HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2009-006170 - 0901a0688014b6b8^Z^^.^:cn-L0oyi70
Uranium Watch
p. 0. Box 344
Moab, Utah 84532
435-210-0166
October 8,2009
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Radiation Control
P.O. 144850
Salt Lake City. Utah 84114-4850
Re: Modification to the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004;
Denison Mines (USA) Corporation, White Mesa Uranium Mill
Dear Mr. Finerfrock and Division of Radiation Control Staff:
Below please find comments on the Modification to the Ground Water Quality Discharge
Permit (PermiO for the Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA) White Mesa
Uranium Mill, submitted on behalf of Uranium Watch, Living Rivers, and the Glen
Canyon Group of the Sierra Club.
1. Statement of Basis
1.1 Wildlife Ponds
Comment:
The Division of Radiation Control (DRC) should require, rather than just suggest, that
DUSA create lined wildlife ponds at the site, for the following reasons:
a. It Is Imperative that both DUSA and the DRC are able to determine—in a timely
manner—whether contaminants from the taihngs impoundments are moving into the
aquifer. Any increasing and elevated concentrations of the constituents in the ground
water at the White Mesa Uranium Mill may indicate that such leakage has occurred. If
there are questions, as there have been over the past few years, about the source of those
elevated concentrations, there will be delay in the identifying the source and delay in
developing a mitigation plan. This is not acceptable.
b. Data and information from the ground-water monitoring wells should not be
compromised by the presence of constituents that have been mobilized by the water from
lhe wildlife ponds. If the ponds remain unlined, identification ofthe source will be
Division of Radiation Control
October 8, 2009
delayed by the need for additional studies to determine the source of the increased levels
of uranium and other constituents in the wells.
c. The unlined ponds will no longer provide a source of water to the aquifer, if they are
replaced by lined ponds. This should result in the gradual decrease in levels of uranium
and other metals that have shown increased levels in the monitoring wells.-
d. Also, the Uned ponds should be placed in another location in order to facilitate the
drying out of the aquifer in the vicinity of the unlined ponds and so than any leakage
from the lined ponds can be readily detected.
e. If the unlined ponds are removed and replaced with lined ponds in another location and
the increasing and elevated trace metal concentrations do not decrease, or continue to
increase over time, then there may be another source of increase in the contaminants of
concern and more studies will have to be conducted.
f. If the unlined ponds are left in place, there is no way to verify that increased in
contaminants in the monitoring wells result from the water leaking from the ponds and
mobilizing pre-existing constituents in the soils and rock.
g. Removal of the ponds and relocation of lined ponds would also allow for the study of
the changes in the shallow aquifer geochemistry from a benign source and trace the
recovery over time.
h. The wildlife ponds are a part of the mill operation. If the unlined ponds cause the
mobilization of contamination in the ground water, the ponds should be removed,
whether or not they are secondary in nature and whether or not they influence the setting
of Ground Water Compliance Limits (GWCLs) for down-gradient wells.
1.2 Subterranean paths
Comment:
The University of Utah studies also show that there are subterranean paths that might
facilitate the movement of leakage from the tailings into unexpected areas and depths in
the vicinity of the tailings impoundments in the future. The DRC and DUSA should
continue to identify and evaluate these pathways, which also might facilitate the
movement of water downward and into geological layers below the surface layers at the
site.
1.2 Draft Permit and Statement of Basis
Comment:
a. Uranium Watch agrees that the Supplemental Isotopic Ground water and Surface
Water Investigation and Report compliance schedule item found at Part I.H.4 of the
Permit should stand. It is imperative that additional studies are conducted at the White
Division of Radiation Control
October 8, 2009
Mesa Mill site and that the most reliable research ground water analysis technology is
used.
b. The DRC should create a schedule table for all submittals related to the Permit: the
Supplemental Isotopic Ground Water and Surface Water Investigation and Report,
Nitrate contaminant plume, and other required submittals, and post it on the DRC
website.
1.3. Tailings Cells 2 and 3 Slimes Drain Requirements: Performance Standards
[Part I.D.3(b)], Monitoring Requirements [Part LE.7(b)], and Reporting [Part
LF.ll]
Comment:
1.3.1. The discussion of the monthly reports for the slimes drain monitoring, states that
"none of the monthly recovery data collected in 2007, and only two monthly tests
collected in 2008 met the 90-hour duration and the stable water level criteria." However,
the agency findings were not presented until March 30, 2009. It appears that the DRC is
remiss in evaluating the monthly monitoring reports and correcting the test data
collection and reporting processes.
Because of past non-compliance, the DRC should evaluate each monthly report within a
pre-determined period of time and with particular attention so that any problems are
identified and corrected within weeks, not months or years.
When the DRC is slow to review and respond to data and information that documents
problems with DUSA's compliance with sampling and reporting requirements, that leads
to further problems and leads DUSA to believe that this is not a priority with the DRC, so
it need not be a priority with DUSA.
1.4 Resolved Compliance Schedule Items
Comment:
One of the compliance problems has been the failure of DUSA to conform to the EPA
Guidance: "Statistical analysis of ground-water monitoring data at RCRA facilities:
Interim final guidance" (1989) and the Addendum to Interim final guidance (1992). It is
hard to understand why the DUSA was not aware that they must comply with that
guidance. It seems that the DRC should have informed DUSA long ago that they would
expect DUSA to use the guidance for their statistical analyses of the ground-water
monitoring data at the White Mesa Uranium Mill.
In the future, DRC should inform DUSA and any other 1 le.(2) byproduct material
licensee—in a timely manner—of the guidance documents that the DRC expects them to
rely on for data gathering and analysis and for any other purpose related to compliance
with DRC requirements.
Division of Radiation Control
October 8, 2009
2. Draft Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit
The draft Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit at 2.1 H. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
REQUIREMENTS, states, "The Permittee will comply with the schedules as described and
summarized below...." Two of the compliance schedule items are: Compliance Item 2:
Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report; and
Comphance Item 3: Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2.
Comment:
A schedule is "a plan for carrying out a process or procedure, giving lists of intended
events and times." What is missing in the Compliance Schedule and in the Statement of
Basis for Items 2 and 3 is a time for the submittal of the two referenced items. Right
now, the submittal of the Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan
and Report and the Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2 appears to be open-
ended. The Permit needs to include dates certain for the submittals of those documents;
that is, an actual "schedule."
3. Availability of Documents
Comment:
I appreciate that the DRC posted the pertinent Permit documents on the DRC website
along with the public notice. I would imagine that the DRC will be posted DUSA's
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit renewal application and other documents related
to the permit renewal in a timely manner.
However, I am very discouraged by the fact that the DRC and Department of
Environmental Quality have never developed a document control system that would
enable the DRC to post all relevant licensing documents on the DRC website within a
few weeks of the receipt of or date of the document. This would include inspection
reports, reports submitted by DUSA in compliance with the Permit and source material
license, correspondence, etc. It is both time consuming and cosdy to access DRC
licensing documents at this time, and one never knows what may have been missed.
When I was at the DRC office in September to access DRC's licensing documents for the
White Mesa Mill, there were some records that were not available that day for me to view
and copy.
On at least two occasions I came before the Radiation Control Board with my concerns
about the availability of documents since Utah became a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) Agreement State for uranium recovery facilities and 1 le.(2)
byproduct material impoundments in August 2004 (over 5 years ago). The NRC had
made all uranium recovery hcensing documents readily available on their electronic
reading room system (ADAMS) since November 1999, and I thought that a similar
system would benefit the DRC, industry, and the public. I was told at the Board meetings
that the DRC was working with the state government to development a system to make
licensing documents publicly available and that that would happen in the near future. It
Division of Radiation Control
October 8, 2009
has never happened, and I see no evidence whatsoever that it will ever happen or that
there was ever a serious effort to make it happen. The information provided to me at two
official Board meetings was misleading and does not engender respect or confidence in
the Board and the DRC.
Therefore, I request that the DRC request funding from the State Legislature, request an
increase in licensing fees, or find other resources to develop a comprehensive means to
index and post all licensing documents related to uranium recovery operations in Utah.
In the meantime, I request that the DRC make every effort to post more DUSA licensing
documents on their website, starting with the inspections reports and SERP reports.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment,
Sarah M. Fields
Program Director
And on behalf of:
Living Rivers
P.O. Box 466
Moab, Utah 84532
And,
Glen Canyon Group/Sierra Club
P. O. Box 622
Moab, Utah 84532