40 CFR 61 Subpart W Public Hearings- September 4, 2014 Scott Bakken Environmental Manager Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. 225 Uni on Blvd., Suite 600 Lakewood, CO 80228 

# -.Sept 

# 4 q o..JY\- 

## 1 2pm

My name is Scott Bakken. I'm an Environmenta l Manager with Energy Fuels. Our company is currently America's largest conventional uranium producer s uppl ying approximately 25% of the uranium produced in the U.S. in 20 1 3. The focus of my comments today are on the applicability of the proposed revisions to nonconventional fluid retention impoundments lo ca ted a t in-s
. itu leac h (or ISL) uranium recovery facilities. These nonconventional imp oundments, commonly referred to as holding ponds, stor age ponds or evapora tio n pond s, are used to store and/or treat liquid effluents during the wastewater di sposa l 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 emiss i ons from n onconven tional fluid retention impoundments by the EPA is unnecessary. The adminis trative records in Subparts T and W, as weH as EPA ' s Method 115 rationale and procedures, strong ly suggest that radon emissions from nonconventional impoundments are low, if not negligible, pose little risk to public h ealth an d th e environment and , thus, do n o t warrant the application of standards to control radon. Given that the NRC and Agreement States already have robust standar d s in place, th e proposed revisions to Subpart W w o uld result in dual regulatio n 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 be lieves that the "one-size fits all" approach to nonconv e ntion a l impoundments i s not appropriate and that any standards imposed on ISL facilities sh ould be appropria te for th e nature, scale and relevant risk associated with various impoundments. Based on review of the proposed revi sio ns and supporting documents, it i s Energy Fuels' opinion that th e "base case" and other assumpt i ons used to evaluat e 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 res ult in much greater costs or operationa l impacts than those evaluated, including cos ts "above and beyond" what was required to license them under the NRC, contrary to what i s stated in the proposed revisions.

**~** Energy Fuels questions th e methodology applied by the EPA in regards to radon attenuation and co ntrol att ributed to the proposed control measure of maintaining one meter of water in nonconv e ntion al impoundments. In the proposed revi s ion , the EPA states: o 

### "The benefit incurred by this requirem ent 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 existingfacilities rad on 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 wa s attribu ted to thi s co ntrol measure . In Tabl e 46 of the B ac kground Inform ati on D ocu men t, fo r example , a rado n atte nu ati o n fac to r of 0.07 (i.e. , a 93 % re du ction) was applied to the calculated " maximum " r ado n release of 36,500 curies per year from a n o perating ISL fac ility. A s described in Secti o n 4.4 o f th e back g r o und docume nt , thi s calculation was based on either theoretical o r actual release values and , as s uch , s h ould be repr ese ntati ve of rad o n re lea ses from b oth processing fac ilities and imp o undmen ts. Furth er , co n sidering that the EPA has acknowledged that radon release from nonc onventio nal impou nd me nt s is small (i .e. , "
... 

### less than 1 % of the facility total radon releases
... ") 1
, it is assumed that th e majority of thi s calculated radon release was associated w ith the proce ss in g facilitie s, not the impoundme nt s . Assuming that the 36,500 c uries per year r a d on relea se fo r th e aforementioned ISL facility is from both processing faci li t ies a nd impou ndment s and that eve n 1 % o f th is amo unt i s attributed to i mpou ndme nts; th e annual radon release associ ated with the impoundments wou ld be 365 curie s. Based on thi s analysis, a 9 3% reduction i n radon r e lease attributed to mainta ini ng o ne meter o f water in imp ou ndments wo uld o nl y result in a " maximum " fac ility -w ide redu c ti o n of approx imately 340 c uri es pe r year, no t th e 33, 100 curie s pe r ye ar that i s pr ese nted in Tabl e 46 of the b ackgro und docume nt. This represe nt s a radon release re ducti on of less than 1 % for the overall fac ility vs "
...

### a decline of approximately 93%." as sta te d by E PA in the propo se d rev i sion. Clearly , a n incremental reduction in " alm os t nothing " i s still "a lmost nothing "
. Thank you for th e o pportunity t o comme nt.

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.