ATTENDANCE/MINUTES 

QUARTERLY CONFERENCE CALL ON SUBPART W 

12/3/2009 

Reid Rosnick – EPA 

Susan Stahle – EPA 

Sharyn Cunningham – CCAT 

Paul Carestia - CCAT 

Travis Stills – Energy Minerals Law Center 

Phil Egidi – CDPHE 

Sarah Fields – Uranium Watch 

Zach Rogers – Energy Fuels Resources Corp. 

Scott Bakken – Cameco Resources 

Oscar Paulson – Kennecott Mining 

John Hamrick, Jim Cain, Randy Whicker – Cotter Corp. 

Dan Finch – Trinetech 

Minutes and Discussion

Welcome - Roll Call 

Recent EPA Activities 

 a. Website

• Website went live Nov. 24. Contains information on upcoming stakeholder conference 

calls, resource documents, contact information, and more. Website is located at: 

www.epa.gov/radiation/neshaps/subpartw/rulemaking-activity.html . The information on the 

website continues to be a work in progress, and more information will be added as it 

becomes available, for instance a link to a geographic information database on the 

location of uranium mines and mills. 

 

b. Accumulation of data from previous rulemaking

• Reid described the contents of the web site, and documents under the headings Current 

Action, Presentations, Historical Rulemakings, Enforcement and Useful Links. 

Additionally, there is a legacy docket from the NESHAP rulemakings in the 1980s. Reid 

is researching where all that information is housed, and will report back. Sarah Fields 

added that she reviewed legacy docket material in the EPA Air and Radiation Library in 

Washington, DC. It had been placed on microfiche and was difficult to copy. What 
information she did find has been placed on the Uranium Watch website, at 

www.uraniumwatch.org 

 c. EPA response to request for additional meeting near 

 Gallup/Grants in conjunction with White Mesa meeting in Blanding

• EPA management is not planning on an additional meeting in the Grants/Gallup area at 

this time. The Agency believes that through the use of the Subpart W website, the 

planned nationwide webinar scheduled for early 2010, and the opportunities for 

discussions during the quarterly conference calls, EPA can meet the needs of the 

stakeholders in the Grants/Gallup area. Further, EPA participated (and sponsored) an 

annual workshop in Gallup in early November for the Navajo. Travis Stills commented 

that EPA should expect a letter requesting an additional meeting. 

d. Correspondence between EPA and industry regarding information requests? 

• As can be seen on the website, EPA requested information from several uranium 

recovery facilities, conventional mills as well as ISL facilities. The responses to EPA’s 

request for information are also found on the web site, and in most cases they are 

extensive. Further, EPA requested radon flux data from evaporation ponds at ISL 

facilities. The data was collected over the summer months when evaporation had the 

potential to give the best possibility for radon detection. The data has been collected and 

is currently being analyzed by EPA. It is assumed that the results will be posted on the 

website by the next conference call. 

 Technical Issues 

 a. Describe EPA review teams by subject matter

• The EPA workgroup on Subpart W is comprised of 15 relevant scientists and engineers 

from EPA Headquarters and Regional offices, as well as representatives from OGC, 

OECA, and the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. Their functions include 

assuring the appropriate options are considered, and that actions are based on sound 

scientific, economic, policy and legal analysis. Specifically, in addition to OGC OECA 

and OPEI, the workgroup contains members from ORIA, OSWER, OW, Superfund 

program, Office of Research and Development, and Regions 6, 7, 8 and 10. In addition to 

performing analyses of information received, they contribute to developing and writing 

the action at hand. While it is the responsibility of ORIA to produce the proposed action, 

the workgroup share in that responsibility by participating actively in discussions and 

reviews, by providing meaningful comments, and by contributing relevant data and 

analysis. We also have the support of a contractor, who provides information to the 

workgroup by performing studies like those found on the website, for example the history 

of NESHAPS and Subpart W, the review of tailings impoundment technologies, and the 

review of Method 115. Documents like these are then reviewed by the workgroup and 

questions or comments are submitted before the product is accepted by the workgroup. 
b. Review issues raised by public or industry to date 

For time reasons, this was not an all-inclusive list: 

• Is 20 pCi/m2/sec still a protective number? 

• Is it correct to assume that there is zero radon flux from ISL evaporation ponds? 

• Is there a need for regulatory guidance after the rule is published? 

• Analytical reports should be submitted on a more timely basis 

• Need to measure radon progeny 

• Evaporation ponds at ISL facilities were never intended in the original Subpart W rule to 

be regulated 

• Areas of tailings piles with elevated radon flux should not be averaged with areas of low 

flux 

 c. 1989 Risk Assessment - status of current historical research 

• We are still reviewing the documents that have been posted on the web site. Since they 

total over 1000 pages, it has taken time to review. We also have asked our contractor to 

perform a review of this information and report to us. 

 d. Existing Technologies - status of current survey 

• This review was performed by our contractor, and is essentially complete. The document 

is on the website. Travis Stills asked that the contactor administrative record and conflict 

of interest information that was submitted to EPA be placed on the website. Reid stated 

that he would research this issue. 

e. Method 115 - status of current research 

• This review was performed by our contractor, and is essentially complete. The document 

is on the website. However, we have heard anecdotal evidence that Method 115 is old, 

outdated, and difficult to have analyzed. It is currently our intention to request comment 

on this method when we issue the proposal. There was a discussion on the availability of 

the testing method and analysis for the uranium recovery sector as opposed to the 

phosphoric acid sector. While the phosphoric acid sector in central Florida has difficulties 

finding support for fabrication and analysis, the uranium recovery sector has no such 

problem. It was further discussed that a viable alternative could be the placement of 

Landauer RadTrak detectors. It was estimated by Oscar Paulson that implementing this 

alternative would increase costs by 50-100%. 

f. Status of Part 192 review as it applies to Subpart W regulations (This issue was 

not discussed during the call due to time constraints. It is included here for 

completeness.)

• 40 CFR 192 is the regulation promulgated under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 

Control Act of 1978, known as UMTRCA. Subpart D of the standards is for management 
of uranium byproduct materials. Subpart W references this Subpart for the design, 

construction and monitoring of tailings impoundments for operation uranium recovery 

facilities. In addition to the design standards the two regulations share the same radon 

flux level, 20 pCi/m2

/sec. 

ORIA is reviewing, and possibly revising the 192 standards. Some of the reasons include: 

• significant changes have occurred in the regulated industry and technologies being 

regulated, as well as groundwater protection standards used by EPA applicable to these 

facilities; 

• historical data has been developed on the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the existing 

standards, their implementation by the NRC, DOE and Agreement States, pollution 

events and degradation of groundwater resources which have occurred under this 

regulatory framework, as well as court decisions which affect how the standards are 

written; 

• assumptions used to develop the original dose and risk assessments for the rule may no 

longer be valid given changes in extraction technologies and influence of individual 

exposure pathways, post closure land use, updated risk factors for modeling, and likely 

receptors of the environmental exposures; 

We are coordinating the reviews of Part 192 and Subpart W. We share many of the same 

workgroup members, and obviously the results of the 192 analysis can impact the review of 

Subpart W. We are attempting to have the reviews run on a parallel track in order to maintain 

consistency. 

EPA Activity before next call 

EPA will continue reviewing the risk assessment documents; research the legacy docket issue, 

the posting of contractor information, and alternatives to Method 115. 

Next call date and time 

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 at 11 AM EST 

Call-in number: 866-299-3188 

Conference code: 2023439563