Ground Water Protection at Uranium In Situ Recovery Facilities, 574-578 [2019-00435]
Download as PDF
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
574
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
the size requirements would allow
Colorado Area 2 handlers to market
more of their potatoes and enable them
to better compete with the other
domestic potato producing regions. All
other requirements in the Order’s
handling regulations would remain
unchanged. Authority for this action is
contained in §§ 948.20, 948.21, and
948.22 of the Order.
This proposed rule is expected to
benefit the producers, handlers, and
consumers of Colorado Area 2 potatoes
by allowing a greater quantity of
potatoes from the production area to
enter the fresh market. The anticipated
increase in volume is expected to
translate into greater returns for
handlers and producers, and more
purchasing options for consumers.
After discussing possible alternatives
to this proposed rule, the Committee
determined that a change in the size
requirements for U.S. No. 2 or better
grade round potatoes, and U.S.
Commercial grade or better potatoes,
would meet the industry’s current needs
while maintaining the integrity of the
Order’s quality objectives. During its
deliberations, the Committee considered
making no changes to the handling
regulation, as well as further changing
the size requirements for all potatoes.
The Committee believes that a revision
to the Order’s size requirements is
necessary to allow handlers to pursue
all available markets, but further
revising the size requirements for all
other types and varieties of potatoes
could erode the quality reputation of the
area’s production. Therefore, the
Committee found that there were no
other viable alternatives to the proposal
as recommended.
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35), the Order’s information
collection requirements have been
previously approved by OMB and
assigned OMB No. 0581–0178,
Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No
changes would be necessary in those
requirements as a result of this action.
Should any changes become necessary,
they would be submitted to OMB for
approval.
This proposed rule would revise the
size requirements established under the
Order. Accordingly, this action would
not impose any additional reporting or
recordkeeping requirements on either
small or large potato handlers and
importers. As with all Federal marketing
order programs, reports and forms are
periodically reviewed to reduce
information requirements and
duplication by industry and public
sector agencies.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jan 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
AMS is committed to complying with
the E-Government Act, to promote the
use of the internet and other
information technologies to provide
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
USDA has not identified any relevant
Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with this proposed rule.
The Committee’s July 18, 2018,
meeting was widely publicized
throughout the Colorado Area 2 potato
industry, and all interested persons
were invited to attend the meeting and
participate in Committee deliberations
on all issues. Like all Committee
meetings, the meeting was public, and
all entities, both large and small, were
able to express their views on this issue.
Interested persons are invited to submit
comments on this proposed rule,
including the regulatory and
information collection impacts of this
action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying
with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
marketing agreements and orders may
be viewed at: https://www.ams.usda.gov/
rules-regulations/moa/small-businesses.
Any questions about the compliance
guide should be sent to Richard Lower
at the previously mentioned address in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
A 60-day comment period is provided
to allow interested persons to respond
to this proposal. All written comments
timely received will be considered
before a final determination is made on
this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 948
Marketing agreements, Potatoes,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 7 CFR part 948 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
PART 948—IRISH POTATOES GROWN
IN COLORADO
1. The authority citation for part 948
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
2. In § 948.386, remove paragraph
(a)(1), redesignate paragraphs (a)(2)
through (a)(5) as paragraphs (a)(1)
through (a)(4), and revise new
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) to read as
follows:
■
§ 948.386
*
Handling regulation.
*
*
(a) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00003
*
Fmt 4702
*
Sfmt 4702
(1) All varieties. U.S. No. 2 or better
grade, 2 inches minimum diameter or 4
ounces minimum weight.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) 3⁄4-inch minimum to 17⁄8-inch
maximum diameter. U.S. Commercial
grade or better.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: January 26, 2019.
Bruce Summers,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019–00553 Filed 1–30–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 40
[NRC–2008–0421]
RIN 3150–AI40
Ground Water Protection at Uranium In
Situ Recovery Facilities
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is requesting views
from interested stakeholders on whether
the NRC should resume rulemaking to
amend its regulations governing the
domestic licensing of source material by
codifying general requirements to
address ground water protection at
uranium in situ recovery (ISR) facilities.
The NRC currently regulates ISR
operations through application of
regulations that primarily focus on
conventional uranium mills and sitespecific license conditions. The NRC
initiated rulemaking in 2006 to develop
requirements to provide regulatory
consistency and improve the efficiency
of the ISR licensing process but placed
this rulemaking on hold in 2010.
Information provided to the NRC during
the public comment period will be
factored into the decision as to whether
the NRC will continue this rulemaking.
DATES: Submit comments by March 4,
2019. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the NRC is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received on or before this date. The NRC
will not prepare written responses to
each individual comment but will
consider each in determining the path
forward for this rulemaking.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
for Docket ID NRC–2008–0421. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• Email comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive an automatic email reply
confirming receipt, then contact us at
301–415–1677.
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
• Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Federal workdays;
telephone: 301–415–1677.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew G. Carrera, telephone: 301–
415–1078; email: Andrew.Carrera@
nrc.gov; or Gary Comfort, telephone:
301–415–8106; email: Gary.Comfort@
nrc.gov. Both are staff of the Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2008–
0421 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2008–0421.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.’’ For
problems with ADAMS, please contact
the NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1–800–397–4209, 301–
415–4737, or by email to pdr.resource@
nrc.gov. For the convenience of the
reader, instructions about obtaining
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jan 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
materials referenced in this document
are provided in the ‘‘Availability of
Documents’’ section.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC–2008–
0421 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include
identifying or contact information that
you do not want to be publicly
disclosed in your comment submission.
The NRC will post all comment
submissions at https://
www.regulations.gov as well as enter the
comment submissions into ADAMS.
The NRC does not routinely edit
comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating
comments from other persons for
submission to the NRC, then you should
inform those persons not to include
identifying or contact information that
they do not want to be publicly
disclosed in their comment submission.
Your request should state that the NRC
does not routinely edit comment
submissions to remove such information
before making the comment
submissions available to the public or
entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
In situ recovery is a method used to
extract uranium from underground ore
bodies without physical excavation. It is
also known as ‘‘solution mining’’ or in
situ leaching. In the ISR process, a
solution called lixiviant is pumped into
the subsurface. In the United States,
lixiviant typically contains water mixed
with oxygen and/or hydrogen peroxide,
as well as sodium carbonate or carbon
dioxide. The lixiviant dissolves the
uranium, located in the underground
ore body, into the solution. The solution
is then pumped to the surface, where it
undergoes additional processing and
concentration to produce a solid form of
uranium called ‘‘yellowcake.’’ The
yellowcake is ultimately used in the
manufacture of fuel for nuclear reactors.
The licensed area of a typical uranium
ISR facility covers several square miles
and may include several discrete or
contiguous wellfields, some of which
may be operating while others may be
in restoration or decommissioning. Each
ISR wellfield is composed of a series of
injection and extraction wells drilled
into a uranium ore body that has been
identified in a subsurface geologic
formation within the wellfield. The
aquifer within the formation where the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
575
ore body is located is commonly
referred to as the ‘‘ore zone aquifer’’.
Currently, there are six ISR facilities
operating in the United States.
Uranium ISR was introduced in the
late 1970s as an alternative to
conventional uranium recovery, which
involves extracting uranium ore from
the earth, typically through deep
underground shafts or shallow open
pits. Ore extracted by conventional
uranium recovery is transported to a
mill, where it is crushed and undergoes
a chemical process to remove the
uranium. The uranium is then
concentrated to produce yellowcake.
The sandy waste resulting from
crushing the uranium ore is known as
‘‘uranium mill tailings’’ or ‘‘tailings.’’
Tailings contain heavy metals and
radioactive constituents, such as
radium. Alternatively, uranium may be
recovered from the ore using a heap
leach process. In the heap leach process,
the ore is placed on an engineered
barrier and sprayed with acid. The
uranium dissolves into solution and is
collected at the engineered barrier. The
solution undergoes additional chemical
processing to produce yellowcake.
Currently, there is one operating
conventional uranium mill and there are
no operating heap leach facilities in the
United States.
The NRC licenses ISR facilities under
part 40 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Domestic
Licensing of Source Material,’’ because
these facilities possess and use source
material.1 The possession and use of
source material are activities that
require a license from the NRC under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (AEA).2 The waste (tailings)
generated as a result of the ISR process
falls within a category of byproduct
material defined in section 11e.(2) of the
AEA. Specifically, in section 11e.(2),
byproduct material is defined as ‘‘the
tailings or wastes produced by the
extraction or concentration of uranium
or thorium from any ore processed
1 The term ‘‘source material’’ is defined as ‘‘(1)
Uranium or thorium, or any combination thereof, in
any physical or chemical form or (2) ores which
contain by weight one-twentieth of one percent
(0.05%) or more of: (i) Uranium, (ii) thorium or (iii)
any combination thereof.’’ 10 CFR 40.4,
‘‘Definitions’’.
2 AEA, § 62, 42 U.S.C. 2092 (‘‘Unless authorized
by a general or specific license issued by the
[Nuclear Regulatory] Commission . . . no person
may transfer or receive in interstate commerce,
transfer, deliver, receive possession of or title to, or
import into or export from the United States any
source material after removal from its place of
deposit in nature . . .’’).
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
576
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
primarily for its source material
content.’’ 3
Under the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978
(UMTRCA) (Pub. L. 95–604), the NRC is
responsible for regulating section 11e.(2)
byproduct material at sites where such
material is generated. Congress enacted
UMTRCA to provide public health,
safety, and environmental protection
from the radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the
processing, possession, transfer, and
disposal of AEA section 11e.(2)
byproduct material. The UMTRCA
amended the AEA by adding to it the
section 11e.(2) definition of byproduct
material and sections 84 and 275.
The AEA, as amended by UMTRCA,
established a dual regulatory scheme
over the domestic uranium milling
industry between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the NRC. Under section 275b. of the
AEA, the EPA is authorized to issue
standards of general applicability for the
protection of health, safety, and the
environment from radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with the
processing of section 11(e)(2) byproduct
material.4 Under AEA section 84,5 the
NRC or the appropriate Agreement
State 6 is responsible for implementing
the EPA’s generally applicable
standards. In this regard, the NRC or the
applicable Agreement State entity is the
regulatory or licensing agency for all
uranium recovery facilities, including
ISR facilities, and is responsible for
inspecting the facility and enforcing the
terms and conditions of the operating
license.7
The EPA first issued generally
applicable standards on October 7, 1983
3 AEA, § 11e.(2); 42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2). In 10 CFR
40.4, the NRC further defines section 11e.(2)
byproduct material as ‘‘the tailings or wastes
produced by the extraction or concentration of
uranium or thorium from any ore processed
primarily for its source material content, including
discrete surface wastes resulting from uranium
solution extraction processes. Underground ore
bodies depleted by such solution extraction
operations do not constitute ‘byproduct material’
within this definition.’’
4 42 U.S.C. 2022(b).
5 42 U.S.C. 2114.
6 Section 274 of the AEA authorizes the NRC to
relinquish or discontinue its regulatory authority
over certain categories of radioactive material to a
State following a duly executed agreement between
the NRC and the governor of the State. 42 U.S.C.
2021. After the agreement is entered into, the State,
now an ‘‘Agreement State,’’ must promulgate or
adopt regulations compatible to those NRC
regulations that govern the subject matter areas
relinquished to the Agreement State.
7 AEA § 275b.(2); 42 U.S.C. 2022(b)(2) (‘‘no permit
issued by the [EPA] Administrator is required under
this Act or the [Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.] for the
processing, possession, transfer, or disposal of
[section 11e.(2)] byproduct material’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jan 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
(48 FR 45926) and updated these
standards on November 15, 1993 (58 FR
60340). The EPA codified these
standards into its regulations at 40 CFR
part 192, ‘‘Health and Environmental
Protection Standards for Uranium and
Thorium Mill Tailings,’’ subpart D,
‘‘Standards for Management of Uranium
Byproduct Materials Pursuant to Section
84 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended.’’ The NRC issued its
implementing regulations on October
16, 1985 (50 FR 41852) and further
amended them in subsequent
rulemakings.8 The NRC codified its
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part
40, ‘‘Domestic Licensing of Source
Material,’’ appendix A, ‘‘Criteria
Relating to the Operation of Uranium
Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or
Wastes Produced by the Extraction or
Concentration of Source Material from
Ores Processed Primarily for their
Source Material Content.’’
In the 1990s, ISR operations became
the predominant means of extracting
uranium in the United States. In
COMJSM–06–0001, ‘‘Regulation of
Groundwater Protection at In Situ Leach
Uranium Extraction Facilities,’’ dated
January 17, 2006 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML060830041), NRC Commissioner
Merrifield stated:
[W]hile the staff has done its best to regulate
[ISR] licensees through the generally
applicable requirements in Part 40 and
imposition of license conditions, our failure
to promulgate specific regulations for [ISRs]
has resulted in an inconsistent and
ineffective regulatory program. We have been
attempting to force a square peg into a round
hole for years, and I believe we should finally
remedy this situation through notice and
comment rulemaking. In developing a
proposed rule, the staff should formulate a
regulatory framework that is tailored
specifically to this unique group of licensees.
In the Commission’s subsequent staff
requirements memorandum, dated
March 23, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML060820503), the Commission
approved the initiation of a rulemaking
for the purpose of providing clarity,
predictability, and consistency to the
licensing and regulation of ISR facilities.
In 2010, the EPA informed the NRC
that it would undertake its own
rulemaking effort to issue generally
applicable standards for ISRs. The NRC
then deferred its ongoing ISR
rulemaking effort, prior to the
8 Substantive amendments include 52 FR 43553
(November 13, 1987) (NRC conforming amendments
not covered in the October 16, 1985 rule); 53 FR
19240 (May 27, 1988) (record retention periods); 59
FR 28220 (June 1, 1994) (emplacement of final
radon barrier on conventional mill tailings piles);
and 76 FR 35512 (June 17, 2011) (financial
assurance requirements associated with
decommissioning planning).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
publication of a proposed rule, in
anticipation of the need to conform its
implementing regulations to the
generally applicable standards to be
issued by the EPA. The EPA issued its
proposed rule on January 26, 2015 (80
FR 4156). Subsequently, the EPA
decided to re-propose the rule and seek
additional public comment. The EPA
issued the re-proposed rule, superseding
the January 2015 proposed rule, on
January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7400). The NRC
had jurisdictional and technical
concerns with both the January 2015
and January 2017 proposed rules and
submitted comments addressing these
concerns on July 18, 2017 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML17173A638).
On October 30, 2018 (83 FR 54543),
the EPA withdrew its proposed rule.
The EPA concluded, based on
comments from stakeholders, that it had
serious questions concerning whether it
has the legal authority under UMTRCA
to issue the regulations as provided in
the 2017 proposed rule. The EPA also
concluded that the existing regulatory
framework was sufficient to ensure the
protection of public health and the
environment at existing ISRs. Finally,
the EPA stated that, given current and
foreseeable market conditions, the
uranium recovery industry was not
likely to have the robust growth that
was anticipated in the 2000s. Given the
EPA’s withdrawal of its proposed rule,
the NRC must now decide whether to
proceed with its 2006 ISR-specific
rulemaking, held in abeyance since
2010.
III. Discussion
The current version of appendix A to
10 CFR part 40 provides a generic set of
regulations for the operation of
conventional uranium mills. With
respect to the NRC’s licensing of ISR
facilities, the current regulations in
appendix A, coupled with the
conditions of ISR site-specific licenses
and the NRC’s ongoing oversight of the
licensees’ operations, provide adequate
protection to the public health and
safety and the environment. The NRC’s
purpose in promulgating a generic set of
regulations for the operation of ISRs is
to standardize existing NRC ISR
licensing and oversight practices and to
ensure consistency in the NRC staff’s
evaluation and approval of ISR license
applications. In addition, the
promulgation of generic regulations for
ISR facilities would provide a national
regulatory framework from which
Agreement States can, in turn,
promulgate their own compatible
regulatory standards. If the NRC
continues with this rulemaking, the
amendments to appendix A would be
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
577
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
based upon many of the license
conditions that are contained in current
NRC-issued site-specific ISR licenses
and would be further informed by the
approved methodologies and best
practices set forth in those NRC
guidance documents that are applicable
to ISR activities.
ISR operations are substantially
different from those of conventional
uranium milling, including the
measures taken to ensure the protection
of groundwater. The requirements for
groundwater protection at conventional
uranium mills are mainly concerned
with the prevention, detection, and
correction of contamination in shallow
aquifers from seepage and leaks
associated with the long-term
management of mill tailings
impoundments. At ISR facilities,
however, the main concern is
contamination of the surrounding
groundwater by the short-term
degradation of the water quality in the
ore zone aquifer during ISR operations.
Specifically, the groundwater chemistry
in the ore zone aquifer is altered by the
injection of lixiviant, which along with
dissolving the uranium located in the
underground ore body, also mobilizes
hazardous constituents such as metals
and radionuclides like radium. If the
lixiviant is not controlled within the ore
zone aquifer, then these hazardous
constituents may migrate outside the
ISR wellfield and potentially
contaminate surrounding groundwater
and connected surface water. Therefore,
the NRC and the Agreement States have
included license conditions in ISR
licenses requiring ISR licensees to
satisfy certain technical criteria that will
protect surrounding groundwater during
ISR operations and restore the water
quality in ore zone aquifers after ISR
operations. Unlike conventional mill
tailings impoundments that require
long-term management for groundwater
protection, ISR wellfields may be
decommissioned and the ISR license
terminated once groundwater
restoration requirements are met.
The NRC initiated the ISR rulemaking
in 2006 to provide regulatory
predictability and consistency to the
licensing process for ISRs. By
establishing a generic set of
requirements for ISR activities, the rule
would improve regulatory efficiency
and make the NRC’s review process for
ISR license applications and
amendments more consistent and
transparent to the public and industry.
Most ISR facilities currently in
operation are licensed by Agreement
States. One of the requirements of the
NRC’s Agreement State program is that
the regulations of an Agreement State
must be ‘‘compatible’’ with the NRC’s
regulatory program.9 Therefore, in
accordance with the NRC’s Agreement
State program, the promulgation of an
NRC rulemaking specific to ISR
facilities would require Agreement
States to conform their regulations, to
the extent appropriate, to the new or
amended NRC regulations. The benefit
of having Agreement States conform
their regulations would be the
establishment of a relatively uniform 10
set of both groundwater protection and
radiation health and safety requirements
for ISR facilities nationwide.
In light of the EPA’s withdrawal of its
January 2017 proposed rule, the NRC is
now conducting an assessment of the
requirements in 10 CFR part 40
appendix A pertaining to the licensing
of ISRs and is requesting input from
members of the public about the topics
discussed in the ‘‘Request for
Comments’’ section. The information
received from this request will be
factored into the decision whether to
continue this rulemaking.
IV. Request for Comments
The NRC welcomes general comments
and seeks comments in response to the
numbered items in this section. In
responding to these numbered items,
please provide your rationale or
justification for your position. In
addition, please provide a discussion of
any factors that you considered in
providing your opinion and any
recommendations to assist the NRC in
improving its regulatory process. The
factors that the NRC must consider in
determining whether to proceed with
this rulemaking include technical
feasibility, a cost-benefit analysis, and
consistency and clarity of applicable
regulations for the adequate protection
of the health and safety and the
environment.
1. If the NRC were to proceed with its
ISR rulemaking that has been held in
abeyance since 2010, the NRC would
amend its current uranium milling
regulations in appendix A to 10 CFR
part 40 to add ISR-specific
requirements. Should the NRC proceed
with this rulemaking?
2. Please identify any issues that
should be addressed to protect
groundwater at ISR facilities, in either
this rulemaking or through the
development of guidance documents.
3. Please identify any issues that
should be addressed to enhance public
or occupational safety at ISR facilities,
in either this rulemaking or through the
development of guidance documents.
4. Please identify any issues that
should be addressed to establish a
relatively uniform set of requirements
for ISR facilities nationwide (both in
Agreement States and in non-Agreement
States).
VI. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the
following table are available to
interested persons through one or more
of the following methods, as indicated.
ADAMS
accession No./
Federal Register
citation
Document
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
COMJSM–06–0001, ‘‘Regulation of Groundwater Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities,’’ dated January
17, 2006.
Staff Requirements Memorandum-COMJSM–06–0001, ‘‘Regulation of Groundwater Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities,’’ dated March 23, 2006.
9 Agreement State Program Policy Statement, 82
FR 48535–39 (October 18, 2017); see also id. at
48536–37 (‘‘The NRC and the Agreement States
have the responsibility to ensure that the radiation
control programs are compatible. Such radiation
control programs should be based on a common
regulatory philosophy including the common use of
definitions and standards. The programs should be
effective and cooperatively implemented by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jan 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
NRC and the Agreement States and also should
provide uniformity and achieve common strategic
outcomes in program areas of national
significance.’’).
10 Based upon the compatibility category (see id.
at 48538–39) that the NRC assigns to each new or
amended regulation, Agreement States should have
a substantial degree of flexibility in promulgating
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ML060830041
ML060820503
their conforming regulations. Id. at 48537 (‘‘With
the exception of those compatibility areas where
programs should be essentially identical,
Agreement State radiation control programs have
flexibility in program implementation and
administration to accommodate individual State
preferences, State legislative direction, and local
needs and conditions.’’).
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
578
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 21 / Thursday, January 31, 2019 / Proposed Rules
ADAMS
accession No./
Federal Register
citation
Document
‘‘40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule,’’
January 19, 2017.
‘‘40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule;
Withdrawal,’’ October 30, 2018.
NUREG–1569, ‘‘Standard Review Plan for In Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License Applications: Final Report,’’ June 2003
‘‘NRC Staff’s Comments on EPA Proposed Rulemaking for 40 CFR Part 192 Rule, 82 FR 7400,’’ July 17, 2017 .....................
‘‘40 CFR Part 192, Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing
Sites; Final Rule,’’ October 7, 1983.
‘‘40 CFR Part 192, Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing
Sites; Final Rule,’’ November 15, 1993.
‘‘Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA Standards; Final Rule,’’ October 16, 1985 ..........
‘‘40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule,’’
January 26, 2015.
Throughout the development of this
assessment, the NRC may post related
documents, including public comments,
on the Federal rulemaking website at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID NRC–2008–0421. The Federal
rulemaking website allows you to
receive alerts when changes or additions
occur in a docket folder. To subscribe:
(1) Navigate to the docket folder (NRC–
2008–0421); (2) click the ‘‘Sign up for
Email Alerts’’ link; and (3) enter your
email address and select how frequently
you would like to receive emails (daily,
weekly, or monthly).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day
of January 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Theresa V. Clark,
Deputy Director, Division of Rulemaking,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2019–00435 Filed 1–30–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
10 CFR Parts 170 and 171
[NRC–2017–0032; Docket No. PRM–170–7;
NRC–2018–0172]
RIN 3150–AJ99
Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee
Recovery for Fiscal Year 2019
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is proposing to
amend the licensing, inspection, special
project, and annual fees charged to its
applicants and licensees. These
proposed amendments are necessary to
implement the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended
(OBRA–90), which requires the NRC to
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Jan 30, 2019
Jkt 247001
recover approximately 90 percent of its
annual budget through fees less certain
amounts excluded from this feerecovery requirement. President Trump
signed the Energy and Water, Legislative
Branch, and Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act,
2019 on September 21, 2018. That Act
appropriated approximately $911.0
million to the NRC, which is a decrease
of approximately $11.0 million from FY
2018. Based on that total budget
authority, the NRC is proposing to
collect $781.9 million in fees in FY
2019.
DATES: Submit comments by March 4,
2019. Comments received after this date
will be considered if it is practical to do
so, but the NRC is able to ensure
consideration only for comments
received before this date. Because
OBRA–90 requires the NRC to collect
the FY 2019 fees by September 30, 2019,
the NRC will not grant any requests for
an extension of the comment period.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (unless
this document describes a different
method for submitting comments on a
specific subject):
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2017–0032. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
proposed rule.
• Email comments to:
Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you
do not receive an automatic email reply
confirming receipt, then contact us at
301–415–1677.
• Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission at 301–
415–1101.
• Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
82 FR 7400
83 FR 54543
ML032310005
ML17173A638
48 FR 45926
58 FR 60340
50 FR 41852
80 FR 4156
Washington, DC 20555–0001, ATTN:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
• Hand deliver comments to: 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Federal workdays;
telephone: 301–415–1677.
For additional direction on obtaining
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michele Kaplan, Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001, telephone: 301–415–
5256; email: Michele.Kaplan@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting
Comments
II. Background; Statutory Authority
III. Specific Request for Comment: Petition
for Rulemaking
IV. Discussion
V. Regulatory Flexibility Certification
VI. Regulatory Analysis
VII. Backfitting and Issue Finality
VIII. Plain Writing
IX. National Environmental Policy Act
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
Public Protection Notification
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XII. Availability of Guidance
XIII. Public Meeting
XIV. Availability of Documents
I. Obtaining Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2017–
0032 when contacting the NRC about
the availability of information for this
action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this
action by any of the following methods:
E:\FR\FM\31JAP1.SGM
31JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 574-578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00435]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 40
[NRC-2008-0421]
RIN 3150-AI40
Ground Water Protection at Uranium In Situ Recovery Facilities
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is requesting
views from interested stakeholders on whether the NRC should resume
rulemaking to amend its regulations governing the domestic licensing of
source material by codifying general requirements to address ground
water protection at uranium in situ recovery (ISR) facilities. The NRC
currently regulates ISR operations through application of regulations
that primarily focus on conventional uranium mills and site-specific
license conditions. The NRC initiated rulemaking in 2006 to develop
requirements to provide regulatory consistency and improve the
efficiency of the ISR licensing process but placed this rulemaking on
hold in 2010. Information provided to the NRC during the public comment
period will be factored into the decision as to whether the NRC will
continue this rulemaking.
DATES: Submit comments by March 4, 2019. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is
able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before
this date. The NRC will not prepare written responses to each
individual comment but will consider each in determining the path
forward for this rulemaking.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search
[[Page 575]]
for Docket ID NRC-2008-0421. Address questions about NRC dockets to
Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email:
Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions contact the
individuals listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Email comments to: Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov. If you do
not receive an automatic email reply confirming receipt, then contact
us at 301-415-1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission at 301-415-1101.
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time) Federal
workdays; telephone: 301-415-1677.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew G. Carrera, telephone: 301-415-
1078; email: Andrew.Carrera@nrc.gov; or Gary Comfort, telephone: 301-
415-8106; email: Gary.Comfort@nrc.gov. Both are staff of the Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments
A. Obtaining Information
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0421 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0421.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.'' For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provided in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
B. Submitting Comments
Please include Docket ID NRC-2008-0421 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as enter the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
II. Background
In situ recovery is a method used to extract uranium from
underground ore bodies without physical excavation. It is also known as
``solution mining'' or in situ leaching. In the ISR process, a solution
called lixiviant is pumped into the subsurface. In the United States,
lixiviant typically contains water mixed with oxygen and/or hydrogen
peroxide, as well as sodium carbonate or carbon dioxide. The lixiviant
dissolves the uranium, located in the underground ore body, into the
solution. The solution is then pumped to the surface, where it
undergoes additional processing and concentration to produce a solid
form of uranium called ``yellowcake.'' The yellowcake is ultimately
used in the manufacture of fuel for nuclear reactors.
The licensed area of a typical uranium ISR facility covers several
square miles and may include several discrete or contiguous wellfields,
some of which may be operating while others may be in restoration or
decommissioning. Each ISR wellfield is composed of a series of
injection and extraction wells drilled into a uranium ore body that has
been identified in a subsurface geologic formation within the
wellfield. The aquifer within the formation where the ore body is
located is commonly referred to as the ``ore zone aquifer''. Currently,
there are six ISR facilities operating in the United States.
Uranium ISR was introduced in the late 1970s as an alternative to
conventional uranium recovery, which involves extracting uranium ore
from the earth, typically through deep underground shafts or shallow
open pits. Ore extracted by conventional uranium recovery is
transported to a mill, where it is crushed and undergoes a chemical
process to remove the uranium. The uranium is then concentrated to
produce yellowcake. The sandy waste resulting from crushing the uranium
ore is known as ``uranium mill tailings'' or ``tailings.'' Tailings
contain heavy metals and radioactive constituents, such as radium.
Alternatively, uranium may be recovered from the ore using a heap leach
process. In the heap leach process, the ore is placed on an engineered
barrier and sprayed with acid. The uranium dissolves into solution and
is collected at the engineered barrier. The solution undergoes
additional chemical processing to produce yellowcake. Currently, there
is one operating conventional uranium mill and there are no operating
heap leach facilities in the United States.
The NRC licenses ISR facilities under part 40 of title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ``Domestic Licensing of Source
Material,'' because these facilities possess and use source
material.\1\ The possession and use of source material are activities
that require a license from the NRC under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (AEA).\2\ The waste (tailings) generated as a result
of the ISR process falls within a category of byproduct material
defined in section 11e.(2) of the AEA. Specifically, in section
11e.(2), byproduct material is defined as ``the tailings or wastes
produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from
any ore processed
[[Page 576]]
primarily for its source material content.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The term ``source material'' is defined as ``(1) Uranium or
thorium, or any combination thereof, in any physical or chemical
form or (2) ores which contain by weight one-twentieth of one
percent (0.05%) or more of: (i) Uranium, (ii) thorium or (iii) any
combination thereof.'' 10 CFR 40.4, ``Definitions''.
\2\ AEA, Sec. 62, 42 U.S.C. 2092 (``Unless authorized by a
general or specific license issued by the [Nuclear Regulatory]
Commission . . . no person may transfer or receive in interstate
commerce, transfer, deliver, receive possession of or title to, or
import into or export from the United States any source material
after removal from its place of deposit in nature . . .'').
\3\ AEA, Sec. 11e.(2); 42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2). In 10 CFR 40.4,
the NRC further defines section 11e.(2) byproduct material as ``the
tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of
uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source
material content, including discrete surface wastes resulting from
uranium solution extraction processes. Underground ore bodies
depleted by such solution extraction operations do not constitute
`byproduct material' within this definition.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978
(UMTRCA) (Pub. L. 95-604), the NRC is responsible for regulating
section 11e.(2) byproduct material at sites where such material is
generated. Congress enacted UMTRCA to provide public health, safety,
and environmental protection from the radiological and non-radiological
hazards associated with the processing, possession, transfer, and
disposal of AEA section 11e.(2) byproduct material. The UMTRCA amended
the AEA by adding to it the section 11e.(2) definition of byproduct
material and sections 84 and 275.
The AEA, as amended by UMTRCA, established a dual regulatory scheme
over the domestic uranium milling industry between the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NRC. Under section 275b.
of the AEA, the EPA is authorized to issue standards of general
applicability for the protection of health, safety, and the environment
from radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with the
processing of section 11(e)(2) byproduct material.\4\ Under AEA section
84,\5\ the NRC or the appropriate Agreement State \6\ is responsible
for implementing the EPA's generally applicable standards. In this
regard, the NRC or the applicable Agreement State entity is the
regulatory or licensing agency for all uranium recovery facilities,
including ISR facilities, and is responsible for inspecting the
facility and enforcing the terms and conditions of the operating
license.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 42 U.S.C. 2022(b).
\5\ 42 U.S.C. 2114.
\6\ Section 274 of the AEA authorizes the NRC to relinquish or
discontinue its regulatory authority over certain categories of
radioactive material to a State following a duly executed agreement
between the NRC and the governor of the State. 42 U.S.C. 2021. After
the agreement is entered into, the State, now an ``Agreement
State,'' must promulgate or adopt regulations compatible to those
NRC regulations that govern the subject matter areas relinquished to
the Agreement State.
\7\ AEA Sec. 275b.(2); 42 U.S.C. 2022(b)(2) (``no permit issued
by the [EPA] Administrator is required under this Act or the
[Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.] for
the processing, possession, transfer, or disposal of [section
11e.(2)] byproduct material'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA first issued generally applicable standards on October 7,
1983 (48 FR 45926) and updated these standards on November 15, 1993 (58
FR 60340). The EPA codified these standards into its regulations at 40
CFR part 192, ``Health and Environmental Protection Standards for
Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings,'' subpart D, ``Standards for
Management of Uranium Byproduct Materials Pursuant to Section 84 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.'' The NRC issued its
implementing regulations on October 16, 1985 (50 FR 41852) and further
amended them in subsequent rulemakings.\8\ The NRC codified its
implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 40, ``Domestic Licensing of
Source Material,'' appendix A, ``Criteria Relating to the Operation of
Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the
Extraction or Concentration of Source Material from Ores Processed
Primarily for their Source Material Content.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Substantive amendments include 52 FR 43553 (November 13,
1987) (NRC conforming amendments not covered in the October 16, 1985
rule); 53 FR 19240 (May 27, 1988) (record retention periods); 59 FR
28220 (June 1, 1994) (emplacement of final radon barrier on
conventional mill tailings piles); and 76 FR 35512 (June 17, 2011)
(financial assurance requirements associated with decommissioning
planning).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1990s, ISR operations became the predominant means of
extracting uranium in the United States. In COMJSM-06-0001,
``Regulation of Groundwater Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium
Extraction Facilities,'' dated January 17, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML060830041), NRC Commissioner Merrifield stated:
[W]hile the staff has done its best to regulate [ISR] licensees
through the generally applicable requirements in Part 40 and
imposition of license conditions, our failure to promulgate specific
regulations for [ISRs] has resulted in an inconsistent and
ineffective regulatory program. We have been attempting to force a
square peg into a round hole for years, and I believe we should
finally remedy this situation through notice and comment rulemaking.
In developing a proposed rule, the staff should formulate a
regulatory framework that is tailored specifically to this unique
group of licensees.
In the Commission's subsequent staff requirements memorandum, dated
March 23, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060820503), the Commission
approved the initiation of a rulemaking for the purpose of providing
clarity, predictability, and consistency to the licensing and
regulation of ISR facilities.
In 2010, the EPA informed the NRC that it would undertake its own
rulemaking effort to issue generally applicable standards for ISRs. The
NRC then deferred its ongoing ISR rulemaking effort, prior to the
publication of a proposed rule, in anticipation of the need to conform
its implementing regulations to the generally applicable standards to
be issued by the EPA. The EPA issued its proposed rule on January 26,
2015 (80 FR 4156). Subsequently, the EPA decided to re-propose the rule
and seek additional public comment. The EPA issued the re-proposed
rule, superseding the January 2015 proposed rule, on January 19, 2017
(82 FR 7400). The NRC had jurisdictional and technical concerns with
both the January 2015 and January 2017 proposed rules and submitted
comments addressing these concerns on July 18, 2017 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML17173A638).
On October 30, 2018 (83 FR 54543), the EPA withdrew its proposed
rule. The EPA concluded, based on comments from stakeholders, that it
had serious questions concerning whether it has the legal authority
under UMTRCA to issue the regulations as provided in the 2017 proposed
rule. The EPA also concluded that the existing regulatory framework was
sufficient to ensure the protection of public health and the
environment at existing ISRs. Finally, the EPA stated that, given
current and foreseeable market conditions, the uranium recovery
industry was not likely to have the robust growth that was anticipated
in the 2000s. Given the EPA's withdrawal of its proposed rule, the NRC
must now decide whether to proceed with its 2006 ISR-specific
rulemaking, held in abeyance since 2010.
III. Discussion
The current version of appendix A to 10 CFR part 40 provides a
generic set of regulations for the operation of conventional uranium
mills. With respect to the NRC's licensing of ISR facilities, the
current regulations in appendix A, coupled with the conditions of ISR
site-specific licenses and the NRC's ongoing oversight of the
licensees' operations, provide adequate protection to the public health
and safety and the environment. The NRC's purpose in promulgating a
generic set of regulations for the operation of ISRs is to standardize
existing NRC ISR licensing and oversight practices and to ensure
consistency in the NRC staff's evaluation and approval of ISR license
applications. In addition, the promulgation of generic regulations for
ISR facilities would provide a national regulatory framework from which
Agreement States can, in turn, promulgate their own compatible
regulatory standards. If the NRC continues with this rulemaking, the
amendments to appendix A would be
[[Page 577]]
based upon many of the license conditions that are contained in current
NRC-issued site-specific ISR licenses and would be further informed by
the approved methodologies and best practices set forth in those NRC
guidance documents that are applicable to ISR activities.
ISR operations are substantially different from those of
conventional uranium milling, including the measures taken to ensure
the protection of groundwater. The requirements for groundwater
protection at conventional uranium mills are mainly concerned with the
prevention, detection, and correction of contamination in shallow
aquifers from seepage and leaks associated with the long-term
management of mill tailings impoundments. At ISR facilities, however,
the main concern is contamination of the surrounding groundwater by the
short-term degradation of the water quality in the ore zone aquifer
during ISR operations. Specifically, the groundwater chemistry in the
ore zone aquifer is altered by the injection of lixiviant, which along
with dissolving the uranium located in the underground ore body, also
mobilizes hazardous constituents such as metals and radionuclides like
radium. If the lixiviant is not controlled within the ore zone aquifer,
then these hazardous constituents may migrate outside the ISR wellfield
and potentially contaminate surrounding groundwater and connected
surface water. Therefore, the NRC and the Agreement States have
included license conditions in ISR licenses requiring ISR licensees to
satisfy certain technical criteria that will protect surrounding
groundwater during ISR operations and restore the water quality in ore
zone aquifers after ISR operations. Unlike conventional mill tailings
impoundments that require long-term management for groundwater
protection, ISR wellfields may be decommissioned and the ISR license
terminated once groundwater restoration requirements are met.
The NRC initiated the ISR rulemaking in 2006 to provide regulatory
predictability and consistency to the licensing process for ISRs. By
establishing a generic set of requirements for ISR activities, the rule
would improve regulatory efficiency and make the NRC's review process
for ISR license applications and amendments more consistent and
transparent to the public and industry.
Most ISR facilities currently in operation are licensed by
Agreement States. One of the requirements of the NRC's Agreement State
program is that the regulations of an Agreement State must be
``compatible'' with the NRC's regulatory program.\9\ Therefore, in
accordance with the NRC's Agreement State program, the promulgation of
an NRC rulemaking specific to ISR facilities would require Agreement
States to conform their regulations, to the extent appropriate, to the
new or amended NRC regulations. The benefit of having Agreement States
conform their regulations would be the establishment of a relatively
uniform \10\ set of both groundwater protection and radiation health
and safety requirements for ISR facilities nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Agreement State Program Policy Statement, 82 FR 48535-39
(October 18, 2017); see also id. at 48536-37 (``The NRC and the
Agreement States have the responsibility to ensure that the
radiation control programs are compatible. Such radiation control
programs should be based on a common regulatory philosophy including
the common use of definitions and standards. The programs should be
effective and cooperatively implemented by the NRC and the Agreement
States and also should provide uniformity and achieve common
strategic outcomes in program areas of national significance.'').
\10\ Based upon the compatibility category (see id. at 48538-39)
that the NRC assigns to each new or amended regulation, Agreement
States should have a substantial degree of flexibility in
promulgating their conforming regulations. Id. at 48537 (``With the
exception of those compatibility areas where programs should be
essentially identical, Agreement State radiation control programs
have flexibility in program implementation and administration to
accommodate individual State preferences, State legislative
direction, and local needs and conditions.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the EPA's withdrawal of its January 2017 proposed rule,
the NRC is now conducting an assessment of the requirements in 10 CFR
part 40 appendix A pertaining to the licensing of ISRs and is
requesting input from members of the public about the topics discussed
in the ``Request for Comments'' section. The information received from
this request will be factored into the decision whether to continue
this rulemaking.
IV. Request for Comments
The NRC welcomes general comments and seeks comments in response to
the numbered items in this section. In responding to these numbered
items, please provide your rationale or justification for your
position. In addition, please provide a discussion of any factors that
you considered in providing your opinion and any recommendations to
assist the NRC in improving its regulatory process. The factors that
the NRC must consider in determining whether to proceed with this
rulemaking include technical feasibility, a cost-benefit analysis, and
consistency and clarity of applicable regulations for the adequate
protection of the health and safety and the environment.
1. If the NRC were to proceed with its ISR rulemaking that has been
held in abeyance since 2010, the NRC would amend its current uranium
milling regulations in appendix A to 10 CFR part 40 to add ISR-specific
requirements. Should the NRC proceed with this rulemaking?
2. Please identify any issues that should be addressed to protect
groundwater at ISR facilities, in either this rulemaking or through the
development of guidance documents.
3. Please identify any issues that should be addressed to enhance
public or occupational safety at ISR facilities, in either this
rulemaking or through the development of guidance documents.
4. Please identify any issues that should be addressed to establish
a relatively uniform set of requirements for ISR facilities nationwide
(both in Agreement States and in non-Agreement States).
VI. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS accession No./
Document Federal Register citation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMJSM-06-0001, ``Regulation of Groundwater ML060830041
Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium
Extraction Facilities,'' dated January 17,
2006.
Staff Requirements Memorandum-COMJSM-06-0001, ML060820503
``Regulation of Groundwater Protection at In
Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities,''
dated March 23, 2006.
[[Page 578]]
``40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental 82 FR 7400
Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule,'' January 19,
2017.
``40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental 83 FR 54543
Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule; Withdrawal,''
October 30, 2018.
NUREG-1569, ``Standard Review Plan for In ML032310005
Situ Leach Uranium Extraction License
Applications: Final Report,'' June 2003.
``NRC Staff's Comments on EPA Proposed ML17173A638
Rulemaking for 40 CFR Part 192 Rule, 82 FR
7400,'' July 17, 2017.
``40 CFR Part 192, Environmental Standards 48 FR 45926
for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at
Licensed Commercial Processing Sites; Final
Rule,'' October 7, 1983.
``40 CFR Part 192, Environmental Standards 58 FR 60340
for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at
Licensed Commercial Processing Sites; Final
Rule,'' November 15, 1993.
``Uranium Mill Tailings Regulations; 50 FR 41852
Conforming NRC Requirements to EPA
Standards; Final Rule,'' October 16, 1985.
``40 CFR Part 192, Health and Environmental 80 FR 4156
Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium
Mill Tailings; Proposed Rule,'' January 26,
2015.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the development of this assessment, the NRC may post
related documents, including public comments, on the Federal rulemaking
website at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2008-0421.
The Federal rulemaking website allows you to receive alerts when
changes or additions occur in a docket folder. To subscribe: (1)
Navigate to the docket folder (NRC-2008-0421); (2) click the ``Sign up
for Email Alerts'' link; and (3) enter your email address and select
how frequently you would like to receive emails (daily, weekly, or
monthly).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of January 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Theresa V. Clark,
Deputy Director, Division of Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2019-00435 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P