DOCSLIB.ORG

Visit National Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Visit National Report ii Preface Information in this Report covers the period up to March 31, 2011. However, given the timing of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the Report does not take into consideration actions taken by the CNSC with Class I Nuclear Facilities, mines and mills which include spent fuel bays and radioactive waste facilities. On March 22, 2011, under section 12(2) of the General Safety and Control Regulations (GNSCR), the CNSC requested all Class 1 licensed facilities in Canada to review initial lessons learned from the incident in Japan and to confirm that their overall safety cases remain strong. All licensees provided the requisite initial responses, identifying their proposed plans and schedules to meet the CNSC’s request. Licensees concluded that their overall safety cases remain strong. To confirm their findings, the CNSC has performed a series of inspections at each station. In addition, Canada will be participating in an Extraordinary Meeting of the Convention on Nuclear Safety in August 2012 on lessons learned from Fukushima. More information on the CNSC’s response is available at nuclearsafety.gc.ca iii iv Table of Contents Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................................1 1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Canada’s key highlights and current priorities ..............................................................................................1 3.0 Progress since the Third Review Meeting .....................................................................................................2 3.1 Canada continues progress for long-term management strategies by:...........................................................2 3.1 (a) Implementation of long-term management approaches for spent fuel ............................................2 3.1 (b) Fostering relationships gained through stakeholder consultation....................................................2 3.1 (c) Ensuring that there are adequate human resources to implement future work................................3 3.1 (d) Increasing regulatory efforts necessary to support future industry initiatives.................................5 3.1 (e) Continuing the production of supporting regulatory documentation ..............................................5 3.1 (f) Validation of model predictions for waste rock and tailings...........................................................5 3.1 (g) Decommissioning of older waste rock sites and the development of new tailings management capacity.......................................................................................................................6 3.1 (h) Continued implementation and ongoing funding requirements for AECL CRL (Nuclear Legacy Liability Program)...............................................................................................................6 3.1 (i) Finalization of the regulatory approval process for the low- and intermediate-level waste deep geological repository...............................................................................................................7 4.0 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................................7 Section A – Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................9 A.1 Scope of the section .......................................................................................................................................9 A.2 Introduction....................................................................................................................................................9 A.3 Nuclear substances.......................................................................................................................................10 A.4 Canadian philosophy and approach to safety ..............................................................................................10 A.5 Fundamental principles................................................................................................................................11 A.6 Main safety issues........................................................................................................................................11 A.7 Survey of the main themes...........................................................................................................................11 Section B – Policies And Practices.............................................................................................................................13 B.1 Scope of the section .....................................................................................................................................13 B.2 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................13 B.3 Legislative instruments ................................................................................................................................13 B.4 National framework for radioactive waste management .............................................................................13 B.5 Regulatory policy on managing spent fuel and radioactive waste...............................................................15 B.6 Regulatory guide G-320: Assessing the Long Term Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.................16 B.7 Classification of radioactive waste in Canada .............................................................................................16 B.7.1 High-level radioactive waste (HLW).............................................................................................17 B.7.2 Intermediate-level radioactive waste (ILW)..................................................................................17 B.7.3 Low-level radioactive waste (LLW)..............................................................................................17 B.7.4 Uranium mine and mill waste........................................................................................................18 B.8 Operational responsibilities for long-term management..............................................................................18 B.9 Management practices for spent fuel ...........................................................................................................19 B.10 Management practices for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste..................................................20 B.11 Management practices for uranium mine waste rock and mill tailings .......................................................21 Section C – Scope of Application...............................................................................................................................25 C.1 Scope of the section .....................................................................................................................................25 C.2 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................25 C.3 Reprocessed spent fuel.................................................................................................................................25 C.4 Naturally occurring nuclear substances .......................................................................................................25 C.5 Department of National Defence programs .................................................................................................25 C.6 Discharges....................................................................................................................................................26 v Section D – Inventories and Lists ..............................................................................................................................27 D.1 Scope of the section .....................................................................................................................................27 D.2 Inventory of spent fuel in Canada................................................................................................................27 D.2.1 Spent fuel wet storage inventory at nuclear reactor sites ..............................................................27 D.3 Radioactive waste inventory – Radioactive waste management facilities...................................................28 D.4 Uranium mining and milling waste .............................................................................................................33 D.4.1 Operational mine and mill sites .....................................................................................................33 D.4.2 Inventory of uranium mine and mill waste at inactive tailings sites .............................................34 Section E – Legislative and Regulatory Systems......................................................................................................39 E.1 Scope of the section .....................................................................................................................................39 E.2 Establishment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2018
    Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2018 Commission Meeting December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A CNSC Staff Presentation e-Doc 5970530 PPTX e-Doc 6018833 PDF Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills CNSC Regulatory Oversight Reports for 2018 • November 6, 2019: Canadian Nuclear Power Generating Sites: 2018 • November 7, 2019: Use of Nuclear Substances in Canada: 2018 • November 7, 2019: Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Sites: 2018 • December 11, 2019: Uranium and Nuclear Substance Processing Facilities in Canada: 2018 • December 12, 2019: Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2018 Reporting on licensee performance based on CNSC oversight nuclearsafety.gc.ca 2 Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Presentation Outline • Errata • CNSC’s regulatory oversight activities • Uranium mine and mill facilities • Performance of uranium mines and mills • Interventions • Conclusions SAG mill used to grind ore at the McArthur River Operation. (Photo source: CNSC) nuclearsafety.gc.ca 3 Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Errata – to be corrected before the report is published Appendix B, Table B1, corrected information Facility Safety and control area Date report issued Fitness for Service, Conventional Health and Safety, March 20, 2018 Environmental Protection, Human Performance Management Environmental Protection, Radiation Protection, October 31, 2018 McArthur Conventional Health and Safety River Physical Design, Environmental Protection, Radiation August 8, 2018 Operation Protection, Conventional Health and Safety Environmental Protection October 2, 2018 Emergency Management and Fire Protection January 16, 2019 nuclearsafety.gc.ca 4 Commission Meeting, December 12, 2019 CMD 19-M36.A – 2018 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Errata – to be corrected before the report is published Appendix J: Environmental Action Level and Regulatory Exceedances Reported to CNSC.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissolution of Uranium Dioxide in Nitric Acid Media: What Do We Know?
    EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 3, 13 (2017) Nuclear © Sciences P. Marc et al., published by EDP Sciences, 2017 & Technologies DOI: 10.1051/epjn/2017005 Available online at: http://www.epj-n.org REGULAR ARTICLE Dissolution of uranium dioxide in nitric acid media: what do we know? Philippe Marc1, Alastair Magnaldo1,*, Aimé Vaudano1, Thibaud Delahaye2, and Éric Schaer3 1 CEA, Nuclear Energy Division, Research Department of Mining and Fuel Recycling Processes, Service of Dissolution and Separation Processes, Laboratory of Dissolution Studies, 30207 Bagnols-sur-Cèze, France 2 CEA, Nuclear Energy Division, Research Department of Mining and Fuel Recycling Processes, Service of Actinides Materials Fabrication, Laboratory of Actinide Conversion Processes, 30207 Bagnols-sur-Cèze, France 3 Laboratoire Réactions et Génie des Procédés, UMR CNRS 7274, University of Lorraine, 54001 Nancy, France Received: 16 March 2016 / Received in final form: 15 November 2016 / Accepted: 14 February 2017 Abstract. This article draws a state of knowledge of the dissolution of uranium dioxide in nitric acid media. The chemistry of the reaction is first investigated, and two reactions appear as most suitable to describe the mechanism, leading to the formation of monoxide and dioxide nitrogen as reaction by-products, while the oxidation mechanism is shown to happen before solubilization. The solid aspect of the reaction is also investigated: manufacturing conditions have an impact on dissolution kinetics, and the non-uniform attack at the surface of the solid results in the appearing of pits and cracks. Last, the existence of an autocatalytic mechanism is questionned. The second part of this article presents a compilation of the impacts of several physico-chemical parameters on the dissolution rates.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries
    Mycle Schneider Consulting Independent Analysis on Energy and Nuclear Policy 45, allée des deux cèdres Tél: 01 69 83 23 79 91210 Draveil (Paris) Fax: 01 69 40 98 75 France e-mail: [email protected] Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Paris, May 2009 This research was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org) V5 About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2000 he has been an advisor to the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. Since 2004 he has also been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes, France. In 2007 he was appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University, USA (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 Mycle Schneider was part of a consultants’ consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he was appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Mycle Schneider has given evidence and held briefings at Parliaments in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, UK and at the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Mining in Saskatchewan
    History of Mining In Saskatchewan Early Mining in Saskatchewan The earliest mining occurred when earth’s inhabitants started using various stones for tools or certain clays for cooking vessels. The earliest recorded occupation in Saskatchewan was around 9000 B.C. at the Niska site in the southern part of the province. Ample evidence of the use of stone tools, arrow heads, and spear heads, etc. has been found in the area. Much of the material used by these early inhabitants was imported or traded from other regions of North America. The study of the stone tools provides us with information about the people’s work, their history, their religion, their travels and their relationships with other groups or nations. Stone is readily available throughout most of Saskatchewan. This was especially important for Saskatchewan’s First Nations people who moved their camps frequently in search for food. The stones available were not all suitable for tools and they needed a constant supply of stone material that broke cleanly or was hard enough for pounding. Consequently, they made regular trips to the source areas or traded with people who lived near the sources. For these early residents of our province, the exchange of goods was more than just a means of acquiring things. Bartering and gift exchange was a means of creating and reinforcing relationships between individuals, families and nations. For thousands of years, goods have been exchanged through networks that extended across North America. Although perishable goods were also traded, our records are in the form of shell or stone artefacts.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
    CANADIAN NUCLEAR SAFETY COMMISSION Jason K. Cameron Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs, and Chief Communications Officer NARUC Summer Policy Summit – Committee on International Relations July 15, 2018 – Scottsdale, Arizona OUR MANDATE 2 Regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, and security and the environment Implement Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy Disseminate objective scientific, technical and regulatory information to the public Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca THE CNSC REGULATES ALL NUCLEAR FACILITIES 3 AND ACTIVITIES IN CANADA Uranium mines Uranium fuel Nuclear power Nuclear substance Industrial and and mills fabrication and plants processing medical applications processing Nuclear research Transportation of Nuclear security Import and Waste management and educational nuclear substances and safeguards export controls facilities activities Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca CNSC STAFF LOCATED ACROSS CANADA 4 Headquarters (HQ) in Ottawa Four site offices at power plants One site office at Chalk River Four regional offices Fiscal year 2017–18 • Human resources: 857 full-time equivalents • Financial resources: $148 million Saskatoon Calgary (~70% cost recovery; ~30% appropriation) • Licensees: 1,700 Chalk River HQ • Licences: 2,500 Point Lepreau Laval Bruce Darlington Mississauga Pickering Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca INDEPENDENT COMMISSION 5 TRANSPARENT, SCIENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING • Quasi-judicial administrative tribunal • Agent of the Crown (duty to consult) • Reports to Parliament through Minister of Natural Resources • Commission members are independent and part time • Commission hearings are public and Webcast • Staff presentations in public • Decisions are reviewable by Federal Court Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission – nuclearsafety.gc.ca THE CNSC’S NEW PRESIDENT 6 Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Setting of the Sue C Uranium Deposit, Mcclean Lake Mine, Northern Saskatchewan
    Structural Setting of the Sue C Uranium Deposit, McClean Lake Mine, Northern Saskatchewan 1 1 I Ghis/ain Tourigny, Steve Wilson , Guy Breton , and Philippe Portel/a Tourigny, G .. Wilson. S., Breton, G .. and Portclla, I'. (2000): Structural setting of the Sue C uranium dcposit. McClcan Lake mi_ne. no~hern Saskatchewan ; in Summary of Investigations 2000. Volume 2. Saskatchewan Gcological Survey. Sask. Energy Mmes. Misc. Rep. 2000-4.2. Abstract localized normal displacemenl. Uranium mineralization is essentially located within the The Sue C deposit is a structurally controlled, prominent thrust fault system and appears comrolled basement-hosted, high-grade uranium deposit located by ductile structures inherited.from the pre-existing at the eastern edge ofth e Athabasca Basin ofn orthern ductile deformation. Saskatchewan. Strongly foliated and /ineated metamorphic tec1onites exp osed in the pit display Northeast-southwest and northwest-southeast evidence ofa complex structural evolution involving conjugate normaljaults, minor strike-slip faults and a rhree main pre-mineralization ductile deformational set ofsubhorizontal thrust faults are the youngest events. The earliest de.formation, DI, produced aflar­ structures developed in the mine sequence. lying bedding-para/le/foliation, SI. and two styles of folds due to a single progressive deformation. Primary 1. Introduction lithological contacts have been folded by east-west­ /rending FI a folds. FI b .foldr are defined by folding of The Sue C deposit is a structurally controlled. the SO-SJ surfaces and represent recumbent, basement-hosted, high-grade uranium deposit located concenlric flexures associated with flat-lying thrust at the eastern edge of the Athabasca Basin in northern slices.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory for Geological Disposal Main Report October 2018 DSSC/403/02
    DSSC/403/02 Inventory for geological disposal Main Report October 2018 DSSC/403/02 Inventory for geological disposal Main Report October 2018 DSSC/403/02 Conditions of Publication This report is made available under the Radioactive Waste Management Ltd (RWM) Transparency Policy. In line with this policy, RWM is seeking to make information on its activities readily available, and to enable interested parties to have access to and influence on its future programmes. The report may be freely used for non-commercial purposes. RWM is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), accordingly all commercial uses, including copying and re publication, require permission from the NDA. All copyright, database rights and other intellectual property rights reside with the NDA. Applications for permission to use the report commercially should be made to the NDA Information Manager. Although great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in this publication, the NDA cannot assume any responsibility for consequences that may arise from its use by other parties. © Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 2018 All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-84029-584-9. Other Publications If you would like to see other reports available from RWM and the NDA, a complete listing can be viewed at our website www.nda.gov.uk, or please write to us at the address below. Feedback Readers are invited to provide feedback on this report and on the means of improving the range of reports published. Feedback should be addressed to: RWM Feedback Radioactive Waste Management Ltd Building 587 Curie Avenue Harwell Campus Didcot OX11 0RH UK email: [email protected] ii DSSC/403/02 Preface Radioactive Waste Management Limited (RWM) has been established as the delivery organisation responsible for the implementation of a safe, sustainable and publicly acceptable programme for the geological disposal of the higher activity radioactive wastes in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE (Current Situation, Safe Handling and Prospects)
    DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE (current situation, safe handling and prospects) 2020 Authors: Alexander Nikitin, Head of Bellona Foundation Oleg Muratov, nuclear physicist, Head of Radiation Technology Dept., TVEL JSC Ksenia Vakhrusheva, Cand. Sci. Econ., Expert, BELLONA International Foundation Editor: Elena Verevkina Design: Alexandra Solokhina This Report was prepared with support and participation of Environmental Board of the Public Council of Rosatom State Atomiс Energy Corporation Publishers: Bellona Foundation Environmental Protection NGO ‘Ecopravo’ Expert and Legal Center TABLE OF CONTENTS Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 4 Foreword ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 6 Chapter 1. A few words about nuclear physics and radioactivity for non-specialists............... 8 Chapter 2. Uranium hexafluoride and its properties ..................................................................... 11 2.1. Physical properties of uranium hexafluoride .................................................................. 12 2.2. Chemical properties of uranium hexafluoride ................................................................ 13 Chapter 3. What is DUHF ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining
    Nuclear Development 2014 Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining Managing Environmental Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining NEA Nuclear Development Managing Environmental and Health Impacts of Uranium Mining © OECD 2014 NEA No. 7062 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 34 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifth Canadian National Report for the Joint Convention
    Canadian National Report for the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management © Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) 2014 PWGSC catalogue number CC172-23/2014E-PDF ISSN 2368-4828 Extracts from this document may be reproduced for individual use without permission provided the source is fully acknowledged. However, reproduction in whole or in part for purposes of resale or redistribution requires prior written permission from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Également publié en français sous le titre: Rapport national du Canada pour la Convention commune sur la sûreté de la gestion du combustible usé et sur la sûreté de la gestion des déchets radioactifs Document availability This document can be viewed on the CNSC website at nuclearsafety.gc.ca. To request a copy of the document in English or French, please contact: Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street P.O. Box 1046, Station B Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5S9 CANADA Tel.: 613-995-5894 or 1-800-668-5284 (in Canada only) Facsimile: 613-995-5086 Email: [email protected] Website: nuclearsafety.gc.ca Facebook: facebook.com/CanadianNuclearSafetyCommission YouTube: youtube.com/cnscccsn Publishing history October, 2011 Fourth Report October, 2008 Third Report October, 2005 Second Report October, 2002 First Report ii Preface Information in this report covers the period up to March 31, 2014. However, in some instances the reporting period extends beyond this to the time of writing the report: July 31, 2014. Examples include the current status of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission’s regulatory documents, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) Adaptive Phased Management (APM) approach, and Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) Deep Geologic Repository (DGR).
    [Show full text]
  • Fuel Cycle Processes Directed Self-Study Course! This Is the Third of Nine Modules Available in This Directed Self-Study Course
    MODULE 3.0: URANIUM CONVERSION Introduction Welcome to Module 3.0 of the Fuel Cycle Processes Directed Self-Study Course! This is the third of nine modules available in this directed self-study course. The purpose of this module is to be able to discuss the NRC regulations of and describe conversion facilities; identify the basic steps of the dry fluoride volatility conversion process and contrast with the wet acid digestion conversion process; identify sampling and measurement activities for the dry conversion process and the radiological and non-radiological hazards associated with the dry conversion process. This self-study module is designed to assist you in accomplishing the learning objectives listed at the beginning of the module. There are five learning objectives in this module. The module has self-check questions and activities to help you assess your understanding of the concepts presented in the module. Before you Begin It is recommended that you have access to the following materials: ◙ Trainee Guide ◙ Sequoyah Fuels Accident Slides (on CD accompanying course manual) ◙ “Release of UF6 from a Ruptured Model 48Y Cylinder at Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Facility: Lessons-Learned Report," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1198, June 1986. ◙ “Assessment of the Public Health Impact from the Accidental Release of UF6 at the Sequoyah Fuels Corporation Facility at Gore, Oklahoma," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1189, Vol. 1, March 1986. Complete the following prerequisites: ◙ Module 1.0: Overview of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle How to Complete this Module 1. Review the learning objectives. 2. Read each section within the module in sequential order.
    [Show full text]
  • CMD 20-M25.A – Presentation from CNSC Staff – Regulatory Oversight
    Regulatory Oversight Report for Uranium Mines and Mills in Canada: 2019 Commission Meeting December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A CNSC Staff Presentation e-Doc 6334201 PPTX e-Doc 6367917 PDF Commission Meeting, December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A – 2019 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Presentation Outline • Overview • Uranium mine and mill facilities • CNSC regulatory efforts • CNSC staff assessments • Other matters of regulatory interest • Conclusions SAG mill used to grind ore at the McArthur River Operation. (Photo source: CNSC) 2 Commission Meeting, December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A – 2019 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills CNSC Regulatory Oversight Reports - 2019 • November 4, 2020: Use of Nuclear Substances in Canada • December 8 to 10, 2020: Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Sites Uranium Processing and Nuclear Substance Processing Facilities Uranium Mines and Mills Canadian Nuclear Power Generating Sites 3 Commission Meeting, December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A – 2019 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills OVERVIEW 4 Commission Meeting, December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A – 2019 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Improvements and Status of Previous Actions (1/3) • 2017 ROR: Plain language summary • 2018 ROR: Orano’s engagement strategy CNSC working agreements with Saskatchewan 5 Commission Meeting, December 10, 2020 CMD 20-M25.A – 2019 ROR for Uranium Mines and Mills Improvements and Status of Previous Actions (2/3) • 2017 ROR: Plain language summary • 2018 ROR: Orano’s engagement strategy CNSC working agreements with Saskatchewan 6 Commission Meeting, December
    [Show full text]