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 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

15 Thursday, May 14, 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 EPA Panel: 

2 DOUGLAS MINTER, Panel Chair, Chief of Underground 

3 Injection Control Program, EPA, Region 8, 

4 Denver Office 

5 INGRID ROSENCRANTZ, EPA, Office of Radiation and 

6 Indoor Air, Washington, D.C. 

7 TOM PEAKE, EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor 

8 Air, Washington, D.C. 

9 

10 

11 

12 

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 M O R N I N G S E S S I O N 

2 C O N T E N T S 

3 PAGE 

4 INTRODUCTION - DOUGLAS MINTER 5 

5 INGRID ROSENCRANTZ 9 

6 RODNEY KNUDSON, Board Member, Powder River 12 

7 Basin Resource Council 

8 HELGA BULL, Executive Director of Douglas 16 

9 Area Chamber of Commerce 

10 GEORGE HARTMAN, Citizen and Taxpayer 18 

11 MARC ANDREEN, Owner, Twin Peaks Pump and 20 

12 Supply 

13 MIKE THOMAS, Vice-President, Regulatory and 22 

14 Public Affairs for Uranerz Energy 

15 Corporation and President, Wyoming Mining 

16 Association 

17 STEVE MUNDORF, Owner of Casper Well Products 26 

18 TOM SCARLETT, Green Bit Tool 28 

19 KATIE SWEENEY, General Counsel, National 29 

20 Mining Association 

21 

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 C O N T E N T S (Cont.) 

2 PAGE 

3 JOHN CASH, Vice-President, Regulatory Affairs 35 

4 for Ur-Energy 

5 LARRY REIMANN, Manager, Technical Services 42 

6 and SHEQ for Cameco Resources 

7 JIM CLAY, Senior Scientist, Cameco Resources 48 

8 BILL NOVOTNY, Johnson County Commissioner, 55 

9 representing Citizens of Johnson County 

10 JIM HICKS, Johnson County Commissioner, 58 

11 representing Citizens of Johnson County 

12 WILLIAM GORANSON, Chief Operating Officer 62 

13 and President, Uranerz Energy Corporation 

14 WAYNE HEILI, President, Uranium Producers of 68 

15 America 

16 ERIC NELSON, Casper Area Chamber of Commerce 75 

17 DONNA WICHERS, Board of Directors, Uranium 78 

18 One Americas 

19 BRAD SUTHERLAND, Citizen and Taxpayer 83 

20 GLENN CATCHPOLE, Chief Executive Officer and 85 

21 Director, Uranerz Energy Corporation 

22 JIM CLAY, Senior Scientist, Cameco Resources 88 
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 M O R N I N G S E S S I O N 

3 MR. MINTER: Good morning. Welcome to 

4 the folks that are attending for the first time. 

5 I know some of you are returning from last night. 

6 And if folks can get seated so we could get 

7 started? 

8 My name is Douglas Minter, M-I-N-T-E-R. 

9 I'm the Chief of the Underground Injection 

10 Control Program out of the EPA's Denver office. 

11 Thank you all for coming this morning. I will be 

12 presiding over the hearing today. 

13 And joining me on the panel up here are 

14 Ingrid Rosencrantz and Tom Peake. They're both 

15 from the Office of Radiation and Indoor Air at 

16 EPA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. And this 

17 hearing is now in session. 

18 We are here today to listen and receive 

19 your comments on EPA's proposed revisions to 

20 Health and Environmental Protection Standards for 

21 Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings, also known as 

22 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 192. 
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 EPA is proposing to revise this rule by 

2 adding an additional Subpart F to explicitly 

3 address groundwater protection at uranium in-situ 

4 recovery operations. 

5 EPA announced this proposed rule in the 

6 Federal Register on January 26th, 2015. The 

7 comment period started on January 26, 2015, and 

8 has been extended to May 27th, 2015. 

9 In a moment Ingrid will explain in more 

10 detail what -- what was proposed in the Notice; 

11 but before I turn it over to Ingrid, let me 

12 explain a bit about how today's hearing will 

13 work. 

14 This, as I said, is the second of two 

15 sessions. Our session this morning runs from 9 

16 to 12. And, in fact, we may be recessing as -- 

17 during that time, but we will be here the whole 

18 time to make sure that any folks that come in 

19 late today have a chance to -- to go on the 

20 record with their comments. 

21 If you have not, please make sure you've 

22 checked in at the registration desk. And that's 
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 even if you are not planning to speak today. 

2 I will call the scheduled speakers to the 

3 podium. When it is your turn to speak, please 

4 state your name, spelling your complete name for 

5 the court reporter, and your affiliation before 

6 you begin your testimony. 

7 Your comments will be transcribed and 

8 included in the record of comments on the 

9 proposed rule. In order to ensure everyone has 

10 the opportunity to speak and to ensure fairness, 

11 please limit your testimony to five minutes. We 

12 will signal to you when you have one minute left 

13 to speak with the device here in front of me. 

14 And when five minutes have passed, I will have to 

15 ask you to complete your testimony. 

16 If you have more to say, when your -- 

17 after your five minutes are up and you would like 

18 to speak again with information that is new and 

19 discrete from your previous testimony, and it is 

20 not a rebuttal of someone else's testimony, we 

21 are happy to let you speak again. Please sign up 

22 to speak again at the registration table. You 
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 will be called again after other speakers. 

2 After you finish your testimony, members 

3 of the panel may ask clarifying questions. We 

4 are not here today to answer questions about the 

5 proposed rule. If you have questions about the 

6 process, please find one of the EPA 

7 representatives after the hearing this morning. 

8 If you have written copies of your 

9 testimony or supporting documentation, please 

10 give a copy to our staff at the registration 

11 table. This will help -- be helpful as we 

12 prepare the transcript for these hearings. 

13 If you have additional comments you would 

14 like to make, you can submit those in writing. 

15 Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on May 27th, 

16 2015. 

17 Now let me assure you that EPA gives just 

18 as much consideration to comments we receive in 

19 writing as we do comments we receive at public 

20 hearings like this one. 

21 Instructions for submitting comments are 

22 included in a FAQ sheet at the registration 
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 table. You can pick up a copy at the table by 

2 the door. 

3 If you would like to testify but have not 

4 yet registered to do so, please sign up at the 

5 registration table in or outside this room. 

6 Now let me turn things over to Ingrid who 

7 will summarize the proposed rule for us. 

8 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. Welcome, 

9 everyone. I'm Ingrid Rosencrantz, and I am the 

10 Lead Rule Writer on this proposed rule. 

11 I'd like to say thanks to everyone for 

12 taking time out of your busy days to -- to come 

13 and participate in this hearing. And we're 

14 interested in getting everyone's comments and 

15 thoughts on this proposal. 

16 EPA is basically proposing to add an 

17 additional subpart, Subpart F, to 40 CFR 192 to 

18 address groundwater protection, restoration, and 

19 stability at in-situ recovery operations. This 

20 proposal, when finalized, will be implemented by 

21 NRC and NRC agreement states. And NRC and NRC 

22 agreement states will -- in response to the final 
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 rule -- develop their own sets of regulations in 

2 order to implement the standard that we're 

3 currently proposing. 

4 We are proposing -- specifically, we are 

5 proposing that groundwater be adequately 

6 characterized before operation begins, that after 

7 operations, the aquifer is restored to initial 

8 groundwater conditions, and that facilities 

9 ensure that post-restoration groundwater 

10 conditions remain stable. 

11 Specifically, we are proposing a 

12 groundwater protection standard, that the 

13 standard be set for a minimum of 13 constituents. 

14 And I'll read these constituents for you. 

15 Let's see. The list includes arsenic, 

16 barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, 

17 selenium, silver, nitrate as nitrogen, 

18 molybdenum, combined radium-226 and radium-228, 

19 total uranium, and gross alpha particle activity 

20 excluding radon and uranium. Basically the 

21 standard would be set at the existing MCL or 

22 background, whichever is higher. 
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 To implement the standard we propose 

2 monitoring requirements for all phases of 

3 operation -- before operations begin, during 

4 operations, during restoration, and after 

5 restoration to ensure stability. In addition, 

6 the proposal requires corrective action where 

7 necessary. 

8 Folks are probably familiar with the 

9 proposal in the Federal Register. If you would 

10 like to submit comments electronically, it's very 

11 easy to do. You can go to regulations.gov. 

12 That's regulations.gov. And I'll give you the 

13 docket number which you can use to submit your 

14 comments. Here we go. Let's see. The docket 

15 number is EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0788. So we would be 

16 interested in getting all your comments 

17 electronically. If you need that docket number, 

18 it's also on our website. 

19 So, thank you again for your 

20 participation, and I'll turn it back over to you. 

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

22 like to proceed with folks who have registered to 
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 speak on the record here, so I'm going to call 

2 Rodney Knudson up to the front here. 

3 And, Rodney, if you could spell your 

4 complete name and state who you're representing 

5 for the court reporter? Thank you. 

6 MR. KNUDSON: Yeah, my name is Rodney 

7 Knudson from Hulett, Wyoming. I am located 30 

8 miles from Oshoto. I represent the Powder River 

9 Basin Resource Council, but I am a board member 

10 of such. 

11 My background is -- is science teacher 

12 with a -- M.S.S. in physics and chemistry, a B.A. 

13 in zoology and so on. I took a course -- a class 

14 about 1980 in radiation and human health at 

15 Boulder, Colorado, lasted two weeks. I became 

16 interested in the uranium mining at that point 

17 and, of course, the Three Mile Island situation. 

18 So, and they were planning on doing a 

19 mill right down in Hulett using the water out of 

20 the Belle Fourche, I suspect. And so I was 

21 concerned, and I looked at the situation, and 

22 fortunately, the whole thing was shut down 
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 because of Three Mile Island. So we haven't had 

2 any activity out there for quite some time. 

3 Thank you for revisiting 40 CFR 192. I 

4 think that's long overdue. You have recognized 

5 the importance of proper background -- yeah, 

6 baseline. I guess they're equivalent. 

7 The problem with baseline background 

8 information is that the -- in so many cases the 

9 prospecting alone has created unrealistically 

10 high levels of uranium and other of those 13 

11 elements that you cited because of the oxidation 

12 of those elements. 

13 And so, if you're going to establish 

14 baseline, you can't be oxidizing the elements 

15 and then creating an unrealistic baseline which 

16 influences the awareness of whether you have an 

17 exclusion or not. 

18 Well, also while taking -- by emphasizing 

19 the stability of -- and I believe this is -- 

20 these are the two areas that are germane to your 

21 revision. And I understand how you are basing 

22 this revision on previous acts and so forth so 
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 that you're -- you're legally able to do this. 

2 Anyway, the stability is a problem 

3 because of the lixiviant survey was a lixiviant 

4 into the -- the ore body, this roll front and 

5 basically it removed the -- all the impediments 

6 of -- for the movement of the uranium and all 

7 these other elements because of the iron oxide is 

8 now gone, the pyrite. 

9 And so this creates a real problem for -- 

10 for stability in that these elements want to be 

11 -- once they're reduced with hydrogen sulfide and 

12 such, they want to be re-oxidized. And in an 

13 oxidized state many of these elements are more -- 

14 are put in solution. And so, I think as I see 

15 that this problem is addressed in your stability 

16 findings, but this is an ongoing -- this is going 

17 to be an ongoing problem. And I appreciate the 

18 fact that you're looking at almost 30 years of -- 

19 of follow up on this if the modeling, you know, 

20 doesn't account for that. 

21 But the -- what I read was -- doesn't 

22 account for all the spills and the pond leakages 
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 and so forth that are just as serious -- also 

2 serious. The deep -- the well which you have to 

3 drill more to get rid of some stuff that you 

4 don't ever want to see again, that is -- that 

5 turns out to be a problem because there are 

6 680,000 of these deep injection wells. 

7 So the assertion is made that the in-situ 

8 uranium mine is actually safer or environmentally 

9 benign. I -- I have found that a little hard to 

10 believe given that the aquifer is directly 

11 polluted and that -- which is what you tried to 

12 prevent in conventional mining before. So we 

13 have all the problems of -- of trying to clean up 

14 the -- the -- what's left. 

15 And my own personal feeling is that 

16 uranium -- it's a horror story from start to 

17 finish. We've had three major nuclear events -- 

18 maybe four. Hiroshima would be the first, and we 

19 have Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl, and now 

20 Fukushima. How -- when are we going to recognize 

21 the inherent dangers. We have no place to put 

22 this stuff. You know, 60 tons of highly nuclear 
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 waste, it can't go to Yucca Mountain. Anyway, 

2 this is all real relevant to your discussion, of 

3 course. 

4 Thank you. 

5 MR. MINTON: Rodney, could you spell your 

6 last name for the record? 

7 MR. KNUDSON: Yeah, K-N-U-D -- as in dog 

8 -- S-O-N. 

9 MR. MINTON: Thank you. 

10 MR. KNUDSON: Thank you. 

11 MR. MINTON: I'd like to call up our 

12 next-scheduled speaker, Helga Bull, if you could 

13 please come forward? And, Helga, if you could 

14 spell your full name for the court reporter and 

15 state who you represent today, please. 

16 MS. BULL: Helga, H-E-L-G-A, Bull, 

17 B-U-L-L, like the animal with the horns. Okay. 

18 My name is Helga Bull, and I'm the Executive 

19 Director of the Douglas Area Chamber of Commerce 

20 in Douglas, Wyoming and Converse County. Our 

21 Chamber has approximately 300 plus business 

22 members. 
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 I'm here to ask the EPA to consider the 

2 potential economic impact of delaying the 

3 restoration and reclamation of a site in our 

4 communities of Douglas and Glenrock in Converse 

5 County. 

6 Our uranium mines, Smith Ranch-Highland, 

7 is one of our major employers in the area and has 

8 contributed vastly to our tax base. I'm asking 

9 you to please take a scientific look at the local 

10 impact to our community. 

11 The tax base in 2014 that Cameco has paid 

12 goes towards supporting our education and county 

13 entities like the county library and hospital. 

14 And a small percentage of the tax base to other 

15 special districts like conservation and weed and 

16 pests. The financial impact on county government 

17 is still monitoring over well sites will 

18 certainly impact our community. 

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

20 up our next scheduled speaker, George Hartman, if 

21 you could please come up? And, George, if you 

22 could spell your name for the court reporter and 
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 let us know who you're representing today? Thank 

2 you. 

3 MR. HARTMAN: George Hartman, 

4 G-E-O-R-G-E, H-A-R-T-M-A-N. And I am not 

5 affiliated with anybody. 

6 Good morning, and welcome to Wyoming on 

7 this beautiful spring day. In my -- I have no 

8 affiliation with either a mining company or the 

9 government other than the fact that I get a 

10 Social Security check once a month. 

11 In my opinion this Notice of Proposed 

12 Rulemaking is a classical nothing looking for a 

13 problem. Solution mining has been recovering 

14 valuable metals and minerals for over four 

15 decades in at least three western states with no 

16 serious problem. 

17 Given the huge federal deficit, the very 

18 last thing this country needs is another federal 

19 agency adding to the regulatory efforts of the 

20 NRC and/or the state environmental quality 

21 agencies. This proposed rulemaking would just 

22 add another layer of oversight that is not needed 
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 giving the existing already implemented 

2 regulatory regulations which again has worked 

3 very well for over four decades -- 40 years. 

4 In my opinion this ridiculous proposal of 

5 a 30-year stabilization period for more than -- 

6 for 13 chemical constituents is completely out of 

7 the realm of reality. 

8 If this proposal is implemented, I will 

9 definitely invest in coal laboratories, energy 

10 laboratories, and may consider opening a chemical 

11 analytical laboratory myself. 

12 (Laughter.) 

13 However, I feel it would be short-lived 

14 because this proposal, if accepted, will drive 

15 these mining companies out of business. 

16 Another aspect to consider is how will 

17 these regulations be implemented with the 

18 existing in-situ mines? Will existing in-situ 

19 mines be grandfathered? Given these 

20 requirements, no prudent miner would initiate a 

21 solution mining getting this unreasonable burden. 

22 Thank you for this opportunity to 
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 comment. 

2 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

3 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

4 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: I'll take that. Thank 

5 you. Thank you very much. 

6 MR. MINTER: Okay. I'd like to call our 

7 next scheduled speaker up front, and that is Mike 

8 Thomas. 

9 I'm sorry. I apologize. Yeah, I spoke 

10 out of order here. I apologize. I should be 

11 following the list a little more carefully. 

12 Yes, Marc Anderson. Thank you. Mark, if 

13 you could spell your name for the court reporter 

14 and tell us who you're representing today? Thank 

15 you. 

16 MR. ANDREEN: It's Marc Andreen. Marc, 

17 M-A-R-C, Andreen, A-N-D-R-E-E-N. I am the owner 

18 of Twin Peaks Pump and Supply out of Douglas. 

19 We're a small local business. We sell a variety 

20 of supplies to the in-situ mining industry. Our 

21 sales to the in-situ mining industry make up 

22 roughly about 10 percent of our total sales and 
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 services. 

2 If the EPA burdens the mines with 

3 additional ground water monitoring period, there 

4 will honestly be additional associated costs that 

5 will make the in-situ mining unaffordable causing 

6 cutbacks or possibly closures. It won't just 

7 affect the people that work at the mines. There 

8 is a potential that we would have to reduce our 

9 work force as well. 

10 If you think about all the vendors for 

11 the in-situ industry and the companies that 

12 perform various services for them, there will be 

13 hundreds of jobs that will be lost in Wyoming 

14 with hardships affecting many families. 

15 If the EPA goes forward with the 

16 additional 30 years of groundwater monitoring, it 

17 could eventually affect the entire mining 

18 industry in Wyoming which would severely affect 

19 the rest of my business. If it would come to 

20 this, I would have to close my business. This 

21 means that everything I've worked for for the 

22 past 30 years will be gone. 
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 Thank you for allowing me to speak about 

2 how this could affect myself, my employees and my 

3 business. Thank you. 

4 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

5 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

6 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you very much. 

7 MR. MINTER: Okay. Our next scheduled 

8 speaker is Mike Thomas. 

9 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. 

10 MR. MINTER: Mike, if you could spell 

11 your full name for our court reporter and let us 

12 know who you're representing today at the 

13 hearing? Thank you. 

14 MR. THOMAS: Mike Thomas, M-I-K-E, 

15 T-H-O-M-A-S. Good morning, I'm Mike Thomas, and 

16 I'm the Vice-President of Regulatory and Public 

17 Affairs for Uranerz Energy Corporation and the 

18 current President of the Wyoming Mining 

19 Association. 

20 I'd like to thank the EPA for coming to 

21 Wyoming as well as the hearings in Nebraska and 

22 Texas and holding -- for holding these 
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 rulemakings in areas that will be directly 

2 affected by this proposed rule. 

3 In addition, I'd like to request that the 

4 EPA extend the current comment period another 90 

5 days or at least another 90 days to interpret all 

6 the information that is still out there in this 

7 voluminous rule. 

8 With Wyoming being the largest producer 

9 of uranium in the country, the uranium industry 

10 plays an important role in the lives of the 

11 people of Wyoming and the economy of the state. 

12 The industry employs approximately 500 people 

13 from at least seven counties, a significant 

14 number of jobs in the least populated state in 

15 the country. 

16 The employees' earnings as well as the 

17 taxes that are paid from the mining of uranium 

18 are used in supporting communities, supporting 

19 education and school construction, maintaining 

20 the state's water systems, building and repairing 

21 state highways and providing revenue for future 

22 generations. 
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 As you've already heard, there are many 

2 concerns with this proposed rulemaking. The 

3 legality of the proposed rule, the fact there are 

4 no quantifiable risks or documented occurrences 

5 to support this proposed rule for lack of 

6 consultation with state and local governments, 

7 for lack of any technical justification of data 

8 to support the proposed rule, the incorrect 

9 economic analysis, duplicative regulation, the 

10 use and citation of non-peer review papers, and 

11 the failure to acknowledge emerging science being 

12 carried out by the universities and national labs 

13 are examples as to why this proposed rulemaking 

14 needs to be withdrawn. 

15 I further suggest that if the EPA has 

16 questions or concerns with the uranium industry, 

17 then EPA should work with the entities that 

18 regulate the industry -- the NRC and the state 

19 governments. The amount of data available at 

20 these agencies, along with their experience and 

21 knowledge of the industry demonstrates that the 

22 health and safety of the public and environment 
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 is being protected. 

2 Additionally, the EPA should acknowledge 

3 and possibly fund the ongoing research that is 

4 being conducted by universities and national 

5 labs. As demonstrated by the $1.6 research 

6 funding by the Wyoming state legislature and to 

7 the University of Wyoming for uranium research, 

8 the state and the industry are looking at ways to 

9 further improve groundwater restoration practices 

10 and timing. 

11 Continued research by professors such as 

12 Dr. Tom Johnson at Carlyle State University and 

13 other colleagues into subjects such as natural 

14 attenuation and improved restoration techniques 

15 and practices will only serve to benefit the 

16 public, environment, and the domestic uranium 

17 industry. 

18 A secure and thriving domestic uranium 

19 industry is needed in this country to fuel our 

20 reactors to maintain a source of clean, reliable, 

21 and an inexpensive base load power. 

22 If this proposed rulemaking proceeds, 
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 then our domestic uranium is placed at risk. 

2 Thank you. 

3 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

4 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you very much. 

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

6 scheduled speaker, and that is Steve Mundorf -- 

7 if you could come forward? 

8 Steve, if you could spell your name for 

9 the court reporter and let us know who you're 

10 representing today? Thank you. 

11 MR. MUNDORF: Good morning. I'm Steve 

12 Mundorf, S-T-E-V-E, M-U-N-D-O-R-F. I am one of 

13 the owners of Casper Well Products. We are a 

14 small family-owned business that provides 

15 drilling supplies to the mining and water well 

16 industries. Approximately 75 percent of our 

17 business is with the uranium mines here in this 

18 region. 

19 I've been with the company for 37 years 

20 and have seen most of the ups and downs that this 

21 industry has experienced. Right now we are in a 

22 bit of a down time with the uranium price 
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 remaining at or below production cost. 

2 Therefore, drilling and well installation budgets 

3 have been cut significantly which hits our 

4 business hard. 

5 So, for the EPA to impose unnecessary and 

6 unfounded regulations at a time when these 

7 companies are just trying to survive until the 

8 market improves is simply unacceptable. 

9 You know, this -- this could be a time 

10 when the federal government could step up and 

11 help these companies become more competitive in 

12 the worldwide market and not try to put us all 

13 out of business. You know, we need jobs in this 

14 country. We don't need more rules that adversely 

15 affect thousands of people. 

16 I've been working with these mining 

17 companies for the past 30 plus years, and to my 

18 knowledge, there have been no documented problems 

19 with anyone's groundwater in regards to these in20 situ mining operations. If there were, I'd be 

21 the first to step up and say, yeah, maybe we do 

22 need tougher standards. But if it isn't broken, 
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 why are we trying to fix it? 

2 Thank you for your time. 

3 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

4 I'd like to call up our next scheduled 

5 speaker, and that's Tom Scarlett. If you could 

6 come forward, please? 

7 MR. SCARLETT: Thank you. 

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

9 full name for our court reporter this morning, 

10 and state who you're representing today in our 

11 hearing? 

12 MR. SCARLETT: Thank you. Tom Scarlett, 

13 T-O-M, S-C-A-R-L-E-T-T. Good morning, I'm Tom 

14 Scarlett with Green Bit Tool. We're a family15 owned joint supply company that services the 

16 Rocky Mountain Region. About 70 percent of our 

17 business is dealing with the uranium industry. 

18 A rule like this, and the impact it could 

19 have on the mining and uranium mining industry 

20 would directly affect me and my employees. We'd 

21 probably have to slash our employees by about 75 

22 percent which would be really hard to do, but it 
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 might be something that we would have to do if 

2 this rule goes through. 

3 Not only would it affect our employees, 

4 it would also affect all the companies and 

5 manufacturers around the United States that we 

6 deal with from Pennsylvania to Texas to Colorado, 

7 California, all -- basically all 50 states we 

8 deal with in buying products and to service the 

9 mining industry. 

10 I would hope that the EPA would consider 

11 all the comments that are being made and use very 

12 good science before making such a -- you know, a 

13 rule with such a huge impact. Thank you. 

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

15 up our next scheduled speaker, Katie Sweeney. 

16 Thank you. And, Katie, if you could spell your 

17 full name for our court reporter this morning and 

18 state who you're representing? Thank you. 

19 MS. SWEENEY: Katie Sweeney, K-A-T-I-E, 

20 S-W-E-E-N-E-Y. Good morning. My name is Katie 

21 Sweeney. I am General Counsel of the National 

22 Mining Association which is a national trade 
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 association representing the producers of most of 

2 America's coal, metals, including uranium, 

3 industrial and agricultural minerals. NMA's 

4 members include producers of domestic uranium as 

5 well as companies who have exploration projects 

6 or pending applications for development of 

7 domestic uranium mining projects. 

8 What I'd like to focus on today -- since 

9 I did talk a lot about the lack of risk when at 

10 the D.C. hearing -- are the recommendations of 

11 the EPA's Science Advisory Board Radiation 

12 Advisory Committee and whether those 

13 recommendations were followed as part of this 

14 rulemaking process. 

15 So, in the development of the rulemaking, 

16 EPA definitely did engage with the Science 

17 Advisory Board which is a Congressionaly 

18 established independent advisory board to obtain 

19 advice regarding the complex scientific and 

20 technical issues related to groundwater 

21 protection at ISR sites. And specifically, EPA 

22 reached out to folks that actually specialize in 
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 radiation issues, so they reached out to the 

2 Science Advisory Board's Radiation Advisory 

3 Committee. 

4 And so the committee reviewed EPA's draft 

5 proposal -- an early version of the proposal -- 

6 and the technical basis for the -- I guess they 

7 were actually reviewing kind of the technical 

8 reports that were the basis of the rule; and they 

9 submitted their report to EPA in February of 

10 2012. 

11 And the proposed rule does note this, and 

12 it says that, you know, the EPA received the RAC 

13 recommendations and addressed each recommendation 

14 and updated its draft report as part of the 

15 technical background information. 

16 The proposal does go on to summarize some 

17 of the recommendations of the Radiation Advisory 

18 Committee, but noticeably missing from the list 

19 of recommendations are those related to 

20 establishment of post closure monitoring period 

21 and what that should look like. 

22 So, some of the specific recommendations 
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 of the Science Advisory Board that weren't 

2 reflected in the proposed rule are that EPA 

3 continue to seek out and collate data sets of 

4 sufficient scope and quality to provide 

5 information relevant for setting the standards 

6 under consideration. Such data sets, they noted, 

7 were available from existing and former sites 

8 during the baseline evaluation operation and 

9 restoration stages and they pointed to different 

10 examples available data including the USGS study 

11 on ISO mining in Texas. 

12 The SAB noted that the existing data sets 

13 could be used to demonstrate use of 

14 hydrogeochemical modeling for predicting behavior 

15 of systems during operation, restoration, and 

16 post restoration. 

17 They also pointed to EPA's own case 

18 studies from a technical background document, 

19 Attachments B and C to the S. Cohen and 

20 Associates report. They noted that those would 

21 be pertinent to discussions in the -- on the use 

22 of competence levels for determining if 
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 restoration goals had been achieved. And they 

2 also noted that a uniform database could be 

3 prepared from the collected site data that we use 

4 to characterize the baseline operation, 

5 restoration, and post restoration conditions. 

6 Data from assisting facilities could be 

7 used to propose a technical, reliable time frame 

8 for post closure monitoring. And this is a case 

9 in which hydrogeochemical modeling can be a 

10 valuable tool for predicting how long a system 

11 will take to return to baseline conditions. 

12 So, those were some of the SAB 

13 recommendations on the existing data sets that 

14 they advised EPA to look at. 

15 Our EPA responded in June of 2012. And 

16 for post mining and restoration monitoring they 

17 summarized the SAB recommendations as follows: 

18 The first recommendation that summarizes combine 

19 the extensive, existing data sets with knowledge 

20 of constituent interactions in the black water 

21 system to model post mining approach to 

22 stability. EPA's response in the 2012 document 
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 is EPA would encourage applying this type of 

2 site-specific modeling during the licensing 

3 process, and EPA agrees that data on the 

4 effectiveness of restoration and the factor 

5 influencing it would be useful. 

6 Another recommendation that EPA 

7 summarized of the SAB is discuss implications of 

8 data presented in the tables in the attachments 

9 to the draft technical report. So that was the 

10 S. Cohen Report. And EPA responded that they are 

11 factoring data from field situations into a 

12 technical analysis. 

13 I have went back and looked at -- tried 

14 to compare the two technical analysis, the 2014 

15 version and the 2011 one I think it was. I 

16 didn't really see much difference, and I did not 

17 see EPA directly addressing the recommendations 

18 of the Science Advisory Board on those post19 monitoring time frames and how the data that is -

20 - was available at that time could be useful in 

21 doing so. So, I think that's something that if 

22 that happened, it's missing from the record and 
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 the docket. 

2 And I think that since that time there's 

3 even more data that's become available and 

4 useful, and I think EPA should consider that data 

5 and -- that's now available and postpone the 

6 rulemaking or put it on hold just for a while 

7 while they consider that data. And I think more 

8 people are going to talk about data later today. 

9 Thank you. 

10 MR. MINTER: Thank you. Now I'd like to 

11 call our next scheduled speaker, John Cash, if 

12 you could come forward. 

13 MR. CASH: Thank you. 

14 MR. MINTER: John, if you could spell 

15 your full name for our court reporter this 

16 morning, and let us know who you're representing 

17 at the hearing. 

18 MR. CASH: John Cash, J-O-H-N, C-A-S-H. 

19 Good morning. My name is John Cash. I'm the 

20 Vice-President of Regulatory Affairs for Ur21 Energy. I'd like to thank the EPA for coming to 

22 Casper and holding these hearing so you can hear 
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 from the people who are most affected by the 

2 proposed regulation. 

3 Ur Energy has 81 employees and numerous 

4 full-time contractors and vendors who depend on 

5 uranium production as their source of income. 

6 I'd like to first focus on two 

7 significant issues and then come back around to 

8 some additional less important issues; but the 

9 two things I'd like to focus on are the 

10 hydrologic model that was presented in the 

11 rulemaking and also the very important matter of 

12 jurisdiction. 

13 The draft hydrologic model presented in 

14 the draft regs is used in part to justify the 

15 rulemaking. Unfortunately, the model relies on 

16 MODFLOW and MT3DMS which does not adequately 

17 consider quantitative reactive transport. We 

18 recommend that the MODFLOW model be used in 

19 conjunction with PHREEQC which is an advanced 

20 thermodynamically based geochemical computer 

21 program recognized by government agencies. 

22 Generally, the model and associated 
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 health risk assessments are based on ultra 

2 conservative numbers. When ultra conservative 

3 numbers are multiplied by other ultra 

4 conservative numbers, the result is unrealistic. 

5 For example, the placement of receptor points, 

6 dispersivity, storativity, natural gradient and 

7 diffusion are important considerations in 

8 groundwater modeling. In several instances the 

9 modeler used factors that are one to two orders 

10 of magnitude more conservative than what is 

11 actually present at average in-situ facilities. 

12 For example, the hydrologic gradient used 

13 in the model is .1 feet per foot; however, Table 

14 2.1 of the model states that the regional 

15 gradients range from .001 to .01. It is unclear 

16 why the modeler elected to use a gradient that is 

17 one to two orders of magnitude greater than what 

18 they concede as the normal range of gradients. 

19 We request that the draft model be rerun 

20 using factors that realistically represent in21 situ facilities. 

22 Finally, in most -- or finally and most 
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 importantly, we believe that the EPA has exceeded 

2 its authority under UMTRCA by proposing rules to 

3 regulate groundwater in in-situ facilities. 

4 UMTRICA adopts the definition of by-product 

5 material from the Atomic Energy Act, the relevant 

6 definition of which is the tailings or waste 

7 produced by the extraction or concentration of 

8 uranium or thorium from any ore process primarily 

9 for its source material content. 

10 Significantly, in 1979 as part of its 

11 regulations implementing UMTRCA, NRC extended the 

12 definition of by-product material to mean the 

13 tailings or waste produced by the extraction or 

14 concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore 

15 processed primarily for its source material 

16 content, including discrete surface waste 

17 resulting from uranium solution extraction 

18 processes. 

19 Underground ore bodies depleted by 

20 solution extraction operations do not constitute 

21 by-product material within this definition. And 

22 that's in 44 Fed Reg of 50012. The Preamble to 
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 the 1979 regulations state that the NRC determine 

2 that the definition of Section 11 from by-product 

3 material includes the above-ground wastes from 

4 in-situ extraction operations. 

5 EPA also recognized the limit of NRC 

6 jurisdiction to above-ground waste associated 

7 with ISR operations in its technical resource 

8 document entitled Extraction and Beneficiation of 

9 Ores and Minerals in which it stated that 

10 although the NRC has promulgated radiation 

11 protection standards that regulate active and 

12 inactive uranium milling sites, the NRC has no 

13 regulatory authority over uranium mines except 

14 the above-ground activities of solution mines. 

15 The term tailings means the remaining 

16 portion of a metal-bearing ore after some or all 

17 of the metal such as uranium has been extracted. 

18 We contend that ISR operations do not generate 

19 tailings. The only remaining portion of ore 

20 after uranium has been extracted in an ISR 

21 operation is the uranium or body subjected to in22 situ leaching which expressly is excluded from 
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 regulation under UMTRCA and RCRA about CPA's 

2 [sic] regulatory authority under UMTRCA 206 is 

3 limited to tailings and waste. 

4 With regard to waste, EPA's assertion 

5 that RCRA's hazardous waste framework is directly 

6 applicable to this situation is fundamentally 

7 flawed. The process of injecting lixiviant and 

8 restoration fluids into the ore body is an in9 situ industry industrial mineral recovery 

10 process. It does not involve an active disposal; 

11 therefore, neither lixiviant nor restoration 

12 fluids are waste which means they are not uranium 

13 by-product material, and they are not subject to 

14 UMTRCA. 

15 I'll flip back over and talk about a few 

16 other more minor concerns that we have with 

17 regard to the draft rule. First of all, we feel 

18 that the EPA has failed to accurately consider 

19 the toxicity and cancer risks of the 

20 radionuclides. And you've heard some about that 

21 last night. 

22 The economic model fails to accurately 
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 consider the cost of extended stability 

2 monitoring. The EPA has failed to follow the 

3 Science Advisory Board's recommendations. 

4 There's been a failure to consider the potential 

5 risks related to post mining water quality. In 

6 fact, the EPA concedes that a risk could not be 

7 determined. The failure to consider readily 

8 available post restoration groundwater gradient 

9 water quality data held by states and the NRC, we 

10 applaud the use of data collected by USGS, but 

11 this data is just the tip of the iceberg. 

12 The concerns I have presented today will 

13 be further developed and presented in writing 

14 prior to the public comment deadline. Thank you 

15 for your time and consideration. 

16 MR. MINTER: Thank you, John. 

17 I'd like to call our next scheduled 

18 speaker to the front. That is Larry Reimann. 

19 Larry, if you could spell your complete 

20 name for our court reporter this morning and 

21 state who you're representing at our hearing. 

22 MR. REIMANN: Okay. 
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 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

2 MR. REIMANN: My name is -- excuse me. 

3 My name is Larry Reimann, L-A-R-R-Y, 

4 R-E-I-M-A-N-N; and I'm representing Chemical 

5 Resources. 

6 Good morning. My name is Larry Reimann. 

7 I'm the Manager of Technical Services and SHEQ 

8 for Cameco Resources in Casper, Wyoming. I'd 

9 like to thank EPA for having these hearings in 

10 Casper and for listening to the concerns of 

11 stakeholders in Wyoming. 

12 The majority of my comments will be on 

13 the economic justification for the rulemaking and 

14 express Chemical Resources' concerns with the 

15 EPA's analysis. 

16 EPA is required, under the Regulatory 

17 Flexibility Act, to look the costs and the 

18 benefits of implementing new rules. Executive 

19 Order 13563 specifically goes farther and says to 

20 quantify anticipated benefits and costs of 

21 proposed rulemakings as accurately as possible, 

22 using the best available techniques and assure 
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 that any scientific and technological information 

2 or processes are used to support their regulatory 

3 actions are objective. 

4 In fact, a full cost benefit analysis is 

5 a prudent step that should be completed by a 

6 responsible decision maker before making 

7 decisions that will affect government, a company, 

8 or a personal life. The economic analysis 

9 attempted to look at small business aspects of 

10 the rules, but because we are a subsidiary of a 

11 large company, the economic effects to our 

12 business are minimized by the Agency. 

13 Important entities that the EPA ignored 

14 in the economic evaluation are the small 

15 suppliers and contractors that support our 

16 ongoing businesses and the rural county 

17 governments that receive tax revenue from our 

18 projects. 

19 Make no mistake, the 40 CFR Program 192 

20 rules are going to have a major effect on the 

21 U.S. uranium extraction industry, its employees, 

22 the businesses that provide goods and services to 
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 the industry, and local communities where the 

2 industry is active. 

3 EPA, therefore, has a responsibility to 

4 ensure that the concerns of the various 

5 stakeholders are not just considered but analyzed 

6 and weighted in detail. 

7 EPA, in the supplementary information 

8 section in the preamble of the rulemaking, asks 

9 three important questions. What are the impacts 

10 to groundwater? What are the benefits of 

11 avoiding impacts to groundwater? And what are 

12 the cost impacts? 

13 These provide a workable framework for 

14 what the cost-benefit evaluation of the 

15 rulemaking was supposed to do. Unfortunately the 

16 analysis that is the basis for the rulemaking 

17 falls short of answering these important 

18 questions. 

19 EPA summarizes in the economic analysis 

20 in conclusion sections of the proposed rules, but 

21 to fully understand how the analysis was 

22 conducted, the basis document had to be carefully 
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 reviewed. 

2 EPA's economic basis document is a long, 

3 technical report. And after carefully reviewing 

4 it, there are significant and readily apparent 

5 deficiencies in it. I do not have time to 

6 discuss all the items that require further 

7 review. Those will be discussed in my -- in our 

8 written comments. 

9 However, I would like to briefly 

10 illustrate what appear to be major deficiencies 

11 in the economic analysis. There's a lack of 

12 site-specific research and data to support the 

13 conclusions. And there's a failure to 

14 characterize the benefits of the rulemaking. 

15 In Table 2's summary of the cost benefits 

16 of 40 CFR Part 192, Subpart F of options, the EPA 

17 states that the estimated -- the EPA states the 

18 estimated costs of the rulemaking but cannot 

19 quantify the net benefits of the rulemaking. 

20 This is a significant gap. Even a fundamental 

21 flaw in the analysis -- how does EPA purport to 

22 complete an economic analysis without quantifying 
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 the benefits? 

2 Data errors, missing data, and a 

3 misunderstanding of the uranium mining industry 

4 which leads to a suspect and wildly inaccurate 

5 analysis of the cost impacts of the rulemaking 

6 are also a problem with this analysis. 

7 What's required to improve the rulemaking 

8 effort? The review of 40 CFR 192 economic 

9 assumptions shows that more data is required to 

10 facilitate an effective and informed rulemaking 

11 by EPA. The good news is that the type of 

12 research that is required is currently being 

13 conducted at Cameco Resources' Smith Ranch14 Highland Mine by some of the most capable 

15 scientists in the country. My colleague, Dr. 

16 Clay, will be talking about the research 

17 activities being conducted at Smith Ranch in his 

18 testimony today. The type of research that is 

19 being conducted at Smith Ranch provides the 

20 information that is desperately needed by EPA to 

21 properly conduct the required economic analysis 

22 for this major rulemaking. 
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 To summarize, a meaningful cost-benefit 

2 analysis for any rulemaking cannot be completed 

3 without sufficient and accurate input data. EPA 

4 repeatedly and readily admits the shortcomings in 

5 the economic analysis that underpins this 

6 rulemaking exercise. 

7 Cameco Resources respectfully request 

8 that EPA delay the proposed rule until EPA 

9 carries out a proper economic analysis that 

10 includes collecting the available data and 

11 identifying data gaps where research is required 

12 to support regulatory efforts. EPA has a 

13 responsibility to provide careful fundamental 

14 analysis that befits a rule that potentially has 

15 such a significant impact. 

16 Thank you on behalf of Cameco Resources 

17 for hearing my testimony today. 

18 MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 

19 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

20 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Larry. 

21 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

22 MR. MINTER: I'd like to call off up our 
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 next scheduled speaker. Jim Clay, if you could 

2 come forward? 

3 Jim, if you could spell your full name 

4 and state who you're representing today for our 

5 court reporter? Thank you. 

6 MR. CLAY: My name is Jim Clay, J-I-M, 

7 last name C-L-A-Y. And I work for Cameco 

8 Resources where I'm a Senior Scientist. We run 

9 the largest in-situ recovery mine in the United 

10 States in Converse County. 

11 Over the past few years Cameco Resources 

12 has hosted a number of scientific projects to 

13 address issues of groundwater restoration, some 

14 of which continue in progress to this day and 

15 some more of which will begin in the future. 

16 I'm here today to provide you an overview 

17 of this matter as well as the work that must be 

18 taken into account in the proposed EPA 

19 rulemaking. 

20 To begin with, it is important to bear in 

21 mind that the groundwater in the ore zone of in22 situ mines is not potable before mining begins. 
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 I know you folks are aware of that. I saw it in 

2 the document. 

3 The real question is what happens down 

4 gradient. That is to say downstream if you're 

5 not an expert at hydrology of a restored zone. 

6 Whether the restored zone itself -- the restored 

7 zone stability matters to the extent that the 

8 groundwater there remains clean enough to ensure 

9 downgrading aquifers are not compromised. 

10 The proposed regulation requires that all 

11 wells, injectors and producers in addition to 

12 monitoring wells, be available for sampling. It 

13 doesn't mean that it's going to require that they 

14 all be sampled, but it does have a statement in 

15 there that they all be available for sampling. 

16 This is despite the lack of mobility of 

17 uranium and radium that is evident from the 

18 monitor well data. And the recent scientific 

19 research at Smith Ranch-Highland, an operation 

20 that's been in place for 27 years -- based on our 

21 extensive experience in this regard, effective 

22 monitoring should only be selected down gradient 
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 of the -- of the restored zone. 

2 The proposed stability requirement within 

3 a restored zone is, therefore, needlessly harsh 

4 given the evidence indicating the uranium 

5 mobility is very low at Smith Ranch. 

6 Incidentally, there's peer review publications 

7 that are in the works. Whether they get through 

8 peer review, of course, I don't know until the 

9 public -- the editors of these journals pass 

10 judgment; but I think some of them will. 

11 Now, having set the table, I want to 

12 discuss the studies that are currently underway 

13 at Smith Ranch. Work is being done by scientists 

14 from the United States Geological Survey, Los 

15 Alamos National Laboratories, the University of 

16 Wyoming, Colorado State University, and other 

17 leading institutions. In fact, the United States 

18 Environmental Protection Agency provided some of 

19 the funding for these studies. 

20 Cameco was provided with logistical 

21 support and some financial backing; however -- I 

22 want to be clear about this -- there is complete 
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 independence for research for these people. When 

2 I proposed to management years ago that we have 

3 this program, I told them the researchers are 

4 going to get what they get, and we'll have to 

5 live with it. 

6 One peer-reviewed scientific publication 

7 based on research at Smith Ranch-Highland came 

8 out in October of 2014. Another was submitted 

9 for peer review last week. In addition, research 

10 projects are being conducted by a variety of 

11 institutions that include the following topics: 

12 natural attenuation of uranium down gradient. 

13 Researchers from Los Alamos National 

14 Laboratories, the University of California at 

15 Berkeley and Stanford University have made 

16 efforts in this regard. 

17 Ways to minimize uranium concentrations 

18 in restored zones after mining. The United 

19 States Geological Survey, Stanford University, 

20 Los Alamos National Laboratory are working on 

21 that project. 

22 Improvements in bio-stimulation 
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 techniques for removing uranium from groundwater, 

2 the University of Wyoming. 

3 Sophisticated multi tracer studies have 

4 been conducted at SRA at Smith Ranch-Highland to 

5 examine the efficiency of hydraulics flow through 

6 mine units, Los Alamos National Laboratories. 

7 Laboratory column studies using core and 

8 water samples taken from Smith Ranch are being 

9 used to calibrate and construct improved reactive 

10 transport models for predicting uranium migration 

11 down gradient, the South Dakota School of Mines 

12 and Technology; and Stoller Newport News Nuclear 

13 Researchers are doing that work. 

14 Field natural attenuation studies using 

15 push-pull injections withdrawals of lixiviant 

16 from unmined aquifer have been undertaken to 

17 engage in the field how much dissolved uranium is 

18 immobilized by interactions with aquifer solids, 

19 Los Alamos National Laboratory is doing this 

20 work. It is being partially funded by the 

21 Environmental Protection Agency. 

22 Studies of the genesis of uranium roll-
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 fronts in the Powder River Basin are being done 

2 by researchers from Colorado State University and 

3 the United States Geological Survey. 

4 Synchrotron radiation work to investigate 

5 the characterization of core mineralogy is being 

6 done at the Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon by 

7 researchers from the University of Saskatchewan. 

8 Efforts to characterize the microbes and 

9 remove uranium from groundwater are being 

10 conducted using core samples and water samples 

11 from the Smith Ranch-Highland mine. This work 

12 includes DNA and phospholipid fatty acid 

13 analyses; and the work is being done by 

14 researchers from the University of Wyoming, the 

15 United States Geological Survey, Colorado State 

16 University, and Lawrence Berkeley National 

17 Laboratory. 

18 An assessment of the health risk at the 

19 site of an ISR mine both before mining occurs and 

20 after restoration and reclamation activities are 

21 complete is being done by Colorado State 

22 University. 
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 With respect to the health assessment, it 

2 is of particular interest because the EPA stated 

3 on page 87 of the proposed regulation as follows: 

4 We anticipate the objection that the presence of 

5 uranium deposits typically results in groundwater 

6 and poor quality is not a pristine source of 

7 drinking water. We recognize this is often the 

8 case, and -- 

9 (Warning beeper sounded.) 

10 MR. CLAY: -- water is affected by the 

11 mineralized water. We do not, however, see this 

12 as a reason to allow the groundwater to be 

13 further degraded. We need to have a discussion 

14 about what degraded means. 

15 I'll have more in my written testimony. 

16 Thank you for listening to me. I appreciate it. 

17 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

18 MR. CLAY: I'll give you some comments 

19 that are in writing, too. 

20 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

21 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Jim. 

22 I would like to call up our next 
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 scheduled speaker. Bill Novotny, if you'd come 

2 forward? 

3 MR. NOVOTNY: Thank you. 

4 MR. MINTER: Bill, if you could spell 

5 your full name for our court reporter this 

6 morning and let us know who you're representing 

7 at the hearing today? Thank you. 

8 MR. NOVOTNY: Bill, B-I-L-L, Novotny, 

9 N-O-V-O-T-N-Y. I'm a Johnson County 

10 Commissioner, so I'm here on behalf of the 

11 residents of Johnson County. 

12 I want to thank the EPA for coming to 

13 Wyoming and for giving us this opportunity to 

14 testify at this field hearing. I'm going to 

15 speak directly to the impacts of this rulemaking 

16 on Johnson County. And our county will also be 

17 providing written comments. 

18 I would ask that the EPA withdraw this 

19 rule. 

20 There are three operating uranium mines 

21 in Johnson County. The economic impact on this 

22 decision would be very disastrous to our county. 
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 On average, each of those three uranium mines 

2 contribute $719,000 in property taxes to Johnson 

3 County. Additionally, about $2,500 in motor 

4 vehicle registration fees. 

5 Johnson County has a valuation of over 

6 $857 million. Of that 16 million is represented 

7 by the uranium industry. While that is only 2 

8 percent of our industry -- of our county's 

9 valuation, it continues to grow. 

10 Our assessor has just released the 2015 

11 assessment of taxes, and the structural value of 

12 those three mines to our county is over $52 

13 million. That is hard assets invested in our 

14 county that this rule puts in jeopardy. 

15 There would be a tremendous loss of jobs 

16 directly and indirectly in my county if this rule 

17 is allowed to proceed, but more importantly, 

18 Johnson County is the guarantor of a $20 million 

19 industrial revenue bond with the State of 

20 Wyoming. Should this rule be allowed to 

21 continue, you would jeopardize the production 

22 that would guaranty that bond and put our good 
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 faith and credit at risk. 

2 Last week I had the opportunity to 

3 question the Region 8 Administrator about this 

4 proposed rulemaking at the Wyoming County 

5 Commissioners Association. I specifically asked 

6 him for the justification and rationale of this 

7 rulemaking, and he could not answer. 

8 Again, Wyoming is making positive steps 

9 to protect our environment through regulation 

10 through our Department of Environmental Quality. 

11 I view this as an overreach by Washington and the 

12 EPA. It's part of a radical environmental agenda 

13 to control the State of Wyoming. You put the 

14 national security of our country at risk by 

15 hampering our nuclear industry and our ability to 

16 produce power; but most importantly, it's going 

17 to be a job killer in Johnson County. 

18 I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

19 before you, and I look forward to the additional 

20 comments that we will provide to the EPA. Thank 

21 you. 

22 MR. MINTER: Thank you. I'd like to call 
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 up our next scheduled speaker. Jim Hicks, if you 

2 could please come forward? Jim, if you could 

3 state your complete name for the court reporter 

4 this morning and let us know who you're 

5 representing? Thank you. 

6 MR. HICKS: My name is Jim Hicks. That's 

7 J-I-M, H-I-C-K-S. I'm also a Commissioner in 

8 Johnson County and represent the citizens of 

9 Johnson County who number about 4,000 -- 4,100. 

10 Excuse me, about 8,500. 

11 Johnson County covers about 4,100 square 

12 miles. And we have over 600 miles of county 

13 roads. And those primarily -- those roads 

14 provide service to these many federal lands. A 

15 great deal of our county is administered by the 

16 Bureau of Land Management. So we have a lot of 

17 expense in doing that. That's for recreation so 

18 we can utilize it for grazing but also for 

19 mineral. And we have all that responsibility and 

20 financial burden from that to handle. It's hard 

21 to do without a tax base. 

22 And what I think this rule does is really 
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 put some of that in jeopardy, and I'm worried 

2 about it. 

3 I've lived here in northeast Wyoming for 

4 80 years and -- and I've been active in public 

5 service as a city councilman and mayor, and now a 

6 county commissioner over many years. I've seen a 

7 lot of things happen. And I think I've watched 

8 uranium for at least -- in-situ mining for close 

9 to 40 years. And I haven't seen a problem. And 

10 I'm not a -- I'm not a scientist, and I'm not 

11 technical, and I can't address those issues, but 

12 I rest on common sense. 

13 I think the Wyoming Department of 

14 Environmental Quality has done a good job. And 

15 what we've seen in the southeast part of our 

16 county, I have not -- I know we were really 

17 concerned about it at first. We really were, but 

18 it hasn't proved to be an issue. 

19 I'm worried that what you're doing or 

20 proposing to do here is very damaging. And if I 

21 might, if you'll be patient with me, I'd like to 

22 use a little common sense here and tell you a 
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 story. 

2 We had a horse trader up in north 

3 Wyoming, and we used to call him Two Belly. He 

4 was a rather rotund fellow, and he kept his belt 

5 pretty tight and had belly above it and belly 

6 below it. 

7 Well, Two Belly was a pretty good 

8 salesman, and he showed up at my Uncle Bob's 

9 place had a little horse to corral and that, and 

10 he told him -- actually, he knew what was going 

11 on about this horse, and he -- and Uncle Bob's 

12 had a lot of problems with him, but he finally 

13 said that -- you know, he's normally -- he don't 

14 look so good, but he said the price is right and 

15 you really ought to buy him. So Uncle Bob made 

16 the deal. 

17 And he watered him and threw a couple 

18 flakes of hay over the corral. And the next 

19 morning he went out there, and the horse was 

20 still standing in the same damn place. So he 

21 took a stick, went through the corral and poked 

22 him in the rear, and that horse ran right 
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 straight into the side of the barn. 

2 And he went back to the house, and he 

3 called Two Belly up, and he said, that horse is 

4 blind. And he said, well, I told you he didn't 

5 look so good. 

6 (Laughter.) 

7 Now, I know that's -- what I think he 

8 sold it to us, he was a little bit of a blind 

9 horse. You know, we should -- we need to find 

10 out a little more about this before we take that 

11 step. It's a big one for the people in this 

12 Johnson County and the surrounding area. We need 

13 to take a little more time, and we might not need 

14 the horse at all because Uncle Bob sure didn't 

15 need that blind horse. 

16 So I want to thank you very much and I 

17 appreciate your time and ability to speak to you 

18 and being patient with me. Thank you. 

19 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

20 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

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

22 up our next scheduled speaker. William Goranson, 
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 if you could please come forward? 

2 MR. GORANSON: Thank you. 

3 MR. MINTER: William, if you could spell 

4 your complete name for our court reporter this 

5 morning and let us know who you're representing 

6 at the hearing today? Thank you. 

7 MR. GORANSON: My name is William, W-I-L8 L-I-A-M, Goranson, G-O-R-A-N-S-O-N. I’m the 

9 Chief Operating Officer and President of Uranerz 

10 Energy Corporation. 

11 I want to thank you for this time. Is 

12 this mike on or -- okay. 

13 I want to thank you for this time and 

14 opportunity to speak again. I had some thoughts 

15 following the hearing last night, and I thought I 

16 would put together some thoughts that I had going 

17 forward on what I heard last night. 

18 So I'm here to discuss portions of the 

19 192 proposed -- the rule -- proposed rulemaking 

20 192.53. I'm making these comments based on my 

21 over 28 years of experience in the uranium 

22 recovery industry with most of that time working 
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 in in-situ recovery segment of the industry. 

2 I'm a Professional Engineer, and I hold a 

3 Master's degree in Environmental Engineering. 

4 During my course work and subsequent work 

5 experience, I've managed every aspect of the in6 situ recovery operation from pre-operational 

7 development to restoration and final reclamation. 

8 I have also managed licensing actions with two 

9 reclaimed mill tailing facilities through the 

10 successful applications of the approval of 

11 ultimate concentration limits. 

12 As I stated yesterday in last night's 

13 hearing, in-situ recovery -- the in-situ recovery 

14 operations of the segment of the uranium recovery 

15 industry has a demonstrated track record of 

16 successful operations in restoration with no 

17 offsite impacts to USDWs. 

18 So when I read 192.53, I see -- I see 

19 familiar ground with requirements that have been 

20 well established in the rules and license 

21 conditions by NRC, Agreement States and States 

22 with Primacy over UIC. However, there are 
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 several new requirements that could create 

2 confusion in my simple engineer's mind as to 

3 their purpose and what is -- I'm sorry -- and if 

4 what is advertised in the justifications for the 

5 proposed rule are real or simply a hypothetical 

6 exercise. 

7 To begin that thought, re-reading 192.53 

8 again this morning, there are new requirements, 

9 terminology, and timelines that existing licensed 

10 operations are not set up to meet. For example, 

11 19253(a)(iii)(B), there appears to be a new 

12 requirement to model site performance based on 

13 preoperational data that none of the currently 

14 operating sites have gathered or could gather at 

15 this point in their operational life. 

16 A practiced groundwater modeler 

17 understands that it is important not only to have 

18 adequate data, but have a good understanding of 

19 the underlying assumptions of that model that 

20 will differ significantly on a site-by-site 

21 basis. Also, one has to have the ability to 

22 calibrate the model to assure that the results 
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 are meaningful and relatively consistent with 

2 expectations. 

3 As an experienced operator, I have 

4 managed several operations in disparate locations 

5 in Texas and Wyoming, and I have observed that 

6 these models are notoriously unreliable for 

7 predicting operational performance. In fact -- 

8 the fact that the in-situ recovery process is a 

9 form of reactive transport that the model's 

10 assumed to be in a relatively homogeneous 

11 geological environment, but in reality, that 

12 environment is a heterogeneous geologic 

13 environment that has supported the geochemical 

14 and hydraulic conditions that allowed the uranium 

15 ore body to be formed in the first place. So how 

16 do you -- how do you model two separate 

17 environments? 

18 Even production models are only 

19 estimates. They're used as a guide for 

20 investment decisions, but in reality, actual 

21 performance can vary differently. As a producer, 

22 we can live with that level of uncertainty 
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 because we can accept that models are only a 

2 guideline, and in reality the actual -- it is the 

3 actual results that count. 

4 So, how does one effectively model the 

5 groundwater characteristics in a preoperational 

6 manner to reliably predict restoration results 

7 before anything is going to be turned on? I 

8 haven't discovered that answer, but I do follow 

9 an anecdotal approach from my experience. If the 

10 uranium recovers efficiently, the formation 

11 restores efficiently. 

12 I suggest that at best these requirements 

13 only apply to new applications since existing 

14 operations could not meet these requirements, and 

15 the agency has set them up to fail. 

16 In 192.53(e)(iii), there is a discussion 

17 of the ability to avoid a 30-year long-term 

18 surveillance monitoring, if one demonstrates 

19 stability to a 95 percent confidence level (which 

20 in my opinion is not well defined), then 

21 groundwater modeling could be used to demonstrate 

22 future impacts. 
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 In my opinion, this seems to be the same 

2 level of work required for an Alternate 

3 Concentration Limit amendment and begs the 

4 question, why would an operator bother to restore 

5 the pre-operational levels and end up with the 

6 same regulatory burden as the ACL described in 

7 192.53(b)(iii)(B)? Also, if one does demonstrate 

8 within a 95 percent confidence (again, a standard 

9 that has not been effectively described or 

10 characterized), after no less than three years of 

11 stability monitoring, what is the point of the 

12 30-year long-term surveillance monitoring period? 

13 In the industry we have multiple examples 

14 of demonstrated stability for periods longer than 

15 three years simply because of the rigorous 

16 regulatory process. Some fields have been in 

17 stability for well over five years, if not 

18 longer, and only waiting on approval. If one 

19 fast forwards to the way the regulatory process 

20 works for a site that could go into restoration 

21 under this rulemaking, once that stability period 

22 is approved by the regulatory agency does the 
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 clock start on the LTSM, or does the licensee 

2 effectively get credit for time served? 

3 This leads me to believe that the 

4 modeling off ramp offered in 192.53(b)(iii)(B) 

5 does not provide relief as advertised. 

6 I suggest before these rules are 

7 promulgated that we wait to see the outcomes of 

8 the research that was presented at the April 21st 

9 ISR Workshop. It is my opinion that EPA will 

10 learn that long-term issues that are of great 

11 concern at this point may be put to rest. 

12 Thank you for this time. 

13 MR. MINTER: Thank you, William. 

14 I'd like to call our next scheduled 

15 speaker. Wayne Heili, if you'll come forward, 

16 please? Wayne, if you could spell your complete 

17 name for the court reporter this morning, and 

18 state who you're representing at the hearing 

19 today? Thank you. 

20 MR. HEILI: Good morning. My name is 

21 Wayne Heili. Wayne, W-A-Y-N-E, Heili is spelled 

22 the only way it could be, H-E-I-L-I. 
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 I'm a long-time resident with a 

2 professional career spent in the uranium recovery 

3 industry. I'm currently serving the industry as 

4 the President of the UPA, the Uranium Producers 

5 of America. The UPA is an industry association 

6 of the leading domestic uranium mining and 

7 conversion companies. 

8 Many of the UPA member companies will be 

9 sharing their views on this proposed rulemaking 

10 throughout the hearing process by submitting 

11 written -- and also by submitting written 

12 comments. I urge you to take careful account of 

13 each of their well considered comments and 

14 statements as you proceed with your deliberations 

15 on this topic. Our member companies will raise 

16 many high-level, detailed, and technical concerns 

17 during their presentations. Clearly we're very 

18 concerned that this rulemaking ignores a 

19 successful 40-year history of in-situ uranium 

20 recovery in the United States. 

21 We are also concerned that the EPA has 

22 not properly considered its role and its 
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 jurisdictional limitations under UMTRCA. Whether 

2 it appears that the EPA has not taken appropriate 

3 effort to scientifically justify this ruling, the 

4 recommendations of the EPA Science Advisory Board 

5 seem to have been ignored. 

6 The body of scientific evidence 

7 demonstrates that the EPA mischaracterized the 

8 health effects -- the human health effects of 

9 oral intake of uranium as a cancer-causing 

10 carcinogen. 

11 The proposed rule creates uncertainty on 

12 the ability to reach final closure of a facility 

13 that places every ISR facility at financial risk. 

14 Member companies have taken the time 

15 required to prepare meaningful analysis of the 

16 potential economic impact of the rule and have 

17 concluded that the EPA truly missed the mark on 

18 its financial evaluations. 

19 Finally, you will hear our concern that 

20 the EPA has not made appropriate effort to reach 

21 out to the industry and regulatory community 

22 prior to publishing this rule. The EPA justifies 
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 the need for this rule by suggesting that current 

2 UMTRCA regulations do not explicitly address the 

3 alteration of groundwater that occurs during the 

4 ISR process. It seems to me inherently obvious 

5 that a rule that addresses uranium mill tailings 

6 facility standards would not be looking at 

7 groundwater impacts from a form of uranium 

8 recovery that does not involve bringing ore to 

9 the surface or establishing engineered mill 

10 tailing impoundments. 

11 Is the EPA deliberately trying to fit a 

12 square peg into a round hole with this 

13 rulemaking? A close scrutiny of the legal 

14 authorities established under UMTRCA suggest that 

15 placing the subsection on ISR within 40 CFR 192 

16 is not consistent with the intent of the Act even 

17 if you wrongly -- even if you wrongly extend 

18 EPA's authority under UMTRCA for this activity, 

19 you would have to recognize that EPA's authority 

20 is limited to setting generally applicable 

21 standards. 

22 In our view, this rulemaking goes far 
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 beyond that. The rulemaking blurs the line 

2 between setting generally applicable standards 

3 and establishing specific steps an operator must 

4 take to demonstrate compliance with those 

5 standards. 

6 It's the EPA's stated goal that this 

7 rulemaking would develop requirements to 

8 characterize the background of water chemistry -- 

9 background water chemistry requirements to meet 

10 restoration goals for 13 constituents and 

11 requirements for long-term stability monitoring. 

12 If the EPA had made appropriate effort to 

13 consult with the state and federal agencies that 

14 already regulate the ISR industry, they would 

15 have recognized that the ISR uranium facilities 

16 are already highly regulated at every phase of 

17 the operation. Existing state and federal 

18 regulations require an ISR operator to 

19 characterize the pre operational baseline water 

20 quality to restore groundwater to baseline 

21 conditions and to demonstrate stability. 

22 We're troubled why the EPA did not reach 
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 out to the industry, to the federal agencies, and 

2 the state regulators to learn more about the 

3 existing requirements and successful history of 

4 restoration. 

5 Your requirement for 30 years of post6 restoration groundwater water monitoring is 

7 outside the scope of the EPA's authority and is 

8 not supported by science. This requirement may 

9 threaten the economics of the uranium recovery 

10 projects in the United States, unnecessarily tie 

11 up land, water, and human capital resources; will 

12 make it very difficult to lease land; but our 

13 main concern is that the EPA has presented no 

14 evidence to show that the ISR uranium recovery 

15 operations have adversely impacted adjacent 

16 aquifers or that a 30-year monitoring period is 

17 warranted. 

18 Simply put, this rulemaking has not been 

19 technically justified by the EPA. The EPA has 

20 not articulated the benefits of this proposed 

21 rule. The EPA notes said it is difficult to 

22 characterize the probability or magnitude of 
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 future contamination problems. The EPA can only 

2 cite probable or possible benefits. In addition 

3 to failing to outline the benefits of the 

4 rulemaking, EPA has grossly underestimated the 

5 costs. The EPA estimates make no mention of the 

6 added costs of leasing land, maintaining surety 

7 bonds, and maintaining staff and equipment on 

8 site for an additional 30 years. 

9 While the body of evidence and comments 

10 collectively provided by the Uranium Producers of 

11 America is fully considered, there's only one 

12 reasonable action the EPA could take. We urge 

13 the EPA to withdraw this rulemaking and work with 

14 the uranium industry, state regulators, and the 

15 NRC to determine if any meaningful updates are 

16 scientifically justified that would strengthen 

17 the existing standards regarding the activities 

18 of this important industry. Thank you. 

19 MR. MINTER: Thank you, Wayne. 

20 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

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

22 scheduled speaker. Eric Nelson, if you could 
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 come forward, please? Eric, if you could spell 

2 your full name for the court reporter this 

3 morning and let us know who you're representing 

4 at the hearing today? 

5 MR. NELSON: My name is Eric Nelson, 

6 E-R-I-C, last name Nelson, N-E-L-S-O-N. I am 

7 appearing today on behalf of the Casper Area 

8 Chamber of Commerce. 

9 The Chamber of Commerce represents 850 

10 local businesses in Casper and central Wyoming, 

11 including several uranium mining companies and a 

12 number of ancillary service providers to the 

13 uranium industry. 

14 We are here today to voice our position 

15 against the proposed rulemaking and request that 

16 the EPA withdraw the proposed rule for a number 

17 of reasons. First and foremost, there is a lack 

18 of science supporting the need for the proposed 

19 rules. Others have appeared before you today 

20 with much more technical and in-depth analysis of 

21 the lack of scientific support; but the Chamber 

22 fully agrees that 30 years of groundwater 
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 monitoring is not supported at this time. It is 

2 unnecessary for protection of health and human 

3 safety. 

4 There is really a lack of an issue to be 

5 addressed with this rule, and we would ask that 

6 it be withdrawn. 

7 Perhaps the most significant impact from 

8 the Chamber's perspective is the economic impact 

9 to the local economy and its local small 

10 businesses. We feel that this has not been 

11 adequately addressed during the promulgation of 

12 the proposed rule. 

13 Not only will local uranium mining 

14 companies and the uranium companies nationwide be 

15 directly affected in a negative way, making, 

16 perhaps, some operations economically unviable, 

17 but it will also significantly impact small 

18 business owners. These small business owners are 

19 the drivers of our local economy. They provide 

20 jobs. They provide tax revenue for our local 

21 governments. And we feel that the negative -- 

22 the economic impact to these businesses far 
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 outweighs any benefit that could be imparted 

2 through the adoption of this rule. 

3 So, we would ask that the EPA, at the 

4 very least, withdraw the rule and take a step 

5 back. The Chamber feels that the EPA needs to 

6 reevaluate the scientific basis for the proposed 

7 rule to take a look at the several peer reviewed 

8 studies that are in progress and/or may have 

9 recently been completed. We feel that the EPA 

10 has not consulted fully with the industry and all 

11 stakeholders that would be affected by the 

12 promulgations of this rule, including the state 

13 and local regulators and governments. 

14 And, finally, fully take into account the 

15 negative economic impacts from a cost-benefit 

16 analysis standpoint that the proposed rule would 

17 have on local economies in the Casper area 

18 specifically. 

19 I thank you for your time and the 

20 opportunity to speak. That's all I have. 

21 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

22 MR. MINTER: Thank you. I would like to 
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 call our next scheduled speaker. Donna Wichers, 

2 if you could come forward, please. 

3 Donna, if you could spell your complete 

4 name and state who you're representing today for 

5 our court reporter? Thank you. 

6 MS. WICHERS: My name is Donna Wichers, 

7 D-O-N-N-A, W-I-C-H-E-R-S. Is this on? 

8 MR. MINTER: Yes. 

9 MS. WICHERS: Yes. Okay. 

10 Thank you. My name is Donna Wichers. I 

11 on the Board of Directors of Uranium One 

12 Americas. Thank you for the opportunity to 

13 provide comment today. 

14 Our parent, Uranium One, Inc., is a 

15 global uranium company with six operating ISR 

16 uranium mines in Kazakhstan, one operating ISR 

17 uranium mine in Johnson County, Wyoming, an ISR 

18 mine in Australia, and a very large uranium 

19 project in Tanzania. Uranium One also loans the 

20 fully licensed Moore Ranch ISR uranium project in 

21 Campbell County, Wyoming, as well as three other 

22 Wyoming ISR uranium developer projects in the 
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 licensing process. This is our -- excuse me -- 

2 Ludeman, Allemand Ross, and Antelope/JAB. 

3 I was present at the hearing last night, 

4 and EPA took comments from some very well spoken 

5 industry, engineering, medical, and academia 

6 representatives on why this proposed rule should 

7 not be promulgated. I was planning to reiterate 

8 these reasons, but for the sake of time, I will 

9 forego, but there were two points that I would 

10 like to -- to make. 

11 EPA based the rulemaking on severely 

12 flawed and under estimated economics, especially 

13 cost to the operator for the 30-year long-term 

14 stability monitoring period. 

15 EPA did also not fully consider risk. 

16 Sound regulation should be based on the 

17 quantification of the reduction in risks caused 

18 by the regulation. This was never accounted for 

19 in the proposed rule. 

20 EPA has provided no supporting 

21 information that the proposed standards will 

22 reduce risk. So I would like to provide you with 
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 my assessment of risk but from the opposite 

2 viewpoint of increased risk to a producer of 

3 uranium. 

4 All uranium producers have long-term 

5 forecasts of mine plans, production, and revenue, 

6 restoration and decommission schedule, and the 

7 associated cost. In our company we call this our 

8 Life of Mine Plan. Our current Life of Mine 

9 includes the permitting, mining, groundwater 

10 restoration, and decommissioning plan and costs 

11 for five large projects in Wyoming. 

12 Associated with those projects are the 

13 mining areas or what we call well fields. Our 

14 Life of Mine today includes the mining and 

15 restoration of 46 well fields over a 30-year 

16 period. This includes an estimate of two years 

17 of mining, three years of restoration and 

18 stabilization monitoring, then another year for 

19 decommissioning of the well fields. 

20 If this rule is promulgated along with 

21 the three years of stability monitoring plus an 

22 additional 30 years of long-term stability 
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 monitoring, this will result in our Life of Mine 

2 going from a 30-year plan with a positive net 

3 present value, NPV, and internal rate of return 

4 to potentially a 300-year plan with an 

5 unrealistically negative NPV and IRR. 

6 During these 300 years we will have only 

7 20 years of production and revenues and 280 years 

8 of simply spending money. The cost of extended 

9 long-term monitoring is devastating. We cannot 

10 decommission the well fields, so the groundwater 

11 and decommissioning financials sureties must 

12 remain in place. We must pay lease fees to our 

13 land owners. We must keep facilities operational 

14 and maintain some personnel during this period. 

15 And EPA, to my knowledge, has not even considered 

16 these issues. How will our land owners feel 

17 about losing the use of their land for their 

18 lifetime and their family's lifetimes? 

19 EPA's estimated cost for long-term 

20 monitoring at ISR facilities is grossly 

21 inadequate and does not address the full 

22 complement of legal issues, loss of land issues, 
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 and regulatory issues. 

2 As a member of the Uranium One Americas 

3 board, I can tell you that our company will not 

4 consider investing one more penny in ISR 

5 operations in the U.S. if this rule is 

6 promulgated. Why should they? It is too risky, 

7 and it is obviously a money-losing proposition. 

8 They will take their capital investment to other 

9 countries. 

10 I thank you for the opportunity to 

11 provide comment and for coming to Wyoming, the 

12 heart of the domestic uranium industry. I 

13 repeat, there is a huge and inevitable risk that 

14 this rule will devastate the domestic uranium 

15 industry in the United States. With all due 

16 respect, Uranium One Americas asks that EPA 

17 withdraw this rulemaking. Thank you. 

18 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

19 At this time I'd like to remind folks 

20 that if you're in attendance today and have not 

21 registered, we need you to do that. 

22 And now I'd like to ask if there are any 
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 folks who have not had the opportunity to speak 

2 this morning whether they would like to do so. 

3 Is there anyone here this morning who has not 

4 spoken who would like to take five minutes to do 

5 so on the record? 

6 Yes? 

7 MR. SUTHERLAND: Do I sit up here? 

8 MR. MINTER: Yes, please sit up there, 

9 and go ahead and introduce yourself. Please 

10 spell your complete name for the court reporter 

11 this morning, and let us know who -- what your 

12 affiliation is. Thank you. 

13 MR. SUTHERLAND: Brad Sutherland, 

14 B-R-A-D, S-U-T-H-E-R-L-A-N-D. I guess I'm here 

15 as a private citizen. I was born and raised in 

16 Wyoming. I know that uranium does threaten our 

17 drinking water here in Wyoming. Seems like the 

18 closer you get to put down your wells for 

19 drinking water to the river, the more uranium you 

20 often run into. So, I am thankful that there are 

21 companies willing to come in and flush out the 

22 uranium from our groundwater. 
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 know you're concerned about disturbing 

2 the groundwater, but, again, I'd like to remind 

3 you that it's always flowing, always draining, 

4 and oftentimes being pumped out for irrigation. 

5 So, it's always being disturbed. 

6 And it seems like there's no real data 

7 about the hazards of what's -- the uranium mines 

8 are doing. And the 30-year monitoring is just 

9 putting the burden on industry to see if there 

10 might be some problems. I think that burden 

11 should be on the federal government if they're 

12 interested in studying it but not on the 

13 industry. That's all. 

14 MR. MINTER: Thank you. Are there any 

15 others this morning who -- or in attendance that 

16 would like to speak at this time who have not 

17 done so? 

18 (Person indicating.) 

19 MR. MINTER: Yes. Please come up, have a 

20 seat. Please state your full name, spell it for 

21 the court reporter, and let us know who you're 

22 affiliated with. Thank you. 
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 MR. CATCHPOLE: Glenn Catchpole, 

2 G-L-E-N-N, Catchpole, C-A-T-C-H-P-O-L-E. 

3 First of all, thank you for allowing me 

4 this opportunity to talk to you today. I am the 

5 Chief Executive Officer and a Director of Uranerz 

6 Energy Corporation. We have an operating uranium 

7 mine in Johnson County, and we've been into 

8 production for a couple years now. 

9 The -- the thing I want to concentrate on 

10 in my -- there's many areas to talk about, but I 

11 want to focus on one particular issue, and Ms. 

12 Wichers who just talked a couple speakers before 

13 me pointed out the burden of the 30-year 

14 monitoring period and the economics and so forth. 

15 I want to take a little bit of a different attack 

16 and point out that if you have a 30-year margin 

17 period, and you still hold your NRC license, your 

18 DEQ permit, you've tied up the land, and you've 

19 got reporting to do; you have to have an on-site 

20 presence. It's not like you can just put a fence 

21 around it and walk away because the bond is still 

22 in place. You have a reclamation bond and you're 
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 paying for it. You're paying for employees. 

2 And what concerns me most is that with 

3 this you're having workers drive back and forth 

4 to remote areas. Most of these mines are very 

5 remote. They're off the highway, and there's 

6 considerable risk in driving these roads. And 

7 particularly in the wintertime we had a crew 

8 coming out this winter during a blizzard, and 

9 they were about two minutes ahead of a 10-car -- 

10 10-car pile-up with multiple injuries. And they 

11 missed it by that much. 

12 Those of you who know me and those of you 

13 who have worked for me know that I stress three 

14 things to all my employees repeatedly is the 

15 protection of the environment, protection of the 

16 public, and protection of our workers. And I 

17 stress that repeatedly. And here, if you're 

18 going to analyze risk, you ought to look at the 

19 risk of injury and the accident potential from 

20 employees driving to and from these remote sites. 

21 I'm sure that the Wyoming Department of Highways 

22 has got statistics on it, and that ought to be 
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 factored because that's a real risk. We're not 

2 just guessing or it might be or it could be; 

3 there are those risks. 

4 This past winter we had two multiple car, 

5 truck pile ups in this state, one with 40 

6 vehicles, another with 50. Deaths were involved. 

7 It's a risky place for driving, and I would like 

8 to ask you in looking at it to fully evaluate 

9 that part of it. 

10 My personal opinion is that risk is much 

11 more than -- than the possible risk downgrading 

12 groundwater, et cetera. 

13 And lastly, I'd just ask -- and it's my 

14 desire that you postpone this rulemaking. In 

15 light of all the research that's going on, it 

16 seems to be ignored. I think you should let that 

17 research take its course and base your decisions 

18 on the scientific method. Thank you very much 

19 for this opportunity. 

20 MR. MINTER: Thank you. 

21 MR. PEAKER: Thank you, Glenn. 

22 MR. MINTER: Okay. Any other folks that 
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 care to come forward who have not spoken this 

2 morning? 

3 (No response.) 

4 MR. MINTER: If not, I'd like to give the 

5 folks who have spoken this morning to come back 

6 up for another five minutes if they would like to 

7 do so. Is there anyone who has spoken this 

8 morning who would like an additional five minutes 

9 on the record this morning? 

10 (Indicating.) 

11 MR. MINTER: Yes, Jim. 

12 MR. CLAY: Thank you. I don't know if I 

13 can do five minutes, but I wanted to -- 

14 MR. PEAKE: Can you restate your name and 

15 -- 

16 MR. CLAY: Sure. Jim Clay, J-I-M, 

17 C-L-A-Y. 

18 One of the things I wanted to ask you 

19 folks is if it's possible to -- I don't expect 

20 you to answer right now but to give it some 

21 thought about waiting two years to let some of 

22 these peer review publications come out. This is 
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 what I want to get on the record. If you could 

2 -- if you could do that, I'd appreciate it 

3 because you would be better informed than you are 

4 now. 

5 And that's not intended to be an insult. 

6 It's just that there's been almost no peer review 

7 literature on the record in terms of uranium ISR 

8 mining. There's a number of things that purport 

9 to be, but really don't have as much to do with 

10 ISR mining as one might think initially. They 

11 have to do with places like Hanford, with Rifle, 

12 Colorado, with other tailings type situations 

13 that aren't relevant to in-situ recovery. 

14 Should be much easier to restore in an 

15 in-situ recovery mine where you expressed it from 

16 oxygen where the groundwater flows very low than 

17 it is in, say, Rifle, Colorado where the water is 

18 flowing two orders of magnitude faster than it is 

19 at Smith Ranch. 

20 John Cash mentioned earlier about the 

21 fact that the modeling assumptions used in the 

22 background of the EPA proposal basically 
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 indicated that the flow of the water is orders of 

2 magnitude greater than it really is. That really 

3 matters. 

4 Let's talk about it at some point. 

5 Communicate with us, please, and we'll have 

6 further discussions if you're willing to do that 

7 about the science that's going on. 

8 Thank you for listening to me. I 

9 appreciate it. 

10 MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. 

11 MR. MINTER: Thank you. Any other folks 

12 this morning who have spoken on the record and 

13 who would like some additional time? 

14 (No response.) 

15 MR. MINTER: Okay. So I believe 

16 procedurally at this point we're going to call a 

17 recess. We will remain recessed until noon when 

18 we will adjourn the hearing unless someone else 

19 comes, registers, and -- and wants to speak on 

20 the record. 

21 So, I believe, Tony, that at this time if 

22 there's no more speakers, we're going to go in 
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 recess. We'll remain here for the duration of 

2 the morning. And, again, we'll only open the 

3 record back for purposes of additional comments 

4 if someone signs up and cares to speak. If not, 

5 we will then close the record and this hearing at 

6 noon today. Thank you. 

7 (Recess.) 

8 MR. MINTER: It's now noon. We've had 

9 -- I'm assuming that we've had no new speakers, 

10 so we can go. 

11 No one has indicated they want to speak, 

12 so this hearing is adjourned. 

13 (Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m. the public 

14 hearing was concluded.) 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22