1 

### Nesky, Anthony

To: Nesky, Anthony

Subject: FW: EPA Response to High Levels of Radon from White Mesa Liquid Effluents

Attachments: UW_toEPA_RRosnick.SubpartWRulemaking.150601.pdf

From: sarah@uraniumwatch.org [mailto:sarah@uraniumwatch.org]

Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 1:08 PM

To: Rosnick, Reid

Cc: Stahle, Susan; Peake, Tom; Schultheisz, Daniel; Jackson, Scott; Diaz, Angelique

Subject: RE: EPA Response to High Levels of Radon from White Mesa Liquid Effluents

Dear Mr. Rosnick,

Attached please find Uranium Watch's response to your e-mail below.

Sincerely,

Sarah Fields

Program Director

Uranium Watch

PO Box 344

Moab, Utah 84532

435-260-8384

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: RE: EPA Response to High Leve ls of Radon from White Mesa Liquid

Effluents

From: "Rosnick, Reid" <R osnick.Reid@epa.gov>

Date: Fri, April 24, 2015 1:38 pm

To: "sarah@uraniumwatch.org" <sarah@uraniumwatch.org>

Cc: "Stahle, Susan" <Stahle. Susan@epa.gov>, "Peake, Tom"

<Peake.Tom@epa.gov>, "Schultheisz, Daniel" <Schultheisz.Daniel@epa.gov>,

"Jackson, Scott" <Jackson.Scott@epa.gov>, "Diaz, Angelique"

<Diaz.Angelique@epa.gov>

Dear Sarah,

This is in response to your email of April 7, 2015. Your first question is about Energy Fuels’ (then Denison

Mines) lack of response to a request for information under the Clean Air Act (also known as a Section 114

request). You are correct that EPA has enforcement authority to act if a facility chooses not to respond to a

section 114 request. That enforcement authority is discretionary, and EPA decided not to use enforcement

authority in this particular instance to obtain this information.

Your next question states that you would like to know how the EPA is going to address your concerns at the

White Mesa Mill that are caused by the potential radon emissions from the liquid impoundments. You

referenced calculations that were provided to EPA by the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. We received a number of

comments during the comment period from several members of the public that are relevant to this discussion.

The comments we received regarding the amount of emissions from these impoundments suggest significantly

different emissions rates, from zero emissions to large amounts of radon emissions. EPA must consider all of

the comments submitted to the Agency in order to make a determination that can then be incorporated into

the final rule. Because of this process EPA will not be able to address this question until we publish the final

rule and response to comments document.2 The remainder of your email contains enforcement

‐ related questions rather than rulemaking

‐ related

questions. As such, these questions should be answered by the respective enforcement offices within Utah

and EPA Region 8. I cannot answer enforcement

‐ related questions because these questions are outside of my

rulemaking

‐ related responsibilities. Other offices within EPA and in Utah are delegated the enforcement

authorities and therefore are the appropriate parties to answer these questions. In the future I request that

you please direct your enforcement

‐ related questions to Utah and Region 8. Thanks

Reid

From: sarah@uraniumwatch.org [ mailto:sarah@uraniumwatch.org ]

Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 1:55 PM

To: Rosnick, Reid

Cc: Diaz, Angelique; Stahle, Susan; Peake, Tom; Flynn, Mike; Muellerleile, Caryn; Edwards, Jonathan; Zenick,

Elliott; Blake, Wendy; Cherepy, Andrea; Benner, Tim; Ferris, Lena; Garlow, Charlie; Walker, Stuart; Hoffman,

Stephen; Ginsberg, Marilyn; Brozowski, George; Hooper, Charles A.; McCabe, Janet; Garbow, Avi; Giles

‐ AA,

Cynthia; Michael Goo; Stanislaus, Mathy; Bob Dye; Phil Goble; rlundberg@utah.gov ; Bryce Bird; Amanda Smith;

Dan McNeil; Brown, Terry

Subject: EPA Response to High Levels of Radon from White Mesa Liquid Effluents

Dear Reid,

Sorry I missed the Subpart W quarterly call last week.

One question I had is why you and other Subpart W review staff have not

contacted Energy Fuels Resources Inc. and again requested the information

that the EPA requested in the May 2009. At that time the EPA informed

Denison Mines that if they did not re spond to the request for information,

they would be subject to enforcemen t action. However, the EPA never

followed through.

I understand that the EPA would not want information regarding the

radium content of the liqu id effluents at White Mesa as requested in 2009,

but your failure to obtain that information is an egregious omission.

Such egregious errors and omissions are adding up.

Also, I would like to know how the EPA is going to address the current

health and safety concerns at the White Mesa Mill that are caused by

the high levels of radon emissions from the liquid impoundments.

The Ute Mt. Ute Tribe an d Uranium Watch have brought these concerns

to the EPA, yet the EPA has taken no action. The Ute Mt. Ute Tribe

recently expressed those concerns in a February 10, 2015, Calculations

Brief. See attached.

It appears that the EPA has no intention of taking any action, and would

rather have the whole problem go away. One way to make the problem

of radon emissions to go away is fo r you to claim that the gross radium

alpha in the recent White Mesa Mill Annual Tailings Wastewater Reports

represents other radionuclides beside s radium. However, given the high

gross alpha radium levels in 2014, th ere is no way that you can explain

how those levels do not result in high levels of radon emissions: far beyond the

20 pico Curie per square meter pe r second standard and far beyond

"zero."3 The Division of Radiation Control staff informs me that the gross

radium alpha in those report s accounts for radium and do es not include uranium or

radon. Putting the EPA formula for determining the radon emissions from

White Mesa liquid effluents with the da ta for Cells 1, 4A, and 4B, you have

an immediate health and safety conc ern that is not going to go away.

When I talk with staff at Region 8, I am referred to you. Therefore, I would

like to know what, exactly, is the EPA response to the high levels of radon

emissions from the White Mesa Mill liquid effluent impoundments.

The proposed Subpart W rule would, in fa ct, do nothing to correct the problem.

The is because the EPA, cont rary to the provisions of the CAA, has not proposed

a radon emission limit for "new" or "existing" impoundments and continues

to maintain that the emissions from liquid effluents are "zero," despite evidence

to the contrary.

There must be a timely response to this new information regarding the radon

emissions from 135 acres of White Mesa liq uid effluents. Th e community in the

vicinity of the White Mesa Mill cannot wait until the completion of the Subpart W

rulemaking for these radon emissions to be addressed, if they would be addressed

at all.

Sincerely,

Sarah Fields

Program Director

Uranium Watch

PO Box 344

Moab, Utah 84532

435-260-8384