EPA HEARING ON SUBPART W

DENVER — SEPTEMBER 3 AND 4

URANIUM WATCH COMMENTS

Below are written comments that were, generally, p resented in the first session of the Environmental Protection Agency hearings on pro posed changes to 40 C.F.R. Part 61 Subpart W on September 3, 2014, in Denver, Colorado . Uranium Watch will be submitting written comments with more detailed info rmation on the issues below and other aspects of the proposed rule.

1. The Subpart W proposed rule is contained mislea ding, incomplete, and false

information.

2. The EPA failed to place relevant documents on t he Subpart W website.

3. The EPA sent letters to uranium mill licensees asking with questions about their mills and 11e.(2) byproduct material impoundments, but fa iled to send letters to the Sweetwater and Shootaring Canyon Mill licensees. T he White Mesa Mill licensee failed to respond to the EPA May 2009 request for informat ion.

4. The EPA’s justifies the elimination of the rado n emission standard for “existing” impoundments, including the monitoring and reportin g requirement by various claims.

The EPA claims that White Mesa Mill Cell 3 will cl ose at the end of 2014. This is not true. Energy Fuels is keeping Cell 3 open to recei ve ISL waste because it cannot dispose

of ISL waste in the new Cell 4A until more solid ta ilings have been disposed of in Cell 4A (so there is a base for the burial of the ISL wa ste) and until there is a license amendment authorizing disposal of ISL waste in Cell 4A. Also, there must be an approved radon closure plan and reclamation milesto nes for Cell 3 incorporated in the

White Mesa Mill license for the cell to enter the c losure period.

The EPA claims that both the Shootaring Canyon and Sweetwater impoundments comply with the requirements for “new” impoundments in 40 C.F.R. § 61.252(b). This is not true. The Shootaring Canyon impoundment does n ot have a synthetic liner, as the EPA claimed in the proposed rule. It has a clay li ner. The Sweetwater impoundment is 60 acres, much larger than the required 40 acre imp oundment.

5. The EPA should remember that Subpart W is an “e mission” standard under the Clean Air Act. Yet, the EPA intends to completely elimin ate any semblance of an emission limit for radon from operating uranium mills. Now there will only be design and work practice standards for conventional, ISL, and heap leach facilities. The proposed rule does not comply with the requirements of the C lean Air Act at Section 112(h). Section 112(h) states: (h) WORK PRACTICE STANDARDS AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS.Uranium Watch/EPA Subpart W Hearing Comments

2 September 4, 2014

(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, if it is not feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enfor ce an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants, the Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a design, equipment, work pract ice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, which in the Administrator’ s judgment is consistent with the provisions of subsection

For the purpose of this subsection, the phrase ‘‘no t feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard’’ means any situation in which the Administrator determines

that—

(B) the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic l imitations. What this means is that for the EPA to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination t hereof, IN PLACE OF an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant, the Administrator must find that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standa rd. Not feasible would mean that “the application of measurement methodology to a particu lar class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limit ations.”

The EPA Administrator has not made such a finding, nor could she make such a finding. The EPA didn’t even include a discussion o f this requirement in the Subpart W rulemaking.

In sum: the EPA must have radon emissions limits f or “existing” and “new” conventional, non-conventional, and heap leach impo undments.

6. The Evaporation Pond Risk Assessment at Table 2 : Radon Flux for Various Radium

Concentrations shows the radon flux from three conv entional mills and the eight ISL facilities for radium concentrations of 1, 100, and 1,000 pCi/L. The Risk Assessment concludes, “The fluxes at the largest concentration , while below the criteria, are not negligible.” However, the largest concentration is not the actual concentration, it is the concentration per 1000 pCi/L. So, a pond with a co ncentration of 36,700 pCi/L would have a radon flux far in excess of the current 20 p Ci/m 2 -sec criteria. The Risk Assessment should have, but did not, compare the ac tual radon flux for the various evaporation ponds

Table 2 fails to include, for comparison, the actu al radium concentrations for the evaporation ponds at ISL and conventional mills. T here is no data in the Subpart W Rulemaking Docket regarding the radium concentratio n in liquid impoundments at the Sweetwater and White Mesa Mills. So, information r egarding the actual radon flux from those mills is completely disregarded by the EPA. Therefore, the EPA has no basis for the assumption that those emissions will be “very l ow” (what ever that means).Uranium Watch/EPA Subpart W Hearing Comments

3 September 4, 2014

There is recent data regarding the radium concentr ation at the impoundments at

the White Mesa Mill. 1 The White Mesa Mill 2013 Annual Tailings Wastewate r Monitoring Report 2 provides data on the Gross Radium Alpha (pCi/L) fo r the liquids in 4 impoundments. Cell 1 is a liquid evaporation pond, Cell 4B is being used as a liquid impoundment, and Cell 3 and Cell 4A have a liquid p ond on top of the more solid tailings. The information for Table 1 is based on the assumption provided by the EPA that a White Mesa liquid impoundment has a radon fl ux of 7.0 pCi/m 2 -sec for every 1,000 pCi/L of radium. Unfortunately, the EPA neve r required the White Mesa licensee to report on the radium content of the liquids in t he tailings cells and calculate the radon

flux based on those measurements.

Table. 1. White Mesa Mill Radium Concentration an d Radon Flux for 2013.

1 http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium_Mills/ denison/tailingswastewater_rpt.htm

2 White Mesa Mill 2013 Annual Tailings Wastewater Mon itoring Report; Groundwater Quality Discharge Permit, UGW370004, Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., November 1, 2013. http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium_Mills/ denison/docs/2013/dec/2013AnnualTailing sReportFinal.pdfCell Gross Radium Alpha Radon Emissions

Cell 1 32,700 pCi/L 228.9 pCi/m 2 -sec

Cell 3 81,900 pCi/L 573.3 pCi/m 2 -sec

Cell 4A 15,800 pCi/L 110.6 pCi/m 2 -sec

Cell 4B 14,600 pCi/L 102.2 pCi/m 2 -sec
The data for White Mesa Mill liquid impoundments d oes not support the EPA’s claim that radon emissions from evaporation ponds “ will be expected to be very low” and “the chance of radon emissions is small.” In fact, at the White Mesa Mill, the radon emissions are very high. Yet the EPA does not cons ider these emissions when determining compliance with the current radon emiss ion standard for “existing” impoundments. In 2013, that was Cells 3 and 2.

Sarah Fields Program Director

Uranium Watch

PO Box 344 Moab, Utah 84532

435-260-8384 sarah@uraniumwatch.org