Uranium Recovery Licensi

Activities

Larry W. Camper

Director

Division of Waste Management a

Environmental Protection
Organization
URLB Staff

• Bill von Till, Chief• Ron Linton, Sr. Hydrogeologist/PM• Mike Fliegel, Sr. PM• Stephen J. Cohen, 

Hydrogeologist/PM

• Elise Striz, Hydrogeologist• Douglas Mandeville, Geotechnical 

Engineer

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

• Hydrogeologist, TB• Hydrogeologist, TB• Health Physicist, T• Health Physicist, T• Team Leader, TBD
Environmental Review Branch 

• Gregory Suber, Chief• Jeannette Arce, Geologist• Alan Bjornsen, PM• Allen Fetter, PM• Gloria Colessa, Team Leader• Kellee Jameson, NSPDP• Johari Moore, PM• James Park, PM• Ernesto Quinones-Padovani, PM• Christianne Ridge, Sr. PM• Behram Shroff, PM• Patricia Swain, PM

• Project Manager, T• Licensing Assistan
Current Status• Interest in US Uranium Recovery H• International Phenomenon• International Forum on Sustainable 

Options for Uranium Production (IFSOUP)

• Initiation of GEIS
Current Status (cont’d.)• ISL Rulemaking• Licensing Hearings• Applicant Meetings• Congressional Inquiries• Update Regulatory Guides
ISL Rulemak

40 CFR 144 – 146

EPA UIC

Existing

10 CFR 40, Appendix A

Criterion 5B(5), 40 CFR 192 references

Standard for Conv. Mill

Remains 5B(5)

Criterion 14 

Preoperat

Operatio

Restoration 

Requirements

EPA UIC & Criterio

NUREG- 1569 

ISL Ground Water Standards
Uranium Project Summary

Facility Quantity

New ISL Facility 14New Conventional Mill 7Combined ISL-Conv. 1ISL Expansion 7ISL Restart 1Conventional Restart 1TOTAL 31
03

42

11

5

30

30

02468

10121416

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY2011

Restarts/ExpaNew Facilties

Uranium Project Summary (con
Company Site Design type Estimated Application Date State LCogema Christensen Ranch ISL - Restart Received April 2007 WY Cameco (Crow Butte Resources, Inc.) North Trend ISL - Expansion Received June 2007 NE Cameco (Crow Butte Resources, Inc.) Plant Upgrade ISL - Expansion Rec. 10/06, Comp. 12/07 NE Lost Creek ISR, LLC Lost Creek ISL - New Received October 2007 WY Uranerz Energy Corp. Hank and Nichols ISL - New Received December 2007 WY Uranium One (Energy Metals Corporation ) Moore Ranch ISL - New Received October 2007 WY Uranium One (Energy Metals Corporation ) Jab and Antelope ISL - New Mid FY 08 WY Cameco (Power Resources, Inc.) Gas Hills ISL - Expansion Mid FY 08 WY Kennecott Uranium Co. Sweetwater Resin Elution - Expansion Mid FY 08 WY Cameco (Crow Butte Resources, Inc.) Three Crow ISL - Expansion FY 09 NE Lost Creek ISR, LLC Lost Creek ISL - Expansion FY09 WY Powertech Uranium Corporation Dewey Burdock ISL - New FY 09 SD Cameco (Power Resources, Inc.) Smith Ranch/Highland CPP ISL - Expansion Mid FY 09 WY Cameco (Power Resources, Inc.) North Butte ISL - Expansion Mid FY 09 WY Strathmore Minerals Corporation Roca Honda Conv. - New FY 09 NM Strathmore Minerals Corporation Sky ISL - New FY 09 WY UR-Energy Corp. Lost Soldier ISL - New Mid FY 09 WY Uranium Resources, Inc. Ambrosia Lake Conv. - Restart Mid FY 09 NM Uranium Energy Corporation Grants Ridge Heap Leach - New FY 09 NM Uranerz Energy Corporation Collins Draw ISL - New FY 09 WY Rio Grande Resources Mt. Taylor Conv. - New FY 09 NM Uranium One (Energy Metals Corporation ) Ludeman ISL - New FY 09 WY Uranium One (Energy Metals Corporation ) Allemand-Ross ISL - New FY 09 WY Wildhorse Energy West Alkali Creek ISL - New FY 09 WY Concentric Yavapai County Conv. - New FY 09 AZ Cameco (Power Resources, Inc.) Ruby Ranch ISL - New FY 10 WY Neutron Energy Marquez Conv. - New FY 10 NM Strathmore Minerals Corporation Reno Creek ISL - New FY 10 WY Strathmore Minerals Corporation Gas Hills Conv. - New FY 11 WY Bayswater Uranium Corporation Alzada ISL - New FY11 MT Wildhorse Energy Sweetwater ISL and Conv. - New FY 11 WY 

3121

Total Restart/Expansion Uranium Recovery Applications = 10

4 year projected total reviews = 

Total New Uranium Recovery Applications = 

Fiscal 2011 Applications

Expected Uranium Recovery Facility Applications / Restarts / Expansions 

Fiscal 2007 ApplicationsFiscal 2010 ApplicationsFiscal 2008 ApplicationsFiscal 2009 Applications

Uranium Project Summary (con
Credible Letters of Intent

• Signed by a Corporate Officer• Include a Specific Submission Date 

Location

• Preliminary Work Completed To Da

– Exploration– Site Characterization– Other Steps to Assure Submission Da

Met
Industry Actions 

• NMA Environmental Report for GEI• 3 Applications for New Facilities Re• 3 Applications for Expansions or Re

Received

• 27 Letters of Intent/27 Projects
Status of Applications

• New Facility Applications

– 2 Acceptance Reviews Complete– 1 Acceptance Review in Progress– 2 Technical Reviews in Progress

• Expansions/Restarts

– 1 Amendment Issued– 2 Technical Reviews in Progress
Lessons Learned

• Radiation Protection Must be Prope

Addressed

• Hydrogeology• NRC Budget Cycle • Peak Licensing Activity in 2009-201
The Future

• Stakeholder Outreach• Beyond FY2011• Future Congressional interaction• Hearings
Challenges

• New License Applications • Attrition & Recruitment• Consistency with Staff Contacts • ISL Rulemaking • Potential Re-starts and Upgrades• Fully Address Stakeholder Concerns• Potential for Hearings
Conclusions

• Reviewing Applications and Process

SERs

• Addressing Resource Shortfalls• Licensing Casework Has Grown• GEIS Has Drawn Mixed Reviews
Conclusions

• We Are Prepared• We Utilize an Open Process• Stakeholder Concerns are Addresse• Regulatory Actions will Result in Sa

Activities
NRC’s Uranium Recovery 

Inspection Program

2008 NMA/NRC Uranium Recovery Workshop

April 30, 2008

Linda M. Gersey, Health Physicist

NRC RIV
Discussion Topics• Inspection Frequency• Summary of 2007 Inspection Findin• Inspection Fees and Billing Policy• Administrative Changes to Licenses• Regional Management Changes
Inspection Frequencies• 2 Manual Chapters govern the UR 

inspection program

– MC 2641: In-Situ Leach Uranium Reco– MC 2801: Uranium Mill Sites
Inspection Frequencies, cont.MC 2641 (ISLs only)• Producing ISLs (2 facilities)

– Normal: 6 months– Extended: 12 months

• Standby or Inactive ISLs (1 facility)

– Normal: 1 year– Extended: 3 years

• ISLs in Restoration (none)

– Normal: 1 year– Extended: 3 years
Inspection Frequencies, cont. MC 2801 (conventional mills)• Through 2006, Region IV conducted UR inspec

with the following frequencies:

– once per year at selected facilities– every 2 years at facilities in reclamation and standby– every 3 years at inactive sites

• Beginning in 2007, Region IV began conducting 

inspections in accordance with the specified frein MC 2801 or 2641

– For example, RIV plans to reduce the 3 year interval t

to agree with MC 2801 and MC 2800 (materials) guid
Inspection Frequencies, cont.• Number of UR Inspections Performe

Region IV

– 2006: 7– 2007: 11 (plus 2 site visits)– 2008: 9 planned (plus 2-3 site visits)– 2009 and beyond: 12 minimum planne– Pre-licensing visits and construction 

inspections will be conducted more frequently in the future
Summary of 2007 Inspection Findin• FY2007 (Oct 2006-Sept 2007)• 5 violations

– Failure to post radiation area– Failure to implement groundH2O mon– Failure to perform settlement monitorin– Exceedance of annual production limit– Expired waste disposal agreement
Summary of 2007 Inspection Findincont.• 4 Licensee Event Reports

– 2 significant spills– 1 groundwater excursion– 1 exceedance of annual radon flux lim

tailing pile

• 1 Unresolved item

– Shipping of empty containers
Summary of 2007 Inspection Findincont.• 3 Non-Cited Violations

– Failure to use a RWP resulting in a ura

intake by employee

– Failure to survey a container prior to 

shipment

– Failure to collect all monitoring well sa
Licensee Fees10 CFR 170.31 Schedule of Materia

Fees

• 2 categories of UR licensees in use• Cat 2.A(2)(b) for Active UR Facilitie• Cat 14.A for UR facilities in 

Decommissioning

• Both categories are “full cost” recov
Licensee Fees, cont.• Full cost recovery

– Billed for hourly inspection and licensi

actions taken

• Different from annual fee
Licensee Fees, cont.• Who is billable?

– Qualified inspectors (inspections, repo– Project Managers (licensing, reviews)– Specialists (hydrogeologists)

• Branch Chief (no charge to licensee

– BC observes inspectors and tours the 

• Hourly rate of $258 (will probably ch

to $238/hr)
Licensee Fees, cont.Annual Fees• For Operating UR Facilities only• 10 CFR 171.6 2.A.(2)(b) Class II fac• Currently $18,700 annual
EXAMPLE: Operating ISL Facilities

– Annual Fee 10 CFR 171.16 – Category 2.A(2)(b) Class II Facilities– Currently = $18,700AND– Hourly Rate for inspection and licensing actio– Currently $258/hr (soon to be $238/hr)

Licensee Fees, cont.
Licensee Fees, cont.EXAMPLE: Former UR Sites in Decommissioning

– 10 CFR 170.31 Cat 14.A– No annual fee– Charged for inspection and licensing 

activities at hourly rate $258/hour
Licensee Fees, cont.• Proposed annual fee rule published 

January

• Licensees have a chance to comme• Revised rule usually becomes effec

July or August of each year
Licensee Fees, cont.Billing Contact

Billy Blaney, NRC HQ

(301) 415-5092
Administrative Changes to Lice• Clean up your license!• Do you know what your license com

you to?

• Submit changes during other neces

amendments (i.e. annual financial assurance update)

• Save time for license reviewers and 

savings for licensee
UR Reports to a New Branch in Nuclear Materials Safety Branch-BJack E. Whitten, Chief(817) 860-8197Also: 

– Bob Evans, Sr. Health Physicist

(817) 860-8234

– Linda Gersey, Health Physicist

(817) 860-8299
STATUS OF RULEMAKING: GROUNDWAT

PROTECTION AT IN SITU LEACH (ISL) URA

EXTRACTION FACILITIES

Ron Linton, Project Manager/Hydrogeologist

Uranium Recovery Licensing Branch

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Introd

I. Rulemaking activitiesII. Rulemaking scheduleIII. Items of interest
I. Rulemakin

• Commission Direction: SRM-COMJSM-06-

March 24, 2006

– Directed staff to initiate rulemaking

• Specifically tailored to groundwater protection at I• Focus on elimination of dual regulation• Defer active regulation of groundwater programs

– Required proposed rule to Commission by Janua– Directed staff to discuss implementation of interi

measures with stakeholders

• Pursue MOUs with states• Exercise enforcement discretion
I. Rulemakin

• June 14, 2006 – First rule working group me

– NRC staff and OAS staff working group member

• June 20, 2006 – NRC letter to EPA

– NRC requests EPA confirm UIC rules are the ap

standards

• June 29, 2006 – Public meeting and worksh

rulemaking

– Following NMA/NRC Workshop

• August 3, 2006 – EPA/NRC meeting

– EPA letter to NRC expressing concern using UIC 

regulations as standards for rule
I. Rulemakin

• August 15, 2006 – EPA/NRC meeting on 

proposed rulemaking path

– EPA did not agree on UIC regulations as bas

groundwater protection

– UMTRCA regulations are appropriate 40 CF

192 and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A

– Regulation of ISLs under UIC program in 

nonauthorized States

• September 16, 2006 – Working group m• November 28, 2006– Commission inform
I. Rulemakin

• February 12, 2007 – Briefing of ACNW S

ISL Rule

– Discuss EPA concerns

• February 21, February 26 and March 12

EPA/NRC meetings

– Rule language and path forward– Restoration standard Appendix A, Criterion 5– Use of UIC language– Table 5c: Out-of-date for some constituents
I. Rulemakin

• March 15, 2007

– EPA/NRC/NMA public me

– Discuss EPA concerns using UIC restoration sta

relayed to industry

– Review Appendix A as the primary standard (bac

or MCL)

– Review Appendix A as the secondary standard 

• March 28, 2007

– EPA/NRC meeting

• April 10, 2007

– ACNW briefing

• April 30, 2007

– COMSECY 07-0015

– NRC staff proposed path forward for rulemaking 

groundwater protection at ISLs

• May 9, 2007

– ACNW letter on rulemaking to 

Chairman with recommendations
I. Rulemakin

• June 8, 2007 – SRM COMSECY 07-0015, “Pat

Forward For Rulemaking On Groundwater ProtIn Situ Leach Uranium Extraction Facilities”

– The Commission approved resumption of the rulemak

process for groundwater protection at ISL facilities to 

to 40 CFR Part 192

– The Commission required the staff to

−

• Engage interested stakeholders through public wo• Work closely and cooperatively with EPA• Remain diligent in working with EPA and appropri

to establish appropriate standards to protect publisafety and the environment

• Reduce and preferably eliminate dual regulation
I. Rulemakin

• August 6 and September 12, 2007 

– ISL rul

working group meeting

– Working group expanded to include EPA & CRC– Draft of rule

• October 24 and December 5, 2007 

– EPA/N

meetings

– Groundwater restoration language from Appendi– UIC rule language can be used in new ISL rule– How to keep Table 5c up-to-date

• December 17, 2007 – ACNW&M briefing on 

rule status
I. Rulemakin

• 1/24/08 – EPA/NRC meeting

– Issues resolved

• 2/21/08 – ISL working group meeting

– Continued work on draft rule language

• Current – Memorandum on Status of 

Development of Proposed Rule for Groundwater Protection at In Situ Leach Uranium Recovery Facilities

• Current – Draft Statement of Considerati
II. Rulemaking Sc

• Proposed rule to Agreement States – 

2008

• Proposed rule to Commission – Octob

2008

• Proposed rule published – January 20• Stakeholder workshops during comme

period
• Definitions• Site characterization• Pre-operational monitoring• Well field design and construction requireme• Operating, monitoring, and reporting require• Mechanical integrity• Post-operational groundwater quality restora• Plugging and abandonment• Corrective action

III. Items of IRule Topics
III. Items of I

• Restoration based on 40 CFR Part 192 a

CFR Part 40, Appendix A 

• Use of NUREG-1569 and UIC language• Groundwater protection for uppermost aq• Table 5c vs. current EPA MCLs• NRC will update guidance in NUREG-15

PATHWAY TO A URANIUM MILL LICENSE – AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE

Alan Kuhn, PhD, PE, RG

Senior Principal Consultant

Director, Uranium Services

Kleinfelder

Louis Bridges, PhD, PWS

Principal Professional

Kleinfelder

For over a quarter century, no one thought seriously about licensing a new uranium mill.

Consequently, old licensing rules have remained in place, untried and neglected while old mills

were closed and the industry struggled to sustain a pulse. Now the heartbeat of uranium has

quickened, and the industry wants new mills. But until recently, no one has implemented the

existing rules for licensing a new conventional mill, making the pathway to a new mill license

appears hard to determine. Obstacles in the licensing path include lack of precedent, lack of

experience, a large number of mostly outdated guidelines, and a legacy of environmental issues.

To chart a path for mill licensing, a six-task approach has been developed and is being employed

for two new uranium mill licenses (Figure 1). This approach is based on the NRC’s Regulatory

Guides 3.5 and 3.8, 4.14 and 10 CRF 40 Appendix A criteria and 10 CFR 51, and on NUREGs

1620 and 1748. Other NRC documents provide specific guidance related to licensing and mill

site closure.

Task 1

Site Characterization

and Baseline Studies

Task 6

Application Submittal

and Approval

Task 3

Operation Plan

Task 5

Environmental

Report

Task 2

Mill Facility and

Process Design Task 4

Decommissioning

and Closure Plan

Figure 1 – The Six-Task Approach to Uranium Mill Licensing
The six tasks are:

1. Site Characterization and Baseline Investigations

• Topographic base map

• GIS data base

• Socioeconomic, Demographic, Environmental Justice studies

• Geologic and geotechnical characterization

• Groundwater investigations

• Surface water investigations

• Meteorological characterization

• Air quality sampling

• Wetland and Waters-of-the-US delineation

• Soils sampling

• Vegetation surveys and sampling

• Wildlife surveys and Biota Sampling

• Archeological and Cultural surveys

• Radiological survey

• Non-radiological sampling

Italicized activities require data collection over a 12-month period.

2. Mill Facilities Design

• Water balance

• Mill circuit

• Tailing containment

3. Operations Planning

• Air and radiological modeling

• Environmental monitoring

• Radiological health and safety plans

• Non-radiological health and safety plans

4. Decommissioning and Closure Planning

• Mill decontamination and demolition

• Tailing stabilization and closure

5. Environmental Report Preparation

• Description of the site

• Description of the mill

• Proposed and alternative actions

• Impacts and mitigations

6. Application Submittal and Approval

• Agency interactions

• Other permits

• Public involvement

The tasks are structured for each site in the Summary Work Plan, and each activity involving

original data collection is conducted in accordance with a task Work Plan. Each Work Plan

includes a description of the purpose and scope of the activity; the data quality objectives;
technical procedures to be used; and quality assurance requirements including personnel

qualifications, documentation, and data validation.

The tasks are performed generally in serial order, but substantial overlap occurs, and considerable

time can be saved by conducting some task elements in parallel. A critical path, which can vary

from one project to another, is defined through the six tasks. The critical path is set by timecritical baseline data collection activities through Task 1, but it is more variable and site-specific

through Tasks 2-5 until it tracks the regulatory approval path through Task 6. In the best-case

scenario, Task 1 requires 15 months and the total time from beginning of Task 1 through issuance

of a mill license is approximately four years. Many factors can cause the time-line to extend

beyond four years. While some of these factors are beyond the applicant’s control, the licensing

time-line can be shortened by several measures, as illustrated in Figure 2:

• Consulting early and frequently with the regulatory agencies

• Initiating time-critical baseline data collection as early as possible

• Performing tasks in parallel

• Taking the initiative in proposing courses of action to the regulators

• Implementing a pro-active public involvement program

MILL

LICENSE

Summary Work Plan

Communicate with the

regulators early, often

Take the

Initiative

Time-critical Activities

Perform Tasks in Parallel

Early Stakeholder W Involvement

ork Plans

Figure 2 –Facilitating the Uranium Mill Licensing Process

The NRC and agreement states rules and guidelines are clear in the priorities of mill licenses –

public safety and the environment must be protected during operations and after closure. The

pathway to a new mill license is straightest when these protections take priority in implementing

the six-task approach and when the applicant takes the initiative in charting its licensing path with

the regulatory agencies.
James Park

Project Manager

Environmental Review Branch

The Uranium Recovery 

Generic Environmental Impa

Statement
Objectives

• Background• Stakeholder Issues• Approach• Addressing 

Stakeholder Issues

• Path Forward
Background

• Situation• Basis: CEQ Regulations

– “Broad Actions” [40 CFR 1502.4(a– Tiering [40 CFR 1502.20 and 1508

• Notice of Intent (July 24, 2007)• Scoping Period (July 24 – Nove

30, 2007)
Issues Identified By Stakeholde

• Affected environment and 

environmental impacts are nogeneric 

• Site-specific environmental 

reviews will be cursory

• Public participation will be 

limited in site-specific environmental reviews
Approach

• Describe and evaluate environm

impacts from in-situ leach uraniurecovery process

• For site-specific environmental 

documents

– Incorporate by reference GEIS 

background information 

– Apply GEIS conclusions to the ext

applicable
Approach (cont’d.)

• Describe affected environment a

evaluate impacts on a regional b

• 4 regions identified• Address environmental resource 

areas identified in NUREG-1748
Addressing Stakeholder Issues

• Regional approach to assessin

environmental impacts

• Comprehensive site-specific 

reviews that apply GEIS conclusions as applicable

• NRC commitment to issue draf

EAs for public comment
Path Forward

• Issue draft GEIS for public 

comment

• Hold meetings to receive pub

comments

• Address public comments in 

preparation of final GEIS

• Issue final GEIS
Questions
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Keys to the Nuclear Regula

Keys to the Nuclear Regula

Commission Hearing Proces

Commission Hearing Proces

Uranium Recovery Faciliti

Uranium Recovery Facilit

Prepared for the Annual National Mining Prepared for the Annual National Mining Association/Nuclear Regulatory Conference on Uraniu

Association/Nuclear Regulatory Conference on Uraniu

Recovery Recovery

Denver, Colorado (20

Denver, Colorado (20

Prepared by Christopher S. Pugsley, E

Prepared by Christopher S. Pugsley, E

Thompson & Simmons, PL

Thompson & Simmons, PL
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Introduction Introduction

• Uranium Recovery Companies See

Licenses or License Amendments Non-Agreement States for the FolloWill Require Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Approval:

• Uranium Recovery Licenses for New Conv

Mills or In Situ Recovery Projects;

• Restart of Existing Facilities on Standby;• License Amendments to Construct and/or 

New Projects on Licensed Sites
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Introduction Introduction

• New Project, Project Restart, and Constructio

New Project Facilities Potentially May Be Suban Administrative Hearing;

• NRC Administrative Hearings for Uranium Re

are Subject to New Hearing Procedures That Greatly from Those Used in Prior Hearings S

• Hydro Resources, Inc. (Crownpoint Uranium Project• International Uranium (USA) Corporation (now “Den

Mines”) Alternate Feed License Amendments
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Development of New Proced

Development of New Proced

• Prior to 2003, NRC Administrative Hea

for Uranium Recovery Projects Were Considered “Informal Hearings” With SDistinct Characteristics:

• 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart L Regulations;• Two-Three Judge Panels Consisting of a Presid

Officer and Special Technical Assistants;

• All Pleadings and Argument, Unless Otherwise 

Submitted in Writing;

• Discovery Expressly Prohibited
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Development of New Proced

Development of New Proced

• After 2003, New NRC Administrati

Hearings Are Still Considered “Informal,” But:

• 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G & Subpart L 

Procedures;

• While Some Filings are Written, Unless 

Otherwise Agreed Upon by the Parties, Proceedings are Oral;

• Limited Discovery Allowed
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Hearing Process Hearing Process

• To Best Understand NRC’s New Hearin

Procedures, a Critical Path for a ModeHearing Should be Assessed:

• Preliminary Matters;• Hearing Request;• Standing & Admissible Contentions;• Preliminary Motions;• Mandatory Disclosures;• Witness Testimony;• Initial Decision;• Appeals
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Preliminary Matters: Prop

Preliminary Matters: Prop

Service Service

• Proper Service of Documents:

• Commission Policy Dictates that ALL FILINGS Shall be Su

Through NRC’s E-Filing System;

• The Presiding Officer and/or the Commission May Issue O

Permitting Alternative Methods of Service:

– First Class Mail;– Courier/Express Mail;

• Filing is Considered Complete When:

– Electronic Submission is Sent (i.e., Last Act Necessary to Tra

Documents Electronically);

– Deposit of Hard Copy in Mail;– All Methods of Filing are Complete in the Case of Multiple Met

(i.e., Electronic & Hard Copy)
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Preliminary Matters: Prop

Preliminary Matters: Prop

Service Service

• Proper Service of Documents

• Documents Are Considered Timely File

Submitted By:

• 5:00 pm for Documents Submitted in Pe

By Expedited Service;

• 11:59 pm for Documents Filed Electron• NOTE: THE PRESIDING OFFICER CAN 

ANY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Preliminary Matters: Docum

Preliminary Matters: Docum

Requirements Requirements

• NRC Has Imposed Specific Requireme

Documents: All Documents Must Have

• Appropriate Docket Number and Caption;• Certificate of Service;• Margins of Not Less Than One Inch;• Appropriate Signature With Statement of Autho

• Electronic Documents Must Have Phrase “S

• Paper Documents:

• Stapled or Bound on Upper Left Side;• Ink Signature
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Preliminary Matters: Preliminary Matters: 

Computation of Time Computation of Time

• Standard Time Computation Running 

the Day After Filing to the Due Date ApExcept if the Last Day Falls on:

• Weekend Day;• Federal Legal Holiday;• Emergency Federal Government Closure Day• NOTE: ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTIO

YOU DO NOT KNOW WHETHER A DAY FALLS OF THE ABOVE, FILE THE DOCUMENTS THE LNOTED ABOVE
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Hearing Request Hearing Request

• An NRC Administrative Hearing Can Only Be 

Triggered Upon a Request for a Hearing from Interested Stakeholder:

• Member(s) of the Public;• Organizations or Groups;• Governmental Entities;

– Cities;– Counties;– States;– Tribes

• Hearing Requests Must Meet Explicit Regula

Requirements
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Standing Standing

• In Order to Be Granted an NRC Administrative Hearing, a Pr

Intervenor Must Demonstrate Standing Under NRC RegulatiCFR §2.309(d)):

– Traditional Tenets of Standing;

• Injury-in-Fact;• Causal Nexus;• Redressibility

– A request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene must sta

• (i) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or pe

• (ii) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to b

party to the proceeding;

• (iii) The nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, f

other interest in the proceeding; and

• (iv) The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued 

proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest.
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Standing Standing

• Standing May Be Demonstrated as Fol

– Standing as a Matter of Injury-in-Fact 

(Traditional);

– Standing Based on “Proximity-Plus:”

• Presumption in Reactor Cases, Not Materials C

• Materials Case Standard: “Significant Source o

Radioactivity Producing an Obvious Potential fConsequences”

– Representational or Group Standing
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Admissibility of Contentio

Admissibility of Contentio

• A Proposed Intervenor Also Must Offer at Least One 

Admissible Contention to be Granted a Hearing (10 CF2.309(f):

– A request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene m

forth with particularity the contentions sought to be rais

each contention, the request or petition must:

– (i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fac

raised or controverted, provided further, that the issue o

fact to be raised in a request for hearing under 10 CFR 5must be directed at demonstrating that one or more of tacceptance criteria in the combined license have not benot be met, and that the specific operational consequennonconformance would be contrary to providing reasonassurance of adequate protection of the public health a

– (ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the conte
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Admissibility of Contentio

Admissibility of Contentio

Admissible Contentions (Continued):– (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the conte

within the scope of the proceeding;

– (iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the conte

material to the findings the NRC must make to supaction that is involved in the proceeding;

– (v) Provide a concise statement of the alleged fact

expert opinions which support the requestor's/petposition on the issue and on which the petitioner irely at hearing;

• Provide references to the specific sources and docu

which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to supposition on the issue;
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Interlocutory Review of Interlocutory Review of 

Standing/Contentions Determinat

Standing/Contentions Determinat

• Appeals of Determinations Regard

Standing & Contentions Are Perm

• Appeals Must be Filed Within 10 Days o

Service of an Order Regarding Standing/Contentions;

• Response to Appeals Must Be Filed Wit

Days of Service of the Appeal:

– All Appeals Must Have a Notice of Appeal a

Accompanying Legal Brief
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Preliminary Motions Preliminary Motions

• As a Matter of Regulation, Parties are 

Entitled to File Preliminary Motions:

• All Motions Must Be Filed No More Than 10 Day

the Act Which is Being Addressed;

• All Responses to Motions Must Be Filed Within 

of Service of a Motion

• NOTE: 10 CFR § 2.323 REQUIRES THAT THE M

PARTY OR COUNSEL CERTIFY THAT A SINCEEFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO RESOLVE THE SOF THE MOTION
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Preliminary Motions Preliminary Motions

• Other Motions May Be Filed in These Proceedings:

• Motion for Stay:

– Stay the Effectiveness of an NRC Staff Action;

– Without an Actual Action, Motion for Stay is Premature;

– Criteria for Stays Are Similar to Those Applied in Civil Cases;

– Criteria for Stays Are Difficult to Satisfy

• Motion for Summary Disposition:

– Similar to Summary Judgment Motions in Civil Cases;

• Motion for Cross-Examination:

– Description of Issue– Objective to Be Achieved;– Proposed Line of Questioning
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Additional Notes Additional Notes

• Standing and Admissible Contentions 

Not Intended to Reach the Merits of a Particular Argument;

• Threshold for Standing is Extremely L• Only One Admissible Contention Will T

a Hearing Assuming Standing is Show
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Administrative Hearings Administrative Hearings

• In the Event a Hearing is Granted, NRC 

Delineated Specific Procedures for the Conduct of Such Hearings;

• NRC’s New “Informal” Hearing Regula

Encourage Advance Preparation by LiApplicants & Licensees;

• A Thorough Understanding of the Hea

Procedures and Required SubmissionHelp Reduce Litigation Costs
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Preliminary Determinatio

Preliminary Determinatio

• Initially, an Applicant Must Determine Whether the Requeste

Licensing Action Falls Under Subpart L:

• New Projects or License Amendments Use Subpart L;

• Direct or Indirect Change/Transfer of Control Applications Use Sub

• If a Subpart L Hearing is Indicated, Then All Parties Must Ag

Hearing Procedures:

• Parties May Agree on the Use of Written Proceedings as in Pre-200

• NOTE: THE DEFAULT PRESUMPTION IS ORAL HEARINGS• The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Will Then A

Panel Consisting of a Presiding Officer (Administrative Law and at Least One Technical Assistant
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Preliminary Filings Preliminary Filings

• New Subpart C Regulations Require an Initial Mandatory Dis

or Discovery (10 CFR §2.336: General Discovery):

• Within 30 Days of the Issuance of an Order Granting a Hearing, the 

Must Be Disclosed or Provided:

– (1) The name and, if known, the address and telephone numbe

person, including any expert, upon whose opinion the party band contentions and may rely upon as a witness, and a copy o

or other authority upon which that person bases his or her op

– (2)(i) A copy, or a description by category and location, of all d

and data compilations in the possession, custody, or control 

that are relevant to the contentions, provided that if only a desprovided of a document or data compilation, a party shall havrequest copies of that document and/or data compilation, and

– (3) A list of documents otherwise required to be disclosed for 

of privilege or protected status is being made, together with s

information for assessing the claim of privilege or protected s

documents. 

• NOTE: IF DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE IN OTHER PUBLIC SOUR

SUBMIT LOCATION, TITLE, AND PAGE REFERENCE
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Preliminary Filings Preliminary Filings

• Important Notes Regarding Initial 

Disclosures/Discovery:

• 10 CFR § 2.336(d): Duty to Disclose is Ongoing 

Subsequently Developed or Obtained DocumenInformation Must Be Disclosed Within 14 Days)

• 10 CFR § 2.336(b): NRC Staff Has Mandatory 

Disclosures;

• 10 CFR § 2.336(f): Initial Disclosures Constitut

Permissible Discovery in Subpart L Hearings;

• 10 CFR § 2.1203: NRC Staff Must Develop & Su

Hearing File
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Hearing Submissions: Writ

Hearing Submissions: Writ

Testimony Testimony

• All Parties are Required to File Initial W

Statements of Position and Written Testimony with Supporting Affidavits oDates Set by the Presiding Officer;

• Within 20 Days of the Filing of Initial 

Testimony, Written Responses and ReTestimony Due 20 Days from Service oInitial Testimony 
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Hearing Submissions: Prop

Hearing Submissions: Prop

Questions Questions

• Questions Proposed by All Parties to Be Ask

the Administrative Panel Must Be Submitted Later Than 20 After Submission of Initial Tes

• Questions Proposed in Response to Rebutta

Testimony Must Be Submitted No Later Than Days After Service of the Rebuttal Testimony

• If Either of These Dates are Less Than 5 Days From 

the Oral Hearing, Then Questions Must Be SubmitteThan 5 Days Prior to the Hearing Date
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Hearing Submissions: Prop

Hearing Submissions: Prop

Questions Questions

• Important Notes Regarding Proposed Questions:

• 10 CFR § 2.1207(a)(3)(iii) & (b)(6): Proposed Questions are 

by the Panel and NOT BY THE PARTIES (i.e., No Cross-Exa

• Parties Can Move for Cross-Examination:

– Since Cross-Examination is an Exception to the Hearing Proc

Concern Lies With the Inability to Ask Spontaneous QuestionKnowledge of the Technical Aspects of Uranium Recovery by Panel:

• Licensees, License Applicants, NRC Staff Are Forced to 

Every Possible Scenario in Advance Rather Than Ask QIssues Are Raised at Oral Hearings

• 10 CFR § 2.1207(b)(5): A Witness Unable to Appear Can Su

Testimony But Will be Subject to Questions to be Answere
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Important Notes: Summ

Important Notes: Summ

• All Parties May Agree to Have a Hearing Bas

Written Submissions:

• 10 CFR § 2. 1206: If One Party is Not in Favor of a W

Hearing, Then Default Assumption is Oral Hearing

• Parties are Entitled to File Preliminary Motion

• 10 CFR § 2.1213: Motion for Stay;

• 10 CFR § 2.1204(b): Motion for Cross-Examination

• Interlocutory Appeals Continue to be Disfavo
04/21/2008 Thompson & Simmons, PLLC 

Conclusions Conclusions

• NRC’s Administrative Hearing Processes for 

Uranium Recovery Facilities Are Just Now BTested;

• As Applications Are Docketed & Hearings Ar

Requested, Additional Experience Will AssisEfficient Management of the Hearing Process

• License Applicants Should Prepare for Poten

Hearings Well In Advance & Take Advantage Prescriptive Requirements Provided in 10 CF