1 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Environmental Protection Agency 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 Public Hearing for 

7 Health and Environmental Protection 

8 Standards for Uranium and 

9 Thorium Mill Tailings 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 

15 Wednesday, May 13, 2015 

16 

17 Ramkota Hotel 

18 799 N. Poplar 

19 Casper, Wyoming 82601 

20 

21 

22 
2 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 

2 ATTENDEES 

3 

4 EPA: 

5 DOUGLAS MINTER, Chief of Underground Injection 

6 Control Program, EPA, Denver Colorado 

7 INGRID ROSENCRANTZ, Center for Waste Management 

8 and Regulations, EPA, Radiation Protection 

9 Division 

10 TOM PEAKE, Director, Center for Waste 

11 Management and Regulations, EPA, Radiation 

12 Protection Division 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
3 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 C O N T E N T S 

2 PAGE 

3 TRAVIS DETI, Assistant Director of 

4 Wyoming Mining Association 11 

5 BRUCE JONES, Mayor of Douglas, Wyoming 16 

6 THOMAS JOHNSON, Associate professor, 

7 Colorado State University 18 

8 JACK FRITZ, WWC Engineering 23 

9 WILLIAM GORANSON, President, CEO, 

10 Uranerz 30 

11 KEVIN FREDERICK, Administrator, 

12 Water Quality Division, DEQ 36 

13 DAN WATKINS, HSE manager 

14 Douglas Exploration 42 

15 OSCAR PAULSON, Facility supervisor, 

16 Kennecott Uranium Company, Sweetwater 

17 Uranium Project 44/112 

18 STEVEN BROWN, Chair, Colorado 

19 Mining Association 50/107 

20 NANCY STANDLER, MD, PhD, 

21 Wyoming Mining Association 56/99 

22 
4 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 JIM WILLOX, Converse County 

2 Commissioner 64 

3 SHANNON ANDERSON, Organizer and 

4 Staff Attorney, Powder River Resource Basin 69 

5 BRENT BERG, President, Cameco Resources 

6 Of Casper 71 

7 ERIC GRANDJORT, Unaffiliated 77 

8 PETE OBERMUELLER, Executive Director 

9 Wyoming County Commissioner's Association 80 

10 CHRIS HOLTEN, Unaffiliated 88 

11 CHRISTAINE LEE, Unaffiliated 90 

12 BILL KEARNEY, Unaffiliated 93 

13 TATYANA NOVIKOVA, Unaffiliated 96 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 
5 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 P R O C E E D I N G S 

2 MR. MINTER: Good evening, everyone. 

3 My name is Douglas Minter, and I am the chief of 

4 the Underground Injection Control Program in 

5 EPA's Denver office. 

6 Thank you all for coming. I will be 

7 presiding over the hearing today, and joining me 

8 on the panel are Ingrid Rosencrantz and Tom 

9 Peake, from the Office of Radiation and Indoor 

10 Air in Washington, D.C. This hearing is now in 

11 session. 

12 We are here today to listen and to 

13 receive your comments on the EPA's proposed 

14 revisions to health and environmental protection 

15 standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings, 

16 also known as 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

17 192. 

18 EPA is proposing to revise this rule by 

19 adding an additional Subpart F to explicitly 

20 address groundwater protection at uranium in-situ 

21 recovery operations. EPA announced this proposed 

22 rule in the Federal Register on January 26th, 
6 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 2015. The comment period started on January 26, 

2 2015 and it has been extended to May 27th, 2015. 

3 In a moment, Ingrid will explain in more 

4 detail what was proposed in that notice, but 

5 before I turn it over to Ingrid, let me explain a 

6 little bit about how today's hearing or this 

7 evening's hearing will work. 

8 There will be two sessions today, one 

9 this evening from 6 to 8, and one tomorrow 

10 morning from 9 to 12 in this room. 

11 Please be sure you have checked in at the 

12 registration desk, even if you are not planning 

13 to speak today. I will call the scheduled 

14 speakers to the podium. When it is your turn to 

15 speak, please state your name, and I can't 

16 emphasis this enough, spelling your last name for 

17 the court reporter, please, and your affiliation, 

18 before you begin your testimony. Your comments 

19 will be transcribed and included in the record of 

20 comments and on the proposed rule. 

21 In order to ensure everyone has the 

22 opportunity to speak, and to ensure fairness, 
7 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 please limit your testimony to five minutes. We 

2 will signal to you when you have one minute left 

3 to speak using this device here in front of me, 

4 and when the five minutes have passed, I will ask 

5 you to complete your testimony. 

6 If you have more to say after your five 

7 minutes are up, and you would like to speak again 

8 with information that is new and discreet from 

9 your previous testimony, and it is not a rebuttal 

10 to someone else's testimony, we are happy to have 

11 you speak again. 

12 Please sign up to speak again at the 

13 registration table, and you will be called again 

14 after the other speakers. After you finish your 

15 testimony, members of the panel may ask 

16 clarifying questions. We are not here today to 

17 answer any questions about the proposed rule. If 

18 you have any questions about the process, please 

19 find one of the EPA representatives after this 

20 hearing. 

21 If you have written copies of your 

22 testimony or supporting documentation, please 
8 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 give a copy to our staff at the registration 

2 table. This will be helpful as we prepare the 

3 transcript. If you have any additional comments 

4 you would like to make, you can submit them in 

5 writing. Those comments must be received by 5 

6 p.m. on May 27th, 2015. 

7 Let me assure you that EPA gives just as 

8 much consideration to comments that we receive in 

9 writing as we do to comments we receive at public 

10 hearings like this one. Instructions for 

11 submitting comments are included in a fact sheet 

12 at the registration table. You can pick up a 

13 copy at the table by the door. 

14 Also, I will also note that restrooms 

15 are just nearby outside the doors. If you would 

16 like to testify but have not yet registered to do 

17 so, please sign up at the registration table in 

18 this room. Thank you again for coming. Now, let 

19 me turn things over to Ingrid, who will summarize 

20 the proposed rule for us. 

21 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you, and thanks 

22 to everyone here for coming to participate in 
9 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 this public hearing. We appreciate your 

2 attention and your engagement. 

3 Again, I am Ingrid Rosencrantz, and I am 

4 the lead writer on this rulemaking -- proposed 

5 rulemaking. I will just briefly summarize the 

6 different facets of the rule and talk about 

7 comments and how we would very much appreciate 

8 getting your comments. And here we go. I think 

9 you can hear me better now. 

10 Basically, EPA is proposing to add an 

11 additional Subpart F that explicitly addresses 

12 groundwater protection, restoration and stability 

13 at in-situ recovery operations. 

14 We're proposing that groundwater be 

15 adequately characterized before operations begin; 

16 that after operations cease, the aquifer is 

17 restored to initial groundwater conditions, and 

18 that facilities ensure that post restoration 

19 groundwater conditions remain stable. 

20 Specifically, we are proposing groundwater 

21 protection standards be set for a minimum of 13 

22 constituents. And I'll read those off for you. 
10 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 They are arsenic, barium, cadmium, 

2 chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, 

3 nitrate as nitrogen, molybdenum, combined radium 

4 226 and radium 228, total uranium, and gross 

5 alpha particle activity excluding radon and 

6 uranium. Basically, the groundwater protection 

7 standard would be set at the MCL or background, 

8 whichever is actually higher. 

9 To implement the standard, EPA is 

10 proposing monitoring requirements for all phases 

11 of the operation; before operations begin, during 

12 operations, during restoration and after 

13 restoration, to ensure that stability is 

14 continued. In addition, the proposal requires 

15 corrective action when it's necessary. 

16 Again, that's the quick summary of the 

17 requirements of the proposed rule. This is the 

18 Federal Register notice. We would welcome your 

19 comments in writing as well as verbally today, 

20 and you can submit your comments electronically, 

21 too. I will give you the docket number, in case 

22 you find that helpful. 
11 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 It is actually in the preamble. The 

2 docket number is EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788, and you 

3 can find that at www.regulations.gov. That's 

4 regulations.gov. You can submit comments 

5 electronically. Okay. That's it for our 

6 summary. I'll hand it back over to you. Thanks 

7 very much. 

8 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Ingrid. So, we'd 

9 like to start by calling up our first scheduled 

10 speaker. That would be Travis Deti. 

11 MR. DETI: Close. 

12 (Discussion off the record) 

13 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

14 MR. MINTER: So Travis, if you could 

15 spell your complete name and state who you are 

16 representing for the court reporter, please. 

17 MR. DETI: I'd be happy to. My name is 

18 Travis Deti. T-R-A-V-I-S. Last name, Deti, D-E19 T-I. I am the assistant director of the Wyoming 

20 Mining Association. 

21 My comments are going to be kind of from 

22 a thousand foot level for our organization. We 
12 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 have a number of our member companies with 

2 representatives here to kind of go into some 

3 detail of our concerns with the proposed rule, as 

4 well. 

5 Wyoming Mining Association is an industry 

6 trade association that represents mining 

7 companies, contractors, vendors, suppliers and 

8 consultants in the state of Wyoming. Among its 

9 mining industry members are uranium recovery 

10 licensees, including four operating in-situ 

11 uranium recovery licensees, one licensee in 

12 construction, one conventional uranium recovery 

13 operator in standby, several companies planning 

14 new uranium recovery operations that are 

15 currently in the permitting process, and several 

16 companies conducting final reclamation and 

17 restoration activities. 

18 First of all, we appreciate the 

19 Environmental Protection Agency's accommodation 

20 of an extended comment period, and the 

21 willingness to hold additional public hearings in 

22 regions that would be directly impacted by this 
13 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 proposed rule. 

2 However, given the large quantity of data 

3 available and necessary for consideration, and 

4 the complexity of the proposed rulemaking, the 30 

5 day period -- extension period, we believe, is 

6 inadequate, in our opinion, and we would request 

7 further extension of the comment period. 

8 The state of Wyoming is the leading 

9 producer of uranium in the United States. 

10 Wyoming uranium operations produced an estimated 

11 2.9 million pounds in 2014, accounting for about 

12 66 percent of American production. The industry 

13 employs an estimated 500 people in the state, and 

14 contributes millions of dollars in revenue 

15 annually to state and local government in the 

16 form of taxes and fees. 

17 A healthy uranium industry is critical to 

18 the state of Wyoming. We believe the proposed 

19 rule poses very real negative and insurmountable 

20 regulatory hurdles to the industry, and it places 

21 our uranium industry at a competitive 

22 disadvantage to its competitors in other parts of 
14 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 the world that have far different environmental 

2 protection priorities than Wyoming's long history 

3 of environmental protection and natural resource 

4 conservation. 

5 We believe the rulemaking is not 

6 justified, based upon documented minimal risk 

7 posed by in-situ uranium recovery. The 

8 rulemaking is also unnecessary, based upon the 

9 fact that in-situ uranium recovery occurs within 

10 exempted portions of underground sources of 

11 drinking water. And currently, federal and state 

12 regulations already exist that regulate 

13 stability, monitoring and restoration. 

14 The proposed rule is inadequately 

15 justified, since it lacks a hard determination 

16 regarding any risks that it might mitigate. We 

17 believe it is based on suppositions and ignores 

18 abundant evidence of the low risk to human health 

19 and the environment by in-situ uranium recovery. 

20 It has punitive economic consequences to the 

21 uranium recovery industry in our state, and that 

22 is wholly unjustified by any possible benefits it 
15 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 may offer. 

2 Further, WMA is concerned about 

3 jurisdictional conflicts with the Nuclear 

4 Regulatory Commission and the apparent lack of 

5 input from state regulators at the Wyoming 

6 Department of Environmental Quality and from 

7 industry in the development of the proposal. 

8 Because of these reasons, we believe this 

9 proposed rule should be withdrawn, and again, we 

10 appreciate the agency coming to Wyoming, and we 

11 appreciate the opportunity for constructive 

12 dialogue, along with full industry input on this 

13 issue. Thank you for your time. 

14 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

15 MR. DETI: Thank you. 

16 MR. PEAKE: Can we get a copy? 

17 MR. DETI: Absolutely. 

18 (Discussion off the record) 

19 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

20 MR. MINTER: Travis, thank you. Our next 

21 speaker is Bruce Jones. If you could come up to 

22 the front, please. 
16 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 (Pause) 

2 MR. MINTER: Bruce, if you could spell 

3 your complete name for us and state who you're 

4 representing today to the court reporter. 

5 MR. JONES: B-R-U-C-E, J-O-N-E-S. I'm 

6 the mayor of Douglas, Wyoming. 

7 My comments are pretty much on the same 

8 lines. I'm here for the socio economic impact 

9 that it would cause my town, Glenrock, Rolling 

10 Hills. Smith Ranch is the biggest in-situ mine 

11 in the United States. It's centered in Congress 

12 County. 

13 They put in to the state 59 million a 

14 year in taxable income, taxes, payroll and other 

15 jobs. For every job they produce, there is 1.6 

16 more jobs on other places. The economic impact 

17 on Rolling Hills and Glenrock would be great. 

18 When you keep a mine open that's now 

19 producing for 30 years without the scientific 

20 data to back it up from CSU, University of 

21 Wyoming, Los Alamos, then they can't open any 

22 other fields. And if they have to have that one 
17 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 field open for 20 years before they could do any 

2 of their reclamation and move to another field, 

3 they can't afford to keep one operation not 

4 producing and open up another field. 

5 You have, China is starting to build more 

6 nuclear plants. And if they start building 

7 chemical, they're going to start producing more 

8 yellowcake, and that just means they're going to 

9 produce more uranium and more taxes, more jobs 

10 than our county. 

11 If Smith Ranch goes away, that's a big 

12 part of our income that comes into our towns, and 

13 it would devastate. And I'm not going to go over 

14 the rest of the stuff that Travis already 

15 covered; all of the other things I was going to 

16 say. But the impact on our town, especially, you 

17 know, a 500 person town, is great. 

18 And a lot of people that work at Smith 

19 Ranch live in Douglas. They live in Glenrock. 

20 If that goes away, that's a big impact on us, and 

21 we're already fighting with trying to get coal 

22 out of the Powder River basin over to China, 
18 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Indonesia, Taiwan, oil, the whole works. If this 

2 goes down, my town will suffer, and I don't want 

3 to see my citizens suffer for something that's 30 

4 -- three decades long, that is not showing me any 

5 scientific proof that it's fair. So, I'll stay 

6 for any questions or -- okay. 

7 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

8 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

9 MR. MINTER: Bruce, thank you. I'd like 

10 to call up our next scheduled speaker, Tom 

11 Johnson. 

12 (Pause) 

13 MR. MINTER: Tom, if you could spell your 

14 complete name and state who you're representing 

15 this evening for the court reporter. 

16 MR. JOHNSON: Thomas, T-H-O-M-A-S, 

17 Johnson, J-O-H-N-S-O-N. I'm an associate 

18 professor at Colorado State University. I am not 

19 currently representing Colorado State University, 

20 only myself. All the opinions I express are mine 

21 and mine alone. 

22 I'd like to first ask that the EPA 
19 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 strongly consider partnering with Colorado State 

2 University or other local universities which have 

3 mining expertise and also have experience working 

4 with these sites and are currently performing 

5 research in the area of uranium mining 

6 restoration. 

7 Right now, because of funding through the 

8 state of Wyoming, which has since been 

9 terminated, there's been a rapid development of 

10 the science regarding disposition of uranium 

11 mines, post-mining and post-restoration. 

12 Because this is developing so rapidly, I 

13 feel very strongly the EPA should delay any 

14 rulemaking until the results of these particular 

15 studies have been published. As recently as the 

16 21st of April, there was an ISR uranium research 

17 symposium in Laramie, Wyoming, at the University 

18 of Wyoming. 

19 My particular research group addressed 

20 the risks associated with uranium mining and mine 

21 restoration, both pre and post-mining. The EPA 

22 states in their current proposal, proposed 
20 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 research, that there is no quantification of 

2 risk. 

3 We quantified the risk. We've worked 

4 very closely with the state of Wyoming and using 

5 their funding. We've worked with the Smith Ranch 

6 Highland project and did a comprehensive 

7 evaluation of before and after mining risks for 

8 all constituents. After analysis, we found that 

9 only uranium and radium were important with 

10 regard to human risk. 

11 We found that uranium, indeed, did go up 

12 post-mining and post restoration. However, the 

13 radium concentration, based on our statistical 

14 analysis went down, resulting in a significant 

15 reduction of the cancer risk associated with 

16 uranium mining post restoration. 

17 Although we did find that uranium 

18 concentrations increased, we found that the 

19 toxicity post uranium mining and post restoration 

20 was similar, if not less than the natural levels 

21 of uranium found at some locations through 

22 Europe, where they had found no deleterious 
21 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 effects according to peer review publications. 

2 So, we found this a very tough assessment 

3 to make. However, we did make the quantitative 

4 risk assessment. We did not have an opportunity 

5 to compare the cost of treatment with or without 

6 uranium mining. In other words, how much would 

7 it cost to treat this water pre-mining, because 

8 it is, indeed, unsuitable for drinking, as 

9 compared to post-restoration. This is a key item 

10 that we feel should be investigated very much, 

11 because it has such an impact on the restoration. 

12 We all know that we have scarce resources 

13 here in Wyoming with regards to groundwater. If 

14 we consider how much groundwater is used during 

15 cleanup, that also must be a point of 

16 consideration, especially if the cost of treating 

17 the water is less or the same as pre-mining, 

18 because we must remember, this water is not 

19 drinkable as is without any mining. 

20 We need to ensure that destructive 

21 restoration is avoided. And there's an excellent 

22 article on this by Ward Whicker in "Science 
22 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Journal" called "Avoiding Destructive Restoration 

2 at DOE Sites." 

3 The EPA also states there's limited 

4 information in this area, so I encourage you to 

5 support research in this area and fund it. Right 

6 now, there's only limited funds available through 

7 Region 8. Also, natural attenuation is 

8 potentially very important and useful for both 

9 miners and the public. 

10 It's important and it's discussed in a 

11 paper that I co-authored with Thomas Borch, and 

12 it's cited by the EPA. But the EPA does not 

13 discuss this extensively in rulemaking. It 

14 should be investigated to see if geochemistry at 

15 different sites favor this action, and we should 

16 know that on a geologic time scale, it's very 

17 probable that uranium will move off site, whether 

18 or not it is mined. 

19 Finally, I assume the EPA has scarce 

20 resources, and again, I urge you to collaborate 

21 with Colorado State University and other local 

22 universities performing research in this area. 
23 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Thank you. 

2 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

3 MR. PEAKE: Question. 

4 MR. JOHNSON: Question? 

5 MR. PEAKE: Yeah. 

6 MR. JOHNSON: Yes? 

7 MR. PEAKE: Are you going to be 

8 submitting written comments, including the 

9 references that you just mentioned? 

10 MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. I have several 

11 comments that I will be submitting 

12 electronically. 

13 MR. PEAKE: All right. Thank you. 

14 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Dr. Johnson. I'd 

15 like to call up our next scheduled speaker. That 

16 would be Jack Fritz. Please come forward. And 

17 Jack, if you could spell your complete name and 

18 state who you're representing for the court 

19 reporter this evening. 

20 MR. FRITZ: My name is Jack Fritz, J-A-C21 K, F-R-I-T-Z. I am representing WWC Engineering. 

22 I am a professional environmental engineer 
24 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 employed by WWC Engineering in Sheridan, Wyoming. 

2 WWC is a Wyoming based employee owned 

3 consulting engineering firm that has spent more 

4 than three decades permitting domestic energy 

5 production facilities. These include coal mines, 

6 oil and gas mines, and uranium ISR facilities. 

7 It has been my experience in 15 years of 

8 employment with WWC that there is no extractive 

9 industry with as much regulatory oversight as 

10 uranium ISR. This begins with years of baseline 

11 data acquisition and permitting, in order to 

12 obtain multiple, and often overlapping permits 

13 from state and federal agencies. 

14 It continues into operations, when 

15 multiple agencies oversee excursion monitoring, 

16 well field balancing and groundwater restoration. 

17 It concludes when the lead regulatory agency 

18 charged with protection of public health and the 

19 environment determines that groundwater 

20 restoration and decommissioning has satisfied the 

21 applicable regulations and performance based 

22 license conditions. 
25 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Numerous studies have been published that 

2 show that there has never been a documented off3 site impact to groundwater from a uranium Israel 

4 facility. Yet, additional regulation is being 

5 proposed, not on the basis of any new evidence to 

6 the contrary, but on a series of beliefs that are 

7 lacking in technical justification. 

8 For example, the proposed rule is based 

9 on the belief that it is needed to address 

10 exposure pathways for radionuclides in 

11 groundwater resulting from ISR. However, it 

12 fails to show that such exposure pathways occur 

13 under current practices. 

14 As mentioned previously, there is well 

15 documented evidence that no off-site water supply 

16 wells have ever been contaminated by uranium ISR 

17 facilities, yet these studies are not referenced 

18 in the proposed rule. And of course, ISR can 

19 only take place in an aquifer that has been 

20 permanently exempted as a source of drinking 

21 water. 

22 As Dr. Johnson mentioned, further 
26 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 evidence for this came to light last month at the 

2 Uranium ISR Research Symposium at the University 

3 of Wyoming, where it was demonstrated in not only 

4 his study, but another study that radium, which 

5 is the primary radionuclide of concern, is 

6 actually reduced following uranium recovery in 

7 groundwater restoration. 

8 Now, evidence for this is actually 

9 provided in the 2009 USGS study on restoration at 

10 Texas ISR facilities, which is cited on numerous 

11 occasions in the proposed rule. That study 

12 showed that in 100 percent of the more than 70 

13 production areas that were evaluated, the radium 

14 concentration was above the drinking water 

15 standard prior to mining, which comes as no 

16 surprise to those of us in the room. 

17 But what's more important here is that 

18 the concentration was reduced below the pre19 mining levels in 96 percent of those more than 70 

20 production areas evaluated following uranium 

21 recovery in groundwater restoration. 

22 So, the process of recovering the uranium 
27 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 and restoring the groundwater resulted in a 

2 reduction in the primary constituent associated 

3 with radiological dose from groundwater in almost 

4 every well field. This does not point to the 

5 need for additional rules on the basis of risk of 

6 radiological exposure. 

7 Rather than considering the scientific 

8 evidence that demonstrates that uranium ISR can 

9 be conducted safely, the proposed rule resorts to 

10 references to reports prepared by non11 governmental organizations and others who are 

12 opposed to uranium ISR to support its beliefs. 

13 For example, instead of referencing the 

14 finding in New Reg CR 6733, that there has never 

15 been an off-site impact attributed to an 

16 excursion, the proposed rule references a report 

17 instead, by the Natural Resources Defense 

18 Council, an avowed opponent of ISR, called 

19 Nuclear Fuels Dirty Beginnings for support for 

20 the belief that existing regulations are 

21 insufficient. 

22 Finally, the proposed rule significantly 
28 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 underestimates its implementation cost to the ISR 

2 industry. While it states that it will only 

3 cause a 5 percent reduction in annual domestic 

4 uranium production, this figure is based on 

5 erroneous baseline production rate of 9.5 million 

6 pounds per year, which is twice the actual amount 

7 produced by all domestic uranium recovery 

8 facilities. 

9 The economic analysis also fails to 

10 account for the cost of maintaining financial 

11 assurance for an additional 30 years, despite the 

12 fact that well field and processing facility 

13 decommissioning would not be able to occur until 

14 the end of the long-term stability monitoring 

15 period. 

16 In summary, the EPA has not used 

17 scientific data to demonstrate that the proposed 

18 rule is needed, but instead, has resorted to 

19 emotional arguments to propose a rule that will 

20 not improve public safety and has not adequately 

21 evaluated the cost of implementation to the ISR 

22 industry. 
29 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 I thank you for your time this evening 

2 and urge EPA to reconsider the need for 

3 additional regulation, or at a minimum, provide a 

4 specific scientific explanation for the purpose 

5 and need for the proposed rule, and an accurate 

6 estimate of the consequences on domestic uranium 

7 production. Thank you. 

8 (Bell rings) 

9 MR. PEAKE: Good timing (Laughter). 

10 (Discussion off the record) 

11 MR. MINTER: Jack, thank you very much. 

12 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

13 MR. PEAKE: Can we have a copy of your -- 

14 MR. MINTER: I just want to emphasize 

15 that I really appreciate people staying within 

16 the five minutes. Folks have obviously maybe 

17 done some rehearsing, so that helps keep us on 

18 time here and on schedule. So I really, really 

19 appreciate that and hope that everyone can remain 

20 in five minutes this evening. 

21 I'd like to call up our next scheduled 

22 speaker, and that would be William Goranson. 
30 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 William, if you could spell your complete name 

2 and state who you're representing for the court 

3 reporter this evening, please. 

4 MR. GORANSON: My name is William, W-I-L5 L-I-A-M, Goranson, G-O-R-A-N-S-O-N. I am the 

6 president and chief operating officer for Uranerz 

7 Energy Corporation. I first want to thank the 

8 agency for the opportunity to provide public 

9 comment. Uranerz will also be submitting 

10 detailed written comments prior to the deadline. 

11 Uranerz Energy Corporation is a Wyoming 

12 based uranium mining company that utilizes the 

13 in-situ recovery process for producing uranium. 

14 We commenced commercial operations just over a 

15 year ago. 

16 Although I have not had an opportunity to 

17 review the over 2,500 pages of supporting 

18 documents cited by EPA in its proposed 

19 rulemaking, I have reviewed portions of them, as 

20 well as the meeting notes of the May, 2010 public 

21 meetings held here in Casper, as well as other 

22 locations. 
31 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 And from my reading, it appears that the 

2 original intent of the proposed rulemaking was to 

3 quantify a generally applicable standards that 

4 NRC in agreement states are currently enforcing 

5 through policy, guidance and license conditions. 

6 However, it also appears that EPA 

7 significantly expanded the scope of the proposed 

8 rulemaking to incorporate detailed and limiting 

9 implementation requirements that under the 

10 current version of the 40 CFR 192 rules are 

11 clearly delegated to the regulatory agencies such 

12 as the NRC. 

13 My understanding of the generally 

14 applicable standards, EPA has grossly exceeded 

15 its authority (Inaudible), and has crossed the 

16 line into authorities of the NRC in the agreement 

17 states. 

18 Also in this proposed rulemaking, EPA has 

19 entangled (Inaudible) into the Safe Drinking 

20 Water Act requirements that are regulated by the 

21 state supremacy. It is not a stretch of the 

22 imagination that this regulatory process will 
32 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 become more encumbered by overlapping authorities 

2 and potentially jurisdictional disputes. 

3 Where the nexus of these overlapping 

4 authorities will occur, in my opinion, is in the 

5 proposed Part 192 50.53 Section titled 

6 Monitoring. In every aspect of the proposed 

7 section, there already exists rules under the 

8 state promissory programs in Wyoming, Nebraska, 

9 Texas and New Mexico that address baseline 

10 operational restoration stability monitoring 

11 programs. In general, NRC enforces these same 

12 monitoring requirements that are consistent with 

13 the state programs through license conditions. 

14 Though there is duplicative oversight, 

15 the requirements are aligned so that there is no 

16 need for the state to change their rules, nor are 

17 there any significant gaps created. This 

18 arrangement has been in place for over 30 years, 

19 and in the background of the rulemaking, EPA even 

20 acknowledges that there has been no documented 

21 instance where the USDW has been impacted. 

22 There is a strong performance history 
33 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 between the uranium industry, NRC and the states 

2 that support the fact that existing programs are 

3 working and they are working well. However, in 

4 the development of the proposed rule, there is a 

5 significant historical record in the public 

6 domain that I feel the EPA has failed to 

7 consider. Others will discuss that later. 

8 In my opinion, had EPA engaged 

9 stakeholders in the development of these proposed 

10 rules, including the affected states, NRC and the 

11 industry, the proposed rules would look 

12 significantly different, but work better, while 

13 acknowledging existing programs. 

14 Given the jurisdictional overlap, I 

15 believe strongly that EPA's lack of consultation 

16 with the agreement states and the non-agreement 

17 states with the USC promissory is a real problem. 

18 EPA has not considered the cost of those states 

19 to incorporate these programs necessary to 

20 implement these proposed new requirements. 

21 Secondly, in reviewing the economic 

22 analysis, though thorough, failed on many points 
34 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 regarding the economic impacts of the proposed 

2 rules on the uranium industry. Consultation with 

3 the industry prior to rushing the publication 

4 could have strengthened that analysis and could 

5 have created a better set of rules. 

6 As written, it is my opinion that the 

7 proposed rules are duplicative of the existing 

8 programs, and in some cases, counter to existing 

9 programs, and in my opinion, also, totally 

10 unworkable with unrealistic expectations for a 

11 risk that is not adequately characterized or 

12 quantified. In effect, it would seem that these 

13 rules were written in search of a problem. 

14 I just want to reiterate that on June 

15 2nd, 2014 in a press conference, EPA 

16 administrator Gina McCarthy stated that the 

17 strategy to meet its clean power program is to 

18 give the states the opportunity to shift their 

19 alliance to no carbon sources like nuclear 

20 energy, noting, and I quote her, "Our nuclear 

21 fleet continues to provide zero carbon base load 

22 power." 
35 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 In the supporting economic analysis, EPA 

2 confirms the proposed rulemaking will have a 

3 material cost impact. In our review, or in my 

4 review, I believe that the material impact is 

5 significant enough to make uranium produced 

6 domestically uncompetitive with foreign sources. 

7 Uranium is the only fuel that can be used 

8 in existing domestic nuclear fleet, and this 

9 proposed rulemaking will make the cost of 

10 producing domestically high enough to discourage 

11 investment and send money offshore. 

12 Thank you for your time. 

13 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

14 MR. PEAKE: Thanks. 

15 MR. MINTER: Thank you, William. 

16 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

17 MR. GORANSON: I made some hand markups. 

18 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: That's fine. Great. 

19 Thank you so much. 

20 MR. MINTER: I'd like to call up our next 

21 scheduled speaker, Kevin Frederick. 

22 MR. FREDERICK: I thought I was number 
36 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 six. 

2 MR. MINTER: I think we are at number 

3 six. 

4 MR. FREDERICK: Oh. 

5 MR. MINTER: So Kevin, if you could spell 

6 your complete name and state who you're 

7 representing for the court reporter this evening. 

8 Thank you. 

9 MR. FREDERICK: Sure. Kevin Frederick. 

10 K-E-V-I-N, F-R-E-D-E-R-I-C-K. Can you hear okay? 

11 (No response heard) 

12 MR. FREDERICK: Good evening. I'm Kevin 

13 Frederick, administrator of the water quality 

14 division with the Department of Environmental 

15 Quality, or DEQ, in Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

16 On behalf of the Department's Director, 

17 Todd Parfitt, I'd like to thank the EPA for the 

18 opportunity to provide comment on the proposed 

19 rule here in Casper. We believe it's important 

20 that EPA hear the comments of those most affected 

21 by the proposed rule, including those of 

22 landowners, industry and state and local 
37 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 governments here in Wyoming, the largest producer 

2 of uranium in the country. 

3 For that reason, DEQ would like to offer 

4 the following comments and observations on EPA's 

5 proposed rule. The state of Wyoming has been 

6 involved in the regulation and oversight of in7 situ uranium mining, including post-mining 

8 groundwater restoration since the Wyoming 

9 legislature first passed a series of laws more 

10 than 30 years ago governing the permitting of the 

11 in-situ mining operations, establishing the 

12 requirements for monitoring the reporting, and 

13 provisions to ensure that groundwater impacted by 

14 mining operations is restored through the 

15 application of best practical technology. 

16 Statutes, rules and guidelines have been 

17 developed and are updated to meet the challenges 

18 of protecting the environment. Notably, in many 

19 cases, Wyoming already requires more stringent 

20 groundwater restoration than the Federal Safe 

21 Drinking Water Act. 

22 Wyoming requires restoration of 
38 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 groundwater affected by in-situ mining and 

2 operations regardless if the operation occurs 

3 within underground sources of drinking water or 

4 other groundwater not suitable for drinking 

5 water. 

6 To my knowledge, the proposed rule is 

7 EPA's first foray into regulation in this area. 

8 And the DEQ has had a long and successful 

9 relationship with the EPA's regional office in 

10 Denver, both historically recognizing the 

11 department's longstanding authority in this area. 

12 DEQ is surprised that EPA did not consult 

13 with our state program officials familiar with 

14 groundwater restoration technologies and 

15 challenges prior to developing this proposed 

16 rule. Consultation would have given EPA the 

17 benefit of Wyoming's expertise and given EPA a 

18 better understanding of the effectiveness of 

19 Wyoming's regulations. 

20 At a minimum, consultation with states 

21 should have occurred to allow the proposed rule 

22 to implement most effective practices of existing 
39 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 state programs. Consultation is mandated by 

2 executive order and is consistent with the 

3 principles of cooperative federalism. 

4 Unfortunately, EPA's failure to engage in 

5 meaningful dialogue with the states is an ongoing 

6 problem, particularly in the area of 

7 environmental regulation. DEQ is not comfortable 

8 that the proposed rule adequately evaluates the 

9 environmental benefit alleged to accrue from the 

10 proposed rule, nor the additional expense 

11 required to pursue that benefit. 

12 It's important to understand that 

13 regardless of the level of any groundwater 

14 restoration standard, the ability to achieve 

15 those standards is ultimately dependent upon the 

16 degree to which remediation technologies can 

17 achieve those levels of cleanup. Even under 

18 ideal conditions, some contaminants are extremely 

19 recalcitrant to restoration to even baseline 

20 quality. 

21 While the proposed rule allows for 

22 alternative concentration limits, or ACLs, and 
40 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 complete restoration may simply be technically or 

2 economically infeasible in some situations. 

3 Nonetheless, the public should be provided an 

4 opportunity to comment on any proposed ACL under 

5 this proposed rule. 

6 In 2009, with the support of our governor 

7 in industry, Wyoming's legislature appropriated 

8 $1.6 million to the University of Wyoming, School 

9 of Energy Resources to in part, begin development 

10 and testing on new in-situ mining remediation 

11 technologies that could be more efficient, 

12 effective and affordable than is presently the 

13 case. 

14 We would encourage EPA to seriously 

15 consider whether the additional cost to industry 

16 and regulators to implement the proposed rule may 

17 be better invested in expediting the development 

18 and implementation of these and other new or 

19 emerging technologies. 

20 We've identified other areas of concern 

21 that I will mention just briefly, but with the 

22 understanding that a more detailed, written 
41 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 comment will be provided before the closing of 

2 the public comment period. 

3 Namely, the proposed rule should provide 

4 more flexibility to allow science to guide 

5 regulations by accounting precise specific 

6 conditions which may differ significantly from 

7 one location to another. For instance, the 

8 proposed regulation should take into account each 

9 site's unique characteristics in setting 

10 requirements for post-closure monitoring and 

11 other monitoring requirements. 

12 The regulations should eliminate 

13 confusion of which groundwater restorations are 

14 applicable by simply adopting one reference, 

15 rather than several. There are also comments and 

16 questions that we will provide, regarding the 

17 basis for and the efficacy of the 30 year 

18 stabilization monitoring requirement. 

19 To address DEQ's and other's comments, 

20 DEQ believes that EPA should withdraw the 

21 proposed rule, consult with state regulators with 

22 scientific and practical experience in this 
42 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 field. Withdrawal would also allow EPA to gather 

2 more scientific support and foundation for any 

3 future proposed rule. Greater knowledge would 

4 allow EPA to better determine the most effective 

5 regulatory path forward. Thank you. 

6 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

7 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Kevin. I'd like 

8 to call up our next speaker, Dan Watkins. 

9 MR. WATKINS: I don't think you'll need 

10 your timer for me. 

11 MR. MINTER: Okay. (Laughter) Dan, if 

12 you could spell your complete name and state who 

13 you're representing for the court reporter this 

14 evening, please. 

15 MR. WATKINS: My name is Dan Watkins, D16 A-N, W-A-T-K-I-N-S. I'm the HSE manager for 

17 Douglas Exploration. Our company is a drill 

18 service provider. We provide various types of 

19 drilling. Tonight, I would like to focus on our 

20 work involved in in-situ uranium mining and how 

21 the passage of this proposal would directly 

22 affect our company. 
43 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 During the past years, work at various 

2 uranium mines has been a substantial amount of 

3 our revenue. In 2012 and 2013, this work 

4 provided 22 to 25 percent of our income. As of 

5 today, in 2015, it represents 28.7 percent for 

6 the year, and we haven't been in a uranium mine 

7 since March. 

8 With the passage of this proposal and the 

9 obvious financial burden that it will impose upon 

10 uranium companies and their ability to affordably 

11 mine, would directly affect our company's bottom 

12 line. Our hope is that the proposal will change 

13 to allow uranium to remain a strong source of 

14 income for our company, as well as enable uranium 

15 companies to keep costs at a feasible level, to 

16 continue to mine U.S. uranium, and avoid 

17 importation of the commodity from foreign 

18 sources. May science and common sense prevail. 

19 Thank you for your time and 

20 consideration. 

21 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

22 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 
44 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MR. MINTER: Dan, thank you. 

2 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

3 MR. MINTER: I'd like to call up our next 

4 scheduled speaker, Oscar Paulson. Oscar, if you 

5 could spell your complete name for us and state 

6 who you're representing for the court reporter 

7 this evening. Thank you. 

8 MR. PAULSON: My name is Oscar Paulson, 

9 O-S-C-A-R, P-A-U-L-S-O-N, and I am the Facility 

10 Supervisor of Kennecott Uranium Company's 

11 Sweetwater Uranium project located in Sweetwater 

12 County, Wyoming. 

13 I am a registered professional geologist 

14 in the State of Wyoming and a radiation safety 

15 officer with over 35 years of experience in 

16 uranium recovery, including in-situ uranium 

17 recovery as well as over 20 years' of experience 

18 in radiation safety. 

19 This rulemaking should be withdrawn, 

20 since the risk posed by the uranium recovery 

21 operations that this rule will are insignificant 

22 and do not merit the degree of regulation 
45 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 proposed in the rulemaking. The preamble states 

2 that the rulemaking will "will reduce the human 

3 health risk that could result from experience to 

4 radionuclides in well water used for drinking or 

5 agriculture in areas located downgrading from an 

6 ISR." 

7 It defines the human health risk as 

8 cancer, stating, "because radionuclides are human 

9 carcinogens, the main health risk averted would 

10 be cancer." The following three papers whose 

11 primary author is Dr. John Boice of Vanderbilt 

12 University in Nashville, Tennessee have shown no 

13 increases in cancer mortality to individuals, 

14 members of the general public, to be specific, 

15 residing in areas containing uranium recovery 

16 operations as compared to similar areas lacking 

17 such operations. The papers are as follows: 

18 Cancer and Non-Cancer Mortality in 

19 Populations Living Near Uranium and Vanadium 

20 Mining and Milling Operations in Montrose County, 

21 Colorado from 1950 to 2000, published in 

22 "Radiation Research" in 2007. 
46 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 This paper concludes: Between 1950 and 

2 2000, a total of 1,877 cancer deaths occurred in 

3 the population residing in Montrose County 

4 compared with 1,903 expected, based on general 

5 population rates for Colorado. There were 11,837 

6 cancer deaths in the five comparison counties 

7 during the same 51 year period compared with 

8 12,135 expected. There was no difference between 

9 the total cancer mortality rates in Montrose 

10 County and those in the comparison counties. 

11 And again, this paper discusses mortality 

12 among members of the general public/residents in 

13 Montrose County, Colorado, the whole of the 

14 Uravan uranium mill, and concludes that there was 

15 no difference in cancer mortality between 

16 Montrose County and the neighboring counties. 

17 Again, this shows no risk. 

18 The second paper, "Cancer Mortality in 

19 the Texas County with Prior Uranium Mining and 

20 Milling Activities, 1950 to 2001, Journal of 

21 Radiological Protection, 2003." 

22 This paper concludes overall, 1,223 
47 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 cancer deaths occurred in the population residing 

2 in Karnes County -- this is the home of a number 

3 of uranium recovery operations from 1950 to 2001, 

4 compared with 1,392 expected, based on general 

5 population rates for the U.S. 

6 There were 3,857 cancer deaths in the 

7 four control counties during the same 52 year old 

8 period compared with 4,389 expected. There was 

9 no difference between the total cancer mortality 

10 rates in Karnes County and those in the control 

11 counties. There were no significant increases in 

12 Karnes County for any cancer when comparisons 

13 were made with either the U.S. population, the 

14 State of Texas or the control counties. 

15 In particular, deaths due to cancers of 

16 the lung, bone, liver and kidney were not more 

17 frequent in Karnes County than in the control 

18 counties. These are the cancers of a priori 

19 interest, given that uranium might be expected to 

20 concentrate in these tissues more than others. 

21 Further, any radium intake would deposit 

22 primarily in the bone and radon progeny primarily 
48 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 in the lung. Deaths from all cancers combined 

2 also were not increased in Karnes County, and 

3 shortly after uranium activities began in two 

4 later time periods. No unusual patterns of 

5 cancer mortality could be seen in Karnes County 

6 over a period of 50 years, suggesting that the 

7 uranium mining and milling operations had not 

8 increased cancer rates among residents. 

9 Karnes County, Texas hosted three uranium 

10 mills being Deweeseville Falls City Mill, The 

11 Conoco Conquista Mill and the Chevron Panna Maria 

12 Mill, as well as an in-situ uranium recovery 

13 operation. This paper concludes that these 

14 operations did not increase cancer mortality in 

15 members of the public in Karnes County, Texas, as 

16 compared to four control counties. 

17 Third paper, a cohort study of uranium 

18 millers and miners of Grants, New Mexico, 1979 to 

19 2005 from the "Journal of Radiological 

20 Protection." Boice concludes, no statistic 

21 significant elevation in any cause of death was 

22 seen among the 904 non-miners employed at the 
49 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Grants Uranium Mill. Again, a cohort of 718 

2 millers from maximum exposed group concluded 

3 there was no significant increase in cancer of a 

4 priori interest. 

5 And I guess I'm pretty much out of time, 

6 so I will leave it at that, and just say that 

7 these papers and others show that the risk are 

8 not present to justify this rulemaking. Thank 

9 you. Are there any questions? 

10 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: No. Thank you. 

11 MR. PAULSON: I have the papers here as 

12 well as my statement. 

13 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Okay, great. Thank you 

14 so much. 

15 MR. PAULSON: There you go. 

16 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: I appreciate that. 

17 Thank you. 

18 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Oscar. I'd like 

19 to call up our next scheduled speaker. That 

20 would be Steven Brown. 

21 MR. BROWN: Thank you. 

22 MR. MINTER: Steven, if you could spell 
50 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 your complete name and say who you are 

2 representing. 

3 MR. BROWN: Yes, Steven, S-T-E-V-E-N, 

4 Brown, B-R-O-W-N. I thank you for the opportunity 

5 and good evening. My name is Steve Brown and I'm 

6 the Chair of the Uranium Committee of the 

7 Colorado Mining Association. 

8 The Colorado Mining Association was 

9 established in 1876 and is a trade association 

10 whose membership includes over a thousand 

11 members, 200 companies and comprises both small 

12 and large enterprises engaged in the exploration 

13 for and production and refining of metals, coal, 

14 oil, shale and industrial minerals. 

15 Professionally, I'm a health physicist, 

16 certified by the American Board of Health Physics 

17 and a diplomat of the American Academy of Health 

18 Physics with over 40 years' of experience in 

19 mining and other energy related industries. 

20 A health physicist is a physical 

21 scientist whose job it is to manage the 

22 beneficial use of ionizing radiation while 
51 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 protecting workers and the public from potential 

2 hazards. Additionally, recently, I've been 

3 elected to the board of directors of the American 

4 Academy of Health Physics, which is the national 

5 organization which oversees the examination 

6 process, standards of practice and ethics of 

7 health physicists in the United States. 

8 My brief comments this evening are 

9 directed at EPA's justifications for this 

10 proposed rulemaking related to the reduction of 

11 doses and risks assumed by EPA to be cancer 

12 related that are associated with radionuclides, 

13 and in particular, uranium as a carcinogen. 

14 EPA provides very little justification 

15 that the rulemaking is necessary and states that 

16 to reduce human health risks that could result 

17 from exposures to radionuclides in well water 

18 used for drinking and agricultural use, Federal 

19 Register, page 4157. 

20 But then, it continues in that same 

21 paragraph to state that the EPA, "was unable to 

22 estimate how many cancer deaths would be averted 
52 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 or when they would occur." As a general matter, 

2 the supplementary information section preceding 

3 the revisions to Title 4192 seems to exhibit a 

4 lack of applicable justification. 

5 Instead, EPA appears to rely on its 

6 beliefs. For example, in this section, EPA used 

7 various forms of words and phrases such as 

8 believe, could occur, could cause, potential for, 

9 dozens of times to justify this rulemaking in the 

10 interest of human health and associated risks. 

11 With all due respect, science and 

12 engineering are not religions based on belief. A 

13 most telling statement by EPA, Federal Register 

14 page 4164, is the following. “We find it 

15 difficult to characterize the probability or 

16 magnitude of future contamination problems, or 

17 the cost incurred in remediating such future 

18 contamination.” 

19 Regulators, citizen of the United States, 

20 Steve Brown, I would believe that the regulators 

21 are required to conclude, determine or otherwise 

22 affirmatively state their analysis and results. 
53 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 For example, the Atomic Energy Act of the United 

2 States, Section 275c.(1) states the following: 

3 "Before the promulgation of any rule 

4 pursuant to this section, the administrator, 

5 i.e., your boss, shall publish the proposed rule 

6 in the Federal Register, together with a 

7 statement of the research, analysis and other 

8 available information to support such proposed 

9 rules." 

10 It does not appear, at least to me, that 

11 EPA has made an attempt to perform the 

12 scientifically based quantitative risk analysis 

13 in support of this rulemaking. However, it is 

14 noted that in Section D 2, Federal Register, 

15 beginning on page 4165 under the heading, What 

16 Analysis has EPA Done to Support the Proposal, 

17 the EPA references a 2012 draft report entitled 

18 "Groundwater Modeling Studies of In-situ Leaching 

19 Facilities: An Evaluation of Doses and Risks to 

20 Off-Site Receptors from Contaminated 

21 Groundwater." Revision to, and the number is 

22 here in the comments. 
54 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 As the key technical basis document, 

2 unfortunately, in my view, this report actually 

3 adds no supportive analysis relative to the 

4 claimed purpose of this rulemaking. The report 

5 presents radiological doses projected from over 

6 60 operational accident scenarios involving 

7 groundwater modeling that includes surface spills 

8 and catastrophic failures, ruptures and 

9 excursions. 

10 These scenarios do not represent the 

11 proposed rulemaking, which is focused on post12 mining "protection, restoration and stability," 

13 Federal Register, page 4156, not the accident 

14 scenarios presented in this report, which it is 

15 conservatively assumed that all drinking water, 

16 vegetation irrigation, livestock water supply 

17 originate from a well 528 feet down gradient from 

18 the facility -- I've not been able to find where 

19 the 528 feet or how a facility is defined in the 

20 report -- contaminated with suspension uranium 

21 and radium. 

22 The radionuclide source terms -- and this 
55 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 is an important basis of this report -- the 

2 radionuclide source terms for all of these 

3 scenarios, that is the concentration of uranium 

4 and radium in the solutions beginning at the 

5 site, and then migrate through the environment to 

6 this well that were the input to the groundwater 

7 models to determine concentrations, and 

8 therefore, intake of humans at this well is based 

9 on maximum concentrations from the ranges of 

10 radionuclides in the mining solution, ("pregnant 

11 lixiviant") within the production zones as 

12 reported in the literature for numerous sites in 

13 groundwater over 30 years. 

14 In other words, the basis of this risk 

15 assessment is the is that people are using mining 

16 solutions diluted by just 520 feet of groundwater 

17 for dispersion, and 100 percent of domestic water 

18 needs are supplied by use of mining solutions. 

19 (Bell rings) 

20 MR. BROWN: And my time has run out, and 

21 I apologize for extended time. I will humbly 

22 request some additional time tomorrow morning. 
56 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Thank you very much. 

2 MR. MINTER: Thank you very much. Our 

3 next scheduled speaker is Nancy Standler. Nancy, 

4 if you can spell your complete name and state who 

5 you are representing for the court reporter this 

6 evening. Thank you. 

7 MS. STANDLER: I'm Nancy Standler, N-A-N8 C-Y, S-T-A-N-D-L-E-R, MD, PhD, and I'm here at 

9 the request of Wyoming Mining Association. Given 

10 the history of people tearing through talks, I 

11 drew lines through mine to make it shorter, if 

12 you'll accept the big version in written form. 

13 My name is Dr. Nancy Standler. I'm a 

14 practicing board certified pathologist with an MD 

15 in residency training from the University of 

16 Pittsburgh. I also possess a PhD in biophysics 

17 from what was then, the Department of Radiation, 

18 Biology and Biophysics at the University of 

19 Rochester. 

20 I took virtually all of the available 

21 coursework on radiation biology offered by the 

22 department as part of my PhD program. Okay? And 
57 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 then the informal definition of who I am, which 

2 is not in the written thing is -- uranium is not 

3 very toxic. Our real diseases -- we're swimming 

4 in experts. We have loads of hypertension 

5 experts, loads of diabetes experts. 

6 I seem to be the only MD PhD in the 

7 country who knows anything about uranium. And 

8 so, with great reluctance over many years, I have 

9 been intermittently the uranium expert for the 

10 country, by virtue of not having ducked behind a 

11 rock fast enough (Laughter). 

12 So, at any rate, so that's the context. 

13 So, I think it's probably been 20 some years I've 

14 been involved with this stuff in one way or 

15 another, but intermittently. I'm mostly a board 

16 certified pathologist working in Cedar City. 

17 Before beginning this specific discussion 

18 of uranium toxicity, I believe it is worth 

19 placing the discussion in context by mentioning a 

20 paper, "Five Hundred Life-Saving Interventions 

21 and Their Cost Effectiveness," written by Tengs 

22 et al and I give the reference. 
58 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 This paper found an extraordinarily large 

2 difference in cost for different interventions 

3 from essentially zero dollars per year of life 

4 saved with the use flammability standards for 

5 children's sleepwear, size zero to 6x, to 34 

6 billion per year of life saved for radionuclide 

7 emission control at uranium fuel cycle 

8 facilities. 

9 So, the paper is included there, and the 

10 point of the paper is that some things we do are 

11 very helpful at very little cost, and some things 

12 we do are a little bit helpful at an enormous 

13 cost, and there are like 12 orders of magnitude 

14 difference in the cost of -- not a factor of 12, 

15 12 orders of magnitude difference in cost between 

16 what it takes to save one year of life for 

17 somebody with an intervention. And I hadn't seen 

18 it pointed out as clearly as this paper did, so I 

19 included it for you. 

20 Where we will be in these types of costs 

21 with the uranium groundwater issue is, of course, 

22 implicit in the discussion presented in this 
59 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 conference. I would hope that we could achieve 

2 some level of common sense on the issues. 

3 Concern about uranium toxicity goes back 

4 to the aftermath of World War II, when people 

5 first appreciated the devastating power of 

6 nuclear weapons. During this 60 year period, the 

7 United States has also developed increasingly 

8 strict regulations regarding uranium. 

9 The Agency for Toxic Substances and 

10 Disease Registry, which is an agency of the 

11 United States government, has published the most 

12 comprehensive review availability on uranium 

13 toxicity. This is document is the 526 page 

14 toxicological profile for uranium, which I've got 

15 in here for you, for which a revision was issued 

16 in February, 2013, and which uses 830 uranium 

17 references. So, we do have literature out there 

18 to look at. This work incorporates information 

19 for both human and animal studies and summarizes 

20 the results in their part 2.2 summary of health 

21 effects. And we've got the reference. 

22 On page 109 of toxicological profile for 
60 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 uranium, the issue of death related to oral 

2 uranium exposure is considered. And here's what 

3 they say: There are no reports of human death 

4 from oral exposure to uranium compounds. 

5 However, data from animal studies demonstrate 

6 that soluble uranium compounds at very high 

7 intake levels can be lethal to animals through 

8 the oral route for all durations of exposure. 

9 Uranium compounds at these concentrations 

10 are not palatable to animals and require 

11 sweetening. And then, one of the things which 

12 I'm not going to do in detail here, but I have, 

13 was I ran an estimate based on what they were 

14 using for the 50 percent mortality rate, the LD 

15 50 level based on animal studies to extrapolate 

16 how much it would be for people, and it looked 

17 for a 70 kilogram man, it would be about 8.4 

18 grams of uranium in a single dose to reach a 

19 possible LD 50 acute dose. 

20 And I then, just for comparison, took the 

21 30 microgram per liter uranium drinking water 

22 standard and figured out that that was 280,000 
61 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 liters of water containing the maximal allowable 

2 concentration in the drinking water to be a 

3 single dose, just to kind of block it. And for 

4 people who didn't know what that meant, that was 

5 roughly a Q21 feet on the side (sic). So, not 

6 the type of water that you're likely to drink in 

7 the next 24 hours. 

8 MR. PEAKE: Dr. Standler, could you go 

9 ahead and conclude your testimony here, please? 

10 DR. STANDLER: Why don't I just do this? 

11 And I'm sorry. I was trying to cut my -- so I 

12 didn't do that to you. I have the rest of my 

13 testimony in writing here, and I'll just pass it 

14 to you. And you guys can use it at your leisure. 

15 Thank you. 

16 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

17 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. Ma'am, if I can 

18 request that when you submit -- are you going to 

19 be submitting an additional comment in writing? 

20 DR. STANDLER: Well, these are most of 

21 them. I was going to try to grab one five 

22 minutes (sic) to make another argument. What 
62 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 would you like? 

2 MR. PEAKE: Well, in this -- 

3 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Electronically or -- 

4 MR. PEAKE: Yeah. Well, in this 

5 information, it would -- 

6 DR. STANDLER: Well, this -- 

7 MR. PEAKE: It would be beneficial if you 

8 could highlight the things that you feel are the 

9 most pertinent to our decision. You know? 

10 DR. STANDLER: Okay. 

11 MR. PEAKE: To make sure that -- 

12 DR. STANDLER: In addition to -- 

13 MR. PEAKE: -- to make sure that we don't 

14 miss what it is that you feel is most important. 

15 DR. STANDLER: Okay, okay. 

16 MR. PEAKE: So, because you have quite a 

17 number of pages there. 

18 DR. STANDLER: Yeah, right. I did make 

19 the references in here at the front with the page 

20 number references. Do you need more than that? 

21 MR. PEAKE: Well, that would be helpful. 

22 DR. STANDLER: Yeah, so you've got that, 
63 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 and you've got this life-saving intervention 

2 thing. And then the rest was so if you wanted to 

3 check their data farther back -- 

4 MR. PEAKE: Okay. 

5 DR. STANDLER: There is a section written 

6 -- there is a very low level section written 

7 about the health effects, and then there's a 

8 bigger section for physicians. And those are the 

9 two important sections of the thing. Okay? 

10 MR. PEAKE: Okay, thank you. 

11 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

12 DR. STANDLER: Do you still need me to 

13 highlight or not? Because I quoted the critical 

14 -- 

15 (Simultaneous discussion) 

16 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: If you'll be providing 

17 that? 

18 DR. STANDLER: Yes. 

19 MR. PEAKE: Yeah. 

20 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

21 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

22 MR. MINTER: Thank you very much. 
64 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 DR. STANDLER: Thank you. 

2 MALE SPEAKER: I apologize. I forgot to 

3 turn these in. 

4 MR. PEAKE: Sure. 

5 MALE SPEAKER: Thank you very much. 

6 MR. MINTER: Thank you very much. 

7 MALE SPEAKER: Okay. 

8 MR. MINTER: Okay. I'd like to call up 

9 our next scheduled speaker, and that is Jim 

10 Willox. Can you please come up? 

11 Jim, if you could spell your complete 

12 name and state who you're representing for the 

13 court reporter this evening. Thank you. 

14 MR. WILLOX: Thank you. My name is Jim 

15 Willox, J-I-M, W-I-L-L-O-X. And I'm a Converse 

16 County commissioner from the neighboring Converse 

17 County. 

18 Converse County is the home to Cameco's 

19 largest in-situ mine in the United States, and a 

20 friend and neighbor and employer that's a 

21 significant part of our economy in Converse 

22 County. And this proposed rule could end up 
65 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 having a significant negative effect to our 

2 economy by displacing hundreds of jobs and 

3 millions of dollars worth of payroll and 

4 associated services. 

5 It appears to me that this rule fails to 

6 recognize the local impact to the economies that 

7 we face as communities, not only in Converse 

8 County, but also in Natrona and our surrounding 

9 neighbors. It is a fairly regular theme that 

10 you'll hear from local government is these 

11 federal rules fail to significantly or adequately 

12 account for local economic conditions and 

13 impacts, and almost all of them end up having a 

14 negative effect on our local economies. 

15 Wyoming is a multiple use state. We 

16 believe in multiple use of all of our resources, 

17 whether they be energy or environment or water or 

18 recreation, and the significant rule proposal by 

19 the EPA in this situation does nothing but reduce 

20 the multiple use aspect of Wyoming and our 

21 economy and our way of life. 

22 I was born a rancher south of Douglas, 
66 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 and I'm a fifth generation Wyomingite, and it's 

2 been known for years that water wells around 

3 Converse County on the north side had uranium in 

4 it. It has been no secret that uranium is a 

5 naturally occurring element in some of the water 

6 that's around. 

7 It would seem to me that if the goal is 

8 to reduce cancer by reducing the amount of 

9 uranium levels in the water, the optimal solution 

10 is to mine it and get it out of the water. It 

11 doesn't seem practical or reasonable to propose a 

12 rule that makes it harder, more expensive and 

13 impractical to remove the uranium that is the 

14 stated goal. 

15 In-situ mining has been a successful 

16 method of mining for years and is heavily 

17 regulated already in Wyoming by the Wyoming DEQ, 

18 and the water aspect of it is covered clearly by 

19 the state engineer who has regulatory authority 

20 over the groundwater in Wyoming. 

21 We have adequate, knowledgeable and 

22 informed people guiding the process already, and 
67 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 as is pointed out on the federal level, the 

2 amount of oversight in the uranium industry is 

3 significant. 

4 As a non scientific person with only a 

5 couple initials after my name, which is a 

6 bachelor's of science that many have abbreviated 

7 to shorter than that (Laughter), it seems 

8 significant to me that this rule is arbitrary and 

9 capricious, which is a standard that it means it 

10 should be withdrawn and taken back. 

11 The 30 year proposal is unreasonable and 

12 for industries and mines that are already in 

13 progress, changes the entire economic outlook and 

14 assumptions they did when starting their mining. 

15 You've heard that from previous speakers that are 

16 ongoing or starting to open mines in Wyoming. 

17 It would seem to me that if the goal of 

18 this administration and the EPA is to reduce 

19 domestic employment, negatively affect local 

20 economies and to increase our dependence on 

21 foreign energy, this rule and others proposed by 

22 the EPA go a long way towards ensuring that. 
68 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 We must continue to reasonably and with 

2 foresight, mine the resources that exist in 

3 Wyoming. And Wyoming has proven with our local 

4 economies, our local leaders and our local rules 

5 can do that in a sound, scientific and 

6 sustainable way. 

7 So there, on behalf of the Converse 

8 County Commissioners, we ask you to withdraw this 

9 rule, and if you proceed forward, to be sure to 

10 consult a lot with state government and local 

11 government to find a way that we can help educate 

12 the EPA on the way we've been doing that has been 

13 successful, and to fully analyze the local 

14 economic impacts. 

15 I thank you for coming to Casper, Wyoming 

16 to hold the hearing on the ground where this will 

17 have effects, and thank you for taking your time 

18 today. 

19 MR. PEAKE: Okay, thank you. 

20 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

21 MR. MINTER: Jim, thank you very much. 

22 I'd like to call up our next scheduled speaker. 
69 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 That is Shannon Anderson. Shannon, if you can 

2 spell your complete name and state who you're 

3 representing for the court reporter this evening. 

4 Thank you. 

5 MS. ANDERSON: Shannon, S-H-A-N-N-O-N, 

6 Anderson, A-N-D-E-R-S-O-N. I'm an organizer and 

7 a staff attorney with Powder River Basin Resource 

8 Council. We're a Wyoming based organization. 

9 Primarily our members are land owners who are 

10 impacted by energy development in the state. I 

11 will be submitting technical written comments 

12 later this month, so I'll keep my comments today 

13 brief. 

14 First off, we want to thank EPA for 

15 moving forward with these new regulations. 

16 Groundwater protection standards specific for the 

17 in-situ uranium industry are long overdue. 

18 We agree with EPA that as this type of 

19 uranium mining and milling has overtaken 

20 conventional operations as a dominant form of 

21 mining and milling, and it is important to make 

22 sure that the regulations are updated to address 
70 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 this shift in technology. 

2 I don't have to tell the people in this 

3 room their groundwater is the life blood of the 

4 West, and here in Wyoming, many land owners would 

5 not be able to have water to drink or to give 

6 their livestock without clean and plentiful 

7 aquifers. 

8 Unfortunately, under EPA regulations, an 

9 aquifer can be exempted merely because it is part 

10 of a mining permit application. There is not a 

11 necessary demonstration that the water is of too 

12 poor quality to be used in the future. It is 

13 therefore, critical to have a scientifically 

14 robust characterization of pre-mining groundwater 

15 qualities and a plan in place to restore the 

16 water to those conditions. 

17 We particularly appreciate EPA's proposed 

18 long-term monitoring requirement as a mechanism 

19 to ensure groundwater is properly restored. We 

20 hope EPA's proposed standards will do just that. 

21 This action is important, given the 

22 company's track records of delayed and failed 
71 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 restoration, excursions, leaks and spills that 

2 have included groundwater supplies. EPA's 

3 proposed standards are reasonable measures to 

4 address the risks and impacts to groundwater from 

5 in-situ operations. 

6 Again, we look forward to submitting more 

7 detailed comments in a couple of weeks, and we 

8 look forward to seeing a final version of the 

9 regulations in the near future. Thank you for 

10 your time and attention to this important issue. 

11 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

12 MR. MINTER: Shannon, thank you. 

13 MS. ANDERSON: Sure. 

14 MR. MINTER: I'd like to call up our next 

15 scheduled speaker, Brent Berg. Please come 

16 forward. Brent, if you could spell your complete 

17 name and state who you're representing for the 

18 court reporter this evening. Thank you. 

19 MR. BERG: My name is Brent, B-R-E-N-T, 

20 Berg, B-E-R-G. I am president of Cameco 

21 Resources of Casper, Wyoming. 

22 Cameco Resources is America's largest 
72 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 uranium producer. Our Smith Ranch-Highland in2 situ uranium mine in Converse County, Wyoming is 

3 the largest uranium operation in the United 

4 States. We also have the North Butte in-situ 

5 uranium mine in Campbell County, Wyoming, and the 

6 Crow Butte in-situ uranium mine in Dawes County, 

7 Nebraska. In addition, Cameco Resources has 

8 potential future growth sites in Wyoming and 

9 Nebraska, all of which are envisioned as in-situ 

10 operations. 

11 Cameco Resources is a U.S. corporation. 

12 We are a wholly owned subsidiary of Cameco 

13 Corporation of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. 

14 Cameco's production in Canada, Kazakhstan and the 

15 U.S. supplies about 30 percent of the uranium 

16 needs of the U.S. nuclear power industry. 

17 Nuclear power accounts for nearly one-fifth of 

18 U.S. electricity and is America's largest source 

19 of emissions free energy, far exceeding hydro, 

20 wind and solar combined. 

21 Scientists and other professionals from 

22 our company, the uranium industry and academia 
73 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 will offer testimony detailing the many 

2 scientific concerns in this effort. Let me offer 

3 these general observations. 

4 We believe that the proposed rule, which 

5 features 30 years of monitoring would have 

6 significant negative consequences to our company, 

7 our industry, rural communities, small businesses 

8 and the nation. 

9 These consequences would result from a 

10 rule, as written, that is not based on science 

11 and that offers no quantifiable benefits to the 

12 environment or to human health and safety. 

13 Modern in-situ uranium mines have operated 

14 responsibly to protect the environment and to 

15 assure the safety of their workers and the 

16 public. 

17 Our North Butte mine marks its second 

18 anniversary this month. Our Crow Butte mine has 

19 been in commercial operation for 24 years. Our 

20 Smith Ranch Highland mind has been in commercial 

21 production for 27 years. During all of those 

22 years, we have protected the groundwater. 
74 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Further, our minds have been made 

2 available to researchers from major universities 

3 and the Los Alamos National Laboratory for 

4 important groundwater studies, some of the work 

5 partially funded by the EPA itself. 

6 Several of these studies were recently 

7 presented at a 2015 In-situ Recovery of Uranium 

8 Research Symposium on April 21st at the 

9 University of Wyoming in Laramie. These studies 

10 have encouraging results that relate to the 

11 effectiveness of restoration. It concerns us 

12 that the latest research that is directly on 

13 point is not being taken into account in the 

14 proposed rule. 

15 The proposed EPA rule seeks to put in 

16 monitoring requirements that are not based on 

17 science and is being put forward when more good 

18 science is emerging. That would not support the 

19 rulemaking moving forward. 

20 We are equally concerned of the socio21 economic impacts of the proposed rule have not 

22 been examined. The uranium industry has invested 
75 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 more than a billion dollars in Wyoming over the 

2 past 10 years. From an economic impact study by 

3 the University of Wyoming, we know that every 

4 Cameco Resources job in Wyoming creates another 

5 1.6 jobs in the state. 

6 The annual economic benefits to Wyoming, 

7 direct and indirect from Cameco operations at 

8 full production include 445 jobs and $59.1 

9 million in payroll, purchases, taxes, royalties, 

10 et cetera, each year. The study noted that jobs 

11 and economic benefit would double under likely 

12 expansion in a robust uranium market. 

13 At present, jobs and production are down 

14 as the industry manages through a depressed 

15 market. The proposed rule would impose 30 years 

16 of additional cost to companies, including ours, 

17 threatening the viability of expansion and new 

18 development, even while the long-term need for 

19 uranium and nuclear energy remains strong. 

20 The EPA itself concludes that U.S. 

21 domestic uranium production will decrease with 

22 the implementation of the proposed rule, because 
76 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 suppliers cannot pass the higher costs onto the 

2 market, which is dominated from production in 

3 other countries. These higher costs threaten 

4 local jobs, tax revenues and small businesses. 

5 Cameco Resources respectfully requests 

6 the EPA delay the rule until science based 

7 proposals can be developed, and social and 

8 economic factors can be fully considered. The 

9 consequences of a rash decision to implement 

10 quickly are too great to push ahead with a rule 

11 that is not based on science and that does not 

12 take into account all of the potential impacts. 

13 Thank you for coming to Casper and to 

14 other cities close to America's production to 

15 gather comments. 

16 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

17 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

18 MR. MINTER: Brent, thank you. 

19 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: That's great. Thank 

20 you. 

21 (Discussion off the record) 

22 MR. PEAKE: And then you'll be providing 
77 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 additional comment. 

2 MR. BERG: Yeah. 

3 MR. PEAKE: Written comment, I presume. 

4 Great. 

5 MR. MINTER: I would like to call up our 

6 next scheduled speaker, Eric Grandjort. Eric, if 

7 you could spell your complete name and state who 

8 you're representing for the court reporter this 

9 evening. Thank you. 

10 MR. GRANDJORT: E-R-I-C, G-R-A-N-D-J-O11 R-T. Eric Grandjort. My affiliation this 

12 evening is as a member of the public. I'm a 

13 resident of the state of Wyoming for the last 50 

14 years. My training and trade is a chemist -- 

15 education and trade. I have 30 years of 

16 experience in environmental monitoring. My 

17 comments this evening will be general, with just 

18 touching on a couple of the highlights that have 

19 been mentioned already this evening. 

20 I support the industry in the mining of 

21 uranium in Wyoming and in the country. I'm 

22 opposed to the rule, due to a lack of scientific 
78 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 data to support 30 years post closure monitoring. 

2 This mirrors the wrecker regs for hazardous waste 

3 landfill monitoring, and there is a little 

4 correlation between a hazardous waste landfill 

5 and a uranium mine for post closure monitoring. 

6 We are also dealing with an exempted aquifer at 

7 these ISR facilities. 

8 This industry is critical to the quality 

9 of life in Wyoming, and this industry is a 

10 steward to the environment in this state. 

11 Monitoring that was specified for Subpart F at 

12 the beginning of this meeting is currently being 

13 done under the guidance of several regulatory 

14 agencies. 

15 And in closing, I am employed by a 

16 company that would benefit greatly from the 

17 fiscal ramifications of this rule. However, I 

18 will state again that I am strongly opposed to 

19 this rule based on the lack of scientific 

20 evidence. 

21 I would like to thank you very much for 

22 providing this forum, and I hope that we have an 
79 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 impact. 

2 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

3 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

4 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Eric. 

5 (Discussion off the record) 

6 MR. MINTER: So, before I mention the 

7 last speaker on my list, I just want to again 

8 remind folks if that if you do want to speak this 

9 evening, to make sure you're registered. And 

10 after the next gentleman comes up, I'll be asking 

11 to see if there's anyone else who would like to 

12 provide verbal testimony. 

13 So again, if you are not on the list 

14 here, since Peter is my last one, please register 

15 and we can include you this evening, if you have 

16 verbal testimony. 

17 So, our next scheduled speaker is Peter 

18 Obermueller. Thank you. Peter, if you could 

19 spell your complete name and state who you're 

20 representing for the court reporter this evening. 

21 Thank you. 

22 MR. PEAKE: Good evening. 
80 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MR. OBERMUELLER: Good evening. My name 

2 is Pete Obermueller. It's P-E-T-E, O-B-E-R-M-U3 E-L-L-E-R. I'm the executive director of the 

4 Wyoming County Commissioner's Association, 

5 referred to as the WCCA throughout my testimony. 

6 The WCCA represents the boards of county 

7 commissioners in all 23 of Wyoming's counties, 

8 including the seven counties where uranium mining 

9 currently exists or is eminent. On behalf of the 

10 WCCA, I want to take the opportunity to thank you 

11 for extending the comment deadline on this rule 

12 and for scheduling these hearings in Wyoming. 

13 After all, as you have heard, we are the top 

14 producer of uranium in the United States. 

15 However, despite this extension, we 

16 believe that a minimum, the rule ought to be 

17 delayed even further to allow affected 

18 stakeholders, including counties, sufficient time 

19 to review the proposed rule and its ancillary 

20 documents. We would prefer the rule be tabled 

21 until such time as industry, EPA, DEQ and other 

22 regulatory bodies can agree on the necessity of 
81 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 on any further regulatory requirements. 

2 At interest to one of these counties in 

3 particular is the EPA's economic analysis and its 

4 treatment or lack thereof on the impacts to our 

5 local governments, economies and the constituents 

6 we serve. 

7 I'd like to focus my comments this 

8 evening on three items of concern. One: That 

9 the EPA failed to consult stakeholders in the 

10 development of this rule. Two: That the 

11 proposed rule is arbitrary, and three, that the 

12 economic analysis is inadequate. And I 

13 appreciate the extra time. (Laughter) 

14 In Wyoming, counties serve as the legal 

15 arm of the state and shoulder the responsibility 

16 of carrying out many of the state's statutory and 

17 regulatory goals. County government operates on 

18 the front lines to ensure that our communities 

19 are economically vibrant as well as safe, healthy 

20 places to live. 

21 Successfully balancing these sometimes 

22 competing, but not mutually exclusive demands 
82 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 requires locally elected officials who understand 

2 the needs of communities, and when necessary, a 

3 regulatory framework that is clear, non4 duplicative and achievable. This is particularly 

5 true in a state like Wyoming, where the federal 

6 government plays an outsized role in the day-to7 day management of nearly half the surface and 

8 three quarters of the sub-surface. 

9 For this reason, Wyoming's county 

10 commissioners are constructively engaged with 

11 federal land management agencies at unprecedented 

12 levels. There are active partners of the Wyoming 

13 Department of Environmental Quality, even on 

14 issues such as this that do not directly convey 

15 authority to us. 

16 Why do we do this? Because these 

17 agencies and the counties have learned that the 

18 most effective, enforceable and constructive 

19 regulations are those that began with intentional 

20 coordination with the state and local governments 

21 closest to the people. 

22 While we understand the different 
83 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 statutory constraints under which the EPA exists 

2 as compared to the land management agencies in 

3 Wyoming, we remain mystified at the current EPA's 

4 insistence on going it alone. One only needs to 

5 consult the other federal agencies that operate 

6 in Wyoming to find clear examples of shared 

7 success and mutual gain from early coordination. 

8 In the case of the rule under 

9 consideration today, every one of us share a 

10 commitment to the quality of our water in 

11 Wyoming. Yet, EPA made no attempt to discuss 

12 with us any failings in the current regulatory 

13 framework managed by the NRC and Wyoming's DEQ. 

14 As local governing bodies, we recognize 

15 that we may not be consulted every time, 

16 depending on the statutory framework, although we 

17 would argue we ought to be, we understand that 

18 neither the state nor industry was consulted, 

19 either. This troubles us greatly and prevents us 

20 from working collectively on any legitimate 

21 issues dealing with the long-term environmental 

22 health of a place we call home. 
84 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 I'll leave the technical details of the 

2 pre operational and post operational monitoring 

3 to the experts in the room today, as they have 

4 already spoken. There are two specific points 

5 about the rule worth mentioning from a county 

6 perspective. 

7 First, the EPA's justification for its 

8 proposed rule is based entirely on conjecture, 

9 not on any scientific data the ISR operations 

10 have in fact, resulted in long-term degradation 

11 of groundwater in Wyoming. The proposed rule 

12 acknowledges, and in fact, I quote, "anticipates 

13 the objection that the presence of uranium 

14 deposits typically results in groundwater of poor 

15 quality." 

16 But it goes on to say that the Agency 

17 does not see this as "reason to allow this 

18 groundwater be further degraded." Like in the 

19 so-called Water for the United States Rule, here 

20 again, the EPA confuses regulatory jurisdiction 

21 with water quality. Nowhere in the proposed rule 

22 does the EPA offer a defensible argument where 
85 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 the current regulatory structure at NRC and 

2 Wyoming's DEQ is insufficient. 

3 Rather, the EPA simply assumes that 

4 waters must be degraded, unless the rules are 

5 written by the EPA itself. In order to deal with 

6 this perceived threat, the EPA picks an arbitrary 

7 long-term monitoring regime of 30 years. I have 

8 many policy objections to this time line, but I 

9 am going to limit myself to specific county 

10 issues related to it. 

11 A 30 year monitoring program has both 

12 direct and indirect negative impacts and 

13 Wyoming's county is not contemplated in EPA's 

14 economic analysis. Directly, counties are 

15 responsible for many of the infrastructure 

16 requirements that allow ISR operations to exist. 

17 We are able to build and maintain roads 

18 and other structures and support emergency 

19 response and communications, among many other 

20 things, only with the revenue that exists from 

21 taxes paid for the privilege of mineral 

22 extraction. 
86 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 I will leave it to others to dispute the 

2 EPA's estimated annual cost of the rule on 

3 industry, but for counties, the cost of 

4 maintaining this infrastructure for 30 years 

5 without offsetting revenue will clearly be a 

6 significant direct work. 

7 Further, rules such as this cannot be 

8 analyzed in a vacuum, as the EPA has done in its 

9 economic analysis, particularly on its estimates 

10 of uranium prices and volume. Simply put, rules 

11 such as this combined with the Department of 

12 Energy's policies, the Bureau of Mine 

13 Management's regulations and global economic 

14 forces make it increasingly difficult for uranium 

15 producers to operate in Wyoming. 

16 In 2013, the uranium industry paid nearly 

17 $6 million in taxes to Wyoming and shared with 

18 local governments. Given that we still import as 

19 much as 90 percent of the uranium used in 

20 electric generation in this country. We have 

21 vast untapped reserves in this state and others. 

22 We could do so much more to reduce that trade 
87 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 imbalance. 

2 Instead, we must suffer through economic 

3 analysis that minimizes impacts by arguing that 

4 because less than 10 small businesses will be 

5 affected, that the rule is not significant. I 

6 can assure you, it is significant to us and to 

7 the hard working Wyoming families that make their 

8 living in the uranium mining industries and its 

9 related services. 

10 It's rules like this and its subpar 

11 economic analysis not only help support the 

12 consolidation of the global uranium industry 

13 under foreign flags, but fails to account for 

14 local rural economies like here in Wyoming. A 

15 few thousand dollars really matters here. 

16 Thank you again for your time. The WCCA 

17 respectfully requests that you withdraw this rule 

18 in deference to other scientific studies and 

19 monitoring as mentioned by Dr. Johnson from 

20 (Inaudible). Thank you very much. 

21 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

22 MR. MINTER: Peter, thank you. I'd like 
88 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 to call up our next scheduled speaker, Chris 

2 Holten. 

3 (Discussion off the record) 

4 MR. MINTER: Chris, if you could spell 

5 your complete name for the court reporter, and 

6 state your affiliation. 

7 MR. HOLTEN: Chris, C-H-R-I-S, H-O-L-T-E8 N, Chris Holten. I'm speaking as a citizen -- a 

9 very concerned citizen who has considerable 

10 expertise in well work construction, water 

11 injection, hundreds of millions of barrels, 

12 actually, geology -- my experience comes from the 

13 oil and gas industry, having been in it since 

14 1967. There are parallels that I see here. I 

15 have also fracture stimulated a hundred, two, 300 

16 wells -- put thousands and thousands of hours of 

17 research and development into it. 

18 I'm very concerned about these rules, and 

19 I don't think they should be accepted. You 

20 haven't justified the regulations. As in a lot 

21 of other things that the EPA dabbles in, this 

22 seems very well under control and has been for 
89 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 decades. The science is well known. There is 

2 not that evidence of contamination or radiation 

3 as has been clearly identified. 

4 I understand how expensive the burden of 

5 regulation is, because I've lived with it for 40 

6 years. And I don't see where you've justified 

7 what you want to do. I don't see the necessity 

8 of it, and I think you're using very dubious 

9 science. 

10 I think you haven't really proven your 

11 case. As a professional engineer, I have to make 

12 it work. I don't have the luxury of just coming 

13 out with a bunch of rules and regulations that 

14 would have, could have, should have, ought to 

15 work. It really has serious impact on us. 

16 We're the least populated state in the 

17 union. We'd like to be able to hang onto that. 

18 It's very important to our economy. But anyway, 

19 I think you should drop this. It's just like a 

20 lot of other things, including fracture 

21 stimulation. 

22 It's been very well handled by existing 
90 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 authorities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

2 the State of Wyoming. You need to let the states 

3 handle the water, the aquifers. They're the 

4 experts at it. Thank you. 

5 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

6 MR. PEAKE: Thanks. 

7 MR. MINTER: Thank you. I'd like to call 

8 up our next scheduled speaker, Christiane Lee 

9 Lash. 

10 MR. HOLTEN: Oh, I will submit a written, 

11 also. I didn't have my ideas as well formulated, 

12 but I think you caught the gist of it. 

13 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Chris. 

14 Christiane, if you could spell your complete name 

15 and state who you're representing for our court 

16 reporter this evening. Thank you. 

17 MS. LEE: My name is Christiane Lee. C18 H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N-E, L-E-E. I'm a permanent 

19 resident of Spearfish, South Dakota which relies 

20 on the Madison aquifer, which underlies the part 

21 of Wyoming where uranium in-situ mining takes 

22 place. 
91 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 I would like to thank the EPA for 

2 strengthening its rules to protect our water, 

3 which is our life and which we depend on, all of 

4 us, for our essence. Myself and other members of 

5 this geographic area see no reason why 

6 corporations should be allowed to risk polluting 

7 our water. 

8 To us, water is sacred. To all of us, 

9 water is sacred. They should not be given any 

10 concessions that would weaken the proposed 

11 regulations the Agency has proposed. In fact, 

12 these regulations are a classic case of too 

13 little, too late, because there are hundreds of 

14 violations of even the very weak federal rules 

15 currently in place for in-situ mining. 

16 The very companies that are responsible 

17 for these violations are the ones asking for 

18 greater leniency. The corporate interest is 

19 strictly financial gain and profit for private 

20 industry. 

21 It does not consider the common good and 

22 the balance of nature necessary for the people 
92 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 and the wildlife who live in this area. In 

2 addition, most of the investment in this damaging 

3 technology comes from outside the United States, 

4 where the profits also go abroad. 

5 In that respect, it is preposterous for 

6 the representatives paid by these companies to 

7 request and repeat demands for leniency from the 

8 federal regulatory agency, which is mandated to 

9 protect our domestic environment and resources. 

10 Thank you for your consideration. 

11 Mitakuye Oyasin. 

12 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

13 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

14 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Christiane. 

15 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Great. Thank you. 

16 MR. MINTER: Thank you. I'm going to ask 

17 if anyone else would like to speak this evening 

18 on the record who has not yet spoken. Is there 

19 anyone else present here this evening who has not 

20 yet spoken who would like to? 

21 (Discussion off the record) 

22 MR. MINTER: Yes. Have you registered? 
93 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MR. KEARNEY: I did out front, yeah. 

2 MR. MINTER: Okay. Could you -- could we 

3 have you come up? And I'm sorry. You'll have to 

4 -- I'm sorry. I don't have your name, so I'll 

5 apologize. 

6 MR. KEARNEY: I'll refresh it. 

7 MR. MINTER: Okay (Laughter). Thank you. 

8 MR. KEARNEY: But I won't need the timer, 

9 so -- my name is -- 

10 (Discussion off the record) 

11 MR. KEARNEY: My name is Bill Kearney. 

12 Bill, B-I-L-L, Kearney, K-E-A-R-N-E-Y. And I'm 

13 an independent consultant speaking as a member of 

14 the general public. I've been involved in mining 

15 -- the mineral industry and reclamation in 

16 Wyoming for over 35 years, and I appreciate EPA 

17 coming to Casper. 

18 And I just wanted to touch on a couple of 

19 things that have already been voiced by several 

20 people. But one thing that the part 192 

21 regulations didn't point out is that there is a 

22 lot of advantages of ISR mining as an extractive 
94 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 technology. And it leaves a smaller footprint on 

2 the environment. It uses less water than a lot 

3 of other technologies, and I think that point is 

4 missed totally in the material that was 

5 presented. 

6 Another thing, EPA justifies in part, the 

7 need for these regulations because there is no 

8 legal restrictions or, I believe you call it 

9 institutional controls like mill tailings has, to 

10 keep the public from installing wells in these 

11 areas after they're mined and restored. 

12 We've heard about you know, the issue 

13 that background groundwater quality is really not 

14 suitable for potable uses, because it's got 

15 radionuclides in it. It's an ore zone. It's an 

16 ore body that has uranium -- dissolved uranium, 

17 radium and radon gas in it. 

18 And you can -- if one follows the 

19 regulations that you're proposing and everything 

20 was restored to background, the water, 

21 theoretically, would still not be potable water. 

22 And I think that you know, the general public 
95 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 misses that point; that this water, and it's been 

2 said by numerous people, it's an exempted 

3 aquifer, and it's in an exempted aquifer for a 

4 reason -- because it's full of uranium, radium 

5 and radon. 

6 So, my question to EPA is, if you're 

7 really concerned about protecting public health 

8 and safety, what are you going to do about all of 

9 these other areas in Wyoming and other states 

10 where there's uranium mineralization, where maybe 

11 no one is going to mine it or whatever? 

12 But if you go out and put a well in it 

13 now, you still have the same conditions. You 

14 have elevated uranium, radon and radium. So, I 

15 just ask you that visit that, if you're really 

16 truly concerned about the public health and 

17 safety. You know, there's other areas that are 

18 much, much larger than places that are going to 

19 be mined that have these conditions, and people 

20 can go put a well in it now and they can put a 

21 well in it tomorrow. 

22 So, I would just ask that something for 
96 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 NRC -- EPA to take a look at. Thank you. 

2 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

3 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

4 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Bill. Is there 

5 anyone else this evening who would like to speak 

6 who has not done so on the record? 

7 (Discussion off the record) 

8 MR. MINTER: Anyone else? 

9 FEMALE SPEAKER: Mm-hmm. I'm sorry. 

10 MR. MINTER: Yes? Could you introduce 

11 yourself, please, and spell your complete name 

12 and state who you're representing this evening 

13 for the court reporter. Thank you. 

14 MS. NOVIKOVA: My name is Tatyana 

15 Novikova, T-A-T-Y-A-N-A, N-O-V-I-K-O-V-A. And I 

16 am a permanent resident of South Dakota, Black 

17 Hills. And thank you for giving me the floor. 

18 And I am experienced as an environment 

19 activist from Belarus. Defending the environment 

20 and health of the citizens from the risks of 

21 Russian nuclear corporations and opposing the 

22 construction of nuclear power plants in Belarus. 
97 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 I know what is water and soil 

2 contamination because of Chernobyl. The 

3 contamination by radionuclides, the half-life of 

4 which is about thousands of years for people 

5 living on the land is forever. 

6 We do not know of a case in which the 

7 nuclear industry has cleaned up the pollution 

8 from the dangerous leaks of radioactive materials 

9 into the environment or completely restored the 

10 land. This did not happen in any case of 

11 Chernobyl, nor in the case of Fukushima. 

12 Technology in-situ leaching does not 

13 exclude the contamination of radionuclides into 

14 the drinking water, including uranium-238, which 

15 is a strong carcinogen with a half-life of about 

16 four billion years. There is no way, no 

17 technology to clean up the groundwater from this 

18 contamination. And an example of Wyoming, Willow 

19 Creek side of ISL shows that. 

20 That's why I am convinced that the only 

21 way to clean up the land from the deadly 

22 radionuclide contamination is to prevent deadly 
98 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 and irresponsible activity. 

2 The new regulations of the EPA's health 

3 and environmental protection standards for 

4 uranium and thorium mill tailings is the first 

5 step in the right direction of protection of the 

6 natural resources such as drinking water. But 

7 this law has to have the necessary mechanisms of 

8 protection. 

9 In other words, it needs to be completed 

10 by the rules which address the problems of 

11 contamination and leaks; rules describing when 

12 and in which cases the extraction activity has to 

13 be stopped, as well as the conditions in which 

14 the permission for extraction can be denied. 

15 I think that our common aim as well as 

16 the aim of this new set of regulations is to 

17 protect the natural resources on which our life 

18 and health depends. That's why these regulations 

19 should not and can not respond to the poorly 

20 economic interest of industry, because doing so 

21 would confer the right to contaminate and kill. 

22 Thank you. 
99 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

2 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

3 MR. MINTER: Tatyana, thank you. All 

4 right, are there any other folks in the audience 

5 who have not spoken this evening who would like 

6 to do so on the record? 

7 (No response heard) 

8 MR. MINTER: If not, then we'd like to 

9 call Dr. Standler again, if she is still here, 

10 and give her additional five minutes of time this 

11 evening. 

12 DR. STANDLER: With a little luck, it'll 

13 be a little less than that. 

14 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

15 DR. STANDLER: What I wanted to do is 

16 give you a paper and briefly tell the story of 

17 it. It's this first paper here. 

18 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Okay. 

19 DR. STANDLER: So you don't have to 

20 listen to it when you've had so many facts. What 

21 this is a story is of a family in Connecticut 

22 whose neighbor got worried about the amalgam in 
100 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 her teeth giving her mercury poisoning. And when 

2 she went to her doctor and a hair sample sent for 

3 metal testing, it turned out she didn't have much 

4 mercury in her hair, but she did have uranium in 

5 her hair. 

6 And she was asymptomatic. And then, 

7 because of the uranium coming up, they started 

8 testing her well and the wells around her. So, 

9 she never had any symptoms at all, but there was 

10 a family that was a neighbor of hers, had very, 

11 very high levels of uranium. I think it was like 

12 28 times the underground limits. The numbers are 

13 in there. It also had arsenic and the radium 

14 isotopes in there at high levels. 

15 And the mother -– the family was a family 

16 of seven, with two parents and five kids. The 

17 youngest kid was three at the time that this was 

18 discovered, and the mother had been drinking this 

19 well water while she was pregnant, and the child 

20 had had it her entire life. 

21 So, this is the clinical scenario of the 

22 type of case you could never run the experiment 
101 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 on, because who would poison a pregnant mother, 

2 and who would do that to a young baby? But it 

3 happened naturally, and the area in question had 

4 never been touched by mining. 

5 And so, what apparently happened was they 

6 ran their well through an ore body, maybe a 

7 granite -- it's not said in the paper, but maybe 

8 granite with threads of uranium in it, from what 

9 I know by verbal communication from Mr. Oscar 

10 Paulson, who is the geologist that -- I can't 

11 speak to things like that, but he says there is 

12 that type of ore in that part of Connecticut. 

13 So anyway, it's the closest to a real 

14 scenario that's like your scenario that I've 

15 seen. It turns out the baby -- let's see. Six 

16 of the seven people were excreting excess uranium 

17 in their urine at the time that they were picked 

18 up. 

19 The only one who had anything at all that 

20 could be picked up, besides the excreted uranium, 

21 was the three year old. And the three year old 

22 did have proteinuria -- had the beta 
102 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 microglobulin anemia. 

2 Now, let me tell you a little bit about 

3 that protein that I can say as a physician that 

4 people don't commonly know. Where you commonly 

5 see this protein is in the diagnosis of picking 

6 up the very earliest stages of renal disease in a 

7 setting of diabetes mellitus. 

8 The protein is a protein that is in the 

9 blood and excreted out through the kidney, and if 

10 the renal tubular cell of the glomerelus are not 

11 working, they don't pick it up again and it leaks 

12 out. 

13 So, when you see it in diabetes, it means 

14 you are going to have a very nasty path and 

15 you're going to lose your kidney. But what 

16 people don't know is that in other settings, it 

17 doesn't necessarily mean that. It just means 

18 that in diabetes. 

19 And specifically on the uranium thing, 

20 what happened with this baby is within three 

21 months of being put on regular water that people 

22 recommended that he stop using the darn well 
103 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 water that was such a problem, the baby was never 

2 -- the three year old was never symptomatic, and 

3 her urinary function was -- it was never anything 

4 except the protein in the urine, and it had gone 

5 close enough back to the normal level that she 

6 was never monitored again; that her pediatrician 

7 just wrote her off. 

8 The reason why that's worth knowing is 

9 because in the context of not having any deaths 

10 from acute poisoning of uranium or from chronic 

11 poisoning of uranium by ingestion that we know 

12 of, over a very long period of time, you're also 

13 not talking about throwing people into renal 

14 failure that's a permanent renal failure. 

15 I would not have suspected that that baby 

16 would have tolerated that as well as it did. But 

17 it did, and I add that to your information as 

18 part of the context for the rest of the things. 

19 And I know you guys have a problem, and the 

20 problem is the problem common to all of our 

21 modern regulatory issues, and that somewhere, you 

22 have to find a balance between competing aims -- 
104 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 that you protect people, but you don't want it to 

2 cost so much money, it destroys stuff. And 

3 somewhere, you have to find the balance. 

4 And you have my sympathy and my pity, 

5 because I understand when you have things as 

6 complicated as this with as many people 

7 expressing opinions as we saw here, and I'm sure 

8 you've seen much, much, much more, finding the 

9 middle path is in there. But I thought that 

10 paper was something you should know about. 

11 MR. PEAKE: Excuse me. I have a question 

12 for you. 

13 DR. STANDLER: Yes? 

14 MR. PEAKE: I just want to get this 

15 right. If you could clarify, or if I could 

16 confirm what you -- are you saying that the 30 

17 milligrams per liter that we have in our drinking 

18 water regulations right now -- 

19 DR. STANDLER: Is a nice level. It's 

20 very conservative. 

21 (Simultaneous discussion) 

22 MR. PEAKE: You're saying that that 
105 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 shouldn't be applied -- 

2 DR. STANDLER: No. I ran a rough 

3 calculation, because my background is biophysics, 

4 so I'm from the type of people who run rough 

5 calculations, just to try to scale the thing. 

6 And I apparently applied more than I tended to 

7 apply. 

8 I was trying to get a feel for how much 

9 eight grams of uranium would have been, if it 

10 were in drinking water. And I was trying to get 

11 a feel for me, but I wrote it for you guys, too. 

12 So, it's a lightweight thing that you don't have 

13 to take as the level of quality of information 

14 that other people have given, but that I found 

15 helpful. 

16 It was that it would take a huge amount 

17 of water -- I was trying to compare the eight 

18 gram dose to the only other level I knew, which 

19 was the level that we use in the drinking -- as 

20 the drinking water standard. And so, it's 

21 enormously bigger than the drinking water 

22 standard, and that's the only thing I was trying 
106 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 to draw from that. 

2 I was not trying to push a specific 

3 number at you for any of your regulatory 

4 purposes, and I apologize for having been unclear 

5 about that. 

6 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

7 DR. STANDLER: Okay. 

8 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thanks. 

9 MR. MINTER: Dr. Standler, thank you. 

10 DR. STANDLER: Thank you. 

11 MR. MINTER: Before we ask Steven Brown 

12 to come back up for additional testimony, just to 

13 be equitable here, one last call for anyone this 

14 evening here who has not spoken, who would like 

15 to speak on the record. 

16 (No response heard) 

17 MR. MINTER: Okay. If you can -- Steven 

18 if you can come up, we'll call -- 

19 (Simultaneous discussion) 

20 MR. BROWN: Well, thank you again. And 

21 I'm just going to follow right on Dr. Standler's 

22 steam, as a matter of fact, in my testimony, 
107 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 which I've submitted. 

2 In closing, I would like to provide a few 

3 words about uranium toxicity. So, that's what 

4 I'm going to talk about, and it's a natural segue 

5 from what Dr. Standler was talking about. I 

6 don't think I need a microphone here, so I'm just 

7 going to talk from this position. 

8 Others more qualified than I, people like 

9 Dr. Standler at this public meeting are going to 

10 provide comments to address in detail the 

11 scientific consensus and understanding of the 

12 uranium toxicity as humans. But for me as a 

13 practicing uranium health physicist for most of 

14 my 40 years in industry, it's been my 

15 responsibility, my obligation to understand -- 

16 MR. MINTER: Steve, we're not hearing 

17 very well. 

18 MR. BROWN: Okay. Let's try this. Okay? 

19 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Yeah. 

20 MR. BROWN: All right, good? 

21 SPEAKER: Better. 

22 MR. BROWN: Okay. So again, as a 
108 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 practicing uranium health physicist for most of 

2 my 40 years in industry, it's been my 

3 responsibility and obligation to understand the 

4 most current science on the subject in the 

5 interest of protecting workers and the public 

6 from the potential hazards of the beneficial use 

7 of ionizing radiation. 

8 Page 4157 of the proposed rule making 

9 states, because radionuclides are human 

10 carcinogens, the main health risk averted would 

11 be cancer. This concern and its use for 

12 justification of the rulemaking is unfounded, at 

13 least in regards to naturally occurring uranium 

14 which is not known to be a carcinogen. 

15 The United States Public Health Service, 

16 agency for toxic substances and disease registry 

17 -- I think Dr. Standler made reference to this 

18 document earlier, has published the most 

19 comprehensive review available on uranium 

20 toxicity. And it's titled "The Toxicological 

21 Profile of Uranium, Latest Revision, 2013." 

22 Page 161 notes -- and again, this is the 
109 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 U.S. Public Health Service, and here's what they 

2 say. Page 161 notes the following with respect 

3 to carcinogenicity of orally ingested uranium. 

4 "No evidence linking oral exposure to uranium to 

5 human cancer has ever been found, although 

6 natural depleted or enriched uranium -- " that 

7 means uranium that has more of the naturally 

8 occurring uranium 235, which is required for 

9 fission -- I don't want to go there. I don't 

10 have the time. 

11 But in any case -- have not been 

12 evaluated in the cancer bioassay, there is a 

13 potential for the carcinogenicity of uranium 

14 since it emits primarily alpha radiation. 

15 Nevertheless, no evidence has been found to 

16 associate human exposure to uranium compounds in 

17 carcinogenesis. 

18 Also, and I have reference to an American 

19 Cancer Society web site here, and you can go 

20 there if you like -- it's in my notes. Although 

21 the American Cancer Society identifies several 

22 classes of, and specific radionuclides as 
110 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 carcinogens, uranium is not. 

2 However, similar to other heavy metals 

3 like lead, soluble forms of uranium can have 

4 toxic properties due to their chemical nature. 

5 We refer to it as chemotoxic, but not necessarily 

6 radiotoxic. Radiotoxic toxic because of its 

7 radiological properties -- primarily related to 

8 the potential for renal system injuries, as Dr. 

9 Standler has alluded to. 

10 Referring again to the U.S. Public Health 

11 Service Toxicological Profile of Uranium, page 

12 109. The issue of death related to oral uranium 

13 exposure is considered, "there are no reports of 

14 human deaths from oral exposure to uranium 

15 compounds. However, data from animal studies 

16 demonstrate the soluble uranium compounds at very 

17 high intake levels can be lethal to animals 

18 through the oral route -- excuse me -- for all 

19 durations of exposure. 

20 As a result of the animal studies on 

21 uranium ingestion that go back many, many years. 

22 When I was a young health physicist in the 1970s, 
111 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 some of these studies were already published. As 

2 a result of the animal studies on uranium 

3 ingestion that go back many, many years, workers 

4 in uranium recovery facilities potentially 

5 exposed to soluble forms of uranium have been 

6 regularly monitored to ensure no evidence of 

7 renal system effects. 

8 And as Dr. Standler alluded to, we 

9 routinely look for showings of glucose or protein 

10 albumin in the urine of sampled workers as 

11 indicators -- as bio indicators of a potential 

12 renal problem. There are no known cases -- I 

13 repeat, there are no known cases of renal 

14 injuries to workers as a result of occupational 

15 exposure to uranium. 

16 And again, I have with me a paper that 

17 isn't referenced here, but will be referenced in 

18 our written comments. It's a recent paper. It's 

19 in the health physics journal, which is probably 

20 the world's leading professional journal of the 

21 health physics profession. 

22 It's by some of America's leading uranium 
112 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 health physicists, Ron Kathren and Rich Burklin 

2 who I've known very well for many years, called 

3 "The Acute Chemical Toxicity of Uranium." It is 

4 literally a compendium of seventy years of 

5 studies, animal studies and human studies on the 

6 toxicology of uranium, and I would strongly 

7 recommend as a citizen of the United States, that 

8 EPA familiarize themselves with seventy years of 

9 science as they move forward with this 

10 rulemaking, if it all. 

11 And again, thank you for a second 

12 opportunity to close this meeting. (Laughter) 

13 MR. MINTER: Steven, thank you. It is 

14 about five of eight, and we are scheduled to 

15 close this hearing right at 8:00. So, we do have 

16 some time. If there is anyone else who has not 

17 spoken, this would be the time to do it. 

18 And if there are any other folks who have 

19 already spoken who would like to come up and use 

20 the balance of your time -- okay. 

21 (Discussion off the record) 

22 MR. PAULSON: Thank you. My name is 
113 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Oscar Paulson, O-S-C-A-R, P-A-U-L-S-O-N. And I 

2 am with Kennecott Uranium Company. I just wanted 

3 to complete my testimony. 

4 In my initial discussion, I talked about 

5 three papers published primarily by Dr. John 

6 Boice, and I talked about the first two. The 

7 third one is entitled "A Cohort Study of Uranium, 

8 Millers and Miners of Grants, New Mexico, 1979 - 

9 2005" in the Journal of Radiological Protection. 

10 This paper concludes, and I quote, "no 

11 statistically significant elevation at any cause 

12 of death was seen among the 904 non-miners 

13 employed at the Grants Uranium mill. Among 718 

14 mill workers with the greatest potential for 

15 exposure to uranium ore, no statistically 

16 significant increase in any cause of death of a 

17 priori interest was seen, i.e., cancers of the 

18 lung, kidney, liver or bone, lymphoma, non19 malignant respiratory disease or renal disease or 

20 liver disease. 

21 Although the population study was 

22 relatively small, 718 individuals, the follow-up 
114 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 was long, up to 50 years and complete. This 

2 paper examined, among other things, a cohort of 

3 718 uranium millers, and these are a maximally 

4 exposed group, because they are working with the 

5 material every day in the course of their work -- 

6 and concluded that there was no statistically 

7 significant increase in cancers of a priori 

8 interest. 

9 Now, this area that this study covered 

10 contained a number of licensed uranium recovery 

11 facilities, including the Blue Water, L-Bar, Home 

12 Stake/United Nuclear Partners, United Nuclear13 Church Rock and Ambrosia Lake Mills. This was an 

14 area with a large amount of uranium activity 

15 ongoing in. 

16 And again, they cannot see statistically 

17 significant increases of cancer, even though 

18 cancer is raised in the preamble to the 

19 rulemaking. 

20 Now, logically, uranium mill workers who 

21 work directly in the uranium processing facility 

22 are more likely to be exposed to uranium and its 
115 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 decay products than members of the general public 

2 living in the general area of such an operation. 

3 So, these people are at higher risk of exposure. 

4 The following paper, based on a study by 

5 the National Institute of Occupational Safety and 

6 Health, NIOSH, of a cohort of 1,484 uranium mill 

7 workers, and that's a large cohort, addresses 

8 uranium recovery mill workers who are allowed to 

9 receive higher occupational doses than members of 

10 the general public are, who are allowed to only 

11 receive limited doses from licensed operations 

12 under rules in the NRC 10 CFR 20. 

13 This paper is entitled "Mortality Among a 

14 Cohort of Uranium Mill Workers, An Update," by 

15 Lynn Pinkerton. And it was in "Occupational 

16 Environmental Medicine" in 2004. 

17 The paper concludes, and I quote, 

18 "mortality from all causes was less than expected 

19 among these mill workers, which is largely 

20 accounted for by fewer deaths from heart disease 

21 than expected. Mortality from all malignant 

22 neoplasms was also less than expected." 
116 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 Malignant neoplasms are cancer. 

2 This paper examines a cohort again, of 

3 1,484 uranium mill workers and comprised a group 

4 that sustained exposures higher than members of 

5 the general public, because they were radiation 

6 workers, and yet, showed both lower mortality for 

7 the group as a whole, and specifically, lower 

8 mortality from cancer than would be expected in 

9 the general population. 

10 So, these four studies, three Boice 

11 papers and three Boice cohorts and the fourth 

12 study of uranium mill workers clearly show that 

13 uranium recovery operations do not pose health 

14 risks due to cancer, either to people residing in 

15 their vicinity such as the residents of these 

16 counties, or to the workers employed at these 

17 facilities. 

18 The documented absence of risk shows that 

19 this rulemaking is unnecessary and should be 

20 withdrawn. Thank you. And this information is 

21 also included in the binder I provided. Do you 

22 have any questions? 
117 

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 

1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 

Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376 

Toll Free: 888-445-3376

1 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

2 MR. MINTER: Thank you. It is just past 

3 8:00, and before we officially conclude this 

4 hearing, Tony did prompt me one more time to see 

5 if there's anyone who has joined us who would 

6 like to go on the record for the first time this 

7 evening. 

8 (No response heard) 

9 MR. MINTER: Okay. If not, we would like 

10 to conclude this public hearing. We want to 

11 thank everyone for participating this evening. 

12 This hearing session is officially closed, and we 

13 will have another session tomorrow morning in 

14 this room from 9 to 12. Thank you very much. 

15 [Whereupon, at 8:01 p.m., the Public 

16 Hearing was adjourned.] 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22