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 

### Environmental Protection Agency 1

2

3

4

5 

### Public Hearing for 6 

### Health and Environmental Protection 7 

### Standards for Uranium and 8 

### Thorium Mill Tailings 9

10

11

12

13 

### 9:08 a.m. to 3:55 p.m. 14 

### Tuesday, March 10, 2015 15

16 

### William Jefferson Clinton Building, East 17 

### 1201 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 18 

### Washington, DC 20004 19

20

21

222

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### ATTENDEES 1

2


### EPA: 3 

### BILL LONG, Director, Center for Radon and Air 4 

### Toxics, EPA 5 

### INGRID ROSENCRANTZ, Center for Waste Management 6 

### and Regulations, EPA Radiation Protection 7 

### Division 8 

### TOM PEAKE, Director, Center for Waste 9 

### Management and Regulations, EPA Radiation 10 

### Protection Division 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

223

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### C O N T E N T S 1


### PAGE 2


### MORNING SESSION 3 

### KATIE SWEENEY, National Mining 4 

### Association 10,46,105 5 

### MIKE THOMAS, Uranerz Energy Corporation 18 6 

### NEIL BLANDFORD, Daniel B. Stephens and 26 7 

### Associates representing Goliad County 8 

### Groundwater Conservation District 9 

### GEOFFREY FETTUS, Natural Resources Defense 32 10 

### Council 11 

### BENJAMIN KLEIN, Uranium Producers of America 38 12 

### CHRISTOPHER PUGSLEY, Thompson and Pugsley 52,64 13

14


### AFTERNOON SESSION 15 

### ANDREW SHAW, McKenna, Long & Aldridge, 77 16 

### representing Cameco Resources 17 

### AARON MINTZES, Earthworks 85 18 

### ANTHONY THOMPSON, Thompson and Pugsley, 89 19 

### representing the National Mining Association 20 

### LANCE LARSON, Natural Resources Defense 99 21 

### Council 224

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

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


### MORNING SESSION 2 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Good morning, everyone. 3 

### My name is Bill Long. I am the Director of the 4 

### Center for Radon and Air Toxics at EPA's Indoor 5 

### Environments Division. I'll be presiding over 6 

### the hearing today. Joining me on the panel are 7 

### Ingrid Rosencrantz and Tom Peake from the Office 8 

### of Radiation and Indoor Air, in headquarters here 9 

### in D.C., and this hearing is now in session. 10 

### We are here today to listen and receive 11 

### your comments on EPA's Proposed Revisions to 12 

### Health and Environmental Protection Standards for 13 

### Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings, also known as 14 

### 40 CFR Part 192. In a moment, Ingrid Rosencrantz 15 

### will explain in more detail what was proposed in 16 

### that notice. 17 

### But before I turn it over to Ingrid, let 18 

### me explain a little bit about how today's hearing 19 

### will work. There will be two sessions, one this 20 

### morning, from 9 to noon, and one this afternoon 21 

### from 1 to 5 p.m., both here in this hearing room. 225

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Please be sure you have checked in at the 1 

### registration desk even if you are not planning on 2 

### speaking today. 3 

### I will call the scheduled speakers to the 4 

### podium. When it's your turn to speak, please 5 

### state your name, spelling your last name for the 6 

### court reporter, and your affiliation, before you 7 

### begin your testimony. Your comments will be 8 

### transcribed and included in the record of 9 

### comments on the proposed rule. 10 

### In order to ensure everyone has the 11 

### opportunity to speak, and to ensure fairness, 12 

### please limit your testimony to 10 minutes. We 13 

### will signal to you when you have 1 minute left to 14 

### speak. I'm going to try to use this thing here 15 

### for timing. When 10 minutes have passed, I will 16 

### ask you to complete your testimony. If you have 17 

### more to say after your 10 minutes are up, and you 18 

### would like to speak again with information that 19 

### is new and discrete from your previous testimony, 20 

### we're happy to have you speak again. Please sign 21 

### up to speak again at the registration table where 226

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### you signed in. You will be called again after 1 

### other speakers. If you choose to speak again, 2 

### please refrain from using additional time to 3 

### rebut other speakers. 4 

### After you finish your testimony, members 5 

### of the panel may ask verifying questions. Please 6 

### note that during the hearing we will not answer 7 

### questions on the proposed rule, but if you have 8 

### questions about the process, please find one of 9 

### the EPA representatives when the hearing is not 10 

### in session. 11 

### If you have written comments, written 12 

### copies of your testimony, or supporting 13 

### documentation, please give a copy to our staff at 14 

### the registration table, and this will be very 15 

### helpful as we prepare the transcript. 16 

### If you have additional comment you would 17 

### like to make, you can submit them in writing. 18 

### Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on April 27, 19


### 2015. 20 

### Let me assure you that EPA gives just as 21 

### much consideration to comments that we receive in 227

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### writing as we do to comments we receive at public 1 

### hearings like this one. Instructions for 2 

### submitting comments are included in a fact sheet 3 

### at the registration table, and you can pick up a 4 

### copy at that table, outside of the door. 5 

### Today's public hearing is scheduled to 6 

### end once the last registered speaker has provided 7 

### comments, so if you would like to testify but 8 

### have not yet registered to do so, please sign up 9 

### at the registration table outside this room. 10 

### We may call a break for everyone's 11 

### comfort. The rest rooms are located out in the 12 

### main lobby, and then go on either side. If you 13 

### do not have a federal employee ID you will need 14 

### to be escorted. We have escorts here to help. 15 

### Tony Nesky will escort the gentlemen and Connie 16 

### Gillam -- Connie are you here? -- or Sara, maybe 17 

### Sara DeCair will escort the ladies. Please keep 18 

### your visitor badge if you plan to leave the 19 

### building and return. People with visitor's 20 

### badges will need to go through security again. 21 

### And, also, please remember to turn in your 228

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### visitor badge when you leave for the day. 1 

### Okay. Now let me turn things over to 2 

### Ingrid Rosencrantz, who will summarize the 3 

### proposed rule. 4 

### MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Thank you. Thanks for 5 

### coming today. I want to let everyone know we 6 

### really appreciate your engagement on this 7 

### proposed rule. As you know, we're here to listen 8 

### and receive your comments on EPA's Proposed 9 

### Revisions to Health and Environmental Protection 10 

### Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings, 11


### also known as 40 CFR Part 192. 12 

### Can folks hear me okay? Okay. 13 

### [Microphone is adjusted.] 14 

### Thanks. Basically, we're proposing to 15 

### revise this rule by adding an additional new 16 

### subpart, called Subpart F, that explicitly 17 

### addresses groundwater protection, restoration, 18 

### and stability at uranium in-situ recovery 19 

### operations. 20 

### The major provisions of this proposal 21 

### include the following. First, we're specifying 229

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### the minimum 13 constituents for which groundwater 1 

### protection standards must be met, and there is a 2 

### list of those constituents in the proposal, the 3 

### preamble and the proposed rule. 4 

### Secondly, we're specifying monitoring 5 

### requirements for different phases of operation, 6 

### including monitoring for the preoperational 7 

### phase, the operational phase, restoration, 8 

### stability, and long-term stability. 9 

### And then, finally, we're also specifying 10 

### requirements for corrective actions, where 11 

### necessary. All of those requirements proposed in 12 

### the rule itself and in the preamble, so we 13 

### encourage you, of course, to read through those 14 

### and become familiar. 15 

### We announced this proposal in the Federal 16 

### Register on July 26th of 2015 -- I'm sorry, 17 

### January 26th of 2015. The comment period started 18 

### then and currently is scheduled to end on April 19 

### 27th of this year. We have let folks know we 20 

### have received several requests for extending the 21 

### comment period, and we are currently considering 2210

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### those requests. We have not made a final 1 

### decision on whether or to what date we would 2 

### extend the comment period. 3 

### Again, I'd like to thank you for your 4 

### interest and participation, and we may be asking 5 

### clarifying questions. Aside from that, we'll be 6 

### interested to hear what you all have to say. So 7 

### thanks very much for your engagement. I'll turn 8 

### it back over to you. 9 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Thanks, Ingrid. I'd 10 

### like to call up our first scheduled speaker, and 11 

### that is Katie Sweeney. Katie, if you could spell 12 

### your name, please, and state who you are 13 

### representing, for the court reporter. 14 

### MS. SWEENEY: Hi. My name is Katie 15 

### Sweeney. The last name is spelled S-w-e-e-n-e-y. 16 

### And I am the general counsel of the National 17 

### Mining Association. I'm sort of torn between 18 

### trying to read as fast as I can for 10 minutes or 19 

### signing up for some additional time, so we'll see 20 

### how it goes. 21 

### The National Mining Association is a 2211

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### national trade association representing the 1 

### producers of most of America's coal, metals, 2 

### including uranium, industrial and agricultural 3 

### minerals. NMA's members include producers of 4 

### domestic uranium as well as companies that have 5 

### exploration projects or pending applications for 6 

### the development of domestic uranium mining 7 

### projects. An initial point, and I'm glad to hear 8 

### that this is under consideration, the request for 9 

### the extension of the comment period, NMA intends 10 

### to submit substantive comments on the proposed 11 

### rule, but the current comment period is simply 12 

### insufficient to allow adequate time to review the 13 

### more than 2,500 pages of supporting materials, 14 

### and, believe me, I did go through and count. I 15 

### haven't made my way through all of those yet. 16 

### The ability to review and analyze these 17 

### supporting materials, many of which are 18 

### scientific or technical in nature, is crucial to 19 

### the association's effort to provide meaningful 20 

### comments on the proposal. In addition, industry 21 

### commenters will need to assemble cost and other 2212

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### site-specific data for the use in their comments. 1 

### The rest of my comments today will focus 2 

### on EPA's flawed assumptions regarding risks posed 3 

### by in-situ recovery of uranium. The whole 4 

### rulemaking is based on the premise that in-situ 5 

### recovery activities, or ISR, may impact adjacent 6 

### aquifers that either are now, or could someday be 7 

### sources of drinking water. EPA's authority to 8 

### promulgate the rule is UMTRCA, or the Uranium 9 

### Metal Tailings Radiation Control Act. Other 10 

### speakers will address whether EPA has exceeded 11 

### its general standard-setting authority under 12 

### UMTRCA with this rulemaking by prescribing 13 

### implementation requirements that are exclusively 14 

### under the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions purview. 15 

### EPA insists in looking at this rulemaking 16 

### in a vacuum, a rulemaking that sets EPA's 17 

### groundwater standards for ISR facilities. EPA 18 

### does not adequately acknowledge existing federal 19 

### and state regulatory programs that protect 20 

### groundwater, even their own. 21 

### For example, there is EPA's underground 2213

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### injection control program, under the Safe 1 

### Drinking Water Act. As EPA correctly states in 2 

### the proposed rule, the purpose of the UIC program 3 

### is to prevent endangerment of underground sources 4 

### of drinking water. Similarly, the main purpose 5 

### of this rulemaking is to limit the future 6 

### potential for groundwater to be degraded from 7 

### undetected, long-term changes in groundwater from 8 

### ISR operations. There's definitely overlapping 9 

### purposes there. 10 

### EPA maintains that reliance on the 11 

### requirements of the UIC program alone would not 12 

### adequately address groundwater protection at ISR 13 

### facilities, given that there are not groundwater 14 

### restoration requirements under the UIC program. 15 

### In that, EPA is correct. There are no 16 

### groundwater restoration requirements for ISR 17 

### facilities under the UIC program, but the reason 18 

### for the lack of such requirements is critical. 19 

### It is due to the acknowledgement that ISR 20 

### operations occur in excepted aquifers. 21 

### In order for an ISR operation to proceed, 2214

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### a UIC permit is required, and typically an 1 

### aquifer exemption is needed. The aquifer 2 

### exemption effectively removes the aquifer from 3 

### the protection of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 4 

### due to the finding that it does not now currently 5 

### serve as a source of drinking water and it cannot 6 

### and will not, in the future, serve as a source of 7 

### drinking water. In the case of ISR operations, 8 

### the aquifer exemption is granted either due to 9 

### the mineralization or the poor natural quality of 10 

### the water, usually both. 11 

### EPA is using the rulemaking and its 12 

### UMTRCA authority to do what it cannot do under 13 

### the UIC program -- require restoration of an 14 

### exempted aquifer. Again, EPA maintains that 15 

### restoration is needed to help prevent excursions 16 

### of pollutants into adjacent, non-exempt aquifers, 17 

### but EPA ignores the fact that both the nuclear 18 

### regulatory commission and state regulatory 19 

### authorities do require a restoration of ISR 20 

### operations under existing programs. 21 

### EPA downplays the NRC program by 2215

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### intimating that NRC only does so under guidance 1 

### or license condition. EPA bases its conclusion 2 

### on the fact that at one point in time NRC was 3 

### considering a rulemaking that would apply 4 

### specifically to ISR facilities. However, since 5 

### NRC postponed that rulemaking, NRC has clearly 6 

### stated that as a matter of law, Criterion 5(B)(5) 7 

### of 10 CFR Part 40 applies to ISR operation, 8 

### requiring that groundwater be maintained at, or 9 

### restored to a commission-approved background or 10 

### an MCL, whichever is higher, or an alternate 11 

### concentration limit, or ACL. The existing 12 

### 5(B)(5) standard is a generally applicable 13 

### standard that EPA promulgated under its UMTRCA 14 

### authority and NRC adopted and is currently 15 

### implementing at ISR operations. 16 

### Similarly, states in which ISR operations 17 

### occur also require restoration at ISR operations, 18 

### but under their authority as primary states, 19 

### administering the EPA's UIC program. States are 20 

### permitted by law to require more stringent 21 

### standards than EPA, and have chosen to do so in 2216

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### requiring groundwater restoration of ISR 1 

### operations. 2 

### A major flaw in EPA's proposed rule is 3 

### the failure to adequately acknowledge the impact 4 

### of existing federal and state programs in 5 

### protecting adjacent aquifers from any potential 6 

### risks of ISR operations. 7 

### Secondly, as to EPA's failure to properly 8 

### assess the risks of ISR operations to 9 

### groundwater, the agency points to no evidence in 10 

### the rulemaking record that ISR facilities have 11 

### ever adversely impacted an adjacent aquifer. 12 

### Are we okay with the time, or is that not 13 

### working? Oh, I get to just keep going. 14 

### MR. LONG: Yeah. Tom? Yeah, I think 15 

### this is not working, and I just realized it, so I 16 

### think I'm going to use my iPhone. 17 

### MS. SWEENEY: Does anybody know about how 18 

### long I've been? 19 

### REPORTER: It's been about 7 minutes. 20 

### MS. SWEENEY: Seven minutes? Okay. 21 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Thank you. 2217

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### MS. SWEENEY: I'll just finish this 1 

### paragraph and then I'll sign up again. 2 

### MR. LONG: Okay. 3 

### MS. SWEENEY: In addition, EPA minimizes 4 

### the importance of studies that show that adjacent 5 

### aquifers have been adequately protected by 6 

### existing federal and state programs. EPA can 7 

### point to no evidence because none exists. 8 

### So what does EPA say exactly about risk? 9 

### Because the evidence doesn't exist, the proposed 10 

### rule merely speculates and hedges most of the 11 

### risk discussion with terms "may," "could," and 12 

### "unable to quantify." As examples, EPA talks 13 

### about human health risks that could result in the 14 

### -- I'm sorry -- that could result in the ability 15 

### to quantify how many deaths that would be 16 

### averted, admits it does not have a basis for 17 

### estimating which, if any, well fields would 18 

### experience an undetected, contaminated plume in 19 

### absence of the proposed rule. 20 

### Perhaps the most telling statement is the 21 

### following: "We find it difficult to characterize 2218

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### the probability of magnitude of future 1 

### contamination problems or the costs inclined in 2 

### remediating such future contamination." 3 

### And then I will continue later. Any 4 

### questions? 5 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Thank you. I 6 

### appreciate that. Questions? 7 

### [No audible response.] 8 

### MR. LONG: Okay. We are going to call 9 

### our second speaker, Mike Thomas. Mike, if you 10 

### also could spell your name and state who you're 11 

### representing. 12 

### MR. THOMAS: Mike Thomas. T-h-o-m-a-s. 13 

### I am the Vice President of Regulatory and Public 14 

### Affairs for Uranerz Energy Corporation, and I'm 15 

### also the Vice President of the Wyoming Mining 16 

### Association. 17 

### Well, good morning and thank you for 18 

### having this hearing today. As I said, my name is 19 

### Mike Thomas. I am the Vice President of 20 

### Regulatory and Public Affairs for Uranerz Energy 21 

### Corporation, headquartered and operating in 2219

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Wyoming. I'm also the Vice President of the 1 

### Wyoming Mining Association. The Mining 2 

### Association is an industry association 3 

### representing mining companies, contractors, 4 

### vendors, suppliers, and consultants in the state 5 

### of Wyoming, whose members are uranium recovery 6 

### licensees, including in-situ and conventional 7 

### uranium recovery operations. There are several 8 

### companies planning new uranium recovery 9 

### operations and several companies conducting final 10 

### reclamation restoration activities. 11 

### Thank you for the opportunity today to 12 

### present preliminary comments on the proposed 13 

### rulemaking. I'm also pleased to see the recent 14 

### announcement that the EPA will be scheduling 15 

### additional hearings in Wyoming and Texas. These 16 

### are the areas were ISR production is currently 17 

### taking place and the areas where this rulemaking 18 

### will have the most impact. This is a great 19 

### benefit to those land owners, operators, local 20 

### governments, and members of the public in those 21 

### areas, to be able to voice their concerns and 2220

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### comments on the proposed rulemaking without 1 

### having the considerable expense and effort to 2 

### getting to Washington, D.C., from remote places 3 

### in Wyoming. 4 

### The EPA has been working on this 5 

### rulemaking for several years now, and upon 6 

### completion and publishing in the Federal 7 

### Register, the voluminous rule contains over 20 8 

### documents. Because this rule has the ability to 9 

### have major operational economic impacts on your 10 

### Uranerz and those other ISR companies operating 11 

### in Wyoming, I'm requesting that the current 12 

### comment period proposed by the EPA to be extended 13 

### by at least another 90 days in order for the 14 

### complex rule to be fully reviewed and fully 15 

### commented on by Uranerz, the Wyoming Mining 16 

### Association, and all others that are affected. 17 

### Even with the amount of documentation, 18


### Uranerz and the WMA have been able to conduct a 19 

### cursory review of the rulemaking and have the 20 

### following comments for the EPA. Additional 21 

### comments will be coming on from both companies 2221

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### and the association. 1 

### Comments that I'll focus on, on three 2 

### areas -- the rulemaking transparency and 3 

### consultation, technical aspects, and economics. 4 

### So with that, let's begin with the transparency 5 

### and consultation. This rulemaking was conducted 6 

### without any consultation with the Wyoming 7 

### regulatory agencies or with the Mining 8 

### Association. The EPA did not ask the Wyoming 9 

### Department of Environmental Quality about 10 

### existing requirements for groundwater restoration 11 

### in the state of Wyoming, or of the success of 12 

### those operations that have restored groundwater. 13 

### Additionally, EPA did not contact or ask 14 

### for information from the WMA or companies that 15 

### have conducted restoration successfully. This is 16 

### a departure from the last EPA rulemaking that 17 

### affected the industry, the Subpart W rulemaking. 18 

### In that rulemaking, the EPA at least sent out 19 

### requests for information to an industry, to 20 

### gather data to support what was going on. 21 

### The EPA also failed to mention the work 2222

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### conducted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on 1 

### analyzing the impacts of ISR operations. Both 2 

### the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Generic Impact 3 

### Environmental Statement for ISR mining and the 4 

### 2009 NRC study on environmental effects of ISR 5 

### mining were not utilized in this rulemaking. The 6 

### GEIS concluded that ISR mining operations are of 7 

### low environmental risk, and the 2009 study 8 

### reported that there was no known migration of 9 

### recovery solutions to adjacent, non-exempt 10 

### aquifers based on 40-plus years of ISR 11 

### operations. 12 

### Moving on to the technical basis of the 13 

### rulemaking, this rulemaking lacks a sound 14 

### regulatory basis. It is not risk-informed and 15 

### lacks justification through sound metrics. This 16 

### is demonstrated in the words of the preamble, 17 

### where it says, and I quote, "It's difficult to 18 

### characterize the benefits of our proposal by 19 

### applying typical agency metrics." If sound 20 

### metrics cannot be used to justify rulemaking, 21 

### then it is not justified. 2223

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Furthermore, the entire technical 1 

### discussion is speculation, with use of such terms 2 

### as "potential could migrate," and "may increase 3 

### human health risk." The EPA does not present any 4 

### data demonstrating that there is the potential 5 

### for migration of recovery solutions, post6 

### restoration, nor is any data presented where an 7 

### adjacent aquifer has been impacted post8 

### restoration. 9 

### Lastly, the EPA repeatedly mentions their 10


### concerns about the future use of water and how 11 

### groundwater is becoming scarce. However, EPA 12 

### does not address the cost in both dollars and 13 

### resource, or trying to achieve the statistical 14 

### 95-percent confidence level. EPA must know that 15 

### for every one gallon of water used in 16 

### restoration, one gallon of fresh water of inflow 17 

### is used. If quality water is being consumed to 18 

### achieve a 95-percent confidence without placing 19 

### any value on the future use of the water, then 20 

### the groundwater is being wasted. This defeats 21 

### the EPA's purpose of protecting the groundwater 2224

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### for future use. 1 

### Moving on to economics, the economic 2 

### analysis used by the EPA is not correct. Long3 

### term licensing cost, land-holding cost, operating 4 

### cost, well sampling and lab cost, and bonding 5 

### have either been understated or left out. 6 

### Additionally, metrics used to describe the size 7 

### of the industry are incorrect, such as using 8 

### utility uranium purchases to describe the size of 9 

### the ISR industries. Currently the ISR industry 10 

### produces less than 10 percent of the uranium that 11 

### is used by utilities and by no means supplies all 12 

### the uranium consumed by these utilities. 13 

### In conclusion, this rulemaking is flawed 14 

### and needs to be withdrawn. The EPA has presented 15 

### rulemaking that lacks any regulatory basis or 16 

### certainty for Uranerz and other ISR mining 17 

### operations. Without having any regulatory basis 18 

### or certainty, our business, our mining industry 19 

### cannot move forward, and therefore this 20 

### rulemaking should not move forward. 21 

### Thank you very much. 2225

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### MR. LONG: Thank you. Any questions? 1 

### MR. PEAKE: I have a question. Do you 2 

### have post-restoration data that you'll be able to 3 

### share with us? 4 

### MR. THOMAS: There's been an industry 5 

### paper out through NMA/NRC conferences that shows 6 

### restoration data for not only in Wyoming but in 7 

### Texas operations too. I can get a hold of the 8 

### person. Katie or I could. That information 9 

### would be supplied in the comment period, or our 10


### comments too. 11 

### MR. PEAKE: How long do you monitor? I 12 

### don't know the status of your particular 13 

### operation, but how long do you monitor after 14 

### you've restored? 15 

### MR. THOMAS: We are -- with Uranerz 16 

### Energy, I'll just speak to this specifically for 17 

### Uranerz Energy. Right now we're currently 18 

### operating. We have no well fields in 19 

### restoration. Right now we are required to 20 

### monitor stability monitoring for at least 1 year 21 

### after we determine that the aquifer is stable. 2226

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 1 

### MR. THOMAS: Prior, it used to be 6 2 

### months and it's been increased to 1 year. 3 

### MR. LONG: Any other questions, panel? 4 

### Okay. I'd like to call up the third speaker, 5 

### Neil Blandford. If you could spell your name and 6 

### state who you're representing, Neil. 7 

### MR. BLANDFORD: Neil Blandford, B-l-a-n8 

### d-f-o-r-d. I'm a principal hydrologist with 9 

### Daniel B. Stephens and Associates in Albuquerque, 10 

### New Mexico, representing the Goliad County 11 

### Groundwater Conservation District today. 12 

### As I said, I'm here to provide comments 13 

### on behalf of the district. I have read through 14 

### most of the background materials provided for the 15 

### proposed rule changes, and I've noticed both in 16 

### the Federal Register and the background materials 17 

### there is reference to the Goliad project in a 18 

### number of reports that were produced as part of 19 

### that contested case hearing, and the district 20 

### would like to thank EPA for considering those 21 

### reports, and that data that's available is part 2227

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### of that case, which was very hard-fought, on 1 

### behalf of the district. 2 

### The reason that the district contested 3 

### the permit to the extent that it did is because 4 

### the district residents rely solely on 5 

### groundwater, and perhaps somewhat different from 6 

### some other ISR sites, there is a number of 7 

### domestic wells and water users in the vicinity of 8 

### this proposed facility. Anyone from the Western 9 

### states realizes the importance of groundwater to 10 

### those states. Needs are increasing through time 11 

### and supplies are not available. Surface water is 12 

### entirely appropriated in most Western states and 13 

### the future supplies will come from groundwater, 14 

### and therefore it's very important to the district 15 

### to protect those resources. 16 

### There is one permitted mine now. There's 17 

### other exploration going on in the county. So in 18 

### terms of a water resources planning perspective, 19 

### they could be faced with the fact of having 20 

### multiple mines, checkered, in some way, 21 

### throughout the county, and this could happen in 2228

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### other areas, as well. 1 

### So in our view, long-term monitoring of 2 

### these facilities, so we can determine for certain 3 

### that there's not concerns with impacted 4 

### groundwater in the future, only makes sense, and 5 

### that's really the last resort that the district 6 

### has at this point, in terms of protecting its 7


### water resources. 8 

### As explained in the Federal Register, 9 

### analysis of prior sites, the operational plans 10 

### talk about restoration of groundwater, and there 11 

### is a large degree of restoration that occurs, but 12 

### usually there is not full restoration. That we 13 

### know from existing sites, and we know that there 14 

### are situations that, for whatever reason, full 15 

### restoration is not possible, and it's our view 16 

### that that's not fully understood, and it's a 17 

### continuing area of research. 18 

### The Conservation District fully supports 19 

### the approach of the preoperational phase 20 

### monitoring. This was a significant issue in the 21 

### Goliad case, where the initial uranium 2229

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### concentrations sampled from the monitor wells 1 

### were high, and it's in our opinion that was due 2 

### to the actual process of drilling and completing 3 

### a monitor well where oxygen was introduced to the 4 

### aquifer, allowed uranium to come into solution, 5 

### and therefore the first groundwater sample taken 6 

### had a high value of uranium in it. Subsequent 7 

### sampling, conducted by the applicant, which was 8 

### not made available until we were within the 9 

### contested case hearing, showed significantly 10 

### lower values of uranium in the aquifer after a 11 

### significant period of time had passed from the 12 

### drilling of the well. 13 

### So the approach in these proposed 14 

### regulations of having a more extended period of 15 

### pre-mine monitoring, if you will, to make sure 16 

### that we're looking at appropriate background 17 

### concentrations makes sense and is fully supported 18 

### by the district. 19 

### We also support the approach of using a 20 

### consistent monitoring network throughout all 21 

### phases of mining, from preoperational to the 2230

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### long-term stability phase. This was another issue 1 

### of contention that came up in the Goliad case, 2 

### where there were monitor wells within the mining 3 

### unit that had a limited screen interval over the 4 

### ore zone, and monitor wells, perimeter monitor 5 

### wells which had a longer screen interval outside 6


### of the ore zone. 7 

### Such an approach is fine in our view if 8 

### the wells used are consistent throughout the 9 

### monitoring phase, but to assert that the higher 10 

### uranium concentrations, for example, in 11 

### groundwater, from a limited screened well within 12 

### the ore zone be used as a background 13 

### concentration mine-wide is not an appropriate 14 

### approach, in our view, and I think that this rule 15 

### deals with that in the way that it's written. 16 

### We also support the, as I mentioned 17 

### earlier, the long-term time frame, the 30-year 18 

### time frame, and the statistical analysis 19 

### approach. We also support the use of modeling, 20 

### although I would note, based on another case I've 21 

### been involved in, which is the Church Rock case, 2231

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### where we did some modeled review on behalf of the 1 

### New Mexico Environment Department, that there's a 2 

### ways to go in understanding the hydrogeochemistry 3 

### and the kinetics of the uranium minerals, and I 4 

### think that's acknowledged in your background 5 

### documents and there's some ongoing work with the 6 

### U.S. Geological Survey, and I think that makes a 7 

### lot of sense. But we have done a fairly thorough 8 

### data review, looking for kinetic relationships, 9 

### and we were not able to find adequate information 10 

### there to do detailed modeling of future uranium 11 

### concentrations. 12 

### Roman number IV-D in the proposed rules, 13 

### Excursions, you've requested input on the concept 14 

### of a stand-by period, and you note that for a 15 

### conventional mill there may be extended periods 16 

### of stand-by, but I would, again, agree with the 17 

### proposed rule in this case, that the way that 18 

### impacted groundwater for the mining operation is 19 

### maintained is through active pumping. So there 20 

### really should be no significant period of stand21 

### by for these types of facilities, certainly not 2232

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### years. Operationally, there will be lesser 1 

### periods of time that will be required that, for 2 

### one reason or another, pumping may not continue, 3 

### but those periods should be minimized. 4 

### And that concludes my comments at this 5 

### time, and again, to the extent to have time left, 6 

### I may make further comments later in the day. 7 

### MR. LONG: Thank you very much. Any 8 

### questions from the panel? 9 

### [No audible response.] 10 

### MR. LONG: Okay. All right. I'd like to 11 

### call our next speaker, who is Geoff Fettus, I 12 

### think. Thank you. 13 

### MR. FETTUS: Good morning and thank you 14 

### for holding this hearing. My name is Geoffrey 15 

### Fettus, G-e-o-f-f-r-e-y F-e-t-t-u-s, and I'm a 16 

### senior attorney with the Natural Resources 17 

### Defense Council. NRDC is a national, nonprofit 18 

### environmental organization with over 1 million 19 

### combined members and activists. Our activities 20 

### include maintaining and enhancing environmental 21 

### quality and monitoring federal agency actions to 2233

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### ensure that federal statutes, enacted to protect 1 

### human health and the environment, are fully and 2 

### properly implemented. 3 

### Since 1970, NRDC has sought to improve 4 

### the environmental health and safety conditions at 5 

### civil nuclear facilities licensed by the NRC, 6 

### under standards set by EPA. We have called for 7 

### an EPA rule to address ISL uranium mining for 8 

### nearly a decade and we are truly pleased that 9 

### this draft has finally arrived. EPA has proposed 10 

### these new standards and amendments under its 11 

### Atomic Energy Act authority, as amended by 12 

### Section 206 of the Uranium Mill Tailings 13 

### Radiation Control Act, or UMTRCA, and I will not 14 

### say the whole law again, just UMTRCA of 1978. 15 

### NRDC supports EPA's action in this 16 

### appropriate exercise of federal authority. We 17 

### look forward to offering extensive written 18 

### comments in support of strengthening the rule by 19 

### the April 27th deadline. 20 

### And I'll speak extemporaneously for a 21


### moment now. We don't see the need for an 2234

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### extension of time. You've already provided a 1 

### generous 90 days. However, if there is an 2 

### extension of time, we've waited so long for this 3 

### rule and there's so much in terms of the record 4 

### that many groups have already created, we think 5 

### that this can be done with all dispatch, and an 6 

### additional 30 days, if that accommodates all the 7 

### parties, should be adequate. 8 

### I'll move on. As a first order of 9 

### business, we're pleased to offer our unequivocal 10 

### support today to EPA's well-grounded 11 

### interpretation of the law, that UMTRCA is the 12 

### controlling legal authority for protection of 13 

### groundwater for in-situ leaching uranium mining 14 

### sites, and that the NRC or any agreement state is 15 

### obligated to implement these 40 CFR Part 192 16 

### standards to implement these standards. 17 

### So when we file our written comments in 18 

### April, we will demonstrate, in extensive detail, 19 

### that reliance on how NRC and agreement states 20 

### have interpreted the requirements of the 21 

### underground injection control program, authorized 2235

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### under separate legal authority, do not fail to 1 

### adequately address groundwater protections at ISL 2 

### facilities. Neither does the NRC licensing 3 

### regime. Rather, the current NRC interpretation 4 

### of its statutory regime and regulatory 5 

### obligations directly allows for significant 6 

### contamination of scarce sources of Western 7 

### groundwater. As EPA noted in this draft, if the 8 

### groundwater is not considered a U.S. drinking 9 

### water, as is typically the case at ISL sites, it 10 

### is not protected under the Safe Drinking Water 11 

### Act and the ISL mine is, for all intents and 12 

### purposes, used as a disposal area and left, in 13 

### every instance that we have found, severely 14 

### contaminated. 15 

### Next, we offer support for EPA's well16 

### grounded position that UMTRCA requires it to 17 

### establish protections consistent with the 18 

### requirements of the Resource Conservation and 19 

### Recovery Act. Therefore, an aquifer exemption 20 

### under the Safe Drinking Water Act does not 21 

### relieve the licensee of the obligation to 2236

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### remediate environmental contamination, resulting 1 

### from activities regulated under UMTRCA. EPA 2 

### standards issued pursuant to UMTRCA clearly and 3 

### plainly apply within the exempted portion of the 4 

### aquifer. 5 

### Make no mistake. We expect your valid 6 

### interpretation of these statutory obligations 7 

### will meet with resistance on a number of crucial 8 

### issues and we've already heard that today. As 9 

### one example, both NRC and the ISL industry have 10 

### taken the position that background water quality, 11 

### the fundamental requirement of collecting and 12 

### analyzing environmental data, impacts, and 13 

### alternatives to an area where the mining will 14 

### take place, can be done long after licensing and 15 

### approving the site and long after the aquifer has 16 

### been affected. Indeed, restoration goals that 17 

### are never met are set on an already fouled nest. 18 

### This cannot continue, and your rule, if 19 

### finalized, can start the process of addressing 20


### such harms. 21 

### Another example of expected resistance is 2237

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### NRC and industry have asserted that environmental 1 

### impacts can be dismissed as small and temporary 2 

### without any underlying analysis that demonstrates 3 

### a correspondingly minimal impact. Indeed, to the 4 

### contrary, the impacts to the aquifer in every 5 

### instance that we have seen are large and 6 

### irreversible. Our April comments will 7 

### exhaustively demonstrate that groundwater will be 8 

### substantially degraded and that there is long9 

### term harm to crucial natural resources. 10 

### While there are several aspects of the 11 

### rule that merit our support, there are areas 12 

### where the rule either needs clarification or 13 

### strengthening. Issues such as ongoing industrial 14 

### waste disposal for ISL operations, how excursions 15 

### and upper control limits are treated, and 16 

### ensuring the new standards apply to ISL mines 17 

### that go in and out of operation are just a few 18 

### items that need substantially more precision. 19 

### But to conclude my brief statement, this 20 

### rule is necessary, well-grounded in its organic 21 

### statute, and years overdue. Communities and 2238

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### water resources across the American West, from 1 

### south Texas to Wyoming, have been negatively 2 

### affected by uranium recovery for decades, and 3 

### this set of standards, implemented with all 4 

### dispatch, can finally start the industry and its 5 

### direct regulators, the NRC and the agreement 6 

### states, on a path to a full accounting of the 7 

### environmental harms and costs of uranium 8



### recovery. 9 

### Thank you very much for this opportunity 10 

### to speak, for holding this year, and I'll take 11 

### any questions. 12 

### MR. LONG: Thank you. No questions. 13 

### MR. FETTUS: Thank you. 14 

### MR. LONG: All right. Our next speaker, 15 

### again, is Katie Sweeney. I'm sorry. Let me back 16 

### up. Benjamin Klein, number 5. Sorry, Benjamin. 17 

### MR. KLEIN: Thank you. My name is 18 

### Benjamin Klein, K-l-e-i-n. I'm here today to 19 

### speak on behalf of the Uranium Producers of 20 

### America, which is a trade association of the 21 

### leading uranium mining conversion companies in 2239

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### the United States. Our members have operations 1 

### in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, New 2 

### Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, and our 3 

### industry plays a critical role in ensuring that 4 

### U.S. nuclear reactors have a domestic supply of 5 

### uranium. At this point we are providing less 6 

### than 10 percent of the reactor needs and we're 7 

### very concerned that with this rulemaking we could 8 

### see our industry shrink even further. 9 

### We're still reviewing the rulemaking, the 10 

### 2,500 pages of supporting documents, but we want 11 

### to share our initial views today. It's also 12 

### important for the EPA to hear directly from the 13 

### stakeholders in the industry. I'm happy to come 14 

### today. I'm based in D.C., but obviously our 15 

### industry is based in the West, and we're happy 16 

### that EPA has announced additional hearings to be 17 

### held in Texas and Wyoming. We think that's an 18 

### important step for you guys to hear directly from 19 

### the communities that are impacted by this rule. 20 

### We are, however, joining others in 21 

### requesting an extension of the comment period by 2240

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### 90 days. As I mentioned, there's 2,500 pages of 1 

### supporting documents, which we're reviewing. We 2 

### want to provide detailed comments. It's 3 

### obviously a complex issue and an additional 90 4 

### days, we feel, is certainly warranted in this 5



### case. 6 

### With that said, let me share some of our 7 

### initial thoughts, from going through the 8 

### materials. Overall, we're very concerned that 9 

### the rulemaking ignores the history of ISR mining 10 

### in the United States. It's already an industry 11 

### that's highly regulated at every phase of 12 

### operation, including restoration. Existing 13 

### regulations require ISR operators to restore 14 

### groundwater to baseline conditions, and we're 15 

### troubled that EPA didn't, at least to our 16 

### knowledge, reach out to the industry nor to the 17 

### state regulators to learn more about the process 18 

### to date in the existing regulations. 19 

### We do recognize that EPA has authority 20 

### under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control 21 

### Act to set general standards for ISR operations, 2241

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### but it's the NRC and the agreement states that 1 

### are charged with implementing those standards and 2 

### outlining the specific steps an operator must 3 

### take to demonstrate compliance. And in our view 4 

### the rulemaking goes too far and actually gets 5 

### into the particulars of what an operator must do, 6 

### which is really the NRC's role. 7 

### For example, the requirement for 30 years 8 

### of post-restoration groundwater monitoring, we 9 

### believe, is outside the scope of EPA's authority, 10 

### and frankly isn't supported by the science that 11 

### we've seen. The requirement would threaten the 12 

### economics for many of our projects, tie up 13 

### capital, and make it very difficult to lease 14 

### land. It's very difficult to go to a landowner 15 

### and lock up their land for an additional 30 16 

### years, particularly when we don't believe EPA has 17 

### presented evidence to show that this requirement 18


### would be warranted. 19 

### It's been mentioned this morning but I 20 

### think it's worth mentioning again that the NRC 21 

### has looked at this issue extensively. A 2009 2242

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### General Environmental Impact Statement issued by 1 

### the NRC concluded that ISR operations are low2 

### risk. They also had a separate 2009 study which 3 

### concluded, in part, "The data from these 4 

### monitoring programs do not show impacts 5 

### attributable to the ISR facility. The staff is 6 

### unaware of any situation indicating the quality 7 

### of groundwater at a nearby water supply well has 8 

### been degraded. The use of water supply well has 9 

### been discontinued or a well has been relocated 10 

### because of impacts attributable to an ISR 11 

### facility." 12 

### The Texas Commission on Environmental 13 

### Quality, which has also been regulating in this 14 

### area for 3 decades, also noted, in a May 24, 15 

### 2012, letter to the EPA that there has not been 16 

### one instance of documented off-site pollution of 17 

### a USDW from ISR mining activities. And so we 18 

### feel both at the state level as well as the NRC, 19 

### which has been regulating in this space for many 20 

### years, they have not found problems with ISR 21 

### mining, and have not found impacts with adjacent 2243

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### wells. 1 

### The EPA does reference a USGS report from 2 

### 2009 that looked at restoration at Texas 3 

### facilities. While that report claimed that the 4 

### industry failed to fully restore all 5 

### constituents, the report never looked at the 6 

### public health or environmental impact of those 7 

### elevated levels. None of the 22 sites that were 8 

### studied contained water suitable for drinking 9 

### before the project, and all the projects met the 10 

### definition of prior use post-restoration. 11


### So what about these elevated levels? 12 

### Well, a 2009 study by NRC concluded that the 13 

### remaining constituents were restored to 14 

### concentrations that were above baseline but they 15


### were restored to levels the NRC staff found to be 16 

### protective of public health and the environment. 17 

### Further restoration -- and this has been 18 

### mentioned this morning -- further restoration to 19 

### address the few elevated constituents will waste 20 

### additional valuable fresh groundwater. Drawing 21 

### in and using more fresh water from outside the 2244

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### exempted portion of the aquifer to restore what 1 

### is and will always be water that's not fit for 2 

### human consumption seems to run counter to EPA's 3 

### stated desire to protect future sources of 4 

### drinking water. 5 

### When we've gone through the rulemaking, 6 

### we really don't see clearly articulated benefits. 7 

### The EPA does note it's difficult to characterize 8 

### the probability or magnitude of future 9 

### contamination problems. The EPA seems to only be 10 

### able to site probable or possible benefits, 11 

### rather than specific benefits or specific 12 

### examples of harm that has occurred in the 13 

### industry to date. 14 

### We also believe that the EPA has 15 

### underestimated the cost of the rulemaking. The 16 

### cost estimate makes no mention of the added cost 17 

### of leasing land, maintaining a surety bond, 18 

### maintaining staff and equipment on site for an 19 

### additional 30 years. EPA is also proposing this 20 

### rule be retroactive for existing projects that 21 

### have not entered restoration, and the costs of 2245

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### this rulemaking were never factored into those 1 

### projects, which, for many of them, would make the 2 

### economics simply not work. So we feel that this 3 

### retroactive provision needs to be stricken from 4


### the rule. 5 

### Finally, we're troubled the rulemaking 6 

### process ignores the fact that before an ISR 7 

### project can commence, the operator must receive 8 

### an aquifer exemption permit from the EPA. The 9 

### permit can only be granted after the operator 10 

### demonstrates the water cannot now, or in the 11 

### future, be a source of drinking water. Yet 12 

### throughout the proposed rule, the EPA notes that 13 

### some day the water may become a source of 14 

### drinking water. EPA makes no mention of the fact 15 

### that the agency has already concluded the water 16 

### is already unsafe for human consumption, now as 17 

### well as going forward. 18 

### So, in conclusion, we would urge EPA to 19 

### withdraw the rule and instead to work with the 20 

### industry, work with the states, and determine if 21 

### there are updates that need to be made to the 2246

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### restoration standards. 1 

### MR. LONG: Thank you. I think we have a 2 

### question. 3 

### MR. PEAKE: I'd like to ask you the same 4 

### question I asked earlier. Do you have any post5 

### restoration data, and how long does that data go 6 

### for? Do you have any data that goes beyond 7 

### several years? 8 

### MR. KLEIN: I believe we do, and our 9 

### members will be providing that data. There is 10 

### considerable data that's been generated in Texas, 11 

### which we'll be providing as part of our response 12 

### to the rulemaking. I don't know offhand the 13 

### number of years, but some of those projects, it's 14 

### certainly well beyond a couple of years. We 15 

### would be happy to show that. 16 

### MR. PEAKE: That would be great. 17 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Any other questions? 18 

### [No audible response.] 19 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Thank you, and our next 20 

### speaker is Katie Sweeney. 21 

### MS. SWEENEY: Do I need to respell my 2247

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### last name? Okay. This is Katie Sweeney from 1 

### National Mining again, and I'm just going to 2 

### finish up my discussion on risk and how EPA's 3 

### risk assessment is flawed for this rulemaking. 4 

### We believe that EPA misreads or ignores 5 

### existing well-field restoration data. In the 6 

### absence of evidence of off-site migration, EPA 7 

### selectively looks at well-field restoration 8 

### results in an attempt to justify this rulemaking. 9 

### For example, EPA cites groundwater 10 

### restoration at uranium in-situ recovery mines, 11 

### South Texas Coastal Plain, a Susan Hall (U.S. 12 

### Geological Survey) study from 2009, for the 13 

### proposition that most in-site recovery sites 14 

### historically have been unable to meet restoration 15 

### goals for all constituents, even after extensive 16 

### effort. EPA, however, fails to acknowledge that 17 

### (1) most constituents were restored to baseline; 18 

### (2) even though some constituents were not 19 

### completely restored, that does not mean the 20 

### elevated concentrations pose a risk to human 21 

### health or the environment; and (3) there is no 2248

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### direct correlation to elevated concentrations in 1 

### the exempt aquifer and increased risk to an 2 

### adjacent aquifer. 3 

### Another report EPA cites is "Nuclear 4 

### Fuel's Dirty Beginnings: Environmental Damage and 5 

### Publish Health Risks from Uranium Mining in the 6 

### American West," a report by the Natural Resources 7 

### Defense Council. I don't believe -- and I'd be 8 

### happy to be corrected if this is wrong -- that 9 

### the report was ever peer reviewed, so, therefore, 10 

### I think it fails to meet EPA's data quality 11


### standards. 12 

### Even a report EPA commissioned to assess 13 

### exposure scenarios and exposure pathways for 14 

### potentially hazardous constituents, mainly 15 

### radionuclides, from ISR facilities does not 16 

### support the agency's conclusion that migration of 17 

### contaminates have the potential to result in 18 

### significant exposures to individuals outside of 19 

### the production areas. The report, EPA, 2012, 20 

### "Groundwater Modeling Studies at In-Situ Leaching 21 

### Facilities: An Evaluation of Doses and Risks to 2249

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Off-Site Receptors From Contaminated 1 

### Groundwater," primarily examined failure 2 

### scenarios, and that report specifically cautions, 3 

### "The scenarios examined focus on failures of the 4 

### ISR operations that are possible but unlikely if 5 

### the operations are carefully monitored by the 6 

### operators and the regulatory authorities." 7 

### These failure scenarios contain 8 

### conservative assumptions that are typical of risk 9 

### assessments and may not apply in any specific 10 

### situation because of population distribution 11 

### differences, and the magnitude and duration of 12 

### the exposure scenarios examined versus an actual 13



### occurrence. 14 

### So not only do none of the studies or 15 

### reports cited in the proposed rule demonstrate 16 

### actual risk of detrimental impacts to an adjacent 17 

### aquifer, they provide no support whatsoever for 18 

### EPA's arbitrary decision to impose a 30-year-long 19 

### stability monitoring period. Besides a reference 20 

### to the 30-year time frame being borrowed from the 21 

### Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program, 2250

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### EPA fails to adequately justify its use. 1 

### Finally, EPA ignores existing data from 2 

### NRC, the agency with the greatest expertise in 3 

### regulating uranium recovery, that reveals the 4 

### low-risk nature of in-situ recovery operations. 5 

### Importantly, NRC considers ISR operations more 6 

### environmentally benign than other types of 7 

### uranium recovery. In 2009, using knowledge 8 

### gained during the past 30 years of licensing in 9 

### regulating in-situ recovery facilities, NRC 10 

### published a Generic Environmental Impact 11 

### Statement to assess the potential environmental 12 

### impacts associated with all aspects of in-situ 13 

### uranium recovery, including groundwater 14 

### restoration. 15 

### The GEIS confirms the low-risk nature of 16 

### in-situ recovery activities, indicating that the 17 

### majority of the potential impacts are small, 18 

### explains that all groundwater in an in-situ 19 

### uranium recovery zone is exempted from 20 

### consideration as a source of drinking water by 21 

### the EPA, because it is unsuitable for human 2251

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### consumptions as a drinking water source, both 1 

### before and after uranium recovery operations 2 

### occur, describes the groundwater restoration that 3 

### is required to protect adjacent, non-exempt 4 

### waters, and explains that in ISR mining non-toxic 5 

### leaching agents, such as oxygen with sodium 6 

### carbonate, are injected through the wells into 7 

### the ore body to dissolve the uranium. 8 

### Additionally, NRC prepared another 9 

### document in 2009, providing the findings of NRC 10 

### on groundwater from a number of ISR facilities. 11 

### Importantly, NRC found that no groundwater 12 

### excursions from the studied ISR operations 13 

### resulted in environmental impacts. EPA fails to 14 

### give adequate credence to the NRC findings. 15 

### I appreciate the opportunity to speak. 16 

### MR. LONG: Thank you. Any questions? 17 

### [No audible response.] 18 

### MS. SWEENEY: And can I -- for one thing 19 

### that we've been talking about, this is just in 20 

### response to Tom's question from before, about 21 

### data. Quarterly monitoring data that EPA gathers 2252

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### under the UIC program might also be instrumental 1 

### to look at here, is what I'm hearing from some of 2 

### my members. So it would be data that EPA already 3


### has. 4 

### MR. PEAKE: Thank you. 5 

### MR. LONG: Very good. And our next 6 

### speaker is Christopher Pugsley. Christopher, if 7 

### you could state your name for the court reporter, 8 

### and who you represent. Thank you. 9 

### MR. PUGSLEY: Good morning. Thank you 10 

### very much for having me here today. My name is 11 

### Christopher Pugsley. Last name is spelled P-u-g12 

### s-l-e-y. I currently serve as Owner and Partner 13 

### in the law firm of Thompson and Pugsley, here in 14 

### Washington, D.C. I am also serving as outside 15 

### counsel to the National Mining Association, as 16 

### well as to most of the members of the uranium 17 

### recovery industry, including ISR recovery. 18 

### Before entering my initial remarks, I'd 19 

### like to make a couple of personal comments on 20 

### this that are solely reserved to me, and not to 21 

### any other party. The first is I fully support 2253

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### EPA's effort to conduct additional public 1 

### hearings in Wyoming and Texas. I would further 2 

### comment that it would make very good sense for 3 

### EPA to also consider a hearing in Denver, 4 

### Colorado, as EPA did with its 40 CFR Part 61 5 

### Subpart W proposed rule. This is mainly because 6 

### many of the members of our members have corporate 7 

### offices in Denver, as well as EPA having its 8 

### Region 8 office in Denver. I think the hearing 9 

### on the Subpart W rule went very well in Denver. 10 

### It was very well attended, and a lot of good 11 

### speakers, so I think that EPA should consider 12 

### that as another public location. 13 

### Secondly, I'm an attorney. The only 14 

### science that I have a degree in is political 15 

### science, so I'm not going to waste my time 16 

### commenting on the science of ISR. I think that 17 

### has been fully endorsed through litigations at 18 

### the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, two of which 19 

### have not been finally decided but have initial 20 

### decisions. We have the Hydro Resources 21 

### litigation that stemmed from 1996 until around 2254

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### 2006, and was litigated on issues associated with 1 

### groundwater, all the way up to the Supreme Court, 2 

### where the Supreme Court denied review. But an 3 

### affirmative decision was rendered by the U.S. 4 

### Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver. 5 

### The second is the Strata Energy 6 

### litigation, which recently had an initial 7 

### decision issued on similar issues, finding that 8 

### the science is indeed intact. 9 

### Lastly, with respect to the questions 10 

### that have been asked previously about will 11 

### additional data be made available by industry, 12 

### from a personal level I would wish EPA had 13 

### reached out to the industry like they did in the 14 

### Subpart W proposed rule, for data input, because 15 

### there was at least 2 to 3 years of requests from 16 

### EPA to industry regarding data on radon emissions 17 

### from tailings impoundments and other ponds, et 18 

### cetera, at ISR and conventional mill facilities. 19 

### Had EPA done that, the EPA may not have come out 20 

### with this proposed rule, because I think EPA 21 

### would have seen the science works here. 2255

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### With that said, I'm going to return to my 1 

### prepared comments, which are, as I said, not from 2 

### a technical or science background but from a 3 

### legal perspective. The initial position we are 4 

### taking here is that the proposed rule itself, 5 

### and, more specifically, two key aspects of the 6 

### rule, both of which have been discussed in 7 

### previous commenters' discussion, the new and 8 

### emphasis on prescriptive pre-operational 9 

### monitoring time frames and data requirements, as 10 

### well as new prescriptive post-restoration 11 

### stabilization monitoring, are outside the scope 12 

### of EPA's Uranium Mill Tailings and Radiation 13 

### Control Act-based jurisdiction. 14 

### The EPA's jurisdiction over uranium 15 

### milling in 11(e)(2) byproduct material is found 16 

### in UMTRCA as passed by Congress, which creates a 17 

### three-tiered jurisdictional system for 11(e)(2) 18 

### byproduct material -- the first resting with EPA, 19 

### the second with the Nuclear Regulatory 20 

### Commission, and the third with the U.S. 21 

### Department of Energy. Under UMTRCA, EPA was 2256

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### granted the authority to promulgate generally 1 

### applicable standards for the safe management and 2 

### disposal of 11(e)(2) byproduct material, and as 3 

### we know, these are found in 40 CFR Part 192. 4 

### Under UMTRCA, NRC is directed to conform 5 

### its regulations for uranium milling and 11(e)(2) 6 

### byproduct material to these generally applicable 7 

### standards, and under UMTRCA, the Department of 8 

### Energy is directed to take title to all 11(e)(2) 9 

### byproduct material and the land on which such 10 

### material is disposed after licensed termination 11 

### for long-term surveillance and monitoring as a 12 

### general licensee of NRC, in perpetuity. 13 

### Currently, the closure period prescribed 14 

### is 200 years, and, to the maximum extent 15 

### practicable, 1,000 years, unless waived by the 16 

### Commission. As of this time, ISR well-fields, 17 

### i.e., the subsurface, the depleted underground 18 

### ore body and the water within, NRC has waived the 19 

### long-term surveillance requirements under UMTRCA 20 

### because there is no risk of contamination of 21 

### adjacent, non-exempt aquifers. 2257

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### As a general matter, UMTRCA's 1 

### jurisdictional lines are clearly drawn between 2 

### EPA's standard-setting authority and NRC's 3 

### implementation, compliance, and enforcement 4 

### authority. Given that the proposed rule focuses 5 

### exclusively on ISR operations and groundwater, 6 

### the focus of this testimony will be directed at 7


### that. 8 

### The two aforementioned prescriptive 9 

### proposals violate the provisions of UMTRCA and 10 

### are legally invalid on their face, as they are 11 

### outside EPA's UMTRCA-based jurisdiction. With 12 

### respect to the first proposal or the prescriptive 13 

### preoperational monitoring requirements, this 14 

### requirement is an attempt by EPA to direct the 15 

### Commission, NRC, on how to properly assess 16 

### Commission-approved background in accordance with 17 

### 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 7, which 18 

### requires one full year of baseline sampling, or 19 

### background sampling, prior to submitting a 20 

### license application. 21 

### The statutory, generally applicable 2258

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### standard for groundwater protection at uranium 1 

### recovery sites -- and this is all uranium 2 

### recovery sites that generate 11(e)(2) byproduct 3 

### material -- is found at 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix 4 

### A, Criterion 5(B)(5), which EPA adopted from its 5 

### RCRA regulations, and which the Commission 6 

### incorporated into its regulations. Criterion 7 

### 5(B)(5) requires that groundwater be maintained 8 

### or restored to Commission-approved background or 9 

### an MCL, whichever is higher, or an alternate 10 

### concentration limit -- and let me make this 11 

### clear. All three of those standards, including 12 

### the alternate concentration limit, are, by law, 13 

### allowed, regardless of what any party says. They 14 

### are legally valid. 15 

### The manner in which NRC's licensees 16 

### comply with this standard, including the 17 

### determination of Commission-approved background, 18 

### prior to the commencement of licensed ISR 19 

### operations, is left solely to the Commission 20 

### under the Mill Tailings Act, or UMTRCA. 21 

### Currently, under the Commission's risk- 2259

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### informed, performance-based licensing program for 1 

### uranium recovery facilities, as translated from 2 

### 10 CFR Part 50.59, ISR license applicants gather 3 

### appropriate groundwater quality data pursuant to 4 

### Criterion 7, for 1 year or more, and then submit 5 

### it in a license application to characterize 6 

### preoperational baseline. Then, after the license 7 

### is issued and a full well-field, including 8 

### monitor well network is installed, additional 9 

### data is gathered and requires at least approval 10 

### from NRC staff to establish Commission-approved 11 

### background for the purposes of compliance with 12 

### Criterion 5(B)(5). 13 

### It is integral to licensed ISR operations 14 

### that Commission-approved background be 15 

### determined, so that before operations commence, a 16 

### licensee will know what groundwater standard they 17 

### have to comply with, under Commission 18 

### regulations, pursuant to EPA's generally 19 

### applicable standard for groundwater corrective 20 

### action. 21 

### Given that the determination of 2260

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Commission-approved background in order to 1 

### commence license operation is a compliance 2 

### methodology, EPA is not permitted to direct the 3 

### Commission on how to comply with this 4 

### requirement. 5 

### With respect to the stabilization 6 

### monitoring period, this, again, is an attempt by 7 

### EPA to direct the Commission on how to comply 8 

### with groundwater quality characteristics at 9 

### Criterion 5(B)(5). As stated previously, the 10 

### standards in 5(B)(5) are the generally applicable 11 

### standards mandated by EPA. The Commission, 12 

### however, is charged with implementing the 13 

### standards and determining appropriate compliance 14 

### with such standards. 15 

### Now, EPA certainly has the power to 16 

### mandate groundwater restoration in accord with 17 

### these standards, which its Safe Drinking Water 18 

### Act UIC program does not expressly require, but 19 

### 40 CFR Part 144.12(e) allows the EPA 20 

### administrator to order a licensee to go back and 21 

### conduct further restoration under the UIC program 2261

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### if a US DW is in imminent danger. NRC already 1 

### has determined that the Atomic Energy Act, as a 2 

### matter of law, mandates groundwater restoration 3 

### pursuant to Criterion 5(B)(5). So the issue of 4


### whether EPA would need to set a standard 5 

### requiring this is moot. Under this restoration 6


### standard -- 7 

### MR. LONG: One minute. One minute 8 

### remaining. 9 

### MR. PUGSLEY: Thank you -- has determined 10 

### that stabilization monitoring at the end of 11 

### active groundwater restoration, or in the terms 12 

### of Criterion 5(B)(5), groundwater corrective 13 

### action, is a necessary part of determining that 14 

### compliance with Criterion 5(B)(5) has been 15 

### satisfied. 16 

### Thus, the proposed rule is an 17 

### impermissible attempt by EPA to direct the 18 

### Commission on how to comply with this 19 

### requirement. 20 

### Lastly, the goal of UMTRCA is to protect 21 

### groundwater outside a defined point of exposure 2262

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### for the appropriate closure period. While an ACL 1 

### is considered to be a generally applicable 2 

### standard under UMTRCA, mandated by EPA, 3 

### compliance with its requirements are reserved 4 

### solely to the Commission and embody well5 

### understood Criterion 5 requirements and guidance. 6 

### Thus, in conclusion, from a legal 7 

### perspective, the proposed rule is legally invalid 8 

### on its face, and certainly could potentially be 9 

### subject to serious legal challenge at the 10 

### conclusion of the rulemaking period. Thus, I 11 

### would like to encourage EPA to withdraw the rule 12 

### and reevaluate the legal implications of it prior 13 

### to either issuing a revised rule or withdrawing 14 

### it completely. 15 

### Thank you, and I'll take any questions 16 

### you have. 17 

### MR. LONG: Thank you. No questions? 18 

### [No audible response.] 19 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Thank you, Christopher. 20 

### MR. PUGSLEY: Thank you. 21 

### MR. LONG: And I believe we have come to 2263

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### the end of our currently signed up speakers. 1 

### Tom, do you have an additional -- no? Okay. So, 2


### let's take a break now. 3 

### [Inaudible comment.] 4 

### MR. LONG: Okay. We have one speaker 5 

### left who has not yet arrived. I believe that's 6 

### about 11 o'clock, so we're going to need to call 7 

### a recess. So I will recess this meeting. The 8 

### estimated -- the time we will begin again is at 9 

### 11 o'clock. So, again, if anyone needs to visit 10 

### the rest room, we have escorts. For gentlemen, 11 

### Tom will do it. 12 

### [Inaudible comment.] 13 

### MR. LONG: What? Tony. And for ladies, 14 

### Kathy will do that, in the green. So we are in 15 

### recess. See everyone back at 11 o'clock. 16 

### Before we get started, the guards told us 17 

### they found an iPod. An iPod was turned in at the 18 

### guard desk. So just check if anyone has lost 19 

### their iPod. Someone has found it. 20 

### [Recess taken from 9:59 to 10:59 a.m.] 21 

### MR. LONG: Okay. We're going to get 2264

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### started with our next speaker, and we only have 1 

### one speaker for the remainder of this session, 2 

### unless someone comes in at the last minute, and 3 

### that is Christopher Pugsley. So, Christopher, 4 

### thank you. 5 

### MR. PUGSLEY: Once again, thank you for 6 

### allowing me to offer these comments today. 7 

### Again, Christopher Pugsley, P-u-g-s-l-e-y, 8 

### Partner and Owner of Thompson and Pugsley in 9 

### Washington, D.C. 10 

### I appreciate the additional time. I did 11 

### not have much of an opportunity to get into the 12 

### groundwater corrective action standard 13 

### discussion, so I was just going to go through 14 

### that real quick and then I'll be finished. 15 

### Again, the attempt to put in a 16 

### prescriptive stabilization monitoring period as 17 

### part of groundwater restoration is an overreach 18 

### by EPA from its generally applicable standard 19 

### authority under UMTRCA into NRC's implementation 20 

### and compliance responsibility. 21 

### It is well understood that ISR operations 2265

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### can and often do raise the concentrations of 1 

### certain constituents in an excepted aquifer to 2 

### levels above what is deemed Commission-approved 3 

### background prior to operations. By law, raising 4 

### such concentrations automatically triggers the 5 

### requirement for groundwater corrective action, 6 

### under Criterion 5(B)(5), and as stated by NRC, 7 

### given that the Atomic Energy Act requires 8 

### restoration. After cessation of operations, 9 

### operators are required to commence groundwater 10 

### restoration within their licensed limits, or time 11 

### frames, that is. 12 

### Since the primary purpose, and really the 13 

### only purpose of groundwater restoration, other 14 

### than compliance with 5(B)(5) is to restabilize 15 

### the exempted aquifer to prevent migration of 16 

### recovery solutions to adjacent, non-exempt US 17 

### DWs, the Commission determined that stabilization 18 

### monitoring is required to ensure compliance with 19 

### Criterion 5(B)(5). 20 

### As currently implemented with four 21 

### consecutive quarters of sampling to ensure there 2266

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### are no steadily increasing trends, and that the 1 

### exempted aquifer will remain in compliance with 2 

### Criterion 5(B)(5), the Commission is determined 3 

### that when it signs off on restoration, that that 4 

### compliance will be maintained as evidenced by my 5 

### previous comment that the Commission has waived 6 

### long-term surveillance requirements under the 7 

### Mill Tailings Act for those exempted aquifers. 8 

### EPA's Safe Drinking Water Act UIC program 9 

### already has a prohibition on the conduct of 10 

### injection or other associated operations that 11 

### would lead to the migration of recovery solutions 12 

### into adjacent, non-exempt aquifers. That's at 40 13 

### CFR Part 144.12(a). Thus, again, to implement 14 

### this type of prescriptive standard is 15 

### unnecessarily duplicative. 16 

### In addition, there are instances where 17 

### ISR well-fields do not reach Commission-approved 18 

### background or an MCL, whichever is higher. As a 19 

### result, by law, Criterion 5(B)(5) offers an 20 

### alternate concentration limit as a pre-license 21 

### termination alternative, which is a site- 2267

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### specific, constituent-specific, risk-based human 1


### health standard that has been used and 2 

### implemented through RCRA and through NRC's 3 

### program as prescribed by EPA. 4 

### While the concept of an ACL is considered 5 

### to be a generally applicable standard under 6 

### UMTRCA, compliance with the requirements of an 7 

### ACL are reserved solely to the Commission and is 8 

### embodied in well-understood Criterion 5 9 

### requirements, one of which is preoperational 10 

### class of use, which is utilized by agreement 11 

### states such as Wyoming, Nebraska, and Texas. 12 

### End guidance. After the pronouncement 13 

### that AEA required restoration as a matter of law, 14 

### ISR operators now would be required to pursue 15 

### ACLs in the event they cannot reach Commission16 

### approved background or an MCL, but it is critical 17 

### to note that an ACL is a legally valid standard 18 

### with which ISR operators and, frankly, all 19 

### generators of 11(e)(2) byproduct material can and 20 

### must comply with. 21 

### As part of the compliance process for an 2268

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### ACL, an operator is not even allowed to apply for 1 

### one unless it is demonstrated that they have made 2 

### an attempt to restore the aquifer to Commission3 

### approved background or an MCL, whichever is 4 

### higher, in order to satisfy the as-low-as5 

### reasonably-achievable, or ALARA requirement, 6 

### within the Commission's purview. This is the 7 

### initial step in the compliance process for an 8 

### ACL. By prescribing how long the stabilization 9 

### period must be, EPA is attempting to usurp the 10 

### Commission's authority to determine compliance 11 

### with Criterion 5(B)(5) standards, as incorporated 12 

### by the Commission from EPA. 13 

### As can be seen from this approach, the 14 

### manner in which an ACL is obtained is a 15 

### compliance measure and not a standard, while the 16 

### ACL requirement itself is a standard that can be 17 

### offered. Indeed, the proposed rule, on page 18 

### 4179, Column 3, specifically notes that EPA does 19 

### not have UMTRCA-based legal authority to concur 20 

### with the Commission's determinations on the grant 21 

### of an ACL, which is almost what the proposed rule 2269

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### is trying to do. However, when reading the rule, 1 

### it's actually attempting to define the 2 

### methodology for compliance for ISR ACLs, rather 3 

### than simply requesting concurrence authority, 4 

### which EPA recognizes it does not have the 5 

### authority to do. This concurrence authority is 6 

### similar to what EPA does have the power to do 7 

### under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is 8 

### concur with an amendment to the state program 9 

### authorizing an aquifer exemption for recovery 10 

### operations. 11 

### Thus, based on this analysis, the 12 

### proposed rule is going much further into the 13 

### Commission's authority than a simple concurrence 14 

### request would be. 15 

### And with that said, I'll take any other 16 

### questions you have. 17 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Any questions, panel? 18 

### [No audible response.] 19 

### MR. LONG: No questions? Okay. Thank 20



### you. 21 

### MR. PUGSLEY: Thank you. 2270

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### MR. LONG: And I believe that is the last 1 

### listed speaker we have. Does anyone else wish to 2 

### speak? I believe we have a number of speakers 3 

### signed up to speak in the afternoon. The first 4 

### one is scheduled to speak at 1:30, although we 5 

### are going to open at 1:00, reopen our session at 6 

### 1:00. But feel free to show up at 1:30 to hear 7 

### the first speaker. 8 

### I'll close this session now, and give you 9 

### all some additional time, and we'll reconvene 10 

### again at 1:00, and our first speaker is scheduled 11 

### at 1:30. Thank you. 12 

### [Lunch recess taken from 11:07 a.m. to 13 

### 1:00 p.m.] 14


### AFTERNOON SESSION 15 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Good afternoon, 16 

### everyone. My name, for those of you who weren't 17 

### here this morning, is Bill Long, the Director of 18 

### the Center for Radon and Air Toxics in the Indoor 19 

### Environments Program at EPA. Thank you all for 20 

### coming. I'll be presiding over the hearing this 21 

### afternoon, and joining me on the panel are Ingrid 2271

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Rosencrantz and Tom Peake from the Office of 1 

### Radiation and Indoor Air in Washington, D.C., and 2 

### this hearing is now in session. 3 

### We are here today to listen to and 4 

### receive your comments on EPA's Proposed Revisions 5 

### to Health and Environmental Protection Standards 6 

### for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings, also known 7 

### as 40 CFR Part 192. In a moment, Ingrid will 8 

### explain in more detail what was proposed in that 9 

### notice. 10 

### But before I turn it over to Ingrid, let 11 

### me explain a little bit about how today's hearing 12 

### will work. This is the second of two sessions. 13 

### There was one this morning from 9:00 until about 14 

### 11:30, and this afternoon's session is from now 15 

### until 5:00. We may end early if we don't have 16 

### other speakers signed up. Please be sure you 17 

### have checked in at the registration desk even if 18 

### you are not planning on speaking today. 19 

### I will call the scheduled speakers to the 20 

### podium. When it's your turn to speak, please 21 

### state your name, spelling your last name for the 2272

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### court reporter, and your affiliation, before you 1 

### begin your testimony. Your comments will be 2 

### transcribed and included in the record of 3 

### comments on the proposed rule. 4 

### In order to ensure everyone has the 5 

### opportunity to speak, and to ensure fairness, 6 

### please limit your testimony to 10 minutes. I 7 

### will signal to you when you have 1 minute left to 8 

### speak. When 10 minutes have passed, I will ask 9 

### you to complete your testimony. If you have more 10 

### to say after your 10 minutes are up, and you 11 

### would like to speak again with information that 12 

### is new and discrete from your previous testimony, 13 

### we're happy to have you speak again. Just please 14 

### sign up to speak again at the registration table 15 

### out there. You will be called again after the 16 

### other speakers. If you do this, please refrain 17 

### from using your additional time to rebut points 18 

### made by the other speakers. 19 

### After you finish your testimony, members 20 

### of the panel may ask some verifying questions. 21 

### Please note that during the hearing we will not 2273

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### answer questions on the proposed rule, but if you 1 

### have questions about the process, please find one 2 

### of the EPA representatives when the hearing is 3 

### not in session. 4 

### If you do have written copies of your 5 

### testimony, or supporting documentation, please 6 

### give a copy to our staff at the registration 7 

### table. This will be very helpful as we prepare 8 

### the transcript. 9 

### If you have additional comment you would 10 

### like to make, you can submit them in writing. 11 

### Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on April 27, 12


### 2015. 13 

### Let me assure you that EPA gives just as 14 

### much consideration to comments we receive in 15 

### writing as we do to comments we receive at public 16 

### hearings like this one. Instructions for 17 

### submitting comments are included in a fact sheet 18 

### at the registration table, and you can pick one 19 

### up there. 20 

### Today's public hearing is scheduled to 21 

### end once the last registered speaker has provided 2274

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### comments, so if you would like to testify but 1 

### have not registered to do so, please sign up at 2 

### the registration table outside this room. 3 

### We may call a break for everyone's 4 

### comfort or if we have a large gap in between 5 

### speakers. Just know that if you don't have EPA, 6 

### a federal employee ID, you'll have to be escorted 7


### from here to one of the rest rooms. We have a 8 

### couple of people here who will escort you. Please 9 

### keep your visitor's badge if you plan to leave 10 

### the building and return. People with visitor's 11 

### badges will need to go through security again. 12 

### And when you leave, please turn in your visitor's 13 

### badge at the guard desk. 14 

### So let me turn things to Ingrid 15 

### Rosencrantz, who will summarize the proposed 16


### rule. 17 

### MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Again, thanks to 18 

### everybody for being here today. We appreciate 19 

### your engagement on this proposed rule. 20 

### [Inaudible comment.] 21 

### MS. ROSENCRANTZ: It's not working at 2275

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### all? Let me borrow your mic. 1 

### MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Okay. Sounds like 2 

### that's working. Great. Again, thanks, 3 

### everybody, for coming. I guess that's about the 4 

### third time I've said that today. We're here to 5 

### get your comments and input on our proposed rule, 6 

### Revisions to Health and Environmental Protection 7 

### Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings, 8


### also known as 40 CFR 192. 9 

### We're proposing to revise this rule by 10 

### adding an additional new subpart, what we're 11 

### calling Subpart F, that explicitly addresses 12 

### groundwater protection standards, restoration, 13 

### and stability at uranium in-situ recovery 14 

### operations. 15 

### The major provisions of this proposal 16 

### include the following. We're specifying the 17 

### minimum 13 constituents for which groundwater 18 

### protection standards must be met. Those 13 19 

### constituents are in the preamble and the rule. 20 

### We are specifying monitoring requirements for 21 

### different phases of operation, including 2276

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### preoperational phase, the operational phase, 1 

### restoration, stability, and long-term stability. 2 

### In addition, we're specifying 3 

### requirements for corrective actions, where that 4 

### may be necessary. 5 

### We announced this proposal in the Federal 6 

### Register on January 26th of 2015, and that's when 7 

### the comment period started. The comment period 8 

### currently is scheduled to end on April 27th of 9 

### this year. We have received several requests, as 10 

### I mentioned earlier, to extend the comment 11 

### period, and we are evaluating that possibility. 12 

### Again, let me thank you all for your 13 

### interest in the rule and for your participation 14 

### here, in this hearing. I'll turn it back over to 15


### you. 16 

### MR. LONG: Thank you, Ingrid. Okay. I 17 

### would like to call the first speaker we have 18 

### scheduled for this afternoon's session, Andrew 19 

### Shaw, and, Andrew, you can sit at that mic there, 20 

### and please spell your name and state who you are 21 

### representing, for the court reporter. And, again, 2277

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### you have 10 minutes, and I'll signal to you when 1 

### you have a minute left. 2 

### MR. SHAW: Thank you. My name is Andrew 3 

### Shaw, A-n-d-r-e-w S-h-a-w, appearing today on 4


### behalf of Cameco Resources. That's C-a-m-e-c-o. 5 

### Good afternoon. I’m an attorney at 6 

### McKenna, Long & Aldridge. I appreciate EPA 7 

### holding this important hearing, and, as I said, 8 

### I'm appearing today on behalf of McKenna's 9 

### client, Cameco Resources, the largest U.S. 10 

### producer of uranium. Cameco Resources is the 11 

### U.S. subsidiary of Cameco Corporation, a company 12 

### based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. 13 

### In 2004, Cameco Resources produced 2.7 14 

### million pounds of uranium. Cameco Resources' 15 

### U.S. production, coupled with Cameco's global 16 

### production, supply approximately 30 percent of 17 

### the uranium field needs for U.S. nuclear 18 

### reactors, which constitute about 20 percent of 19 

### the electricity mix in the U.S. President Obama 20 

### and Administrator McCarthy have repeatedly 21 

### emphasized that nuclear energy, the largest 2278

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### source of low-carbon power in the U.S., is 1 

### essential to meeting the Administration's effort 2 

### to reduce CO2 emissions. 3 

### Cameco Resources is also a vital part of 4 

### the economies in rural communities in Nebraska 5 

### and Wyoming. For instance, Cameco Resources' 6 

### operations support 45 jobs in Nebraska and 171 7 

### jobs in Wyoming, along with 75 contractors at the 8 

### Smith Ranch-Highland and North Butte production 9 

### facilities. 10 

### Ensuring safety and protecting public 11 

### health and the environment are Cameco Resources' 12 

### top priorities. Cameco Resources' in-situ 13 

### recovery operations near Crawford, Nebraska, and 14 

### in Glenrock, Wyoming, have been in operation for 15 

### 24 and 27 years, respectively, without an 16 

### instance of contaminating surface water or 17 

### adjacent land owners' water wells. To ensure the 18 

### protection of water resources, Cameco Resources 19 

### has installed more than 800 monitoring wells at 20 

### its Smith Ranch-Highland site alone, and these 21 

### wells are sampled at a minimum of every 2 weeks. 2279

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Cameco Resources' uranium operations are 1 

### regulated by a variety of state and federal 2 

### agencies, including the Wyoming Department of 3 

### Environmental Quality, the Wyoming State 4 

### Engineer, the Nebraska Department of 5 

### Environmental Quality, the Nebraska Department of 6 

### Natural Resources, the Nebraska Department of 7 

### Health and Human Services, the U.S. Nuclear 8 

### Regulatory Commission, the Bureau of Land 9 

### Management, the Occupational Health and Safety 10 

### Administration, the Environmental Protection 11 

### Agency, the U.S. Department of Transportation, 12 

### and the Fish and Wildlife Service. Cameco 13 

### Resources is subject to robust state and federal 14 

### regulatory regimes and our operations are 15 

### routinely inspected and monitored by government 16 

### officials. 17 

### As to EPA's draft Part 192 rule, Cameco 18 

### Resources is concerned that this proposal will 19 

### add costly, burdensome, and unnecessary 20 

### requirements without ensuring a higher degree of 21 

### environmental protection. In particular, Cameco 2280

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Resources has strong reservations about the 1 

### proposed 30-year monitoring year requirement in 2 

### the draft rule. The 30-year monitoring 3 

### requirement is based on Resource Conservation and 4 

### Recovery Act rules for engineered hazardous waste 5 

### sites, who pose starkly different issues than 6 

### ISR. For example, a RCRA-engineered facility is 7 

### a man-made surface facility designed to 8 

### encapsulate and contain hazardous waste, and 9 

### prevent the waste from contaminating any surface 10 

### or groundwaters. 11 

### On the other hand, an ISR ore body is 12 

### located several hundred feet underground, in a 13 

### natural aquifer, that contains groundwater that 14 

### is high in radium, uranium, and radon gas, before 15 

### production commences, making it unfit for human 16 

### consumption. 17 

### A 30-year monitoring period will add 18 

### significant new expenses to uranium development. 19 

### Some of these costs include maintaining surety 20 

### for 3 decades after completion of water 21 

### restoration; maintaining UIC Class I deep 2281

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### disposal wells and maintaining the well-field 1 

### surface infrastructure. 2 

### Cameco Resources is also concerned that 3 

### the basis for the proposed regulation does not 4 

### consider the record of the industry or the 5 

### science that is available to evaluate the 6 

### restoration of the groundwater. Cameco has 7 

### provided water quality data, operational data, 8 

### and core samples from its operations to 9 

### independent academic researchers who are funded 10 

### by the state of Wyoming and the Federal 11 

### Government, including the EPA, to study the ISR 12 

### uranium ore bodies and the post-restoration field 13 

### conditions so that science is available for 14 

### informed regulatory decisions. 15 

### U.S. uranium producers operate in a 16 

### highly competitive global market and Cameco 17 

### Resources is concerned that additional cost and 18 

### uncertainty associated with this proposal could 19 

### inhibit the company and the sector's ability to 20 

### maintain and/or expand uranium production. Cameco 21 

### Resources is also concerned that EPA's draft 2282

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### proposal will not enhance public health and 1 

### environmental protection. For instance, EPA's 2 

### draft rule noted that the environmental and 3 

### public health benefits of new monitoring 4 

### requirements are difficult to characterize. 5 

### The 30-year monitoring requirement may, 6 

### however, result in the unintended consequence of 7 

### delaying service reclamation efforts. 8 

### Specifically, uranium producers and state 9 

### regulators will be reluctant to ever fully close 10 

### wells, header houses, and related facilities due 11 

### to concerns that they may be necessary sometime 12 

### before the 30-year monitoring period expires. 13 

### Consequently, the monitoring requirement will 14 

### result in wells and facilities being maintained 15 

### at the same level they are in while they are in 16 

### production, rather than the operator safely and 17 

### completely closing, restoring, and reclaiming the 18 

### area in a timely manner. 19 

### In summary, these new regulations will 20 

### add additional cost to Cameco Resources' 21 

### operations, and such costs will make it more 2283

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### difficult for the company and other U.S. 1 

### producers to maintain existing production or 2 

### develop new operations. This is an important 3 

### point, as U.S. nuclear reactors currently receive 4 

### less than 10 percent of their uranium fuel needs 5 

### from domestic producers. Thus, additional cost 6 

### may make it even more difficult for U.S. 7 

### operators to produce uranium and raise energy 8 

### security concerns for our domestic power system. 9 

### Moreover, EPA's draft proposal offers undefined 10 

### environmental benefits and may have the perverse 11 

### effect of delaying important and necessary 12 

### reclamation efforts. 13 

### In light of the significant economic 14 

### policy and technical issues raised by EPA's draft 15 

### proposal, Cameco Resources would like to 16 

### respectfully request that the agency grant a 180- 17 

### day extension in order to provide the industry 18 

### and all stakeholders with the opportunity to 19 

### review the rule and the associated 2,500 pages of 20 

### supporting documents. 21 

### Safe and responsible production of 2284

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### uranium is Cameco Resources' top priority, and 1 

### the company is committed to working with state 2 

### and federal regulators, including the EPA, on 3 

### informed rulemaking. In the weeks and months 4 

### ahead, Cameco Resources looks forward to 5 

### discussing with EPA about the company and the 6 

### industry's environmental record on ISR. 7 

### Thank you for the opportunity to speak 8 

### today on this important issue. 9 

### MR. LONG: Thank you. Any questions from 10 

### the panel? 11 

### MR. PEAKE: You were talking about the 12 

### costs, and I was wondering, would you be 13 

### providing cost information as part of your 14 

### written submission in the future. 15 

### MR. SHAW: Thank you for the question. 16 

### Our intention is to detail the cost impacts in 17 

### our written submission. That's something that 18 

### Cameco Resources is currently reviewing. I think 19 

### one of the reasons that we are requesting, and 20 

### others in the industry are request a time 21 

### extension is to be able to fully evaluate and 2285

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### provide EPA with as informed of an estimate on 1 

### the cost impacts as possible. 2 

### MR. PEAKE: And then as part of that, 3 

### would you be able to provide any cost information 4 

### on how the -- you had mentioned the 30-year 5 

### period, but you didn't address the potential for 6 

### shortening that period with geochemical modeling. 7 

### So will you be providing cost information related 8 

### to that option, as well as just the 30-yaer? 9 

### MR. SHAW: That's something that we'll 10 

### certainly look at, if that would be helpful for 11 

### the agency. I think that we were intending to 12 

### look at that, but if that would be helpful to you 13 

### guys as you look at the comments, we would be 14 

### happy to provide information on that. 15 

### MR. PEAKE: Okay. Thank you. 16 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Thank you, Andrew. I'd 17 

### like to call our next speaker, who is Aaron 18 

### Mintzes. And, Aaron, if you could spell your 19 

### last name and describe who you're representing. 20 

### MR. MINTZES: Thank you. My name is Aaron 21 

### Mintzes. That's M-i-n-t-z-e-s. I'm with 2286

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Earthworks. Earthworks is a national NGO based 1 

### here in D.C., that works to protect communities 2 

### and the environment from the impacts of mineral 3 

### development, while seeking sustainable solutions. 4 

### I just have a couple of brief points that 5 

### I would like to make. Thank you for coming out 6 

### with this proposal. There are some really, really 7 

### good things that EPA has contemplated in this 8 

### proposal, and we really appreciate your moving 9 

### forward with this. We believe that effective and 10 

### meaningful groundwater protections for ISL 11 

### uranium mining and milling facilities are really 12 

### long overdue, and that these new standards are 13 

### really desperately needed in order to protect 14 

### groundwater supplies, particularly in Western 15


### states. 16 

### We generally think that the ISL uranium 17 

### industry is largely under-regulated, and that 18 

### ISL's companies have had a poor record in 19 

### restoring polluted aquifers to pre-mining 20 

### conditions. 21 

### I did want to make a brief comment. 2287

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Forgive me if this is slightly tangential, but I 1 

### wanted to make a brief comment about the aquifer 2 

### exemption itself. We would like EPA to look at 3 

### this aquifer exemption. We believe that the whole 4 

### process for declaring these exemptions is not 5 

### working as it should. We think that the 6 

### exemptions are granted too readily. 7 

### But more to the point, I think in light 8 

### of emerging technologies, as well as the effect 9 

### of water scarcity, particularly in the West, as 10 

### well as climate change, it's important to 11 

### reevaluate how these aquifer exemptions are 12 

### granted, and it is our view that if EPA were to 13 

### reevaluate this situation, we may find that what 14 

### was once considered -- forgive me if I don't get 15 

### the technical jargon right -- what was a 16 

### nonpotable source of drinking water, I think the 17 

### standard is, what, 10,000 milligrams of total 18 

### dissolved solids or something per liter. We 19 

### believe that what was once considered a potential 20 

### for an aquifer exemption may no longer apply in 21 

### light of the changing circumstances that I just 2288

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### mentioned -- water scarcity, climate change, and 1 

### so on -- as well as emerging technology, for 2


### that. 3 

### EPA should also address other issues in 4 

### this proposed rule that speak to potential for 5 

### spills or leaks from the ponds or impoundments 6 

### that could be potential sources of groundwater 7 

### pollution, and EPA should do more to fully 8 

### address the presence of certain geological 9 

### factors, or existing unplugged or abandoned wells 10 

### that may help determine whether certain aquifers 11 

### are unsuitable for ISL mining. 12


### We have concerns about how the 13 

### alternative concentration limits may end up 14 

### playing out in practice, and we would urge you to 15 

### consider the technical written comments that we 16 

### will submit in partnership with some of our 17 

### colleagues, to EPA at the appropriate time, to 18 

### address those in greater detail. 19 

### Again, I wanted to say I really 20 

### appreciate what EPA is doing here. This is an 21 

### important step and this is the right thing to do. 2289

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Thank you. 1 

### MR. LONG: Any questions from the panel? 2 

### [No audible response.] 3 

### MR. LONG: No. Okay. Thank you, Andrew 4 

### [sic]. Our next Anthony Thompson, and, again, we 5 

### have a 10-minute limit, Anthony. I'll signal you 6 

### when a minute is left. 7 

### MR. THOMPSON: Okay. I'll do my best. 8 

### MR. LONG: I mentioned this before. I'm 9 

### not sure you were here. If you want to speak for 10 

### some additional time, that's okay. You just need 11 

### to go back and register for another slot. 12 

### MR. THOMPSON: Standard EPA efficiency. 13 

### Risk assessment is defined by the National 14 

### Research Council. The National Academy of 15 

### Science refers to the characterization of the 16 

### expected adverse health effects of exposure to 17 

### potentially hazardous substances. Risk 18 

### management, on the other hand, is the public 19 

### process of deciding what to do where risk has 20 

### been determined to exist. 21 

### MR. PEAKE: Could you speak more into the 2290

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### microphone, please? 1 

### MR. THOMPSON: Within the context of a 2 

### given pollution control program, risk management 3 

### requires the decision-maker to act by integrating 4 

### risk assessment with considerations of 5 

### engineering feasibility and figuring out how to 6 

### exercise our imperative to reduce risk in the 7 

### light socio-economic and political factors. This 8 

### is accomplished through a system that guarantees 9 

### risk management is informed but not determined by 10 

### science. 11 

### Risk assessments involve varying degrees 12 

### of uncertainty, even assuming the data are 13 

### reliable and politicization of the scientific 14 

### review has not occurred. As one commenter has 15 

### explained, there are three distinct analytical 16 

### areas in risk assessment -- source 17 

### characterization transport, and exposure 18 

### assessment and dose response assessment. Careful 19 

### treatment of subjectivity, uncertainty, and 20 

### statistics is required in all phases of risk 21 

### assessment. A firm may need to use realistic 2291

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### assumptions and models, rather than just merely 1 

### conservative assumptions that may be politically 2 

### safe but have little relationship to actual 3 

### environmental risk and health problems. 4 

### The Resource Conservation and Recovery 5 

### Act imposes waste management requirements on 6 

### substances that pose a substantial present or 7 

### potential hazard to human health or the 8 

### environment. Similar provisions that invite and 9 

### require assessment or risk exist for other 10


### statutes. 11 

### The Benzene decision by the Supreme 12 

### Court, Industrial Union case, was a leading case 13 

### wherein the Supreme Court found that before an 14 

### agency can promulgate any permanent health or 15 

### safety standard, the Secretary, in this case, of 16 

### OSHA, is required to make a threshold finding 17 

### that a place of employment is unsafe, in the 18 

### sense that significant risks are present and can 19 

### be eliminated or lessened by a change in 20 

### practices. 21 

### The Benzene decision's core findings were 2292

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### further endorsed in NRDC v. EPA, the so-called 1 

### Vinyl Chloride decision. First the Court 2 

### endorsed risk assessment based on realistic 3 

### assumptions in light of the best available 4 

### scientific information. EPA's task, the Courts 5 

### concluded, is to determine what inferences should 6 

### be drawn from available scientific data and 7 

### decide what risks are acceptable in the world in 8 

### which we live. 9 

### Second, the Court noted that 10 

### determination of acceptable risk will always be 11 

### marked by scientific uncertainty. The Court 12 

### further stated, as the Supreme Court has stated 13 

### recently, safe does not mean risk-free. Instead, 14 

### something is unsafe only when it threatens humans 15 

### with a significant risk of harm. So the standard 16 

### for promulgating health and safety standards in 17 

### this country is that you are addressing a 18 

### significant risk of harm. 19 

### There is another case and I'm not going 20 

### to go into that. I'm going to cut it out. But 21 

### read together, the Benzene and the Vinyl Chloride 2293

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### Decisions, disfavor agency reliance on 1 

### simplistic, unnecessarily conservative approaches 2 

### for making judgments of risk. In these 3 

### decisions, the Courts acknowledged that the 4 

### quantification of risk is a difficult task, but 5 

### it must be undertaken to establish credible, 6 

### reliable, and legally supportable judgments on 7 

### what risks are present, what regulatory actions 8 

### should be taken. When properly applied and 9 

### subjected to meaningful peer review, science can 10 

### serve as a significant legitimizer of regulatory 11 

### decision-making, this from former EPA 12 

### Administrator, William Ruckleshaus. 13 

### The EPA Science Advisory Board report on 14 

### radiation risk assessment recommended using best 15 

### estimates with appropriate statements of 16 

### uncertainty in all risk assessments. Without 17 

### rigorous and quantitative assessment of 18 

### uncertainty, risk cannot be scientifically 19 

### evaluated, and the credibility of dose or risk 20 

### values cannot be judged. To improve the 21 

### reliability of risk assessments, sensitivity 2294

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### analysis can be conducted to reveal the most 1 

### influential pathways and parameters, and guide 2 

### the expenditure of resources in effort for the 3 

### sake of improvement. 4 

### The benefit of quantified uncertainty is 5 

### to provide lucid and unambiguous information to 6 

### the decision-maker so the potential value of the 7 

### information is clearly understood, because risk 8 

### is brewed from the equal dose of two ingredients 9 

### -- probabilities and consequences. Risk 10 

### assessment must evaluate the probability of some 11 

### harm coming to an individual or population as a 12 

### result of exposure to a substance or situation. 13 

### Significance is a generally applicable 14 

### legal standard endorsed by the Supreme Court in 15 

### the Benzene Decision, by the legislative history 16 

### of the Clean Air Act, as addressed by the Vinyl 17 

### Chloride Decision, and it's particularly 18 

### appropriate where carcinogenic pollutants with no 19 

### known effects levels are involved. Although it 20 

### may be appropriate to use conservative 21 

### assumptions where there are legitimate questions 2295

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### about key facts, reliance on totally unrealistic 1 

### scenarios only compromises the validity of the 2 

### resulting risk estimate and undermines the risk 3 

### management decision. 4 

### So, implicit in such approach are 5 

### requirements to identify the strengths and 6 

### weaknesses of each assessment by describing 7 

### uncertainties, assumptions, and limitations, as 8 

### well as the scientific basis and rationale for 9 

### each assessment. Using the best scientific tools 10 

### available will not help public understanding. 11 

### Unfortunately, in this particular 12 

### rulemaking, EPA has made no attempt to quantify 13 

### the risk and identify the uncertainty. Indeed, 14 

### since the entire document appears to be based on 15 

### unsupported speculative assumptions, piled one on 16 

### top of another, without any showing of risk in 17 

### the world in which we live, much less that there 18 

### is a significant risk from the concerns that this 19 

### is proposing to address, the proposal is, in my 20 

### view, legally invalid on its face. 21 

### There are some examples of risk 2296

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### assessment, quote, in the rule. It says the rule 1 

### will reduce health risks that could result from 2 

### undetected excursions into adjacent aquifers. The 3 

### main risk is cancer, although I am currently 4 

### unaware that uranium in water has ever been shown 5 

### to cause cancer in humans, and in the Safe 6 

### Drinking Water Act rulemaking, developing the 7 

### uranium standard, neither did EPA. The best it 8 

### would come up with is measurable changes in 9 

### kidney chemistry. The proposal goes on to state 10 

### that the number of cancer deaths, or when they 11 

### might happen, cannot be estimated. That's not 12 

### risk assessment. That's not quantification or 13 

### identification of uncertainty. 14 

### Another example. Assessed exposure 15 

### scenarios and pathways have the potential to 16 

### result in a significant exposure, so control is 17 

### needed to prevent failure scenarios that may 18 

### occur. What are they? There are none of them 19 

### set forth and explained. There's no data. 20 

### In summary, these examples are but a few 21 

### of the many statements in the proposal that don't 2297

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### have any supporting data, backed up with 1 

### statements like "we believe," that purport to be 2 

### a substitute for a risk assessment, instead of we 3 

### have data suggests that this is a problem, or a 4 

### significant risk to public health and safety. 5 

### There are many problems with this 6 

### proposal, and I'm just going to mention two 7 

### others very, very briefly. The first is a fairly 8 

### transparent attempt to justify the 30-yaer 9 

### stabilization period on the basis of UMTRCA's 10 

### requirements to provide equivalent protection 11 

### under the no-tailings regulations for hazardous 12 

### components of 11(e)(2). If you look at the 13 

### legislative history of the Mill Tailings Act, 14 

### there is a very clear delineation between the 15 

### hazardous components of 11(e)(2) and the 16 

### radiological components. And the comparison of a 17 

### RCRA-active hazardous waste management unit to a 18 

### restored ISR well-field doesn't pass the smile 19 

### test. First of all, a RCRA hazardous waste 20 

### disposal unit, it's not even a Subtitle D solid 21 

### waste disposal. It takes the worst of the worst. 2298

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### It's got synthetic materials that are very, very 1 

### toxic, that has natural materials such as heavy 2 

### metals. They are at levels that are extremely 3 

### toxic. It's in no way comparable to an ISR well4 

### field. 5 

### MR. LONG: One minute. 6 

### MR. THOMPSON: And I only have one more 7 

### thing to say. There are several statements that 8 

### ISR operations are very different from 9 

### conventional mills, and that is true, except that 10 

### you have it backwards. You suggest that the ISR 11 

### operations are more complicated and potentially 12 

### more hazardous, and that anybody involved with 13 

### the uranium industry knows that's simply silly. 14 

### There is a huge source of radon in the tailings. 15 

### They can be put on top, on the ground above a 16 

### pristine aquifer. They involve the use of large 17 

### amounts of acid and huge amounts of water. And 18 

### then there's the possibility of wind-blown 19 

### tailings. 20 

### So the comparison is exactly, 100 percent 21 

### backwards. Thank you very much. 2299

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### MR. LONG: Thank you. Thank you, 1 

### Anthony. Okay. We'd like to call our next 2 

### speaker, Lance Larson, please. 3 

### Sorry. One moment. Did the panel have 4 

### any questions? Sorry about that. I forgot. 5 

### MS. ROSENCRANTZ: I just have one 6 

### question. Just your affiliation. 7 

### MR. THOMPSON: I'm representing the 8 

### National Mining Association, of the law firm of 9 

### Thompson and Pugsley. 10 

### MS. ROSENCRANTZ: I'm sorry? 11 

### MR. THOMPSON: The law firm of Thompson 12 

### and Pugsley, on behalf of the National Mining 13 

### Association. 14 

### MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Okay. Great. Thank 15


### you. 16 

### MR. LARSON: Can you hear me okay? 17 

### Great. My name is Lance Larson, L-a-r-s-o-n. 18 

### Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to 19 

### provide comments today on the proposed rule. 20 

### Before I proceed, I want to get into a 21 

### little bit of background information regarding 22100

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### myself. I'm current a science fellow with the 1 

### National Resources Defense Council, or NRDC. I 2 

### work on various issues concerning groundwater 3 

### across the United States. I have a Ph.D. in 4 

### environmental engineering and biogeochemistry, 5 

### and have been lead author on multiple peer review 6 

### journal articles regarding how redox-sensitive 7 

### elements, such as uranium, transport change and 8 

### interact under various environmental conditions. 9 

### I've given talks at international geochemistry 10


### conferences and worked on some of the most 11 

### sophisticated instruments in laboratories in the 12


### world. 13 

### Today we have heard multiple viewpoints 14 

### from various legal interpretations of this rule. 15 

### However, I'm not a lawyer and will be addressing 16 

### various technical and scientific aspects of the 17 

### rule, now and in detailed written comments in the 18


### future. 19 

### It's well established that no ISL site 20 

### has returned concentrations to baseline levels 21 

### for all constituents. Furthermore, 22101

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### concentrations of uranium, a hazardous 1 

### contaminant of concern in drinking water, not 2 

### only remains elevated but it's not uncommon to 3 

### observe average concentrations increasing in 4 

### order of magnitude or more within the production 5



### zone. 6 

### So, to put that in perspective, take any 7 

### number or any aspect in your life and increase it 8 

### by an order of magnitude. So some of the 9 

### concentrations are extremely elevated, from some 10


### of the data that we've seen. 11 

### Therefore, under the current regulatory 12 

### regime, the restoration of groundwater at ISL 13 

### sites has been overwhelmingly unsuccessful and 14 

### severe contamination remains within the aquifer. 15 

### This obstinately degraded groundwater is 16 

### partially explained by the interaction of the ISL 17 

### operation with the intrinsic geochemistry of 18 

### uranium in subsurface environments. When uranium 19 

### becomes oxidized and mixed with carbonate, which 20 

### is what occurs during the ISL process, the 21 

### uranium changes its state and becomes more 22102

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### soluble. This is essentially how the mining 1 

### occurs. However, this new oxidation state, 2 

### combined with an organic carbon, has observed in 3 

### scientific literature to be much less 4 

### environmentally reactive and, hence, more mobile 5 

### in groundwater. 6 

### So how do we know this detailed 7 

### information in the scientific literature about 8 

### uranium geochemistry and transport in aquifers? 9 

### Over the last 60 years, Cold War uranium mining 10 

### has left multiple sites throughout the West with 11 

### uranium-contaminated groundwater. Restorations 12 

### and transport models at these sites have 13 

### underestimated transport rates, natural 14 

### processes, and cleanup times. Therefore, only in 15 

### recent years a significant effort by the 16 

### scientific community have worked to understand 17 

### the complexities of uranium geochemistry in 18 

### groundwater with the end goal of treating 19 

### uranium-contaminated groundwater. 20 

### Over the past decade, our understanding 21 

### of uranium geochemistry has greatly expanded and 22103

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### must be accounted for in these rules. Sound, 1 

### current, and accurate science must drive the 2 

### policy, and not the other way around. 3 

### Understanding the science, adequate data 4 

### collection, and proper monitoring are paramount 5 

### to showing, with absolute certainty, that uranium 6 

### and other hazardous constituents are not 7 

### migrating into adjacent, either horizontal or 8 

### vertical, non-exempt aquifers. 9 

### Make no mistake. Once ISL operations are 10 

### completed and the pumps are shut off, the 11 

### uranium-contaminated production zone water is not 12 

### locked in or naturally contained by an arbitrary 13 

### aquifer exemption boundary. 14 

### NRDC applauds the long-term monitoring 15 

### requirements with this rule. This rule accounts 16 

### for unseen harms that may not be observed until 17 

### years after active mining has been concluded. 18 

### Further, stability monitoring needs to be 19 

### required for all wells, to assess and understand 20 

### the environmental impacts. 21 

### I look forward to submitting detailed 22104

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### written comments with substantial groundwater 1 

### data and analysis associated with the current 2 

### scientific literature review of uranium 3 

### geochemistry. 4 

### Thank you for your time, and I'll take 5 

### any questions. 6 

### MR. LONG: Any questions? Okay. Thank 7 

### you, Lance. That is our last scheduled speaker 8 

### we have on the list, although I see one. Is 9 

### another speaker coming up? Okay. 10 

### [Inaudible comment.] 11 

### MR. LONG: Okay. We do have a registered 12 

### speaker who has not yet arrived. We're trying to 13 

### reach him to confirm that they still want to 14 

### speak . In the meantime, just let me ask, is 15 

### there anyone else here who would like to speak? 16 

### Okay, or who has spoken before and would to say 17 

### more? If so, register at the front desk, but I'm 18 

### not seeing any volunteers. 19 

### So, in that case, while we're trying to 20 

### reach this speaker, I'm going to call a recess 21 

### for 15 minutes. What's that? Yeah, a little 22105

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### longer than 2 minutes. Let's reconvene at two 1 

### o'clock, recess until two o'clock. Thank you. 2 

### [Recess taken from 1:38 to 2:00.] 3 

### MR. LONG: Okay. I'm going to call the 4 

### hearing back to order. Sorry. Katie Sweeney, if 5 

### you are ready, we will take your testimony. 6 

### MS. SWEENEY: Hi. I'm Katie Sweeney with 7 

### the National Mining Association, and I just 8 

### wanted to talk briefly about the cost-benefit 9 

### analysis accompanying the rule. EPA has two 10 

### independent obligations to do this cost-benefit 11 

### analysis. So UMTRCA requires it as does SBREFA. 12 

### We have some issues with the costs that were 13 

### actually taken into consideration, and that EPA 14 

### was able to quantify as part of the proposal. 15 

### Really, the only cost that EPA quantifies 16 

### are the additional monitoring costs involved with 17 

### complying with the rule, and we think even those 18 

### are significantly underestimated. EPA does 19 

### mention the cost of additional financial 20 

### assurance or surety, but they don't really 21 

### quantify that, and there is some difficulty in 22106

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### quantifying that, because there is the 1 

### possibility that surety would not even be 2 

### available for an additional 30-yaer time frame. 3 

### And I don't know if the people who are 4 

### working on this rulemaking have been talking much 5 

### at all with the Office of Solid Waste and 6 

### Emergency Response -- I can't remember what OSWER 7 

### stands for at EPA, but I'm sure you guys know -- 8 

### has been working on, on the financial assurance 9 

### for hard rock mining industry, and one of the 10 

### issues that has complicated that rulemaking, as 11 

### discussed recently in an affidavit by Barnes 12 

### Johnson of EPA, in a court case, regarding when 13 

### EPA should be working on that rulemaking, is 14 

### their capacity. 15 

### So EPA was required by Congress, through 16 

### an appropriations bill, to look at the capacity 17 

### available for longer-term financial assurance, 18 

### and the declaration of Barnes Johnson actually 19 

### talks about the issues that are associated with 20 

### that, and how complicated that analysis is. So I 21 

### do recommend that you all talk to that office, as 22107

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### well, in determining whether there actually is 1 

### financial assurance available, the capacity 2 

### available to comply with this rulemaking, because 3 

### obviously if there isn't, that would put this 4 

### industry, the uranium industry, out of business. 5


### Some of the other costs that are not 6 

### taken into consideration at all in the cost7 

### benefit analysis are the costs of maintaining 8 

### your license, for NRC license. It's not cheap to 9 

### maintain those licenses. It's not cheap to 10 

### maintain your state permits. You may be paying 11 

### inspection fees. Claims maintenance fees, if 12 

### you're located on public lands, which many of 13 

### these operations are, particularly in Wyoming, 14 

### those costs can be in the millions of dollars, 15 

### depending on how many acres of public land you 16 

### hold within your permit boundary. So that could 17 

### be very, very expensive to maintain, not just 18 

### yearly but for 30 years. 19 

### The cost of continuing the lease for 30 20 

### years with the private surface holders. There's 21 

### a difficulty there with this being retroactive, 22108

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### unless you've already started restoration, 1 

### because you've entered into contracts with these 2 

### private land holders to use their lands for a 3 

### certain period of time, so not only might this 4 

### rulemaking interfere with that, but there would 5 

### be the additional cost of working out something, 6 

### if you even could, with the private land holder, 7 

### and what those costs might be, or yet to be 8 

### determined, but I can't imagine it would be 9 

### cheap. 10 

### There are also taxes for continuing to 11 

### hold the land, if you're the owner of the land. 12 

### There's insurance, there's property insurance, 13 

### there's general liability insurance. There are 14 

### equipment costs involved with keeping your 15 

### operations open, and personnel costs, as well, 16 

### for the additional years that the site would have 17 

### to be monitored, that we think weren't taken into 18 

### consideration. A couple of the uranium member 19 

### companies have kind of a back-of-the-envelope 20 

### calculation, and I'm sure that we'll have more 21 

### refined calculations when we submit comments on 22109

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### the rule. But from their perspective, instead of 1 

### being about $13 million a year over the industry, 2 

### they are looking at maybe $50 million for the 3 

### additional 30-year period, and that's one 4


### company. 5 

### So I just wanted to offer that on the 6 

### cost-benefit analysis. My remarks earlier really 7 

### went to the risk and/or the benefits of this 8 

### rulemaking. We certainly don't think that there 9 

### are risks here that these costs should be 10 

### incurred at all. 11 

### So I appreciate the opportunity to talk a 12 

### little bit about that. Thank you. 13 

### MR. LONG: Thank you. Questions? 14 

### MS. ROSENCRANTZ: I have a clarifying 15 

### question. I wasn't quite sure. You were saying 16 

### that they were estimating roughly the cost was 17 

### $50 million for the 30 years. Was that per year 18 

### for the 30 years. 19 

### MS. SWEENEY: No, no, no. Total. 20 

### MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Oh, for the total of 30 21 

### years. Okay. 22110

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### MS. SWEENEY: Yeah. But that's one 1


### company. 2 

### MS. ROSENCRANTZ: Right. One company, 3 

### but a total of $50 million for the 30 years. 4 

### Okay. 5 

### MS. SWEENEY: Exactly. 6 

### MR. PEAKE: And will you be providing 7 

### information in written comments at a later time, 8 

### with this information? 9 

### MS. SWEENEY: Yes, and hopefully it will 10 

### be better quantified. I am not sure that with my 11 

### list of costs that weren't considered. I think 12 

### that list will likely grow as we have an 13 

### opportunity to delve into the cost-benefit 14 

### analysis a little bit more, but I anticipate 15 

### you'll get quite a few comments on that part. 16 

### You might even get the comment which -- just a 17 

### suggestion aside -- but one of the companies said 18 

### to me, "I think the cost-benefit analysis says, 19 

### well, if it drives the price of uranium up, 20 

### that's good for uranium because then they can 21 

### demand more for their product." I haven't found 22111

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### that in there yet, but if that's in there, we'll 1


### comment on that too. 2 

### MR. LONG: Okay. Thank you. I believe 3 

### we still have a scheduled speaker who has not yet 4 

### arrived, and we have not been able to track them 5 

### down. So we are going -- EPA is going to stay 6 

### here in case they show up. I think I'm going to 7 

### put us in recess for the time being, for a 15- 8 

### minute recess. We're going to stay here. You'll 9 

### have to make the decision whether you think it's 10 

### worth it. They may or may not show. Tony have 11


### we heard? We have not heard. 12 

### So we're going to go into recess. Feel 13 

### free to stay as long as you want. We're probably 14 

### going to keep the hearing open until 3:30 or 15 

### 4:00, at least, and we may have another speaker 16 

### who had intended to come that could be trying to 17 

### get here. So we're in recess. 18 

### [Recess taken starting at 2:08 p.m.] 19 

### MR. LONG: Okay. It's about four 20 

### o'clock. I will conclude this public hearing. 21 

### Thank you all for participating today. This 22112

OLENDER REPORTING, INC. 1100 Connecticut Avenue NW, #810, Washington, DC 20036 Washington: 202-898-1108 • Baltimore: 410-752-3376

Toll Free: 888-445-3376 

### hearing is officially closed. 1 

### [Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the Public 2 

### Hearing was adjourned.] 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22