Loading...
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