County readying comments on uranium ablation, page-19

Interesting comments on ablation regulation submitted to the CDPHE by WUC director and insider Russell Fryer:

Russell Fryer <[email protected]>
Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 3:20 PM

To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>

Dear Ms Ophia,

I have been watching these Ablation public commentary proceedings closely and below are my observations.

You should be aware that I have seen the ablation mining technology in action several times, unlike 99.9% of those that sending comments to you for review. I find it interesting that the CDPHE is prepared to listen to the hypothetical fear tales of individuals and attorneys, while none of them that have witnessed the ablation process in person. Also, I found the several extensions to the public input process (2nd Denver hearing when one was enough, 2 week public input extension to July 22nd) biased against Western Uranium and Black Range Minerals. If Jeff Parsons was unable to make one of the three public hearings because he was on vacation, this should be his problem, not the problem of Western Uranium or Black Range Minerals, who are trying to get on with hiring people to mine. Optically it appears that the
CDPHE wants to delay making a rather simple decision in order to allow the opponents to figure out a way of frustrating the ruling on ablation. My further comments are:

1. There are already existing mining laws that cover the ablation process in the State of Colorado. If you regulate the ablation technology in any way other than mining, then every mining company in the State of Colorado that blasts a rock face to create small rocks (ore), and then crushes small rocks (ore) using water into smaller sized rocks (ore), would have to comply with any new regulation the CDPHE deems ablation requires. Ablation is purely a mechanically process.

2. The fact that no chemicals or oxidants are used in the ablation process means there is no chemical change to the ore. The White Mesa Mill, InSitu Recovery (ISR) mines and heap leach mines use chemicals to change the composition of the ore, as will the Pinon Ridge Mill, once built. The ablation mining process is completely dissimilar to the White Mesa Mill, ISR mining and heap leach mining.

3. Byproducts under the law is defined as 11e2 byproduct material that can only be generated via uranium milling for their source material content. Ablation is not used to process ore for source material content but is a mechanical sorting process. There is no tailings created from concentrating ore. Sorting is not concentrating. A simple screen deck separates the ore. A mine grizzly is an ore separator. Will every mine that uses a grizzly be creating a byproduct under 11e2? Of course not.

4. Water discharge is already covered under Colorado law and is not an area where the CDPHE needs to comment. Needless to say, Western Uranium and Black Range Minerals would follow all State of Colorado water laws and regulations in terms of use and discharge.

5. Opponents to ablation say that “ablation has not been tested” but without allowing Black Range Minerals/Western Uranium to put the ablation into the field due to some adverse ruling from the CDPHE, the public won’t see how safe the ablation process really is. The strategy of the opponents to ablation mining is to create a stalemate inside the CDPHE via the creation of a ‘which came first, the chicken or egg’ situation. Once again, current MSHA, DRMS and CDPHE guidelines and regulations are already in place to protect the environment, miners, and the public.

6. Ablating ore underground is not ‘unconventional underground milling’ nor is ablating surface ore ‘unconventional milling’ or any other type of milling. Many of the largest mining companies in the world currently use underground crushers in order to sort ore more efficiently. Most mining companies crush ore above ground and use this process to sort ore. Ablating uranium ore is no different.

7. The opponents to ablation mining who have never seen the ablation process say “the CDPHE cannot provide any license until the ablation mining process has be tested for years. But any testing cannot be done until a license is issued.” This is a typical delay tactic that the CDPHE has witnessed before. I hope the CDPHE won’t fall for this stall tactic again.

Would these same opponents would be opposed to ablation if the process was used in copper, zinc, or silver mines? Of course not. It is their reaction to the mineral word “uranium” that makes them vocally emotional, not realizing the laws to regulate ablation are already tabled and in force, with the NRC in the background if a higher ruling be required. Should these laws be broken, the law is there to enforce any breaches.

In summary, the CDPHE already has ways to regulate and oversee ablation activities via the current MSHA, DRMS and other State of Colorado mining laws. Ablation is clearly not milling by the legal definition of 11e2. Furthermore, to those of us that have seen ablation operational, it is obvious the ablation process is just the sorting of ore, like every mine in Colorado undertakes. Therefore, no new regulatory category is required and if the CDPHE were to rule that ablation needs a mill license, I fear extensive litigation against the ruling and possibly the CDPHE, with NRC involvement might
be the outcome.

It is incumbent on the CDPHE to adhere to the laws of the State of Colorado and the laws of the USA, as it is for Black Range Minerals and Western Uranium Corporation to adhere to those same laws. There needs to be less stalling tactics and determination delays allowed by the CDPHE on behalf of the opponents to ablation. The laws are clear and ablation is simply a mining process and not a milling process. Not even a source material license should be required for ablation.

Please rule that ablation is a mining process and allow all mining companies in the State of Colorado to undertake the ablation mining process under the current existing Colorado State and Federal mining, water, and radiation laws.

Thank you,​

Russell Fryer