[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51034-51040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-21656]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Notice of Availability of a Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1569) for
Staff Reviews for in Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has developed a
[[Page 51035]]
Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1569) which provides guidance for staff
reviews of applications to develop and operate uranium in situ leach
facilities. 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 to conduct uranium
recovery by in situ leach extraction techniques. Applicants for a new
license and operators seeking an amendment or renewal of an existing
license are required to provide detailed information on the facilities,
equipment, and procedures used in the proposed activities. In addition,
the applicant for a new license also provides an Environmental Report
that discusses the effects of proposed operations on the health and
safety of the public and assesses impacts to the environment. For
amendment or renewal of an existing license, the original Environmental
Report is supplemented, as necessary. This information is used by the
NRC staff to determine whether the proposed activities will be
protective of public health and safety and the environment and to
fulfill NRC responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). The purpose of the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-1569) is to
provide the NRC staff with guidance on performing reviews of
information provided by the applicant and 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-1569 is also intended to improve
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
applicant has the flexibility to propose other methods as long as it
demonstrates how it will meet regulatory requirements.
A draft of NUREG-1569 was issued in October 1997 and subsequently
revised to reflect responses to public comments and the results of
Commission policy decisions affecting uranium recovery issues described
in NRC Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2000-23, dated November 30, 2000.
RIS 2000-23 addressed two issues related to in situ leach facilities.
In the first, the NRC took the position that all waste water generated
during or after the uranium extraction phase of operations at an in
situ leach facility, and all evaporation pond sludges derived from such
waste waters, are 11e.(2) byproduct material. In the second, the NRC
reaffirmed its authority to regulate ground water at in situ leach
facilities, but expressed its intent to continue discussions with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and appropriate States to
try to minimize duplicative ground-water reviews. On February 5, 2002
(FR 5347), the NRC made the revised second draft of NUREG-1569
available for a 75-day public comment.
In preparing the final version of NUREG-1569, the NRC staff
reviewed and considered more than 750 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 (322 comments);
(2) Policy Issues (including administrative, quality assurance, and
surety/financial issues) (103 comments);
(3) Ground water (123 comments);
(4) Operational (47 comments);
(5) Health Physics (78 comments);
(6) Monitoring (55 comments); and
(7) Environmental aspects related to NRC responsibilities under
NEPA (40 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-1569
is under Adams Accession Number ML032250177. 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].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 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 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 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-1569 is structured consistent with NRC practice for
standard review plan style and format. While this 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. Editorial comments on inconsistent terminology, typographical and
grammatical mistakes, or the accuracy of reference documents were
accepted and incorporated in preparing the final standard review plan,
as appropriate. The individual editorial comments are not addressed in
this comment summary document.
An appendix (Effluent Disposal at Licensed In Situ Leach Uranium
Extraction Facilities) was deleted since the guidance therein was
superseded by the Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-99-013 which
provided staff with direction on classification of liquid wastes at
these facilities.
Issue: There is sometimes a lack of agreement between the topics to
be reviewed and the corresponding acceptance criteria.
Comment: Commenters stated that in several review plan sections,
the areas of review identified at the beginning of the section did not
correspond well to the acceptance criteria that would be used to make
the evaluation findings.
Response: The staff concurs with this comment. NUREG-1569 was
edited to provide correspondence among areas of review, review methods,
acceptance criteria, and evaluation findings in each section.
[[Page 51036]]
Issue: Chapter 5 (Operations) of the standard review plan has many
editorial and technical discrepancies.
Comment: Several commenters identified editorial and technical
concerns with Chapter 5 of the draft standard review plan. In some
cases, the editorial problems may have made the regulatory guidance
difficult to implement.
Resolution: The staff concurs with the commenters. Chapter 5 was
rewritten to incorporate editorial and regulatory guidance
improvements. The separate section on recordkeeping and reporting was
combined with the section on the management control program to more
closely match Regulatory Guide 3.46.1 (Standard Format and Content of
License Applications, Including Environmental Reports, for In Situ
Uranium Solution Mining). Editorial comments are not addressed
individually in this comment summary document except where they have
particular impact on the standard review plan.
Issue: Additional clarifying or background information should be
included in NUREG-1569.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that specific additional
information related to proceedings for a given site or that would
provide general background information on in situ uranium extraction
techniques and hazards be included.
Resolution: The NRC has elected not to include the suggested
information in NUREG-1569 because the standard review plan is not
written for application to a specific site, and general information is
available in other references on in situ uranium extraction operations.
2. Policy Issues (Including Administrative, Quality Assurance, and
Surety/Financial Issues)
Issue: NUREG-1569 attempts to apply a risk-informed, performance-
based regulatory philosophy without a regulatory basis for doing so.
Comment: Commenters, while noting that risk-informed, performance-
based regulatory philosophies could be applied to in situ leach uranium
extraction facilities, argued that no regulatory basis exists for
implementing such philosophies. The commenters stated that 10 CFR part
40 should be modified to incorporate risk-informed, performance-based
regulatory concepts before the associated standard review plan is
modified in that way, because standard review plans are not to be used
to promulgate regulatory policy. Commenters also stated that the NRC
should not expect license applicants to conduct the accident analyses,
consequence evaluations, and probability determinations associated with
risk-informed, performance-based regulation. Finally, the commenters
argued that the risk-informed, performance-based approach presented in
NUREG-1569 was too cursory, contained undefined terms, assumed the
existence of a facility change mechanism, and that the review plan
contained highly prescriptive acceptance criteria.
Response: The NRC agrees that standard review plans cannot be used
to promulgate regulatory requirements, and has no intent to do so using
NUREG-1569. In related action, the Commission considered promulgating a
new regulation (10 CFR part 41) that would specifically address
regulatory requirements for in situ leach uranium extraction facilities
and that would formally incorporate risk-informed, performance-based
regulatory philosophies. However, considering feedback from the uranium
extraction industry and other stakeholders, and taking into account the
economic status of the uranium extraction industry which would have to
bear the cost of the rulemaking, the Commission determined that
rulemaking was not an appropriate action at this time. Instead, in
making this decision, the Commission directed the staff to update its
regulatory guidance related to in situ leach uranium extraction
facilities. NUREG--1569 incorporates this direction from the
Commission. It outlines risk-informed, performance-based approaches
that staff reviewers may apply to in situ leach uranium extraction
facilities that are also consistent with existing NRC regulations at 10
CFR part 40.
In NUREG/CR-6733 (A Baseline Risk-Informed, Performance-Based
Approach for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Licensees) staff analyses
of in situ leach uranium extraction facility operations and accidents
that consider both likelihood of occurrence and consequence (and
therefore, risk) are presented. The analyses in NUREG-6733 are
conservative and demonstrate that in situ leach uranium extraction
facilities operated with properly trained workers and effective
emergency response procedures generally pose low levels of radiologic
risk. The staff considers analyses similar to, or based on, those in
NUREG-6733 to be an appropriate basis for licensee safety analyses.
NUREG-1569 is not intended to require applicants to prepare complex
accident analyses, consequence evaluations, and probability
determinations. However, site-specific conditions and circumstances
must be addressed in any application.
For several years, the NRC staff has been approving in situ leach
uranium extraction facility license renewals that incorporate a
performance-based license condition that provides a facility change
mechanism using a Safety and Environmental Review Panel. This accepted
practice is continued in NUREG-1569.
Finally, the staff has not attempted to implement overly
prescriptive acceptance criteria in NUREG-1569. Rather, standard
practices that have been found acceptable in demonstrating compliance
at in situ leach uranium extraction facilities have been placed in the
standard review plan as one approach that the staff may use in
determining compliance. Other approaches may be found acceptable as
long as the staff can determine that such approaches comply with
applicable regulations. In addition, the introduction to 10 CFR part
40, Appendix A, allows applicants to propose alternative standards to
the specific requirements in the Appendix A to demonstrate compliance,
and the staff will review any such alternative standards that are
submitted.
NUREG-1569 has been edited to remove inconsistent use of terms or
undefined terms. Where useful, acceptance criteria have been modified
to be less prescriptive. However, risk-informed, performance-based
approaches to determining compliance have been incorporated in the
standard review plan to the extent consistent with existing
regulations.
Issue: Standard review plan guidance with respect to overlapping
jurisdiction is not adequate.
Comment: Commenters were concerned that NUREG-1569 did not provide
sufficiently clear guidance on coordinating license application reviews
with federal and state agencies. Commenters also stated that the NRC
should accept state guidelines in conducting reviews.
Response: NUREG-1569 implements Commission direction in SECY-99-013
regarding ground-water issues at in situ leach uranium extraction
facilities. While this direction requires the staff to determine the
extent to which it can rely on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Underground Injection Control program and to work to
implement agreements with appropriate states on these issues, it does
not suggest that the NRC broadly accept state guidelines. As
appropriate, minimizing dual regulation and implementing agreements
with affected states remains an objective of the NRC,
[[Page 51037]]
and interactions with the EPA and the states continue on these issues.
The review plan has been revised to clarify this intent.
Issue: The standard review plan directs the staff to
inappropriately seek disclosure of an applicant's primary corporate
internal costs.
Comment: Commenters argued that corporate internal costs such as
capital costs of land acquisition and improvement, capital costs of
facility construction, and other operating and maintenance costs
addressed in the draft standard review plan were not appropriate for
staff review. The commenters suggested that only the forecast costs for
plant decommissioning and site reclamation should be examined by the
staff.
Resolution: The staff agrees with the commenters. The standard
review plan has been revised to remove guidance that the staff examine
costs outside of those associated with plant decommissioning and site
reclamation.
Issue: The NRC is exceeding its legal authority by requiring that a
determination be made that a proposed licensing action is appropriate
prior to allowing construction to proceed.
Comment: The Executive Summary to NUREG-1569 states that
``beginning construction of process facilities, well fields, or other
substantial actions that would adversely affect the environment of the
site, before the staff has concluded that the appropriate action is to
issue the proposed license, is grounds for denial of the application.''
The commenter disagrees with the ``sweeping nature'' of this statement
and asserts that the NRC has no jurisdiction over wells in an exempted
aquifer until lixiviant injection begins.
Response: The NRC considers this statement to be consistent with
the requirements of 10 CFR 40.32(e) and believes it to be appropriate
for the agency's responsibilities to protect public health and safety
and the environment. The license applicant shall not commence
construction activities with a potential for adverse impacts prior to
the NRC completing its environmental assessment in accordance with 10
CFR part 51.
3. Ground Water
Issue: Some acceptance criteria for ground-water protection seem
overly prescriptive or inconsistent with current practices at specific
in situ leach uranium extraction facilities.
Comment: Several comments pertained to the use of examples of
acceptable methods and approaches cited in the various acceptance
criteria for ground-water protection. These comments expressed concern
that the examples cited were not consistent with current practices at
some in situ leach uranium extraction facilities. For example, several
comments stated that the examples of acceptable methods for conducting
mechanical integrity tests on injection wells are not consistent with
methods currently employed or with state-approved practices.
Response: Examples of acceptable practices cited in the review plan
acceptance criteria for ground-water protection were obtained from
operations plans of currently operating in situ leach uranium
extraction facilities. These examples refer to methods used to
implement ground-water protection requirements that have been
considered acceptable in past NRC licensing reviews. The NRC recognizes
that an optimal approach to ground-water protection at one facility is
not necessarily applicable or appropriate at all in situ leach uranium
extraction facilities. As stated in the introduction to NUREG-1569,
applicants may take approaches to demonstrating compliance that are
different from the acceptance criteria in the standard review plan so
long as the staff can make the requisite decisions concerning
environmental acceptability and compliance with applicable regulations.
Where appropriate, these comments were addressed by modifying text to
clarify that the given examples are not prescriptive requirements.
Comment: Several comments recommended deletion of constituents from
the list of typical baseline water quality indicators in Table 2.7.3-1
of NUREG-1569. In a specific example, a rationale was provided for
eliminating radium-228 from the list of baseline water quality
indicators to be sampled in each new well field.
Response: The rationales provided by the commenters for elimination
of certain chemical constituents from the list of typical baseline
water quality indicators are not necessarily applicable for all in situ
leach uranium extraction facilities. A licensee may provide the
rationale for the exclusion of water quality indicators in a license
application or amendment request if operational experience or site-
specific data demonstrate that concentrations of constituents such as
radium-228 are not significantly affected by in situ leach operations.
NRC reviewers will determine whether proposed exclusions are justified
by the information provided. No changes to Table 2.7.3-1 were made for
the final standard review plan.
Comment: Two commenters pointed out an apparently new policy that
an excursion of lixiviant solutions will be deemed to have occurred if
any single excursion indicator exceeds its upper control limit by 20
percent, where previous guidance considered an excursion to have
occurred only when two or more excursion indicators exceed their upper
control limits by any amount.
Response: Acceptance criterion (5) in Section 5.7.8.3 in the draft
NUREG-1569 was revised by deleting the statement regarding a single
excursion indicator exceeding its upper control limit by 20 percent for
determination of when an excursion has occurred. However, the same
acceptance criterion retains the requirement that corrective action for
an excursion is deemed complete when all excursion indicators are below
their respective upper control limits, or when no single indicator
exceeds its control limit by more than 20 percent. Ideally, corrective
action for an excursion would be to restore all indicators to below
their upper control limits. However, in the past, corrective action has
been considered acceptable when a monitor well no longer meets the
criteria for being on excursion status. Excursion status criteria allow
one indicator to be above the respective upper control limit. However,
once an excursion has occurred, the reduction in concentrations of
indicator constituents by corrective action may not occur at the same
rate. Therefore, corrective action may be terminated prematurely if one
of two indicators are brought below upper control limits while another
remains substantially above its control limit.
Issue: The NRC is unduly concerned with protection of ground water
in aquifers where exemptions have been obtained from the requirements
of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Comment: Several commenters took exception to Acceptance Criterion
(4) in Section 6.1.3 of the draft standard review plan, which states
that the primary goal for restoration of well fields, following uranium
extraction, is to return each well field to its pre-operational
baseline water quality conditions. The commenters correctly pointed out
that EPA requirements for the Underground Injection Control program
result in the uranium production zones being classified as ``Exempted
Aquifers.'' This means they are not considered a potential source of
drinking water and, therefore, are not subject to requirements of the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Response: Acceptance Criterion (4) of Section 6.1.3 in the draft
standard review plan was revised to clarify that the goal of ground-
water restoration at
[[Page 51038]]
in situ leach uranium extraction facilities is to protect present or
potential future sources of drinking water outside of the exempted
production zone. Generally, if water quality within the production zone
is restored to the pre-operational baseline water quality, then
protection of water resources outside the exempted zone is assured.
Hence, restoration of water quality within the production zone to pre-
operational conditions is considered a primary goal whenever
degradation of water outside of the exempted zone is a possibility. It
is recognized, however, that restoration to pre-operational baseline
conditions may not be practicable or feasible, owing to geochemical
changes in the production zone during operations. Hence, applicants may
propose secondary standards for monitored constituents that are
protective of water resources outside of the exempted zone. This has
also been clarified in the final standard review plan.
4. Operations
Issue: It is unclear which hazardous chemicals have the potential
to impact safety at in situ leach uranium extraction facilities.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the standard review
plan addressed hazardous chemicals that were not realistic concerns at
in situ leach uranium extraction facilities.
Response: In 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, regulations implement EPA
Standards at 40 CFR part 192, as required by law. Specifically, 10 CFR
part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 13 identifies those hazardous
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. At the
same time, the introduction to 10 CFR part 40, Appendix A, allows
applicants to submit alternative proposals for meeting the requirements
that take into account local or regional conditions. 10 CFR part 40,
Appendix A, Criterion 13 also notes that the Commission does not
consider the subsequent list of hazardous constituents to be
exhaustive. In summary, NUREG-1569 reflects the regulatory requirements
but also allows the reviewer to consider any demonstration presented by
an applicant that addresses the potential hazardous constituents at a
specific site.
Issue: The responsibilities of the Safety and Environmental Review
Panel are not well defined.
Comment: Various commenters stated that the responsibilities of the
Safety and Environmental Review Panel, and their authority to authorize
changes without a license amendment were either not clear or had no
regulatory basis.
Resolution: The staff agrees that clarification of Safety and
Environmental Review Panel responsibilities and authorities would
facilitate use of the standard review plan. These portions of the draft
plan were rewritten for clarity. However, consistent with a risk-
informed, performance-based licensing approach, use of Safety and
Environmental Review Panels has been accepted by NRC staff, and an
evaluation of their use was left in NUREG-1569.
Issue: The NRC is placing inappropriate restrictions on use of
potentially hazardous process chemicals at in situ leach uranium
extraction facilities.
Comment: The commenter refers to NUREG/CR-6733 (A Baseline Risk-
Informed, Performance-Based Approach for In Situ Leach Uranium
Extraction Licensees) and states that the analyses in this document
were conservative. The commenter concludes that chemical safety must be
based on a realistic analysis of the hazards.
Resolution: The NRC staff interpreted the conclusions from the
analyses presented in NUREG/CR-6733 differently from the commenter.
NUREG/CR-6733 conducted deliberately conservative analyses for the
purpose of evaluating whether risks at in situ leach uranium extraction
facilities were significant. The conclusion presented in NUREG/CR-6733
for chemical hazards was that licensees should follow design and
operating practices published in accepted codes and standards that
govern hazardous chemical systems. This recommendation leaves licensees
flexibility to establish chemical safety measures appropriate for a
specific facility and consistent with good engineering and safety
practice. NUREG-1569 places no specific strictures on chemical safety
practices at in situ leach uranium extraction facilities.
5. Health Physics
Issue: The NRC is requesting information on radiation safety
programs that is unnecessary, based on the operational record at in
situ leach uranium extraction facilities, or is outside NRC licensing
authority.
Comment: Some commenters expressed a concern that the NRC was
requesting information that is not necessary to fulfill the agency
mission of protecting the public health and safety and the environment
from the effects of radiation. An example cited was information on
radiation safety programs, such as the qualifications of those people
proposed for the health physics staff.
Response: While the NRC agreed with many of these commenters that
some of the information requested was not needed, information on
qualifications is necessary. However, much of this information is
identified in Regulatory Guide 8.30, ``Health Physics Surveys in
Uranium Recovery Facilities'' (May 2002), and Regulatory Guide 8.31,
``Information Relevant to Ensuring That Occupational Radiation
Exposures at Uranium Recovery Facilities will be As Low As is
Reasonably Achievable'' (May 2002). Chapter 5 of NUREG-1569 was revised
to ensure that it is consistent with NRC regulations and regulatory
guidance applicable to in situ leach uranium extraction facilities by
referring to those regulatory guides, rather than repeat the
information in the SRP. In addition, the licensees are required by
license condition to follow the guidance set forth in Regulatory Guide
8.30, and Regulatory Guide 8.31. This is to ensure protection of the
worker, the public health and safety, and the environment.
Issue: NUREG-1569 references regulatory guides that are outdated.
Comment: A number of commenters noted that the standard review plan
referenced regulatory guides that have been revised or that are in the
process of revision.
Response: The commenters correctly noted that some of the
references in the draft standard review plan had been superseded or
were in the process of revision. The standard review plan has been
edited to reference current guidance. However, NRC has a number of
regulatory guides that are being updated, and revised versions may only
be referenced when they have been formally approved. This has
necessitated retaining reference to some draft regulatory guides.
Issue: NUREG-1569 introduces a new and undefined concept in
discussing ``control systems relevant to safety.''
Comment: Several commenters objected to inconsistent use of terms
and a lack of definition for terms related to control systems that may
affect safety.
Response: NUREG-1569 was edited to incorporate consistent use of
terms, and the term ``controls'' was defined consistent with other NRC
regulatory guidance.
[[Page 51039]]
6. Monitoring
Issue: In situ leach uranium extraction facility licensees are not
subject to long-term surveillance costs.
Comment: A commenter stated that including long-term surveillance
costs in financial surety requirements, as addressed in the draft
standard review plan, is inappropriate.
Response: NRC staff agrees with the commenter. Reference to long-
term surveillance costs has been removed from NUREG-1569.
7. Comments Related to NRC Responsibilities Under the National
Environmental Policy Act
Issue: The NRC is requesting non-radiological information that is
outside its area of regulatory authority.
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that the NRC was
requesting information that is not necessary to fulfill the agency
mission of protecting the public health and safety and the environment
from the effects of radiation. The areas of concern included
information on water quality, air quality, and historical and cultural
information.
Response: As a federal agency, the NRC is subject to the NEPA. NEPA
requires the NRC to consider impacts to the human environment as a part
of its decision making process for licensing actions. The regulations
governing NRC implementation of NEPA requirements are in 10 CFR part
51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and
Related Regulatory Functions. 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.''
In fulfilling its requirements under NEPA, the NRC routinely prepares
an environmental impact assessment when evaluating applications for new
materials licenses or amendments to such licenses. Areas of potential
environmental impact that are investigated include water availability
and quality, air quality, historical and cultural resources, ecology,
aesthetic resources, and socioeconomic effects. In preparing its
environmental impact assessment under NEPA, it is necessary for the NRC
to establish background conditions for the affected area. This may
require collection of data over a larger geographic area than the
licensed area, as well as collection of data in technical and
sociological areas that are beyond the traditional scope of radiation
safety assessments. The commenters noted that detailed environmental
impact assessments may not be necessary for all licensing actions, such
as license amendment requests that may be minor in scope or short in
duration. The text of the review plan has been modified to clarify
those situations where NRC has traditionally performed a detailed
environmental impact assessment, but the NRC necessarily reserves the
right to determine the nature of the assessment on a site-specific
basis in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51.
Issue: The standard review plan inappropriately examines corporate
financial information in evaluating the socioeconomic effects in cost-
benefit analyses.
Comment: A number of commenters noted that the standard review plan
examines detailed internal corporate financial data as part of the
review of cost-benefit analyses for a licensing action. The commenters
expressed concern that this information was proprietary and beyond the
scope of information necessary for an evaluation of the socioeconomic
impact of a facility.
Response: The commenters correctly noted that some of the
information identified in the draft standard review plan was beyond the
scope of information typically required for cost-benefit analyses. The
text of the standard review plan has been revised to eliminate requests
for proprietary corporate financial information and to clarify the
purpose and use of the financial information that is addressed in the
standard review plan.
Issue: Commenters questioned whether the standard review plan
applies to facilities planned for private land as well as those on
public land.
Comment: Several commenters expressed uncertainty as to whether the
review methods and acceptance criteria developed in the standard review
plan were also applicable to in situ leach facilities wholly located on
private lands.
Response: The NRC must consider the environmental impacts of
activities on both private and public lands to meet its
responsibilities under NEPA, particularly with regard to assessment of
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of proposed actions. The
specific information to be provided by a licensee, and the level of the
NRC staff review, will be determined on a site-specific basis
considering the nature of the proposed action. The standard review plan
is general guidance to the staff on the type of information that is
commonly acceptable for evaluating the environmental impact of a
proposed licensing action. Consistent with the NRC risk-informed,
performance-based licensing philosophy, licensees may use compliance
demonstration methods different from those presented in the standard
review plan so long as the staff can determine whether public health
and safety and the environment are protected. The standard review plan
text has been revised for clarity, but it has not been changed to
reflect different approaches for facilities operating on private and
public lands.
Issue: Licensees should not be required to choose the alternative
that has the least impact on the environment.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern that the standard
review plan requires a licensee or applicant to select the alternative
that has the least impact on the environment, or requires that the NRC
use license conditions to mitigate adverse environmental impacts that
are deemed outside the scope of NRC responsibilities.
Response: The NRC agrees that while NEPA requires the agency to
identify a preferred alternative, it does not require that the
alternative with the least impact on the environment be selected.
However, if an environmental impact statement (EIS) is necessary for a
proposed action, NEPA requires that all reasonable alternatives be
evaluated and that the environmentally preferable alternative be
identified in the final EIS. NUREG-1569 does not require the applicant
or licensee to select the most environmentally benign alternative. As
guidance to the NRC staff, the standard review plan asks the reviewers
to determine whether the choice of a particular uranium recovery method
has been adequately justified and whether different techniques and
processes were evaluated as part of this justification. The standard
review plan also directs the staff to evaluate the bases and rationales
used by an applicant in evaluating and ranking alternatives.
As stated in Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR
1502.16), in preparing an EIS, federal agencies are to identify all
reasonable mitigation measures that can offset the environmental
impacts of a proposed action, even if they are outside the jurisdiction
of the lead agency. These mitigation measures are intended to avoid,
minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for significant impacts of a
proposed action. If an environmental assessment identifies potentially
significant impacts that can be reduced to less-than-significant levels
by mitigation, an agency may issue a mitigated finding of no
significant impact (FONSI). In the case of a
[[Page 51040]]
mitigated FONSI, the mitigation measures should be specific and
tangible, such as may be stated as license conditions. The standard
review plan states that the NRC has responsibilities under NEPA to
identify and implement measures to mitigate adverse environmental
impacts of the proposed action.
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. 03-21656 Filed 8-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P