40 CFR 61 Subpart W Public Hearings- September 4, 2014 

Scott Bakken 

Environmental Manager 

Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. 

225 Union Blvd., Suite 600 

Lakewood, CO 80228 

-.Sept 4 q o..JY\- 12pm 

My name is Scott Bakken. I'm an Environmental Manager with Energy Fuels. Our company is currently 

America's largest conventional uranium producer supplying approximately 25% of the uranium 

produced in the U.S. in 2013. 

The focus of my comments today are on the applicability of the proposed revisions to nonconventional 

fluid retention impoundments located at in-s.itu leach (or ISL) uranium recovery facilities. These 

nonconventional impoundments, commonly referred to as holding ponds, storage ponds or evaporation 

ponds, are used to store and/or treat liquid effluents during the wastewater disposal process at facilities 

regulated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and/or NRC Agreement States. 

~ It is Energy Fuels' position that regulation of radon emissions from nonconventional fluid 

retention impoundments by the EPA is unnecessary. The administrative records in Subparts T 

and W, as weH as EPA's Method 115 rationale and procedures, strongly suggest that radon 

emissions from nonconventional impoundments are low, if not negligible, pose little risk to 

public health and the environment and, thus, do not warrant the application of standards to 

control radon. Given that the NRC and Agreement States already have robust standards in place, 

the proposed revisions to Subpart W would result in dual regulation while providing little to no 

additional benefit to public health or the environment beyond what is already in place under the 

Atomic Energy Act. 

~ Energy Fuels believes that the "one-size fits all" approach to nonconventional impoundments is 

not appropriate and that any standards imposed on ISL facilities should be appropriate for the 

nature, scale and relevant risk associated with various impoundments. Based on review of the 

proposed revisions and supporting documents, it is Energy Fuels' opinion that the "base case" 

and other assumptions used to evaluate impacts to ISL facilities is not representative in terms of 

the number, size and type of various impoundments in place at current and planned ISL facilities. 

The result is that the proposed revisions may result in much greater costs or operational impacts 

than those evaluated, including costs "above and beyond" what was required to license them 

under the NRC, contrary to what is stated in the proposed revisions. 

~ Energy Fuels questions the methodology applied by the EPA in regards to radon attenuation and 

control attributed to the proposed control measure of maintaining one meter of water in 

nonconventional impoundments. In the proposed revision, the EPA states: 

o "The benefit incurred by this requirement is that significantly less radon will be released 

to the atmosphere. The amount varies from facility to facility based on the size of the 

nonconventional impoundment, but across existing facilities radon can be expected to be 

reduced by approximately 24,600 curies, a decline of approximately 93%." 
It is perplexing as to bow a 93% decline was attributed to this control measure. In Table 46 of the 

Background Information Document, for example, a radon attenuation factor of 0.07 (i.e., a 93% 

reduction) was applied to the calculated "maximum" radon release of 36,500 curies per year 

from an operating ISL facility. As described in Section 4.4 of the background document, this 

calculation was based on either theoretical or actual release values and, as such, should be 

representative of radon releases from both processing facilities and impoundments. Further, 

considering that the EPA has acknowledged that radon release from nonconventional 

impoundments is small (i.e., " ... less than 1% of the facility total radon releases ... ") 1

, it is 

assumed that the majority of this calculated radon release was associated with the processing 

facilities, not the impoundments. 

Assuming that the 36,500 curies per year radon release for the aforementioned ISL facility is 

from both processing faci lities and impoundments and that even 1% of this amount is attributed 

to impoundments; the annual radon release associated with the impoundments would be 365 

curies. Based on this analysis, a 93% reduction in radon release attributed to maintaining one 

meter of water in impoundments would only result in a "maximum" facility-wide reduction of 

approximately 340 curies per year, not the 33,100 curies per year that is presented in Table 46 of 

the background document. This represents a radon release reduction of less than 1% for the 

overall facility vs " ... a decline of approximately 93%." as stated by EPA in the proposed 

revision. 

Clearly, an incremental reduction in "almost nothing" is still "almost nothing". 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. 

1 Risk Assessment Revision for 40 CFR 61 Subpart W- Radon Emissions from Operating Mill Tailings, 

Task 5- Radon Emission from Evaporation Ponds; November 9, 2010.