COMMISSION BRIEFING SLIDES/EXHIBITS

BRIEFING ON URANIUM RECOVERY

DECEMBER 11, 2008
SU.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

Briefing on Uranium Recovery

Program Activities

List of Acronyms

December 11, 2008
FSME: Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental

Management Programs

UR: Uranium Recovery

ISL: In-Situ Leach

EPA: US Environmental Protection Agency

BLM: Bureau of Land Management

NRC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding

FY: Fiscal Year

GELS: Generic Environmental Impact Statement

•NMA: National Mining Association

ISR: In-Situ Recovery

Conv.: Conventional Mill

LLC: Limited Liability Corporation

RAI: Request for Additional Information

DWMEP: Division of Waste Management and Environmental

Protection

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement

NEPA: National Environmental Protection Act

DILR: Division of Intergovernmental Liaison and Rulemaking

2
SU.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

Briefing on Uranium Recovery Program Activities

December 11, 2008

Larry W. Camper, Director

Division of Waste Management and

Environmental Protection/FSME
Presenters & Topics

" Larry W. Camper: Overview

" Bill von Till: Status of UR Applications

• Gregory Suber: Status of Environmental

Reviews

" Gary Comfort: Status of ISL Rule

" Richard Turtil: Native American Outreach

" John Edwards & Stephen Heare: EPA's

Perspective on ISL Requirements

* Mitchell Leverette: BLM and NRC MOU on

Environmental Assessments

2
Overview of NRC's Uranium

Recovery Program

* Key Messages

• Scope of the Uranium Recovery

Program

* Demand for Uranium

* Current Application Forecast

" State of Preparation

* Outreach Activities

" Conclusions

3
Key Messages

" New Licensing

" Environmental Reviews

" Organization Changes

" Outreach

4
Scope of NRC's Current UR

Program

* 32 Decommissioning Sites (Title I & II)

* 3 operating licenses; 2 on stand by

* 28 new facilities by FY12; 4 in-house

* Rulemaking/Guidance development

5
Demand for Uranium

$11401

$1130,

$t20."

t,$l tol

"• $980t E510,

S$7,0'

$601

$40'

@U I~c

ri

L

v

.7-M. TWO6 11POT 4077 71*P107 -11,W07 11207 &GS 'VOS

6
Current Application Forecast

8-

7-

6•

5-

4 U Restarts/Expansions

U New FacIlies

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY 2012

7
State of Preparation

" Staffing

" In-Situ Recovery Generic

Environmental Impact Statement

(GELS)

*iGuidance/Rulemaking

Development

* Process Issues

8
Outreach Activities

* Native American Tribes

- Information Exchanges

- Website

- Government-to-Government

meetings

9
Outreach Activities

* Stakeholders

House Oversight Committee

meetings

Federal: EPA, BLM

State: New Mexico, Wyoming,

Agreement States

-NMA

Public Meetings for GElS

Website

10
Conclusions

* Staffing

* Complexity of Certain Sites

* Predicting Future Applications

* Overcoming Legacy Concerns

11
SU.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

Status of Uranium

Recovery Applications

December 11, 2008

William von Till, Chief

Uranium Recovery Licensing

Division of Waste Management and

Environmental Protection/FSME
Key Message

New application reviews on track

2
Discussion Topics

* New application review procedures

e Process for estimating new

applications

• Upcoming applications

SApplications received to date

* Status of reviews

3
New Application Review

Schedules

o Conduct acceptance review

* Request for Additional Information

* Reviews are a two-year process

4
Process for Estimating

Applications

* February 2007 Pre-licensing Workshop

• Meetings and Letters of Intent

" Contact with potential applicants

* National Mining Association Annual

Workshop

5
Application Types

6
Status of Applications

- Estimated

New Facility Status__w Acc& Rev.> RAls issued Completion Date

'Uraniumn One/Ene ,rgyKMetals (Moore Ranch) 12/20/2007 k~5/14/200Y8 12/20/20O09

Uranerz (Han ndJ Jich~lls) 4/1.4/2008~ 9/11/2008 4/14/2010

Lost -Cr~eek, IS R, LL Ls<Ce6/10/20080 ~in progre8s 8 /jiQ/1210Q 10

Uraniium One/,Energy Metals (Jab and~ Antelope)~ in progress~:;-4

7 Estimated

Expansion/Restart S~tatus 'r Acc. Rev . RAIs issued Completion Date

COarnecoICrow But -Rsucs(latUgae Action Compleed December 2007 >~~

SCogra(hitne Ranch) Action Completed September 2008~

Cameco/Crow Bu~tteResurces~ (North Trend) 8/28/2007- in progress

7
Conclusions

" Process for estimating applications

" Process for tracking status

• New application reviews on track

• Inspections

8
'U.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

Status of UR

Environmental Reviews

December 11, 2008

Gregory F. Suber, Chief

Environmental Review

Branch/DWM EP/FSM E
Typical Environmental

Review Process

11

Formal

Public

Participation

2
Generic Environmental Impact

Statement Development

* GElS Concept Envisioned by Staff

* Engaged .Stakeholders during

Scoping Process

* State of Wyoming is a

Cooperating Agency

" Gathered Extensive Information

* Draft GElS for Public Comment

3
Generic Environmental Impact

Statement Development

* Comment Period closed

November 7, 2008

* Comments from Diverse

Stakeholders

* Comments Covered Variety of

Topics

4
Overall Schedule

Notice of Intent

published July_________

Scoping Meetings AuguSt&September _2007

Scoping Period ends November 30, 2007

Draft GElS issued July 28, 2008

Public Comment August & September

Meetings 2008

Comment Period ends. November 7, 2008

Final GElS issued June 2009

5
Site-Specific Review Process

* Environmental Review for Each

Application

* Evaluation Considers Conclusions in

GElS

* Additional Public Participation

during Site-Specific Review

• Review Results Comply with NEPA

Process

6
Bureau of Land Management

Outreach Coordination Effort

* Headquarters and Local officials

during Draft Comment Period

* Memorandum of Understanding

for NEPA Reviews

* Field Offices on Individual

Projects

7
Conclusions

* Tiering Process Consistent with

NEPA

• Process Results in Efficient,

Effective Review

* Expanded Public Participation

* Actively Engaged with Local,

State, Federal Agencies and

Tribes

8
SU.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

Rulemaking on Ground Water

Protection at In Situ

Recovery Facilities

December 11, 2008

Gary Comfort, Sr. Project Manager

Rulemaking Branch A/DILR/FSME
Rule Objectives

* Ground water protection

regulations for in situ recovery-

* Reduce/eliminate dual regulation

2
Cooperation with Other

Agencies

*Diverse working group members

*Role of Environmental Protection

Agency

' Review by Agreement States

3
Sources of Rule Language

* Existing guidance

* Existing license conditions

* Environmental Protection

Agency's Underground Injection

Control Program

4
Areas Addressed in Rule

" Pre-operational requirements

* Operating and monitoring

requirements

" Groundwater restoration

requirements

" Corrective action requirements

5
Recent Issues

* Period of post-closure monitoring

and care

* Use of secondary maximum

contaminant limits

* Changes to Criterion 13

* Definition of corrective action

6
Conclusions

* One open issue with

Environmental Protection Agency

* Rulemaking to Commission by

April 2009

7
SU.S.NRC

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Protecting People and the Environment

Outreach to

Native American

Tribes

December 11, 2008

Richard H. Turtil, Chief

Intergovernmental Liaison

Branch/DILRIFSME
Key Messages

* Native American Tribal

interest in Uranium Recovery

* Staff outreach and communication

with Native American Tribes

" Tribal Sovereignty and

government-to-government

communications

2
Generic Environmental Impact

Statement Public Outreach

* Scoping/Draft Comment Meetings

* Meetings with the Navajo Nation

and the Oglala Sioux

* Government-to-Government

Meetings

3
Relationship Building and

Enhancing Communication

* The Navajo Nation/Five Year Plan

* Enhanced Web Information

4
Communication and

Outreach Challenges

* Tribal Policy Positions on

Uranium Recovery

* Legacy Waste and Site

Abandonment

5
Conclusions

* Staff efforts focus on:

Outreach and communication

Greater awareness of Tribal

interests

Heightened recognition of Tribal

Government positions on Uranium

Recovery

* Challenges exist in building trust

in NRC/Tribal relationships

6
NRC PRESENTATION

December 11, 2008

Donald R. McKenzie

Administrator

Wyoming DEQILQD
Items For NRC Consideration

" NRC Presence in Wyoming

* NRC EISs

" Groundwater Restoration

" Agreements

• NRC Rules

" Primacy
Local NRC Office

• Majority of uranium activity in

the West, particularly Wyoming

* Wyoming BLM & DEQ players

are identified and working on

mutual problems

3
Local NRC Office (continued)

* Appropriate NRC contacts are

not always obvious to BLM &

WDEQ

* Physical presence needed to

provide NRC program oversight

in Wyoming

4
Generic EIS

* Preliminary draft schedule

tight, but comments seem to

be addressed or are being

addressed

* Wyoming wants to be a

cooperating agency in site

specific EISs/EAs

5
Groundwater Restoration

* NRC commitment to making

groundwater restoration a

priority'

* Historical sites still have

problems

6
Agreements

* NRC-BLM MOU needed

• NRC-BLM-Wyoming MOU

needed

7
New NRC Rules

* Consider Wyoming insitu rules

* Wyoming rules have been used

as a model for other states

* Allow state flexibility when

writing rules

8
Primacy

* NRC & Wyoming redundancies,

such as surface reclamation

groundwater restoration, spill

cleanups

* Wyoming currently unable to

assume primacy for the whole

NRC program, specifically

safety

* Options

9
Think Globally & Act Locally

* Presence

* Cooperation

" Commitment

" Process

" Flexibility

" Efficiency

10
2

STATEMENT OF MILTON BLUEHOUSE JR

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND TRIBAL LIAISON

ON BEHALF OF

DEPUTY SECRETARY JON GOLDSTEIN

NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

FOR THE NRC BRIEFING ON URANIUM RECOVERY

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND

DECEMEBER 11, 2008

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) appreciates the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission's (NRC) request for state input on the NRC Draft Generic Environmental

Impact Statement (GEIS) for In-Situ Leach (ISL) Uranium Recovery Facilities. New

Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and NMED Secretary Ron Curry hope that this

willingness on the part of the NRC -to seek state input- will continue on to an agreement

whereby the NRC conducts individual Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for

specific license applications in the State of New Mexico.

The history of uranium mining in the State of New Mexico stems from the early 1950's

up until the 1980's. Testimony given by Robert G. McSwain, the Acting Director of the

Indian Health Service before the U.S. House Committee on Government Oversight and

Reform on October 23, 2007 provided detailed information uranium mining's health and

environmental impact within the New Mexico portion of the Navajo Nation has had

disproportionate negative results in impacted communities. (Testimony attached)

Today, uranium mine cleanup activities are conducted at various locations. In one

example, NMED is currently undertaking clean up activities at the Homestake Mining

Company's Uranium Milling Facility near Milan, New Mexico where underlying ground

water aquifers have been contaminated by seepage from tailings disposed of at the mill

site with radiological and non-radiological contaminants and associated constituents,

including uranium, thorium-230, combined radium-226 and radium-228, selenium,

vanadium, molybdenum, sulfate, chloride, nitrate, and total dissolved solids. Tailings

from the uranium recovery mill were discharged to two unlined tailings impoundments

from 1958 to 1990.

The resulting environmental degradation, and public and health impacts from nearly half

a century of uranium mining in New Mexico led Governor Bill Richardson to request, on

July 31, 2007, that the NRC "not attempt to limit the public's right to review and

comment upon individual Environmental Impact Statements for specific -license

applications." (Governor Richardson's letter to the NRC, attached) Governor

Richardson's concern was echoed on Oct. 6, 2008 by NMED Secretary Ron Curry, in a

letter sent to the NRC. (Letter attached) Additionally, Secretary Curry noted that, "Given

the unique environmental, geographical, cultural, historical, economic, and regional

aspects of New Mexico, [the GEIS] is contrary to the goals and purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the NRC to use [the] GEIS approach in this

instance."
The request for the NRC to conduct site specific EIS for ISL uranium mining recovery

operation applications is based on the following reasons:

Given that the State of New Mexico relies on groundwater for 90 percent of the

state's drinking water'supply, all ground water in the arid southwest State of New

Mexico is protectable and could be a potential drinking water supply if it contains

less than 10,000 mg/l Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). In New Mexico, impact

significant levels during the operation, restoration, and decommissioning would

be "Large" because the Westwater Canyon Aquifer is a potential drinking water

source, and because very few, if any, ISL sites have been restored to preoperational conditions. An impact significant level of "Large" will result in a

"finding of significant impact" under the NEPA Evaluation.

* The integrity of aquitards in isolating ore bearing aquifers from other aquifers

may be jeopardized within the Grants Uranium District from thousands of

exploration holes, many which may not have been properly abandoned, and from

mine workings that connect large subsurface areas within the district; all of which

may provide a conduit for vertical excursions. Each application would require a

site specific review to determine if the integrity of the aquitard(s) in any given

location, and would result in a "finding of significant impact" in the NEPA

evaluation, if any.

Given the people of color and low income population in New Mexico, any

proposed ISL uranium mining recovery operations will pose environmental

justice issues that the NRC GEIS process cannot adequately address. The unique

cultural and environmental justice issues will require a full environmental justice

analysis to be undertaken with each application, and site specific information will

be needed which may change the conclusions of the GEIS that people of color and

low income populations in the area may receive disproportionately high and

adverse environmental and health impacts from the ISL uranium recovery

facilities. Further, the State of New Mexico is committed to full public

participation in its permitting processes in which each permit is evaluated on a

case-by-case basis.

The NRC GEIS approach to ISL uranium mining recovery is contrary to the

federal government's "Government-to-Government" relationship with federally

recognized tribes as illustrated in President Bush's support of Executive Order

13175, "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments." Some

thirty-five sovereign Native American nations claim cultural affiliation with

historical properties in New Mexico, including archaeological sites, landscapes,

traditional cultural properties and scared sites. Impacts on New Mexico's Indian

Tribes, Pueblos, and Nations will undoubtedly result in a "finding of significant

impact" in a NEPA evaluation. In this context, the NRC is urged to adopt full EIS

review for Uranium mining recovery operation applications for specific sites

within New Mexico.
Uranium mining recovery regulations in the State of New Mexico are not

prescriptive. In other words, ISL uranium recovery operations are determined on

a site-by-site basis and fall under the NMED Ground Water Quality Bureau's

discharge permitting authority and under NMED's Underground Injection Control

(UIC) primacy from the U.S. EPA; Class III and Class I UIC Permits. Because of

the lack of 'historical' data that ISL uranium recovery operations are unable to

restore groundwater resources to 'background conditions,' it is important that

individual EIS be conducted for ISL uranium recovery sites.

On ending, Governor Bill Richardson and NMED Secretary Ron Curry respectfully

request that the NRC conduct in depth, site specific environmental impact analysis for

ISL uranium mining recovery facilities and operations in the State of New Mexico, and

for the NRC to pursue robust public participation from all impacted New Mexicans and

their communities. Thank you.

Attachments:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson's letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

July 3.1, 2007.

New Mexico Environment Department Secretary Ron Curry's letter to the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, October 6, 2008.

Statement of Robert G. McSwain, Director, Indian Health Services, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services on The Health and Environmental Impact of Uranium

Mining on the Navajo Nation before The House Committee on Government Oversight

and Reform United States House of Representatives, Tuesday, October 23, 2007.
Oq 7V7dd

State of New Mexico

Bill Richardson Bill RihardsonOffice of th~e Qcvernor

Governor

July 31, 2007

Dr. Dale Klein, Chairman

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

Dear Chairman Klein:

It has come to my attention that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to create

a "generic environmental impact statement" (GEIS) concerning newly proposed uranium

recovery operations, including in-situ leach (ISL) recovery facilities and conventional mills to be

located in the western United States. The NRC has stated that the purpose of this "generic"

process is "to aid in a more efficient environmental review for each separate license application."

I share your goal of efficiency in governmental oversight; however, in this case, I believe that

your attempt at efficiency will negatively impact the ability of New Mexico's citizens to

participate in the NRC licensing process for individual facilities. As the Governor of a state with

large uranium reserves and an extensive history of environmental degradation and public impacts

as a result of past uranium mining practices, I write to request that you not attempt to limit the

public.'s right to review and comment upon individual Environmental Impact Statements for

specific license applications.

There is nothing generic about the concerns that many New Mexicans -have with proposals to

reopen or start new uranium mining and milling operations in their communities. Our citizens

have a right to full involvement in decisions that could have far-reaching impacts on their homes

and water resources. In New Mexico, discharge permit applications for uranium operations are

evaluated in a case by case manner, and this individual review is particularly important for

uranium operations due to the varying hydrologic, geologic, and ecologic conditions of each

parýicular site. Such a review allows the state and the public the opportunity to address sitespecific concerns unique to each individual facility. The NRC's GEIS proposal would be

contrary to the State of New Mexico's public participation permitting process. Given the

concerns of many citizens in New Mexico about the public health, environmental, and

cultural impacts of new uranium mining adtions, a process to eliminate public review of

individual NRC permit actions in New Mexico would be disrespectful to our many sovereign

Native American Tribes and Pueblos and the general public.

State Capitol - Room 400 - Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 • 505-476-2200 • www.goveror.state.nm.us
Unlike the Navajo Nation, the State of New Mexico currently has not taken a broad policy

position on uranium mining. However, if uranium mining and milling are to resume in New

Mexico, the state must be sure that the public is given a robust opportunity.to participate in the

decisions and that all environmental, water resource, and potential public health issues are

thoroughly examined for each operation. The State of New Mexico is commnitted to an open, transparent and thorough review process of all uraniumpermits and we implore the NRC to

commit itself to the same level of public involvement.

I applaud your desire to look at the overall impacts of uranium mining, milling and leaching, but

not at the cost of diminished Environmental Impact Statement reviews for future uranium

operations. I hope you consider my recommendation to issue and allow the public to review

individual Environmental Impact Statements for proposed uranium mines and mills in New

Mexico on a case by case basis.

Sincerely,

Bill Richardson

Governor of New Mexico

BR/zw
NEW MEXICO M E,1

ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

Office of the Secretary

Harold Runnels Building BILL RICHARDSON 1190 Saint Francis Drive (87505) RON CURRY

Governor P.O. Box 26110, Santa Fe, NM 87502 Secretary

JON GOLDSTEIN Phone: (505) 827-2855 Fax: (505) 827-2836 Deputy Secretary

www.nmenv.state.nm.us

October 6, 2008

Chief, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop T6-D59

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Re: New Mexico Environment Department Comments On NRC's Draft Generic Environmental

Impact Statement (GEIS) For In-Situ Leach (ISL) Uranium Recovery Facilities

Dear Branch Chief:

Enclosed please find the comments of the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) on

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed Draft Generic Environmental

Impact Statement (GEIS) For In-Situ Leach (ISL) Uranium Recovery Facilities. In general, the

NMED opposes the use of a GEIS because of our fear that it will limit the ability of individuals

to have meaningful involvement in the federal approval process for these facilities. This is in

keeping with Governor Bill Richardson's July 31, 2007 letter to NRC Chairman Dale Klein on

this issue.

NMED appreciates the willingness of the NRC to solicit state input on this issue and hopes that

this willingness will continue through an agreement to conduct individual Environmental Impact

Statements for specific license applications in the State of New Mexico.

A. General Comments

A GEIS often is used as a tool in the "tiering" process to serve as a master document whereby

subsequent, site specific environmental reviews only amount to an environmental assessment

with heavy reliance on the "generic" document. This means that instead of performing a

comprehensive, in-depth environmental review at each site in New Mexico for each license

application, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would only conduct an environmental

assessment and rely on the GEIS for a large portion of its site specific analysis. Given the

Protecting our Environment, Preserving the Enchantment
unique environmental, geographical, cultural, historical, economic, and regional aspects of New

Mexico, it is contrary to the goals and purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) for the NRC to use a GEIS approach in this instance.

The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) recommends that the NRC conduct a sitespecific EIS for all proposed ISL uranium recovery operation applications for New Mexico

based for the following reasons:

1. Many of the impact significance levels range from "Small to Large", particularly all

groundwater related categories, depending on site-specific conditions. In New Mexico,

impacts during operation, restoration, and decommissioning would be "Large" based on

the fact that the aquifer (Westwater Canyon member) is a potential drinking water source

and very few, if any ISL sites have been restored to pre-operational conditions. New

Mexico relies on groundwater for 90% of its drinking water supply and all groundwater

in New Mexico is protectable and is a potential drinking water supply if it contains less

than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids (TDS). A significance level of "Large" will result

in a "finding of significant impact" in the NEPA evaluation.

2. The Grants uranium district contains thousands of exploration holes, many of which may

not have been properly abandoned and extensive mine workings that connect large

subsurface areas within the district, both of which reduce the integrity of aquitards in

isolating ore bearing aquifers from others and providing a conduit-for vertical excursions.

Each application would require a site-specific review to determine the integrity of the

aquitard(s) in a given location and would result in a "finding of significant impact" in the

NEPA evaluation, if they exist.

3. The majority of uranium resources in New Mexico are located in the Grants Mineral Belt

in the northwestern portion of the State. This area includes large portions of "Indian

Lands." Consequently, any proposed ISL uranium recovery and processing operations in

New Mexico will pose unique cultural and environmental justice issues that the GEIS

.process will not adequately address. Given the minority and low income population in

New Mexico, environmental justice issues will be involved with most, if not all

applications. Therefore, a full environmental justice analysis will need to be performed

for every application as stated on page 6-19 lines 17-18 and site-specific information will

be needed which may change conclusion of GEIS that minority or low-income

populations in the area would receive disproportionately high and adverse environmental

of health impact from the ISL facility activities.

4. Potential impacts on New Mexico's sovereign Tribes and Pueblos will undoubtedly result

in a "finding of significant impact" in the NEPA evaluation, which will require the NRC

to perform an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In this context, the NRC should

adopt the full EIS process for reviewing any proposed activity that will occur at specific

sites within New Mexico. In addition, a generic approach is contrary to the principles of

government-to-government consultation with the many sovereign Native American

Tribes and Pueblos in New Mexico. Some thirty-five Native American tribes claim

cultural affiliation with historical properties in New Mexico, including archaeological
sites, landscapes, traditional cultural properties and sacred sites. In many cases,

traditional Native American cultural properties consist of cultural landscapes and special

landforms with spiritual relationships that could be affected by this undertaking having

long-term adverse impacts or potentially detrimental effects to the very existence of the

people.

5. The proposed GEIS is contrary to the State of New Mexico's commitment to full public

participation in its permitting processes in which each permit is evaluated on a case-bycase basis. This individual review is particularly important for uranium operations due to

the extensive history of environmental degradation and public impacts as a result of past

uranium mining and milling practices, the varying hydrologic, geologic and ecologic

conditions of each particular site, and cultural resources unique to New Mexico. A full

EIS process is also consistent with the NRC's decision to complete an EIS for new

nuclear reactor applications rather than following a GEIS process.

Furthermore, there are a number of concerns over air quality issues that should be addressed

including:

1. The use of baghouses for air pollution control would necessitate a pre-application

meeting with the New Source Review Permit Section of the Air Quality Bureau prior to

any construction or operational activities to discuss possible permitting options.

2. It is stated in the GEIS that generators will be used at facility. If these units are used as

back-up energy supply, records should be kept of the hours of operation of the generator.

An application for a construction permit must be submitted for stand by generators used

500 hours per year or more.

3. To further ensure air quality standards are met, applicable local or county regulations

requiring noise and/or dust control must be followed; if none are in effect, controlling

construction-related air quality impacts during projects should be considered to reduce

the impact of fugitive dust and/or noise on community members.

4. Areas disturbed by project activities, within and adjacent to the project area, should be

reclaimed to avoid long-term problems with fugitive dust. During the construction

activities, dust control measures should be taken to minimize the release of particulates.

Long-term dust control can be achieved by paving, re-vegetating, or using dust

suppressants on disturbed areas following construction.

5. All asphalt, concrete, quarrying, crushing, and screening facilities contracted in

conjunction with the proposed project must have current and proper air quality permits.

For more information on air quality permitting and modeling requirements, please refer

to 20.2.72 NMAC.

NRC should note that an operator of a proposed ISL facility must also obtain a water right or

appropriation permit from the Office of the State Engineer in order to extract water from the

ground.
B. Svecific Comments

1. Page xli. Groundwater Impacts, Operation: The alteration of ore body aquifer chemistry

significance level of "Small" during operation is too low. Small to Large would be more

appropriate due to the fact that two of the three reasons listed for "Small" are not valid in

New Mexico; the aquifer would not be a potential drinking water source and the aquifer

would be expected to be restored within statistical range of preoperational baseline

quality during the restoration period. All groundwater in New Mexico is protectable and

could be a potential drinking water supply if it contains less than 10,000 mg/l total

dissolved solids (TDS) given that New Mexico relies on groundwater for 90% of its

drinking water supply. Groundwater within the Grants Mining District is known to

contain less than 10,000 mg/i TDS. Although it is a goal to restore groundwater to

preoperational conditions, this has not been successfully accomplished at many, if any

ISL facilities. Therefore, alterations of ore body aquifer chemistry should be revised to

Moderate to Large.

2. Page xlii, Groundwater Impacts, Decommissioning: The groundwater impact

significance level of "Small" during decommissioning is too low. Small to Large would

be more appropriate, given that ongoing contamination issues may be significant at sites

that have failed to achieve aquifer restoration of water quality.

3. Page 1-16, Section 1.6.3.4: NMED would like to clarify that it is the New Mexico

"Environment" and not "Environmental" Department. While NMED was established in

1991, its predecessor agency, the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Division

(NMEID) existed from 1977 through 1991.

4. Page 1-23, Section 1.7.5.4: As a clarification, the NMED authority comes from Title 20,

Chapter 6, Part 2 of the New Mexico Administrative Code.

5. Pages 1-23 to 1-24, Section 1.7.5.4: Before the federal appeals court in Denver, there is

an ongoing appeal, which will affect the jurisdictional authority for regulation of ISL

facilities in Indian Country. Note that on lines 30-34, page 3.5-1, this issue is mentioned

as an ongoing jurisdictional dispute in the checkerboard area.

6. Page 2-11, Section 2.3.1.1: The Office of the State Engineer has promulgated regulations

on well completion in confined conditions (Westwater Canyon member of the Morrison

formation) that must also be adhered to.

7. Page 2-14, Section 2.3.2: The State of New Mexico requires an operator to obtain a

Discharge Permit for evaporation ponds used in the management of waste water.

8. Page 2-18, Section 2.4.1.3: The Grants uranium district has thousands of exploration

holes, many of which may not have been properly abandoned and extensive mine
workings that connect large areas within the district, thus reducing the integrity of

aquitards in isolating ore bearing aquifers from others and providing a conduit for vertical

excursions.

9. Page 2-19, Section 2.4.1.4: Page 8-6. Section 8.3.1.2:

a. The setting of upper control limits (UCLs) under NMED authority would have to

consider water quality standards in 20.6.2.3103 NMAC, such that the selected

UCLs do not exceed the numerical standards, if background is determined to be

lower than applicable standards. NMED agrees with a contingency plan that

identifies water quality changes as early as possible, but the UCLs should follow

state regulations to ensure compliance with numerical standards.

b. NMED does not agree that an excursion should be defined when two or more

contaminants of concern (COCs) are discovered above the UCLs in a given

monitoring well. NMED would consider an excursion if a single COC is

discovered above the UCLs in a single monitoring well.

c. Line 2 and 3 states "If an excursion cannot be recovered, the licensee may be

required to stop injection of lixiviant into a well field". NMED considers this an

illegal discharge and would require the operator to cease injection immediately.

10. Page 2-29, Section 2.5.4: Line 44 refers to "class-of-use". New Mexico does not classify

groundwater. The New Mexico Water Quality Act protects all groundwater that contains

less than 10,000 mg/I TDS.

11. Page 2-31. Section 2.6: Line 29 should read "...lands are returned to prLe-production...".

12. Page 2-41, Section 2.10: This section refers to 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 9

for establishing financial surety, but does not provide specifics for ISL facilities. NMED

suggests the financial surety be based on the extraction of a minimum of 10 pore volumes

(page 2-29, line 1-3).

13. Page 2-48, Section 2.11.5:

a. The NRC should mention the potential or give an example of a site that may

require Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs) because aquifer restoration goals

were not successfully achieved.

b. Line 17 does not list other exceedenaces greater than baseline range in Table

2.11-4 - manganese and TDS.

14. Page 2-49, Section 2.11.5: Lines 24-25 states "Davis and Curtis (2007) generally

concluded that for the sites and data they examined, aquifer restoration took longer and

required more pore volumes than originally planned." This statement along with the

statement on page 2-51, lines 4-9, suggest that restoration of groundwater quality to
baseline conditions is achievable given removal of a sufficient number of pore volumes.

These conclusions are based on a limited number of sites and are inconsistent with the

U.S. Geological Survey Study on ISL restoration issued in January 2007 (NUREG/CR6870). NMED recommends the NRC evaluate a larger number of sites, including ISL

sites in agreement states such as Texas, in order to evaluate the success rate of restoration

of groundwater quality to baseline conditions.

15. Pane 3.5-4, Section 3.5.2: The NRC should consider that the first uranium mill that

becomes operational in the Grants uranium district may be used by other uranium mines

in the area as a destination for ore and fluids processing. Therefore, local transportation

and pipeline infrastructure to the mill may be much more extensive in addition to the

interstate shipment of yellowcake from the mill.

16. Page 3.5-6, Section 3.5.3: Line 26 states "The sandstone-type uranium deposits in the

Grants district are generally in a geologic setting favorable for exploitation by ISL

milling". It must be noted that extensive conventional mining resulting connection of

large subsurface areas and inadequate plugging of exploration holes has compromised

these favorable conditions for ISL milling in portions of the Grants uranium district.

17. Page 3.5-18, Section 3.5.4.3.1:

a. The NRC should clarify whether the Mesaverde Group Aquifer includes the Tres

Hermanos A, B, and C, which are sandstones within the Mancos Shale. It should

also be noted that the Tres Hermanos units have been used for livestock watering.

b. The NRC should note that pumping from underground mine workings has lead to

depressurization of aquifers (e.g., Westwater Canyon member of the Morrison

Formation) in the Ambrosia Lake Area. The intra-aquifer connections from

underground mine workings and improperly abandoned exploration borings have

resulted in a deterioration of the integrity of aquitards to isolate aquifers from one

another.

c. The NRC should note that the Dakota sandstone is used by the Moquino Mutual

Domestic Water Users Association near Bibo and Seboyeta east of Mt. Taylor.

18. Page 3.5-20. Section 3.5.4.3.3: The NRC should note that the Ambrosia Lake vicinity

contains Westwater Canyon member of the Morrison Formation ground water that may

be used in the future as a water supply.

19. Pages 3.5-17 to 3.5-21, Section 3.5.4.3: This section has a mix of regional and local

ground water properties. However, the local ground water resources are not

comprehensive in terms of existing and potential aquifers in the Grants uranium district.

20. Page 3.5-21. Section 3.5.4.3.3: The NRC should note that groundwater quality in the

Grants uranium district varies greatly due to extensive mining in the area and associated

dewatering activities.
21. Page 3.5-62, Section 3.5.10.1: Table 3.5-16: The NRC should compare the population

estimates with the State Demographer's results to ensure the best estimates of New

Mexico population. Using the 2000 U.S. census data results in an underestimate of the

current population. Go to the web site: http://www.unr.edu/-bber/demograp2.htm

22. Page 3.5-77, Section 3.5.11: NMED is unclear why prior mining and milling are not

considered in background radiological conditions.

The total effective dose equivalent is the total dose from external sources

and internal material released from licensed operations. Doses from

sources in the general environment (such as terrestrial radiation, cosmic

radiation, and naturally occurring radon) are not included in the dose

calculation for compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, even if these sources are

from technologically enhanced naturally occurring radioactive material

(TENORM), such as pre-existing radioactive residues from prior mining

(Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, 2006), lines 31-36.

23. Page 4.5-10, Section 4.5.4.2: Page 4.5-11, Section 4.5.4.2.2: Vertical excursions may be

more prevalent in New Mexico due to the aquitards compromised ability to limit

migration due to extensive mine working connections and inadequate plugging of

exploration borings.

24. Page 4.5-13, Section 4.5.4.2.2.2, line 42: same comment as #12.

25. Page 4.5-15, Section 4.5.4.2.2.3: The NRC should note that New Mexico has primacy

from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Underground

Injection Control program.

26. Page 8-3, Section 8.3.1.1: This section discusses establishing pre-operational baseline

conditions, but does not provide details on how it is calculated. NMED suggests, at a

minimum 3 pre-operational groundwater conditions be established: 1) non-mineralized

area; 2) reduced portion of the ore body; and 3) oxidized portion of the ore body.

27. Page 9-2. Section 9: Line 36 states that NRC will conduct tribal consultation with the

Navajo Nation for potential cultural and resource impacts, but fails to list other tribal

entities such as Acoma Pueblo, Zuni Pueblo, Hopi, and Laguna Pueblo.

C. Other Considerations

All surface water discharges from in-situ leach and related facilities require National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit coverage. In New Mexico, NPDES permits are

issued by the EPA. Three distinct types of activities at these facilities require NPDES permit

coverage under, potentially, three different NPDES permits: individually drafted NPDES permits
for discharges of process wastewaters; NPDES multi-sector general storm water permit coverage for

discharges of storm water from mining and processing areas (haul roads, access roads, railroads,

conveyor belts and associated areas, equipment storage and maintenance yards, processing

buildings and structures, and inactive areas, etc.); and NPDES construction general storm water

permit coverage for all construction activities, including exploration, which results in the

disturbance of > 1 acre. Sampling requirements (and effluent limits if applicable) are defined in

two of the above NPDES permits, (EPA is currently in the process of developing effluent limits for

construction activities).

EPA requires NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP) coverage for storm water discharges

from construction projects (common plans of development) that will result in the disturbance (or redisturbance) of one or more acres, including expansions, of total land area. Among other things,

this permit requires that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) be prepared for the site

and that appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) be installed and maintained both during

and after construction to prevent, to the extent practicable, pollutants (primarily sediment, oil &

grease and construction materials from construction sites) in storm water runoff from entering

waters of the U.S. This permit also requires that permanent stabilization measures (revegetation,

paving, etc.), and permanent storm water management measures (storm water detention/retention

structures, velocity dissipation devices, etc.) be implemented post construction to minimize, in the

long term, pollutants in storm water runoff from entering these waters. In addition, permittees must

ensure that there is no increase in sediment yield and flow velocity from the construction site (both

during and after construction) compared to pre-construction, undisturbed conditions (see Subpart

10.C.1)

EPA requires that all "operators" (see Appendix A) obtain NPDES permit coverage for

construction projects. Generally, this means that at least two parties will require permit coverage.

The owner/developer of the construction project who has operational control over project

specifications, the general contractor who has day-to-day operational control of those activities at

the site, which are necessary to ensure compliance with the storm water pollution plan and other

permit conditions, and possibly other "operators" require appropriate NPDES permit coverage

for these projects.

In addition, USEPA requires NPDES Storm Water Multi-sector General Permit (MSGP) coverage

for facilities that engage in "industrial activities" as defined at 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part

122.26(b)(14). Uranium in-situ leach projects meet this definition (specifically 40 CFR Part

122.26(b)(14)iii, Standard Industrial Classification code 1094 covered under MSGP Sector G - Ore

Mining and Dressing), and require appropriate NPDES permit coverage prior to beginning

operations.

Among other things, this permit also requires that a SWPPP be prepared for the site and that

appropriate BMPs be installed and maintained to prevent, to the extent practicable, pollutants in

storm water runoff from entering waters of the U.S. A SWPPP should include such things as:

1. A description of potential pollutant sources which includes such things as a site map, an

identification of the types of pollutants that are likely to be present in storm water

discharges, an inventory of the types of materials handled at the site that potentially may be
exposed to precipitation, a list of significant spills and leaks of oil, toxic or hazardous

pollutants, sampling data, a narrative description of the potential pollutant sources from

specific activities at the facility (i.e., pumping operations, road construction, raw material

storage and handling, material transportation, fueling and other equipment maintenance),

and identification of specific potential pollutants (i.e., dust, total suspended solids, total

dissolved solids, turbidity, pH, nitrates, oil, grease, ethylene glycol, heavy metals,

radionuclides, and others); and

2. A description of appropriate measures and controls which includes the type and location of

existing and proposed non-structural and structural BMPs selected for each of the areas

where industrial materials or activities are exposed to storm water. Non-structural and

structural BMPs to be described and implemented include such things as good

housekeeping, preventive maintenance, spill prevention and response procedures, periodic

inspections, employee training, record keeping, non-storm water evaluations and

certifications, sediment and erosion control, as well as implementation/maintenance of

traditional storm water management practices (i.e., sediment/settling ponds, check dams, silt

fences, straw bale barriers, perimeter berms, runon diversion structures), where appropriate.

The MSGP also requires preparation and implementation of a reclamation plan for the site.

Finally, EPA requires individual NPDES permit coverage for discharges of process wastewaters

from mining, leaching and processing operations, including drilling operations. These permits

,typically contain both technology and water quality based effluent limits, sampling requirements,

etc. NPDES regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.44(d) require that NPDES permits include effluent

limits necessary to achieve water quality standards established under § 303 [33 U.S.C. 1313 - Water

Quality Standards and Implementation Plans] of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), including

State narrative criteria for water quality. 40 CFR Part 122.4(i) requires that a discharge not "cause

or contribute to the violation of water quality standards." The New Mexico Water Quality Control

Commission (WQCC) has adopted surface water quality standards under authority of the New

Mexico Water Quality Act [Chapter 74, Article 6 NMSA] pursuant to CWA § 303, which are

codified as Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Surface Waters, 20.6.4 NMAC.

Regardless of whether or not an NPDES permit has been issued, state surface water quality

standards must be met at all times and violation of these standards are enforced by the New Mexico

Environment Department under authority of the New Mexico Water Quality Act.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this far reaching proposal. We applaud the desire of

the NRC to look at the cumulative impact of proposed ISL facilities across the Western U.S. but ask

you do not do so at the expense of in depth, site specific environmental impact analysis.

Sincerely,

• on Curry

.NMED Secretary
Testimony

Statement by

Robert G. McSwain,

Director

Indian Health Services

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

on

The Health and Environmental Impact of Uranium Mining on the Navajo Nation

before

House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform

United States House of Representatives

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Good Morning, I am Robert G. McSwain, the Acting Director of the Indian Health

Service (IHS). I am accompanied by two other individuals: RADM Douglas G. Peter,

M.D., Deputy Director and Chief Medical Officer of the Navajo Area and RADM (Ret)

Gary Hartz, Director, IHS Office of Environmental Health and Engineering. Today, I am

pleased to have this opportunity to testify on what is known about the health and

environmental impact of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation.

The IHS has the responsibility for delivery of health services to an estimated 1.9 million

Federally-recognized American Indians and Alaska Natives through a system of IHS,

tribal, and urban (I/T/J) operated facilities and programs based on the government-togovernment relationship and Acts of Congress. The mission of the agency is to raise the

physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of American Indians and Alaska Natives to

the highest level, in partnership with the population we serve. The agency's goal is to

assure that comprehensive, culturally acceptable personal and public health services are

available and accessible to the service population. Our duty is to uphold the Federal

government's responsibility to promote healthy American Indian and Alaska Native

people, communities and cultures, and to honor and protect the inherent sovereign rights

of Tribes.

Three major pieces of legislation are at the core of the Federal government's

responsibility for meeting the health needs of American Indians/Alaska Natives: the

Snyder Act of 1921,

P.L. 67-85, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA), P.L. 94-437, as amended,

and the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), P.L. 93-638,

as amended. The Snyder Act authorized regular appropriations for "the relief of distress

and conservation of health" of American Indians/Alaska Natives. The IHCIA was
enacted "to implement the Federal responsibility for the care and education of the Indian

people by improving the services and facilities of Federal Indian health programs and

encouraging maximum participation of Indians in such programs." Like the Snyder Act,

the I.HCIA provided the authority for Federal government programs that deliver health

services to Indian. The ISDEAA promotes Tribal administration of Federal Indian

programs, including health care.

The IHS and Tribal programs provide a comprehensive scope of individual and public

health services, including preventive, clinical, and environmental health services. In

addition, the IHS and Tribal health programs purchase medical care and urgent health

services through the Contract Health Services program, when health care is otherwise not

available at their facilities

The IHS has 12 Area Offices located throughout the continental United States and in

Alaska. One of these Area Offices is located. in Window Rock, Arizona, where the

capital of the Navajo Nation is located. The Navajo Area Indian Health. Service (NAIHS)

is responsible for the delivery of health services to American Indians in the states of

Arizona (AZ), New Mexico (NM), and Utah (UT), a region known as the Four Corners

area of the United States (U.S.). The Navajo reservation, geographically, is

approximately the size of the state of West Virginia with a population density which is

one tenth of the U.S. average of 85 people per square mile.

Comprehensive health care is provided by NAJHS and the Navajo Nation through

inpatient, outpatient, contract and community health, and environmental health programs

through six -hospitals, ten health centers, thirteen health stations and community based

activities. In FY 2007, over 1.2 million, outpatient visits and 56,000 inpatient service

days were provided by 4,500 Indian Health Service and Tribal staff. The IHS sanitation

construction program funded first time water and sewer service to 1,098 Navajo homes in

FY 2007. The Navajo Nation and local health corporations administer approximately

$89 million of the annual NAJHS funding to deliver and support the delivery of health

care services to Navajo people.

The Navajo population has a median age of 24 years which is twelve years below that of

the entire U.S. population, and. the annual per capita income of $7,100 is one-third of the

average in the U.S. The five leading reasons of death for the Navajo people (1999-2001)

include unintentional injuries, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and influenza/pneumonia.

Cancer mortality rates for the Navajo Area death rates (1999-2001) are lower than that of

all other races in the U.S. except for cervical cancer which is about twice as high as the

U.S. rate for all races.

The leading reasons for outpatient visits to NAIHS in. FY 2004 were diabetes,

*hypertension, upper respiratory infections, routine child care, ear infections, pregnancy

and childbirth related, accidents, musculo-skeletal conditions and supplemental

procedures (prevention tests).

The Health and Environmental Impact on the Navajo Nation
I will be discussing the role of the Indian Health Service with respect to Navajo patients

with health problems associated with exposure to uranium. Uranium is ubiquitous in the

earth's crust but is especially concentrated in larger amounts in the southwest United

States and the Navajo Nation. Naturally present uranium decays into radium and radon -

a colorless, odorless and radioactive gas at normal temperatures. Radon decays further

into additional radioactive elements (radon daughters or progeny) that are solids which

collect on dust particles. These decay products emit alpha and beta particles and gamma

radiation.

During mining operations in the southwest United States, radon and its progeny were

inhaled into the lungs, and it is believed that exposure to high concentrations of alpha

decay particles has caused lung cancer in some miners. In addition to cancer, chronic

pulmonary disease also developed in some miners due to the inhalation of the silica dust

particles.

An estimated 3,000-5,000 Navajos worked in uranium mines. The Navajo Nation reports

the presence of over 1,300 abandoned mines on reservation land alone. Some miners also

worked in Colorado (where the largest number of mines were located), Utah and in New

Mexico (which produced the largest amount of uranium ore).

Prior to enactment of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) in 1990,

individuals with lung cancer or chronic pulmonary disease were identified and treated by

IHS staff. RECA authorized compensation for the former uranium miners. IHS in the

Navajo Area assisted with dedicated screening staff and funding to conduct medical

exams. IHS staff also collected health history information from multiple facilities and

assisted the Navajo Nation in establishing a registry containing the data to assist former

miners and their survivors with the documentation of health histories and current medical

condition. All information gathered is maintained by the Navajo Nation, not by the IHS.

In 2002, the Navajo Area Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program

(RESEP) began operations as one of seven HHS RESEP grants in the United States.

NAIHS works closely with the Navajo Nation Division of Health, Office of Navajo

Uranium Workers, to implement the grant which is funded through August 31, 2008.

Special clinics at multiple NAIHS clinical sites are by RESEP staff from the Shiprock,

New Mexico, IHS hospital. Screening is provided to (a) miners who worked at least one

year above ground and/or-underground from 1942 through 1971; (b) uranium millers or

ore transporters, and (c) downwinders (those living in defined counties from 1951-1958

or in 1962).

Various pulmonary and kidney function related tests are performed during RESEP exams

every three years. In between these regular screenings, NAIHS staff at all Navajo Area

IHS facilities follow these individuals as part of their regular workload. It is of note that,

since 2002, the RESEP program has not found a new case of lung cancer case in a

uranium worker; but, many still live with chronic pulmonary scarring and are at a higher
risk for the development of lung cancer than the average individual. IHS continues to

treat affected miners appropriate to their health condition.

1990-1991 Radon Survey of Navajo Homes

In 1990-1991, the Indian Health Service OEHE working with the Navajo Nation

Environmental Protection Agency (NNEPA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (U.S. EPA) undertook a radon survey of private homes. EPA had established 4

pCi/L as a "guideline" for indoor radon levels. The survey used a statistical sampling

technique to identify Navajo homes on or near the reservation normally occupied yearround. For the short term survey, charcoal test canisters were placed in just over one

thousand homes during the winter months. In 10 percent of the homes, alpha test devices

were put in place for one year to determine an annual average indoor radon

concentration. In 1992 the results of the testing revealed 772 statistically valid

measurements showing an average radon level of 1.7 pCi/L (U.S. average was estimated

at 1.3 pCi/L). Ninety two percent of homes had levels below the U.S. EPA

recommended guideline of 4 pCi/L. The year-long term radon test device results were

positively correlated with the short-term survey results. Individual home owners were

notified of the results. The conclusion drawn from this survey was that, in spite of

surface soils rich in natural uranium, most Navajo occupied homes do not have a problem

with higher than recommended levels of radon compared to the U.S. average.

Uranium Milling/Mine Waste Piles

Health concerns for milling personnel are similar to those described above for uranium

miners. The risks, appear to have been less for millers than miners because mines

contained far more concentrated radon gas. But abandoned mine and milling tailing piles

contained increased radium which seeped into local surface and ground water and spread

to nearby lands via wind dispersal. Moreover, unfortunately tailing pile material has

been discovered in the past to have been used by locals in home building materials,

necessitating the abandonment/destruction of identified homes under the authority of

Navajo Nation programs.

In 1990 the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, the HHS component that

addresses the public health effects of contaminants, advised authorities of an immediate

and significant danger to people's health for one set of mines. The EPA conducted an

emergency removal of the waste. EPA contracted with a Native American company to

do that work.

Uranium and Water Quality Issues

The increased exposure to radionuclides in drinking water results in increased risks of

bone cancer and changes in kidney function by direct toxicity to kidney cells. In

December 2000, the U.S. EPA issued new rules regulating uranium in community water

systems to reduce toxic kidney effects and the risk of cancer. By December 31, 2007, all

regulated water systems must complete initial monitoring.
Since the passage of P. L. 86-121 in 1959, IHS has been constructing community water

systems in Indian country which meet all EPA standards for safe drinking water and, in

the case of the Navajo Area, turning these systems over to the Navajo Tribal Utility

Authority (NTUA) to operate and maintain. Compliance with the Safe Drinking Water

Act on Navajo reservation land has been the responsibility of the Navajo Nation since

2001. Only 3 percent of Navajo Nation community water systems in 2005 had reportable

health-based violations (any violations exceeding maximum contaminant levels, not just

radio-nuclides) in comparison to numbers for the states of Arizona (11%), New Mexico

(13%), Utah (6%) and Colorado (9%).

Currently, a Navajo Nation Institutional Review Board approved study is underway with

funds awarded by HHS to the University of New Mexico, Health Sciences Center. The

Navajo Uranium Assessment and Kidney Health Project is supported by a $2.3 million

five-year grant. Indian Health Service staff are collaborating with this effort, as medical

record reviews, health exams and laboratory analysis will be essential to the success of

this project.

The study is designed to (1) assess water quality and use in 100 water sources in

Northwestern New Mexico communities with Navajo residents; (2) reduce uranium

exposure from unregulated water sources used as drinking water; and (3) calculate

relative risks for chronic kidney disease from ingestion of uranium and other kidney

toxicants from unregulated water sources, evaluating urinary biomarkers over time in

relationship to disease progression.

Historical data indicate that up to 25 percent of unregulated water sources in'the western

Navajo exceeded drinking water standard for kidney toxicants (including uranium).

Preliminary analysis of eastern Navajo Nation data shows that this same percentage is

being found for New Mexico unregulated water sources on or near Navajo lands. In the

New Mexico study area, many families still haul water from multiple sites, including

unregulated water sources, in spite of warnings by health providers and environmental

health staff.

Concluding Remarks

The Indian Health Service strives every day to be true to our mission to elevate the health

status of eligible Indian people. We work in partnership with Tribes and many other

organizations and governments to provide preventative and curative, community- and

health care facility-based services to our large beneficiary population. Most of our.

resources are dedicated to addressing the most prevalent health problems in Indian

Country. Every patient/family we serve is equally important in the eyes of our staff with

regard to the unique health problems presented by each.

When IHS staff recognize unique trends in health statistics or a unique presentation of

illness (such as with Hantavirus on the Navajo Nation over a decade ago) they work

diligently to identify the cause or causes. This includes working with specialists or
special programs (like CDC) to assist in uncovering the source of the problem the patient

is experiencing. For example, Navajo Neuropathy was clinically pursued by our staff in

conjunction with outside experts. Genetic researchers now conclude that a single gene

mutation is the cause of this disorder.

The IHS is committed to addressing the health care needs of the citizens of the Navajo

Nation, including those who may be impacted by the effects of uranium mining.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony before the Committee. I will be

pleased to answer any questions you may have for the IHS on this important subject.
Statements for Ben House & Danny Charley

December 11, 2008

Ben House:

I want to thank the Commission for the opportunity to

speak today. My name is Ben House and I am the

President of the Eastern Navajo Allottee Association. I

represent hundreds of families who have for

generations owned their own land outside the

boundaries of the Navajo Nation. We are in favor of

new uranium operations in the Grants Mineral Belt

and we believe that the In situ method of mining

uranium is environmentally responsible.

Our country needs to become energy independent

and the region of New Mexico that is my home is
desperately in need of economic development.

Uranium mining will meet both of those goals.

America needs the new uranium mines to fuel the

growing nuclear reactor fleet domestically and

globally. More nuclear power is needed to supply

clean and inexpensive electric power.

New Mexico is fortunate to have large uranium

resources that when developed will provide jobs and

bring positive economic benefits to our community.

The return of the uranium industry will also have a

ripple effect throughout Western New Mexico. The

jobs associated with uranium mining are high paying

that will keep our sons and daughters from moving

from our communities.
I want to thank the NRC for drafting the Generic

Environmental Impact Statement. The document will

be helpful in determining the potential environmental

impacts at in situ recovery facilities. The G-E-I-S

shows that uranium mining will have a small footprint

in McKinley County. This county in Northwest New

Mexico is where most future ISR projects will be

located. In this county, 85 percent of the land is used

for agricultural purposes and 83 percent of that land is

used for livestock grazing. Coal and uranium

activities use less than 1 % of the land in McKinley

County. The G-E-I-S also shows that uranium bearing

aquifers exist in Northwest New Mexico. These

uranium bearing aquifers are not fit for drinking. This

is the case whether these uranium bearing aquifers

are mined or not.
The G-E-I-S has also done a good job of gathering

data of ISR operations over the past 30 years. And

during that time there has not been a major

environmental accident at any ISR site in the United

States.

Again I want to thank the NRC for the opportunity to

address this very important issue to the Eastern

Navajo Allottee Association. We support the NRC and

their efforts with the G-E-I-S.
Danny Charley:

I also want to thank the NRC for this opportunity to

speak about an issue that is very important to me. My

name is Danny Charley and I am a member of the

Eastern Navajo Allottee Association. For generations,

my family has lived and worked on land outside the

jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation. We are selfsufficient and prefer to find our own way to support

our families. We believe that ISR uranium recovery is

the best solution to mining the uranium on our land. It

will provide the economic development that holds the

promise of a better future for our children.

I applaud the NRC for drafting the G-E-I-S document.

The G-E-I-S contains a tremendous amount of
information on environmental and social conditions

found in northwestern New Mexico. I am very

comfortable that future operations can be permitted

and conducted without harming the workers or the

environment. I thank the NRC for compiling this

information to educate the public on this important

issue.

I also believe that the mining industry has improved

their practices and they have learned important

lessons from the previous mining cycle. I also know

that there is regulatory oversight from both federal

and state agencies ensuring that the people, the land

and the water will be safe. This is important.
The current energy situation is a wake-up call to many

Americans who realize that we cannot afford to be at

the mercy of hostile foreign governments for our

energy needs. We have the power here in our own

backyards to supply our country's needs for future

generations of Americans. It is important that we

develop domestic sources of uranium to promote

energy independence for our nation. Nuclear power

fueled by New Mexico uranium will help reduce

greenhouse gas emissions globally.

All available sources of energy must be used to meet

increased future demand. I thank the NRC for making

the ISR licensing process more efficient. I believe that

it is a very smart public policy to protect the workers,

public health, and the environment, thank you.
The Uranium Recovery

Industry

National Mining Association

December 11, 2008
Generic Environmental Impact

Statement

rVNMA strongly supports GElS

o Necessary to handle anticipated applications while

assuring adequate protection of health, safety and

the environment

• NMA submitted extensive comments

o Generic Environmental Report in scoping process

o Comments on the Draft GElS

rVNMA agrees with NRC that the majority of impacts

associated with ISR are "small"

• GElS & Part 51 assure site-specific environmental analyses

2
Typical Wellfields

3
Potential Threats to Usefulness of

GEIS

o Benefits of GElS should not be undermined

o NRC must adhere to deadline to finalize

o NRC should authorize certain preconstruction

activities

o NRC, BLM and state agencies should coordinate

required environmental assessments

o NRC must continue use of performance based

licensing per commission policy

4

m
NRC Rulemaking for Groundwater

Protection at ISR Facilities

ý Issue of longstanding importance to the industry

ý Agree with EPA that currently there are no

generally applicable UMTRCA standards

Now "tailored" rulemaking - to make EPA 40 CFR

part 192 standards applicable "as a matter of law"

to ISR restoration, including giving the licensee

the legal right to apply for an ACL (with state prior

class of use a factor in an ACL determination)

U.~ .5x 

7 ii 7
Demand for Uranium

Spot market price up 25%. over the past 5 weeks

Strong demand (Since 1990 consumption >

production)

2008 Forecast downgraded from 125 million

pounds to 115 million pounds

440 Nuclear Reactors worldwide

35 new plants currently under construction

. 20 potential new plants in. the US

ý A 6
Importance of Domestic Uranium

ý Domestic production provides energy security --

US current reliant on foreign sources for 85-90%

r At current prices, DOE forecasts US has almost

900 million pounds of uranium reserves

r Creation of jobs, infrastructure and other

economic benefits

Illustrated by the recent New Mexico State University

study, "Economic Impact of Uranium Mining and Milling

Operations in the State of New Mexico"
International Forum on

Sustainable Options for

Uranium Production

(IFSOUP)

11 December 2008

Michelle R. Rehmann,

Uranium Program Manager

IFSOUP/Tetra Tech
Origin and Need for IFSOUP

" Originated fall 2007

* Concept: adopt sustainable

practices to avoid legacy sites

" Means to organize:

- Workshops

-Training courses

- Forums for debate

- Information dissemination

2
IFSOUP Inaugural Meeting

Participants

* IAEA, Austria

" US NRC

" IIIRM

* WNA, UK

• CETEM, Brazi

° CNEA,

Argentina

* BLM

* SEAB, Canad;

I

* CAMECO,

Canada

" WM Mining Inc.,

USA/Mongolia

" Virginia Uranium

Inc., USA

" UTEP

* Tetra Tech

* Talisman a

3
IFSOUP Objectives

* International forum to

discuss and

exchange experience

on sustainable

uranium

mining/production

" Solution holders

problem holders

* Technology transfer

° Promote stakeholder

participation

OK, but tylrsl

not ioma lke ItI

4
IFSOUP Objectives - Continued

" Mining company

education/assistance/support

" Multi-sector, forum for workshops,

panels, and short courses

" Be globally driven

" Aid junior operators, state-owned

enterprises, regulators and other

stakeholders

" Cooperate with/complement NRC's and

IAEA's efforts

5
Topics

" Define sustainability in context

* Coordinate worldwide initiatives

• Indigenous peoples

" Principles of Code(s) of Practice

* Cameco Sustainability Approach

(added over time) vs. new projects

starting with sustainability plans

" ISL - technical and environmental

issues

* Uranium. mining in previously

untmined countries

" Success stories 6
Regulatory Leadership in

Sustainable Practices

* Key to Project Success and Instilling

Public Confidence

* Economic - support community

economic development, including

clear, predictable, and reliable

regulatory governance

* Social-strong and respected regulation

* Environmental-safe projects protective

of human health and the environment

7
Findings to Date

" Good examples exist

" Challenge to disseminate

* Need for further discussion of ISL

technical issues

* Communication constraint

* Need for further discussion of

specific needs of indigenous

peoples

8
Tribal Member Delegation

• Coordinated with IIIRM

" Tribal Participants (Navajo, Spokane,

Oglala Sioux, Acoma)

* Donors (Black Range Minerals,

Uranium Energy Corp., PowerTech,

Inc., Uranium Resources Inc.,

Strathmore Minerals Corp., Fletcher

Newton)

* Pre-Workshop Sustainability Discussion

and Attendance at NMA/NRC 2008

Uranium Recovery Workshop

9
Activities to Date

In its first year, IFSOUP has....

" Interfaced with NRC's and IAEA's

Networks

" Expanded to 150+ -participants

* Generated growing involvement

through outreach to stakeholders

* Opened •o©®©•

* Developed Diverse Secretariat

* Convened in Phoenix, Arizona;

Denver, Colorado (2 meetings);

Beijing, China; and Vail, Colorado

10
Next Steps

Following first year results, IFSOI

will....

* Continue facilitating agency, N(

and UR industry networking to

foster and implement safe,

sustainable options for uranium

production

" Continue broadening its diverse

network and constituencv

JP

'0

!

* Incorporate as a non-profit to gain

access to grants or other funding

essential to continue its mission

11
IFSOUP Website

and Contact Information

vvwwoifsoup.org

Michelle R. Rehmann,

Uranium Program Manager

IFSOUP/Tetra Tech

PO Box 4989

Breckenridge, CO USA 80424

nuelleoIehmann @tetratechcom

12
List of Acronyms

BLM: Bureau of Land Management

CETEM: (to be added)

CNEA: (to be added)

IAEA: International Atomic Energy

Agency

IFSOUP: International Forum on

Sustainable Options for Uranium

Production

IIIRM: International Institute for

Indigenous Resource Management

13
List of Acronyms - continued

ISL: In Situ Leach (or ISR, In Siti

Recovery)

SEAB: Saskatchewan

Environmental Assessment

Branch, Canada

UR: Uranium Recovery

U'S NRC: United States Nuclear

Regulatory Commission

UTEP: University of Texas El Pa

VUI: Virginia Uranium Inc.

WNA: World Nuclear Association

I

so

14
HENRDC

TEEARTH'S BEST DEFENSE

December 11, 2008

Statement of the Natural Resources Defense Council before the

Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners' Briefing on Uranium Recovery

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a national non-profit environmental

organization with offices in Washington, D.C., New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Los

Angeles, and Beijing, China. NRDC has a nationwide membership of over one million individuals

and online activists. NRDC's activities include maintaining and enhancing environmental quality

and monitoring federal agency actions to ensure that federal statutes enacted to protect human

health and the environment are fully and properly implemented. Since its inception in 1970,

NRDC has sought to improve the environmental, health, and safety requirements at nuclear

facilities operated by Department of Energy (DOE) and at commercial nuclear sites licensed by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and their predecessor agencies.

As has been detailed by other participants in today's program, most notably the tribal

representatives, the history of uranium mining and milling across the American West has been

one of severe environmental and social harm. Despite the history of environmental and public

health harms, the framework for the regulation of uranium recovery is a mishmash of federal

and state oversight, with little accountability for lax decisions and a decided unwillingness to

enforce protective standards if. these would increase costs to the industry. The NRC, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the DOE, the Interior Department (specifically the

Bureau of Indian Affairs under its trust 'responsibility) all hold portions of responsibility for the

regulation of past, present, and future harms resulting from uranium recovery. Literally decades

after the original harm from uranium recovery was first inflicted on the Western land, water,

and communities, the NRC has commenced drafting what we hope will be a rational, protective

regulatory structure for any future uranium ISL mining. Unfortunately, if the Draft Generic

Environmental Impact Statement for In-Situ Leach Uranium Milling Facilities, 73 Fed. Reg. 43795

(July 28, 2008) (Draft GElS) is indicative of how the agency intends to go about managing its

responsibilities for uranium recovery, we are concerned. Our comments on the Draft GElS were

timely submitted on November 7, 2008 and provide detailed illustrations of our concerns that

we will not repeat here.

For the purposes of today's discussion, issuing the Draft GElS before the NRC has even

commenced fixing a failed regulatory regime is putting the cart before the horse. As we noted in

our recent comments, the Draft GElS identifies no broad national purpose, no overarching need

for a proposed action beyond that of aiding industry's license applications, and no meaningful

weighing of alternatives. Since the purpose and need for agency action is so ill-defined, it is by

no means clear whether a GElS is even appropriate or warranted, especially, without a searching

technical and legal review that could suggest the imposition of a regulatory program that avoids
repeating the harms of the past. In short, it's our assessment that the agency's purpose and

need as expressed by the Draft GElS is essentially procedural -to streamline its consideration

and approval of license applications for uranium recovery; We commented in November and do

so again today that the Draft GElS places the NRC in the peculiar position of using the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to revise its own rules without a proposal for rulemaking.

Today, however, we gather here to consider the idea of that rulemaking. We understand that

the NRC Staff may submit for the Commissioners' consideration a Draft ISL rule in April of 2009

that will ostensibly impose some rationality and protective standards on the mishmash of

federal and state oversight. As far as we know, other federal or state agencies may have seen a

draft of the ISL rule, but no member of the public - at least those not affiliated with a

participating governmental entity - has seen a draft of the ISL rule. A lack of transparency and

openness has been an unfortunate hallmark of the nuclear industry since its inception and the

NRC would be wise to depart from that history.

And others are showing the way. Just this past year, Colorado, an Agreement State, passed the

"Land and Water Stewardship Act of 2008." This Colorado law represents a first effort to impose

rational and protective public health and environmental standards for future ISL uranium

mining. We commend Colorado for stepping forward to address this matter. More important,

today we encourage the NRC to follow the good example of Colorado in any rulemaking drafts.

Placing protection of the environment and surrounding communities at the forefront is an

excellent start. Central to Colorado's effort was the idea that the entirety of environmental

harms were to be taken into consideration prior to issuing a license (including a transparent and

technically valid measurement of existing groundwater quality). Just as important, we expect

that with new regulations the Colorado law will demand a demonstration that any mining, if it

does take place, can be demonstrated be safe and able to restore the affected environment to

its pre-mining state. The NRC would do well to emulate those concepts as it works.this winter.

And as aquifer restoration is of paramount concern for NRDC and many others, we further

recommend that the NRC Staff rectify the wholly inadequate presentation found on the subject

in the Draft GElS. In a draft rulemaking for ISL groundwater protection, the NRC must commence

with a comprehensive environmental analysis of the restoration history of mines and their

individual wellfields. After such a presentation, the NRC Staff would then analyze the extent to

which each of those individual wellfields were restored to original water quality and then

present a hard look analysis of any associated long-term environmental impacts. That hard look

analysis would analyze, among many factors, the original estimation of baseline water quality,

the original estimation of pore volumes, horizontal and vertical flare factors, the impact of

excursions, and any unforeseen problems that emerged (like, for example, the inadequacy of

financial surety set aside for decommissioning).

The amount of work confronting the NRC is significant. Decades of regulatory neglect are not an

easy thing to overcome, but we expect that any effort to finally commence work on a regulatory

process for ISL uranium mining that is protective of the environment will begin with the

concepts noted above. We also note that because of the splintered nature of the legal

framework for uranium recovery, for the NRC to properly proceed here, the agency must

continue working with its federal colleagues at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

the U.S. Department of the Interior to develop a regulatory framework for uranium recovery
cleanup and licensing that protects of public health and the environment. We encourage future

efforts to be more transparent and open to the public.

Moreover, before the NRC proceeds to any more licensing decisions in advance of proposed rule

changes, the NRC should commence its own particular portion of the work by focusing on

evaluation of ISL uranium mining performance in the past 35 years, including in agreement

states like Texas and Wyoming. And consistent with its regulatory obligations under NEPA and in

a manner consistent with our November 2008 comments on the Draft GELS, the NRC must also

do a dramatically better job of defining the region or regions where it anticipates significant

environmental and public health impacts, the extent of known and anticipated ISL uranium

mining and milling in these regions, the timing of these developments, and a plan for licensing

under new and more protective rules that is adequate to the scale of the task envisioned.

Thank you for inviting me here today and I look forward to answering any questions.

Sincerely,

/s/

Geoffrey H. Fettus, Senior Project Attorney

Natural Resources Defense Council

1200 New York Avenue, NW

Suite 400

Washington D.C. 20005

(202) 289-6868

gfettus@nrdc.org