### Steven H Brown, CHP
SENES Consultants Limited Centennial, Colorado USA

NRC/NMA Uranium Workshop July 1 – 2, 2009 Denver, Colorado

# Premise

 We (U industry, scientists) have believed since the beginning of commercial nuclear industry that the science provides the obvious answers to addressing concerns of citizens and public officials

 If they don’t “get it”, its their problem, not ours

 WRONG!! - its our problem since without public acceptance we cannot move forward without a great deal of pain, if at all

 It is in America’s best interest for us to figure this out

 We must move beyond our “professional arrogance” and figure out how to make the science – that in fact does provide

the answers 

# Understandable

# A Humble Attempt At Making The Science
Understandable

# In Q/A Format, A Citizens Guide Answers the Following Questions

 What is uranium and where does it come from?

 How much uranium and associated elements (“decay products”) are in the food we eat, water we drink and in
soil under are feet?

 How radioactive is uranium and uranium ore compared to consumer products we use everyday that contain
radioactive substances?

 Are existing regulations for uranium recovery facilities adequate to protect the public from additional radiation exposure above our natural background exposure?

# In Q/A Format, A Citizens Guide Answers the Following Questions ( continued)

 What are the potential health effects from exposure to
uranium?

 What about the known health impacts (e.g., lung cancer) to many uranium miners who worked underground in the
1950’s and 1960’s?

 How is uranium extracted from the earth?

 What is uranium used for and why is it important?

 Don’t scientists disagree on many of the health and safety concerns associated with uranium and radiation exposure in general?

# Some Common and Critical Misconceptions: Examples

 Uranium becomes radioactive when mined

 Environment is “radiation free” w/o nuclear industry

 No “safe” level of radiation exposure - any amount is potentially harmful

 Health impacts to early U miners in 1950’s and 1960’s translate directly to workers and public today

 Scientists disagree on basic principles of radiation safety

 Almost anyone with an advanced degree (including lawyers) can be an expert in anything

# What is Uranium and
Where Does it Come From ?

# Uranium in the Natural Environment

 “Primordial” element part of Earth’s formation 4.5 billion years ago (originated in supernovas)

 Deposited on land by volcanic action over geologic time

 Dissolved by rainfall and carried into underground formations

 Chemical conditions in some locations resulted in
concentration into “ore bodies”

 Fairly common element in Earth’s crust (soil, rock) and in groundwater and seawater, typically 2-4 ppm - as common as tin, tungsten, molybdenum, etc.

 A square mile of earth, one foot deep, will typically contain over a ton of uranium; one acre of land, one foot deep, typically has 3 - 4 lbs

# Our Radioactive Natural Environment – Everyday Sources of Radiation Exposure to Humans

# We Live in a Radioactive Environment – It’s Always Been This Way

 We are continuously
bombarded with radiation from space and earth’s surface

 Uranium is a common element

in rock and soil

 Uranium is in the food and water we consume everyday

 Background radiation in Rocky
Mtn. States can be several times higher than other parts
of the U.S. – Elevation and
Mineralization!

## Sources of Radiation Exposure to Humans

50% (NCRP 160 )

48% (NCRP 160 )

Update from NCRP Report 160, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, 2006

## Cosmic Ray and Terrestrial Background Varies Considerably Across US

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; NCRP Report No. 160, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States . 2006

# Variability of Natural Background from Place to Place – Example: Colorado

Stone, JM, Whicker, RD et al, Spatial Variations in Natural Background Radiation:
Absorbed Dose Rates in Air in Colorado. Health Physics, Vol. 9(5), May 1999

# Natural Background Levels and Regulatory
Limits for Protection of the Public

Table of Natural Background Radiation*

Source U.S. Average 1 Colorado Average 2 Leadville 2

Cosmic radiation (from space) 34 50 85

Terrestrial radiation (from the ground) 22 49 97

Internal: Ingested from food and water and inhaled naturally occurring radon and its decay products 254 301 344

TOTAL 310 400 526

* In units of mrem/year- mrem (millirem) is a unit of effective radiation dose. One rem is 1,000 mrem.

1 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the
United States . NCRP Report No. 160; 2006.

2 Moeller D, Sun LSC. Comparison of natural background dose rates for residents of the Amargosa Valley, NV, to those in Leadville, CO, and the states of Colorado and Nevada. Health Phys 91:338-353; 2006.

###  Background Levels (from previous slide)

> Colorado average = 400 mrem

> Leadville, Colorado = 526 mrem
> U.S. average = 310 mrem



###  Regulatory Limits

> EPA drinking water standard = 4 mrem 1

> EPA limit for all exposure pathways = 25 mrem 2

> NRC Limit with radon = 100 mrem; excluding radon = 25 mrem 3 

# Annual Background Radiation Exposure vs. Annual Public Exposure Limits:

U Mines and Mills

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Radionuclides in drinking water. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/index.html

. 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental radiation protection for nuclear power operations, 40 CFR 190.10; 2006.

3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Domestic Licensing of Source Material ; 10 CFR 40

# Radiation Background in Kerala India

 Unusually high natural radiation background has been known for many years due to natural thorium in the monazite sands of the region

 Annual outdoor exposure levels as high as 7000 mrem have been measured where people live

 Recent epidemiological studies have concluded no excess cancers in over 69,000 residents studied for 10 years 1

1 R Naire, B Rajan, et al; Background radiation and cancer incidence in Kerala,India—Karunagappally cohort study; Health Physics, 96,1, January, 2008

# How Much Natural Radioactive Uranium is in the Food We Eat, Water We Drink and
in the Soil Under Our Feet?

# How Common are Uranium and its Daughter
Products 1 

# in Nature? 2



###  Typical concentration in soil and rocks (pCi*/gram):

> Uranium = 0.6 – 3.0

> Uranium in phosphate rock used for fertilizers = 40 – 80

> Radium = 0.4 – 3.6

> Thorium = 0.2 – 2.2

1 Daughter products = those chemical elements that uranium decays into as a result of its radioactive properties.
Thorium and radium are also radioactive.

2 Sources: (1) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Natural background radiation in the United States. Washington, DC: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; NCRP Report No. 45; 1975. (2) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposure of the population in the United States and Canada from natural background radiation. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; NCRP Report No. 94; 1992 (updates and supersedes NCRP Report No. 45).

* pCi = picocurie, one-trillionth of a curie, the amount of radioactivity where approximately two atoms decay per minute. Picocurie is a measure of the amount of radioactivity.

# How Much Uranium is in the Food and Water
We Eat and Drink?

 Typical annual uranium intake in example foods:

> Whole-grain products: 10 pCi

> Meat: 50-70 pCi

> Fresh fruit: 30-51 pCi

> Potatoes: 67-74 pCi

> Bakery products: 39-44 pCi

Sources: (1) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Exposures from the uranium series with emphasis on radon and its daughters. Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; NCRP Report No. 77; 1987. (2) Welford GA, Baird R. Uranium levels in human diet and biological materials. Health Phys 13(12):1,321-1,324, 1967 (values for three U.S. cities—New York City, Chicago, San Francisco).

# Natural Uranium in Groundwater

 Can vary considerably from place to place depending on local mineralization, hydrology and geochemistry

 Although typically a few micrograms / liter ( a few pCi / liter), U has been measured in public drinking water sources 10 -100 + greater than this

 No permanent health effects have been observed in populations drinking water for generations with these high natural levels

Sources:(1) Assessing Potential Risks from Exposure to Natural Uranium in Well Water. Hakonson-Hayes A.C, P.R. Fresqueza,, F.W. Whicker, Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 59 (2002) (2) Public Health Goal for Uranium in Drinking Water. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency, 1997 (3) U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Uranium. 1999.

## U Levels in Groundwater > EPA Drinking Water Standard (30 micro grams per liter) Are Common

Data from USGS open file report 97-492, 2006; reformatted
1975 – 1980 data

from U.S. NURE HSSR program

# Radioactivity of Uranium Ore
and Some Consumer Products

# Exposure From Consumer Products Used Every Day

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; NCRP Report No. 160, “Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States”, 2006

# Radioactivity of Uranium Ore

 Typical uranium ore contains 670 pCi/gram of uranium (assuming 1,000 ppm of uranium in the ore)

 A handful ( about 10 grams) = about 7,000 pCi

 Considering the numerous daughter products, the handful of ore = about 70,000 total pCi

# Radioactivity of Some
Consumer Products 1



###  Household smoke detector (americium) = average of 50,000,000 pCi

 Household smoke detector (radium) = 50,000 pCi 1



###  Typical older (pre-1970) luminous wrist watch dials (radium) = up to 4,500,000 pCi

 Typical modern luminous wrist watch dials: radioactive hydrogen (tritium) average of 1,300,000,000 and promethium average of 45,000,000 pCi

1 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radiation exposure from consumer products and miscellaneous sources. NCRP Report No. 56; 1977

# Radioactivity of Some Consumer Products (continued)

 Coal fly ash = 6 - 20 pCi/gram uranium 1



###  Coal fly ash in TVA Kingston spill, Dec. 2008 ( > billion gallons) = 6 - 8 pCi / gram radium > 1,000,000,000,000 pCi total in spill 2



###  Additional consumer products containing naturally occurring radioactivity include fertilizers (uranium, thorium, potassium), gas lantern mantles (thorium), glass and ceramics (uranium as coloring agent) 3

1 U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS-163-9, October, 1997. Values actually stated as 10 - 30 ppm

2 Duke University, Nichols School of Environment, January 2008.

See http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/index.html

3 Health Physics Society. Consumer products containing radioactive materials. Health Physics Society Fact Sheet.

Available at: www.hps.org/hpspublications/radiationfactsheets.html

.

# Radiation Exposure in Perspective - Cigarette Smoking

 A cigarette smoker gets about 1000 mrem / year effective dose above background from Polonium 210 in tobacco smoke

 So a smoker’s effective dose = 10 X annual public exposure limit (100 mrem – U.S.NRC)

 Chest X ray = 8 mrem so for smoker = 125 chest X rays / year !!

 Assuming 15 % of population smokes, their total dose / year =
30 X more than the total annual dose to all workers at the 104 nuclear power plants in U.S. + all workers at U.S.DOE nuclear installations + all crews on U.S. Navy nuclear ships

See Moeller DW and Sun C, Thinking Outside the Box: Polonium 210 in Cigarettes – A Needless Source of Radiation Exposure , Health Physics News,37,4,April 2009

# What are the Potential Health Effects from Exposure to Uranium? 1



###  Uranium is a heavy metal and acts similar to lead (another heavy metal) in the body.

 Accordingly, for natural uranium, national and international human exposure standards are based on the possible chemical toxicity of uranium (e.g., effect on kidney—nephrotoxicity), not on radiation and possible “cancer effects” (radiotoxicity)

1 Sources: (1) U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Standards for protection against radiation. 10 CFR Part 20; 1992. (2) International Commission on Radiological Protection. Limits for intakes of radionuclides by workers. ICRP Publication 30, Part 1.1979. (3) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for uranium. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service; 1999.

Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp150.html

.29 

# Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation
are Well Understood

 International and National Authorities rely on the work of
scientific committees such as:

> United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Ionizing Radiation ( UNSCEAR );

 National Academy of Science, Biological Effects of Ionizing

Radiation ( BEIR ) Committees;

> National Council on Radiation Protection ( NCRP ), and others



### for their evaluation of the scientific information on health effects of exposure to ionizing radiation

# Dose Response Model Generally Accepted by
International and National Scientific Bodies (UNSCEAR, BEIR, NCRP)

# Despite Public Confusion and Misunderstanding, Health Effects In Populations Living Near Uranium Facilities
Have Been Well Studied

According to 1 

### :

 U.S. Department of Public and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

 National Cancer Institute

 Journal of Radiation Research

 Journal of Radiation Protection

Based on studies and data collected over 50 years, there is No scientific evidence that uranium exploration, mining, or milling activities result in additional cancers in populations living nearby

1 Specific references can be provided on request

# Example Conclusions from Studies on Health Impacts on Populations Living Near

Uranium Mines and Mills

“ The absence of elevated mortality rates of cancer in Montrose County over a period of 51 years suggests that the historical milling and mining operations did not adversely affect the health of Montrose County residents.” 1



### “No unusual patterns of cancer mortality could be seen in Karnes County over a period of 50 years suggesting that the uranium mining and milling operation had not increased cancer rates among residents.” 2

1 Cancer and Noncancer Mortality in Populations Living Near Uranium and Vanadium Mining and Milling Operations in Montrose County, Colorado, 1950 -2000. Boice, JD, Mumma, MT et al. Journal of Radiation Research, 167:711-726; 2007

2 Mortality in a Texas County with Prior Uranium Mining and Milling Activities, 1950 – 2001. Boice, JD, Mumma, M et al. Journal of Radiological Protection, 23:247 – 262; 2003

# Underground Uranium Miners
in the 1950’s and 60’s

 Miners were exposed to very high levels of uranium decay products ( “radon daughters”) in poorly ventilated underground mines and some were severe smokers which

increased dose

 Follow up of 68,000 former miners indicated 2700 lung cancers – much higher than expected incidence*

 These working conditions existed before Federal agencies (OSHA, MSHA, NRC) and laws to protect workers throughout American industry ( manufacturing, construction, mining, etc.)

 Levels of exposure 10 – 100 X current worker standards

• Dr. John Boice, International Epidemiology Institute, Vanderbilt University – personal communication; summary of numerous references which can be provided upon request

# How is Uranium Extracted
from the Earth ?

# The Uranium Fuel Cycle - What is Uranium Used For and Why is it Important?

Courtesy of Australian Uranium Association at www.aua.org.au

# What is Uranium Used For?

 Number one use = Electricity generation via nuclear fission. Approximately 20 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by uranium fuel in nuclear power plants (over 400 plants currently world wide and many more planned)

 Uranium fission in nuclear reactors makes isotopes used in medicine (e.g., 99 

### Mo, which produces 99m 

### Tc for diagnostic imaging studies – used in over 70% of all nuclear medicine procedures)

Nuclear fission—each “fission” of

a 235 U atom by a neutron results in release of radiation (heat, light, gamma and x rays), more neutrons, and other particles

# What is Uranium Used For?: Commercial Uranium Fuel Cycle

# What is Uranium Used For?

 One pound of yellowcake has energy equivalence of 35
barrels of oil 1 

### and one 7-gram (1/4-ounce) uranium fuel pellet has an energy-to-electricity equivalent 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas or 1,780 pounds of coal 2



###  Other uses include coloring agent in ceramics and glass, military armor and armament, counterweights on ships and aircraft, radiation shielding (extremely dense and heavy metal but relatively flexible)

1 David Bradish, Mgr. Energy information, Nuclear Energy Institute

2 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration

# Why is Domestic Uranium Recovery Important: America’s Energy Needs

 Currently, U.S. fleet of 104 nuclear power plants provide 20% of the U.S.’ base load electricity

 These plants consume about 60 million pounds of uranium fuel per year, and new plants expected to come on line in next 10 - 20 years

 The U.S. currently produces about 5 million pounds of uranium fuel per year

# Why is Domestic Recovery Important: America’s Energy Needs

 As is our current situation with oil, we are highly reliant on foreign sources

 Some of these regimes (now and/or in future) may not be friendly to the U.S.

 “Exploding” economies like China and India plan on building large numbers of new nuclear plants in next 2 decades and will compete for world wide uranium supplies

# Why is Domestic Uranium Recovery Important: Basic Reality of Supply and Demand

Uranium Producers of America http://www.uraniumproducersamerica.com/supply.html

# World-Wide Uranium Production

Uranium Producers of America @ http://www.uraniumproducersamerica.com

# Don’t Scientists Disagree on
Radiation Effects?

 Vast majority really do not

 Human health effects from radiation have been extensively studied and are well understood

 Much info presented here = “consensus science” – generally agreed upon position of national and international bodies of experts

 As a society, we have to do better job in “weighing the evidence” including expertise and experience of the ”speaker” specific to the subject matter

 Upon objective evaluation, we will often find relative weight of claims are not equal at all

# Apply the Challenge of Dr. Carl Sagan

“ Remarkable claims demand

remarkable evidence”

# Some Final Thoughts # 1

The daily advance of science will enable us and future generations to administer
the Commonwealth with wisdom

- Thomas Jefferson

- Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823: In The Writings of Thomas Jefferson; Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, 20 volumes , 1903-1904

# The goal of science is the gradual removal of prejudices; which is
belief in the absence of evidence

- Niels Bohr

- Atomic physics and human knowledge . John Wiley 1958 p 31 

# Some Final Thoughts # 2

# Questions?

Steve Brown, CHP
SENES Englewood, Colorado USA sbrown@senes.ca1License vs. Amendment inIn-Situ Recovery LicensingStephen J. CohenTeam LeaderUranium Recovery Licensing BranchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission2The Issue• Increased number and varietyof ISRapplications for new facilities,restarts, and expansions• Need to establish proceduresregarding separate licenses vs.amendment of existing licenses forvariety of application scenarios3Background/Past Practice• NRC process generally requiring separatelicenses for individual fuel cycle facilities;Typically, new facility=new license• Changes to facilities approved by amendinglicenses– New tailings cell at a conventional mill– New evaporation pond at an ISR– Process changes; monitoring changes• Some proposed licensing actions raisequestion of amendment or new license4Related Definitions•Wellfield– An area within a mine unit from whichsource material is extracted by ISR operations, andwhich includes injection, production, and monitoringwells•Ion Exchange (IX) Plant– A process building at anISR Facility in which lixiviant from the productionwells is run through ion exchange columns whereresin beads selectively remove the uranium from thesolution•Central Processing Plant (CPP)– A processbuilding at an ISR Facility in which the end product isyellowcake, produced as a slurry or a dried powder5Definitions (continued)•ISR Facility– An operation that includes one ormore wellfields, and either an IX Plant or a CPP–ISR/resin- An operation with one or morewellfields and only an IX Plant–ISR/yellowcake- An operation with one ormore wellfields and a CPP•ISR Satellite– An ISR/resin that transports itsloaded resin to a CPP operated by the samecompany/licensee; The ISR/resin is a “satellite” ofthe CPP.6Background/Past Practice(continued)• Unique nature of ISR uranium operations• Example-licensing ISR/resin satellite facilities– Historically, NRC amended the associatedexisting ISR/yellowcake license– Most cases, satellite facility near the existinglicensed facility, thus considered an extension ofexisting operation– Case where proposed satellite remote from thelicensed ISR/yellowcake has raised amendmentvs. new license question7Other Scenarios• NRC received inquiries from companiesconsidering other ISR facilities deviatingfrom typical ISR/yellowcake– Stand-alone ISR/resin facilities– CPPs without wellfields– Additional CPP at satellite ISRs• Other scenarios possible– Add second CPP– ?8Proposed Process – Primary-SiteAmendments• All additions or enhancements to a licensed uranium recoveryfacility at the primary site of the facility can be approvedthrough an amendment to the license– Creation of multiple uranium recovery licenses at a singleuranium recovery site not an efficient use of NRCresources– Allows amendment to the existing license for a request foran additional CPP at a facility that already has a CPP– Allows typical more minor amendments (add evaporationpond, modify process or monitoring program, etc) as inpast9Proposed Process – Multiple-SiteAmendments• Certain facility additions not located at the primarylicensed site can be approved through amendment– Need to show a“strong connection”to theprimary facility– Facilities being of same type and ownership is notsufficient reason to meet strong connectionrequirement– Therefore, cannot use a single license (and singleannual fee) to cover operationally or hydrogeologically separate facilities10Strong Connection• Strong Connection requirement can be met in two ways– Operational Connection – Proposed addition of newISR/resin facility that will ship resin to same entity’sexisting licensed CPP for further processing (satellitefacility)– Hydro-Geologic Connection – Proposed addition of newISR/resin facility and wellfields having ore zonestratigraphy, hydro-geologic containment, and externalinfluencing factors similar to the existing facility• Meeting eitherof these conditions allows multiple ISRoperations at separate locations under a single license• Applies only to facilities totally in Non-Agreement States11Hydro-Geologic Connection• Compare the degree of similarityor difference between the proposednew site/wellfield(s) and the site/wellfield(s) under the existing licenseusing eight factors significant to wellfield performance characteristics– Natural system factors• Regional structural setting• Regional stratigraphy and hydrogeology• Ore zone stratigraphy and lithology• Confining unit stratigraphy, continuity, permeability• Faults and structures thatcould affect groundwater flow– Human disruptive factors• Impacts from uranium mining on hydrogeology• Impacts from other natural resources extraction (coal bedmethane withdrawal) on hydrogeology• Impacts from abandoned drill holes• For a “strong hydro-geologic connection,” noneof the evaluation factorsshould be identified as different12Proposed Process – SeparateLicenses• If none of conditions allowing license amendments can bemet, proposed action would require separate license• Therefore, a separate license would be needed for:– Constructing an unattached ISR/resin facility whoseloaded resin is taken to another company’s facility with aCPP for processing– Constructing a stand-alone CPP without wellfields thatreceives and processes resin from off-site ISRs– Creating a stand-alone facility by adding a CPP to asatellite ISR/resin13Table of ISR licensing action scenarios and corresponding process requirementsEAAmendmentExisting ISR licensee proposes additions,modifications, or enhancements to its licensedfacilityEAAmendmentExisting licensee proposes restart of a facility instandby or decommissioningEAAmendmentExisting licensee proposes an additional CPP at itsexisting ISR/yellowcakeComplex EA*LicenseExisting ISR/yellowcake licensee proposes a CPP atits existing satellite ISR/resinEAAmendmentExisting licensee proposes a CPP at its ISR/resinComplex EA*LicenseNew applicant or existing licensee proposes a stand-alone CPP at new siteEAAmendmentExisting Licensee proposes satellite, i.e., remoteISR/resin w/ resin shipped to its licensedexisting CPP (strong business connection)EAAmendmentExisting ISR/resin licensee proposes an additionalISR/resin close by with strong hydro/geoconnectionComplex EA*LicenseExisting ISR/resin licensee proposes an additionalISR/resin w/ no strong connectionComplex EA*LicenseNew applicant proposes a new ISR/resin, resinshipped to separate business entity’s CPPComplex EA*LicenseNew applicant or existing licensee proposes a newISR/yellowcakeENVIRONPROCESSLICENSINGPROCESSISR-RELATED APPLICATION•New licenses would require complex EAs that are tiered off of the GEIS issued in draft (7/28/08); If EA doesn’tresultin FONSI,an EISwouldberequired14Fee Issues• Recognize potential for fee inequities• Will consider potential changes to feecategories based on potential applicationexpectations15Summary• Number and variety of ISR applications = need forposition on approach to licensing actions• Additions or enhancements to a licensed uraniumrecovery facility at the primary site of the facilityapproved through a license amendment• “Strong connection” facility additions not located atthe primary licensed site approved throughamendment• Strong connection = operational or hydro-geologic• If neither of conditions allowing licenseamendments met, proposed action requiresseparate license16Path Forward• Issue RIS on licensing process before theNRC/NMA Workshop• Address any fee structure proposalsduring the annual fee rule process; draftfee rule for comment Feb 2009; 30 daycomment period1Lessons Learned – New FacilityApplicationsStephen J. CohenTeam LeaderUranium Recovery Licensing BranchU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission2Lessons Learned – Applicants• Application Completeness• Unusual Site Conditions• Health Physics Program• Operations• Radiation Protection• Decommission Plans/Surety• Groundwater Reclamation3Lessons Learned – NRC• Guidance Document Errors• Review Process/Schedule Management• Applicant Interaction• Coordination of Reviews• Acceptance Reviews4NRC Actions• Guidance Revisions• Coordination or ER and UR Schedules• One Point of Contact• Clarity of Milestones1George PangburnDeputy DirectorOffice of Federal and State Materials andEnvironmental Management Programs23Events – Operating and New Facilities• Commission Briefing – December 11, 2008• Received 8 applications for new facilities since FY 07– 2 Actions Completed for Operating Facilities– Accepted 5 applications for detailed review– 1 Application Not Accepted– Issued RAIs for 4 Applications– Supporting 3 Hearings – Crow Butte (2), Cogema• ISR GEIS• Consultations – Gov’t. – Gov’t. and Mutli-Agency• 24 – month review schedule intact4Current Issues - New Licensing• Budget and Staffing• Stakeholder Outreach• Programmatic Uncertainty - BeyondFY2012• Guidance Development• Hearings• Application Quality5