Public Participation by E-Mail

Subject: EPA Review of Standards for Uranium and Thorium Milling Facilites @40 CFR Parts 61 and 192

11/08/2010

 

Comments by Steven H Brown, SENES Consultants Limited (PDF) (12 pp, 1.81MB) About PDF

 

Subject: EPA Public Information Meetings-Review of Standard Uranium and Thorium Milling Facilities, held on 11-4-10, Corpus Christi, Texas

11/30/2010

 

Comments by Raymond V. Carter, Jr., South Texans for Clean Energy (PDF) (2 pp, 14.58KB) About PDF

 

Subject: Radon Emissions from Pinon Ridge

4/05/2011

 

Prevailing winds from the Pinon Ridge area and Eastern Utah blow towards Grand Junction Delta and Montrose.

I live in Grand Junction and know that Radon is linked to Lung Cancer and I have enough problems with Asthma.

I also used to be a Respiratory Therapist who saw patients from the RESEP (aka Radiation Exposure) program here.

Please try Solar Power first before building the proposed mine at Pinon Ridge.

 

Thanks for your consideration.

Walter Speirs MPAS, PA-C

Subject: Heap Leach

4/20/2011

 

Umetco Maybell Title II site is a uranium heap leach.  No conventional mill tailings are disposed of at the Title II site.
 
Thanks
John S. Hamrick
VP, Mill Operations
Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.)

Subject: Comments on Subpart W Rule Review

07/22/2011

 

Energy Fuels Resources Corporation (Energy Fuels) appreciates the opportunity to comment on your agency's Subpart W rule review.  We believe we can provide you with valuable input, as we are in the process of permitting the Piñon Ridge Uranium and Vanadium Mill (Piñon Ridge) in Montrose County, Colorado.  As a part of our permitting and licensing for Piñon Ridge with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), and other federal, state and local agencies, we have prepared volumes of reports, studies, and other documentation covering most aspects of uranium production using conventional milling methods.  We believe these experiences give our views unique perspective and reliability.

 

As background, we submitted an Application for Approval of Construction of Tailings Facility to EPA Region 8 on August 27, 2010 in accordance with 40 CFR Part 61.252(b)(1). The application (which is still under review by the EPA) proposes the phased construction of tailings cells for a conventional uranium mill. We originally delayed submitting our comments on the Subpart W rule review in anticipation of completing the permitting process first, so that we might provide technical comments on both the rule and how the rule is being interpreted by the EPA. Given that the EPA is moving forward at this time with an internal review of rule alternatives, we have decided to put forth the following general comments at this time for your consideration.

 

1.      The EPA recently re-interpreted its Subpart W rules to state that evaporation ponds are tailings impoundments, because a very small quantity of byproduct material (as defined by 42 USC 2014(e)(2)) remains in the evaporation ponds as residue. Based on our reading of the Federal Register, the Rule, and other factors, this was never the intent of the original rulemaking. As we demonstrated in our construction application and accompanying materials, the radioactivity levels of the tailings are about two orders of magnitude higher than the levels in the evaporation ponds. Because the radioactivity associated with the evaporation ponds is low – similar to what is observed in background soils - we believe that these ponds should be classified separately from tailings impoundments.  In our opinion, the EPA should seriously consider whether evaporation ponds should even be regulated for radon emissions.

 

2.      By classifying evaporation ponds in the same category as a tailings cell, the EPA removes the possibility of utilizing a phased approach to tailings management with a transition period between tailings cells as discussed further in Point #4 below.

 

3.      If the EPA decides to stay with a work practice regulation for conventional milling, we recommend keeping the two existing work practices and adding a third that would allow for disposal of tailings using another method, provided the applicant can demonstrate that it provides equal or better control of radon emissions. For example, it might be reasonable in some cases to mix tailings with concrete and place the mixture back into an underground mine for ground support.  In addition, there might be other methods developed in the future that could provide control of radon emissions as well as, or better than, the current work practices.

 

4.      The current phased disposal work practice with two tailings cells is a reasonable approach, as it allows an operator to gradually transition from a cell that is nearing capacity to a new one that is just starting. From a practical point of view, it is unreasonable to expect an operator to close one cell and start another cell on the same day. In a reasonable transition, an operator most likely would run both cells for a year or so until the first cell reaches its final capacity. 

 

5.      A limit of 40 acres on tailings cells is reasonable, as this area provides adequate capacity at a 3H/1V internal slope, so that a uranium recovery operation does not have to build new cells every other year. In addition, as tailings areas decrease in area, their capacity decreases exponentially, because their depth also decreases.  Therefore, to minimize surface disturbance, we recommend against reducing the maximum size of tailings cells to less than 40 acres.

 

6.      In the 1989 rulemaking, the EPA stated that dewatered tailings appeared to be a better option from an operating cost perspective than conventional tailings disposal, but with the added caveat that this was not currently a proven technology. In almost all cases, the dewatered or paste tailings option has proven to be a more expensive disposal option, primarily due to transportation and handling issues. Energy Fuels is also not convinced that this method would result in less radiation emissions, because exposed dewatered tailings do not have a water cover in place to limit radon and dust emissions.

 

7.      Cumulative evaporation pond capacity at most conventional mills will need to be greater than 40 acres. Our Piñon Ridge Mill can operate with a 40 acre evaporation cell, because we are initially permitting for a 500 ton per day mill. Larger milling operations such as White Mesa and Sweetwater will likely need much larger pond areas.   

 

8.      If the EPA decides that ISRs and heap leach facilities should be regulated under Subpart W, separate work practices need to be established for each type of facility.  Conventional mills and tailings facilities are considerably different than these facilities on a whole range of issues.  For instance, while ISRs and heap leach facilities may have evaporation ponds, they do not have tailings impoundments, which is the primary focus of the current Subpart W regulations.  The other alternative is to establish common numeric standards for public receptors based on modeling and monitoring, similar to what is currently being done under other federal and state radiation regulations.

 

9.      Should a numeric standard be contemplated, we recommend that modeling be based on realistic scenarios. Most of the mill sites in the western United Statesare remotely located and are surrounded by public land upon which it is illegal to build a residence. To assume that a fence post along the property line is a full-time 24/7 resident is an unrealistic and unnecessary assumption.

 

10.  We recommend that permitting and compliance authority for any revised regulations be clearly delineated. EPA Region 8 is currently reviewing our tailings cell liners, based on a reference in Subpart W to 40 CFR Part 192.30. Our review of these same regulations indicates that this review should be done, not by the EPA, but by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or (if applicable) the AgreementState. We outlined our interpretation of the rules to the Region 8 EPA, but we have elected to forgo a formal objection at this time. Colorado is an Agreement State, meaning the NRC has delegated the permitting of uranium mills to the state, because it has state laws and regulations are as strict (or stricter) than the laws and regulations that govern the NRC.  In this case, a previous technical review of our liner systems was performed by the radiation program at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment during their review (and issuance) of our Radioactive Materials License. We are now going through a similar review process with the EPA. Unnecessary duplication of review and enforcement responsibilities does not benefit government agencies, the mining industry, or the general public. We believe that any revisions to Subpart W should be simple, straightforward, and focus on radon air emissions. References to other non-air-quality regulations should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.  And, where these other regulations are referenced, the Subpart W rules should be very clear as to which agencies are responsible for the technical review.   

 

11.  We recommend that important terms such as "tailings impoundments," "evaporation ponds," and "regulatory agency" be clearly defined to avoid the current situation where multiple interpretations of the same regulations exist.

 

12.  We also would like to see any existing ambiguities in the regulations clarified and regulatory authority better defined to avoid unnecessary duplication of regulatory reviews and approvals.  Uncertainty in the rules – and varied interpretations of those rules by different agencies and individuals – causes industry considerable time, money and effort in attempting to comply with the rules.

 

We understand that EPA's first and primary objective in reviewing the existing regulations is to determine the level of health risk associated with radon emissions from our byproduct disposal operations. However, once risk levels have been determined, we do not believe that public health, safety, the environment, or public policy is served by the EPA attempting to over-regulate our facilities under the maxim that "more is better." We are already a very highly regulated industry with health, safety, and environmental standards that far exceed those required in most other countries.  

 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

 

Sincerely,

Frank Filas, P.E.

Director of Environmental and Regulatory Affairs

 

 

Subject: Method 115 Test (Radon Flux) Data - Sweetwater Uranium Project

1/13/2012

 

Method 115 Test (radon flux) data for the Sweetwater Uranium Project from 1990 to 2010 may be found on page 6 of the following document stored in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) ADAMS public document system:
 

• Document Name:                     Kennecott Uranium Company, Request for a Five (5) Year Postponement of the Initiation of the Requirements of Timeliness in Decommissioning.
• ADAMS Accession Nunber:      ML11157A017

 

If you go to the ADAMS page (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html ) click Begin Web-based ADAMS Search, click on the Content Search tab and type in ML11157A017 you should be able to retrieve the document.

Oscar  Paulson
Facility Supervisor
Kennecott Uranium Company
Sweetwater Uranium Project

Subject: EPA and State Enforcement of Subpart W Standard

3/15/2012

 

Utah is the only state that has primacy for the EPA radionuclide NESHAPS, including Subpart W.
In 1995 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave the State Of Utah
authority to administer and enforce radionuclide National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) in the State of Utah.1 These NESHAPS included
40 C.F.R. Part 61 Subpart W—National Emission Standards for Radon Emissions From
Operating Mill Tailings—and the Subpart A General Provisions. The Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (DAQ), administers the NESHAP
program.

The Subpart W standard, at 40 C.F.R. Part 61 Subpart W, § 61.252 states, in pertinent part:

Sec. 61.252 Standard.
(a) Radon-222 emissions to the ambient air from an existing uranium
mill tailings pile shall not exceed 20 pCi/(m\2\-sec) (1.9 pCi/(ft\2\-
sec)) of radon-222.
(b) After December 15, 1989, no new tailings impoundment can be
built unless it is designed, constructed and operated to meet one of the
two following work practices:
(1) Phased disposal in lined tailings impoundments that are no more
than 40 acres in area and meet the requirements of 40 CFR 192.32(a) as
determined by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The owner or
operator shall have no more than two impoundments, including
existing impoundments, in operation at any one time. [Emphasis
added.]

However, the White Mesa Mill in San Juan County, Utah, has from
4 operational tailings in operation at this time: 
Cells 2, 3, and 4A, and an approved Cell 4B.

This has been brought to the attention of Region 8 EPA office.

In amending any of the Subpart W regulations, the EPA must
also consider that the current standard, with respect the number
of operating tailings impoundments, is not even being met.

Sarah M. Fields
Uranium Watch

Subject: Follow-up on EPA April 5 Subpart W Conference Call

4/6/2012

 

Dear Mr. Rosnick,

Another issue that I failed to mention yesterday with respect the
Subpart W rulemaking is the gapping regulatory hole when it comes to uranium mill
tailings impoundments after they cease to be operational and, according
to current EPA regulation, are no longer subject to the Subpart W flux
standard. (For now, we'll just ignore the issues regarding exactly when
that point in the life of a tailings impoundment occurs.)

 

My understanding is that one operation ceases and the closure period
commences there is no radon flux standard. My understanding is that
at the time the closure period commences there must be a closure plan
and reclamation milestones that have been approved by the State or
NRC.

 

The problem is, as stated in the 1989 Subpart W final rule:

"EPA recognizes that the risks from mill tailings piles can increase
dramatically if they are dry and uncovered can be seen in the proposed rule, 54 FR
9645. That analysis assumed that the piles were dry and uncovered and the
risks were as high as 3 x 10 (to the -3) with 1.6 fatal cancers per year." The
EPA than assumes that the piles will be wet or covered, then be "disposed of."

The problem is that during the "closure" or "disposal" period
tailings impoundments dry out more and, in fact, interim soil covers interfere with the
drying and settling processes. Apparently, this is happening at the White Mesa
Mill. Even now, I believe that the estimate of time for the drying/settling
process for Cells 2 and 3 at White Mesa is 10 years. That may be a minimal
estimate. So whether an older cell with a radon flux standard or a newer 40-acre
cell, there can be a period of time when radon emissions and potential
for dispersal of radioactive particulates increases. Yet, there is no
flux standard during this period, unless the period goes beyond the
established reclamation milestone for the final radon barrier.

 

This is something the EPA Subpart W changes must address.

Also, there are proposals for open pit uranium mines near uranium
recovery operations. With the EPA failure to establish a radon standard for
surface uranium mines, you would have a regulated NESHAP facility
next to one where the EPA has fallen short of its regulatory
responsibility.

 

Sarah M. Fields
Uranium Watch