Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRC-2010-001361 - 0901a0688015ea03bCi6.-aO|o~oof3d Public Participation Summary Modification to the Ground Water Quality Discliarge Permit No. UGW370004 Denison Mines (USA) Corp White Mesa Uranium Mill San Juan County, Utah January 20, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Public Comments David C. Frydenlund (DUSA - Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Counsel): Pages 2-11 Scott Clow (Environmental Programs Director - Ute Mountain Ute Tribe): Pages: 12-15 Sarah Fields (Uranium Watch/Glen Canyon Group/Sierra Club/Living Rivers): Pages 16-25 Additional Permit Modifications: Pages 26 - 27 FIGURES Figure 1 Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 White Mesa Site Map of the Nitrate and Chloride Plumes and Groundwater Contours for the 1^' Quarter, 2009 (March) Sampling Event ATTACHMENTS Public Comments for the DUSA Pennit Modification Transcript of Verbal Comments Received at the October 7, 2009 Public Meeting January 5, 2010 DUSA GW Permit Final - Redline/Strikeout Version Showing Additional Changes to the Permit After the Public Comment Period November 3, 2009 Well MW-24 Hydraulic Testing Results January 11, 2009 DRC Well MW-24 Memorandum Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 2 Introduction The purpose of this document is to summarize public comments received by the Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) regarding the Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (hereafter DUSA) Uranium Mill facility at White Mesa, Utah. Three sets of written comments were received from the public during the comment period that ended on Thursday, October 8, 2009 (see Attachment 1). In addition, a transcript of verbal public comments received during a public meeting held on October 7, 2009 in Blanding Utah is also included (see Attachment 2). Each of these comments are listed below in italics, followed by a DRC response. Comments from Mr. David C. Frydenlund, Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Counsel, on October 8, 2009 Re: Public Notice of a Modification to the Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 for the White Mesa Mill - Comments of Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Dear Mr. Finerfrock: Reference is made to the Public Notice (the "Notice") of a modification to the ground water quality discharge permit No. UGW370004 (the "Permit) for the White Mesa uranium mill (the "Mill") operated by Denison Mines (USA) Corp, ("Denison") that was published by the Co- Executive Secretary of the Utah Water Quality Board (the "Executive Secretary") on September 2, 2009. Denison has the following comments on the draft modified Permit that was published with the Notice: 1. Part I.B. The latest data used for the October 2007 Revised Background Report for Existing Wells was June 2007, and the latest data used for the April 2008 Revised Background Report for New Wells was December 2007. Therefore, it would be more accurate to change the first part of that sentence to read: "based on groundwater samples collected through June 2007 for existing wells MW-1, MW- 2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-11, MW-12, MW-14, MW-15, MW-17, MW-18, MW-19, MW-26 and MW-32 and through December 2007 for new wells MW-3A, MW-23, MW 24, MW-25, MW-27, MW-28, MW-29, MW-30 and MW-31, pursuant to ..." Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 3 DRC Response: Substantive Comment. Agreed. The proposed wording for Part I.B. is a more accurate statement at Part I.B. than the September 2, 2009 Draft version of the Permit. Therefore, the Permit has been changed accordingly. 2. Part I.D.6(c) As discussed with Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") staff, Denison cannot commit to reducing the maximum head in Cell 4A to 1 foot above the FML, nor to commit to a time frame of 6.4 years to achieve a specific head level. The 1 foot maximum head and 6.4 year time frame reflect the design criteria used for the slimes drain system in Cell 4A. These design criteria are theoretical and are based on a number of assumptions and estimates. Denison believes these assumptions and estimates to be reasonable and conservative and that the design criteria are appropriate for Cell 4A. Denison's decision to proceed on this basis was approved by the Executive Secretary. However, Denison cannot guarantee that the system will perform in the future exactly as designed. This attempts to impose a level of accuracy that is unrealistic and that is beyond Denison's control. In order to address these issues, we propose that Part I.D.6(c) be revised to read as follows: c) Slimes Drain Monthly and Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the Permittee initiates pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell 4A, the Permittee will provide 1) continuous operation of the existing dewatering system, reasonable maintenance excepted; and 2) continuous declining fluid heads In the slimes drain layer, In a manner equivalent to the requirements found in Part I.D.3(b) until such time as the maximum head in the tailings (as measured from the lowest point of the upper flexible membrane liner) is 1.0 feet or less, or otherwise approaches its asymptotic limit as approved by the Executive Secretary. DRC Response: Substantive Comment We respectfully disagree that dewatering of Cell 4A is outside the control of DUSA. Multiple opportunities have been available to DUSA to ensure rapid tailings de-watering at Cell 4A. This is borne out by the discussion below regarding engineering design review, construction, and operational practices. Original Slimes Drain Design Review - in a May 15, 2007 “Analysis of Slimes Drain” document, DUSA consultant Geosyntec Consultants showed in Table 3 that the design of the Cell 4A slimes drain would remove the tailings solution from Cell 4A in 5.45 years. The slimes drain system would be activated once Cell 4A is completely full of tailings. In a May 22, 2007 Slimes Drain Memorandum by URS, the DRC agreed that the 5.5 year calculation appeared to be correct assuming the slimes drain did not clog. URS stated that its primary concern with the proposed slimes drain design was: Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 4 1. “Inadequate capacity of the drain system to remove the tailings solution in a timely manner. Specifically for the current design, inadequate surface area available to allow for timely removal (flow) of solution out of the tailings and into the strip drains. 2. The lack of adequate filter blanket material between the tailings and the strip drains, which would result in the clogging of the drains.” URS then recommended that: “… the slimes drain design should incorporate a continuous sand drainage/filter layer that will both alleviate issues with permeability uncertainty, and drainage filtration. This layer shall be properly designed to account for the manufacturer’s recommendations, the anticipated gradation of the tailings, and include measures to minimize the impact of the slurry discharge. A typical filter/drainage layer of this type is 12- inches thick. However, considering that it will be submerged, and the potential for disturbance during slurry placement, we recommend this layer be increased to 18-inches.” In a June 5, 2007 conference call with the DUSA and Geosyntec these two concerns were discussed. Originally, the Cell 4A strip-drains were not designed to have a sand filter cover. During the call, URS staff mentioned that a specific sand cover was the standard practice recommended by the strip-drain manufacturer. DUSA suggested that it could completely cover the strip-drains with sand bags. The DRC mentioned that the May 22, 2007 URS Technical Memorandum contained specifications for the sand covering and that the sand was nearly free of fines. DUSA thought that specific bags, containing the specified sand should meet the requirements. The use of a contiguous sand drainage blanket was then discussed. The DRC expressed concern that the tailings permeability could be much lower than DUSA had estimated, due to its high fines content (i.e. 40-percent passing the no. 325 sieve). Consequently, the tailings could have an extremely slow drainage rate in the lower depths during final dewatering of the cell. DUSA acknowledged their estimated permeability for the tailings, was based on gradation data for average soil textures in available literature, and that no actual permeability test data was available for the DUSA tailings. DUSA added that to conduct lab permeability testing of the tailings may not provide representative data for many reasons. The DRC agreed, and added that such uncertainty is muted if the slimes drain system incorporated the contiguous sand filter layer across the floor of Cell 4A. DUSA expressed concern that building out a platform of sand for a drainage blanket increased the risk of damage to the FML liner and it was a risk they were not willing to take. The DRC believed the risk was low, because the design and construction practice is used commonly at many solid waste landfills. To compromise, the DRC stated it would require that before license closure, DUSA would need to reduce the static head on the liner to less than 1-foot before the license could be terminated. The head would be measured at the lowest point on the FML, through the slimes Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 5 drain access pipe. This approach would require periodic head measurements in the slimes drain to determine when the acceptable l-foot static head condition had been met by the licensee. On June 19, 2007 DUSA submitted an acceptable sandbag filter design, to be placed over the strip drains at the bottom of Cell 4A. The DRC conditionally approved the design of the Cell 4A Relining Project on June 25, 2007. Geosynthetic liner installation for the project began on October 9, 2007. Construction Inspections and Revised Slimes Drain Design - on June 20, 2008 during an inspection conducted by DRC staff, it was observed that DUSA failed to completely cover the strip drains with the sandbags. Many of the sandbags were overfilled and left gaps that would expose the strip drain material to the tailings solids. As a result, the sandbag placement did not conform to the original design drawing, which show the bags completely covering the strip-drains. DUSA was notified of the problem by e-mail on June 25, 2008. Mr. Greg Corcoran of Geosyntec responded to the e-mail the same day. Mr. Corcoran thought the small gap at the sides of strip composite didn’t cause any problems with the intent of the slimes drain design. He also believed that “the sand bags would settle a bit more once the liquid loading is in the cell.” The DRC disagreed. The DRC responded by e-mail on July 1, 2008. The DRC did not agree with the claim that when the cell is loaded the sandbags will settle and the problem will resolve itself, because there will be no practical means available to verify this claim. The DRC required DUSA to do either one of the following: 1. “Provide revised calculations showing the new time required for completion of the drainage of the tailings through the slimes drain, at the time of cell closure. This is critical, given the existing configuration which departs from the approved design, in which portions of the strip-drain would now be compromised by invasion of the strip- drains by slimes material, and the corresponding reduction of flow into the collection pipe, or 2. Provide proposed design or field construction adjustments to prevent this problem, with corresponding calculations as necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the adjustments.” On July 2, 2007 Geosyntec on the behalf of DUSA submitted a revised calculation for the Cell 4A drainage time. Taking the sand bag coverage area issue into account, Geosyntec calculated a revised drainage time of 6.4 years. In an August 18, 2008 DRC RFI Letter, the DRC said it was willing to accept the increased tailings de-watering time (6.4 years) as part of the approved design basis for Cell 4A. The August 18, 2008 RFI also stated that the slimes drain performance standard in the Permit would have to be revised to make it consistent with the July 2, 2008 Geosyntec submittal. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 6 Therefore, the DRC proposed in the August 18, 2008 RFI the following language for the Permit: “ c) Slimes Drain Monthly and Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the Permittee initiates pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell 4A, the Permittee will provide: 1) continuous declining fluid heads in the slimes drain layer, in a manner equivalent to the requirements found in Part I.D.3(b), and 2) a maximum static head of 1.0 feet in the tailings (as measured from the lowest point of upper flexible membrane liner) in 6.4 years or less.” [emphasis added] This same language is the exact wording used in the September 2, 2009 Draft version of the Permit. This same wording was also included in the Draft version of the Permit e-mailed to DUSA on April 20, 2009. Until the DRC received your comments on October 8, 2009, DUSA had not voiced any concern with these new slimes drain requirements. Operational Practices - Cell 4A has been designed as a closed loop system, where fluids are held in the impoundment and leave only thru evaporation, removal by pumping, or seepage losses. It is anticipated that seepage losses will be minimal due to the double high density polyethylene (HDPE) liner system. Removal by pumping is within DUSA’s control and can be withdrawn from more than one location, including: surface accumulation of fluids on the tailings, liquids held in the tailings and slimes drain network, or fluids found in the leak detection system. At the time of cell closure, DUSA will have the opportunity to limit the accumulation of fluids on the tailings surface by processes such as: cessation of tailings wastewater discharge and/or diversion to other holding structures, enhanced evaporation, removal of fluids by pumping, construction of temporary cover to prevent stormwater contact with the tailings (and subsequent infiltration), etc. Removal of those fluids held in storage by the tailings can and will be done by pumping both the slimes drain and leak detection systems. It is imperative that DUSA make good faith efforts in its Cell 4A dewatering process, in order to accelerate the time that impoundment is ready for cover system construction and to hasten isolation of the tailings from the environment. It is also important to minimize the volume of fluids that will be held in the embankment and could potentially be lost via seepage; in order to protect local groundwater resources. For these reasons, the 6.4 year dewatering interval was set as a BAT performance standard in Part I.D.6( c) of the Permit. However, in the event that DUSA is unable to meet the 6.4 year dewatering time, it can defend itself from possible enforcement action by meeting the provisions of affirmative defense, as outlined in the Permit in Part I.G.3. As described above, the original approved calculated drainage time for Cell 4A was 5.45 years. After some construction difficulties, due to improper sandbag placement, DUSA proposed a new drainage time of 6.4 years. The DRC accepted this design change and approved of the new drainage time of 6.4 years for Cell 4A. Operational practices are and will be available to DUSA to assist in meeting this BAT performance standard of 6.4 years. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 7 Therefore, the proposed wording at Part I.D.6(c) in the September 2, 2009 Draft version of the Permit will stand. 3. Part I.E.6(h) Paragraph 3.0 of the Mill's Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs in the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill sets out a procedure for dealing with seeps and springs that are effectively dry and cannot be sampled after repeated attempts. Those procedures do not require prior Executive Secretary approval for the omission of samples in those circumstances. Therefore, we suggest that Part I.E.6(h) be revised to read as follows: h. Sample Omission - in the course of each annual sampling event, the Permittee shall sample and analyze, or attempt to sample and analyze, all six seeps and springs identified in Table 1 of the currently approved Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs in the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. The Permittee shall not omit sampling of any seep or spring during said annual event, without prior written approval of the Executive Secretary, unless the omission is in accordance with such Plan for any seeps or springs that are dry and not capable of being sampled. DRC Response: Substantive Comment. We agree that the approved plan requires three attempts be made to sample a seep or spring between May 1 and July 15 of each year. The plan also requires DUSA to provide a 15-day written notice before the first attempt, in order that DRC staff can observe the field work and/or perform split sampling. After further consideration, Part I.E.6(h) was removed from the Permit. 4. Part I.E.7(f) The phrase "If a discrepancy is identified . . ." in the last sentence of Part I.E.7(f) is vague and difficult to apply with precision in practice. In order to provide more certainty, we suggest that the phrase "the applicable provisions of the" be added before the word "currently" in that sentence. This will tie the requirements of the Permit to the more specific procedures set out in the Liner Maintenance Provisions, which are capable of being applied with precision in practice. DRC Response: Substantive Comment. The DRC agrees with DUSA that the current wording at Part I.E.7(f) of the September 2, 2009 Draft version of the Permit could be considered vague. The important point is that any liner defect or damage observed be corrected. Therefore, the phrase has been changed as follows (changes in red), and can be found in Attachment 3, below: Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 8 “… If a discrepancy In the event that any liner defect or damage is identified during a liner system inspection, the Permittee shall immediately implement the currently approved Liner Maintenance Provisions.” 5. Part I.E.10 The following clarifying changes are suggested: a) Change paragraph 10a to read "One surface impounded wastewater location at each of Tailings Cells 1, 3, and 4A"; b) Add the words "each of before the word Tailings in paragraph 10b; DRC Response: Substantive Comment. Agreed. Therefore, the Permit has been revised accordingly. c) The subparagraphs in paragraph 10 should be renumberd (sic) so that there is not a repeat of subparagraph letters a., b. and c; and DRC Response: Substantive Comment. Agreed. Part I.E.10 has been renumbered accordingly. d) In subparagraph g., Prior Notification, delete the words "fieldwork or" and add the phrase "under l0.a, b and c" after the words "sample collection". There is no other "fieldwork" that would require notice to the Executive Secretary under the Plan; therefore, reference to fieldwork should be eliminated. DRC Response: Substantive Comment. Since Part I.E.10 has been renumbered (see above), subparagraph (g) is now Part I.E.10(d)(7) of the Permit. The DRC agrees to remove “fieldwork or” from Part I.E.10(d)(7) of the Permit. However, the rest of the proposed wording at Part I.E.10(d)(7) in the September 2, 2009 Draft version of the Permit will stand. 6. Part I.G.2 The Ground Water Compliance Limits have been set In the Permit to take into account the mean and standard deviations or their equivalent, such that anything less than two consecutive exceedances of the GWCLs would not be considered to be statistically significant. Therefore, if paragraph 2(a)(1) is to be deleted, then paragraph 2(b) should also be deleted. Retaining paragraph 2(b) is confusing, given the way that the GWCLs have been calculated, for the same reasons that retaining paragraph 2(a)(1) would be confusing. Both paragraphs should be deleted. They merely restate the applicable regulations. However, if paragraph 2(b) is to be retained in the Permit, then paragraph 2(a)(1) should also be Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 9 retained in the Permit. We can see no reason for keeping one of the paragraphs and deleting the other. DRC Response: Substantive Comment. The EPA guidance referenced in Part I.G.2(b) cites several other statistical methods that may be used to determine compliance, beyond those used by DUSA to determine the mean plus the second standard deviation (x+2 ) concentration. However, the DRC is satisfied with statistical methods used to date to derive the Ground Water Compliance Limits found in Table 2 of the Permit, and accordingly Part I.G.2(b) of the Permit has been removed. To further streamline the wording, the phrase in Part I.G.2(a) has been added to Part I.G.2. For details, see this section in Attachment 3, below. 7. Part I.H.4 As discussed with DRC staff on May 11, 2009, Denison does not believe that it is necessary to add Part I.H.4 to the Permit. Further, the requirements of Part I.H.4 cannot be complied with as drafted. The Background Reports prepared by INTERA, Inc. demonstrate that the Mill's tailings cells are not leaking to groundwater. The conclusions of those reports were confirmed by the University of Utah Study, which evaluated existing wells that were considered to be the most indicative of any potential tailings cell leakage. There is no need to perform yet another study to verify those conclusions, particularly given the considerations below. There are currently over 40 monitoring constituents in the Permit. These include chloride, fluoride, sulfate and uranium which are all good indicator parameters. As discussed at our meeting and in our June 5, 2009 correspondence with supporting INTERA memorandum, any potential future tailings cell leakage to groundwater will be picked up by these indicator parameters before any other constituents. There cannot be a leak to groundwater of any significance without one or more of these parameters indicating an upward trend. However, although an upward trend in one or more of these indicator constituents is necessary in order to reach a conclusion that the tailings cells are leaking, a rising trend in one or more of these constituents does not necessarily imply that the tailings cells are leaking. Rising trends in indicator parameters could also be due to natural influences. As we discussed in our May 11, 2009 meeting, nothing will be gained from characterizing at this time the chemical composition, noble gas composition, and age of the groundwater in the wells that were not covered by the University of Utah Study. Any potential future exceedance of a GWCL would be evaluated at the time of the exceedance by the most appropriate methods in the circumstances. This would most likely include a spatial and temporal analysis of the constituent in question together with all other constituents in the well, with a primary focus on the indicator parameters. If such an analysis is not conclusive, such as when one or more indicator parameters have also risen or have demonstrated an upward trend or trends and natural influences cannot be ruled out, then a further analysis Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 10 would be performed. This analysis may include an isotopic analysis, depending on the circumstances. If an isotopic analysis were to be performed at that time, then the results of that analysis would be relevant, not the results of an isotopic analysis performed today. In addition to the fact that the analyses contemplated by Part I.H,4 are not necessary and will provide little, if any, information relevant to the analysis of a potential future GWCL exceedance, there are a number of practical problems associated with such an analysis. As we discussed at our May 11, 2009 meeting, the analyses contemplated by Part I.H.4 are not mainstream (i.e., there are no generally accepted methods), they are costly to perform, they are not capable of being performed at commercial laboratories, and they cannot be performed in the 90-day time frame proposed in Part I.H.4. The required analysis can only be performed at a limited number of university laboratories. Those laboratories are not Utah-certified and there are no EPA-approved methods for such analyses. Further, Denison cannot control the timing and results from such non-accredited laboratories. This is because Denison would not have a choice of commercial laboratories from which to obtain all of the required work. For example, Denison took splits of the samples taken by the University of Utah in July 2007 and engaged one of the few available other university laboratories to perform the tritium/helium analysis. After six months of waiting for the analytical results, and being deferred behind other university projects, Denison finally called off the analysis. Denison cannot be held responsible for failure to meet a schedule when such failure is not within its control. It took the University of Utah approximately one year to complete its study. Planning started in the Spring of 2007, fieldwork was performed in July, 2007 and the final report was issued in May, 2008. It is unrealistic to expect that Denison could have such a study performed in the 90 days contemplated by Part I.H.4. A more realistic time frame would be 365 days, as required by the University of Utah. However even a time frame of 365 days may not be achievable, given Denison's inability to control the schedule of the non commercial laboratory or laboratories that would be required to perform the analysis. In summary, the evaluations required by proposed Part I.H.4 are not necessary to establish that the Mill's tailings cells have not leaked to date; they will provide little, If any, information that could be of use in evaluating a potential future tailings cell leak; will be costly; will not be performed in accordance with accepted EPA guidance, will take at least one-year to complete; and the timing of completion of the study will not be within Denison's control. As a result, proposed Part I.H.4 should be eliminated from the Permit. DRC Response: Substantive Comment. The DRC continues to believe that additional study of groundwater isotopic geochemistry at the site is appropriate at some time. However, we agree that it is DUSA’s prerogative to defer such study until a monitoring well or contaminant passes into Out-of-Compliance status by exceeding its respective Ground Water Compliance Limit. We also recognize that the burden for groundwater remediation, should it be necessary, clearly falls on DUSA. As a result, the DRC has removed Part I.H.4 of the Permit on the basis that Part I.G.4 of the Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 11 Permit already provides a process for DUSA to study possible sources of the contamination, and remediate it. Other discussion related to this issue is found in comments from two other parties, see DRC responses below. 8. Part I.H.5 Once the new decontamination pad is constructed, Mill personnel will be able to check the leak detection system weekly and will be able to take the pad out of service annually in order to inspect the integrity of the steel liner in each of the settling ponds and the visually exposed surface areas of the concrete pad. However, it will not be possible to inspect the integrity of the concrete surfaces below the steel liner in each tank, as it will not be possible to remove the steel liner from each tank. Inspections of such concrete surfaces are not necessary, given the fact that the tanks are lined with steel liners, a leak detection system is checked weekly, and the integrity of the steel liners is checked annually. References to concrete surfaces should therefore be removed from Part I.H.5, or it should be made clear that only visually exposed areas of the concrete pad need to be inspected annually and that this does not include areas under the steel tank liners. DRC Response: Substantive Comment. Agreed. Part I.H.5 of the Permit has been modified so that the New Decontamination Pad will be inspected annually to ensure integrity of the exposed concrete surface on the wash pad. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 12 Comments from Mr. Scott Clow, Environmental Programs Director Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, on October 8, 2009. Note: Mr. Clow’s comments have been numbered for reference purposes. Dear Executive Secretary Finerfrock: The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah, through its Environmental Programs Department, hereby submits the following comments for the record regarding proposed revisions to Groundwater Permit Number UGW370004: The Tribe commends the Division of Radiation Control (DRC) for the work it has done in increasing the regulatory oversight of the White Mesa Uranium Mill since its authority was granted in 2004. The technical understanding of environmental ramifications to White Mesa is of concern to the Tribe and its White Mesa Community, and we sincerely appreciate that there is a higher level of scrutiny being researched and documented to ensure the protection of public health and environment there. We do have three items we would like to be assured of in this revised permit's implementation and subsequent permits thereafter. 1. We implore the Division of Radiation Control to require full implementation of Section I.H.4, the isotopic signatures and groundwater age study, similar to the University of Utah Study for the wells that were not included in that study. Denison Mines USA Corp. (DUSA) benefitted greatly from the DRC's commissioning of that original study, and it has also benefitted the Tribe and our technical understanding of groundwater on White Mesa. We hope that the DRC will require compliance with the assigned schedule for that study, as well, without any "schedule resets" or permit revisions to accomplish it, as is the case with the slime drains DMT monitoring. DRC Response: This section of the Permit was removed at the request of DUSA. For details, see DRC response above for 10/8/09 comments from Mr. David Frydenlund, Item 7 on pages 9 - 11 of this Public Participation Summary. 2. The Tribe further requests that the permit state explicitly that the groundwater mounding from the wildlife ponds at the facility be defined as, "mill operations." The DRC clearly understands the implications of this being an area of uncertainty, and we appreciate the position that has been taken in the Statement of Basis regarding the downgradient wells and mixing of groundwaters, regardless of tailings discharges. Still, it must be clearly defined in the permit, that the influence from man-made ponds on the facility on any groundwater constituent or plume of constituents is the result of mill operations and should not be considered "natural," a term used by DUSA in its response to the original Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 13 draft permit revision regarding statistically significant increasing trends (Statement of Basis, page 8). In the long run, this concrete definition will help all of the parties involved. DRC Response: Substantive Comment. We agree that the groundwater mounding from the wildlife ponds is a result of water storage related to "mill operations.” We also agree that the artificial recharge water from the wildlife ponds has altered the shallow aquifer geochemistry at the Mill site. This was substantiated by the May, 2008 University of Utah Report which showed downgradient wells MW-14, MW-15, and MW-17 (with excess total uranium concentrations) were likely the product of artificial recharge from the wildlife ponds mobilizing natural uranium in the vadose zone, and not from tailings cell leakage. Although these excess uranium concentrations are not natural, they are not the product of tailings disposal or tailings cell leakage. While the wildlife ponds are related to facility operations, they are not central to tailings disposal. However, the do serve an important environmental purpose, that of encouraging migratory waterfowl to occupy a safer habitat, and not come in contact with the acidic wastewaters found in the tailings cells. We reiterate our previous statement (September 2009 Statement of Basis, p.9) “the Executive Secretary has determined that the hydraulic influence of the wildlife ponds will not be considered, for purposes of monitoring the tailings cells and the setting of GWCLs for downgradient wells.” This means that the Ground Water Compliance Limits (GWCLs) are now established for the monitoring wells at the facility, and enforceable under the Permit. In the event that a GWCL is exceeded in the future, Part I.G.4 of the Permit mandates a course of action whereby DUSA will be required to determine the source of the contamination and provide remedial action, if needed. The requirements for groundwater corrective action are found in the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations [UAC R317-6-6.15] and require an opportunity for public comment. Therefore, no further changes to the Permit are needed at this time. 3. Finally, in the draft revised permit. Section H.2.4-15 (strikethrough version had a strikethrough number for this section), a plan for the evaluation of deep supply well WW- 2, does not seem to have an implementation schedule. As this well creates a direct conduit to the Tribe's drinking water source in the White Mesa Ute Community, as well as the communities of Bluff, Blanding, and Montezuma Creek, we request that an implementation schedule be included with periodic monitoring of the similar casing. DRC Response: Substantive Comment. DUSA has submitted the Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2. The Plan was received by the DRC on March 8, 2006. Because the deep water supply wells were not required to be abandoned on or before decommissioning of the White Mesa Mill, the plan has not been a top priority to review and has yet to be reviewed by the DRC. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 14 Well WW-2 is located upgradient of the tailings cells, therefore it is unlikely groundwater in this well has been affected or will be affected by tailing cell wastewater. However, in the summer of 2009, a nitrate contamination plume was identified in five monitoring wells in the mill site area, including wells: MW-30, MW-31, TW4-22, TW4-24, and TW4-25. These five shallow monitoring wells are also found downgradient of the well WW-2 location. DUSA agreed to investigate the source and extent of the nitrate contamination and submit a report to the DRC on or before January 4, 2010, for Executive Secretary review and approval. This report was received on January 4, 2010 and is currently under DRC review. After consideration of the Tribe’s concern regarding well WW-2, DRC staff contacted DUSA and inquired about the well’s current use and status. DUSA said the well currently provides the Mill with water for eye wash stations and showers, is pumped several times a day, yields about 160 gallons per minute, and water from the well is placed into an on-site storage tank. The Executive Secretary has determined that because it is unknown if an annular seal exists in well WW-2, that active pumping of the supply well has the potential to draw contaminants from the shallow aquifer into the deep supply well. However, it appears unlikely that the deeper confined aquifer would be contaminated thanks to the artesian conditions in the confined aquifer and the repeated removal of water from the deep well which could deliver such contaminants back to ground for use in the mill operations. On January 14, 2010, DUSA committed to verify the well casing and annular seal integrity of well WW-2 and agreed to remediate, if needed. DUSA committed that it would perform the investigation and repair of well WW-2 (if needed) and submit a repair report, for Executive Secretary review and approval, within two years after the issuance of the current Permit modification. Accordingly, a deadline of January 31, 2012, was set for this work and report in Part I.H.3 of the Permit. To ensure that adequate testing of the well casing and annular seal at well WW-2 is performed, the Permit was modified to list several types of tests (one or more) that need to be conducted, including: well casing video logs, cement bond logs, and/or temperature logs. Relevant guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other sources, is also available on such testing techniques, and can be found as follows: • Well Casing Video Logs (Casing Inspection Logs) can be performed by several different service companies, a few examples of these are: http://www.halliburton.com/ps/Default.aspx?navid=183&pageid=20, http://www.laynewater.com/downhole.html, and http://www.welenco.com/video_surveys.htm • Cement Bond Logging - http://www.epa.gov/region8/water/uic/R8UIC- GUIDE34.pdf Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 15 • Temperature Logging - http://www.epa.gov/region8/water/uic/INFO-TempLog.pdf The DRC feels this work plan and timeframe is appropriate to protect nearby users of the deep confined aquifer, and Part I.H.3 of the Permit has been modified to make the new requirements enforceable. 4. Similarly, in Section H.2, the Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report lacks a compliance schedule, and we request that one be required of the permittee. DRC Response: Substantive Comment. The Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling (ICTM) Report is a work in progress. Its purpose is to demonstrate the long-term ability of the tailings cells cover system adequately contain and control tailings contaminants and protect nearby groundwater quality of the uppermost aquifer. As stated in the March 14, 2008 Public Participation Summary for the March 17, 2008 Permit Modification, DUSA has submitted the ICTM Report. A timeline showing the review process of this report is shown below: • The ICTM was received by the DRC on November 26, 2007. • After reviewing the report, the DRC responded in a February 2, 2009 Request for Information Letter (RFI). • A meeting was held on March 31, 2009 with DUSA and its consultant Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) to discuss the items of the February 2, 2009 RFI. • On April 30, 2009 DUSA submitted a Draft MWH memo, which outlined DUSA response to the February 2, 2009 DRC RFI. • After reviewing the Draft MWH memo, the DRC responded in an August 5, 2009 e- mail transmitting comments to the submittal and requested another meeting with DUSA. • On September 2, 2009 a meeting was held with DUSA and its consultant MWH to discuss strategies and improvements needed in the revised version of the ICTM. At conclusion of the meeting, DUSA agreed to finalize its response to the February 2, 2009 RFI and prepare a second draft of the ICTM. • During a phone call with DUSA on November 5, 2009, DUSA committed to providing a revised ICTM Report by March 31, 2010. • A DRC Confirmatory Action Letter was issued on November 16, 2009 to document the agreed on deliverables and deadlines. This schedule and plan is now in force. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 16 Comments from Ms. Sarah Fields on October 8, 2009 Note: Ms. Sarah Fields also made verbal comments at the Public Meeting held on October 7, 2009 at the Blanding Arts and Events Center in Blanding, Utah. Review of the transcript of these verbal comments shows they are repetitive of her written comments submitted on October 8, 2009. Consequently, the Division’s response focused on her written October 8, 2009 comments, which are addressed below. Ms. Fields’ verbal comments at the October 7, 2009 Public Meeting can be found in the Official Transcript of the meeting, which is included as Attachment 2, below. 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 (Permit) 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 tailings 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. DRC Response: Substantive Comment We agree that groundwater monitoring is important in determination of tailings cell leakage, especially for Cells 1, 2, and 3 that were constructed with only a single flexible membrane liner (FML), and without a robust leak detection system (LDS). However, we believe that Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 17 groundwater contamination will be detected in a timely manner, and the public and environment be protected, based on the following findings: 1. Multiple compliance monitoring wells are found in close proximity to the tailings cells. 2. Groundwater velocity at the site is much less than 135 feet/year (see 11/23/04 and 11/16/07 DRC Memoranda). 3. Distance from the south edge of the southern-most tailings cell (Cell 4A) to the southern DUSA property boundary ranges from about 8,000 to 18,000 feet. 4. As a result, the time for groundwater to travel across this distance will be more than 59 to 133 years, respectively. This interval is sufficient for detection, verification, and mitigation / remediation of any contamination before it leaves the DUSA property and has opportunity to expose human or environmental receptors. 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 the wildlife ponds. If the ponds remain unlined, identification of the source will be delayed by the need for additional studies to determine the source of the increased levels of uranium and other constituents in the wells. DRC Response: Substantive Comment We agree that the wildlife pond leakage has potential to confuse and delay determination of tailings cell leakage. However, this component of detection delay is anticipated to be small in magnitude, on the order of a few years that it might take to complete additional groundwater geochemical and isotopic studies. In contrast, a much larger delay exists in detection of tailings cell leakage due to the original design and construction of Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3; which were built without a robust and rapid reporting LDS. This slow reporting is expected to be on the order of many decades, due to slow travel time for cell leakage to traverse the vadose zone and reach the water table (~ 40 + feet), and then travel horizontally to a nearby monitoring well (~ 750 feet on average). This delay is an artifact of the original design and construction approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) before promulgation of the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations (1989), and before Utah became an Agreement State (2004). When Utah took over regulation of uranium mill tailings, there were no DUSA monitoring wells between Cells 1 and 2, nor any between Cells 2 and 3. To fix this problem, the DRC required DUSA to install eight (8) new monitoring wells during issuance of the first State Permit in March, 2005. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 18 However, as explained above, once contamination is detected by a nearby well, there will be more than 59 years available to verify and remediate it before exposure to human or environmental receptors. While we prefer that earlier detection were possible today (via Best Available Technology design and construction), we cannot undue decisions made by other parties almost 30 years ago. 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. DRC Response: Non-substantive Comment This may happen if the wildlife ponds were lined. However, because the wildlife ponds do not impound wastewater, the DRC has no statuary authority to require DUSA to reline, remove, or replace the wildlife ponds under the current provisions of the Utah Water Quality Act. d. Also, the lined 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. DRC Response: Non-substantive Comment As mentioned above, the DRC has no statutory authority to regulate the wildlife ponds, and cannot compel DUSA to relocate them. Further, if they were relocated, and then leaked, additional uranium and other vadose zone contaminants would be dissolved into groundwater, and added confusion would exist as to contaminant source. 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. DRC Response: Non-substantive Comment This statement assumes that the new or re-located wildlife ponds would not leak. This premise is speculative, since the DRC cannot compel DUSA to install any type of liner at these ponds. See discussion above. 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. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 19 DRC Response: Substantive Comment The groundwater isotopic study recently performed by the University of Utah was very insightful, and such tools or other geochemical studies may be equally decisive in the future. However, in the event that a study is required in the future, and then found to be inconclusive, ineffective or without technical merit, DUSA will continue to bear the burden for ground water quality protection, and the Executive Secretary will have no other choice but to compel DUSA to prepare a Ground Water Corrective Action plan pursuant to the requirements of UAC R317-6-6.15. 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. DRC Response: Substantive Comment This statement assumes the new wildlife ponds would not leak and repeat the same problem at a new location. The commenter also ignores the opportunity to study this phenomenon at the time of site closure when the wildlife ponds will be taken out of service. 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. DRC Response: Substantive Comment. The DRC agrees that it would be prudent for DUSA to reline or replace the wildlife ponds. However, because the ponds do not hold wastewater, the DRC has no statuary authority to require DUSA to reline, remove, or replace the wildlife ponds. Further, the wildlife ponds serve an important environmental purpose, that of encouraging migratory waterfowl to occupy a safer aquatic habitat, and not contact the acidic wastewaters found in the tailings cells. Precedence of management of secondary groundwater mounds has been set at another DRC regulated facility, where a non-wastewater impoundment leaked and altered local groundwater hydraulic gradients and dissolved certain metals held in the vadose zone. This facility, EnergySolutions in Tooele County, saw one or more wells exceed their respective GWCL for several redox sensitive contaminants. In this situation, the DRC required EnergySolutions provide corroborating scientific evidence to substantiate their claims that the excess groundwater concentrations were caused by the artificial recharge, and not by disposal embankment leakage. After this evidence was provided, and the Executive Secretary accepted it, a draft Permit was prepared and formal public comment period held on the proposed GWCL changes. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 20 The Division anticipates it will proceed in a likewise fashion in the event that a contaminant exceeds its GWCL in a given well at White Mesa. In the event that this occurs and DUSA is unable to substantiate a claim that the increased contamination is solely due to the wildlife ponds (or any other non-tailings cell source), then the Executive Secretary will be compelled to require DUSA to prepare a groundwater corrective action plan pursuant to the requirements of UAC R317-6-6.15. Therefore, the Executive Secretary has decided to allow DUSA to proceed at its own risk. If the GWCLs are exceeded in the future, and DUSA is not successful at showing how the groundwater in the affected wells has a different geochemical signature than the tailings wastewater then it will be DUSA’s burden to implement groundwater corrective action. 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. DRC Response: Non-Substantive Comment. The University of Utah study showed that the tailing cells were not contributing to the uranium concentrations seen in the DUSA monitoring wells sampled. More precisely, this study indicated that the increasing uranium concentrations observed in several DUSA wells may be due to rising groundwater caused by the wildlife recharge mounds, flows along subterranean paths that were previously un-traveled and unsaturated, thereby dissolving solutes that were once fixated to the vadose zone formation. If or when excess contamination is detected in a monitoring well, additional hydrogeologic studies may be required by the DRC, on a case-by-case basis, and pursuant to the requirements found in UAC R317-6-6.15(C). 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 Mesa Mill site and that the most reliable research ground water analysis technology is used. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 21 DRC Response: Contrary to the position indicated in the September, 2009 DRC SOB, the Executive Secretary has decided to remove this requirement from the Permit, for reasons discussed above. 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. DRC Response: Non-Substantive Comment. It is unnecessary to set a deadline for an isotopic study that will not be required at this time. As for the Nitrate Plume investigation that matter is being administered formally under a Stipulated Consent Agreement with DUSA, dated January 28, 2009 (Docket No. UGW09- 03). 1.3. Tailings Cells 2 and 3 Slimes Drain Requirements: Performance Standards [Part I.D.3(b)], Monitoring Requirements [Part I.E.7(b)], and Reporting [Part I.F.11] 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. DRC Response: Non-Substantive Comment. We respectively disagree. First, the commenter is mistaken, the results of monthly DUSA slimes drain recovery tests are submitted on a quarterly basis with the Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT) Monitoring Reports. Second, DRC review of these DUSA quarterly reports is part of our routine compliance work, and the focus of Engineering Modules 75A thru D of our annual 11e.(2) inspection program. As with all DRC compliance Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 22 / inspection work, the review of these DUSA reports is subject to available DRC engineering resources and priorities established by DRC management. Contrary to the commenter’s claims, DRC records shows the Division actively reviews these reports, as summarized in the table below. In addition, the September, 2009 SOB, explained that after review of several DUSA reports in 2007, the DRC found it necessary to strengthen the related Permit requirements in order to ensure adequate collection and reporting of the required information. These changes became effective with the revised Permit of March, 2008. DUSA Quarterly DMT Report Chronology DUSA Report Date DRC Received DRC Findings 1st and 2nd Quarters, 2007 June 11 and September 5, 2007 October 31, 2007 site inspection (1) 3rd Quarter, 2007 December 10, 2007 February 7, 2008 Notice of Enforcement Discretion (2) 4th Quarter, 2007 February 27, 2008 April 10, 2008 Confirmatory Action Letter 1st and 2nd Quarters, 2008 May 30 and September 2, 2008 October 1, 2008 Request for Information Letter 3rd Quarter, 2008 December 1, 2008 December 17, 2008 Confirmatory Action Letter 4th Quarter, 2008 March 2, 2009 April 7, 2009 Notice of Non-Compliance 1st Quarter, 2009 June 1, 2009 August 26, 2009 Approval Letter 2nd Quarter, 2009 September 1, 2009 September 14, 2009 Approval Letter 3rd Quarter, 2009 December 1, 2009 Review in process Footnotes: 1) DRC findings made during an October 31, 2007 on-site inspection. Missing information provided in a DUSA 10/31/07 email. 2) DRC NOED included a formal warning that repeated failure to submit the required slimes drain recovery test information would result in escalated enforcement action. 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 11e.(2) byproduct material licensee in a timely manner—of the guidance documents that the DRC expects them to rely on for data Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 23 gathering and analysis and for any other purpose related to compliance with DRC requirements. DRC Response: Non-Substantive Comment. We disagree with the commenter. The original DUSA Background Report for Existing Wells was prepared by Intera Inc. and submitted on December 29, 2006. Review shows that the original Intera report cites the July, 1992 EPA groundwater statistical guidance (ibid., p. 61). In turn, the 1992 EPA document references the earlier interim final EPA guidance of 1989. Hence, the Permittee was aware of the statistical guidance the Division would rely on in its review. 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 Compliance 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." DRC Response: Substantive Comment See DRC response above for 10/8/09 comments from Mr. Scott Clow, Items 3 and 4, on pages 13 - 15 of this Public Participation Summary. 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. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 24 DRC Response: Non-substantive Comment. This comment has no relevance to the proposed Permit changes. However, the DUSA Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit renewal application was received on September 2, 2009, and has been posted on the DRC website at http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium_Mills/IUC/Denison_IUC/UGW_renewal.htm l. Review of the Permit Renewal Application is currently on going. Initial review of the PDF files provided by the Permitee show that there are a number of QA/QC issues with the documents that need to be corrected. As a result the PDF files now posted on the DRC website are subject to change. Related future DRC correspondence with DUSA will also be posted on the DRC website. Comment: 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 costly 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 11e.(2) byproduct material impoundments in August 2004 (over 5 years ago). The NRC had made all uranium recovery licensing 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 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. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 25 DRC Response: Non-Substantive Comment. This comment has no relevance to the proposed modifications for the DUSA Permit. However, the DRC has begun to store critical Licensing documents in an electronic (PDF) format. Starting in March of 2009, the DRC began scanning all incoming documents and placing them into an electronic database. In the August, 2009, all documents authored by the DRC began to be added to the database. At some future date, the Department of Environmental Quality may make this database available to the public. When this may happen is currently unknown. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 26 Additional DRC Permit Modifications Since Close of Public Comment Period After the public comment period, the DRC made additional modifications to the Permit. Some of changes made to the Permit have been discussed above. Other additional changes to the Permit are described below. These new modifications are considered minor; therefore, no new public comment period was necessary. A red-line strikeout version of the Final Permit is included as Attachment 3 to show the most recent changes. Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring Frequency - Quarterly Monitoring, Part I.E.1(b); Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring - Semi-annual Monitoring, Part I.E.1(c) As discussed in the September 2009 SOB (p. 21 - 22), DUSA failed to provide aquifer permeability and velocity information for well MW-24 in the August 23, 2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Report. Because of this, the Executive Secretary took a conservative approach and assigned a quarterly sampling frequency for well MW-24 at Part I.E.1(a). The September 2009 SOB also stated: “In the event that DUSA provides the necessary information, the Executive Secretary may reconsider this decision and modify the Permit as needed.” On November 3, 2009 DUSA submitted (by e-mail) hydraulic testing results for well MW-24, in the form of a November 3, 2009 technical report prepared by Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. (HGC). The November 3, 2009 DUSA submittal is included as Attachment 4. In this report, HGC performed slug testing in monitoring well MW-24 to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the formation adjacent to the well. A pressure transducer and data loggers were used to measure water levels during the withdrawal tests in the well. The pressure transducer was lowered to a depth that was below the lowest point to which the bailer would be injected. A bailer was lowered into the water column in the well and the water level was allowed to return to static conditions. Once static conditions were achieved, the bailer was removed and the data was recorded at 5-second intervals until water levels in the well had fully recovered. Data recorded by the transducer was transferred to the analytical program AQTESOLV ™ to evaluate the slug test data. Test data were reduced and analyzed using the Bouwer-Rice and KGS solutions available in AQTESOLV ™ software. HGC reported that the hydraulic conductivity values for monitoring well MW-24 are consistent with values observed in other monitoring wells at the site. Pore velocity (average linear groundwater velocity) in well MW-24 was shown to be 2.5 feet/year. After review of the November 3, 2009 HGC slug test report, DRC staff have approved the reported aquifer permeability near well MW-24. For details, see Attachment 5, below. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 27 As described in the DUSA Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit - December 1, 2004 Statement of Basis, there are two different frequencies of routine groundwater monitoring at the White Mesa Mill, as follows: • Semi-annual (2-times/year) where groundwater velocity is less than 10 feet/year, and • Quarterly (4-times/year) where groundwater velocity is equal to or greater than 10 feet/year. Because well MW-24 has a groundwater velocity less than 10 feet/year, the Executive Secretary has re-assigned a semi-annual sampling frequency to well MW-24 in Parts I.E.1(b) and I.E.1(c) of the Permit. Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 28 Public Comments October 8, 2009: Scott Clow (Environmental Programs Director - Ute Mountain Ute Tribe) Written comments (Received via email on October 8, 2009 from Colin Larrick) October 8, 2009: Sarah Fields, representing Uranium Watch, Living Rivers, and Glen Canyon Group / Sierra Club, Written comments (Received via email October 8, 2009) October 8, 2009: David C. Frydenlund (DUSA Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Council) Comments (Written comments received via email October 8, 2009) October 7, 2009 Transcript of Public Hearing, Blanding Utah, Verbal Comments from: Sara Fields representing Uranium Watch, Living Rivers, and Glen Canyon Group / Sierra Club Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 29 References EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1989, “Statistical analysis of ground-water monitoring data at RCRA facilities: Interim final guidance,” 530-SW-89-026, Office of Solid Waste, Permits and State Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1992, “Statistical analysis of ground-water monitoring data at RCRA facilities: Addendum to Interim final guidance,” Office of Solid Waste, Permits and State Programs Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401M Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20460. Denison Mines (DUSA) Corp., March 8, 2006, “RE: GROUND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT NO UGW370004 WHITE MESA MILL [Plugging and Abandonment Plan for Deep Water Supply Wells at Site],” 3 pp., 2 figures, 1 appendix. Denison Mines (DUSA) Corp., June 19, 2007, “Liner System Details Cell 4A White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah,” 1 figure (5 of 7) [transmitted via 6/19/07 email from Harold Roberts (DUSA) to David Rupp (DRC)]. Denison Mines (DUSA) Corp., November 21, 2007, “Re: White Mesa Uranium Mill State of Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 - Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report [includes 11/07 modeling report by MWH Americas Inc.,” Denison Mines (DUSA) Corp., June 18, 2008, “Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs In the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill,” 2 pp., 1 figure, and 1 attachment. Hurst, T.G. and D.K. Solomon, May, 2008, “Summary of Work Completed, Data Results, Interpretations and Recommendations for the July, 2007 Sampling Event at the Denison Mines, USA, White Mesa Uranium Mill Near Blanding Utah,” unpublished report by the University of Utah Department of Geology and Geophysics, 62 pp. [transmitted via 5/18/08 email from Kip Solomon to Loren Morton (DRC)]. INTERA, Inc., Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp., December 2006, “Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing Wells. For Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah.” INTERA, Inc., Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp., April 30, 2008. “Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report: New Wells. For Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah.” Geosyntec Consultants, Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp., May 15, 2007. “Analysis of Slimes Drain.” 66 pp. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc,, Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp., November 3, 2009. “MW- 24 Letter Report.” 13 pp. [transmitted via 11/3/09 email from David Frydenlund (DUSA) to Loren Morton (DRC). Public Participation Summary January 20, 2009 30 URS Corporation, May 22, 2007, “Review Findings Denison Mines “Cell 4A Lining System Design Report, Response to DRC Request for Additional Information - Round 7 Interrogatory, Cell 4A Design”, Dated May 15, 2007,” unpublished consultants memorandum, 7 pp., [transmitted via 5/30/07 email from Britt Quinby (URS) to Loren Morton and David Rupp (DRC)]. Utah Division of Radiation Control, November 23, 2004, “Review of Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. Report - Report on Perched Zone Water Movement, White Mesa Mill Site, near Blanding, Utah, October 20, 2004,” unpublished regulatory document from Dean Henderson to Loren Morton 3 pp., 2 tables, and 4 figures. Utah Division of Radiation Control, June 25, 2007, “White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah Cell 4A Relining Project Design Approval,” letter from Dane Finerfrock to Ron F. Hochstein 5 pp. Utah Division of Radiation Control, November 16, 2007, “Revised Hydrogeologic Report - Groundwater Discharge Permit (Permit), Part I.H.2, Denison Mines (USA) White Mesa Mill, near Blanding, Utah,” unpublished regulatory document from Dean Henderson to Loren Morton 5 pp., 1 figure, 3 tables. Utah Division of Radiation Control, January 28, 2008, “Nitrate Contamination Investigation and Corrective Action Plan, White Mesa Uranium Mill Near Blanding, Utah: Stipulated Consent Agreement,” letter from Utah Division of Radiation Control, August 18, 2008, “Request For Information,” letter from Loren B. Morton to Harold Roberts 6 pp. Utah Division of Radiation Control, March 14, 2008, Public Participation Summary, Ground Water Discharge Permit, DUSA, Permit No. UGW370004. Utah Division of Radiation Control, July 2, 2008, “RE: DUSA Cell 4A Construction: Two Items noted,” e-mail from Greg Corcoran (Geosyntec) to David Rupp (DRC) 1 pp. Utah Division of Radiation Control, February 2, 2009, “Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report: DRC Review Comments, Request for Additional Information,” letter from Thomas Rushing, P.G to David Frydenlund 8 pp. Utah Division of Radiation Control, September, 2009, “Statement of Basis for a Uranium Milling Facility at White Mesa, South of Blanding, Utah,” unpublished regulatory document, 42 pp., and 3 attachments. Utah Division of Radiation Control, November 16 2009, “Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report: Confirmatory Action Letter Regarding Deliverables,” letter from Dane Finerfrock to David Frydenlund 2 pp. Utah Division of Water Quality, September 1, 2009, Administrative Rules for Ground Water Quality Protection, R316-6, Utah Administrative Code. Utah Division of Water Quality, September 2, 2009, Draft Ground Water Discharge Permit, DUSA, Permit No. UGW370004 TIGURT 1 White Mesa Site Map of the Nitrate and Chloride Plumes and Groundwater Contours for the 1" Quarter,2009 (March) Sampling Event TW4-1 TW4-7 MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-5 MW-11 MW-12 MW-14 MW-15 MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-20 MW-21 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25 MW-26 MW-27 MW-28 MW-29 MW-30 MW-31 MW-32 TW4-2 TW4-3 TW4-4 TW4-6 TW4-10 TW4-11 TW4-12 TW4-13 TW4-14 TW4-16 TW4-18 TW4-20 TW4-21 TW4-22 TW4-23 TW4-24 TW4-25 TW4-5 TW4-8 TW4-9 TW4-19 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 TW4-24 24.4 Monitoring Well With Nirtrate and Chloride Concentrations mg/L Tailling Cell Monitor well Piezometer Ground Water Contour (Feet) Nitrate Isoconcentration (mg/L) Chloride Isoconcentration (mg/L) Legend Scale (Feet) Tailings Cell 1 Tailings Cell 2 Tailings Cell 3 Tailings Cell 4A Wild Life Ponds Wild Life Ponds Figure 1 White Mesa Site Map of the Nitrate and Chloride Plumes and Ground Water Contours for the 1st Quarter 2009 (March) Samping Event Chloroform Well 222 12 0.18 26 2.5 42 <0.05 41 5.7 332 15.3 101030.5 177 20.7 91 0.2 113 15.3 115 23.4 6 <0.1 24 0.1 31 <1.0 7 0.3 56 0.11 47 0.08 29 <0.05 37 0.16 16 <0.1 32 0.7 31 0.1 59 <0.23 54 3.6 41 <0.1 30 <0.1 73 9.6 49 0.4 35 2.2 37 10.2 35 1.6377.5 42 <0.1 35 3.7 49 7.3 46 6.5 23 2.464 11.8 21 2.1 34 7.9 30 2.5 8.3 279 164 5.1 127 3.2 29 5.2 Leach Field 59 4.9 WW-2 ATTACHMENT 1 Public Comments for the DUSA Permit Modification Uranium Watch P. O. Box 344 Moab, Utah 84532 435-21O-O166 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 (Permit) 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 tailings 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 the wildlife ponds. If the ponds remain unlined, identification of the source will be Division of Radiation Control 2 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 lined 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 3 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 I.E.7(b)], and Reporting [Part I.F.11] 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 11e.(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 4 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 Compliance 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 costly 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 11e.(2) byproduct material impoundments in August 2004 (over 5 years ago). The NRC had made all uranium recovery licensing 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 5 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 ATTACHMBNT 2 Public Meeting Transcript October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ermit Final - Redline/Strikeout Version December 15. 2009 Permit No. UGW370004 STATE OF UTAH DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-4870 GROUND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT In compliance with the provisions of the Utah Water Quality Act, Title 19, Chapter 5, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, the Act, Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Independence Plaza, Suite 950 1050 17th Street Denver, Colorado 80265 is granted a ground water discharge permit for the operation of a uranium milling and tailings disposal facility located approximately 6 miles south of Blanding, Utah. The facility is located on a tract of land in Sections 28, 29, 32, and 33, Township 37 South, Range 22 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, San Juan County, Utah. The permit is based on representations made by the Permittee and other information contained in the administrative record. It is the responsibility of the Permittee to read and understand all provisions of this Permit. The milling and tailings disposal facility shall be operated and revised in accordance with conditions set forth in the Permit and the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations. This modified Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit amends and supersedes all other Ground Water Discharge permits for this facility issued previously. This Permit shall become effective on _________________. This Permit shall expire March 8, 2010. Signed this ____ day of ________, 201008 _______________________. Co-Executive Secretary Utah Water Quality Board i Table of Contents PART I. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS...................................................................... 1 A. GROUND WATER CLASSIFICATION....................................................................................... 1 B. BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY.......................................................................................... 1 C. PERMIT LIMITS..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Ground Water Compliance Limits ................................................................................. 2 2. Tailings Cell Operations................................................................................................. 2 3. Prohibited Discharges..................................................................................................... 2 D. DISCHARGE MINIMIZATION AND BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS................... 6 1. DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3..................................... 6 2. Existing Tailings Cell Construction Authorized............................................................ 8 3. Existing Facility DMT Performance Standards.............................................................. 8 4. Best Available Technology Requirements for New Construction ............................... 10 5. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4A................................................................ 11 6. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 4A....................................................... 13 7. Definition of 11e.(2) Waste.......................................................................................... 14 8. Closed Cell Performance Requirements....................................................................... 14 9. Facility Reclamation Requirements.............................................................................. 14 10. Stormwater Management and Spill Control Requirements.......................................... 14 11. Requirements for Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area..... 15 E. GROUND WATER COMPLIANCE AND TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE MONITORING............. 15 1. Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring............................................................ 16 2. Groundwater Monitoring: Monitoring Wells MW-20 and MW-22............................ 17 3. Groundwater Head Monitoring .................................................................................... 17 4. Groundwater Monitoring Well Design and Construction Criteria............................... 17 5. Monitoring Procedures for Wells................................................................................. 18 6. White Mesa Seep and Spring Monitoring.................................................................... 18 7. DMT Performance Standard Monitoring ..................................................................... 19 8. BAT Performance Standard Monitoring...................................................................... 20 9. On-site Chemicals Inventory........................................................................................ 21 10. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Monitoring............................................................. 21 11. Groundwater Monitoring Modifications ...................................................................... 22 F. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS............................................................................................... 22 1. Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports................................................................... 22 2. Routine DMT Performance Standard Monitoring Report............................................ 23 3. Routine BAT Performance Standard Monitoring Reports........................................... 24 4. DMT and BAT Performance Upset Reports................................................................ 24 5. Other Information......................................................................................................... 24 6. Groundwater Monitoring Well As-Built Reports......................................................... 24 7. White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring Reports....................................................25 8. Chemicals Inventory Report......................................................................................... 26 9. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Reports................................................................... 26 10. Revised Hydrogeologic Report .................................................................................... 26 11. Annual Slimes Drain Recovery Head Report............................................................... 26 G. OUT OF COMPLIANCE STATUS............................................................................................ 27 1. Accelerated Monitoring Status..................................................................................... 27 2. Violation of Permit Limits ........................................................................................... 27 3. Failure to Maintain DMT or BAT Required by Permit................................................ 27 4. Facility Out of Compliance Status ............................................................................... 28 H. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................... 28 ii 1. On-site Chemicals Inventory Report............................................................................ 28 2. Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report .................. 29 3. Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2........................................................ 30 4. New Decontamination Pad........................................................................................... 31 5. Existing Decontamination Pad..................................................................................... 32 PART II. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS........................................................................ 33 A. REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING.............................................................................................. 33 B. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES................................................................................................ 33 C. PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING............................................................................................... 33 D. REPORTING OF MONITORING RESULTS............................................................................... 33 E. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES.................................................................................................. 33 F. ADDITIONAL MONITORING BY THE PERMITTEE.................................................................. 33 G. RECORDS CONTENTS.......................................................................................................... 33 H. RETENTION OF RECORDS.................................................................................................... 33 I. NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTING.......................................................................... 34 J. OTHER NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTING................................................................................ 34 K. INSPECTION AND ENTRY..................................................................................................... 34 PART III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................35 A. DUTY TO COMPLY.............................................................................................................. 35 B. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF PERMIT CONDITIONS........................................................ 35 C. NEED TO HALT OR REDUCE ACTIVITY NOT A DEFENSE...................................................... 35 D. DUTY TO MITIGATE............................................................................................................ 35 E. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE........................................................................... 35 PART IV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................... 36 A. PLANNED CHANGES........................................................................................................... 36 B. ANTICIPATED NONCOMPLIANCE......................................................................................... 36 C. PERMIT ACTIONS................................................................................................................ 36 D. DUTY TO REAPPLY............................................................................................................. 36 E. DUTY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ...................................................................................... 36 F. OTHER INFORMATION......................................................................................................... 36 G. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................. 36 H. PENALTIES FOR FALSIFICATION OF REPORTS...................................................................... 37 I. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS................................................................................................ 37 J. PROPERTY RIGHTS ............................................................................................................. 37 K. SEVERABILITY.................................................................................................................... 37 L. TRANSFERS........................................................................................................................ 37 M. STATE LAWS...................................................................................................................... 38 N. REOPENER PROVISIONS......................................................................................................38 List of Tables Table 1. Ground Water Classification ............................................................................................ 1 Table 2. Groundwater Compliance Limits..................................................................................... 3 Table 3. DMT Engineering Design and Specifications ................................................................. 6 Table 4. Feedstock Storage Area Coordinates............................................................................. 10 Table 5. Approved Tailings Cell 4A Engineering Design and Specifications.............................11 Table 6. Groundwater Monitoring Reporting Schedule............................................................... 23 Part I Permit No. UGW370004 1 PART I. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS A. GROUND WATER CLASSIFICATION - the groundwater classification of the shallow aquifer under the tailings facility has been determined on a well-by-well basis, as defined in Table 1, below: Table 1. Ground Water Classification Class II Groundwater Class III Groundwater Average TDS (mg/L) Average TDS (mg/L) DUSA Data DUSA Data Well ID N(1) Average Concentration(2) Standard Deviation(2) Well ID N(1) Average Concentration(2) Standard Deviation(2) MW-1 77 1,273 93 MW-2 77 3,050 252 MW-5 82 2,058 170 MW-3 78 5,217 263 MW-11 71 1,844 178 MW-12 61 3,894 241 MW-30 10 1,745 87 MW-14 51 3,592 176 MW-15 47 3,857 243 MW-17 22 4,444 321 MW-18(3) 18 2,605 297 MW-19(3) 22 2,457 900 MW-20(4) 2 5,610 57 MW-22(4) 2 7,365 361 MW-3A 9 5,547 129 MW-23 10 3,443 244 MW-24 10 4,116 117 MW-25(5) 11 2,843 67 MW-26(6) 12 3,155 65 MW-27(7) 10 1,019 28 MW-28 11 3,677 87 MW-29 8 4,380 27 MW-31(7) 10 1,265 50 MW-32(8) 12 3,669 247 Footnotes: 1) N = Number of Samples 2) Based on historic total dissolved solids (TDS) data provided by the Permittee for period between October, 1979 and December, 2007. This data was obtained from the Permittee’s background groundwater quality reports dated October 2007 and April 30, 2008. 3) Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-18 (55.1 µg/L) and thallium in MW-19 (2.1 µg/L) exceed the GWQS, 30 µg/L and 2.0 µg/L, respectively. Therefore these wells have been classified as Class III groundwater rather than Class II groundwater. 4) Wells MW-20 and MW-22 are not point of compliance monitoring wells, but instead are groundwater head monitoring wells as per Part I.E.2. Average concentrations and standard deviations for wells MW-20 and MW-22 were calculated by DRC staff from data from the DUSA 2nd and 3rd Quarters of 2008 Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports. 5) Background concentration of manganese in well MW-25 (1,806 µg/L) exceeds the GWQS, therefore well MW-25 has been classified as Class III groundwater rather than Class II groundwater. 6) Well MW-26 was originally named TW4-15 and was installed as part of the chloroform contaminant investigation at the facility. Under this Permit, MW-26 is defined as a Point of Compliance (POC) well for the tailings cells (see Part I.E.1). 7) Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-27 (34 µg/L) and selenium in MW-31 (71 µg/L) exceed the GWQS, therefore these wells have been classified as Class III groundwater rather than Class II groundwater. 8) Well MW-32 was originally named TW4-17 and was installed as part of the chloroform contaminant investigation at the facility. Under this Permit it is included as a POC well for the tailings cells in Part I.E.1. B. BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY - based on groundwater samples collected through June 2007 for existing wells (MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-11, MW-12, MW-14, MW-15, MW-17, MW-18, MW-19, MW-26, and MW-32) and through December 2007 for new wells (MW-3A, MW-23, MW 24, MW-25, MW-27, MW-28, MW-29, MW-30 and MW-31), the upper boundary of background groundwater quality is determined on a well-by-well basis, pursuant to Part I Permit No. UGW370004 2 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance, and documented in the Permittee’s background groundwater quality reports dated October 2007 and April 30, 2008. C. PERMIT LIMITS - the Permittee shall comply with the following permit limits: 1. Ground Water Compliance Limits - contaminant concentrations measured in each monitoring well shall not exceed the Ground Water Compliance Limits (GWCL) defined in Table 2, below. Groundwater quality at the site must at all times meet all the applicable GWQS and ad hoc GWQS defined in R317-6 even though this permit does not require monitoring for each specific contaminant. 2. Tailings Cell Operations - only 11.e.(2) by-product material authorized by Utah Radioactive Materials License No. UT-2300478 (hereafter License) shall be discharged to or disposed of in the tailings ponds. 3. Prohibited Discharges - discharge of other compounds such as paints, used oil, antifreeze, pesticides, or any other contaminant not defined as 11e.(2) material is prohibited. 3 Table 2. Groundwater Compliance Limits (GWCL) Upgradient Wells Down or Lateral Gradient Wells MW-1 (Class II) MW-18 (Class III) MW-19 (Class III) MW-27 (Class III) MW-2 (Class III) MW-3 (Class III) MW-3A (Class III) MW-5 (Class II) MW-11 (Class II) MW-12 (Class III) MW-14 (Class III) MW-15 (Class III) Contaminant GWQS (1) GWCL (6) GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL (7) GWCL GWCL GWCL Nutrients (mg/L) Ammonia (as N) 25(2) 6.25 0.27 0.31 12.5 12.5 1.16 0.6 1.02 6.25 0.6 12.5 0.21 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 10 2.5 2.5 2.83 5.6 0.12 0.73 1.3 2.5 2.5 5 5 0.27 Heavy Metals (µg/L) Arsenic 50 12.5 25 25 25 25 25 25 17 15 25 25 25 Beryllium 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 Cadmium 5 4.2 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 4.67 8.3 2 1.25 7 2.5 2.5 Chromium 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 25 50 50 50 Cobalt 730 (5) 182.5 365 365 365 365 365 365 182.5 182.5 365 365 365 Copper 1,300 325 650 650 650 650 650 650 325 325 650 650 650 Iron 11,000 (5) 2,750 414.68 5,500 5,500 151.6 427.13 5,500 2,750 2,750 5,500 5,500 81.7 Lead 15 5.59 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 4.1 3.75 7.5 7.5 7.5 Manganese 800 (4) 289 350 400 400 378.76 4,233 6,287 376.74 131.29 2,088.80 2,230.30 400 Mercury 2 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 Molybdenum 40 (2) 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 10 20 25 30 Nickel 100 (3) 25 50 50 50 60 100 105 44.1 46.2 60 50 97 Selenium 50 12.5 25 28.96 25 26.6 37 89 12.5 12.5 25 25 128.7 Silver 100 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 25 50 50 50 Thallium 2 0.5 1.95 2.1 1 1 1.6 1.4 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 Tin 17,000(4) 4,250 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 4,250 4,250 8,500 8,500 8,500 Uranium 30 (3) 7.28 55.1 21.43 34 18.45 47.32 35 7.5 7.5 23.5 98 65.7 Vanadium 60 (4) 15 30 30 30 30 30 30 15 15 30 30 40 Zinc 5,000 251 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 173.19 155 87.38 1,250 2,500 35.04 2,500 Radiologics (pCi/L) Gross Alpha 15 3.75 7.5 2.36 2 3.2 1 7.5 3.75 3.75 7.5 7.5 7.5 Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/L) Acetone 700 (4) 175 350 350 350 350 350 350 175 175 350 350 350 Benzene 5 1.25 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.25 1.25 2.5 2.5 2.5 2-Butanone (MEK) 4,000 (2) 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Carbon Tetrachloride 5 1.25 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.25 1.25 2.5 2.5 2.5 Chloroform 70 (4) 17.5 35 35 35 35 35 35 17.5 17.5 35 35 35 Chloromethane 30 (2) 7.5 15 15 15 15 15 9.4 7.5 7.5 15 15 15 Dichloromethane 5 (3) 1.25 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.25 1.25 2.5 2.5 2.5 Naphthalene 100 (2) 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 25 50 50 50 Tetrahydrofuran 46 (4) 11.5 23 23 23 23 23 23 11.5 11.5 23 23 23 Toluene 1,000 250 500 500 500 500 500 500 250 250 500 500 500 Xylenes (total) 10,000 2,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 Others Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.77 - 8.5 6.25 - 8.5 6.78 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.62 - 8.5 Fluoride (mg/L) 4 0.56 0.45 1.39 0.85 0.43 0.68 1.6 1.42 1 2 0.2 2 Chloride (mg/L) 22.1 69.23 104.41 38 20 76 70 71 39.16 80.5 27 57.1 Sulfate (mg/L) 838 1,938.90 2,534.10 462 2,147 3,663 3,640 1,518 1,309 2,560 2,330 2,549.02 TDS (mg/L) 1,567 3,198.77 4,257.42 1,075 3,800 6,186 5,805 2,575 2,528 4,323 4,062 4,530 4 Table 2 Continued. Groundwater Quality Compliance Limits (GWCL) Down or Lateral Gradient Wells MW-17 (Class III) MW-23 (Class III) MW-24 (Class III) MW-25 (Class III) MW-26 (Class III) MW-28 (Class III) MW-29 (Class III) MW-30 (Class II) MW-31 (Class III) MW-32 (Class III) Contaminant GWQS (1) GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL GWCL (7) Nutrients (mg/L) Ammonia (as N) 25 (2) 0.26 0.6 7 0.77 0.92 12.5 1.3 0.14 12.5 1.17 Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) 10 5 5 5 5 0.62 5 5 2.5 5 5 Heavy Metals (µg/L) Arsenic 50 25 25 17 25 25 21 25 12.5 25 25 Beryllium 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 Cadmium 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 5.2 2.5 1.25 2.5 4.72 Chromium 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 50 50 Cobalt 730 (5) 365 365 365 365 365 47 365 182.5 365 75.21 Copper 1,300 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 325 650 650 Iron 11,000 (5) 5,500 5,500 4,162 5,500 2,675.83 299 1,869 2,750 5,500 14,060 Lead 15 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 3.75 7.5 7.5 Manganese 800 (4) 915.4 550 7,507 1,806 1,610 1,837 5,624 61 400 5,594.90 Mercury 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 Molybdenum 40 (2) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 10 20 20 Nickel 100 (3) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 50 94 Selenium 50 25 25 25 25 25 11.1 25 34 71 25 Silver 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 50 50 Thallium 2 1 1.5 1 1.1 1 1 1.2 0.5 1 1 Tin 17,000(4) 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 4,250 8,500 8,500 Uranium 30 (3) 46.66 32 11.9 6.5 41.8 4.9 15 8.32 9.1 5.26 Vanadium 60 (4) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 15 30 30 Zinc 5,000 2,500 74 2,500 2,500 2,500 83 30 1,250 2,500 230 Radiologics (pCi/L) Gross Alpha 15 2.8 2.86 7.5 7.5 4.69 2.42 2 3.75 7.5 3.33 Volatile Organic Compounds (µg/L) Acetone 700 (4) 350 350 350 350 350 350 350 175 350 350 Benzene 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.25 2.5 2.5 2-Butanone (MEK) 4,000 (2) 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 Carbon Tetrachloride 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 1.25 2.5 2.5 Chloroform 70 (4) 35 35 35 35 70 35 35 17.5 35 35 Chloromethane 30 (2) 15 5.7 15 15 30 4.6 15 7.5 6.1 15 Dichloromethane 5 (3) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 5 2.5 2.5 1.25 2.5 2.5 Naphthalene 100 (2) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 50 50 Tetrahydrofuran 46 (4) 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 11.5 23 23 Toluene 1,000 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 250 500 500 Xylenes (total) 10,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 5,000 5,000 Others Field pH (S.U.) 6.5 - 8.5 6.40 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.74 - 8.5 6.1 - 8.5 6.46 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 8.5 6.4 - 8.5 Fluoride (mg/L) 4 2 2 0.36 0.42 2 0.73 1.1 0.51 2 2 Chloride (mg/L) 46.8 10 71 35 58.31 105 41 128 143 35.39 Sulfate (mg/L) 2,860 2,524 2,903 1,933 2,082.06 2,533 2,946 972 532 2,556.70 TDS (mg/L) 5,085.42 3,670 4,450 2,976 3,284.19 3,852 4,400 1,918 1,320 3,960 5 Footnotes: 1) Utah Ground Water Quality Standards (GWQS) as defined in UAC R317-6, Table 2. Ad hoc GWQS also provided herein, as noted, and as allowed by UAC R317-6-2.2. 2) Ad hoc GWQS for ammonia (as N), molybdenum, 2-Butanone (MEK), chloromethane, and naphthalene based on EPA drinking water lifetime health advisories. 3) Ad hoc GWQS for nickel, uranium, and dichloromethane (methylene chloride, CAS No. 75-09-2) based on final EPA drinking water maximum concentration limits (MCL). 4) Ad hoc GWQS for manganese, tin, vanadium, acetone, chloroform (CAS No. 67-66-3), and tetrahydrofuran based on drinking water ad hoc lifetime health advisories prepared by or in collaboration with EPA Region 8 staff. 5) Ad hoc GWQS for cobalt and iron based on EPA Region 3 Risk Based Concentration limits for tap water. 6) Ground Water Compliance Limits (GWCL) were set after Executive Secretary review and approval of two Background Groundwater Quality Reports dated October_2007 and April 30, 2008 from the Permittee.. 7) GWCLs listed in the table above in Normal Font are those proposed by the Permittee in the October 2007 and April 30, 2008 DUSA Background Groundwater Quality Reports, and approved by the Executive Secretary. 8) GWCLs listed in the table above in Bold Text are values modified by the Executive Secretary after review of GWCLs proposed in the Permittee’s October 2007 and April 30, 2008 Background Groundwater Quality Reports. For wells MW-1, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-11, MW-12, MW-14, MW-15, MW-17, MW-18, MW-19, MW-26, and MW-32; these modifications are documented in the June 16, 2008 URS Completeness Review for the October, 2007 Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report for Existing Wells. For wells MW-3A, MW-23, MW-24, MW-25, MW-27, MW-28, MW-29, MW-30, and MW-31; these modifications are documented in the June 24, 2008 DRC Findings Memorandum regarding the April 30, 2008 Revised Background Groundwater Quality Report for New Wells. Part I Permit No. UGW370004 6 D. DISCHARGE MINIMIZATION AND BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS - the tailings disposal facility must be built, operated, and maintained according to the following Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT) and Best Available Technology (BAT) standards: 1. DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3 - shall be based on existing construction as described by design and construction information provided by the Permittee, as summarized in Table 3 below for Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3: Table 3. DMT Engineering Design and Specifications Tailings Cell Report Type Engineering Report Design Figures Construction Specifications Cell 1 Design June, 1979 D’Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc (1) Appendix A, Sheets 2, 4, 8, 9, 12-15 Appendix B Cell 2 Design June, 1979 D’Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc (1) Appendix A, Sheets 2, 4, 7- 10, 12-15 Appendix B As-Built February, 1982 D’Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc (2) Figures 1, 2, and 11 N/A Cell 3 Design May, 1981 D’Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc (3) Sheets 2-5 Appendix B As-Built March, 1983 Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (4) Figures 1-4 N/A Footnotes: 1) D’Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., June, 1979, “Engineers Report Tailings Management System White Mesa Uranium Project Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, Colorado”, unpublished consultants report, approximately 50 pp., 2 figures, 16 sheets, 2 appendices. 2) D’Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., February, 1982, “Construction Report Initial Phase - Tailings Management System White Mesa Uranium Project Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, Colorado”, unpublished consultants report, approximately 7 pp., 6 tables, 13 figures, 4 appendices. 3) D’Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., May, 1981, “Engineer’s Report Second Phase Design - Cell 3 Tailings Management System White Mesa Uranium Project Blanding, Utah Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Denver, Colorado”, unpublished consultants report, approximately 20 pp., 1 figure, 5 sheets, and 3 appendices. 4) Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., March, 1983, “Construction Report Second Phase Tailings Management System White Mesa Uranium Project Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.”, unpublished company report, 18 pp., 3 tables, 4 figures, 5 appendices. a) Tailings Cell 1 - consisting of the following major design elements: 1) Cross-valley Dike and East Dike - constructed on the south side of the pond of native granular materials with a 3:1 slope, a 20-foot crest width, and a crest elevation of about 5,620 ft above mean sea level (amsl). A dike of similar design was constructed on the east margin of the pond, which forms a continuous earthen structure with the south dike. The remaining interior slopes are cut-slopes at 3:1 grade. 2) Liner System - including a single 30 mil PVC flexible membrane liner (FML) constructed of solvent welded seams on a prepared sub-base. Top elevation of the FML liner was 5,618.5 ft amsl on both the south dike and the north cut-slope. A protective soil cover layer was constructed immediately over the FML with a thickness of 12-inches on the cell floor and 18-inches on the interior sideslope. 3) Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediately below the FML a nominal 6-inch thick layer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer. Beneath this underlay, native sandstone and other foundation materials were graded to drain to a single low point near the upstream toe of the south cross-valley dike. Inside this layer, an east-west oriented pipe was installed to gather fluids at the upstream toe of the cross-valley dike. Part I Permit No. UGW370004 7 b) Tailings Cell 2 - which consists of the following major design elements: 1) Cross-valley Dike - constructed at the south margin of Cell 2 of native granular materials with a 3:1 slope, a 20-foot crest width, and crest elevation of about 5,615 ft amsl. The east and west interior slopes consist of cut-slopes with a 3:1 grade. The Cell 1 south dike forms the north margin of Cell 2, with a crest elevation of 5,620 ft amsl. 2) Liner System - includes a single 30 mil PVC FML liner constructed of solvent welded seams on a prepared sub-base, and overlain by a slimes drain collection system. Top elevation of the FML liner in Cell 2 is 5,615.0 ft and 5,613.5 ft amsl on the north and south dikes, respectively. Said Cell 2 FML liner is independent of all other disposal cell FML liners. Immediately above the FML, a nominal 12-inch (cell floor) to 18-inch (inside sideslope) soil protective blanket was constructed of native sands from on-site excavated soils. 3) Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediately below the FML a nominal 6-inch thick layer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer. Beneath this underlay, native sandstone and other foundation materials were graded to drain to a single low point near the upstream toe of the south cross-valley dike. Inside this layer, an east-west oriented pipe was installed to gather fluids at the upstream toe of the cross-valley dike. 4) Slimes Drain Collection System immediately above the FML a nominal 12-inch thick protective blanket layer was constructed of native silty-sandy soil. On top of this protective blanket, a network of 1.5-inch PVC perforated pipe laterals was installed on a grid spacing interval of about 50-feet. These pipe laterals gravity drain to a 3- inch diameter perforated PVC collector pipe which also drains toward the south dike and is accessed from the ground surface via a 24-inch diameter, vertical non- perforated HDPE access pipe. Each run of lateral drainpipe and collector piping was covered with a 12 to 18-inch thick berm of native granular filter material. At cell closure, leachate head inside the pipe network will be removed via a submersible pump installed inside the 24-inch diameter HDPE access pipe. c) Tailings Cell 3 - consisting of the following major design elements: 1) Cross-valley Dike - constructed at the south margin of Cell 3 of native granular materials with a 3:1 slope, a 20-foot crest width, and a crest elevation of 5,610 ft amsl. The east and west interior slopes consist of cut-slopes with a 3:1 grade. The Cell 2 south dike forms the north margin of Cell 3, with a crest elevation of 5,615 ft amsl. 2) Liner System - includes a single 30 mil PVC FML liner constructed of solvent welded seams on a prepared sub-base, and overlain by a slimes drain collection system. Top elevation of the FML liner in Cell 3 is 5,613.5 ft and 5,608.5 ft amsl on the north and south dikes, respectively. Said Cell 3 FML liner is independent of all other disposal cell FML liners. 3) Crushed Sandstone Underlay - immediately below the FML a nominal 6-inch thick layer of crushed sandstone was prepared and rolled smooth as a FML sub-base layer. Beneath this underlay, native sandstone and other foundation materials were graded Part I Permit No. UGW370004 8 to drain to a single low point near the upstream toe of the south cross-valley dike. Inside this layer, an east-west oriented pipe was installed to gather fluids at the upstream toe of the cross-valley dike. 4) Slimes Drain Collection Layer and System - immediately above the FML, a nominal 12-inch (cell floor) to 18-inch (inside sideslope) soil protective blanket was constructed of native sands from on-site excavated soils (70%) and dewatered and cyclone separated tailings sands from the mill (30%). On top of this protective blanket, a network of 3-inch PVC perforated pipe laterals was installed on approximately 50-foot centers. This pipe network gravity drains to a 3-inch perforated PVC collector pipe which also drains toward the south dike, where it is accessed from the ground surface by a 12-inch diameter, inclined HDPE access pipe. Each run of the 3-inch lateral drainpipe and collector pipe was covered with a 12 to 18-inch thick berm of native granular filter media. At cell closure, leachate head inside the pipe network will be removed via a submersible pump installed inside the 12-inch diameter inclined access pipe. 2. Existing Tailings Cell Construction Authorized - tailings disposal in existing Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3 is authorized by this Permit as defined in Table 3 and Part I.D.1, above. Authorized operation and maximum disposal capacity in each of the existing tailings cells shall not exceed the levels authorized by the License. Under no circumstances shall the freeboard be less than three feet, as measured from the top of the FML. Any modification by the Permittee to any approved engineering design parameter at these existing tailings cells shall require prior Executive Secretary approval, modification of this Permit, and issuance of a construction permit. 3. Existing Facility DMT Performance Standards - the Permittee shall operate and maintain certain mill site facilities and the existing tailings disposal cells to minimize the potential for wastewater release to groundwater and the environment, including, but not limited to the following additional DMT compliance measures: a) DMT Monitoring Wells at Tailings Cell 1 - at all times the Permittee shall operate and maintain Tailings Cell 1 to prevent groundwater quality conditions in any nearby monitoring well from exceeding any Ground Water Compliance Limit established in Table 2 of this Permit. b) Tailings Cells 2 and 3 - including the following performance criteria: 1) Slimes Drain Maximum Allowable Head - the Permittee shall at all times maintain the average wastewater recovery head in the slimes drain access pipe to be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) in each tailings disposal cell, in accordance with the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. 2) Monthly Slimes Drain Recovery Test - the Permittee shall conduct a monthly slimes drain recovery test at each tailings cell slimes drain that meets the following minimum requirements: i. Includes a duration of at least 90-hours, as measured from the time that pumping ceases, and ii. Achieves a stable water level at the end of the test, as measured by three Part I Permit No. UGW370004 9 consecutive hourly water level depth measurements, with no change in water level, as measured to the nearest 0.01 foot. 3) Annual Slimes Drain Compliance - shall be achieved when the average annual wastewater recovery elevation in the slimes drain access pipe, as determined pursuant to the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan, meets the conditions in Equation 1, below: Equation 1: [Ey + Ey-1 + Ey-2 ] / [Ny + Ny-1 + Ny-2 ] < [Ey-1 + Ey-2 + Ey-3 ] / [ Ny-1 + Ny-2 + Ny-3 ] Where: Ey = Sum of all monthly slimes drain tailings fluid elevation measurements that meet the test performance standards found in Part I.D.3(b)(2), during the calendar year of interest. Hereafter, these water level measurements are referred to as slimes drain recovery elevations (SDRE). Pursuant to the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan, these recovery tests are to be conducted monthly and the SDRE values reported in units of feet above mean sea level (amsl). Ey-1 = Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the year previous to the calendar year of interest. Ey-2 = Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the second year previous to the calendar year of interest. Ey-3 = Sum of all SDRE measurements made in the third year previous to the calendar year of interest. Ny = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part I.D.3(b)(2), conducted during the calendar year of interest. Ny-1 = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part I.D.3(b)(2), conducted in the year previous to the calendar year of interest. Ny-2 = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part I.D.3(b)(2), conducted in the second year previous to the calendar year of interest. Ny-3 = Total number of SDRE tests that meet the test performance standards found in Part I.D.3(b)(2), conducted in the third year previous to the calendar year of interest. Prior to January 1, 2013, the following values for E and N values in Equation 1 shall be based on SDRE data from the following calendar years. Source of Data By Calendar Year for Equation 1 Variables (right side) Report for Calendar Year Ey-1 Ey-2 Ey-3 Ny-1 Ny-2 Ny-3 2010 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2011 2010 2009 2009 2010 2009 2009 2012 2011 2010 2009 2011 2010 2009 Failure to satisfy conditions in Equation 1 shall constitute DMT failure and non- compliance with this Permit. For Cell 3, this requirement shall apply after initiation of de-watering operations. c) Maximum Tailings Waste Solids Elevation - upon closure of any tailings cell, the Permittee shall ensure that the maximum elevation of the tailings waste solids does not Part I Permit No. UGW370004 10 exceed the top of the FML liner. d) DMT Monitoring Wells - at all times the Permittee shall operate and maintain Tailings Cells 2 and 3 to prevent groundwater quality conditions in any nearby monitoring well from exceeding any Ground Water Compliance Limit established in Table 2 of this Permit. e) Roberts Pond - the Permittee shall operate this wastewater pond so as to provide a minimum 2-foot freeboard at all times. Under no circumstances shall the water level in the pond exceed an elevation of 5,624 feet amsl. In the event that the wastewater elevation exceeds this maximum level, the Permittee shall remove the excess wastewater and place it into containment in Tailings Cell 1 within 72-hours of discovery. At the time of mill site closure, the Permittee shall reclaim and decommission the Roberts Pond in compliance with a final Reclamation Plan approved under the License (hereafter Reclamation Plan). f) Feedstock Storage Area - open-air or bulk storage of all feedstock materials at the facility awaiting mill processing shall be limited to the eastern portion of the mill site area described in Table 4, below. Storage of feedstock materials at the facility outside this area, shall meet the requirements in Part I.D.11. At the time of mill site closure, the Permittee shall reclaim and decommission the Feedstock Storage Area in compliance with an approved Reclamation Plan. Table 4. Feedstock Storage Area Coordinates (1) Corner Northing (ft) Easting (ft) Northeast 323,595 2,580,925 Southeast 322,140 2,580,920 Southwest 322,140 2,580,420 West 1 322,815 2,580,410 West 2 323,040 2,580,085 West 3 323,120 2,580,085 West 4 323,315 2,580,285 West 5 323,415 2,579,990 Northwest 323,600 2,579,990 Footnote: 1) Approximate State Plane Coordinates beginning from the extreme northeast corner and progressing clockwise around the feedstock area (from 6/22/01 DUSA Response, Attachment K, Site Topographic Map, Revised June, 2001.) g) Mill Site Chemical Reagent Storage - for all chemical reagents stored at existing storage facilities and held for use in the milling process, the Permittee shall provide secondary containment to capture and contain all volumes of reagent(s) that might be released at any individual storage area. Response to spills, cleanup thereof, and required reporting shall comply with the provisions of the approved Emergency Response Plan as found in the currently approved Stormwater Best Management Practices Plan. For any new construction of reagent storage facilities, said secondary containment and control shall prevent any contact of the spilled or otherwise released reagent or product with the ground surface. 4. Best Available Technology Requirements for New Construction - any construction, modification, or operation of new waste or wastewater disposal, treatment, or storage facilities shall require submittal of engineering design plans and specifications, and prior Part I Permit No. UGW370004 11 Executive Secretary review and approval. All engineering plans or specifications submitted shall demonstrate compliance with all Best Available Technology (BAT) requirements stipulated by the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations (UAC R317-6). Upon Executive Secretary approval this Permit may be re-opened and modified to include any necessary requirements. 5. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4A - the BAT design standard for Tailings Cell 4A shall be defined by and construction conform to the requirements of the June 25, 2007 Executive Secretary design approval letter for the relining of former existing Tailings Cell No. 4A, and as summarized by the engineering drawings, specifications, and description in Table 5, below: Table 5. Approved Tailings Cell 4A Engineering Design and Specifications Engineering Drawings Name Date Revision No. Title Sheet 1 of 7 June, 2007 Title Sheet Sheet 2 of 7 June 15, 2007 Rev. 1 Site Plan Sheet 3 of 7 June 15, 2007 Rev. 1 Base Grading Plan Sheet 4 of 7 June 15, 2007 Rev. 1 Pipe Layout Plan Sheet 5 of 7 June 15, 2007 Rev. 1 Lining System Details I Sheet 6 of 7 June 15, 2007 Rev. 1 Lining System Details II Sheet 7 of 7 June 15, 2007 Rev. 1 Lining System Details III Figure 1 August, 2008 - Spillway Splash Pad Anchor Engineering Specifications Date Document Title Prepared by June, 2007 Revised Technical Specifications for the Construction of Cell 4A Lining System Geosyntec Consultants June, 2007 Revised Construction Quality Assurance Plan for the Construction of Cell 4A Lining System Geosyntec Consultants March 27, 2007 Revised Geosynthetic Clay Liner Hydration Demonstration Work Plan (1) Geosyntec Consultants November 27, 2006 Cell Seismic Study (2) MFG Consulting Scientists and Engineers October 6, 2006 Calculation of Action Leakage Rate Through the Leakage Detection System Underlying a Geomembrane Liner Geosyntec Consultants June 22, 2006 Slope Stability Analysis Cell 4A - Interim Conditions Geosyntec Consultants June 23, 2006 Settlement Evaluation of Berms (2) Geosyntec Consultants August 22, 2006 Pipe Strength Calculations Geosyntec Consultants September 27, 2007 DMC Cell 4A - GCL Hydration Geosyntec Consultants Footnotes: 1) As qualified by conditions found in May 2, 2007 Division of Radiation Control letter. 2) As clarified by February 8, 2007 Division of Radiation Control Round 6 Interrogatory. Tailings Cell 4A Design and Construction - approved by the Executive Secretary will consist of the following major elements: Part I Permit No. UGW370004 12 a) Dikes - consisting of existing earthen embankments of compacted soil, constructed by the Permittee between 1989-1990, and composed of four dikes, each including a 15-foot wide road at the top (minimum). On the north, east, and south margins these dikes have slopes of 3H to 1V. The west dike has an interior slope of 2H to 1V. Width of these dikes varies, each has a minimum crest width of at least 15 feet to support an access road. Base width also varies from 89-feet on the east dike (with no exterior embankment), to 211-feet at the west dike. b) Foundation - including existing subgrade soils over bedrock materials. Foundation preparation included excavation and removal of contaminated soils, compaction of imported soils to a maximum dry density of 90%. Floor of Cell 4A has an average slope of 1% that grades from the northeast to the southwest corners. c) Tailings Capacity - the floor and inside slopes of Cell 4A encompass about 40 acres and have a maximum capacity of about 1.6 million cubic yards of tailings material storage (as measured below the required 3-foot freeboard). d) Liner and Leak Detection Systems - including the following layers, in descending order: 1) Primary Flexible Membrane Liner (FML) - consisting of impermeable 60 mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) membrane that extends across both the entire cell floor and the inside side-slopes, and is anchored in a trench at the top of the dikes on all four sides. The primary FML will be in direct physical contact with the tailings material over most of the Cell 4A floor area. In other locations, the primary FML will be in contact with the slimes drain collection system (discussed below). 2) Leak Detection System - includes a permeable HDPE geonet fabric that extends across the entire area under the primary FML in Cell 4A, and drains to a leak detection sump in the southwest corner. Access to the leak detection sump is via an 18-inch inside diameter (ID) PVC pipe placed down the inside slope, located between the primary and secondary FML liners. At its base this pipe will be surrounded with a gravel filter set in the leak detection sump, having dimensions of 10 feet by 10 feet by 2 feet deep. In turn, the gravel filter layer will be enclosed in an envelope of geotextile fabric. The purpose of both the gravel and geotextile fabric is to serve as a filter. 3) Secondary FML - consisting of an impermeable 60-mil HDPE membrane found immediately below the leak detection geonet. Said FML also extends across the entire Cell 4A floor, up the inside side-slopes and is also anchored in a trench at the top of all four dikes. 4) Geosynthetic Clay Liner - consisting of a manufactured geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) composed of 0.2-inch of low permeability bentonite clay centered and stitched between two layers of geotextile. Prior to disposal of any wastewater in Cell 4A, the Permittee shall demonstrate that the GCL has achieved a moisture content of at least 50% by weight. This item is a revised requirement per DRC letter to DUSA dated September 28, 2007. e) Slimes Drain Collection System - including a two-part system of strip drains and perforated collection pipes both installed immediately above the primary FML, as follows: Part I Permit No. UGW370004 13 1) Horizontal Strip Drain System - is installed in a herringbone pattern across the floor of Cell 4A that drain to a “backbone” of perforated collection pipes. These strip drains are made of a prefabricated two-part geo-composite drain material (solid polymer drainage strip) core surrounded by an envelope of non-woven geotextile filter fabric. The strip drains are placed immediately over the primary FML on 50- foot centers, where they conduct fluids downgradient in a southwesterly direction to a physical and hydraulic connection to the perforated slimes drain collection pipe. A series of continuous sand bags, filled with filter sand cover the strip drains. The sand bags are composed of a woven polyester fabric filled with well graded filter sand to protect the drainage system from plugging. 2) Horizontal Slimes Drain Collection Pipe System - includes a “backbone” piping system of 4-inch ID Schedule 40 perforated PVC slimes drain collection (SDC) pipe found at the downgradient end of the strip drain lines. This pipe is in turn overlain by a berm of gravel that runs the entire diagonal length of the cell, surrounded by a geotextile fabric cushion in immediate contact with the primary FML. In turn, the gravel is overlain by a layer of non-woven geotextile to serve as an additional filter material. This perforated collection pipe serves as the “backbone” to the slimes drain system and runs from the far northeast corner downhill to the far southwest corner of Cell 4A where it joins the slimes drain access pipe. 3) Slimes Drain Access Pipe - consisting of an 18-inch ID Schedule 40 PVC pipe placed down the inside slope of Cell 4A at the southwest corner, above the primary FML. Said pipe then merges with another horizontal pipe of equivalent diameter and material, where it is enveloped by gravel and woven geotextile that serves as a cushion to protect the primary FML. A reducer connects the horizontal 18-inch pipe with the 4-inch SDC pipe. At some future time, a pump will be set in this 18-inch pipe and used to remove tailings wastewaters for purposes of de-watering the tailings cell. f) North Dike Splash Pads - three 20-foot wide splash pads will be constructed on the north dike to protect the primary FML from abrasion and scouring by tailings slurry. These pads will consist of an extra layer of 60 mil HDPE membrane that will be installed in the anchor trench and placed down the inside slope of Cell 4A, from the top of the dike, under the inlet pipe, and down the inside slope to a point 5-feet beyond the toe of the slope. g) Emergency Spillway - a concrete lined spillway will be constructed near the western corner of the north dike to allow emergency runoff from Cell 3 into Cell 4A. This spillway will be limited to a 6-inch reinforced concrete slab set directly over the primary FML in a 4-foot deep trapezoidal channel. No other spillway or overflow structure will be constructed at Cell 4A. All stormwater runoff and tailings wastewaters not retained in Cells 2 and 3, will be managed and contained in Cell 4A, including the Probable Maximum Precipitation and flood event. 6. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 4A - the Permittee shall operate and maintain Tailings Cell 4A so as to prevent release of wastewater to groundwater and the environment in accordance with the currently approved Cell 4A BAT Monitoring Operations and Maintenance Plan. The plan’s performance standards include the following: Part I Permit No. UGW370004 14 a) Leak Detection System (LDS) Maximum Allowable Daily Head - the fluid head in the LDS shall not exceed 1 foot above the lowest point on the lower flexible membrane liner on the cell floor. For purposes of compliance this elevation will equate to a maximum distance of 2.28 feet above the LDS transducer. At all times the Permittee shall operate the LDS pump and transducer in a horizontal position at the lowest point of the LDS sump floor. b) LDS Maximum Allowable Daily Leak Rate - shall not exceed 24,160 gallons/day. c) Slimes Drain Monthly and Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the Permittee initiates pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell 4A, the Permittee will provide: 1) continuous declining fluid heads in the slimes drain layer, in a manner equivalent to the requirements found in Part I.D.3(b), and 2) a maximum head of 1.0 feet in the tailings (as measured from the lowest point of upper flexible membrane liner) in 6.4 years or less. d) Maximum Weekly Wastewater Level - under no circumstance shall the freeboard be less then 3-feet in Cell 4A, as measured from the top of the upper FML. 7. Definition of 11a (2) Waste - for purposes of this Permit, 11e.(2) waste is defined as: "... tailings or wastes produced by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium from any ore processed primarily for its source material content", as defined in Section 11e.(2) of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; which includes other process related wastes and waste streams described by a March 7, 2003 NRC letter from Paul H. Lohaus to William J. Sinclair. 8. Closed Cell Performance Requirements - before reclamation and closure of any tailings disposal cell, the Permittee shall ensure that the final design, construction, and operation of the cover system at each tailings cell will comply with all requirements of an approved Reclamation Plan, and will for a period of not less than 200 years meet the following minimum performance requirements: a) Minimize infiltration of precipitation or other surface water into the tailings, including, but not limited to the radon barrier, b) Prevent the accumulation of leachate head within the tailings waste layer that could rise above or over-top the maximum FML liner elevation internal to any disposal cell, i.e. create a “bathtub” effect, and c) Ensure that groundwater quality at the compliance monitoring wells does not exceed the Ground Water Quality Standards or Ground Water Compliance Limits specified in Part I.C.1 and Table 2 of this Permit. 9. Facility Reclamation Requirements - upon commencement of decommissioning, the Permittee shall reclaim the mill site and all related facilities, stabilize the tailings cells, and construct a cover system over the tailings cells in compliance with all engineering design and specifications in an approved Reclamation Plan. The Executive Secretary reserves the right to require modifications of the Reclamation Plan for purposes of compliance with the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations, including but not limited to containment and control of contaminants, or discharges, or potential discharges to Waters of the State. 10. Stormwater Management and Spill Control Requirements - the Permittee will manage all Part I Permit No. UGW370004 15 contact and non-contact stormwater and control contaminant spills at the facility in accordance with the currently approved Stormwater Best Management Practices Plan. Said plan includes the following minimum provisions: a) Protect groundwater quality or other waters of the state by design, construction, and/or active operational measures that meet the requirements of the Ground Water Quality Protection Regulations found in UAC R317-6-6.3(G) and R317-6-6.4(C), b) Prevent, control and contain spills of stored reagents or other chemicals at the mill site, c) Cleanup spills of stored reagents or other chemicals at the mill site immediately upon discovery, and d) Report reagent spills or other releases at the mill site to the Executive Secretary in accordance with UAC 19-5-114. Reconstruction of stormwater management and/or chemical reagent storage facilities, existing at the time of original Permit issuance, may be required by the Executive Secretary after occurrence of a major spill or catastrophic failure, pursuant to Part IV.N.3 of this Permit. 11. BAT Requirements for Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area - the Permittee shall store and manage feedstock materials outside the ore storage pad in accordance with the following minimum performance requirements: a) Feedstock materials will be stored at all times in water-tight containers, and b) Aisle ways will be provided at all times to allow visual inspection of each and every feedstock container, or c) Each and every feedstock container will be placed inside a water-tight overpack prior to storage, or d) Feedstock containers shall be stored on a hardened surface to prevent spillage onto subsurface soils, and that conforms with the following minimum physical requirements: 1) A storage area composed of a hardened engineered surface of asphalt or concrete, and 2) A storage area designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with engineering plans and specifications approved in advance by the Executive Secretary. All such engineering plans or specifications submitted shall demonstrate compliance with Part I.D.4, and 3) A storage area that provides containment berms to control stormwater run-on and run-off, and 4) Stormwater drainage works approved in advance by the Executive Secretary, or 5) Other storage facilities and means approved in advance by the Executive Secretary. E. GROUND WATER COMPLIANCE AND TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE MONITORING - beginning with the effective date and lasting through the term of this Permit or as stated in an approved closure plan, the Permittee shall sample groundwater monitoring wells, tailing cell wastewaters, seeps and springs, monitor groundwater levels, monitor water levels of process solutions, and monitor and keep records of the operation of the facility, as follows: Part I Permit No. UGW370004 16 1. Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor upgradient, lateral gradient, and downgradient groundwater monitoring wells completed in the shallow aquifer in the vicinity of all potential discharge sources that could affect local groundwater conditions at the facility, as follows: a) Ground Water Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan - all groundwater monitoring and analysis performed under this Permit shall be conducted in accordance with a Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) currently approved by the Executive Secretary. Any non- conformance with QAP requirements in a given quarterly groundwater monitoring period will be corrected and reported to the Executive Secretary on or before submittal of the next quarterly groundwater monitoring report pursuant to Part I.F.1. b) Quarterly Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor on a quarterly basis all monitoring wells listed in Table 2 of this Permit where local groundwater average linear velocity has been found by the Executive Secretary to be equal to or greater than 10 feet/year. For purposes of this Permit, quarterly monitoring is required at the following wells: 1) Upgradient Wells: none 2) Lateral or Downgradient Wells: MW-11, MW-14, MW-24, MW-25, MW-26 (formerly TW4-15), MW-30, and MW-31. c) Semi-annual Monitoring - the Permittee shall monitor on a semi-annual basis all monitoring wells listed in Table 2 of this Permit where local groundwater average linear velocity has been found by the Executive Secretary to be less than 10 feet/year. For purposes of this Permit, semi-annual monitoring is required at the following wells: 1) Upgradient Wells: MW-1, MW-18, MW-19, and MW-27. 2) Lateral or Downgradient Wells: MW-2, MW-3, MW-3A, MW-5, MW-12, MW-15, MW-17, MW-23, MW-24, MW-28, MW-29, and MW-32 (formerly TW4-17). d) Compliance Monitoring Parameters - all groundwater samples collected shall be analyzed for the following parameters: 1) Field Parameters - depth to groundwater, pH, temperature, specific conductance, and redox potential (Eh). 2) Laboratory Parameters i. GWCL Parameters - all contaminants specified in Table 2. ii. General Inorganics - chloride, sulfate, carbonate, bicarbonate, sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, and total anions and cations. e) Special Provisions for Groundwater Monitoring - the Permittee shall ensure that all groundwater monitoring conducted and reported complies with the following requirements: 1) Depth to Groundwater Measurements - shall always be made to the nearest 0.01 foot. 2) Minimum Detection Limits - all groundwater quality analyses reported shall have a minimum detection limit or reporting limit that is less than its respective Ground Water Compliance Limit concentration defined in Table 2. 3) Gross Alpha Counting Variance - all gross alpha analysis shall be reported with an Part I Permit No. UGW370004 17 error term. All gross alpha analysis reported with an activity equal to or greater than the GWCL, shall have a counting variance that is equal to or less than 20% of the reported activity concentration. An error term may be greater than 20% of the reported activity concentration when the sum of the activity concentration and error term is less than or equal to the GWCL. 4) All equipment used for purging and sampling of groundwater shall be made of inert materials. 2. Groundwater Monitoring: Monitoring Wells MW-20 and MW-22 - Starting with the 1st Quarter 2008 groundwater event the Permittee shall implement a quarterly groundwater sampling program. Said sampling shall comply with the following Permit requirements: a) Routine groundwater compliance monitoring requirements of Part I.E.1. b) Well monitoring procedure requirements of Part I.E.5. After completion of eight consecutive quarters of groundwater sampling and analysis of MW-20 and MW-22, the Permittee shall submit a Background Report that will include: 1) Data preparation and statistical analysis of groundwater quality data, including treatment of non-detectable values, statistical methods. These statistics shall be calculated using the Decision Tree/Flowchart used for the previous Background Reports that was conditionally approved by the DRC on August 24, 2007. 2) Aquifer test results to determine local hydraulic conductivity and other aquifer properties at wells MW-20 and MW-22. 3) Average linear groundwater velocity calculated for MW-20 and MW-22, based on well specific hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and effective aquifer porosity. The said report shall be submitted by March 1, 2010. After review of this report the Executive Secretary will evaluate if wells MW-20 and MW-22 should be added as POC wells, and adjust the sampling frequency in accordance with criteria found in Part I.E.1(b) or (c). If it is determined that wells MW-20 and MW-22 should be added as POC wells, the Executive Secretary will re-open this Permit and establish Groundwater Compliance Limits in Table 2 for wells MW-20 and MW-22. 3. Groundwater Head Monitoring - on a quarterly basis and at the same frequency as groundwater monitoring required by Part I.E.1, the Permittee shall measure depth to groundwater in the following wells and/or piezometers: a) Point of Compliance Wells - identified in Table 2 and Part I.E.1 of this Permit. b) Piezometers - P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, P-5. c) Existing Monitoring Wells - MW-20 and MW-22. d) Contaminant Investigation Wells - any well required by the Executive Secretary as a part of a contaminant investigation or groundwater corrective action. e) Any other wells or piezometers required by the Executive Secretary. 4. Groundwater Monitoring Well Design and Construction Criteria - all new groundwater Part I Permit No. UGW370004 18 monitoring wells installed at the facility shall comply with the following design and construction criteria: a) Located as close as practical to the contamination source, tailings cell, or other potential origin of groundwater pollution. b) Screened and completed in the shallow aquifer. c) Designed and constructed in compliance with UAC R317-6-6.3(I)(6), including the EPA RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance Document, 1986, OSWER-9950.1. d) Aquifer tested to determine local hydraulic properties, including but not limited to hydraulic conductivity. 5. Monitoring Procedures for Wells - beginning with the date of Permit issuance, all monitoring shall be conducted by the Permittee in conformance with the following procedures: a) Sampling - grab samples shall be taken of the groundwater, only after adequate removal or purging of standing water within the well casing has been performed. b) Sampling Plan - all sampling shall be conducted to ensure collection of representative samples, and reliability and validity of groundwater monitoring data. c) Laboratory Approval - all analyses shall be performed by a laboratory certified by the State of Utah to perform the tests required. d) Damage to Monitoring Wells - if any monitor well is damaged or is otherwise rendered inadequate for its intended purpose, the Permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary in writing within five calendar days of discovery. e) Field Monitoring Equipment Calibration and Records - immediately prior to each monitoring event, the Permittee shall calibrate all field monitoring equipment in accordance with the respective manufacturer's procedures and guidelines. The Permittee shall make and preserve on-site written records of such equipment calibration in accordance with Part II.G and H of this Permit. Said records shall identify the manufacturer's and model number of each piece of field equipment used and calibration. 6. White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring - the Permittee shall conduct annual monitoring of all seeps and springs identified in the currently approved Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs in the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. Said monitoring shall include, but is not limited to: a) Field Measurements - including: pH, temperature, and specific conductivity, b) Water Quality Sampling and Analysis - the Permittee shall collect grab samples and perform laboratory analysis of all water quality parameters identified in Table 2 of this Permit, and c) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utah certified laboratory. d) Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analytical methods listed in the currently approved QAP pursuant to Part I.E.1 of this Permit. e) Minimum Detection Limits - all seeps or springs water quality analyses reported shall Part I Permit No. UGW370004 19 have a minimum detection limit or reporting limit that is less than or equal to the respective: 1) Ground Water Quality Standards concentrations defined in Table 2 of this Permit, and 2) For TDS, Sulfate, and Chloride, the Minimum Detection Limit for those constituents for seeps and springs monitoring will be as follows: 10 mg/L, 1 mg/L, and 1 mg/L, respectively f) Quality Control Samples - the Permittee will conduct quality control (QC) sampling and analysis as a part of all seeps and springs sampling, in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.3 of the currently approved QAP; pursuant to Part I.E.1 of this Permit. Said QC samples shall include, but are not limited to: trip blanks, duplicate samples, and equipment rinse blanks. g) Prior Notification - at least 15 calendar days before any fieldwork or water quality sample collection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Executive Secretary to observe or split sample any or all seeps or springs. Sample Omission - in the course of each annual sampling event, the Permittee shall sample and analyze, or attempt to sample and analyze, all six seeps and springs identified in Table 1 of the currently approved Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs in the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill. The Permittee shall not omit sampling of any seep or spring during said annual event, without prior written approval from the Executive Secretary, unless the omission is in accordance with such Plan for any seeps and springs that are dry and not capable of being sampled. 7. DMT Performance Standards Monitoring - the Permittee shall perform technology performance monitoring in accordance with the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan to determine if DMT is effective in minimizing and controlling the release of contaminants pursuant to the provisions of Parts I.D.1 and I.D.3 of this Permit, including, but not limited to the following activities: a) Weekly Tailings Wastewater Pool Elevation Monitoring: Cells 1 and 3 - the Permittee shall monitor and record weekly the elevation of wastewater in Tailings Cells 1 and 3 to ensure compliance with the maximum wastewater elevation criteria mandated by Condition 10.3 of the License. Said measurements shall be made from a wastewater level gauge or elevation survey to the nearest 0.01 foot. b) Monthly Slimes Drain Water Level Monitoring: Cells 2 and 3 - the Permittee shall monitor and record monthly the depth to wastewater in the slimes drain access pipes as described in Part I.D.3 of this Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan at Tailings Cells 2 and 3 to determine the recovery head. For purposes of said monitoring, the Permittee shall at each tailings cell: 1) Perform at least 12 separate slimes drain recovery tests at each disposal cell in each calendar year that meet the requirements of Part I.D.3, 2) Designate, operate, maintain, and preserve one water level measuring point at the centerline of the slimes drain access pipe that has been surveyed and certified by a Utah licensed engineer or land surveyor, Part I Permit No. UGW370004 20 3) Make all slimes drain recovery head test (depth to fluid) measurements from the same designated water level measuring point, and 4) Record and report all fluid depth measurements to the nearest 0.01 foot. 5) For Cell 3 these requirements shall apply upon initiation of tailings de-watering operations. c) Weekly Wastewater Level Monitoring: Roberts Pond - the Permittee shall monitor and record weekly wastewater levels at the Roberts Pond to determine compliance with the DMT operations standards in Part I.D.3. Said measurements shall be made in accordance to the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. d) Weekly Feedstock Storage Area Inspection - the Permittee shall conduct weekly inspections of all feedstock storage to: 1) Confirm the bulk feedstock materials are maintained within the approved Feedstock Storage Area defined by Table 4, and 2) Verify that all alternate feedstock materials located outside the Feedstock Area defined in Table 4, are stored in accordance with the requirements found in Part I.D.11. e) Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area Inspections 1) Weekly Inspection - the Permittee will conduct weekly inspections to verify that each feed material container complies with the requirements of Part I.D.11. 2) Hardened Surface Storage Area - in the event the Permittee constructs a hardened surface storage area for feed materials, pursuant to Part I.D.11, prior Executive Secretary approval will be secured for the following: i. Engineering Design and Specifications - in accordance with the requirements of Part I.D.4, and ii. Operation and Maintenance Plan. f) Inspections of Tailing Cell and Pond Liner Systems - the Permittee shall inspect the liner system at Tailing Cells 1, 2, and 3 on a daily basis pursuant to the requirements of Sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. The Permittee shall conduct visual inspections at the Roberts Pond on a weekly basis. If a discrepancy In the event that any liner defect or damage is identified during a liner system inspection, the Permittee shall immediately implement the currently approved Liner Maintenance Provisions. 8. Cell 4A BAT Performance Standards Monitoring - in accordance with the currently approved Cell 4A BAT Monitoring Operations and Maintenance Plan, the Permittee shall immediately implement all monitoring and recordkeeping requirements therein. The Cell 4A BAT monitoring includes the following: a) Weekly Leak Detection System (LDS) Monitoring - including: 1) Leak Detection System Pumping and Monitoring Equipment - the Permittee shall provide continuous operation of the leak detection system pumping and monitoring equipment, including, but not limited to, the submersible pump, pump controller, head monitoring, and flow meter equipment approved by the Executive Secretary. Failure of any pumping or monitoring equipment not repaired and made fully operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute failure of BAT and a Part I Permit No. UGW370004 21 violation of this Permit. 2) Maximum Allowable Head - the Permittee shall measure the fluid head above the lowest point on the secondary flexible membrane by the use of procedures and equipment approved by the Executive Secretary. Under no circumstance shall fluid head in the leak detection system sump exceed a 1-foot level above the lowest point in the lower flexible membrane liner on the cell floor. For purposes of compliance monitoring this 1-foot distance shall equate to 2.28 feet above the leak detection system transducer. 3) Maximum Allowable Daily LDS Flow Rates - the Permittee shall measure the volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS. Under no circumstances shall the average daily LDS flow volume exceed 24,160 gallons/day. 4) 3-foot Minimum Vertical Freeboard Criteria - the Permittee shall operate and maintain wastewater levels to provide a 3-foot Minimum of vertical freeboard in Tailings Cell 4A. Said measurements shall be made to the nearest 0.1 foot. b) Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring - immediately after the Permittee initiates pumping conditions in the Tailings Cell 4A slimes drain system, monthly recovery head tests and fluid level measurements will be made in accordance with the requirements of Parts I.D.3 and I.E.7(b) of this Permit and any plan approved by the Executive Secretary. 9. On-site Chemicals Inventory - the Permittee shall monitor and maintain a current inventory of all chemicals used at the facility at rates equal to or greater than 100 kg/yr. Said inventory shall be maintained on-site, and shall include, but is not limited to: a. Identification of chemicals used in the milling process and the on-site laboratory, and b. Determination of volume and mass of each raw chemical currently held in storage at the facility. 10. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Monitoring - on an annual basis, the Permittee shall collect wastewater quality samples from each wastewater source at each tailings cell at the facility, including, but not limited to: a. Three One surface impounded wastewater locations at each of Tailings Cells 1, 3, and 4A, b. One slimes drain wastewater access pipe at each of Tailings Cells 2, 3, and 4A. For Cells 3 and 4A, this requirement shall apply immediately after initiation of de-watering operations at these cells, and b. One leak detection wastewater access pipe at Tailings Cell 4A. c. d. All such sampling shall be conducted in August of each calendar year in compliance with the currently approved White Mesa Uranium Mill Tailing and Slimes Drain Sampling Program. Said annual monitoring shall include, but is not limited to: a.1) Field Measurements - including: pH, temperature, and specific conductivity, a.2) Water Quality Sampling and Analysis - the Permittee shall collect grab samples and perform laboratory analysis of all: Part I Permit No. UGW370004 22 1)i. Water quality parameters identified in Table 2 of this Permit, and 2)ii. Semi-volatile compounds identified in EPA Method 8270D. b.3) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utah certified laboratory. c.4) Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analytical methods listed in the currently approved QAP pursuant to Part I.E.1 of this Permit. d.5) Minimum Detection Limits - all water quality analyses reported shall have a minimum detection limit or reporting limit that is less than or equal to the respective: 1)i. Ground Water Quality Standards concentrations defined in Table 2 of this Permit, 2)ii. For TDS, Sulfate, and Chloride, the Minimum Detection Limit for those constituents for Tailing Cell wastewater monitoring will be as follows: 1,000 mg/L, 1,000 mg/L, and 1 mg/L, respectively, and 3)iii. Lower limits of quantitation for groundwater for semi-volatile organic compounds listed in Table 2 of EPA Method 8270D, Revision 4, dated February, 2007. f.6) Quality Control Samples - the Permittee will conduct quality control (QC) sampling and analysis as a part of all tailings wastewater sampling, in accordance with the requirements of Section 4.3 of the currently approved QAP; pursuant to Part I.E.1 of this Permit. Said QC samples shall include, but are not limited to: trip blanks, duplicate samples, and equipment rinse blanks. g.7) Prior Notification - at least 30 calendar days before any fieldwork or water quality sample collection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Executive Secretary to observe or split sample any tailings cell, slimes drain, or leak detection wastewaters. h.8) Sample Omission - in the course of each annual sampling event, the Permittee shall sample and analyze all tailings cell, slimes drain, and leak detection wastewater sources identified in the currently approved Tailings and Slimes Drain Sampling Program (pp. 1-3), or as required by this Permit, whichever is greater. The Permittee shall not omit sampling of any of tailings cell wastewater source during said annual event, without prior written approval from the Executive Secretary. 11. Groundwater Monitoring Modifications - before any modification of groundwater monitoring or analysis procedures, methods, or equipment, the Permittee must obtain prior written approval from the Executive Secretary. F. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS - The following reporting procedures for routine and compliance reports must be met. 1. Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports - the Permittee shall submit quarterly monitoring reports of field and laboratory analyses of all well monitoring and samples described in Parts I.E.1, I.E.2, I.E.3, and I.E.5 of this Permit for Executive Secretary review and approval. Reports shall be submitted according to the following schedule: Part I Permit No. UGW370004 23 Table 6. Groundwater Monitoring Reporting Schedule Quarter Period Due Date First January - March June 1 Second April - June September 1 Third July - September December 1 Fourth October - December March 1 Failure to submit the reports by the due date shall be deemed as noncompliance with this Permit. Said monitoring reports shall include, but are not limited to, the following minimum information: a) Field Data Sheets - or copies thereof that provide the following: well name, date and time of well purging, date and time of well sampling, type and condition of well pump, depth to groundwater before purging and sampling, calculated well casing volume, volume of water purged before sampling, volume of water collected for analysis, types of sample containers and preservatives. b) Laboratory Results - or copies thereof that provide the following: date and time sampled, date received by laboratory, and for each parameter analyzed, the following information: laboratory result or concentration, units of measurement, minimum detection limit or reporting limit, analytical method, date of analysis, counting error for radiologic analyses, total cations and anions for inorganic analysis. c) Water Table Contour Map - which provides the location and identity of all wells sampled that quarter, the measured groundwater elevation at each well measured in feet above mean sea level, and isocontour lines to delineate groundwater flow directions observed during the quarterly sampling event. d) Quality Assurance Evaluation and Data Validation - including a written description and findings of all quality assurance and data validation efforts conducted by the Permittee in compliance with the currently approved Groundwater Monitoring Quality Assurance Plan. Said report shall verify the accuracy and reliability of the groundwater quality compliance data, after evaluation of sample collection techniques and equipment, sample handling and preservation, analytical methods used, etc. e) Non-conformance disclosure - with each quarterly groundwater monitoring report the Permittee shall fully and completely disclose all non-conformance with requirements of the currently approved QAP, mandated by Part I.E.1(a). f) Electronic Data Files and Format - in addition to written results required for every sampling report, the Permittee shall provide an electronic copy of all laboratory results for groundwater quality monitoring conducted. Said electronic files shall consist of Comma Separated Values (CSV) format, or as otherwise approved by the Executive Secretary. g) Time Concentration Plots - with each quarterly groundwater monitoring report the Permittee shall submit time concentration plots for each monitoring well for the following constituents: chloride, fluoride, sulfate, and uranium. 2. Routine DMT Performance Standards Monitoring Report - the Permittee shall provide quarterly monitoring reports of all DMT performance standards monitoring required by Parts Part I Permit No. UGW370004 24 I.D.3 and I.E.7 of this Permit. DMT monitoring shall be conducted in compliance with this Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. When a liner repair is performed at the Roberts Pond or any DMT impoundment, a Repair Report is required by the Liner Maintenance Provisions. This Repair Report shall be included with the next quarterly DMT Report. Said monitoring reports and results shall be submitted for Executive Secretary approval on the schedule provided in Table 6, above. 3. Routine Cell 4A BAT Performance Standards Monitoring Reports - the Permittee shall provide quarterly monitoring reports of all BAT performance standards monitoring required by Part I E.8 of this Permit. BAT Monitoring at Cell 4A shall be conducted in compliance with the currently approved BAT Monitoring Operations and Maintenance Plan. Said monitoring report and results shall be submitted for Executive Secretary approval on the schedule provided in Table 6 above. At a minimum, reporting of BAT monitoring for Cell 4A will include: a) LDS Monitoring - including: 1) Report on the operational status of the LDS pumping and monitoring equipment during the quarter, including identification of any intervals of non-operational status and repairs. 2) Measurement of the weekly fluid head at the lowest point of the secondary membrane. 3) Measurement of the volume of all fluids pumped from the LDS. b) Measurement of the weekly wastewater fluids elevation in the Cell 4A to determine freeboard. c) Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring as per the requirements of Parts I.D.6) and I.E.8(b). 4. DMT and BAT Performance Upset Reports - the Permittee shall report any non-compliance with the DMT or BAT performance criteria of Part I.D in accordance with the requirements of Part I.G.3 of this Permit. 5. Other Information - when the Permittee becomes aware of a failure to submit any relevant facts in the permit application or submittal of incorrect information in a permit application or in any report to the Executive Secretary, the Permittee shall submit such facts or information within 10 calendar days of discovery. 6. Groundwater Monitoring Well As-Built Reports - as-built reports for new groundwater monitoring wells shall be submitted for Executive Secretary approval within 60 calendar days of well completion, and at a minimum will include the following information: a) Geologic Logs - that detail all soil and rock lithologies and physical properties of all subsurface materials encountered during drilling. Said logs shall be prepared by a Professional Geologist licensed by the State of Utah, or otherwise approved beforehand by the Executive Secretary. Part I Permit No. UGW370004 25 b) Well Completion Diagram - that detail all physical attributes of the well construction, including: 1) Total depth and diameters of boring, 2) Depth, type, diameter, and physical properties of well casing and screen, including well screen slot size, 3) Depth intervals, type and physical properties of annular filterpack and seal materials used, 4) Design, type, diameter, and construction of protective surface casing, and 5) Survey coordinates prepared by a State of Utah licensed engineer or land surveyor, including horizontal coordinates and elevation of water level measuring point, as measured to the nearest 0.01 foot. c) Aquifer Permeability Data - including field data, data analysis, and interpretation of slug test, aquifer pump test or other hydraulic analysis to determine local aquifer hydraulic conductivity in each well. 7. White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring Reports - a seeps and springs monitoring report shall be submitted for Executive Secretary review and approval with the 3rd Quarter Routine Groundwater Monitoring Report due on December 1, of each calendar year. Said report shall include, but is not limited to: a) Field Measurement Results and Worksheets - for each sample collected that comply with the requirements of Part I.F.1(a) of this Permit, b) Laboratory Results - for each sample collected that comply with the requirements of Part I.F.1(b) of this Permit, c) Water Table Contour Map - that includes groundwater elevations for each well at the facility and the elevations of the phreatic surfaces observed at each of the seeps and springs sampled. The contour map will include all water level data measurements from seeps, springs, and monitoring wells at the site from the 3rd Quarter Routine Groundwater Monitoring event of each year. The contour map shall be at a map scale, such that, all seeps and springs listed in the approved Sampling Plan for Seeps and Springs in the Vicinity of the White Mesa Uranium Mill and the monitoring wells on site may be seen on one map, d) Data Evaluation - and interpretation of all groundwater quality data collected, e) Quality Assurance Evaluation and Data Validation - for the seeps and springs water quality data that meets the requirements of Part I.F.1(d), f) Electronic Data Files and Format - that meet the requirements of Part I.F.1(e) of this Permit, and g) Survey data for the seeps and springs shall be based on an elevation survey, conducted under the direction of and certified by a Utah licensed professional engineer or land surveyor. The survey will include State Plan Coordinates (northings and eastings) and vertical elevations. The surveyed coordinates and elevations of the seeps and springs shall be within 1 foot of the highest point of the saturated seepage face on the day of the Part I Permit No. UGW370004 26 survey. This survey data must be obtained before any samples are collected. 8. Chemicals Inventory Report - at the time of Permit renewal the Permittee shall submit a report to update the facilities chemical inventory report required by Part I.H.1. Said report shall provide all inventory information gathered pursuant to Part I.E.9. 9. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Reports - all annual wastewater quality sampling and analysis required by Part I.E.10 shall be reported to the Executive Secretary with the 3rd Quarter groundwater quality report due on December 1, of each calendar year. Said report shall include: a) Data evaluation and interpretation of all wastewater quality samples collected, b) All information required by Part I.F.1(a), (b), (d), and (e) of this Permit, and c) For slimes drain samples, the Permittee shall report depth to wastewater measurements from the water level measurement point. Said wastewater level shall be measured immediately before sample collection. 10. Revised Hydrogeologic Report - pursuant to Part IV.D of this Permit, and at least 180 calendar days prior to Permit expiration, the Permittee shall submit for Executive Secretary approval a revised hydrogeologic report for the facility and surrounding area. Said report shall provide a comprehensive update and evaluation of: a) Local hydrogeologic conditions in the shallow aquifer, including, but not limited to: local geologic conditions; time relationships and distribution of shallow aquifer head measurements from facility wells and piezometers; local groundwater flow directions; and distribution of aquifer permeability and average linear groundwater velocity across the site, and b) Well specific groundwater quality conditions measured at facility monitoring wells for all groundwater monitoring parameters required by this Permit, including, but not limited to: temporal contaminant concentrations and trends from each monitoring well; statistical tests for normality of each contaminant and well, including univariate or equivalent tests; calculation of the mean concentration and standard deviation for each well and contaminant. 11. Annual Slimes Drain Recovery Head Report - on or before March 1 of each year the Permittee shall submit for Executive Secretary approval an annual slimes drain recovery head report for Tailings Cells 2 and 3. Said report shall conform to the requirements of Part I.D.3(b), I.E.7(b), and II.G of this Permit, and: a) Provide the individual monthly slimes drain recovery head monitoring data for the previous calendar year, including, but not limited to: date and time for the start and end of recovery test, initial water level, final depth to stable water level and equivalent recovery water level elevation. b) Calculate the average slimes drain recovery head for the previous calendar year. c) Include a time series chart to show trends of the monthly recovery water level elevations at each slimes drain. Part I Permit No. UGW370004 27 d) Include the results of a quality assurance evaluation and data validation. Said examination shall provide written descriptions and findings that: 1) Evaluate all data collected, data collection methods, and all related calculations required by this Permit, and 2) Verify the accuracy and reliability of both the data and calculations reported. e) Demonstrate compliance status with the requirements of Part I.D.3(b) and I.E.7(b) of this Permit. G. OUT OF COMPLIANCE STATUS 1. Accelerated Monitoring Status - is required if the concentration of a pollutant in any compliance monitoring sample exceeds a GWCL in Table 2 of the Permit; the facility shall then: a) Notify the Executive Secretary in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt of data, and b) Immediately initiate accelerated sampling of the pollutant as follows: 1) Quarterly Baseline Monitoring Wells - for wells defined by Part I.E.1(b) the Permittee shall initiate monthly monitoring. 2) Semi-annual Baseline Monitoring Wells - for wells defined by Part I.E.1(c) the Permittee shall initiate quarterly monitoring. Said accelerated monitoring shall continue at the frequencies defined above until the compliance status of the facility can be determined by the Executive Secretary. 2. Violation of Permit Limits - out-of-compliance status exists when the concentration of a pollutant in two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds : a)Aa GWCL in Table 2 of this PermitGWCL in Table 2 of this Permit., or b) The concentration value of any pollutant in two or more consecutive samples is statistically significantly higher than the applicable Permit limit. The statistical significance shall be determined using the statistical methods described in Statistical Methods for Evaluating Ground Water Monitoring Data from Hazardous Waste Facilities, Vol. 53, No. 196 of the Federal Register, Oct. 11, 1988. 3. Failure to Maintain DMT or BAT Required by Permit a) Permittee to Provide Information - in the event that the Permittee fails to maintain DMT or BAT or otherwise fails to meet DMT or BAT standards as required by the Permit, the Permittee shall submit to the Executive Secretary a notification and description of the failure according to R317-6-6.16(C)(1). Notification shall be given orally within 24- hours of the Permittee's discovery of the failure of DMT or BAT, and shall be followed up by written notification, including the information necessary to make a determination under R317-6-6.16(C)(2), within five calendar days of the Permittee's discovery of the failure of best available technology. b) The Executive Secretary shall use the information provided under R317-6-6.16.C(1) and Part I Permit No. UGW370004 28 any additional information provided by the Permittee to determine whether to initiate a compliance action against the Permittee for violation of Permit conditions. A compliance action shall not be initiated, if the Executive Secretary determines that the Permittee has met the standards for an affirmative defense, as specified in R317-6- 6.16(C)(3). c) Affirmative Defense - in the event a compliance action is initiated against the Permittee for violation of Permit conditions relating to best available technology or DMT, the Permittee may affirmatively defend against that action by demonstrating the following: 1) The Permittee submitted notification according to R317-6-6.13, 2) The failure was not intentional or caused by the Permittee's negligence, either in action or in failure to act, 3) The Permittee has taken adequate measures to meet Permit conditions in a timely manner or has submitted to the Executive Secretary, for the Executive Secretary's approval, an adequate plan and schedule for meeting Permit conditions, and 4) The provisions of UCA 19-5-107 have not been violated. 4. Facility Out of Compliance Status - if the facility is out of compliance, the following is required: a) The Permittee shall notify the Executive Secretary of the out of compliance status within 24-hours after detection of that status, followed by a written notice within 5 calendar days of the detection. b) The Permittee shall continue accelerated sampling pursuant to Part I.G.1, unless the Executive Secretary determines that other periodic sampling is appropriate, until the facility is brought into compliance. c) The Permittee shall prepare and submit within 30 calendar days to the Executive Secretary a plan and a time schedule for assessment of the sources, extent and potential dispersion of the contamination, and an evaluation of potential remedial action to restore and maintain groundwater quality to insure that Permit limits will not be exceeded at the compliance monitoring point and that DMT or BAT will be reestablished. d) The Executive Secretary may require immediate implementation of the currently approved contingency plan in order to regain and maintain compliance with the Permit limit standards at the compliance monitoring point or to reestablish DMT or BAT as defined in the Permit. e) Where it is infeasible to reestablish DMT or BAT as defined in the Permit, the Permittee may propose an alternative DMT or BAT for approval by the Executive Secretary. H. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS. The Permittee will comply with the schedules as described and summarized below: 1. On-site Chemicals Inventory Report - the Permittee shall complete a historical review, and conduct an inventory of all chemical compounds or reagents stored, used, or currently in use at the facility. Said report shall include: Part I Permit No. UGW370004 29 a) Identification of all chemicals used in the milling and milling related processes at White Mesa, and b) Determination of the total volumes currently in use and historically used, as data is available. At the time of Permit renewal, the Permittee shall submit an updated inventory report pursuant to Part I.F.8. 2. Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report - the Permittee shall submit for Executive Secretary approval an infiltration and contaminant transport modeling report that demonstrates the long-term ability of the tailings cells cover system to adequately contain and control tailings contaminants and protect nearby groundwater quality of the uppermost aquifer. Said report shall demonstrate how the tailings cell engineering design and specifications will comply with the minimum performance requirements of Part I.D.6 of this Permit. The Permittee shall submit an infiltration and contaminant modeling for Executive Secretary approval, that: a) Identifies all applicable and pertinent historic studies and modeling reports relevant to tailings cell cover design and tailings cell system performance. b) Determines and justifies all information necessary for infiltration and contaminant transport modeling, including but not limited to representative input values for vadose zone and aquifer soil-water partitioning (Kd) coefficients, tailings source term concentrations, tailings waste leach rates, vadose zone and aquifer groundwater velocities, vadose zone and aquifer dispersivity, contaminant half-life or other rates of decay, etc. In the event that any required information is not currently available, the Permittee may select conservative assumptions for use in the required infiltration and contaminant transport models. c) Identifies and adequately describes all computer models used to simulate long-term performance of the tailings cells cover system. All predictive models used shall be publicly available computer codes that adequately represent field characteristics and physical processes at the tailings disposal site. Said description will also include specific information on model design, including, but not limited to: governing equations and their applicability to site conditions, grid design, duration of simulation, and selection of time steps. d) Determines the conceptual model used and justifies why it is representative or conservative of actual field conditions at the site. Said conceptual model will identify the physical domain(s) and geometries simulated including the tailings cell design and construction, all boundary and initial conditions assigned in the model(s), and the shallow aquifer locations where future potential contaminant concentrations have been predicted. e) Justifies how the infiltration and contaminant transport problem has been adequately conceptualized, planned, and executed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Part I.D.6 of this Permit. f) Provides, describes and justifies the following: 1) Model Results - including electronic input and output files from all infiltration, Part I Permit No. UGW370004 30 groundwater flow and contaminant transport models used the report. 2) Model Calibration - including description of results and efforts used to demonstrate how the model adequately reproduced field measured heads, flows, and contaminant concentrations. 3) Steady State Conditions - including a demonstration that the models achieved a steady state condition during the simulation. This includes, but is not limited to disclosure, evaluation and justification of water and mass balance error values reported by the models. 4) Sensitivity Analyses - including description of various model simulations run and evaluated to define the range of model uncertainty. Such uncertainty includes, but is not limited to: boundary and initial conditions, model input values, and spatial and temporal distribution of model parameters used in the problem domain. 5) Post-model Audit Plan - including plans to revisit the modeling effort at some future time to re-assess its ability to represent site characteristics and predict long-term performance of tailings cell design and construction, and groundwater protection. The Permittee shall complete all modeling in accordance with the requirements of Part I.H.2 and submit a final report for Executive Secretary approval. In the final report, the Permittee may include supplemental information to justify modification of certain Permit requirements, including, but not limited to: the number and types of groundwater compliance monitoring parameters, tailings cell cover system engineering design and construction specifications, tailings cell operational requirements, etc. In the event the Executive Secretary requires additional information, the Permittee will provide all requested information within a time frame approved by the Executive Secretary. Upon Executive Secretary approval of the final infiltration and contaminant transport report, the Reclamation Plan may be modified to accommodate necessary changes to protect public health and the environment. 3. Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2 - the purpose of this plan is to evaluate the annular casing seal in water supply well WW-2, and to ensure adequate well casing and annular seals, in compliance with the regulations of the Utah State Engineer (UAC R655-4- 9), with special emphasis on creating both a physical barrier and hydraulic isolation between the shallow unconfined and the deep confined aquifers. Prior to Executive Secretary approval of this plan the Permittee shall resolve all issues within a timeframe approved by the Executive Secretary. After Executive Secretary approval of the plan, the Permittee shall completely execute all provisions of the plan on or before decommissioning of the White Mesa Mill. On or before January 31, 2012, the Permittee shall: a. Conduct an investigation of water supply well WW-2 to verify that the casing and annular seal is intact and creates both a physical barrier and hydraulic isolation between the shallow unconfined and the deep confined aquifers, said investigation shall include one or more of the following investigation techniques performed in accordance with applicable guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: well casing video logs, cement bond logs, and/or temperature logs, b. Show that the well casing and annular seal have physical and hydraulic integrity to isolate the two aquifers mentioned above. In the event that hydraulic isolation of the two Part I Permit No. UGW370004 31 aquifers is uncertain or unsubstantiated for any reason, the Permittee shall repair the well casing and annular seal(s) to provide well construction that complies with the regulations of the Utah State Engineer (UAC R655-4-9). After such repairs are completed, the Permittee will conduct repeat testing using the investigation techniques required under Part I.H.3(a) to demonstrate existence of the required hydraulic isolation, and c. Submit a written report for Executive Secretary approval to document the investigation and its findings, and any well repair activities. Said report shall be certified by a Utah- licensed Professional Engineer or Geologist. 3.Supplemental Isotopic Groundwater and Surface Water Investigation and Report - within 90 calendar days of issuance of this Permit, the Permittee shall submit an isotopic groundwater and surface water investigation report for Executive Secretary approval. The purpose of this investigation and associated report shall be to characterize chemical composition, noble gas composition, and age of the groundwater monitoring wells and surface water sites that were not part of the July 2007 University of Utah Study. The following locations shall be included in the investigation: monitoring wells MW-12, MW-17, MW-20, MW-23, MW-24, MW-25, MW-26, MW-28, MW-32, Tailings Cell 4A, and the northernmost wildlife pond (WP1). The report shall include, but is not limited to: .An examination of groundwater age using the tritium/helium-3 method in each monitoring well and surface water sources (Tailings Cell 4A and the northernmost wildlife pond). After tritium concentrations have been obtained for each well, the Permittee must verify if any of the monitoring wells have been influenced by the artificial recharge from the wildlife ponds. .An examination of isotopes Deuterium and Oxygen-18 in water at each sampling location to determine geochemical characteristics including but not limited to evaporative signature. .An evaluation of isotopes Oxygen-18 and Sulfur-34 on dissolved sulfate molecules in the water samples. The purpose of this supplemental investigation and associated report shall be to establish isotopic benchmarks, geochemical characteristics, and a ground/surface water age at these locations. The Permittee must conclusively demonstrate that the supplemental investigation conducted is similar to the one performed by the University of Utah in July 2007. 4. New Decontamination Pad - the Permittee shall not use the New Decontamination Pad until the following conditions are satisfied: a. Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an updated DMT Monitoring Plan for Executive Secretary approval that includes but is not limited to the following: 1) The manner of weekly inspections the New Decontamination Pad, including the leak detection system and concrete integrity of the decontamination pad. 2) Within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, the Permittee shall submit an updated Contingency Plan that clarifies what steps will be taken if there is water found within the leak detection system and if discrepancies are observed on the concrete pad. Part I Permit No. UGW370004 32 3) Annual Inspection - the New Decontamination Pad will be taken out of service and inspected annually during the second quarter, to ensure integrity of the wash pad’s exposed concrete surfaces. If discrepancies are identified [i.e. crack in the concrete with greater than 1/8 inch separation (width) or any significant deterioration or damage of the pad surface], repairs shall be made prior to resuming the use of the facility. The inspection findings, any repairs required, and repairs completed shall be included in the in the 2nd Quarter DMT Monitoring Report due September 1, of each calendar year. b. The Executive Secretary approves the engineering design drawings for the liner and leak detection system, before they are constructed. c. The Permittee shall perform a hydrostatic test that verifies that the steel liner and leak detection system performs in accordance with the approved drawings and will provide the test results within 30 calendar days after completion of the test. The Permittee shall provide at least 10 calendar days notice prior to performing the hydrostatic test to allow a DRC inspector to be present. d. The Executive Secretary approves all the As-Built drawings for the Decontamination Pad. 5. Existing Decontamination Pad - within 30 calendar days of issuance of the Permit, DUSA shall perform the following: a. Submit As-Built drawings of the Existing Decontamination Pad (EDP). b. Submit an updated BAT/DMT Monitoring Plan for Executive Secretary approval describing monitoring details and DMT Inspection items for the Existing Decontamination Pad. c. Annual Inspection - the EDP will be taken out of service and inspected annually during the second quarter, to ensure integrity of the steel tank. The inspection findings, any repairs required, and repairs completed shall be included in the in the 2nd Quarter DMT Monitoring Report due September 1, of each calendar year. Part II Permit No. UGW370004 33 PART II. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS A. REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements established under Part I shall be representative of the monitored activity. B. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES. Water sample analysis must be conducted according to test procedures specified under UAC R317-6-6.3.12 unless other test procedures have been specified in this Permit. C. PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING. The Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this Permit shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both. D. REPORTING OF MONITORING RESULTS. Monitoring results obtained during reporting periods specified in the Permit, shall be submitted to the Executive Secretary, Utah Division of Water Quality at the following address no later than the date specified following the completed reporting period: Attention: Compliance and Monitoring Program State of Utah Division of Water Quality Department of Environmental Quality Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4870 The quarterly due dates for reporting are: June 1, September 1, December 1, and March 1. E. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES. Reports of compliance or noncompliance with, or any progress reports on interim and final requirements contained in any Compliance Schedule of this Permit shall be submitted no later than 14 calendar days following each schedule date. F. ADDITIONAL MONITORING BY THE PERMITTEE. If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by this Permit, using approved test procedures as specified in this Permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data submitted. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated. G. RECORDS CONTENTS. 1. Records of monitoring information shall include: a) The date, exact place, and time of sampling, observations, or measurements: b) The individual(s) who performed the sampling, observations, or measurements; c) The date(s) and time(s) analyses were performed; d) The name of the certified laboratory which performed the analyses; e) The analytical techniques or methods used; and, f) The results of such analyses. H. RETENTION OF RECORDS. The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, Part II Permit No. UGW370004 34 including all calibration and maintenance records and copies of all reports required by this Permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for this Permit, for a period of at least five years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Executive Secretary at any time. I. NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTING. 1. The Permittee shall verbally report any noncompliance which may endanger public health or the environment as soon as possible, but no later than 24-hours from the time the Permittee first became aware of the circumstances. The report shall be made to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality 24-hour number, (801) 538-6333, or to the Division of Water Quality, Ground Water Protection Section at (801) 538-6146, during normal business hours (8:00 am - 5:00 pm Mountain Time). 2. A written submission shall also be provided to the Executive Secretary within five calendar days of the time that the Permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain: a) A description of the noncompliance and its cause; b) The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; c) The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been corrected; and, d) Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. 3. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part II.D, Reporting of Monitoring Results. J. OTHER NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTING. Instances of noncompliance not required to be reported within 5 calendar days, shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports for Part II.D are submitted. K. INSPECTION AND ENTRY. The Permittee shall allow the Executive Secretary, or an authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to: 1. Enter upon the Permittee’s premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of the Permit; 2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this Permit; 3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this Permit; and, 4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring Permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act, any substances or parameters at any location. Part III Permit No. UGW370004 35 PART III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES A. DUTY TO COMPLY. The Permittee must comply with all conditions of this Permit. Any Permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and re-issuance, or modification; or for denial of a permit renewal application. The Permittee shall give advance notice to the Executive Secretary of the Division of Water Quality of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with Permit requirements. B. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF PERMIT CONDITIONS. The Act provides that any person who violates a Permit condition implementing provisions of the Act is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day of such violation. Any person who willfully or negligently violates Permit conditions is subject to a fine not exceeding $25,000 per day of violation. Any person convicted under Section 19-5-115 of the Act a second time shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $50,000 per day. Nothing in this Permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee of the civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance. C. NEED TO HALT OR REDUCE ACTIVITY NOT A DEFENSE. It shall not be a defense for a Permittee in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this Permit. D. DUTY TO MITIGATE. The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge in violation of this Permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. E. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a Permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the Permit. Part IV Permit No. UGW370004 36 PART IV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. PLANNED CHANGES. The Permittee shall give notice to the Executive Secretary as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required when the alteration or addition could significantly change the nature of the facility or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. B. ANTICIPATED NONCOMPLIANCE. The Permittee shall give advance notice of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with Permit requirements. C. PERMIT ACTIONS. This Permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing of a request by the Permittee for a permit modification, revocation and re-issuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition. D. DUTY TO REAPPLY. If the Permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this Permit after the expiration date of this Permit, the Permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit. The application should be submitted at least 180 calendar days before the expiration date of this Permit. E. DUTY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. The Permittee shall furnish to the Executive Secretary, within a reasonable time, any information which the Executive Secretary may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this Permit, or to determine compliance with this Permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the Executive Secretary, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Permit. F. OTHER INFORMATION. When the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or any report to the Executive Secretary, it shall promptly submit such facts or information. G. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS. All applications, reports or information submitted to the Executive Secretary shall be signed and certified. 1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows: a) For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer; b) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively. c) For a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. 2. All reports required by the Permit and other information requested by the Executive Secretary shall be signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: a) The authorization is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to the Executive Secretary, and, b) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the Part IV Permit No. UGW370004 37 overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position). 3. Changes to Authorization. If an authorization under Part IV.G.2. is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of Part IV.G.2 must be submitted to the Executive Secretary prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative. 4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section shall make the following certification: "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." H. PENALTIES FOR FALSIFICATION OF REPORTS. The Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this Permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or noncompliance shall, upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both. I. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS. Except for data determined to be confidential by the Permittee, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this Permit shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the Executive Secretary. As required by the Act, permit applications, permits, effluent data, and groundwater quality data shall not be considered confidential. J. PROPERTY RIGHTS. The issuance of this Permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations. K. SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this Permit are severable, and if any provision of this Permit, or the application of any provision of this Permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this Permit, shall not be affected thereby. L. TRANSFERS. This Permit may be automatically transferred to a new Permittee if: 1. The current Permittee notifies the Executive Secretary at least 30 calendar days in advance of the proposed transfer date; Part IV Permit No. UGW370004 38 2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new Permittee containing a specific date for transfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability between them; and, 3. The Executive Secretary does not notify the existing Permittee and the proposed new Permittee of his or her intent to modify, or revoke and reissue the permit. If this notice is not received, the transfer is effective on the date specified in the agreement mentioned in paragraph 2 above. M. STATE LAWS. Nothing in this Permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, penalties established pursuant to any applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 19-5-115 of the Act. N. REOPENER PROVISIONS. This Permit may be reopened and modified (following proper administrative procedures) to include the appropriate limitations and compliance schedule, if necessary, if one or more of the following events occurs: 1. If new ground water standards are adopted by the Board, the Permit may be reopened and modified to extend the terms of the Permit or to include pollutants covered by new standards. The Permittee may apply for a variance under the conditions outlined in R317-6-6.4(D). 2. Changes have been determined in background groundwater quality. 3. The Executive Secretary determines permit modification is necessary to protect human health or the environment. ATTACHMENT 4 Well MW-24 Hydraulic Testing Results November 3,2009 H:\718000\hydtst09\mw24\MW24report.doc November 3, 2009 Mr. David Frydenlund, Esq. Denison Mines (USA) Corporation 1050 17th Street, Suite 950 Denver, Colorado 80265 Dear Mr. Frydenlund, This letter discusses hydraulic testing of MW-24 at the White Mesa Uranium Mill site (the site) during the week of October 19, 2009, which was performed in conjunction with the hydraulic testing of the recently installed TWN-series wells. The location of MW-24 is shown in Figure 1. Test Procedures Hydraulic testing procedures were substantially the same as those used previously at the site, as reported in Hydro Geo Chem (HGC), 20051. Tests consisted of slug tests using submersible pressure transducers and data loggers to continuously record water level data before and during each test. Automatically logged data were obtained at 5-second intervals. Water levels were also measured by hand before and during each test using an electric water level meter. The hand-collected data served as an alternate set of data that could be independently evaluated and used to verify the automatically logged data. Results Test data were reduced and analyzed using the Bouwer-Rice and KGS slug test solutions available in AQTESOLV in substantially the same fashion as reported in HGC, 2005. Table 1 summarizes the results. Details of the analysis including the fits to the measured data are provided in Appendix A. 1 Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 2005. Perched Monitoring Well Installation and Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill, April through June 2005. ATTACHMENTS TABLES 1 MW-24 Slug Test Results 2 Estimated Perched Zone Pore Velocity FIGURE 1 Kriged 2nd Quarter, 2009 Water Levels. White Mesa Site APPENDIX A Detailed Data Analysis TABLES TABLE 1 MW-24 Slug Test Results Bouwer-Rice Bouwer-Rice Test Saturated Thickness K (cm/s) Ss (1/ft) K (cm/s) K (cm/s) Ss (1/ft) K (cm/s) MW-24 3.4 4.16E-05 5.20E-03 3.15E-05 3.03E-05 0.0152 3.03E-05 Notes: Bouwer-Rice = Unconfined Bouwer-Rice solution method in Aqtesolv™ cm/s = Centimeters per second ft = Feet K = hydraulic conductivity KGS = Unconfined KGS solution method in Aqtesolv™ Ss= specific storage Automatically Logged Data Hand Collected Data KGS KGS H:\718000\hydtst09\mw24\MW24Tables.xls: Table 1 11/3/2009 TABLE 2 Estimated Perched Zone Pore Velocity at MW-24 Pathline Head Change Hydraulic Gradient Pore Velocity (cm/s) (ft/yr) (ft) (ft)ft/ft ft/yr MW-24 3.66E-05 3.74E+01 1635 20 1.22E-02 2.54 Notes: a Average of KGS and Bouwer-Rice estimates. Assumes effective porosity of 0.18 cm/s = Centimeters per second ft/ft = Feet per foot ft/yr = Feet per year Well Hydraulic Conductivitya H:\718000\hydtst09\mw24\MW24Tables.xls: Table 2 11/3/2009 FIGURE HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE 3332 3000 SCALE IN FEET 0 5581 5503 5471 5502 5520 5501 5494 5493 5498 5586 5604 5460 5450 5497 5507 5537 5576 5543 5512 5537 5547 5557 5556 5587 5550 5585 5537 5583 5578 5564 5586 5571 5523 5545 5558 5548 55845548 5534 5580 5573 5593 5613 5602 5541 5539 MW-01 MW-02 MW-03 MW-05 MW-11 MW-12 MW-14 MW-15 MW-17 MW-18 MW-19 MW-20 MW-22 MW-23 MW-24 MW-25 MW-27 MW-28 MW-29 MW-30 MW-31 MW-26 MW-32 TW4-19 PIEZ-1 PIEZ-2 PIEZ-3 PIEZ-4 PIEZ-5 5551 5553 5553MW-04 5541 5567 5587 TW4-23 TW4-24 TW4-25 TW4-20 MW-20 PIEZ-1 5460 5593 perched monitoring well showing elevation in feet amsl temporary perched monitoring well installed April, 2005 showing elevation in feet amsl perched piezometer showing elevation in feet amsl 5556 MW-31 5547 temporary perched monitoring well showing elevation in feet amsl 5573 perched monitoring well installed April, 2005 showing elevation in feet amsl KRIGED 2nd QUARTER, 2009 WATER LEVELS SHOWING ASSUMED PATHLINE NEAR MW-24 WHITE MESA SITE H:/718000/ hydtst09/mw24/wl0609p.srf EXPLANATION temporary perched monitoring well installed May, 2007 showing approximate elevation in feet amsl 5541 NOTES: Locations and elevations for TW4-23, TW4-24, and TW4-25 are approximate SJS pathline near MW-24 111/3/09 APPENDIX A DETAILED DATA ANALYSIS 0.01 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 0. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1. Time (min) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) WELL TEST ANALYSIS Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst09\mw24\mw24.aqt Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:39:55 PROJECT INFORMATION Company: HGC Client: Denison Test Well: MW-24 AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 3.4 ft WELL DATA (mw24) Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 3.4 ft Screen Length: 3.4 ft Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft SOLUTION Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model Kr = 4.155E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.005202 ft-1 Kz/Kr = 0.1 0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200. 0.01 0.1 1. Time (min) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) WELL TEST ANALYSIS Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst09\mw24\mw24br.aqt Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:40:50 PROJECT INFORMATION Company: HGC Client: Denison Test Well: MW-24 AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 3.4 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1 WELL DATA (mw24) Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 3.4 ft Screen Length: 3.4 ft Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft SOLUTION Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 3.152E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3944 ft 0.1 1. 10. 100. 1000. 0. 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1. Time (min) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) WELL TEST ANALYSIS Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst09\mw24\mw24h.aqt Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:41:06 PROJECT INFORMATION Company: HGC Client: Denison Test Well: MW-24 AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 3.4 ft WELL DATA (mw24) Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 3.4 ft Screen Length: 3.4 ft Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft SOLUTION Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: KGS Model Kr = 3.031E-5 cm/sec Ss = 0.01523 ft-1 Kz/Kr = 0.1 0. 40. 80. 120. 160. 200. 0.1 1. Time (min) Di s p l a c e m e n t ( f t ) WELL TEST ANALYSIS Data Set: H:\718000\hydtst09\mw24\mw24hbr.aqt Date: 11/03/09 Time: 10:41:22 PROJECT INFORMATION Company: HGC Client: Denison Test Well: MW-24 AQUIFER DATA Saturated Thickness: 3.4 ft Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr): 0.1 WELL DATA (mw24) Initial Displacement: 0.5 ft Static Water Column Height: 3.4 ft Total Well Penetration Depth: 3.4 ft Screen Length: 3.4 ft Casing Radius: 0.167 ft Well Radius: 0.28 ft SOLUTION Aquifer Model: Unconfined Solution Method: Bouwer-Rice K = 3.031E-5 cm/sec y0 = 0.3944 ft ATTACHMBNT 5 DRC Well MW-24 Memorandum January 11,2009 State of Utah GARY R. HERBERT Governor GREG BELL Lieutenant Governor FROM: DATE: Phil Goble, Hydrogeologist January 1 1, 2009 Department of Environmental Quality Amanda Smith Executive Director DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL Dane L. Finerfrock Director MEMORANDUM TO:File THROUGH: Loren Morton, Section Manager tl /l lz/to(frn i'ft(? SLJBJECT: Review of Well NIIN-}4 Slug Tests Results at the White Mesa Uranium MilI in Blanding, Utah As discussed in the September 2009 SOB (p.21 - 2zl,ienison Mines (USA) Corp. (hereafter DUSA) failed to provide aquifer permeability and velocity information for well MW-24 in the August 3,2OO5 Revised Hydrogeologic Report. Because of this, the Executive Secretary took a conservative approach and assigned a quarterly sampling frequency for well NNV-24 atPart I.E.l(a). The September 2009 SOB also stated: "In the event that DUSA provides the necessary information, the Executive Secretary may reconsider this decision and modifi the Permit as needed. " On November 3,2009 DUSA submitted (by e-mail) hydraulic testing results for well MW-24, in the form of a November 3,2N9 technical report prepared by Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. (HGC). In this report, HGC performed slug testing in monitoring well MW-24 to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the formation adjacent to the well. Equipment used to perform the slug tests was an electric water level meter and a submersible Mini-Troll""'pressure transducers and data loggers. These were used to measure water levels during and after withdrawal of the slug blank from the well. The pressure transducer was lowered to a depth that was below the lowest point to which the bailer would be injected. A bailer was lowered into the water column in the well and the water level was allowed to return to static conditions. Once static conditions were achieved, the bailer was removed and the data was recorded at S-second intervals until water levels in the well had fully recovered. Data recorded by the transducer was transferred to the analytical program AQTESOLV rM to evaluate the slug test data. Test data were reduced and analyzed using the Bouwer-Rice and Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) solutions available in AQTESOLV rM software and was done in 168 North 1950 West . Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: P.o. Box 144850 . Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 Telephone (801) 536-4250. Fax (801) 533-4097 . T.D.D. (801> 53,6-4414 www.deq.utah.gov Printed on l$OVo recycled paper Page 2 the same fashion as reported in the August 3, 2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Report. In addition to the slug test data, AQTESOLV ™ required input of the following data values: • saturated thickness • screen length • total well penetration depth • wellbore radius • casing radius • gravel pack porosity • anistropy ratio (Kz/Kr) Saturated Thickness, Screen Length, and Total Well Penetration The saturated thickness was the difference between the static water level measured just prior to the aquifer test and the depth to the Brushy Basin contact. Because the static water level was below the top of the screen interval and the bottom of the screen is at the Brushy Basin contact, the saturated thickness was also the effective screen length and well penetration depth. DRC verified the HGC calculations in Table 1 of the November 3, 2009 technical report. Wellbore Radius and Casing Radius At well MW-24, HGC calculated the wellbore radius at 0.28 feet and casing radius at 0.167 feet. The DRC has reviewed the as-built report for well MW-24 and agrees with these calculations. Gravel Pack Porosity The August 3, 2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Report estimated the gravel pack porosity for the new wells (MW-23, MW-24, MW-25, MW-27, MW-28, MW-29, MW-30, MW-32) installed during May 2005 to be 30%. All the wells slug tested were gravel packed with 10-20 Colorado Silica Sand. The range of values for the porosity of sand is 25-50% (Freeze and Cherry 1979). Therefore, the gravel pack porosity of 30% is reasonable and acceptable value for well MW-24. Hydraulic Conductivity The KGS solution allows estimation of both specific storage and hydraulic conductivity. The KGS solution generally allows a fit to both early and late time data, and is sensitive to storage. In well MW-24 hydraulic conductivity was calculated at 4.6E-05 cm/s under the KGS method. The Bouwer-Rice solution is valid only for the straight-line portion of the data when log of displacement is plotted against time. Typically, only the mid to later-time data are interpretable. Under the Bouwer-Rice method, HGC calculated the hydraulic conductivity in well MW-24 at 3.15E-05 cm/s, using the straight line portion of the hydraulic response data (mid-range) and an assumed Anisotropy Ratio (Kz/Kr) of 0.1. This anisotropy assumption conflicts with previous HGC hydraulic analysis, where an Anisotropy Ratio of 1.0 was used for all wells. For details, see the table below: Page 3 Report Date Monitoring Well Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s) August 22, 2002 HGC MW-1 8.9E-07 1993 Peel MW-2 4.7E-05 August 22, 2002 HGC MW-3 2.2E-07 1993 Peel MW-4 9.4E-06 August 22, 2002 HGC MW-5 3.5E-05 1993 Peel MW-11 1.4E-03 1993 Peel MW-12 2.2E-05 1993 Peel MW-14 7.5E-04 1993 Peel MW-15 1.9E-05 August 22, 2002 HGC MW-17 2.6E-06 August 22, 2002 HGC MW-18 2.7E-06 August 22, 2002 HGC MW-19 2.4E-04 August 22, 2002 HGC MW-20 1.3E-05 August 22, 2002 HGC MW-22 9.3E-07 August 3, 2005 HGC MW-23 2.2E-07 November 3, 2009 HGC MW-24 3.66E-05 August 3, 2005 HGC MW-25 1.1E-04 August 3, 2005 HGC MW-27 7.2E-05 August 3, 2005 HGC MW-28 1.8E-06 August 3, 2005 HGC MW-29 1.1E-04 August 3, 2005 HGC MW-30 8.1E-05 August 3, 2005 HGC MW-31 7.1E-05 August 3, 2005 HGC MW-32 2.9E-05 Statistics Combined Previous Pump and Slug Tests Maximum 1.4E-03 Minimum 2.2E-07 Mean 1.3E-04 Geometric Average 1.8E-05 HGC did not justify why they used a different Anisotropy Ratio for well MW-24 in their November 3, 2009 submittal. To calculate a final hydraulic conductivity for MW-24, HGC averaged both the Bouwer-Rice (3.15E-05 cm/s) and KGS (4.6E-05 cm/s) solutions for an average of 3.66E-05 cm/s. Because both numbers are very close in range, this may be appropriate. The previous HGC reports also used the same approach to determine a final permeability, by averaging the results of two separate analyzes under the Bouwer-Rice and KGS methods. The closest monitoring well to MW-24 is MW-2, which is approximately 500 feet away. As shown on the table above, well MW-2 has a calculated hydraulic conductivity at 4.7E-05 cm/s, which is comparable to the 3.66E-05 cm/s at well MW-24. Based on information above, HGC performed the slug tests with acceptable equipment, data, and methods to estimate hydraulic conductivities (Ks) at the site. The DRC compared the final HGC Page 4 permeability reported in well MW-24 with the approved hydraulic conductivity values of other nearby DUSA wells, as taken from the previous HGC reports, see the table above. While, HGC did not justify why they used a different Anisotropy Ratio for well MW-24 (0.1) than the other wells previously installed, tested, and analyzed under the Bouwer-Rice method, the DRC staff believe the final result for well MW-24 is an adequate approximation at this time for the following reasons: 1. Acceptance of the 3.66E-5 cm/sec result for MW-24 will allow the DRC to finalize the Permit without further delay. 2. Because, HGC did not consider anisotropy when calculating hydraulic conductivity in the previous reports (prior to November 3, 2009), it is possible the previously calculated Ks were underestimated (Zlotnik, 1994). 3. The DUSA Permit renewal application was received by DRC on September 1, 2009, and is currently under review. DRC will have an opportunity to ask DUSA to further examine and justify this discrepancy at a later date. 4. The estimated permeability results in an average linear velocity of about 2.5 ft/yr (see below), which is well below the threshold of 10 ft/yr that triggers quarterly groundwater monitoring frequency. Pore Velocity (Average Linear Groundwater Velocity) To calculate the pore velocity in well MW-24, HGC used a hydraulic gradient of 0.0122 ft/ft, a porosity of 0.18 and the average hydraulic conductivity of 3.66E-05 cm/s for a water pore velocity of 2.5 ft/yr. The hydraulic gradient used by HGC, 0.0122 ft/ft, and was based on hydraulic heads near well MW-24 during the 2nd Quarter of 2009. DRC found this gradient to be appropriate after review of three other recent water table contour maps (4th Qtr, 2008; 1st Qtr, 2009, and 3rd Qtr, 2009). HGC also used an effective porosity of 0.18 for each well in the August 3, 2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Report. This is the same value used in the previous HGC reports, and is therefore acceptable. Therefore, the DRC agrees with the reported aquifer permeability (~ 2.5 ft/yr) near well MW-24. Conclusion As described in the DUSA Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit - December 1, 2004 Statement of Basis, there are two different frequencies of routine groundwater monitoring at the White Mesa Mill, as follows: • Semi-annual (2-times/year) where groundwater velocity is less than 10 feet/year, and • Quarterly (4-times/year) where groundwater velocity is equal to or greater than 10 feet/year. Because well MW-24 has a groundwater velocity less than 10 feet/year, DRC staff recommends to the Executive Secretary that well MW-24 be changed to a semi-annual sampling frequency in Parts I.E.1(b) and I.E.1(c) of the Permit. Page 5 As described above, HGC assumed an Anisotropy Ratio of 1.0 for all wells in the August 3, 2005 Revised Hydrogeologic Report. Because HGC assumed isotropic conditions at those wells, it is possible the Ks in these were underestimated, which could also underestimate the average linear groundwater velocity in those wells. DUSA Permit Renewal Application Review of the Permit Renewal Application is currently on going. UAC R317-6-6.3(Q) allows the Executive Secretary to ask the Permittee for addition information. As part of the review process, it is recommended that the Executive Secretary require DUSA to recalculate hydraulic conductivity for every well on site for the following reasons: 1) Because, HGC did not consider anisotropy when calculating hydraulic conductivity in all HGC reports prior to November 3, 2009, it is possible the Ks in these wells were underestimated. Further, professional literature references indicate that the anisotropy ratio (Kr / Kz) should be determined independently before interpreting slug test data (Zlotnik, 1994). Therefore, at a minimum, re-evalution is in order for confirmation of the recent MW-24 permeability estimates via the Bouwer-Rice method. 2) The mounding effect on the perched zone is advancing across the site, steepening gradients and increasing groundwater flow velocities (DRC 2004). It is possible that wells with a calculated velocity of less than 10 ft/yr back in 2005, may have increased to greater than 10 ft/yr today. 3) Additional groundwater hydraulic head data gathered from new wells installed in the perched zone, may indicate steeper hydraulic gradients are present in some areas, , resulting in increased groundwater flow velocities there. Such steeper gradients could increase flow velocities to be greater than 10 ft/yr at those locations. Page 6 References Freeze, Allan R. and Cherry, John A., 1979, Groundwater, Table 2.4. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., January 30, 2004, “Site Hydrogeology and Estimation of Groundwater Travel Times in the Perched Zone White Mesa Uranium Mill Site near Blanding, Utah.” Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., October 20, 2004, “Perched Zone Water Movement, White Mesa Uranium Mill Site Near Blanding, Utah.” Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., August 3, 2005, “Perched Monitoring Well Installation and Testing at the White Mesa Uranium Mill April through June 2005.” Hydro Geo Chem, Inc., Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp., November 3, 2009. “MW-24 Letter Report.” 13 pp. [transmitted via 11/3/09 email from David Frydenlund (DUSA) to Loren Morton (DRC). Utah Division of Radiation Control, November 23, 2004, “Review of Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. Report - Report on Perched Zone Water Movement, White Mesa Mill Site, near Blanding, Utah, October 20, 2004,” unpublished regulatory document from Dean Henderson to Loren Morton 3 pp., 2 tables, and 4 figures. Utah Division of Radiation Control, December 1, 2004, “Statement of Basis for a Uranium Milling Facility at White Mesa, South of Blanding, Utah,” unpublished regulatory document, 57 pp., and 12 attachments. Utah Division of Radiation Control, November 16, 2007, “Revised Hydrogeologic Report - Groundwater Discharge Permit (Permit), Part I.H.2, Denison Mines (USA) White Mesa Mill, near Blanding, Utah,” unpublished regulatory document from Dean Henderson to Loren Morton 5 pp., 1 figure, 3 tables. Umetco Minerals Corporation and Peel Environmental Services, 1993, “Groundwater Study, White Mesa Facilities, Blanding, Utah.” Utah Division of Water Quality, March 17, 2008, Ground Water Discharge Permit, DUSA, Permit No. UGW370004. Utah Division of Water Quality, September 2, 2009, Draft Ground Water Discharge Permit, DUSA, Permit No. UGW370004 Zlotnik, Vitaly, September - October, 1994, “Interpretation of Slug and Packer Tests in Anisotropic Aquifers,” Ground Water, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp.761 -766.