[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 150 (Thursday, August 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39348-39349]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18822]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0341]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Involvement With the Navy's
Remediation of the Hunters Point Shipyard Site in San Francisco, CA
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of jurisdiction and future involvement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has decided that
it will take a limited involvement approach to stay informed about the
Navy's ongoing remediation of the Hunters Point Shipyard (HPS) site in
San Francisco, California. NRC will rely on the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
process and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9
oversight. This notice discusses NRC's jurisdiction and future limited
involvement at the HPS site and how it plans on staying informed about
the Navy's remediation in the future.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert L. Johnson, Division of Waste
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Federal and State
Materials and Environmental Management Programs, Mail Stop T-8F5, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone:
(301) 415-7282; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In July 2007 the Navy requested
clarification about NRC`s jurisdiction and potential involvement with
the Navy's ongoing remediation of radioactive material at the HPS site.
In response to the Navy's request, NRC reviewed key HPS site documents,
met with the Navy, and conducted a site visit in October 2007. NRC also
met with representatives from EPA Region 9, the State of California
agencies involved with the HPS site, and the City of San Francisco. In
addition to evaluating potential NRC involvement, these meetings were
used to obtain an understanding of the site, the Navy's remediation,
and the oversight roles and issues of the key parties involved with the
remediation. Based on this information, the NRC staff evaluated NRC's
jurisdiction for the materials at the HPS site and evaluated options
for NRC involvement. These options and the staff's recommendations were
provided to the Commission in SECY-08-0077. This Commission paper also
gives background about the HPS and the Navy's ongoing remediation. The
Commission provided its direction to the staff on June 26, 2008, in
SRM-SECY-08-0077. The results of the staff's evaluation and the
Commission's decision are summarized in the answers to the following
questions:
1. What is NRC's regulatory jurisdiction for the Navy's remediation of
the HPS site?
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) licenses for radioactive material
used by the Navy in both the shipyard and the Navy Radiological Defense
Laboratory (NRDL) at the HPS site were terminated in the 1970s after
extensive radiological surveys of the facilities confirmed that the
facilities met the radiological standards at that time. Therefore,
after termination of the AEC licenses, neither the NRC nor its
predecessor, AEC, exercised direct regulatory authority over the
residual contamination at the HPS site. Subsequently, the Navy
conducted radiological surveys and completed a Historical Radiological
Assessment of the site in 2004. These studies provided new information
about the suspected and confirmed radiological contamination for the
entire HPS site. Based on this new information, the Navy and NRC assume
that any remaining licensable material is likely commingled with atomic
weapons testing material. Both types of radioactive material were used
at the NRDL. NRC has jurisdiction for the licensable material. However,
under Section 91(b) of the AEA, the atomic weapons testing material is
outside of NRC's jurisdiction.
2. What is NRC's future involvement with the Navy's ongoing remediation
of the HPS site?
NRC will rely on the ongoing Navy remediation under the CERCLA
process and EPA regulatory oversight for the licensable radioactive
material assumed to be present at the HPS site. NRC would not exercise
its regulatory authority and would not require compliance with its
decommissioning regulations. NRC would not conduct any formal
regulatory reviews or participate in the ongoing CERCLA comment process
for the Navy's remediation. The NRC staff would have a limited
involvement to stay informed about the Navy's remediation of the
remaining parcels, which is expected to take about 10 years.
The basis for this approach is that NRC can reasonably rely on the
CERCLA process and EPA oversight of this Superfund site because the
process should result in a level of protection of public health and
safety and the environment that is generally equivalent to what would
be provided if the NRC's decommissioning process was used. NRC believes
that this is a reasonable approach because: (1) The licensable
materials are inextricably commingled with the atomic weapons testing
material over which NRC has no jurisdiction; (2) over-laying NRC
requirements and oversight on the CERCLA process overseen by EPA
provides no clear public health and safety benefit; (3) dual NRC-EPA
regulation is avoided; (4) remediation can proceed under CERCLA; and
(5) NRC would be in a position to respond to stakeholder questions in a
timely and effective manner. NRC considered, but did not select the
option of regulating the remediation through the Navy's Masters
Material License with NRC. This option would have resulted in dual
regulation, unnecessary expenditure of resources, and no benefit to
public health and safety.
3. How will NRC stay informed about the Navy's remediation of the HPS
site?
NRC anticipates that it would stay informed throughout the
remediation process using existing mechanisms, such as documents
received through standard distributions or that are available on the
Administrative Record (e.g., records of decision and completion
documents such as the finding of suitability to transfer). If
necessary, NRC would request access to documents. Staff would read
selected documents and conduct an annual site visit and progress
meeting with the Navy, EPA, State agencies, and the City of San
Francisco. The staff would use a risk-informed approach to focus on
those elements of the Navy's remediation that are most important to the
protection of public health and safety. The staff would also focus on
those elements that are currently being planned but not yet implemented
such as formal establishment of the institutional controls and
engineered controls. Finally, NRC would also reserve the option of
commenting to EPA if necessary to justify our continued reliance on the
CERCLA process.
[[Page 39349]]
4. Have the Navy and EPA Region 9 agreed to NRC's approach?
On January 16, 2009, NRC sent letters to both the Navy and EPA
Region 9 that explained NRC's limited involvement approach and
requested agreement to support the approach at the Hunters Point site.
The Navy provided a response on April 1, 2009, that agreed to support
NRC's approach. Similarly, EPA Region 9 provided a response on May 7,
2009, that also supported NRC's approach.
5. What documents are available that provided additional information
about NRC's involvement with the HPS site?
The NRC staff's evaluation of jurisdiction and options for
involvement is documented in a May 30, 2008, Commission paper (SECY-08-
0077) that is electronically available on NRC's Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2008/secy2008-0077/2008-0077scy.pdf.
The Commission's decision and direction to the staff is documented
in a June 30, 2008, Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM-SECY-08-0077)
that is also electronically available on NRC's Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/srm/2008/2008-0077srm.pdf.
The letters mentioned above from the NRC, the Navy, and EPA Region
9 are available from the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and
Management System using the following accession numbers:
NRC's January 16, 2009, letter to the Navy ML083440652.
NRC's January 16, 2009, letter to the EPA ML083430426.
Navy's April 1, 2009, letter to NRC ML091120805.
EPA's May 7, 2009, letter to NRC ML091460102.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 29th day of June, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Keith I. McConnell,
Deputy Director, Decommissioning and Uranium Recovery Licensing
Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection,
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management
Programs.
[FR Doc. E9-18822 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P