DRC-2010-004025 - 0901a068801a9d25

DRC-2010-004025
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY
for the
Modification to the
Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004
and the
Amendment to the
Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
White Mesa Uranium Mill
San Juan County, Utah
June 14,2010
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms 2
Introduction 3
Section 1. Written Coinments from Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch, Program Director and Related
Oral Comments 6
Section 2. Oral Only Comments from Public Hearing Held May 4, 2010 in Blanding, Utah. 19
Section 3. Sundry Changes to Permit and License 23
References Cited 24
Appendix A; Written Comments Provided to Utah Division of Radiation Control
Appendix B; Transcript of Public Hearing Held May 4, 2010 at Blanding, Utah
Appendix C; Revised Radioactive Materials License No. UT 1900479
Appendix D; Revised Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW 370004
Page 1 of 24
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable
Ci Curie
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DUSA Denison Uranium Mines (USA) Corp.
Division Utah Division of Radiation Control
DRC (Utah) Division of Radiation Control
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GWDP Ground Water Discharge Permit
LC License Condition
LRA License Renewal Application
m meter
mrem millirem
NESHAPs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OSHA U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
SER Safety Evaluation Report
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
TEDE Total Effective Dose Equivalent
U3O8 Triuranium octoxide; yellowcake
URCB Utah Radiation Control Board
URCR Utah Radiation Control Rule
URS URS Corporation
V205 Vanadium (pent)oxide
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 3 of 3
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to summarize public comments received by the Utah Division of
Radiation Control (DRC) regarding Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s (DUSA) request to amend
their Radioactive Materials License and Ground Water Discharge Permit by authorizing
construction of Cell 4B at its White Mesa Uranium Mill located near Blanding, Utah. One letter
containing a set of written comments was received from the public during the comment period
that ended on May 10, 2010. Several individuals made oral comments at the public hearing held
on May 4, 2010 at the Blanding Arts and Events Center in Blanding, Utah.
The topics addressed in public comments received by the DRC (including both oral and written
comments) are summarized in Table 1. These represent general categories that the comments
were organized into. Unique designators (i.e., PC-01 through PC-20) are associated with each
topic In Table 1. The written comments are addressed first, followed by the oral comments. DRC
responses follow below.
Table 1. Summary of Topics Addressed in Comments Received by DRC.
Commenter
Topic
Sa
r
a
h

Fi
e
l
d
s
1
Br
a
d
l
e
y

An
g
e
l
2
To
n
i

T
u
r
k
2

Ch
r
i
s

We
b
b
2
Jo
e

Ly
m
a
n
2
Written and Related Oral Comments Received
PC-01: Archaeological and Cultural Resources X X X X
PC-02: Need to Revise License Condition 9.7 and Associated
Memorandum of Understanding X
PC-03: Effluent/Monitoring Reports Should be Made Available
on DRC Website in Timely Manner X
PC-04: Address Long-Term Impacts X
PC-05: Permanent Isolation without Maintenance X X
PC-06: Potential for Releases of Radon, Other Gases, and
Hazardous and Radioactive Particulates from Impoundment
during Dewatering
X X
PC-07: Off Site Measuring Devices X
PC-08: Effluent Control during Operations X

1 Both written and oral comments.
2 Oral comments made at Public Hearing held in Blanding, Utah on May 4, 2010. For a transcript
of this meeting, see Appendix B, below.
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 4 of 4
Table 1. Summary of Topics Addressed in Comments Received by DRC.
Commenter
Topic
Sa
r
a
h

Fi
e
l
d
s
1
Br
a
d
l
e
y

An
g
e
l
2
To
n
i

T
u
r
k
2

Ch
r
i
s

We
b
b
2
Jo
e

Ly
m
a
n
2
PC-09: Communication/Consultation with White Mesa Ute
Tribe X X
PC-10: Compliance with Other Federal and State Regulations X X
Oral Only Comments Received in May 4, 2010 Public Meeting
PC-11: Adequate/Inadequate Notice of Public Hearing
Provided to General Public and to Members of the White Mesa
Ute Tribe
X X X
PC-12: Yellowcake Release from Stacks X
PC-13: Social Justice X
PC-14: Rules Should Be Changed/Use Current Rules When
Considering this License Amendment X X
PC-15: Economic Benefit and Employment Provided by Mill
Operations X X
PC-16: DUSA Is Responsible and Professional X X X
PC-17: Balance in Preserving Archaeological Resources X
PC-18: Health and Safety Are Important X
PC-19: Confidence in State and Federal Regulators X
PC-20: Release of Radioactive Materials to the Environment X

The DRC considered all written and oral comments in assessing whether changes should be made
to the proposed revisions to DUSA’s Radioactive Materials License and Ground Water Discharge
Permit (found at: http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium_Mills/IUC/cell4b/
permitMod_licenseAmend.htm). No comments were submitted that would necessitate a change to
the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) or Statement of Basis (SOB). Each written comment received
is restated below verbatim in italics, and is found in Appendix A. Oral comments are presented in
summary form, and a transcript is found in Appendix B. DRC’s response and disposition follow
each comment, and is denoted with the words “Division Response” in bold text.
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 5 of 5
Revisions made to April 6, 2010 Draft DUSA’s Radioactive Material License, No. UT 1900479
are shown in Appendix C. Revisions made to April 6, 2010 Draft DUSA’s Ground Water
Discharge Permit No. UGW370004 are shown in Appendix D. These changes are discussed in
Section 3, below.
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 6 of 6
Section 1. Written Comments from Sarah Fields, Uranium Watch, Program Director and
Related Oral Comments
Ms. Fields submitted the following comments in writing to the DRC on May 10, 2010. Other
commenters also provided oral comment on several of these same topics during the May 4, 2010
public meeting. For details, see written comments in Appendix A and the transcript of oral
comments in Appendix B, below.
PC-01; Archaeological Resources
Written comments from Ms. Fields (Comment 1.1, pp. 1-2) stated the following (Appendix
A, pp. 1–2):“1. WHITE MESA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
1.1. The construction of Cell 4B will impact a number of Archaeological Resources at the
Mill site and in the White Mesa Archaeological District. White Mesa is in an area adjacent
to and in the vicinity of extensive tribal holdings and an area rich in archaeological
resources, which have been designated as significant and deserving of preservation. Many
Archaeological Resources on White Mesa have been found eligible for the National
Register, including resources that will be or have been impacted by activities associated
with the proposed license amendment.
The Licensee and the Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) have not complied with
the requirements of License Condition 9.7, which states, in pertinent part:
'All disturbances associated with the proposed development will be completed in
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) and its
implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations.'
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act includes compliance with
Section 106. The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) fails to discuss how the Applicant
fulfilled its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended)
and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations.
A contractor to the licensee has commenced excavation of the Archaeological Resources
at the Mill, with approval of the DRC. However, excavation has commenced without the
any Section 106 consultation. The excavation of the valuable Archaeological Resource on
White Mesa has taken place without informing and consulting with nearby tribal
governments and tribal Historic Preservation Officers and without an opportunity for
public comment.
Further, the Licensee commenced activities that have impacts on the Archaeological
Resources and are the subject of License Condition 9.7 requirements prior to this
comment period and prior to the issuance of the license amendment and final
environmental evaluation.
All activities that impact Archaeological Resources at the Mill should cease until DRC
initiates and completes a Section 106 consultation process, including consultation with
affected tribal governments or appropriate tribal representatives. The DRC should not
issue the license amendment without consulting with the Ute, Navajo, and other regional
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 7 of 7
tribal Historic Preservation Officers regarding the destruction of irreplaceable historic
resources.
Further, the SER must include a discussion of how the Applicant has complied with the
provisions of License Condition 9.7.”
In oral comments, Ms. Fields stated that archaeological excavation is currently taking place at
over ten archaeological sites and reported that most of the archaeological sites on White Mesa are
ancient pit houses (see Appendix B, p. 16). Ms. Fields reported that at the initial construction of
the White Mesa mill and facility, ancient artifacts were removed and placed in the University of
Utah or the Edges of the Cedars (museum). Ms. Fields complained, however, that none of these
artifacts have been exhibited, no studies have been conducted, and no results presented, and
asserted that although artifacts have been and will be removed, the sites have been and will be
destroyed by mill construction and expansion.
In oral comments, another person (Toni Turk, Mayor of Blanding) indicated that all of the
artifacts that are recovered and recovered according to archeological procedure are made
available for further research at the Edge of the Cedars Museum (see Appendix B, p. 12). He also
indicated that the [Blanding] Rotary Club recently received a detailed presentation of recovery of
archaeological knowledge that Denison Mines has funded (see Topic PC-09;
Communication/Consultation with White Mesa Ute Tribe, below, for further discussion).
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
The Utah Radiation Control Act contains no requirement that mandates that the DRC address the
evaluation or preservation of archaeological resources. However, the License Condition 9.7 does
address archaeological resources.
The Executive Secretary disagrees with the comment that under License Condition 9.7 the Utah
DRC must undertake Section 106 consultations pursuant to the National Historic Preservation
Act, 16 U.S.C. § 470f 3. By its terms, Section 106 applies to actions by “any Federal agency”
having jurisdiction over a proposed “Federal or federally assisted undertaking”. As the
“undertaking” at issue here is licensing of disposal Cell 4B by a State of Utah agency, Section
106 consultation is inapplicable. Nonetheless, the DRC has required the licensee to take all
necessary and appropriate steps to identify and preserve cultural resources that may be
unavoidably disturbed during the construction of Cell 4B.
Consistent with License Condition 9.7, the licensee arranged for archaeological cultural research
studies of the Cell 4B area. As part of these studies, Abajo Archaeology developed “A Research
Design for Archaeological Data Recovery on Ten Sites in the White Mesa Mill Cell 4B Project
Area, San Juan County, Utah” (hereafter “Abajo Research Design”). The Abajo Research Design
describes archaeological test excavations of ten sites in the Cell 4B project area; provides a
research design for archaeological data recovery at those sites; and commits to the preservation of
artifacts from the site.

3 Condition 9.7 in DUSA’s Utah license is a remnant from its federal U.S. NRC mill license.
When the U.S. NRC delegated licensing of uranium mills to Utah in August 2004, Condition 9.7,
as drafted by the U.S. NRC, was imported into the Denison Mine’s Utah license.
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 8 of 8
The Executive Secretary sent the Abajo Research Design to the Utah State Historic Preservation
Office, who responded: “We concur that the approach outlined in the research design prepared by
Abajo Archaeology will mitigate adverse effects resulting from this project” (see Letter from Lori
Hunsaker, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer - Archaeology to Dane Finerfrock,
Director, Division of Radiation Control, dated December 17, 2009).
To fulfill the requirements of License Condition 9.7, DUSA:
Is following the Abajo Research Design prior to beginning construction in any affected
cultural resource area identified in that document;
As described in the Abajo Research Design, will require “Abajo Archaeology to submit
all artifacts and associated files from the project to the Edge of the Cedars Museum. All
artifacts will be housed in archival materials, including artifact bags and boxes as
stipulated by the Edge of the Cedars.” Abajo Research Design at p.94.
When excavation and preservation of cultural resources are complete, will submit a final
archaeology report to the Executive Secretary outlining the steps it took to comply with
the Abajo Research Design. It is anticipated that this report will be available by the end
of July 2011.
See Letter from DUSA to the Executive Secretary, dated June 8, 2010 (DUSA 2010).
Various archaeological documents relating to the construction of Cell 4B are accessible to the
public on the DRC website. In addition, the public may request paper copies of these documents
and/or inspect files at the DRC, which contain current and historic archaeological documents
relating to the White Mesa Mill site.
Copies of DUSA, DRC, and SHPO correspondence, plans, and reports documenting the ongoing
archaeological investigations and recovery work are posted on the DRC website at
http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium_Mills/IUC/cell4b/cultural_resources4b.htm.
PC-02; License Condition 9.7
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 1.2) stated the following (Appendix A, p. 2):
“1.2 LICENSE CONDITION 9.7
The DRC is not proposing any changes to License Condition 9.7, which pertains to the
cultural resources at the Mill. License Condition 9.7 refers to a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOU) between the Utah State Historical Preservation Officer (SHAPO), the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), and Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (a former Mill owner/licensee). The MOU was
ratified on August 20, 1979, and amended on May 3, 1983. The MOU should be amended
or replaced, since it does not reflect the current situation at the Mill.”
In oral comment, Ms. Fields asserted the LC 9.7 should be stricken from the license and later that
the license condition should be reviewed and brought up to date (see Appendix B, p. 18).

Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 9 of 9
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
DRC agrees there may be opportunities for improvement to the wording found in LC 9.7. License
Condition 9.7 may be updated as part of the ongoing review of the license renewal application.
PC-03; Licensee Reporting Responsibilities
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.1) stated the following (Appendix A, pp. 2–3):
“2. SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT (SER)
2.1 LICENSEE REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES (SER, PAGE 21)
The DRC should make the effluent monitoring reports, Semi-Annual Effluent Reports and
Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports and any additional effluent monitoring
information submitted by the licensee pursuant to License Condition 11.2 available on the
DRC website in a timely manner.”
Ms. Fields requested in oral comments that the DRC make the effluent monitoring reports and
any additional effluent monitoring information submitted by the licensee pursuant to LC 11.2
available on the DRC’s website (see Appendix B, p. 18).
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
The DRC is currently undergoing an initiative to make documents more readily and more rapidly
available to the public on the DRC’s website. In the interim, interested parties can request
information that is not currently available on the DRC’s website through the existing Utah
Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) records request processes in Utah
Code Annotated Title 63G, Chapter 2 or inspect the files at the DRC.
PC-04; Long-Term Impacts
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.3)4 stated the following (Appendix A, pp. 3–4):
“2.3 LONG TERM IMPACTS
UCA R313-24-3D: Environmental Analysis - Long Term Impacts, Safety Evaluation,
states that, pursuant to UAC R313-24-3, a major license amendment should include
"consideration of the long-term impacts." The SER discussion addresses long-term
impacts. However, the SER and the UCA section do not define long-term and leave the
issue of long-term containment of the mill tailings and their associated emissions to be
addressed in a future Reclamation Plan. Under current federal regulation (40 C.F.R.
Sec. 192.32(B)(1)(i)5), consideration of the technical requirements for long-term
containment of the tailings is limited to "one thousand years, to the extent reasonably
achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years." The SER (page 30) states that Cell
4B has been designed to provide "reasonable assurance that radiological hazards will be
suitably controlled for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case
for at lease 200 years.

4 sic. Ms. Fields May 10, 2010 submittal did not contain any comment numbered 2.2.

Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 10 of 10
“So, we have "reasonable assurance" to the extent that suitable control is "reasonably
achievable." What does this vague language mean over the long-term? The public, the
licensee, and the DRC do not really know.
“The tailings will remain on White Mesa in perpetuity, that is, forever. Therefore impacts
from 200 to 1,000 years are short-term impacts, not long-term impacts, given the time
that the tailings will continue to release radon and will be a radioactive and hazardous
material requiring physical and regulatory control for as long as there are individuals
and entities capable of exercising that control.
“Eventually the liners will break down, eventually the tailings cover will erode, and
eventually the tailings and the associated radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants
will disperse into the air, water, and soils.
“Any evaluation of the long-term impacts of the proposed licensing action must address
the potential impacts of the dispersion of the tailings from natural forces over the
thousands and millions of years that the tailings will remain in place.”
___________________________
1 40 CFR Sec. 192.32(B)(1)(i).
(1) Disposal areas shall each comply with the closure performance standard in Sec. 264.111 of this chapter
with respect to nonradiological hazards and shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance of control of
radiological hazards to (i) Be effective for one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in
any case, for at least 200 years, and, (ii) Limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials to
the atmosphere so as to not exceed an average \2\ release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second
(pCi/m2s).
\2\ This average shall apply to the entire surface of each disposal area over periods of at least one year, but
short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both uranium byproduct materials and from covering
materials. Radon emissions from covering materials should be estimated as part of developing a closure plan
for each site. The standard, however, applies only to emissions from uranium byproduct materials to the
atmosphere.”
In oral comments, Ms. Fields asserted that the DRC is required to prepare a Safety Evaluation
Report (SER) for a major license amendment under the Atomic Energy Act (see Appendix B, pp.
21-22). The person also observed that the Atomic Energy Act has specific requirements for
agreement states and that the State of Utah is an agreement state, through which the federal
government has given the State of Utah the responsibility for regulating uranium mills within
Utah. The commenter observed that SER states that Cell 4B has been designed to provide
reasonable assurance that radiological hazards will be suitably controlled for 1,000 years to the
extent reasonably achievable, and in any case, for at least 200 years. The person the expressed the
common belief that although the tailings will remain in perpetuity, the containment features and
system will eventually degrade to allow radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants to be
released into the environment. This person then asserted that DRC should consider the
performance of the tailings impoundments for up to 100,000 years.
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
The DRC reviews license applications for tailings management and tailings reclamation facilities
in accordance with existing established regulations and rules, including UAC R313-24, as
mentioned in the comment. The set of standards established for stabilization of reclaimed tailings
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 11 of 11
management cells that are applicable to the DUSA White Mesa Mill Facility is prescribed by the
NRC in 10 CFR 40, including Criterion 6(1), of those regulations:
“In disposing of waste byproduct material, licensees shall place an earthen cover (or
approved alternative) over tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall
close the waste disposal area in accordance with a design which provides reasonable
assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the
extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit
releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium
byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average release rate of 20
picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the extent practicable throughout
the effective design life determined pursuant to (1)(i) of this Criterion. In computing
required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally
in similar soils in similar circumstances may not be considered. Direct gamma exposure
from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects of any
thin synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the calculated radon
exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed as cover materials, it must be
demonstrated that these materials will not crack or degrade by differential settlement,
weathering, or other mechanism, over long-term intervals.”
The regulatory basis for the NRC environmental standards was provided by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in documents published in 40 CFR Part 192. The NRC adopted these
environmental standards in the Federal Register in 1983. In the Federal Register Notice
describing the NRC basis for adopting these standards under 40 CFR Part 192 (“Environmental
Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings at Licensed Commercial Processing Sites,”
Proposed Rule, published in Federal Register 48(84):19584-19603, April 29, 1983), EPA notes
(ibid., p. 19,597) that the selected design alternative (Alternative D – stabilization to be designed
to be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent practicable, or, in any case [designed to be effective]
for at least 200 years) “will provide stability against erosion and casual intrusion for misuse for
much longer than 1,000 years” except for “those few piles that are susceptible to flood damage,”
which “would be protected for at least 200 years, and are unlikely to suffer real damage for much
longer.” EPA also identifies that casual intrusion by man is limited by thick and hard-to-penetrate
covers, and that the main design issue is protection against natural forces (wind and surface water
erosion, and of the possibility of flood damage). They indicate that wind and surface-water
erosion are well-understood and predictable, and are easily inhibited through the use of rock or, in
some cases, vegetative surface stabilization.
When reviewing documents submitted by Licensees that relate to construction, operations, and
reclamation activities that are proposed to be conducted at the White Mesa Mill Facility with
respect to the potential for these activities to cause long-term environmental impacts, the DRC
must consider and has considered requirements contained in the above set of NRC standards.
Interested parties, should they choose to do so, have the option of requesting that changes to
existing rules and statutes be considered and implemented. Such requests would need to be
pursued through established formal rule-making requests to the Utah Radiation Control Board
and/or to the NRC, or by a State or Federal legislative processes.
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 12 of 12
PC-05; Permanent Isolation without Ongoing Maintenance
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.4) stated the following (Appendix A, p.4):
“2.4 PERMANENT ISOLATION WITHOUT ONGOING MAINTENANCE (SER, PAGE
24)
10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 1, states that tailings should be disposed of in a
manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site.
“There is no doubt that over the years, active maintenance will be required to preserve
conditions of the site. The Department of Energy (DOE) has already discovered that
active maintenance is required at some of the uranium mill sites that have been reclaimed
and that DOE have responsibility for, due to erosion. The DOE is actively looking at
different cover and tailings design systems because of the problems they have
encountered at these sites.
“No matter what the design is, eventually the cover, tailings, and White Mesa itself, will
erode, as demonstrated by the geological landscape in the region. Any claim to continued
long-term isolation of the tailings--without active maintenance--via a man-made design is
not supportable.
“The DRC should consult with the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
take into consideration recent studies and data regarding the effectiveness of tailings
system designs and materials to update the final cover design and materials requirements
in order to achieve the maximum long-term isolation of the tailings with minimal
maintenance. The DRC should not mislead the public and licensee into thinking that
isolation of the tailings for 1,000 and for the long-term future can take place without
active maintenance.”
Ms. Fields also expressed doubt in oral comments presented at the Public Hearing that tailings
could be isolated without relying on ongoing maintenance and recommended that DRC should
consult with NRC and Department of Energy to identify realistic long-term maintenance
scenarios and to take advantage of new data and information that is being generated (see
Appendix B, pp.23-24).
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
We agree with the comment that the NRC rules mandate uranium mill tailings facilities be
designed and constructed such that no ongoing maintenance is required (10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criterion 1). As mentioned above, the 200 to 1000-year engineering design / stability standard is
found in the NRC rules (10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6). Both of these requirements are
adopted in the corresponding Utah regulations (see UAC R313-24-4). Upon closure of the
facility, and completion of certain other requirements, the site will be transferred to the DOE who
will then take control and possession of the tailings site (see 10 CFR 40.28). Under this
ownership, the federal government will provide any long-term maintenance required.
The DUSA reclamation plan is currently under review by the DRC as a part of the license
renewal process. During this review, the DRC will consider available information on the
performance of other completed final cover systems, including covers constructed at DOE
reclamation sites (e.g., U.S. DOE Uranium Mill Tailings Reclamation Act Project sites and other
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 13 of 13
sites), and published NRC guidance documents relating to the final capping and closure of
uranium mill tailings impoundments, uranium tailings piles, etc…, for long-term stabilization,
including, but not limited to, NUREG-1623 (NRC 2002), and documents referenced therein, and
other published technical documents and reports that contain updated information regarding the
design and expected longer-term performance effectiveness of final closure cover systems.
See also the response regarding established design requirements and standards provided in regard
to the previous comment (Topic PC-04).
PC-06: Impacts of Dewatering of the Tailings Cell
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.5) stated the following (Appendix A, pp. 4–5):
“2.5 IMPACTS OF DEWATERING OF THE TAILINGS CELL (SER, PAGES 25–26)
The discussion of the permanent isolation without ongoing maintenance (10 CFR Part
40, Appendix A, Criterion 1) and the Reclamation Plan refer to the dewatering of the
tailings cell after the operational life of the cell. However, there is minimal discussion
about two of the primary problems encountered at uranium mills once operation has
ceased and cell dewatering commences. Once dewatering commences, the result is an
increase in the release of radon from the cell and an increase in windblown tailings. The
SER mentions the possibility of the use of "platform fill," but provides little information
and analysis of the use of fill or other means to minimize the emission of radon,
hazardous and radioactive particulates to the atmosphere and the environment.
“The SER should discuss in more detail the impacts of cell dewatering on the emission of
radon and other gases and hazardous and radioactive particulates and how these
impacts will be mitigated during the estimated 5.5 years between the cessation of cell
operation and the placement of an interim and final cover.”
In addition to written comments dealing with release from the facility during dewater following
cessation of milling operations, one person (Bradley Angel) provided an oral comment expressing
concern for the potential windblown tailings during periods of high winds (see Appendix B, p.
26).
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
The applicant (DUSA) is required, on a yearly basis, to monitor for radon emissions from existing
tailings cells. Applicable EPA regulations are specified in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart W, National
Emissions Standards for Radon Emissions from Operating Mill Tailings, with technical
procedures in Appendix B. These standards are a subset of the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). According to subsection 61.252, Standard, (a) radon-222
emissions to ambient air from an existing uranium mill tailing pile shall not exceed an average of
20 picoCuries per square meter per second (20 pCi/m2-s) for each pile or region (emphasis
added). The term “existing” tailings pile is defined as a cell that was in existence on or before
December 15, 1989 [see 40 CFR 61.251(d)]. Cell 4B does not meet this requirement.
It is also important to note EPA’s intent in 40 CFR 61 Subpart W, wherein the 20 pCi/m2/sec air
quality standard was applied to “existing” tailings cells, and new design, construction, and
operation standards applied to “new” tailings cells (built after December 15, 1989). For the “new”
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 14 of 14
tailings cells, the operator was required to design, construct and operate the cells under one of two
practices:
1) conduct phased tailings disposal in a cell area that is less than 40 acres, and have no more
than two tailings impoundments in operation at any one time (including “existing”
impoundments), or
2) continuous disposal of tailings that are dewatered and immediately disposed of with no
more than 10 acres uncovered at any time, in accordance with the requirements of 40
CFR 192.32(a), as determined by the NRC.
In the case of DUSA, the company has elected to operate Cells 4A and 4B under Option 1, above.
With regard to NESHAPs, Subsection 61.253, Determining Compliance, states that, “Compliance
with the emission standard in this subpart shall be determined annually through the use of Method
115 of Appendix B.” This monitoring is performed by DUSA on (ibid., Section 2.1.2): 1) water
saturated tailings (or beaches), and 2) dry top surface areas.
The results of the annual radon measurements are reviewed and facility compliance status is
determined by the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ). While informal review of this data is
done by DRC staff, the DRC does not have authority to enforce DAQ / NESHAPs requirements.
However, in the event that DAQ determined there to be non-compliance with NESHAPs
requirements, DUSA could pursue more than one alternative to control radon emissions,
including, but not limited to: construction of a temporary cover soil, or the final radon barrier.
Certainly, any radon barrier construction is subject to the DRC regulations, and to the
requirements found in License Condition 9.11 and the approved Reclamation Plan. During such
construction, DRC staff would be involved in construction inspections, and review of any As-
Built or Closure Report.
Historic DUSA radon emission rate data collected from tailings management Cells 2 and 3 at the
White Mesa Facility could be considered representative of expected future radon emission rates
from proposed Cell 4B. The average radon flux measured for the covered Cell 2 area during 2009
was 13.7 pCi/m2 per second. This assumption is reasonable, given the similarity of tailings
materials and operations. The areas (surface size) measured atop Cell 3 will be variable during
tailings management operations as a result of operations and therefore measured radon emission
rates may vary, depending on the time of measurement. Radon emission rates obtained during
2007, 2008, and 2009, have been reported by DUSA for both exposed (“beach”) and soil-covered
tailings materials in “existing” Cell 2 and 3 (at the top of the interim cover soil layer placed over
the tailings). Reported average radon emission rates for the soil-cover areas measured during the
2007 to 2009 period are 13.9, 5.5, and 4.5 pCi/m2 per second, respectively. Average emission
rates reported for the beach areas measured in 2007, 2008, and 2009, are 6.7, 12.2, and 19.1
pCi/m2 per second. The geometric mean radon emission rate for the 2007-2009 monitoring period
was 9.65 pCi/m2 per second for the “soil cover” areas, and 7.01 pCi/m2 per second for the beach
areas (see the annual NESHAPs Radon Flux Measurement Program reports prepared by Tellco
Environmental. All of these DUSA measured concentrations are compliant with the NESHAPs
standard (20 pCi/m2/sec). An example Annual NESHAPs report is the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 2009 Radon Flux Measurement Program White Mesa
Millsite Report, prepared by Tellco Environmental, submitted to DUSA on February 17, 2010
(Tellco Environmental 2010).
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 15 of 15
On the question of radioactive particulates, the site is monitored on a continuous basis at five (5)
monitoring stations around the site. These monitoring stations monitor all emissions released
from the site including the tailings impoundments.
Radioactive particulate monitoring results can be found in Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring
Reports and in the annual NESHAPs Radon Flux Measurement Program reports). Radon
monitoring at the restricted area (RA) boundary was discontinued in 1995, after NRC approval
(see August 29, 2009 DUSA report, p. 5). In lieu of actual radon measurements at the RA
boundary, the NRC allowed DUSA to determine radon concentrations in air with a calculation
method (ibid.). This same approach is also allowed under Part 15 of the Utah Radiation Control
Regulations [see UAC R313-15-302(2)(a)].
It is also worth noting that the direct measurement of the radon flux from uranium tailings is not
required by current guidance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC
requirements are presented in Regulatory Guide 4.14, Revision 1, Radiological Effluent and
Environmental Monitoring at Uranium Mills, April 25, 1980 (NRC 1980) and NUREG-1620
Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II
of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (NRC 2000). The regulatory guide calls for
pre-operational radon flux measurements to establish background flux, but does not require
operational flux measurements in this guide. Instead, measurements are required at the end of the
disposal cell’s operational life, as it is prepared for closure, and after the radon barrier is installed.
PC-07; Off Site Measuring Devices
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.6) stated the following (Appendix A, p. 5):
“2.6 OFF SITE MEASURING DEVICES
The February 12, 2010, letter to Dave Frydenlund, DUSA, from Senes Consultants Ltd.,
states (page 2): ‘Due to the inaccuracy of the radon measurement devices the mill is not
required to sample for environmental radon under its license.
The Application for Cell 4B and the SER fail to provide supportive documentation
regarding various types of radon measuring devices and their supposed “inaccuracy” to
justify the failure to measure environmental radon from Cell 4 B and other radon sources
at the Mill. This would include on- and off-site monitoring of radon.
The SER should include a full justification, with supporting documentation, of the on-
and off-site radionuclide monitoring programs, including monitoring of radon. If DUSA
is not required to sample for environmental radon and other radioactive releases on- and
off-site, the public must know why and have supporting technical bases.”
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
Radon effluent from the White Mesa Mill Site is calculated and not directly measured. This is in
compliance with R313-15-302(2)(a), and was authorized by the NRC. The explanation is
presented in the Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Reports as follows (e.g., see DUSA 2009, p.
5):
“Due to unavailability monitoring equipment to detect the new 10 CFR 20 standard, and
with the approval of the NRC, Radon-222 monitoring at BHV stations was discontinued
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 16 of 16
in 1995. Instead, Denison demonstrates compliance with these limits and the
requirements of R313-15-301 by calculation, authorized by the NRC and as contemplated
by R313-15-302(2)(a)......This calculation is performed by use of the MILDOS code for
estimating environmental radiation doses for uranium recovery operations (Strenge and
Bender 1981) and more recently in 2003 by use of the updated MILDOS AREA code
(Argonne 1998). The analysis under both the MILDOS and MILDOS AREA codes
assumes the Mill to be processing high grade Arizona Strip ores at full capacity, and
calculates the concentrations of radioactive dust and radon at individual receptor
locations around the Mill.”
The MILDOS and MILDOS AREA codes calculate the combined Total Effective Dose
Equivalent (“TEDE”) from all relevant pathways, including both air particulate and radon, at a
number of locations including the nearest residence (the individual likely to receive the highest
dose from the licensed operation), approximately 1.6 miles north of the Mill. These calculations
reveal projected doses to the individual likely to receive the highest dose from the licensed
operations to be well below the 100 mrem regulatory limit in R313-15-301(1)(a) for all pathways,
including air particulate and radon as set out in R313-15-101(4). MILDOS AREA modeling was
recently conducted in support of the Mill’s 2007 License Renewal Application, utilizing the
MILDOS-AREA code (Version 2.20 ), to estimate the dose commitments at various receptor
locations for processing of Colorado Plateau ore (0.25% U3O8 and 1.5% V205) and Arizona Strip
ore (0.637% U3O8). The process rate was assumed to be at full capacity of 730,000 tons per year
(an average of 2,000 tons per day) with an average uranium recovery yield of 94%. That
modeling showed a TEDE of 2 mrem per year at the nearest resident (3 mrem per year at the
nearest potential residence, being the location of BHV-1 at the northern property boundary of the
Mill site), which included the dose from all radionuclide sources, including radon. The modeled
dose from radon itself was therefore a fraction of TEDE and well within regulatory limits.”
The January 1 through June 30, 2009 results can be found in the DUSA Semi-Annual Effluent
Monitoring Report dated August 29, 2009 (DUSA 2009).
PC-08; Effluent Control During Operations
A written comment from Ms. Fields stated the following (Appendix A, p. 5):
"2.7 EFFLUENT CONTROL DURING OPERATIONS (SER, PAGES 59 - 60)
The SER discusses compliance with 10 C.F.R. 40, Appendix A, Criterion 8, with respect
radioactive effluents from the mill and tailings impoundment. Criterion 8 includes the
requirement:
“‘Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct material must be
conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance that the annual dose
equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole body, 75 millirems to the thyroid,
and 25 millirems to any other organ of any member of the public as a result of exposures
to the planned discharge of radioactive materials, radon-220 and its daughters excepted,
to the general environment.'
“The SER fails to discuss how compliance with the above requirement for exposures to
the public will be measured and compliance will be assured with respect the release of
the discharge of radioactive materials from Cell 4B and other sources at the mill during
the operation of the tailings cell.
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 17 of 17
“The SER should explain exactly how the Applicant will demonstrate compliance with
Criterion 8 with respect the emission from Cell 4B.”
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
The cited requirement on radioactive effluents from the mill and tailings impoundment applies to
facilities that produce thorium metal or beneficiate thorium ores, and as a result dispose of
thorium byproduct materials. Because the White Mesa Uranium Mill Facility does not produce
thorium, the cited requirements do not apply. No comparable requirement exists that applies to
uranium milling or uranium byproduct disposal facilities.
PC-09; Communication/Consultation with White Mesa Ute Tribe
One person (Toni Turk) reported orally that the [Blanding] Rotary Club recently received a
detailed presentation of recovery of archaeological knowledge that Denison Mines has funded.
The presentation reported that the database of understanding of the cultures that have lived here
anciently has been significantly expanded and that those artifacts that are recovered according to
archaeological procedure are made available for further research at the Edge of the Cedars
Museum.
One person (Ms. Fields) orally expressed a belief that the failure of the Division of Radiation
Control and the failure of the Utah Historical Society to consult with the White Mesa Ute and the
Ute Mountain tribal governments and the Navajo tribal historic preservation [under Section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act] is unacceptable and that the Division of Radiation
Control must consult with these entities before they approve the proposed license amendment
(see Appendix B, pp. 17-18).
In written comments (Appendix A, p. 2), Ms. Fields asserted that excavation of valuable
archaeological resources on White Mesa has taken place without informing and consulting with
nearby tribal governments and tribal Historic Preservation Officers and without an opportunity
for public comment.
One person (Toni Turk) stated in oral comments that one person who has worked very closely
with the White Mesa Utes “is very computer literate and is able to receive and disperse all
communications that pertain to that community and, to [his] knowledge, [she] does that…” (see
Appendix B, pp. 11-12).
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
DUSA, SHPO, and DRC have addressed the issues involving preservation of archaeological
resources as described in DRC’s response to Topic PC-01, above.
PC-10; Compliance with Other Federal and State Regulations
A written comment from Ms. Fields (Comment 2.8) stated the following (Appendix A, pp. 5-6):
“2.8 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
The SER does not discuss required compliance with other state and federal regulations
prior to the commencement of construction of Cell 4 B. This would include compliance
with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart A. Section 61.07 requires that DUSA
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 18 of 18
submit an application to the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) for Cell 4B as a new 40
C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart W regulated source and receive an approval from the DAQ,
pursuant to Section 61.08. Recently, DUSA was issued a Notice of Violation by the
Environmental Protection Agency for failure to comply with the Subpart A
application/approval process for the Arizona 1 uranium mine. Therefore, the DRC should
remind DUSA of their Part 61 responsibilities. Additionally, DUSA may be required to
amend their air quality permit for the non-radioactive emissions from the uranium mill.
The White Mesa license should contain a condition that states that DUSA must comply
with all applicable federal and state regulations and statutes and a license condition that
states that DUSA cannot commence construction of Cell 4B until DUSA receives the
required approval as a new 40 C.F.R. Subpart W regulated source from the DAQ.”
In oral comments, one person (Bradley Angel) claimed that the State of Utah has an obligation to
comply with Federal requirements related to the preservation of ancient, potentially ceremonial
and/or culturally significant site since it is making consideration under federal rules. He sated that
the State is delegated authority from the federal government to administer this regulatory program
(see Appendix B, pp. 9-10).
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
The regulations cited deal with the EPA NESHAPs program. With respect to air quality issues,
the DRC operates within the bounds prescribed by the Utah Radiation Control Act (Utah Code
Annotated [UCA] Title 19 Chapter 3) and rules promulgated thereunder. The DRC is not
authorized to enforce issues that fall into the domain of the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ).
Rather DAQ bears this responsibility.
Nonetheless, in a submittal dated April 13, 2010, DUSA made application to DAQ for an
amendment to their existing Air Quality Order for the construction of Cell 4B. For convenience
of the public, a link has been created on the following DRC webpage to direct a reader to this
application: http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/Uranium_Mills/index.htm.
With regard to Mr. Angel’s oral comments about cultural resources, please refer to the DRC
response to Topic PC-01, above.
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 19 of 19
Section 2. Oral Only Comments from Public Hearing Held May 4, 2010 in Blanding, Utah
At the public hearing held in Blanding, Utah on May 4, 2010 several persons made oral
comments. These commenters and the topics of their comments are summarized in Table 1. A
copy of the transcript from the meeting is found in Appendix B, below. Rather than restating each
oral comment verbatim, the DRC has summarized these comments with a concise statement that
draws all similar comments together.
PC-11; Notice of Public Hearing
Three persons (Bradley Angel, Toni Turk, and Joe Lyman) commented about the process by
which DRC provides notification of public hearing.
One person (Bradley Angel) complained that unless affirmatively signing up for the DRCs
ListServ web page, a person does not received notices. He also asserted that many White Basin
Ute community members do not have regular access to the internet and asserted that the people
most affected by the proposed licensing action are not informed (see Appendix B, p. 8).
Another person (Joe Lyman) stated the he “. . . stumbled into finding out this hearing was
happening . . . .” and he had sent out an e-mail to a few people, hoping they would attend (see
Appendix B, p. 19).
As described above (under PC-09, Communication/Consultation with White Mesa Ute Tribe),
Toni Turk offered a different opinion, stating that at least one person has worked very closely
with the White Mesa Utes and is very computer literate, as well as able to receive and disperse all
communications that pertain to that community.
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
DRC followed applicable administrative requirements contained in Utah Administrative Code
Rule 313-17-2 providing public notice of the Public Hearing held in Blanding, Utah on May 4,
2010. The Public Notice was published in the Deseret Morning News and the Salt Lake Tribune
(April 7, 2010 Original Notice; April 9, 2010 Addendum Notice), and the Blue Mountain
Panorama, a Blanding paper (April 7, 2010 Original Notice; April 14, 2010 Addendum Notice).
PC-12; Release of Yellowcake from Stacks
One person (Bradley Angel) asked when was the last time DRC assessed the release of
yellowcake (U3O8) from stacks at the White Mesa mill and when were the people of White Mesa
last informed about such releases (see Appendix B, p. 8).
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
DUSA conducts periodic monitoring of stack emissions at the White Mesa Facility in accordance
with guidance provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14, Rev. 1 (NRC 1980). Emissions from air
emission sources (stacks) that involve processes that include effluent control equipment with
subsequent emission (i.e., the north yellowcake dryer and yellow cake dryer baghouse) are the
subject of quarterly and/or semi-annual monitoring by DUSA. Stack air samples are analyzed for
natural uranium, radium 226, thorium 230, and lead 210.
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 20 of 20
Stack monitoring results are reported in the Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Reports. These
reports are available to the public upon request under GRAMA. A form for this purpose is
provided on the DRC website at: http://www.radiationcontrol.utah.gov/forms.htm.
PC-13; Social Justice
One person (Bradley Angel) believed that the state is violating the United States Civil Rights Act,
Title VI because “[a]s a recipient of federal funding, you are prohibited from taking any actions
that would have discriminatory or disproportionate impact on low income people of color, like
the White Mesa Ute people…” (see Appendix B, p. 10).
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
The Executive Secretary disagrees with the commenter’s opinion that DRC’s actions are
discriminatory.
PC-14; Rules Should Be Changed
One person (Chris Webb) reported his experience during eight years serving as a member of the
Utah State Drinking Water Board (see Appendix B, p. 28-29). He told that people frequently
argue that the rules need to change and need to be tougher because undesirable things (what ifs)
might occur. This commenter stated, however, that the proposal being considered today should be
judged on the rules that are in place today and encouraged the state to judge proposal by today's
rules, not on hopes for future changes in the rules.
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
Comment noted. No response required.
PC-15; Economic Benefit and Employment Provided by Mill Operations
Two persons mentioned the large economic effect the White Mesa uranium mill has on the
surrounding area. One person (Toni Turk) stated that the uranium mill is a major employer of the
White Mesa Ute community and works in collaboration with Denison Mines for that employment
(see Appendix B, p. 11). Mr. Turk stated that San Juan County is the most impoverished county in
the state of Utah and somewhere between the 8th and the 15th most impoverished county in the
United States (see Appendix B, p. 13). The person expressed the opinion that not supporting one
of the main economic engines of the local economy that supports a large portion of our
indigenous peoples and provides their livelihoods would be shortsighted. The person asserted
that opposing this proposal would fall short of being concerned for the life, liberty, pursuit of
happiness of the population that reside here.
Another person (Joe Lyman) stated that employment provided by the White Mesa mill is critical
(see Appendix B, p. 20). This person asserted that the mill provides employment to the very
people that some say should be protected from the mill. He added that not having that
employment could be devastating to the entire area.
Division Response: Non-substantive Comments.
Comments noted. No response required.
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 21 of 21
PC-16; DUSA is Responsible and Professional
One commenter (Toni Turk) noted that there is a place for regulatory oversight, that is, to ensure
that development processes are appropriate and timely and that the necessary adjustments are
made as they are judged to be needed (see Appendix B, pp. 12-13). This person also expressed the
opinion that Denison Mines is good for the local community and area, that White Mesa
management are being good neighbors, and that they are being good contributors to the local
economy.
One person (Chris Webb, Blanding City Manager) stated that he had have been associated with
the mill most of his life (see Appendix B, p. 13). He reported watching the mill propose different
actions to promote viability of the milling operations. He also reported that proposals have
raised questions in the minds not only of Blanding citizens but of other people in the region and
that people get emotionally involved, arguing their love for the area and the surroundings and
expressing concern abut what any proposal might do. The person expressed his belief that
emotion should not be the only factor but that sciences also be considered. Mr. Webb stated his
experience in dealing with the mill over many years, that they are a very good steward, partner,
and community member (see Appendix B, p. 15).
One person (Joe Lyman) reported his impression that by and large White Mesa management has
been responsible with what they've done at the mill site (see Appendix B, p. 19). This person
reported seeing opposition to activity at the mill that has not been well founded This person
expressed his belief that he represented many people who, if they were able to come and speak,
would support the mill (see Appendix B, pp. 19-21).
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
Comments noted. No responses required.
PC-17; Balance in Preserving Archaeological Resources
One person (Bradley Angel) expressed concern and opposition to the proposed construction
because, it was argued, with the blessing of the State of Utah, the company is destroying
ceremonial, potential ceremonial, and well-documented culturally significant sites (see Appendix
B, pp. 9-10). It was stated that the desecration and absolute destruction of culturally significant
ancient sites could involve burials (not just some ancient artifact for a museum). These are part
of the living culture of the people here. Agency decisions and actions would help desecrate these
sites, continue to devastate the culture of the native peoples of this area, and we believe violate
the Civil Rights Act.
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
Please refer to the DRC’s response to Topic PC-01 above.
PC-18; Health and Safety Are Important
One person (Chris Webb) commented that, as a community, Blanding had approached the NRC
asking for factual information about health and threats to life and safety threats (see Appendix B,
pp. 14-15). He stated that health and life safety of our citizens is more important than any
economic development, although, economic development is an important part of a community, if
it can be done right. He expressed amazement at learning what was being done and all the
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 22 of 22
regulations in place to ensure public safety. The person reported that, as the NRC explained the
science and regulations, he became supportive of the [licensing and regulatory] processes and
became confident that those processes can continue if the regulations were followed.
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
Comment noted. No response required.
PC-19; Confidence in State and Federal Regulators
One person (Bradley Angel) asserted that DRC and other state agencies consistently fail to
assess the impacts of actual hazards that are documented, as well as potential future hazards to
the health and environment and cultural resources of this area (see Appendix B, p. 8-9).
One commenter (Toni Turk) noted that there is a place for regulatory oversight, that is, to ensure
that development processes are appropriate and timely and that the necessary adjustments are
made as they are judged to be needed (see Appendix B, pp. 12-13).
Division Response: Non-substantive Comment.
DUSA is required to conduct environmental monitoring of air, surface water, groundwater
resources and mill and site-related effluent emissions and submit results of such monitoring
activities to the DRC on an ongoing, regular basis. These reports are available to the public upon
request under GRAMA and are also available at the DRC office in Salt Lake City, Utah. The
DRC conducts public hearings, such as the May 4, 2010 Public Hearing in Blanding, to apprise
affected communities of planned activities at the White Mesa Mill Facility and to acquire public
input and encourage information exchange. Through reviews associated with License and
Groundwater Discharge Permit modifications such as this one, the DRC evaluates the potential
impacts of site activities on human health and the environment, including cultural resources.
Please also refer to DRC’s responses in this Public Participation Summary to other public
comments received.
PC-20; Release of Radioactive Materials to the Environment
One person(Bradley Angel) asked whether the DRC is aware of any time that radioactive
materials associated with this facility ended up not contained, such as by the highway (see
Appendix B, p. 26).
Another person (Chris Webb) assured that the monitoring is happening and that the state ensures
the monitoring takes place (see Appendix B, p. 29).
Division Response: Substantive Comment.
Prior to the DRC becoming an Agreement State in August, 2004, a radiologic survey of the entry
road to the mill and adjoining soils (borrow pit areas) was performed by DRC staff.. These
informal surveys found some soil activity at levels above background concentration. These
findings were communicated to DUSA management, and shortly thereafter, DUSA excavated the
soil in question and placed it on the ore storage pad (inside the restricted area) for processing.
Annual soil sampling and analysis is performed during the third quarter of each year at several
locations both inside and outside the restricted area. The result of this work is provided to DRC in
semi-annual effluent monitoring reports by DUSA.
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 23 of 23
Section 3. Sundry Changes to Permit and License
Selected, minor changes have been made to the Radioactive Materials License and the
Groundwater Discharge Permit after the Public Comment period ended. These changes are not
related to comments received during the Public Comment period, and are not substantive in
nature, but instead represent a simple wording change to correct a typographical error or slight
changes to reporting or compliance date or deadline to account for changes in the timetables for
documents to be submitted by DUSA for DRC review. These changes include the following:
1. License Condition 9.6 – The abbreviation “SOPs” for “standard operating procedures”
was added to the first sentence of this License Condition as follows: “Standard operating
procedures (SOPs) shall be established and followed for all operational process activities
involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored.”
2. License Condition 9.11 – The deadline for submittal of the revised Reclamation Plan
(Rev. 3.2) has been changed from June 1, 2010 to June 30, 2010.
3. License Condition 11.7.E(3) – In order to correct a typographical error, wording has been
changed to the following. “Review of the data and an analysis shall be performed and
certified by a Utah Licensed Professional Engineer and submitted ..."
4. License Condition 12.3 – The reporting deadline for the ATER (Annual Technical
Evaluation Report) has been changed from September 1st of each year to November 15th
of each year.
5. Permit Part I.E.10(a) – Minor typographical correction (removal of extra comma).
Public Participation Summary
June 14, 2010
Page 24 of 24
References Cited
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA) 2009. “State of Utah Radioactive Material License No.
UT1900479 White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah Semi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Report for
Period January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2009”, company compliance report, August 29, 2009,
169 pp.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA) 2010. Letter from Jo Ann Tischler of DUSA to Dane L.
Finerfrock, Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Radiation Control
Division, “License Condition Number 9.7 – Cell 4B Archeological Clearance”, June 8, 2010.
NRC (U.S. Regulatory Commission) 2002. Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term
Stabilization. Final Report. NUREG-1623. September 2002. Washington, DC.
NRC 1980. Regulatory Guide 4.14, Rev. 1. Radiological Effluent and Environmental Monitoring
at Uranium Mills. April 25, 1980.
Tellco Environmental 2010. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 2009
Radon Flux Measurement Program, White Mesa Millsite, prepared for Denison Mines (USA)
Corp. by Tellco Environmental, Grand Junction, CO. Submitted to DUSA February 17, 2010.

APPENDIX A
Written Comments Provided to Utah Division of Radiation Control

(See Attached Letter from Ms. Sarah M. Fields dated May 10, 2010)
Uranium Watch
P. O. Box 344
Moab, Utah 84532
435-21O-O166

Via electronic mail

May 10, 2010

Mr. Dane Finerfrock, Director
Utah Division of Environmental Quality
Division of Radiation Control
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850

RE: Comments on White Mesa Uranium Mill: Modification to the Groundwater
Discharge Permit No. UGW37004 and Amendment 4 to Radioactive Materials License
No. UT1900479.

Dear Mr. Finerfrock:

The proposed License Amendment 4 to Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479 is
for the construction of a new tailings impoundment at the White Mesa Uranium Mill,
owned and operated by Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (DUSA, or Applicant).
Below are comments on the license amendment and the Safety Evaluation Report:
Review of License Amendment Request and Environmental Report for Cell 4B.

1. WHITE MESA ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1.1. The construction of Cell 4B will impact a number of Archeological Resources at the
Mill site and in the White Mesa Archaeological District. White Mesa is in an area
adjacent to and in the vicinity of extensive tribal holdings and an area rich in
archaeological resources, which have been designated as significant and deserving of
preservation. Many Archaeological Resources on White Mesa have been found eligible
for the National Register, including resources that will be or have been impacted by
activities associated with the proposed license amendment.

The Licensee and the Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) have not complied with
the requirements of License Condition 9.7, which states, in pertinent part:

All disturbances associated with the proposed development will be
completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological
Resources Protection Act (as amended) and its implementing regulations.

Utah Division of Radiation Control 2
May 10, 2010
Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act includes compliance with
Section 106. The Safety Evaluation Report (SER) fails to discuss how the Applicant
fulfilled its responsibilities under the “National Historic Preservation Act (as amended)
and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations.”

A contractor to the licensee has commenced excavation of the Archaeological Resources
at the Mill, with approval of the DRC. However, excavation has commenced without the
any Section 106 consultation. The excavation of the valuable Archeological Resource on
White Mesa has taken place without informing and consulting with nearby tribal
governments and tribal Historic Preservation Officers and without an opportunity for
public comment.

Further, the Licensee commenced activities that have impacts on the Archaeological
Resources and are the subject of License Condition 9.7 requirements prior to this
comment period and prior to the issuance of the license amendment and final
environmental evaluation.

All activities that impact Archaeological Resources at the Mill should cease until DRC
initiates and completes a Section 106 consultation process, including consultation with
affected tribal governments or appropriate tribal representatives. The DRC should not
issue the license amendment without consulting with the Ute, Navajo, and other regional
tribal Historic Preservation Officers regarding the destruction of irreplaceable historic
resources.

Further, the SER must include a discussion of how the Applicant has complied with the
provisions of License Condition 9.7.

1.2. LICENSE CONDITION 9.7.

The DRC is not proposing any changes to License Condition 9.7, which pertains to the
cultural resources at the Mill. License Condition 9.7 refers to a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOU) between the Utah State Historical Preservation Officer (SHAPO), the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), and Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. (a former Mill owner/licensee). The MOU was
ratified on August 20, 1979, and amended on May 3, 1983. The MOU should be
amended or replaced, since it does not reflect the current situation at the Mill.

2. SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT (SER)

2.1. LICENSEE REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES (SER, page 21).

The DRC should make the effluent monitoring reports, Semi-Annual Effluent Reports
and Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports and any additional effluent monitoring
information submitted by the licensee pursuant to License Condition 11.2 available on
Utah Division of Radiation Control 3
May 10, 2010
the DRC website in a timely manner.

2.3. LONG TERM IMPACTS

UCA R313-24-3D: Environmental Analysis – Long Term Impacts, Safety Evaluation,
states that, pursuant to UAC R313-24-3, a major license amendment should include
"consideration of the long-term impacts." The SER discussion addresses long-term
impacts. However, the SER and the UCA section do not define long-term and leave the
issue of long-term containment of the mill tailings and their associated emissions to be
addressed in a future Reclamation Plan. Under current federal regulation (40 C.F.R. Sec.
192.32(B)(1)(i)1), consideration of the technical requirements for long-term containment
of the tailings is limited to "one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and,
in any case, for at least 200 years." The SER (page 30) gives states that Cell 4B has been
designed to provide "reasonable assurance that radiological hazards will be suitably
controlled for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case for at
lease 200 years."

So, we have "reasonable assurance" to the extent that suitable control is "reasonably
achievable." What does this vague language mean over the long-term? The public, the
licensee, and the DRC do not really know.

The tailings will remain on White Mesa in perpetuity, that is, forever. Therefore impacts
from 200 to 1,000 years are short-term impacts, not long-term impacts, given the time
that the tailings will continue to release radon and will be a radioactive and hazardous
material requiring physical and regulatory control for as long as there are individuals and
entities capable of exercising that control.

1 40 CFR Sec. 192.32(B)(1)(i).
(1) Disposal areas shall each comply with the closure performance standard in Sec. 264.111 of
this chapter with respect to nonradiological hazards and shall be designed to provide reasonable
assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) Be effective for one thousand years, to the
extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and, (ii) Limit releases of
radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials to the atmosphere so as to not exceed an average \2\
release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s).

\2\ This average shall apply to the entire surface of each disposal area over periods of at least one
year, but short compared to 100 years. Radon will come from both uranium byproduct materials
and from covering materials. Radon emissions from covering materials should be estimated as
part of developing a closure plan for each site. The standard, however, applies only to emissions
from uranium byproduct materials to the atmosphere.

Utah Division of Radiation Control 4
May 10, 2010
Eventually the liners will break down, eventually the tailings cover will erode, and
eventually the tailings and the associated radioactive and non-radioactive contaminants
will disperse into the air, water, and soils.

Any evaluation of the long-term impacts of the proposed licensing action must address
the potential impacts of the dispersion of the tailings from natural forces over the
thousands and millions of years that the tailings will remain in place.

2.4. PERMANENT ISOLATION WITHOUT ONGOING MAINTENANCE (SER, page
24)

10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 1, states that tailings should be disposed of in a
manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site.

There is no doubt that over the years, active maintenance will be required to preserve
conditions of the site. The Department of Energy (DOE) has already discovered that
active maintenance is required at some of the uranium mill sites that have been reclaimed
and that DOE have responsibility for, due to erosion. The DOE is actively looking at
different cover and tailings design systems because of the problems they have
encountered at these sites.

No matter what the design is, eventually the cover, tailings, and White Mesa itself, will
erode, as demonstrated by the geological landscape in the region. Any claim to continued
long-term isolation of the tailings--without active maintenance--via a man-made design is
not supportable.

The DRC should consult with the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and take
into consideration recent studies and data regarding the effectiveness of tailings system
designs and materials to update the final cover design and materials requirements in order
to achieve the maximum long-term isolation of the tailings with minimal maintenance.
The DRC should not mislead the public and licensee into thinking that isolation of the
tailings for 1,000 and for the long-term future can take place without active maintenance.

2.5. IMPACTS OF DEWATERING OF THE TAILINGS CELL (SER, pages 25 – 26)

The discussion of the permanent isolation without ongoing maintenance (10 CFR Part 40,
Appendix A, Criterion 1) and the Reclamation Plan refer to the dewatering of the tailings
cell after the operational life of the cell. However, there is minimal discussion about two
of the primary problems encountered at uranium mills once operation has ceased and cell
dewatering commences. Once dewatering commences, the result is an increase in the
release of radon from the cell and an increase in windblown tailings. The SER mentions
the possibility of the use of "platform fill," but provides little information and analysis of
the use of fill or other means to minimize the emission of radon, hazardous and
radioactive particulates to the atmosphere and the environment.

Utah Division of Radiation Control 5
May 10, 2010
The SER should discuss in more detail the impacts of cell dewatering on the emission of
radon and other gases and hazardous and radioactive particulates and how these impacts
will be mitigated during the estimated 5.5 years between the cessation of cell operation
and the placement of an interim and final cover.

2.6. OFF SITE MEASURING DEVICES

The February 12, 2010, letter to Dave Frydenlund, DUSA, from Senes Consultants Ltd.,
states (page 2): Due to the inaccuracy of the radon measurement devices the mill is not
required to sample for environmental radon under its license."

The Application for Cell 4B and the SER fail to provide supportive documentation
regarding various types of radon measuring devices and their supposed “inaccuracy” to
justify the failure to measure environmental radon from Cell 4 B and other radon sources
at the Mill. This would include on- and off-site monitoring of radon.

The SER should include a full justification, with supporting documentation, of the on-
and off-site radionuclide monitoring programs, including monitoring of radon. If DUSA
is not required to sample for environmental radon and other radioactive releases on- and
off-site, the public must know why and have supporting technical bases.

2.7. EFFLUENT CONTROL DURING OPERATIONS (SER, pages 59 - 60)

The SER discusses compliance with 10 C.F.R. 40, Appendix A, Criterion 8, with respect
radioactive effluents from the mill and tailings impoundment. Criterion 8 includes the
requirement:

Milling operations producing or involving thorium byproduct material
must be conducted in such a manner as to provide reasonable assurance
that the annual dose equivalent does not exceed 25 millirems to the whole
body, 75 millirems to the thyroid, and 25 millirems to any other organ of
any member of the public as a result of exposures to the planned discharge
of radioactive materials, radon-220 and its daughters excepted, to the
general environment.

The SER fails to discuss how compliance with the above requirement for exposures to the
public will be measured and compliance will be assured with respect the release of the
discharge of radioactive materials from Cell 4B and other sources at the mill during the
operation of the tailings cell.

The SER should explain exactly how the Applicant will demonstrate compliance with
Criterion 8 with respect the emission from Cell 4B.

2.8. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS

Utah Division of Radiation Control 6
May 10, 2010
The SER does not discuss required compliance with other state and federal regulations
prior to the commencement of construction of Cell 4 B. This would include compliance
with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart A. Section 61.07 requires that
DUSA submit an application to the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ) for Cell 4B as a
new 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart W regulated source and receive an approval from the
DAQ, pursuant to Section 61.08. Recently, DUSA was issued a Notice of Violation by
the Environmental Protection Agency for failure to comply with the Subpart A
application/approval process for the Arizona 1 uranium mine. Therefore, the DRC
should remind DUSA of their Part 61 responsibilities. Additionally, DUSA may be
required to amend their air quality permit for the non-radioactive emissions from the
uranium mill.

The White Mesa license should contain a condition that states that DUSA must comply
with all applicable federal and state regulations and statutes and a license condition that
states that DUSA cannot commence construction of Cell 4B until DUSA receives the
required approval as a new 40 C.F.R. Subpart W regulated source from the DAQ.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sarah M. Fields
Program Director
Uranium Watch

And on behalf of:

Glen Canyon Group
Sierra Club
P.O Box 622
Moab, Utah 84532

Harold Shepherd
Executive Director
Red Rock Forests
P.O. Box 298
Moab, Utah 84532
435/259-5640

APPENDIX B
Transcript of Public Hearing Held May 4, 2010 at Blanding, Utah

DENISON MINES (USA) CORPORATION
WHITE MESA URANIUM MILL
GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT MODIFICATION
PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Held at the Blanding Arts and Events Center
715 West 200 South
Blanding, Utah
Reported by Vicky McDaniel, CSR, RMR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
2
FOR THE UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL:
Phil GobleDepartment of Environmental Quality
168 North 1950 WestSalt Lake City, Utah 84144
Tel: [phone]Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
3
P R O C E E D I N G S
MR. GOBLE: Okay, it's seven o'clock and
I'll go ahead and get started.
My name is Phil Goble. I'm with the
Division of Radiation Control, and today I have
Mr. David Rupp assisting me. We're here to take
public comment regarding the proposed changes for the
White Mesa Mill permit and also license amendment.
The way this will work today is, I'll go
ahead and make a brief statement, then I will open
the time over to you to speak.
The way we've set it up, and you saw our
public notice, is because we have two different
documents we're talking about today, the license and
also the permit. We're going to set it up so we'll
talk about the license first and then we'll talk
about the permit. So from seven to eight we'll talk
about the license, eight to nine we'll talk about the
permit. There may be some people who only want to
make comment on one of them, so we'll give them an
opportunity to let me know now, and if they would
like to leave, they can leave, so they don't have to
stay for the whole time. But if you want to stay for
the whole time, that's fine.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
4
The way this is going to work is, I'll
give each and every person a chance to talk. You'll
have five minutes to speak. Everyone gets an
opportunity to speak. We have seven people to talk
right now. And then at the end of your five minutes,
what we'll do is -- actually, after four minutes
we'll say "one minute" to give you a warning, and
then we'll say "time." And then we'll need you to
stop your public comment, and the next person gets
the opportunity.
At the end of the public comment, after
everyone has had a chance, those who still have more
to say will get the opportunity to speak again. So
we want to hear everyone if they have anything to
say.
Also, the public comment period actually
doesn't close till this next Monday, on May the 10th.
So if you don't say everything you'd like to say and
you forget about it, you still have the opportunity
to make public comment. And you can submit that to
me either by e-mail, which is [e-mail], or you
can also mail that to us. Our address can be found
on our website, which is radiationcontrol.utah.gov.
So what I'd like to do now is, I'm going
to look at the list, and I want to determine who is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
5
going to speak just on the license, who on the
permit, or who's going to speak on both. So it looks
like the first person here -- well, he actually says
he's unsure if he wants to make a comment or not, is
Steve Hancock. Do you want to make a comment?
MR. HANCOCK: I'm still not sure.
MR. GOBLE: Okay, we'll put you at the
end. The next person I have here is Bradley Angel.
MR. ANGEL: I'll just make one comment
addressing both.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. That sounds fine. So
you'll do both.
Okay. Next we have Toni Turk. Do you
want to do just the license or the permit, or both?
Or are you just making a general statement?
MR. TURK: Just a general statement.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. All right. And
Mr. Chris Webb?
MR. WEBB: One comment.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. And Ms. Fields?
MS. FIELDS: On both.
MR. GOBLE: Both. And Mr. Lyman?
MR. LYMAN: Both.
MR. GOBLE: Both.
Okay. Well, what I'll do first is, I'll
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
6
just tell you, I guess, what some of the changes are
for the permit and the license, and then we'll go
ahead and open up the public comment. And it looks
like the first person to speak will be Mr. Angel.
I'll let you know when that time has come.
So since we're going to be talking about
the license first, now, the big thing here is Denison
Mines have proposed to make a new tailings cell,
Tailings Cell 4B. That is the reason for having this
public meeting today. Some of the changes or
additions to the license include the submittal of an
updated Reclamation Plan and specifications for
approval to include Tailings Cell 4B, changes in
tailings cell wastewater freeboard requirements, the
submittal for approval for written Standard Operating
Procedures, and improvements for content for the
Annual Technical Evaluation Report.
And then regarding the permit, we have an
addition of a definition for engineering design
standards for the new Tailings Cell 4B, definition of
BAT performance standards for Tailings Cell 4B,
installation of at least three new monitoring wells
hydraulically downgradient of Tailings Cell 4B, the
submittal of an updated BAT monitoring plan for cell
4B, the submittal of an additional hydrogeologic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
7
investigation report of nearby seeps and Ruin Spring,
and the submittal of an engineering as-built report
regarding Cell 4B.
So, do we have anyone else who's making
public comment? We have one more? Can you bring
that to me, please.
MR. RUPP: Sure. Actually, not.
Actually, it's a question. Maybe. It's a maybe.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. Mr. Taylor Lyman, you
have a question mark here. Are you wanting to make
comment?
MR. T. LYMAN: We'll see.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. Well, we can wait until
the end and I can ask you.
All right. Now, like I said, the first
person who will make public comment will be
Mr. Bradley Angel. And like I said, what we'll do is
we'll give you five minutes, you'll hear a one-minute
warning, and then we'll tell you "time." Then you
also have the opportunity to give your comment again.
So let's turn this over to Mr. Angel.
MR. ANGEL: Thanks. Good evening. Again,
my name is Bradley Angel, and my address is P.O. Box
1078, Moab. And I'm here as director of an
organization called Green Action for Health and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
8
Environmental Justice and on behalf of our
constituents in both Grand and San Juan County
including White Basin Ute community.
A few comments. One is that I've been
coming to hearings on this mill for a number of years
now, and I know it's not how your agency does this,
but it's a problem and it's a flaw that I didn't
receive notice. And unless you affirmatively sign up
on your website on the ListServ, you don't get these
notices.
And that might be something I can do, but
for people who are actually most directly affected by
decisions the state makes and is making around this
facility, it's a big problem. Because, for example,
a lot of folks at the White Basin Ute community are
low income and do not have regular access to
Internet. So the way the rules are set up
systemically makes it a reality that most folks who
are most affected have no idea this meeting is even
happening, and I think that's a real problem. And
one of the reasons it's such a big problem is that
your agency and other state agencies consistently
fail to assess the impacts of actual ones that are
documented as well as potential in the future on the
health and environment and cultural resources of this
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
9
area.
So, for example, you know, when was the
last time you all assessed the yellowcake coming out
of the stacks at the uranium mill? When is the last
time the people of White Mesa, the actual tribal
members, were informed about that? I don't know if
that ever happened.
For the discussion and issues before us
today, in particular we are very concerned and
opposed to this new construction that's proposed
because, once again, with the blessing of the State
of Utah, the company is destroying ceremonial,
potential ceremonial but certainly culturally
significant sites that are well documented, that,
just as you at the state, the people in this audience
would not want or churches and temples desecrated,
this once again with the state blessings is what's
happening.
We think not only is that unethical and
immoral, we also think it's illegal. And it doesn't
matter from our perspective if it's happening on
private land, because it's happening courtesy of
state permits.
The State of Utah has an obligation. You
are making consideration under federal rules. You
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
10
have delegated authority from the federal government
to run this program. And I would venture to guess
that the Division of Radiation Control receives some
other additional types of benefits, maybe financial
benefits, such as grant program or other support from
the federal government.
If any of that is true, which I think all
of it probably is, then the state once again is
violating the United States Civil Rights Act, Title
VI. And I've raised this before, and it's completely
ignored by the state.
As a recipient of federal funding, you are
prohibited from taking any actions that would have
discriminatory or disproportionate impact on low
income people of color, like the White Mesa Ute
people. It's illegal.
MR. RUPP: One minute.
MR. ANGEL: And the desecration and
absolute destruction of ancient sites that could
involve burials that are certainly culturally
significant, not just some ancient artifact for a
museum; they're part of the living culture of the
people here. And your agency, by the decisions
you've made in the past and by the one I believe
you're planning on approving, which you should not,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
11
would not only help desecrate these sites, continue
to devastate the culture of the native peoples of
this area, and we believe violate the Civil Rights
Act. So we really want you to take a look at that
before any decisions are made. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Mr. Angel, did you want to
reserve any time for later?
MR. ANGEL: No. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: All right. Our next person
will be a Mr. Toni Turk.
MR. TURK: Thank you. I appreciate the
opportunity to address this body. I'd like to
introduce myself. I'm the mayor of Blanding, and I
would like to respond to some of Mr. Angel's
comments. Since he is from Moab, he may not be, you
know, as informed about the communications and the
processes that occur here as someone that is local.
I would point out that White Mesa, Inc. is
a major employer of the White Mesa Ute community and
works in collaboration with Denison Mines for that
employment.
The other part to that is that Cleo
Bradford, who has worked very closely with the White
Mesa Utes, is very computer literate and is able to
receive and disperse all communications that pertain
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
12
to that community and, to my knowledge, does that.
In fact, they have a Ute meeting house just close to
this facility.
The other is, at Rotary Club recently we
had a detailed presentation of the archeological
recovery of knowledge that Denison Mines has funded,
and that has added significantly to the database of
understanding of the cultures that have lived here
anciently. And all of those artifacts that are
recovered and recovered according to archeological
procedure are made available for further research at
the Edge of the Cedars Museum.
Now, I would like to address the plans for
this expansion of the new cell and express confidence
in the science that the White Mesa management,
Denison Mines, their oversight that they have
exercised. If there was something that was going to
be going on ten miles from this community that was a
threat to this community, Blanding City would be the
first in line to be concerned. But we do have
confidence that they are professional and that good
science is going forward. And there is a place for
regulatory oversight, and that is to ensure that
those processes are appropriate and timely and that
the necessary adjustments are made as adjustments are
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
13
seen to be needed.
I would like to point out that San Juan
County is the most impoverished county in the state
of Utah. By some reckoning, it's somewhere between
the 8th and the 15th most impoverished county in the
United States. And to not support one of the main
economic engines that support this economy and
support a large portion of our indigenous peoples and
their livelihoods I think would be shortsighted. It
certainly would fall short of being concerned for the
life, liberty, pursuit of happiness of our population
that reside here.
And I would express the opinion that
Denison Mines is good for our community, it's good
for our area, and we have every confidence that they
are being good neighbors and that they are being good
contributors to our economy.
Those are my thoughts.
MR. GOBLE: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Turk. Our next person that wanted to speak is
Mr. Chris Webb.
MR. WEBB: Hello. My name is Chris Webb.
I am the Blanding city manager.
I have been associated with the mill most
of my life growing up here in Blanding. In fact, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
14
was involved in the construction of the mill, though
at that time was not aware at what point I might get
involved or be involved with the mill and their
operations there.
As I started my job as the Blanding City
manager 14 years ago, the mill operations have been
up and down. They've been able to propose different
actions out there again to continue to see the
further viability of the operations there.
As those things have happened, it's raised
questions in the minds not only of Blanding citizens
but of other people around in the region. And a lot
of people get very, very emotionally involved in
these things, saying, listen, we love the area, we
love the surroundings, and we're worried, what's this
going to do to us. And we can't get too caught up
emotionally. We have to rely on the sciences and we
have to get involved.
For those reasons, as a community we
approached the NRC and said, okay, tell us what's
real. We need to know if there is a health and life
safety threat here. We need to know if there is a
problem. Because again, as our mayor has just stated
previously, we'll be the first to step in line.
Because the health and life safety of our citizens is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
15
more important than any economic development,
obviously; although, again, that's an important part
of a community if it can be done right.
So meeting with them and having the
sciences explained to us and what's happening and how
those protections are in place and what needs to
happen, it was amazing. It was absolutely amazing to
find out the things that have to be done and all the
regulations in place to ensure public safety.
The State of Utah, Blanding City, San Juan
County, none of us want to see anybody hurt or
damaged. And what we have found out in our
experience over the many, many years now in dealing
with the mill is that they are a very good steward
and a very good partner and a very good community
member. And if those regulations are followed to the
T, all the way down to what kind of pencil you can
use in making your reports and signing your names and
those kind of things, it's just amazing to me all the
regulations that you have to follow through.
And as those things, the sciences and
stuff were explained to us, we became very supportive
of the processes and became very confident that they
can continue those processes if those regulations
that are set up by the scientists that run our nation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
16
and run our state. We appreciate that. Again,
emotions set aside, we support what's happening there
and want to speak in favor of that.
MR. GOBLE: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Webb. The next person that wanted to speak is
Ms. Fields.
MS. FIELDS: My name is Sarah Fields, and
I represent an organization named Uranium Watch in
Moab, Utah. And I thank you for the opportunity to
speak.
I agree with the previous speakers that
the regulations and the implementation of the
regulations by the licensee are very important. I
will be submitting some written comments, but I also
have a few oral comments.
First regards the archeological resources
at the mill. Currently archeological excavation is
taking place from either -- a few over ten
archeological sites are being excavated. Most of the
archeological sites on White Mesa are ancient pit
houses.
When the site was constructed in the late
1970's and early 1980's, there was extensive
archeological excavation. Artifacts were taken.
Some of those ended up at the University of Utah;
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
17
some of those ended up at Edge of the Cedars. And
yet in the past 30 years, none of those artifacts
have been exhibited at Edge of the Cedars, and there
have been no additional studies and there have been
no presentations related to that extensive
archeological excavation.
Although artifacts will be taken,
essentially these historic, to me, incredibly
beautiful and significant sites that could have been
the basis for a national monument here in San Juan
County, which would probably over the years have
brought more economic benefit to this area, these
sites will also be destroyed. They will be destroyed
by the construction of the mill.
So the essence of these sites will be
destruction. And as the mill expands, more sites
will be destroyed, because White Mesa of itself is an
archeological district, and I would think that the
community would have more of an interest in
preserving those sites.
I've talked with the NRC recently about
whether Section 106 consultation was required. I
have not yet gotten a response from them. They're
looking into this. But I think the failure of the
Division of Radiation Control and the failure of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
18
Utah Historical Society to consult with the White
Mesa Ute and the Ute Mountain tribal governments and
the Navajo tribal historic preservation is
unacceptable, and I feel the Division of Radiation
Control must consult with these entities before they
approve this license amendment.
Also, license condition 9.7 needs to be
stricken from the license. That license condition
pertains to cultural resources at the mill and refers
to a memorandum of agreement between the Utah State
historical preservation officer --
MR. RUPP: One minute.
MS. FIELDS: -- the advisory council in
historic preservation, the NRC and energy is nuclear.
This MOU is totally out of date. It's from 1979,
amended in 1983. It doesn't refer to the current
conditions of the license, so that license condition
should be reviewed and should be brought up to date.
Let's see. I'll just go on what I have
time for. Oh. Also, the Division of Radiation
Control should make the effluent monitoring reports
and any additional effluent monitoring information
submitted by the licensee pursuant to license
condition 11.2 available on the DRC website. You've
done a really good job to make all the documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
19
relating to this license amendment request, the cell
4A --
MR. RUPP: Time's up.
MS. FIELDS: -- the license available, and
I commend you for that. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Thank you, Ms. Fields. Would
you like to reserve some time after everyone else has
had the opportunity to speak?
MS. FIELDS: Yes.
MR. GOBLE: Okay. We'll go ahead and do
that for you. The next who wanted to speak was
Mr. Joe Lyman.
MR. J. LYMAN: I kind of stumbled into
finding out this meeting was happening, and I sent
out an e-mail to a few people, hoping they could get
here. And I'll address a thought to that a little
bit later.
But my impression of what's happened with
the mill over the years that it's been there, I
worked there for a period of time when I was younger,
is that by and large they've been very responsible
with what they've done. I think that Mr. Webb's
comments addressed that point.
I have seen at times, some of the
opposition to activity of the mill have not been well
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
20
founded. Maybe some of them have, maybe some of them
haven't; but I know there's been some of the
opposition expressed that turned out to not be
particularly well founded. So I can't address what
anybody is saying today. It's just been historical
observation.
I think the employment that they provide
is critical. As Mayor Turk illustrated, we're in an
extremely depressed economy, and a lot of the
employment that the mill provides is to the very
people that some say we should be protecting from the
mill. And it could be devastating to the entire area
to not have that employment and support that, which I
do.
I'm pretty sure we could probably have a
roomful of people here in support of the mill, but
they, like me, are businessmen who are trying to
provide for themselves and provide opportunities for
others to provide for their families. We're just too
busy. We're trying to make this country run, and
frankly, we're too busy trying to do that to spend a
lot of time and energy coming to these kinds of
meetings.
And on that note, I've still got work to
do tonight, so I've got to go. But I've got to think
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
21
I would represent 50 people if they only had the time
and the ability to become aware of these things to
come and speak and support the mill. I think they
would be here. So I support what they're trying to
do. Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Lyman.
So the next person, we have a Mr. Steve
Hancock. You had unsure. Would you like to make
a --
MR. HANCOCK: I'm good for now.
MR. GOBLE: All right, Steve. And another
person we have as kind of a maybe was Taylor Lyman.
Would you like to --
MR. T. LYMAN: No.
MR. GOBLE: No. Okay, Ms. Fields. And
presently we don't have anyone else on the list, so
go ahead and speak till you're done, I guess.
MS. FIELDS: I won't take too much time.
MR. GOBLE: Okay.
MS. FIELDS: In going over the safety
evaluation report, and I, too, have other employment
and did not have a lot of time to go over all of
this; but when you talk about long-term impacts of
the mill, it states that the SERs, which is the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
22
Safety Evaluation Report, which is the environmental
analysis that you're required to do for a major
license amendment under the Atomic Energy Act; the
Atomic Energy Act has specific requirements for
agreement states, and the state of Utah is an
agreement state under the NRC's regulation under the
Atomic Energy Act where the federal government has
given the state of Utah the responsibility for
regulating uranium mills in Utah.
But when you talk about long-term impacts,
you don't really define what long-term impact means.
The SER states that Cell 4B has been designed to
provide reasonable assurance that radiological
hazards will be suitably controlled for 1,000 years
to the extent reasonably achievable, and in any case,
for at least 200 years. The federal regulations
limit the technical assessment for -- the technical
requirements for long-term containment of the
tailings to that 200-year to 1,000-year period.
However, we all know that those tailings
are going to be there in perpetuity, forever. So 200
to 1,000 years isn't a very long time period when you
think that they are going to be there forever and
ever.
So eventually the liners will break down,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
23
the tailings cover will erode, and eventually the
tailings and associated radioactive and
nonradioactive contaminants will disperse into the
air, water, and soil. It's not a matter of if, it's
a matter of when. Most -- you, me, the people in
this room are not going to be here then. But there
still will be, hopefully, a population in this area.
And I think when the Division of Radiation
Control looks at the long-term impacts that they
really have to at least honestly assess what's going
to happen to those tailings 10,000 years from now --
you know, 2,000, 10,000, 100,000 years from now.
Also, in your SER you talk about isolation
without ongoing maintenance. And I think the
Division of Radiation Control in conjunction with the
NRC and in conjunction with the Department of Energy,
which now has responsibility, that's Department of
Energy now has the responsibility for long-term
maintenance for all the old type, what they call
Title I uranium mills, and for any uranium mills,
other uranium mills that have closed.
So they're finding out what the issues are
even over the short period of time of 50 years from
the closure of some of these sites. So they've been
discovering what some of the long-term maintenance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
24
issues are, whether it's contamination of the
groundwater. And in the west there are billions of
gallons of groundwater that has been contaminated by
uranium mills.
So they're looking at groundwater
contamination, they're looking at the erosion, and
even now the Department of Energy is looking into
different types of caps for mill tailings, because I
think they're finding that some of the previously
designed caps that have been put in place are really
not as adequate as they had predicted.
So I think the Division of Radiation
Control with the NRC and the DOE should take a harder
look at what really -- what is a realistic long-term
maintenance scenario for White Mesa and for other
uranium mill tailing sites, whether in Utah or in
other states, and take advantage of the new data and
the new information that is being generated so that
when this tailing cell and the other tailing cell at
White Mesa are complete, have gone through operation,
they get covered, the plan, the long-term reclamation
plan is adequate.
Thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Thank you, Ms. Fields. Is
there anyone else who didn't sign up who would like
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
25
to speak now?
MR. TURK: Is it possible for additional
comment?
MR. GOBLE: Absolutely, Mr. Turk. You can
come up, absolutely.
MR. TURK: The point that I would like to
bring forward at this time is, following Katrina,
that disaster on the Gulf Coast, which was
devastating to our country, the Associated Press
conducted a study to determine what city in the
United States would be the safest city from natural
disaster, and they came to the conclusion that
Blanding would be that city. And that was an AP
publication.
I think that really speaks to the
substructure of the land that we're in. We're not in
an earthquake prone area. We don't have significant
natural disturbance in this area. It would seem that
if you're going to have a location to contain the
materials that need to be contained when we're, you
know, talking in terms of many years into the future,
it would seem that this would be a place that would
certainly rise to the top as a location that would
have a long-term, secure dynamic coming from nature
itself.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
26
So with that in mind, I believe that
this -- you know, with science, with nature, we have
the potential to create what we need to create in
order to produce the energy that this nation is going
to require.
There's been a lot of debate about nuclear
energy, and that's not what this meeting's about; but
on the green side of the equation, nuclear energy is
free from a lot of the downsides of other energy
forms. So I just want to add that part.
MR. GOBLE: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Turk.
Let's see. Also, Mr. Angel, do you have
more? And then we'll follow up with Mr. Webb.
MR. ANGEL: Bradley Angel. You know,
science that allows radioactive materials to be
unprotected and unwatched and have no provisions for
it for thousands of years after Denison Mines is gone
and we're all gone is a big problem. And as we all
know, for example, in this area the wind blows pretty
fiercely, and leaving radioactive materials blowing.
I would also ask you if the state agency is aware of
any time, for example, that radioactive materials
associated with this facility ended up not contained,
such as by the highway.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
27
And again, you know, issues of what comes
out in the stack, particularly yellowcake. When was
the last time? I think that's really important,
because we're all in a need for good economy, for
health as well. And I think that is more important
than that. But, you know, people also have a right
in our democracy to know what they're being exposed
to, and I don't think that information's been fully
disclosed; and I know for a fact in talking to a
number of tribal members over the years, they did not
know, for example, that yellowcake was coming out of
that stack. And that's unacceptable.
In terms of an economic boom, I think if
you look at, in one short sentence, there's an
economic boom in Moab right now resulting in the
cleanup of the radioactive pile of tailings from the
old Atlas Mill. But that's not a good situation.
It's costing taxpayers millions and millions and
millions of dollars. So I think we need to be
protective of health.
Also that, whatever your perspective, if
you're for this facility, against it, don't know, I
again want to say that it's not just enough that
Mr. Bradford at White Mesa, Inc. knew about this. We
know a number of tribal members, at least, I can't
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
28
speak for all, had no idea this was going on tonight.
And that's why I think the state has to do a better
job and change the rules to ensure that in a
democracy people have the right to exercise their
democrat rights to participate in decisions that
affect their lives, and that includes knowing about
meetings like this. But thank you.
MR. GOBLE: Thank you, Mr. Angel.
Mr. Webb, you wanted to say more?
MR. WEBB: I did. Just a couple points,
hearing these additional comments.
There's a lot of things, being in a city
position and having to go through this process
myself. In addition to a city manager, I'm also the
environmental certifying officer for the city, state
recognized. We've got to go through these processes
all of the time.
And there's a lot of these existing laws
that we'd like to see changed one way or the other.
It's been addressed here tonight. I think the state
ought to change the rules. They ought to do this,
they ought to do that. And some of those rules will
probably go through a process of change.
I also sat on the State Division of
Drinking Water board for eight years, went through
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
29
all kinds of processes and public processes in these
rules. And there's people that come in all the time
saying, these rules need to change; we've got to get
tougher, because what if, what if, what if.
Well, some of those "what ifs," as we
discover more and the sciences change and they're
saying that rules need to be changed, great, change
them. But these applications before you today aren't
about those what ifs. And yeah, and this a good
forum to encourage the state to change the rules.
But these applications ought to be judged today on
today's rules and the rules that are today in place.
And if those rules at some point require additional
monitoring, great.
But I can tell you that the monitoring is
happening, that the state ensures the monitoring's
happening, and that the rules are being followed as
they are in place. And so we encourage the state to
make sure that when they judge these applications for
processes that they're judging them based on today's
rules, not on hopes for changes in future rules, but
those rules are changed today.
The other point that I wanted to make is
with regard to archaeology. We understand the
important heritage that comes to the citizens of our
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
30
community in these archeological sites. The city of
Blanding is over 40 percent Native American, so we
understand how important those sites are, and we
spend as a city in doing our projects hundreds of
thousands of dollars in collecting data, in analyzing
that data so that we can find out and make sure that
we're not letting some valuable resource go or some
valuable data go.
But as we go to an area like our big
reservoir, when we went out there and put in out Big
Fork Reservoir, there are so many sites in our area
that nothing would happen if we didn't let any site
go. So sometimes sites have to be mitigated. We
collect all the data we can, and then a site is
covered, or could even be lost after that process
happens.
So we understand that process is
happening, that these applications -- through these
applications that that process is happening, that the
mill has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in
collecting data so that they too could move forward
with their projects. And we would encourage that in
this case, that these applications be approved.
MR. GOBLE: Thank you, Mr. Webb.
Okay. If there's no one else that wanted
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
31
to speak, we don't have anyone else that signed up.
We're scheduled until 9 o'clock. So what we'll do
right now is, I'm going to go ahead and call a
recess. We'll call a recess for -- let's see. Right
now the time is -- it's 7:42. Let's call a recess
until 8:15 and see if anyone shows up.
For those that are here, you guys are
welcome to stay. You might have more comment in the
future. And we're going to be here for I guess the
next half hour to see if anyone else wants to show up
and make comments. So I'm going to go ahead and call
a recess right now, and we'll take pretty much a
half-hour break.
(Recess from 7:42 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.)
MR. GOBLE: The time is now 8:15. We'll
go ahead and open back up the meeting. It looks like
no one else has signed up to make public comment. So
do any of you gentlemen who are here want to make
comment? Okay.
I just want to let you guys know that
public comment can be received up to 5 o'clock on
Monday, May 10th. And like I said, you can either
e-mail that to me at [e-mail], or you can go
on our website and you can find our address and mail
it to us. And so long as it has the postmarked date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
32
of that date, May 10th, we'll accept it.
I forgot to thank Vicky here. The person
who was helping us today is Vicky McDaniel. I forgot
to introduce her earlier today, so I wanted to do
that now.
Since we don't have anyone else to make
public comment, I'm going to go ahead and call this
meeting ended. So this meeting is now adjourned.
Thank you for attending, and when we have one in the
future, we'd like your presence again. So thank you
very much.
(Meeting adjourned at 8:16 p.m.)
* * *
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CitiCourt, LLC
801.532.3441
33
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF UTAH )) ss.
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE )
I, VICKY McDANIEL, Registered Merit Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
Utah, do hereby certify:
That on May 4, 2010, the foregoing proceedings were reported by me in stenotype and
thereafter transcribed, and that a full, true, and correct transcription of said proceedings is set
forth in the preceding pages.
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this 9th day of May, 2010.

VICKY McDANIEL, CSR, RMRNotary Public
Residing in Salt Lake County

APPENDIX C
Revised Radioactive Materials License No. UT 1900479

DRC-04

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE

Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Title 19, Chapter 3 and the Radiation Control Rules, Utah Administrative
Code R313, and in reliance on statements and representations heretofore made by the licensee
designated below, a license is hereby issued authorizing such licensee to transfer, receive, possess and
use the radioactive material designated below; and to use such radioactive material for the purpose(s)
and at the place(s) designated below. This licensee is subject to all applicable rules, and orders now or
hereafter in effect and to any conditions specified below.
*********************************************************************************
LICENSEE ) 3. License Number UT1900479
) Amendment # 4
1. Name Denison Mines
(USA)
Corp.
) ************************************
) 4. Expiration Date
2. Address 6425 Highway 191 ) March 31, 2007 (under timely renewal)
P.O. Box 809 ) *************************************
Blanding, UT 84511 ) 5. License Category 2-b
)
********************************************************************************
6. Radioactive material
(element and mass number)
7. Chemical and/or
physical form
8. Maximum quantity licensee
may possess at any one time

Natural Uranium Any Unlimited
********************************************************************************

SECTION 9: ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS

9.1 The authorized place of use shall be the licensee’s White Mesa uranium milling facility, located
in San Juan County, Utah.

9.2 All written notices and reports to the Executive Secretary required under this license, with the
exception of incident and event notifications under R313-15-1202 and R313-19-50 requiring
telephone notification, shall be addressed to the Executive Secretary, Utah Radiation Control
Board, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West, P.O. Box 144850,
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850.

Incident and event notifications that require telephone notification shall be made to the
Executive Secretary at [phone] during normal business hours or after hours to the DEQ
Duty Officer at [phone].

9.3 The licensee shall conduct operations in accordance with statements, representations, and
conditions contained in the license renewal application submitted by letter to the NRC dated
DRC-04
Page 2 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

August 23, 1991, as revised by submittals to the NRC dated January 13, 1992 and April 7, 1992,
November 22, 1994, July 27, 1995. December 13, 1996, and December 31, 1996, and January
30, 1997, which are hereby incorporated by reference, and for the Standby Trust Agreement, as
amended, except where superseded by license conditions below.

Whenever the word “will” is used in the above referenced documents, it shall denote a
requirement.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 2]

9.4 A. The licensee may, without prior Executive Secretary-approval, and subject to the
conditions specified in Part B of this condition:

(1) Make changes in the facility or process, as presented in the application.
(2) Make changes in the procedures presented in the application.
(3) Conduct tests or experiments not presented in the application.

B. The licensee shall file an application for an amendment to the license, unless the
following conditions are satisfied.

(1) The change, test, or experiment does not conflict with any requirement
specifically stated in this license, or impair the licensee’s ability to meet all
applicable regulations.
(2) There is no degradation in the essential safety or environmental commitments in
the license application or provided by the approved reclamation plan.
(3) The change, test, or experiment is consistent with the conclusions of actions
analyzed and selected in the Environmental Assessment dated February 1997.

C. The licensee's determinations concerning Part B of this condition shall be made by a
“Safety and Environmental Review Panel (SERP).” The SERP shall consist of a
minimum of three individuals. One member of the SERP shall have expertise in
management and shall be responsible for managerial and financial approval changes;
one member shall have expertise in operations and/or construction and shall have
responsibility for implementing any operational changes; and, one member shall be the
corporate radiation safety officer (CRSO) or equivalent, with the responsibility of
assuring changes conform to radiation safety and environmental requirements.
Additional members may be included in the SERP as appropriate, to address technical
aspects such as health physics, groundwater hydrology, surface-water hydrology,
specific earth sciences, and other technical disciplines. Temporary members or
permanent members, other than the three above-specified individuals, may be
consultants.
DRC-04
Page 3 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

D. The licensee shall maintain records of any changes made pursuant to this condition until
license termination. These records shall include written safety and environmental
evaluations, made by the SERP, that provide the basis for determining that changes are
in compliance with the requirements referred to in Part B of this condition. The licensee
shall furnish, in an annual report to the Executive Secretary, a description of such
changes, tests, or experiments, including a summary of the safety and environmental
evaluation of each. In addition, the licensee shall annually submit to the Executive
Secretary changed pages to the Operations Plan and Reclamation Plan of the approved
license application to reflect changes made under this condition. Annual reports shall
address the previous calendar year and be submitted no later than March 31 each year.

The licensee’s SERP shall function in accordance with the standard operating
procedures submitted by letter to the NRC dated June 10, 1997.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 3] [Applicable UDRC Amendment 3]

9.5 The licensee shall at all times maintain a financial surety, approved by the Executive Secretary,
consistent with UAC R313-24-4 (10CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10, as incorporated by
reference), that is adequate to cover the estimated costs, accomplished by a third party, for
decommissioning and decontamination of the mill and mill site, reclamation of any tailings or
waste disposal areas, groundwater restoration as warranted, and the long-term surveillance fee.
The Licensee is prohibited from use and/or operation of any tailings disposal cell, or related new
permanent fixture or facility not already accounted for by the currently approved surety, without
prior submittal and Executive Secretary approval of written evidence of adequate financial
surety. Within 60 calendar days of Executive Secretary approval of a revised
reclamation/decommissioning plan, the licensee shall submit written evidence of an adequate
surety regarding the newly approved plan.

Annual updates to the surety amount, required by UAC R313-24-4 (10 CFR 40, Appendix A,
Criteria 9 and 10, as incorporated by reference), shall be submitted for Executive Secretary
approval by March 4 of each year. Within 30 calendar days of Executive Secretary approval of
an annual update of surety cost estimates, the licensee shall submit written evidence of adequate
surety for Executive Secretary approval.

Along with each proposed revision or annual update, the licensee shall submit supporting
documentation showing a breakdown of the costs and the basis for the cost estimates with
adjustments for inflation, maintenance of a minimum 15 percent contingency fee, changes in
engineering plans, activities performed and any other conditions affecting estimated costs for
site closure. The basis for the cost estimate is the current Executive Secretary-approved
reclamation/decommissioning plan or Executive Secretary-approved revisions to the plan and
DRC-04
Page 4 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

guidance contained in NUREG-1620, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation
Plan for Mill Tailings Sites under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1978.”

The currently approved surety instrument, a Performance Bond issued by National Union
Fire Insurance Company in favor of the Executive Secretary, and the associated Standby Trust
Agreement, shall be continuously maintained by the Licensee in an amount not less than the
amount currently approved by the Executive Secretary pursuant to the requirements of UAC
R313-24-4 (10 CFR 40, Appendix A, Criteria 9 and 10 as incorporated by reference).
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 2, 3, 5, 13, 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25]
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 1][Applicable UDRC Amendment 3]

9.6 Standard operating procedures shall be established and followed for all operational process
activities involving radioactive materials that are handled, processed, or stored. SOPs for
operational activities shall enumerate pertinent radiation safety practices to be followed.
Additionally, written procedures shall be established for non-operational activities to include in-
plant and environmental monitoring, bioassay analyses, and instrument calibrations. An up-to-
date copy of each written procedure shall be kept in the mill area to which it applies.

All written procedures for both operational and non-operational activities shall be reviewed and
approved in writing by the radiation safety officer (RSO) before implementation and whenever a
change in procedure is proposed to ensure that proper radiation protection principles are being
applied. In addition, the RSO shall perform a documented review of all existing operating
procedures at least annually.

9.7 As per the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) negotiated by the Utah State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the NRC
and Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc. (EFN) and ratified on August 20, 1979 and as amended on May
3, 1983 and substantially as implemented in NRC License SUA-1358.

Before engaging in any activity not previously assessed by the Executive Secretary, the licensee
shall administer a cultural resource inventory. All disturbances associated with the proposed
development will be completed in compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
amended) and its implementing regulations, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act
(as amended) and its implementing regulations.

In order to ensure that no unapproved disturbance of cultural resources occurs, any work
resulting in the discovery of previously unknown cultural artifacts shall cease. The artifacts shall
be inventoried and evaluated in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (as
DRC-04
Page 5 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

amended), and no disturbance shall occur until the licensee has received authorization from the
Executive Secretary to proceed.

The licensee shall avoid by project design, where feasible, the archaeological sites designated
“contributing” in the report submitted by letter to the NRC dated July 28, 1988. When it is not
feasible to avoid a site designated “contributing” in the report, the licensee shall institute a data
recovery program for that site based on the research design submitted by letter from C. E. Baker
of Energy Fuels Nuclear to Mr. Melvin T. Smith, Utah State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), dated April 13, 1981.

The licensee shall recover through archaeological excavation all “contributing” sites listed in the
report which are located in or within 100 feet of borrow areas, stockpile areas, construction
areas, or the perimeter of the reclaimed tailings impoundment. Data recovery fieldwork at each
site meeting these criteria shall be completed prior to the start of any project related disturbance
within 100 feet of the site, but analysis and report preparation need not be complete.

Additionally, the licensee shall conduct such testing as is required to enable the Executive
Secretary to determine if those sites designated as “Undetermined” in the report and located
within 100 feet of present or known future construction areas are of such significance to warrant
their redesignation as “contributing.” In all cases, such testing shall be completed before any
aspect of the undertaking affects a site.

Archaeological contractors shall be approved in writing by the Utah SHPO. The Utah SHPO
will approve an archaeological contractor who meets the minimum standards of the State of
Utah as the principal investigator.

9.8 The licensee is hereby authorized to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium waste
tailings and other uranium byproduct waste generated by the licensee's milling operations
authorized by this license. Mill tailings shall not be transferred from the site without specific
prior approval of the Executive Secretary in the form of a license amendment. The licensee shall
maintain a permanent record of all transfers made under the provisions of this condition.

9.9 The licensee is hereby exempted from the requirements of R313-15-902(5) for areas within the
mill, provided that all entrances to the mill are conspicuously posted in accordance with R313-
15-902(5) and with the words, “Any area within this mill may contain radioactive material”.

9.10 Release of equipment or packages from the restricted area shall be in accordance with the NRC
“Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior to Release for Unrestricted
Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, Source, or Special Nuclear Material,” dated May
DRC-04
Page 6 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

1987, or suitable alternative procedures approved by the Executive Secretary prior to any such
release.

9.11 Updated Reclamation Plan and Specifications - the licensee shall complete and submit an
updated Reclamation Plan and Specifications for the White Mesa Mill Facility, for Executive
Secretary approval on or before June 30, 2010. The plan and specifications shall include
information identified in this condition and information that is adequate for determining
financial surety requirements for the White Mesa Mill with all tailings management cells,
including Cells 4A and 4B, and any new features or facilities that are constructed in conjunction
with operation of Cells 4A and 4B. Said Reclamation Plan and specifications shall be approved
by the Executive Secretary before disposal of any tailings or wastewater in Cell 4B. The updated
reclamation plan shall revise the information contained in the Reclamation Plan Revision 3.0
submitted to the NRC on July 17, 2000, and an update to Rev 3.0 of the Reclamation Plan that
was prepared by the Licensee July 25, 2008, and approved on August 4, 2008 (now referred to
as Rev. 3.1). After revision of Rev. 3.1, the updated Reclamation Plan shall be referred to as
Rev. 3.2, and shall contain the following information:

A. Information pertaining to the design and use of Cells 4A and 4B for tailings
management/disposal, including information on the design of the final top cap(s), and
design of the final cap side slopes including rock sizing and fill depth, and the estimated
quantities of materials required for final cover construction and final erosion protection,
adequate for assessing the needs of the associated financial surety based on currently
approved Cover design extended to include Cell 4B;

B. Estimated costs for constructing the final cover system and for installing final
stormwater control systems for the tailings management cells, including Cells 4A and
4B, following completion of tailings management operations;

C. Information on reclamation activities required for reclaiming any new permanent
fixtures or facilities that have been installed or are contemplated to be constructed in
conjunction with construction and operation of Cells 4A and 4B, and the financial surety
needs associated therewith; and

D. Information demonstrating the adequacy of the long-term care fund with respect to
the White Mesa Mill Facility that includes consideration of Cells 4A and 4B, the
final cover and drainage systems associated with these cells and any other new
structure or facility installed or contemplated to be constructed in conjunction with
the construction and operation of these two cells.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]

DRC-04
Page 7 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

SECTION 10: OPERATIONAL CONTROLS, LIMITS, AND RESTRICTIONS

10.1 A. The mill production rate shall not exceed 4380 tons of yellowcake per year.

B. The licensee may not dispose of any material on site that is not “byproduct material,” as
that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 2014(e)(2) (Atomic Energy Act of 1953,
Section 11(e)(2)).
C. The licensee may not receive or process any alternate feed material without first
applying for and obtaining approval of a license amendment. For any such proposal, the
licensee shall demonstrate that it will comply with Condition 10.1(B). Any such
demonstration shall include:

(1) Demonstration of compliance with the NRC Regulatory Summary 2000-23
Recent Changes to Uranium Recovery Policy, November 30, 2000; and
(2) Demonstration of compliance with the November 22, 1999 Protocol for
Determining Whether Alternate Feed Materials are Listed Hazardous Wastes, as
approved by the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste on December 7,
1999.

D. Maximum quantities of feed material stored on the mill site, including alternate feed
materials or other ores, shall not exceed the total material storage quantity found in the
currently approved mill surety pursuant to License Condition 9.5, without prior approval
of the Executive Secretary.

E. The licensee may not receive any alternate feed materials or other ores if those materials
would cause the facility to exceed the tailings cell disposal capacity established by the
currently approved reclamation plan and/or the annual surety report required by License
Conditions 9.11, and 9.5, respectively, without prior approval of the Executive
Secretary.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 2]

10.2 All liquid effluents from mill process buildings, with the exception of sanitary wastes, shall be
returned to the mill circuit or discharged to the tailings impoundment.

10.3 Freeboard limits, stormwater and wastewater management for the tailings cells shall be
determined as follows:

A. The Freeboard limit for Cell 1 shall be set annually in accordance with the procedures
set out in Section 3.0 to Appendix E of the previously approved NRC license
DRC-04
Page 8 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

application, including the January 10, 1990 Drainage Report. Discharge of any surface
water or wastewater from Cell 1 is expressly prohibited.

B. The freeboard limit for Cells 3, 4A, and 4B shall be recalculated annually in accordance
with the procedures approved by the Executive Secretary Said calculations for freeboard
limits shall be submitted as part of the Annual Technical Evaluation Report (ATER), as
described in Condition 12.3 below.

C. The discharge of any surface water, stormwater or wastewater from Cells 3, 4A, and 4B
shall only be through an Executive Secretary authorized spillway structure.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 16] [Applicable UDRC Amendment 3] [Applicable
UDRC Amendment: 4]

10.4 Disposal of material and equipment generated at the mill site shall be conducted as described in
the licensee's submittals to the NRC dated December 12, 1994 and May 23, 1995, with the
following addition:

A. The maximum lift thickness for materials placed over tailings shall be less than 4-feet
thick. Subsequent lifts shall be less than 2-feet thick. Each lift shall be compacted by
tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Cat D-6, at least 4 times prior to placement of
subsequent lifts.

10.5 In accordance with the licensee's submittal to the NRC dated May 20, 1993, the licensee is
hereby authorized to dispose of byproduct material generated at licensed in-situ leach (ISL)
facilities, subject to the following conditions:

A. Disposal of ISL waste is limited to 5000 cubic yards from a single source.

B. All ISL contaminated equipment shall be dismantled, crushed, or sectioned to minimize
void spaces. Barrels containing waste other than soil or sludges shall be emptied into the
disposal area and the barrels crushed. Barrels containing soil or sludges shall be verified
by the Licensee to be full prior to disposal. Barrels not completely full shall be filled
with tailings or soil prior to disposal.

C. All ISL waste shall be buried in Cell No. 3 unless prior written approval is obtained
from the Executive Secretary for alternate burial locations.

D. All disposal activities shall be documented and records thereof maintained on-site. The
documentation shall include descriptions of the ISL waste and the disposal locations, as
well as all actions required by this License condition.
DRC-04
Page 9 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

E. The licensee shall also submit for Executive Secretary approval a revised written
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for ISL disposal on or before December 1, 2010.
The revised SOP shall describe the documentation required for ISL disposal, which shall
include but is not limited to the following;

(1) The material disposal area must be located on a tailings beach area of the
disposal cell or on an area of the cell that is underlain by tailings sands;
(2) The elevation of the material disposal area will not exceed the plane or grade of
the elevations of the uppermost flexible membrane liner of the tailings cell;
(3) Such ISL byproduct material will be segregated from any mill material and
equipment disposed of in the cells pursuant to License Condition 10.4, and the
ISL byproduct material from each in-situ leach source will be segregated from
the byproduct material from all other in-situ leach sources;
(4) Absence of void space inside barrels disposed, including physical verification
before disposal; and
(5) Detailed engineering drawings which demonstrate:

a. There are at least 4 feet of tailings sands under the bottom of each
disposal area; and
b. The bottom of each disposal area is located at least 12 feet from the sides
or dikes of the tailings cell.

F. The Licensee shall notify the Executive Secretary in writing at least 7 calendar days
prior to the proposed scheduled date for disposal of any byproduct material generated at
ISL facilities in the tailings cells.

An annual summary of the amounts of waste disposed of from off-site ISL generators
shall be sent to the Executive Secretary on or before November 1 of each calendar year.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]

10.6 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source materials from the Allied Signal
Corporation’s Metropolis, Illinois, facility in accordance with the amendment request to the
NRC dated June 15, 1993.

10.7 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Allied Signal, Inc. of
Metropolis, Illinois, in accordance with the amendment request to the NRC dated September 20,
1996, and amended by letters to the NRC dated October 30, 1996 and November 11, 1996.

DRC-04
Page 10 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

10.8 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material, in accordance with the
amendment request to the NRC dated March 5, 1997.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 1]

10.9 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cabot Performance
Materials’ facility near Boyertown, Pennsylvania, in accordance with the amendment request to
the NRC dated April 3, 1997, as amended by submittals to the NRC dated May 19, 1997 and
August 6, 1997.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 4]

10.10 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 2 Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near Tonawanda, New York,
in accordance with the amendment request to the NRC dated May 8, 1998, as amended by the
submittals to the NRC dated May 27, 1998, June 3, 1998, and June 11, 1998.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 6]

10.11 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Cameco Corporation’s
Blind River and Port Hope facilities, located in Ontario, Canada, in accordance with the
amendment request to the NRC dated June 4, 1998, and by the submittals to the NRC dated
September 14, 1998, September 16, 1998, September 25, 1998, October 7, 1998, and October 8,
1998.

However, the licensee is not authorized to receive or process from these facilities, the crushed
carbon anodes identified in these submittals, either as a separate material or mixed in with
material already approved for receipt or processing.

10.12 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Ashland 1 and
Seaway Area D Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, located near
Tonowanda, New York, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated October 15, 1998, as amended by letters
to the NRC dated November 23, 1998, November 24, 1998, December 23, 1998, January 11,
1999, January 27, 1999, and February 1, 1999.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 10]

10.13 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the St. Louis Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated March
2, 1999, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated June 21, 1999; June 29, 1999
(2); and July 8, 1999. Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the St. Louis FUSRAP site,
the licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings
DRC-04
Page 11 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

produced from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a
SERP approved internal procedure.
[Applicable NRC Amendments: 13, 14]

10.14 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Linde Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the NRC amendment request dated March 16,
2000, and as amended and supplemented by submittals dated April 26, 2000, May 15, 2000,
June 16, 2000, June 19, 2000, and June 23, 2000.

Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved
internal procedure. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to
submit an amendment request for Executive Secretary review and approval.

Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Linde FUSRAP site, the licensee must require
that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous
waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive
Material Profile Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 14]

10.15 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the W.R. Grace site
located in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in accordance with statements, representations, and
commitments contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated April 12, 2000, as
amended and supplemented by submittals dated April 24, 2000, April 26, 2000, May 5, 2000,
November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000.

Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the SERP-approved
standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design changes to the cells
or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request for Executive
Secretary review and approval.

Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the W.R. Grace site, the licensee must require that
the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste as
defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material
Profile Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 17]
DRC-04
Page 12 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

10.16 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Heritage Minerals
Incorporated site, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments contained in
the amendment request to the NRC dated July 5, 2000, and as supplemented by submittals dated
November 16, 2000, and December 18, 2000.

Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals Incorporated site, the
licensee must make a determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings
produced from the processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on the
SERP-approved standard operating procedure for determination of tailings capacity. Design
changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to submit an amendment request
for Executive Secretary review and approval.

Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Heritage Minerals Incorporated site, the
licensee must require that the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain
listed hazardous waste as defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
per a Radioactive Material Profile Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 18]

10.17 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Molycorp site located
in Mountain Pass, California, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment request to the NRC dated December 19, 2000, and supplemental
information in letters dated January 29, 2001, February 2, 2001, March 20, 2001, August 15,
2001, October 17, 2001, and November 16, 2001.

Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Molycorp site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved
internal procedure. Design changes to the cells or the reclamation plan require the licensee to
submit an amendment request for Executive Secretary review and approval.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 20]

10.18 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from the Maywood site located
in Maywood, New Jersey, in accordance with statements, representations, and commitments
contained in the amendment requests to the NRC dated June 15, 2001, June 22, 2001, August 3,
2001, and supplemented by letters dated November 19, 2001, December 6, 2001, December 10,
2001, March 11, 2002, and July 1, 2002.

Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must make a
determination that adequate tailings space is available for the tailings produced from the
DRC-04
Page 13 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

processing of this material. This determination shall be made based on a SERP-approved
internal procedure. If such determination requires the licensee to make design changes to the
cells or the reclamation plan, the licensee shall submit an amendment request for Executive
Secretary review and approval.

Prior to the licensee receiving materials from the Maywood site, the licensee must require that
the generator of the material certify that the material does not contain listed hazardous waste as
defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) per a Radioactive Material
Profile Record.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 22]

10.19 The licensee is authorized to receive and process source material from Ponds 2 and 3 of the
FMRI’s Muskogee Facility located in Muskogee, Okalahoma, in accordance with statements,
representations, and commitments contained in the amendment requests and submittals to the
Executive Secretary dated March 7, 2005, June 22, 2005, and April 28, 2006.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 2]

SECTION 11: MONITORING, RECORDING, AND BOOKKEEPING REQUIREMENTS

11.1 The results of sampling, analyses, surveys and monitoring, the results of calibration of
equipment, reports on audits and inspections, all meetings and training courses required by this
license and any subsequent reviews, investigations, and corrective actions, shall be documented.
Unless otherwise specified in the State of Utah regulations all such documentation shall be
maintained for a period of at least five (5) years.

11.2 The licensee shall implement the effluent and environmental monitoring program specified in
Section 5.5 of the renewal application, as amended by the submittal to the NRC dated June 8,
1995, and as revised with the following modifications or additions:

A. Stack sampling shall include a determination of flow rate.

B. Surface water samples shall also be analyzed semiannually for total and dissolved U-nat,
Ra-226, and Th-230, with the exception of the Westwater Creek, which shall be
sampled annually for water or sediments and analyzed as above. A sediment sample
shall not be taken in place of a water sample unless a water sample was not available.

C. Groundwater sampling shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements in the
Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit No UGW370004.

DRC-04
Page 14 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

D. With the exception of groundwater sampling the licensee shall utilize lower limits of
detection in accordance with Section 5 of the NRC Regulatory Guide 4.14, as amended,
for analysis of effluent and environmental samples.

E. The inspections performed semiannually of the critical orifice assembly committed to in
the submittal to the NRC dated March 15, 1986, shall be documented. The critical
orifice assembly shall be calibrated at least every 2 years against a positive displacement
Roots meter to obtain the required calibration curve.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 5][Applicable UDRC Amendment 3]

11.3 The licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for disposal
Cells 4A and 4B in accordance with requirements of the Ground Water Discharge Permit. The
licensee shall implement a monitoring program of the leak detection systems for disposal Cells
1, 2, and 3 as follows:

A. The licensee shall measure and record the “depth to fluid” in each of the tailings
disposal cell standpipes on a weekly basis. If sufficient fluid is present in the leak
detection system (LDS) of any cell, the licensee shall pump fluid from the LDS, to the
extent reasonably possible, and record the volume of fluid recovered. Any fluid pumped
from an LDS shall be returned to a disposal cell.

If fluid is pumped from an LDS, the licensee shall calculate the flow rate by dividing the
recorded volume of fluid recovered by the elapsed time since fluid was last pumped or
increases in the LDS fluid levels were recorded, whichever is the more recent. The
licensee shall document the results of this calculation.

B. Upon the initial pumping of fluid from an LDS, the licensee shall collect a fluid sample
and analyze the fluid for pH and the parameters listed in paragraph A of this license
condition. The licensee shall determine whether the LDS fluid originated from the
disposal cell by ascertaining if the collected fluid contains elevated levels of the
constituents listed in paragraph A of this license condition or has a pH level less than
5.0. If either elevated constituent levels or a pH less than 5.0 is observed, the licensee
shall assume that the disposal cell is the origin of the fluid.

If the LDS fluid is determined not to have originated from the disposal cell, the licensee
shall continue with weekly measurements of “depth to fluid” in the LDS standpipes. The
licensee shall confirm, on an annual basis, that fluid from the disposal cell has not
entered the LDS by collecting (to the extent possible) and analyzing an LDS fluid
sample for the above stated parameters.

DRC-04
Page 15 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

C. Upon indication that the LDS fluids originated from the disposal cell, the licensee shall
determine the flow rate through the liner by the calculation method in paragraph B of
this license condition. If the flow rate is equal to or greater than one gallon per minute,
the licensee shall:

(1) Evaluate the cause of the liner distress and take appropriate and timely actions to
mitigate the leak and any consequent potential impacts;
(2) Continue to measure and record LDS “depth to fluid” measurements weekly;
and
(3) Notify the Executive Secretary by telephone within 48 hours, in accordance with
License Condition 9.2, and submit a written report within 30 calendar days of
notifying the Executive Secretary by telephone, in accordance with License
Condition 9.2. The written report shall include a description of the mitigative
action(s) taken and a discussion of the mitigative action results.

If the calculated flow rate is less than one gallon per minute, the licensee shall continue
with weekly measurements of “depth to fluid” in the LDS standpipes.

D. All sampling, analysis, and evaluation of LDS fluids shall be documented and retained
onsite until license termination for Executive Secretary inspection.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 8] [Applicable UDRC Amendment 3] [Applicable UDRC
Amendment: 4]

11.4 Annually, the licensee shall collect, during mill operations, a set of air samples covering eight
hours of sampling, at a high collection flow rate (i.e., greater than or equal to 40 liters per
minute), in routinely or frequently occupied areas of the mill. These samples shall be analyzed
for gross alpha. In addition, with each change in mill feed material or at least annually, the
licensee shall analyze the mill feed or production product for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-
210 and use the analysis results to assess the fundamental constituent composition of air sample
particulates.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 7]

11.5 Calibration of in-plant air and radiation monitoring equipment shall be performed as specified in
the license renewal application, under Section 3.0 of the “Radiation Protection Procedures
Manual,” with the exception that in-plant air sampling equipment shall be calibrated at least
quarterly and air sampling equipment checks shall be documented.

11.6 The licensee shall perform an annual ALARA audit of the radiation safety program in
accordance with the NRC Regulatory Guide 8.31.

DRC-04
Page 16 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

11.7 Settlement Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure - the licensee shall submit for Executive
Secretary approval a written Settlement Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on or
before December 1, 2010. The proposed SOP shall describe methods for monitoring vertical
settlement in the tailings management cell areas and for recording and documenting settlement
monitoring data and comparing such data to previous data to track potential settlement. All data
collected by the Licensee for these purposes shall be included in an annual report to be
submitted to the Executive Secretary, pursuant to License Condition 12.3. The SOP shall also:

A. Require that settlement monitors (e.g., settlement stands) be promptly installed
following placement of temporary cover over placed tailings;

B. Require installation of one or more representative settlement monitoring stand(s) above
each ISL source disposal area that has been closed to further disposal pursuant to
License Condition 10.5.A. There shall be at least one settlement monitoring stand for
each ISL source disposal area, estimated to be about 22,500 square feet. Installation of
said settlement monitoring stand and initial elevation survey shall be completed by the
Licensee within 30 calendar days of completion of each ISL source disposal area. For
ISL source disposal areas or trenches completed before April 1, 2010 the Licensee shall
install the required settlement stand(s) and complete the initial elevation survey prior to
June 1, 2010;

C. Indicate that the licensee will utilize settlement monitoring devices and methods that are
resistant to shifting in their positions as a result of such forces as frost heave, erosion,
burrowing animals, or other environmental factors;

D. Include provisions to prevent man-caused damage to settlement monitoring devices,
including, but not limited to vehicle and construction traffic damage. Such measures
will include: 1) all equipment, procedures, and provisions needed to protect said
settlement monitoring devices, 2) schedules for rapid verbal and written reporting of any
such damage, and 3) corrective actions taken or to be taken by the Licensee to replace
and/or repair said devices;

E. Indicate that settlement monitors will be:

(1) Initially surveyed by a Utah Licensed Professional Land Surveyor within, 30
calendar days of installation;
(2) Surveyed monthly; and
(3) Surveyed annually by a Utah Licensed Land Surveyor. Review of the data and
an analysis shall be performed and certified by a Utah Licensed Professional
DRC-04
Page 17 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

Engineer and submitted annually as part of the ATER required by License
Condition 12.3;

F. Include procedures requiring that such settlement monitors be placed, surveyed,
mapped, and maintained; that corrective action and maintenance activities be performed
to maintain existing monitoring devices in a reliable, good working condition, as
needed; that the addition, surveying and mapping of new settlement monitoring devices
installed be documented; and that records be made of observations of site conditions as
they relate to the conditions at and in the vicinity of the installed monitoring devices;

G. Provide quantitative performance criteria and describe how such criteria will be used to
evaluate vertical movement;

H. Indicate that any settlement monitoring device that is irreparably damaged as a result of
environmental stresses or through man-caused contact, including but not limited to cell
construction or other operational equipment, shall be promptly replaced with an
identical or equivalent monitoring device; and provisions provided to guide the
interpretation of data from both the former and the replacement device;

I. Indicate that where survey evidence suggests that significant apparent movement in a
settlement monitor has occurred, in excess of the approved performance criteria, that the
departure(s) will be investigated and explained, and errors corrected and resolved in a
timely manner, subject to Executive Secretary approval;

J. Indicate that photographs shall be taken of the monitoring areas at least annually to
document site and device conditions. Additionally, the SOP shall indicate that
photographs shall be taken following any instances of unusually severe weather or
incidents involving equipment if they result in physical damage or disturbance to any
settlement monitoring device, or significant changes to the ground surface areas adjacent
to or surrounding a settlement or displacement monitoring device;

K. Include a list of records that will be prepared for documenting settlement data for each
settlement monitoring device and related site observations and activities; and

L. Indicate that results and records of settlement monitoring shall be submitted annually as
part of the ATER required by License Condition 12.3.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]

11.8 Movement (Displacement) Monitoring Standard Operating Procedure - the licensee shall submit
for Executive Secretary approval a written Movement Monitoring Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP) on or before December 1, 2010. The proposed SOP shall describe methods for
DRC-04
Page 18 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

monitoring potential vertical and horizontal movements in the constructed dike portions of the
tailings management cells, and for recording and documenting displacement monitoring data
and comparing such data to previous data to track potential movement (displacement). All data
collected by the Licensee for these purposes shall be included in an annual report to be
submitted to the Executive Secretary, pursuant to License Condition 12.3. The SOP shall also:

A. Require that movement monuments be promptly installed following completion of
construction of cell dikes;

B. Indicate that the licensee will utilize movement monuments and monitoring methods
that are resistant to shifting in their positions as a result of such forces as frost heave,
erosion, burrowing animals, or other environmental factors;

C. Include an obligation for the Licensee to prevent man-caused damage to movement
monuments, including, but not limited to vehicle and construction traffic damage. Such
measures will include: 1) all equipment, procedures, provisions need to protect said
settlement monitoring devices, 2) schedules for rapid verbal and written reporting of any
such damage, and 3) corrective actions taken or to be taken by the Licensee to replace
and/or repair said devices;

D. Indicate that movement monuments will be:

(1) Initially surveyed by a Utah Licensed Land Surveyor within 30 calendar days of
installation;
(2) Surveyed semi-annually for the first three years following installation by a Utah
Licensed Land Surveyor.
(3) Surveyed annually after the first three years by a Utah Licensed Land Surveyor
(4) Subjected to accelerated monitoring conducted under certain circumstances, at a
frequency and in a manner approved by the Executive Secretary; and
(5) Reviewed annually by a Utah Licensed Professional Engineer, who shall
perform and certify an analysis of all survey data. This analysis shall be
submitted pursuant to License Condition 12.3;

E. Include procedures requiring that such movement monuments be placed, surveyed,
mapped, and maintained; that corrective action and maintenance activities be performed
to maintain existing movement monuments in a reliable, good working condition, as
needed; that the addition, surveying and mapping of new movement monuments
installed be documented; and that records be made of observations of site conditions as
they relate to the conditions at and in the vicinity of the installed monuments;

DRC-04
Page 19 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

F. Provide quantitative performance criteria and describe how such criteria will be used to
evaluate movements (displacements);

G. Indicate that any movement monument that is irreparably damaged as a result of
environmental stresses or through man-caused contact, including but not limited to cell
construction or other operational equipment, shall be promptly replaced with an
identical or equivalent movement monument; and provisions provided to guide the
interpretation of data from both the former and the replacement device;
H. Include a list of records that will be prepared for documenting movement (displacement)
data for each movement monument and related site observations and activities; and

I. Indicate that results and records of movements (displacements) shall be submitted
annually as part of the ATER required by License Condition 12.3.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]

SECTION 12: REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

12.1 DELETED by NRC Amendment 13.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 13]

12.2 The licensee shall submit a detailed decommissioning plan to the Executive Secretary at least
twelve (12) months prior to planned final shutdown of mill operations that includes a detailed
Quality Assurance Plan. The plan will be in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 4.15,
“Quality Assurance for Radiological Monitoring Programs” and NUREG-1575, “Multi-Agency
Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)” or equivalent most current
guidance.
[Applicable NRC Amendment: 13][Applicable UDRC Amendment: 1]
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 2]

12.3 Annual Technical Evaluation Report (ATER): ) - Tthe licensee shall submit an ATER for
Executive Secretary approval no later than November 15, of each year, to coincide with the
annual freeboard calculation date of November 1st of each year when using the new Freeboard
Calculation Method, as described in the letter from David A. Rupp of the Utah Division of Radiation
Control to Mr. David C. Frydenlund of Denison Mines (USA) Corp, dated April 29, 2010. Each
ATER shall incorporate all documents and attachments, including applicable updates to
previously submitted documents with attachments that support information presented in the
ATER, including, but not limited to maps, drawings, tables, and figures. The licensee shall
include, as part of the ATER, results of tailings cell temporary cover settlement and dike
displacement monitoring activities. The content of the tailings cell temporary cover
settlement and displacement monitoring program related information shall include those
records required under the Settlement Monitoring and Movement Monitoring SOPs (License
DRC-04
Page 20 of 20
UTAH DIVISION OF RADIATION CONTROL
RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS LICENSE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEET
License #UT1900479
Amendment

Conditions 11.7 and 11.8), as approved by the Executive Secretary.
[Applicable UDRC Amendment: 4]

UTAH RADIATION CONTROL BOARD

Dane L. Finerfrock, Executive Secretary Date

APPENDIX D
Revised Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW 370004

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 (This Permit is in Timely Renewal)
Application for Permit Renewal was received September 1, 2009

Signed this ____ day of ________, 2010

_______________________.
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...................................................................................................................23
1. Ground Water Compliance Limits..............................................................................23
2. Tailings Cell Operations.............................................................................................23
3. Prohibited Discharges.................................................................................................23
D. DISCHARGE MINIMIZATION AND BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY STANDARDS.................67
1. DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells 1, 2, and 3..................................67
2. Existing Tailings Cell Construction Authorized.........................................................89
3. Existing Facility DMT Performance Standards..........................................................89
4. Best Available Technology Requirements for New Construction.............................. 11
5. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4A..........................................................1112
6. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 4A.....................................................14
7. Definition of 11e.(2) Waste ....................................................................................1415
8. Closed Cell Performance Requirements.................................................................1415
9. Facility Reclamation Requirements............................................................................ 15
10. Stormwater Management and Spill Control Requirements....................................1516
11. Requirements for Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area 1516
12. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4B .............................................................. 16
13. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 4B ..................................................... 19
E. GROUND WATER COMPLIANCE AND TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE MONITORING.........1920
1. Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring......................................................1920
2. Groundwater Monitoring: Monitoring Wells MW-20 and MW-22 .......................2122
3. Groundwater Head Monitoring...............................................................................2122
4. Groundwater Monitoring Well Design and Construction Criteria..........................2122
5. Monitoring Procedures for Wells............................................................................2223
6. White Mesa Seep and Spring Monitoring...............................................................2223
7. DMT Performance Standard Monitoring................................................................2324
8. BAT Performance Standard Monitoring.................................................................2425
9. On-site Chemicals Inventory...................................................................................2526
10. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Monitoring........................................................2526
11. Groundwater Monitoring Modifications.................................................................2627
12. BAT Performance Standard Monitoring.................................................................2627
F. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS...........................................................................................2728
1. Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports.............................................................2728
2. Routine DMT Performance Standard Monitoring Report ......................................2829
3. Routine BAT Performance Standard Monitoring Reports......................................2930
4. DMT and BAT Performance Upset Reports...........................................................2930
5. Other Information ...................................................................................................2930
6. Groundwater Monitoring Well As-Built Reports...................................................2930
7. White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring Reports..............................................3031
8. Chemicals Inventory Report ...................................................................................3132
9. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Reports..............................................................3132
10. Revised Hydrogeologic Report...............................................................................3132
11. Annual Slimes Drain Recovery Head Report .........................................................3132
G. OUT OF COMPLIANCE STATUS........................................................................................3233
1. Accelerated Monitoring Status................................................................................3233
2. Violation of Permit Limits......................................................................................3233

ii
3. Failure to Maintain DMT or BAT Required by Permit ..........................................3233
4. Facility Out of Compliance Status..........................................................................3334
H. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS......................................................................3334
1. On-site Chemicals Inventory Report.......................................................................3334
2. Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work Plan and Report.............3435
3. Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supply Well WW-2...................................................3536
4. New Decontamination Pad .....................................................................................3637
5. Existing Decontamination Pad................................................................................3637
6. Installation of New Groundwater Monitoring Wells..............................................3637
7. Background Groundwater Quality Report for New Monitoring Wells...................3738
8. Revised BAT Operations and Monitoring Plan......................................................3839
9. Cell 4B As-Built Report..........................................................................................3839
10. Additional Hydrogeologic Investigation and Report..............................................3940
11. Corrections to Engineering Drawing Sheet 6 of 8 ..................................................3940
PART II. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................4041
A. REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLING..........................................................................................4041
B. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES............................................................................................4041
C. PENALTIES FOR TAMPERING...........................................................................................4041
D. REPORTING OF MONITORING RESULTS...........................................................................4041
E. COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES..............................................................................................4041
F. ADDITIONAL MONITORING BY THE PERMITTEE..............................................................4041
G. RECORDS CONTENTS......................................................................................................4041
H. RETENTION OF RECORDS.................................................................................................... 41
I. NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTING......................................................................4142
J. OTHER NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTING............................................................................4142
K. INSPECTION AND ENTRY.................................................................................................4142
PART III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES....................................................................4243
A. DUTY TO COMPLY..........................................................................................................4243
B. PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF PERMIT CONDITIONS....................................................4243
C. NEED TO HALT OR REDUCE ACTIVITY NOT A DEFENSE..................................................4243
D. DUTY TO MITIGATE........................................................................................................4243
E. PROPER OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.......................................................................4243
PART IV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS...............................................................................4344
A. PLANNED CHANGES.......................................................................................................4344
B. ANTICIPATED NONCOMPLIANCE.....................................................................................4344
C. PERMIT ACTIONS............................................................................................................4344
D. DUTY TO REAPPLY.........................................................................................................4344
E. DUTY TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ..................................................................................4344
F. OTHER INFORMATION.....................................................................................................4344
G. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS ..........................................................................................4344
H. PENALTIES FOR FALSIFICATION OF REPORTS..................................................................4445
I. AVAILABILITY OF REPORTS............................................................................................4445
J. PROPERTY RIGHTS .........................................................................................................4445
K. SEVERABILITY................................................................................................................4445
L. TRANSFERS....................................................................................................................4445
M. STATE LAWS..................................................................................................................4546
N. REOPENER PROVISIONS..................................................................................................4546

iii
List of Tables
Table 1. Ground Water Classification ............................................................................................ 1
Table 2. Groundwater Compliance Limits....................................................................................34
Table 3. DMT Engineering Design and Specifications ................................................................67
Table 4. Feedstock Storage Area Coordinates..........................................................................1011
Table 5. Approved Tailings Cell 4A Engineering Design and Specifications..........................1112
Table 6. Approved Tailings Cell 4B Engineering Design and Specifications..............................16
Table 7. Groundwater Monitoring Reporting Schedule............................................................2829
Part I.A & I.B
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.B & I.C
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 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.D
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.D
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.D
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
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
9
ii. Achieves a stable water level at the end of the test, as measured by three
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.
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
10
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
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. The Permittee shall maintain a minimum 4-foot
wide buffer zone on the inside margin of the Feedstock Storage Area between the storage
area fence and the Feedstock which shall be absent of feed material in order to assure that
materials do not encroach on the boundary of the storage area.
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
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
11
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
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.
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
12
Tailings Cell 4A Design and Construction - approved by the Executive Secretary will consist
of the following major elements:
a) Dikes - consisting of existing earthen embankments of compacted soil, constructed by the
Permittee between 1989 and1990, 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.
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
13
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:
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) Cell 4A 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) Cell 4A 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.
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
14
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. Any failure to achieve or maintain the required BAT performance
standards shall constitute a violation of the Permit and shall be reported to the Executive
Secretary in accordance with Part I.G.3. Performance standards for Tailings Cell 4A shall
include the following:
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 11e.(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.
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
15
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
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,
3) A storage area that provides containment berms to control stormwater run-on and
run-off, and
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
16
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.
12. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4B - the BAT design standard for Tailings Cell 4B
shall be defined by and constructed in accordance with the requirements as summarized by
the engineering drawings, specifications, and description in Table 6, below:
Table 6. Approved Tailings Cell 4B Engineering Design and Specifications
Engineering Drawings
Name Date Revision No. Title
Sheet 1 of 8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Cover Sheet
Sheet 2 of 8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Site Plan
Sheet 3 of 8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Base Grading Plan
Sheet 4 of 8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Pipe Layout and Details
Sheet 5 of 8 December 2007 Rev. 0 Lining System Details I
Sheet 6 of 8 (1) January 2009 Rev. 1 Lining System Details II
Sheet 7 of 8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Lining System Details III
Sheet 8 of 8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Lining System Details IV
Figure 1 January 2009 - Mill Site Drainage Basins (supporting reference)
Engineering Specifications
Date Document Title Prepared by
January 2009 Slope Stability Analysis Calculation Package Geosyntec Consultants
January 2009 Seismic Deformation Analysis Calculation
Package
Geosyntec Consultants
January 2009 Revised Pipe Strength Analysis Calculation
Package
Geosyntec Consultants
January 2009 Revised Comparison of Flow Though Compacted
Clay Liner and Geosynthetic Clay Liner
Calculation Package
Geosyntec Consultants
January 2009 Revised Action Leakage Rate Calculation Package Geosyntec Consultants
August 2009 Blasting - Locations and Profiles, Attachment:
Figures 1 and 2
Geosyntec Consultants
August 2009 (Revised) Technical Specifications, with the
exception of Section 02200 (Earthwork)
Geosyntec Consultants
August 2009 Cell 4B Capacity Calculations Geosyntec Consultants
August 2009 Revised Cushion Fabric Calculations
August 2009 Construction Quality Assurance Plan for the
Construction of Cell 4B Lining System
Geosyntec Consultants
September 2009 (Revised) Technical Specification Section 02200
(Earthwork)
Geosyntec Consultants

August 6, 2009
Blast Plan, KGL and Associates and Blast Plan
Review, Geosyntec Consultants letter dated
September 10, 2009
KGL and Associates and
Geosyntec Consultants
September 2009 Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Event
Computation
Geosyntec Consultants
January 2009 Slope Stability Analysis Calculation Package Geosyntec Consultants

1. Engineering drawing Sheet 6 of 8 is approved subject to conditions and requirements outlined in Part I.H.11 of
this Permit.
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
17

Tailings Cell 4B Design and Construction - approved by the Executive Secretary will consist
of the following major elements:
a) Dikes - consisting of newly constructed dikes on the south and west side of the cell, each
including a 20-foot wide road at the top (minimum) to support an access road. The
grading plan for the Cell 4B excavation includes interior slopes of 2H to 1V. The exterior
slopes of the southern and western dikes will have typical slopes of 3H to 1V. Limited
portions of the Cell 4B interior sideslopes in the northwest corner and southeast corner of
the cell, (where the slimes drain and leak detection sump will be located will also have a
slope of 3H to 1V. The base width of the southern dikes varies from approximately 92
feet at the western end to approximately 190 feet at the eastern end of the dike, with no
exterior embankment present on any other side of the cell.
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% at a moisture content between +3% and
-3% of optimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM D-1557. The floor of Cell 4B
has an average slope of 1% that grades from the northwest corner to the southeast corner.
c) Tailings Capacity - the floor and inside slopes of Cell 4B encompass about 44 acres, and
the cell will have a water surface area of 40 acres and a maximum capacity of about 1.9
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 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 4B 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 that extends across the
entire area under the primary FML in Cell 4B, and drains to a leak detection sump in
the southeast 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 a sump having dimensions of 15 feet by 10 feet by 2 feet deep that contains a
leak detection system sump area. 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 a 60-mil HDPE membrane found immediately below
the leak detection geonet. Said FML also extends across the entire Cell 4B 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 4B, the
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
18
Permittee shall demonstrate that the GCL has achieved a moisture content of at least
50% by weight.
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:
1) Horizontal Strip Drain System - is installed in a herringbone pattern across the floor
of Cell 4B 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 northwest corner downhill to the far southeast corner of
Cell 4B 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 4B at the southeast 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) Cell 4B North and East Dike Splash Pads - Nine 20-foot-wide splash pads will be
constructed on the north and east dikes 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 4B, from the top of the dike, under the inlet pipe, and down the inside slope to a
point at least 5 feet onto the Cell 4B floor beyond the toe of the slope.
g) Cell 4B Emergency Spillway - a concrete lined spillway will be constructed near the
southeastern corner of the east dike to allow emergency runoff from Cell 4A into Cell
4B. This spillway will be limited to a 6-inch reinforced concrete slab, with a welded wire
fabric installed within it at its midsection, set atop a cushion geotextile placed directly
over the primary FML in a 4-foot deep trapezoidal channel. A 100-foot wide, 60-mil
HDPE membrane splash pad will be installed beneath the emergency spillway. No other
Part I.D & I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
19
spillway or overflow structure will be constructed at Cell 4B. All stormwater runoff and
tailings wastewaters not retained in Cells 2 and 3, and 4A will be managed and contained
in Cell 4B, including the Probable Maximum Precipitation and flood event.
13. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 4B - the Permittee shall operate and maintain
Tailings Cell 4B so as to prevent release of wastewater to groundwater and the environment
in accordance with an approved Cell 4B BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan
pursuant to Part I.H.8 of this Permit. Any failure to achieve or maintain the required BAT
performance standards shall constitute a violation of the Permit and shall be reported to the
Executive Secretary in accordance with Part I.G.3. Performance standards for Tailings Cell
4B shall include the following:
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. 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 26,145 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 4B, 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
5.5 years or less.
d. Maximum Weekly Wastewater Level - under no circumstance shall the freeboard be less
then 3-feet in Cell 4B, as measured from the top of the upper FML.
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:
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
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
20
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-25, MW-26 (formerly TW4-
15), MW-30, and MW-31.
3) Future Cell 4B Downgradient Wells to be Installed - quarterly monitoring shall begin
within 30 calendar days of installation of new groundwater monitoring wells MW-33,
MW-34, and MW-35 required by Part I.H.6 of this Permit, and continue until
otherwise determined by the Executive Secretary pursuant to Part I.H.7.
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
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
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
21
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.
c) 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 but
not limited to: evaluation of data characteristics and internal data consistency,
treatment of non-detectable values, and statistical methods used. 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.
d) 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
monitoring wells installed at the facility shall comply with the following design and
construction criteria:
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
22
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.
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
have a minimum detection limit or reporting limit that is less than or equal to the
respective:
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
23
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.
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,
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
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
24
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. In the event that
any liner defect or damage is identified during a liner system inspection, the Permittee
shall: 1) report and repair said defect or damage pursuant to Part I.G.3 by implementation
of the currently approved Liner Maintenance Provisions, and 2) report all repairs made
pursuant to Part I.F.2.
8. Cell 4A BAT Performance Standards Monitoring and Maintenance - in accordance with the
currently approved Cell 4A BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan, pursuant
to Part I.H.8 of this Permit, 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 LDS pumping or monitoring equipment not repaired and made fully
operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute failure of BAT, and a
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
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
25
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
pursuant to Part I.H.8.
c) Liner Maintenance and Repair - all repairs to the liner shall be completed in accordance
with Section 9.4 of the approved June 2007 Geosyntec Consultants Cell 4A
Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQA/QC Plan) as found in Table 5 of this Permit.
Repairs shall be performed by qualified liner repair personnel and shall be reported in a
Liner Repair Report, certified by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer. The Liner Repair
Report shall be submitted to for Executive Secretary approval in accordance with Part
I.F.3 of the Permit. Any leak, hole, or other damage to the liner will be reported to the
Executive Secretary pursuant to the requirements found in Part I.G.3.
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. One surface impounded wastewater location at each of Tailings Cells 1, 3, ,4A, and 4B.
b. One slimes drain wastewater access pipe at each of Tailings Cells 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. For
Cells 3, 4A, and 4B, this requirement shall apply immediately after initiation of de-
watering operations at these cells, and
c. One leak detection wastewater access pipe at Tailings Cells 4A and 4B.
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:
1) Field Measurements - including: pH, temperature, and specific conductivity.
2) Water Quality Sampling and Analysis - the Permittee shall collect grab samples and
perform laboratory analysis of all:
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
26
i. Water quality parameters identified in Table 2 of this Permit, and
ii. Semi-volatile compounds identified in EPA Method 8270D.
3) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utah
certified laboratory.
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.
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:
i. Ground Water Quality Standards concentrations defined in Table 2 of this Permit,
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
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.
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.
7) Prior Notification - at least 30 calendar days before any 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.
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.
12. Cell 4B BAT Performance Standards Monitoring and Maintenance - immediately following
Executive Secretary approval of the Cell 4B BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance
Plan, pursuant to Part I.H.8 of this Permit, the Permittee shall immediately implement all
monitoring and recordkeeping requirements therein. The Cell 4B BAT monitoring shall
include the following:
Part I.E & I.F
Permit No. UGW370004
27
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 LDS pumping or related monitoring equipment not repaired and made
fully operational within 24-hours of discovery shall constitute failure of BAT, and a
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 (LDS) sump exceed a 1-foot level above the lowest
point in the lower flexible membrane liner on the cell floor. Any occurrence of leak
detection system fluids above this 1-foot limit shall constitute failure of BAT, and a
violation of this Permit.
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 26,145 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 4B. 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 4B 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
pursuant to Part I.H.8.
c) Liner Maintenance and Repairs - all repairs to the liner shall be completed in accordance
with Section 10.4 of the approved August 2009 Geosyntec Consultants Cell 4B
Construction Quality Assurance Plan (CQA/QC Plan) as found in Table 6 of this Permit.
Repairs shall be performed by qualified liner repair personnel and shall be reported in a
Liner Repair Report, certified by a Utah licensed Professional Engineer. The Liner Repair
Report shall be submitted for Executive Secretary approval in accordance with Part I.F.3
of the Permit. Any leak, hole, or other damage to the liner will be reported pursuant to the
requirements found in Part I.G.3.
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.F
Permit No. UGW370004
28
Table 7. 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 radiological
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
I.D.3 and I.E.7 of this Permit. DMT monitoring shall be conducted in compliance with this
Part I.F
Permit No. UGW370004
29
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 7, above.
3. Routine Cell 4A and 4B BAT Performance Standards Monitoring Reports - the Permittee
shall provide quarterly monitoring reports of all BAT performance standards monitoring
required by Parts I E.8 and I.E.12 of this Permit. BAT Monitoring at Cells 4A and 4B shall
be conducted in compliance with the currently approved BAT Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan. When a liner repair is performed at Tailings Cell 4A or 4B, a Repair
Report is required by Parts I.E.8(c) and I.E.12(c) of the Permit. This Repair Report shall be
included with the next quarterly BAT Report. Said monitoring report and results shall be
submitted for Executive Secretary approval on the schedule provided in Table 7 above. At a
minimum, reporting of BAT monitoring for Cells 4A and 4B 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 Cells 4A and 4B 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
Part I.F
Permit No. UGW370004
30
Professional Geologist licensed by the State of Utah, or otherwise approved beforehand
by the Executive Secretary.
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
Part I.F
Permit No. UGW370004
31
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
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.
Part I.F & I.G
Permit No. UGW370004
32
c) Include a time series chart to show trends of the monthly recovery water level elevations
at each slimes drain.
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 GWCL
in Table 2 of this Permit.
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
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).
Part I.G & I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
33
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:
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.
Part I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
34
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.8 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.8 of this Permit.
f) Provides, describes and justifies the following:
1) Model Results - including electronic input and output files from all infiltration,
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.
Part I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
35
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.
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
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.
Part I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
36
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.
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 surface. 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.
6. Installation of New Groundwater Monitoring Wells - the Permittee shall install at least
three hydraulically downgradient wells adjacent to Tailings Cell 4B, in accordance with
the following requirements:
a) New Compliance Monitoring Wells MW-33 and MW-34 - install two new
Part I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
37
compliance monitoring wells (MW-33 and MW-34) prior to placement of tailings and
wastewater in Cell 4B. The locations of the wells MW-33 and MW-34 shall be the
same as shown on Figure 4 of the February 8, 2010 submittal by Hydro Geo Chem
Inc. Said monitoring wells shall:
1) Provide early detection of tailings cell contamination of shallow groundwater
from Tailings Cell 4B.
2) Provide discrete groundwater monitoring for tailings Cell 4B.
3) Comply with the design, construction, and development requirements found in
Part I.E.4 of this Permit.
b) Within 45 calendar days of completing well installation, submit a monitoring well As-
Built report for wells MW-33 and MW-34 to document said well construction for
Executive Secretary approval. Said report shall comply with the requirements of Part
I.F.6. The As-Built report shall be approved by the Executive Secretary before
placement of tailings or wastewater in Tailings Cell 4B. 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.
c) New Compliance Monitoring Well MW-35 - before placement of tailings or
wastewater in Tailings Cell 4B, the Permittee shall submit to the Executive Secretary
for approval a proposed location for new compliance monitoring well MW-35.
Installation of well MW-35 shall be completed within 30 calendar days of Executive
Secretary approval of said location. The exact location of the well MW-35 shall be
determined after consideration of hydrogeologic information acquired through
installation / development of wells MW-33 and MW-34 and other related field
investigations. The design, construction and development of well MW-35 shall
comply with the requirements of Part I.E.4 of this Permit.
d) Within 45 calendar days of completing installation of well MW-35, the Permittee
shall submit a monitoring well As-Built report to document said well construction for
Executive Secretary approval. Said report shall comply with the requirements of Part
I.F.6. 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.
e) The Permittee shall provide at least a 7 calendar day written notice to allow the
Executive Secretary to observe all drilling and well installation activities. In the event
the Executive Secretary determines that additional monitoring wells are required,
these new wells will be installed and related As-Built Report(s) submitted (for
approval) within a time frame approved by the Executive Secretary.
7. Background Groundwater Quality Report for New Monitoring Wells - within 30 calendar
days of receipt of written Executive Secretary approval for use of Tailings Cell 4B, the
Permittee shall commence a quarterly groundwater sampling program that will 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.
Part I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
38
c) After completion of eight consecutive quarters of groundwater sampling and analysis of
these new wells (MW-33, MW-34 and MW-35), the Permittee shall submit a
Background Report for Executive Secretary approval, that will include:
1) Data preparation and statistical analysis of groundwater quality data, including, but
not limited to, evaluation of data characteristics and internal data consistency,
treatment of non-detectable values, and statistical methods used. 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) Shallow aquifer average linear groundwater velocity calculated for the new wells,
based on well specific hydraulic conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and effective
aquifer porosity.
d) If after review of the report, and the Executive Secretary determines that additional
information is required, the Permittee shall provide all requested information, resolve all
issues identified, and re-submit the report for Executive Secretary review and approval
within a timeframe approved by the Executive Secretary. After approval of this report,
the Executive Secretary will re-open this Permit and establish an appropriate monitoring
frequency in accordance with the criteria found in Part I.E.1(b) or (c), and establish
Groundwater Compliance Limits in Table 2 for the each of the new wells.
8. Revised BAT, Monitoring, Operations, and Maintenance Plan for Cells 4A and 4B - prior
to any tailings or wastewater disposal in Cell 4B, the Permittee shall submit and receive
Executive Secretary approval of a revised Cell 4A BAT, Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan, and a Cell 4B BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan.
At a minimum, said plans must include:
a) Description of the minimum required qualifications, experience, definition of roles
and responsibilities of all personnel acting in liner repair activities with respect to
Construction Quality Assurance Plans (CQA/QC Plans) prepared by Geosyntec
Consultants, dated June 2007 (see Table 5) and August 2009 (see Table 6).
b) Certification of each Liner Repair Report by a Utah Licensed Professional Engineer,
pursuant to Parts I.E.8 and I.E.12 of this Permit, and subsequent submittal thereof to
the Executive Secretary for approval in accordance with Part I.F.3 of the Permit.
c) For Cell 4A, the plan shall include all related elements described in Parts I.D.6 and
I.E.8 of the Permit.
d) For Cell 4B, the plan shall include all related elements described in I.D.13 and I.E.12
of the Permit.
9. Cell 4B As-Built Report - before any disposal of wastes or wastewaters into Cell 4B, the
Permittee shall submit an engineering As-Built report to document all construction
activities, for Executive Secretary review and approval. Any deviations from the
Executive Secretary approved engineering design and/or specifications will be clearly
disclosed and described. Said report shall be certified by a Utah licensed Professional
Engineer. If after review of the As-Built report, and the Executive Secretary determines
Part I.H
Permit No. UGW370004
39
that additional information is required, the Permittee shall provide all requested
information, and resolve all issues identified, before Cell 4B is put into service.
10. Additional Hydrogeologic Investigation and Report - prior to any tailings or wastewater
disposal in Cell 4B, the permittee shall:
a) Conduct additional field investigations to confirm elevation survey data for springs
and seeps at the margin of White Mesa, including, but not limited to, Cottonwood
Seep and/or Westwater Seep and Ruin Spring. The purpose of such studies will be to
determine representative elevation of shallow groundwater and the upper geologic
contact of the Brushy Basin Shale Member of the Morrison Formation at these seeps
and springs.
b) Provide written explanation and resolution of final survey data for seeps and Ruin
Spring and shall use appropriate data points to construct a representative Brushy
Basin/Burro Canyon geologic contact surface map of White Mesa that includes, but
is not limited to, areas west and southwest of the tailings management cell areas,
including Cell 4B. The geologic contact surface map shall include data from all
nearby monitoring wells, seeps and springs;
c) Submit a report to the Executive Secretary for approval that demonstrates compliance
with the requirements described above. Said report shall be signed and certified
(stamped) by a Utah Licensed Geologist or Professional Engineer, and shall: 1)
resolve the apparent uncertainties associated with local geologic structural directions
/ gradient of the Brushy Basin/Burro Canyon geologic contact of the local perched
water system and its relationship to seeps located west and southwest of the tailings
management cells and Ruin Spring, 2) identify the closest point(s) of surface
discharge of groundwater for the White Mesa perched water system (point of
exposure), and 3) estimate travel time for shallow groundwater to reach the nearest
surface discharge point(s). In the event that the Executive Secretary determines that
additional information is necessary, the Permittee shall submit all requested
information on a time frame approved by the Executive Secretary.
11. Corrections to Engineering Drawing Sheet 6 of 8 - prior to construction of Cell 4B, the
Permittee shall revise Cross-section B-7 presented in Engineering Drawing Sheet 6 of 8 and
any related technical specifications, to reflect the following changes:
(a) Both cushion geotextile material flaps must be extended at least 1-foot laterally
beyond the sewn seam at the right (north) side of toe of the drainage aggregate
windrow, and
(b) Sandbags placed on both the right (north) and left (south) side of the drainage
aggregate windrow, must be placed and abutted continuously along the length of the
windrow.
Part II
Permit No. UGW370004
40
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.
Part II
Permit No. UGW370004
41
H. RETENTION OF RECORDS. The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information,
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, [phone], or to the Division of Water Quality,
Ground Water Protection Section at [phone], 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
42
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
43
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,
Part IV
Permit No. UGW370004
44
b) The authorization specified either an individual or a position having responsibility for the
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
45
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.