Memo to: EPA Docket (EPA-EPA-HQ - OAR-2012 -0788) Subject: Meeting on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for “Health and Environmental Protection Standards

for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings”, Subpart F of 40 CFR Part 192 On May 14, 2015, EPA staff members met with representatives of the uranium recovery industry at the Best Western Ramkota Inn in Casper, Wyoming to discuss the proposed rulemaking that would revise "Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings” (40 CFR 192). The representatives gave the presentation attached to this memo and discussed it with EPA. The meeting agenda is also attached. The following persons participated in the meeting: Industry representatives: Harry Anthony, Uranium Energy Corp Eric Brandjord, IML John Cash, Ur-Energy Jim Clay, Cameco Resources Travis Deti, Wyoming Mining Association Paul Goranson, Uranerz Energy Corporation Tracy Hanna, Uranerz Energy Leland Hoffman, AUC LLC Ben Klein, Heather Podesta and Partners Ralph Knode, Strata Energy Dawn Kolkman, Uranerz Energy Gregory Kruse, Uranium One, Inc. Oscar Paulson, Kennecott Uranium Company Mark S. Pelizza, M.S. Pelizza and Associates Katie Sweeney, National Mining Association Mike Thomas, Uranerz Energy Jim Viellenave, AUC Donna Wichers, Uranium One AmericasEPA Representatives :

Anthony Nesky, Center for Radiation Information and Outreach, EPA Radiation Protection Division Tom Peake, Director, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection Division Ingrid Rosencrantz, Center for Waste Management and Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection Division State of Wyoming Miles Bennett, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality

# USGS Study on 

# Texas Uranium Restoration released in 2009. Report used by the 

# environmental community to claim that ISR uranium mines have not been able to restored back to baseline . 

# May, 14, 2015 Casper, WY

# But when viewing under a different light, a totally different story is uncovered. 

# Yes, a few ions that carry no related EPA health standards or concerns are not restore exactly to baseline values. This is because they vary in concentration as a function of pH. These innocuous ions include: Calcium, Bicarbonate, Carbonate. 

# However when the light is focused more accurately on the 13 Primary Drinking Water Standards Ions the story changes to one of a successful restoration legacy. The environmental opposition has offered only myth, emotion and hyperbole; the industry offers these following facts as reported by the USGS.

## Restoration Table Elements and EPA Standards

EPA Primary Standard EPA Secondary Standard Calcium None Non Magnesium None None Potassium None None Carbonate None None Bicarbonate None None Ammonia - N* None None Molybdenum None None Silica None None Conductivity None None Alkalinity None None Sodium None None pH None 6.5 to 8.5 Iron None 0.3 ppm Manganese None 0.05 ppm Sulfate None 250 ppm Chloride None 250 ppm TDS None 500 ppm Fluoride 4 ppm 2 ppm Nitrate - N 10 ppm None Arsenic 0.01 ppm None Cadmium* 0.005 ppm None Lead* 0.015 ppm None Mercury* 0.002 ppm None Selenium 0.05 ppm None Uranium 0.03 ppm None Radium - 226 5 pCi/l None * Ions not introduced while mining and are not contained in the ore.

# Total Dissolved Solids . None of the 22 projects reviewed by USGS met EPA’s MCL for TDS of 500 mg/l. Values ranged from 786 to 6349 for baseline. After restoration, TDS was restored to baseline values at 15 sites. The remaining sites were restored to within 200 

# mg/l TDS. These remaining sites still did not meet EPA’s TDS MCLs before mining, nor again after restoration. With continued pumping and disposal these remote sites probably would certainly have achieved lower TDS values . But that would have been wasting a resource, water.

### Restored Amended Change between 

## Mine Baseline Value Value Baseline and



## (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Restored Value



## ________________________________________________________ Bruni - 5 - 2 2282 1366 2282 -40% Bruni - 5 - 1 2282 1395 2282 - 39% Pawnee 903 710 900 - 21% Benavides -4 1211 1088 1211 - 10% O’Hern - 2 979 890 * * - 9% Longoria - 1 1928 1860 1928 -4% Brelum - 2 6349 6155 6349 - 3% Holiday- 3 1442 1414 1442 - 2% Benavides - 1 1211 1351 1211 0% Brelum - 1 5970 6065 5971 0% Bruni - 6 1333 *** 1333 0% El Mesquite - 1 1071 1075 1071 0% Nell - 1 5383 5372 5383 0% Trevino - 2A 1635 1628 1884 0% Trevino - 2B 1635 1627 1635 0% Trevino - 1 1577 1661 1700 +5% McBryde - 1 1580 1727 1738 +9% Longoria - 2 2013 2208 2200 +10% Benavides - 2 1663 1875 2100 +13% Benavides - 3 1356 1560 1358 +15% El Mesquite - 3 786 900 910 +15% 

## Hobson - 1 1111 1379 1492 +24% 

# Total Dissolved Solids .

# Arsenic

-



# EPA’s current MCL is .01 mg/l. Baseline values for the 22 mine sites ranged from .004 to .15mg/l. At the time these 22 mining projects were mined and then restored, the EPA’s MCL was .05 mg/l. All were restored to below the existing MCL for the time. All but two sites were restored to less than baseline values.

## Arsenic Restoration Restored EPA Drinking Restored Value

Baseline Value Water Standard* Compared to Site mg /l mg/l mg/l EPA Standard

__________________________________________________________________ Benavides - 1 0.004 0.002 0.05 25 Times Lower 

## Benavides - 3 0.037 0.002 0.05 25.0 Times Lower Brelum - 2 0.013 0.003 0.05 16.7 Times Lower Bruni 5 - 2 0.009 0.003 0.05 16.7 Times Lower Benavides - 2 0.008 0.004 0.05 12.5 Times Lower El Mesquite - 1 0.007 0.004 0.05 12.5 Times Lower Bruni 5 - 1 0.009 0.005 0.05 10.0 Times Lower McBride 0.041 0.007 0.05 7.1 Times Lower 

## Holiday- 3 0.08 0.010 0.05 5.0 Times Lower Nell - 1 0.028 0.012 0.05 4.2 Times Lower Pawnee - 1 0.05 0.016 0.05 3.1 Times Lower Trivino - 1 0.05 0.016 0.05 3.1 Times Lower Brelum - 1 0.074 0.017 0.05 2.9 Times Lower Longoria - 2** 0.023 0.021 0.05 2.4 Times Lower O’Hern -4 0.042 0.039 0.05 1.3 Times Lower 

## Longoria - 1 0.023 0.025 0.05 2.0 Times Lower El Mesquite - 3 0.08 0.027 0.05 1.9 Times Lower Trevino - 2b 0.032 0.026 0.05 1.9 Times Lower Trevino - 2a 0.032 0.036 0.05 1.4 Times Lower O’Hern - 2 < 0.2 0.047 0.05 ~ Equal Benavides -4 0.004 0.010 0.05 5.0 Times Lower Hobson - 1*** 0.15 0.323 0.05 6.5 Times Higher

# Selenium

– 

# EPA’s MCL is .05 mg/l. All were restored to significantly less than EPA’s MCL except for one site.

# Radium 226 -

All sites exceeded EPA MCL of 5 pCi/l prior to mining. Baseline values ranged from 10 – 430 pCi/l. After restoration a ll sites, except one, were restored to below baseline..

# Uranium

- 

# EPA current MCL is .03 mg/l. Of the 22 sites reviewed, 8 were restored to baseline and better values, 9 sites were restored to within 1 mg/l, 4 sites were restored to within 2 mg/l, and 1 former mining site was restored to within 3 mg/l. At the time these mines were mined and restored many 

# years ago, the EPA had not yet established a uranium MCL. Instead the industry and Agreement States recognized the only existing National Standard; Wyoming’s Livestock Standard, 5 mg/l.

# In conclusion the data presented by the USGS in its 2009 study, when tabulated and sorted in matter that is more succinct to the statistician, becomes more obvious that 

# successful restorations can be achieved, and have occurred in the IRS Uranium Industry. To suggest and insist that the entire environment where ISR mining is conducted be returned to natural backgrounds, especially when those backgrounds currently don’t meet federal standards, is unrealistic on an ion by ion basis. ISR mining for uranium comes exceedingly close to achieving that goal nonetheless. Surface land is returned for unrestricted use, and water quality is returned, on average, to 

# less than a part per million of baseline. If Part 192 proposed rules were applied to other viable industries (manufacturing, power generation, conventional mining, etc.), none could or would come close in obtaining 

# the degree of success that the ISR uranium industry has demonstrated. They would all be regulated out of business.

# Uranium One Americas Restoration at the Willow Creek Project| 19 | WWW.URANIUM1.COM Uranium One Americas Head Office Casper, Wyoming 

## U1 Americas ISR Projects Uranium One Americas Inc is a wholly owned subsidiary of Uranium One Inc. – based in Wyoming, USA ISR development properties are located in 4 main areas of Wyoming – Powder River Basin (PRB), Great Divide Basin (GDB), Wind River Basin and Shirley Basin Uranium One’s Wyoming properties cover 7,886 mining claims, 170 leases on 250,571 acres M+I resources of 38.6 M lbs U 3

### O 8 

### , 

### inferred resources of 4.0 M lbs U 3

### O 8 

### , historical resource estimates of 81.7 M lbs U 3

### O 8 

## Great Divide Basin Powder River Basin

 Development PropertiesWWW.URANIUM1.COM

20 

## Willow Creek Project Johnson/Campbell Counties, Wyoming



## 20 TO HIGHWAY 192 (Lynch, WY)

STREETER RANCH STREETER

ROADJohnson Co.Campbell Co.WWW.URANIUM1.COM

21 

###  Willow Creek Highlights:  500K to 1,000K lbs./yr operation  Fully licensed CPP and IX satellite plant  Mine Unit 7 in operation as of January 2011 

###  Mine Unit 8 in operation as of January 2012  Mine Unit 10 in operation as of January 2013 

## Willow Creek Project Johnson/Campbell Counties, WY

Irigaray 

### CPP Christensen Satellite Plant Irigaray CPP Mine Unit 7

Header House MU7WWW.URANIUM1.COM

22 

## Irigaray Central Processing Plant| 23 | WWW.URANIUM1.COM 

## Aquifer Restorations Completed at Willow Creek At the Willow Creek project alone: restoration of 5 pilot operations and 14 production units:

 1975 to1977: 5I7 R&D ammonium bicarbonate mining pilot test (3 wellfield patterns); restoration of a portion of the wellfield completed in1977.

 Result: uranium <1 ppm, chloride restored to 159 ppm

 1977 to 1978: USMT (Uranium Solution Mining Technology) pilot test of calcium lixiviant and restoration.

 Result: (still looking for report)

 1979 to 1985: Test mining of sodium bicarbonate and subsequent restoration in the E wellfield.

 Result: uranium 0.96 ppm, chloride 40.2 ppm

 1987 to1988: 5I7 R&D: testing of magnesium bicarbonate lixiviant followed by restoration of entire 5I7 wellfield.

 Result: uranium 2.3 ppm, chloride 154 ppm

 Irigaray Production Units 1 through 9: mined 1977 through 1995; restored 1990 through 2002. All wells and monitor wells reclaimed in 2005 – 2007.

 Result: uranium 1.9 ppm, chloride 42.2 ppm

 Willow Creek R & D mining and restoration pilot for the Christensen Ranch site (1985 through 1989).  Christensen Ranch Mine Units 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 restorations 1997 through 2005 (regulatory review in progress).| 24 | TSX: UUU | JSE: UUU WWW.URANIUM1.COM | 24 | WWW.URANIUM1.COM 

### USMT Test Site

5I7 R&D Test Site 

## Locations of USMT and 5I7 Test Sites

Willow Creek ProjectWWW.URANIUM1.COM

25 

### Irigaray Mine Site Willow Creek Project| 26 | WWW.URANIUM1.COM Irigaray Plant Water Well (IR#1)

 Drilled in 1976, placed into operation in 1976. The well is located directly next to the Irigaray Central Processing Plant, d own gradient from the Irigaray wellfields. The well is still in use today, 40 years later.

 Completed in the Upper Irigaray Sandstone from 200’ to 300’ below surface – the same interval as mined and restored in all of th e Irigaray mining, restorations.

 Use of the well, and a second plant water well, has varied over the past 40 years , but combined consumptive use has ranged from a high of 50 gallons/minute or 72,000 gallons per day, to today’s use of about 7 gallons/minute, or 9,600 gallons per day.

 Distance from the Irigaray wellfields ranges from 4,626 feet (end of Production Unit 9) to 1,062 feet from the “E” wellfield.

 Water quality data for this well is provided in the following table. Baseline could not be found, so the nearby “E” wellfiel d b aseline is used for comparison purposes. 

## Analysis of Down Gradient Water Well Irigaray Plant Site

IR#1 Plant Well Cl

(mg/L) Conductivity

(umhos/cm) Total Alkalinity

(mg/L) pH

(units) SO4

(mg/L) Se (mg/l) U 3O 8 (mg/L) Baseline 12.1 (TDS – 435) 133.6 8.4 204 <0.01 0.081 2011 13.1 736 83.4 8.1 - - <0.4 2012 12.2 547 80.5 8.3 - - <0.4 2013 13.7 707 86.1 8.4 - - <0.4 2015 13.0 703 85.3 8.4 230 <0.1 0.07 IR 1 - 9 Restoration 42.2 1081 350.0 7.9 133.6 0.028 1.98 NO impacts to down gradient water well during 40 years of monitoring| 27 | WWW.URANIUM1.COM • Bison Basin Project - Great Divide Basin, WY • Leuenberger pilot scale test – Converse County, WY • North Platte pilot scale test – Converse County, WY • Nuclear Dynamics pilot - Campbell County, WY • Collins Draw pilot – Campbell County, WY • Reno Creek (2 pilots) – Campbell County, WY • Ruth pilot – Johnson County, WY • Nine Mile pilot – Natrona County, WY • Smith Ranch pilot – Converse County, WY • Highland ISL pilot – Converse County, WY • Smith Ranch/Highland A, B, C wellfields – Converse County, WY • Willow Creek 5I7 (twice), USMT, E Wellfield, Production Units 1 through 9 at IR, Willow Creek pilot at Christensen Ranch, Christensen Ranch Mine Units 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Data from these mining and restoration tests are available from company records and State of Wyoming, DEQ archives. Did EPA review any of this information in preparation for the proposed rule making?



## Summary of Aquifer Restoration Projects in Wyoming

# REGULATED ISR PROJECT INVENTORYTEXAS RESTORATION/STABILITY REPORTS AND DATA RESTORATION TABLE AMENDMENT ANALYSIS REPORTS (ACL) 1 UR01890- 21 Burns/Mosier Restoration Report 2 UR01890 -031 Burns/Mosier Restoration Report 3 UR01941 -040 O’Hern Restoration Table Amendment Report 4 UR02155 -021 El Mesquite Restoration Table Amendment Report 5 UR02155 -031 El Mesquite Restoration Table Amendment Report 6 UR02155 -041 El Mesquite Restoration Table Amendment Report 7 UR02156 -011 Holiday H - 1 (EXT) Restoration Table Amendment Report 8 UR02156 -011 Holiday Restoration Table Amendment Report 9 UR02156 -021 Restoration Table Amendment Report 10 UR02156 -051 Holiday Restoration Table Amendment Report 11 UR02156 -061 Holiday Restoration Table Amendment Report 12 UR02156 -071 Holiday Restoration Table Amendment Report 13 UR02156 -071 Holiday Restoration Table Amendment Report 14 UR02208 -011 Hobson Amendment Report_ Stabilization 15 URO2381 -011 Mt Lucas Restoration Table Amendment Report 16 URO2381 -021 Mt Lucas Restoration Table Amendment Report 17 URO2381 -031 Mt Lucas Restoration Table Amendment Report 18 URO2381 -041 Mt Lucas Restoration Table Amendment Report 19 URO2381 -051 Mt Lucas Restoration Table Amendment Report 20 URO2381 -061 Mt Lucas Restoration Table Amendment Report 21 URO2381 -071 Mt Lucas Restoration Table Amendment Report 22 URO2381 -081 Mt Lucas Restoration Table Amendment Report 23 UR02407PAA011 Trevino Restoration Report 1988 - 07 - 29 24 UR02407PAA021 Trevino Restoration Report 1986 - 07 - 25 25 UR02441 -011 Las Palmas Restoration Table Amendment Report & Data 26 UR02441 -021 Las Palmas Restoration Table Amendment Report & Data 27 UR02441 -011 Las Palmas Restoration Table Amendment Report & Data 28 UR02463 -031 West Cole Restoration Table Amendment Report 29 UR02463 -031 West Cole Restoration Table Amendment Report 30 UR02827 -011 Kingsville Dome Restoration Justification Report 31 URO2827 -021 Kingsville Dome Restoration Justification Report 32 URO2880 -011 Rosita Restoration Table Amendment Reports 33 URO2880 -021 Rosita RT Restoration Table ReportsTEXAS RESTORATON CERTIFICATES WITH DATA 1 UR01941 - 021 OHern TCEQ Restoration Certificate 2 UR01942 - 051 - 1 Bruni TCEQ Restoration Certificate 3 UR01942 - 051 - 2 Bruni TCEQ Restoration Certificate 4 UR02050 - 011 Pawnee TCES Stability File 5 UR02151 - 011 Brelum TCEQ Restoration Certificate 6 UR02151 - 021 Brelum TCEQ Restoration Certificate 7 UR02155 - 011 El Mesquite TCEQ Restoration Certificate 8 UR02156 - 031 Holiday TCEQ Restoration Certificate 9 UR02156 - 031 Restoration Certificate 10 UR02202 - 011 Nell TCEQ Restoration Certificate 11 UR02208 - 011 Hobson TCEQ Restoration Certificate 12 UR02222 - 011 Longoria TCEQ Restoration Certificate 13 UR02222 - 021 Longoria TCEQ Restoration Certificate 14 UR02312 - 011 Benavides TCEQ Restoration Certificate 15 UR02312 - 021 Benavides TCEQ Restoration File 16 UR02312 - 031 Benavides TCEQ Restoration Certificate 17 UR02312 - 031 Benavides TCEQ Restoration File 18 UR02407 - 011 Trevino TCEQ Restoration Certificate 19 UR02407 - 021a Trevino TCEQ Restoration Certificate 20 UR02407 - 021b Trevino TCEQ Restoration Certificate 21 UR02420 - 011 McBride TCEQ Restoration CertificateNew Mexico - Mobil Section 9 Peer Reviewed Technical and Restoration Reports

1 In - Situ Leaching of Crownpoint, New Mexico, Uranium Ore: Part 1 - Mineralogical Frame of Reference. Vogt et. al. SPE Journal 2 In - Situ Leaching of Crownpoint, New Mexico, Uranium Ore: Part 2 - Laboratory Study of a Mild Leaching System. Vogt et. al. SPE Journal 3 In - Situ Leaching of Crownpoint, NM, Uranium Ore: Part 3 - Laboratory Study of Strong Leaching Systems: Sodium Hypochlorite. Vogt et. al. SPE Journal 4 In - Situ Leaching of Crownpoint, NM, Uranium Ore: Part 4 - Laboratory Study of Strong Leaching Systems: Oxidant/Sulfuric Acid. Vogt et. al. SPE Journal 5 In - Situ Leaching of Crownpoint, New Mexico, Uranium Ore: Part 5 - Laboratory Study of Strong Leaching Systems: Oxidant - Heat. Vogt et. al. SPE Journal 6 In - Situ Leaching of Crownpoint, New Mexico, Uranium Ore: Part 6 - Section 9 Pilot Test. Vogt et. al. SPE Journal 7 Annual Restoration Reports w/data to NMED - 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986,1987, 1988. Mobil Oil Corp. 8 HRI/ Town of Crownpoint down gradient water quality data.Wyoming - Irigaray Water Well 37 Years of Down Gradient Monitoring Area of Review Background Data

Assessments UIC Area Permit Applications 1 Agency validated background water quality data and hydrogeologic tests and analysis from Production Area Authorizations, Mine Unit Authorizations, responses to requests for additional information (RAIs) 2 UR02051. Union Carbide Palangana Domestic Well Sample History 3 UR02154. Re - permitting/licensing of the Boots/Brown ISPR Project. Baseline/AOR well resampling information. 4 UR02312 & UR02463. Background maps, water well inventory and analytical data for AOR wells for the West Cole Project (Benavides) 5 UR02381. Background maps, water well inventory and analytical data for AOR wells for the Mt Lucas Project. Baseline well turned over to landowner. 6 UR02155 & UR02156. Background maps, water well inventory and analytical data for AOR wells for the – El Mesquite Project 7 UR02208. Background maps, water well inventory and analytical data for AOR wells for the Hobson Project 8 UR02020, UR02407 & UR02914. Background maps, water well inventory and analytical data for AOR wells for the Trevino/Gruy/McBride Projects

# 23 Well Sampled Before ISR in AOR

# TCEQ SPONSORED PROGRAM

• Independently Resampled Well In The 

# Area of Review (AOR) of Historic ISR Operations • Compare with Per ISR Background • Determine changes in water quality two to three decades after ISR operations have closed