06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC1NRC’sNew Generic EnvironmentalNew Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement and Its ImpactsImpact Statement and Its Impactson In Situ Leach Facility Licensingon In Situ Leach Facility LicensingPrepared for the 2009 NMA/NRC ConferencePrepared for the 2009 NMA/NRC ConferencePrepared by Thompson & Simmons, PLLC:Prepared by Thompson & Simmons, PLLC:Christopher S. Pugsley, Esq. (Presenter)Christopher S. Pugsley, Esq. (Presenter)06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC2INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)Indicated the Generic Environmental ImpactIndicated the Generic Environmental ImpactStatement (GEIS) for In Situ Leach Facilities isStatement (GEIS) for In Situ Leach Facilities isNeeded Due to a Number of AgencyNeeded Due to a Number of AgencyChallengesChallenges:Large Number of Proposed Applications (ApproximatelyLarge Number of Proposed Applications (Approximately30) by 2012;30) by 2012;Limited Agency Human and Financial Resources;Limited Agency Human and Financial Resources;Need for SiteNeed for Site-Specific Environmental Impact StatementsSpecific Environmental Impact Statements(EISs) for New Facility Licensing Under 10 CFR Part 51) for New Facility Licensing Under 10 CFR Part 5106/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC3INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONNRC Conducted an Open Scoping Process on theNRC Conducted an Open Scoping Process on theProposed GEISProposed GEIS:Three Public Scoping Meetings (Casper, Wyoming, Albuquerque,Three Public Scoping Meetings (Casper, Wyoming, Albuquerque,New Mexico, Gallup, New Mexico)New Mexico, Gallup, New Mexico)NRC Received Public Comment From Several SourcesNRC Received Public Comment From Several Sources:Public Scoping Meetings;Public Scoping Meetings;Regulatory Agencies;Regulatory Agencies;Industry Groups;Industry Groups;Interested StakeholdersInterested Stakeholders06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC4INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONIn July of 2008, NRC Issued Its Draft GenericIn July of 2008, NRC Issued Its Draft GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement for In Situ Leach (ISL)Environmental Impact Statement for In Situ Leach (ISL)Facilities (NUREGFacilities (NUREG-1910) for Public Comment;1910) for Public Comment;Comments Were Submitted to NRC From a Number ofComments Were Submitted to NRC From a Number ofInterested StakeholdersInterested Stakeholders:Eight (8) Public Comment Meetings;Eight (8) Public Comment Meetings;Federal Agencies;Federal Agencies;States and State Agencies;States and State Agencies;Industry Members and Groups;Industry Members and Groups;Members of the PublicMembers of the Public06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC5INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONAvailability of NUREGAvailability of NUREG-1910 Now Provides NRC1910 Now Provides NRCStaff With Regulatory Pathway toStaff With Regulatory Pathway to“Tier”Site-Specific Environmental Reviews Off NUREGSpecific Environmental Reviews Off NUREG-1910 Analyses and Conclusions1910 Analyses and Conclusions:National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council onNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations AllowEnvironmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations Allow“TieringTiering”;Provides Additional Efficiencies in the New FacilityProvides Additional Efficiencies in the New FacilityLicensing Process;Licensing Process;Provides License Applicants and Licensees With GuidanceProvides License Applicants and Licensees With Guidanceon Preparing Environmental Reports (ERs):on Preparing Environmental Reports (ERs):–License Applicants and Licensees Should Reference NUREGLicense Applicants and Licensees Should Reference NUREG-1910 Where Appropriate to Facilitate Timely Review1910 Where Appropriate to Facilitate Timely Review06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC6INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONOn June 4, 2009, NRC Issued Its Final VersionOn June 4, 2009, NRC Issued Its Final Versionof NUREGof NUREG-1910 Including1910 Including:Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action;Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action;ISL Uranium Recovery and Alternatives;ISL Uranium Recovery and Alternatives;Description of Affected Environment (Four Regions);Description of Affected Environment (Four Regions);Potential Environmental Impacts;Potential Environmental Impacts;Cumulative Effects;Cumulative Effects;Environmental Justice;Environmental Justice;Mitigation Measures;Mitigation Measures;Environmental Monitoring;Environmental Monitoring;Consultations and SummaryConsultations and Summary06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC7INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONThe Final NUREGThe Final NUREG-1910 Included1910 IncludedAdditional Information in its AppendicesAdditional Information in its Appendices:Scoping Summary Report;Scoping Summary Report;Potentially Applicable Statutes and Regulations;Potentially Applicable Statutes and Regulations;Conventional Uranium Milling Technologies;Conventional Uranium Milling Technologies;Cultural and Historical Resource Management;Cultural and Historical Resource Management;Hazardous Chemicals;Hazardous Chemicals;Cumulative Effect Review;Cumulative Effect Review;Response to Public CommentsResponse to Public Comments06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC8NUREG-1910: RESPONSE TO1910: RESPONSE TOCOMMENTSCOMMENTSA Number of Important Regulatory/PolicyA Number of Important Regulatory/PolicyConsiderations Are Found in The Response toConsiderations Are Found in The Response toCommentsComments:ISL Site Development isISL Site Development is“Phased & IterativePhased & Iterative”;Regional Analysis Can Be Applied to Other GeographicRegional Analysis Can Be Applied to Other GeographicLocations;Locations;Clarification of Regulatory Requirements;Clarification of Regulatory Requirements;–WellfieldWellfieldCollection Data For License Applications v. PostCollection Data For License Applications v. Post-LicenseLicenseIssuance;Issuance;–Excursion Detection RequirementsExcursion Detection RequirementsConformance of GEIS Terms to the GEIS Glossary;Conformance of GEIS Terms to the GEIS Glossary;Recognition of Aquifer Exemptions, Restoration RequirementsRecognition of Aquifer Exemptions, Restoration Requirementsand Associated Safeguards as Effective Means to Protectand Associated Safeguards as Effective Means to ProtectAdjacent, NonAdjacent, Non-Exempt AquifersExempt Aquifers06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC9NUREG-1910: RESPONSE TO1910: RESPONSE TOCOMMENTSCOMMENTSSeveral Critical Points Made by NMASeveral Critical Points Made by NMAWere Not Added or Revised by NRCWere Not Added or Revised by NRC:Greater Description of PerformanceGreater Description of Performance-Based LicensingBased Licensingand License Conditions;and License Conditions;Acknowledgment That 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A,Acknowledgment That 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A,Criterion 5B Does Not Apply to ISL as a Matter ofCriterion 5B Does Not Apply to ISL as a Matter ofLaw;Re-Evaluation ofEvaluation of“Toll MillingToll Milling”of Ion-Exchange (IX)Exchange (IX)Resins, Including Those From Water (Mine, Drinking,Resins, Including Those From Water (Mine, Drinking,Other) Treatment OperationsOther) Treatment Operations06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC10NUREG-1910 DIRECT & INDIRECT1910 DIRECT & INDIRECTIMPACTSIMPACTSThe Final NUREGThe Final NUREG-1910’s Analyses &s Analyses &Conclusions Have Direct and IndirectConclusions Have Direct and IndirectImpacts on Other Licensing ProcessesImpacts on Other Licensing Processes:New Facility Licensing;New Facility Licensing;License Amendments & Renewals;License Amendments & Renewals;Satellite ISL Facilities;Satellite ISL Facilities;Specific Exemptions for PreSpecific Exemptions for Pre-Licensing SiteLicensing SiteConstructionConstruction06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC11NUREG-1910: NEW FACILITY1910: NEW FACILITYLICENSINGLICENSINGThe Final NUREGThe Final NUREG-1910 Has Direct1910 Has DirectImpacts on New Facility LicensingImpacts on New Facility Licensing:Generic/Programmatic Review of Newly ProposedGeneric/Programmatic Review of Newly ProposedFacilities;Facilities;Site-Specific Environmental ReviewsSpecific Environmental Reviews06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC12NUREG-1910: NEW FACILITY1910: NEW FACILITYLICENSINGLICENSINGNUREG-1910 Continues to Offer a1910 Continues to Offer aGeneric/Programmatic Approach to ISL FacilityGeneric/Programmatic Approach to ISL FacilityLicensingLicensing:CEQ & NRC Regulations Continue to EndorseCEQ & NRC Regulations Continue to Endorse“TieringTiering”;NRC Staff Continue to Espouse the Use ofNRC Staff Continue to Espouse the Use of“TieringTiering”;Generic Regional Analyses Still Considered to Be a SourceGeneric Regional Analyses Still Considered to Be a Sourceof Efficiencies in License Review Processof Efficiencies in License Review Process:Mitigate Need forMitigate Need for“Full BlownFull Blown”EISsfor Each New Facilityfor Each New Facility06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC13NUREG-1910: NEW FACILITY1910: NEW FACILITYLICENSINGLICENSINGHowever, NRC Staff Has Altered the OriginalHowever, NRC Staff Has Altered the OriginalApproach to Environmental ReviewsApproach to Environmental Reviews:The Original Approach Was to Prepare NUREGThe Original Approach Was to Prepare NUREG-1910 and1910 andThen“Tier”Site-Specific Environmental AssessmentsSpecific Environmental Assessments(EAs) for Each New Proposed Site;) for Each New Proposed Site;NOW, the New Approach is toNOW, the New Approach is to“Tier”Site-SpecificSpecificSupplemental Environmental Impact Statements (Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements (SEISs) forEach New Proposed Site;Each New Proposed Site;Change Made toChange Made to:–Address Public, NGO Concerns;Address Public, NGO Concerns;–Provide Strong Legal/NEPA Basis for Environmental ReviewsProvide Strong Legal/NEPA Basis for Environmental Reviews06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC14NUREG-1910: NEW FACILITY1910: NEW FACILITYLICENSINGLICENSINGAs a License Applicant, What Does ThisAs a License Applicant, What Does ThisMean for Me?Mean for Me?:License Review Process Will Require AdditionalLicense Review Process Will Require AdditionalTime:–10 CFR Part 51:_Requires That the Following Be10 CFR Part 51:_Requires That the Following BeConducted for an SEISConducted for an SEIS:Notice of Intent to Prepare the SEIS (Mandatory);Notice of Intent to Prepare the SEIS (Mandatory);Scoping (Discretionary) (NRC Has Determined thatScoping (Discretionary) (NRC Has Determined thatNUREG-1910 Negates the Need for Detailed1910 Negates the Need for DetailedScoping Due to Its Elongated Scoping ProcessScoping Due to Its Elongated Scoping Process(Targeted Scoping)(Targeted Scoping)06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC15NUREG-1910: NEW FACILITY1910: NEW FACILITYLICENSINGLICENSINGAs a License Applicant, What Does ThisAs a License Applicant, What Does ThisMean for Me?Mean for Me?:–License Review Likely Will RequireLicense Review Likely Will RequireAdditional Financial Resources (Typically anAdditional Financial Resources (Typically anSEIS is More Expensive Than an EA);SEIS is More Expensive Than an EA);–License Review May or May Not BeLicense Review May or May Not BeConducted Within the Proposed TwoConducted Within the Proposed Two-YearTimeframeTimeframe06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC16NUREG-1910: LICENSE1910: LICENSEAMENDMENTS AND RENEWALSAMENDMENTS AND RENEWALSCurrently, the Availability of NUREGCurrently, the Availability of NUREG-1910Allows NRC Staff toAllows NRC Staff to“Tier”Site-SpecificSpecificEnvironmental Reviews for LicenseEnvironmental Reviews for LicenseAmendments and Renewals, ButAmendments and Renewals, ButQuestions RemainQuestions Remain:Which Form Will the SiteWhich Form Will the Site-Specific Review Take?Specific Review Take?:–EA?;–SEIS?;–EIS?06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC17NUREG-1910: LICENSE1910: LICENSEAMENDMENTS AND RENEWALSAMENDMENTS AND RENEWALSWhy Should License Amendments or Renewals DefaultWhy Should License Amendments or Renewals Defaultto an EA?:to an EA?:Prior NRC Practice Was to Start With an EA and Determine if aPrior NRC Practice Was to Start With an EA and Determine if aFinding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Was AppropriateFinding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) Was Appropriate(NUREG-1748);10 CFR Part 51 Does Not Require an EIS for a License Amendment10 CFR Part 51 Does Not Require an EIS for a License Amendmentor Renewalor Renewal:–(“(b) The following types of actionsrequire an environmental impa(b) The following types of actionsrequire an environmental impactstatement or a supplement to an environmental impact statement:statement or a supplement to an environmental impact statement:(8)Issuance of a license to possess and use source material for uraIssuance of a license to possess and use source material for uraniummilling or production of uraniumhexafluoride pursuant to part 4milling or production of uraniumhexafluoride pursuant to part 40 ofthis chapter.this chapter.”);Amendment or Renewal Applications Typically Do Not InvolveAmendment or Renewal Applications Typically Do Not InvolveNearly as Much SiteNearly as Much Site-Specific Analysis as a New Facility LicenseSpecific Analysis as a New Facility License06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC18NUREG-1910: SATELLITE ISL1910: SATELLITE ISLFACILITIESFACILITIESNRC Also Has Raised Potential Shifts inNRC Also Has Raised Potential Shifts inLicensing Policy for Satellite ISLLicensing Policy for Satellite ISLWellfieldsWellfields/Facilities;/Facilities;Policy QuestionPolicy Question:Do SatelliteDo SatelliteWellfieldsWellfieldsRequire a New License or a LicenseRequire a New License or a LicenseAmendment to an Existing License?Amendment to an Existing License?06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC19NUREG-1910: SATELLITE ISL1910: SATELLITE ISLFACILITIESFACILITIESWhile NRC Has Not Rendered a Policy Decision on theWhile NRC Has Not Rendered a Policy Decision on theParameters for Whether a License or LicenseParameters for Whether a License or LicenseAmendment is Required, That Decision Has ImportantAmendment is Required, That Decision Has ImportantImplications for Environmental ReviewsImplications for Environmental Reviews:NewLicensesLicensesTrigger the 10 CFR Part 51 Requirement for an EIS;Trigger the 10 CFR Part 51 Requirement for an EIS;Unclear Based on New Facility License Requirement forUnclear Based on New Facility License Requirement forSEISsWhether Satellites Will Require an SEIS;Whether Satellites Will Require an SEIS;Satellite ISLSatellite ISLWellfieldsWellfieldsTypically Do Not Involve a SignificantTypically Do Not Involve a SignificantAmount of SiteAmount of Site-Specific AnalysesSpecific Analyses:–No Central Processing Plant;No Central Processing Plant;–Few, if Any, Administrative/Process Structures;Few, if Any, Administrative/Process Structures;–Minor Need for Radiological Dose Assessments Due to LimitedMinor Need for Radiological Dose Assessments Due to LimitedFacilitiesFacilities06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC20NUREG-1910: SATELLITE ISL1910: SATELLITE ISLFACILITIESFACILITIESQuestion: Why Should Satellite ISLQuestion: Why Should Satellite ISLWellfieldsWellfieldsor Facilities Default to an EA?or Facilities Default to an EA?:Answer: Use NUREGAnswer: Use NUREG-1910 Analyses and1910 Analyses andConclusions to Default to an EA:Conclusions to Default to an EA:If a New License is Implicated, NUREGIf a New License is Implicated, NUREG-1910 Should1910 ShouldMitigate Need for an SEIS and Conform toMitigate Need for an SEIS and Conform toNRC’sOriginalOriginalEnvironmental Review Approach of aEnvironmental Review Approach of a“Tiered”EA;If a License Amendment is Implicated, No Part 51If a License Amendment is Implicated, No Part 51Requirement for an EIS and, Thus, an EA with NUREGRequirement for an EIS and, Thus, an EA with NUREG-1910Should Be More Than SufficientShould Be More Than Sufficient06/17/200906/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC21CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONSThe NUREGThe NUREG-1910 Development Process Has Resulted1910 Development Process Has Resultedin Significant Changes to the License Applicationin Significant Changes to the License ApplicationReview ProcessReview Process:Started with ProposedStarted with Proposed“Tiered”Environmental Assessments (EA;Environmental Assessments (EA;Now, Final Review Process ImplicatesNow, Final Review Process ImplicatesSEISsAdding Time andAdding Time andCost to the License Review ProcessCost to the License Review ProcessNew Review Processes Implicate Potential Use of NewNew Review Processes Implicate Potential Use of NewSite Construction Approaches;Site Construction Approaches;Next 12Next 12-18 Months Will Result in Important Re18 Months Will Result in Important Re-ShapingShapingof the Uranium Recovery Industryof the Uranium Recovery IndustryEPA Update:NESHAP Uranium ActivitiesReid J. RosnickEnvironmental Protection AgencyRadiation Protection Division (6608J)Washington, DC 20460NMA/NRC Uranium Recovery WorkshopJuly 2, 20092OverviewGeneral requirements applicable to Subpart Band Subpart WEPA regulatory requirements for undergrounduranium mining operations (Subpart B)EPA regulatory requirements for operatinguranium mill tailings (Subpart W)Status update on Subpart W activitiesSome Conclusions3General Requirements Applicable to Subpart Band Subpart W•Subpart B and W facilities are subject to the generalrequirements of 40 CFR 61.01 - .19•Approval to operate•Application for construction and modification•Notification of startup•Compliance with monitoring/maintenance requirements•Subpart W facilities are subject to the design andground-water requirements of 40 CFR 192.32(a)4EPA Regulatory Requirements forUnderground Uranium MiningOperations (Subpart B)5EPA Regulatory Requirements forUnderground Uranium Mining (Clean Air Act)•40 CFR 61.20, Subpart B regulations limiting radonemissions from underground uranium mines include:•Applies to 10,000 tons/yr ore production, or 100,000tons/mine lifetime•Ambient air radon standard not to exceed 10 mrem/yrto any member of the public-compliance determinedwith COMPLY-R, or equivalent, approved code•Annual reporting requirements – by 3/31 each year,emissions calculations for the year, monthly if not incompliance•Record keeping requirements: Five years6EPA Regulatory Requirements forOperating Uranium Mill Tailings(Subpart W)7EPA Regulatory Requirements forOperating Uranium Mill Tailings (Clean Air Act)•40 CFR 61 Subpart W requirements apply to facilitieslicensed to manage uranium byproduct materials (after12/15/89) during and following the processing of uraniumores•Preconstruction approval, 40 CFR 61.07•Impoundment construction and operation requirementsin 40 CFR 192 cross referenced in Subpart W•Limit on number/size of impoundments•Phased Disposal – lined impoundments no morethan 40 acres, no more than two in operation atany time•Continuous Disposal – tailings are dewatered andimmediately disposed, no more than 10 acresuncovered at any time8EPA Regulatory Requirements forUranium Operations (Clean Air Act)Subpart W Requirements (continued)•Radon emission standard of 20 pCi/m2/sec --annual reporting requirements, notification inadvance of testing•The radon emission standard is for existing sourcesonly (existing before 12/15/89)•All operators must comply with 40 CFR 192.32(a)Seehttp://www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/subpartw/index.htmlformore information9Status Update on Subpart W Activities10Status of Subpart W Review Activities•Per Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA isobligated to review, and possibly revise Subpart W•A workgroup has been established•Members from across the Agency•Represent ORIA, OGC, ORD, OSWER, OECA,OPEI, OW, Regions 6, 7, 8 and 10•Workplan, Communications Plan, AnalyticBlueprint have been completed, basically, howare we going to approach the task11Status of Subpart W Review Activities•We are conducting historical research on the riskassessment work originally done in support of the1989 standard•We have begun a survey of existing technologies•Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurancehas sent information request letters to numerousuranium recovery facilities•Answers better inform the workgroup of theuniverse of facilities, and the types of uraniumrecovery processes that exist•We have also requested that ISL facilities provideradon flux data from their evaporation ponds12Status of Subpart W Review Activities•We are researching if Method 115 continues to becurrent, or whether other methods could beemployed for monitoring and analysis of radon flux•We are planning to work with all stakeholders inreviewing/revising the standards•The Agency continues to believe that conventionaltailings piles, certain evaporation ponds from ISLoperations, and heap leach piles, are subject to therequirements of Subpart W•We base our decision on a review of existingregulatory language13Applicability of Subpart W (Clean Air Act)•40 CFR 61.250 –“The provisions of this subpart apply to owners andoperators of facilities licensed to manage uraniumbyproduct materials during and following theprocessing of uranium ores, commonly referred to asuranium mills and their associated tailings. Thissubpart does not apply to the disposal of tailings.”14Subpart W Definition of UraniumByproduct Material•40 CFR 61.251 (g) –“Uranium byproduct material or tailingsmeans thewaste produced by the extraction or concentrationof uranium from any ore processed primarily for itssource material content. Ore bodies depleted byuranium solution extraction and which remainunderground do not constitute byproduct materialfor the purposes of this subpart.”15EPA Regulatory Requirements forUranium Operations (Clean Air Act)•What is an impoundment (per 40 CFR 192.32, whichcross references 40 CFR 260.10)?•“...a facility or part of a facility which is a naturaltopographic depression, man-made excavation ordiked area formed primarily of earthen materials(although it may be lined with man-made materials)which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquidwastes, or wastes containing free liquids, and whichis not an injection well. Examples of impoundmentsare holding, storage, settling, and aeration pits,ponds and lagoons.”16Some Conclusions•We are in the process of reviewing and possiblyrevising Subpart W•Owners/operators of ISL facilities that utilizeevaporation ponds containing byproduct materialproduced by the extraction or concentration ofuranium should assume you are subject to therequirements of Subpart W•We appreciate the assistance of all stakeholders toinform and enable us to craft a protective andenforceable rule.17Questions?Hydrology Issues at ISR FacilitiesHydrology Issues at ISR FacilitiesElise A. Striz, Ph.D.Elise A. Striz, Ph.D.HydrogeologistHydrogeologistUranium Recovery and Licensing BranchUranium Recovery and Licensing BranchUS Nuclear Regulatory CommissionUS Nuclear Regulatory CommissionGround WaterGround Water•Hydrogeologic Characterization(Section 2.7)•ISR Processes (Section 3.1)•GW Monitoring (Section 5.7.8)•GW Restoration (Section 6.1)Hydrogeologic CharacterizationHydrogeologic CharacterizationIssues•Surficial aquifer characterization•Unconfined (unsaturated) aquifer characterization•Fault characterization•Missing confining layersIssue: Surficial AquiferIssue: Surficial AquiferCharacterizationCharacterizationAlluviumAquifer 1Aquifer 2DischargePointCharacterizing surficial aquiferCharacterizing surficial aquifer•Provide maps of depth to water below groundsurface to surficial aquifer•Indicate which formations act as the surficial aquifer•Characterize water quality of each formation whichacts as the surficial aquifer•Include any connection of surficial aquifer to surfacewater such as in alluvium near drainagesWhy is an unconfined ore zone setting differentWhy is an unconfined ore zone setting differentfrom confined?from confined?Confined aquiferConfined aquifer: Water to meet pumping rate is released: Water to meet pumping rate is releasedby compression of sediments and expansion of water soby compression of sediments and expansion of water somuch larger volume of aquifer is impacted.much larger volume of aquifer is impacted.ProducesProduces“pressure cone of depression.pressure cone of depression.”Unconfined aquiferUnconfined aquifer: Water to meet pumping rate is: Water to meet pumping rate isreleased by dewatering so much smaller volume of aquiferreleased by dewatering so much smaller volume of aquiferis impacted.is impacted.ProducesProduces“dewatered cone of depression.dewatered cone of depression.”Issue: Unconfined Aquifer CharacterizationIssue: Unconfined Aquifer Characterizations=drawdown (ft) Q=pumping rate(gpm) T =transmissivity (gpd/ft)t=time (days) r=distance of observation from pumping well (ft)ySrTtTQs23.0log264=SrTtTQs23.0log264=S= Sy= Specific YieldConfined drawdown equationUnconfined drawdown equationOverlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardsaturatedS=coefficient of storageTuQWs)(6.114=Overlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardunsaturatedsaturatedDrawdown in confined vs. unconfinedDrawdown in confined vs. unconfinedaquiferaquiferExample: Well Q=20 gpm, T=200 gpd/ft, t =1day, S=.0005 (confined), Sy=.05 (unconfined)01020304050607080901000 50 100 150 200 250 300Distance (ft)

Draw dow n (ft)ConfinedUnconfinedWater levels in unconfined aquifer in response toWater levels in unconfined aquifer in response toextraction/injectionextraction/injectionTuQWs)(6.114=Overlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardDewateringExtraction WellInjection WellMoundingCharacterizing ore zone unconfined aquiferCharacterizing ore zone unconfined aquifer•Determine water levels for ore zone aquifer and assesswhether unconfined or confined•Design pumping tests forappropriate conditions (unconfined: closer observationwells, longer test time)•Analyze results with the appropriate methods: confined orunconfined. Calculate S for confined, Sy for unconfined•Groundwater flow modeling can be very useful to predict andverify field behaviorIssue: Fault CharacterizationIssue: Fault CharacterizationOverlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardsaturatedOverlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardsaturatedDrawdown near a Sealing FaultDrawdown near a Sealing FaultSrTtTQSrTtTQsriT223.0log2643.0log264+=Real WellImageWell20 gpm 20 gpm90 ft10 ftObservationWellAdd drawdown from combined wells at observation wellAdd drawdown from combined wells at observation wellExample: Q=20 gpm, T=200 gpd/ft, t=1 day at observation well10 ft from real well and 90 ft from image well (rr=10 ft,ri=90ft))0005(.)10()1)(/200(3.0log/200)200(264)0005(.)90()1)(/200(3.0log/200)20(26422ftdayftgpdftgpdgpmftdayftgpdftgpdgpmsT+=Real well drawdownImage well drawdown01020304050607080901001101200 5 10 15 20 25Time (days)

Observation Well Water Level (feet)water level withfaultwater level withoutfaultCharacterizing FaultsCharacterizing Faults•Provide structural maps of faults and showoffsets on cross sections•If faults are present, design pumping tests to takeinto account fault behavior and analyze pumpingtest results with an awareness of the impact of thefault•Consider using groundwater flow models tocharacterize and predict behaviorIssue: Missing confining layersIssue: Missing confining layersPumping tests will show reduced drawdown as underlying aquiferprovides rechargeOverlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying AquiferUnderlying aquitardUnderlying aquitardCharacterization when confining layers are missingCharacterization when confining layers are missing•Provide well defined isopachs of overlying aquifer,overlying aquitard, production zone aquifer,underlying aquitard using well boring logs/cores.•Be aware that pumping test analysis is affected byflow from connected aquifer (s).•Consider using groundwater flow models tocharacterize and predict behavior in these locations.ISR ProcessesISR ProcessesIssues•Unconfined aquifers•Faults•Lixiviant composition and gas lockWhy is the unconfined aquifer setting of concern as aWhy is the unconfined aquifer setting of concern as asafety issue?safety issue?•Extraction causes dewatering of aquifer - can limit rates•Cone of depression has limited areal extent- demonstration of cone ofdepression and communication across ore zone and with monitoringwell ring requires more pumping wells•Dewatering and limited extent of cone of depression may make it moredifficult to capture excursions•Low hydrostatic head can impact dissolved oxygen solubility in orezone and impact conductivity- “gas lock”Injection/Extraction= Dewatering/MoundingInjection/Extraction= Dewatering/MoundingDewatering can limit extraction ratesDewatering can limit extraction ratesTuQWs)(6.114=Overlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardDewateringMoundingExtraction WellInjection WellMonitoriExtractiTuQWs)(6.114=Overlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardMonitoring WellExtraction WellDewatering limits areal extent of drawdownDewatering limits areal extent of drawdown-impacts coneimpacts coneof depression inward gradientof depression inward gradientTo demonstrate communication across wellfield may takeTo demonstrate communication across wellfield may takeseveral pumping wells acting simultaneouslyseveral pumping wells acting simultaneouslyMonitoringRing WellsPumpingWellsExcursion capture may be limited by extent of dewateredExcursion capture may be limited by extent of dewateredcone of depression and extraction ratecone of depression and extraction rateMonitoringRing WellWellfieldExcursionCharacterizing ISR operations in an unconfined aquiferCharacterizing ISR operations in an unconfined aquifer•Determine limiting extraction rate to avoid dewatering (step ratetests)•To demonstrate communication,design pumping tests whichconsider limited extent of drawdown at each well•Provide strategies for how to capture excursions given limitedextraction rates and cones of depression•Consider groundwater flow modeling to demonstrate unconfinedaquifer behavior ( cone of depression, operations, restoration)Issue: Sealing/Leaking FaultIssue: Sealing/Leaking FaultOverlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardsaturatedOverlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardsaturatedCharacterizing ISR operations near a faultCharacterizing ISR operations near a fault•Use pumping tests to address behavior of fault andassess impact of fault on wellfield cone of depression•Use pumping tests to assess connectivity of offsetlayers to ore zone to modify cone of depression•Consider groundwater flow modeling to demonstratebehavior around fault ( cone of depression,operations, restoration)Issue: Lixiviant composition and gas lockIssue: Lixiviant composition and gas lock•Bicarbonate•Carbon Dioxide•Oxygen•Hydrogen PeroxideRule of thumb:1 ppm dissolved oxygen/ foot of headEXAMPLE: Injection Well•Fracture gradient limitation 1 psi/ft, so maxinjection pressure is 300 psi.•Max well head pressure is therefore 300 psi-(300 ft*.433 psi/ft)=170psi.•170 psi=392 feet so max O2can be 392 ppm atwell head.•If inject 392 ppm and solubility is 100 ppm(100ft): 292 ppm will come out of solution intoore zoneOxygen solubilityOxygen solubility300ft100ftO2Hydrogen peroxide in lixiviantHydrogen peroxide in lixiviantHydrogen peroxide decomposesto form free oxygen, O2, in thepresence of pyrite, Fe S2:OHHSOFeOHFeS2243222725.7+++=++−+↑++=++++222235.05.0OHFeOHFeChirita, P., “ A kinetic study of hydrogen peroxide decomposition in presence ofpyrite,” Chemical and Biochemical Engr Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 257-264,2007Free Phase OxygenDissolved oxygen bubbles out of lixiviant when hydrostatichead reduced (unconfined or shallow confined aquifer) orhydrogen peroxide interacts with pyriteSandGrainPore ThroatsGasBubblesWaterGasPhaseWaterPhaseThis creates a reduction in conductivity, known as “Gas Lock,” whichis dependent on saturation of the water and gas phasesAs gas bubbles continue to come out of solution, theycombine to block pore throats or separate the water phaseinto smaller channels.Sand grainFrom Benson et al, Lawrence Berkley National Lab, 2005Relative PermeabilityCarbon Dioxide and Brine(Analog for Free Gas and Water)00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.910 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1Water Saturation (percent)

Relative PermeabiityKrgKrw20% gassaturationin poresreduces Kwby 70%Krw=Kw/KorigHow much is the conductivity reduced?Why is it a Safety Issue ?Why is it a Safety Issue ?Gas LockGas Lock•If free gas is released at the injection well, it can reduce injectivityand create back pressure which can quickly damage well if notdetected.•Gas produced at production well can cause simultaneous gas andwater two phase flow that can damage piping, cause cavitation inpumps and affect pressure/flow measurements.•Reductions in conductivity of ore zone can change flow system inan unpredictable manner whichcan influence flow control andmay lead to excursions or bypassed zones.Addressing gas lockAddressing gas lock•Assess solubility limits ofdissolved oxygen in lixiviant and use oxygenconcentrations which prevent gas frombeing released from solution atinjection wells or ore zone•Avoid use of hydrogen peroxide in low hydrostatic head aquifers withpyrites•Watch for gas in produced water at extraction wells•Cycle wells from injection/extraction to change pressure conditions•Install pressure gauges on each well to detect pressure changes inwells and pipes directlyMonitoring and ExcursionsMonitoring and ExcursionsIssues•Lack of confining layers•FaultsWhere do you place the monitoring wells with lack ofWhere do you place the monitoring wells with lack ofvertical barrier?vertical barrier??Extraction WellOverlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardUnderlying AquiferUnderlying aquitardMW MWInjection WellHow do you capture an excursion?How do you capture an excursion?Overlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardUnderlying AquiferUnderlying aquitardMWMWExtraction WellMonitoring and excursion capture with missing confiningMonitoring and excursion capture with missing confininglayers•Assess how to place monitoringwells to detect verticalexcursions in the absence of barrier ( analogous to MW ring forhorizontal excursions)•Address how a vertical excursionto underlying aquifer wouldbe captured•Include underlying aquifer as part of production zone•Consider groundwater flow modeling to demonstratemonitoring and captureIssue-Faults: Sealing or LeakingFaults: Sealing or LeakingOverlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardOverlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardUnderlying sandUnderlying sandWhere do you place a MW and how do you capture anWhere do you place a MW and how do you capture anexcursion near a fault?excursion near a fault?Overlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardsaturatedOverlying sandOverlying AquitardUnderlying AquiferUnderlying aquitardsaturatedOre ZoneMWExcursionMonitoring and excursion capture near a faultMonitoring and excursion capture near a fault•Assess how to place monitoring wells to detect excursionsacross fault to offset overlying and underlying aquifers•Address how excursions across faults would be captured•Consider groundwater flow modeling to demonstratemonitoring and captureRestorationRestorationIssues•Pore volume calculation using saturated thickness vs.average completed thickness in unconfined aquifers•Dewatering/mounding effects on saturation andcontact of ore zone in unconfined aquifersIssue: Pore Volume in Unconfined AquiferIssue: Pore Volume in Unconfined AquiferPV= Area *PV= Area *Average Completed ThicknessAverage Completed Thickness* Porosity * Flare* Porosity * FlareTuQWs)(6.114=Overlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardunsaturatedsaturatedExtraction WellInjection WellSaturated ThicknessCompleted ThicknessTuQWs)(6.114=Overlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardunsaturatedsaturatedExtraction WellInjection WellInjection/Extraction in Unconfined Aquifer :Injection/Extraction in Unconfined Aquifer :Vertical flow contacts morethan completed thicknessVertical flow contacts morethan completed thicknessPV= Area *PV= Area *Saturated thicknessSaturated thickness* Porosity * Flare* Porosity * FlareIssue: Unconfined aquifer saturation/desaturation impactsIssue: Unconfined aquifer saturation/desaturation impactssweep/contact of ore zonewith restoration fluids.sweep/contact of ore zonewith restoration fluids.TuQWs)(6.114=Overlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardunsaturatedsaturatedExtraction WellInjection WellFlip/pulse wells to ensure contactof all portions of aquifer wiFlip/pulse wells to ensure contactof all portions of aquifer withrestoration fluids.restoration fluids.TuQWs)(6.114=Overlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardunsaturatedsaturatedExtraction WellInjection WellConclusionConclusion-Issues•Surficial Aquifers•Unconfined Aquifers•Faults•Missing Confining LayersAll four issues at one siteAll four issues at one siteOverlying sandOverlying AquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardOre ZoneUnderlying aquitardUnderlying sandUnderlying sandCharacterization, Flow Behavior, Monitoring,Characterization, Flow Behavior, Monitoring,Excursion Capture, RestorationExcursion Capture, RestorationResourcesResources•William Walton, “Groundwater Pumping Tests:Design and Analysis”•Johnson Controls, “Groundwater and Wells”•Michael Kasenow, “ Aquifer Test Data: Analysis andEvaluation”06/17/2009Thompson & Simmons, PLLC1Industry Perspectives on theIndustry Perspectives on theApplication of 40 CFR Part 61, SubpartApplication of 40 CFR Part 61, SubpartW to Uranium Recovery FacilitiesW to Uranium Recovery FacilitiesPrepared for the 2009 NMA/NRC ConferencePrepared for the 2009 NMA/NRC ConferencePrepared by Thompson & Simmons, PLLCPrepared by Thompson & Simmons, PLLCAnthony J. Thompson, Esq. (Presenter)Anthony J. Thompson, Esq. (Presenter)Christopher S. Pugsley, Esq.Christopher S. Pugsley, Esq.06/17/20092Thompson & Simmons, PLLCINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONAt the 2008 Nuclear Regulatory CommissionAt the 2008 Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC)/National Mining Association (NMA)(NRC)/National Mining Association (NMA)Conference, the Environmental Protection AgencyConference, the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Announced a New Scope for 40 CFR Part(EPA) Announced a New Scope for 40 CFR Part61, Subpart W61, Subpart W’s Application to Uranium Recoverys Application to Uranium RecoveryFacilitiesFacilities:Subpart W Applies toSubpart W Applies to:Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments;Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments;Evaporation Ponds;Evaporation Ponds;Other NonOther Non-Tailings Impoundments (e.g., Settling Ponds)Tailings Impoundments (e.g., Settling Ponds)06/17/20093Thompson & Simmons, PLLCINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONThe Domestic Uranium Recovery Industry Was SurprisedThe Domestic Uranium Recovery Industry Was Surprisedand Dismayed by This Pronouncementand Dismayed by This Pronouncement:Existing Conventional Mills HaveOnly Reported Radon Flux DataExisting Conventional Mills HaveOnly Reported Radon Flux DataFrom Uranium Mill Tailings ImpoundmentsFrom Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments:EPA Method 115 Assumes Water Covered Sources in SuchEPA Method 115 Assumes Water Covered Sources in SuchImpoundments to Be a Zero Source TermIn Situ Leach (ISL) FacilitiesDo Not Have Uranium Mill TailingsIn Situ Leach (ISL) FacilitiesDo Not Have Uranium Mill TailingsImpoundments and Have Not Reported in the PastImpoundments and Have Not Reported in the Past06/17/20094Thompson & Simmons, PLLCINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONNMA Responded to This Pronouncement onNMA Responded to This Pronouncement onBehalf of IndustryBehalf of Industry:Met with NRC to Discuss Its Position on This Issue;Met with NRC to Discuss Its Position on This Issue;Met with EPA Headquarters Task Force on This Issue;Met with EPA Headquarters Task Force on This Issue;Prepared a Detailed Analysis of thePrepared a Detailed Analysis of the:Subpart W Administrative Rulemaking Record; and theSubpart W Administrative Rulemaking Record; and theCurrent Status of Subpart W’s Application to Uranium Recoverys Application to Uranium RecoveryFacilitiesFacilities06/17/20095Thompson & Simmons, PLLCINTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTIONEPA Responded to NMA By StatingEPA Responded to NMA By Stating:EPA is Evaluating the Scope of Subpart W with aEPA is Evaluating the Scope of Subpart W with aPotential Rulemaking in Mind;Potential Rulemaking in Mind;EPA Has Sent Letters to Numerous UraniumEPA Has Sent Letters to Numerous UraniumRecovery Facility Operators (Both Conventional andRecovery Facility Operators (Both Conventional andISL):Demands for Information on Site OperationsDemands for Information on Site OperationsDemands for Testing on Existing Site FacilitiesDemands for Testing on Existing Site Facilities06/17/20096Thompson & Simmons, PLLCCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYCongress Enacted the Clean Air Act of 1977 (CAA) in Part to AddrCongress Enacted the Clean Air Act of 1977 (CAA) in Part to AddressRadionuclidesRadionuclidesas Potentially Hazardous Air Pollutants and To Haveas Potentially Hazardous Air Pollutants and To HaveEPA Develop National Emissions Standards for Hazardous AirEPA Develop National Emissions Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants (Pollutants (NESHAPsNESHAPs);March 7, 1989: EPA Proposes Standards at 40 CFR Part 61 as FolloMarch 7, 1989: EPA Proposes Standards at 40 CFR Part 61 as Follows:Subpart T:Subpart T: 

# Inactive InactiveUranium Mill Tailings Piles/Impoundments;Uranium Mill Tailings Piles/Impoundments;Subpart W:Subpart W: 

# ActiveUranium Mill Tailings Piles/Impoundments;Uranium Mill Tailings Piles/Impoundments;Subpart B: Underground Uranium Mines;Subpart B: Underground Uranium Mines;Others06/17/20097Thompson & Simmons, PLLCCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYDecember 15, 1989: EPA Promulgates Final Rules forDecember 15, 1989: EPA Promulgates Final Rules forSubparts T, W, and BSubparts T, W, and B:All Three Subparts Must Be Considered When Evaluating theAll Three Subparts Must Be Considered When Evaluating theScope of Subpart W:All Three Were Proposed/Promulgated at the Same Time;All Three Were Proposed/Promulgated at the Same Time;All Three Address Radon Emissions for Which EPAAll Three Address Radon Emissions for Which EPA’s Radionuclides RadionuclideRisk Factor Assumptions Would Be Equally Applicable;Risk Factor Assumptions Would Be Equally Applicable;Subpart T was Eventually Rescinded After Extensive NegotiationsSubpart T was Eventually Rescinded After Extensive NegotiationsAddressing Numerous Mill Tailings and Related Process Issues;Addressing Numerous Mill Tailings and Related Process Issues;EPA Conclusions and Statements in Subparts T and B are RelevantEPA Conclusions and Statements in Subparts T and B are RelevantAsTheir Conclusions Relate Directly to Subpart W as FinallyTheir Conclusions Relate Directly to Subpart W as FinallyPromulgatedPromulgated06/17/20098Thompson & Simmons, PLLCCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYThe Rescission of Subpart T Plays a Critical RoleThe Rescission of Subpart T Plays a Critical Role:Settlement Negotiations ExplicitlyRaised the Evaporation Pond aSettlement Negotiations ExplicitlyRaised the Evaporation Pond and NonTailings Impoundment Issue (Proposed Rule)Tailings Impoundment Issue (Proposed Rule):“The regulations contemplated by this notice seek to control theThe regulations contemplated by this notice seek to control theemission ofemission ofradon-222 by requiring the installationof an earthen cover over the d222 by requiring the installationof an earthen cover over the disposalisposalpiles as expeditiously as practicable considering technologicalpiles as expeditiously as practicable considering technologicalfeasibility.feasibility.However, there are other aspectsto the UMTRCA regulatory schemeHowever, there are other aspectsto the UMTRCA regulatory scheme, including, includingthe longthe long-term maintenance of the piles (once controlled) against erosion,term maintenance of the piles (once controlled) against erosion,andthe reclamation and maintenance of groundwaterthe reclamation and maintenance of groundwater.... 

# These actions entail the use These actions entail the use of evaporation ponds that in some instances of evaporation ponds that in some instances

... .have been placed directly upon .have been placed directly upon

the disposal site the disposal site.”;“EPA does not intend that the expeditious radon cover requirementEPA does not intend that the expeditious radon cover requirementextend toextend tothe areas where evaporation ponds are located,the areas where evaporation ponds are located, 

# even if on the pile itself even if on the pile itself, to the, to theextent that such evaporation pondis deemed by the implementingextent that such evaporation pondis deemed by the implementingagency(NRC or an affected Agreement State) to be an appropriate aspect(NRC or an affected Agreement State) to be an appropriate aspectto the overallto the overallremedial program for the particular site involved.remedial program for the particular site involved.”06/17/20099Thompson & Simmons, PLLCCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYThe Rescission of Subpart T Plays a Critical Role (CONTINUED)The Rescission of Subpart T Plays a Critical Role (CONTINUED):Settlement Negotiations ExplicitlyRaised the Evaporation Pond aSettlement Negotiations ExplicitlyRaised the Evaporation Pond and NonTailings Impoundment Issue (Proposed Rule)Tailings Impoundment Issue (Proposed Rule):“ 

# the ponds themselves serve as an effective radon barrier the ponds themselves serve as an effective radon barrier, thus this decision is, thus this decision isbolstered by the absence of anyevidence that there is a signifibolstered by the absence of anyevidence that there is a significant public healthcant public healthrisk presented by the radon emissions from these evaporation ponrisk presented by the radon emissions from these evaporation ponds during theds during theperiod they are employed as part of the overall remediation of tperiod they are employed as part of the overall remediation of the site.he site.”;“EPA believes the overall public health interest in comprehensiveEPA believes the overall public health interest in comprehensively resolvingly resolvingthe problems associated with eachsite is best served by requirithe problems associated with eachsite is best served by requiring that the radonng that the radoncover be expeditiously installed in a manner that does not requicover be expeditiously installed in a manner that does not require interruptionre interruptionof this other aspect of remediationof this other aspect of remediation.... 

# Rather, EPA believes that provided all Rather, EPA believes that provided all other parts of the pile are covered with the earthen cover, comp other parts of the pile are covered with the earthen cover, comp liance with the liance with the

20 pCi/m2 standard will result 20 pCi/m2 standard will result....”06/17/200910Thompson & Simmons, PLLCCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYEPA Amendments in 1993 Regarding AgreementEPA Amendments in 1993 Regarding AgreementStates and NRCStates and NRC-Licensed Uranium Mill TailingsLicensed Uranium Mill Tailingsin the Response to Commentsin the Response to Comments:“ 

# EPA reiterates that the Agency does not intend the expeditious EPA reiterates that the Agency does not intend the expeditious radon cover requirement to extend to areas where evaporation radon cover requirement to extend to areas where evaporation

ponds are located ponds are located,even if on the pile itself, to the extent thateven if on the pile itself, to the extent thatsuch evaporation pond is deemed by the implementingsuch evaporation pond is deemed by the implementingagency...to be an appropriate aspect of the overall remedialto be an appropriate aspect of the overall remedialprogram for the particular site.program for the particular site.”;The same obviously holds true for licensed nonThe same obviously holds true for licensed non-tailingstailingsponds/impoundments necessary for active recovery operationsponds/impoundments necessary for active recovery operations06/17/200911Thompson & Simmons, PLLCCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYCLEAN AIR ACT: STATUTORYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYAND REGULATORY SUMMARYEPA’s Response to Comments and Method 115 Guidances Response to Comments and Method 115 GuidanceProvides Additional SupportProvides Additional Support:Response to CommentsResponse to Comments:“Recent technical assessments of radon emissionRecent technical assessments of radon emissionrates from tailings indicate thatradon emissions from tailingsrates from tailings indicate thatradon emissions from tailingscovered withcovered with



# less than one meter of water, or merely saturated with water, ar less than one meter of water, or merely saturated with water, ar e about 2% e about 2% of emissions from dry tailings. Tailings covered with more than of emissions from dry tailings. Tailings covered with more than one meter one meter of water are estimated to have a zero emissions rate of water are estimated to have a zero emissions rate . The Agency believes . The Agency believes this calculated difference between 0% and 2% is negligible this calculated difference between 0% and 2% is negligible. 

# The Agency The Agency used an emission rate of zero for all tailings covered with wate

used an emission rate of zero for all tailings covered with wate r or saturated r or saturated with water in estimating radon emissions. with water in estimating radon emissions.”;Method 115Method 115:“[R]adonflux measurements shall be made within eachflux measurements shall be made within eachregion on the pile,region on the pile, 

# except for those areas covered with water except for those areas covered with water.” 

# Water

covered area covered area--no measurements required asradon flux assumed to beno measurements required asradon flux assumed to be



# zero.”06/17/200912Thompson & Simmons, PLLCCLEAN AIR ACT: CONCLUSIONSCLEAN AIR ACT: CONCLUSIONSThe Administrative Rulemaking Record States Unequivocally inThe Administrative Rulemaking Record States Unequivocally inSubparts T and W Proceedings and in Method 115 That a WaterSubparts T and W Proceedings and in Method 115 That a WaterCovered Mill Tailings Impoundment, Much Less a WaterCovered Mill Tailings Impoundment, Much Less a Water-CoveredCoveredNon-Tailings Impoundment, is aTailings Impoundment, is a“Zero Radon Flux Source TermZero Radon Flux Source Term:Evaporation and Other NonEvaporation and Other Non-Tailings Ponds Contain Water DuringTailings Ponds Contain Water DuringOperations;Operations;Lined Ponds Must Be Disposed ofIn Place if They Do Not ContainLined Ponds Must Be Disposed of InPlace if They Do Not Contain11e.(2)11e.(2)Byproduct Material Unless on Topof a Tailings Pile/ImpoundmentByproduct Material Unless on Topof a Tailings Pile/ImpoundmentorThey Must Be Removed and Placedin a Tailings Pile/ImpoundmentThey Must Be Removed and Placedin a Tailings Pile/ImpoundmentWhen No Longer Active;When No Longer Active;Anything that is Not Active, Including Tailings Piles, are Not SAnything that is Not Active, Including Tailings Piles, are Not Subject toubject toSubpart W06/17/200913Thompson & Simmons, PLLCCLEAN AIR ACT: CONCLUSIONSCLEAN AIR ACT: CONCLUSIONSWith Respect to Method 115 Testing Procedures and GuidanceWith Respect to Method 115 Testing Procedures and Guidance:Both Subpart T and W RulemakingsExpressly State that the RequirBoth Subpart T and W RulemakingsExpressly State that the RequirementsDo Not Apply to Evaporation PondsDo Not Apply to Evaporation Ponds--Even Those on Top of TailingsEven Those on Top of TailingsPiles/Impoundments;Piles/Impoundments;No Regulations for ISL As Such Facilities Are Never Mentioned inNo Regulations for ISL As Such Facilities Are Never Mentioned inSubpart W or Its Administrative Rulemaking Record;Subpart W or Its Administrative Rulemaking Record;Only in Subpart B Rulemaking for Underground Uranium Mines areOnly in Subpart B Rulemaking for Underground Uranium Mines areISLsMentionedMentioned:EPA States Not Enough Radon Released to Require RegulationEPA States Not Enough Radon Released to Require Regulation06/17/200914Thompson & Simmons, PLLCINDUSTRY CONCERNS:INDUSTRY CONCERNS:OVERSIGHTOVERSIGHTAnother Layer of Regulatory Oversight WillAnother Layer of Regulatory Oversight WillResult in Cost Increases and Inefficiency ofResult in Cost Increases and Inefficiency ofFacility ProcessesFacility Processes:Potential EPA Requirements for ConcurrentPotential EPA Requirements for ConcurrentApproval of Construction of New Evaporation orApproval of Construction of New Evaporation orOther NonOther Non-Tailings Impoundments;Tailings Impoundments;Potential Enforcement Action by EPA regardingPotential Enforcement Action by EPA regardingChanges in Aspects of Ponds (i.e., Water Levels)Changes in Aspects of Ponds (i.e., Water Levels)06/17/200915Thompson & Simmons, PLLCINDUSTRY CONCERNS:INDUSTRY CONCERNS:STANDARDSSTANDARDSEPA May ReEPA May Re-Evaluate the 20 pCi/m2Evaluate the 20 pCi/m2-secStandardStandard:All Title I Sites to Be Closed Pursuant to This Standard;All Title I Sites to Be Closed Pursuant to This Standard;All Title II Uranium Mill Tailings Facilities Closed andAll Title II Uranium Mill Tailings Facilities Closed andLicenses Terminated Pursuant to This Standard;Licenses Terminated Pursuant to This Standard;Re-Evaluation of This Standard Could Result inEvaluation of This Standard Could Result inHundreds of Millions of Dollars in Changes to AlreadyHundreds of Millions of Dollars in Changes to AlreadyClosed Sites That Have Been Transferred to theClosed Sites That Have Been Transferred to theDepartment of Energy (DOE) as Perpetual CustodianDepartment of Energy (DOE) as Perpetual Custodian06/17/200916Thompson & Simmons, PLLCINDUSTRY CONCERNS:INDUSTRY CONCERNS:JURISDICTIONJURISDICTIONEPA’sNESHAPsNESHAPsare“Outside theOutside theFencelineFenceline”StandardsStandards:Occupational Exposures are not Within EPAOccupational Exposures are not Within EPA’s Jurisdiction;s Jurisdiction;NRC FenceNRC Fence-Line Limits for Members of the Public of 100Line Limits for Members of the Public of 100Mrem/Year Provide a Safe and Effective Public Dose Standard/Year Provide a Safe and Effective Public Dose Standard:Conventional Uranium Mills Satisfying the 20 pCi/m2Conventional Uranium Mills Satisfying the 20 pCi/m2-sec Standardsec StandardAre Adequately protective of Public Health and Safety and ProducAre Adequately protective of Public Health and Safety and ProduceLess than 100Less than 100Mrem/Year to Nearest Resident;/Year to Nearest Resident;ISL Facilities Produce Onlya Tiny Fraction of the 100ISL Facilities Produce Onlya Tiny Fraction of the 100Mrem/YearDose to Members of the PublicDose to Members of the Public“At the FenceAt the Fence-Line”06/17/200917Thompson & Simmons, PLLCCONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONSEPA’s Apparent Assumptions thatSubpart W Applies to Nons Apparent Assumptions thatSubpart W Applies to Non-TailingsTailingsPonds/Impoundments at Conventional and ISL FacilitiesPonds/Impoundments at Conventional and ISL Facilities:Is in Direct Conflict with the Rulemaking RecordIs in Direct Conflict with the Rulemaking Record:Subparts T and W Do NotApply to EvaporationPonds, Even Those oSubparts T and W Do NotApply to EvaporationPonds, Even Those on Tailingsn TailingsPiles/Impoundments;Piles/Impoundments;Even WaterEven Water-Covered Tailings Are a ZeroRadon Flux Source Term;Covered Tailings Are a ZeroRadon Flux Source Term;ISL Sites Are Never Mentioned Except in Subpart BISL Sites Are Never MentioIs Faulty if Based on Concept That Wastewater at Uranium RecoverIs Faulty if Based on Concept That Wastewater at Uranium Recovery Facilities isy Facilities is11e.(2) Byproduct Material11e.(2) Byproduct Material:The Water Evaporates and Then Liner is Disposed of as 11e.(2) ByThe Water Evaporates and Then Liner is Disposed of as 11e.(2) Byproduct Material ;product Material ;Materials Other Than Wastewaterand Tailings are 11e.(2) ByproduMaterials Other Than Wastewaterand Tailings are 11e.(2) Byproduct Materialct MaterialRe-Evaluating the 20 pCi/m2Evaluating the 20 pCi/m2-sec Standard Per Public Lawsuit issec Standard Per Public Lawsuit isUnderstandable But Changing the Standard Could Only Be Based onUnderstandable But Changing the Standard Could Only Be Based onSpeculation and Not on Identified Adverse ImpactsSpeculation and Not on Identified Adverse Impacts