Draft Report for Comment: “Consideration of Geochemical Issues in Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining Facilities,” NUREG/CR-6870, 22728-22729 [E5-2073]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22728
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 83 / Monday, May 2, 2005 / Notices
realized that the error occurred on
September 27, 2004, when the patient
underwent the scan. A viable follow-up
scan was performed even though the
error occurred. The referring physician
notified the patient of the error on
September 27, 2004. The nuclear
medicine physician indicated there
would be no negative health effects from
this administration.
Cause or Causes—The licensee stated
that human error led to procedural
checks not being performed prior to the
administration.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence
Licensee—Corrective actions included
re-emphasis on the importance of
adhering to established procedures and
protocols prior to the administration of
radiopharmaceuticals and the
completion of staff refresher training.
State Agency—The State reviewed
and approved the corrective actions
taken by the licensee and will follow-up
at the next inspection.
This event is considered closed for
the purpose of this report.
*
*
*
*
*
AS 04–12 Therapeutic Medical Event
at University of California at Los
Angeles Harbor Medical Center in
Torrance, California
Date and Place—June 7, 2002; Los
Angeles County Harbor University of
California at Los Angeles (UCLA)
Medical Center; Torrance, California.
This event was not identified as an AO
until the preparation of the FY 2004
report.
Nature and Probable Consequences—
A patient receiving treatment for thyroid
ablation was administered a dose of 4.74
GBq (128 mCi) of I–131 instead of the
prescribed dose of 1.18 GBq (32 mCi) of
I–131.
On June 7, 2002, five patients were
scheduled to be treated with I–131. Five
vials containing I–131 arrived from the
radiopharmacy and were properly
labeled with the patients’ names. The
nuclear medicine technologist
incorrectly thought that the name on the
4.74 GBq (128mCi) vial did not match
any of the patient’s names scheduled for
treatment that day. Assuming that this
vial was incorrectly labeled, the 4.74
GBq (128 mCi) dosage was administered
to the patient for whom the technologist
thought the dose was intended.
However, the technologist failed to
verify whether any of the remaining four
dosages were labeled for that patient. In
fact, a vial was correctly labeled as
prepared for that patient.
The authorized user was present
during the administration to supervise
the administration of the
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:05 Apr 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
radiopharmaceutical, and to verify that
the correct radiopharmaceutical and
dosage were administered. The
authorized user did not perform an
independent verification, but instead
assumed that the nuclear medicine
technologist had verified that the dosage
was correct. The error was discovered
about 5 hours later, when the patient
scheduled to receive the 4.74 GBq (128
mCi) dosage arrived at the medical
center for treatment. The patient and the
referring physician were notified. The
authorized user went to the home of the
patient who received the inadvertent
administration and verified that
appropriate radiation safety precautions
were in place. The patient’s treatment
plans were modified to accommodate
the larger dosage. The authorized user
stated that the dosage was intended to
ablate the thyroid and render the patient
hypothyroid, and that was
accomplished with the larger dose. He
further stated the patient is doing well,
with no complications.
Cause(s)—This medical event was
caused by human error which resulted
in the licensee’s failure to follow proper
policies and procedures and verify the
prescribed dosage for a specific patient.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence
Licensee—The licensee re-instructed
all nuclear medicine personnel on the
importance of following the division’s
policies and procedures and the use of
a third party to check the prescription
dose and patient identification before
administration. Additionally, the RSO
will review all I–131 therapy documents
and administrations.
State Agency—The State cited the
licensee for failure to provide written
notification to the referring physician
and the patient within 15 days after the
occurrence of the medical event. The
State has reviewed and approved the
licensee’s corrective actions.
*
*
*
*
*
AS 04–13 Diagnostic Medical Event at
University Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio
Date and Place—March 10, 2004;
University Hospital; Cincinnati, Ohio.
Nature and Probable Consequences—
The licensee reported that a patient was
given 74 MBq (2,000–Ci) of I–131 for a
thyroid cancer work-up instead of the
prescribed dose of 7.4 MBq (200–Ci) of
I–123 for a thyroid uptake scan. The
patient scheduled to receive the I–123
dose responded affirmatively to being
the patient that was to receive the I–131
dose. The technologist did not follow
procedures regarding proper
identification of the patient, which
requires two separate methods for
verifying patient identification. A
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
follow-up scan revealed the patient does
have hypothyroidism, and as a result,
the 74 MBq (2,000–Ci) of I–131 would
have been prescribed based on the scan
results. The referring physician and
patient were notified. No adverse health
effects are expected.
Cause or Causes—The technologist
failed to follow established procedures.
Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence
Licensee—The licensee disciplined
the technologist in accordance with
hospital policy and reiterated to all
technologists the need to thoroughly
check patient identification using two
approved methods. Additionally, the
Radiation Safety Committee modified
the Quality Management Program to
require a photo as one method of
verifying patient identification.
State Agency—The Ohio Department
of Health conducted an investigation of
the event on May 11, 2004, and
reviewed the licensee’s corrective
actions. The State found the licensee’s
corrective actions adequate to prevent a
recurrence of the event.
This event is closed for the purpose
of this report.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day
of April 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–8173 Filed 4–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Draft Report for Comment:
‘‘Consideration of Geochemical Issues
in Groundwater Restoration at
Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining
Facilities,’’ NUREG/CR–6870
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability and
request for comments.
AGENCY:
Background: Some mining processes
use fluids to dissolve (or leach) a
mineral without the need to remove
physically the ore containing the
mineral from an ore deposit in the
ground. In general, these ‘‘in-situ’’ leach
mining operations at uranium mines are
considerably more environmentally
benign than traditional mining and
milling of uranium ore. Nonetheless, the
use of leaching fluids to mine uranium
may contaminate the groundwater
aquifer in and around the region from
which the uranium is extracted. The
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) requires licensees to restore the
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 83 / Monday, May 2, 2005 / Notices
aquifer to established water-quality
standards following the cessation of insitu leach mining operations.
The NRC also requires licensees to
ensure that sufficient funds will be
available to cover the cost of
decommissioning their facilities. For
these uranium mines, restoration
generally consists of pumping specially
treated water into the affected aquifer
and removing the displaced water—and
thereby the undesirable contaminants—
from the system. Because groundwater
restoration can represent approximately
40 percent of the cost of
decommissioning a uranium leach
mining facility, a good estimate of the
necessary volume of treatment water is
important to estimate the cost of
decommissioning accurately.
The subject report, prepared for the
NRC by the U.S. Geological Survey,
summarizes the application of a
geochemical model to the restoration
process to estimate the degree to which
a licensee has decontaminated a site
where a leach mining process has been
used. Toward that end, this report
analyzes the respective amounts of
water and chemical additives pumped
into the mined regions to remove and
neutralize the residual contamination
using 10 different restoration strategies.
The analyses show that strategies that
used hydrogen sulfide in systems with
low natural oxygen content provided
the best results. On the basis of those
findings, this report also summarizes
the conditions under which various
restoration strategies will prove
successful. This, in turn, will allow
more accurate estimates of restoration
and decommissioning costs.
The subject report will be useful for
licensees and State regulators
overseeing uranium leach mining
facilities, who need to estimate the
volume of treatment water needed to
decontaminate those facilities.
Solicitation of Comments: The NRC
seeks comments on the report and is
especially interested in comments on
the utility and feasibility of the
modeling techniques described in the
report.
Comment Period: The NRC will
consider all written comments received
before June 17, 2005. Comments
received after July 17, 2005, will be
considered if time permits. Comments
should be addressed to the contact
listed below.
Availability: An electronic version of
the report is available in Adobe Portable
Document Format at https://
www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/contract/cr6870/
cr6870.pdf and can be read with Adobe
Acrobat Reader software, available at no
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:05 Apr 29, 2005
Jkt 205001
cost from https://www.adobe.com. Hard
and electronic copies are available from
the contact listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
John D. Randall, Mail Stop T9C34, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852,
telephone (301) 415–6192, e-mail
jdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day
of April 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cheryl A. Trottier,
Chief, Radiation Protection, Environmental
Risk & Waste Management Branch, Division
of Systems Analysis and Regulatory
Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear Regulatory
Research.
[FR Doc. E5–2073 Filed 4–29–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Availability of Interagency Steering
Committee on Radiation Standards’
Reports on Radioactivity in Sewage
Sludge and Ash
AGENCIES: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
ACTION: Announce the issuance of two
final reports concerning radioactivity in
sewage sludge and ash.
This Federal Register notice
announces the availability of two final
reports, prepared by the Sewage Sludge
Subcommittee of the Interagency
Steering Committee on Radiation
Standards (ISCORS), addressing
radioactivity in sewage sludge and ash
at publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs). The first report, ‘‘ISCORS
Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage
Sludge: Modeling to Assess Radiation
Doses,’’ assesses the potential levels of
radiation doses to people from
radioactivity in sewage sludge, by
modeling the transport of radioactivity
from sludge into the local environment.
The report also provides a complete
description and justification of the dose
assessment methodology. The second
report, ‘‘ISCORS Assessment of
Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge:
Recommendations on Management of
Radioactive Materials in Sewage Sludge
and Ash at Publicly Owned Treatment
Works,’’ is written for POTW operators.
This report is intended to (1) alert
POTW operators and others to the
possibility of radioactive materials
concentrating in sewage sludge and
incinerator ash, (2) inform operators
how to determine if there are elevated
levels of radioactivity in their sludge,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22729
and (3) assist POTW operators in
identifying further actions that may be
taken to reduce potential radiation
exposures from sludge and ash.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The purpose of ISCORS is to foster
early resolution and coordination of
regulatory issues associated with
radiation standards. Agencies
represented on ISCORS include the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of
Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense,
the U.S. Department of Transportation,
the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration of the U.S. Department
of Labor, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, and the
Department of Homeland Security. The
Office of Science and Technology
Policy, the Office of Management and
Budget, and State representatives may
be observers at meetings. The objectives
of ISCORS are to: (1) Facilitate a
consensus on allowable levels of
radiation risk to the public and workers;
(2) promote consistent and scientifically
sound risk assessment and risk
management approaches in setting and
implementing standards for
occupational and public protection from
ionizing radiation; (3) promote
completeness and coherence of Federal
standards for radiation protection; and
(4) identify interagency radiation
protection issues and coordinate their
resolution.
Discussion: There have been a number
of well-publicized cases of
radionuclides discovered in sewage
sludge and ash, and some of these have
led to expensive cleanup projects. These
incidents made clear the need for a
comprehensive determination of the
prevalence of radionuclides in sewage
sludge and ash at POTWs around the
country, and of the level of potential
threat posed to human health and the
environment by various levels of such
materials.
In response to this need, ISCORS
formed a Sewage Sludge Subcommittee
to coordinate, evaluate, and resolve
issues regarding radioactive materials in
sewage sludge and ash. To estimate the
amounts of radionuclides that actually
occur in sewage sludge and ash, the
Subcommittee performed a survey of
radioactivity in sludge and ash across
the United States. The final report of the
survey effort, ‘‘ISCORS Assessment of
Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge:
Radiological Survey Results and
Analysis’’ (ISCORS Technical Report
2003–02, NUREG–1775, EPA 832–R–
03–002, DOE/EH–0669), was issued in
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 83 (Monday, May 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22728-22729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2073]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Draft Report for Comment: ``Consideration of Geochemical Issues
in Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining
Facilities,'' NUREG/CR-6870
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Background: Some mining processes use fluids to dissolve (or leach)
a mineral without the need to remove physically the ore containing the
mineral from an ore deposit in the ground. In general, these ``in-
situ'' leach mining operations at uranium mines are considerably more
environmentally benign than traditional mining and milling of uranium
ore. Nonetheless, the use of leaching fluids to mine uranium may
contaminate the groundwater aquifer in and around the region from which
the uranium is extracted. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
requires licensees to restore the
[[Page 22729]]
aquifer to established water-quality standards following the cessation
of in-situ leach mining operations.
The NRC also requires licensees to ensure that sufficient funds
will be available to cover the cost of decommissioning their
facilities. For these uranium mines, restoration generally consists of
pumping specially treated water into the affected aquifer and removing
the displaced water--and thereby the undesirable contaminants--from the
system. Because groundwater restoration can represent approximately 40
percent of the cost of decommissioning a uranium leach mining facility,
a good estimate of the necessary volume of treatment water is important
to estimate the cost of decommissioning accurately.
The subject report, prepared for the NRC by the U.S. Geological
Survey, summarizes the application of a geochemical model to the
restoration process to estimate the degree to which a licensee has
decontaminated a site where a leach mining process has been used.
Toward that end, this report analyzes the respective amounts of water
and chemical additives pumped into the mined regions to remove and
neutralize the residual contamination using 10 different restoration
strategies. The analyses show that strategies that used hydrogen
sulfide in systems with low natural oxygen content provided the best
results. On the basis of those findings, this report also summarizes
the conditions under which various restoration strategies will prove
successful. This, in turn, will allow more accurate estimates of
restoration and decommissioning costs.
The subject report will be useful for licensees and State
regulators overseeing uranium leach mining facilities, who need to
estimate the volume of treatment water needed to decontaminate those
facilities.
Solicitation of Comments: The NRC seeks comments on the report and
is especially interested in comments on the utility and feasibility of
the modeling techniques described in the report.
Comment Period: The NRC will consider all written comments received
before June 17, 2005. Comments received after July 17, 2005, will be
considered if time permits. Comments should be addressed to the contact
listed below.
Availability: An electronic version of the report is available in
Adobe Portable Document Format at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-
collections/nuregs/contract/cr6870/cr6870.pdf and can be read with
Adobe Acrobat Reader software, available at no cost from https://
www.adobe.com. Hard and electronic copies are available from the
contact listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John D. Randall, Mail Stop T9C34,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD
20852, telephone (301) 415-6192, e-mail jdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of April 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cheryl A. Trottier,
Chief, Radiation Protection, Environmental Risk & Waste Management
Branch, Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness,
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. E5-2073 Filed 4-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
