Subpart W Comments (9-3-2014) Frank Filas, V.P. Permitting and Environmental Affairs Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. 225 Union Blvd., Suite 600 Lakewood, CO 80228 My name is Frank Filas. I am Vice President ofPermitting and Environmental Affairs for Energy Fuels. Our company is currently America's largest conventional uranium producer supplying approximately 25% ofthe uranium produced in the U.S. in 2013. We have significant concerns with the proposed regulations, as it appears that the EPA is attempting to impose dual regulation over portions ofuranium recovery operations that are already sufficiently regulated by the NRC and Agreement States. 1. We don't believe that the EPA needs to regulate very low level radiation sources such as evaporation or holding ponds. We recommend that the.Subpart W regulation be limited to size and number restrictions for tailings impoundments and other permanent byproduct disposal facilities

. 2. We believe that the "one-size fits all" approach ofmandating one meter ofwater cover over evaporation and holding ponds is unnecessary and wasteful ofscarce and valuable water resources. The EPA stated the following in its October 1984 "Final Rule for Radon-222 Emissions from Licensed Uranium Mill Tailings: Response to Comments": "Recent technical assessments of radon emission rates from tailings indicate that radon emissions from tailings coveredwith less than one meter of water, or merely saturated with water, are about 2% of emissions from dry tailings. Tailings covered with more than one meter of water are estimated to have a zero emissions rates

. The Agency believes this calculated difference between 0% and 2% is negligible. The Agency usedan emission rate of zero for all tailings covered with water or saturated with water in estimating radon emissions. " Clearly, there would be very little benefit to be gained by requiring one meter ofwater cover over material that is already saturated with a minimal water cover. Instead there would be a significant waste ofwater resources through evaporation ofan excessive and unnecessary water cover. EPA's calculation ofreduced radon emissions is incorrect as there would only be a 2% reduction in emissions with one meter ofwater, not the 93% stated in the Rational for This Proposed Rule. 3. In addition, the EPA's cost estimates for maintaining such a water cover are low by many orders ofmagnitude. We estimate that it will cost millions ofdollars to drill deep wells of 1,000 feet or more or pipelines ofmany miles to supply the additional water needed at conventional mill facilities. Evaporation ponds are designed to remove solution through evaporation, not to add water. An additional one meter ofwater cover would also incur the need for building larger ponds at significant additional cost.4. EPA' s proposed replacement ofthe word "tailings" by "byproduct materia ls or tailings" in the definition for "Operation" is inconsistent with NRC regulations and appears to be an attempt by the EPA to circumvent the previous rescission ofSubpart T of40 CFR Part 61. 5. Further, we disagree with EPA's assertion that "the operational life of the heap leachpile be from the time that lixiviant is firstplaced on the heap leachpile until the time of the final rinse

. "As long as the heap is being leached, the ore on the heap is being processed. It does not become lle

.(2) byproduct material until leaching is permanently discontinued. The heap leaching cycle is essentially no different intheory than the successive leaching ofuranium that occurs in the counter current decantation (CCD) circuit ofa conventional mill where the ore pulp from the leach circuit is successively further leached in a series ofthickeners. The material does not become tailings (i.e., lle.(2) byproduct material) until it leaves the final thickener and is discharged to the tailings impoundment. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Energy Fuels will submit more detailed written comments at a later date.