[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