MEETING REPORT DATE: Tuesday, October 26 ? Thursday, October 28, 2010 TIME: See agenda (Attachment1) PLACE: Strata Energy, Inc. 2869 New Haven Road Oshoto, WY 87271 PURPOSE: To familiarize the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff with the proposed Ross in situ recovery (ISR) site and to review the application prior to submission to identify any major acceptance or technical review issues. ATTENDEES: See Attendees List (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND: Strata Energy, Inc. (Strata) submitted a Letter of Intent to the NRC staff on October 5, 2009. This letter notified the staff that Strata intends to submit an application in December 2010 to operate an ISR at the Ross site in Crook County, Wyoming. By letter dated August 25, 2010, Strata requested a site visit and pre-submission application review, to which the staff agreed and undertook at this meeting. DISCUSSION: NRC staff read the opening statement for the meeting. The staff explained that the three-day meeting would include a site visit in the morning of October 26, a groundwater model presentation after the site visit, a review of the application on October 26 through the morning of October 28, followed by a one-hour debrief. Members of the public were invited to attend the site tour, attend the groundwater model presentation, and observe the application review. However, the staff informed the meeting attendees that members of the public would not be allowed to view the application itself, as it is a pre-submission document. Furthermore, the application will also not become part of the meeting summary, because the application was not distributed to meeting attendees or removed from the premises by meeting attendees. October 26: Site Tour ? The staff and members of the public toured the entire proposed Ross ISR Project. Particular areas of interest were the Oshoto Reservoir, meteorological station, air sampling stations, general area of the wellfield development, and the central processing plant location. After the site tour, Strata staff presented a Powerpoint presentation of their geologic and hydrogeologic models for the site (Attachment 3). After the presentation, the staff started its review of the application. Members of the public left the Strata office. 2 October 27: NRC staff reviewed the application. Strata took one NRC staff person on a tour of the site to review air monitoring stations and other site features. No members of the public were present. October 28: Staff completed its review and started the debrief at 10:30 a.m. Members of the public were present for the debrief.
Debrief Notes: NRC staff stated that it reviewed significant sections of the technical and environmental reports, as well as the groundwater model to be included with the application. The staff then summarized the findings by major topics and issues, noting that many other comments were provided in the application itself. Summarized comments are as follows: TECHNICAL REPORT (TR) General Comments: ? The staff noted that Strata has been addressing requests for additional information and open issues sent to other applicants. ? Loose statements ? Strata should ensure that the application includes precise statements regarding those aspects of the operation that will be licensed. Section 1.0: ? Lixiviant Composition ? the lixiviant composition was discussed in two places in the TR; however, the two discussions were inconsistent. ? Line Drive Pattern ? If the line drive pattern is to be used, Strata needs to demonstrate that this well orientation can maintain an inward gradient. ? Confidential Information ? Staff reminded Strata of the 10 CFR 2.390 requirements for withholding information from the public. ? Surety Estimate ? Staff reminded Strata that a surety estimate is required in the TR. Section 2.0: ? Wellfield Layout ? The staff found the wellfield layout confusing and it may have contained too much information. Presenting the wellfield module boundaries produced more questions regarding the manner in which extraction and restoration would occur simultaneously. ? Wellfield Boundaries ? Wellfield boundaries provided by Strata were not complete because exploration was still occurring onsite. The staff stated that Strata should provide the maximum extent of the wellfields onsite to allow for the most conservative assessment. ? Abandoned Wells ? Strata should clarify the total number of abandoned wells and then provide the number of pre-existing abandoned wells - those installed and abandoned by Strata, and the number of wells being plugged. ? Meteorological Data ? The staff noted that two months of data are missing. Also, Strata needs to provide the long-term meteorological data analysis to determine if the site data are representative of long-term conditions. Also, the staff is unclear how the TBNG data is representative of the site. 3 ? Radiological Background Characteristics - The staff reviewed Regulatory Guide Table 1 and Table 2 for selecting air particulate locations (including radon, direct radiation, and soil) with Strata and compared the current air particulate locations with meteorological data. Strata had only one air particulate sampling location in one of the three highest potential air concentrations. Section 3.0 ? MIT Failures ? Strata should state its procedures for addressing potential groundwater contamination from an MIT failure. ? Wellfield operations ? Strata should discuss the methodology used to determine sequencing of wellfield operation, surface reclamation, and groundwater restoration to ensure that interference does not occur in adjacent wellfields. Section 4.0 ? Staff reviewed air and liquid effluent program. Strata indicated that it plans to include air flow and fan location information in the TR. Staff noted that Strata included HVAC maps that show positive and negative air pressure; however, staff noted that this information was not fully explained in the TR. Staff suggested more information so that staff can develop a better understanding of air movement and discharge from restricted to unrestricted areas. Section 5.0 ? Staff noted that the organization chart did not recognize the Quality Assurance position and recommended that this position be included in the organization chart. ? Staff noted that the bioassay section referenced Table 1 and Table 2 of Regulatory Guide 8.22. Staff pointed out to Strata that Table 2 applies to in vivo measurements and asked if Strata plans to conduct in vivo measurements. If not, Strata may want to revise this section. Section 6.0 ? Statistical methods - Clearly identify statistical methods used t determine background and baseline values. ? Reduction restoration - Provide detailed descriptions of the reduction restoration and biorestoration methods that may be used during groundwater restoration. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT (ER) ? Alternatives ? only one central processing plant location alternative was presented, and it was not a viable alternative. Strata mentioned that the Lance uranium district encompasses and area approximately 25 miles x 6 miles and that 12 other ISR sites could be developed. Therefore, the staff suggested that Strata describe other potential central processing plant sites. Also, other viable alternatives might include size of the facility and other means of processing the uranium. ? Cumulative Effects ? This was noticeably absent in the ER. Not only are there numerous operating oil wells in the area surrounding the site, but there are three operating wells onsite. These need to be addressed in the ER. ? Mitigation ? Mitigation descriptions need to be expanded in the ER. 4 ? Transportation ? Items such as: 1) ingress and egress (location); 2) vehicle types; and 3) ingress and egress schedule (construction and operation) need to be described. ? Air Quality ? in order to calculate the impact from greenhouse gases (required by EPA), the following needs to be described: 1) all vehicles and equipment powered by internal combustion engines that would be used on the site; 2) the purpose of each vehicle/equipment; and 3) the length of time each would be used. ACTIONS: None ATTACHMENTS 1. Agenda 2. List of Attendees 3. Presentation
PEN Price at posting:
5.7¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held