Subpart W Quarterly Conference Call July 7, 2011, 11:00 am – 12:00 pm 1310 L Street NW, Room 502, Washington, DC

[DRAFT] Conference Call Notes

Meeting Participants : EPA HQ: Reid Rosnick, Emily Atkinson EPA Regions: Angeli que Diaz (Region 8) CCAT: Lynn Holtz Minasi, An ita Minton, Paul Carestia Industry: Oscar Paulson (Kennecott), Wa yne Heili, John Cash (UR Energy), Mike Newton (Neutron Energy), Miriam We tly (Chemical), Rita Meyer, Jim Cain (Cotter Corporation), Richar d Blubaugh(Powertech), Toby Wright (Titan Uranium) Other: Travis Stills (Energy Minerals Law Center), Andrew Maylor, Jennifer Hanston (Sheep Mountain Alliance)

Status Update on Action Items from Last Call R. Rosnick: I don’t have a great deal of in formation right now. We have been having

some IT issues here. I made a presentation on May 26 to the NRC/NMA Uranium Recovery Workshop and that presentation has not made it up to the website yet, but we are working to get it posted as soon as possible.

T. Stills: A key component of the settlement is to have the website available and the staff resources must be put towa rds updating it in a timely manner

R. Rosnick: I will tell you th at I am still working on it.

The other thing I want to tell you ab out is we are progressing very well on drafting the options and preamble to a draft regulation and language. We

have received direction from all of the assistant administrators and regional administrators. The preamble and draft language is being worked

on now. Since these are internal discussi ons, I am not at lib erty to tell you what we are discussing in the work group, because it is internal and

deliberative.

As far as process at the Agency, we expect to have the final draft by the end of August. The final agency review will then happen where the senior management will then have its opportun ity to provide input prior to the draft rule being sent to the O ffice of Management and Budget.

Office of Management and Budget then reviews it for up to 90 days, when it will provide comments back to us. After this review we will address any comments received by OMB. After th at the rule will then go to Gina McCarthy (Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation)for her review, signature and then be published in the federal register. We are shooting to have this all completed by December 2011.

O. Paulson: You have a contra ctor involved in this projec t related to the review. I thought they would put toge ther a report and then it would be reviewed by the EPA. Has the report been put together?

R. Rosnick: Yes, the report has been put together and it is bei ng reviewed by the EPA staff. When it is finalized, it will th en be posted on the website. I would expect it to be completed in the next two months.

O. Paulson: The internal review should be available first before the draft regulations are actually put togeth er? The comments from the public should be considered before the regulation is written.

R. Rosnick: The work group has seen it and commented on it.

O. Paulson: I understand you cannot discuss th e draft regulations at this time, but can you tell us what is in the report?

R. Rosnick: I can try. Back in 1989, the EPA used risk modeling called AIRDOS to

determine the risk levels from radon for receptors out to 80 km. At the time, I believe and I am not absolutely certain on this number, the risk average numbers were around 10 -5 , I would have to go ba ck to look at that.

So what we have done on this current rulemaking is use the most recent version of AIRDOS, now known as CA P88 version 3. We went to the existing facilities and used CAP88 version 3 to see if risk levels changed. The code performs the calculations w ith data from the facilities, with metrological data and various assumpti ons used. The report describes all of this. The work group had comments and corrections and the contractor made them. Now our independent re view by internal EPA employees is being conducted. We expect to have their comments within a month.

O. Paulson How are th e references listed?

R. Rosnick: The data sources should be easily determined to be complete and applicable.

O. Paulson: We would want to be su re that site specific data is used.

R. Rosnick: Once we have the final review, I am sure you will be able to comment on

it and let us know if other da ta sources should be used.

T. Wright: Is there going to be timely public comment on the pot ential rulemaking?R. Rosnick: One component on this is the propos ed regulation is that it is just that – a proposal. With a 60 day review pro cess when comments can come in. There is always an opportunity to provide comments to us before the regulation goes final.

M. Newman: Can you provide any indication on whether or not the report substantially

alters the risk assessment model?

R. Rosnick: Our office of general council repr esentative is not on the line, so I cannot

ask her if I can answer that question. The way the question was asked, it is requesting me to discuss whether or not our modeling guidelines would change. I am not at liberty to discuss it at this time.

T. Stills: I think this is an example of EPA not sharing data as they should. Data should be shared immediately, not ju st when it is a result you like.

R. Rosnick: Do we have any other questions?

No other questions?

T. Stills: What we agreed to in the se ttlement is not being adhered to. Your functions seem to be a gatekeeper to keep us out rather than to keep information flowing to stakeholde rs. Please pass that along to your superiors because I would like your role to change.

Have you been collecting data at the Cotter Facility?

R. Rosnick: The data collection there has been sent to the Colorado Department of

Public Health and Environment.

T. Stills: Do you know that their data collection has serious flaws because of laboratory errors? That is a source of important data and I don’t see EPA holding the facility to its reporting responsibilities.

R. Rosnick: I will pass that along to OGC.

Ambiguity is in the definition of operation.

T. Stills: For purposes of rulemaking this is something that should be taken care of.

It is a serious concer n that should be changes.

R. Rosnick: Operation is defined as “accep ting new tailing” acco rding to the current rule. That is something we are l ooking at in this current revision.O. Paulson: Subpart W applies to an operating impoundments, but once they start closure, and then under milestone requirements radon flux tests only are required when the barrier goes in.

T. Stills: I think the Cotter Facility may not be in compliance with their milestones because if they are not then they need to go back to monitoring.

A. Diaz: The regulatory aut hority during closure of th e impoundments is the state

and EPA does not have authority to step in.

T. Stills: So current regulations al low for staff to ignore the rules?

Should we expect an environmental analysis when the rulemaking is released later this year? Any other types of analys is – ground water, soil –

outside of the risk assessment?

R. Rosnick: We have done assessments of ra don release to the air a nd its impact from a risk standpoint to receptors. Since th is is a Clean Air Act rule, we are really focusing on the air analysis ri ght now. In terms of a technical analysis, that has been performed.

I thank you all for attending. Our ne xt call will be on October 6, 2011.

Send me an email or give me a ca ll if anything comes up between now and

then.