[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