Page 1 of 3 DRAFT Minutes Subpart W Quarterly Conference Call w/ Interested Stakeholders January 5, 2011

ATTENDEES EPA: Reid Rosnick, Angelique Diaz CCAT: Sharyn Cunningham, Paul Carestia, Anita (?), Lynn (Holtz) Minasi, Kay Hawklee Industry: Oscar Paulson (Kenneco tt), Josh Leftwich (Cameco), Katie Sweeney (NMA), Jim Cain (Cotter), John Cash, Penny Goppler (Ur Energy) , Tom Pout & Nick B illstein (Strathmore) Sarah Fields (Uranium Watch) Steve Brown (SENES) Jan Johnson (Tetratech) Travis Stills, Energy Minerals Law Center

Reid: Overview of what we’ve been working on since last conference call Risk Assessment from Contractor

 Workgroup comments due 1/18/2011. March/Apr il for final document. Peer review process when finalized

 Oscar: when peer reviewed, will the group that peer reviews this be the same group 192 was soliciting nominations for? Reid – possi bly, but we haven’t solicited nominations yet for Subpart W.

 Oscar: When contractor did the risk assessmen t, what input was cons idered in the risk assessment? Were epidemiological studies by John Boice (?) of Vanderbilt used? Reid – don’t believe they were included. Described th e data used and the acceptable risk from previous study. Update – Reid has located a paper co-authored by Dr. Boice titled “Cancer incidence and mortality in populatio ns living near urani um milling and mining operations in Grants, New Mexi co, 1950-2004.” I would be intere sted in knowing if this is the study Oscar mentioned.

 Paul: Cotter assumptions are “wrong and ab surd” – majority covered by water was the assumption

 Jim: Wasn’t contac ted by contractorPage 2 of 3  Oscar: Data from 1969 exists. Provid ed substantial data to S. Cohen.

 Steve: GEIS for ISL from NRC has an “excellent summary”

 Basically, everyone is saying that actual site-specific data should be included.

 Oscar: concerned about the validity of the data. He said he sent Reid corrected data for the Sweetwater site.

 Steve: there needs to be an opportunity for th e site operators to comment on the validity of the data. Reid – that opportunity will be given

 Travis: data should be on website. Reid – Docu ment is in draft form and comments from workgroup must be addressed. Nothing will go on website that doesn’t reflect current ideas. Travis: just the data should be availa ble to the public and th inks per the agreement the data should be on the website. Reid – sp irit and intent of consent agreement being followed, but we want to make sure what is on the website is valid and not misleading.

 Process for Peer Review: Internal nomination process but reviewers may not be internal. Oscar – EPA put together a 40 CFR part 192 peer review group and in that case there was a solicitation in the FR for nominees from the public. Reid – that may be the route that we take, Reid will take to management. Economic Impact Analysis

 Katie: how can we know the benefits and im pacts if we don’t know what is proposed? Reid – about to say that progress is slow fo r this document because we don’t have all the necessary data yet.

 Economist on staff (Val Anoma) has taken over the contract National Academy of Sciences Committee on U Mining in Virginia

 Reid – summary of committee’s role

 Oscar – Texas data will be applicable to Virginia because of the high moisture

 Travis – encouraging that we are looking at relationship between mining and milling and we should be looking at Subpart B revision and cumulative sour ces should be looked at. Hope we are looking at both from a rulema king perspective. Reid – Subpart B is a separate and distinct regulation and in the review/revision of Subpart W we won’t be addressing Subpart B in this rulemaking.

 Sarah – in Paradox valley we have a propos ed uranium mill with a surface mining operation (Cotter) and under Rad NESHAPs ther e is no standard for Rn released from surface mining operation, thinks that in Subpa rt W should take into consideration the radon from uranium mines in the vicinity of the uranium mill.

 Travis – widely held view that regulations as they stand do not protect resources, human health and the environment as required by th e CAA. Thinks that as they stand the provisions of other Subpa rts are in sufficient.Page 3 of 3  Sarah – thinks we should also look at particul ate emissions from other sources at the mill and we should look at all radionuclide sources from a mill when considering risks from radon. Should look at the whole operation and what the community is being exposed to.

 Oscar – particulate emissions already re gulated under AEA by N RC under 10 CFR Part 20, specifically related to dose limits to general public and nearest resident.

 Steve – 100mrem/yr includes particulat es and radon in NRC regulations

 Reid – Particulates already accounted for and not included as part of Subpart W review

Reid’s Follow-ups

 Why Cotter not contacted (will verify if S. Cohen spoke with CDPHE or NRC) Update: As soon as funding is in place, SC&A will be contacting Cotter and open dialogue with Kennecott. Others are invited to share data.

 Peer review information/process. Update: Management will be making a determination on whether the peer review will be internal or external.

 Exploring issue of impoundments in area wh ere precipitation exceeds evaporation Oscar – look at two conventional operations in Washington where there is substantial precipitation (in Eastern Wa shington) Jim Cain – where was meteorological data obtained? Cotter has data.

 Travis – inadequacies in Subpart A expre ssed, namely the lack of a public comment requirement - Reid – if we had sufficient re sources we’d look at NE SHAP Subparts A, B, etc. now. As such, those porti ons will have to wait.

Next call. 4/7/2011, 11am EST