Pinon Ridge Hearing Transcripts Part 4

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC
816
JUDICIAL ARBITER GROUP JAG No. 12 A 1318 ________________________________________________________ REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING, VOLUME V November 10, 2012 ________________________________________________________ IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES, INC., FOR A RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE FOR THE PINON RIDGE URANIUM MILL ________________________________________________________
PURSUANT TO NOTICE to all parties in interest, the above entitled matter resumed for hearing before Honorable Richard W. Dana on Saturday, November 10, 2012, beginning at 8:35 a.m., at 1045 Main Street, Nucla, Colorado, before Elizabeth W. Schnittker, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of Colorado.
Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

Denver (303) 296-0017 Boulder (303) 443-0433 Colorado Springs (719) 635-8328 Greeley (970) 356-3306
817 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By Jerry W. Goad, Esq. First Assistant Attorney General 1525 Sherman Street, Seventh Floor Denver, Colorado 80203 Appearing on behalf of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment MATT SANDLER, ESQ. Rocky Mountain Wild 1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 303 Denver, Colorado 80202 Appearing telephonically on behalf of Biological Diversity and Colorado Environmental Coalition TRAVIS STILLS, ESQ. Energy Minerals Law Center 1911 Main Avenue, Suite 238 Durango, Colorado 81301 and JEFFREY C. PARSONS, ESQ. Western Mining Action Project P.O. Box 349 Lyons, Colorado 80540 Appearing on behalf of Sheep Mountain Alliance APPEARANCES: FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP By James R. Spaanstra, Esq. Olivia D. Lucas, Esq. 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 3200 Denver, Colorado 80203 with ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES By Curtis H. Moore, Esq. Director of Communications & Legal Affairs 44 Union Boulevard, Suite 600 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Appearing on behalf of Energy Fuels Resources

818 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Frank Filas Mr. Philip Egidi Ms. Jennifer Opila APPEARANCES: (continued) ROBERT LOUIS GROSSMAN, PhD 6215 Baseline Road Boulder, Colorado 80303 Appearing as a Party in Interest

819 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
EXHIBITS: Exhibit 14 Exhibit 15 Exhibit 16 Exhibit 17 841 858 951 951 WITNESSES: STEVE TARLTON Direct Examination by Ms. Lucas Direct Examination by Mr. Goad Cross-Examination by Mr. Stills Cross-Examination by Mr. Sandler Cross-Examination by Mr. Grossman Redirect Examination by Ms. Lucas Redirect Examination by Mr. Goad Recross-Examination by Mr. Stills PAGE 820 831 839 965 1001 1021 1025 1029 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Pages 1033 to 1046 I N D E X

820 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q Department? A Since 1993. BY MS. LUCAS: Q Energy Fuels. Morning, Mr. Tarlton. I'm Olivia Lucas for the record. Saturday, November 10, 2012, 8:35 a.m. P R O C E E D I N G S THE COURT: We're reconvened. Let's go on
Anybody have anything mechanical we need to That's my
deal with before we start with Mr. Tarlton? understanding of the agenda.
Mr. Tarlton, here's the hot seat. STEPHEN TARLTON, being first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows. THE COURT: reporter, if you would. THE WITNESS: Stephen, S-T-E-P-H-E-N, Farris State your full name for the
with an A, Tarlton, T-A-R-L-T-O-N. DIRECT EXAMINATION
I'm going to turn off the projector for a few
minutes, because I understand it's pretty loud for the court reporter. So Mr. Tarlton, what's your role at CDPHE? I'm the manager of the radiation program. And how long have you been with the

821 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q Okay. Can you tell us a little bit about
your experience with uranium projects. A Okay. When I was working for a contractor at
the EPA, I oversaw the remedial investigation, feasibility studies for the Denver radium sites. Those were radio
materials located all over Denver, neighborhoods and buildings and so on. And then in 1993, I started providing oversight for the State on the Rocky Flats cleanup, did that until 2003, and then became the unit leader of the Radiation Management Unit, which actually deals with radioactive materials, licensing and regulation of those materials. And had that job until, I think, 2009, I became the manager of the program. That program includes
radioactive -- regulation of radioactive materials, regulation of radiation machines, and some radon education. Q Okay. And were you in your current position
at CDPHE when Energy Fuels approached the Department about a mill license in the 2006/2007 time frame? A that time. Q And can you please describe your involvement I think I was in the unit leader position at
with the development and review of the Energy Fuels license application? A Okay. Energy Fuels came to talk to us and

822 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
told us what they had in mind; we were trying to help them understand that the regulations required. Also there were
statutory changes that had been put in place twice in the 2002/2003 time period that had some specific requirements that we needed them to comply with. that to them as well. Q And did you review the license application So we had to explain
after it was submitted? A Yes. We had to do a completeness review; we And that determination was whether
had 30 days to do that.
or not the application was substantially complete, whether the major pieces were there that was allowing us to do an adequacy review. Q Okay. And is this substantial completeness
review, is that a process that CDPHE generally uses in reviewing applications? A Not as for uranium applications, those So that
requirements were put in in the 2002/2003 bills.
that was a specific step in that process with the timeline. Q Okay. And now going more general, what kind
of contact does the Department have with an applicant generally during the application process? A Q A Just in general, any application? Any for radioactive. Most often what happens is we're contacted,

823 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
they'll ask us questions about what effects of the regulations apply to their kind of facility. Sometimes
they'll come in and meet with us, sometimes they'll send us draft information, and we'll give them feedback on what specific aspects are required to comply with. Then we usually receive an application from them and supporting materials that we direct them to provide. Q And is there generally communication between
the applicant and the Department after you, the Department, has received the application? A Absolutely. It can vary from phone calls or
e-mails, just to collect additional information or clarification, to actually having them come in and explain to us what they need. We also have -- can submit formal
RFIs, Requests for Information, telling them we need more specifically for them to address these issues. Q Can you describe now more specific to Energy
Fuels the interaction between the Department and Energy Fuels after the initial license application was filed? A Well, there wasn't much in the completeness But
review stage, because it's a very short time period.
once we had determined the application was complete, in our letter determining it was complete, we identified for them some areas where we would need -- we knew at that point we

824 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
would need some additional supporting information. And so shortly after that, I think we had some communications with them. Some of those would have
been e-mail or phone, and I think we had several meetings with them. Q Okay. And did you also -- you mentioned
earlier Request for Information, formal Request for Information? A Yes, we had, I think it was four formal RFIs, if we use that term. And did Energy Fuels
Requests for Information. Q Okay.
I think we will.
answer all the questions that the Department asked them to? A Q Yes, they did. And this case, the initial license documents,
application documents were filed in 2009, and then you discussed there was some communication between the Department which stretched into the 2010 time frame with the RFIs. So it's now 2012; do you consider the license
application to be stale in any way? A Q No. Can you tell us a little bit about licensing
actions Energy Fuels can expect in the future insofar as their future action with CDPHE? A will happen. Well, there's a whole variety of things that And this is common as a facility gets in place

825 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and goes through various processes for development, getting up to speed and running. Routinely we see changes in personnel, those generally are accommodated through license, if it's a named person on the license. We will probably end up working with
most facilities on their procedures to make sure their procedures are reflecting what they're actually doing. For a new facility, it can be complicated. Very often, even though they know what they want to do and how they're going to do it, by the time they get around to purchasing the equipment or setting up the rooms or the processes, there have to be changes made. And so we
frequently see license amendments addressing those kinds of issues. Q And are the procedures for license
amendments, are those statutory procedures or internal to the Department or -A Q Both. And how often would the licensee have to come
back for a renewal? A Most licenses are issued for five years; we And for some facilities,
have the authority to go longer.
once they're in the stable operating mode, it might make sense to go for a longer time period. Q And how about the financial warranties, does

826 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the Division or Department have an opportunity to review those? A Yeah, we usually look at the financial
warranties at the beginning of the facility operation, base it on what they're start-up process is going to be. There's a requirement that financial warranties be assessed annually. The applicant or the
licensee has to give us annually information about what changes might have occurred during the previous year that would affect their financial warranty. That applies if there's a spill, if there's a change in the way they're operating. Sometimes, for
example, a laboratory facility might have had accidents that need to be addressed, and that would change the financial warranty. On the other hand, there are some facilities where they've completed the clean-up and the financial warranty would be decreased. But we would look at that on
an annual basis, just as a reasonably quick review of changes. And then at the renewal stage, roughly once every
five years -- or as often as three years -- we would look at it and see if there are significant changes in the way costs were estimated for the surety. The annual review also has to take into account inflation or cost of living, whatever that change

827 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
any way? A Yes, there's a requirement now that those We have is. Q Does the annual review involve the public in
annual reviews be available for public comment.
always posted those for public to view but have not necessarily had formal public comment periods. Q Going back to the Energy Fuels license, what
was -- can you describe the involvement of any other agencies into your consideration of the application? A Sure. One of the things we do is we're
required to look at a broad swath of potential impacts associated with the license. agencies with that expertise. So we communicate with those So at a state level, we
communicated with Department of Transportation, Division of Wildlife, Department of Public Safety, the Department of Local Affairs, the state historic preservation officer. Trying to think. They're listed in the EIA,
but there were a whole wrath of people we communicated with -- so in soliciting their input, what we did for most of the state agencies was send them sections of the document that related to their jurisdiction, or their knowledge, and asked them for their input on that. Sometimes we received that in a formal way, sometimes it was a communication. And so sometimes we

828 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
actually just had to go talk to them and get information from them about that information. Q A Okay. Now, that was at a state level. We also We
communicated with lots of local agency people.
communicated with the elected officials in Montrose County, and Nucla and Naturita. We also, for that matter,
communicated with San Miguel County commissioners and the town councils of Telluride and Ophir. We spent time with staff from the county, looking at various issues, including the sheriff's office, the planning office, the health people. Seems like there
was someone else -- yeah, Public Works was helpful to understanding how the infrastructure and transportation issues would be addressed over time. So that was some of the stuff we did. We were also -- trying to think if we talked to other people. I think we had some limited discussion Of course we
with EPA about their permitting requirements.
dealt with a lot of internal people with the Department, their pollution control division staff, the water quality control staff. And within my division, I have access to people that work in the solid waste program that do landfill design and work with that. And just handfuls of other

829 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
people. Q And you mentioned another permit, and I know
Mr. Filas testified the other day that there was a list of other permits that Energy Fuels needs to acquire that was provided in its application as sort of a courtesy list. How does the licensing process work in relation to other permits needed by Energy Fuels? A Well, each entity would have their own
authority, their own licensing process or permitting process, in their case. So what we do is generally require that a licensee have all of the necessary environmental permits in place prior to being able to operate. Q Okay. So it's prior to operation, but not
prior to license issuance by your -A Q That's correct. Yesterday we heard about from Ms. Travers a Is
lot of testimony regarding water supply at this site.
there a specific requirement in the Radiation Control Act or regulations that required the applicant to prove up the water supply for their facility? A It's not specifically addressed that way.
However, the facility is required to do whatever they need to do to meet all the health and safety requirements. And so in a facility like this, one of the

830 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
things they have to do is be able to prove that they have enough capability to provide dust control, and that generally is water supply. We evaluated the information we
had and determined that the minimum production of the wells would be adequate for dust control. So if there were a problem, that, I mean, under any circumstances Energy Fuels would be required to provide adequate water for dust control, whether they were hauling water or not. But even if they had to curtail operations just to have enough water to provide dust control, we would require that. Q Okay. So essentially they need enough water
to be able to be in compliance with their license? A Q That's correct. And are you aware that in the operating plan,
in the mission, Energy Fuels does, in fact, talk about trucking water in for operations in case the wells don't produce? A Yes. And we're aware they obtained water
rights or a contract to be able to haul that water to have access to that much water. Q Okay. I guess my final question, in your
role in the Radiation Control Department -- Control Division, excuse me, and after having reviewed the license

831 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BY MR. GOAD: seat? THE COURT: MR. GOAD: Absolutely. For the record, my name is Jerry I represent the to do cross. MR. STILLS: I think it's probably more application, do you think the Energy Fuels application contains all the necessary information for CDPHE to make a licensing decision? A Yes. MR. STILLS: I would object to that question
to the extent it asks for a legal conclusion. THE COURT: way the question was asked. MS. LUCAS: THE COURT: before I call upon him. MR. GOAD: I understand Mr. Stills was going Yes. I'll let Mr. Goad finish his note I think it's opinion; that's the
efficient if you do your direct as well and then I'll cross on both. MR. GOAD: Okay.
If it's okay, Your Honor, I'll maintain my
Goad for the Attorney General's Office.
Department of Public Health and Environment. DIRECT EXAMINATION

832 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q Mr. Tarlton, as part of your review with the
Energy Fuels application, did you or your staff prepare an environmental impact analysis? A Q used to do so. A Okay. Energy Fuels was required to submit an Yes. Could you describe generally the process you
environmental report, and so we took that initially and looked through to determine what specific issues that report identified, if that had been done thoroughly, so that we could address all of those environmental impacts that might come up from this facility. We took those and divided them up among technical staff that had specific areas of expertise associated with that specific issue. We also then communicated with other agencies to determine what they thought about those specific issues as it related to this type of facility or this specific location. So we started working through that process. In addition, we received significant input from other entities. We had quite a few technical documents submitted,
and we went through each of those technical documents and identified the information in those documents that related to this application.

833 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
So we started gathering the pieces of information that related to each potential impact and started looking to see whether or not we had enough information to evaluate those impacts and what we would need to supplement that, if necessary. So we would spend time looking through the various sources of information to identify what all we had to look at for that specific impact, and how we would put it together. I will mention that during this process, we received significant input from the public and other entities about the issues that they thought should be addressed in the environmental impact assessment. So we
made sure to capture those and try to make sure they were addressed in the impact assessment analysis, I guess is what it's called. Q Can you briefly summarize the environmental
impact analysis that you ended up producing? A Okay. Yeah, I guess I should mention that we
did have mandatory -- most mandatory -- and voluntary public meetings to gather this information. We ended up with two
mandatory meetings and six meetings we held with additional people to make sure we were getting input from as broad a spectrum as we could. Like I say, we reviewed the technical

834 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
application to determine which aspects of the facility design or siting had potential impacts on the environment. We're all required to look at social and economic issues, transportation, and so we had to look at that whole swath of items to determine where should these be addressed and how should we organize the report around those topics. We're also -- Energy Fuels is required to support the Montrose County review of the environmental report and the application. And we received two reports They submitted
from Montrose County related to this site.
two reports to us that we used in evaluating impacts and identifying areas of concern that need to be addressed. So our environmental impact assessment looked roughly at the social and economic issues, environmental issues, which included both the physical and the biological air and water issues. We looked at the effects of radiation
and chemicals at the facility, worker and public safety, transportation was looked at in some detail, and specifically as it related to accidents. We looked at, as I said, social and economic conditions, land use, things like that, and also attempted to do a cost and benefit analysis of the mill. In addition, what we tried to do was identify very specific issues that had been raised as concerns by the public or other entities. So in the environmental impact

835 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
correct. Q And you heard about -- or the application was Q analysis, we included a paragraph or a section on those specific areas. And that included cumulative impacts,
windblown contamination, alternate feed, boom and bust cycles, process water availability, the wildlife impacts, the impoundment liner design, catastrophic conditions, including leakage, as was discussed yesterday. We've had taxpayer funds spent on clean-ups, financial status of Energy Fuels, environmental justice, radiation dangers, and even in one section had talked about issues raised associated with adaptive management. MR. STILLS: Your Honor, if I may note that
the witness is testifying from notes; I'd like a copy of those before we go to cross, if I may. THE COURT: MR. GOAD: All right. That's fine. I'm sorry, anything else to
(BY MR. GOAD)
add before the interruption? A Q No. Couple other final questions, Mr. Tarlton:
Did you post the application and the environmental impact analysis on the Department's web site? A It was posted on their web site, that's
testified to as being 15 volumes?

836 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q A Q Something like that, yeah. And that was posted on the web site as well? Yes. Could you describe the communication you had
with the public during the application review process. A Okay. Well, when we started the process, we
set up a web site -- actually, we had already set up a web site for documents, because we had received some documents before the application was submitted in draft. And so we
put those on the web site as soon as they came in. In addition, we attended some of the public meetings associated with the county action so that we could get some background on what kinds of issues were being raised and what concerns there were. And that process we
identified not only the issues, but individuals and organizations that were interested, and we developed an e-mail list based off the web site where we ask people, through the web site, if they wanted to sign up to receive e-mails or hard copies of new postings, announcements about new postings or meetings that were coming up and so on. And we maintain that process throughout the entire decision making process. So in addition, as I mentioned, the statute requires within 45 days of the receipt of the declaration of completeness, Energy Fuels is required to have a first

837 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
public meeting, slash, hearing, and then within 30 days of that meeting, slash, hearing, they're supposed to have another meeting, slash, hearing. So we, at those meetings, wanted to collect as much information about interested parties, et cetera, as we could in addition to the comments and technical information that would be provided. So that was a pretty onerous process. The
difficulty is 15 volumes is pretty hard for the public to digest within 45 or 75 days. And we felt that that didn't
give people a really fair chance to scrutinize the application, identify what their issues might be. So we set up a process where we wanted to hold additional public meetings further out. So the two
public meetings were January 21, 2010, in Nucla, and February 17, 2010, in Montrose. The San Miguel County Commissioners asked if we would come to one of their meetings, and so we attended on February 18 one of the county commissioner meetings that was announced and had a large number of public there to collect information and their issues associated with the application. We also had another public meeting in Montrose on June 8, 2010, in Telluride on June 9, 2010, again at the request of the San Miguel County Commissioners

838 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
those notes. THE COURT: For those on the phone, we're Thank you. THE COURT: I'll let you two look at each and at the request of the town assembly, I think it's called, we had a meeting at Ophir June 10, 2010. Then later in July we had meetings on July 13 in Naturita and in Paradox on the same day. Q You mentioned a 45- to 75-day time frame
within which the public could look at the application. Where does that come from? A That comes from the Radiation Control Act
that was changed in 2002/2003, as I understand it, by the -at the instigation of the Cotter/Canon City issue. And so
there was that statute was changed to put in specific time lines and requirements for public process. MR. GOAD: That's all I have, Mr. Tarlton.
other and decide who goes first. MR. STILLS: All right. I need a copy of
dealing with electrical disconnects. MR. STILLS: And I'm going to work from here
with my notes; and is it okay if I sit? THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Sure. Just want to see my computer.

839 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BY MR. STILLS: Q You testified just now that there was some CROSS-EXAMINATION
changes in 2002/2003, instigated by Colorado Citizens against Toxic Waste? A I don't think I named Colorado Citizens
Against Toxic Waste, I said associated with the Cotter Mill. Q A Q legislation? A Q I don't know. Was the community members involved with People from Canon City? Yes. Was Cotter involved in proposing that
proposing that legislation in 2002? A Q A That's my understanding. From where do you gain that understanding? From discussions with both activists and
people in Cotter and people with the Department. Q Do you have direct personal knowledge of who
instigated the 2002/2003 legislation? A Q A "testify." Q No. So you can't testify to that? I don't know the meaning of the word I'm under oath; I'm explaining what I know. Okay. You don't know who instigated, based

840 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
on this is? THE COURT: It's -- hang on. It was filed with me 11/7/12. response. on your personal knowledge, the 2002/2003 legislation? A Q I was not involved in that process. Okay. Thank you.
First I'd like to start out with -- and I believe this is entered into the record at, I believe, 11. The Department's -THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Your Exhibit 11? My Exhibit 11. The Department's
I'm close on that; I have to confess my exhibit It's the Department's It may be 8 or may be 10.
list is not necessarily accurate. response to discovery requests. THE COURT: MR. STILLS:
10 is the time sheet. Then it's either 10 or 11. I
thought if it's not entered into the record we need to enter it into the record. And it's distributed to all counsel. I may have it electronically. I
THE COURT:
have four exhibits and one you gave me in the book. MR. STILLS: MS. LUCAS: It's right here. Can you let us know what the date
Mr. Goad signed it on the 4th of October.
The copy I have in front of me has not got Mr. Tarlton's signature on it, but it's got a blank for that. that the original document has a signature on it. So I assume

841 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q the witness? MR. STILLS: Yes, please. Just for the record, I Q THE WITNESS: THE COURT: That's correct. And just for the record, to make
this clear, I'll mark this as Exhibit 14, so we know. MR. STILLS: Okay. And we asked you -- and this
(BY MR. STILLS)
is number 11, on page 7, THE COURT: Do you want me to give this to
(BY MR. STILLS)
guess, on page -- it's the second page, 14, I believe, on here, but on the very last page. A Q Yes. And do you recall preparing -- certifying Is that your signature?
that document is accurate? A Q loud, please. A Q A 11? Yes. "Please describe all opportunities for other Yes, generally. Can you read question number 11, please? Out
federal, state, and local government entities with jurisdiction and/or control over the uranium mill proposal to participate in the preparation of the EIA." Q Is that what you testified to here today?

842 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q I think so. Can you read the last bold paragraph, which
is your response? A "Subject to and without waiving these Assuming that the
objections, CDPHE responds as follows:
term 'participate in preparation of the EIA' means actual drafting of the EIA or a portion of it, there is no requirement that other federal, state, or local agencies do so." Q Are those different answers, what you gave in
the discovery versus what you're testifying to today? A Q A No. Can you explain the difference? There's no requirement that other federal, I don't think there's a
state, or local agencies do so.
requirement that anybody else write part of the EIA. Q Is there a requirement that you respond to
our discovery requests by giving us a description of what you just testified to here today on direct? A Well, your question asked for entities with
jurisdiction and/or control over the uranium mill proposal who participate in the preparation of the EIA. Q Okay. Describe all opportunities, I believe, For those agencies to
is the active part of that request.
participate, you came here and testified today to those

843 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
witness? opportunities that you provided in a whole array of pre-licensing, post-licensing, preparation of the EIA. So Your Honor, as far as that line of questioning, I would request that we not release this witness until I'm provided some satisfaction to that discovery request. THE COURT: Can I see the question?
Can I borrow that back from you? Question can be read a number of ways, folks. I'm not -- what satisfaction are you looking for? MR. STILLS: What I'm looking for is at least
on the record to be able to bring Mr. Tarlton back, if necessary, after I'm able to go through the records concerning whether any other agency had any opportunity to actually participate in the preparation of the EIA. guess I can go look through it, I guess, but I would appreciate or at least request the opportunity to keep this witness available for recall. THE COURT: Well, to the extent the hearing And I
remains open, I presume every witness we're having can be recalled at some point in time. MR. STILLS: Okay. I just wanted to make
sure this witness is given his direct. THE COURT: Okay. You want this back to the

844 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
needed it. Q (BY MR. STILLS) Okay. So in the preparation MR. STILLS: I'll take this back.
Actually, this is your copy. THE COURT: It is. I thought the witness
of the environmental impact analysis, very specifically, the environmental impact analysis, it was your testimony that you sent sections of documents and asked for input; is that correct? A Q A That's correct. To whom did you send those documents? There's a list in the EIA, but as I said, I
communicated with people at Department of Transportation -Q No, no, let's stay with the question, please.
To whom did you send sections of the document? A To whom? Okay. In some of the agencies it
was hard to find the right person that would respond. Department of Transportation was one of those. letters. Q So did you sent a copy of the document? MR. GOAD: answer the question. MR. STILLS: coffee wear off. THE COURT: Go ahead, Mr. Tarlton. Sorry about that. I'll let my Your Honor, please let the witness I sent

845 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Well, for example, at the Department of
Transportation, I communicated with them to find out who was the right person to review the transportation plan, I think it was, that Energy Fuels had developed. I went through two
or three different people and finally was able to communicate with two people that I sent the document to. they had already received it, I think, in that case. And Or
consequently was able to get a response back from them on issues around transportation. I don't remember those names, but I put them in one of the responses to Travis's request. list of names of people that we spoke with. that off the top of my head. I had a whole I don't recall
I think one of them was James
B. Horn at Transportation, but I don't recall the other name. In addition, at the Division of Wildlife, we spoke with, I think we sent it originally to Renzo DelPiccolo, and then there was second person who had been working on that issue with him. And then there was a group of people that were working on the sage grouse question, and I spoke with them, but I don't think they had received any of the documents that Energy Fuels prepared. Q And please, as we go forward, let's listen
very carefully to my questions.

846 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
EIA. A Q I tried to. And please try to answer them honestly and
straightforwardly and what I asked about. And the only thing we're talking about right here at the moment is the environmental impact analysis. Are you aware of what that document is? A Q A The environmental impact analysis? Yes. That I was responsible for? Yes, I'm aware
of what that is. Q A correctly? Q A No, you may not have. You asked if I knew what the environmental Is that what -- are Okay. And that's a standalone --
I'm sorry, did I understand your question
impact analysis was, and I said I did.
we talking about the same environmental impact analysis? Q I believe we are. My next question is the
one I want you to listen very closely to, because we're only talking about the environmental impact analysis. I believe
you were testifying about talking to different people, having them review Energy Fuels materials? A Q Yes. I'm asking very specifically only about the
You understand?

847 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q A Q Okay. Okay. Yes. Did you send sections of that document and Now I understand what you're asking. Thank you.
ask for input to other agencies? A Q No. Thank you. Were other agencies involved in
the drafting of the EIA? A Other agencies provided some written
materials in response to either my questions or the Energy Fuels materials that they had reviewed. Those materials
were usually incorporated into the EIA in some manner. Q After those materials were incorporated, you
never provided a draft back to make sure the EIA accurately reflected their input; is that correct? A Q That is correct. Thank you. Would the EIA, did you send any
sections of that document to Energy Fuels during the drafting phase? A Q No. Did Energy Fuels review the EIA before it was
finalized for accuracy based on the input that they gave you? A Q No. Was any person outside of the drafting team

848 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
sent a copy of the draft EIA for review? A Q A Q A Q A about it. Q Okay. I'll repeat it. I don't think so. Think about it for a second. Okay. I'm sorry, was your answer no? I'm thinking about it. I'm sorry, I thought you said something. I was listening and you told me to think
Can you read back the question? (Whereupon the preceding question was read back by the reporter.) A The short answer is no, the drafting team for
the EIA may not have included all the technical people that worked on the license review. So some of the people that
worked on the license review may have reviewed a section of the EIA if we extracted information from their license review for the EIA. They may have reviewed it, but those were internal people working on our team, but not necessarily the EIA team. Q A Who is the EIA team? Primarily it was me, Mr. Egidi, Warren Smith, Trying to
I think Marilyn Null helped, Edgar Ethington.

849 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
we needed. think if there were other people. Q I think that's about it.
Was there a formal designation of those
people being on the EIA team? A Q drafting? A As -- well, I was compiling information No. So is this kind of an ad hoc approach to
prepared by technical people, both in and outside the department. Some of that information was prepared as part
of the license application review process, some of that information was prepared to evaluate environmental impacts. So as necessary, I involved whichever issue A lot of the information, as you might
appreciate, was the same. If we're evaluating whether or not a specific activity meets regulatory requirements, satisfies things, that information would be used as part of the environmental assessment. Q it came in? A Q I managed that information as it came in. But you didn't keep any written record of And did you keep track of that information as
what was coming in? A You mean like on an ongoing basis I got this
from this person on this date?

850 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
people. so... Q If we were to try to understand what kind of Q A Correct. No. I did track when people owed me things,
and tried to, on an ongoing basis, move them into a draft document so that we would be able to know where we had holes and where we didn't. Q What other persons besides those that you You said the
listed were provided a copy of the draft EIA? EIA team all got a copy of it; is that correct? A
I said it's likely that the EIA team reviewed
parts of the EIA. Q A It's likely? Yes. I don't know who reviewed which parts,
expertise was brought to bear in preparation of the EIA, how would we know that? A Okay. You asked two questions: One was
review of the draft EIA, the other was the technical capability brought to bear to address to do the EIA. those are different things. The draft was reviewed by a limited number of Draft pieces may have been reviewed by a larger I probably And
number of people, depending on who authored it.
had the author take a look at that section, if he had not already.

851 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the EIA? A Q Yes. Are all the decisions in the EIA reflective But no one was brought in to do an independent review of the EIA. Q Were you primarily responsible for preparing
of your experience and review? A No. Many of those are reflective of other
people's experiences. Q Okay. I'm still trying to understand how it
can be reflective of those people's review if they weren't provided a draft after they had gotten -- or after you'd taken their input and put it into the document. explain that for me, please? A Well, for example, there's an analysis of Can you
what would happen in ground water from leakage, okay, so we addressed a question that had been raised -- actually, by Sheep Mountain -- on what would happen if there was a leak, where would the water go, how would that happen. section was drafted in response to that question. The draft that was given to us of that analysis was reviewed and found to be, yes, it's good. then we took that and put that into the EIA. And That
So the person He
who did that was not required to review the whole EIA. had already reviewed that piece of information that he

852 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the EIA. Q Did you change anything in that analysis it? A I reviewed it and queued it up as a piece of to you? A I believe it was electronically. And he sent developed to make sure it was still intact. Q And for that particular information you're
talking about who did that review of the water issue, that was raised by Sheep Mountain Alliance? A Q Edgar Ethington. When you prepared the EIA, did you ask
Mr. Ethington for the materials that he based his analysis on? A Well, he was required to do that as part of
the analysis of the license application. Q And did you maintain Mr. Ethington's analysis
of Sheep Mountain Alliance's comments? A His analysis was put in the EIA, so it's
maintained in the EIA. Q How was Mr. Ethington's analysis transmitted
me a discussion of that issue. Q And what did you do with it when you received
before putting it in the body of the EIA? A Not of the analysis. There may have been

853 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
had. some editorial changes. Q How would one review the editorial changes
that you made to Mr. Ethington's technical review? A Q A Q A Today? Sure. How would one review that?
I don't think you'd be able to. Why is that? We didn't keep a redlined, ongoing version.
There were editorial changes made to that document repeatedly throughout its development. Q So we only have your final decision on what
goes into the EIA; we don't have the technical staff's analysis; is that correct? A The technical staff's analysis is in the EIA
in this case, so you have it. Q A Q According to whatever changes you made to it? Yes. Thank you. Is the process we just discussed
with the Sheep Mountain Alliance comments concerning water, was that same process used for all other issues? A It depends on what sources of information we
For example, when we used information from external
parties, we didn't -- you know, we extracted that from the information they had provided to us. Q Let me be more specific. For the other

854 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
people within the EIA team, the technical people from whom you received portions of the EIA. A Q Okay. The same transmittal of those, of the
information from Mr. Ethington that you described was used for all other persons working on the EIA; is that correct? A Q I believe so, yes. Thank you. For persons other than the
technical team who provided you information that went straight into the EIA, did you keep a record of what those persons had sent you? A received? Q A Q A Documents. Yes. You keep those documents in a single place? Most of the documents that -- all the You mean documents we received or issues we
documents I believe were sent to the record -- to the file, yes. Q And do you know what would be the label, what
would be the title of that file? A Generally, we had two areas: We have a
section of our file that is notes, and that is where a lot of note kind of information would have gone. We also had a
public process section, and that's where documents submitted

855 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q from external people -- and I hate to say unsolicited, but opposed to where I asked the Department of Transportation for input on a specific issue, and they gave me that input. For example, the documents that all of the experts you brought forth submitted are in the public comment file. So those are all in those documents. Before you sent that record to the District
Court, did you ask -- I'm sorry, did you -- you didn't ask all of the EIA team for their e-mails and notes that might not have been in that file, did you? A No, they're required to put anything of
significance into the file on an ongoing basis. Q But you made no effort to ensure that all
those materials were in that official record? A Q No. Before you finalized the EIA -- when did you
finalize the EIA? A Well, it was finalized at the same time that
we finalized the now vacated -- is that the word -- license and decision analysis. January 2011, I believe. Q And that was the final, no more editing was So that would have been early
done on that document after January 7, 2007; is that correct? A If that's the correct date, yes.

856 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q Assuming that's the correct date. But it's
within days, if we're off; is that correct? A Q Yeah. I don't know the date. But yes.
9th, 6th, but on or about January 7, 2011. So before you finalized that the EIA, did you
ask all the technical staff for their notes and records? A I don't think specifically. We had
occasional meetings and everybody was encouraged on an ongoing basis to put anything we needed in the file. Q But if something hadn't been transmitted to
the file, you made no effort to figure out, if somebody might have something on their desk; is that correct? A I did not go through everybody's files to
determine whether or not there wasn't something that needed to be put in the file. Q And you just testified you never asked
anybody for it either; is that correct? A Q That's correct. And were you the person who reviewed the EIA
to confirm whether or not it satisfied relevant legal requirements? A I know I did that. There may have been other
people that did that as well. Q Was the EIA submitted to the Attorney
General's office for review and analysis?

857 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q No. Were any outside consultants employed in the
preparation of the EIA? A Q A None. Not by us.
By other persons? I believe an environmental consultant I
prepared the environmental report for Energy Fuels.
believe you had environmental consultants that worked on documents that you submitted. consultants. Q Again, let's be real specific. Unless I say We did not employ any
otherwise, if we can, for now, at least, I'm only talking about the EIA. And if one of us misspeaks and refers to
another document -A Q Okay. No. But I just
We do that from time to time.
want to be real clear that everything that we're talking about is about the environmental impact analysis. A Q A Q Okay. So are we good on that? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
As part of the discovery requests, there was a request for information that addressed the qualifications of all persons who assisted in preparation of the EIA. Were

858 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you responsible for preparing the discovery response? A Q Yes. And it's correct that was provided to
Mr. Goad and he sent that to all the parties in, I think, four installments; is that correct? A I do not know. I believe that's true, but I
don't know that. Q Okay. And Your Honor, I'd like to introduce into evidence the qualifications that were sent to us and sent to all parties in those four installments as -- are we on 14? THE COURT: part of the record. MR. STILLS: THE COURT: MR. STILLS: So 15 is the CD. This will be 15. And all parties have been served 14 is this response, which is
with that in their possession. MR. GOAD: Subject to objections of
relevance, no objection to admission of that exhibit. THE COURT: Anybody else have an objection?
I'm just getting the right kind of pen to be able to write on this. MR. STILLS: And Your Honor, I would like to I'd like
address Mr. Goad's objection and take care of it. to make sure this is in the record and clear.

859 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that's correct. preparation. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Okay. And I'll be asking some more participation? MR. STILLS: Who assisted in their you. THE COURT: 3 is the general question about question 3. MR. GOAD: MR. STILLS: Is that interrogatory number 3? Interrogatory number 3, thank Mr. Tarlton testified to people with expertise who helped prepare the EIA. He listed some
general categories here in the discovery response they made. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Which question are we looking at? Definitive list. I'm sorry,
questions on this, but I think it's certainly relevant in both his direct testimony and the cross. THE COURT: Folks, I'm sorry, I lost the I understand this is Mr.
question we're arguing about.
Tarlton's response to the inquiry about the qualifications and experience and so forth of the individuals who participated in this exercise; am I wrong? MR. STILLS: Who assisted in the preparation,
An objection was made to relevance, and I
would like to request Your Honor's ruling on it.

860 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q Q THE COURT: It's relevant. It's admitted. I
don't have any hesitation in admitting it. MR. STILLS: Okay.
(Pause in proceedings) THE COURT: MR. STILLS: You need this, to use this? I think I do. As much as I'd
like everyone to have a copy of it -- I can actually bring it up electronically. So I can work from that. Sorry we don't have the Federal
THE COURT: Court electronic process. MR. STILLS: THE COURT:
Once you get used to it... That's a burden I don't think we
can put on the Moose Lodge in Nucla, Colorado. MR. STILLS: We have merged technologies. Q (BY MR. STILLS) Okay. Mr. Tarlton, if I It's on page 3. Okay. I have an electronic one.
could direct you toward interrogatory 3. And I believe that's Exhibit 14. THE COURT: THE WITNESS:
Do you have a copy? Yes. Could you just review that
(BY MR. STILLS)
for a moment, please. (Pause in proceedings) Okay. And I know the English language is not always

861 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q -- or any language subject -- to as much precision as we would like as lawyers or people answering the questions, and so I want to be very specific here, because it looks like your answer to this question gave sort of the broadest possible sweep of the state employees who assisted in preparation; is that correct? A is correct. Q Could you read back my question, please? (Whereupon the preceding question was read back by the reporter.) MR. GOAD: THE COURT: Asked and answered, Your Honor. What's the... Is there anybody on this These people provided information. So that
(BY MR. STILLS)
list who isn't -- in the state, is there anybody missing from this list of state employees? MR. GOAD: Your Honor, I'm going to object,
the question or the answer is couched in terms of Department of Health employees. I'm sorry, I withdraw that objection. looking at something else. Q (By MR. STILLS) Yes, the question was framed I'm
in the Department employees; it was answered in the context of state employees. But let's go ahead and start narrowing
it down to who was who.

862 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
content? A Q A Q Yes. You reviewed who was involved? Yes. So this would be the broadest universe of Is there anybody, any state employees, who you can think of who is not on this list who assisted you by providing information for the EIA? A Q A I don't think so. If there were, would you have a record of it? In preparing this list, I went through all
the records I could identify where we had information to where we received information from someone regarding the EIA. So I doubt it. I mean, that's what I did to develop
this list. Q So you went back and reviewed documents to
develop this list? A I reviewed the documents submitted and who I didn't go
they were submitted by to develop this list.
back through each document, but I did look at where we got them. Q You didn't review them for necessarily its
people, aside from relying on your memory, that we could sort out who provided you information; is that correct? A Yes.

863 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
EIA. Q A Okay. He did not write the EIA. And I do not know Q Okay. And you're testifying here today that
you don't recall anyone else other than the people on this list? A Q I do not recall anyone else. As we had this list, the Hazardous and Waste
-- Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, those four people assisted in the preparation of the EIA; is that correct? A I know the first three did; James Jarvis
provided information, but I do not know that he assisted in the preparation of the EIA. Q A Q Did Mr. Jarvis review any drafts of the EIA? I don't remember. Would review of the files provide information
on whether or not he helped draft the EIA? A Q A Well, I'm sorry, helped draft the EIA? Yes. He provided information that was used in the
whether or not he reviewed any part of the EIA after he submitted his section. Q A So he wrote a section? He wrote an analysis related to radiation

864 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
safety and dose assessment for another document that you don't want to talk about, and that information was used in the EIA as well. Q A Q A I'm sorry, what do I not want to talk about? Well, you told me just to focus on the EIA. Uh-huh. A lot of these people worked on the review of
the application and the development of the decision analysis. That decision analysis is a large volume of
material as well; we extracted material from that decision analysis to use in the EIA. So James Jarvis wrote material that was in the decision analysis -Q A Okay. -- that was used as well in the EIA. I do
not know if he reviewed the EIA section that his information was extracted into. Q So the decision analysis, was it finalized
that you took that from, or was it still in process? A It was still in process. These documents
were finalized at the same time -- concurrently. Q So the decision analysis and the
environmental impact analysis were drafted concurrently? A Q Yes. And you swapped sections back and forth?

865 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it says. please? (Whereupon the preceding question was read back by the reporter.) A No. MS. LUCAS: Your Honor, I'd like to object to A Some sections were taken from the decision
analysis as they related to the environmental impact analysis. I'm not aware of any environmental impact
analysis sections that were drafted and then used in the decision analysis, but there might have been one. Q And the decision analysis and decision in
this proceeding has been invalidated, and that proceeding was invalidated; isn't that correct? A Q That's correct. After that was invalidated, did you go back
and review the EIA to see if it remained valid despite those court rulings? A Well, the court ruling, as I understand it,
was just on having to hold another hearing, not on the items of substance that were, as I understand, the judge denied. MR. STILLS: Could you read back my question,
the term "invalidated"; in the District Court's order, they set it aside. THE COURT: I've read the order; it says what
The order is a part of the record in this

866 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the EIA. proceeding, so... Q (BY MR. STILLS) After the date of Judge
McMullen's ruling, did you do any analysis of the EIA to ensure that it remained in conformance with his order? A Q No. After the date the EIA was finalized, I think
January 7, on or about January 7, 2011, have you conducted any technical review to see if the EIA remains an accurate document? A Q No. All right. Let's get back to who prepared
Did any other person conduct a review after
January 7, 2011, to ensure the EIA remained technically accurate? A To my knowledge, no. Although I suspect I
know you guys reviewed it, and so I assume that's what you did. I assume Energy Fuels did it and other members of the
public reviewed it to see if they thought it was technically accurate. Q As the person responsible for issuing the
EIA, did anyone under your control or supervision review the EIA after January 7, 2010, to ensure -- 2011, I'm sorry, to ensure it remained technically accurate? A Q I don't think so, no. Let's turn back to this list of who helped

867 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
prepare or assisted. We'll go ahead and take care of that
and make sure we're specific about what we're talking about here. From the Hazardous Materials and Waste Division, did any of those persons assist in the drafting of the EIA? A Q A editorial. Yes. Which ones? Well, Warren Smith and Marilyn Null both did And we had a lot of different materials
submitted by different people, so when we put those together, we had a lot of basic editing work to make sure things fit together, flowed smoothly, organization of the report, and those kinds of things. Other people submitted, as I mentioned before, likely submitted information that was written into the EIA, so that would have been their role. MR. STILLS: question back, please? (Whereupon the preceding question was read back by the reporter.) Q (BY MR. STILLS) Only Warren Smith and Martin Okay. Could you read my
(sic) Null; is that correct? A They were the only ones that would have
worked with the entire document, yes, that's correct.

868 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
know. Q I'm asking what I want to know. Q Did you hear Mr. Briskin testify that he
helped draft portions of the EIA? A Q Yes. Did any other person there help draft any
portions of the EIA in the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division? A Well, all of them had sections that they Except for Peterson and
wrote that were put into the EIA. Scheppers. of the EIA.
Everyone else wrote something that became part
I guess I'm not understanding what you're trying to get to, because you keep asking a question that I don't think I understand. Q No, I appreciate it, and we'll go one And sometimes it may be confusing, but We'll get it figured out.
question at a time. we'll get through it. A
I think I've tried to explain to you how it
worked, and you keep asking questions about it that don't make sense to me. Q That's fine; that's why we have to go through
the questions and sometimes I have to ask our court reporter to read them back, because you know -A Maybe you could just ask what you want to

869 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
In the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division, did any of these people review a near-final draft of the EIA? A The only people that would have done that
were possibly Phil Egidi, Warren Smith, and Marilyn Null and myself. Q So that's the first two categories: The
radiation program and the Hazardous Materials, Waste Management Division generally. phrased? A Q Yes. The other persons use the same process that Is that how your answer was
Mr. Jarvis used; you excerpted, rather, writings they had and included them into is EIA; is that correct? A Q A In general, yes. Are there any exceptions? Yes, I don't think -- there's some of these
people that we did not get anything in writing from but we had communications with. Q But we're only within the first two
categories; it's really narrow. A Okay. Then Scheppers and Peterson, I do not But I believe we got input
believe we got text from them. from some other way. Q
In what other way would that be?

870 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Well, Peterson, I think it was, either -- it
might have been an e-mail, but most likely it was a phone call about the solid waste landfill capacity in the west end of Montrose County. So he was able to describe to me, and I
was able to put that into the EIA. Dan Scheppers works with the UMTRA program and was able to provide me references to information to correct some of the questions or misstatements that had been made in the public about the UMTRA costs. Q Did any of these people provide you comments
correcting errors in Energy Fuels' submissions? A Most of the staff that reviewed the
application provided comments on Energy Fuels' submissions. I'm not sure about errors. Q Okay. So these are the only people within
the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Division who contributed written text for the EIA; is that correct? A Q I believe so, yes. The other categories, none of those persons
provided any text on the remaining -- if you want to take a second, starting with the Colorado Attorney General's Office, and working down through the end of number 4. A information. Most of these people provided some written That information would have been put into the
environmental assessment -- the EIA, excuse me.

871 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q A Thank you. But I do not know to what extent it was put I do know that some of the
in directly versus extracted.
submittals, for example, Patrick Reddy in the Air division, was put in largely intact. But most of those people did not
write a section, but they provided written information that was extracted in some way and put in the EIA. Q When you say that, they provided written
information that you had in your files? A Q Yes. But it wasn't provided for the specific
purpose of inclusion in the EIA; is that correct? A Some of these people, the information they
provided was only used in the EIA. Q A Who are those persons? Well, Local Affairs. Let's see. National
Resources, Division of Wildlife. Q No, I'm sorry, we want to stay with If you want to skip a step of the
individuals, please.
analysis, let's go with individuals. A Q Okay. Would you repeat the question?
Please repeat the question. (Whereupon the preceding four questions were
read back by the reporter.) A Elizabeth Garner, Jim Garner, Lorenzo

872 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
DelPiccolo, Clark Bates, Jocelyn Mullen, Ron Falco, James B. Horn, Chris Landry, and Mark Williams. Q They provided information -- your testimony
is you requested them to provide information directly -- I'm sorry. Your testimony is that you provided them a request for text to put into the EIA; is that correct? A Q No. Is your testimony that they provided
information based on your general request that then you relied on to put into the EIA; is that correct? A That might be correct, in some cases. In
some cases they gave me, perhaps, a document that I used text directly out of that document in the EIA. Q Did you confer with them before lifting their
text into the EIA? A I asked them for input to that analysis, so
no, not specifically. Q Okay. Let's be clear on this.
Can you read this question back, please? (Whereupon the preceding question was read back by the reporter.) A I did confer with them, but not specifically
regarding putting their text in the EIA. Q After you used text that these people had

873 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q answered. THE COURT: It has. If I were to ask any of written, did you provide a draft of the EIA to them -A Q No. -- for their review? MR. GOAD: Your Honor, that's been asked and
(BY MR. STILLS)
these people that you identified whether or not -- scratch that. Never mind. Strike that.
How would I be able to find the text that was provided by any of these people, starting with the Colorado Attorney General's office and going down on this list? you maintain a record -- I'm sorry, I paused there, my apology. Did you maintain a record of the documents that were sent to you that you extracted information or that you extracted text from? A The documents that we received, the Did
information we received from these people was documented and put in the file. Q Can you describe that file in a way that I
can easily access it? A It's probably in the section 3 notes. MR. GOAD: Your Honor, this is -- I'm trying
to be very patient with the direction of this line of

874 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q questioning. Obviously we're conducting discovery here,
we've been at this for almost an hour, going over discovery responses. This is an extraordinary in-hearing deposition,
as best as I can tell. Part of the purpose of this hearing is to receive comment on the EIA, and as evidenced by Mr. Stills' last question: "Where can I find this information; is it in I suggest that we move
that file," is obviously discovery.
on and get to the point of this hearing. THE COURT: Objection is overruled. MR. STILLS: Thank you. You lifted information I'm going to allow the questions.
(BY MR. STILLS)
directly from Patrick Reddy's materials? A Q materials? A Q No. Why was his information relevant to the Yes. Do you recall which sections of his
environmental impact analysis? A There was a specific question raised
regarding dust deposition, and we asked the Air people to address that question. Q that file? And they gave us a memo in response.
And you -- do you have a copy of that memo in

875 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q I believe so, yes. So dust is relevant to the environmental
impacts of uranium; is that correct? A Q Could be, yes. And it was analyzed in the this EIA to some
extent, but it was included in this EIA; is that correct? A information: Yes, it was used from multiple sources of You provided certain information, their
consultants for Energy Fuels provided information, and our Air Pollution Control people provided information. Q Nobody within the drafters has specialty or
expertise in air pollution; is that correct? A Q Not specifically, no. For Jim Garner and Renzo DelPiccolo, they
provided specific information that you lifted the text and put it into the EIA; is that correct? A I don't remember. I know we had several
exchanges of information and communications, but I don't remember to what degree that was in e-mails versus documents. I was referred, I believe, by Jim Garner to multiple documents that had been prepared, either for or by Division of Wildlife, and I used those documents in part of my assessment. Q So you made the judgment on what should go in

876 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
surveys? A Q A No. You have no experience with wildlife? Absolutely have experience with wildlife, to the environmental impact analysis based on their input? A Q A Q A Yes. Anybody else's input? Yes. Whose? Well, we had several sets of information
presented by your clients, we had information raised by other people; I contacted -- let's see, I'm trying to remember who else provided info on that set of issues. was probably it. I'm trying to remember, seems like we had some other members of the public provide information on, I think, either sage grouse or habitat, but I can't remember. Q And who on the EIA team was responsible for Is that That
incorporating that information in, was that you? your testimony? A Q biologist? A Q No. Yes.
Do you have experience as a wildlife
Do you have any experience in wildlife

877 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
yes. Q Do you have any professional experience doing
analysis of wildlife impacts? A Trying to remember. I worked on numerous
EISes, but I think it was more water quality than it was wildlife specific, yes. Q When you worked on that EIS, someone else
would handle the biological aspect? A Q I believe so, yes. That's because you don't have training or
expertise in the area, but you were working on other things? A Q I don't claim expertise in biology, no. Thank you. And the same for Chris Landry and
Mark Williams, you testified that you didn't contact them after lifting their information; is that correct? A Yes, I did not contact them except to obtain
their resumes in response to your request. Q But the dust deposition and air modeling they
did was relevant to the EIA; is that correct? A I don't think either up with of them had done
dust modeling, at least they didn't present models to us. Both had documents with information in it that we used. Q A What documents were those? I think Mark Williams was just a Power Point Chris Landry
presentation, which summarized his analysis.

878 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
yes. Q A Q Was that a cut and paste? I don't think so. I don't know. had done some studies on dust deposition and the composition of that dust, and we used -- I talked with him about the most relevant information he had related to that, and he provided me, I believe, two technical papers -- maybe just one -- that had that information in it. Q So you lifted the technical information that
he provided you and put it into the EIA; is that correct? A I used the technical information in the EIA,
Were you the person responsible for including
that information in the EIA? A I know I did some of it. The Air people also
reviewed the documents, but I don't know if that was specifically included in their information or not. Q A I'm sorry, who were the Air people? The people that was working with Patrick
Reddy on that analysis of the dust deposition. Q So no one within Hazardous Materials and
Waste Management Division analyzed air impacts in the environmental impact analysis? A Q No, that's not true. Who would then, the five people in the EIA
team that we talked about earlier was responsible for the

879 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that section. Q Air section? A together. Q Okay. How about the other parts of the air For pulling the dust deposition section So you were the person responsible for the air sections? A Are you talking about dust deposition or are
you talking about air quality or are you talking about radiation impacts exposure? air issues. All of those were part of the
The dust deposition, specifically, no one on
the team except me pulled that information together after we received reports from the Air division from Kleinfelder, and from I think you guys submitted some information related to that. So all of that was pulled together to make
section that you referred to? A listed here. Q A Q I'm sorry? Some set of those. When we're pointing to documents listed here, Those would have been done by the Air people
it doesn't show up on the court reporter, so I got to help her out a little bit. When you say "listed here"?

880 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
question? Q (BY MR. STILLS) I was trying to finish my question. THE COURT: Wait a minute. What is the A Q interrupt you. In the document we're working on. Let's read the question back, because I did My apologies. (Whereupon the preceding question was read back by the reporter.) A The people that worked on the issues
associated with off-site dose was Phil Egidi, and I'm not sure which of the people from the Air division worked on that piece. Well, I won't speculate which of those people
listed here did that. There was also an Air Quality section that evaluated air quality, in more general terms, and that was done by the Air Pollution Control Division staff. I'm not
specifically clear which person had the responsibility for that. Q I'm having a hard time following something.
Were you responsible for the air sections or was Mr. Egidi? You were responsible for dust, right? A Q Well, there are many places in the EIA. I'm sorry -MR. GOAD: Let the witness answer the

881 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
question. So you were responsible for the air division and Mr. -- I'm sorry, with the dust section, and Mr. Egidi was responsible for dose, is that correct, radiation dose as far as the air? A Q A air issues. In the environmental impact assessment. Exactly, thank you. Okay. Air is addressed in numerous places,
There are air quality issues in general terms.
There were specific issues associated with the transport of radioactive dust that were part of the dose assessment. There were sections related to dust control as part of the mechanical aspects of the plant and the controls used on the plant site, and there was a specific question raised regarding dust deposition. Q A Okay. All of those are in the EIA, and those were That was another section.
developed and authored in those cases by different people. Q Okay. Let's take them one by one. For the
air quality, as you laid out for us -- and your answer is very helpful, it helps me understand the structure. from these can we refer to the five people: Who
Steve Tarlton,
Edgar Egidi (sic), Phil Egidi, Warren Smith and Martin Null as the EIA team. Did I say that wrong again?

882 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
quality. Q Was your testimony that somebody -- that quality? A None of those people were responsible for air THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Martin Null is an actor. Oh, Marilyn. Thank you. Seems
like I need to see my optometrist. A Okay. I believe you said Tarlton, Ethington,
Egidi, Smith, and Null for the EIA team; is that your definition? Q (BY MR. STILLS) Yeah. That way we can be a Can we agree on
little more precise and quick hopefully. that? A Q We can agree on that.
So if I refer to the EIA team, that's what
we're referring to? A Q Okay. Who on the EIA team was responsible for air
there was an air quality section in the EIA; is that correct? A Q A That's correct. Who wrote it? I believe the air quality pieces were written
by people from the Air Pollution Control Division, and I'm not specifically sure which individuals.

883 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q Okay. Who from the EIA team incorporated
that into the EIA document? A Q A Q A Q A It was probably either me or Warren Smith. But you don't recall if you did or not? That's correct. But it might be Mr. Smith? It could be. Thank you. Okay. For the dust, the same question.
For the dust, I compiled that and put
that together from data submitted by other people. Q A And who were those other people for the dust? Patrick Reddy submitted a document. I assume
other people helped him.
There was a document prepared by
Kleinfelder that was used, there was documents or information prepared by Chris Landry and Mark Williams that were used. Q And you have no expertise in atmospheric
dust; is that correct? A Q That's correct. You sought out -- or I guess not sought out,
but you used Mr. Williams' materials because he is an expert in the field; is that correct? A Q I can't speak to that. Did you use Mr. Williams' materials because
he has done considerable research in the field of dust

884 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
deposition? A I used his materials because it was submitted It's my understanding that
to us through a public process.
his expertise is related to movement of materials from power plants, and that's a lot of the information he provided to us. Deposition in the San Juan Mountains associated with
power plants in New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. Q Were you in Ophir listening to Mr. Williams'
presentation somewhere in June of 2010, I believe? A Q modeling? A Q Not specifically, no. Did the CDPHE take any notes or make a Yes. Do you remember what he said about the air
transcript of that meeting? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Yes. Notes? Yes. Transcript? No. Whose notes? Mine and Warren Smith's. And you maintained a copy of these? Yes, they're in the record. They are in the record, good. Do you recall

885 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
question. A Oh, well, I don't think anyone. If anyone, what Mr. Williams said about the air modeling? A Q No. Did you follow up on the comments that
Mr. -- that Dr. Williams made about the air modeling? A Yes. We actually took the information he
provided us and that included, I believe, one or two technical papers, plus his Power Point presentation which he had also made at, I believe, the Telluride meeting or maybe the Montrose meeting, I can't remember. And passed all that
information on to the Air people, our Air Quality people, and had them look at it. And we subsequently had a meeting with Dr. Williams in his office to talk about his conclusions and the data he had collected. Q Your testimony is Dr. Williams was not
provided a copy of the draft EIA to see if it addressed the issues he had raised during the Ophir meeting; is that correct? A No, he was not provided a copy of the EIA
before it was finalized. Q Thank you. For dust control, who is the
point person on that within the EIA team. I'm sorry, I wasn't very specific with my

886 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it. it. it would have been Phil Egidi. But dust control is
addressed throughout the design of the facility and consequently was looked at by a lot of the technical reviewers on the decision analysis. So that information was
provided in the decision analysis at various places. Q So the specific design of the facility is an
important component of understanding the dust issue; is that correct? A That's correct. THE COURT: When you get to a good break
point, let's take 10 minutes. MR. STILLS: I can find a good one. Q (BY MR. STILLS) So if the design were to I've got a couple here; I think
change, the dust analysis were to change; is that correct? A It is possible that some aspect of the dust
control would be to change. Q Let's talk about the plant site, the controls Who are the
on the plant site, is the phrase you used. persons on the EIA team who worked on that? A
Well, Phil Egidi would have worked on part of
I think Edgar Ethington would have worked on part of No one else on the EIA team would have worked on that
part of the decision analysis. Q I would have to talk to them to know what

887 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the EIA. they relied on to write their sections of the EIA? A I'm not sure those people wrote sections of The material those people wrote for the decision
analysis, looking at in-plant controls or on-site controls were extracted and put into the EIA. Q And when you say those people, you mean
Mr. Egidi and Mr. Ethington? A Mr. Briskin, Mr. Trumpolt both looked at
things related to dust control issues. Q A Let's back up. It's an integral part of the plant design and
the site layout. Q Let's back up a second. I think we've
expanded -- I know you've done work on a lot of parts of this, so I just want to remind you we're just talking about EIA now. A analysis. Then don't ask questions about the decision I told you this was in the decision analysis and So I'm trying to be
you went and asked questions about it.
clear here, but I think you're getting confused. Q Okay. Well, I appreciate you helping me out.
So as far as the controls plant site, who from the EIA team assisted with the drafting of the information about the controls plant site as it regards air in the EIA? Sorry, very specific.

888 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Okay. That would have been me, probably Phil
Egidi, Warren Smith, possibly Marilyn Null. Q The very relevant part of the EIA is the
impacts to the air; is that correct? A Q That is correct. You have all of the EIA team working on air
at some point or another; is that correct? A Q EIA team. A Q Okay. Okay. Probably me and Warren. Do you recall what materials you Probably, yes. Dust deposition. The same question from the
relied upon in the dust deposition section? A Q A Yes. And what were those materials? Okay. They were the Kleinfelder report, the
report prepared by the Air Pollution Control Division, the documents prepared by Landry and Williams, I think that was primarily it. Q And can you refer back to page 3 -- yeah, Do you see anything
page 3, interrogatory 3 for Ethington. listed as far as him working on air? A Q I don't think so.
But you're testifying today that you may be
recalling that in fact he was doing some work on air; is

889 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
back. Q 10:40 a.m.) THE COURT: All right. Go ahead. a break. that correct? A Q No. It was your testimony a minute ago that the
controls plant site, as it relates to air and dust deposition, as it relates to air in the EIA, included both Mr. Ethington and yourself; is that correct? A I thought I said Egidi and myself, I'm sorry.
Why don't we repeat the question; I'm not sure I'm tracking where we are. Q I guess as you go back through and you
understand this a little better, if there is a continuing responsibility to update this list, it would be very helpful. And I think now would be a good time to take Thank you. (A break was taken from 10:26 a.m. until
(BY MR. STILLS)
Mr. Tarlton, let's come
I think we just finished up the air portions of the
EIA as far as persons who drafted, who you discussed with. And as we discussed before the break, if you are uncertain about which document I'm talking about, please ask, I'll clarify. But if you have some confusion, I'm meaning to
make all my questions about the EIA.

890 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q So if we can keep focused on that. I
apologize if I stray off here, but I'll do my best to stay on it. I just want to let you know where I was to help us
both out. A Q Okay. As far as water quality, who from the EIA
team was responsible for preparing the sections on water quality? A Q A Edgar Ethington. Anyone else? I probably helped write some of the sections,
but I'm not positive. Q And the same question for water supply, who
from the EIA team was responsible for the preparation of the water supply sections? A Q A That would have been Edgar Ethington. And Mr. Ethington is here today? I think so. MR. GOAD: Yeah. (BY MR. STILLS) And if I spoke of Mr. He was.
Ethington about the preparation of the EIA, he would likely be able to answer my questions on water quality and some of the other issues where he worked? A Yes.

891 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q A Q A Q A And the same with Mr. Egidi? Yes. And Marilyn Null -Yes. -- is here. Yes. MR. GOAD: Marilyn Null is not here. MR. STILLS: MR. GOAD: MR. STILLS: Okay. Warren Smith is. That's why I asked. So I If I may make a correction, And is Warren Smith here?
appreciate the clarification. Q (BY MR. STILLS) And who on the team was
responsible for economic issues? A Q A Q A Q Me. Anyone else? No. And the social impacts issue in the EIA was? Me. Okay. I'm sorry, we spoke over each other.
What sources did you rely on to write those sections of the EIA concerning socioeconomic impacts? A The environmental report from -- and I think
other materials from Energy Fuels, and the application had information regarding those issues.

892 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
In addition, I spoke with the state demographer, Elizabeth Garner, regarding economic issues, and to some extent some of the social issues. As a result
of the discussion with her, and some other reasons, I also spoke with the planning people from the planning department, I believe it was the planning director for Montrose County and other Montrose County officials regarding the specific concerns related to social impacts. impacts are tied together. We also had reports submitted by Sheep Mountain Alliance that had a fair amount of information on specifically economic issues. But I think there was also And social and economic
some discussion of social impacts in those materials submitted. In addition, I had either submittals or information provided to me by other parties, including, I believe it's called Montrose Economic Council, the state -just a second. There was information provided from other organizations regarding employment levels and their analysis of employment that Dr. Powers showed yesterday. I also had communications from some local people associated with the school district, with the Basin Clinic. Just a second. The emergency responders. I got
information from both the sheriff's department and the

893 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
highway patrol regarding some of the social impacts, social issues. And let's see. There was quite a bit of information submitted to us from the public and other local agencies. Q documents? A Q Yes, those were put in the record. Are they in a single place that would be Did you maintain a file that contains the
easily retrievable? A No, they would be in part 3 of the file, and
also in the part with the community submittals, the public submittals. Q Is there a file specifically dedicated to
environmental impact analysis preparation? A Q No. You pulled snippets around from all sections
and pulled them into the EIA; is that correct? A Q A Right. And what did Ms. Garner provide you? She provided me with an assessment. She gave
me a response to Edge Environmental, I guess.
The Energy
Fuels submittal on socioeconomic impacts primarily focused on economic issues. And I believe one of her concerns was
the need to how to segregate the information that is available on a county level and adapt it to the information

894 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
information. that only -- that would apply mostly directly to the west end. As you know, the west end data is not routinely in almost any report segregated from the rest of the county. And so as Dr. Power pointed out yesterday,
there's a fair amount of growth in second home and tourism associated with Montrose and Olathe that is not directly affected over here. So in order to address some of those issues, I conducted interviews to try to collect less technical but, you know, information from people about what it was like in the west end versus Montrose County or San Miguel County or Mesa County. Q information? A Generally started with communication with What methodology did you use to collect that
different people trying to determine who might have information. A lot of that was submitted to us at the
public hearing or public meetings or through our just regular comments that were submitted. In addition, I was able to get some Dr. Garner gave me information about several
places where information could be obtained from the -- I think it was Bureau of Census databases and so on. So I
pulled that information together from various sources.

895 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q So you gathered information; you didn't use
ethnographic methods to do that; is that correct? A I'm not sure what ethnographic methods are.
I don't know if I used them. Q So you wouldn't know if you used formal or
informal ethnographic methods to get your information? A Q That's correct. You don't have any background in social and
economic data gathering; is that correct? A Q That's not correct. Please explain. I reviewed your CV; you're
an engineer; is that correct? A Q That's correct. You have the kind of training that would go
into an engineer's training as far as social and economic issues; is that correct? A I have some of that. I have some resource
economics training in my education, but specifically we had to work with social and economic impact concerns associated with the Cotter Mill license renewal that occurred in 2003 to 2005. So I had quite a bit of exposure to those issues during that time period. Q Did you prepare the environmental impact
analysis for the Cotter Mill license in 2002/2003?

896 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
of the record. Q Do you consider that a form of accepted A Q I worked on that, yes. An environmental impact analysis was prepared
for the Cotter license update? A Yes. Or well, let's see. Environmental
impact analysis, yes, that's correct. Q withdraw that. No polling was conducted, no polls were conducted to understand public views concerning risk acceptance in the west end in preparation of this EIA; is that correct? A I did not. We did not perform any polls. But you have no formal -- I'm sorry, I
There were polls conducted by, I believe, the Nucla/Naturita area Chamber of Commerce that were submitted to us as part of the record, and so that was basically the petition level public information that was submitted throughout the county -- throughout the west end, I mean, and people signed up and in support of the mill. So that kind of polling was done and was part
statistical method in the fields of social and economic analysis? A Q Not at all. What would you consider it to be?

897 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
please? THE COURT: MR. STILLS: to ask a yes or no. A The document you described was basically a He's answering the question. Okay, I'm sorry. I was trying term. Q You're referring to lists of people who were Those were people providing A Q correct? MR. GOAD: THE COURT: Asked and answered. Well, he can answer the question. A Q It's information on social attitudes. No polling was conducted, though; is that
We conducted no polling. (BY MR. STILLS) All sides provided their
views in an efficacy sort of manner; is that correct? A I'm not sure I know what you mean by that
expressing their opinions.
comments on their views; is that correct? A Q The document I just described -I'm sorry. Could you read the question back,
petition-type document signed by people in the community. That's the only polling that I know that was done. Q Based on your training that you'd referred to
in the fields of social analysis, is that a reliable indicator of the community's attitude?

898 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
EIA. please? (Whereupon the preceding question was read back by the reporter.) A advocacy group. Q (BY MR. STILLS) When you were working on the I do not know if it's an indicator of an correct? A Q that correct? A community. MR. STILLS: Could you read my question back, It's an indicator of attitudes within the That's correct. It's an indicator of an advocacy group; is A It is a reliable indicator of attitudes
within the community. Q But not of the entire community; is that
EIS, did you ever prepare a socioeconomic impact analysis? A Q No. You have no experience preparing a
socioeconomic impact analysis within the context of an EIS; is that correct? A Q That is correct. Tailings design. Same question as far as the
Who -- I'm sorry, one more -- couple questions on
economics I didn't finish.

899 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
who by. Q Was the economic impact, socioeconomic impact After you drafted the socioeconomic section of the environmental impact analysis, did anybody review that section? A I'm sure it was reviewed. I don't remember
analysis reviewed by any of the persons upon whose information you had relied? A Q A Q No. So your analysis was ad hoc; is that correct? I'm not quite sure what you mean by ad hoc. I asked you if you used a methodology, you
said no, you just looked through things; is that correct? A Well, I did research, I determined from the
documents submitted, including Dr. Powers said economic analysis should be done in a certain way. I looked at that
aspect of it and then tried to put those pieces together in an orderly way. Q That's how I did it. And after you did that, what you just I'll withdraw that.
described -- I'm sorry.
There were competing views that you were reviewing; is that correct? A Q Absolutely. Various experts laid out methodologies that
could or should be used in conducting a socioeconomic

900 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
analysis; is that correct? A Q No. None of those comments that you're referring
to or reports laid out an accepted methodology for conducting socioeconomic analyses? A Q That's correct. And in reconciling the various people who had
submitted materials that you relied upon, what was the basis for choosing some and discarding others? A Well, in general, I didn't discard things.
What I did in the various sections was lay out the concerns and the issues. So for example, in the social part of the analysis, I was able to take information provided to me that -- as you know, social information is not particularly technical. It's not easily measurable like economic
information can be. So when you're looking at social information, you're having to interview people and understand the degree to which that attitude might be pervasive in the community. And then you're trying to understand how that would be impacted by the specific acts you're evaluating. So much of what is in the EIA is the presentation of conflicting viewpoints and trying to reconcile those in the context of the action that's being

901 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
provided. Q So it's encyclopedic, correct? It lists what
people had to say? A It includes what people had to say, yes. I'm
not sure "list" is the right word. Q Okay. It includes -- but it kind of says
what people had to say? A Q Yes. And those people you testified had different
views on what may be going on; is that correct? A Q Yes. And you can't identify any accepted social or
economic methodology for reconciling those views; is that correct? A Q Yes. Thank you. Was any person who had provided
information allowed to review the draft before it went final? A Q A Q A Q No. The analysis is all yours? The summary of the analysis is all mine, yes. The summary of the various people's analyses? Yes. Or there wasn't actually an analysis done,
just a summary of the analyses, correct?

902 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Let's see. I'm trying to remember the And
various components that we looked at included land use.
I think we concluded on land use that it was compatible with the surrounding uses. Things like that.
I did not try to tie down, for example, in looking at economics, as Dr. Power did, which numbers were direct, but presented all the numbers showing that there was a base load of employment associated with the mill. There would be some indirect -- and I can't remember the terms, but some other impacts on the community from that employment. So there would be additional I didn't try to quantify
employment associated with that. what those numbers were.
Part of the reason for that was because looking at the methodology used, for example, Dr. Powers said you should only look at the west end and not consider the other impacts. But then the rest of his analysis looked
at the three-county area, which encompassed Telluride, Montrose, and Grand Junction. And that data is not
particularly relevant to the west end. So trying to make a decision about what number would be correct, I don't think any set of experts would agree on that. But I'm not an expert, and I'm not
going to try to make a decision on that. But what I could say is, yes, there was a

903 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
at. Q confused. And you said we looked at; I'm a little Your testimony was that it was only you that did base employment at the mill and there would be indirect and associated employment in other industries. So I was able to
use that information to evaluate the fact that the mill would cause some jobs to be available in this part of the county, in this west end. EIA. Q seeing it? A Actually, if you read the environmental And jobs equals benefits; is that your way of And that's what I said in the
impact assessment, you'll note that I said jobs equal benefits. But jobs also come with it some hazards with it
associated with the boom-and-bust kind of issue, but also the issue of bringing new people into the community with a change in the way things had been done in the past. That was all good within a social standpoint. So that's not a hard economic number like Dr. Powers was trying to measure, but that ties more into the social issues. And that affected the analysis we did for what's
the available housing, is that going to cause a crunch both in the west end, but we also looked in surrounding areas to see what capacity might exist out there. So those were some of the things we looked

904 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the analysis in the preparation of the environmental impact analysis. A Was there anyone else? I don't remember. I'm sorry, I may have used
that term too broad. Q But it was only you who assembled all these
things and you wrote about it; is that correct? A Yes. I think other people may have looked at
other people's or provided additional data, but I don't remember specifically. Q But nobody looked at that section of the
draft before it went final other than yourself; is that correct? A Q No, it would have been read. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I was not very clear.
None of the people who provided -A Q That's correct. -- input that you relied on reviewed what you
had done with the analysis before it went to final, that's correct? A Q my question. As far as the tailings design, who were the persons in the EIA team who worked on that section? A That would have been Larry Briskin. That is correct. Thank you. I appreciate your patience with

905 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q And I believe he testified yesterday that he
prepared his report and it just went in, is that correct, or his section of the EIA and it went in? A what he said. Q Did anyone else do any work on the tailings That sounds reasonable. I don't remember
designing section? A I don't remember. It's possible Phil Egidi
or Edgar Ethington had some component, but I don't know for sure. Q Now, would there be a file where I can see
who contributed to the analysis of the tailing design in the environmental impact analysis? A Q Not a separate file, no. So there's no way to determine who actually
did work on it other than your members, correct? A Q Well, we can ask. You couldn't go to the file and confirm;
we're just going to have to rely on human memory for that; is that correct? A I think so. As documents were submitted to
the file, they had someone's name associated with them usually, so that would be there. what you're looking for. Q And was the tailings design final when you But I don't think I have

906 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
please. (Whereupon the preceding question was read back by the reporter.) A I assume? Q (BY MR. STILLS) For the Energy Fuels Are you asking that specific to this project, A Q final? MR. GOAD: Asked and answered. today? A Q I don't know. It's correct that the tailings design is not prepared the EIA? A Q I don't know. Is the tailings design final as we sit here
I don't know. (BY MR. STILLS) Where would I -- who would I
ask to know whether or not the tailings design for a license application that is being considered at formal hearing, who would I ask to find out if that tailings design is final? A that works. Q Well, I think I need to explain to you how May I do that? Well, first answer. MR. GOAD: answer the question. MR. STILLS: Please read back my question, Your Honor, maybe the witness can

907 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
application for radioactive materials license, yes. A Okay, good. I guess Larry Briskin would be
the person to ask.
But you would have to ask that question
in the context of this legal proceeding. Q A Explain, please. I tried to before. The way it works is that
designs are submitted at some level, depending on what level of detail we need to do our adequacy assessment. Part of
that adequacy assessment may result in us directing changes to a design as part of the decision analysis and the license that is issued. As you pointed out earlier, the decision analysis and the license had been set aside, so I do not know the status of any of that information. Q Are you -- is the CDPHE in charge of
designing the tailings cell? A We are in charge of whether or not the
tailings cell design is appropriate. Q And you make that decision based on the
record and what comes out of this hearing; is that correct? A Yes. We will use this hearing as this
process is set up for us to have additional information provided to us to do the review so that we can complete our analysis and make a decision. Q So when we're done here, Judge Dana is going

908 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
for a minute? MR. STILLS: THE COURT: Yes. I have a question, and I think my today? A I don't know that. There might be changes or to make his decision, we'll discuss the details on that, I think we have briefing, and we'll move through the process. But whatever design that we have in front of us today is the design that you will look at for your licensing decision; is that correct? A Q That is correct. There will be no additions, no changes after
additions after today. Q Are you aware of any portions of the tailings
design that that are incomplete at this point, not finished? A Q No. So I guess I'm confused. Are you still
working back and forth -THE COURT: Mr. Stills, can I interrupt you
question will make it go smoother. MR. STILLS: THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Mr. Tarlton, we heard testimony
yesterday afternoon from somebody with expertise that they thought the methodology for monitoring the tailings pile was inadequate.

909 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
evidence. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay. Okay. That's been presented as
Presumably I'll hear another side to that as we
go along, but I can conclude as a finding of fact that I believe that the methodology for monitoring the tailings pile is inadequate. THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Okay. Okay. What happens to one
evidence, how does that fit with the Department of Health's process, that's -THE WITNESS: Well, that fits right in with
our process, because what we do is collect information from any source that we can to get information that we use in our evaluation. For example, in the case of the tailings monitoring, we don't disagree with the methodology, but we agree there needs to be more monitoring performed. So the
way the process is that that follows is that as part of our decision analysis, we would propose additional -- that the Energy Fuels would be required to put in additional monitoring wells as part of the monitoring plan, they're required to develop under the license for our approval. So we would use that information as part of our decision to expand on what Energy Fuels has proposed. THE COURT: Whether it came from the witness

910 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q interruption. or from the findings I might make? THE WITNESS: Or from the public. The
purpose of this meeting is to gather information from sources that had not provided that information prior to this point in time. THE COURT: Okay. Sorry for the Every other one of these
I just didn't know.
I've done has been the renewal of the license, which was a different -- which puts it in a little different context. Q (BY MR. STILLS) So hypothetically, an
applicant for a new facility could sandbag the proceedings and provide information that was missing after all of these proceedings were over, and you would include that in your licensing decision; is that correct? MR. GOAD: Your Honor, I'm going to object to
the argumentative nature of that question. THE COURT: Sustained. If there was information
(BY MR. STILLS)
that was significant, can that come back in after the license application is decided upon and cross-examination is taken, can you bring in new information from the applicant? A If we felt there was information that made a
facility more protective, then certainly we could. Q Are you aware of any time in the proceeding
-- I'm sorry, in the consideration of the application where

911 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Energy Fuels has given you information and scheduled meetings in such a way that you wouldn't be really able to answer, have the answer, just the questions? Are you aware
of any time in the license process where that happened? A follow it. Q Are you aware of any time in the licensing You're going to need to repeat that; I didn't
consideration, preapplication or during the application, where Energy Fuels provided you with information, set up a meeting with just enough time for you to have questions but not to actually do any analysis? those? A Well, most of the preapplication materials Are you aware of any of
that we looked at, we weren't doing a detailed analysis on at all. We were providing very sketchy guidance as to is
that the kind of information we'll be looking for in the application. I don't think so. Generally, if we had a
meeting with Energy Fuels during that process, it was to discuss information or questions that we had. think so" is the answer. Q Thanks. So I guess in your understanding of So "I don't
the process, if the plans were to fundamentally change after the hearing, is there an opportunity for cross-examination on those changes?

912 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
MR. GOAD: THE COURT: Asks for a legal conclusion. Well, the witness can testify as
to what the CDPHE process would be. A Well, I can't. I don't think that we would
want to accept -- what did you call it, substantive changes? I forget what you called it. Q A Fundamental changes. I don't think at this point in time
fundamental changes would be acceptable. Q A significant. Significant changes? I guess I don't know what you mean by But we would try to evaluate whether or not
that required us to go back through the entire process again for a license amendment. Q A A So de minimis changes would be okay? Yeah. Significant changes might be required to go
back through the process? A they could. Q So there's no criteria for being able to Not knowing how to define "significant," yes,
allow changes to design after this hearing; is that correct? A Q I'm sorry? There's no criteria, to answer my question
about whether or not fundamental changes allow you to go

913 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
forward after this hearing is out; is that correct? A Q I think that's correct, yeah. It's kind of an arbitrary line as far as
where that falls; is that correct? A Q more question. Is it your understanding of the regulations that the application has to be approved or denied as a whole? A The application can be approved or denied It's a judgment call. Let's look at bonding. Well, let me ask one
with modifications. Q But you have to do the whole thing, you can't
do piece meal; is that correct? A I think so. If I'm understanding your
question properly. Q There's a project there, you either approve
the project they've got on the books or you deny it; is that correct? A We can approve the project they have on the
books with modifications. Q A Q Okay. Yes. I'm sorry, you're correct. I appreciate your You could approve it with condition?
laying that out.

914 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Are you saying could we approve this piece
but not that piece? Q tailing cell? A Q A Q No. You got to approve the whole thing, correct? That's correct. You can't approve a tailing cell without an Could you approve a uranium mill without a
adequate monitoring system. A Q A Q that correct? A Q That's correct. You need an interdisciplinary holistic look That's correct. So you look at the project as a whole. Right. Okay. And you do that in the EIA as well; is
at what's going on in the license application; you decide on the whole thing at once, that's correct? A That's correct. MR. STILLS: Okay. Yesterday -- not When I gave you
yesterday, I guess that's wishful thinking.
the time records to verify that was for the period of 2006 to 2012 being produced and, I think, what portions of that were put into the record, I wanted to be clear that I would like to submit the entire time record from 2006 to the

915 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
thing on CD. THE COURT: MR. GOAD: Do you care? Subject to review and verification present that was disclosed to us. I believe it is relevant to Mr. Tarlton's testimony where he said that they had been working with Energy Fuels for quite some time, and I believe I'd like to make sure that the whole of that disclosure is in the record and not just part. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: THE COURT: MR. STILLS: section up to 2011/2012. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Yeah, 2011/2012. I'd like to move the remainder I have an Exhibit 10. Is that the Cotter piece? No. That, I believe, is the first
of that document into evidence as relevant to Mr. Tarlton's testimony regarding that they've been working on this since 2006. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Do I physically have it? No, but I'll give you the whole
and relevance, no objection. THE COURT: Okay. I'll admit it. It goes to
what this witness said what they did, when they did it, so I'll...

916 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
follow? THE WITNESS: Well, you're asking if a MR. STILLS: relevance is not? THE COURT: may ask one question? MR. STILLS: THE COURT: Uh-huh. And this, I suppose, is imposing You have phone calls you No, I think it's relevant. If I So the review is sustained; the
my own practices on the CDPHE.
don't log into this exercise, for example? THE WITNESS: these are bills. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: THE COURT: Yeah, I know. Right. If it says somebody on a These are not time sheets;
particular day spent some time on this, is every -THE WITNESS: THE COURT: No, everything is not in there. Is there a rule of thumb that you
specific phone call would have been listed and somebody would have been billed for one phone call, and that's not necessarily true. People at the end of the month go back
and tally up the amount of time they spent working on that project that is billable, and then put that into a database that generates those invoices. put in a descriptor for that. And with their time, they

917 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q admitted. MR. STILLS: I'll provide the rest. If I may, can you describe THE COURT: Does that have to add up to the
number of hours they spent on the job? THE WITNESS: Most of that will be less than
the total number of hours they worked within the time period. THE COURT: Okay. That just goes to the kind
of quality of the document, but it's admitted. MR. STILLS: THE COURT: Okay, thank you. Give me the rest of it, and it's
(BY MR. STILLS)
what that generically is; a form where individual activities are tracked; is that correct? A That's correct. MR. GOAD: Your Honor, can we have an
identification of what Mr. Tarlton has just been shown so we can all understand what it's referring to? THE COURT: MR. STILLS: THE COURT: particular page of it. MR. STILLS: I'm looking at 10. Thank you, Sure. What exhibit number is that? It's 10, but you're looking at a
I'll take it back for a second.
At the top of this document It is the first example
it says, License Review Checklist.

918 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
correct? A Q No. You do not charge for Mr. Goad's time working of such a checklist in Exhibit 10 which will be expanded to the full release. Report. Q (BY MR. STILLS) Have all of those documents And says on it Sulfite Analysis Error
of that type for this project been produced? A Q A I believe so. I have all of them that you have? I didn't prepare this, but I'm told that we
pulled everything out of file 2, which is what you requested. Q And if you get back to Denver and if you have
more familiarity of the file, you'll have a look at it, and if there's more in there, you'll send it? A Well, the person that manages the file is the She knows all the file 2
person that pulls it together. information. Q
And as a matter of state law, the CDPHE is
required to do full cost billing for this license; is that correct? A Q Yes, that's correct. And that includes Mr. Goad's time; is that
on the license application; is that correct?

919 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q A Q I did not, that's correct. Okay. Do you charge for the people's time
outside of the hazardous waste section? A I don't remember if other people from other They were allowed to. I'm not sure that
divisions charged. they did.
The Air people have their own billing system
associated with the permit, so I don't know how much of the work they did related to the permit as opposed to just this application. MR. GOAD: Your Honor, at this point I would
like to enter for the record an objection to, one, the relevance of this line of questioning as well as it's beyond the scope of the direct examination of both Energy Fuels and myself. MR. STILLS: Your Honor, I was about to move
towards questioning concerning the capacity and staffing levels of CDPHE to review and oversee this license. directly related to their ability. THE COURT: I'll allow the question. Okay. How many staff at It's
(BY MR. STILLS)
CDPHE are under your supervision who review your uranium mill licenses? A Various aspects of work are performed by There is a core group
different people in different times.
of people who are mostly dedicated to uranium projects that

920 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
correct? A last two years. Q And how many sites are currently licensed as A significant portion of my time over the includes a significant amount of my time, Edgar Ethington's time, and Shiya Wang's time. Q So three people dedicated to uranium mills in
Colorado; is that correct? A Q That's correct. And only a portion of your time; is that
uranium mills in Colorado? A mill licenses. I think there's only two that have uranium There are some sites that are in foreclosure
or have closed that have not yet been terminated, and that would probably be four. Q So that's probably a total of six.
Until a license is terminated, it's a
licensed site; is that correct? A Q That's correct. And has the Federal Government turned down
any of the CDPHE's requests to have licenses terminated? A Q No. The Dorita site does not involve water
monitoring issues that the Department of Energy has expressed concern about? A Don't know that the Department of Energy has

921 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
expressed concern about is; NRC is in the process of reviewing documents associated with that site. been no request for termination submitted yet. Q Are the documents that you're describing There has
because NRC expressed their disapproval of the quality of the water quality monitoring at the Dorita site? A They raised a question about water quality
monitoring, and we've been waiting for quite a while for them to explain their issue. Q And inadequate water quality monitoring would
be a reason that the Federal Government does not take possession of the site; is that correct? A Q It could be a reason, yes. Do you believe you're adequately staffed to
oversee uranium mill licensing in Colorado with three people? A Q No. Is having adequate staffing -- never mind. Who is the decision maker that CDPHE has designated to decide what action to take on Energy Fuels' license application? Let me re-ask that, I'm sorry. corner on you in the middle of the question. Has CDPHE designated the person who will decide what action to take on Energy Fuels' license I turned a

922 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
you? A She reports to me and as the unit leader of application? A designation. decisions. I don't think there's been a formal I am delegated responsibility for making I can delegate that responsibility to Jennifer
Opila, and do so in certain cases -- in many cases, frankly. Q A Q And is Ms. Opila on your staff? Yes. Where does she sit in the hierarchy as to
the Radioactive Materials Unit. Q And I believe there -- was Ms. Opila's
qualifications provided as part of the discovery request? A I don't remember. MR. GOAD: I believe so. But I can't say
definitively sitting here today. Q (BY MR. STILLS) Did Ms. Opila assist in any
way in the preparation of the EIA? A Q I don't think so. Did Ms. Opila provide any information to
anyone concerning any aspect of the license? A Q A Yes. Could you describe that, please? She's the head of the licensing group, that's So she was responsible for the
her part of her job.

923 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
license. Q And so -So she had similar involvement with you going
back to 2006 and '7, all aspects of licensing; is that correct? A Q Yes, I think so. So she would have been in discussions with
Energy Fuels at various times over the last several years; is that correct? A Q A Q A Q A Q I presume so, yes. Has she been at these hearings? Yes. Each day? Yes. Is she here now? Yes. As far as the preparation of the EIA, what
was the date that CDPHE mailed notice for that, that the EIA was available for these hearings? A Q A Q I don't know. Were you responsible for that? Yeah, probably. Do you recall a deadline by when that was
supposed to have been done? A No. (Pause in proceedings)

924 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
please? A It appears to be a transmittal of the Q see. Not directly, but... Could you describe what that document is, Q Are you familiar with that document?
(Indicates laptop) A Well, I can't read it on the screen, so let's
environmental impact analysis for the Energy Fuels Pinon Ridge site, and it's signed by -- or it says it's sent by; any questions may be addressed to Warren Smith or Marilyn Null. Q It doesn't say who it was sent by. Is that
official Colorado letterhead? A Q Yes. There's no reason that should be anything
other than what it appears to be? A Q A Q I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you see the date on that document? August 22, 2012. Is it your understanding that this hearing
was to be noticed by notification sent out that included an environmental impact assessment that's available at the specified locations? A Well --

925 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
authentication. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: THE COURT: Where did it come from? From the Nucla library. I can't read it at all. Hang on. MR. GOAD: Your Honor can we have some more It's
foundation of this letter -- I'm sorry, this exhibit? a photograph.
We don't know who took it and when and those I need some more foundation. If you can lay one, yeah. I
sorts of things.
THE COURT:
don't know that you can lay it with this witness. MR. STILLS: I think I can lay this with a It's a
self-identifying or self-authenticating document. government agency document; it's available for easy authentication by the Agency.
They are a party here.
If
they have any problems with it, they can most certainly object. If it is not the case, the government documents, if we need to, we can go up to the library here in Nucla and pull the file out and I believe have a look at that document and make sure it is a good copy. Aside from that, I can't provide further
Well, for the record, and because this is difficult to read, it appears to be a letter on State letterhead dated August 22, 2012. I quote, Attached is the environmental impact

926 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
analysis for the Energy Fuels Pinon Ridge site. Would you
please include the document with the others for public access. And then it says if you had questions and lists names and addresses to individuals who have been discussed here as employees of CDPHE. And it is what it is. MR. GOAD: Your Honor, I can perhaps I believe that this is a
shortchange this whole discussion.
photograph taken by Mr. Stills the day that we were here last in October 15. Mr. Stills neglected to look at other
documents that are in the library, and I have an affidavit from the librarian, if I may approach, indicating that the EIA and other documents were in the library on August 7. And I'll provide copies if need be. MR. STILLS: I guess I don't understand.
This is a witness that I hadn't known or heard about. MR. GOAD: Well, you're trying to introduce a
document that this witness has nothing to do with. THE COURT: Well, okay folks. This document
is a part of the records of the public library here in Nucla. It is what it says it is. A copy was apparently
sent on that day.
I'm not sure where that gets me, if the
argument was that it wasn't there previously, I suppose we'll have to hear from somebody to establish that. That

927 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
gets us to this affidavit or witnesses or whatever the case might be. MR. STILLS: If he would like to do that on All I'm asking is
redirect, I guess we can take it then. get in as authentic. THE COURT:
Well, it's admitted.
It says
there was a copy sent on that day. MR. STILLS: THE COURT: That's all I'm trying to do now. Whether it was sent earlier or
not, I don't know that it's dispositive to that at all. MR. GOAD: I understand, Your Honor. I don't believe it's a I
understand that's admitted.
self-authenticating document as to the ruling of evidence, although the document I hand you is. admitted as well. THE COURT: The only relevance this affidavit And I ask that that be
has is to the authenticity to that document that's on the screen, I think. MR. GOAD: No, this affidavit attests that
the EIA was present along with other documents on August 7. By way of information, this copy up on the screen of the EIA was sent to the library so that there would be a standalone copy of the EIA for the benefit of the public. August 7 -MR. STILLS: Your Honor, I do -However, on

928 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
screen? MR. STILLS: Referring to the one on the as well. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: THE COURT: I do. That document? MR. GOAD: MR. STILLS: Please let me finish. I do want to lay objection to
testimony coming in from the lawyer, which is what I was trying to avoid. MR. GOAD: It's a self-authenticating
document indicating that the EIA was in the library on August 7. THE COURT: Well, for the record, I'll admit
the document on the screen and this document. MR. STILLS: sent to all counsel. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Okay. And Your Honor has a copy of it And that document has just been
Correct. Referring to the one on the
screen we've been discussing. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Is that coming in or -THE COURT: Yep. And I can -- can you Have you seen a copy of this? I have not seen a copy of this.
transmit it electronically to everybody?

929 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q guess. Mr. Smith is here today, correct? Yes. The EIA covers questions of -- I'm sorry. Q everybody. THE COURT: Okay. I guess you've testified MR. GOAD: I will get it scanned and sent to
(BY MR. STILLS)
that you're not the person in charge of sending notice out concerning this public hearing? A Q A Warren Smith. Q As the person who was in charge of the EIA, Correct. Who would have been that person? That was discussed between Jerry Goad and
do you know whether Mr. Smith has sufficient evidence to testify without asking Mr. Goad any of these questions, any questions concerning sending of the notice? A Q I would assume he does. We'll find that out when we get there, I
The environmental impact analysis assumes that the mill is needed because Energy Fuels could not get its ore processed at the White Mesa Mill; is that correct? A Q I don't think so. You heard that Mr. Filas testified that

930 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
year. Q Are you aware that Energy Fuels is now in the place? A Not specifically. I think it was in the last Energy Fuels now owns the White Mesa Mill; is that correct? A Q testimony? A Q Yes. You've been here for all the testimony in the I heard that. And you were here for all of Mr. Filas's
preceding days; is that correct? A Q That's correct. Are you aware when that transaction took
business of processing alternate feed? A Q Not particularly, no. You're not aware that major part of the
economic viability of the White Mesa Mill relies on the processing of alternative feed? A Q No. The EIA includes a section indicating that
CDPHE would like to be able to send industrial municipal waste to the Paradox site; is that correct? A Q Not the way you described it. Would you like to be able to send industrial
and municipal waste to the Paradox site?

931 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A We'd like to be able to send water treatment
residuals to that site. Q So you'd like to be able to use that site for
something other than the processing of natural ore into yellowcake; is that correct? A The natural uranium into yellowcake is part
of what the reprocessing of the water treatment plant residuals would be. Q So water treatment residues from the water
treatment plant are the same as the rock that comes out of the ground and is trucked over to the mill? A most cases. Q But Energy Fuels has not applied to be able No, but they can be processed the same, in
to do that; is that correct? A Q That's correct. So that's an issue you would consider on the
license amendment? A That's an issue we would consider if Energy
Fuels asked to do it; it would be -- an amendment would be required for that. Q If you were to learn that they had plans to
bring that material to the mill, would it be something that you would feel you would need to analyze in the EIA to know the long-term impacts?

932 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q Not really, no. So if they had definite plans, unless they
asked you to look at it, you don't have to look at it; is that correct? A Q That's correct. Does the EIA analyze the potential impacts of
processing feed stocks other than hard rock ore coming into the facility? A I believe there's a section where we looked
at the alternate feed in terms of water treatment plant residuals. Q And you looked at their process chemistry,
how they would come in and how that might change process chemistry? A No, we looked at whether it would create any
additional impacts. Q A What was the basis for that analysis? I don't remember. I mean, we work with water
treatment plant residuals all the time, so we know something about them. Q This is a really attractive place to send
those materials; is that correct? A It would provide a cheap alternative to the
current alternatives that some small municipalities face in terms of being able to get rid of that material.

933 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
correct? A standpoint. It would make sense from a public health And I don't know, I think a citizen's Q You'd really like to be able to do that,
responsibility to do it that way. Q So it's your -THE COURT: You have a... Yeah, Your Honor, I'm not
MR. SPAANSTRA:
going to object, but I'm going to note for the record we have questions about the relevance of this since Mr. Filas testified explicitly during his testimony that Energy Fuels has no plans to do what's being asked about alternative feeds. So it's not a subject -- it's not been applied for
in this license, and in fact, he testified they have no plans to do it. THE COURT: Okay. But we haven't finished
Mr. Filas' testimony, so I'm going to allow this. MR. SPAANSTRA: THE COURT: Okay.
Until such time as -- it's hard
for me to say what Mr. Filas is going to say in cross. MR. SPAANSTRA: THE COURT: He already said it.
Yeah. But you're right, he could
MR. SPAANSTRA: change his mind. THE COURT:
We could have something different

934 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A when he testified. Q (BY MR. STILLS) If you were to learn during
cross-examination that Energy Fuels had reasonably certain, or at least somewhat definite plans to seek processing of alternate feed materials as part of this license, you'd need to analyze that completely in the EIA, correct? A Well, just like all the information that
we're getting at this hearing and this process, we're going to have to reevaluate where we are. We've got to determine
whether or not it changes anything in the environmental impact assessment. a license decision. Q There would be no opportunity for And then we have to go through and make
cross-examination or comment by the public before that happens; is that correct? MR. GOAD: Legal question.
I don't know. THE COURT: It is, in part, a legal question,
but also we let Mr. Tarlton testify broadly to what CDPHE does with the information and how CDPHE would deal with information, so I'll accept it in on that basis. Whether
they have to or are required to offer on opportunity to cross-examine, that's beyond his expertise or skill set, but -- so ask your questions. Q (BY MR. STILLS) So alternate feeds, for

935 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that. example, if they had plans to do something other than what's in the application, and you were to find out about it, you really need to go back and do the EIA to really understand what the impacts are; is that correct? A I would have to evaluate. Right now we're in
the process of evaluating the impacts based on public input. That's what we're doing here at this hearing. That's why
you're here, to give me more information that I need to use to make my decision. the impacts of that. So that's what I'm doing here. I think I'm not Part of that decision is evaluating
that's what we're all supposed to be doing here.
always clear, but so I'm here to hear you provide additional technical information that I can use in the environmental impact assessment, in the decision analysis, and whether or not a license is issued. Q So if you and Energy Fuels went out in the
parking lot and decided they changed their mind, you want to go forward, both want to go forward with alternate feed processing, you could issue a license that said that; is that your testimony? A Q A I don't know that. You don't know? I would have to check with my attorney on
That sounds like a legal issue.

936 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
mill. Q So you're looking at 500 tons right down the Q Has there been a discussion of processing
alternate feed between yourself and anyone from Energy Fuels? A I think at the very beginning of the project,
before they submitted their application, we had a conversation about that. I'm not aware of a conversation
about that since that point. Q Were any documents or notes or other records
kept of that conversation? A Q I doubt it. I don't know.
But Energy Fuels has expressed an interest in
processing alternate feeds there? A No, Energy Fuels asked us if it would be
advisable for them to consider processing their own water treatment residuals from their own mines. And while that is
technically viable, they never proposed doing that. Q Similar thing with a thousand-ton-per-day You know they're looking at
mill versus a 500-ton-per-day.
a thousand tons, but they're only analyzing 500; is that correct? A That's what they've proposed, 500-ton-per-day
line, no thousand tons a day? A That's correct. If they wanted to change the

937 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
capacity of the mill, they would have to go through this process again. Q And if they had plans now to change the
capacity of the mill, say, during construction, would that change your answer? A They would not be able to do that during
cross-examination; they'd have to submit an amendment to do that. I told you that before. Q Sorry, I'll try not to speak over you. If
they have to submit a license application during construction, would that be appropriate to move it from 500 to a thousand? A process again. Q So the answer is yes, they can go ahead and They would have to go through this whole
build a mill and submit a license application to look at a thousand; is that correct? A They could build the mill for whatever it was They could not build it for what
approved to be built for.
it was not approved to be built for. Q What if you knew they had plans to come back
during construction and actually get that license, would they affect the scope of the environmental impact analysis? A Q This one? Yes.

938 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A No, it would affect the scope of the next
environmental impact analysis we're required to do as part of that process. Q So you can do EIAs in segments, as they're
going forward and they carry out this project? A Q I don't know what you mean by in segments. They can do 500 now and in a year come back
with a license to do a thousand, and then you'd do an EIA on that and then maybe 1,500 and do an EIA on that? A If they had major amendments, they're
required to go through this process again, regardless of what they major amendment is. Q So I'm not clear what --
But it would be okay, even if they had
definite plans right now, to come back with construction once construction -A Q my question. It's your testimony that there would be no problem, as someone who prepared this EIA, there would be no problem, you're saying, for them to submit a 500-ton-per-day plan; you would analyze it on 500 ton per day, but everybody knows, and I will show, and we will show in the report and have shown in the record, I think Energy Fuels openly admits they designed a 500 ton mill, they're going to operate it at I can only react to what they submit. I wasn't finished; I was a little halting in

939 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
sorry. The analysis of what the long-term impacts of a thousand ton per day mill, of operating a thousand ton per day mill, the analysis of a thousand ton per day mill would not come when the thousand ton per day mill was being constructed, it would come when they would ask to operate it at that level; is that correct? A hypothetical. I'm having a little trouble with your Okay. You're theorizing that somehow the 500 tons per day, and you can do an environmental impact of 500 tons. A Is that what you're saying? They're requesting authorization for. The
environmental impact analysis is based on what they request authorization for, so that's what we're doing. If they come
back and say we want to expand the mill to a thousand per day, then they have to go through this process again, including an environmental report and us doing a new environmental impact analysis. Q So the long-term cumulative view gets pushed
out to a thousand tons per day? A What is the long-term cumulative view? I'm
not sure I understand. Q Okay. That was a little vague there, I'm
design is -- because it includes some extra capacity, because of some of the equipment is different than what's

940 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
permit. Q being evaluated. And I'm getting lost in your hypothetical.
What we've got is an application for a 500 ton per day mill. that submittal. We are required to do an evaluation of That's what we're doing. If there is a significant change, they would be required to go through this process again, and we would be required to determine whether or not that was viable, whether we would authorize it. Q that approach? A I don't know what the Air Pollution Control Did the Air Pollution Control Division take
Division is doing. Q Do you know that the Air Pollution Control
Division is analyzing a 1,000 ton per day mill? A Q A Okay. You don't know that? I don't know that I know it, I said. If you
say that's what they're doing, that's great. Q A Q Do you know? No, I don't know. You don't know what the Air Pollution Control
Division is reviewing at this time? A They're reviewing an application for an air I wasn't involved in that. For what size of the mill?

941 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
day. Q Other than me saying it, do you have any Q day. Travis, what do you want? I'm -A I wasn't involved in it. I don't know. You
just told me it was a thousand tons per day. Q A If you don't know, you don't know. Well, you told me it's a thousand tons per
Let me ask the question clearly so we know
we're having not three conversations but one. Do you know the capacity of the mill that the Air Pollution Control Division has under consideration, as we sit here today? A Q A Yes. And what capacity is that? You just told me it was a thousand tons per
other knowledge of what the Air Pollution Control Division is considering, as we sit here today? A Q No. Thank you. You said you've been involved
with the preparation for documents by federal agencies directly under the National Environmental Policy Act, that's correct? A Q Yes. And are you aware of the Department of

942 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Energy's leasing program with that has mine sites and lease sites near the mill site? A Q analysis? A Q No. Have you been contacted by the Department of A little bit, yes. Are you aware of the status of that NEPA
Energy to participate in any ongoing NEPA analysis the Department of Energy might be conducting? A It seems like we were contacted related to -I don't know.
I don't remember. Q
Who in your department would be contacted by
the Department of Energy if there were any NEPA analysis that would seek your input as a potential contributor or participant? A Well, it would probably depend on the issue,
but if you're talking about mining -- I think you were talking about mining. Q A No, I -You're not talking about mining, okay. Then
it would probably be the division director of the affected division. So if this was an air quality, it would be the
Air Quality Division; if it was the water issues, it would be Water Quality Control Division. Q And if it was all aspects of the mill?

943 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
that. here. THE COURT: How much more do you have for A would be me. Q You have not been contacted by the Department If it was related to the uranium project, it
of Energy concerning the ongoing NEPA analysis that was directed by Judge Martinez in an exhibit that I believe is Exhibit 6? MR. GOAD: Your Honor, I'd like a point of Mr. Tarlton just testified I believe
clarification on this question.
about his involvement with regard to mills.
Mr. Stills' question goes to some issues regarding mines. MR. STILLS: I believe Judge Martinez in his
ruling determined that the mill, in fact, is required to be analyzed as part of the Department of Energy's ongoing environmental impact analysis of uranium mining on federal lands adjacent and throughout the Ouray Mineral Bill. MR. GOAD: MR. STILLS: specifically on that issue. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: THE COURT: MR. STILLS: It's Exhibit 5. I'm sorry, my apology. Can you point me to a page? Yes. I am moving back to do Which mill are you referring to? Judge Martinez ruled
I didn't realize I was going to be pointing to a page

944 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
25 to 53. longer. (Pause in proceedings) MR. STILLS: It's Exhibit 4, is one of the this witness? MR. STILLS: minutes, at the most. THE COURT: Is this a logical time to break I've probably got about 20
for lunch and you can find me the page reference? MR. STILLS: I'm actually about to find it.
I just found the document, I'm sorry. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Oh. Sorry, it's taking a little
reasons, which is a 53-page order, which is even less appealing. MR. STILLS: THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Bottom of page 24. The footnote or the text? It's over to the next page, page That's the section, and I
And I think -- well.
can -- I would submit that might be a good time, if you want. But without getting into what the holdings may or may
not have been, the analysis of this mill and the remand order of Judge Martinez is certainly relevant to my question, even if we can't resolve the legal view right now. THE COURT: that's agreeable. Okay. But let's take a break, if
I don't want to wear the second court

945 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
on the record. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: You are on the record. Just to clear up, in Exhibit 4 I known to go 22. 1:12 p.m.) THE COURT: You want to go first or let What's your preference? It's up to Travis. If he wants reporter out. (A break was taken from 12:09 p.m. until
Travis finish his 20 minutes? MR. SANDLER:
to finish, he can; if you want me to jump in this, I can do that. MR. STILLS: I'm hoping it's 20; I've been
But why don't I try to finish up and keep
the continuity going. MR. SANDLER: MR. STILLS: That sounds good. And before we -- I guess we're
at page 27 is what I was trying to make reference to.
apologize for going into legal briefs offhand during that question; I did cause some confusion with you folks. But what I was referring to was beginning near the bottom of the page concerning the remand order that Judge Martinez issued where he lays out the instruction, then moves to it the DOE's other arguments that the effect of the mill may not be evaluated because, one, it is being built by a company on private land; and two, approval of the

946 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q mill is controlled by other government entities lacks merit. Whether or not -- regardless of whether -sorry, regardless of whether an EIA or EIS is being prepared, the agency conducting the analysis must consider the cumulative impacts of the order, citing Bosworth and others going on. to. That's what I was trying to make reference
And we'll move back to examination now. THE COURT: All right. So Mr. Tarlton, I hope you
(BY MR. STILLS)
had a good lunch, and we're right back to it. The Environmental Protection Agency has regulatory duties at the mill; is that correct? A Q That's correct. Do those regulatory duties include radon
emissions and ground water protection? A ground water. Q When you prepared the EIA, did you get input I know they include radon, I don't know about
from the Environmental Protection Agency concerning radon impacts? A Q No. When you prepared the EIA, did you get input
from the Environmental Protection Agency concerning ground water? A No.

947 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
correct? A Q I believe so, yes. And was that scenario the -- I'm sorry, that the EIA? A Q I believe so. And who on the EIA team was identified, or Q I think I had a couple more questions to come
back to on bonding. For bonding -- and I don't see that copy of the discovery responses, I don't know if it got back on to Judge Dana's -- okay. So bonding was one of the issues addressed in
who -- I'm sorry, I'll get my questions going again. Who on the EIA team was responsible for the bonding sections? A Q A Q A Q Probably me, maybe Phil Egidi. And what did you rely on? The analysis done for the decision analysis. Was it just a straight cut-and-paste? I don't remember. Did you identify any alternate scenarios for
the mill operation within your bonding analysis? A Q No. One scenario is what you considered; is that
scenario was the mill being constructed, operated, and

948 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
in it. it. Q If you were provided that, might that provide closed in accordance with the original plans; is that correct? A In accordance with the decision analysis and
the license, yes. Q There was no analysis of what the cost of any
upset condition might have on the amount of the bond; is that correct? A Q I believe that's correct. The Telluride Testing Program, I'll refer to
it as, are you familiar with the settlement agreement entered into by Telluride, San Miguel County, and Energy Fuels? A I've heard about it; I don't know a lot about
an alternative monitoring approach that might protect the public health and environment? A Well, I'm sorry, I don't know exactly what's
So I don't know whether or not it provides an
alternative that you described. Q When you received that document, have you
read reports of it? A Q I've heard in general, yeah. Has the CDPHE been asked to be a party to
that settlement agreement?

949 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q I don't know. Have you been asked to be a party to that
settlement agreement? A Q No. Does that settlement agreement bind CDPHE's
licensing decision? A Q A I don't believe so. So you could ignore it if you like? I don't know. If we're not a party to the
agreement, I'm not sure what our role is in it. Q So on the other end of the spectrum, if it
has a good monitoring program, you can adopt it for other communities in this region; is that correct? A Q If we felt like that was necessary, yes. And how would you determine whether or not
that would be necessary, through an analysis of its impacts; is that correct? A Q Yes. And if such -- if additional monitoring were
required by the license, Energy Fuels would pay for that monitoring as part of the full cost provisions and terms of the license; is that correct? A Q If it were a license requirement, yes. And NRC has identified deficiencies in
Colorado's regulations; is that correct?

950 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A NRC has identified -- I'm sorry, I don't Efficiencies? I'm not sure what
understand your wording. you mean by efficiencies. Q A Q A Q
Deficiencies, I meant. Oh. Sorry. I'm sorry, in our regulations? If you could read that back, I think he
misunderstood what I'd said. (Whereupon the preceding question was read back by the reporter.) A Q Yes. (BY MR. STILLS) What parts of the radiation
regulations that you implement, which parts has NRC identified deficiencies in? A On an ongoing basis, it's a rolling schedule.
But right now, we are correcting, I believe, wording deficiencies in part 1, I want to say part 4, maybe part 5. Q A Q A Are there any deficiencies in part 3? It's possible. I don't have the list handy.
Are there any deficiencies in part 18? There are issues associated with part 18 that
we're trying to resolve at this point. Q Those deficiencies are because NRC said that
the Colorado regulations do not meet the Atomic Energy Act

951 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
17? separately? MR. STILLS: I'm fine to label. THE COURT: I've got lots of numbers; 15, 16, Whatever is more convenient. requirements; is that correct? A Q NRC has said that, yes. And are those deficiencies identified in
letters from the NRC? A those issues. not sure. Q web site? A We try to post everything on our web site, so Are any of those letters posted on the CDPHE There have been several exchanges around So I assume some of those are letters. I'm
I believe they probably are. Q There's three documents here. The first one
-- and my printer ran out before I had the third one printed, so I have the three on this CD. MR. GOAD: MR. STILLS: THE COURT: MR. STILLS: paper copies of two. THE COURT: Do you want them labeled Do you have copies for counsel? It should be on your e-mail. So this is just the third one? No, that is all three. I've got

952 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q corner. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: THE COURT: This one? Yes, correct. Okay. So if you could read the Q A Q A Q Q MR. STILLS: I think that's more efficient. So first document, can you
(BY MR. STILLS)
have a look at that briefly, please? Are you familiar with that web page? Somewhat. Could you explain what that document is? This appears to be part of our web page. And could you read -- because of my printer I'll do this.
problems, actually wait a second.
(Pause in proceedings) Read, if you would, the smaller print right
after where it says "regulations development part 18." A Which part? THE COURT: Can I ask, I have these by date.
What date is on this letter? MR. STILLS: 9/25/2012, down in the right
(BY MR. STILLS)
text just below? A The Department is in the conceptual phase of
evaluating changes to part 18, licensing for uranium and thorium processing, and potentially part 3, licensing of

953 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q have a June 28. document. MR. STILLS: THE COURT: On the e-mail or the CD? On the CD. Here's the comments, radioactive materials based on comments from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Beginning with comment
number 17, the below NRC correspondent contains comments relative to part 18. Q exchanged? A There is a link to the Nuclear Regulatory Does that identify one letter that's been
Commission comments, which is not attached. Q document was? THE COURT: I didn't -- hang on. I don't And the exhibit number for the June 28
I have two 9/25 documents and one 8/10
is that what we're talking about? MR. STILLS: THE COURT: MR. STILLS: almost identical. Yes, the comments. This is in there as the comments. There's another one that looks
That's the one. You want that to be 16? The next would be fine. So refer to this Exhibit 16.
THE COURT: MR. STILLS:
(BY MR. STILLS)
Have you had an opportunity to look through that while we were sorting out documents?

954 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q Partly. Would you go ahead? MS. LUCAS: I'd like to object. Your Honor, just for the record,
This has not been on Sheep Mountain's
exhibit list throughout these proceedings, and this is the first time Energy Fuels has seen this letter. MR. STILLS: Cross-examination, addressing
matters of the regulations that he testified before, publicly available on CDPHE web site. MS. LUCAS: I'd also object to the fact this
is, in our view, outside the scope of direct examination. We definitely didn't ask any questions about NRC regulations. MR. GOAD: And I would add I believe Mr.
Tarlton has testified to this before. MR. STILLS: It's not testimony about the NRC
regulations, it's testimony about the Colorado regulations. THE COURT: I know I've played fast and loose My
with the discovery process through this whole hearing. bad, but I have. So live with it.
I'm going to allow him to testify about it to the extent he knows about it. Now where are we, though.
I've got 27 pages; which one do you want me to be focused on? MR. STILLS: Page 1, please.

955 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q "surveillance." MR. STILLS: Correct. Mr. Tarlton, where it says Q (BY MR. STILLS) Is this letter addressed to
you, Mr. Tarlton? A Q A Q A Q A Q that list? MS. LUCAS: THE WITNESS: MR. PARSONS: THE COURT: MR. STILLS: THE COURT: What page is it on, please? It's an unnumbered page. It's 13 of the PDF. 23. Page 13, item 23. Where it defines the word Yes. Have you received this letter? Yes. Have you read this letter before? Yes. When have you read it? When I received it, I think. Okay. Could you turn to item number 23 on
(BY MR. STILLS)
"definition, surveillance," currently the regulations in Colorado have defined surveillance as addressing only visual detection; is that correct? A Q I guess. It's what it appears to say.
When you prepared the EIA, what was your

956 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
understanding of surveillance as it is meant to apply to the Energy Fuels application? A Q by the NRC? A Q Not particularly. I mean, I've read it. I don't know that I had an interpretation. Are you familiar with this item as identified
But you don't know anything about whether
this causes any concern about regulatory gaps with CDPHE's program? A You can't testify to that? I do not know who might have concerns about
regulatory gaps in our program, if that's what you asked. Q Are you concerned that the definition as
written in Colorado can lead to gaps in Colorado's regulatory program? A Q A definition. Q A Q A Have you? We're in the process of doing so. When was this brought to your attention? I believe this word was brought to our No. Is the NRC? The NRC has asked us to change that
attention in this letter -- it may have come up in one of the earlier letters. Q There were multiple letters?

957 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
regulation. A Well, it says on the first page there's We've had discussions about
several letters they refer to.
the changes made to our regulations in the 2002/2003 and 2010 changes that were made to the Radiation Control Act and how those can be implemented into regulation. We made one try at implementing those in NRC is reviewing that and coming back with
specific comments and questions about some of those changes and then some of the wording that's been in the regulations for a longer period of time. Q So if someone was to interpret the word,
"surveillance" of the site is pretty much synonymous with "monitoring"; is that right? A Q Well, they could be, yes. So if one were to rely on the idea that you
can surveil or monitor the facility with only visual, the NRC has a problem with that definition of Colorado's regulations, correct? A Q That is correct. So any definition or any interpretation of
that definition that doesn't include or that is limited to just visual would be contrary to what you've been discussing with NRC; is that correct? A Well, I haven't been discussing anything But I believe it would be inconsistent
about that with NRC.

958 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
time. that? Q A Q Yeah. I don't think so. Did NRC express any other concerns that might with what NRC expects. Q And NRC has brought this to your attention in
June 2012, and I believe as early as October 2011; was that the date of the other letter? A Q A Something like that. Did the concerns go back farther than that? Does NRC's concerns go back farther than
be relevant concerns with the Colorado regulations that might be relevant to these licensing proceedings? A I don't think they expressed in this letter
any concerns that are relevant to this license proceeding -I'm sorry, this EIA hearing. proceeding. Q Does this licensing proceeding concern the I think I said licensing
amount of financial surety that will be applied to the license, if it issues? A This isn't a license proceeding, this is an I thought you were correcting me on
EIA hearing, right? that earlier. Q
No, I was limiting my questions to EIA at the

959 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q Okay. So we're not limited to EIA anymore? I
But thank you for the clarification.
appreciate that.
This broader hearing that we're in, not
just the questions I was asking you, but this licensing proceeding involves issues of CDPHE's determination of an amount with a bond. A Q Okay. I'm not going to say exactly how, because we
want to keep it moving, but it concerns that; is that correct? A Q Yes. And you just testified that -- I'm sorry, in
the EIA you just testified includes issues of how much the financial surety should be, that's correct? A Q I think there's something in there, yes. You also testified that the NRC has raised no
issues that would be relevant to these proceedings; is that correct? A Well, I was thinking in the context of the
EIA, so that's correct. Q proceeding? A Larger licensing proceeding? When we proceed And how about the larger licensing
after this hearing, we take all the information we've gained from this process and go back through the decision analysis,

960 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A please. Would you read the number up at the top left? Uh-huh. MR. GOAD: we are on this document? A Section 27, second paragraph, through the end Can we have an indication of where we will be using any changes to the regulations or that take place that should be incorporated to it at that time. might include something from the changes that NRC is proposing. Q I'm sorry, did you just testify that you That
might issue the license on different regulations than are in place today? A We would have to issue the license based on
the regulations in place at the time. Q Okay. If you can hand me that exhibit back,
of that section. Q of the PDF. (BY MR. STILLS) Okay. So we're on page 15
Would you start reading where -- well, I guess
what does this comment generally address? A It addresses the percent interest used to
calculate the long-term care. Q So it has to do with bonding and the NRC's
analysis of Colorado's bonding regulation; is that correct? A That's correct.

961 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
June. Q My apology. I don't have this one, because This is the next exhibit dated Q A Q A As it applies to this facility? As it applied to this facility, yes. Start reading at "the assumption," please. Okay. "The assumption of 6 percent in the
above statement underestimates the amount of funds set aside for long-term care, creating a situation of having insufficient funds to cover the cost of surveillance. This
is least restrictive than the NRC requirements in criterion 10, and should be revised to address the essential objective of this requirement. Also, the regulation states that the Department would be responsible for site surveillance. Colorado has stated recently that the Department of Energy would be responsible for site surveillance as written. option is not an option under the Colorado regulation. Colorado needs to adopt the above changes in order to meet the compatibility C assigned to appendix A." Q You received this, at least, or at latest This
October of 2010 and maybe later, correct? A I'm sorry? This is dated June. At latest
my printer ran out of ink. October 13, 2011.
If you don't mind taking a look at it on
the screen, I apologize for that.

962 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
to you? A Q Yes. And if one were to go to the ADAMS web site e-mails. Q MR. GOAD: Counsel, is this attached to the
e-mail you sent to everybody? MR. STILLS: THE COURT: That's correct. That is the second one of the
I'm just responding to Mr. Goad's question. (BY MR. STILLS) And is this letter addressed
on NRC, they would be able to find this letter? A Q I presume so. They maintain a list of all documents that
they send to state agencies; is that correct? A Q That is correct. And they maintain a record of all documents
they received from state agencies; is that correct? A Q That is what they are supposed to do, yes. A that's a more complete record than Colorado
keeps; is that correct? A Q No. I'm sorry, is that a more complete web site
than Colorado keeps? A Q I can't speak to that. Okay. We don't need to go there right now;
we'll just scroll down to number 23.

963 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
hear you. THE COURT: The way you said that indicates process? Mr. Sandler, can you hear me? MR. SANDLER: Yes, I can hear you. I can more questions. THE COURT: All right. Procedurally, I am A Q Okay. Do you recall if that's exactly the same
language from October 2011 as it is in June 2012? A Q It looks similar. Between June and October, these deficiencies
were not corrected; is that correct? A Q Correct. And if I were to go to number 27, which I am,
you would see the same language with maybe some minor variation, but I believe it might be identical; is that correct? A It looks similar, yes. MR. STILLS: Thank you. I don't have any
inclined to invite Mr. Sandler to go ahead and then invite Dr. Grossman to go ahead. Does that correspond to everybody's thought
to me you can't hear other people; is that accurate? MR. SANDLER: You know, I can hear Mr.

964 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Tarlton. It was more difficult when he was sitting back
farther; I don't think that should be an issue. THE COURT: hear Mr. Sandler okay? All right. Mr. Tarlton, can you
We can adjust this. I can hear him right now, yes. We'll have Mr. Sandler's
THE WITNESS: THE COURT:
cross-examination, if that fits with everybody. Go ahead. MR. SANDLER: Okay, thank you. I did just
attempt to send three documents to counsel and yourself, Judge, I'm planning on asking Mr. Tarlton about. They are
two documents published in the Federal Register; and it is also notice of reviews, dealing with endangered species as a third document. It's a document you received in discovery Counsel should be getting those
dealing with biota studies. briefly. THE COURT: MR. SANDLER:
They're not here yet. Yeah I just had something pop So I'm working
up saying there was an issue sending them. on getting those out.
They're documents that either folks So
should have or are published in the Federal Register. hopefully those will come through shortly. MS. LUCAS:
Mr. Sandler, when you say folks
should have, does that mean you provided them in exhibit lists or is this another public record we should be surfing

965 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BY MR. SANDLER: Q Mr. Tarlton, I'm going to talk to you a bit the Internet? MR. SANDLER: The two notices of review are
public records that are published; those are, I believe, documents that could be judicially noticed. And the third is an e-mail that was given to us through discovery. MS. LUCAS: MR. SANDLER: Okay. Thank you.
I apologize, I don't know why
my e-mail isn't getting this through, but I will get it to folks as quickly as possible. Okay, it looks like it was sent. should be getting that shortly. little letter in my questions. THE COURT: MR. SANDLER: Okay. Go ahead. So folks
They don't come up until a
Thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
about your environmental impact analysis and what is in that document. Now, the environmental impact analysis does not
analyze cumulative impacts of this mill, does it? A I believe there is a discussion of cumulative
impacts, but I don't know, my notes are taken. Q Okay. And fair to say that your
environmental impact analysis references environmental

966 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A notes. THE WITNESS: Thank you. reports that was provided by Energy Fuels? A Yes. MR. STILLS: I'm sorry I hadn't returned your
Yeah there is a discussion of cumulative
impacts in the environmental impact assessment analysis. Q (BY MR. SANDLER) Okay. But it does not
analyze the effects of mining; is that correct? A It does not look at environmental effects
associated with each mine. Q And your environmental impact analysis does
mention bats, and I'm referring to page 58, correct? A Q Yes, it mentions bats. But the analysis regarding bats is only
limited to bats that may be on this site, correct? A Q I believe so. So it doesn't analyze how mining in the area
would affect bat species? A I don't believe there's an analysis of that.
I believe there was a discussion of that, but I can't remember if it was in our document or in the environmental report. Q Okay. But your environmental impact analysis
does not analyze that issue?

967 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
mill? A Q No. And you would agree that a smaller capacity here. Q Yes. And you would agree that that A Q That's correct. Okay. Now, your environmental impact
analysis does not analyze alternatives for this proposed action, correct? A There is a discussion of alternatives to the
proposed action in the impact analysis. Q Okay. And you're referring to, I believe,
page 2 of the EIA? A Presumably, yes. I don't have the EIA right
discussion of alternatives is less than a page? A Q Yes, it's very brief. So you would agree that that really isn't an
analysis of alternatives? A Q That's correct. So once again, most likely you're relying on
alternatives that were analyzed in the environmental report? A Q Most likely, yes. So there's no analysis of a smaller capacity
mill would have different effects on the environment than a mill that's 500 tons per day?

968 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
says. yes. Q Yes. And your EIA also doesn't analyze the A I think some of the impacts would be smaller,
effects of a mill that processes 1,000 tons a day, does it? A Q No, that's correct. And you would agree that the environmental
report does indicate that that mill will be designed to process a thousand tons per day? A No, some components of the mill could operate
at a thousand tons per day. Q Okay. So I'm referring to it's the wildlife And
survey that was provided in the environmental report.
page 1 of that says the mill will process up to a 500 tons per day but is designed to accommodate extended capacity of up to a thousand tons per day. A Q Okay. And you're familiar with the application that
Energy Fuels provided to you? A Q Many parts of it, yes. Yes. So based on what they put in that
instruction section to the wildlife survey, you would agree that it does sound like this is going to be designed to accommodate expansion up to a thousand tons per day? A All I can do is refer to what you said it

969 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
action. Q And as I said, that is the wildlife survey on
page 1 of the introduction where I took that language from. Based on that language, you would agree it's a reasonably foreseeable future action based on that that they would be processing a thousand tons per day? A If they wanted to process a thousand tons per
day, they would have to go back through this process with a major license amendment. Q But at this point, you would agree that it's
reasonable to anticipate that? A Q That's a possibility, yes. So aside from describing alternatives, you
would agree that there really is no analysis of any other alternatives but the proposed action and no action alternative? A I think we basically focused on the proposed I don't think we spent much time even on a
no-action alternative. Q Okay. Thank you.
Now, your environmental impact analysis doesn't analyze the effectiveness of mitigation measures that were mentioned? A I'm -MR. GOAD: Mr. Sandler, this is Jerry Goad.
Can you clarify who mentioned these things or where they

970 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
clarification. A were mentioned? MR. SANDLER: Sure. Yes. Thanks for that
In the environmental report. Okay. So you're saying that in the
environmental report they discuss mitigation measures; and what was the question? Q (BY MR. SANDLER) Whether the EIA analyzes
the effectiveness of those measures. A We evaluate some of those measures, we look
at those measures, but those measures have not been implemented, so I'm not sure how we would evaluate their effectiveness. Q You would agree that many of these measures
have been used before in different projects? A Q I believe that's true. And you would also agree that, you know, you
could, without actually having them in place, you could discuss the pros and cons of different mitigation measures? A Well, I guess we would have to look at the
specific mitigation measures you're referring to. Q Sure. Any scientist can give you their
expert opinions on whether they believe different mitigation measures would be effective. A Q Yes, and we did get opinion on that. And you got that independently of what Energy

971 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Fuels provided? A Yes, we had conversations, for example -If you have specifics, we
again, you're being very broad. can talk about that.
But for example, Division of Wildlife
had communications with Energy Fuels regarding mitigation measures for certain aspects of concerns. And we communicated with Division of Wildlife to see if they thought the mitigations being proposed were appropriate. Q I'll move on from there. I want to talk a
little bit about the baseline sampling of biota species. You're familiar with the report that was provided by Ward Whicker? A Q this process? A I'm sorry, "the process" meaning the I probably read it, yes. And you were involved in communications about
selection of the survey, the design of the survey? Q Yeah, the selection of the survey and the
efficacy of the survey. A Q No. No. Okay. I'll get back to that, but I just
want to focus on that, on the survey that Ward Whicker put together. Now, was that for you, or was that for Energy

972 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q A Q A Fuels? A Well, it was done for Energy Fuels to be
submitted to us. Q Okay. Now, when Dr. Whicker is discussing
his survey, he says, "My original intention was to sample mule deer, cottontail rabbits, smaller mammals, and cattle that had grazed the site the previous winter. The taking of wildlife required a scientific collection permit, which was approved by the Colorado Division of Wildlife, except for mule deer. The trapping
effort for smaller mammals was unsuccessful, yielding only a single kangaroo rat. However, three cottontail rabbits,
three jack rabbits, and tissue from three cows were obtained for radionuclide analysis." Does that sound familiar to you? Fine. Sure. If you're reading that from the
report, that's fine. Q And for the record, I'm pulling that from the
Baseline Survey of Radionuclides in Animal Tissue created by Dr. Ward Whicker. Are you familiar with Kenneth Weaver? Yes. And you're familiar with his background? No. Can you tell us anything about Kenneth

973 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Weaver? A He worked in the Department as a health And
physicist, spent a lot of time in the uranium program. I think he was at the Department over 30 years. Q Now, I'm going to refer to an e-mail that
Kenneth Weaver sent to you and, I believe, Phil Egidi. you could give me one moment here, I can tell you specifically. It looks like this was an e-mail chain
If
between yourself, Philip Egidi, and Kenneth Weaver. And for Counsel, I'm referring to the document, it's "Regarding forward informed comments on biota study." And has Counsel received my e-mail with the
documents? THE COURT: Yes. At least I have. We have, Your Honor. It's
MR. SPAANSTRA: dated March 20, 2008, correct? MR. SANDLER:
That is correct.
So I want to
refer to this e-mail chain and some of the information that Kenneth Weaver provided to you. Now, Kenneth Weaver said, "For any statistical defensibility, more samples would likely be needed"? A Q More than what? More samples, more samples than were
collected by Ward Whicker.

974 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
correct? A Q I have no idea. Now, Ken Weaver also felt sampling of mice Q A Okay. So this is something related to
something that Ward Whicker did? Q A It is. Okay. It's informed comments on his study. So this -You haven't seen this, have you? Matt, this is Jeff. Is it
THE COURT: MR. PARSONS: contained in your e-mail? THE COURT: MR. PARSONS:
I have it as the second... I'm in the process of
attempting to place it on the screen. Is this an e-mail from Kenneth Weaver to Phil Egidi and Steve Tarlton dated 3/20/2008? MR. SANDLER: MR. PARSONS: That is correct. It's displayed on the screen. Thank you.
(BY MR. SANDLER)
So Mr. Tarlton, you can see that in this e-mail, as I mentioned, Ken Weaver expressed the belief that for any statistical defensibility, more samples would likely be needed. you? It's true; no more samples were collected, Do you see that statement that was provided to
would be significant, as they are more prevalent in a

975 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
right? A Didn't we hear about an atomic mouse earlier? I understand that mice are small; I don't know anything about their travel habits. I know that you yeah. A Q were collected? A Q I have no idea. Okay. Now, you would agree that mice would Okay. But as far as you know, no samples of mice trapped. Q That they would be more readily trapped, predator's diet. collected? A I think he said they were also more readily And it's true that no samples of mice were
be important to have a baseline, because they, you know, are species that would be able to enter this site easier than larger mammals, correct? A I don't know much about mice, so I don't know
that I'm the right person to ask. Q Okay. But you do know that mice are small,
said a minute ago that when they trapped, they didn't find mice on the site when they trapped. extent of my knowledge here. Q Okay. Now, is it fair to say you don't have That's my -- almost the

976 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
biota. Q A Okay. Now -a baseline sample for mice for this site? A I'm sorry, was that a statement? I don't
know anything about mice. Q Is it fair to say that as far as you know
there's no baseline sample for mice on this site? A I don't know much about baseline sampling for
If you want to make that part of your
statement, that's fine. Q Okay. Now, looking at that e-mail, you see a
response from Phil Egidi that says, "Energy Fuels wants to keep the cost to a mild roar and realizes that they will likely be billed for additional samples"? A Q Yes. And in fact, they were not billed because no
additional samples were taken. A Q Okay. Now, in response to Phil Egidi's e-mail, Ken
Weaver points out that you never get to go back to baseline sampling; do you see that? A Q Okay. So fair to say, based on this communication,
Ken Weaver's expert opinion is the sampling that was done was not statistically defensible, and the suggestions he

977 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
species. Q Sandler. Q made were not completed? MR. GOAD: Your Honor, Mr. Weaver has not Other than that clarification
been qualified as an expert.
of Mr. Sandler's question, go ahead. MR. SANDLER: I'll retract that. But based on Ken Weaver's
(BY MR. SANDLER)
opinion, this baseline sampling was not statistically defensible? A Q They found that there were no mice sampled. Okay. Thank you. Now --
THE COURT:
Let me interrupt you, Mr.
Let me interrupt you for a minute. As I've done throughout this hearing, I'll
make my disclosure that when Mr. Weaver was employed by the Department, he was an active person in the conversations that were had in mediation at the Cotter Mill, in which I participated. End of disclosure. MR. SANDLER: Thank you, Judge. Now, moving on to aquatic
(BY MR. SANDLER)
The EIA, on page 56, states that there's a belief
that no aquatic species or habitat occurs within the site. A Q Okay. Now, based on that conclusion, was that the
end of the analysis of aquatic species? A I think it was the end of analysis of aquatic

978 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
species on site. I thought there was additional
consideration of the possibility of impact to the Dolores River and the aquatic species there. Q And that may be true, but specifically
speaking, through this site, you would agree that through testimony that's already been given and through the Environment's report, we do know there is a retention pond on site, correct? A I'm not that familiar with the site. I do
not know there's a retention pond on site. Q Okay. Did you hear Mr. Filas' testimony when
he talked about the retention pond and some other ponds in the vicinity of the site? A Q Yes. And you remember the picture I put up on the
pond and the happy frogs? A Q A off site? Q No, I'm talking on site and immediate It's not the Dolores River, but the Yes. Okay. So --
However are you talking now about on site or
vicinity of the site.
area on this site and directly around this site. MS. LUCAS: Your Honor, we'd like to renew
our objection to the extent that Mr. Sandler is implying the

979 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q photo of the pond and the happy frogs was taken on Energy Fuels' site. taken. THE COURT: MR. SANDLER: I'll note the objection. To respond to that, Judge, Mr. There's no foundation for where that photo was
Filas did acknowledge there were sites in the vicinity or ponds within the vicinity of the mill site as well as the retention pond that was on the site. THE COURT: allow you to go ahead. And I'll note the objection and
I have some reservations about the
testimony about the feelings of the frogs, but that's a different question for another conversation. THE WITNESS: doing today, Judge. THE COURT: Yes. It's consistent with what we're
But go ahead, Mr. Sandler. MR. SANDLER: Thank you. Now, it's possible that
(BY MR. SANDLER)
aquatic birds can be attracted to these ponds, right? A Q I would guess so, yes. And you would agree that the EIA does not
analyze the species actually attracted to the pond based on dismissal of aquatic design in their habitat? A I'm confused. What ponds are you referring
to; I thought you were referring to the evaporation ponds.

980 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q No, I'm talking about the retention pond
currently on the site. A Okay. I can't -- I know birds are attracted
to water, so if there was water in that pond, I assume birds could be attracted to it. Q Okay. And however, the EIA concludes on page
56 there's no aquatic habitat on the site -A Q Okay. -- correct? Based on that conclusion, the
EIA doesn't analyze these birds that would be attracted to an aquatic environment, correct? A Q Correct. I think.
And as far as you know, the Environmental
Report also doesn't analyze these types of species that would be attracted to an aquatic habitat? A You worded that differently. I don't know
for sure, but I suspect if there's not aquatic habitat on site, the Environmental Report also did not evaluate species that were attracted to that on-site pond as they were on site. Q Okay. But you would agree that an on-site
pond is an aquatic habitat? A question. I'm not the right person to ask that If I look at it and if it's dry, it's probably But I am not an expert in defining
not an aquatic habitat.

981 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
what? Q That different species would live on native what an aquatic habitat is. Q Okay. Thank you.
Do you recall the testimony about the managed sagebrush on this site? A Q Yes. And the testimony about wildlife biologists
felt this was a different habitat than native grasslands? A Q I remember a discussion about that. And that different species would live there;
do you remember that? A Not specifically. Different species from
grasslands than would live on a managed sagebrush type habitat. A Q Sorry, I don't know the answer. Okay. But managed sagebrush habitat is not
analyzed in the environment impact analysis. A Q Okay. Nor are the species that might be expected to
live on a managed sagebrush habitat. A I can't answer your question; I don't know
what species differences there are between a managed sagebrush habitat and the other one. Q Okay. But you would agree that that sort of

982 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
analysis in the EIA would inform us of the difference in those species? A Q I guess, yeah. I'm going to move on to cactus. Do you
recall the discussion I had with Mr. Filas about the Colorado Hookless Cactus? A Q That has recently been listed. That has been listed. It was listed for a
long time and was more recently broken up into three separate species. A Q Okay. And the information in the EIA is based on
the survey conducted by Energy Fuels; is that correct? A Yes, and any other input we received
regarding that work. Q Okay. But as far as you know, the Department
did not do independent surveys for Colorado Hookless Cactus? A Q That is absolutely true. So if Energy Fuels' surveys were improperly
conducted, the information in your EIA is also inaccurate; is that correct? A Q Sage-grouse. It's possible. Okay. Now I want to move on to Gunnison
You know, I want to start off, the EIA, on
page 58, states that the species is a lower priority than

983 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
other species for listing under the Endangered Species Act. A Q Okay. Now, the source of your information is the
Montrose daily Press, correct? A I don't have that page here, but if that's
what it says, yes. Q Okay. And that is what it says. And, you
know, certainly you can reference that. Now, you would agree that the Montrose Daily Press is not a scientific publication? A Q I think that's a fair statement. Okay. Now, so the Department didn't refer to
materials that's been published by Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the Gunnison Sage-grouse, correct? A material? I'm sorry, are you referring to specific We did look at some of the original materials I But
think were provided to us by the Division of Wildlife. I'm not, you know, sure exactly what we got and what we didn't. Q Okay.
So certainly the information published
in the Federal Register by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service would probably be a more reliable source of information than the Montrose Daily Press? A I don't know. It depends on what I'm trying
to do with the information.

984 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q Okay. If you were trying to project accurate
information about a species, would you agree that Fish and Wildlife Service sources would be more accurate than the Montrose Daily Press? A Q That's probably true. Okay. Now I'm going to refer to the -- are
you familiar with the Fish and Wildlife Services candidate notice of review? A Q No. Okay. Every year for tentative species, they
put out a document discussing the candidates and where they're at in the process. And I'm just going to bring
these up to contrast the information that you provided based on the Montrose Daily Press. And these are documents that I sent out to counsel, so certainly I don't know that they need to be projected up, but I will be referring to them. So if you look at the candidate notice of review, you'll see that the Gunnison Sage-grouse has a listing priority number of 2. And the Candidate Notice of
Review will explain that these go from 1 to 12, with 1 being the highest priority for listing. And if you'd like to see
this information, I'm sure your counsel would provide you with a screen with this on it. But my point being, if you look at the 2011

985 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
and the 2010 Candidate Notice of Review, you'll notice there are no species that have a lower priority number than 2. And for the record, that's on the 2011 Candidate Notice of Review on page 66385, and the 2010 Candidate Notice of Review on 26984. A Q What is the date of the 2010? One is 2010 and one is 2011. But would you
agree that if the Gunnison Sage-grouse has a listing priority number of 2 and no species has a listing priority number of less than that, and your statement that it's a lower priority than other species that are listed seems to be incorrect? A That would appear to be the case. I'm not
reading that document right now. THE COURT: think Mr. Parsons is... Q (BY MR. SANDLER) Certainly Counsel will have Well, we have a document, but I
a chance to review those pages and correct the information if they believe it's incorrect. A Q Okay. Now, I also want to ask you just about some
information in the most recent 2011 Candidate Notice of Review. This is page 66393 where Fish and Wildlife Service
declared they're working on a proposed rule to list the Gunnison Sage-grouse and expect to have that out before the

986 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
next Candidate Notice of Review comes out. So based on that, it seems like they're going to make a decision on this species this year. considered in your EIA? A Yeah. In fact, all this information you're Is that
giving me we'll look at for making adjustments to the EIA if required. Q Okay. And, in fact, based on that -- and I
would inform you that the Fish and Wildlife Service is under court order to issue a proposal regarding the Gunnison Sage-grouse by December 30 of 2012. A Q That would be good timing. Now, it sounds like if the Gunnison
Sage-grouse is listed as an endangered species, this will affect your analysis of this project? A Q Was that a question or just a statement? It is a question, that would it change your
analysis of this project if the Gunnison Sage-grouse is listed as an endangered species? A evaluated. Q Okay. Now, your EIA on page 94 does I do not know that at this time. It would be
acknowledge that this proposed action could hinder re-establishment of Gunnison Sage-grouse population in the East Paradox Valley.

987 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Q Okay. So that seems to indicate that there will be
an effect on this species, even outside of this site, based on the mill action. A Well, I guess the effect would be both
negative for the mill site, but positive for removing -- for the mitigation plan, the habitat improvement plan they negotiated with the Division of Wildlife, where they agreed to set aside 415 acres and remove it from grazing, et cetera. analysis. Q Okay. And have you analyzed the So we would have to weigh those things in our
effectiveness of that habitat improvement plan? A Q I'm not sure I know what you mean. Has your EIA analyzed the effectiveness of
the habitat improvement plans in regard to the Gunnison Sage-grouse? A No, I think we relied on the Division of
Wildlife interpretation that that would be mitigation. Q Okay. But you would agree there hasn't been
a site picked out yet? A I can't speak to that. I do not know of a
site that's been picked out yet. Q Okay. So you really don't have any details
about this habitat improvement plan that's supposed to help

988 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the Gunnison Sage-grouse? A Well, the details of the habitat improvement
-- there are details in the habitat improvement plan, but a site has not yet been brought to my attention. One of the
issues that was brought up to my attention was that because of the -- there's a very fixed amount of private property in the East Paradox Valley, and so removing some of that private property from use for, you know, either grazing or other uses would be a significant improvement, because it would change the balance of the overall private-versuspublic land in that area. Q Okay. But at this point you don't know if
that effort would be successful in helping Gunnison Sage-grouse? A Q Yeah, I don't have a clue. Okay. Now, your EIA acknowledges that
Gunnison Prairie Dogs could suffer mortality or injury if they set the evaporation ponds or holding cells. page 93. A Q Okay. And your EIA points out that prairie dogs can That's on
burrow under the fence in these areas, also on page 93. A Q Okay. But you failed to analyze how this can affect
the species, correct?

989 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Okay. So your question is did we analyze the
effect on the species of an individual coming into the tailings impoundment? Q A Q prairie dogs? A Q A No. How about -Except that on an ongoing basis, Energy Fuels Yes. No. How about the effect on species that prey on
will be doing biota sampling, so there will be data available related to that. Q But you would acknowledge that you don't have
any baseline biota sampling for any species that would prey on the Gunnison Prairie Dogs? A Q I don't know that. But based on the study that was conducted by
Ward Whicker and the species he conducted biota sampling on, none of those were species that would prey on the prairie dogs? A Q A Q I'm sorry, was that a question? Yeah, it was a question. Oh. Okay. Again, I don't know. Moving on to the netting over the And your EIA says that netting would
evaporation ponds.

990 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
netting? A Q It's possible. And if insects get through the netting, that seal off access to the ponds. A Q Okay. Now, we know through this piles of testimony That's on page 95.
this isn't true; would you agree with that? A Q the ponds. A Q Okay. You would agree that very small birds could I'm sorry, what isn't true, that the -Netting would completely seal off access to
still get through the netting? A I don't know how that would work. So I'm not
discounting that, I just don't know. Q Okay. And insects surely can get through the
would lead to bioaccumulation in the food chain? A Q I don't know that. And also these nettings could fail at times,
and those situations, other species would enter these netted off areas? A possible, yes. Q Okay. So fair to say that a statement that There are periods where that could be
netting would completely seal off access to the ponds isn't

991 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
exactly accurate? A Q Sure. And the EIA doesn't analyze these instances
where things can fly through the netting or enter the netting due to a failure? A Q I'm sorry, say that again. The EIA does not analyze the effects on small
birds and insects that can fly through the netting or instances where there's failure in the netting? A Q That's correct. Okay. Now, moving on, you relied extensively
on Energy Fuels' environmental report, correct? A Q A Q A Yes, we did. And you did this to identify specific issues? I'm sorry? And you did this to identify specific issues? Yes, we identified specific issues from all So we received the
the information we received.
environmental report from Energy Fuels, and we received a significant amount of documents from some of the parties, and we received public comment. process to identify issues. Q Okay. And based on that information, that's So we used that whole
how you created your EIA, correct? A That's correct.

992 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q And but your EIA still does reference the
environmental report throughout the document. A Q Yes. And you know, for example, page 53 of the EIA
states the Energy Fuels' environmental report provides more detail regarding the ecology and biota at this site. A Q Correct. Correct. So the integrity of Energy Fuels'
environmental report was pretty important to you? A Q I'm sorry? The integrity of environmental fuels
environmental -- Energy Fuels' environmental report is important to you? A "integrity." Q That it was based on sound science and had a I'm not quite sure what you mean by
level of objectivity. A Q A Q Okay. So you would agree that's important to you? Yes. And it's important to you because you
referenced it throughout your EIA, correct? A received. Q Sure. But when you -We evaluated that for all the information we

993 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A And we will evaluate that for the information This is an ongoing
we receive as a result of this hearing. process. Q That's great.
We appreciate that.
Now, one of the reasons that you believe that the environmental report had a level of objectivity was because it was put together by a third party consultant; is that correct? A I don't know if that's a reason. We made the
document available for public review by people in the field and received comments on it, very specific comments from several organizations that are environmental type organizations. And then we also received information back So...
from the Division of Wildlife about the document. Q Okay.
But if something wasn't raised in that
document or alleged in that document, is it fair, then, you could not get feedback on that issue? A being missing. Q Okay. And where are these documents that We would get feedback if it was identified as
you're referring to where you've got this feedback? A Q They're in the record. Now, you were not directly a part of that
environmental report preparation process, were you? A Energy Fuels' report?

994 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q A Q Yeah, Energy Fuels' environmental report. No. No. So you were not on the e-mails from
Archie Reeve to Frank Filas explaining his concerns about birds landing on the beach sands? A Q I'm not familiar with that, no. So you also were not on the e-mails from
Frank Filas saying that Archie is fundamentally incapable of doing any work in support of natural resource development? A Q I don't think so. No. Okay. But you would agree that working
in support of natural resource development doesn't lend itself no objectivity? A Q I'm sorry, say that again. I said you would agree that working in
support of natural resource development doesn't necessarily lend itself to objectivity? A Supporting natural resource development
doesn't lend itself to objectivity? Q A Yeah. I'm not sure I understand that question. And
therefore, don't agree with it. Q Let me rephrase that. If you're working in support of something, you may be inclined to provide different information than if

995 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
report. Q Okay. Are you aware that report was provided you're neutrally working to collect information. A Well, we hope that all of the scientists we
deal with hold that to be true. Q Sure. And would you also hope that the
project proponents that are using the scientists as consultants would not influence their expert opinions? A Yes. We would also expect that of the
project opponents. Q Now, your EIA section on radiological impacts
on biota other than humans references the analysis in the Risk Assessment Report and the Revised Exposure Pathway Report. A Q Okay. And I'm referring to the EIA on page 129.
Now, are you familiar with those two documents? A Q Not particularly. No. Okay. Well, look at those documents.
The Risk Assessment Report, do you recall if that analyzes birds landing on beach sands? A I don't know; I'm not that familiar with that
by Energy Fuels? A Q That's fine. Okay. Now moving on to the Exposure Pathways

996 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
EIA? A Q I don't know. Now, your EIA does mention the beach sands Report. This report acknowledges that the liquid that will
be contained in the evaporation pond has attracted birds, including ducks and geese, at some mill sites. A Q Okay. However, this report also does not analyze
the impacts or provide mitigation measures in regards to these beach sands -A Q A Okay. -- as far as you know? Well, I'm -- well, I don't know. I'm not the
right person to ask that question of. Q Okay. As far as you know, this report also
was provided by Energy Fuels? A Q I don't know. You don't know, okay. And I'm referring to
the Exposure Pathways Report. A Q Okay. So as far as you know, were the effects of
birds landing on beach sands ever analyzed? A Q I can't answer that question. Okay. I don't know.
Do you know if it was analyzed in your
and says that the mitigated measure will be for the mill

997 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
staff to chase the birds away from the exposed beach areas if necessary. A Do you recall that? No, although it sounds like something that
was stated yesterday. Q Okay. Now, as far as you know, there will
not be staff present at the tailing ponds all day every day, correct? A Q I suspect that's true. In fact, from what we've been provided, staff
will inspect the cells once daily? A Q Okay. So conceivably, you'll have a staff member
visit once a day, and if there are birds there at that particular time, they'll be chased away; is that what it sounds like? A Q I understand that, yes. And the rest of the day, the birds will be on
their own, correct? A Q I imagine that's true. So the effectiveness of this mill staff
visiting once a day chasing birds away was never analyzed? A That's correct. However, I believe there was
a discussion about if there were observed impacts in terms of nesting birds or fatalities of birds or something like that -- I can't remember the language -- that more

998 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
aggressive measures would be adopted. Q Yeah, that may be correct, but based on the
consultant through Edge Environmental, their doctorate in Wildlife Biology Archie Reeve, is the feeling there are going to be effects on birds because of the beach sands. A Q A Q Okay. Correct? I don't know. And those were never analyzed for any of the
documents, correct? A Q Okay. Now, we've established the EIA relies heavily
on the environmental report, right? A Q Okay. And you would agree that any improper
influence on the part of Energy Fuels in the creation of that environmental report would also be reflected in the EIA? A Q Possibly, yes. So if their doctorate in wildlife biology was
told that he's incapable of supporting this sort of development and they should get him out of the mix, that would also influence the EIA? A Possibly. I don't know. It depends on the
extent to which any of that occurred.

999 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q hold on. MR. SPAANSTRA: To be fair to Dr. Grossman, I MR. SPAANSTRA: THE COURT: Your Honor, could we...
Just a minute, Mr. Sandler. Mr. Sandler?
MR. SPAANSTRA: THE COURT:
I have an objection, Mr. Sandler,
just want to point out that Mr. Sandler's testifying, and I want to object to it. testifying. THE COURT: Sustained. He's not asking questions, he's
Restate your question. (BY MR. SANDLER) All right. Any improper
influence on the part of Energy Fuels will be reflected in the EIA; is that correct? A Q It could be reflected in the EIA, yes. Do you know of other issues, aside from beach
sands, to the environmental report that suffered from such improper influence by the project proponents? MS. LUCAS: THE COURT: Objection. Mr. Sandler, you're now
testifying to the conclusion there was improper influence. I haven't heard those witnesses. the objection. Q (BY MR. SANDLER) Okay. Do you know if there And I'm going to sustain
was other issues of improper influence in -- any issues of

1000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
telephone? Dr. Grossman, your witness. 3:05 p.m.) THE COURT: Are people still with us on the report? A I don't know much about the preparation of A Q improper influence in the preparation of the EIA? THE COURT: That question is fine. No.
In the preparation of the EIA? (BY MR. SANDLER)
Of the environmental
the environmental report. Q Okay. MR. SANDLER: THE COURT: Nothing further. Thank you.
Mr. Sandler, while I have you on
the phone, do you have witnesses yet to call in this proceeding? MR. SANDLER: THE COURT: I do not, judge. Okay. I just am trying to get
the time line straight here while we're going along. Is this a rational time to take 10 minutes? MR. STILLS: THE COURT: Rational and very good. Let's do that. And then we'll
come back for Dr. Grossman's cross-examination. (A break was taken from 2:39 p.m. until

1001 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BY DR. GROSSMAN: Q Hi, Steve. I'm going to try to be as short CROSS-EXAMINATION
as I can -- and as loud as I can, given that I got a little competition here. I need to -- I hope this isn't testimony, but I need to preface my remarks by the fact that they're coming from a scientist. A hardboiled scientist. And one who has
reviewed multimillion-dollar proposals, a seminal papers and so forth. So that's where I'm coming from. And so I'm going to ask you these questions, most of them in that regard. Do you have a flowchart available for the public to look at the process that these uranium mill applications have to go through so that we get on idea of how this is all put together? A I don't know that we have a flowchart. At
one time we had, on our web site, we had a description that talked about dates and times and how it fit together. I
don't know if that is still up or if it is -- if the one we have is still accurate, because we've had some changes in the Radiation Control Act that changed some of those dates. So I'm not aware of one, but we can get you a description of what the steps are. Q I appreciate that. And I guess what I get

1002 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
coming out of this -- and basically my questions are going to be based on what I've heard in the previous directs. I'm getting the impression that there hasn't been independent peer review of this proposal. A Is that correct? We And
I guess it would depend on what you mean.
consider ourselves independent, so and we involved peer review of various aspects of the work by other state agency people. So you know, in that context, that's the way it's
been done. We also made the information available to the public and received comments on many of the technical documents from people in the public, including yourself, you commented on transportation issues. Q That's correct. But the Federal Government
requires that when grants are reviewed, that the review is truly independent, that you go out to experts. That's what
the program managers and the big agencies do, they'll go out to a list of real experts in the particular field that the proposal is directed to and ask for their opinion, all over the country. Now, I know that it looks to me like this isn't what you guys do. You do a kind of in-house expert
review; you do not go out to independent reviewers. A And that is consistent -- yes, and that is
consistent with the way Nuclear Regulatory does the same

1003 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
process. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: in-house experts. Which is consistent? The way we do it, using
We have the ability, if we need to, to
bring in contractors to help support a specific review, but we did not find that to be necessary in this review. A Q I'm sorry, were you asking me a question? (BY DR. GROSSMAN) No, I'm now just going to
go down my list and see if I can satisfy myself on some of these things. But these were two overarching kind of
questions of what have been coming out of what I've been hearing the last couple of days. I also noticed that you -- and rightly so -had a pretty close relationship with Energy Fuels through this process; is that correct? A relationship." I don't know what you mean by "close I got to know them reasonably well, as I
have some of the other people that have been consistently involved in the process. Q But as far as the application is going, you
were noticing all those memos that are flowing back and forth and telephone calls and so forth like that -A Q A Well, yes. -- in that regard? Yes. We asked for additional information.

1004 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
They asked sometimes questions of us about how to interpret something. Q I guess what I'm getting at is that what I
see is that the only way that independent information gets to you is -- I hate to say this -- through judicial process, that you don't really get these reports -- like, for instance, from Landry and Williams since my expertise is in the atmosphere, these are two atmospheric scientists, and they gave you some information that I guess you included in the EIA. A Q Yes. Did you ask for that, or was this like you
asked for an ER complete report from Energy Fuels? A Well, Dr. Williams was, I think, supporting
the Sheep Mountain Alliance and presented documents and report to us. We actually sought out Dr. Landry and his So we did consult with
information as part of our analysis.
someone who appeared to be an expert in actual deposition of dust in snowpack. Q All right. So in other words, I'm just You solicited Chris Landry's
trying to understand this. opinion? A Dr. Williams. Q
Yes, when the issue was raised by
And then Williams was unsolicited, he just

1005 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
came in sort of like I did with my transportation report? A That's correct. Okay. Now, I say that's
correct to the limit of my knowledge, because I do not know if Dr. Williams was working for the Sheep Mountain Alliance, so that was beyond my area of knowledge. Q Right. He could be very well like me, not
working for anybody? A Q I agree. Well, you seem to be aware that I sent in a
report on transportation. A Q Yes. Or what I could see in the application And my conclusion in that
referring to transportation.
report was there was no transportation report, per se, it was scattered all over the place. A Q A Q I understand. Is that correct? Yes. Did you file my report, review it, and was it
at all taken into account in the final application? A Yes, it was. And I raised some of the issues
that you raised with the Department of Transportation people. Q Do you feel that the final transportation
report addressed the cumulative effects of transportation?

1006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
A Because I think that was also one of the points of my transportation report was that this activity, it seemed like, was concentrated almost to be 880 acres and the movement of vehicles in the 880 acres of the mill, and I was pointing out that there was a much wider reach of transportation issues than just at the mill entrance and at the intersection down at 90 and 141. And I just brought that up. Yes, sir, you asked for a comprehensive
transportation plan that would include all the activities that were going on in the region. And that is not within
our purview, however, we did consult with the county public works people that had responsibility for transportation issues, particularly transportation funding, and with the CDOT people, as I mentioned. I also consulted with the state highway patrol and the sheriff's office related to traffic and transportation, an issue you raised, which was accidents. Q Do you know -- I guess what I find is that
the estimate of the number of vehicles associated with this project. I was having trouble finding a number, that these
numbers fluctuated. There was one estimate in the emissions pathways report; there was another estimate, which is the one I'm going to use. One was mentioned the other day in

1007 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
place. Q the -- I'm not as good as these guys -- I think it was the air dispersion report. And that had a maximum of 222
vehicles coming into this facility and the hours of operation of 10 hours. And I worked that out to be a vehicle every about two to three minutes coming into the facility. just coming in; they've got to leave. So you've got this stream coming in and out every two minutes. You've got a truck of some kind, doesn't I think there was 108 ore trucks. That's
have to be an ore truck.
I think that's the number I interpreted it to be. MR. GOAD: Dr. Grossman, is there a question? Is the effect of all of
(BY DR. GROSSMAN)
this traffic regionally, because they're coming from somewhere, taken into account in the EIA? A regionally. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by I did have conversations, and I think I got a
written response from CDOT regarding congestion and peak loads and the transportation routes. their response. Q With this, I'll look at that report again or So I relied heavily on
that section again. A Q Okay. Now, I'm afraid I'm going to be all over the

1008 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
hour. Are you aware of any research on the interaction of radionuclides and fugitive dust? A Q A Q No. Chemical interactions? No. Where fugitive dust could pick up an isotope
or something and carry it along like it does with pathogens? A Q No. Do you recall there's a thing called a
lofting threshold of wind that lofts various sizes of material into the atmosphere? A Q That sounds vaguely familiar. Do you have a recollection in the EIA of
whether a threshold was stated, and if so, what that threshold would be? A Q I don't remember a threshold being stated. I tend to recall one of about 40 miles an
That's way too high. I was -- I am a Montrose County resident, and
I was a resident of Montrose County when this so-called poll was taken. I never got notice there was a poll that I could
respond to with respect to how this mill would affect residents of Montrose County. And the county does go all Excuse me for my
the way to Norwood, or pretty damn close. French.

1009 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
And so I wonder why wasn't I or was this poll that was taken that you relied on so local as to not include all county residents? A I believe the poll, which was actually a
petition, was distributed in Nucla and Naturita and the Paradox Valley. The signatures we saw on that, which is on
our document, this was done by the local -- I believe it was the Chamber of Commerce, but I'm not sure. locally by local people. Q document? A I would regard that as information that I So you would regard that as an advocacy That was done
looked at related to social impacts. Q Was there a professional cost benefit
analysis performed on this application? A I don't believe so. I'm not sure what
"professional" means in this context, but I believe the environmental report had a structured cost benefit analysis. Q So you think that such an analysis of such an
important project is in order? A Well, I don't know what such an analysis is,
I'm sorry, but we did do a summary and a tally of benefits and costs as they applied to this facility in the EIA. Q Agree that my question was vague. Let me --
I want to be a little more specific.

1010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
proprietary. Then there's another one that goes to the charge of your department, and that is to protect and improve the health and environment of this state. A Q A Q A Uh-huh. So that's the other cost benefit analysis. Well, you're actually referring to three. Well -Because Energy Fuels did one in the That was A Q Okay. I'm sure that Energy Fuels, in their
determination of the design of this plant and its use, did a cost benefit analysis. I mean, they want to see that
they're going to make a profit after all this investment. That's one cost benefit analysis. The one Energy Fuels did, for all I know, is
environmental report looking at cost and benefits.
not their profit and loss discussion that you included earlier. And then the one we put in the EIA was to evaluate cost and benefits and to whom they accrued across the range of issues that we saw. Q A Q And Energy Fuels supplied you with that? No. You did this in-house?

1011 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it? A Q A Q No. Just staff? Yes. At what point in this process do you see that A Q Yes. Then you have professional economists doing
Energy Fuels starts the construction of this mill, after all the permits; because I'm finding this very confusing. A Q Okay. And we've got this license over here, and the
permit over here, and so far all I see is license and permit, air permit. period. A Radionuclide license, air permit,
Is there anything else? Well, there was a county permit required or a
certificate of designation or land use decision, and that decision was made. EPA has, I believe, a permit -- and I forget where they are on that permit. required. There is an air permit I
I can't think of any other specific permits.
think there were building permits required from the county. There was a permit required from CDOT to build in the access road and the transportation improvements they had in front of the mill. I'm not retrieving any other comments, but

1012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
yet? A They could. I don't know what their they're in the environmental assessment impact analysis -excuse me, there is a discussion of other permits that are required. Q And so I guess given all these different
permits that you've just alluded to and described, when does Energy Fuels get to start construction, after all these permits are approved or a certain portion of them, or when does construction start? A Energy Fuels is required to have those We are
permits in place prior to start of operations.
responsible for the license, and so that is something that's built into the license conditions. Whether or not they can start construction before they receive one of the other permits, you would have to talk to those other permit agencies. Q So the other permit agencies could say not
requirements are or what their rules are. Q the public? A License review checklist? If we have one, it Is the license review checklist available to
would be available to the public. Q A Where? I'm not sure. We had several, as you saw, in

1013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the environmental impact assessment. We had several lists
of a listing of requirements, and then how they were met by the application or not. And so there are several lists in
there that compare requirements to how they were satisfied. Q Once again, I want to come back to process
here, and say there doesn't seem to me to be a clear, well defined publicly available description of the process that this licensing and permitting is going on prior to the construction of this mill. A Q Okay. Why don't you -- why didn't you know what the
Air Pollution Control Division is doing in this regard? Seems like that's the next big step for these guys. And your testimony, you said, Gee, I don't know what's going on over there. A Why not?
Well, we regulate uranium recovery facilities
through a radioactive materials license they regulate through an air permit. Q That's their responsibility.
So you are just completely separated as far
as the -- is that by statute, or do you -- is this just the way you guys operate? A They have statutory responsibility for their
permits; we have statutory responsibility for our licenses. Q But you're looking at this one entity, and it
seems like to me, based on the way I've done my work in the

1014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
last 40 years, you go over and talk to the guy that you're working with. A Yes. And as we said, we've said repeatedly
it's in the environmental impact analysis, and it was in the witness list. We did have long interactions with the Air
Quality people on issues related to the license, but they were responsible for issues related to the permit, we wouldn't interfere with their permit authority. Q But what I'm getting from the discussion here
is that as far as the atmospheric side to this whole thing, that there is enough. There's a whole emissions report that
goes with the license; is that correct? A Q Yeah. And then over here you got the air dispersion So what I'm pointing out is that there What happens And it
permit that goes on.
are two interactive atmospheric sides to this:
at the mill and what happens downstream of the mill. seems to me those two things need to be coordinated. A Well, that's why we worked with the Air
people on the process.
And you heard Nancy Chick discuss
the fact that she tried to make sure that the monitoring that they set up would satisfy both the license and the permit conditions. Q A Have you been out to the site? Yep.

1015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
question? Q there? A Sloped. Pretty dry. In some areas, the Q How would you characterize the surface out
vegetation is relatively dense. places by erosion. Q
You know, it's cut in some
Would sand -- how would you characterize that
sand, was it hard packed or when you stepped in it, would you make a footprint? A Well, the times I've been out there, I've I've seen it crusted, and I've seen
seen both conditions: it dry. Q
Because I walk across the road a lot, and it
makes footprints, it's not hard packed, what they call desert pavement. That's what I want to bring up.
At 40 miles an hour, I stated probably in the EIA -- and I don't know if I'm going to be able to go back and find that -- refers to desert pavement. And desert
pavement is truly almost pavement; it's hard, it's pebbles that are probably as big as your thumbnail. THE COURT: Dr. Grossman, where is the
You're going to get a chance to testify. (BY DR. GROSSMAN) So would you characterize
the surface that you walked on, just given what I just said about desert pavement, as desert pavement? A I'm not qualified to make that technical

1016 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
"risk." Q No, but there is a technical definition of drop down. MR. GROSSMAN: THE COURT: your argument from Norwood. Q (BY DR. GROSSMAN) Do you know what risk is, Or go up and stay up. determination. I've seen it hard; I've walked through parts
of that site where the ground is extremely hard, and I've seen it where it's not crusted, it's loose. Q I've seen both.
Do you know from your experts or whatever
what the lofting threshold for various soil types are? A No. THE COURT: Dr. Grossman, let me ask you, I
presume you're defining a lofting threshold as the wind speed that will cause particulates to pick up from a particular soil. DR. GROSSMAN: should have defined. THE WITNESS: Causes the soil to go up and That's correct. I'm sorry, I
To eventually drop down, which is
technically; do you know what it is? A I think I know multiple definitions of
"risk," because it goes along with what I understand as risk analysis. So do you have any idea what that technical
definition is?

1017 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
"risk." Q "Risk" is when you take a particular event mine. A I'm familiar with multiple definitions of is. Q Because it's in the literature, it's not A I do not know what your technical definition
and you calculate the cost of the remediation or mitigation of that event. And then you multiply it onto the And that gives you a dollar
probability of that event.
number and that dollar number is defined as risk. So I'm wondering if you all sat down and tried to work out with your experts all the kinds of things that could go wrong and try to understand whether or not any one of them is a show-stopper. Has that been done? There are a lot of
little minor things, like I'm hearing about the netting and some major ones about ground water movement and so forth, things like that that can go wrong. But was there a
concerted effort among your experts and consultants to sit down and say, What the heck, given where we are out here and the conditions that we know, what are the events that could really cause this area a lot of trouble? A What we have done? I don't think we've done
that, convene a panel of experts to try to put a cost to

1018 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
risk. For example, we do a lot of dose assessment type
work, and we don't put a dollar value on a certain dose to a person. So we don't do that kind of thing. What we do have is that we have people that have been involved in the uranium industry, we know the history of much of the uranium industry and what kinds of things have gone wrong at those facilities. And we look at
that as lessons learned and look at things and say, Okay, these are things that we're not going to let happen again, we're going to try to come up with a way to prevent that from happening. So for example, historically, back in the early days, tailings impoundments and ponds of various kinds were actually put in the flood plane, or in some cases in the riverbed. That's a bad idea. That's terrible.
So we have learned over the years that no, you need to move them away from the water source. And so
what do you do, you move them somewhere where it's dry; you move them up further away. And over time, we've learned
things like, Well, you need to have a really good liner system and you need to have a really good capping system and you need to worry about erosion and you need to worry about dusting. So we've tried to take the lessons learned from past practices in the uranium industry and build those

1019 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
water. A Q Okay. They bind it up on the freight cars so it You might want to look at their solution into the requirements for the new facility. Q Are you familiar with the way the coal
industry now, when they're transporting coal especially, try to mitigate dust? A Q No. They put chemicals on it now. It's not just
doesn't fly off.
to that problem for your tailings pond thing. I guess what I'm -- this to me seems to be a license that has a tremendous effect on local region. And I
know you haven't done this thing in 30 years; why did you all -- it looks to me like you attempted to put this licensing procedure together sort of in-house. You did go out to the other agencies, this is what I heard today, like Department of Wildlife or whatever it's new name is now, Department of Natural Resources and so forth, and get kind of a rough opinion from them, but no identified experts, just a review of this document and some comments which you responded to. But you didn't bring them to the table to make suggestions about procedure. Or did you? Did you
invite these other agencies to the table as you were coming

1020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
people. Q Okay. We go back to the agencies, and I'm up with the procedure with which you're going to license this mill and ask them for their opinion of how this process and what requirements they would want? You're hearing now, for instance, wildlife people have very serious concerns about what's going on. A Q A You're saying the Division of Wildlife? No, out in the public, other people. I thought you were talking about agency
asking you did those people, at the initial stages of this procedure, have input or was it they had the input toward the end of the procedure? A Is that what I get? One
I heard two questions in there, I think:
was did we convene a group of people to talk about what the procedure was for the license review process. Q That's correct. That's one question. What
was the other one? A Q A No, it's our process. You didn't consult with anybody? No. The second question was whether or not
we consulted with other agencies early in the process or late in the process? Q A That's correct. We consulted with them early in the process,

1021 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BY MS. LUCAS: Q Just a couple questions, Mr. Tarlton. We Mr. Stills? MR. STILLS: Not on cross, but of course first. THE COURT: Do you have additional questions, questions? MR. GOAD: I do. I don't care who goes and we had enough information to share with them about the questions we had and the issues they would want to be engaged in. MR. GROSSMAN: Thank you very much. THE COURT: Mr. Goad, do you have additional That's all I have, Your Honor.
recross is necessary, and we'll go outside. THE COURT: don't care who goes. whose witness he is. MS. LUCAS: That's true. Okay. One of you go first; I It's hard to determine
You pick.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
heard some discussion of inspection of the tailings ponds for birds -- this was Mr. Sandler's questioning -- and/or inspection of tailing ponds, I don't know birds, per se. And it was the question was asked that the inspections were once a day. Are you aware that there are inspections of the

1022 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
tailings once a shift and not once a day in the facility operating plan? A Q No, I was not aware of that. Well, there is. Has there been any, to your knowledge -let's start over. Given that there's not been any construction at the site, is it fair to say that baseline conditions still exist out at the site? A Q I would think so, yes. We heard about financial warranties. If
Energy Fuels proposed a higher financial warranty than this one that CDPHE determined was required, would CDPHE accept that? A We would. We have a basis for the
calculation of financial warranty, and it's very important to maintain a basis for the financial warranty. retain that basis. that amount. In the annual and triannual review of the financial warranty, we would still go back to the basis of the estimate to see what has changed in those numbers and factors to determine whether or not something has changed that affects that estimate. If that estimate moved up, then it would need So we would
But the financial warranty could exceed

1023 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
page 3? A Q I would. And there was also some questions about to -- the financial warranty would need to be at least that much. Q We talked a little bit just now from
Dr. Grossman, a couple questions about whether or not there was, you know, outline of the process, and he hadn't been aware there were multiple permits other than air and radioactive materials. And I was just curious, in the EIA,
is there a list of required permits? A document. Q Would you believe me if I told you it was on Yes. I forget where, but it's early in the
conferring with other state agencies; was there a description of other state agencies in the EIA? A Q There was. And are the statutes and regulations
associated with the radiation control -- sorry, radioactive materials licensing procedures, are those available on the CDPHE web site? A Q They are. We had heard some questions about potential
changes to state regulations. A Uh-huh.

1024 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
now? A Q No. If you decide to issue a license, will you change. Q How would CDPHE apply any regulatory changes
to an application that was submitted before the changes were in place? A Well, it depends on the magnitude of the Certain changes could be accommodated just during
the process of review, saying, Okay, you now have to meet this requirement; how would you do that, if it isn't already being met and as demonstrated in the materials we have. The other option, depending on the magnitude of the change, would be to incorporate it into the revised -- into the license when issued, as a license condition, either requiring that it be provided, you know, or performed as part of operations or construction or whatever it affected, or be given a schedule to provide that information and that activity. Q Okay. Is there a decision analysis that is
currently in place for this license application? A Q A Q Depending on what you mean by "in place." Effective. No, not effective. Is there a license decision in place right
reevaluate the environmental impact assessment?

1025 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
BY MR. GOAD: Q Mr. Tarlton, during cross-examination, you A A Yes. MS. LUCAS: Thank you.
Based on the information we get through this
process, we hope to get information that would allow us to look at the environmental impact assessment and approve it in any way we could. MS. LUCAS: THE COURT: MR. GOAD: Thank you. Mr. Goad? Briefly, Your Honor, thank you.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
were asked some questions about billing, and I believe you were shown an exhibit about billing and a requirement that you bill a licensing applicant, such as Energy Fuels, for the time. Hypothetically, if you receive a call out of the cold from a prospective applicant, do you charge for that call? A Q A Usually not for initial contacts and so on. When do you start billing? Well, if we have to put a significant amount Our
of time into an activity, then we start billing that. fee structure in part 12 of the regs has a category for special projects that are billed hourly.
And so when we

1026 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
have people coming in with speculative issues or items that are prelicensed, then we can bill them on an hourly basis for that time, and we do so. Q A Q A Do you advise the applicant? Yes. Or prospective applicant? Yes, we make sure they understand that.
There's a difference between calling us up and saying I'm trying to figure out this aspect of your regs and what does this mean, and I'm trying to develop a big plan, tell me what your requirements are for those kinds of things. That's where we generally would have to sit down with them for a couple of hours and walk through what the requirements are and how they need to be met. Q A Q And you would bill for that? Yes, we would. You also were asked about potential changes, By what criteria would you
design changes at the facility. judge any such design changes? A
Well, the overriding criteria is protection
of public health and the environment, so we would have to look at the aspects of the regulations and see whether or not it changes some potential impact or some aspect of that. That needed to be evaluated significantly more. Q You were also asked about some, quote,

1027 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Q deficiencies that NRC saw in the state program. remember that? A Q Yes. Is that the terminology that the NRC uses Do you
when reviewing a state program? A Well, actually what -- NRC evaluates a So it's
program for compatibility with their requirements.
actually a compatibility identification where they say this isn't as compatible as it needs to be. There are grades of
compatibility, and some of them require explicit, same exact language, and some of them just require as long as you can accomplish this some way through your regs. look at all of those. MR. GOAD: THE COURT: MR. GOAD: THE COURT: Thank you. I don't think I've marked those. This is the June 28, 2012. It's 14, 15 or 16 or 17. Mr. Tarlton, I'm handing you So we have to
(BY MR. GOAD)
or putting in front of you an exhibit that has been admitted, I think it's dated June 12, or at least June 2012. I'd like to direct your attention to item number 23 in this document. A Q Do you see that? Yes. And I believe Mr. Stills asked you some Do you remember that?
questions about this provision.

1028 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
RECROSS-EXAMINATION page. A Q I do. If you will turn towards the bottom of that
My version of this, this starts, "Colorado needs to Do you see that? Yes. And then going to the next page, could you
delete the..." A Q
read what it says? A Okay. "Colorado needs to delete the
definition of surveillance, in quotes, in order to avoid duplications, conflicts and gaps in accordance with the 1997 policy statement on adequacy and compatibility of agreements in state programs." Q Now, from this document, can you tell whether
or not NRC is concerned about duplications or gaps? A Well, they want to avoid duplications,
conflicts, and gaps. Q You don't know if they're referring to gaps
here specifically? A No. MR. GOAD: THE COURT: MR. STILLS: That's all I have. Thank you.
Anybody have anything else? Yes, one question on recross.

1029 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
us. BY MR. STILLS: Q A Q Can you stay on that same paragraph? Okay. Or same portion, and move up to -- well, just
above where it says "Colorado needs to delete this definition." Can you read the last sentence of the first of the paragraph that precedes that? A However, this term is not defined in 10 CFR The term "surveillance"
40 or in Appendix A to 10 CFR 40.
as used in 10 CFR 40 includes monitoring or other surveillance that cannot be formed visually. This
definition, as written, can lead to gaps in the regulatory program." Q And if you have a gap in a regulatory
program, wouldn't that make it less protected than the NRC program, which requires those gaps to be covered? A It's possible. MR. STILLS: THE COURT: THE COURT: Thank you. Anybody have anything else? Mr. Sandler? We've got a freight
car with a piece of wood banging against it. THE WITNESS: MR. STILLS: I think it's a kid. I don't think he's still with

1030 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
4:10 p.m.) THE COURT: Let me get the sign-up sheets. THE COURT: spirit, he may be. one, thank you. I have one person in the room that's not a regular attendee. Do you wish to make an oral comment? AUDIENCE MEMBER: THE COURT: No. We'll assume he's not. In
I don't want to go any further with that
Do I have anybody on the phone
who wishes to make an oral public comment? Let's take a five-minute or 10-minute break, and then we'll figure out where we go next. back to -MS. OPILA: Judge, we did have a couple I presume we're
people ask Phil and I when they can come back to do public comment, and I think there are people that signed up that are not here. MR. EGIDI: THE COURT: They are coming back at 4. Okay. Thank you. We'll work them in. But we
We'll get them.
only have a couple people; we don't have a whole list. Let's take five or 10 minutes. (A break was taken from 3:52 p.m. until
Are Terri Mahannah and Marvin Mahannah here?

1031 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
the record? THE COURT: Yeah. Is there anybody else here AUDIENCE MEMBER: THE COURT: No.
Just so everybody will
understand, for the record they were here this morning, and I had this in writing, we're going to read it, and I said if you want to give it to me I'll put it in the written comments. So it's in the written comments. And although
they're on the list, they elected to do that rather than do it orally. So that leaves me Robert Vialpando. MR. EGIDI: THE COURT: No. No? Bob Roberts? He had to go on an
AUDIENCE MEMBER:
ambulance run, so he's no longer here. THE COURT: MR. STILLS: Carl Vostatek? Judge, can we get that thing on
that's here to make an oral comment here about this case today. Let me get this on the record, and then we'll call on you, sir. MR. STILLS: Your Honor, Jerry Goad and I had
a conversation, and I believe he's going to represent that the CDPHE is going to make the arrangements that we've discussed previously as far as being able to come in with

1032 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
just came in. This is Mr. Roberts? AUDIENCE MEMBER: THE COURT: Yes. the document review. any longer. And Mr. Goad, if you could, on the record, state that you have all the documents from Mr. Egidi. MR. GOAD: Mr. Stills inquired about the I am not going to need their witnesses
status of Phil Egidi's records since he is no longer a State employee. Mr. Egidi confirmed for me and authorized me to
represent that he gave all his documents to the Department. And obviously I can't speak that they're there, but I will assume they're all there. Mr. Egidi no longer has any
documents in his possession. MR. STILLS: THE COURT: Thank you. The floor is yours. Bob Roberts
No, we've got somebody else.
Mr. Roberts, Mr. Vostatek, if
you'd stand and raise your right hands, (Whereupon the Court administered the oath to two audience members offering public comment as follows:) THE COURT: Okay. One of you step up here
for a moment, and I'll leave it to you guys to figure out which is first. lady. And you're making comments to this young

1033 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
PUBLIC COMMENT MR. BOB ROBERTS: real quick, I'm sorry. THE COURT: MR. ROBERTS: That's okay. I'm with the fire and EMS, so I Okay. Let me grab my notes
was kind of distracted for a minute there. All right. Now, this hearing, from what I've
gathered so far is regarding the environmental impact statement. And I can understand the desire for there to be
independent reviews of the information and the statement by certain parties, and I see the value in it. However, if we get independent review of this, then how is it going to stop there? Because somebody
else is going to want to review the reviewers and on down the line. So these people are professionals, the ones who compiled this statement do work for the federal or the state government. They report to the EPA, they report to
any jurisdiction involved. Energy Fuels is bound by law. They have, I
believe I heard from the EPA, a 1,000-year study regarding the potential impact of this. And that's a pretty long time. I don't think
any of us are going to see the impact personally in a thousand years.

1034 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it. There was some questions about the poll that was here put out in Nucla and Naturita from the citizens regarding their opinion, and the question was raised as to whether it was an advocate group that signed the poll. Now, the poll by its very nature and definition, is intended for people to either agree or disagree with the subject at hand. If it is a poll to
garner support, then obviously advocates will sign that. If it is a poll against a petition, then it will be people who do not advocate for the program. advocacy group statement is voided in that case. And vice versa, if it was a petition against The positive would be negative by that. And it is the So the
position of the people in this area, we're the people that live here that are going to be most impacted by the mill coming in. And it's not going to bring a hundred thousand
jobs, it's not going to turn us into Denver or LA, but it will bring up our standard of living. to the area. It will provide jobs. A large percentage of our population worked in those mines and mills; a large percentage of our population grew up in Uravan. Yes, some of the people It will bring income
worked there did get ill; the majority of the people that got ill were in the mine, which is in a concentrated environment. Back then they didn't know the risks.

1035 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
anything. The tailings design, that's got to be an evolving thing also. You have to have a basic design in However, it has to be There have been decades of study. There's
been the UMTRA clean-ups, the superfund sites that have been worked on. So understanding of the impact, if something
goes wrong, is there. It's been studied, we know how now to mitigate it to the best of our ability, prevent it, if at all possible. And there's no 100-percent guarantee on
hand in order to get your permit.
enough leeway to evolve that design plan based on new science and new evidence that's brought up, because if you're locked into a certain plan, if something comes up and says, Wait, that plan is wrong, does that mean you lose your license because you're not allowed to adjust it to compensate for your new evidence? The statement regarding the mill being designed to process a thousand tons of product a day: Anybody who has any small structural or engineering knowledge knows that you lean towards overdesigning something for safety purposes for efficiency or for durability. If you design it to a higher standard than

1036 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
what you need, you have the possibility of expanding your production. That doesn't mean that they're going to try to
sneak 500 tons of ore through a day or 550 tons of ore through a day, they want to have the capacity to expand it should the occasion arises. And the gentleman that was testifying on the EIA made basically the same statement. So I can't see the
issue in having that capacity if they're only permitted to use a certain capacity. Just because you have it doesn't mean you're going to use it. Now, as far as the testimony on the radionuclide level of the biota, that's really good for a baseline study, and I understood what was being discussed in that point. And yet, you're best starting at the lowest
level of the food chain and starting up from that point to know what your environment involves right now. And it will
help you down the road after the mill is in place to have an ongoing study to see if there is, indeed, bioaccumulation. But otherwise, it doesn't have relevance. Everything in this area is going to have basically the same level of radionuclides in their system, because they're born here, they grow here, live their entire lives here and die here. It's not going to change substantially. The amount of radiation present in Uravan

1037 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
right now is lower than the level of radiation up by Telluride, where they did the remediation site; and up above Telluride near the mines, there's a higher level of radiation. Now, those folks in Telluride have built multimillion-dollar houses and are under the impression that because they have a crawl space with a plastic barrier and vents, they're safe. Because the radon will disperse.
There's about 50 miles between the site where the Pinon Ridge mill will be and Telluride. The prevailing The So by
winds in this area come from southwest to northeast. mill site is west and slightly north of Telluride.
that very standard, the winds are not going to, as a rule, carry anything to Telluride. Water doesn't flow upstream. There are
already standards in place for the testing downstream; there's standards in place for testing the air quality. Energy Fuels has met those. They're prepared in the
instance that more standards are required, they'll step up and do it. They put out how many millions of dollars on Is somebody going to throw away millions of
this project?
dollars so they can cut a corner and get around a rule? That's ridiculous. It's like going to a Not sure
low-ball mechanic because he's going to cost less. if he's going to do it right, but he costs less.

1038 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
closer? MR. CARL VOSTATEK: Vostatek. My name is any questions? THE COURT: No, I don't think anybody's asked Thank start. I can understand both sides of the issue. I
care about the environment as much as everybody else, but I also care about people being able to survive. And this area
can't survive off of tourism, as some people have stated. The majority of people don't want to depend on Telluride to give them jobs; we're independent; we like to provide for ourselves. We want to bring things in to here which will
help us develop our community. The Pinon Ridge Mill will be an excellent It will bring in people from outside, it would
expand our ability to help ourselves grow. So I'd like to stand here today and maybe come back Monday and continue to discuss this more at length when I have some more time to gather information and just express my support for Energy Fuels and the development of the Pinon Ridge Mill. And I appreciate your time, gentlemen. Have
a question of somebody making public comment yet. you. MR. ROBERTS: THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Mr. Vostatek?
Did I get it

1039 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Carl Vostatek. in Paradox. I'm a property owner in the Paradox Valley
As a matter of fact, I have a business there
called Paradox Valley Inn. It came into being about 15 years ago. I'm
an architect contractor up in Grand Junction, and our family decided we'd like to find a place that's away from the maddening crowd in a remote area, scenic, quiet, peaceful. And we discovered the Paradox Valley and fell in love with it, spent about six months searching for property, and finally the Red Ranch had quite a few parcels for sale, and we looked at those and didn't find anything that necessarily suited us or really excited us. A lady one day said I have three 40s now that I'd be interested in selling one of them, would you like to look at mine, Carl? I said, Sure, I'll look at whatever is available in the valley. So I took a journey up near the -- it's on the north side of the valley. I went up the lane, got out
of my pickup, climbed up a small rise, came to a clearing, and saw an incredibly stunning view straight east/southeast with the cliffs on the west, on the left-hand side. Beautiful views straight to the southeast. is it. Bought the property. We were going to have a And I said, This

1040 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
hut riders. little retreat for the family, so we built a modest little one-bedroom home, and discovered that we needed another bedroom, need another bathroom, so I built another building with a garage. And I thought we might as well put a
kitchenette in it too. So we did build the other building. It was
there for a year or two, and my wife said, you know, that would make a nice B and B. And I said, Well, yeah, it
would, but we can't have one unit. So I put my architect's hat on and designed two or three other units. We now have four units there. We serve about 150 or We're not getting
And it has a modest little income.
house about 150 to 200 guests per year.
rich off of it, but it is a nice supplemental income to help pay taxes. We create work for people in the valley,
housekeeping maintenance, et cetera. A major contingent of our guests are San Juan For those of you who don't know what a San Juan
hut is, a gentleman out of Ridgway named Joe Ryan created a hut system that goes Durango to Moab. 30 miles apart. They're placed about
And the riders -- they're just huts, no The riders can
electricity, no cooling, no running water.
embark from Durango, ride about 30 miles a day, and not have to carry supplies with them. food, water, et cetera, stove. The huts are supplied with

1041 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
it. So our guests are hut riders, about 30 percent of our clientele. And they're from all over the country as well as all over the world. And one of the things that draws property. Joe asked to place one of the cabins on my He pays me a modest fee for each rider, plus I
saw the potential for upgrade too for those folks that have been riding in the middle of July, August, scorching heat, they haven't showered for four days, they haven't been able to use the Internet, haven't watched TV, they haven't been able to be cool. And I wouldn't pay, but they seem to enjoy
them here is the scenic butte, the pristine butte of the wilderness. Pinon Ridge. Their trail comes down off of the valley over And if perchance the mill went in, one of the
first views they would have of the valley is this industrial complex of the mill. visitation. What I'd like to do now is share with you a little of my remembrances of the Uravan mill. I'm from May or may not affect tourism or the
Grand Junction, my dad had an electric motor repair shop. One of our biggest customers, if not the biggest, was the mill at Uravan. A typical journey from -- well, what happened

1042 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
was because they were such a good customer -- this is in the late '50s and '60s -- we would make a trip up to or down to Uravan once every week or two with the motors we had repaired, and the motors that we would pick up to bring back for repair. So some of my lasting impressions of the mill and operations were -- you have to keep in mind as an architect, I have a bit of an aesthetic eye as I look upon our beautiful western Colorado scenery and the environment. So in those days, one of the lasting impressions is we drove from Gateway to Uravan, the Dolores River coming down from the mountains to Uravan was the typical greenish gray river. In those days, from Uravan south to Gateway, it was the most putrid yellow river you'd ever seen in your life. Granted, times have changed since then, that would
not be allowed. But the journey from Gateway to Uravan will always stay in my mind. Upon getting to the mill then, as we approached the mill, it was, you know, quite an industrial complex, as you all know. long or so. Side of the hill a half a mile
A bit of a blight on the beautiful countryside. A typical trip, as I got to the mill -- a lot
of times I did this run, my dad felt that perchance if I

1043 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
wouldn't make it as an architect, I should learn another trade, so he wanted me to learn the electric motor repair business. time. One time, the chief electrician, Cecil Rice, as I unloaded the motors I brought down, says, I don't have anything for you to take back, but one of the mines, one of the ventilation fans went down, would you like to go with me, and I'll test it? He said it's probably just a blown I said, Well, sure. So I would get to make that run from time to
fuse, but I'll check it out.
So I've never been in a uranium mine, so this was an experience I was looking forward to. We went into
the mine into the entrance several hundred yards and then went down a drift. As we approached a drift, the dust in the air became a cloud of dust we could barely see five to 10 feet if front of ourselves. I was choking, my eyes were burning.
We followed the railroad tracks. And I was getting a little frightened. If
this is what mining is all about, I hope that I make it as an architect. We got to the end of that, and there was a stalwart, one fellow at the end of that drift with his drill and with his jackhammer, mucking out himself in the midst of, you know, a cloud of dust I couldn't believe. His is

1044 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
fuse. the fan that had gone down. So we checked it out and found it needed a When I got out, I said to myself again, That is not a So again, another impression of what the
profession for me.
mill and related industries are or activities related to the mill. Now, if I would bring motors back to Junction, they were caked in this dust. Either from the
mill, motors from the mill or motors from the mines. We'd bring them to our shop and we would have to disassemble them. motor is burned. When a motor burns up, you smell a
These large 10-, 20-, 50-horse motors the
container, which is the central part of the motor which has the mining -- which creates the electromagnetic fields which turns the rotor are dipped in varnish. So when a motor is burned up, what we would do is put the motor in a big oven, it's like four or five feet tall, six feet long, we'd put them in the oven and burn them. When you crank up the temperature to 500 degrees, the whole motor would burn and the varnish would burn off. So here we are a hundred miles from the mill from the mines, carting these motors up to Grand Junction. Climax almost also had a mill in Junction, and they are one

1045 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
years ago. those days. of our customers too. Over the years, we did not repair tens of motors or dozens of motors, hundreds of motors came from the two mills or the mines. And my dad, I didn't know from nothing of We didn't know about rubber gloves or masks.
My job was to wire brush those motors and get all the cake dust from the mine and the mill off. So when you put them in the oven, you can, even though the oven was enclosed, you can smell the smell of that burning through the shop. We had an exhaust fan going, a vent going out of the oven, but dad, it had always bothered him. I can't stand that. He said,
But it was part of the job of what it
took to repair those motors. Needless to say, my dad died of cancer a few Whether or not it's related to that, I don't
know, but it may or may not have played a part. For those of you that may or may not know in Grand Junction, Dr. Gino Sakamoto did quite a study. He
took sputum samples from the miners and studied that for the effects of the dust they intook. And I thought of that
later on when I remembered that fellow down in that drift working down there who to me I could see later on when I discovered the work he was doing, relating the work in the

1046 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
mines and mills to lung cancer. correlation. So at any rate, coming back to our little business there in Paradox, you may recall that the first -my first sight of the property was climbing up this little rise and seeing this clearing. house. And at this point in time, if the new mill went in, the picture window in our living room would literally picture frame the mill off in the distance. That's all I have to say. THE COURT: Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? This is where we built our I could see the
We'll be in recess until 8:30 Monday morning. (Whereupon proceedings were recessed at 4:36 p.m. on November 10, 2012.)

1047 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
_____________________________ Elizabeth W. Schnittker, RPR 1260 Grand Avenue Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 I, Elizabeth W. Schnittker, do hereby certify that I am a Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public within the State of Colorado. I further certify that these proceedings were taken in shorthand by me at the time and place herein set forth, that they were thereafter reduced to typewritten form, and that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct transcript. I further certify that I am not related to, employed by, nor of counsel for any of the parties or attorneys herein, nor otherwise interested in the result of the within action. In witness whereof, I have affixed my signature this 30th day of November, 2012. My commission expires October 12, 2015. REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF MESA ) ) ss )

A ability 919:18 1003:4 1035:6 1038:11 able 829:13 830:1,14,21 843:12,13 845:5,8 850:4 853:6 858:21 870:4,5,7 873:10 890:23 894:21 900:14 903:2 911:2 912:21 930:21,24 931:1 931:3,14 932:25 933:1 937:6 962:10 975:13 1015:16 1031:25 1038:3 1041:5,7 absolutely 823:12 831:20 876:25 899:23 982:18 accept 912:5 934:21 1022:13 acceptable 912:9 acceptance 896:10 accepted 896:21 900:4 901:12 access 828:23 830:22 873:22 926:3 990:1,6,25 1011:22 accidents 826:13 834:19 1006:18 accommodate 968:14,23 accommodated 825:4 1024:5 accomplish 1027:12 account 826:25 1005:20 1007:15 accrued 1010:21 accuracy 847:22 accurate 840:10 841:15 866:8,14,19,23 963:24 984:1,3 991:1 1001:21 accurately 847:14 acknowledge 979:6 986:23 989:13 acknowledges 988:16 996:1 acquire 829:4 acres 987:9 1006:3,4 Act 829:19 838:8 941:22 950:25 957:4 983:1 1001:22 action 817:12 824:23 836:12 900:25 921:20 921:25 967:4,6 969:4,14
969:14,17 986:23 987:4 1047:17 actions 824:22 active 842:24 977:15 activists 839:17 activities 917:13 1006:10 1044:5 activity 849:16 1006:2 1024:15 1025:23 actor 882:1 acts 900:22 actual 842:6 1004:18 ad 849:5 899:10,11 ADAMS 962:9 adapt 893:25 adaptive 835:10 add 835:17 917:1 954:14 addition 832:21 834:23 836:11,23 837:6 845:16 892:1,15 894:21 additional 823:13 824:1 833:22 837:14 902:11 904:8 907:22 909:19,20 932:16 935:13 949:19 976:14,17 978:1 1003:25 1021:6,10 additions 908:7,10 address 823:17 832:11 850:19 858:24 874:23 894:9 960:20 961:9 addressed 826:14 828:15 829:22 833:13,15 834:5 834:12 851:17 857:24 881:8 885:16 886:2 924:11 947:6 955:1 962:6 1005:25 addresses 926:5 960:21 addressing 825:13 954:7 955:22 adequacy 822:13 907:8,9 1028:11 adequate 830:5,8 914:9 921:18 adequately 921:14 adjacent 943:15 adjust 964:4 1035:17 adjustments 986:6 administered 1032:20 admission 858:19 admit 915:23 928:8 admits 938:24
admitted 860:1 917:7,10 927:6,12,15 1027:20 admitting 860:2 adopt 949:12 961:16 adopted 998:1 advisable 936:14 advise 1026:4 advocacy 898:6,15 1009:10 1034:11 advocate 1034:4,10 advocates 1034:8 aesthetic 1042:8 Affairs 817:6 827:17 871:16 affect 826:10 937:23 938:1 966:19 986:15 988:24 1008:22 1041:18 affidavit 926:12 927:1,16 927:19 affixed 1047:18 afraid 1007:24 afternoon 908:23 agencies 827:10,14,21 832:16 842:8,15,24 844:16 847:5,7,9 893:4 941:21 962:13,16 1002:17 1012:15,16 1019:17,25 1020:10,22 1023:15,16 agency 828:5 843:14 925:9,10 946:4,11,19,23 1002:7 1020:8 agenda 820:6 aggressive 998:1 ago 889:3 975:22 1039:4 1045:17 agree 882:8,10 902:23 909:17 967:11,14,23 968:6,21 969:3,9,13 970:13,16 975:11 978:5 979:21 980:21 981:25 983:9 984:2 985:8 987:20 990:4,9 992:19 994:11,15,22 998:15 1005:8 1009:24 1034:6 agreeable 944:25 agreed 987:8 agreement 948:10,25 949:3,5,10 agreements 1028:11 ahead 844:25 861:24
867:1 889:18 937:15 954:2 963:16,17 964:8 965:14 977:4 979:10,16 air 834:16 871:4 874:22 875:10,12 877:18 878:14,17,21 879:1,3,5 879:7,13,16,18 880:8,11 880:12,13,17 881:2,5,8 881:9,9,20 882:14,16,19 882:23,24 884:11 885:1 885:4,10,10 887:24 888:4,6,17,22,25 889:4 889:5,20 919:6 940:9,11 940:13,21,23 941:10,17 942:22,23 1007:2 1011:13,13,19 1013:12 1013:18 1014:5,14,19 1023:6 1037:17 1043:15 alleged 993:16 Alliance 817:14 852:4 853:19 892:11 1004:15 1005:4 Alliance's 852:12 allow 874:10 912:22,25 919:19 933:17 954:21 979:10 1025:4 allowed 901:17 919:5 1035:17 1042:17 allowing 822:12 alluded 1012:5 alternate 835:3 930:14 932:10 934:5,25 935:19 936:2,12 947:18 alternative 930:18 932:23 933:12 948:16 948:20 969:15,18 alternatives 932:24 967:3,5,12,15,18 969:12 969:14 ambulance 1031:13 amendment 912:14 931:18,20 937:7 938:12 969:8 amendments 825:13,16 938:10 amount 892:11 894:6 916:22 920:1 948:6 958:19 959:6 961:5 988:6 991:20 1022:19 1025:22 1036:25 analyses 900:5 901:22,25
Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying Denver (303) 296-0017 Boulder (303) 443-0433 Colorado Springs (719) 635-8328 Greeley (970) 356-3306
analysis 832:3 833:15,18 834:22 835:1,21 844:6,7 846:5,7,16,17,20 851:15 851:22 852:7,10,11,13 852:15,23,25 853:13,14 855:20 856:25 857:18 863:25 864:9,9,11,13,18 864:22,23 865:2,3,4,5,6 866:3 871:20 872:17 874:20 876:1 877:3,25 878:19,22 886:4,5,15,24 887:4,18,18 892:20 893:14 895:25 896:2,5 896:23 897:24 898:17 898:20 899:2,7,10,16 900:1,14 901:20,21,24 902:17 903:18 904:1,2 904:18 905:12,13 907:10,13,24 909:19 911:11,14 918:2 924:9 926:1 929:21 932:17 935:15 937:23 938:2 939:4,9,16,18 942:5,8 942:13 943:4,14 944:21 946:4 947:15,15,19 948:3,5 949:16 959:25 960:24 965:19,20,25 966:7,12,15,20,24 967:3 967:6,15,20 969:13,20 972:14 977:24,25 981:18 982:1 986:15,18 987:11 995:10 1004:17 1009:15,18,19,21 1010:4,6,13 1012:1 1014:4 1016:24 1024:16 analyze 931:24 932:6 934:6 938:22 965:21 966:9,18,25 967:3 968:3 969:21 979:22 980:10 980:14 988:24 989:1 991:3,7 996:5 analyzed 875:5 878:21 943:13 967:18 981:18 987:12,15 996:19,21 997:21 998:9 analyzes 970:7 995:18 analyzing 936:19 940:14 and/or 841:23 842:21 1021:22 Animal 972:19 announced 837:20
announcements 836:19 annual 826:19,24 827:2,5 1022:20 annually 826:7,8 answer 824:12 844:22 846:2 848:5,14 861:4,18 869:9 880:21 881:20 890:23 897:5 906:16,18 911:3,3,21 912:24 937:5 937:15 981:16,22 996:20 answered 861:12,23 873:5 897:4 906:8 answering 861:2 897:17 answers 842:10 anticipate 969:10 anybody 820:4 842:16 856:17 858:20 861:14 861:15 862:1 876:3 899:2 1005:7 1020:20 1028:21 1029:20 1030:8 1031:17 1035:21 1046:12 anybody's 1038:19 anymore 959:1 apart 1040:21 apologies 880:3 apologize 890:2 945:18 961:25 965:8 apology 873:14 943:20 961:22 apparently 926:22 appealing 944:14 appear 985:13 APPEARANCES 817:1 818:1 appeared 1004:18 Appearing 817:8,14,17 817:22 818:3 appears 924:8,17 925:23 952:7 955:24 appendix 961:17 1029:10 applicant 822:21 823:10 826:7 829:20 910:11,21 1025:15,18 1026:4,6 application 816:6 821:24 822:7,11,22,23 823:6,11 823:20,23 824:15,19 827:10 829:5 831:1,1 832:2,25 834:1,9 835:20
835:24 836:5,9 837:12 837:22 838:6 849:10 852:10 864:8 870:13 891:24 906:12 907:1 910:20,25 911:8,17 913:9,11 914:17 918:25 919:9 921:21 922:1 935:2 936:5 937:10,16 940:2,23 956:2 968:17 1003:20 1005:12,20 1009:15 1013:3 1024:2 1024:17 applications 822:16,17 1001:15 applied 931:14 933:13 958:19 961:2 1009:23 applies 826:11 961:1 apply 823:2 894:1 956:1 1024:1 appreciate 843:17 849:14 868:14 887:21 891:12 904:21 913:24 959:3 993:4 1001:25 1038:17 approach 849:5 926:13 940:10 948:16 approached 821:18 1042:21 1043:15 appropriate 907:18 937:11 971:9 approval 909:22 945:25 approve 913:17,20,22 914:1,3,6,8 1025:5 approved 913:9,11 937:19,20 972:9 1012:7 aquatic 977:19,21,24,25 978:3 979:19,23 980:7 980:11,15,17,22,25 981:1 ARBITER 816:1 arbitrary 913:3 Archie 994:4,8 998:4 architect 1039:5 1042:8 1043:1,21 architect's 1040:10 area 877:11 896:14 902:18 966:18 978:23 988:11 1005:5 1017:23 1034:14,19 1036:21 1037:11 1038:3 1039:7 areas 823:25 832:14 834:12 835:2 854:22
903:20 988:22 990:21 997:1 1015:3 arguing 859:19 argument 926:24 1016:17 argumentative 910:16 arguments 945:23 arises 1036:5 Arizona 884:7 arrangements 1031:24 array 843:1 aside 862:23 865:23 907:13 925:17 961:5 969:12 987:9 999:16 asked 824:12 827:22 831:8 837:17 841:5 842:20 844:8 846:3,15 850:17 855:2 856:16 861:12 872:17 873:4 874:22 887:19 891:11 897:4 899:12 906:8 931:20 932:3 933:12 936:13 948:24 949:2 956:11,17 1003:25 1004:1,13 1006:9 1021:24 1025:13 1026:17,25 1027:24 1038:19 1041:1 asking 846:24 847:1 859:15 868:12,18,25 906:23 916:18 927:4 929:13 959:4 964:11 999:8 1003:7 1020:11 asks 831:6 912:1 aspect 877:8 886:16 899:17 922:21 1026:9 1026:23 aspects 823:5 834:1 881:13 919:23 923:3 942:25 971:6 1002:7 1026:22 assembled 904:5 assembly 838:1 assessed 826:7 assessment 833:13,15 834:13 849:18 864:1 870:25 875:24 881:6,11 893:20 903:10 907:8,9 924:23 934:11 935:15 966:7 995:11,18 1012:1 1013:1 1018:1 1024:25
1025:5 assigned 961:17 assist 867:5 922:17 Assistant 817:20 assisted 857:25 859:12 859:23 861:5 862:2 863:7,10 867:1 887:23 associated 827:13 832:15 835:10 836:12 837:21 839:7 880:7 881:10 884:6 892:23 894:7 895:19 902:8,12 903:2 903:12 905:22 919:7 921:2 950:22 966:11 1006:20 1023:19 assume 840:24 866:16,17 883:12 906:24 929:15 951:6 980:4 1030:1 1032:10 assumes 929:21 Assuming 842:5 856:1 assumption 961:3,4 atmosphere 1004:8 1008:11 atmospheric 883:17 1004:8 1014:10,16 atomic 950:25 975:19 attached 925:25 953:8 962:1 attempt 964:10 attempted 834:21 1019:15 attempting 974:10 attended 836:11 837:18 attendee 1030:5 attention 956:21,23 958:2 988:4,5 1027:21 attests 927:19 attitude 897:25 900:20 attitudes 897:1 898:1,8 attorney 817:19,20 831:22 856:24 870:21 873:12 935:24 attorneys 1047:15 attracted 979:19,22 980:3 980:5,10,15,19 996:2 attractive 932:21 audience 1030:7 1031:1 1031:12 1032:17,21 August 924:20 925:24 926:14 927:20,24 928:7
1041:4 authentic 927:5 authentication 925:10 925:18 authenticity 927:17 author 850:24 authored 850:23 881:18 authority 825:22 829:9 1014:8 authorization 939:3,5 authorize 940:8 authorized 1032:7 availability 835:4 available 827:5 843:18 893:25 903:4,19 923:18 924:23 925:9 954:9 989:12 993:10 1001:13 1002:10 1012:20,23 1013:7 1023:20 1039:17 Avenue 817:10 1047:23 avoid 928:4 1028:9,15 aware 830:16,20 846:6,9 865:3 908:11 910:24 911:3,7,11 930:9,13,16 936:6 941:25 942:4 995:22 1001:23 1005:9 1008:1 1021:25 1022:3 1023:6 a.m 816:16 820:1 889:16 889:17 B B 845:14 872:1 1040:8,8 back 825:20 827:8 843:8 843:12,24 844:1 845:8 847:14 848:11,13 861:9 861:11 862:11,15 864:25 865:10,16,19 866:11,25 867:19,21 868:22 871:24 872:20 872:22 880:2,5 887:10 887:13 888:20 889:10 889:20 897:15 898:10 898:13 906:19,22 908:15 910:19 912:13 912:18 916:21 917:24 918:11 923:3 935:3 937:21 938:7,14 939:6 943:22 946:7,10 947:2,4 950:8,11 957:7 958:6,7 959:25 960:10 964:1
969:7 971:22 976:20 993:13 1000:19 1003:21 1013:5 1015:16 1018:12 1020:10 1022:21 1030:12,14,17 1034:25 1038:13 1042:4 1043:7 1044:7 1046:3 background 836:13 895:8 972:23 bad 954:20 1018:15 BAKER 817:2 balance 988:10 banging 1029:22 barely 1043:16 barrier 1037:7 base 826:4 902:8 903:1 based 836:17 839:25 847:22 852:7 872:10 876:1 897:23 907:19 935:6 939:4 953:1 960:8 968:20 969:3,4 976:23 977:6,23 979:22 980:9 982:12 984:13 986:2,8 987:3 989:17 991:23 992:16 998:2 1002:2 1013:25 1025:3 1035:13 baseline 818:2 971:11 972:19 975:12 976:1,5,6 976:20 977:7 989:14 1022:8 1036:14 basic 867:12 1035:11 basically 896:15 897:20 969:16 1002:1 1036:7 1036:21 Basin 892:23 basis 826:19 849:24 850:3 855:12 856:9 900:8 932:17 934:21 950:16 989:10 1022:15 1022:17,18,21 1026:2 bat 966:19 Bates 872:1 bathroom 1040:3 bats 966:13,14,15,16 beach 994:5 995:19 996:7 996:19,24 997:1 998:5 999:16 bear 850:15,19 beautiful 1039:23 1042:9 1042:23 bedroom 1040:3
beginning 816:16 826:4 936:4 945:20 953:2 behalf 817:8,14,17,22 belief 974:17 977:20 believe 840:5,5 841:11 842:23 846:18,20 852:17 854:7,18 855:21 857:6,8 858:6 860:18 869:23,23 870:18 875:1 875:21 877:9 878:4 882:4,23 884:9 885:6,8 892:6,17 893:23 896:13 905:1 909:5 915:2,4,10 918:6 921:14 922:12,15 925:15 926:9 927:12 932:9 943:5,9,11 947:8 947:23 948:8 949:7 950:17 951:11 954:14 956:22 957:25 958:3 963:10 965:3,22 966:17 966:20,21 967:7 970:15 970:22 973:6 985:19 993:5 997:22 1009:4,7 1009:16,17 1011:18 1023:11 1025:13 1027:24 1031:23 1033:21 1043:25 benefit 834:22 927:23 1009:14,18 1010:4,6,13 benefits 903:7,11 1009:22 1010:17,21 best 874:4 890:2 1035:6 1036:15 better 889:11 beyond 919:12 934:23 1005:5 big 1002:17 1013:13 1015:19 1026:10 1044:17 biggest 1041:23,23 bill 943:15 1025:15 1026:2,15 billable 916:23 billed 916:20 976:14,16 1025:25 billing 918:18 919:6 1025:13,14,21,23 bills 822:18 916:10 bind 949:5 1019:9 bioaccumulation 990:17 1036:19
biological 817:18 834:15 877:8 biologist 876:19 biologists 981:6 biology 877:12 998:4,20 biota 964:15 971:11 973:11 976:7 989:11,14 989:18 992:6 995:10 1036:13 birds 979:19 980:3,4,10 990:9 991:8 994:5 995:19 996:2,19 997:1 997:13,17,21,24,24 998:5 1021:22,23 bit 821:1 824:21 879:24 893:3 895:22 942:3 965:18 971:11 1023:3 1042:8,23 blank 840:24 blight 1042:23 blown 1043:9 Bob 1031:11 1032:14 1033:2 body 852:24 bold 842:2 bond 948:6 959:6 bonding 913:6 947:2,3,6 947:12,19 960:23,24 book 840:17 books 913:18,21 boom 835:3 boom-and-bust 903:12 born 1036:22 borrow 843:8 Bosworth 946:5 bothered 1045:13 bottom 944:15 945:21 1028:2 Bought 1039:25 Boulder 818:3 Boulevard 817:7 bound 1033:20 Box 817:13 break 886:10 889:15,16 889:22 944:4,24 945:2 1000:20 1030:10,22 brief 967:13 briefing 908:2 briefly 833:17 952:3 964:16 1025:9 briefs 945:18
bring 843:12 860:7 910:21 931:23 984:12 1003:5 1015:14 1019:23 1034:16,18,18 1038:7 1038:10 1042:4 1044:7 1044:10 bringing 903:13 Briskin 868:1 887:8 904:25 907:2 broad 827:12 833:23 904:4 971:3 broader 959:3 broadest 861:4 862:22 broadly 934:19 broken 982:9 brought 850:15,19 851:1 855:5 956:21,22 958:2 988:4,5 1006:8 1035:14 1043:6 brush 1045:7 build 937:16,18,19 1011:22 1018:25 1040:6 building 1011:21 1040:3 1040:6 buildings 821:7 built 937:19,20 945:25 1012:12 1037:5 1040:1 1040:3 1046:6 burden 860:12 Bureau 894:24 burn 1044:18,21,22 burned 1044:12,16 burning 1043:17 1045:11 burns 1044:11 burrow 988:22 business 930:14 1039:2 1043:3 1046:4 bust 835:3 butte 1041:14,14 C C 817:12 820:2 961:17 cabins 1041:1 cactus 982:4,6,17 cake 1045:7 caked 1044:8 calculate 960:22 1017:8 calculation 1022:16 call 831:11 870:3 912:5 913:5 916:19,20 1000:11 1015:13
1025:17,19 1031:21 called 833:16 838:2 892:17 912:6 1008:9 1039:3 calling 1026:8 calls 823:12 916:7 1003:22 cancer 1045:16 1046:1 candidate 984:7,18,20 985:1,3,4,22 986:1 candidates 984:11 Canon 839:8 capability 830:2 850:19 capacity 870:3 903:21 919:16 937:1,4 939:24 941:9,13 967:20,23 968:14 1036:4,8,9 capping 1018:21 capture 833:14 car 1029:22 care 858:24 867:1 915:20 960:22 961:6 1021:8,15 1038:2,3 carefully 845:25 Carl 1031:14 1038:25 1039:1,15 carry 938:5 1008:7 1037:14 1040:24 cars 1019:9 carting 1044:24 case 824:14 829:10 830:18 845:7 853:15 909:15 925:13 927:1 985:13 1031:18 1034:11 cases 872:12,13 881:18 922:5,5 931:13 1018:14 catastrophic 835:5 categories 859:3 869:7 869:21 870:19 category 1025:24 cattle 972:6 cause 903:4,19 945:19 1016:9 1017:23 causes 956:8 1016:13 CD 858:14 915:19 951:14 953:14,15 CDOT 1006:15 1007:18 1011:22 CDPHE 820:21 821:18 822:15 824:23 831:2 842:5 884:14 907:15
912:3 916:7 918:17 919:17,21 921:19,24 923:17 926:6 930:21 934:19,20 948:24 951:8 954:9 1022:13,13 1023:21 1024:1 1031:24 CDPHE's 920:20 949:5 956:8 959:5 Cecil 1043:5 cell 907:16,18 914:4,8 cells 988:18 997:10 Census 894:24 Center 817:10 central 1044:13 certain 875:8 899:16 922:5 934:3 971:6 1012:7 1018:2 1024:5 1033:11 1035:15 1036:9 certainly 859:16 910:23 925:11 944:22 983:8,20 984:16 985:17 certificate 1011:16 1047:4 certify 1047:6,9,14 certifying 841:14 cetera 837:5 987:10 1040:16,25 CFR 1029:9,10,11 chain 973:8,18 990:17 1036:16 Chamber 896:14 1009:8 chance 837:11 985:18 1015:21 change 826:12,14,25 852:23 886:15,15,17 903:14 911:23 932:13 933:24 936:25 937:3,5 940:5 956:17 986:17 988:10 1024:5,10 1036:24 changed 838:9,11 935:18 1001:22 1022:22,23 1042:16 changes 822:3 825:3,12 826:9,20,22 839:4 853:1 853:2,9,16 907:9 908:7 908:9 911:25 912:5,7,9 912:10,15,17,22,25 934:10 952:24 957:3,4,8 960:1,3 961:16 1001:21 1023:24 1024:1,2,5
1026:17,18,19,23 characterize 1015:1,6,22 charge 907:15,17 918:24 919:2 929:5,11 1010:10 1025:18 charged 919:5 chase 997:1 chased 997:14 chasing 997:21 cheap 932:23 check 935:24 1043:10 checked 1044:2 checklist 917:25 918:1 1012:20,22 Chemical 1008:4 chemicals 834:17 1019:6 chemistry 932:12,14 Chick 1014:20 chief 1043:5 choking 1043:17 choosing 900:9 Chris 872:2 877:13,25 883:15 1004:21 circumstances 830:7 citing 946:5 citizens 839:4,6 1034:2 citizen's 933:4 City 838:10 839:8 claim 877:12 clarification 823:14 891:12 943:8 959:2 970:3 977:3 clarify 889:24 969:25 Clark 872:1 cleanup 821:9 clean-up 826:17 clean-ups 835:7 1035:2 clear 841:3 857:17 858:25 872:19 880:14 887:20 904:14 914:24 935:13 938:12 945:16 1013:6 clearing 1039:20 1046:6 clearly 941:7 clientele 1041:11 clients 876:7 cliffs 1039:22 Climax 1044:25 climbed 1039:20 climbing 1046:5 Clinic 892:24 close 840:9 1003:14,16
1008:24 closed 920:14 948:1 closely 846:19 closer 1038:24 cloud 1043:16,25 clue 988:15 coal 1019:2,3 Coalition 817:18 coffee 844:24 cold 1025:18 collect 823:13 837:4,21 894:10,14 909:12 995:1 collected 885:14 973:25 974:21 975:2,9 collection 972:9 Colorado 816:17,19 817:4,7,11,13,17,18,21 817:22 818:3 839:4,6 860:13 870:21 873:11 920:4,11 921:15 924:14 950:25 954:17 955:22 956:13 958:12 961:13 961:15,16 962:18,22 972:9 982:6,17 1028:3,8 1029:5 1042:9 1047:1,8 1047:23 Colorado's 949:25 956:13 957:17 960:24 come 823:3,14 825:19 832:12 837:18 838:7 889:19 903:11 910:19 925:19 932:13 937:21 938:7,14 939:5,19,20 947:1 956:23 964:22 965:12 1000:19 1013:5 1018:10 1030:14 1031:25 1037:11 1038:13 comes 838:8 907:20 931:10 986:1 1035:15 1041:15 coming 836:20 849:23 928:3,23 932:7 957:7 989:2 1001:7,10 1002:1 1003:11 1007:3,6,7,8,14 1019:25 1026:1 1030:17 1034:16 1042:12 1046:3 comment 827:5,7 855:5 874:6 934:14 953:2 960:20 991:21 1030:6,9 1030:15 1031:18
1032:21 1033:1 1038:20 commented 1002:13 comments 819:3 837:6 852:12 853:19 870:10 870:13 885:3 894:20 897:13 900:3 953:1,3,8 953:15,17,18 957:8 973:11 974:3 993:11,11 1002:11 1011:25 1019:22 1031:6,6 1032:24 Commerce 896:14 1009:8 commission 953:2,8 1047:20 commissioner 837:19 commissioners 828:8 837:17,25 common 824:25 communicate 827:13 845:6 communicated 827:15 827:19 828:5,6,8 832:16 844:13 845:2 971:7 communication 823:9 824:16 827:25 836:4 894:16 976:23 communications 817:6 824:3 869:19 875:18 892:22 971:5,15 communities 949:13 community 839:13 893:11 897:21 898:2,3,9 900:20 902:10 903:13 1038:8 community's 897:25 company 945:25 compare 1013:4 compatibility 961:17 1027:7,8,10 1028:11 compatible 902:3 1027:9 compensate 1035:18 competing 899:21 competition 1001:5 compiled 883:9 1033:17 compiling 849:7 complete 822:11 823:23 823:24 907:23 962:18 962:21 1004:13 completed 826:17 977:1 completely 934:6 990:6
990:25 1013:19 completeness 822:9,14 823:21 836:25 complex 1041:18 1042:22 compliance 830:14 complicated 825:8 comply 822:5 823:5 component 886:7 905:9 components 902:2 968:9 composition 878:1 comprehensive 1006:9 computer 838:24 conceivably 997:12 concentrated 1006:3 1034:24 conceptual 952:23 concern 834:12 920:24 921:1 956:8 958:18 concerned 956:12 1028:14 concerning 843:14 853:19 891:22 896:9 919:16 922:21 929:6,14 943:4 945:21 946:19,23 concerns 834:24 836:14 892:8 893:23 895:19 900:11 956:10 958:6,7 958:11,12,15 959:9 971:6 994:4 1020:5 concerted 1017:20 conclude 909:4 concluded 902:3 concludes 980:6 conclusion 831:6 912:1 977:23 980:9 999:21 1005:13 conclusions 885:13 concurrently 864:21,23 condition 913:22 948:6 1024:11 conditions 834:21 835:5 1012:12 1014:23 1015:10 1017:22 1022:8 conduct 866:12 conducted 866:7 894:10 896:8,9,13 897:2,6 982:13,20 989:17,18 conducting 874:1 899:25 900:5 942:9 946:4 confer 872:15,23
conferring 1023:15 confess 840:9 confirm 856:20 905:18 confirmed 1032:7 conflicting 900:24 conflicts 1028:10,16 conformance 866:4 confused 887:20 903:25 908:14 979:24 confusing 868:15 1011:9 confusion 889:24 945:19 congestion 1007:18 cons 970:18 consequently 845:8 886:3 consider 824:18 896:21 896:25 902:16 931:17 931:19 936:14 946:4 1002:6 considerable 883:25 consideration 827:10 910:25 911:8 941:10 978:2 considered 906:12 947:21 986:4 considering 941:18 consistent 979:13 1002:24,25 1003:2 consistently 1003:18 constitutes 1047:12 constructed 939:20 947:25 construction 937:4,11,22 938:14,15 1011:8 1012:6,8,13 1013:9 1022:7 1024:13 consult 1004:17 1006:12 1020:20 consultant 857:6 993:7 998:3 consultants 857:2,8,10 875:9 995:6 1017:20 consulted 1006:16 1020:22,25 contact 822:21 877:14,16 contacted 822:25 876:8 942:7,10,12 943:3 contacts 1025:20 contained 974:7 996:2 container 1044:13 contains 831:2 893:5
953:3 contamination 835:3 content 862:18 context 861:23 898:20 900:25 907:4 910:9 959:19 1002:8 1009:17 contingent 1040:17 continue 1038:13 continued 818:1 continuing 889:11 continuity 945:11 contract 830:21 contractor 821:3 1039:5 contractors 1003:5 contrary 957:22 contrast 984:13 contributed 870:17 905:12 contributor 942:14 control 828:21,22 829:19 830:2,5,8,11,24,24 838:8 841:23 842:21 866:21 875:10 880:13 881:12 882:24 885:21 886:1,17 887:9 888:17 940:9,11,13,21 941:10 941:17 942:24 957:4 1001:22 1013:12 1023:19 controlled 946:1 controls 881:13 886:18 887:4,4,22,24 889:4 convene 1017:25 1020:15 convenient 951:22 conversation 936:6,6,9 979:12 1031:23 conversations 941:8 971:2 977:15 1007:17 cool 1041:7 cooling 1040:22 coordinated 1014:18 copies 836:19 926:15 951:15,19 copy 835:12 838:17 840:23 844:2,20 848:1 850:7,8 860:7,19 874:24 884:23 885:16,19 925:16 926:22 927:7,21 927:23 928:13,21,22 947:3
core 919:24 corner 921:23 952:17 1037:22 correct 829:16 830:15 835:23 841:1 844:9,10 847:15,16 850:1,8 853:13 854:6 855:24,25 856:1,2,12,17,18 858:3 858:5 859:24 861:6,8 862:24 863:8 865:8,9 867:23,25 869:14 870:8 870:17 871:12 872:7,11 872:12 875:3,6,12,16 877:15,19 878:7 881:4 882:20,21 883:5,18,19 883:22 885:18 886:8,9 886:15 888:4,5,7 889:1 889:6 893:17 895:2,7,9 895:10,12,13,16 896:5 896:11 897:3,8,13 898:4 898:5,7,21,22 899:10,13 899:22 900:1,6 901:2,10 901:14,25 902:22 904:6 904:12,16,19,20 905:2 905:16,20 906:6 907:20 908:5,6 910:14 912:22 913:1,2,4,14,19,24 914:6,7,10,14,15,18,19 917:14,15 918:19,20,22 918:25 919:1 920:4,5,7 920:17,18 921:12 923:4 923:8 928:16 929:7,18 929:23 930:1,7,8,22 931:5,15,16 932:4,5,22 933:2 934:6,15 935:4 936:20,25 937:17 939:21 941:23 946:12 946:13 947:22 948:2,7,8 949:13,17,22,25 951:1 952:19 955:19,23 957:18,19,23 959:10,14 959:18,20 960:24,25 961:19 962:3,13,14,16 962:19 963:6,7,11 966:9 966:13,16 967:1,4,16 968:5 973:16,17 974:13 974:22 975:14 978:8 980:9,11,12 982:13,21 983:4,14 985:18 988:25 991:10,12,24,25 992:7,8 992:22 993:8 997:7,18
997:22 998:2,7,10 999:14 1002:4,14 1003:15 1005:2,3,17 1014:12 1016:11 1020:17,24 1047:12 corrected 963:6 correcting 870:11 950:17 958:22 correction 891:7 correctly 846:13 correlation 1046:2 correspond 963:18 correspondent 953:3 cost 826:25 834:22 918:18 948:5 949:21 961:7 976:13 1009:14 1009:18 1010:4,6,13,17 1010:21 1017:8,25 1037:24 costs 826:22 870:9 1009:23 1037:25 Cotter 839:7,10,18 895:20,25 896:3 915:8 977:16 Cotter/Canon 838:10 cottontail 972:6,12 couched 861:18 Council 892:17 councils 828:9 counsel 840:15 928:11 951:15 962:1 964:10,15 973:10,12 984:16,23 985:17 1047:15 country 1002:20 1041:12 countryside 1042:23 county 828:6,8,10 834:8 834:10 836:12 837:17 837:19,25 870:4 892:6,7 893:25 894:5,12,12,13 896:16 903:5 948:11 1006:12 1008:19,20,23 1008:23 1009:3 1011:15 1011:21 1047:2 couple 835:19 886:12 898:24 947:1 1003:12 1021:20 1023:4 1026:13 1030:13,20 course 828:19 1021:12 court 820:3,11,19 831:7 831:10,20 835:14 838:15,19,23 840:7,12
840:16,21 841:2,7 843:7 843:19,24 844:3,25 855:8 858:12,15,20 859:4,10,14,18 860:1,5 860:9,10,12,19 861:13 865:12,13,24 868:21 873:6 874:10 879:23 880:23 882:1 886:10 889:18 897:5,17 908:16 908:19,22 909:2,8,25 910:6,17 912:2 915:7,9 915:12,17,20,23 916:3,6 916:11,13,16 917:1,6,9 917:19,21 919:19 925:5 925:19,21 926:20 927:6 927:9,16 928:8,12,15,17 928:21,24 929:3 933:7 933:16,19,22,25 934:18 943:19,21,25 944:4,8,16 944:24,25 945:4,15 946:8 951:17,20,24 952:14,18,20 953:11,15 953:18,21 954:18 955:15,17 962:4 963:15 963:23 964:3,6,17 965:14 973:14 974:5,8 977:11 979:4,9,15 985:15 986:10 999:2,4 999:10,20 1000:2,10,14 1000:18,22 1003:2 1015:20 1016:7,16 1021:6,10,14 1025:8 1027:15,17 1028:21 1029:20,21 1030:1,8,18 1030:24 1031:2,11,14 1031:17 1032:13,18,20 1032:22 1033:4 1038:19 1038:23 1046:12 courtesy 829:5 Court's 865:22 cover 961:7 covered 1029:17 covers 929:20 cows 972:13 crank 1044:20 crawl 1037:7 create 932:15 1040:15 created 972:19 991:24 1040:19 creates 1044:14 creating 961:6
creation 998:16 criteria 912:21,24 1026:18,20 criterion 961:8 cross 831:13,15 835:13 859:17 933:20 1021:12 cross-examination 819:7,8,8 839:1 910:20 911:24 934:3,14 937:7 954:7 964:7 965:16 1000:19 1001:1 1025:12 cross-examine 934:23 crowd 1039:7 crunch 903:19 crusted 1015:10 1016:3 cumulative 835:2 939:10 939:12 946:5 965:21,22 966:6 1005:25 curious 1023:7 current 821:17 932:24 currently 920:10 955:21 980:2 1024:17 curtail 830:10 Curtis 817:5 customer 1042:1 customers 1041:23 1045:1 cut 878:10 1015:4 1037:22 cut-and-paste 947:16 CV 895:11 cycles 835:4 D D 817:3 819:1 820:2 dad 1041:22 1042:25 1045:5,13,16 daily 983:4,9,23 984:4,14 997:10 damn 1008:24 Dan 870:6 Dana 816:15 907:25 Dana's 947:5 dangers 835:9 DANIELS 817:2 data 883:10 885:14 894:3 895:9 902:19 904:8 989:11 database 916:23 databases 894:24 date 840:19 849:25
855:25 856:1,3 866:2,6 923:17 924:19 952:14 952:15 958:4 985:6 dated 925:24 961:20,23 973:16 974:12 1027:20 dates 1001:19,22 day 829:3 838:4 916:14 923:12 926:10,23 927:7 936:24 938:22 939:1,7 939:11,17,18,18,19 940:3,14 941:2,5,15 967:25 968:4,8,10,14,15 968:23 969:5,7 997:6,6 997:13,17,21 1006:25 1021:25 1022:1 1035:20 1036:3,4 1039:13 1040:23 1047:19 days 822:10 836:24 837:1 837:10 856:2 930:7 1003:12 1018:13 1041:5 1042:10,14 1045:6 de 912:15 deadline 923:22 deal 820:5 934:20 995:3 dealing 838:20 964:13,15 deals 821:11 dealt 828:20 decades 1035:1 December 986:11 decide 838:16 914:17 921:20,25 1024:24 decided 910:20 935:18 1039:6 decision 831:3 836:22 853:11 855:20 864:8,9 864:10,13,18,22 865:1,5 865:6,6 886:4,5,24 887:3,17,18 902:21,24 907:10,12,19,24 908:1,4 909:19,24 910:14 921:19 934:12 935:9,9 935:15 947:15 948:3 949:6 959:25 986:3 1011:16,17 1024:16,21 decisions 851:6 922:4 declaration 836:24 declared 985:24 decreased 826:18 dedicated 893:13 919:25 920:3 deer 972:6,10
defensibility 973:21 974:18 defensible 976:25 977:8 deficiencies 949:24 950:4,15,18,19,21,24 951:3 963:5 1027:1 define 912:19 defined 955:22 1013:7 1016:12 1017:11 1029:9 defines 955:17 defining 980:25 1016:8 definite 932:2 934:4 938:14 definitely 954:12 definition 882:6 955:21 956:12,18 957:17,20,21 1016:22,25 1017:1 1028:9 1029:6,13 1034:6 definitions 1016:20 1017:5 Definitive 859:5 definitively 922:16 degree 875:19 900:19 degrees 1044:21 delegate 922:4 delegated 922:3 delete 1028:4,8 1029:5 DelPiccolo 845:18 872:1 875:14 demographer 892:2 demonstrated 1024:8 denied 865:15 913:9,11 dense 1015:4 Denver 817:4,17,21 821:5,6 918:11 1034:17 deny 913:18 department 817:22 820:24 821:18 822:21 823:10,10,19 824:12,17 825:17 826:1 827:15,16 827:16 828:20 830:24 831:23 839:18 844:13 844:18 845:1 849:9 855:2 861:18,23 892:5 892:25 909:9 920:23,25 941:25 942:7,9,12,13 943:3,13 952:23 961:12 961:13 973:2,4 977:15 982:16 983:12 1005:22 1010:10 1019:18,19
1032:8 Department's 835:21 840:6,8,10 depend 942:16 1002:5 1038:5 depending 850:23 907:7 1024:9,18 depends 853:21 983:24 998:24 1024:4 deposition 874:3,22 877:18 878:1,19 879:2,5 879:14 881:15 884:1,6 888:9,13 889:5 1004:18 describe 821:22 823:18 827:9 832:5 836:4 841:21 842:23 870:4 873:21 917:12 922:23 924:6 described 854:5 897:14 897:20 899:20 930:23 948:20 1012:5 describing 921:4 969:12 description 842:18 1001:18,24 1013:7 1023:16 descriptor 916:25 desert 1015:14,17,17,24 1015:24 design 828:25 834:2 835:5 886:2,6,14 887:11 898:23 904:23 905:12 905:25 906:3,6,11,13 907:10,18 908:3,4,12 912:22 939:24 971:18 979:23 1010:3 1026:18 1026:19 1035:10,11,13 1035:25 designated 921:20,24 designation 849:2 922:3 1011:16 designed 938:25 968:7 968:14,22 1035:20 1040:10 designing 905:7 907:16 designs 907:7 desire 1033:9 desk 856:12 despite 865:11 detail 834:18 907:8 992:6 detailed 911:14 details 908:1 987:24
988:2,3 detection 955:23 determination 822:10 959:5 1010:3 1016:1 determine 832:9,17 834:1,5 856:14 894:17 905:15 934:9 940:7 949:15 1021:15 1022:23 determined 823:23 830:4 899:14 943:12 1022:13 determining 823:24 develop 862:9,12,14 909:22 1026:10 1038:8 developed 836:16 845:4 852:1 881:18 development 821:23 825:1 853:10 864:8 952:12 994:9,12,16,18 998:22 1038:15 die 1036:23 died 1045:16 diet 975:1 difference 842:13 982:1 1026:8 differences 981:23 different 842:10 845:5 846:21 850:20 867:10 867:11 881:18 894:17 901:9 910:9,9 919:24,24 933:25 939:25 960:6 967:24 970:14,18,22 979:12 981:7,9,11,13 994:25 1012:4 differently 980:16 difficult 925:23 964:1 difficulty 837:9 digest 837:10 dipped 1044:15 direct 819:6,7 820:15 823:7 831:15,24 839:19 842:19 843:23 859:17 860:17 902:7 919:13 954:11 1027:21 directed 943:5 1002:19 directing 907:9 direction 873:25 directly 871:3 872:4,14 874:14 894:1,7 919:18 924:5 941:22 978:23 993:23
director 817:6 892:6 942:21 directs 1002:2 disagree 909:16 1034:7 disapproval 921:5 disassemble 1044:11 discard 900:10 discarding 900:9 disclosed 915:1 disclosure 915:5 977:14 977:17 disconnects 838:20 discounting 990:12 discovered 1039:8 1040:2 1045:25 discovery 840:11 842:11 842:18 843:6 857:23 858:1 859:3 874:1,2,8 922:13 947:4 954:19 964:14 965:6 discuss 908:1 911:20 970:5,18 1014:20 1038:13 discussed 824:16 835:6 853:18 889:21,22 926:6 929:9 1031:25 1036:14 discussing 928:20 957:22,24 972:4 984:11 discussion 828:18 852:18 892:4,13 926:9 936:1 965:22 966:6,21 967:5,12 981:8 982:5 997:23 1010:18 1012:2 1014:9 1021:21 discussions 839:17 923:6 957:2 dismissal 979:23 disperse 1037:8 dispersion 1007:2 1014:14 displayed 974:14 dispositive 927:10 distance 1046:10 distracted 1033:6 distributed 840:15 1009:5 district 855:7 865:22 892:23 Diversity 817:18 divided 832:13 division 826:1 827:15
828:21,23 830:25 845:16 863:6 867:5 868:6 869:2,9 870:16 871:4,17 875:23 878:21 879:7 880:8,13 881:2 882:24 888:17 940:9,12 940:14,22 941:10,17 942:21,22,23,24 971:4,7 972:10 983:17 987:8,18 993:14 1013:12 1020:6 divisions 919:5 doctorate 998:3,20 document 827:21 840:25 841:15 844:15,20 845:6 846:6 847:4,18 850:4 851:13 853:9 855:23 857:14 862:15 864:1 866:9 867:25 872:13,14 880:1 883:2,12,13 889:23 897:14,20,21 915:14 917:7,24 924:1,6 924:19 925:8,9,16 926:2 926:19,20 927:13,14,17 928:6,9,9,10,15 944:7 948:21 952:2,6 953:10 953:13 960:15 964:14 964:14 965:20 966:22 973:11 984:11 985:14 985:15 992:2 993:10,14 993:16,16 1009:7,11 1019:21 1023:10 1027:22 1028:13 1032:1 documented 873:19 documents 824:14,15 832:22,23,24 836:8,8 844:8,11 845:23 854:12 854:14,16,17,18,25 855:4,6 857:9 862:11,13 864:20 873:15,18 875:20,22,23 877:22,23 878:15 879:22 883:14 888:18 893:6 899:15 905:21 918:4 921:2,4 925:14 926:12,14 927:20 936:8 941:21 951:12 953:12,25 962:12,15 964:10,12,20 965:4 973:13 984:15 991:20 993:20 995:15 995:17 998:10 1002:12 1004:15 1032:4,8,11
DOE's 945:23 dogs 988:17,21 989:7,15 989:20 doing 825:7 877:2 888:25 911:14 935:7,11,12 936:16 939:5,8 940:4,12 940:18 956:20 979:14 989:11 994:9 1011:2 1013:12 1045:25 dollar 1017:10,11 1018:2 dollars 1037:20,22 Dolores 978:2,22 1042:11 Dorita 920:22 921:6 dose 864:1 880:7 881:4,4 881:11 1018:1,2 doubt 862:9 936:10 downstream 1014:17 1037:16 dozens 1045:3 Dr 885:4,12,15 892:21 894:5,22 899:15 902:6 902:15 903:16 963:17 972:4,20 999:6 1000:19 1000:24 1001:2 1003:8 1004:14,16,24 1005:4 1007:12,13 1015:20,22 1016:7,11,18 1023:4 1045:20 draft 823:4 836:9 847:14 848:1 850:3,7,18,21,22 851:12,21 863:15,16 868:2,4 869:3 873:1 885:16 901:17 904:11 drafted 851:20 864:23 865:4 889:21 899:1 drafters 875:11 drafting 842:7 847:8,19 847:25 848:14 849:6 867:5 887:23 drafts 863:12 draws 1041:13 drift 1043:14,15,23 1045:23 drill 1043:23 drop 1016:14,16 drove 1042:11 dry 980:24 1015:3,11 1018:18 ducks 996:3 due 991:5
duly 820:9 duplications 1028:10,14 1028:15 durability 1035:24 Durango 817:11 1040:20 1040:23 dust 830:2,5,8,11 874:22 875:2 877:18,21 878:1,2 878:19 879:2,5,14 880:18 881:3,11,12,15 883:8,9,11,18,25 885:21 886:1,7,15,16 887:9 888:9,13 889:4 1004:19 1008:2,6 1019:4 1043:15,16,25 1044:8 1045:8,22 dusting 1018:23 duties 946:12,14 E E 819:1 820:2,2 earlier 824:7 878:25 907:12 927:9 956:24 958:23 975:19 1010:19 early 855:20 958:3 1018:13 1020:22,25 1023:9 easier 975:13 easily 873:22 893:9 900:16 East 986:25 988:7 east/southeast 1039:21 easy 925:9 ecology 992:6 economic 834:3,14,20 891:14 892:2,8,12,17 893:23 895:9,15,19 896:22 899:6,15 900:16 901:13 903:16 930:17 economics 895:18 898:25 902:6 economists 1011:2 Edgar 848:25 852:5 881:23 886:22 890:9,16 905:9 920:1 Edge 893:21 998:3 editing 855:22 867:12 editorial 853:1,2,9 867:10 education 821:16 895:18 effect 945:23 987:3,5
989:2,6 1007:13 1019:13 effective 970:23 1024:19 1024:20 effectiveness 969:21 970:8,12 987:13,15 997:20 effects 823:1 834:16 966:9,10 967:24 968:4 991:7 996:18 998:5 1005:25 1045:22 efficacy 897:8 971:20 efficiencies 950:2,3 efficiency 1035:23 efficient 831:15 952:1 effort 855:13 856:11 972:11 988:13 1017:20 Egidi 818:7 848:24 869:5 880:7,17 881:3,23,23 882:5 886:1,21 887:7 888:2 889:7 891:1 905:8 947:13 973:6,9 974:12 976:12 1030:17 1031:10 1032:4,7,10 Egidi's 976:19 1032:6 EIA 827:18 841:24 842:6 842:7,16,22 843:2,15 844:12 846:25 847:8,12 847:14,17,21 848:1,15 848:18,19,22,23 849:3 850:7,8,9,10,15,18,19 851:2,4,6,23,24 852:6 852:13,14,22,24 853:12 853:14 854:1,2,6,10 855:9,16,17 856:5,19,24 857:3,13,25 859:2 862:3 862:9 863:7,11,12,15,16 863:19,21,22 864:3,5,11 864:15,16 865:11 866:3 866:6,8,12,13,21,22 867:6,17 868:2,5,8,10 869:3,14 870:5,17,25 871:7,12,14 872:7,11,14 872:16,24 873:1 874:6 875:5,6,16 876:14 877:19 878:7,8,13,24 880:19 881:17,24 882:5 882:11,14,19 883:1,2 885:16,19,22 886:20,23 887:1,3,5,16,23,25 888:3,6,10 889:5,21,25
890:6,14,22 891:18,22 893:17 896:10 898:24 900:23 903:6 904:24 905:3 906:1 914:13 922:18 923:16,17 926:14 927:20,21,23 928:6 929:11,20 930:20 931:24 932:6 934:6 935:3 938:8,9,20 946:3 946:18,22 947:7,9,11 955:25 958:16,22,24 959:1,13,20 967:8,9 968:3 970:7 977:20 979:21 980:6,10 982:1 982:12,20,24 986:4,6,22 987:15 988:16,21 989:25 991:3,7,24 992:1 992:4,22 995:9,14 996:22,24 998:12,18,23 999:14,15 1000:1,3 1004:10 1007:15 1008:13 1009:23 1010:20 1015:16 1023:7 1023:16 1036:7 EIAs 938:4 EIS 877:7 898:17,20 946:3 EISes 877:5 either 840:13 847:10 856:17 870:1 875:22 876:13 877:20 883:3 892:15 913:17 964:20 988:8 1024:12 1034:6 1044:8 elected 828:6 1031:7 electric 1041:22 1043:2 electrical 838:20 electrician 1043:5 electricity 1040:22 electromagnetic 1044:14 electronic 860:10,14 electronically 840:16 852:17 860:8 928:25 Elizabeth 816:17 871:25 892:2 1047:6,22 else's 876:3 embark 1040:23 emergency 892:24 emissions 946:15 1006:23 1014:11 employ 857:9
employed 857:2 977:14 1047:14 employee 1032:7 employees 861:5,16,19 861:23,24 862:1 926:6 employment 892:20,21 902:8,11,12 903:1,2 EMS 1033:5 enclosed 1045:10 encompassed 902:18 encouraged 856:8 encyclopedic 901:2 endangered 964:13 983:1 986:14,19 ended 833:18,21 Energy 816:6 817:5,8,10 820:18 821:18,23,25 823:18,19 824:11,22 827:8 829:4,7 830:7,17 831:1 832:2,7 834:7 835:8 836:25 845:4,23 846:22 847:10,18,21 857:7 866:17 870:11,13 875:9 891:24 893:21 906:25 909:20,24 911:1 911:9,19 915:4 919:13 920:23,25 921:20,25 923:7 924:9 926:1 929:22 930:1,13 931:14 931:19 933:11 934:3 935:17 936:2,11,13 938:24 942:8,9,13 943:4 948:11 949:20 950:25 954:6 956:2 961:13 966:1 968:18 970:25 971:5,25 972:2 976:12 979:1 982:13,19 989:10 991:12,19 992:5,8,12 993:25 994:1 995:23 996:13 998:16 999:13 1003:14 1004:13 1010:2 1010:7,16,23 1011:8 1012:6,9 1022:12 1025:15 1033:20 1037:18 1038:15 Energy's 942:1 943:13 engaged 1021:3 engineer 895:12 engineering 1035:21 engineer's 895:15 English 860:25
enjoy 1041:8 ensure 855:13 866:4,13 866:22,23 enter 840:14 919:11 975:13 990:20 991:4 entered 840:5,14 948:11 entire 836:22 867:25 898:3 912:13 914:25 1036:23 entities 832:22 833:12 834:25 841:22 842:20 946:1 entitled 816:14 entity 829:8 1013:24 entrance 1006:6 1043:13 environment 817:23 831:23 834:2 948:17 967:24 980:11 981:18 1010:11 1026:21 1034:25 1036:17 1038:2 1042:9 environmental 817:18 829:12 832:3,8,11 833:13,17 834:8,13,14 834:25 835:8,20 844:6,7 846:5,7,15,17,20 849:11 849:17 857:6,7,8,18 864:23 865:2,3 870:25 874:20 875:2 876:1 878:22 881:6 891:23 893:14,21 895:24 896:2 896:4 899:2 903:9 904:1 905:13 924:9,23 925:25 929:21 934:10 935:14 937:23 938:2 939:1,4,8 939:9 941:22 943:14 946:11,19,23 965:19,20 965:25,25 966:7,10,12 966:22,24 967:2,18 968:6,12 969:20 970:3,5 980:13,18 991:12,19 992:2,5,9,11,12,12 993:6,12,24 994:1 998:3 998:13,17 999:17 1000:4,7 1009:18 1010:17 1012:1 1013:1 1014:4 1024:25 1025:5 1033:8 Environment's 978:7 EPA 821:4 828:19 1011:18 1033:18,21
equal 903:10 equals 903:7 equipment 825:11 939:25 ER 1004:13 erosion 1015:5 1018:22 Error 918:2 errors 870:11,14 especially 1019:3 Esq 817:2,3,5,9,12,15,20 essential 961:9 essentially 830:13 establish 926:25 established 998:12 estimate 1006:20,23,24 1022:22,24,25 estimated 826:23 et 837:5 987:9 1040:16,25 Ethington 848:25 852:5 852:7 854:5 882:4 886:22 887:7 888:21 889:6 890:9,16,17,22 905:9 Ethington's 852:11,15 853:3 920:1 ethnographic 895:2,3,6 evaluate 833:4 849:11 903:3 912:12 935:5 970:9,11 980:18 993:1 1010:21 evaluated 830:3 880:12 940:1 945:24 986:21 992:23 1026:24 evaluates 1027:6 evaluating 834:11 849:15 900:22 935:6,9 952:24 evaluation 909:14 940:3 evaporation 979:25 988:18 989:25 996:2 event 1017:7,9,10 events 1017:22 eventually 1016:16 everybody 856:8 928:25 929:2 938:22 962:2 964:7 1031:2 1038:2 everybody's 856:13 963:18 evidence 858:10 909:3,9 915:14 927:13 929:12 1035:14,18
evidenced 874:6 evolve 1035:13 evolving 1035:11 exact 1027:10 exactly 881:7 948:18 959:8 963:2 983:18 991:1 examination 819:6,7,9,9 820:15 831:24 919:13 946:7 954:11 1021:18 1025:10 examined 820:9 example 826:13 845:1 851:15 853:22 855:4 871:4 900:13 902:5,15 909:15 916:8 917:25 935:1 971:2,4 992:4 1018:1,12 exceed 1022:18 excellent 1038:9 exceptions 869:16 excerpted 869:13 exchanged 953:6 exchanges 875:18 951:5 excited 1039:12 excuse 830:25 870:25 1008:24 1012:2 exercise 859:22 916:8 exhaust 1045:12 exhibit 819:13,14,15,16 840:7,8,9 841:3 858:19 860:18 915:7 917:20 918:1 925:2 943:5,6,19 944:12 945:16 953:9,23 954:5 960:10 961:23 964:24 1025:14 1027:19 exhibits 819:12 840:17 exist 903:21 1022:9 expand 909:24 939:6 1036:4 1038:11 expanded 887:14 918:1 expanding 1036:1 expansion 968:23 expect 824:22 985:25 995:7 expected 981:20 expects 958:1 experience 821:2 851:7 859:21 876:18,21,24,25 877:2 898:19 1043:12 experiences 851:9
expert 883:21 902:23 970:22 976:24 977:3 980:25 995:6 1002:22 1004:18 expertise 827:14 832:14 850:15 859:2 875:12 877:11,12 883:17 884:4 908:23 934:23 1004:7 experts 855:4 899:24 902:22 1002:16,18 1003:4 1016:4 1017:13 1017:20,25 1019:21 expires 1047:20 explain 822:5 823:14 842:13 851:14 868:17 895:11 906:14 907:5 921:9 952:6 984:21 explaining 839:24 994:4 explicit 1027:10 explicitly 933:11 exposed 997:1 exposure 879:4 895:22 995:11,25 996:16 express 958:11 1038:15 expressed 920:24 921:1 921:5 936:11 958:14 974:17 expressing 897:12 extended 968:14 extensively 991:11 extent 831:6 843:19 871:2 875:6 892:3 954:22 975:24 978:25 998:25 external 853:22 855:1 extra 939:24 extracted 848:18 853:23 864:10,17 871:3,7 873:16,17 887:5 extraordinary 874:3 extremely 1016:2 eye 1042:8 eyes 1043:17 e-mail 824:4 836:17 870:2 951:16 953:14 962:2 965:5,9 973:5,8 973:12,18 974:7,11,17 976:11,19 e-mails 823:13 836:19 855:9 875:19 962:5 994:3,7
F face 932:24 facilities 825:6,22 826:16 1013:16 1018:7 facility 823:2 824:25 825:8 826:4,13 829:21 829:23,25 832:12,18 834:1,17 886:2,6 910:11 910:23 932:8 957:16 961:1,2 1007:3,6 1009:23 1019:1 1022:1 1026:18 fact 830:17 888:25 903:3 909:4 933:14 943:12 954:10 976:16 986:5,8 997:9 1001:7 1014:21 1039:2 factors 1022:23 FAEGRE 817:2 fail 990:19 failed 988:24 failure 991:5,9 fair 837:11 892:11 894:6 965:24 975:25 976:4,23 983:11 990:24 993:16 999:6 1022:8 Falco 872:1 falls 913:4 familiar 924:1 948:10 952:4 956:4 968:17 971:12 972:15,21,23 978:9 984:7 994:6 995:15,20 1008:12 1017:5 1019:2 familiarity 918:12 family 1039:5 1040:1 fan 1044:1 1045:12 fans 1043:8 far 843:3 881:5 887:22 888:22 889:21 890:6 895:15 898:23 904:23 913:3 923:16 975:8 976:4 980:13 982:16 996:9,12,18 997:5 1003:20 1011:12 1013:19 1014:10 1031:25 1033:8 1036:12 Farris 820:13 farther 958:6,7 964:2 fast 954:18 fatalities 997:24
feasibility 821:4 February 837:16,19 federal 841:22 842:8,14 860:9 920:19 921:11 941:21 943:14 964:12 964:21 983:21 1002:14 1033:17 fee 1025:24 1041:2 feed 835:3 930:14,18 932:7,10 934:5 935:19 936:2 feedback 823:4 993:17 993:18,21 feeds 933:13 934:25 936:12 feel 931:24 1005:24 feeling 998:4 feelings 979:11 feet 1043:16 1044:18,18 fell 1039:8 fellow 1043:23 1045:23 felt 837:10 910:22 949:14 974:24 981:7 1042:25 fence 988:22 field 883:22,25 993:10 1002:18 fields 896:22 897:24 1044:14 figure 856:11 1026:9 1030:11 1032:23 figured 868:16 Filas 818:7 829:3 929:25 933:10,17,20 978:11 979:6 982:5 994:4,8 Filas's 930:3 file 854:18,21,23 855:5 855:10,12 856:9,11,15 873:20,21 874:8,25 893:5,10,13 905:11,14 905:18,22 918:9,12,14 918:15 925:15 1005:19 filed 823:20 824:15 840:21 files 856:13 863:14 871:9 final 830:23 835:19 853:11 855:22 901:18 904:11,18 905:25 906:3 906:7,13 1005:20,24 finalize 855:17 finalized 847:22 855:16 855:18,19 856:5 864:18
864:21 866:6 885:20 finally 845:5 1039:10 financial 825:25 826:3,6 826:10,14,17 835:8 958:19 959:14 1022:11 1022:12,16,17,18,21 1023:1 find 844:17 845:2 873:10 874:7 886:13 906:13 929:16 935:2 944:5,6 962:10 975:22 1003:6 1006:19 1015:17 1039:6 1039:11 finding 909:4 1006:21 1011:9 findings 910:1 fine 835:15 868:20 951:23 953:22 972:16 972:17 976:10 995:24 1000:2 finish 831:10 880:25 898:25 928:1 945:5,7,10 finished 889:20 908:12 933:16 938:17 fire 1033:5 first 817:20 820:9 836:25 838:16 840:4 863:9 869:7,20 906:16 915:10 917:25 945:4 951:12 952:2 954:6 957:1 1021:9,14 1029:7 1032:24 1041:17 1046:4 1046:5 Fish 983:13,21 984:2,7 985:23 986:9 fit 867:13 909:9 1001:19 fits 909:11 964:7 five 825:21 826:21 878:24 881:22 1030:21 1043:16 1044:17 five-minute 1030:10 fixed 988:6 Flats 821:9 flood 1018:14 floor 817:21 1032:13 flow 1037:15 flowchart 1001:13,17 flowed 867:13 flowing 1003:21 fluctuated 1006:22 fly 991:4,8 1019:10
focus 864:5 971:23 focused 890:1 893:22 954:23 969:16 folks 843:9 859:18 926:20 945:19 964:20 964:23 965:10,11 1037:5 1041:3 follow 885:3 911:6 916:17 followed 1043:18 following 880:16 follows 820:10 842:5 909:18 1032:21 food 990:17 1036:16 1040:25 footnote 944:16 footprint 1015:8 footprints 1015:13 foreclosure 920:13 foregoing 1047:12 foreseeable 969:4 forget 912:6 1011:18 1023:9 form 896:21 917:13 1047:11 formal 823:15 824:7,9 827:7,24 849:2 895:5 896:6 906:12 922:2 formed 1029:12 forth 855:5 859:21 864:25 908:15 1001:10 1003:22,22 1017:18 1019:20 1047:10 forward 845:24 913:1 935:19,19 938:5 973:11 1043:12 found 851:22 944:7 977:9 1044:2 foundation 925:2,4 979:2 four 824:9 840:17 858:5 858:11 863:7 871:23 920:15 1040:11 1041:5 1044:17 frame 821:19 824:17 838:5 1046:10 framed 861:22 Frank 818:7 994:4,8 frankly 922:5 freight 1019:9 1029:21 French 1008:25
frequently 825:13 frightened 1043:19 frogs 978:16 979:1,11 front 840:23 908:3 1011:23 1027:19 1043:17 fuels 816:6 817:5,8 820:18 821:18,23,25 823:19,20 824:11,22 827:8 829:4,7 830:7,17 831:1 832:2,7 834:7 835:8 836:25 845:4,23 846:22 847:11,18,21 857:7 866:17 870:11,13 875:9 891:24 893:22 906:25 909:20,24 911:1 911:9,19 915:4 919:13 921:20,25 923:7 924:9 926:1 929:22 930:1,13 931:14,20 933:11 934:3 935:17 936:3,11,13 938:24 948:12 949:20 954:6 956:2 966:1 968:18 971:1,5 972:1,2 976:12 979:2 982:13,19 989:10 991:12,19 992:5 992:8,11,12 993:25 994:1 995:23 996:13 998:16 999:13 1003:14 1004:13 1010:2,7,16,23 1011:8 1012:6,9 1022:12 1025:15 1033:20 1037:18 1038:15 fugitive 1008:2,6 full 820:11 918:2,18 949:21 fundamental 912:7,9,25 fundamentally 911:23 994:8 funding 1006:14 funds 835:7 961:5,7 further 837:14 925:17 1000:9 1018:19 1030:2 1047:9,14 fuse 1043:10 1044:3 future 824:22,23 969:4 G G 820:2 gain 839:16
gained 959:24 gap 1029:15 gaps 956:8,11,13 1028:10 1028:14,16,17 1029:13 1029:17 garage 1040:4 garner 871:25,25 875:14 875:21 892:2 893:19 894:22 1034:8 Gateway 1042:11,14,18 gather 833:21 910:3 1038:14 gathered 895:1 1033:8 gathering 833:1 895:9 Gee 1013:14 geese 996:3 general 817:19,20 822:20 822:23 859:3,10 869:15 872:10 880:12 881:9 900:10 948:23 generally 822:15,22 823:9 825:4 829:11 830:3 832:5 841:16 854:22 869:9 894:16 911:18 960:20 1026:12 General's 831:22 856:25 870:21 873:12 generates 916:24 generically 917:13 gentleman 1036:6 1040:19 gentlemen 1038:17 getting 825:1 833:23 858:21 887:20 934:8 940:1 944:20 964:15,20 965:9,12 1002:3 1004:3 1014:9 1040:13 1042:20 1043:19 Gino 1045:20 give 823:4 826:8 837:11 841:7 915:18 917:9 935:8 970:21 973:7 1031:5 1038:6 given 843:23 851:21 911:1 965:5 978:6 1001:4 1012:4 1015:23 1017:21 1022:7 1024:14 gives 1017:10 giving 842:18 986:6 gloves 1045:6 go 820:3 825:22,24 828:1
835:13 843:13,16 844:25 845:24 851:19 856:13 861:24 862:14 865:10 867:1 868:14,20 871:20 875:25 889:10 889:18 895:14 905:18 908:20 909:4 912:13,17 912:25 916:21 925:14 934:11 935:3,19,19 937:1,13,15 938:11 939:7 940:6 945:4,10 954:2 958:6,7 959:25 962:9,24 963:8,16,17 964:8 965:14 969:7 976:20 977:4 979:10,16 984:21 1001:15 1002:16 1002:17,23 1003:9 1008:23 1014:1 1015:16 1016:13,15 1017:14,19 1019:17 1020:10 1021:13,14 1022:21 1030:2,11 1031:12 1043:8 Goad 817:20 819:7,9 831:10,12,17,21,22,25 835:15,16 838:13 840:22 844:21 858:4,18 859:7 861:12,17 873:4 873:24 880:21 890:19 891:7,10 897:4 906:8,17 910:15 912:1 915:21 917:16 919:10 922:15 925:1 926:8,18 927:11 927:19 928:1,5 929:1,9 929:13 934:16 943:7,16 951:15 954:14 960:14 962:1 969:24,24 977:2 1007:12 1021:6,8 1025:8,9,11 1027:14,16 1027:18 1028:20 1031:22 1032:3,5 Goad's 858:24 918:21,24 962:5 goes 825:1 838:16 853:12 915:23 917:6 943:10 1010:9 1014:12,15 1016:23 1021:8,15 1035:4 1040:20 going 820:18 822:20 825:10 826:5 827:8 831:12 838:21 861:17
873:12 874:2,10 901:10 902:24 903:19 905:19 907:25 910:15 911:5 914:17 923:2 933:9,9,17 933:20 934:8 938:5,25 943:23 945:11,18 946:6 947:10 954:21 959:8 965:18 968:22 973:5 982:4 984:6,12 986:2 998:5 999:22 1000:15 1001:3,11 1002:1 1003:8,20 1006:11,25 1007:24 1010:5 1013:8 1013:15 1015:16,21 1018:9,10 1020:1,5 1028:6 1031:4,23,24 1032:1 1033:13,14,24 1034:15,16,17 1036:2 1036:11,21,24 1037:13 1037:21,23,24,25 1039:25 1045:12,12 good 851:22 857:20 884:25 886:10,13 889:14 903:15 907:2 925:16 944:19 945:12 946:10 949:12 986:12 1000:17 1007:1 1018:20 1018:21 1036:13 1042:1 gotten 851:12 government 841:22 920:19 921:11 925:9,13 946:1 1002:14 1033:18 grab 1033:2 grades 1027:9 Grand 902:19 1039:5 1041:22 1044:24 1045:20 1047:23,23 Granted 1042:16 grants 1002:15 grasslands 981:7,14 gray 1042:13 grazed 972:7 grazing 987:9 988:8 great 940:18 993:4 greenish 1042:13 grew 1034:22 Grossman 818:2 819:8 963:17 999:6 1000:24 1001:2 1003:8 1007:12 1007:13 1015:20,22 1016:7,11,15,18 1021:4
1023:4 Grossman's 1000:19 ground 851:16 931:11 946:15,17,23 1016:2 1017:18 group 816:1 845:20 898:6 898:15 919:24 922:24 1020:15 1034:4,11 grouse 845:21 876:13 grow 1036:23 1038:11 growth 894:6 guarantee 1035:8 guess 830:23 833:15,19 841:11 843:16,16 868:11 883:20 889:10 893:21 907:2 908:14 911:22 912:11 914:21 926:16 927:4 929:4,17 945:13 955:24 960:19 970:19 979:20 982:3 987:5 1001:25 1002:5 1004:3,9 1006:19 1012:4 1019:12 guests 1040:13,17 1041:10 guidance 911:15 Gunnison 982:23 983:14 984:19 985:8,25 986:10 986:13,18,24 987:16 988:1,13,17 989:15 guy 1014:1 guys 866:16 879:8 1002:22 1007:1 1013:13 1013:21 1032:23 H H 817:5 habitat 876:13 977:21 979:23 980:7,15,17,22 980:25 981:1,7,15,17,21 981:24 987:7,13,16,25 988:2,3 habits 975:21 half 1042:22 halting 938:17 hand 826:16 927:14 960:10 1034:7 1035:12 handfuls 828:25 handing 1027:18 handle 877:8 hands 1032:19
handy 950:20 hang 840:22 925:21 953:11 happen 824:25 851:16,18 851:19 1018:9 happened 911:4 1041:25 happening 1018:11 happens 822:25 909:8 934:15 1014:16,17 happy 978:16 979:1 hard 836:19 837:9 844:17 880:16 903:16 932:7 933:19 1015:7,13,18 1016:1,2 1021:15 hardboiled 1001:8 hat 1040:10 hate 855:1 1004:5 haul 830:21 hauling 830:9 hazardous 863:5,6 867:4 868:5 869:1,8 870:16 878:20 919:3 hazards 903:11 head 845:13 922:24 health 817:22 828:12 829:24 831:23 861:19 933:3 948:17 973:2 1010:11 1026:21 Health's 909:9 hear 868:1 909:3 926:25 935:13 963:20,21,22,24 963:25 964:4,5 975:19 978:11 heard 829:17 835:24 908:22 926:17 929:25 930:2 948:13,23 999:22 1002:2 1014:20 1019:18 1020:14 1021:21 1022:11 1023:23 1033:21 hearing 816:4,14 837:1,2 837:3 843:19 865:14 874:5,9 894:19 906:12 907:20,21 911:24 912:22 913:1 924:21 929:6 934:8 935:7 954:19 958:16,22 959:3 959:24 977:13 993:2 1003:12 1017:17 1020:4 1033:7 hearings 923:10,18
heat 1041:4 heavily 998:12 1007:19 heck 1017:21 held 833:22 help 822:1 868:4 879:23 890:3 987:25 1003:5 1036:18 1038:8,11 1040:14 helped 848:25 859:2 863:15,16 866:25 868:2 883:13 890:11 helpful 828:13 881:21 889:13 helping 887:21 988:13 helps 881:21 hesitation 860:2 Hi 1001:3 hierarchy 922:8 high 1008:18 higher 1022:12 1035:25 1037:3 highest 984:22 highway 893:1 1006:16 hill 1042:22 hinder 986:23 historic 827:17 historically 1018:12 history 1018:6 hoc 849:5 899:10,11 hold 837:14 865:14 995:3 999:5 holding 988:18 holdings 944:20 holes 850:4 holistic 914:16 home 894:6 1040:2 honestly 846:2 Honor 831:18 835:11 843:3 844:21 858:9,23 861:12,17 865:21 873:4 873:24 906:17 910:15 917:16 919:10,15 925:1 926:8 927:11,25 928:13 933:8 943:7 954:3 973:15 977:2 978:24 999:1 1021:4 1025:9 1031:22 Honorable 816:15 Honor's 859:25 Hookless 982:6,17 hope 946:9 995:2,4
1001:6 1025:4 1043:20 hopefully 882:8 964:22 hoping 945:9 Horn 845:14 872:2 hot 820:7 hour 874:2 1008:18 1015:15 hourly 1025:25 1026:2 hours 917:2,4 1007:3,4 1026:13 house 1040:13 1046:7 housekeeping 1040:16 houses 1037:6 housing 903:19 human 905:19 humans 995:10 hundred 1034:16 1043:13 1044:23 hundreds 1045:3 hut 1040:18,19,20 1041:10 huts 1040:21,24 hypothetical 939:23 940:1 hypothetically 910:10 1025:17 I idea 957:15 974:23 975:10 1001:15 1016:24 1018:15 identical 953:20 963:10 identification 917:17 1027:8 identified 823:24 832:10 832:24 836:15 873:8 947:9 949:24 950:1,15 951:3 956:4 991:17 993:18 1019:21 identify 833:7 834:23 837:12 862:7 901:12 947:18 953:5 991:14,16 991:22 identifying 834:12 ignore 949:8 ill 1034:23,24 imagine 997:19 immediate 978:21 impact 832:3 833:2,8,13 833:15,18 834:13,25 835:20 844:6,7 846:5,7
846:16,17,20 857:18 864:23 865:2,3 874:20 876:1 878:22 881:6 893:14 895:19,24 896:2 896:5 898:17,20 899:2,6 899:6 903:10 904:1 905:13 924:9,23 925:25 929:21 934:11 935:15 937:23 938:2 939:1,4,9 943:14 965:19,20,25 966:7,12,24 967:2,6 969:20 978:2 981:18 1012:1 1013:1 1014:4 1024:25 1025:5 1026:23 1033:8,22,24 1035:3 impacted 900:22 1034:15 impacts 827:12 832:11 833:4 834:2,11 835:2,4 849:11 875:3 877:3 878:21 879:4 888:4 891:18,22 892:8,9,13 893:1,22 902:10,17 931:25 932:6,16 935:4,6 935:10 939:16 946:5,20 949:16 965:21,23 966:7 968:1 995:9 996:6 997:23 1009:13 implement 950:14 implemented 957:5 970:11 implementing 957:6 implying 978:25 important 886:7 975:12 992:9,13,19,21 1009:20 1022:16 imposing 916:6 impoundment 835:5 989:3 impoundments 1018:13 impression 1002:3 1037:6 1044:4 impressions 1042:6,11 improper 998:15 999:12 999:18,21,25 1000:1 improperly 982:19 improve 1010:11 improvement 987:7,13 987:16,25 988:2,3,9 improvements 1011:23 inaccurate 982:20 inadequate 908:25 909:6
921:10 incapable 994:8 998:21 inclined 963:16 994:25 include 910:13 926:2 946:14,16 957:21 960:3 1006:10 1009:2 included 834:15 835:1,2 848:15 869:14 875:6 878:16 885:6 889:5 902:2 924:22 1004:9 1010:18 includes 821:14 901:4,6 918:21 920:1 930:20 939:24 959:13 1029:11 including 828:11 835:6 878:12 892:16 899:15 939:8 996:3 1002:12 inclusion 871:12 income 1034:18 1040:12 1040:14 incomplete 908:12 inconsistent 957:25 incorporate 1024:10 incorporated 847:12,13 883:1 960:2 incorporating 876:15 incorrect 985:12,19 incredibly 1039:21 independent 851:2 982:17 1002:4,6,16,23 1004:4 1033:10,12 1038:6 independently 970:25 indicate 968:7 987:2 indicates 924:2 963:23 indicating 926:13 928:6 930:20 indication 960:14 indicator 897:25 898:1,6 898:8,14 indirect 902:9 903:1 individual 917:13 989:2 individuals 836:15 859:21 871:19,20 882:25 926:5 industrial 930:21,24 1041:17 1042:21 industries 903:2 1044:5 industry 1018:5,6,25 1019:3 inflation 826:25
influence 995:6 998:16 998:23 999:13,18,21,25 1000:1 info 876:9 inform 982:1 986:9 informal 895:6 information 823:4,13,16 824:1,7,8,10 826:8 828:1,2 830:3 831:2 832:24 833:2,4,7,21 837:5,7,21 848:18 849:7 849:9,11,13,17,19,21 851:25 852:2 853:21,22 853:24 854:5,9,24 857:24 861:7 862:3,7,8 862:24 863:10,14,18 864:2,16 867:16 870:7 870:24,24 871:6,9,13 872:3,4,10 873:16,19 874:7,13,19 875:8,8,9 875:10,15,18 876:6,7,12 876:15 877:15,22 878:3 878:5,6,8,13,16 879:6,8 883:15 884:5 885:5,10 886:4 887:24 891:25 892:11,16,19,25 893:3 893:24,25 894:11,15,18 894:22,22,23,25 895:1,6 896:16 897:1 899:8 900:14,15,17,18 901:17 903:3 907:14,22 909:12 909:13,23 910:3,4,12,18 910:21,22 911:1,9,16,20 918:16 922:20 927:21 934:7,20,21 935:8,14 959:24 973:18 982:12 982:20 983:3,20,23,25 984:2,13,23 985:18,22 986:5 991:18,23 992:23 993:1,13 994:25 995:1 1002:10 1003:25 1004:4 1004:9,17 1009:12 1021:1 1024:14 1025:3 1025:4 1033:10 1038:14 informed 973:11 974:3 infrastructure 828:14 initial 823:20 824:14 1020:11 1025:20 initially 832:8 injury 988:17 ink 961:23
Inn 1039:3 input 827:20,23 832:21 833:11,23 844:8 847:5 847:15,22 851:13 855:3 855:3 869:23 872:17 876:1,3 904:17 935:6 942:14 946:18,22 982:14 1020:12,12 inquired 1032:5 inquiry 859:20 insects 990:13,16 991:8 insofar 824:22 inspect 997:10 inspection 1021:21,23 inspections 1021:24,25 installments 858:5,11 instance 1004:7 1020:4 1037:19 instances 991:3,9 instigated 839:4,20,25 instigation 838:10 instruction 945:22 968:21 insufficient 961:7 intact 852:1 871:5 integral 887:11 integrity 992:8,11,15 intended 1034:6 intention 972:5 interaction 823:19 1008:2 interactions 1008:4 1014:5 interactive 1014:16 interdisciplinary 914:16 interest 816:14 818:3 936:11 960:21 interested 836:16 837:5 1039:14 1047:16 interfere 1014:8 internal 825:16 828:20 848:21 Internet 965:1 1041:6 interpret 957:11 1004:1 interpretation 956:3 957:20 987:19 interpreted 1007:11 interrogatory 859:7,8 860:17 888:21 interrupt 880:3 908:16 977:11,12
interruption 835:17 910:7 intersection 1006:7 interview 900:19 interviews 894:10 intook 1045:22 introduce 858:9 926:18 introduction 969:2 invalidated 865:7,8,10 865:22 investigation 821:4 investment 1010:5 invite 963:16,16 1019:25 invoices 916:24 involve 827:2 920:22 involved 839:10,13 840:2 847:7 849:12 862:20 940:24 941:1,20 971:15 1002:6 1003:19 1018:5 1033:19 involvement 821:22 827:9 923:2 943:9 involves 959:5 1036:17 in-hearing 874:3 in-house 1002:22 1003:4 1010:25 1019:16 in-plant 887:4 isotope 1008:6 issuance 829:15 issue 832:15 838:10 845:19 849:12 852:3,18 855:3 886:7 891:18 903:12,13 921:9 931:17 931:19 935:20,25 942:16 943:18 960:6,8 964:2,19 966:25 986:10 993:17 1004:23 1006:18 1024:24 1036:8 1038:1 issued 825:21 907:11 935:16 945:22 1024:11 issues 823:17 825:14 828:11,15 832:9,17 833:12 834:3,14,15,16 834:24 835:10 836:13 836:15 837:12,21 845:9 853:20 854:12 876:9 879:5 880:6 881:9,9,10 885:17 887:9 890:24 891:14,25 892:2,3,12 893:2,23 894:9 895:16 895:23 900:12 903:18
920:23 942:23 943:10 947:6 950:22 951:6 958:20 959:5,13,17 988:5 991:14,16,17,22 999:16,25,25 1002:13 1005:21 1006:6,14 1010:22 1014:6,7 1021:2 1026:1 issuing 866:20 item 955:10,16 956:4 1027:21 items 834:5 865:14 1026:1 J jack 972:13 jackhammer 1043:24 JAG 816:2 James 817:2 845:13 863:9 864:12 872:1 January 837:15 855:21 855:23 856:4 866:7,7,13 866:22 Jarvis 863:9,12 864:12 869:13 Jeff 974:6 JEFFREY 817:12 Jennifer 818:8 922:4 Jerry 817:20 831:21 929:9 969:24 1031:22 Jim 871:25 875:14,21 job 821:13 917:2 922:25 1045:7,14 jobs 903:4,7,10,11 1034:17,19 1038:6 Jocelyn 872:1 Joe 1040:19 1041:1 journey 1039:18 1041:25 1042:18 Juan 884:6 1040:17,18 judge 865:15 866:2 907:25 943:5,11,17 944:22 945:22 947:5 964:11 977:18 979:5,14 1000:13 1026:19 1030:13 1031:15 judgment 875:25 913:5 judicial 816:1 1004:5 judicially 965:4 July 838:3,3 1041:4 jump 945:7
Junction 902:19 1039:5 1041:22 1044:8,24,25 1045:20 1047:23 June 837:24,24 838:2 884:9 953:9,12 958:3 961:20,21 963:3,5 1027:16,20,20 jurisdiction 827:22 841:23 842:21 1033:19 justice 835:8 K kangaroo 972:12 keep 843:17 849:19,22 853:8 854:10,16 868:12 868:18 890:1 945:10 959:9 976:13 1042:7 keeps 962:19,22 Ken 974:17,24 976:19,24 977:6 Kenneth 972:21,25 973:6 973:9,19,20 974:11 kept 936:9 kid 1029:23 kind 822:20 823:2 849:5 850:14 854:24 858:21 895:14 896:19 901:6 903:12 911:16 913:3 917:6 1002:22 1003:10 1007:9 1018:3 1019:20 1033:6 kinds 825:13 836:13 867:14 1017:13 1018:6 1018:13 1026:11 kitchenette 1040:5 Kleinfelder 879:7 883:14 888:16 knew 823:25 846:15 937:21 know 825:9 829:2 839:12 839:23,24,25 840:19 841:3 850:4,12,16 853:23 854:20 856:3,22 858:6,7 860:25 863:9,10 863:21 864:16 866:16 868:22,24,25 871:2,3 875:17 878:11,14,15 886:25 887:14 890:3 894:3,11 895:4,5 897:9 897:22 898:14 900:15 905:9 906:2,5,9,11
907:14 908:9 910:7 912:11 916:11 919:7 920:25 923:19 925:3,6 927:10 929:12 931:24 932:19 933:4 934:17 935:22,23 936:10,18 938:6 940:11,13,16,17 940:17,19,20,21 941:1,3 941:3,7,9 942:11 946:16 946:16 947:4 948:13,18 948:19 949:1,9 954:18 956:3,7,10 963:25 965:8 965:23 970:16 975:8,12 975:15,15,17,21,21 976:3,4,6 978:7,10 980:3,13,16 981:16,22 982:16,24 983:8,18,24 984:16 986:20 987:14 987:22 988:8,12 989:16 989:23 990:3,11,12,18 992:4 993:9 995:20 996:9,10,12,14,15,18,20 996:21,23 997:5 998:8 998:24 999:16,24 1000:6 1001:17,20 1002:8,21 1003:16,17 1005:3 1006:19 1009:21 1010:7 1012:18 1013:11 1013:15 1015:4,16 1016:4,18,19,20 1017:1 1017:22 1018:5 1019:14 1021:23 1023:5 1024:12 1028:17 1034:25 1035:5 1036:17 1040:7,18 1042:21,22 1043:25 1045:5,6,18,19 knowing 912:19 knowledge 827:22 839:19 840:1 866:15 941:17 975:24 1005:3,5 1022:5 1035:22 known 926:17 945:10 knows 918:15 938:23 954:22 1035:22 L LA 1034:17 label 854:20 951:23 labeled 951:20 laboratory 826:13 lacks 946:1
lady 1032:25 1039:13 laid 881:20 899:24 900:4 Lakewood 817:7 land 834:21 902:2,3 945:25 988:11 1011:16 landfill 828:24 870:3 landing 994:5 995:19 996:19 Landry 872:2 877:13,25 883:15 888:18 1004:7 1004:16 Landry's 1004:21 lands 943:15 lane 1039:19 language 860:25 861:1 963:3,9 969:2,3 997:25 1027:11 laptop 924:2 large 837:20 864:9 1034:20,21 1044:12 largely 871:5 larger 850:22 959:21,23 975:14 Larry 904:25 907:2 lasting 1042:6,10 late 1020:23 1042:2 latest 961:18,20 law 817:10 918:17 1033:20 lawyer 928:3 lawyers 861:2 lay 900:11 925:5,6,7 928:2 laying 913:25 layout 887:12 lays 945:22 lead 956:13 990:17 1029:13 leader 821:10,20 922:10 leak 851:18 leakage 835:6 851:16 lean 1035:22 learn 931:22 934:2 1043:1,2 learned 1018:8,16,19,24 lease 942:1 leasing 942:1 leave 1007:7 1032:23 leaves 1031:9 leeway 1035:13 left 960:12
left-hand 1039:22 legal 817:6 831:6 856:20 907:4 912:1 934:16,18 935:25 944:23 945:18 legislation 839:11,14,20 840:1 lend 994:12,17,19 length 1038:13 lessons 1018:8,24 letter 823:24 925:2,23 952:15 953:5 954:6 955:1,4,6 956:23 958:4 958:14 962:6,10 965:13 letterhead 924:14 925:24 letters 844:19 951:4,6,8 956:24,25 957:2 let's 820:3 844:14 845:24 857:11 861:24 866:11 866:25 871:16,20 872:19 876:8 880:2 881:19 886:11,18 887:10,13 889:19 893:2 896:4 902:1 913:6 924:3 944:24 1000:18 1022:6 1030:10,21 level 827:14 828:4 893:25 896:15 907:7,7 939:21 992:17 993:6 1036:13 1036:16,22 1037:1,3 levels 892:20 919:17 librarian 926:13 library 925:14,20 926:12 926:14,21 927:22 928:6 license 816:6 821:19,23 822:7 823:20 824:14,18 825:4,5,13,15 827:8,13 829:15 830:14,25 848:16,17,18 849:10 852:10 855:19 895:20 895:25 896:3 906:11 907:1,10,13 909:22 910:8,20 911:4 912:14 914:17 917:25 918:18 918:25 919:17 920:16 921:21,25 922:21 923:1 931:18 933:14 934:5,12 935:16,20 937:10,16,22 938:8 948:4 949:20,22 949:23 958:15,20,21 960:6,8 969:8 1011:11 1011:12,13 1012:11,12
1012:20,22 1013:17 1014:6,12,22 1019:13 1020:1,16 1024:11,11 1024:17,21,24 1035:17 licensed 920:10,17 licensee 825:19 826:8 829:12 licenses 825:21 919:22 920:13,20 1013:23 licensing 821:12 824:21 829:6,9 831:3 908:4 910:14 911:7 921:15 922:24 923:3 949:6 952:24,25 958:13,16,18 959:4,21,23 1013:8 1019:16 1023:20 1025:15 life 1042:16 lifted 874:13 875:15 878:6 lifting 872:15 877:15 limit 1005:3 limited 828:18 850:21 957:21 959:1 966:16 limiting 958:24 Lincoln 817:3 line 843:3 873:25 913:3 919:12 936:24 1000:15 1033:15 liner 835:5 1018:20 lines 838:12 link 953:7 liquid 996:1 list 829:3,5 836:17 840:10 844:12 845:12 859:5 861:15,16 862:2,6,10,12 862:14 863:3,5 866:25 873:12 889:12 901:5 950:20 954:5 955:11 962:12 985:24 1002:18 1003:9 1014:5 1023:8 1030:20 1031:7 listed 827:18 850:7 859:2 879:19,22,25 880:10 888:22 916:19 982:7,8,8 985:11 986:14,19 listen 845:24 846:19 listening 848:8 884:8 listing 983:1 984:20,22 985:8,9 1013:2 lists 897:11 901:2 926:5
964:25 1013:1,3 literally 1046:10 literature 1017:3 little 821:1 824:21 879:24 882:8 889:11 903:24 910:9 938:17 939:14,22 942:3 944:9 965:13 971:11 1001:4 1009:25 1017:17 1023:3 1040:1 1040:1,12 1041:21 1043:19 1046:3,5 live 954:20 981:9,13,14 981:21 1034:15 1036:23 lives 1036:23 living 826:25 1034:18 1046:9 LLP 817:2 load 902:8 loads 1007:19 local 827:17 828:5 841:22 842:8,15 871:16 892:22 893:4 1009:2,7,9 1019:13 locally 1009:9 located 821:6 location 832:19 locations 924:24 locked 1035:15 Lodge 860:13 lofting 1008:10 1016:5,8 lofts 1008:10 log 916:8 logical 944:4 long 820:23 982:9 1014:5 1027:11 1033:23 1042:23 1044:18 longer 825:22,24 944:10 957:10 1031:13 1032:2 1032:6,10 long-term 931:25 939:10 939:12,16 960:22 961:6 look 826:3,18,21 827:12 833:8 834:3,4 838:6,15 843:16 850:24 862:15 885:11 902:16 908:4 913:6 914:11,16 918:12 925:15 926:11 932:3,3 937:16 952:3 953:24 961:24 966:10 970:9,19 980:24 983:16 984:18 984:25 986:6 995:17
1001:14 1007:21 1018:7 1018:8 1019:10 1025:5 1026:22 1027:13 1039:15,16 1042:8 looked 832:9 834:13,16 834:18,20 886:3 887:8 899:13,16 902:2,17 903:20,22,24 904:7,10 911:14 932:9,12,15 1009:13 1039:11 looking 828:11 833:3,6 843:10,11 859:4 861:21 887:4 900:18 902:6,15 905:24 911:16 917:21 917:23 936:18,23 976:11 1010:17 1013:24 1043:12 looks 861:3 953:19 963:4 963:12 965:11 973:8 1002:21 1019:15 loose 954:18 1016:3 Lorenzo 871:25 lose 1035:16 loss 1010:18 lost 859:18 940:1 lot 828:20 829:18 849:13 854:23 864:7 867:10,12 884:5 886:3 887:14 894:18 935:18 948:13 973:3 1015:12 1017:16 1017:23 1018:1 1042:24 lots 828:5 951:24 loud 820:19 841:18 1001:4 LOUIS 818:2 love 1039:8 lower 982:25 985:2,11 1037:1 lowest 1036:15 low-ball 1037:24 Lucas 817:3 819:6,9 820:16,17 831:9 840:19 865:21 954:3,10 955:12 964:23 965:7 978:24 999:19 1021:17,19 1025:2,7 lunch 944:5 946:10 lung 1046:1 Lyons 817:13 M
machines 821:16 maddening 1039:7 magnitude 1024:4,9 Mahannah 1030:25,25 mailed 923:17 Main 816:16 817:10 maintain 831:18 836:21 852:11 873:13,15 893:5 962:12,15 1022:17 maintained 852:14 884:23 maintenance 1040:16 major 822:12 930:16 938:10,12 969:8 1017:18 1040:17 majority 1034:23 1038:5 maker 921:19 making 836:22 922:3 986:6 1032:24 1038:20 mammals 972:6,11 975:14 managed 849:21 981:3 981:14,17,21,23 management 821:11 835:10 863:6 868:6 869:2,9 870:16 878:21 manager 820:22 821:14 managers 1002:17 manages 918:14 mandatory 833:20,20,22 manner 847:12 897:8 March 973:16 Marilyn 848:25 867:9 869:5 882:2 888:2 891:3 891:8 924:11 mark 841:3 872:2 877:14 877:24 883:15 marked 1027:15 Martin 867:22 881:23 882:1 Martinez 943:5,11,17 944:22 945:22 Marvin 1030:25 masks 1045:6 material 864:10,10,12 887:3 931:23 932:25 983:16 1008:11 materials 816:6 821:6,12 821:12,15 823:7 846:22 847:10,11,11,13 852:7 855:14 863:6 867:4,10
868:5 869:1,8 870:16 874:14,17 878:20 883:21,24 884:2,4 888:12,15 891:24 892:13 900:8 907:1 911:13 922:11 932:22 934:5 953:1 983:13,16 1013:17 1023:7,20 1024:8 Matt 817:15 974:6 matter 816:14 828:7 918:17 1039:2 matters 954:8 maximum 1007:2 McMullen's 866:3 meal 913:14 mean 830:6 849:24 854:12 862:9 887:6 896:17 897:9 899:11 912:11 932:18 938:6 950:3 956:6 964:24 987:14 992:14 1002:5 1003:16 1007:16 1010:4 1024:18 1026:10 1035:16 1036:2,10 meaning 839:23 889:24 971:17 means 842:6 1009:17 meant 950:4 956:1 measurable 900:16 measure 903:17 996:25 measures 969:21 970:5,8 970:9,10,10,13,18,20,23 971:6 996:6 998:1 mechanic 1037:24 mechanical 820:4 881:13 mediation 977:16 meet 823:3 829:24 950:25 961:17 1024:6 meeting 837:1,2,3,23 838:2 884:15 885:8,9,12 885:17 910:3 911:10,19 meetings 824:4 833:21 833:22,22 836:12,20 837:4,14,15,18,19 838:3 856:8 894:19 911:2 meets 849:16 member 997:12 1030:7 1031:1,12 1032:17 members 839:13 866:17 876:12 905:16 1032:21
memo 874:23,24 memory 862:23 905:19 memos 1003:21 mention 833:10,19 966:13 996:24 mentioned 824:6 829:2 836:23 838:5 867:15 969:22,25 970:1 974:17 1006:15,25 mentions 966:14 merged 860:15 merit 946:1 Mesa 894:13 929:23 930:1,17 1047:2 met 1013:2 1024:8 1026:14 1037:18 method 896:22 methodologies 899:24 methodology 894:14 899:12 900:4 901:13 902:15 908:24 909:5,16 methods 895:2,3,6 Mexico 884:7 mice 974:24 975:1,8,11 975:15,17,20,23 976:1,3 976:5 977:9 middle 921:23 1041:4 midst 1043:24 Miguel 828:8 837:17,25 894:12 948:11 mild 976:13 mile 1042:22 miles 1008:17 1015:15 1037:9 1040:21,23 1044:23 mill 816:7 821:19 834:22 839:7 841:23 842:21 895:20,25 896:18 902:8 903:1,3 914:3 919:22 920:13 921:15 929:21 929:23 930:1,17 931:11 931:23 936:18,22 937:1 937:4,16,18 938:25 939:6,17,18,18,19 940:3 940:14,25 941:9 942:2 942:25 943:12,16 944:21 945:24 946:1,12 947:19,25 965:21 967:21,24,25 968:4,7,9 968:13 977:16 979:7 987:4,6 996:3,25 997:20
1001:14 1006:4,6 1008:22 1011:8,24 1013:9 1014:17,17 1020:2 1034:15 1035:19 1036:18 1037:10,12 1038:9,16 1041:16,18 1041:21,24 1042:6,20 1042:21,24 1044:5,6,9,9 1044:23,25 1045:8 1046:8,10 millions 1037:20,21 mills 920:3,11 943:9 1034:21 1045:4 1046:1 mind 822:1 873:9 921:18 933:24 935:18 961:24 1042:7,19 mine 884:22 901:21 942:1 966:11 1017:4 1034:24 1039:15 1043:11,13 1045:8 Mineral 943:15 Minerals 817:10 miners 1045:21 mines 936:15 943:10 1034:21 1037:3 1043:7 1044:9,24 1045:4 1046:1 minimis 912:15 minimum 830:4 mining 817:12 942:17,18 942:20 943:14 966:9,18 1043:20 1044:14 minor 963:9 1017:17 minute 880:23 889:3 908:17 975:22 977:12 999:2 1033:6 minutes 820:19 886:11 944:3 945:5 1000:16 1007:6,9 1030:21 missing 861:15 910:12 993:19 mission 830:17 misspeaks 857:13 misstatements 870:8 misunderstood 950:9 mitigate 1019:4 1035:6 mitigated 996:25 mitigation 969:21 970:5 970:18,20,22 971:5 987:7,19 996:6 1017:8 mitigations 971:8
mix 998:22 Moab 1040:20 mode 825:23 modeling 877:18,21 884:12 885:1,4 models 877:21 modest 1040:1,12 1041:2 modifications 913:12,21 moment 846:5 860:22 973:7 1032:23 Monday 1038:13 1046:13 monitor 957:16 monitoring 908:24 909:5 909:16,17,21,21 914:9 920:23 921:6,8,10 948:16 949:12,19,21 957:13 1014:21 1029:11 month 916:21 months 1039:9 Montrose 828:6 834:8,10 837:16,24 870:4 885:9 892:6,7,17 894:7,12 902:19 983:4,9,23 984:4 984:14 1008:19,20,23 Moore 817:5 Moose 860:13 morning 820:17 1031:3 1046:13 mortality 988:17 motor 1041:22 1043:2 1044:11,12,13,16,17,21 motors 1042:3,4 1043:6 1044:7,9,9,12,24 1045:3 1045:3,3,7,15 Mountain 817:14,16 851:18 852:4,12 853:19 892:11 1004:15 1005:4 mountains 884:6 1042:12 Mountain's 954:4 mouse 975:19 move 850:3 874:8 908:2 915:13 919:15 937:11 946:7 971:10 982:4,23 1018:17,18,19 1029:4 moved 1022:25 movement 884:4 1006:4 1017:18 moves 945:23 moving 943:22 959:9
977:19 989:24 991:11 995:25 mucking 1043:24 mule 972:6,10 Mullen 872:1 multimillion-dollar 1001:9 1037:6 multiple 875:7,22 956:25 1016:20 1017:5 1023:6 multiply 1017:9 municipal 930:21,25 municipalities 932:24 N N 819:1 820:2 name 820:11 831:21 845:15 905:22 1019:19 1038:25 named 825:4 839:6 1040:19 names 845:10,12 926:5 Nancy 1014:20 narrow 869:21 narrowing 861:24 National 871:16 941:22 native 981:7,13 natural 931:4,6 994:9,12 994:16,18 1019:19 nature 910:16 1034:5 Naturita 828:7 838:4 1009:5 1034:2 near 942:2 945:21 1037:3 1039:18 near-final 869:3 necessarily 827:7 840:10 848:21 862:17 916:21 994:16 1039:11 necessary 829:12 831:2 833:5 843:13 849:12 949:14,16 997:2 1003:6 1021:13 need 820:4 823:15,16,25 824:1 826:14 829:23 830:13 833:4 834:12 838:17 840:14 860:5 882:3 893:24 906:14 907:8 911:5 914:16 925:4,14 926:15 931:24 934:5 935:3,8 962:24 984:16 1001:6,7 1003:4 1014:18 1018:17,20,21
1018:22,22 1022:25 1023:1 1026:14 1032:1 1036:1 1040:3 needed 822:5 829:7 844:4 849:13 856:9,14 929:22 973:22 974:19 1026:24 1040:2 1044:2 Needless 1045:16 needs 829:4 909:17 961:16 1027:9 1028:3,8 1029:5 negative 987:6 1034:13 neglected 926:11 negotiated 987:8 neighborhoods 821:6 NEPA 942:4,8,13 943:4 nesting 997:24 netted 990:20 netting 989:24,25 990:6 990:10,14,16,25 991:4,5 991:8,9 1017:17 nettings 990:19 neutrally 995:1 never 847:14 856:16 873:9 921:18 936:16 976:20 997:21 998:9 1008:21 1043:11 new 825:8 836:19,20 884:7 903:13 910:11,21 939:8 1019:1,19 1035:13,14,18 1046:8 nice 1040:8,14 north 1037:12 1039:19 northeast 1037:11 Norwood 1008:24 1016:17 Notary 816:18 1047:7 note 831:10 835:11 854:24 903:10 933:9 979:4,9 notes 835:12 838:18,22 854:23 855:9 856:6 873:23 884:14,17,21 936:8 965:23 966:4 1033:2 notice 816:13 923:17 929:5,14 964:13 984:8 984:18,20 985:1,1,3,4 985:22 986:1 1008:21 noticed 924:22 965:4 1003:13
notices 965:2 noticing 1003:21 notification 924:22 November 816:4,15 820:1 1046:15 1047:19 no-action 969:18 NRC 921:1,5 949:24 950:1,14,24 951:2,4 953:3 954:12,16 956:5 956:16,17 957:7,17,23 957:25 958:1,2,11 959:16 960:3 961:8 962:10 1027:1,4,6 1028:14 1029:16 NRC's 958:7 960:23 Nucla 816:16 828:7 837:15 860:13 925:15 925:20 926:22 1009:5 1034:2 Nucla/Naturita 896:13 Nuclear 953:2,7 1002:25 Null 848:25 867:9,23 869:5 881:23 882:1,5 888:2 891:3,8 924:12 number 837:20 841:6,17 843:9 850:21,23 859:7,8 870:22 902:22 903:16 917:2,4,20 953:3,9 955:10 960:12 962:25 963:8 984:20 985:2,9,10 1006:20,21 1007:11 1017:11,11 1027:21 numbers 902:6,7,13 951:24 1006:22 1022:22 numerous 877:4 881:8 O O 820:2 oath 839:24 1032:20 object 831:5 861:17 865:21 910:15 925:12 933:9 954:4,10 999:8 objection 858:19,20,24 859:24 861:20 874:11 915:22 919:11 928:2 978:25 979:4,9 999:4,19 999:23 objections 842:5 858:18 objective 961:9 objectivity 992:17 993:6 994:13,17,19
observed 997:23 obtain 877:16 obtained 830:20 894:23 972:13 obviously 874:1,8 1032:9 1034:8 occasion 1036:5 occasional 856:8 occurred 826:9 895:20 998:25 occurs 977:21 October 840:22 926:11 958:3 961:19,24 963:3,5 1047:20 offer 934:22 offering 1032:21 offhand 945:18 office 817:19 828:11,12 831:22 856:25 870:22 873:12 885:13 1006:17 officer 827:17 official 855:14 924:14 officials 828:6 892:7 off-site 880:7 Oh 882:2 885:25 944:8 950:5 989:23 okay 821:1,3,17,25 822:14,20 824:6,11 828:3 829:14 830:13,23 831:17,18 832:7 833:19 836:6 838:22 839:25 840:3 841:4 842:23 843:22,24 844:5,16 846:11 847:1,2 848:4,10 850:17 851:10,16 854:3 857:15,19,22 858:8 859:14 860:3,14,16,24 863:1,20 864:14 867:18 869:22 870:15 871:21 872:19 879:16 881:8,16 881:19 882:4,13 883:1,9 887:21 888:1,11,12,16 890:5 891:9,20 897:18 901:6 907:2 908:21 909:1,2,7,8 910:6 912:15 913:22 914:13 914:20 915:23 917:6,8 919:2,20 926:20 928:12 929:3 933:16,18 938:13 939:14,23 940:15 942:20 944:24 947:5
952:20 955:10 959:1,7 960:10,18 961:4 962:24 963:1 964:4,9 965:7,11 965:14,24 966:8,24 967:2,7 968:11,16 969:19 970:4 971:22 972:4 974:1,4 975:7,11 975:17,25 976:8,11,18 976:22 977:10,22 978:11,18 980:3,6,8,21 981:2,17,19,25 982:11 982:16,23 983:2,7,12,20 984:1,6,10 985:20 986:8 986:22 987:1,12,20,24 988:12,16,20,23 989:1 989:24 990:2,8,13,24 991:11,23 992:18 993:15,20 994:11 995:13,17,22,25 996:4,8 996:12,15,17,21 997:5 997:11 998:6,11,14 999:24 1000:8,14 1005:2 1007:23 1010:1 1011:10 1013:10 1018:8 1019:8 1020:10 1021:14 1024:6,16 1028:8 1029:3 1030:18 1032:22 1033:2,4 Olathe 894:7 Olivia 817:3 820:17 once 823:23 825:23 826:20 860:11 914:18 938:15 967:17 997:10 997:13,21 1013:5 1021:25 1022:1,1 1042:3 onerous 837:8 ones 867:8,24 1017:18 1033:16 one-bedroom 1040:2 ongoing 849:24 850:3 853:8 855:12 856:9 942:8 943:4,13 950:16 989:10 993:2 1036:19 on-site 887:4 980:19,21 open 843:20 openly 938:24 operate 829:13 938:25 939:20 968:9 1013:21 operated 947:25 operating 825:23 826:12
830:16 939:17 1022:2 operation 826:4 829:14 947:19 1007:4 operations 830:10,18 1012:10 1024:13 1042:7 Ophir 828:9 838:2 884:8 885:17 Opila 818:8 922:5,6,17 922:20 1030:13 Opila's 922:12 opinion 831:7 970:24 976:24 977:7 1002:19 1004:22 1019:20 1020:2 1034:3 opinions 897:12 970:22 995:6 opponents 995:8 opportunities 841:21 842:23 843:1 opportunity 826:1 843:14,17 911:24 934:13,22 953:24 opposed 855:2 919:8 option 961:15,15 1024:9 optometrist 882:3 oral 1030:6,9 1031:18 orally 1031:8 order 865:22,24,25 866:4 894:9 944:13,22 945:21 946:5 961:17 986:10 1009:20 1028:9 1035:12 orderly 899:18 ore 929:22 931:4 932:7 1007:10,10 1036:3,3 organization 867:13 organizations 836:16 892:20 993:12,13 organize 834:6 original 840:25 948:1 972:5 983:16 originally 845:17 Ouray 943:15 outline 1023:5 outside 847:25 849:8 857:2 919:3 954:11 987:3 1021:13 1038:10 oven 1044:17,18 1045:9 1045:10,13 overall 988:10 overarching 1003:10 overdesigning 1035:22
overriding 1026:20 overruled 874:11 oversaw 821:4 oversee 919:17 921:15 oversight 821:9 owed 850:2 owner 1039:1 owns 930:1 P P 820:2 packed 1015:7,13 page 819:5 841:6,11,11 841:12 860:17 888:20 888:21 917:22 943:21 943:23 944:5,15,17,17 945:17,21 952:4,7 954:25 955:12,13,16 957:1 960:18 966:13 967:8,12 968:13 969:2 977:20 980:6 982:25 983:5 985:4,23 986:22 988:19,22 990:1 992:4 995:14 1023:12 1028:3 1028:6 pages 819:3 954:23 985:18 panel 1017:25 paper 951:19 papers 878:4 885:7 1001:9 Paradox 838:4 930:22,25 986:25 988:7 1009:6 1039:1,2,3,8 1046:4 paragraph 835:1 842:2 960:16 1029:2,8 parcels 1039:10 parking 935:18 Parsons 817:12 955:14 974:6,9,14 985:16 part 832:1 842:16,24 849:9,17 852:9 857:23 858:13 863:22 865:25 868:9 874:5 875:23 879:4 881:11,12 886:21 886:22,24 887:11 888:3 893:10,11 896:14,19 900:13 902:14 903:4 907:8,10 909:18,21,23 915:6 922:13,25 926:21 930:16 931:6 934:5,18
935:9 938:2 943:13 949:21 950:18,18,18,19 950:21,22 952:7,12,13 952:24,25 953:4 976:9 993:23 998:16 999:13 1004:17 1024:13 1025:24 1044:13 1045:14,18 participant 942:15 participate 841:24 842:6 842:22,25 843:15 942:8 participated 859:22 977:17 participation 859:11 particular 852:2 916:14 917:22 997:14 1002:18 1016:10 1017:7 particularly 900:15 902:20 930:15 956:6 995:16 1006:14 particulates 1016:9 parties 816:13 837:5 853:23 858:4,11,16 892:16 991:20 1033:11 1047:15 Partly 954:1 parts 850:10,12 879:16 887:14 950:13,14 968:19 1016:1 party 818:3 925:10 948:24 949:2,9 993:7 passed 885:9 paste 878:10 pathogens 1008:7 Pathway 995:11 pathways 995:25 996:16 1006:24 patience 904:21 patient 873:25 Patrick 871:4 874:14 878:18 883:12 patrol 893:1 1006:17 Pause 860:4,23 923:25 944:11 952:10 paused 873:13 pavement 1015:14,17,18 1015:18,24,24 pay 949:20 1040:15 1041:8 pays 1041:2 PDF 955:14 960:19
peaceful 1039:7 peak 1007:18 pebbles 1015:18 peer 1002:4,6 pen 858:21 people 827:19 828:5,12 828:18,20,24 829:1 833:23 836:17 837:11 839:8,18,18 844:13 845:5,6,12,20 846:21 848:15,16,21 849:1,3,8 850:2,22,23 854:1,1 855:1 856:23 859:1 861:2,7 862:23 863:2,7 864:7 867:11,15 869:2,4 869:18 870:10,15,23 871:5,13 872:25 873:8 873:11,19 874:22 875:10 876:8 878:14,17 878:18,24 879:18 880:6 880:8,9 881:18,22 882:16,24 883:10,11,13 885:10,10 887:2,3,6 892:5,23 894:11,17 896:17 897:11,12,21 900:7,19 901:3,4,7,9 903:13 904:7,15 916:21 919:4,6,24,25 920:3 921:16 963:24 993:10 1000:22 1002:8,12 1003:18 1005:23 1006:13,15 1009:9 1014:6,20 1018:4 1020:5,7,9,11,15 1026:1 1030:14,15,20 1033:16 1034:6,10,14,14,22,23 1038:3,4,5,10 1040:15 people's 851:9,11 901:22 904:8 919:2 percent 960:21 961:4 1041:11 percentage 1034:20,21 perchance 1041:16 1042:25 perform 896:12 performed 909:17 919:23 1009:15 1024:12 period 822:4 823:22 825:24 895:23 914:22 917:5 957:10 1011:14 periods 827:7 990:22
permit 829:2 919:7,8 940:24 972:9 1011:12 1011:13,13,13,15,18,19 1011:19,22 1012:15,16 1013:18 1014:7,8,15,23 1035:12 permits 829:4,7,12 1011:9,20,21 1012:2,5,7 1012:10,14 1013:23 1023:6,8 permitted 1036:8 permitting 828:19 829:9 1013:8 person 825:5 844:17 845:3,18 847:25 849:25 851:23 856:19 866:12 866:20 868:4 878:12 879:12 880:14 885:22 901:16 907:3 918:14,15 921:24 929:5,8,11 975:16 977:15 980:23 996:11 1018:3 1030:4 personal 839:19 840:1 personally 1033:24 personnel 825:3 persons 850:6 854:6,8,11 857:5,25 867:5 869:12 870:19 871:15 886:20 889:21 899:7 904:24 pervasive 900:20 Peterson 868:8 869:22 870:1 petition 896:15 1009:5 1034:9,12 petition-type 897:21 phase 847:19 952:23 PhD 818:2 Phil 869:5 880:7 881:23 886:1,21 888:1 905:8 947:13 973:6 974:11 976:12,19 1030:14 1032:6 Philip 818:7 973:9 phone 823:12 824:4 838:19 870:2 916:7,19 916:20 1000:11 1030:8 photo 979:1,2 photograph 925:3 926:10 phrase 886:19 phrased 869:10
physical 834:15 physically 915:17 physicist 973:3 pick 1008:6 1016:9 1021:15 1042:4 picked 987:21,23 pickup 1039:20 picture 978:15 1046:9,10 piece 851:25 852:21 880:9 913:14 914:1,2 915:8 1029:22 pieces 822:12 833:1 850:22 882:23 899:17 pile 908:24 909:6 piles 990:3 Pinon 816:6 924:9 926:1 1037:10 1038:9,16 1041:16 place 822:3 824:25 829:13 854:16 893:8 930:10 932:21 960:2,7,9 970:17 974:10 1005:15 1007:25 1012:10 1024:3 1024:17,18,21 1036:18 1037:16,17 1039:6 1041:1 1047:10 placed 1040:20 places 880:19 881:8 886:5 894:23 1015:5 plan 830:16 845:3 909:21 938:22 987:7,7,13,25 988:3 1006:10 1022:2 1026:10 1035:13,15,16 plane 1018:14 planning 828:12 892:5,5 892:6 964:11 plans 911:23 931:22 932:2 933:12,15 934:4 935:1 937:3,21 938:14 948:1 987:16 plant 881:13,14 886:18 886:19 887:11,22,24 889:4 931:7,10 932:10 932:19 1010:3 plants 884:5,7 plastic 1037:7 played 954:18 1045:18 please 821:22 841:9,17 841:18,21 844:14,21 845:24 846:2 851:14 860:22 861:9 865:17
867:19 871:19,22 872:20 889:23 895:11 897:16 898:11 906:19 906:20 907:5 922:23 924:7 926:2 928:1 952:3 954:25 955:12 960:11 961:3 plus 885:7 1041:2 point 823:25 843:21 874:9 877:24 885:7,22 886:11 888:7 908:12 910:5 912:8 919:10 936:7 943:7,21 950:23 969:9 984:25 988:12 999:7 1011:7 1036:15 1036:16 1046:8 pointed 894:5 907:12 pointing 879:22 943:23 1006:5 1014:15 points 976:20 988:21 1006:1 policy 941:22 1028:11 poll 1008:20,21 1009:1,4 1034:1,4,5,7,9 polling 896:8,19 897:2,6 897:22 polls 896:8,12,13 pollution 828:21 875:10 875:12 880:13 882:24 888:17 940:9,11,13,21 941:10,17 1013:12 pond 978:7,10,12,16 979:1,8,22 980:1,4,19 980:22 996:2 1019:11 ponds 978:12 979:7,19 979:24,25 988:18 989:25 990:1,7,25 997:6 1018:13 1021:21,23 pop 964:18 population 986:24 1034:20,22 portion 842:7 920:6,8 1012:7 1029:4 portions 854:2 868:2,5 889:20 908:11 914:23 position 821:17,20 1034:14 positive 890:12 987:6 1034:13 possession 858:17 921:12 1032:11
possibility 969:11 978:2 1036:1 possible 861:5 886:16 905:8 950:20 965:10 979:18 982:22 990:15 990:23 1029:18 1035:7 possibly 869:5 888:2 998:19,24 post 835:20 951:10 posted 827:6 835:22 836:2 951:8 postings 836:19,20 post-licensing 843:2 potential 827:12 833:2 834:2 932:6 942:14 1023:23 1026:17,23 1033:22 1041:3 potentially 952:25 power 877:24 884:4,7 885:7 894:5 902:6 Powers 892:21 899:15 902:15 903:16 practices 916:7 1018:25 prairie 988:17,21 989:7 989:15,19 preapplication 911:8,13 precedes 1029:8 preceding 848:12 861:10 865:18 867:20 871:23 872:21 880:4 898:12 906:21 930:7 950:10 precise 882:8 precision 861:1 predator's 975:1 preface 1001:7 preference 945:5 prelicensed 1026:2 preparation 841:24 842:6,22 843:2,15 844:5 850:15 857:3,25 859:13 859:23 861:6 863:7,11 890:14,22 893:14 896:10 904:1 922:18 923:16 941:21 993:24 1000:1,3,6 prepare 832:2 859:2 867:1 895:24 898:17 918:8 prepared 845:23 849:8,9 849:11 852:6 857:7 866:11 875:22 883:13
883:15 888:17,18 896:2 905:2 906:1 938:20 946:4,18,22 955:25 1037:18 preparing 841:14 851:3 858:1 862:6 890:7 898:19 present 818:6 877:21 915:1 927:20 997:6 1036:25 presentation 877:25 884:9 885:7 900:24 presented 876:7 902:7 909:2 1004:15 preservation 827:17 Press 983:4,10,23 984:4 984:14 Presumably 909:3 967:9 presume 843:20 923:9 962:11 1016:8 1030:11 pretty 820:19 837:8,9 957:12 992:9 1003:14 1008:24 1015:3 1033:23 prevailing 1037:10 prevalent 974:25 prevent 1018:10 1035:6 previous 826:9 972:7 1002:2 previously 926:24 1031:25 prey 989:6,14,19 pre-licensing 843:2 primarily 848:24 851:3 888:19 893:22 print 952:11 printed 951:14 printer 951:13 952:8 961:23 prior 829:13,14,15 910:4 1012:10 1013:8 priority 982:25 984:20 984:22 985:2,9,9,11 pristine 1041:14 private 945:25 988:6,8 private-versus 988:10 probability 1017:10 probably 825:5 831:14 850:23 873:23 876:10 883:3 888:1,8,11 890:11 920:15,15 923:21 942:16,21 944:2 947:13
951:11 971:14 980:24 983:22 984:5 1015:15 1015:19 1043:9 problem 830:6 938:20,21 957:17 1019:11 problems 925:11 952:9 Procedurally 963:15 procedure 1019:16,24 1020:1,12,13,16 procedures 825:6,7,15 825:16 1023:20 proceed 959:23 proceeding 865:7,7 866:1 907:4 910:24 958:15,17,18,21 959:5 959:22,23 1000:12 proceedings 860:4,23 910:11,13 923:25 944:11 952:10 954:5 958:13 959:17 1046:14 1047:9 process 822:15,19,22 826:5 829:6,9,10 832:5 832:20 833:10 835:4 836:5,6,14,21,22 837:8 837:13 838:12 840:2 849:10 853:18,20 854:25 860:10 864:19 864:20 869:12 884:3 907:22 908:2 909:10,12 909:18 911:4,19,23 912:3,13,18 921:1 932:12,13 934:8 935:6 937:2,14 938:3,11 939:7 940:6 954:19 956:20 959:25 963:19 968:8,13 969:6,7 971:16,17 974:9 984:12 991:22 993:3,24 1001:14 1003:1,15,19 1004:5 1011:7 1013:5,7 1014:20 1020:2,16,19 1020:22,23,25 1023:5 1024:6 1025:4 1035:20 processed 929:22 931:12 processes 825:1,12 968:4 processing 930:14,18 931:4 932:7 934:4 935:20 936:1,12,14 952:25 969:5 produce 830:19 produced 914:23 918:5
producing 833:18 product 1035:20 production 830:4 1036:2 profession 1044:4 professional 816:18 877:2 1009:14,17 1011:2 1047:7 professionals 1033:16 profit 1010:5,18 program 820:22 821:14 821:14 828:24 869:8 870:6 942:1 948:9 949:12 956:9,11,14 973:3 1002:17 1027:1,5 1027:7 1029:14,16,17 1034:10 programs 1028:12 project 817:12 906:23 913:17,18,20 914:11 916:23 918:5 936:4 938:5 943:1 984:1 986:15,18 995:5,8 999:18 1006:21 1009:20 1037:21 projected 984:17 projector 820:18 projects 821:2 919:25 970:14 1025:25 properly 913:16 property 988:6,8 1039:1 1039:9,25 1041:2 1046:5 proponents 995:5 999:18 proposal 841:23 842:21 986:10 1002:4,19 proposals 1001:9 propose 909:19 proposed 909:24 936:16 936:21 967:3,6 969:14 969:16 971:8 985:24 986:23 1022:12 proposing 839:10,14 960:4 proprietary 1010:8 pros 970:18 prospective 1025:18 1026:6 protect 948:16 1010:10 protected 1029:16 protection 946:11,15,19 946:23 1026:20
protective 910:23 prove 829:20 830:1 provide 823:8 830:2,8,11 863:14 870:7,10 872:4 873:1 876:12 893:19 910:12 917:11 922:20 925:17 926:15 932:23 935:13 948:15 984:23 994:25 996:6 1024:14 1034:19 1038:6 provided 829:5 837:7 843:1,5 847:9,14 850:7 851:12 853:24 854:9 858:3 861:7 862:24 863:10,18 870:13,20,23 871:6,8,11,14 872:3,6,9 873:11 875:8,9,10,15 876:9 878:4,7 884:5 885:6,16,19 886:5 892:16,19 893:20 897:7 900:14 901:1,16 904:8 904:15 907:23 910:4 911:9 922:13 948:15 964:24 966:1 968:12,18 971:1,12 973:19 974:19 983:17 984:13 995:22 996:13 997:9 1024:12 provides 948:19 992:5 providing 821:8 862:3 897:12 911:15 provision 1027:25 provisions 949:21 public 816:18 817:22 819:3 827:2,5,6,7,16 828:13 831:23 833:11 833:20 834:17,25 836:5 836:11 837:1,9,14,15,20 837:23 838:6,12 854:25 855:5 866:18 870:9 876:12 884:3 893:4,11 894:19,19 896:9,16 910:2 926:2,21 927:23 929:6 933:3 934:14 935:6 948:17 964:25 965:3 988:11 991:21 993:10 1001:14 1002:11 1002:12 1006:12 1012:21,23 1020:7 1026:21 1030:9,14 1032:21 1033:1 1038:20 1047:7
publication 983:10 publicly 954:9 1013:7 published 964:12,21 965:3 983:13,20 pull 925:15 pulled 879:6,10 893:16 893:17 894:25 918:9 pulling 879:14 972:18 pulls 918:15 purchasing 825:11 purpose 871:12 874:5 910:3 purposes 1035:23 PURSUANT 816:13 purview 1006:12 pushed 939:10 put 822:3,18 833:8 836:10 838:11 845:10 851:13,23 852:13 855:11 856:9,15 860:13 867:11 868:8 870:5,24 871:2,5,7 872:7,11 873:20 875:16 878:7 883:9 887:5 893:7 899:17 909:20 914:24 916:23,25 968:20 971:23 978:15 984:11 993:7 1001:16 1010:20 1017:25 1018:2,14 1019:6,15 1025:22 1031:5 1034:2 1037:20 1040:4,10 1044:17,18 1045:9 putrid 1042:15 puts 910:9 putting 852:24 872:24 1027:19 p.m 945:2,3 1000:20,21 1030:22,23 1046:15 P.O 817:13 Q qualifications 857:24 858:10 859:20 922:13 qualified 977:3 1015:25 quality 828:21 877:5 879:3 880:11,12 881:9 881:20 882:15,17,19,23 885:10 890:6,8,23 917:7 921:5,6,7,10 942:22,23 942:24 1014:6 1037:17
quantify 902:12 question 830:23 831:5,8 841:17 842:20 843:7,9 844:14,22 845:21 846:12,18 848:11,12 851:17,20 859:4,6,10,19 861:4,9,10,18,22 865:16 865:18 867:19,20 868:12,15 871:21,22 872:20,21 874:7,21,23 880:2,4,22,24 881:1,14 883:8 885:24 888:9 889:8 890:13 897:5,15 897:17 898:10,12,23 904:22 906:18,19,21 907:3 908:19,20 910:16 912:24 913:7,16 916:4 919:19 921:7,23 924:18 934:16,18 938:18 941:7 943:8,10 944:23 945:19 950:10 962:5 970:6 977:4 979:12 980:24 981:22 986:16,17 989:1 989:21,22 994:21 996:11,20 999:11 1000:2 1003:7 1007:12 1009:24 1015:21 1020:17,21 1021:24 1028:22 1034:3 1038:20 questioning 843:4 874:1 919:12,16 1021:22 questions 823:1 824:12 835:19 845:25 847:10 850:17 859:16 861:2 868:18,21 870:8 871:23 874:10 887:17,19 889:25 890:23 898:24 911:3,10,20 924:11 926:4 929:13,14,20 933:10 934:24 947:1,10 954:12 957:8 958:24 959:4 963:14 965:13 999:8 1001:11 1002:1 1003:11 1004:1 1020:14 1021:2,7,10,20 1023:4 1023:14,23 1025:13 1027:25 1034:1 1038:18 queued 852:21 quick 826:19 882:8 1033:3 quickly 965:10
quiet 1039:7 quite 832:22 893:3 895:22 899:11 915:4 921:8 992:14 1039:10 1042:21 1045:20 quote 925:25 1026:25 quotes 1028:9 R R 817:2 820:2 rabbits 972:6,12,13 radiation 820:22 821:10 821:16 829:19 830:24 834:16 835:9 838:8 863:25 869:8 879:4 881:4 950:13 957:4 1001:22 1023:19 1036:25 1037:1,4 radio 821:5 radioactive 816:6 821:11 821:15,15 822:24 881:11 907:1 922:11 953:1 1013:17 1023:7 1023:19 radiological 995:9 radionuclide 972:14 1011:13 1036:13 radionuclides 972:19 1008:2 1036:22 radium 821:5 radon 821:16 946:14,16 946:19 1037:8 railroad 1043:18 raise 1032:19 raised 834:24 835:10 836:14 851:17 852:4 874:21 876:7 881:14 885:17 921:7 959:16 993:15 1004:23 1005:21 1005:22 1006:18 1034:3 ran 951:13 961:23 Ranch 1039:10 range 1010:22 rat 972:12 rate 1046:3 rational 1000:16,17 reach 1006:5 react 938:16 read 841:17 842:2 843:9 848:11,12 861:9,10 865:16,18,24 867:18,20
868:22 871:24 872:20 872:21 880:2,4 897:15 898:10,12 903:9 904:13 906:19,21 924:3 925:21 925:23 948:22 950:8,10 952:8,11,21 955:6,8 956:6 960:12 971:14 1028:7 1029:7 1031:4 readily 975:3,5 reading 960:19 961:3 972:16 985:14 real 857:11,17 1002:18 1033:3 realize 943:23 realizes 976:13 really 837:11 869:21 911:2 932:1,21 933:1 935:3,3 967:14 969:13 987:24 1004:6 1017:23 1018:20,21 1036:13 1039:12 reason 902:14 921:11,13 924:16 993:9 reasonable 905:4 969:10 reasonably 826:19 934:3 969:3 1003:17 reasons 892:4 944:13 993:5 recall 841:14 843:18 845:12,14 863:2,4 874:16 883:4 884:25 888:12 923:22 963:2 981:3 982:5 995:18 997:2 1008:9,17 1046:4 recalled 843:21 recalling 888:25 receipt 836:24 receive 823:6 836:18 874:6 993:2 1012:14 1025:17 received 823:11 827:24 832:21 833:11 834:9 836:8 845:7,22 852:19 854:2,12,13 862:8 873:18,19 879:7 948:21 955:4,9 961:18 962:16 964:14 973:12 982:14 991:18,18,19,21 992:24 993:11,13 1002:11 recess 1046:13 recessed 1046:14
recollection 1008:13 reconcile 900:25 reconciling 900:7 901:13 reconvened 820:3 record 820:4 831:21 840:5,14,15 841:2,10 843:12 849:22 854:10 854:18 855:7,14 858:13 858:25 862:5 865:25 873:13,15 884:24,25 893:7 896:15,20 907:20 914:24,25 915:5 919:11 925:22 928:8 933:9 938:24 945:14,15 954:3 962:15,18 964:25 972:18 985:3 993:22 1031:3,16,20 1032:3 records 843:13 856:6 862:7 914:22 926:21 936:8 965:3 1032:6 recovery 1013:16 recross 1021:13 1028:22 Recross-Examination 819:10 1028:25 Red 1039:10 Reddy 871:4 878:19 883:12 Reddy's 874:14 redirect 819:9,9 927:4 1021:18 1025:10 redlined 853:8 reduced 1047:11 reevaluate 934:9 1024:25 Reeve 994:4 998:4 refer 881:22 882:11 888:20 948:9 953:23 957:2 968:24 973:5,18 983:12 984:6 reference 944:5 945:17 946:6 983:8 992:1 referenced 992:22 references 870:7 965:25 995:10 referred 875:21 879:17 897:23 referring 882:12 897:11 900:3 917:18 928:17,19 943:16 945:20 966:13 967:7 968:11 970:20 973:10 979:24,25 983:15 984:17 993:21
995:14 996:15 1005:13 1010:14 1028:17 refers 857:13 1015:17 reflected 847:15 998:17 999:13,15 reflecting 825:7 reflective 851:6,8,11 regard 943:9 987:16 1001:12 1003:24 1009:10,12 1013:12 regarding 829:18 862:8 872:24 874:22 881:15 891:25 892:2,7,20 893:1 915:15 943:10 966:15 971:5 973:11 982:15 983:14 986:10 992:6 1007:18 1033:8,21 1034:3 1035:19 regardless 938:11 946:2 946:3 regards 887:24 996:6 region 949:13 1006:11 1019:13 regionally 1007:14,17 Register 964:12,21 983:21 Registered 816:17 1047:7 regs 1025:24 1026:9 1027:12 regular 894:20 1030:5 regulate 1013:16,17 regulation 821:12,15,16 957:5,7 960:24 961:11 961:15 regulations 822:2 823:2 829:20 913:8 949:25 950:7,14,25 952:12 954:8,13,17,17 955:21 957:3,9,18 958:12 960:1 960:6,9 1023:18,24 1026:22 regulatory 849:16 946:12 946:14 953:2,7 956:8,11 956:14 1002:25 1024:1 1029:13,15 related 827:22 832:18,24 833:2 834:10,19 863:25 865:2 878:3 879:8 881:12 884:4 887:9 892:8 919:8,18 942:10
943:1 974:1 989:12 1006:17 1009:13 1014:6 1014:7 1044:5,5 1045:17 1047:14 relates 889:4,5 relating 1045:25 relation 829:7 relationship 1003:14,17 relative 953:4 relatively 1015:4 release 843:4 918:2 relevance 858:19 859:24 915:22 916:2 919:12 927:16 933:10 1036:20 relevant 856:20 859:16 860:1 874:19 875:2 877:19 878:3 888:3 902:20 915:2,14 916:3 944:22 958:12,13,15 959:17 reliable 897:24 898:1 983:22 relied 872:11 887:1 888:13 899:8 900:8 904:17 987:18 991:11 1007:19 1009:2 relies 930:17 998:12 rely 891:21 905:19 947:14 957:15 relying 862:23 967:17 remainder 915:13 remained 865:11 866:4 866:13,23 remaining 870:20 remains 843:20 866:8 remand 944:21 945:21 remarks 1001:7 remedial 821:4 remediation 1017:8 1037:2 remember 845:10 863:13 875:17,19 876:9,11,13 877:4 884:11 885:9 899:4 902:1,10 904:3,9 905:4,8 919:4 922:14 932:18 942:11 947:17 966:22 978:15 981:8,10 997:25 1008:16 1027:2 1027:25 remembered 1045:23 remembrances 1041:21
remind 887:15 remote 1039:7 remove 987:9 removing 987:6 988:7 renew 978:24 renewal 825:20 826:20 895:20 910:8 Renzo 845:17 875:14 repair 1041:22 1042:5 1043:2 1045:2,15 repaired 1042:4 repeat 848:10 871:21,22 889:8 911:5 repeatedly 853:10 1014:3 rephrase 994:23 report 832:8,9 834:6,9 857:7 867:14 888:16,17 891:23 894:4 905:2 918:3 938:23 939:8 966:23 967:18 968:7,12 970:3,5 971:12 972:17 978:7 980:14,18 991:12 991:19 992:2,5,9,12 993:6,24,25 994:1 995:11,12,18,21,22 996:1,1,5,12,16 998:13 998:17 999:17 1000:5,7 1004:13,16 1005:1,10 1005:14,14,19,25 1006:2,24 1007:2,21 1009:18 1010:17 1014:11 1033:18,18 reporter 816:18 820:12 820:20 848:13 861:11 865:19 867:21 868:21 871:24 872:22 879:23 880:5 898:13 906:22 945:1 950:11 1047:7 REPORTER'S 816:4 1047:4 reports 834:9,11 879:7 892:10 900:4 922:10 948:22 966:1 1004:6 represent 831:22 1031:23 1032:8 reprocessing 931:7 request 824:7,7 837:25 838:1 842:24 843:4,6,17 845:11 857:24 859:25 872:7,10 877:17 921:3
922:13 939:4 requested 872:4 918:10 requesting 939:3 requests 823:16 824:10 840:11 842:18 857:23 920:20 require 829:11 830:12 1027:10,11 required 822:2 823:5 827:12 829:20,23 830:7 832:7 834:3,7 836:25 851:24 852:9 855:11 909:20,22 912:13,17 918:18 931:21 934:22 938:2,11 940:3,6,7 943:12 949:20 972:8 986:7 1011:15,20,21,22 1012:3,9 1022:13 1023:8 1037:19 requirement 826:6 827:4 829:19 842:8,14,16,17 949:23 961:10 1024:7 1025:14 requirements 822:4,18 828:19 829:24 838:12 849:16 856:21 951:1 961:8 1012:19 1013:2,4 1019:1 1020:3 1026:11 1026:13 1027:7 requires 836:24 1002:15 1029:17 requiring 1024:12 research 883:25 899:14 1008:1 reservations 979:10 resident 1008:19,20 residents 1008:23 1009:3 residuals 931:2,8 932:11 932:19 936:15 residues 931:9 resolve 944:23 950:23 resource 895:17 994:9,12 994:16,18 Resources 816:6 817:5,8 871:17 1019:19 respect 1008:22 respond 842:17 844:17 979:5 1008:22 responded 1019:22 responders 892:24 responding 962:5
responds 842:5 response 840:9,11 842:3 845:8 847:10 851:20 858:1,12 859:3,20 874:23 877:17 893:21 976:12,19 1007:18,20 responses 845:11 874:3 947:4 responsibility 880:14 889:12 922:3,4 933:5 1006:13 1013:18,22,23 responsible 846:9 851:3 858:1 866:20 876:14 878:12,25 879:12 880:17,18 881:2,4 882:14,16 890:7,14 891:14 922:25 923:20 947:11 961:12,14 1012:11 1014:7 rest 894:4 902:17 917:9 917:11 997:17 Restate 999:11 restrictive 961:8 result 892:3 907:9 993:2 1047:16 resumed 816:14 resumes 877:17 retain 1022:18 retention 978:7,10,12 979:8 980:1 retract 977:5 retreat 1040:1 retrievable 893:9 retrieving 1011:25 returned 966:3 review 821:23 822:7,9,13 822:15 823:22 826:1,19 826:24 827:2 832:1 834:8 836:5 845:3 846:22 847:21 848:1,16 848:17,19 849:10 850:18 851:2,7,11,24 852:3 853:2,3,5 856:25 860:21 862:17 863:12 863:14 864:7 865:11 866:8,12,21 869:2 873:3 899:2 901:17 907:23 915:21 916:1 917:25 919:17,21 965:2 984:8 984:19,21 985:1,4,5,18 985:23 986:1 993:10
1002:4,7,15,23 1003:5,6 1005:19 1012:20,22 1019:21 1020:16 1022:20 1024:6 1032:1 1033:12,14 reviewed 830:25 833:25 847:11 848:17,20 850:9 850:12,21,22 851:22,25 852:21 856:19 862:11 862:13,20 863:22 864:16 866:16,18 870:12 878:15 895:11 899:4,7 904:17 1001:9 1002:15 reviewers 886:4 1002:23 1033:14 reviewing 822:16 899:22 921:2 940:22,23 957:7 1027:5 reviews 827:5 964:13 1033:10 revised 961:9 995:11 1024:10 re-ask 921:22 re-establishment 986:24 RFIs 823:16 824:10,18 Rice 1043:5 rich 1040:14 Richard 816:15 rid 932:25 ride 1040:23 rider 1041:2 riders 1040:18,21,22 1041:10 Ridge 816:6 924:10 926:1 1037:10 1038:9,16 1041:16 Ridgway 1040:19 ridiculous 1037:23 riding 1041:4 right 835:14 838:17 840:18 844:17 845:3 846:4 858:21 866:11 880:18 889:18 893:18 901:5 909:11 914:12 916:12 933:23 935:5 936:23 938:14 944:23 946:8,10 950:17 952:11 952:16 957:13 958:22 962:24 963:15 964:3,5 967:9 975:16,18 979:19
980:23 985:14 996:11 998:13 999:12 1004:20 1005:6 1024:21 1032:19 1033:7 1036:17 1037:1 1037:25 rightly 1003:13 rights 830:21 rise 1039:20 1046:6 risk 896:9 995:11,18 1016:18,21,23,23 1017:6,7,11 1018:1 risks 1034:25 river 978:3,22 1042:12,13 1042:15 riverbed 1018:15 road 818:2 1011:23 1015:12 1036:18 roar 976:13 Robert 818:2 1031:9 Roberts 1031:11 1032:14 1032:16,18 1033:2,5 1038:22 rock 931:10 932:7 Rocky 817:16 821:9 role 820:21 830:24 867:17 949:10 rolling 950:16 Ron 872:1 room 1030:4 1046:9 rooms 825:11 rotor 1044:15 rough 1019:20 roughly 826:20 834:14 routes 1007:19 routinely 825:3 894:4 RPR 1047:22 rubber 1045:6 rule 916:16 985:24 1037:13,22 ruled 943:17 rules 1012:19 ruling 859:25 865:13 866:3 927:13 943:12 rulings 865:12 run 1031:13 1042:25 1043:3 running 825:2 1040:22 Ryan 1040:19 S S 820:2
safe 1037:8 safety 827:16 829:24 834:17 864:1 1035:23 sage 845:21 876:13 sagebrush 981:4,14,17 981:21,24 Sage-grouse 982:24 983:14 984:19 985:8,25 986:11,14,18,24 987:17 988:1,14 Sakamoto 1045:20 sale 1039:10 sample 972:5 976:1,5 sampled 977:9 samples 973:21,24,24 974:18,21 975:1,8 976:14,17 1045:21 sampling 971:11 974:24 976:6,21,24 977:7 989:11,14,18 San 828:8 837:17,25 884:6 894:12 948:11 1040:17,18 sand 1015:6,7 sandbag 910:11 Sandler 817:15 819:8 945:6,12 963:16,20,21 963:25 964:4,9,18,23 965:2,8,15,17 966:8 969:24 970:2,7 973:17 974:13,15 977:5,6,12,18 977:19 978:25 979:5,16 979:17,18 985:17 999:2 999:3,4,12,20,24 1000:4 1000:9,10,13 1029:21 Sandler's 964:6 977:4 999:7 1021:22 sands 994:5 995:19 996:7 996:19,24 998:5 999:17 sat 1017:12 satisfaction 843:5,10 satisfied 856:20 1013:4 satisfies 849:16 satisfy 1003:9 1014:22 Saturday 816:15 820:1 saw 1009:6 1010:22 1012:25 1027:1 1039:21 1041:3 saying 914:1 938:21 939:2 941:16 964:19 970:4 994:8 1020:6
1024:6 1026:8 says 865:24,25 901:6 916:13 917:25 918:2 924:10 926:4,22 927:6 952:12 955:20 957:1 968:13,25 972:5 976:12 983:6,7 989:25 996:25 1028:7 1029:5 1035:16 1043:6 scanned 929:1 scattered 1005:15 scenario 947:21,24,25 scenarios 947:18 scenery 1042:9 scenic 1039:7 1041:14 schedule 950:16 1024:14 scheduled 911:1 Scheppers 868:9 869:22 870:6 Schnittker 816:17 1047:6,22 school 892:23 science 992:16 1035:14 scientific 972:8 983:10 scientist 970:21 1001:8,8 scientists 995:2,5 1004:8 scope 919:13 937:23 938:1 954:11 scorching 1041:4 scratch 873:8 screen 924:3 927:18,21 928:9,18,20 961:25 974:10,14 984:24 scroll 962:25 scrutinize 837:11 se 1005:14 1021:23 seal 990:1,6,25 searching 1039:9 seat 820:7 831:19 second 841:11 845:18 848:3 870:21 887:13 892:18,24 894:6 917:24 944:25 952:9 960:16 962:4 974:8 1020:21 section 835:1,9 848:17 850:24 851:20 854:23 854:25 863:23,24 864:16 871:6 873:23 879:11,13,14,17 880:11 881:3,15 882:19 888:13 899:1,3 904:10,24 905:3
905:7 915:11 919:3 930:20 932:9 944:18 960:16,17 968:21 995:9 1007:22 sections 827:21 844:8,15 847:4,18 864:25 865:1,4 868:7 874:16 879:1 880:17 881:12 887:1,2 890:7,11,15 891:22 893:16 900:11 947:12 see 825:3,13 826:22 833:3 838:24 843:7 865:11 866:8,18 871:16 876:8 882:3 885:16 888:21 893:2 896:4 902:1 903:21 905:11 924:4,19 947:3 963:9 971:8 974:16,19 976:11,21 984:19,22 1003:9 1004:4 1005:12 1010:4 1011:7,12 1022:22 1026:22 1027:22 1028:4 1033:11,24 1036:7,19 1043:16 1045:24 1046:1 seeing 903:8 1046:6 seek 934:4 942:14 seen 928:21,22 954:6 974:5 1015:10,10,10 1016:1,3,3 1042:15 segments 938:4,6 segregate 893:24 segregated 894:4 selection 971:18,19 self-authenticating 925:8 927:13 928:5 self-identifying 925:8 selling 1039:14 seminal 1001:9 send 823:3 827:21 844:11 844:15 847:4,17 918:13 930:21,24 931:1 932:21 962:13 964:10 sending 929:5,14 964:19 sense 825:24 868:19 933:3 sent 844:8,18,20 845:6,17 848:1 852:17 854:11,18 855:7 858:4,10,10 873:16 924:10,13,22 926:23 927:7,9,22 928:11 929:1 962:2
965:11 973:6 984:15 1005:9 sentence 1029:7 separate 905:14 982:10 separated 1013:19 separately 951:21 serious 1020:5 serve 1040:12 served 858:16 Service 983:13,22 984:3 985:23 986:9 Services 984:7 set 836:7,7 837:13 865:23 876:9 879:21 902:22 907:13,22 911:9 934:23 961:5 987:9 988:18 1014:22 1047:10 sets 876:6 setting 825:11 settlement 948:10,25 949:3,5 Seventh 817:21 share 1021:1 1041:20 Sheep 817:14 851:18 852:4,12 853:19 892:10 954:4 1004:15 1005:4 sheet 840:12 sheets 916:9 1030:24 sheriff's 828:11 892:25 1006:17 Sherman 817:21 shift 1022:1 Shiya 920:2 shop 1041:22 1044:10 1045:11 short 823:22 848:14 1001:3 shortchange 926:9 shorthand 1047:10 shortly 824:2 964:22 965:12 show 879:23 938:23,23 showed 892:21 showered 1041:5 showing 902:7 shown 917:17 938:24 1025:14 show-stopper 1017:15 sic 867:23 881:23 side 909:3 1014:10 1039:19,22 1042:22
sides 897:7 1014:16 1038:1 sight 1046:5 sign 836:18 1034:8 signature 840:24,25 841:12 1047:18 signatures 1009:6 signed 840:22 896:17 897:21 924:10 1030:15 1034:4 significance 855:12 significant 826:22 832:21 833:11 910:19 912:10,12,17,19 920:1,8 940:5 974:25 988:9 991:20 1025:22 significantly 1026:24 sign-up 1030:24 similar 923:2 936:17 963:4,12 single 854:16 893:8 972:12 sir 1006:9 1031:21 1038:22 sit 838:22 906:3 922:8 941:11,18 1017:20 1026:12 site 829:18 834:10 835:21 835:22 836:2,7,8,10,17 836:18 881:14 886:18 886:19 887:12,22,24 889:4 920:17,22 921:2,6 921:12 924:10 926:1 930:22,25 931:2,3 942:2 951:9,10 954:9 957:12 961:12,14 962:9,21 966:16 972:7 975:13,23 976:1,5 977:21 978:1,5 978:8,9,10,13,19,20,21 978:22,23,23 979:2,7,8 980:2,7,18,20 981:4 987:3,6,21,23 988:4 992:6 1001:18 1014:24 1016:2 1022:8,9 1023:21 1037:2,9,12 sites 821:5 920:10,13 942:1,2 979:6 996:3 1035:2 siting 834:2 sitting 922:16 964:1 situation 961:6
situations 990:20 six 833:22 920:15 1039:9 1044:18 size 940:25 sizes 1008:10 sketchy 911:15 skill 934:23 skip 871:19 slash 837:1,2,3 slightly 1037:12 Sloped 1015:3 small 932:24 975:17,20 990:9 991:7 1035:21 1039:20 smaller 952:11 967:20,23 968:1 972:6,11 smell 1044:11 1045:10 1045:10 Smith 848:24 867:9,22 869:5 881:23 882:5 883:3,6 888:2 891:5,10 924:11 929:10,12,18 Smith's 884:22 smoother 908:20 smoothly 867:13 sneak 1036:3 snippets 893:16 snowpack 1004:19 social 834:3,14,20 891:18 892:3,8,8,13 893:1,1 895:8,15,19 896:22 897:1,24 900:13,15,18 901:12 903:15,17 1009:13 socioeconomic 891:22 893:22 898:17,20 899:1 899:6,25 900:5 soil 1016:5,10,13 solicited 1004:21 soliciting 827:20 solid 828:24 870:3 solution 1019:10 somebody 856:11 882:18 908:23 916:13,19 926:25 1032:14 1033:13 1037:21 1038:20 someone's 905:22 somewhat 934:4 952:5 soon 836:10 sorry 835:16 844:23 846:12 848:5,7 855:8
859:5,18 860:9 861:20 863:16 864:4 866:22 871:18 872:5 873:13 878:17 879:20 880:20 881:3 885:23 887:25 889:7 891:20 896:6 897:15,18 898:24 899:20 904:3,14,14 910:6,25 912:23 913:24 921:22 925:2 929:20 937:9 939:15 943:20 944:7,9 946:3 947:10,24 948:18 950:1,6,7 958:16 959:12 960:5 961:20 962:21 966:3 971:17 976:2 981:16 983:15 989:21 990:5 991:6,15 992:10 994:14 1003:7 1009:22 1016:11 1023:19 1033:3 sort 829:5 861:4 862:24 897:8 981:25 998:21 1005:1 1019:16 sorting 953:25 sorts 925:4 sought 883:20,20 1004:16 sound 968:22 972:15 992:16 sounds 905:4 935:25 945:12 986:13 997:3,15 1008:12 source 909:13 983:3,22 1018:17 sources 833:7 853:21 875:7 891:21 894:25 910:4 984:3 south 1042:14 southeast 1039:23 southwest 1037:11 so-called 1008:20 Spaanstra 817:2 933:8 933:18,21,23 973:15 999:1,3,6 space 1037:7 speak 883:23 937:9 962:23 987:22 1032:9 speaking 978:5 special 1025:25 specialty 875:11 species 964:13 966:19
971:11 975:13 977:20 977:21,24 978:1,3 979:22 980:14,18 981:9 981:11,13,20,23 982:2 982:10,25 983:1,1 984:2 984:10 985:2,9,11 986:3 986:14,19 987:3 988:25 989:2,6,14,18,19 990:20 specific 822:4,19 823:5 823:18 829:19 832:9,14 832:15,17,18 833:8 834:24 835:2 838:11 849:15 853:25 855:3 857:11 861:3 867:2 871:11 874:21 875:15 877:6 881:10,14 885:23 886:6 887:25 892:7 900:22 906:23 916:19 957:8 970:20 983:15 991:14,16,17 993:11 1003:5 1009:25 1011:20 specifically 823:17 829:22 834:19 844:6 846:24 856:7 872:18,23 875:13 878:16 879:5 880:14 882:25 884:13 892:12 893:13 895:18 904:9 930:11 943:18 973:8 978:4 981:11 1028:18 specifics 971:3 specified 924:24 spectrum 833:24 949:11 speculate 880:9 speculative 1026:1 speed 825:2 1016:9 spend 833:6 spent 828:10 835:7 916:14,22 917:2 969:17 973:3 1039:9 spill 826:11 spirit 1030:2 spoke 845:12,17,21 890:21 891:20 892:1,5 sputum 1045:21 ss 1047:1 stable 825:23 staff 828:10,21,22 832:2 832:14 856:6 870:12 880:13 919:20 922:6 997:1,6,9,12,20 1011:5
staffed 921:14 staffing 919:16 921:18 staff's 853:12,14 stage 823:22 826:20 stages 1020:11 stale 824:19 stalwart 1043:23 stand 1032:19 1038:12 1045:14 standalone 846:11 927:22 standard 1034:18 1035:25 1037:13 standards 1037:16,17,19 standpoint 903:15 933:4 start 820:5 840:4 861:24 960:19 961:3 982:24 1012:6,8,10,13 1022:6 1025:21,23 1038:10 started 821:8 832:20 833:1,3 836:6 894:16 starting 870:21 873:11 1036:15,16 starts 1011:8 1028:3 start-up 826:5 state 816:19 820:11 821:9 827:14,17,21 828:4 841:22 842:8,15 861:5 861:15,16,24 862:1 892:1,17 918:17 925:23 962:13,16 1002:7 1006:16 1010:11 1023:15,16,24 1027:1,5 1028:12 1032:4,6 1033:18 1047:1,8 stated 961:13 997:4 1008:14,16 1015:15 1038:4 statement 961:5 974:19 976:2,10 983:11 985:10 986:16 990:24 1028:11 1033:9,10,17 1034:11 1035:19 1036:7 states 961:11 977:20 982:25 983:21 992:5 statistical 896:22 973:21 974:18 statistically 976:25 977:7 status 835:8 907:14 942:4 1032:6 statute 836:23 838:11
1013:20 statutes 1023:18 statutory 822:3 825:16 1013:22,23 stay 844:14 871:18 890:2 1016:15 1029:2 1042:19 step 822:19 871:19 1013:13 1032:22 1037:19 Stephen 820:8,13 stepped 1015:7 steps 1001:24 Steve 819:6 881:22 974:12 1001:3 Stills 817:9 819:7,10 831:5,12,14 835:11 838:17,21,24 839:2 840:8,13,18 841:4,5,9 841:10 843:11,22 844:1 844:5,23 858:14,16,23 859:5,8,12,15,23 860:3 860:6,11,14,16,21 861:14,22 865:16 866:2 867:18,22 873:7 874:6 874:12,13 880:25 882:2 882:7 886:12,14 889:19 890:21 891:9,11,13 897:7,18 898:10,16 906:10,19,25 908:16,18 908:21 910:10,18 914:20 915:8,10,13,18 916:1,5 917:8,11,12,20 917:23 918:4 919:15,20 922:17 925:7,20 926:10 926:11,16 927:3,8,25 928:2,10,13,16,19,22 929:4 934:2,25 943:10 943:11,17,20,22 944:2,6 944:9,12,15,17 945:9,13 945:16 946:9 950:13 951:16,18,22 952:1,2,16 952:19,21 953:14,17,19 953:22,23 954:7,16,25 955:1,16,19,20 960:18 962:3,6 963:13 966:3 1000:17 1021:11,12 1027:24 1028:22 1029:1 1029:19,24 1031:15,22 1032:5,12 stocks 932:7 stop 1033:13
stove 1040:25 straight 854:10 947:16 1000:15 1039:21,23 straightforwardly 846:3 stray 890:2 stream 1007:8 Street 816:16 817:3,16,21 stretched 824:17 Strike 873:9 structural 1035:21 structure 881:21 1025:24 structured 1009:18 studied 1035:5 1045:21 studies 821:5 878:1 964:15 study 973:12 974:3 989:17 1033:21 1035:1 1036:14,19 1045:20 stuff 828:16 stunning 1039:21 subject 842:4 858:18 861:1 915:21 933:13 1034:7 submissions 870:11,13 submit 823:15 832:7 914:25 937:7,10,16 938:16,21 944:19 submittal 893:22 940:4 submittals 871:4 892:15 893:11,12 submitted 822:8 832:22 834:10 836:9 854:25 855:5 856:24 857:9 862:13,14 863:23 867:11,15,16 879:8 883:10,12 884:2 892:10 892:14 893:4 894:18,20 896:14,16 899:15 900:8 905:21 907:7 921:3 936:5 972:3 1024:2 subsequently 885:12 substance 865:15 substantial 822:14 substantially 822:11 1036:24 substantive 912:5 successful 988:13 suffer 988:17 suffered 999:17 sufficient 929:12 suggest 874:8
suggestions 976:25 1019:24 Suite 817:3,7,10,16 suited 1039:12 Sulfite 918:2 summarize 833:17 summarized 877:25 summary 901:21,22,25 1009:22 superfund 1035:2 supervision 866:21 919:21 supplement 833:5 supplemental 1040:14 supplied 1010:23 1040:24 supplies 1040:24 supply 829:18,21 830:3 890:13,15 support 834:8 896:18 994:9,12,16,24 1003:5 1034:8 1038:15 supporting 823:7 824:1 994:18 998:21 1004:14 suppose 916:6 926:24 supposed 837:2 923:23 935:12 962:17 987:25 sure 825:6 827:11 833:14 833:14,23 838:23 843:23 847:14 852:1 853:5 858:25 867:2,12 870:14 880:8 882:25 887:2 889:8 895:3 897:9 899:4,11 901:5 905:10 915:5 917:19 919:5 924:18 925:16 926:23 939:13 949:10 950:2 951:7 970:2,11,21 972:16 980:17 983:18 984:23 987:14 991:2 992:14,25 994:21 995:4 1007:16 1009:8,16 1010:2 1012:25 1014:21 1026:7 1037:24 1039:16 1043:10 surely 990:13 surety 826:23 958:19 959:14 surface 1015:1,23 surfing 964:25 surrounding 902:4
903:20 surveil 957:16 surveillance 955:18,21 955:22 956:1 957:12 961:7,12,14 1028:9 1029:10,12 survey 968:12,21 969:1 971:18,18,19,20,23 972:5,19 982:13 surveys 876:22 982:17 982:19 survive 1038:3,4 suspect 866:15 980:17 997:8 sustain 999:22 sustained 910:17 916:1 999:10 swapped 864:25 swath 827:12 834:4 sweep 861:5 sworn 820:9 synonymous 957:12 system 914:9 919:6 1018:21,21 1036:22 1040:20 S-T-E-P-H-E-N 820:13 T table 1019:23,25 tailing 905:12 914:4,8 997:6 1021:23 tailings 898:23 904:23 905:6,25 906:3,6,11,13 907:16,18 908:11,24 909:5,15 989:3 1018:13 1019:11 1021:21 1022:1 1035:10 take 826:24 844:1 850:24 858:24 867:1 870:20 881:19 884:14 886:11 889:14 900:14 917:24 921:11,20,25 927:4 940:9 944:24 959:24 960:1 1000:16 1017:7 1018:24 1030:10,21 1043:7 taken 851:13 865:1 889:16 910:21 926:10 945:2 965:23 976:17 979:1,3 1000:20 1005:20 1007:15
1008:21 1009:2 1030:22 1047:9 talk 821:25 828:1 830:17 864:2,4 885:13 886:18 886:25 965:18 971:4,10 1012:15 1014:1 1020:15 talked 828:17 835:9 878:2,25 978:12 1001:19 1023:3 talking 846:4,17,20,21 852:3 857:12,17 867:2 879:2,3,3 887:15 889:23 942:17,18,20 953:16 978:19,21 980:1 1020:8 tall 1044:18 tally 916:22 1009:22 Tarlton 819:6 820:5,7,8 820:14,17,21 832:1 835:19 838:13 843:12 844:25 859:1 860:16 881:22 882:4 889:19 908:22 917:17 934:19 943:8 946:9 954:15 955:2,20 964:1,3,11 965:18 974:12,16 1021:20 1025:12 1027:18 Tarlton's 840:23 859:20 915:2,14 taxes 1040:15 taxpayer 835:7 team 847:25 848:14,21,22 848:23 849:3 850:8,9 854:1,9 855:9 876:14 878:25 879:6 881:24 882:5,11,14 883:1 885:22 886:20,23 887:23 888:6,10 890:7 890:14 891:13 904:24 947:9,11 technical 832:14,22,23 833:25 837:6 848:15 849:8 850:18 853:3,12 853:14 854:1,9 856:6 866:8 878:4,6,8 885:7 886:3 894:10 900:16 935:14 1002:11 1015:25 1016:22,24 1017:1 technically 866:13,18,23 936:16 1016:19 technologies 860:15
telephone 1000:23 1003:22 telephonically 817:17 tell 821:1 824:21 874:4 972:25 973:7 1026:10 1028:13 telling 823:16 Telluride 828:9 837:24 885:8 902:18 948:9,11 1037:2,3,5,10,12,14 1038:5 temperature 1044:20 tend 1008:17 tens 1045:2 tentative 984:10 term 824:10 842:6 865:22 897:10 904:4 1029:9,10 terminated 920:14,16,20 termination 921:3 terminology 1027:4 terms 861:18 880:12 881:9 902:10 932:10,25 949:21 997:23 Terri 1030:25 terrible 1018:15 test 1043:9 testified 820:9 829:3 835:25 839:3 841:25 842:19,25 856:16 859:1 877:14 901:9 905:1 929:4,25 933:11,14 934:1 943:8 954:8,15 959:12,13,16 testify 839:22,24 868:1 912:2 929:13 934:19 954:21 956:9 960:5 1015:21 testifying 835:12 842:11 846:21 863:1 888:24 999:7,9,21 1036:6 testimony 829:18 844:7 859:17 872:3,6,9 876:16 882:18 885:15 889:3 903:25 908:22 915:3,15 928:3 930:4,6 933:11,17 935:21 938:19 954:16 954:17 978:6,11 979:11 981:3,6 990:3 1001:6 1013:14 1036:12 testing 948:9 1037:16,17 text 869:23 870:17,20
872:7,14,16,24,25 873:10,17 875:15 944:16 952:22 thank 838:14 840:3 847:2 847:7,17 853:18 854:8 857:22 859:8 871:1 874:12 877:13 881:7 882:2 883:8 885:21 889:15 901:16 904:21 908:21 917:8,23 941:20 959:2 963:13 964:9 965:7,15 966:5 969:19 974:15 977:10,18 979:17 981:2 1000:9 1021:5 1025:2,7,9 1027:14 1028:20 1029:19 1030:3,18 1032:12 1038:20,22 1046:11,12 Thanks 911:22 970:2 theorizing 939:23 they'd 937:7 thing 846:4 913:13 914:6 914:18 915:19 936:17 1008:9 1014:10 1018:3 1019:11,14 1031:15 1035:11 things 824:24 827:11 830:1 834:21 849:16 850:2,20 867:13,14 877:11 887:9 899:13 900:10 902:4 903:14,22 904:6 925:4 969:25 987:10 991:4 1003:10 1014:18 1017:13,17,19 1018:7,8,9,20 1026:11 1038:7 1041:13 think 821:13,20 824:2,4 824:9,11 827:18 828:17 828:18 831:1,7,14 838:1 839:6 842:1,15 845:3,7 845:13,17,22 848:2,3,8 848:25 849:1,1 853:6 856:7 858:4 859:16 860:6,12 862:2,4 866:6 866:24 868:13,17 869:17 870:1 876:13 877:5,20,24 878:11 879:8 885:25 886:12,22 887:13,20 888:18,23 889:14,20 890:18
891:23 892:12 894:24 902:3,22 904:7 905:21 905:23 906:14 908:2,19 911:18,21 912:4,8 913:2 913:15 914:23 916:3 920:12 922:2,19 923:5 925:7 927:18 929:24 930:11 933:4 935:11 936:4 938:24 942:17 944:18 947:1 950:8 952:1 955:9 958:10,14 958:16 959:15 964:2 968:1 969:16,17 973:4 975:3 977:25 980:12 983:11,17 985:16 987:18 994:10 1004:14 1006:1 1007:1,10,11,17 1009:19 1011:20,21 1016:20 1017:24 1020:14 1022:10 1027:15,20 1029:23,24 1030:15 1033:23 1038:19 thinking 848:6 914:21 959:19 third 951:13,17 964:14 965:5 993:7 thorium 952:25 thoroughly 832:10 thought 832:17 833:12 840:14 844:3 848:7 866:18 889:7 908:24 958:22 963:18 971:8 978:1 979:25 1020:8 1040:4 1045:22 thousand 936:19,24 937:12,17 938:8 939:6 939:11,17,17,18,19 941:2,4,14 968:8,10,15 968:23 969:5,6 1033:25 1034:16 1035:20 thousand-ton-per-day 936:17 three 826:21 845:5 863:9 920:3 921:15 941:8 951:12,14,18 964:10 972:12,13,13 982:9 1007:6 1010:14 1039:13 1040:11 three-county 902:18 threshold 1008:10,14,15
1008:16 1016:5,8 throw 1037:21 thumb 916:16 thumbnail 1015:19 tie 902:5 tied 892:9 ties 903:17 time 821:19,21 822:4 823:22 824:17 825:10 825:24 828:10,15 833:6 838:5,11 840:12 843:21 855:18 857:16,16 864:21 868:15 880:16 889:14 895:23 910:5,24 911:4,7,10 912:8 914:22 914:25 915:4 916:9,14 916:22,24 917:4 918:21 918:24 919:2 920:1,2,2 920:6,8 932:19 933:19 940:22 944:4,19 954:6 957:10 958:25 960:2,9 969:17 973:3 982:9 986:20 997:14 1000:15 1000:16 1001:18 1018:19 1025:16,23 1026:3 1033:23 1038:14 1038:17 1043:3,4,5 1046:8 1047:10 timeline 822:19 times 919:24 923:7 990:19 1001:19 1015:9 1042:16,25 timing 986:12 tissue 972:13,19 title 854:21 today 841:25 842:11,19 842:25 853:4 863:1 888:24 890:17 906:4 908:3,8,10 922:16 929:18 941:11,18 960:7 979:14 1019:18 1031:19 1038:12 told 822:1 848:8 864:5 887:18 918:8 937:8 941:2,4,14 998:21 1023:11 ton 938:22,25 939:17,17 939:18,19 940:3,14 tons 936:19,23,24 939:1,2 939:11 941:2,4,14 967:25 968:4,8,10,13,15
968:23 969:5,6 1035:20 1036:3,3 top 845:13 917:24 960:12 topics 834:6 total 917:4 920:15 tourism 894:6 1038:4 1041:18 town 828:9 838:1 Toxic 839:5,7 track 849:19 850:2 tracked 917:14 tracking 889:8 tracks 1043:18 trade 1043:2 traffic 1006:17 1007:14 trail 1041:15 training 877:10 895:14 895:15,18 897:23 transaction 930:9 transcript 816:4 884:15 884:19 1047:13 transmit 928:25 transmittal 854:4 924:8 transmitted 852:15 856:10 transport 881:10 transportation 827:15 828:14 834:4,18 844:13 844:18 845:2,3,9,14 855:2 1002:13 1005:1 1005:10,13,14,22,24,25 1006:2,6,10,13,14,18 1007:19 1011:23 transporting 1019:3 trapped 975:4,5,22,23 trapping 972:10 travel 975:21 Travers 829:17 Travis 817:9 941:6 945:5 945:6 Travis's 845:11 treatment 931:1,7,9,10 932:10,19 936:15 tremendous 1019:13 triannual 1022:20 tried 834:23 846:1 850:3 868:17 899:17 907:6 1014:21 1017:13 1018:24 trip 1042:2,24 trouble 939:22 1006:21
1017:23 truck 1007:9,10 trucked 931:11 trucking 830:18 trucks 1007:10 true 858:6 878:23 916:21 970:15 974:21 975:1 978:4 982:18 984:5 990:4,5 995:3 997:8,19 1021:17 1047:12 truly 1002:16 1015:18 Trumpolt 887:8 try 833:14 846:2 850:14 894:10 902:5,12,24 912:12 937:9 945:10 951:10 957:6 1001:3 1017:14,25 1018:10 1019:3 1036:2 trying 822:1 827:18 828:17 848:25 851:10 868:12 873:24 876:8,11 877:4 880:25 887:19 894:17 897:18 900:21 900:24 902:1,21 903:17 926:18 927:8 928:4 945:17 946:6 950:23 983:24 984:1 1000:14 1004:21 1026:9,10 turn 820:18 866:25 955:10 1028:2 1034:17 turned 920:19 921:22 turns 1044:15 TV 1041:6 twice 822:3 two 833:21 834:9,11 837:14 838:15 845:4,6 850:17 854:22 869:7,20 878:4 885:6 920:9,12 945:25 951:19 953:12 964:12 965:2 995:15 1003:10 1004:8 1007:6 1007:9 1014:16,18 1020:14 1032:21 1040:7 1040:11 1042:3 1045:4 type 832:18 918:5 981:14 993:12 1018:1 types 980:14 1016:5 typewritten 1047:11 typical 1041:25 1042:13 1042:24 T-A-R-L-T-O-N 820:14
U Uh-huh 864:6 916:5 960:13 1010:12 1023:25 UMTRA 870:6,9 1035:2 uncertain 889:22 underestimates 961:5 understand 820:19 822:2 831:12 838:9 846:12,25 847:1 850:14 851:10 859:19 865:13,15 868:13 881:21 889:11 896:9 900:19,21 917:18 924:18 926:16 927:11 927:12 935:3 939:13 950:2 975:20 994:21 997:16 1004:21 1005:16 1016:23 1017:14 1026:7 1031:3 1033:9 1038:1 understanding 820:6 828:14 839:15,16 868:11 884:3 886:7 911:22 913:8,15 924:21 956:1 1035:3 understood 1036:14 Union 817:7 unit 821:10,11,20 922:10 922:11 1040:9 United 983:21 units 1040:11,11 universe 862:22 unloaded 1043:6 unnumbered 955:13 unsolicited 855:1 1004:25 unsuccessful 972:11 update 889:12 896:3 upgrade 1041:3 upset 948:6 upstream 1037:15 uranium 816:7 821:2 822:17 841:23 842:21 875:3 914:3 919:21,25 920:3,11,12 921:15 931:6 943:1,14 952:24 973:3 1001:14 1013:16 1018:5,6,25 1043:11 Uravan 1034:22 1036:25 1041:21,24 1042:3,11 1042:12,14,18 use 824:10 834:21 860:5 864:11 869:12 883:24
894:14 895:1 902:2,3 903:3 907:21 909:13,23 931:3 935:8,14 988:8 1006:25 1010:3 1011:16 1036:9,11 1041:6 uses 822:15 902:4 988:9 1027:4 usually 823:6 826:3 847:12 905:23 1025:20 Utah 884:7 U.S 953:1 V V 816:4 vacated 855:19 vague 939:14 1009:24 vaguely 1008:12 valid 865:11 valley 986:25 988:7 1009:6 1039:1,3,8,17,19 1040:15 1041:15,17 value 1018:2 1033:11 variation 963:10 variety 824:24 various 825:1 828:11 833:7 886:5 894:25 899:24 900:7,11 901:22 902:2 919:23 923:7 1002:7 1008:10 1016:5 1018:13 varnish 1044:15,21 vary 823:12 vegetation 1015:4 vehicle 1007:5 vehicles 1006:4,20 1007:3 vent 1045:12 ventilation 1043:8 vents 1037:8 verification 915:21 verify 914:22 versa 1034:12 version 853:8 1028:3 versus 842:11 871:3 875:19 894:12 936:18 viability 930:17 viable 936:16 940:7 Vialpando 1031:9 vice 1034:12 vicinity 978:13,22 979:6 979:7
view 827:6 939:10,12 944:23 954:11 1039:21 viewpoints 900:24 views 896:9 897:8,13 899:21 901:10,13 1039:23 1041:17 visit 997:13 visitation 1041:19 visiting 997:21 visual 955:22 957:16,22 visually 1029:12 voided 1034:11 volume 816:4 864:9 volumes 835:25 837:9 voluntary 833:20 Vostatek 1031:14 1032:18 1038:23,25,25 1039:1 W W 816:15,17 817:20 1047:6,22 wait 880:23 952:9 1035:16 waiting 921:8 waiving 842:4 walk 1015:12 1026:13 walked 1015:23 1016:1 Wang's 920:2 want 825:9 838:24 841:7 843:24 846:19 857:17 861:3 864:2,4 868:23,25 870:20 871:18,19 887:15 890:3 912:5 928:2 935:18,19 939:6 941:6 944:20,25 945:4,7 950:18 951:20 953:21 954:23 959:9 971:10,23 973:17 976:9 982:23,24 985:21 999:7,8 1009:25 1010:4 1013:5 1015:14 1019:10 1020:3 1021:2 1028:15 1030:2 1031:5 1033:14 1036:4 1038:5 1038:7 wanted 836:18 837:4,13 843:22 914:24 936:25 969:6 1043:2 wants 945:6 976:12 Ward 971:12,23 972:20 973:25 974:2 989:18
warranties 825:25 826:4 826:7 1022:11 warranty 826:10,15,18 1022:12,16,17,18,21 1023:1 Warren 848:24 867:9,22 869:5 881:23 883:3 884:22 888:2,11 891:5 891:10 924:11 929:10 wasn't 823:21 856:14 871:11 885:23 901:24 926:24 938:17 940:24 941:1 993:15 1009:1 waste 828:24 839:5,7 863:5,6 867:4 868:5 869:1,8 870:3,16 878:21 919:3 930:22,25 watched 1041:6 water 828:21 829:18,21 830:3,8,9,11,13,18,20 830:21,22 834:16 835:4 851:16,19 852:3 853:19 877:5 890:6,7,13,15,23 920:22 921:6,7,10 931:1 931:7,9,9 932:10,18 936:14 942:23,24 946:15,17,24 980:4,4 1017:18 1018:17 1019:7 1037:15 1040:22,25 way 824:19 826:12,22 827:3,24 829:22 831:8 869:24,25 871:7 873:21 882:7 899:16,18 903:7 903:14 905:15 907:6 909:18 911:2 922:18 927:21 930:23 933:5 963:23 1002:8,25 1003:3 1004:4 1008:18 1008:24 1013:21,25 1018:10 1019:2 1025:6 1027:12 ways 843:9 wear 844:24 944:25 Weaver 972:21 973:1,6,9 973:19,20 974:11,17,24 976:20 977:2,14 Weaver's 976:24 977:6 web 835:21,22 836:2,7,7 836:10,17,18 951:9,10 952:4,7 954:9 962:9,21 1001:18 1023:21
week 1042:3 weigh 987:10 wells 830:4,18 909:21 went 832:23 845:4 854:9 862:6,11 887:19 901:17 904:11,18 905:2,3 935:17 1039:19 1041:16 1043:8,12,14 1046:9 weren't 851:11 911:14 west 870:3 894:1,3,12 896:10,17 902:16,20 903:5,20 1037:12 1039:22 western 817:12 1042:9 we'll 823:4 867:1 868:14 868:16,16 908:1,2 911:16 926:25 929:16 946:7 962:25 964:6 986:6 1000:18 1021:13 1030:1,11,19,19 1031:20 1046:13 we're 820:3 822:25 827:11 830:20 834:3,7 838:19 843:20 846:4,19 849:15 856:2 857:17 859:19 867:2,2 869:20 874:1 879:22 880:1 882:12 887:15 905:19 907:25 934:8,8 935:5,7 935:12 938:2 939:5 940:4 941:8 945:13 946:10 949:9 950:23 953:16 956:20 959:1,3 960:18 979:13 1000:15 1018:9,10 1030:11 1031:4 1034:14 1038:6 1040:13 we've 835:7 874:2 887:13 921:8 928:20 934:9 940:2 957:2 959:24 997:9 998:12 1001:21 1011:11 1014:3 1017:24 1018:19,24 1029:21 1031:24 1032:14 whereof 1047:18 whichever 849:12 Whicker 971:13,23 972:4 972:20 973:25 974:2 989:18 White 929:23 930:1,17 wider 1006:5
wife 1040:7 Wild 817:16 wilderness 1041:15 wildlife 827:16 835:4 845:16 871:17 875:23 876:18,21,24,25 877:3,6 968:11,21 969:1 971:4,7 972:8,10 981:6 983:13 983:17,22 984:3,7 985:23 986:9 987:8,19 993:14 998:4,20 1019:18 1020:4,6 Williams 872:2 877:14 877:24 883:15,21,24 884:8 885:1,4,13,15 888:18 1004:7,14,24,25 1005:4 wind 1008:10 1016:8 windblown 835:3 window 1046:9 winds 1037:11,13 winter 972:7 wire 1045:7 wish 1030:6 wishes 1030:9 wishful 914:21 withdraw 861:20 896:7 899:20 witness 820:13 835:12 841:1,8 843:5,18,20,23 843:25 844:3,21 860:20 880:21 906:17 909:1,7 909:11,25 910:2 912:2 915:24 916:9,12,15,18 917:3 925:6 926:17,19 944:1 955:13 964:5 966:5 979:13 1000:24 1003:3 1014:5 1016:13 1021:16 1029:23 1047:18 witnesses 819:5 927:1 999:22 1000:11 1032:1 wonder 1009:1 wondering 1017:12 wood 1029:22 word 839:23 855:19 901:5 955:17 956:22 957:11 worded 980:16 wording 950:2,17 957:9 words 1004:20
work 828:24,25 829:6 838:21 860:8 867:12 887:14 888:25 895:19 905:6,16 919:8,23 932:18 982:15 990:11 994:9 1002:7 1013:25 1017:13 1018:2 1030:19 1033:17 1040:15 1045:25,25 worked 848:16,17 857:8 864:7 867:25 868:18 877:4,7 880:6,8 886:20 886:21,22,23 890:24 896:1 904:24 917:4 973:2 1007:5 1014:19 1034:20,23 1035:3 worker 834:17 working 821:3 825:5 832:20 845:19,21 848:21 854:6 870:22 877:11 878:18 880:1 888:6,22 898:16 908:15 915:3,15 916:22 918:24 964:19 985:24 994:11 994:15,24 995:1 1005:4 1005:7 1014:2 1045:24 works 828:13 870:6 906:15 907:6 1006:13 world 1041:13 worry 1018:22,22 wouldn't 895:5 911:2 1014:8 1029:16 1041:8 1043:1 wrath 827:19 write 842:16 858:21 863:21 871:6 887:1 890:11 891:21 writing 869:18 1031:4 writings 869:13 written 847:9 849:22 867:16 870:17,23 871:6 871:8 873:1 882:23 956:13 961:14 1007:18 1029:13 1031:5,6 wrong 859:22 881:25 1017:14,19 1018:7 1035:4,16 wrote 863:24,25 864:12 868:8,9 882:22 887:2,3 904:6 Wynkoop 817:16
X X 819:1 Y yards 1043:13 yeah 826:3 828:13 833:19 836:1 856:3 882:7 888:20 890:20 912:16 913:2 915:12 916:11 923:21 925:5 933:8,22 948:23 958:9 964:18 966:6 971:19 975:6 982:3 986:5 988:15 989:22 994:1,20 998:2 1014:13 1031:17 1040:8 year 826:9 930:12 938:7 984:10 986:3 1040:7,13 years 825:21 826:21,21 920:9 923:7 973:4 1014:1 1018:16 1019:14 1033:25 1039:4 1045:2 1045:17 yellow 1042:15 yellowcake 931:5,6 Yep 928:24 1014:25 yesterday 829:17 835:6 892:21 894:5 905:1 908:23 914:20,21 997:4 yielding 972:11 young 1032:24 1 1 950:18 954:25 968:13 969:2 984:21,21 1,000 940:14 968:4 1,000-year 1033:21 1,500 938:9 1:12 945:3 10 816:4,15 820:1 838:2 840:11,12,13 886:11 915:7 917:21,23 918:1 961:9 1000:16 1007:4 1029:9,10,11 1030:21 1043:16 1044:12 1046:15 10-minute 1030:10 10:26 889:16 10:40 889:17 100-percent 1035:8 1001 819:8 1021 819:9
1025 819:9 1029 819:10 1033 819:3 1045 816:16 1046 819:3 108 1007:10 11 840:5,7,8,13 841:6,17 841:19 11/7/12 840:21 12 816:2 984:21 1025:24 1027:20 1047:20 12:09 945:2 1260 1047:23 129 995:14 13 838:3 955:14,16 961:24 1318 816:2 14 819:13 841:3,11 858:11,12 860:18 1027:17 141 1006:7 15 819:14 835:25 837:9 858:14,15 926:11 951:24 960:18 1027:17 1039:4 150 1040:12,13 1525 817:21 1536 817:16 16 819:15 951:24 953:21 953:23 1027:17 17 819:16 837:16 951:25 953:3 1027:17 1700 817:3 18 837:19 950:21,22 952:12,24 953:4 1911 817:10 1993 820:25 821:8 1997 1028:10 2 2 918:9,15 967:8 984:20 985:2,9 2:39 1000:20 20 944:2 945:5,9 973:16 1044:12 200 1040:13 2002 839:14 2002/2003 822:4,18 838:9 839:4,20 840:1 895:25 957:3 2003 821:10 895:20
2005 895:21 2006 914:22,25 915:16 923:3 2006/2007 821:19 2007 855:23 2008 973:16 2009 821:13 824:15 2010 824:17 837:15,16,24 837:24 838:2 866:22 884:9 957:4 961:19 985:1,4,6,7 2011 855:21 856:4 866:7 866:13,22 958:3 961:24 963:3 984:25 985:3,7,22 2011/2012 915:11,12 2012 816:4,16 820:1 824:18 914:23 924:20 925:24 958:3 963:3 986:11 1027:16,20 1046:15 1047:19 2015 1047:20 21 837:15 22 924:20 925:24 945:10 222 1007:2 23 955:10,15,16 962:25 1027:21 238 817:10 24 944:15 25 944:18 26984 985:5 27 945:17 954:23 960:16 963:8 28 953:9,12 1027:16 3 3 859:6,7,8,10 860:17,17 873:23 888:20,21,21 893:10 950:19 952:25 1023:12 3/20/2008 974:12 3:05 1000:21 3:52 1030:22 30 822:10 837:1 973:4 986:11 1019:14 1040:21 1040:23 1041:10 30th 1047:19 303 817:16 3200 817:3 349 817:13 4
4 870:22 944:12 945:16 950:18 1030:17 4th 840:22 4:10 1030:23 4:36 1046:15 40 1008:17 1014:1 1015:15 1029:10,10,11 40s 1039:13 415 987:9 44 817:7 45 836:24 837:10 838:5 5 5 943:19 950:18 50 1037:9 50s 1042:2 50-horse 1044:12 500 936:19,23 937:11 938:7,22,25 939:1,2 940:2 967:25 968:13 1036:3 1044:20 500-ton-per-day 936:18 936:21 938:21 53 944:18 992:4 53-page 944:13 550 1036:3 56 977:20 980:7 58 966:13 982:25 6 6 943:6 961:4 6th 856:4 60s 1042:2 600 817:7 6215 818:2 66385 985:4 66393 985:23 7 7 841:6 855:23 856:4 866:7,7,13,22 923:3 926:14 927:20,24 928:7 75 837:10 75-day 838:5 8 8 837:24 840:11 8/10 953:12 8:30 1046:13 8:35 816:16 820:1 80202 817:17 80203 817:4,21
80228 817:7 80303 818:3 80540 817:13 81301 817:11 81501 1047:23 820 819:6 831 819:7 839 819:7 841 819:13 858 819:14 880 1006:3,4 9 9 837:24 9th 856:4 9/25 953:12 9/25/2012 952:16 90 1006:7 93 988:19,22 94 986:22 95 990:1 951 819:15,16 965 819:8

Pinon Ridge Hearing Transcripts Part 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pinon Ridge Hearing Transcripts Part 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Anybody have anything mechanical we need to That's my

with an A, Tarlton, T-A-R-L-T-O-N. DIRECT EXAMINATION

I'm going to turn off the projector for a few

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

had 30 days to do that.

requirements were put in in the 2002/2003 bills.

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

review stage, because it's a very short time period.

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Requests for Information. Q Okay.

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

have the authority to go longer.

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

annual reviews be available for public comment.

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

communicated with lots of local agency people.

with EPA about their permitting requirements.

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

lot of testimony regarding water supply at this site.

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

If it's okay, Your Honor, I'll maintain my

Goad for the Attorney General's Office.

Department of Public Health and Environment. DIRECT EXAMINATION

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

from Montrose County related to this site.

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

(BY MR. GOAD)

testified to as being 15 volumes?

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying

AGREN BLANDO COURT REPORTING & VIDEO INC

Court Reporting Videography Digital Reporting Transcription Scanning Copying