1NRC Inspection ProgramJuly 1, 2009NMA/NRC workshopLinda M. GerseyNRC RIV2Discussion Topics• How the NRC conducts UR inspections• Decommissioning & Timelinessrequirements• NRC position on using non-approvedstandards for dose calculations• Hint on saving YOU $$• Questions?3How NRC Conducts InspectionsPreparation by Inspector– Generate inspection plan (non-public,identifies scope of inspection)– Generate inspection report number (billing)– Review docket file records– Review event reports (excursions, spills)– Locate inspection references– Pack sampling equipment (survey meter)4How NRC Conducts Inspections, Cont.Site Inspections -confirm license conditionsand regulations are met– Entrance Meeting (inspection scope)– Interviews– Site tours– Review Records– Take samples/perform confirmatorymeasurements– Exit Briefing (preliminary findings)5How NRC Conducts Inspections, Cont.After Inspection– Travel back to office– Discuss findings with RIV management & HQProject Manager– Write inspection report (within 30 days of exitbriefing, publicly available)– If a Notice of Violation is issued-maycoordinate with Office of Enforcement– Branch Chief reviews report and signs6Issue Identified During Inspections“roving radiation areas”– Tanks in CPP– Filters in header houses– ROs in satellites– Waste storage binsRequire Radiation Area postings andrestricted access7Decommissioning & Timeliness• Due to new uranium recovery licenses,NRC reviewing regs & guidance• NRC legal staff determined that“timeliness rule” under 10 CFR 40.42applies to ISR wellfields• Timeliness rule ensures timelydecommissioning of facilities upontermination of operations8Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.How 10 CFR 40.42 applies toISR wellfieldsWithin 60 days of deciding to permanentlycease injection of lixiviant in a wellfield, alicensee must initiate decommissioning asapproved in your NRC restoration plangroundwater (GW) restoration = wellfielddecommissioning9Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.• Time clock begins at cessation of lixiviantinjections and the shift from principal activity ofuranium production to initiation of GWrestoration• It is understood that residual uranium in the GWmay still be recovered following the cessation oflixiviant injection- it is the NRC’s position thatrecovery of uranium then becomes incidental toGW restoration10Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.10 CFR 40.42(h)(1)A licensee has 24 months to completeGW restoration, once begun,ORThe licensee must notify the NRC andrequest an alternate schedule forcompletion of GW restoration11Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.10 CFR 40.42(i) – Requesting an Alternate ScheduleNRC may approve a request for an alternate schedule if:The licensee shows adequate justification (such as itis not technically feasible to complete within 24months)ANDAn adequate alternative schedule is requestedANDThe health & safety of the workers and the public willbe protected and is in the public interest12Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.10 CFR 40.42(f) – Request to delay processA licensee may request to delay or postponeinitiation of the decommissioning process if it isnot detrimental to public health & safety and inthe public interestThe request must be submitted 90 days prior tolicensee’s decision to cease operations at awellfield13Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.• Requests for alternate decommissioningschedules and delaying decommissioningactions are licensing processes• Send requests to your HQ projectmanager14Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.Why is this important to you?In the past, NRC was not enforcing10 CFR 40.42 at ISR facilitiesBUT....Beginning summer 2009, NRC will beginto inspect against this requirement15Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.NRC inspectors will look at currentwellfields in restoration and ensure theyare on schedule for restoration within 24monthsOREnsure the licensee has an NRCapproved alternate schedule16Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.If you have are not currently incompliance with restoration of wellfieldswithin 24 months, and do not have anNRC approved alternate schedule fordecommissioning....Contact your HQproject manager and discuss17Using Non-NRC Approved Dose ModelsPart 20 dose requirements are based onICRP Publications 26 & 30Due to the way Part 20 was written- alicensee MAY NOTuse a newer versionof ICRP guidance or other non-NRCapproved models for calculating doseeven if some guidance is moreconservative18Using Non-NRC Approved Dose Models,cont.If a licensee wants to use a newer modelto determine doses to workers- (such asusing ICRP 68 dose coefficients) they canrequest an exemption from theregulations to use different guidanceThis is part of the licensing processplease discuss with you HQ projectmanager19Hint to Save You $$If you send a hard copyof a report (suchas annual environmental monitoringreport) to NRC HQ, and you are requiredto submit aCOPYto the RIV officeThatCOPYcan be in electronic form(disk, thumb drive)No duplicate hard copies are needed!!20Any Questions??1NMA/NRC Uranium Recovery WorkshopDenver, CoJuly 2, 2009Implementing the Additional ProtocolU.S. Department of CommerceU.S. Department of CommerceBureau of Industry and SecurityBureau of Industry and SecurityandU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsJill ShepherdU.S. DOCWashington, DCTom GriceU.S. NRCWashington, DC2U.S. Additional Protocol Status• Executive Order Directing Implementation – February 4, 2008• DOC (15 CFR Parts 781-786) – October 31, 2008• Regulations (10 CFR Parts75 and 110) – December 24, 2008• Ratification and Entry into Force – January 6, 2009• Information Collection Complete - February 13, 2009• Assessment/Vetting - March 31, 2009• Formal Certification to the White House – April 17, 2009• Submission of U.S. Initial AP Declaration – July 5, 20093The U.S. Additional Protocol• Expands U.S. declaration requirements and IAEA rights ofaccess to nuclear-related activities• Requires reporting of and access to allaspects of the nuclearfuel-cycle, such as:– Mining / ore processing– Nuclear-related equipment manufacturing– Nuclear-related imports (uponrequest by IAEA) and exports(quarterly) of equipment and materials– Research and development not involving nuclear material(both publicly and privately funded)• Expands access to nuclear fuelcycle facilities, activities, andrelated locations (complementary access)4Additional Protocol Reportable Activities• Article 2.a (i) - Fuel cycle-related R&D (Govt. Related)• Article 2.a (iii) - Activities at nuclear facilities†• Article 2.a (iv) - Certain fuel cycle-related manufacturing• Article 2.a (v) – Uranium hardrock mines and concentration plantsand mills• Article 2.a (vi) - Import, export,or possession of source materialspreceding starting point of IAEA safeguards• Article 2.a (ix) - Export of nuclear fuel cycle-related equipment andnon-nuclear material• Article 2.b. (i) – Fuel cycle-related R&D (Private)†Nuclear facilities previouslyselected for IAEA Safeguards.5• Low verification burden– Minimal reporting requirements– User-friendly report forms– No systematic complementary access(only a few visits anticipated annually)– Complementary access to R&D and manufacturing locationspreceded by request for clarification• Possible co-located DOC and NRC-regulated activities– For complementary access atlocations where co-locatedactivities exist, the agency responsible for regulating the specificactivity of interest willserve as the Lead Agency.Anticipated Impact on Industry6• NRC– All commercial industry locations that fall within the boundaryof the controlled or restricted area delineated on an NRClicense,notsubject to DOD or DOE Additional Protocolreporting requirements• DOC (Bureau of Industry and Security)– All commercial industry locationsnotlicensed by NRC andnotsubject to DOD or DOE Additional Protocol reportingrequirementsImplementation Responsibility7•NRC Regulations–(10 CFR Parts 75 and 110)– Includes all NRC and Agreement State licensees versus onlyNRC licensed facilities– Published as a direct final rule (December 23, 2008)•DOC Regulations–(15 CFR Parts 781-786)– Issuance of Proposed Rule (July 25, 2008)– Public comment period (closed August 25, 2008)– Final Rule (October 31, 2008)Corresponding NRC and DOC Regulations8Guidance Document Development• Website with applicable references anddocuments, www.AP.gov• Joint DOC/NRC Additional Protocol ReportingHandbooks– Reporting guidance– Forms– Step by step instructions910DOC/NRC AP Reporting Forms11DOC/NRC AP Reporting Instructions12DOC/NRC AP Reporting Forms13DOC/NRC AP Reporting Instructions14Information Collection Process•NRC and DOC use a joint information collection process– Paper-based forms– Annual reports submitted to DOC/BIS by January 31st of each year•All AP reporting forms willbe sent to the DOC/BIS– DOC/BIS segregates information (DOC vs. NRC)•Future plans to develop and implement a computerizedreporting system utilizing web-based forms15Information Collection Timelines•Annual reports– Submitted to DOC by January 31stof each year– Starting in 2010•Export reports– Submitted to DOC 15 days after each quarter– April 15th, July 15th, October 15th, and January 15th16Outreach to industry•2008 Outreach– The 2008 Annual NMMSS Users Group meeting, May– The 3rdAnnual Fuel Cycle Information Exchange, June– The INMM 49thAnnual Meeting, July– The Annual TRTR Conference, September– The NEI International Uranium Fuel Seminar, October– Joint DOC/NRC Informational Seminars (2), November•2009 Meetings– NRC / Organization of Agreement States / Conference of RadiationControl Program Directors conference call, January– The 2009 Annual NMMSS Users Group meeting, May– The 4thAnnual Fuel Cycle Information Exchange, June–The 2009 NMA/NRC Uranium Recovery Workshop, July– The INMM 50thAnnual Meeting, July17Reported Activities• Article 2.a (i) – Fuel-cycle related R&D (Govt. Related)– DOC – 18 entries; NRC – 4 entries– Total US – 128 entries• Article 2.a (iii) – Buildings at Nuclear Facilities– NRC – 8 “Sites”, 118 Buildings– Total US – 11 “Sites”, 121 Buildings• Article 2.a (iv) – Fuel-cycle related manufacturing– DOC – 15 entries; NRC – 3 entries– Total US – 19 entries18Reported Activities• Article 2.a (v) – Uranium hard rock mines, concentrationplants and mills– DOC – 21 entries; NRC – 12 entries– Total US – 33 entries• Article 2.a (vi) – Import, export, or possession of sourcematerials preceding starting point of IAEA safeguards– NRC – 1 location– Total US – 1 location19Reported Activities• Article 2.b (i) – Fuel-cycle related R&D (Private)– DOC – 2 entries– Total US – 2 entries• Article 2.a (ix) – Exports of nuclear related equipment– NRC – 47 entries for 1stquarter 2009– Total US – 47 entries for 1stquarter 200920Points of contactLiaison with BIS’s Treaty Compliance Division:Jill Shepherd1401 Constitution AvenueRoom 4515Washington, DC 20230Jshepher@bis.doc.gov202-482-1001 (phone)202-482-1731 (fax)Nuclear Regulatory CommissionTom GriceNMSS/FCSS/FFLD/MCABMail Stop: EBB2 - E40MThomas.Grice@nrc.gov301-492-3131 (phone)301-492-3359 (fax)Michelle Rehmann HER Creative SolutionsInternational Forum on Sustainable Options for Uranium ProductionNRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009Originated during ICEM 07 Conference in Bruges-BelgiumConcept: Adopt sustainability practices to avoid legacy sitesIFSOUPMeans to organize:WorkshopsTraining coursesForums for debateInformation disseminationNetworkingNRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009•Independent network developed to bring together:–Industry–Regulators–NGOsIFSOUP Objectives•Purpose: foster and implement sustainable optionsfor uranium production•Inaugural meeting held as a separate forum during WM Symposium 2008 inPhoenix in FebruaryNRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009•International forum todiscuss and exchangeexperience on sustainableuranium mining•Solution holdersproblem holders•Technology transferIFSOUP Objectives Continued•Promote stakeholderparticipation•Mining company assistanceNRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009•Multi-sector, forum for workshops, panels, and shortcourses•Globally driven•Aid junior operators, stateowned enterprises,regulators and otherstakeholdersIFSOUP Objectives Continued•Cooperate with IAEA’seffortsNRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009IFSOUP Results•Good examples exist•Challenge to disseminate•Further discussion of ISLtechnical issues•Communication constraint•Further discussion of specific needs of indigenous peoplesNRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009IIIRM - IFSOUP Workshop 30 June 2009American Indian Tribes and Canadian First Nationsand the Production of Uranium•Roles for Indian Tribes, First Nations, and Other Indigenous Peoples•What Tribes Want; What Tribes Can Do: Questions and Answers onSacred Sites, Tribal-Corporate Relations, Workforce Development, andOtherIssuesNRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009•Uranium Mine Reclamation: The Herault Experience•Cleaning Up Oklahoma: The OERB Voluntary Abandoned Well SiteCleanup Program•ICMM Guidance on Mining and Indigenous Peoples•Benefits Sharing: Canadian First Nations Experience•What Industry and Agencies Want; What Industry and Agencies Can Do:Questions and Answers on Sacred Sites, Consultation, Benefits Sharing,Tribal-Corporate Relations, Workforce Development, andOther IssuesContacts:Michelle RehmannMichelle_rehmann@wmarizona.orgRod GrebbRod.grebb@comcast.netCaitlin RoodCaitlin.rood@tetratech.comNRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 20091NRC Coordination with FederalNRC Coordination with FederalAgencies on Uranium RecoveryAgencies on Uranium RecoveryApplicationsApplicationsAndreaKock, Chief, Environmental Review Branch, Chief, Environmental Review BranchUSNRCJuly 1, 20092Guidance on Interactions withother Agencies• NRC guidance• NEPA• Recent Interactions– Targeted scoping– BLM– EPA– Forest Service– WYDEQ– Native American Tribes3How NRC Interacts with otherFederal Agencies• Scoping• Consultation letters• Telecons• Informal information Sharing• Cooperating agencies– MOUs– MOAs/PAs4NRC/BLM MOU• BACKGROUNDConcurrent NEPA reviews conducted by each agencyon same project discovered during visits to BLM fieldoffices in September 2008 to discuss the GEIS• NEEDNumerous proposed new uranium recovery facilitieslocated on BLM-administered land5Purposes of the MOU• Provide an efficient means of fulfillingNEPA requirements• Encourage routine communication• Advance notice of agency actions• Provide framework for exchange of data• Establish roles and responsibilities6Status of MOU• Draft MOU sent to BLM on January 26 2009• Revised draft MOU submitted to BLM by NRC on May20, 2009• Meeting held June 10 to discuss feasibility of issuingone NEPA document• Telecon scheduled June 29 to discuss finalcomments• Letters to BLM field offices7Progress• Letters to BLM field offices• Share future agency actions• Routine communication with field offices• MOU in final stages– Telecon June 30 20098NRC/BLM MOU CONTENTS• PURPOSE• LEGAL AUTHORITIES• ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES• COORDINATION– Advance notice of uranium recovery licenseapplications/Plans of Operation– Exchange data and information– Steering Committee– Lead/Cooperating Agency Status– NEPA Implementation and Review Process–Schedules and Interagency Communication9Challenges• Different timelines• Different purpose and need/alternatives• Agency resources• Resource areas reviewed• Different agency roles• Different procedures for completingdocuments10Expected Outcome• Increase communication• Advance notice of expected actions• Sharing of early drafts of NEPAdocuments• Efficiencies in NEPA process• Continue to explore possibility of only oneNEPA document11Next Steps• Finalize BLM/NRC MOU• Protocol established to delineate NRC roles andresponsibilities regarding interacting withagencies• Continue to be proactive in engaging otherfederal agencies12Takeaways• NRC is committed to open communication withother agencies.• The impacts of differences in the roles andresponsibilities, and timelines of agencies mustbe recognized• NRC and BLM remain committed to coordinationand completion of an MOU• Information will continue to be shared wherepossible to promote efficiencies1UPDATE OF URANIUM RECOVERYACTIVITIESBill von TillUranium Recovery Licensing BranchU.S. NRC2OverviewOverview•Staff•New Licensing•Operating Facilities•Hearings•Outreach•Uranium Recovery Decommissioning•Well Field Installation•Challenges3URLB StaffURLB StaffOperating Sites and New LicensingOperating Sites and New Licensing•Bill von Till, Chief•Stephen J. Cohen, Team LeaderNew Licensing•Ron Linton, Sr. Hydrogeologist/PM•Mike Fliegel, Sr. PM•Elise Striz, Hydrogeologist•Douglas Mandeville, GeotechnicalEngineer/PM•Betty Garrett, Licensing Assistant•James Webb, Health Physicist•Dan Gillen, Consultant•Rick Weller, Consultant•Tom Lancaster, Hydrogeologist•John Saxton, Hydrogeologist•Tanya Oxenberg, Health Physicist•Hydrogeologist - Vacant•Chemical Engineer - Vacant4UR Decommissioning StaffUR Decommissioning StaffMaterials Decommissioning Branch•Rebecca Tadesse, Chief•Tom McLaughlin, PM – ExxonMobil, Ambrosia Lake, Bear Creek, ANC GasHills•Ken Kalman – PM – Sequoyah Fuels•Ted Carter – PM – RMD/WRT, Pathfinder sites•Lifeng Guo - HydrogeologistReactor Decommissioning Branch•Drew Persinko – Chief•John Buckley – PM – Homestake•Jon Peckenpaugh – Hydrogeology•Tom Youngblood – Health PhysicsSpecial Projects Branch•Lydia Chang, Chief•Richard Chang – PM – Western Nuclear, Umetco•Yolande Norman – PM – UNC Churchrock•Ted Johnson – Erosion Control and Surface Water HydrologyAgreement State sites– Dennis Sollenberger and Bill Rautzen5New LicensingNew Licensing•Received 5 New ISR applications•Received 2 expansion amendments (ISR)and one restart application (ISR)•RAIs issued for first three, acceptancereview complete for two•Expecting 18 more new and expansionapplications FY2009 – FY2012 (see tablenext slide)6Complete ApplicationsComplete ApplicationsAcceptance ReviewsAcceptance Reviews•90 day Review– Reduce Inefficiency– Reduce requests for additional information– Maintain review schedules•Site Characterization– Need enough detail for full technical andenvironmental analysis•Lessons Learned in Panel Discussion78UR ApplicationsUR Applications034020345122FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 201203421153030FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY20112008 Projection 2009 Projection9Status of ApplicationsStatus of ApplicationsSite NameStateType ofApplicationApplicationReceivedAcceptanceReviewCompleteTechnicalRAIs SentEnvironmentalRAIs SentDraft SERComplete -Includes DelaysDraftSEISSEISCompleteMoore RanchWyoming ISL New 10/1/2007 12/20/2007 5/14/2008 3/23/2009 10/2009 10/2009 4/2010Hank & NicholsWyoming ISL New 12/1/2007 4/18/2008 9/11/2008 3/12/2009 9/2009 10/2009 4/2010Lost CreekWyoming ISL New 4/17/2008 6/10/2008 11/6/2008 3/16/2009 10/2009 10/2009 4/2010Jab AntelopeWyoming ISL New 9/1/2008 3/9/2009 - - - - -Dewey BurdockS. Dakota ISL New 2/27/2009 5/27/2009 - - - - -10Operating Sites and OutreachOperating Sites and Outreach•Operating sites – focus on safety andenvironmental protection – inspections,licensing reviews•Review of several License RenewalApplications•Stakeholder interest high•State and Federal Agency coordination•Indian Tribe outreach•Congressional Interest11Hearings and Pending FederalHearings and Pending FederalCourt CasesCourt Cases•Hydro Resources Inc. (HRI) ISR, New Mexico –10thCircuit Federal Court cases•Tuba City Federal Court Case•Crow Butte ISR expansion license amendment•Crow Butte ISR license renewal•Cogema Hearing requests for license renewal –standing and contentions phase•TRONOX Case12UR DecommissioningUR Decommissioning•Umetco – Wyoming–NRC is currently waiting for the results of the licensee'sfinal groundwater sampling event–NRC is waiting for the Draft LTSP from DOE–Estimated time for license termination: Calendar Year 2009•Western Nuclear – Wyoming–NRC is waiting on WNI's response to RAIs sent in earlyApril for their amendment request for revised groundwaterprotection standards–Depending on when the RAI responses are received, it isexpected that this will be approved by the end of thiscalendar year–Estimated time for license termination: Calendar Year 201013UR DecommissioningUR Decommissioning•Sequoyah Fuels - OK–DOE is preparing a long-term surveillance plan.–Surface Reclamation Plan approved 4/09.–Additional information needed for Groundwater Corrective Action Plan.–Surface Reclamation work to begin around 8/09.•Pathfinder Lucky Mc – WY–In February 2009, NRC staff received for review, the draft DOE Long-TermSurveillance Plan (LTSP) for the Gas Hills North Site (Pathfinder-LuckyMc) dated January 2009. NRC issued comments to the draft LTSP onMay 29, 2009.•Pathfinder Shirley Basin – WY–Pond 3 reclamation will not occur until the licensee discontinuesoperation of the 11e.(2) byproduct material disposal area, the date forwhich has not been determined.•ExxonMobil – WY–Off-site plume of contamination detected moving southeast intoneighboring property and southwest into Pit Lake area. Meeting withlicensee and Wyoming DEQ on June 9 to discuss path forward forremediation.14UR DecommissioningUR Decommissioning•Bear Creek – WY–DOE is preparing a long-term surveillance plan.•UNC Churchrock - NM–Semi-annual groundwater monitoring program in progress in all 3remedial zones. Groundwater extraction system operates only in Zone 3.–Feasibility study of alternative remedial technologies – due 12/2010•Homestake – NM–Groundwater reclamation continues at the HMC site under 1989 (asrevised in 1998) Corrective Action Plan(CAP). Staff is reviewing revisedCAP submitted in December 2006.–NRC amended HMC license to authorize construction of third evaporationpond in August 2008. HMC waiting for NMED discharge permits to beginconstruction.–Groundwater reclamation activities scheduled for completion in 2017.•Rio Algom Ambrosia Lake – NM–Groundwater reclamation activities scheduled for completion in 2017.–Settlement of Tailings Cell No. 2 submitted for review. Completion reportto be submitted by end of 2010.15ISR Well InstallationISR Well InstallationPrior to license vs. after licensePrior to license vs. after license•Site Characterization prior to license– Geologic characterization– Regional pump testing– Groundwater quality data collection– Exploration drilling•Well field specific installation after license– Installation of recovery and injection wells– Monitoring well ring installation– Well field specific pump tests from pumping/injectionwells to monitoring well ring16CHALLENGES•Staffing consistent with applications•New license applications – uncertainty inhow many will be received•Budget formulation and contracting withdynamic schedules•Increase in UR legacy site work•Staffing and consistency of ProjectManagers