NRC Inspection Program

July 1, 2009

NMA/NRC workshop

Linda M. Gersey

NRC RIV 
Discussion Topics• How the NRC conducts UR inspecti• Decommissioning & Timeliness 

requirements

• NRC position on using non-approve

standards for dose calculations

• Hint on saving YOU $$• Questions?
How NRC Conducts Inspection

Preparation by Inspector

– Generate inspection plan (non-public, 

identifies scope of inspection)

– Generate inspection report number (b– Review docket file records– Review event reports (excursions, spil– Locate inspection references– Pack sampling equipment (survey met
How NRC Conducts Inspections, Cont.

Site Inspections -confirm license cond

and regulations are met

– Entrance Meeting (inspection scope)– Interviews– Site tours– Review Records– Take samples/perform confirmatory 

measurements

– Exit Briefing (preliminary findings)
How NRC Conducts Inspections, Cont.After Inspection

– Travel back to office– Discuss findings with RIV managemen

Project Manager

– Write inspection report (within 30 days 

briefing, publicly available)

– If a Notice of Violation is issued-may 

coordinate with Office of Enforcement

– Branch Chief reviews report and signs
Issue Identified During Inspections

“roving radiation areas”

– Tanks in CPP– Filters in header houses– ROs in satellites– Waste storage bins

Require Radiation Area postings anrestricted access
Decommissioning & Timeliness• Due to new uranium recovery licens

NRC reviewing regs & guidance

• NRC legal staff determined that 

“timeliness rule” under 10 CFR 40.4applies to ISR wellfields

• Timeliness rule ensures timely 

decommissioning of facilities upon termination of operations
Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.

How 10 CFR 40.42 applies to 

ISR wellfields

Within 60 days of deciding to permanentcease injection of lixiviant in a wellfield, a licensee must initiate decommissioning aapproved in your NRC restoration plan

groundwater (GW) restoration = wellfield 

decommissioning
Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.• Time clock begins at cessation of lixivian

injections and the shift from principal acturanium production to initiation of GW restoration

• It is understood that residual uranium in t

may still be recovered following the cesslixiviant injection- it is the NRC’s position recovery of uranium then becomes incideGW restoration
Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.

10 CFR 40.42(h)(1)

A licensee has 24 months to comp

GW restoration, once begun, 

OR

The licensee must notify the NRC 

request an alternate schedule f

completion of GW restoration 
Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.10 CFR 40.42(i) – Requesting an Alternate SchedNRC may approve a request for an alternate sche

The licensee shows adequate justification (suis not technically feasible to complete within 2months)

AND

An adequate alternative schedule is requeste

AND

The health & safety of the workers and the pube protected and is in the public interest
Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.10 CFR 40.42(f) – Request to delay proces

A licensee may request to delay or postpinitiation of the decommissioning process not detrimental to public health & safety athe public interestThe request must be submitted 90 days licensee’s decision to cease operations awellfield
Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.• Requests for alternate decommissio

schedules and delaying decommissactions are licensing processes

• Send requests to your HQ project 

manager
Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.Why is this important to you?

In the past, NRC was not enforcing 10 CFR 40.42 at ISR facilities

BUT....

Beginning summer 2009, NRC will bto inspect against this requirement
Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.

NRC inspectors will look at current wellfields in restoration and ensure are on schedule for restoration withmonthsOR Ensure the licensee has an NRC approved alternate schedule
Decommissioning & Timeliness, cont.

If you have are not currently in compliance with restoration of wellfiwithin 24 months, and do not have aNRC approved alternate schedule fdecommissioning....Contact your Hproject manager and discuss
Using Non-NRC Approved Dose Mo

Part 20 dose requirements are baseICRP Publications 26 & 30Due to the way Part 20 was written- licensee MAY NOT use a newer ve

of ICRP guidance or other non-NRC approved models for calculating doseven if some guidance is more conservative 
Using Non-NRC Approved Dose Mocont.

If a licensee wants to use a newer mto determine doses to workers- (sucusing ICRP 68 dose coefficients) threquest an exemption from the regulations to use different guidanceThis is part of the licensing processplease discuss with you HQ project manager
Hint to Save You $$

If you send a hard copy of a report (

as annual environmental monitoring report) to NRC HQ, and you are reqto submit a COPY to the RIV office

That COPY can be in electronic form 

(disk, thumb drive) No duplicate hard copies are neede
Any Questions??
NMA/NRC Uranium Recovery Workshop

Denver, Co

July 2, 2009 

Implementing the Additional Prot

U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of Commerce

Bureau of Industry and Security Bureau of Industry and Security

and 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safegu

Jill ShepherdU.S. DOCWashington, DC

Tom GriceU.S. NRCWashington, DC
U.S. Additional Protocol Status

• Executive Order Directing Implementation – February 4, • DOC (15 CFR Parts 781-786) – October 31, 2008• Regulations (10 CFR Parts 75 and 110) – December 24• 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, 2009
The U.S. Additional Protocol

• Expands U.S. declaration requirements and IAEA right

access to nuclear-related activities

• Requires reporting of and access to all aspects of the n

fuel-cycle, such as:

– Mining / ore processing– Nuclear-related equipment manufacturing– Nuclear-related imports (upon request by IAEA) and 

(quarterly) of equipment and materials

– Research and development not involving nuclear m

(both publicly and privately funded)

• Expands access to nuclear fuel cycle facilities, activitie

related locations (complementary access)
Additional Protocol Reportable Act• 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 hard rock mines and concentrat

and mills

• Article 2.a (vi) - Import, export, or possession of source m

preceding starting point of IAEA safeguar

• Article 2.a (ix) - Export of nuclear fuel cycle-related equip

non-nuclear material

• Article 2.b. (i) – Fuel cycle-related R&D (Private)

† Nuclear facilities previously selected for IAEA Safeguards.
• 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 lo

preceded by request for clarification

• Possible co-located DOC and NRC-regulated a

– For complementary access at locations where co-loc

activities exist, the agency responsible for regulating activity of interest will serve as the Lead Agency.

Anticipated Impact on Industry
• NRC

– All commercial industry locations that fall within the 

of the controlled or restricted area delineated on an 

license, not subject to DOD or DOE Additional Protreporting requirements

• DOC (Bureau of Industry and Security)

– All commercial industry locations not licensed by N

not subject to DOD or DOE Additional Protocol reprequirements

Implementation Responsibilit
• NRC Regulations 

– (10 CFR Parts 75 and 110)– Includes all NRC and Agreement State licensees ve

NRC 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 Regu
Guidance Document Developm

• Website with applicable references and 

documents, www.AP.gov

• Joint DOC/NRC Additional Protocol Rep

Handbooks

– Reporting guidance– Forms– Step by step instructions

DOC/NRC AP Reporting Forms
DOC/NRC AP Reporting Instructio
DOC/NRC AP Reporting Forms
DOC/NRC AP Reporting Instructio
Information Collection Process• NRC and DOC use a joint information collection proc

– Paper-based forms– Annual reports submitted to DOC/BIS by January 31st of ea

• All AP reporting forms will be sent to the DOC/BIS

– DOC/BIS segregates information (DOC vs. NRC)

• Future plans to develop and implement a computeriz

reporting system utilizing web-based forms
Information Collection Timeline• Annual reports

– Submitted to DOC by January 31st of each y

– Starting in 2010

• Export reports

– Submitted to DOC 15 days after each quarte– April 15th, July 15th, October 15th, and Janua
Outreach to industry

• 2008 Outreach

– The 2008 Annual NMMSS Users Group meeting, May– The 3rd Annual Fuel Cycle Information Exchange, June

– The INMM 49th Annual 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 Ra

Control Program Directors conference call, January

– The 2009 Annual NMMSS Users Group meeting, May– The 4th Annual Fuel Cycle Information Exchange, June

– The 2009 NMA/NRC Uranium Recovery Workshop, July– The INMM 50th Annual Meeting, July
Reported Activities• Article 2.a (i) – Fuel-cycle related R&D (Govt. R

– 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 manufacturin

– DOC – 15 entries; NRC – 3 entries– Total US – 19 entries
Reported Activities• Article 2.a (v) – Uranium hard rock mines, conc

plants and mills

– DOC – 21 entries; NRC – 12 entries– Total US – 33 entries

• Article 2.a (vi) – Import, export, or possession o

materials preceding starting point of IAEA safeg

– NRC – 1 location– Total US – 1 location
Reported 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 equi

– NRC – 47 entries for 1st quarter 2009

– Total US – 47 entries for 1st quarter 2009
Points of contact

Liaison 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)
International Forum on Sustainable Options for Uranium ProductioNRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009
Originated during ICEM 07 Conference in Bruges-Belgium

Concept: Adopt sustainability practices to avoid legacy siteIFSOUP 

Means to organize

WorkshopsTraining couForums for dInformation Networking

NRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009
• Independent network developed to bring together: – Industry – Regulators – NGOs

IFSOUP Objectives

• Purpose: foster and implement sustainable options for uranium • Inaugural meeting held as a separate forum during WM Sympos

Phoenix in February

NRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009
• International for

discuss and exchexperience on suuranium mining

• Solution holders 

problem holders

• Technology trans

IFSOUP Objectives Continued

• Promote stakeho

participation

• Mining company 

NRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009
• Multi-sector, forum for workshops, panels, and sho

courses

• Globally driven• Aid junior operators, stateowned enterprises, 

regulators and other 

stakeholders

IFSOUP Objectives Continued

• Cooperate with IAEA’s 

efforts

NRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009
IFSOUP Results

• Good examples exist• Challenge to disseminate• Further discussion of ISL 

technical issues

• Communication constraint• Further discussion of specific needs of indigenous peoples

NRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009
IIIRM - IFSOUP Workshop 30 June 2009

American Indian Tribes and Canadian First Nand the Production of Uranium

• Roles for Indian Tribes, First Nations, and Other Indigenous P

• What Tribes Want; What Tribes Can Do: Questions and Answ

Sacred Sites, Tribal-Corporate Relations, Workforce Developm

Other Issues

NRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009

• Uranium Mine Reclamation: The Herault Experience• Cleaning Up Oklahoma: The OERB Voluntary Abandoned We

Cleanup Program

• ICMM Guidance on Mining and Indigenous Peoples• Benefits Sharing: Canadian First Nations Experience• What Industry and Agencies Want; What Industry and Agenc

Questions and Answers on Sacred Sites, Consultation, Benef

Tribal-Corporate Relations, Workforce Development, and Ot
Contacts:

Michelle RehmannMichelle_rehmann@Rod GrebbRod.grebb@comcastCaitlin RoodCaitlin.rood@tetratec

NRC – NMA WorkshopDenver, Colorado 2 July 2009
NRC Coordination with Fede

NRC Coordination with Fede

Agencies on Uranium Recove

Agencies on Uranium Recove

Applications Applications

Andrea Kock, Chief, Environmental Review Branc

, Chief, Environmental Review Branc

USNRC

July 1, 2009
Guidance on Interactions with 

other Agencies

• NRC guidance• NEPA• Recent Interactions

– Targeted scoping– BLM– EPA– Forest Service– WYDEQ– Native American Tribes
How NRC Interacts with other 

Federal Agencies

• Scoping• Consultation letters• Telecons• Informal information Sharing• Cooperating agencies

– MOUs– MOAs/PAs
NRC/BLM MOU

• BACKGROUND 

Concurrent NEPA reviews conducted by eaon same project discovered during visits to offices in September 2008 to discuss the G

• NEED

Numerous proposed new uranium recovery 

located on BLM-administered land
Purposes of the MOU

• Provide an efficient means of fulfillin

NEPA requirements

• Encourage routine communication• Advance notice of agency actions• Provide framework for exchange of d• Establish roles and responsibilities
Status of MOU

• Draft MOU sent to BLM on January 26 2009• Revised draft MOU submitted to BLM by NRC 

20, 2009

• Meeting held June 10 to discuss feasibility of 

one NEPA document 

• Telecon scheduled June 29 to discuss final 

comments

• Letters to BLM field offices
Progress

• Letters to BLM field offices• Share future agency actions • Routine communication with field offices• MOU in final stages

– Telecon June 30 2009
NRC/BLM MOU CONTENTS

• PURPOSE• LEGAL AUTHORITIES• ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES• COORDINATION

– Advance notice of uranium recovery licens

applications/Plans of Operation

– Exchange data and information– Steering Committee– Lead/Cooperating Agency Status– NEPA Implementation and Review Proces– Schedules and Interagency Communicatio
Challenges

• Different timelines• Different purpose and need/alternati• Agency resources• Resource areas reviewed• Different agency roles• Different procedures for completing 

documents
Expected Outcome

• Increase communication• Advance notice of expected actions• Sharing of early drafts of NEPA 

documents

• Efficiencies in NEPA process• Continue to explore possibility of on

NEPA document
Next Steps• Finalize BLM/NRC MOU• Protocol established to delineate NRC ro

responsibilities regarding interacting with agencies

• Continue to be proactive in engaging othe

federal agencies
Takeaways

• NRC is committed to open communication 

other agencies.

• The impacts of differences in the roles and 

responsibilities, and timelines of agencies be recognized

• NRC and BLM remain committed to coord

and completion of an MOU

• Information will continue to be shared whe

possible to promote efficiencies
UPDATE OF URANIUM RECOVE

ACTIVITIES

Bill von Till

Uranium Recovery Licensing Bran

U.S. NRC
Overview Overview

• Staff• New Licensing• Operating Facilities• Hearings• Outreach• Uranium Recovery Decommissionin• Well Field Installation• Challenges
URLB Staff URLB Staff

Operating Sites and New Lice

Operating Sites and New Lice

• Bill von Till, Chief• Stephen J. Cohen, Team Leader 

New Licensing 

• Ron Linton, Sr. Hydrogeologist/PM• Mike Fliegel, Sr. PM• Elise Striz, Hydrogeologist• Douglas Mandeville, Geotechnical 

Engineer/PM

• Betty Garrett, Licensing Assistant• James Webb, Health Physicist• Dan Gillen, Consultant• Rick Weller, Consultant

• Tom Lancaster, Hydr• John Saxton, Hydrog• Tanya Oxenberg, He• Hydrogeologist - Vac• Chemical Engineer - 
UR Decommissioning Sta

UR Decommissioning Sta

Materials Decommissioning Branch• Rebecca Tadesse, Chief• Tom McLaughlin, PM – ExxonMobil, Ambrosia Lake, Bear Creek, ANC Gas 

Hills

• 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 Rautzen
New Licensing New Licensing

• Received 5 New ISR applications• Received 2 expansion amendments 

and one restart application (ISR)

• RAIs issued for first three, acceptan

review complete for two

• Expecting 18 more new and expans

applications FY2009 – FY2012 (see next slide)
Complete Applications Complete Applications

Acceptance Reviews Acceptance Reviews

• 90 day Review 

– Reduce Inefficiency– Reduce requests for additional informa– Maintain review schedules

• Site Characterization 

– Need enough detail for full technical an

environmental analysis

• Lessons Learned in Panel Discussio

UR Applications UR Applications 

03

40

20

34

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 

03

42

11

5

30

30

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY2011

2008 Projection 2009 Projection
Status of Applications Status of Applications

Site Name State

Type of 

Application

Application 

Received

Acceptance 

Review 

Complete

Technical 

RAIs Sent

Environmental 

RAIs Sent

Draft SER 

Complete - 

Includes Delays

Moore Ranch Wyoming ISL New 10/1/2007 12/20/2007 5/14/2008 3/23/2009 10/2009 Hank & Nichols Wyoming ISL New 12/1/2007 4/18/2008 9/11/2008 3/12/2009 9/2009 Lost Creek Wyoming ISL New 4/17/2008 6/10/2008 11/6/2008 3/16/2009 10/2009 Jab Antelope Wyoming ISL New 9/1/2008 3/9/2009 - - - Dewey Burdock S. Dakota ISL New 2/27/2009 5/27/2009 - - - 
Operating Sites and Outre

Operating Sites and Outre

• Operating sites – focus on safety and 

environmental protection – inspections, licensing reviews

• Review of several License Renewal 

Applications

• Stakeholder interest high• State and Federal Agency coordination• Indian Tribe outreach• Congressional Interest 
Hearings and Pending Fede

Hearings and Pending Fede

Court Cases Court Cases

• Hydro Resources Inc. (HRI) ISR, New M

10th Circuit Federal Court cases

• Tuba City Federal Court Case• Crow Butte ISR expansion license amen• Crow Butte ISR license renewal• Cogema Hearing requests for license ren

standing and contentions phase

• TRONOX Case 
UR Decommissioning UR Decommissioning

• Umetco – Wyoming

– NRC is currently waiting for the results of the lice

final groundwater sampling event 

– NRC is waiting for the Draft LTSP from DOE– Estimated time for license termination: Calendar 

• Western Nuclear – Wyoming

– NRC is waiting on WNI's response to RAIs sent in 

April for their amendment request for revised gro

protection standards 

– Depending on when the RAI responses are receiv

expected that this will be approved by the end of tcalendar year

– Estimated time for license termination: Calendar 
UR Decommissioning UR Decommissioning

• Sequoyah Fuels - OK

– DOE is preparing a long-term surveillance plan.– Surface Reclamation Plan approved 4/09.– Additional information needed for Groundwater Corrective Ac– Surface Reclamation work to begin around 8/09.

• Pathfinder Lucky Mc – WY

– In February 2009, NRC staff received for review, the draft DOE 

Surveillance Plan (LTSP) for the Gas Hills North Site (Pathfind

Mc) dated January 2009. NRC issued comments to the draft May 29, 2009.

• Pathfinder Shirley Basin – WY

– Pond 3 reclamation will not occur until the licensee discontinu

operation of the 11e.(2) byproduct material disposal area, the 

which has not been determined.

• ExxonMobil – WY

– Off-site plume of contamination detected moving southeast in

neighboring property and southwest into Pit Lake area. Meetilicensee and Wyoming DEQ on June 9 to discuss path forward remediation.
UR Decommissioning UR Decommissioning

• Bear Creek – WY

– DOE is preparing a long-term surveillance plan.

• UNC Churchrock - NM

– Semi-annual groundwater monitoring program in progress in 

remedial zones. Groundwater extraction system operates onl

– Feasibility study of alternative remedial technologies – due 12

• Homestake – NM

– Groundwater reclamation continues at the HMC site under 198

revised in 1998) Corrective Action Plan (CAP). Staff is reviewi

CAP submitted in December 2006.

– NRC amended HMC license to authorize construction of third 

pond in August 2008. HMC waiting for NMED discharge permconstruction.

– Groundwater reclamation activities scheduled for completion 

• Rio Algom Ambrosia Lake – NM

– Groundwater reclamation activities scheduled for completion – Settlement of Tailings Cell No. 2 submitted for review. Compl

to be submitted by end of 2010. 
ISR Well Installation ISR Well Installation 

Prior to license vs. after licen

Prior to license vs. after lice

• Site Characterization prior to license

– Geologic characterization– Regional pump testing– Groundwater quality data collection– Exploration drilling

• Well field specific installation after licens

– Installation of recovery and injection wells– Monitoring well ring installation– Well field specific pump tests from pumping/

wells to monitoring well ring
CHALLENGES

• Staffing consistent with applications • New license applications – uncertain

how many will be received 

• Budget formulation and contracting w

dynamic schedules

• Increase in UR legacy site work• Staffing and consistency of Project 

Managers