39348 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 

Dated at 475 Allendale Road, King of 

Prussia, PA, this 28th day of July 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

James P. Dwyer, 

Chief, Commercial and R&D Branch, Division 

of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I. 

[FR Doc. E9–18820 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0341] 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 

Involvement With the Navy’s 

Remediation of the Hunters Point 

Shipyard Site in San Francisco, CA 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of jurisdiction and future 

involvement. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) has decided that it 

will take a limited involvement 

approach to stay informed about the 

Navy’s ongoing remediation of the 

Hunters Point Shipyard (HPS) site in 

San Francisco, California. NRC will rely 

on the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) process and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Region 9 oversight. This notice 

discusses NRC’s jurisdiction and future 

limited involvement at the HPS site and 

how it plans on staying informed about 

the Navy’s remediation in the future. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert L. Johnson, Division of Waste 

Management and Environmental 

Protection, Office of Federal and State 

Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs, Mail Stop T– 

8F5, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone: (301) 415–7282; e-mail: 

Robert.Johnson2@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In July 

2007 the Navy requested clarification 

about NRC‘s jurisdiction and potential 

involvement with the Navy’s ongoing 

remediation of radioactive material at 

the HPS site. In response to the Navy’s 

request, NRC reviewed key HPS site 

documents, met with the Navy, and 

conducted a site visit in October 2007. 

NRC also met with representatives from 

EPA Region 9, the State of California 

agencies involved with the HPS site, 

and the City of San Francisco. In 

addition to evaluating potential NRC 

involvement, these meetings were used 

to obtain an understanding of the site, 

the Navy’s remediation, and the 

oversight roles and issues of the key 

parties involved with the remediation. 

Based on this information, the NRC staff 

evaluated NRC’s jurisdiction for the 

materials at the HPS site and evaluated 

options for NRC involvement. These 

options and the staff’s recommendations 

were provided to the Commission in 

SECY–08–0077. This Commission paper 

also gives background about the HPS 

and the Navy’s ongoing remediation. 

The Commission provided its direction 

to the staff on June 26, 2008, in SRM– 

SECY–08–0077. The results of the staff’s 

evaluation and the Commission’s 

decision are summarized in the answers 

to the following questions: 

1. What is NRC’s regulatory jurisdiction 

for the Navy’s remediation of the HPS 

site? 

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) 

licenses for radioactive material used by 

the Navy in both the shipyard and the 

Navy Radiological Defense Laboratory 

(NRDL) at the HPS site were terminated 

in the 1970s after extensive radiological 

surveys of the facilities confirmed that 

the facilities met the radiological 

standards at that time. Therefore, after 

termination of the AEC licenses, neither 

the NRC nor its predecessor, AEC, 

exercised direct regulatory authority 

over the residual contamination at the 

HPS site. Subsequently, the Navy 

conducted radiological surveys and 

completed a Historical Radiological 

Assessment of the site in 2004. These 

studies provided new information about 

the suspected and confirmed 

radiological contamination for the entire 

HPS site. Based on this new 

information, the Navy and NRC assume 

that any remaining licensable material is 

likely commingled with atomic 

weapons testing material. Both types of 

radioactive material were used at the 

NRDL. NRC has jurisdiction for the 

licensable material. However, under 

Section 91(b) of the AEA, the atomic 

weapons testing material is outside of 

NRC’s jurisdiction. 

2. What is NRC’s future involvement 

with the Navy’s ongoing remediation of 

the HPS site? 

NRC will rely on the ongoing Navy 

remediation under the CERCLA process 

and EPA regulatory oversight for the 

licensable radioactive material assumed 

to be present at the HPS site. NRC 

would not exercise its regulatory 

authority and would not require 

compliance with its decommissioning 

regulations. NRC would not conduct 

any formal regulatory reviews or 

participate in the ongoing CERCLA 

comment process for the Navy’s 

remediation. The NRC staff would have 

a limited involvement to stay informed 

about the Navy’s remediation of the 

remaining parcels, which is expected to 

take about 10 years. 

The basis for this approach is that 

NRC can reasonably rely on the 

CERCLA process and EPA oversight of 

this Superfund site because the process 

should result in a level of protection of 

public health and safety and the 

environment that is generally equivalent 

to what would be provided if the NRC’s 

decommissioning process was used. 

NRC believes that this is a reasonable 

approach because: (1) The licensable 

materials are inextricably commingled 

with the atomic weapons testing 

material over which NRC has no 

jurisdiction; (2) over-laying NRC 

requirements and oversight on the 

CERCLA process overseen by EPA 

provides no clear public health and 

safety benefit; (3) dual NRC–EPA 

regulation is avoided; (4) remediation 

can proceed under CERCLA; and (5) 

NRC would be in a position to respond 

to stakeholder questions in a timely and 

effective manner. NRC considered, but 

did not select the option of regulating 

the remediation through the Navy’s 

Masters Material License with NRC. 

This option would have resulted in dual 

regulation, unnecessary expenditure of 

resources, and no benefit to public 

health and safety. 

3. How will NRC stay informed about 

the Navy’s remediation of the HPS site? 

NRC anticipates that it would stay 

informed throughout the remediation 

process using existing mechanisms, 

such as documents received through 

standard distributions or that are 

available on the Administrative Record 

(e.g., records of decision and completion 

documents such as the finding of 

suitability to transfer). If necessary, NRC 

would request access to documents. 

Staff would read selected documents 

and conduct an annual site visit and 

progress meeting with the Navy, EPA, 

State agencies, and the City of San 

Francisco. The staff would use a riskinformed approach to focus on those 

elements of the Navy’s remediation that 

are most important to the protection of 

public health and safety. The staff 

would also focus on those elements that 

are currently being planned but not yet 

implemented such as formal 

establishment of the institutional 

controls and engineered controls. 

Finally, NRC would also reserve the 

option of commenting to EPA if 

necessary to justify our continued 

reliance on the CERCLA process. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 150 / Thursday, August 6, 2009 / Notices 39349 

4. Have the Navy and EPA Region 9 

agreed to NRC’s approach? 

On January 16, 2009, NRC sent letters 

to both the Navy and EPA Region 9 that 

explained NRC’s limited involvement 

approach and requested agreement to 

support the approach at the Hunters 

Point site. The Navy provided a 

response on April 1, 2009, that agreed 

to support NRC’s approach. Similarly, 

EPA Region 9 provided a response on 

May 7, 2009, that also supported NRC’s 

approach. 

5. What documents are available that 

provided additional information about 

NRC’s involvement with the HPS site? 

The NRC staff’s evaluation of 

jurisdiction and options for involvement 

is documented in a May 30, 2008, 

Commission paper (SECY–08–0077) that 

is electronically available on NRC’s Web 

site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

doc-collections/commission/secys/2008/ 

secy2008–0077/2008–0077scy.pdf. 

The Commission’s decision and 

direction to the staff is documented in 

a June 30, 2008, Staff Requirements 

Memorandum (SRM–SECY–08–0077) 

that is also electronically available on 

NRC’s Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/doc-collections/ 

commission/srm/2008/2008– 

0077srm.pdf. 

The letters mentioned above from the 

NRC, the Navy, and EPA Region 9 are 

available from the NRC’s Agencywide 

Document Access and Management 

System using the following accession 

numbers: 

NRC’s January 16, 2009, letter to the 

Navy ML083440652. 

NRC’s January 16, 2009, letter to the 

EPA ML083430426. 

Navy’s April 1, 2009, letter to NRC 

ML091120805. 

EPA’s May 7, 2009, letter to NRC 

ML091460102. 

Dated at Rockville, MD, this 29th day of 

June, 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Keith I. McConnell, 

Deputy Director, Decommissioning and 

Uranium Recovery Licensing Directorate, 

Division of Waste Management and 

Environmental Protection, Office of Federal 

and State Materials and Environmental 

Management Programs. 

[FR Doc. E9–18822 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0344] 

Regulatory Guide Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of Regulatory Guide 

1.135, Normal Water Level and 

Discharge at Nuclear Power Plants. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Henry Jones, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001, telephone: 301–415–1463 or email Henry.Jones@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

(NRC) is withdrawing Regulatory Guide 

(RG) 1.135, ‘‘Normal Water Level and 

Discharge at Nuclear Power Plants.’’ 

Regulatory Guide 1.135 was issued for 

comment in September 1977 and never 

finalized. The RG was intended to 

provide guidance on estimating the 

normal ground and surface water 

elevations at a nuclear power plant site. 

The determination of normal and flood 

water elevation is one of the site 

characteristics required by Title 10 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations, part 

100, ‘‘Reactor Site Criteria,’’ section 10, 

‘‘Factors to be considered when 

evaluating sites,’’ (10 CFR 100.10) for 

test reactors and stationary power 

reactor site applications dated before 

January 10, 1997 and by 10 CFR 100.20, 

‘‘Factors to be Considered When 

Evaluating Sites,’’ for stationary power 

reactor site applications dated on or 

after January 10, 1997. 

General Design Criterion (GDC) 2, 

‘‘Design Basis for Protection Against 

Natural Phenomena,’’ of Appendix A, 

‘‘General Design Criteria for Nuclear 

Power Plants,’’ to 10 CFR part 50 

requires facilities to be designed for 

protection against the most severe of the 

natural phenomena that have been 

historically reported for the site and 

surrounding area. This includes events 

such as floods, tsunami, and seiches. A 

determination of the normal pool level 

as described in RG 1.135 is not required 

by GDC 2 and thus, compliance with 

GDC 2 is not impacted by the 

withdrawal of RG 1.135. 

The guidance in RG 1.135 is no longer 

current; section 2.4.1, ‘‘Hydrologic 

Description’’ in Chapter 2, ‘‘Sites 

Characteristics,’’ of NUREG–0800, 

‘‘Standard Review Plan for the Review 

of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear 

Power Plants’’ (the SRP) contains more 

current guidance for complying with the 

site criteria regulations. Additionally, a 

review of updated Final Safety Analysis 

Reports (FSARs) from licensees and 

applicants determined that only a few 

FSARs referenced RG 1.135 and no 

applicant or licensee is currently using 

it. Applicants and licensees use the 

guidance in the SRP and ANSI/ANS– 

2.8–1992, ‘‘Determining Design Basis 

Flooding at Power Reactor Sites’’ for 

water level determinations. Revising 

this guide could be potentially 

confusing for the staff and applicant. 

Regulatory Guide 1.135 is being 

withdrawn because it is outdated, the 

staff is unaware of its use by any current 

licensee or applicant, and it does not 

provide guidance that is not more 

current and more readily available in 

the SRP or ANSI/ANS–2.8–1992. 

II. Further Information 

Withdrawal of RG 1.135 does not, in 

and of itself, alter any prior or existing 

licensing commitments based on its use. 

The guidance provided in this RG is no 

longer necessary. Regulatory Guides 

may be withdrawn when their guidance 

is superseded by Congressional action, 

the methods or techniques described in 

the Regulatory Guide no longer describe 

a preferred approach, or the Regulatory 

Guide does not provide useful 

information. 

Regulatory guides are available for 

inspection or downloading through the 

NRC’s public Web site under 

‘‘Regulatory Guides’’ in the NRC’s 

Electronic Reading Room at http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections. Regulatory guides are also 

available for inspection at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), Room O– 

1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852– 

2738. The PDR’s mailing address is US 

NRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555–0001. 

You can reach the staff by telephone at 

301–415–4737 or 800–397–4209, by fax 

at 301–415–3548, and by e-mail to 

pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

Regulatory guides are not 

copyrighted, and NRC approval is not 

required to reproduce them. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day 

of July, 2009. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

John N. Ridgely, 

Acting Chief, Regulatory Guide Development 

Branch, Division of Engineering, Office of 

Nuclear Regulatory Research. 

[FR Doc. E9–18818 Filed 8–5–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES