DRAFT Subpart W Quarterly Call

– April 3, 2013

Attendees

EPA: Reid Rosnick (ORIA) , Angelique Diaz (Region 8) , Su san Stahle (OGC)

Env ironmental Groups Jennifer Thurston (I NFORM ) , Sharyn Cunningham, Carol Dunn, (CCAT), Sarah Fields (Uranium Watch)

Other Travis Stills (Energy Minerals Law Center) , Darrell Liles, (SENES) , Kay Hawklee (Citizen in Cañon City, CO)

Industry Oscar Paulson (Kennecott), John Schmuck (Chemical Processes), John Cash (Ur

- Energy), Mike Thomas ( Uranerz )

, Scott Sherman ( U ranium O ne), Jim Cain (Cotter)

U PDATE (Reid)

• No comments were received on January minutes

• Follow up on 40 CFR Part 192 Rulemaking Efforts

– rulemaking headed for final agency review (FAR) in late Spring 2013. Last step before getting in line for Office of Polic y and Office of Management and Budget

o S arah Fields

– recommends EPA putting up Part 192 rulemaking information on the website for the public

o R eid

– will pass this information on to the workgroup (Discussion on the FAR process and where it falls in the revi ew process, comparing the 192 status to the Subpart W process. Reid expands on the process.)

• Informed attendees that senior managers are aware of concerns over delay regarding Subpart W going to OMB and thanks everyone for patience. Any further concerns

s hould be brought up to the office of the Administrator

• Currently Subpart W is scheduled to go to OMB on April 25, 2013

o Travis requests that documentation on this be posted online

o Reid says he will look into whether or not the document is releasable to the
website

DISCUSSION Jennifer Thurston: Mentions a new conventional mill application in the queue for New Mexico (did not mention where this application is located) . A shame if EPA would miss the boat twice,and ideally the rulemaking will be completed be fore the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission)
license is issued for the New Mexico conventional mill

R eid : Began providing a historical perspective of the uranium industry in relation to the Subpart W Rulemaking. Was cut off/i nterrupted by J. Thursto n exp ressing her frustration and stating that she is not interested in hearing historical perspective. So noted

Kay Hawklee : Expresses general frustration as well and announces her presence on the call (private citizen from Cañon City, CO)

S arah Fields: Asks to what extent the rule revisions address conventional mills.

• R eid : States that the rule will address conventional mills, in situ recovery, as well as heap leach but that he cannot go into the details of the proposed rule.

• T ravis Stills: Exp resses that this is the purpose of the call and finds it ridiculous that EPA
won’t discuss the details.

• R eid : Informs everyone that until the rule is proposed it is considered to be internal and
deliberative. Mentions that the rule will add in situ leach and heap leach information, new definitions, as well as addresses conventional milling.

• T ravis Stills: States that deliberative materials can be shared at EPA’s discretion

• S usan Stahle: States that the two sides differ in their perspectives, and that’s whe re we’ll
stay

. W e are exercising our discretion. Susan i nforms the attendees that stakeholder involvement has been important and that stakeholders have been able to provide input.
S he s tate d that it was never the intention of EPA to disclose our decision s prior to them being propos ed, and that this is how we conduct rulemaking s . EPA does not disclose the contents of our rule until proposed. The Subpart W process has allowed stakeholders to provide input and has worked well.

• T ravis Still s : Feels that ther e is no quality of participation by stakeholder.

S arah Fields: Mentions an open

- pit uranium mine associated with a proposed heap leach facility. Asks if open

- pit uranium mines will be revisited to address the need for NESHAPs regulation.

• R eid : Informs everyone that underground mines are regulated by NESHAP Subpart B, original documents will have to be reviewed to determine original logic and he does not have an answer right now.

• S arah Fields: Believes that the logic was that it w as just not considere d at the time.

• O scar Paulson: States that there was some consideration of risk involved, at that time, and certainly now, there was a belief that there is no risk from the pits. Note that after the call, Oscar provided the language from the original 1989 rulemaking

. Friday, December 15,
1989

– Final Rule 40 CFR Part 61

– National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; Radionuclides; Final Rule and Notice of Reconsidera tion (Federal RegisterVolume 54, Number 240 Friday, December 15, 1989 Page 51678): The agency concluded in 1989 that the baseline risk from open pit uranium mines is acceptable.

• S arah Fields: Feels EPA needs to revisit with new operations being proposed.

• Reid : Takes the point, indicates this is outside of Subpart W.

• S arah Fields: Believes the issues are from cumulative impacts from mining/milling right
next to each other. Finds this a significant issue that needs to be considered.

• R eid : Informs Sarah that once the proposed rule is out, if she feels it has not been adequately addressed she should comment accordingly so it will be addressed.

T ravis Stills: Asks if any data has been co llected in the last two years on tailings piles.

• R eid : States that existing impoundments (in operation before 12/15/1989) still in operation are collecting radon flux data.

• T ravis Stills: Brings up the 2012 semi

- annual report on Cotter (in Cañon City, CO ) and claims there is a “spike” as well as abnormal things going on that need to be folding into EPA considerations. Informs the group that the document is on the CDPHE website and he will provide a link to Reid.

• R eid : Informs the group that Colorado is a n NRC Agreement State and would like the
link from Travis.

• T ravis Stills: States that he is not talking about regulatory oversight, but instead talking about data that should go into EPA’s decision making.

• During the call Travis provides Reid with several CDPHE web links to the data.March 1 2nd Half 2012 Semiannual Effluent Report

2nd Half 201 2 Semiannual Performance Criteria Report

1st Half 2012 Semiannual Effluent Report Supplement

• http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=CDPHE

HM%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251638999402&pagename=CBONWrapper

Ther e were no further questions or comments.

NEXT CALL: Currently falls on July 4 th , proposed Thursday, July 11, 2013 at 11am EST as an alternative. No objections on the call. Next call will be Thursday, July 11, 2013, 11:00 a.m.
EST.