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 inform ation on upcoming stakeholder conference calls, resource documents, c ontact information, and more . Website is located at: www.epa.gov/radiation/ neshaps/subpartw/rule making-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 si te, and documents under the headings Current Action, Presentations, Historical Rulema kings, 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 materi al in the EPA Air and Radiation Library in Washington, DC. It had been placed on mi crofiche and was difficult to copy. Whatinformation she did find has been pla ced 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 additi onal meeting in the Grants/Gallup area at this time. The Agency believes that thr ough the use of the Subpart W website, the planned nationwide webinar scheduled for early 2010, and the opportunities for discussions during the quarte rly conference calls, EPA can meet the needs of the stakeholders in the Grants/Gallup area. Furt her, 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 industr y regarding information requests?

• As can be seen on the website, EPA reque sted information from several uranium recovery facilities, conventiona l mills as well as ISL facilities. The responses to EPA’s request for information are also found on th e 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 ra don 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 Re gional offices, as well as representatives from OGC, OECA, and the Office of Policy, Economic s and Innovation. Their functions include assuring the appropriate options are consid ered, and that actions are based on sound scientific, economic, policy a nd legal analysis. Specificall y, in addition to OGC OECA and OPEI, the workgroup contains memb ers from ORIA, OS WER, 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 participati ng 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 f ound 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 thes e 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/m 2 /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 guida nce 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 el evated radon flux should not be averaged with areas of low

flux

c. 1989 Risk Assessment - stat us of current historical research

• We are still reviewing the docum ents that have been posted on the web site. Since they total over 1000 pages, it has ta ken time to review. We also have asked our contractor to perform a review of this in formation and report to us.

d. Existing Technol ogies - 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 th e 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 an ecdotal evidence that Method 115 is old, outdated, and difficult to have an alyzed. It is currently our intention to request comment on this method when we issue the proposal. Th ere was a discussion on the availability of the testing method and analysis for the ur anium recovery sector as opposed to the phosphoric acid sector. While the phosphoric acid sector in centr al Florida has difficulties finding support for fabrication and analysis, the uranium recovery sector has no such problem. It was further discussed that a viab le alternative could be the placement of
Landauer RadTrak detectors. It was estimated by Oscar Paulson that implementing this
alternative would incr ease 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 und er the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, known as UMTRCA. Subpart D of the standards is for managementof uranium byproduct materials. Subpart W references this Subpart for the design, construction and monitoring of tailings im poundments for operati on uranium recovery facilities. In addition to the design standa rds the two regulations share the same radon flux level, 20 pCi/m 2 /sec.

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

• significant changes have occurred in the regulated industry a nd technologies being regulated, as well as groundwater protection st andards used by EPA applicable to these facilities;

• historical data has been developed on the e ffectiveness and ineffectiveness of the existing standards, their implemen tation by the NRC, DOE and Agreement States, pollution events and degradation of groundwater reso urces which have occurred under this regulatory framework, as well as court deci sions which affect how the standards are written;

• assumptions used to develop the original dos e and risk assessments for the rule may no longer be valid given changes in extraction technologies and infl uence of individual exposure pathways, post closure land use, upda ted 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 review s 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 informa tion, 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