thorium recovery operations would not be considered an aquifer unless the zone is or potentially is (1) hydraulically interconnected to a natural aquifer, 1 44

1 [7590-01] i l l (2) capable of discharge to surface water, or (3) reasonably accessible J because of migration beyond the vertical projection of the boundry of the land transferred for long-term government ownership and care in accordance with Criterion 11 of this appendix. " Closure" means the activities following operations to decontaminate and decommi.ssion the buildings and site used to produce byproduct mate-rials and reclaim the tailings and/or waste disposal area. " Closure plan" means the Commission approved plan to accomplish closure. " Compliance period" begins when the Commission sets secondary ground-water protection standards and ends when the owner or operator's license is terminated and the site is transferred to the State or Federal agency for long-term care. " Dike" means an embankment or ridge of either natural or man-made materials used.to prevent the movement of liquids, sludges, solids or other materials. " Disposal area" means the area containing byproduct materials to 1 which the requirements of Criterion 6 apply. " Existing portion" means that land surface area of an existing 'sur-face impoundment on which significant quantities of uranium or thorium byproduct materials had been placed prior to September 30, 1983. " Ground water" means water below the land surface in a zone of saturation. For purposes of this appendix, ground water is the water l contained within an aquifer as defined above. "Leachate" means any liquid, including any suspended or dissolved components in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained from the byproduct material. l 45

[7590-01] L " Licensed site" means the. area contained within the boundary of a location under the control of persons-generating or storing byproduct materials under a Commission license. " Liner" means a continuous layer ofjnatural or man-made materials, beneath:or on the sides'of a surface impoundment which restricts the downward or lateral escape.ef byproduct materi.al,' hazardous' con <tituents,. or'leachate. " Point of compliance" is the site specific'. location in the uppermost - aquifer.where the ground-water protection standard must be met. " Surface impoundment" means a natural topographic depression,' man-made excavation, or diked area,'which.is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or wastes containing~ free liquids, and which is not an injection well. " Uppermost aquifer" means the geo. logic-formation nearest the natural ground surface that is an aquifer, as well as lower aquifers that are hydraulically interconnected with this aquifer within the facility's pro-perty boundary. 3. Criterion 5 is revised to read as follows: Criterion 5 - Criteria SA-50 and new Criterion 13 incorporate the basic ground-water protection standards imposed by the Er.vi.renmental Protection Agency in 40 CFR Part 192, Subparts D and.E.(48 FR 45926; October 7. 1983) which apply during operations and prior to the end of closure. Ground-water monitoring to comply with these standards is required by Criterion 7A. } 46

[7590-01] 5A(1)--The primary ground-water protection standard is a design stand-ard for surface impoundments used to manage uranium and thorium byproduct material. Unless exempted under paragraph SA(3) of this criterion, surface impoundments (except for an existing portion) must have a liner that is designed, constructed, and installed to prevent any migration of wastes out of the impoundment to the adjacent subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water at any time during the active life (including the closure ) I period) of the impoundment. The liner may be constructed of materials that j l may allow wastes to migrate into the liner (but not into the adjacent l subsurface soil, ground water, or surface water) during the active life of the facility, provided that impoundment closure includes removal or decon-t aination of all waste residues, contaminated containment system components (liners, etc.), contaminated subsoils, and structures and equipment contam-inated with waste and leachate. For impoundments tt)at will be closed with the liner material le.ft in place, the liner must be constructed of materials that can prevent wastes from migrating into the liner during the active life of the facility. 5A(2)--The liner required by paragraph 5A(1) above must be-- (a) Constructed of materials that have appropriate chemical pro-perties and sufficient strength and thic,kness to prevent failure due to pressure gradients (including static head and external hydrogeologic forces), physical contact with the waste or leachate to which they are exposed, climatic conditions, the stress of installation, and the stress of daily operation; (b) Placed upon a foundation or base capable of providing support to the liner and resistance to pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner due to settlement, compression, or uplift; and 47

[7590-01] (c) Installed to cover all surrounding earth likely to be in contact with the wastes or leachate. 5A(3)--The applicant or licensee will be exempted from the require-ments of paragraph SA(1) of this criterion if the Commission finds, based on a demonstration by the applicant or licensee, that alternate design and operating pract. ices, including the closure plan, together with site char-acteristics will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents into ground water or surface water at any future time. In deciding whether to. 1 grant an exemption, the Commission will consider-- (a) The nature and quantity of the wastes; (b) The proposed alternate' design and operation; .(c).The hydrogeologic setting of the facility, including the attenua-tive capacity and thickness of the liners and soils present between the impoundment and ground water or surface water; and (d) ATl other factors which would influence the quality and mobility of the leachate produced and the potential for it to mi' grate to ground water or surface water. 5A(4)--A surface impoundment must be designed, constructed, main-j tained, and operated to prevent overtopping resulting from normal or abnormal operations, overfilling, wind and wave actions, rainfall ur i run-on; from malfunctions of level controllers, alarms, and other equipment; 1 and from human error. SA(5)--When dikes are used to form the surface impoundmen't, the dikes must be designed, constructed, and maintained with sufficient structural integrity to prevent massive failure of the dikes. In ensuring structural integrity, it must not be presumed that the liner system will function without leakage during the active life of the impoundment. 48 l l

[7590-01] 5B(1)--Uranium and thorium byproduct materials must be managed to conform to the following secondary ground-water protection standard: Hazardous constituents entering the ground water from a licensed site must not exceed the specified concentration limits in the uppermost aquifer beyond the point of compliance during the compliance period. Hazardous constituents are those constituents identified by the Commission pursuant to paragraph 5B(2) of this criterion. Specified concentration limits are those limits established by the Commission as indicated in paragraph SB(5) 1 of tnis criterion. The Commission will also establish the point of com-pliance and compliance period on a site specific basis through license conditions and orders. The objective in selecting the point of compliance is to provide the earliest practicable warning that the impoundment is releasing hazardous constituents to the ground water. The point of com-pliance must be selected to provide prompt indication of ground-water 1 , contamination on the hydraulically downgradient edge of the disposal area. ) i The Commission shall identify hazardous constituents, establish concentra-1 tion limits, set the compliance period, and may adjust the point of com-l i pliance,if needed to accord with develope'd data and site information as I to the flow of ground water or contaminants, when the detection monitoring established under Criterion 7A indicates leakage of hazardous constituents J from the disposal area. i 5B(2)--A constituent becomes a hazardous constituent subject to para-graph 5B(5) only when the constituent meets all three of the following tests: (a) The constituent is reasonably expected to be in or derived from i the byproduct material in the disposal area; j l I 4 49 i \\ ___D

[7590-01] .(b) The constituent has been detected in the ground water in the- . uppermost aquifer; and (c) The constituent is listed'in Criterion 13 of this appendix. SB(3)--Even when constituents meet all three'. tests in paragraph'5B(2): of this criterion, the Commission may exclude a detected constituent from the set of hazardous constituents on a site specific basis if it' finds.that the constituent' is not capable of posing a substantial present or_po' ential t -l hazard to human health or the environment. In deciding whether to exclude l constituents, the Commission will. consider the following: (a) Potential adverse effects on ground-water quality,'considering-- (i)~ The physical and chemical characteristics of the waste'in the licensed site, including its potential ~for migretion; (ii) 'The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and sur-rounding land; (iii) The quantity of ground water and the direction of ground-water flow; (iv) The proximity and withdrawal rates of ground-water users;. (v) 'The current and future uses of ground: water.in the' area; (vi) The existing quality of ground water,' including other sources of contamination and their cumulative impact on the ground-water quality; (vii) The potential for health risks. caused by human exposure. to waste constituents-; (viii) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical struct'ures caused by exposure to waste constituents; (ix) The persistence and permanence of the potential' adverse-l etfects. 50

[7590-01] (b) Potential adverse effects on hydraulically-connected surface water quality, considering -- (i) The volum'e and physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site; (ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land; (iii) The quantity and quality of ground water, and the direc-tion of ground-water flow; (iv) The patterns of rainfall in the region; (v) The pr.oximity of the licensed site to surface waters; (vi) The current and future uses of surface waters in the area and any water quality standards established for those surface waters; (vii) The existing quality of surface water,, including o'ther sources of contamination and the cumulative impact on surface-water quality; (viii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure I to waste constituents; (ix) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents; and (x) The persistence and permanence of the potential adverse effects. 5B(4)--In making any determinations under paragraphs 5B(3) and 5B(6) l of this criterion about the use of ground water in the area around the facility, the Commission will consider any identification of underground sources of drinking water and exempted aquifers made by the Environmental Protection Agency. 51

(7590-01] l 58(5)--At the point of compliance, the concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed -- (a) The Commission apprcaed background concentration of that constituent in the ground water; (b) The respective value given in the table in paragraph SC if the constituent is listed in the table and if the background level of the constituent is below the value listed; or (c) An alternate concentration limit established by the Commission. 3 5B(6)--Conceptually, background concentrations pose no incremental i hazards and the drinking water limits in paragraph SC state acceptable hazards but these two options may not be practically achievable at a specific site. Alternate concentration limits that present no significant 1 hazard may be proposed by licensees for Commission consideration. Licensees must provide the basis for any proposed limits including consideration of practicable corrective actions, that limits are as low as reasonably' achievable, and information on the factors the Commission must consider. The Commission will establish a site specific alternate concentration limit for a hazardous constituent as provided in paragraph 5B(5) of this criterion if it finds that the proposed limit is as low as reasonably achievable, after considering practicable corrective actions, and that the constituent will not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment as 'long as the alternate concentration limit is not exceeded. In making the present and potential hazard finding, the Commission will consider the following factors: (a) Potential adverse effects on ground-water quality, considering-- (i) The physical'and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site including its potential for migration; 52

[ [7590-01] (ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land; (iii) The quantity of ground water and the direction of ground-l water flow; 1 (iv) The proximity and withdrawal rates of ground-water users; (v) The current and future uses of ground water in the area; (vi) The existing quality of ground water, i,ncluding other 1 sources of contamination and their cumulative impact on the ground-water quality; 1 (vii) The potential for health risks caused by human exposure to waste constituents; (viii) The potential damage to wildlife, crops, vegetation, and l physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents; (ix) The persistence and permanence'of the potential adverse effects. (b) Potential adverse effects on hydraulically-connected surface water quality, considering -- (i) The volume and physical and chemical characteristics of the waste in the licensed site; (ii) The hydrogeological characteristics of the facility and surrounding land; I (iii) The quantity and quality of ground water, and the direc-tion of ground-water flow; (iv) The patterns of rainfall in the region; (v) The proximity of the licensed site to surface waters; (vi) The current and future uses of surface waters in the area and any water quality standards established for those surface waters; 53 u_.

[7590-01). ~ l -(vii)' The existing quality of surface water including other sources of contamination and the cumulative impact:on surface water quality; (viii) The'po'tential for health risks caused by' human exposure l to waste constituents; (ix) The potential damage to wildlife,' crops : vegetation, and physical structures caused by exposure to waste constituents, and (x)' The persistence and' permanence of the potential adverse 1 l effects. SC--MAXIMUM' VALUES FOR. GROUND-WATER PROTECTION: ' Maximum Constituent or Property Concentration. Milligrams per liter 9 Arsenic.........................................'....... 0.05 Barium..................................................

1. 0 Cadmium.................................................

0.01 Chromium............................................... 0.05. l 4 Lead........................................ 0.05-Mercury..................................... 0.002 { Selenium............................................... 0.01 Si1ver................................................. .0.05 Endrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-1,7 -expoxy-1,4,4a,5,6,7,8,9a-octahydro-1, 4 endo, endo-i '5,8-dimethano naphthalene)............................ ,0.0002 Lindane (1,2,3,4,5,6-hexachlorocyclohexane, gamma isomer)..............................,.......... 0.004 Methoxychlor (1,1,1-Trichloro-2,2-bis. (p-methox-ypheny1 ethane)....................................... 0.1 Toxaphene (C H o le, Technical chlorinated' cam-ic 20 j phene, 67-69 percent chlorine)....................... 0.005 2,4-D (2,4-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid)................. 0.1 2,4,5-TP Silvex (2,4,5-Trichlorophenol pionic acid)...........................ypro-0.01 J Picocuries per liter ) Combined radium - 226 and radium -228.................. 5 l Gross alpha particle activity (excluding radon and; uranium when producing uranium byproduct j material or radon and thorium when producing thorium i l byproduct material).................................. 15 d h l 4 54 1 .)

[7590-01] i 50--If the ground-water protection standards established under paragraph SEG) of this criterion are exceeded at a licensed site, a corrective a::cion program must be put into operation as soon as is j practicable, and in no event later than eighteen (18) months after the a Commission finds that the standards have been exceeded. The licensee shall submit the proposed corrective action program and supporting rationale for Commission approval prior to putting the program into operation, unless otherwise directed by the Commission. The objective of the program is to return hazardous constituent concentration levels in ground water to the concentration limits set as standards. The licensee's proposed program must address removing the hazardous constituents that have entered the ground water at the point of compliance-or treating them in place. The program m'ust also address removing or treating in place any hazardous constituents that exceed concentration limits in ground water between the point of compliance and the downgradient facility property boundary. The licensee shall continue corrective action measures to the extent necessary to achieve and maintain compliance with the ground-water protection standard. The Commission will determine when the licensee may terminate corrective action measures based on data from the ground-water monitoring program and other information that provide reasonable assurance that the ground-water protection standard will not be exceeded. SE--In developing and conducting ground-water protection programs, applicants and licensees shall also consider the following: (1) Installation of bottom liners (Where synthetic liners are used, a leakage detection system must be installed immediately below the liner to ensure major failures are detected if they occur. This is in addition to the ground-water monitoring program conducted as provided in Criteri(:) 7. 55 .____m------

[1590-01] Where clay liners are proposed or relatively thin, in-situ clay soils are 1 to be relied upon for seepage control, tests must be conducted with repre-l sentative tailings solutions and clay materials to cor. firm that no signifi-cant deterioration of permeability or stability properties will occur with q continuous exposure of clay to tailings solutions. Tests must be run for J a sufficient period of time to reveal any effects if they are going to occur (in some cases deterioration has been observed to occur rather rap-idly after about nine months of exposure)). (2) Mill process designs which provide the maximum practicable re-cycle of solutions and conservation of water to reduce the net input of liquid to the tailings impoundment. 1 (3) Dewatering of tailings by process devices and/or in-situ drain-age systems (At new sites, tailings must be dewatered by a drainage system installed at the bottom of the impoundment to lower the phreatic surface and reduce the driving head of seepage, unless tests show tailings are not amenable to such a system. Where in-situ dewatering is,to be conducted, the impoundment bottom must be graded to assure that the drains are at a low point. The drains must be protected by suitable filter materials to assure that drains remain free running. The drainage system must also be adequately sized to assure good drainage). (4) Neutralization to promote immobilization of hazardous constituents. 5F--Where ground-water impacts are occurring at an existing site due to seepage, action must be taken to alleviate conditions that lead to excessive seepage impacts and restore ground-water quality. The specific seepage control and ground-water protection method, or combination of methods, to be used must be worked cut on a site-specific basis. Technical 56

[7590-01) specifications must be prepared to control installation of seepage control ) systems. A quality assurance, testing, and inspection program, which in-1 cludes supervision by a' qualified engineer or scientist, must be estab-lished to assure the specifications are met. I SG--In support of a tailings disposal system proposal, the applicant / operator shall supply information concerning the following: ) (1) The chemical and radioactive characteristics of the waste solutions. 1 (2) The characteristics of the underlying soil and geologic forma-tions particularly as they will control transport of contaminants and I solutions. This includes detailed information concerning extent, thick-l ness, uniformity, shape, and orientation of underlying strata. Hydraulic gradients and conductivities of the various formations must be determined. This'information must be gathered from borings and field survey methods taken within the proposed impoundment area and in surrounding areas where contaminants might migrate to ground water. T,he information gathered on boreholes must include both geologic and geophysical logs in sufficient number and degree of sophistication to allow determining significant dis-continuities, fractures, and channeled deposits of high hydraulic l conductivity. If field survey methods are used, they should be in addition to and calibrated with borehole logging. Hydrologic parameters such as per-meability may not be determined on the basis of laboratory analysis of samples alone; a sufficient amount of field testing (e.g., pump tests) must be conducted to assure actual field properties are adequately under-stood. Testing must be conducted to allow estimating chemi-sorption attenuation properties of underlying soil and rock. l 57 l

[7590-01) (3) Location, extent, quality, capacity and current uses of any ) ground water at and near the site. l 5H--Steps must be t'aken during stockpiling of ore to minimize pene-l tration of radionuclides into underlying soils; suitable methods include I b 1 lining and/or compaction of ore storage areas. l l 4 4. Criterion 6 is amended by adding the following new paragraph at j the end of Criterion 6: 1 Criterion 6 l The licensee shall also address the nonradiological hazards asso-j 1 l ciated with the wastes in planning and implementing closure. The licensee { \\ shall ensure that disposal areas are closed in a manner that minimizes the need for further maintenance. To the extent necessary to prevent threats l to human health and the environment, the licensee shall c'ontrol, minimize, ( l or' eliminate post-closure escape of nonradiological nazardous constituents, I leachate, contaminated rainwater, or waste decomposition products to the ground or surface waters or to the atmosphere. 1 ( 5. Criter, ion 7 is amended by adding the following new paragraph at I the'end of Criterion 7: 1 i Criterion 7 i 7A--The licensee shall establish a detection monitoring program needed for the Commission to set the site-specific ground-water protection i standards in paragraph 5B(1) of this appendix. For all monitoring under this paragraph the licensee or applicant will propose for Commission i approval as license conditions which constituents are to be monitored on a site specific basis. A detection monitoring program has two purposes. 58 -__.m_m_u

[7590-01] l The initial purpose of the program is to detect leakage of hazardous ' l I constituents from the disposal area so that the need to set ground-water protection standards is monitored. If leakage is detected, the second purpose of the program is to generate data and information needed for the i Commission to establish the standards under Criterion 5B. The data and information must provide a sufficient basis to identify those hazardous j 1 constituents which require concentration limit. standards and to enable the l 1 Commission to set the limits for those constituents and the compliance 1 period. They may also need to provide the basis for adjustments to the j i point of compliance. For licenses in effect September 30, 1983, the 1 detection monitoring programs must have been in place by October 1, 1984. ] For licenses issued after September 30, 1983, the detection monitoring programs must be in place when specified by the Commission in orders or license conditions. Once ground-water protection standards have been established pursuant to paragraph 5B(1),.the l'icensee shall establish and implement a compliance monitoring program. The purpose of the compliance monitoring program is to determine that the hazardous constituent concen-trations in ground water continue to comply with the standards set by the Commission. In conjunction with a corrective action program, the licensee shall establish and implement a corrective action monitoring program. The l purpose of the corrective action monitoring program is to demonstrate the j effectiveness of the corrective actions. Any monitoring program required by this paragraph may be based on existing monitoring programs to the extent the existing programs can meet the stated objective for the program. 59 l l 1

[7590-01] l 6. Add the following new heading and a new Criterion *13 at the end of Appendix A to read as follows: V. Hazardous Constituents i Criterion 13 -- Secondary ground-water protection standards required by Criterion 5 of this. appendix are concentration limits for individual hazardous constituents. The following list of constituents identifies the constituents for which standards must be set and complied with if the specific constituent is reasonably expected to be in or derived from the byproduct material and has been detected in ground water. For purposes of this Appendix, the property of gross alpha activity will be treated as if it is a hazardous constituent. Thus, when setting standards under i paragraph 5B(5) of Criterion 5, the Commission will also set a limit for gross alpha activity. The Commission does not consider the following list imposed by 40 CFR Part 192 to he exhaustive and may determine other constituents to be hazardous on a case-by-case basis, independent of those specified by the U.S. Environmental' Protection Agency in Part.192. i Hazardous Constituents Acetonitrile (Ethanenitrile) Acetophenone (Ethanone, 1 phenyl) 3-(alpha-Acetonylbenzyl)-4-hydroxycoumarin and salts (Warfarin) 2-Acetylaminofluorene (Acetamide, N-(9H-fluoren-2 yl)-) Acetyl chloride (Ethanoyl chloride) 1-Acetyl-2-thiourea (Acetamide, N-(aminothioxomethyl)-) Acrolein (2-Propenal) Acrylamide (2-Propenamide) 60 l

-[7590-01] Acrylonitrile.(2-Propenenitrile); Aflatoxins Aldrin (1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a,8b-hexahydro-endo, exo-1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene)- Allyl alcohol (2-Propen-1-ol) Aluminum phosphide 4-Aminobiphenyl ([1,l'-Bipheny1]-4-amine) 6-Amino-1,la,2,8,8a,8b-hexahydro-8-(hydroxymethyl)-8a-methoxy-5-methyl-carbamate azirino[2',3':3,4]pyrrolo[1,2-a] indole-4,7-dione, (ester) (Mitomycin C) (Azirino[2'3':3,4]pyrrolo(1,2-a) indole-4,7-1 dione,6-amino-8-[((amino-cabonyl) oxy)methy1]-1,la,2,8,Sa,8b-hexa-hydro-8a methoxy-5 methy-) t 1 l 5-(Aminomethyl)-3-isoxazolol (3(2H)-Isoxazolone, 5-(aminomethyl)-) 4-Aminopyridine (4-Pyridinamine) l Amitrole (1H-1,2,4-Triazol-3-amine) Aniline (Benzenamine) Antimony and compounds, N.O.S.* Aramite (Sulfurous acid, 2-chloroethyl, 2-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl) phenoxy]-1-methylethyl ester) Arsenic and compounds, N.0.S.* Arsenic acid (Orthoarsenic acid) Arsenic pentoxide (Arsenic (V) oxide) l Arsenic trioxide (Arsenic (III) oxide) l

• The abbreviation N.O.S. (not otherwise specified) signifies those members of the general class not specifically listed by name in this list.

61' 1 ) ,.]

.[7590-01]. 1 Auramine (Benzenamine, 4,4'-caroonimidoylbis[N,N-Dimethyl, monohydro-chloride). Azaserine (L-Serine, dia2oacetate (ester)) Barium and compounds, N.O.S.* Barium cyanide I Benz [c] acridine (3,4-Benzacridine) J Benz [a] anthracene (1,2-Benzanthracene) Benzene (Cyclohexatriene) Benzenearsonic acid (Arsonic-acid, phenyl-) e Benzene, dichloromethyl- (Benzal chloride) Benzenethiol (Thiophenol) I Benzid'ne ([1,l'-Biphenyl]-4,4' diamine) Benzo [L]fidoranthene (2,3-Benzofluoranthene) { Benzo [j]fluoranthene (7,B-Benzofluoranthene) Benzo [a] pyrene (3,4-Benzopyrene) p-Benzoquinone (1,4-Cyclohexadienedione) Benzotrichloride (Benzene, trichloroethyl) ~ Benzyl chloride (Benzene, (chloromethyl)-) Beryllium and compounds,N.O.S.* Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane (Ethane, 1,l'-[methylenebis(oxy)] bis [2-chloro-])~ Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether (Ethane, 1,l'-oxybis[2-chloro-]) N,N-Bis (2-chloroethyl)-2 naphthylamine (Chlornaphazine) Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether (Propane, 2,2'-oxybis[2-chloro-]) Bis (chloromethyl) ether (Methane, oxybis[ chloro-]) Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, bis (2-ethyl-4 hexyl) ester) + li 62 e

[7590-01] Bromoacetone (2-Propanone,.1-bromo-) Bromomethane (Methyl bromide) 4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether (Benzene, 1-bromo-4 phenoxy-) Brucine (Strychnidin-10-one, 2,3-dimethoxy-) 2-Butanone peroxide (Methyl ethyl ketone, peroxide) Butyl benzyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, butyl phenyl-methyl ester) 2-sec-Butyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (DNBP) (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-6-(1-methyl-propyl)-) Cadmium and compounds, N.0.S.* Calcium chromate (Chromic acid, calcium salt) j Calcium cyanide Carbon disulfide (Carbon bisulfide) Carbon oxyfluoride (Carbonyl fluoride) { Chloral (Acetaldehyde, trichloro-) j Chlorambucil (Butanoic acid, 4-[ bis (2-chloroethyl) amino] benzene-) Chlordane (alpha and gamma isomers) (4,7-Methanoindan, 1,2,4,5,6,7,8,8-octachloro-3,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-) (alpha and gamma isomers) Chlorinated benzenes', N.0.S.* Chlorinated ethane, N.0.S.* \\ i Chlorinated fluorocarbons, N.0.S* Chlorinated naphthalene, N.0.S.* l I Chlorinated phenol, N.O.S.

• Chloroacetaldehyde (Acetaldehyde, chloro-)

] Chloreal kyl ethers, N.O. S.

• p-Chloroaniline (Benzenamine, 4-chloro-)

1 63 l 1 _______J

[7590-01] Chlorobenzene (Benzene, chloro-) Chlorobenzilate (Benzeneacetic acid, 4-chloro-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)- alpha-hydroxy, ethyl ester) p-Chloro-m-cresol (Phenol, 4-chloro-3-methyl) 1-Chloro-2,3 cpoxypropane (0xirane, 2-(chloromethyl)-) 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether (Ethene, (2-chloroethoxy)-) Chloroform (Methane, trichloro-) Chloromethane (Methyl chloride) Chloromethyl methyl ether (Methane, chloromethoxy-) 2-Chloronaphthalene (Naphthalene, betachloro-) 2-Chlorophenol (Phenol, o-chloro-) 1-(o-Chlorophenyl) thiourea (Thiourea, (2-chlorophenyl)-) 3-Chloropropior.itrile (Propanenitrile, 3-chloro-) Chromium and compounds, N.0.S.* Chrysene (1,2-Benzphenanthrene) Citrus red No. 2 (2-Naphthol, 1-[(2,5-dimethoxyphenyl) azo]-) Coal tars Copper cyanide i Creosote (Creosote, wood) Cresols (Cresylic acid) (Phenol, methyl-) l Crotonaldehyde (2-Butenal) Cyanides (soluble salts and complexes), N.O.S.* Cyanogen (Ethanedinitrile) Cyanogen bromide (Bromine cyanide) Cyanogen chloride (Chlorine cyanide) Cycasin (beta-D-Glucopyranoside, (methyl-0NN-azoxy) methyl-) l 64 l

[7590-01] i l l 2-Cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitrophenol (Phenol, 2-cyclohexyl-4,6-dinitro-) Cyclophosphamide (2ii-1,3,2,-0xazaphosphorine, [ bis (2-chloroethyl) amino]-tetrahydro,2-oxide) l Daunomycin (5,12-Naphthacenedione, (85-cis)-8-acetyl-10-[(3-amino-2,3, 6-trideoxy)-alpha-L-lyxo-hexopyranosyl) oxy]-7,8,9,10-tetrahydro-L 6,8,11-trihydroxy-1-methoxy-) D00 (Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane) (Ethane, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)-) DDE (Ethylene, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (4-chlorophenyl)-) DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) (Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)-) Diallate (S-(2,3-dichloroallyl) diisopropylthiocarbamate) Dibenz[a,h] acridine (1,2,5,6-Dibenzacridine) Dibenz[a,j] acridine (1,2,7,8-Dibenzacridine) Dibenz[a,h] anthracene (1,2,5,6.Dibenz'nthracene) I a 7H-Dibenzo[c,g] carbazole (3,4,5,6-Dibenzcarbazole) Dibenzo[a,e] pyrene (1,2,4,5-Dibenzpyrene) Dibenzo[a,h] pyrene (1,2,5,6-Dibenzpyrene) 4 Dibenzo[a,i] pyrene (1,2,7,8-Dibenzpyrene) 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (Propane, 1,2-dibromo-3-chloro-) 1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide) Dibromomethane (Methylene bromide) l Di-n-butyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dibutyl ester) o-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2-dichloro-) l l m-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,3-dichloro-) 1 p-Dicnlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,4-dichloro-) Dichlorobenzene, fi.0.S.* (Benzene, dichloro, N.O.S.*) l 65 N----__.--_____ -.-.w

1 [7590-01] 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine ([1,l'-Biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dichloro-) i 1,4-Dichloro-2-butene (2-Butene, 1,4-dichloro-) Dichlorodifluoromethane '(Methane, dichlorodifluoro-) 1,1-Dichloroethane (Ethylidene dichloride) 1,2-Dichloroethane (Ethylene dichloride) I trans-1,2-Dichloroethene (1,2-Dichloroethylene) I Dichloroethylene, N.O.S.* (Ethene, dichloro, N.O.S,*) 1,1-Dichloroethylene (Ethene, 1,1-dichloro-) j Dichloromethane (Methylene chloride) 2,4-Dichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4-dichloro-) 1 l 2,6-Dichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,6-dichloro-) l l 2,4-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), salts and esters (Acetic acid, I l l l 2,4-dichlorophenoxy, salts and esters) -i I Dichlorophenylarsine (Phenyl dichloroarsine) Dichloropropane, N.0.S.* (Propane, dichloro, N.O.S.*) l 1,2-Dichloropropane (Propylene dichloride) Dichloropropanol, N.O.S.* (Propanol, dichioro, N.O.S.*) Dichloropropene, N.O.S.* (Propene, dichloro, N.O.S.*) i 1,3-Dichloropropene (1-Propene,1,3-dichloro-) Dieldin (1,2,3,4,10.10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-1,4',4a,5,6,_7,8,8a-octa-hydro-endo, exo-1,4:5,8-Dimethanonaphthalene) 1,2: 3,4-Diepoxybutane (2,2'-Bioxirane) Diethylarsine (Arsine, diethyl-) N,N-Diethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-diethyl) 0,0-Diethyl S-methyl ester of phosphorodithioic acid (Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-methyl ester) l 66 d e ____m._--__.__

[7590-01] 0,0-Diethylphosphoric acid, 0 p-nitrophenol ester (Phosphoric acid, l diethyl p-nitrophenol ester) { Diethyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, diethyl ester) 0,0-Diethyl 0-2 pyrazinyl phosphorothioate (Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0 pyrazinyl ester) Diethylstilbesterol (4,4'-Stilbenediol,alpta, alpha-diethyl, bis (dihydrogen phosphate, (E)-) Dihydrosafrole (Benzene, 1,2-methylenedioxy-4 propyl-) 3,4-Dihydroxy-alpha-(methylamino) methyl benzyl alcohol (1,2-Benzenediol, l 4-[1-hydroxy-2-(methylamino) ethyl]-) Dilsopropylfluorophosphate (DFP) (Phosphorofluoridic acid, bis (1-methylethyl) ester) Dimethoate (Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl S-[2-(methylamino) oxoethyl] ester) 3,3'-Dimethoxybenzidine ([1,l'-Biphenyl]- 4,48-diamine, 3-3'-dimet.hoxy-) p-Dimethylaminoazobenzene (Benzenamine, N,N-dimethyl-4-(phenylazo)-) 7,12-Dimethylbenz[a] anthracene (1,2-Benzanthracene, 7,12-dimethyl-) 3,3'-Dimethylbenzidine ([1,l'-Biphenyl]-4,4'-diamine, 3,3'-dimethyl-)- = Dimethylcarbamoyl chloride (Carbamoyl chl'oride, dimethyl-) 1,1-Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,1-dimethyl-) 1,2-Dimethylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-dimethyl-) 3,3-Dimethyl-1-(methylthio)-2-butanone, 0-[(methylamino) carbony1] oxime (Thiofanox) i alpha, alpha-Dimethylphenethylamine (Ethanamine, 1,1-dimethyl-2 phenyl-) 2,4-Dimethylphenol (Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl-) Dimethyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dimethyl ester) Dimethyl sulfate (Sulfuric acid, dimethyl ester) 67

[7590-01] Dinitrobenzenes, N.O.S.* (Benzene, dinitro, N.0.5.*) 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol and salts (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-6-met.hyl, and salts) 2,4-Dinitrophenol (Phenol, 2,4-dinitro-) 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene, 1-methyl-2,4-dinitro-) 2,6-Dinitrotoluene (Benzene, 1-methyl-2,6-dinitro-) Di-n-octyl.phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, dioctyl ester) 3,4-Dioxane (1,4-Diethylene oxide) 1 Diphenylamine (Benzenamine, N phenyl-) 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (Hydrazine, 1,2-diphenyl-) Di-n propyinitrosamine (N-Nitroso-di-n propylamine) Disulfoton (0,0-diethyl S-[2-(ethylthio) ethyl] phosphorodithioate) 2,4-Dithiobiuret (Thioimidodicarbonic diamide) Endosulfan (5-Norbornene, 2,3-dimethanol, 1,4,5,6,7,7-hexachloro, cyclic sulfite) i Endrin and metabolites (1,2,3,4,10,10-hexachloro-6,7-epoxy-1,4,4a,5,6, 7,8,8a-octahydro-endo, endo-1,4:5,8-dimethanonaphthalene, and metabolites) Ethyl carbamate (Vrethan) (Carbamic acid, ethyl ester) Ethyl cyanide (propanenitrile) Ethylenebisdithiocarbamic acid, salts and esters (1,2-Ethanediyl-biscarbamodithioic acid, salts and esters) Ethyleneimine (Aziridine) Ethylene oxide (Oxirane) Ethylenethiourea (2-Imidazolidinethione) Ethyl methacrylate (2-Propenoic acid, 2-methyl, ethyl ester) Ethyl methanesulfonate (Methanesulfonic acid, ethyl ester) Fl.uoranthene (Benzo [j,k] fluorene) 68

- [7590-01) W Fluorine 2-Fluoroacetamide (Acetamide, 2-fluoro-) Fluoroacetic acid, sodidm salt (Acetic acid, fluoro, sodium salt) Formaldehyde (Methylene oxide) Formic acid (Methanoic acid) Glycidylaldehyde (1-Propanol-2,3-epoxy) Halomethane, N.O.S.* Heptachlor (4,7-Methano-1H-indene, 1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-3a,4,7,7a-tetrahydro-) Heptachlor epoxide (alpha, beta, and gamma isomers)-(4,7-Methano-1H-indene,'1,4,5,6,7,8,8-heptachloro-2,3-epoxy-3a,4,7,7-tetrahydro, alpha, beta, and gamma isomers) Hexachlorobenzene (Benzene, hexachloro-) Hexachlorobutadiene (1,3-Butadiene, 1,1,2,3,4,4-hexachloro-) Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)'(Lindane and isomers) Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (1,3-Cyclopentadiene, 1,2,3,4,5,5-hexachloro-) Hexachloroethane (Ethane, 1,1,1,2,2,2-hexachloro-) 1,2,3,4,10,10-Hexachloro-1,4,4a,5,8,8a-hexahydro-1,4:5,8-endo, endo-dimethanonaphthalene (Hexachiorohexa-hydro-endo, endo-dimethanonaphthalene) Hexachlorophene (2,2'-Methylenebis(3,4,6-trichlorophenol) Aexachloropropene (1-Propene, 1,1,2,3,3,3-hexachloro-) Hexaethyl tetraphosphate (Tetraphosphoric acid, hexaethyl ester) Hydrazine (Diamine) Hydrocyanic acid (Hydrogen cyanide) Hydrofluoric acid (Hydrogen fluoride) 69 t _____mu___m_._---a

[7590-01] j 4 Hydrogen sulfide (Sulfur hydride) i I Hydroxydimethylarsine oxide (Cacodylic acid) -j Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene (1,10-(1,2 phenylene) pyrene) Iodomethane (Methyl' iodide) -1 ) Iron dextran (Ferric dextran). Isocyanic acid, methyl ester (Methyl isocyanate) Isobutyl alcohol (1-Propanol, 2-methyl-) Isosafrole (Benzene, 1,2-methylenedioxy-4-allyl-) Kepone (Decachlorooctahydro-1,3,4-Methano-2H-cyclobuta[cd]pentalen-2-one) Lasiocarpine (2-Butenoic acid, 2-methyl, 7-[(2,3-dihydroxy (1-methoxyethyl)-3-methyl-1-oxobutoxy) methyl]-2,3,5,7a-tetrahydro-1H pyrrolizin-1 yl ester) Lead and compounds, N.0.S.* Lead acetate (Acetic acid, lead salt) Lead phosphate (Phosphoric acid, lead salt) Lead subacetate (Lead, bis (acetato-0)tet.rahydroxytri-) Maleic anhydride (2,5-Furandione) Maleic hydrazide (1,2-Dihydro-3,6 pyridazinedione) Malononitrile (Propanedinitrile) Melphalan (Alanine, 3-[p-bis (2-chloroethyl) amino]phenyl,L-) i Mercury fulminate (Fulminic acid, mercury salt) l Mercury and compounds, N.0.S.* Methacrylonitrile (2-Propenenitrile, 2-methyl-) Methanethiol (Thiomethanol) Methapyrilene (Pyridine, 2-[(2-dimethylamine) ethyl]-2-thenylamino-) Metholmyl (Acetimidic acid, N-[(methylcarbamoyl) oxy] thio, methyl ester)- Methoxychlor (Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-2,2'-bis (p-methoxyphenol)-) 70

---

_-_--.---__wa.u

J [7590-01] F 2-Methylaziridine (1,2-Propylenimine) 3-Methylcholanthrene.(Benz [j]aceanthrylene, 1,2-dihydro-3-methyl-) Methyl chlorocarbonate (Carbonochloridic acid, methyl ester) 4,4'-Methylenebis(2-chloroaniline) (Benzenamine, 4,48-methylenebis-; ] (2-chloro-) Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) (2-Butanone) Methyl hydrazine (Hydrazine, methyl-) 2-Methyllactonitrile (Propanenitrile, 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-) Methyl methacrylate (2-Propenoic acid, methyl, methyl ester) i Methyl methanesulfonate (Methanesulfonic acid,' methyl ester) I 2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde-o-(methylcarbonyl) oxime (Propanal, 2-methyl-2-(methylthio), 0-[(methylamino)carbonyl] oxime) H N-Methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (Guanidine, N-nitroso-N-methyl-N'- i nitro-) i Methyl par.athion (0,0-dimethyl 0-(4-nitrophenol) phosphorothioate) Methylthiouracil (4-1H-Pyrimidinone, 2,3-dihydro-6-methyl-2-thioxo-) Molybdenum and compounds, N.0.S.* . Mustard gas (Sulfide, bis (2-chloroethyl)-) ^ ' Naphthalene 1,4-Naphthoquinone (1,4-Naphthalenedione) 1-Naphthylamine (alpha-Naphthylamine) 2-Naphthylamine (beta-Naphthylamine) 1-Naphthyl-2-thiourea (Thiourea, 1-naphthalenyl-) l Nickel and compounds, N.O.S.* Nickel carbonyl (Nickel tetracarbonyl) Nickel cyanide (Nickel (II) cyanide)- Nicotine and salts (Pyridine, (S)-3-(1-methyl-2 pyrrolidinyl), and salts) 71 ___.-__.m.__

[7590-01] 1 Nitric oxide (Nitrogen (II) oxide) l p-Nitroaniline (Benzenamine, 4-nitro-) Nitrobenzine (Benzene, nitro-) Nitrogen dioxide (Nitrogen (IV) oxide) Nitrogen mustard and hydrochloride salt (Ethanamine, 2-chloro, l N-(2-chloroethyl)- N-methyl, and hydrochloride salt) Nitrogen mustard N-0xide and hydrochloride salt (Ethanamine, 2-chloro, N-(2-chloroethyl)-N-methyl, and hydrochloride salt) Nitroglycerine (1,2,3-Propanetriol, trinitrate) l 4-Nitrophenol (Phenol, 4 nitro-) 4-Nitroquinoline-1-oxide (Quinoline, 4-nitro-1-oxide-) ] Nitrosamine, N.O.S.* N-Nitrosodi-n-butylamine (1-Butanamine, N-butyl-N nitroso-) N-Nitrosodiethanolamine (Ethanol, 2,2'-(nitrosoimino) bis-) .N-Nitrosodimethylamine (Ethanamine, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-) N-Nitrosodimethylamine (Dimethylnitrosamine) N-Nitroso-N-ethylurea (Carbamide, N-ethyl-N-nitroso-) N-Nitrosomethylethylamine'(Ethanamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-) N-Nitroso-N-methylurea (Carbamide, N-methyl-N-nitroso-) N-Nitroso-N-methylurethane (Carbamic acid, methylnitroso, ethyl ester) i N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine (Ethenamine, N-methyl-N-nitroso-) N-Nitrosomorpholine (Morpholine, N-nitroso-) N-Nitrosonornicotine (Nornicotine, N-nitroso-) l N-Nitrosopiperidine (Pyridine, hexahydro, N-nitroso-) Nitrosopyrrolidine (Pyrrole, tetrahydro, N-nitroso-) N-Nitrososarcosine (Sarcosine, N-nitroso-) a 72 ___m__

[7590-01] 5-Nitro-o-toluidine (Benzenanine, 2-methyl-5-nitro-) Octamethylpyrophosphoramide (Diphosphoramide, octamethyl-) Osmium tetroxide (Osmium (VIII) oxide) 7-Oxabicyclo[2.2.1] heptane-2,3-dicarboxylic acid (Endothal) Paraldehyde (1,3,5-Trioxane, 2,4,6-trimethyl-) Parathion (Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-diethyl 0-(p-nitropheny?)en*c;.r) Pentachlorobenzene (Benzene, pentachloro-) l Pentachloroethane (Ethane, pentachloro-) Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB) (Benzene, pentachloronitro-) l Pentachlorophenol (Phenol, pentachloro-) l Phenacetin (Acetamide, N-(4-ethoxyphenyl)-) Phenol (Benzene, hydroxy-) Phenylenediamine (Benzenediamine) Phenylmercury acetate (Mercury, acetatophenyl-) N-Phenylthiourea (Thiourea, phenyl-) Phosgene (Carbonyl chloride) Phosphine (Hydrogen phosphide) Phosphorodithioic acid, 0,0-diethyl S-[(ethylthio)methy1] ester (Phorate) Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0-dimethyl 0-[p-((dimethylamine) sulfonyl)phenyl] ester (Famphur) Phthalic acid esters, N.O.S.* (Benzene, 1,2-dicarboxylic acid, esters, I N.O.S.*) Phthalic anhydride (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid anhydride) l 2-Picoline (Pyridine, 2-methyl-) Polychlorinated biphenyl, N.O. S.

• Potassium cyanide 73 a

-[7590-n1]. Potassium silve'r cyanide (Argentate(1.).dicyano, potassium) 'Pronamide (3,5-Dichloro-N-(1,1-dimethyl-2 propynyl) benzamide) 1,3-Propane.sultone (1,2-Oxathiolane,.2,2-dioxide) n-Propylamine (1-Propanamine) Propylthiouracil (Undecamethylenediamine, N,N'-bis (2-chlorobenzyl-), dihydrochloride) 2-Propyn-1-ol (Propargy1 alcohol) ) Pyridine l Radium -226 and -228 Reserpine (Yohimban-16-carboxylic acid, 11,17-dimethoxy-18-[3,4,5-1 l I trimethoxybenzoyl) oxy], methyl ester) Resorcinol (1,3-Benzenediol) J Saccharin and salts (1,2-Benzoisothiazolin-3-one, 1,1-dioxide, and. salts) { Safrole (Benzene, 1,2-methylenedioxy-4-allyl-) Selenious acid (Selenium dioxide) Selenium and compounds, N.0.S.*- Selenium sulfide (Sulfur selenide) Selenourea (Carbamimidoselenoic acid)- j Silver and compounds, N.O.S.* Silver cyanide Sodium cyanide Streptozotocin (D-Glucopyranose, 2-deoxy-2-(3-methyl-3-nitrosoureido)-) Strontium sulfide Strychnine and salts (Strychnidin-10-one, and salts) 1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2,4,5-tetrachloro-) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo p-dioxin (TCDD) (Dibenzo p-dioxin, 2,3,7,8-te.trachloro-) r 74

[7590-01] Tetrachloroethane, N.O.S.* (Ethane, tetrachloro, N.O.S.*) 1,1,1,2-Tetrachlorethane (Ethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloro-) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachlorethane (Ethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-) Tetrachloroethane (Ethene, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloro-) Tetrachloromethane (Carbon tetrachloride) 2,3,4,6,-Tetrachlorophenol (Phenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloro-) Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate (Dithiopyrophosphoric acid, tetraet,hyl-ester) Tetraethyl lead (Plumbane, tetraethyl-) Tetraethy1 pyrophosphate (Pyrophosphoric acide, tetraethyl ester) Tetranitromethane (Methane, tetranitro-) Thallium and compounds, N.O.S

• Thallic oxide (Thallium (III) oxide)

Thallium (I) acetate (Acetic acid, thallium (I) salt) Thallium (I) carbonate (Carbonic acid, dithallium (I) sal't) Thallium (I) chloride Thallium (I) nitrate (Nitric acid, thallium (I) salt) Thallium selenite Thallium (I) sulfate (Sulfuric acid, thallium (I) salt) Thioacetamide (Ethanethioamide) Thiosemicarbazide (Hydrazinecarbothioamide) Thiourea (Carbamide thio-) Thiuram (Bis (dimethylthiocarbamoyl) disulfide) Thorium and compounds, N.0.S.*, when producing thorium byproduct material Toluene (Benzene, methyl-) Toluenediamine (Diaminotoluene) 'o-Toluidine hydrochloride (Benzenamine, 2-methyl, hydrochloride) 4 i 75

[7590-01) Tolylene diisocyanate (Benzene, 1,3-diisocyanatomethyl-) Toxaphene (Camphene, octachloro-) Tribromomethane (Bromoform) I i 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2,4-trichloro-) 1.1,1-Trichloromethane (Methyl chloroform) i 1,1,2-Trichloromethane (Ethane,1,1,2-trichloro-) I Trichloroethene (Trichlorethylene) Trichloromethanethiol (Methanethiol, trichloro-) 1 trichloromonofluoromethane (Methane, trichlorofluoro-) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4,5-trichloro-) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol (Phenol, 2,4,6-trichloro-) 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) (Acetic acid, 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy-) l l l l 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (2,4,5-TP) (Silvex) (Propionoic acid, 2-(2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy)-) { l l Trichloropropane, N.0.S.* (Propane, trichloro, N.0.S.*) i 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (Propane 1,2,3-trichloro-) l 0,0,0-Triethyl phosphorothioate (Phosphorothioic acid, 0,0,0-triethyl ester) sym-Trinitrobenzene (Benze.1e,1,3,5-trinitro-) l Tris (1-azridinyl) phosphine sulfide (Phosphine sulfide, tris (1-azi ridinyl-) I I Tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (1-Propanol, 2,3-dibromo, phosphate) i I l Trypan blue (2,7-Naphthalenedisulfonic acid, 3,3'-[(3,3'-dimethyl (1,l'-biphenyl)- 4,4'-diyl) bis (azo)] bis (5-amino-4-hydroxy, l tetrasodium salt) i i 4 76 l ( l

[7590-01] Uracil mustard (Uracil 5-[ bis (2-chloroethyl) amino]-) i Uranium and compounds, N.O.S.* i Vanadic acid, ammonium s' alt (ammonium vanadate) Vanadium pentoxide (Vanadium (V) oxide) l Vinyl chloride (Ethene, chloro-) l Zinc cyanide. H Zinc phosphide 9 Dated at Washington, DC this 6th day of November 1937. For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission. a ~. $hilk, Secretary}oftheCommision. l l i l 1 l 7'7 _.__._.-m____._____.___._._m.__ m_ ____..__m -____-______m___ ____m.,--m_}}