DRAFT Subpart W Quarterly Call – April 3, 2013

Attendees

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

Environmental Groups

Jennifer Thurston (INFORM), 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 (Uranium One), Jim Cain (Cotter)

UPDATE (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 Policy 

and Office of Management and Budget

o Sarah Fields – recommends EPA putting up Part 192 rulemaking information on 

the website for the public

o Reid – will pass this information on to the workgroup

(Discussion on the FAR process and where it falls in the review 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 

should 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 before the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) 

license is issued for the New Mexico conventional mill

Reid: Began providing a historical perspective of the uranium industry in relation to the Subpart 

W Rulemaking. Was cut off/interrupted by J. Thurston expressing 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)

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

• Reid: 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.

• Travis Stills: Expresses that this is the purpose of the call and finds it ridiculous that EPA 

won’t discuss the details.

• Reid: 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.

• Travis Stills: States that deliberative materials can be shared at EPA’s discretion

• Susan Stahle: States that the two sides differ in their perspectives, and that’s where we’ll 

stay. We are exercising our discretion. Susan informs the attendees that stakeholder 

involvement has been important and that stakeholders have been able to provide input. 

She stated that it was never the intention of EPA to disclose our decisions prior to them 

being proposed, and that this is how we conduct rulemakings. 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.

• Travis Stills: Feels that there is no quality of participation by stakeholder. 

Sarah 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.

• Reid: 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. 

• Sarah Fields: Believes that the logic was that it was just not considered at the time.

• Oscar 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 Reconsideration (Federal Register 
Volume 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.

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

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

• Sarah 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.

• Reid: 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.

Travis Stills: Asks if any data has been collected in the last two years on tailings piles.

• Reid: States that existing impoundments (in operation before 12/15/1989) still in 

operation are collecting radon flux data.

• Travis 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.

• Reid: Informs the group that Colorado is an NRC Agreement State and would like the 

link from Travis.

• Travis 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 2012 Semiannual Performance Criteria Report 

1st Half 2012 Semiannual Effluent Report Supplement

• http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=CDPHEHM%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251638999402&pagename=CBONWrapper

There were no further questions or comments.

NEXT CALL: Currently falls on July 4th, 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.