[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51040-51043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-21655]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Notice of Availability of a Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1620)
Revision 1 for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings
Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has revised the
Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1620) that was developed to provide
guidance for staff reviews of reclamation plans for uranium mill
tailings sites covered by Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act. Revision 1 also incorporates information to
address new Commission policy on several issues related to uranium
recovery, including administrative, quality assurance, surety/financial
issues, geotechnical stability, ground-water, and exclusive
jurisdication. Under the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, part 40 (10 CFR part 40), Domestic Licensing of Source
Material, an NRC Materials License is required in conjunction with
uranium or thorium milling, or with byproduct material at sites
formerly associated with such milling. The licensee's site Reclamation
Plan documents how the proposed activities demonstrate compliance with
the criteria in Appendix A of 10 CFR part 40. This information,
combined with the licensee's Environmental Report, is used by the NRC
staff to determine whether the proposed activities will be protective
of public health and safety and the environment. The purpose of the
Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1620) is to provide the NRC staff with
guidance on performing reviews of information provided by licensees.
The use of the Standard Review Plan is also intended to ensure a
consistent quality and uniformity of staff reviews. Each section in the
review plan provides guidance on what is to be reviewed, the basis for
the review, how the staff review is to be accomplished, what the staff
will find acceptable in a demonstration of compliance with the
regulations, and the conclusions that are sought regarding the
applicable sections in 10 CFR part 40, appendix A. NUREG-1620 will also
assist in improving the understanding of the staff review process by
interested members of the public and the uranium recovery industry. The
review plan provides general guidance on acceptable methods for
compliance with the existing regulatory framework. As described in an
NRC white paper on risk-informed, performance-based regulation (SECY-
98-144), however, the licensee has the flexibility to propose other
methods as long as it demonstrates how it will meet regulatory
requirements.
A draft of NUREG-1620 was issued in January 1999 for public
comment. A final NUREG-1620, which incorporated NRC staff responses to
the comments received on the draft, was issued in June 2000.
On February 5, 2002 (FR5348), the NRC made the draft of NUREG-1620,
Revision 1, available for a 75-day public comment period. In preparing
the final version of NUREG-1620, Revision 1, the NRC staff carefully
reviewed and considered about 120 written comments received by the
close of the public comment period on April 22, 2002. To simplify the
analysis, the NRC staff grouped all comments into the following major
topic areas:
(1) Editorial and Organizational Comments (31 comments);
(2) Policy Issues (including administrative, quality assurance, and
surety/financial issues) (51 comments);
(3) Geotechnical Stability (17 comments);
(4) Ground water (15 comments); and
(5) Environmental aspects related to NRC responsibilities under
NEPA (4 comments).
ADDRESSES: Electronic copies of this document are available for public
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly
Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS).
ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (The Public Electronic Reading Room). NUREG 1620
is under ADAMS Accession Number ML032250190. The document is also
available for inspection or copying for a fee at the NRC's Public
Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1-F21, Rockville, Maryland
20852. This guidance document is not copyrighted, and Commission
approval is not required to reproduce it.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Lusher, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and
Safeguards, Mail Stop T-8 A33, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone (301) 415-7694, or e-mail
[email protected].
The following provides a more detailed discussion of the NRC
evaluation of the major topic areas and the NRC responses to comments.
1. Editorial and Organizational Comments
Issue: The draft standard review plan has a number of redundancies
and editorial errors.
Comment: Several commenters identified editorial concerns, text
omissions, or areas where the organization of the draft standard review
plan could be improved. Most of the organizational comments addressed
perceived redundancies in the standard review plan or opportunities to
streamline the style. Most editorial comments addressed inconsistent
terminology, identified typographical and grammatical mistakes, or
questioned the accuracy of reference documents.
Response: NUREG-1620, Revision 1, is structured consistent with the
NRC practice for standard review plan style and format. While the style
and format may be considered complex or redundant by some commenters,
no substantive changes have been made. This will preserve consistency
with other NRC standard review plans. The commenters have provided
numerous suggestions for improving the readability and clarity of the
review plan. Most editorial comments that addressed inconsistent
terminology, typographical and grammatical mistakes, or the accuracy of
reference documents were accepted and incorporated in preparing the
final standard review plan. The individual editorial comments are not
addressed in this comment summary document.
2. Policy Issues (Including Administrative, Quality Assurance, and
Surety/Financial Issues)
Issue: The NRC is inappropriately examining economic assessments
that are the prerogative of the applicant.
Comment: The draft standard review plan asked the reviewer to
examine the
[[Page 51041]]
economic benefits when slopes steeper than 5 horizontal: 1 vertical
(5h:1v) are proposed by an applicant. The NRC staff should be concerned
only with whether the slope design will be stable enough to protect the
tailings.
Resolution: The NRC agrees with the commenter. The final standard
review plan has been edited to remove consideration of economic factors
in slope design.
Issue: Guidance provided on alternate feed materials and non-
11e.(2) byproduct material is not informative.
Comment: Commenters stated that information presented in Appendix I
[Guidance on Disposal of Alternate Feed Materials and Non-11e.(2)
Byproduct Materials in Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments] of the draft
standard review plan was not useful. The commenter suggested that
additional guidance was not needed and recommended that the appendix be
deleted from the review plan.
Resolution: The NRC staff agrees with the commenters to some
extent. Appendix I did not contain sufficient information to assist the
reviewers in examining requests for disposal of these materials in mill
tailings impoundments. However, recent guidance from the Commission on
these subjects is relevant to such reviews. Accordingly, Regulatory
Issue Summary 2000-23, which presents Commission guidance on these
matters has been included in the appendix to facilitate staff reviews.
Issue: NUREG-1620 should present guidance on examining multi-site
problems.
Comment: One commenter noted that guidance on review of multi-site
problems should be included in the final standard review plan. The
reviewer stated that if a group of licensees raise a common issue, it
would be cost effective to address it generically.
Response: The NRC staff agrees that addressing multi-site problems
in an integrated manner could be cost effective and potentially
beneficial to public health and safety and the environment. Omitting
this information from NUREG-1620 is not meant to reflect a lack of
staff interest in multi-site problems. Rather, the standard review plan
is meant to address licensing reviews that can be completed using well-
accepted techniques. The staff believes that the technical and
regulatory aspects of multi-site problems are such that it is best to
examine them on a case-by-case basis.
Issue: The long-term custodian must accept transfer of property at
termination of the specific license.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern regarding language in
NUREG-1620 that there must be assurance that the long-term custodian
will accept the property necessary to protect public health and safety.
The commenter was concerned that the language in the standard review
plan implied that the long-term custodian has the option to refuse
transfer of the property.
Response: The language in the standard review plan is included to
ensure that the reviewer verifies that the long-term custodian is aware
of the full extent of required land transfer prior to termination of
the specific license. The intent is to avoid delays in license
termination because the licensee and the long-term custodian may not
have a mutual understanding on the extent of land transfer. The text on
this issue has been clarified to avoid any potential misunderstanding.
Issue: NUREG-1620 guidance on consideration of reasonably
attainable corrective actions and economic constraints is unclear.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that standard review plan
guidance to not eliminate potential corrective actions because of
economic constraints is inconsistent with guidance to assess three
reasonably attainable, practicable corrective actions. The commenter
notes that in some cases there may not be three reasonably attainable,
practicable corrective actions to assess.
Resolution: While the NRC understands the commenter's concern, the
language in the standard review plan on this matter is appropriate to
the intent of the guidance and needs no further detail. The guidance to
evaluate three reasonably attainable, practicable corrective actions is
not a regulatory requirement. The NRC expects that an applicant will
present corrective action alternatives that are reasonable and
practicable for a specific site and a specific set of circumstances.
Issue: Guidance that equipment owned by the licensee not be
considered in reducing surety cost evaluations is inappropriate.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that in estimating costs
to complete reclamation by a third-party independent contractor,
direction that the equipment owned by the licensee and the availability
of licensee staff should not be considered in reducing costs was
inappropriate. The commenter added that extreme interpretations of this
approach could lead to extravagantly expensive or even unattainable
surety requirements.
Resolution: It is appropriate not to consider equipment owned by
the licensee and the availability of licensee staff in calculating
costs for surety. The purpose of the surety is to ensure that there
will be adequate funds available to complete site reclamation in the
event that the licensee is unable to do so. The most likely
circumstance that would result in the licensee being unable to complete
reclamation is bankruptcy by the licensee. Unless the licensee can show
that the equipment and staff would be available during and after a
bankruptcy, credit for such can not be taken. The text has been
clarified to address this issue.
Issue: NUREG-1620 should be used as a tool for public education.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that discussions could be
expanded in various sections of the standard review plan to improve
public understanding of regulatory issues at Title II uranium mill
tailings sites.
Response: Discussions in several sections of the standard review
plan were revised to improve clarity and to correct editorial errors.
Although it is made available to the public, the primary intent of the
Standard Review Plan is to provide guidance to the NRC staff, not to
serve as a tool for public education. The staff believes that the
standard review plan contains the appropriate level of detail for its
intended purpose as a guide for staff reviews of reclamation plans for
Title II mill tailings sites.
3. Geotechnical Stability
Issue: NUREG-1620 requires additional flexibility in criteria for
selection of rock erosion protection materials.
Comment: One commenter suggested that criteria in the standard
review plan should provide more flexibility in selecting a less durable
rock for erosion protection when obtaining more durable rock is not
practical.
Response: Flexibility in selecting rock types for erosion
protection is implicitly provided in several locations in NUREG-1620,
Revision 1 (e.g., Section 3.5.3), as long as the applicant can
demonstrate with reasonable assurance that the radon barrier will be
effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in
any case, for at least 200 years. Clarifying text has been added to
indicate explicitly that this option is available.
Issue: Terminology for erosion protection covers needs to be
clarified.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification in use of the terms
``unprotected soil cover'' and ``vegetative soil cover.''
Response: The staff agrees with the commenter. Section 3.5 of the
standard
[[Page 51042]]
review plan has been retitled ``Design of Erosion Protection,'' and the
review guidance in that section has been clarified to avoid confusion
in the use of terms.
Issue: The NRC is requiring detailed seismic hazard analysis, even
in zero seismic risk areas identified in the Uniform Building Code.
Comment: One commenter noted that for cases where a given site is
located in a ``zero'' seismic risk area, as identified in the Uniform
Building Code, no further seismic characterization, explanation, or
description should be needed for the licensee or applicant.
Response: Maps for the maximum considered earthquake ground motion
for the United States in the most recent version of the building code
(2000 International Building Code) are based on probabilistic seismic
hazard maps with additional modifications incorporating deterministic
ground motions in selected areas and the application of engineering
judgement. These maps were prepared for the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction Program by the United States Geological Survey. Because it is
based on probabilistic methods, within the new update, the ``zero''
seismic risk areas no longer exist.
The NRC is currently establishing risk-informed and performance-
based regulations. One example of this philosophy is the application of
a risk-graded approach in developing seismic design requirements for
nuclear facilities. Under this approach, for example, nuclear power
plants have to meet the most stringent design requirements because they
pose the greatest radiological risk to public health and safety. Other
nuclear facilities like dry cask and canister storage facilities or
uranium mining operations could be designed to less stringent design
criteria because they pose substantially less radiological risk to
public health and safety. This type of graded approach to radiological
hazard is described in U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Standard 1020-
2002, ``Natural Phenomena Hazards Design and Evaluation Criteria for
Department of Energy Facilities.'' In that guidance, the DOE developed
five performance categories according to the relative risks posed by
the potential failure of a structure, system, or components (SSCs) to
perform its intended safety function. Performance Category (PC)-2 is
intended for occupational safety and the design requirements for this
category match those in the IBC-2000. PC-3 SSCs are for hazard
confinement and the design requirements go beyond those within IBC-
2000. Given the potential radiological hazards posed by Mill Tailing
sites, evaluations of seismic hazards should therefore exceed those
prescribed in the IBC-2000 for buildings. In addition, the National
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program maps do not take site effects into
account. Local site effects, such as soil amplification, can greatly
increase the level, spectral frequency content, and duration of
vibratory ground motions at a site that is produced during an
earthquake. Therefore, these effects need to be understood in order to
accurately predict the seismic hazard at any site.
Based on these two considerations (graded risk approach and
possible site amplification effects), staff conclude that site-specific
seismic evaluations are necessary for all sites.
Issue: The NRC has not provided an adequate definition of the
intent of using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to satisfy the
consideration of the maximum credible earthquake.
Comment: One commenter noted that the draft standard review plan
indicates that licensees can use an alternative to the maximum credible
earthquake, such as probabilistic seismic hazard analysis, but does not
indicate whether the intent is to allow probabilistic analyses to
satisfy 10 CFR part 40, appendix A, criterion 4(e) or it is being
considered as an alternative requirement.
Response: The application of a probabilistic seismic hazard
analysis in place of a deterministic approach is not intended to be an
alternative requirement to, as defined in the question, but another way
of satisfying the existing move toward risk-informed and performance-
based regulations. In addition, other NRC regulations clearly recommend
the use of a probabilistic approach as an acceptable way to account for
uncertainties [e.g., 10 CFR 100.23(d)(1)].
Issue: The NRC has provided only general guidance to seismic hazard
analysis, rather than guidance specific to certain geographic
provinces.
Comment: One commenter noted that references cited in the standard
review plan did not provide useful guidance with regard to site-
specific seismicity issues, and suggested other references specific to
Wyoming and the intermountain region of the western United States.
Response: The standard review plan is intended to provide general
guidance to the NRC staff on reviewing license applications, license
renewals, and amendment requests. The standard review plan does not
preclude licensees from providing additional site-specific information
as necessary in their license application or amendment requests, and
identifying how this information supports a specific licensing action.
4. Ground Water
Issue: NUREG-1620 should be consistent in use of terminology
related to ground water.
Comment: The term ``constituent of concern'' seems to be used
interchangeably with the term ``hazardous constituent.'' Constituents
of concern are not necessarily hazardous constituents unless they have
migrated into ``non-exempted'' aquifers.
Response: Section 4.2.1 of the standard review plan was revised to
delete a sentence equating constituents of concern with hazardous
constituents. The term ``hazardous constituent'' is now used consistent
with the definition in 10 CFR part 40, appendix A, criterion 5B(2).
Issue: The difference in an As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)
analysis for radiological and nonradiological parameters needs to be
more clearly presented.
Comment: An ALARA analysis for a nonradiological parameter differs
from that for a radiological parameter in that once the concentration
of a nonradiological parameter falls below the maximum concentration
limit, the licensee has no obligation to further reduce the parameter's
concentration. The NRC should distinguish between the two types of
ALARA studies.
Response: The NRC concurs with the commenter. A sentence was added
to Section 4.3.3.3 of the standard review plan to indicate that, when a
nonradiological hazardous constituent concentration is below its
regulatory maximum concentration level, the licensee has no further
obligation to reduce the constituent concentrations.
Issue: The benefits of ground-water corrective action requirements
at remote sites are questionable.
Comment: Two commenters noted that the NRC should provide further
guidance on addressing instances where the benefits of ground-water
correction action may not justify the cost. One comment referred to
circumstances where restrictions on site access or site-specific
physical characteristics may make it infeasible for members of the
public to access ground water. Another comment suggested that the
future value of the ground water removed and evaporated during
corrective actions may exceed any risk posed by the contaminant.
Response: No changes to the standard review plan were made to
address these comments. In such site-specific circumstances as
described by the
[[Page 51043]]
commenters, the burden is on the licensee to demonstrate that
termination of ground-water corrective actions would pose no
significant threat to human health and the environment. Licensees may
propose alternate concentration limits that meet the requirements of 10
CFR part 40, appendix A, criterion 5B(6). Consideration of the
remoteness of a site, potential future water uses, and future value may
be included in a licensee's basis for determining that alternate
concentration limits are protective of human health and the
environment, and that limits are as low as reasonably achievable. These
and other factors for consideration by the Commission are specifically
mentioned in 10 CFR, part 40, appendix A, criterion 5B(6), which is
appropriately cited in the standard review plan.
5. Comments Related to NRC Responsibilities Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
Issue: The NRC is reviewing information that is outside its areas
of regulatory authority.
Comment: Several commenters noted that the NRC is asking for
information that appears to be beyond its regulatory authority. This
includes information on nonradiological hazardous constituents and
review of restoration plans for borrow areas.
Response: As a federal agency, the NRC is subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This requires the NRC to consider
impacts to the human environment as a part of its decision making
process. The regulations governing the NRC implementation of NEPA are
described in 10 CFR part 51. Guidance to the NRC staff on conducting
environmental reviews is also provided in NUREG-1748 ``Environmental
Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.''
With regard to NEPA, the NRC must consider the environmental impacts of
both radiological and nonradiological aspects of a proposed action,
particularly with regard to assessment of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts of the proposed action. The exact nature of the
information to be provided by a licensee and the level of NRC staff
review will be determined on a site-specific basis. The standard review
plan is intended as general guidance to the staff on the type of
information that is commonly acceptable for evaluating the
environmental impact of a proposed licensing action. Under the risk-
informed, performance-based licensing philosophy used by the NRC, the
licensee is free to present alternative approaches for NRC
consideration.
With regard to restoration plans for borrow areas, the intent of
the section of the standard review plan identified by the commenter is
to have staff review restoration plans for borrow areas as part of
characterizing the stratigraphy and materials at a given site, and
fulfilling NRC requirements under NEPA. The NRC also needs to consider
the cumulative impacts of both radiological and nonradiological
hazardous constituents to meet its obligations under NEPA. General
guidance to the NRC staff for the evaluation of cumulative impacts is
provided in Section 4.2.5 of NUREG-1748 ``Environmental Review Guidance
for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.''
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day of August, 2003.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert C. Pierson,
Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 03-21655 Filed 8-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P