Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
39348 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150/ Thursday, August 6. 2009/ Notices
Dated at 475 Allendale Road, King ofPrussia, PA, this 28th day of July 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission., ames P. Dwyer,Chie], Commercial and R&D Branch. Divisionof Nuclear Materials Safety. Region l.IFR Doc. E9-18820 Filed 8-5-09; 8:45 am]B!LUNG CODE 7590-01-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0341]
Nuclear Regulatory Commission'sInvolvement With the Navy'sRemediation of the Hunters PointShipyard Site in San Francisco, CA
AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTION: Notice of jurisdiction and futureinvolvement.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) has decided that itwill take a limited involvementapproach to stay informed about theNavy's ongoing remediation of theHunters Point Shipyard (HPS) site inSan Francisco, California. NRC will relyon the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct (CERCLA) process and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EP A)Region 9 oversight. This noticediscusses NRC's jurisdiction and futurelimited involvement at the HPS site andhow it plans on staying informed aboutthe Navy's remediation in the future.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Robert 1. Johnson, Division of WasteManagement and EnvironmentalProtection, Office of Federal and StateMaterials and EnvironmentalManagement Programs, Mail Stop T-8F5, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-7282; e-mail:[email protected] INFORMATION: In July2007 the Navy requested clarificationabout NRC's jurisdiction and potentialinvolvement with the Navy's ongoingremediation of radioactive material atthe HPS site. In response to the Navy'srequest, NRC reviewed key HPS sitedocuments, met with the Navy, andconducted a site visit in October 2007.NRC also met with representatives fromEPA Region 9, the State of Californiaagencies involved with the HPS site,and the City of San Francisco. Inaddition to evaluating potential NRCinvolvement, these meetings were usedto obtain an understanding of the site,the Navy's remediation, and theoversight roles and issues of the key
parties involved with the remediation.Based on this information, the NRC staffevaluated NRC's jurisdiction for thematerials at the HPS site and evaluatedoptions for NRC involvement. Theseoptions and the staffs recommendationswere provided to the Commission inSECY-08-0077. This Commission paperalso gives background about the HPSand the Navy's ongoing remediation.The Commission nrovided its directionto the staff on [une 26, 2008, in SRM-SECY-08-0077. The results of the staffsevaluation and the Commission'sdecision are summarized in the answersto the following questions;
1. What is NRC's regulatory jurisdictionfor the Navy's remediation of the HPSsite?
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)licenses for radioactive material used bythe Navy in both the shipyard and theNavy Radiological Defense Laboratory(NRDL) at the HPS site were terminatedin the 1970s after extensive radiologicalsurveys of the facilities confirmed thatthe facilities met the radiologicalstandards at that time. Therefore, aftertermination of the AEC licenses, neitherthe NRC nor its predecessor, AEC,exercised direct regulatory authorityover the residual contamination at theHPS site. Subsequently, the Navyconducted radiological surveys andcompleted a Historical RadiologicalAssessment of the site in 2004. Thesestudies provided new information aboutthe suspected and confirmedradiological contamination for the entireHPS site. Based on this newinformation, the Navy and NRC assumethat any remaining licensable material islikely commingled with atomicweapons testing material. Both types ofradioactive material were used at theNRD1. NRC has jurisdiction for thelicensable material. However, underSection 91 (b) of the AEA, the atomicweapons testing material is outside ofNRC's jurisdiction.
2. What is NRC's future involvementwith the Navy's ongoing remediation ofthe HPS site?
NRC will rely on the ongoing Navyremediation under the CERCLA processand EPA regulatory oversight for thelicensable radioactive material assumedto be present at the HPS site. NRCwould not exercise its regulatoryauthority and would not requirecompliance with its decommissioningregulations. NRC would not conductany formal regulatory reviews orparticipate in the ongoing CERCLAcomment process for the Navy'sremediation. The NRC staff would havea limited involvement to stay informed
about the Navy's remediation of theremaining parcels, which is expected totake about 10 years.
The basis for this approach is thatNRC can reasonably rely on theCERCLA process and EPA oversight ofthis Superfund site because the processshould result in a level of protection ofpublic health and safety a~d theenvironment that is generally equivalentto what would be provided if the NRC'sdecommissioning process was used.NRC believes that this is a reasonableapproach because; (1) The licensablematerials are inextricably commingledwith the atomic weapons testingmaterial over which NRC has nojurisdiction; (2) over-lavina NRCrequirements and over;ight on theCERCLA process overseen by EP Aprovides no clear public health andsafety benefit; (3) dual NRC-EPAregulation is avoided; (4) remediationcan proceed under CERCLA; and (5)NRC would be in a position to respondto stakeholder questions in a timely andeffective manner. NRC considered, butdid not select the option of regulatingthe remediation through the Navy'sMasters Material License with NRC.This option would have resulted in dualregulation, unnecessary expenditure ofresources, and no benefit to publichealth and safety.
3. How will NRC stay informed aboutthe Navy's remediation of the HPS site?
NRC anticipates that it would stayinformed throughout the remediationprocess using existing mechanisms,such as documents received throughstandard distributions or that areavailable on the Administrative Record(e.g., records. of decision and completiondocuments such as the finding ofsuitability to transfer). If necessary, NRCwould request access to documents.Staff would read selected documentsand conduct an annual site visit andprogress meeting with the Navy, EPA,State agencies, and the City of SanFrancisco. The staff would use a risk-informed approach to focus on thoseelements of the Navy's remediation thatare most important to the protection ofpublic health and safety. The staffwould also focus on those elements thatare currently being planned but not yetimplemented such as formalestablishment of the institutionalcontrols and engineered controls.Finally, NRC would also reserve theoption of commenting to EPA ifnecessary to justify our continuedreliance on the CERCLA process.
Federal Register/Vol. 74, No. lSO/Thursday, August 6, 2009/Notices 39349
4. Have the Navy and EPA Region 9agreed to NRC's approach?
On January 16. 2009, NRC sent lettersto both the Navy and EPA Region 9 thatexplained NRC's limited involvementapproach and requested agreement tosupport the approach at the HuntersPoint site. The Navy provided aresponse on April 1, 2009, that agreedto support NRC's approach. Similarly,EPA Region 9 provided a response onMay 7, 2009, that also supported NRC'sapproach.
5. What documents are available thatprovided additional information ahoutNRC's involvement with the !IPS site?
The NRC staff's evaluation ofjurisdiction and options for involvementis documented in a May 30, 2008,Commission paper (SECY-08-D077) thatis electronically available on NRC's Website at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commissian/secys/200B/seey200B-0077/200B-0077sey.pdf.
The Commission's decision anddirection to the staff is documented ina June 30, 2008, Staff RequirementsMemorandum (SRM-SECY -08-0077)that is also electronically available onNRC's Web site at: http://www.nre.gov/reading-rm/doc-eolleetions/commission/srm/200B/200B-0077srm.pdf.
The letters mentioned above from theNRC, the Navy, and EPA Region 9 areavailable from the NRC's AgencywideDocument Access and ManagementSystem using the following accessionnumbers:
NRC's January 16, 2009, letter to theNavy ML083440652.
NRC's January 16, 2009, letter to theEPA ML083430426.
Navy's April 1, 2009, letter to NRCML091120805.
EPA's May 7, 2009, letter to NRCML091460102.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 29th day ofJune, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Keith I. McConnell,
Deputy Director. Decommissioning andUranium Recovery Licensing Directorate,Division of Waste Management andEnvironmental Protection. Office of Federaland State Materials and EnvironmentalManagement Programs.IFR Doc. E9-18822 Filed 8-5-D9; 8:45 amiBILUNG COOE 75~1-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
[NRC-2009-0344]
Regulatory Guide Withdrawal
AGENCY: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.ACTION: Withdrawal of Regulatory Guide1.135, Normal Water Level andDischarge at Nuclear Power Plants.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Henry Jones, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1463 or e-mail Henry.Ionesisnrc.gov,SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) is withdrawing Regulatory Guide(RG) 1.135, "Normal Water Level andDischarge at Nuclear Power Plants."Regulatory Guide 1.135 was issued forcomment in September 1977 and neverfinalized. The RG was intended toprovide guidance on estimating thenormal ground and surface waterelevations at a nuclear power plant site.The determination of normal and floodwater elevation is one of the sitecharacteristics required by Title 10 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations, part100, "Reactor Site Criteria," section 10,"Factors to be considered whenevaluating sites," (10 CFR 100.10) fortest reactors and stationary powerreactor site applications dated beforeJanuary 10, 1997 and by 10 CFR 100.20,"Factors to be Considered WhenEvaluating Sites," for stationary powerreactor site applications dated on orafter January 10, 1997.
General Design Criterion (GDC) 2,"Design Basis for Protection AgainstNatural Phenomena," of Appendi.x A,"General Design Criteria for NuclearPower Plants," to 10 CFR part 50requires facilities to be designed forprotection against the most severe of thenatural phenomena that have beenhistorically reported for the site andsurrounding area. This includes eventssuch as floods, tsunami, and seiches. Adetermination of the normal pool levelas described in RG 1.135 is not requiredby GDC 2 and thus, compliance withGDC 2 is not impacted by thewithdrawal of RG 1.135.
The guidance in RG 1.135 is no longercurrent; section 2.4.1, "HydrologicDescription" in Chapter 2, "SitesCharacteristics," of NUREG-0800,"Standard Review Plan for the Reviewof Safety Analysis Reports for NuclearPower Plants" (the SRP) contains morecurrent guidance for complying with the
site criteria regulations. Additionally, areview of updated Final Safety AnalysisReports (FSARs) from licensees andapplicants determined that only a fewFSARs referenced RG 1.135 and noapplicant or licensee is currently usingit. Applicants and licensees use theguidance in the SRP and ANSI! ANS-2.8-1992, "Determining Design BasisFlooding at Power Reactor Sites" forwater level determinations. Revisingthis guide could be potentiallyconfusing for the staff and applicant.
Regulatory Guide 1.135 is beingwithdrawn because it is outdated, thestaff is unaware of its use by any currentlicensee or applicant, and it does notprovide guidance that is not morecurrent and more readily available inthe SRP or ANSI/ ANS-2.8-1 992.
II. Further Information
Withdrawal of RG 1.135 does not, inand of itself, alter any prior or existinglicensing commitments based on its use.The guidance provided in this RG is nolonger necessary. Regulatory Guidesmay be withdrawn when their guidanceis superseded by Congressional action,the methods or techniques described inthe Regulatory Guide no longer describea preferred approach, or the RegulatoryGuide does not provide usefulinformation.
Regulatory guides are available forinspection or downloading through theNRC's public Web site under"Regulatory Guides" in the NRC'sElectronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections. Regulatory guides are alsoavailable for inspection at the NRC'sPublic Document Room (PDR), Room 0-1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738. The PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001.You can reach the staff by telephone at301-415-4737 or 800-397-4209, by faxat 301-415-3548, and bye-mail [email protected].
Regulatory guides are notcopyrighted, and NRC approval is notrequired to reproduce them.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th dayof July, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John N. Ridgely,Acting Chief. Regulatory Guide DevelopmentBranch. Division of Engineering. Office ofNuclear Regulatory Research.IFR Doc. E9-18818 Filed 8-5-D9; 8:45 ami
BILUNG COOE 75~1-P
