{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=463F5BF7-E051-459A-A198-EEEE9596F2B1", "Senators Call on White House to Withdraw EPAs Uranium Rule", "2016-10-20", "2016", "2016-10", "Republican", "House", "WY", "John Barrasso", "B001261", "www.barrasso.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2013 Today, U.S. Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), John Cornyn (R-TX) and Deb Fischer (R-NE) called on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to withdraw the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) rule related to in situ uranium recovery (ISR). ISR is a method of producing uranium without removing the uranium orebody. It offers a wide range of environmental and public health benefits, and is the principal means by which uranium is produced in the United States. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the primary regulator of ISR activities, requires ISR operators to conduct groundwater monitoring through license conditions. On January 26, 2015, the EPA issued a proposed rule requiring ISR operators to conduct up to 30 years of groundwater monitoring following uranium production. Earlier this month, the EPA sent its final rule to OMB for review. In a letter\u00a0to OMB Director Shaun Donovan, the senators question the EPA\u2019s cost-benefit analysis and ask OMB to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis prior to taking any further action on the rule. \u201cISR has a 40-year history in the United States. EPA, by its own admission, has yet to confirm a single case where ISR activities have affected a source of drinking water. However, instead of writing a rule based on data from existing ISR well fields, EPA has proposed a rule based largely on its \u2018qualitative view of the situation.\u2019 EPA can and must do better. We, therefore, ask that you direct EPA to withdraw its proposed rule and work with ISR operators and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the principal regulator of ISR activities, to collect additional data on the costs and benefits of its proposal. At a minimum, your agency should use its authority to conduct an independent cost-benefit analysis of EPA\u2019s final rule before taking further action on that rule.\u201d the senators wrote. Full text of the letter below:\r\nDear Mr. Donovan:\r\nWe are concerned about the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) rulemaking requiring\u00a0in situ uranium recovery (ISR) operators to conduct long-term groundwater monitoring under 40 C.F.R. Part 192. To date, EPA has not sufficiently articulated the threat to the environment or public health that it is attempting to address in this rulemaking. As a result, it is not clear that the benefits of the proposed rule or a substantially similar final rule would outweigh the costs. We, therefore, ask you to direct EPA to withdraw its proposed rule and collect additional data on the costs and benefits of its proposal prior to taking any further action on this rulemaking.\r\nOn January 26, 2015, EPA proposed a rule requiring ISR operators to conduct groundwater monitoring for up to 30 years following the end of ISR operations. EPA states that \u201ccurrent industry practices for restoration and monitoring of the affected aquifer may not be adequate to prevent either the further degradation of water quality or the more widespread contamination of groundwater that is suitable for human consumption.\u201d EPA says \u201c[m]ost ISR sites historically have been unable to meet restoration goals for all constituents even after extensive effort.\u201d It cites as evidence a study titled, \u201cGroundwater Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Recovery Mines, South Texas Coastal Plain,\u201d published in 2009, by Susan Hall of the U.S. Geological Survey.\r\nEPA argues that \u201c[b]ecause monitoring after restoration is typically conducted for only a short period, we find it difficult to characterize the probability or magnitude of future contamination problems, or the costs involved in remediating such future contamination.\u201d It says, \u201c[s]imilarly, because ISR\u2026and any subsequent contamination may take years, decades or even longer to reach groundwater being consumed by humans, it is difficult to characterize the benefits of our proposal by applying typical Agency metrics.\u201d Instead, EPA conducted a largely \u201cqualitative assessment\u201d of the benefits. Setting aside the unknowns (or perhaps on account of them), EPA says \u201c[i]t is likely, however, that the costs of such future remediation would far exceed the costs of the more extensive monitoring (in all phases of site activity) that we are proposing today.\u201d\r\nWe do not share EPA\u2019s confidence that the benefits of the proposed rule would exceed the costs. While EPA repeatedly cites Hall\u2019s study in its proposed rule, it fails to note that the study finds nearly all the examined well fields \u201care characterized by groundwater elevated in multiple MCLs [maximum contaminant levels] prior to mining.\u201d In other words, \u201c[t]hese well fields would require pretreatment to be used as a source for drinking water.\u201d EPA also fails to note that \u201c[o]f those elements for which MCL is established, the majority of [well fields] showed\u2026decreases in arsenic, cadmium, fluoride, lead, mercury, nitrate, and radium to below baseline for the majority of well fields.\u201d That is, ISR activities had positive as well as negative effects on the well fields. Finally, EPA does not explain that Hall\u2019s study did not address whether a failure to meet all restoration goals at ISR sites poses any risk to the environment or public health.\r\nISR has a 40-year history in the United States. EPA, by its own admission, has yet to confirm a single case where ISR activities have affected a source of drinking water. However, instead of writing a rule based on data from existing ISR well fields, EPA has proposed a rule based largely on its \u201cqualitative view of the situation.\u201d EPA can and must do better. We, therefore, ask that you direct EPA to withdraw its proposed rule and work with ISR operators and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the principal regulator of ISR activities, to collect additional data on the costs and benefits of its proposal. At a minimum, your agency should use its authority to conduct an independent cost-benefit analysis of EPA\u2019s final rule before taking further action on that rule.\r\nThank you for your consideration and we look forward to your prompt response.\r\n###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=463F5BF7-E051-459A-A198-EEEE9596F2B1"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.1585280299186707, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}