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: Angelique Diaz (Region 8) 

CCAT: Lynn Holtz Minasi, Anita Minton, Paul Carestia 

Industry: Oscar Paulson (Kennecott), Wayne Heili, John Cash (UR Energy), Mike 

Newton (Neutron Energy), Miriam Wetly (Chemical), Rita Meyer, Jim 

Cain (Cotter Corporation), Richard 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 information 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 towards updating it in a timely manner 

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

 The other thing I want to tell you about 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 discussions, I am not at liberty 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 opportunity to provide input prior to the 

draft rule being sent to the Office 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 that 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 contractor involved in this project related to the review. I 

thought they would put together 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 being reviewed by the EPA 

staff. When it is finalized, it will then 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 together? 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 the 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 back to look at that. 

 So what we have done on this current rulemaking is use the most recent 

version of AIRDOS, now known as CAP88 version 3. We went to the 

existing facilities and used CAP88 version 3 to see if risk levels changed. 

The code performs the calculations with data from the facilities, with 

metrological data and various assumptions used. The report describes all 

of this. The work group had comments and corrections and the contractor 

made them. Now our independent review by internal EPA employees is 

being conducted. We expect to have their comments within a month. 

O. Paulson How are the references listed? 

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

applicable. 

O. Paulson: We would want to be sure 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 data sources should be used. 

T. Wright: Is there going to be timely public comment on the potential rulemaking? 
R. Rosnick: One component on this is the proposed regulation is that it is just that – a 

proposal. With a 60 day review process 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 representative 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 just 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 settlement is not being adhered to. Your 

functions seem to be a gatekeeper to keep us out rather than to keep 

information flowing to stakeholders. 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 concern that should be changes. 

R. Rosnick: Operation is defined as “accepting new tailing” according to the current 

rule. That is something we are looking 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 authority during closure of the impoundments is the state 

and EPA does not have authority to step in. 

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

 Should we expect an environmental analysis when the rulemaking is 

released later this year? Any other types of analysis – ground water, soil – 

outside of the risk assessment? 

R. Rosnick: We have done assessments of radon release to the air and its impact from a 

risk standpoint to receptors. Since this is a Clean Air Act rule, we are 

really focusing on the air analysis right now. In terms of a technical 

analysis, that has been performed. 

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

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

then.