DRC-2024-004696

Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
UTAH GROUND WATER DISCHARGE PERMIT NO. UGW37OOO4
STATEMENT OF BASIS
Permit Renewal
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd., Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
May 2017
STATEMENT OF BASIS OUTLINE
I. Purpose
II. Background
m. Permit Application and Revised Hydrogeological Report
[V. General Issues and Public Comments affecting the Permit Renewal
a. Chloroform Plume
b. Nitrate Plume
c. Stipulated Consent Order Docket Number UGWI2-03 (Out of Compliance
Ground Water Parameter Studies and Pyrite Investigation)
d. General Monitoring Wells MW-20 and,NtW-Z7
e. Deep Water Supply Well: WW-2
V. Updated Table I - Ground Water Classification
VI. Background Monitoring Report for Monitoring Wells MW-35, MW-36 and MW-37
VII. Upgradient Monitoring Wells MW-l, MW-18 and MW-19
VIII. Ground Water Compliance Limit Modifications
IX. Permittee Requested Modification for Commencement of Accelerated Monitoring
Requirements
X. Removal of Roberts Pond
XI. Removal of Monitoring Well MW-3
XII. Modification of Slimes Drain Compliance Requirements for Tailings Cells 2 and 3
XII. Resolved Compliance Schedule Items * Removed from Permit
XIV. Summary of Major Permit Changes
XV. Summary of Minor Permit Changes
XVI. References
Attachments:
Attachment A - Proposed Permit Renewal Changes -- Redline Strike-out Groundwater
Discharge Permit UGW370004
Page 1 of 31
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW3700A4
PURPOSE
This Statement of Basis describes the technical and regulatory basis for permit renewal, and
describes proposed changes to Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit, No. UGW370004,
("Permit") for the Energy Fuels Resources (USA) [nc., White Mesa Uranium Milling Facility
near Blanding, San Juan County, Utah ("Facility''). The Facility is located in sections 28,29,32,
33, Township 37, Range 22East, Salt Lake Baseline and Meridian, San Juan County, Utah.
The Permit is issued pursuant to the Utah Water Quality Rules, Utah Administrative Code
(UAC) R317-6, which requires that any person who operates any new facility or modifies an
existing or new facility, not permitted by rule under UAC R317-6-6.2, must obtain a Utah
Ground Water Discharge Permit. UAC R317-6 limits issuance of groundwater permits to a five
year duration, and provides thata groundwater permit may be reopened for modification on an
as-needed basis.
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ('?ermittee"l) has made several requests for Permit
modification which are included in this Permit renewal, including: 1) Removal of Ground Water
Compliance Limits ("GWCL's") at three upgradient wells at the Facility; 2) Modification of
GWCL's for certain parameters [current Out of Compliance ("OOC") Parameters] at certain
ground water monitoring wells listed in the Permit; 3) Clarification of Accelerated Monitoring
Reporting Requirements; 4) Incorporation of approved ground water compliance limits for
groundwater monitoring wells MW-35, MW-36 and MW-37; 5) A modification of slimes drain
compliance requirements for tailings cells 2 and3; and 6) Clarification of storage requirements
for feedstock outside of the Facility feedstock storage area. As explained more fuIly below, the
Director of the Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control ("DWMRC")2 has
concluded that the foregoing requests are reasonable and are further supported by the
administrative record. As a result, the foregoing revisions have been adopted in this renewal.
Additionally, it was noted that several of the compliance schedule items listed in the Permit have
been completed and have been removed from the Permit, and that Roberts Pond has been
removed from the Facility, which change also requires modification to the Permit.
II. BACKGROUND
The Facility was constructed during the years 1979 and 1980 and was originally licensed by the
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") under Source Material License No.
suA-1358.
I In several quotations of documents the Permittee is referred to as "EFR" or "EFR[." These terms are
interchangeable.
2 Pursuant to UIAH Cone ANrN. $$ l9-l-105(l)(d) and 19-5-102(6), on July l,2}l5,the authority
granted to the Director of the Division of Radiation Control (*DRC") was transferred to the director of
the newly created Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control ("DWMRC"). These terms are
interchangeable for the purposes of this Statement of Basis.
I.
Page 2 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
On August 16,2004, the NRC delegated the Utah uranium mill regulatory progrcm to the State
of Utah by approving Agreement State status. The DWMRC became the primaryregulatory
authority for the Facility, and subsequently issued a State Radioactive Materials License No.
UT1900479 ("RML") and a separate Permit. The Permit was initially issued on March 8, 2005
to the operator of the Facility, International Uranium (USA) Corporation ("ruC"). The operator
of the Facility became Denison Mines (USA) Corp. on March 29,2007, when they merged with
IUC. The Director of DWMRC ("Director") approved the transfer of control of the Facility to
the Permittee on June 27,2012, who is the current owner and operator of the Facility.
III. PERMIT APPLICATION AI\[D REVISED ITYDROGEOLOGICAL REPORT
The Permittee has submitted three versions of the renewal application: l) The original
application during September 2009,2) Revision 1 dated Jily 2012, and 3) Revision 2 dated June
2014. The revisions were submitted by the Permittee in response to review comments made by
the Director. Based on the Directors review of the June 2014 second revised application, it
appears that all comments were addressed by the Permittee and that the application is complete.
The Director noted that per the Permittee's response to comments related to the July 2012 Permit
application review (Response dated June 5,2014), the Permittee included one additional Permit
modification request regarding Part I.D.11 requirements for feedstock material stored outside of
the feedstock storage area. This request is discussed in the Minor Permit Changes Section XV.
@age24) below.
TV. GENERAL ISSUES AND PUBLIC COMMENTS AFFECTING THE PERMIT
RENEWAL
a. Chloroform Plume
In May, 1999 the Permittee and the Director commenced an annual split sampling program for
groundwater monitoring wells at the Facility. This program was comprehensive in that it
included all monitoring wells at the facility completed in the shallow aquifer, and a large number
of groundwater contaminants, including: heavy metals, nutrients, general chemistry, radiologic,
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
During the May, 1999 split sampling event, excess chloroform concentrations were discovered in
Monitoring Well MW-4, which is located along the eastern margin of the site. Because these
concentrations were above the Utah Ground Water Quality Standard (GWQS) (701tg/L),the
Director initiated enforcement action against the Permittee on August23, 1999 via issuance of a
Ground Water Corrective Action Order, which required completion of, 1) a contaminant
investigation report to define and bound the contaminant plume, and2) a groundwater corrective
action plan to address remediation of the plume to re-establish the GWQS's.
Page 3 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
Repeated ground water sampling events by both the Permittee and Director have confirmed the
presence of chloroform in concentrations that exceed the GWQS along the eastern margin of the
site in wells that are upgradient or cross-gradient from the tailings cells. Other VOC
contaminants associated with chloroform have also been detected in these samples. After
installation of 20 new monitoring wells at the site, groundwater studies appeared to define the
eastern and southern boundaries of the chloroform plume. The Permittee believes the source of
this contamination was caused by laboratory wastewater disposal activities that pre-dated
Facility operation.
The Director ultimately agteed. with the Permittee that the source of the contamination was most
likely from legacy Facility laboratory wastewater disposal activities. Prior to Facility
construction and in the early years of the Facility, laboratory waste was disposed in unlined
sewage leach fields which likely created the chloroform contamination.
The Director's determination that the laboratory wastewater sent to sewage leach fields, and not
potential leakage from tailings cells, was the most likely source of the chloroform plume was
based on:
The location of the highest levels of chloroform contamination is at or near the sewage
leach fields;
The contaminant plume is upgradient or cross-gradient from the tailings cells;
Monitoring wells that are downgradient from the tailings cells do not show chloroform
contamination; and,
As described below, the remediation program has been effective in reducing contaminant
concentrations, indicating that there is no continuous source for the contaminants, as
would be the case if the cells were leaking.
As with every ground water corrective action, the corrective action plan is developed based on
assumptions about the source (assumptions that in this case are based on the evidence cited
above), and those assumptions are tested continuously with ground water monitoring as
corrective action proceeds. If the results of remediation conflict with the assumptions, the matter
will be reopened.
There are currently 38 monitoring wells associated with the Chloroform Plume. The Corrective
Action Plan ("GCAP") for the plume was exposed to public comment from January 12,2015
through February 13,2015 and a public hearing was held in Blanding, Utah on February 11,
2015. The GCAP was approved by the Director on September 14,2015. The approved
remediated strategy is using a hydraulic control system (pump and treat) to isolate and capture
the chloroform. This hydraulic control system was initiated in April of 2003. Groundwater
monitoring results show this initial remediation effort has been effective to remove significant
amounts of chloroform as reported in quarterly chloroform monitoring results.
The Director received one set of public comments, from the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe (signed by
o
a
Page 4 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
Celene Hawkins, Associate General Counsel) and dated February 11,20L5, within the public
notice period. There were a total of two comments and "requested revisions" included in the
comments. The comments and "requested revisions" are addressed below:
1. The first concern from the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is regarding the discharge of pumped
groundwater from the chloroform corrective action to the Facility Cell 1. The Ute
Mountain Ute tribe is concerned that the"placement of chloroform-laden, extracted
groundwater into Tailings Cell I (or into the Mill process) because of the risk that the
chloroform-laden, extracted ground water posed to the single, 30-mil PVC liner system in
Tailings Cell 1." The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe was also concemed about the2014
Statement of Basis and Stipulated Consent Order for the GCAP as follows "Ifre
Statement of Basis does not address whether the low pH extracted groundwater
containing chloroform and other associated chlorinated compounds, carbon
tetrachloride, dichloromethane (methylene chloride), and chloromethane (all of which
are on the RCM U-List) is compatible with the liner systems of the Cells, and in
particular the PYC liner of Cell 1."
DWMRC Response:
The DWMRC agrees that the Cell I liner construction using a single 30-mil flexible PVC
is not an optimal design by today's standards when considering any potential contact of
the PVC membrane with organic solvents. However, in the case of discharging the
Chloroform CAP extracted groundwater to Cell 1, there is no anticipated potential for
solvent degradation of the PVC due to contact with chloroform. This conclusion is based
on the following considerations: (a) the relatively low concentrations of chloroform in the
extracted groundwater; the fact that chloroform is essentially immiscible in water; and (c)
the fact that chloroform is further diluted and evaporated after being discharged into Cell
1. Moreover, the evidence in the administrative record supports the following additional
conclusions relating to this comment:
Any chloroform not previously removed by contact with the atmosphere and agitation
while transferring the extracted groundwater to Cell 1 will float and evaporate quickly
from the Cell 1 liquid surface.
Cell I construction includes a foot thick soil cover layer overlying the PVC liner (12
inches on the cell floor and l8-inches on the interior side slope), preventing contact of
the pond liquids with the PVC liner.
The annual water sampling results for chloroform in Cell I and other tailings cells
have been historically very low or non-detectable. The highest annual sample result
for chloroform in Cell I was the 2012 result of 19 trtglL, collected from the pond
surface. This is well below the drinking water standard of 70pg/L. Also, 19 pgll.
corresponds to 19 parts per billion or 0.019 parts per million, it should be evident that
this is an extremely low concentration. Even the highest measured concentration of
chloroform in the extracted groundwater is for practical purposes extremely low. For
Page 5 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
example, the highest detected concentuations of chlorofofm are around 30,000 pg/L
which coffesponds to 30 parts per million or roughly 30 drops in 16 gallons of water.
Based on these findings, derived from substantial evidence in the administrative record,
the Director will not include language in the Permit which prohibits the Permittee from
discharging the contaminated groundwater to Cell 1.
2. The second concern from the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is regarding the potential for the
chloroform pumping project to divert potential tailings cell leakage to the east and cause
the leakage to not be detected by the current monitoring wells. Per the Ute Mountain Ute
comment, "During the 2014 Conference Call, the Tribe expressed concern to the DRC
that the expanded (eastward) pumptng network and limited Groundwater Monitoring
Quality Assurance Plan (which only requires groundwater analysisfor the 6 GCALs in
Table 2...could result in the hydraulic capture of Tailings Cell leachate, the masking of
tailings cell leaknge, and interference with other ongoing investigations or cowective
action plans. The Tribe explained that, because the 13 pumping wells for this SCO will
be operated in the eastern portion of the WMMfacility, it is possible that the chloroform
pumping wells could pull or hydraulically"capture" leakagefrom the tailings
mdnagement system between the legacy tailings impoundments and the proposed
chloroform pumpingwell network.." The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe requests that the
Director modify the Stipulated Consent Order for the GCAP as per three bullet
statements in the comments as follows:
o "Monitoringwells located east of the legacy tailings impoundments and
completed in areas subject to multiple corrective action plans (such as TW4-22, TW4-24,
and TW4-25) will be sampled and analyzedfor thefull parameter list in Table 2 of the
Groundwater Permit at afrequency of no less than once per year.
. Compliance monitoringwells subject to Part H of Attachment I the SCO,
' Compliance Monitoring Well Chloroform Excursion Requirements' which have
exhibited two consecutive exceedances of their GCAL concentration limits will be
sampled and analyzedfor thefull parameter list in Table 2 of the Groundwater Permit at
afrequency of no less than once per year in addition to the other requirements in Part H.
o Monitoring wells located within 500 feet of the White Mesa Mill's property
boundary will be sampled and analyzedfor thefull parameter list in Table 2 of the
Groundwater Permit at afrequency of no less than once per year."
DWMRC Response:
As part of the approved chloroform corrective action plan, EFR is required to analyze the
groundwater flow directions and chloroform capture zones on a quarterly basis. This
analysis is intended, in a large part,to ensure full hydraulic capture of the chloroform
plume, but also serves to analyze impacts to the local groundwater flow directions.
Page 6 of 31
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
DWMRC notes that in the event that a tailings cell were to breach and discharge solution
into the groundwater and if the discharged solution were then transported eastward
toward the chloroform extraction project (due to the extraction wells), then any
contamination potentially diverted in that direction would be captured by the chloroform
extraction wells then be discharged either into the milling process or tailings cells.
Per DWMRC review of the current Facility groundwater contour map, quarterly
chloroform reports, and the Ute Mountain Ute request it was noted that:
o It is understood that the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe requests that all monitoring wells
installed for the GCAP within 500 feet of the Facility boundary be sampled and
analyzed for all compliance parameters; however, monitoring wells should be
selected for compliance monitoring which will provide early detection of potential
contamination from the tailings cells. Requiring that all monitoring wells be
required for sampling within a certain distance of the property boundary is not
reasonable in the case of potential tailings cell discharge. The purpose of those
monitoring wells and current required parameters is appropriate, since the
objective is to determine migration of the chloroform plume.
o Likewise, it is not reasonable to require that any GCAP monitoring wells which
have had two consecutive exceedances of GCAP concentrations be sampled for
the entire list of compliance parameters. The GCAP monitoring wells have been
installed to monitor the chloroform plume and therefore it is likely that several of
the wells will have multiple consecutive exceedances of the parameters for that
objective. This does not necessitate a full suite of monitoring to detect potential
discharges from the tailings cells. As per the bullet above, any wells selected
should be those that will provide early detection of potential contamination.
o Per Director review of the groundwater elevation contours, capture zones
(chloroform and nitrate) and monitoring well locations, it does seem reasonable to
require that monitoring well TW4-24 be included in the permit as a general
monitoring well and sampled on a semi-annual frequency for all parameters listed
under Table 2 of the Permit. It is noted that monitoring well TW4-24 is currently
being used as a pumping well for the nitrate corrective action plan, is located
within the chloroform plume, and will exceed GWQS's for parameters associated
with those projects. Therefore, although the Director agrees that including
monitoring well TW4-24 as a general monitoring well is reasonable based on
groundwater contours during pumping, it is also expected that the monitoring
results will be highly variable and should not be used for direct compliance
purposes. Rising or decreasing trends in constituents caused solely by the
pumping should not be unexpected. Further, as background cannot be established
for this pumping well, and given the variability of background concentrations
acrosSthe site, constituent concentrations in TW4-24 that are within or close to
the range ofbackground values for constituents across the site should not be
unexpected.
Page 7 of31
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
Based on these findings, monitoring well TW4-24 will be included as a General Monitoring Well
under PartI.E.Z. of the Permit. This is considered a minor permit modification and is included in
section XV below.
b. Nitrate Plume
During a review of the Permittee April30,2008 New Wells Background Report and other
Permittee reports, Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) ("Nitrate") concentrations were observed above the
Utah GWQS (10 mg/L) in five monitoring wells in the Facility site area, including wells: MW-
30, MW-3 1, TW 4-22, TW 4-24, ail, TW 4-25.
After the Nitrate plume was identified and the information was shared with the Permittee, the
Director and the Permittee entered into a January 28,2009 Stipulated Consent Agreement which
required the Permittee to complete a Contaminant Investigation Report ("CIR") to determine the
potential sources of the Nitrate contamination. An immediate action to install 19 additional
nitrate monitoring wells was initiated to determine the extent of the contamination.
The Permittee submitted a CIR to the Director on January 4,2010, in which they identified a
number of potential sources. After Director review of the CIR, the Director determined that
additional investigation was required. This conclusion was shared with the Permittee in an
October 5, 2010 letter. The Permittee responded in a November 15, 2010 letter in which they
proposed additional studies to be conducted at the Facility. The additional studies were
discussed in detail during a November 30, 2010 meeting with the Permittee and DWMRC Staff.
The Director agreed with the Permittee that conducting these additional studies would be
appropriate. Therefore, the Director and the Permittee entered into a Tolling Agreement on
December 20,2010 to allow the Permittee time to conduct these additional studies. The
additional studies did not attribute tailings cell leakage as a source of the nitrate contamination.
However, the studies did provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the Ammonium Sulfate
Crystal tanks at the Facility site are likely a primary or sole source of the plume. The Director's
basis for this determination was:
The location of the highest levels of Nitrate contamination are at or directly downgradient
from the tanks;
The contaminant plume is upgradient or cross-gradient from the tailings cells,
demonstrating that the tailings cells are not contributing to the contamination; and
Some of the monitoring wells that are downgradient from the tailings cells do show
nitrate, but not in concentrations above standards or indicating increasing trends. Nitrate
occurs naturally in groundwater, so its presence in concentrations below standards is not
considered an indication of a problem.
After completion of the studies, the Director and the Permittee subsequently agreed to pursue the
Page 8 of31
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
development and implementation of a corrective action plan (CAP) to address the nitrate in the
groundwater. The Permittee completed and submitted the nitrate CAP to the Director. The
chosen remediation plan requires the Permittee to pump the groundwater and treat it by
evaporation and/or use it as process water for milling.
A public comment period began on July 18,2012 to receive comment on a proposed Stipulated
Consent Order, Docket Number UGW12-04 ("SCO") for the approved CAP for the nihate
contamination found in the local groundwater at the Facility. A hearing to receive public
comments was held on August 20,2012. A public participation sunmary and response to the
comments received was completed and on December 12,2012the Director authorized and issued
the SCO. This approval is subject to conditions, stipulated penalties and timelines outlined in the
SCO. Pumping under the remediation plan began in January, 2013.
c. Stipulated Consent Order Docket Number UGW12-03 (Out of Compliance Ground
Water Parameter Studies and Pyrite Investigation)
On May 9,2011 the Director issued the Permittee a Notice of Violation and Compliance Order,
Docket Number UGWI 1-02 ("NOV"), which required source assessment activities for several
monitoring wells/parameters in out-of-compliance ("OOC") status (based on the Directors
review of the l"t,2no,3'd, and 4ft quarters 2010 ground water monitoring data); and required the
Permittee to submit revised statistics for field pH for several of the facility monitoring wells
which were in OOC status.
During several meetings and phone conferences between the Director and the Permittee
subsequent to issuance of the NOV, the Permittee indicated that pH decreasing trends appeared
to be a site wide occuilence (observable in monitoring wells upgradient, interior and
downgradient) in the ground water in the vicinity of the Facility and that there was likely a
regional root cause. The Permittee also suggested that several of the other ground water
parameters in OOC (e.g. certain metals) may be attributed to the decreases in pH and thus
attributable to the root cause. Based on these discussions, the plan and time schedule deadline
for the pH statistical evaluation was extended in order for the Permittee to include a plan to
evaluate the root cause of the site wide decreasing trends in pH. The Permittee subsequently
submitted plan and time schedules for studies to determine root causes of pH and OOC
parameter exceedances and also submitted a plan and time schedule to determine if regional
dissolution of pyrite in the mineral matrix of the Burro Canyon formation could be causing the
site wide decreasing trends in pH.
On July 12,2012 the Director approved the Permittee's plans and time schedules for the studies
through issuance of a Stipulated Consent Agreement, Docket Number UGW12-03 ("SCA"). The
SCA approved study plans and as a result the following Permittee reports were submitted:
o October 10,2012, Source Assessment Report White Mesa Uranium Mill, prepared by
Intera Geosciences & Engineering (Intera) - Provides explanation and source
Page 9 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
assessment study of OOC exceedances except for pH. Provides statistical analysis of
data and includes graphs and tables of analysis.
November 9,2012, pH Report White Mesa Uranium Mill, prepared by Intera -
Provides source assessment study for monitoring wells in OOC for pH. Proposes
modified pH Groundwater Compliance Limits for pH for all MW series monitoring
wells based on field measurements.
o Decemb er 7 ,2012, Investigation of Pyrite in the Perched Zone White Mesa Uranium
Mill Site, prepared by Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. (HGC) - Provides findings of a study to
support the regional geochemical process explaining decreasing pH trends at
monitoring wells. The study analyzes quantities of iron pynte (from monitoring well
cores and cuttings) and models dissolution in the Burro Canyon Formation.
Based on the Directors review of these reports, a letter was sent to the Permittee, dated April 25,
2013, which agreed that revised GWCL's as provided for OOC parameters, and revised GWCL's
for pH for all MW series monitoring wells are appropriate and will be included in a permit
modification with some adjustments. The Director also noted that dissolution of pyrite as a root
cause for pH decreasing trends appeared to be a possible explanation for apparent site wide
decreases in field pH. Resolution of Stipulated Consent Agreement UGW12-03 is pending
formal inclusion of the modified GWCL's in the Permit renewal. The GWCL changes are
considered a major Permit modification and are discussed in section XIV below.
d. General Monitoring Wells NIW-20 and MW-22
Monitoring wells MW-20 and,MW-zz were installed in 1994 and are located at a distance of
more than 3/nmlle and one mile south of the tailings cells, respectively. When the State of Utah
began oversight of the Facility in August 2004, there was no monitoring data for these wells.
Therefore, the Director required, per a March 17,2008 Permit modification,that the Permittee
begin quarterly monitoring in both wells. After eight consecutive quarters of sampling, the
Permittee was required to submit a report determining background groundwater quality and a
calculation of groundwater velocities in the vicinity of wells MW-20 and MW-22. A
determination would then be made by the Director whether or not these wells would be made
point-of-compliance (POC) wells for the site.
After reviewing the June 1, 2010 Background Report for wells MW-20 and,MW-22, the Director
determined the following:
o Monitoring wells MW-20 arfi,MW-22 arefar downgradient from the nearest
tailings impoundment. MW-20 is about three quarters of a mile away and MW-
22 is about a mile away and cross gradient from the downgradient edge of Cell
4A making it unlikely that groundwater quality in samples from these wells today
has been influenced by potential tailings cell seepage.
Page 10 of 3 1
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
o One other far-downgradient monitoring well (MW-3A) exists between MW-20
and the nearest tailings cell.
Calculated average linear groundwater velocities for MW-20 and MW-22 are 0.33 feet per year
(ff/Vr) and 0.43 fl/yr, respectively. Therefore, any potential contaminant transport from the
tailing cell liner, to the groundwater table, and then to the monitoring wells would take an
extremely long time (thousands of years). Also contaminants would be subject to dispersion.
Additionally, per a Permittee study of groundwater elevations and pathlines in the southwest area
of the Facilitya it is unlikely that contamination from the tailings cells would be transported to
either monitoring well.
Therefore, the Director determined that monitoring wells MW-20 andMW-zz would not be
added as POC wells; however, the wells would be General Monitoring Wells where aquifer head
and groundwater quality information would be collected for informational purposes. The wells
would be sampled on a semi-annual frequency for the constituents listed in the Permit.
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe has requested that monitoring well MW-22 be added as a POC well
since it is the closest well to a resident of the Tribe. The Tribe also makes the assertion that the
sampling results found in the well are due to tailings cell leakage.
When the State of Utah began oversight of the Facility in August 2004, the Director was
concerned that the observations (primarily uranium) found in the wells on site could have come
from potential tailings cell leakage. To address the concem, and in additional to other studies
completed by the Permittee, the Director commissioned the University of Utah to investigate.
This study was conducted at the Facility from July 17 -26 of 2007. The purpose of the Study
was to veriff if the increasing and elevated trace metal concentrations (such as uranium) found in
the monitoring wells at the Facility were due to potential leakage from the on-site tailings cells.
After review of the May, 2008 University Reportll, the Director determined that downgradient
wells with excess total uranium concentrations (including well NNV-22) are likely the product of
surface recharge mobilizing natural uranium in the vadose zone, and not from potential tailings
cell leakage. This conclusion was based on at least four lines of isotopic evidence.
l. Tritium Signature - wells MW-3, MW-3A, MW-14, MW-l5, and MW-22 had tritium
signatures in groundwater at or below the limit of detection (0.3 Tritium Units), see
2008 University Report p.26. These values are more than an order of magnitude
below the corresponding surface water results found in either the tailings cells or the
wildlife ponds. Consequently, the groundwater in these five downgradient wells is
older than water in the tailings cells, and is of a different origin than the tailings
wastewater.
2. Stable Isotopes of Deuterium and Oxygen-l8 in Water - the Deuterium and Oxygen-
18 content of the groundwater matrix and tailings wastewater matrix was tested in all
Page ll of 31
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
of the water sources studied. Universityresults showed that wells MW-3, MW-3A,
MW-14, MW-15, andMW-22 (all downgradient with the elevated uranium
concentrations) had Deuterium / Oxygen-18 signatures that were almost twice as
negative as any of the surface water results (see 2008 University Report p.42).
Consequently, groundwater in these downgradient wells had a different geochemical
origin than the tailings cell wastewater.
Stable Isotopes on Dissolved Sulfate - the University Study evaluated 2 stable
isotopes found on sulfate minerals dissolved in the water samples (Oxygen-l8, and
Su1fur-34). These samples showed that the sulfate solutes in groundwater from
downgradient wells MW-3, MW-3A, MW-14, MW-15, and,MW-22 had a different
isotopic signature than the sulfate minerals dissolved in the tailings wastewater. In
the case of Oxygen-l8 on sulfate, the downgradient wells showed more negative
values than the tailings cells wastewater. For Sulfur-34, the results were inversed,
with groundwater showing more positive values than the negative values seen in the
tailings wastewater (see 2008 University Report p. 46). As a result, the sulfate
dissolved in the downgradient wells, with elevated uranium concentrations, has a
difflerent origin than the tailings wastewater
Wells with elevated metal concentrations. The University Study concluded that wells
with high concentrations of metals (MW-3, MW-14, MW-15, MW-18, and MW-22)
bear very different isotopic fingerprints than those of the surface water sites (e.g.
wildlife ponds, and tailings cells) (2008 University Report p. 58). Regarding uranium
concentrations in well MW-22,the University Study stated that*...it does not appear
that the elevated uranium values are the result of leakage from tailings cells..." (2008
University Report p. 45).
In addition to these findings, the Director notes that if the tailings cells were leaking the
monitoring wells located near the tailings cells would show evidence of the leakage well before
},{W-22.
e. Deep Water Supply WeIl: WW-2
Deep water supply well WW-2 is installed in the Navajo Sandstone aquifer. In the process of
writing the original groundwater permit for the site, the Director reviewed well construction as-
built drawing for the wells on site. The Director found that the construction of deep water supply
well WW-2 appeared to be inadequate, in that it failed to provide an annular seal that would
isolate the deep confined aquifer from the shallow unconfined aquifer. In response, the
Permittee agreed to consider several altematives for well WW-2 at the time of Facility
decommissioning and this commitment was written into the Permit.
On October 8, 2009 the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe submitted comments for a proposed
modification to the Permit. In the comments, the Tribe voiced a concern that the well creates a
3.
4.
Page 12 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground water Permit No. uGW370004
direct conduit to the Tribe's drinking water source in the White Mesa Ute Community as they use
the Navajo Sandstone aquifer for drinking water.
On January 14,2010, the Permittee committed to verify the well casing and annular seal integrity
of well WW-2 and agreed to remediate, if needed. The Permittee committed that it would
perform the investigation and repair of well WW-2 (if needed) and submit arepair report. A
compliance schedule item was added in the Permit to document this commiftnent. The schedule
item also included different methods the Permittee could take to determine the seal integrity.
On January 24,2012 the Permittee submitted an investigation report for well WW-2. The
^ Director's review determined that the findings of the report were inconclusive to prove that well
WW-2's casing and annular seal had physical and hydraulic integrity. Because well WW-2 is a
deep water supply well and the water in the well could be used for drinking water, the Director
met with Utah Division of Drinking Water ("DDW'') to discuss well WW-2. DDW was familiar
with well WW-2 at the Facility and told the Director that the Permittee is required to sample the
well and submit the results to DDW. DDW indicated that if any of these constituents sampled
exceed a maximum contaminant level (MCL), or if there is any detectable concentrations of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) observed, DDW will enforce remedial action.
The Permittee was issued a Notice of Enforcement Discretion for failing to perform any of the
techniques listed in Part I.H.3(a) of the Permit for the well WW-2 investigation. However, the
Director determined that even though the Permittee failed to perform any of the investigation
techniques required in Part I.H.3(a) of the Permit, the deep aquifer found in well WW-2 was
protected for the following reasons:
. Well WW-2 is located upgradient of the tailings cells and the Chloroform andNitrate
plumes; therefore, it is unlikely groundwater in this well has been affected or will be
affected by these potential sources.
. Well WW-2 currently provides the Facility with water for eye wash stations and
showers, is pumped several times a day, and yields about 160 gallons per minute.
The deeper confined aquifer is protected due to the artesian conditions in the confined
aquifer and the repeated removal of water from well WW-2. This active pumping
will deliver any potential contaminants back to the ground surface for use in the
Facility operations.
o Well WW-2 is regulated by the DDW. The Permittee is required to sample the well
and submit the results to DDW. The DDW has assured the Director that if any
samples exceed an MCL for any constituent or if there is any detectable
concentrations of VOCs observed, the DDW will enforce remedial action.
Page 13 of 31
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
v.UPDATED TABLE 1- GROUND WATER CLASSIFICATION
It was noted that Table 1 included in Part I of the Permit (Specific Permit Conditions) regarding
evaluation of total dissolved solids (TDS) in several monitoring wells needed to be revised based
on a significant increase in the data population since initially calculated. The table includes
updated calculations of TDS average concentration and standard deviation for wells which were
initially calculated with trvelve or fewer data points. Overall it appears that the results for
average TDS concentations in the recalculated wells remained consistent and that standard
deviation results were larger for most of the recalculated wells. This is consistent with expected
findings. It is noted that none of the wells require reclassification as a result of the recalculations.
VI. BACKGROIIND MONITORING REPORT FOR MONITORING WELLS MW.
35, MW-36, and MW-37
On May l,2Ol4, the Permittee submitted a Background Ground Water Quality Report for
monitoring wells MW-35, MW-36, and MW-37 @ackground Report). The Background Report
included new proposed GWCLs for the 38 constituents in each of three wells, for a total of 114
individual GWCLs. The GWCLs were established using the same Decision Tree/Flowchart that
was used to calculate the GWCLs in the Permittees background groundwater quality reports
dated October 2007 (existing wells) and April 30, 2008 (new wells). The flowchart is based on
the following EPA Guidance:
February, 1989, "Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water Monitoring Data at RCRA
Facilities Interim Final Guidance," [J.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste, 530-SW-89-026, and
hly, 1992, "Statistical Analysis of Ground-Water Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities
Addendum to Interim Final Guidance," IJ.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste.
The Flowchart also allows the permiffee to consider a modified approach to setting GWCLs for
upward trending constituents. The August 24,2007 Conditional Approval for the Flowchart
states that "Please be advised that before the DRC (Director) considers such a proposal, DUSA
(the Permittee) will be required to provide sfficient technical explanation and justificationfor
why the most recent data is both representative and protective of local groundwater resources."
In the preparation of the Background Report, the Permittee asked the Director if they could
consider newer EPA Guidance for upward trending constituents. The Director agreed and the
Permittee also considered the additional EPA guidance document listed below for preparation of
the Background Report:
o March, 2009,"Statistical Analysis of Groundwater Monitoring Data at RCRA Facilities,
Unified Guidance. EPA 530/R-09-007', U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
l.
2.
Page 14 of 31
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
Resource Conservation and Recovery, Program Implementation and Information
Division.
After review of the Background Report and consideration of the University of Utah Study Final
Report; the Director determined the following: 1) The Director accepts 108 of the 114 GWCL
values proposed by the Permittee in the May 1, 2014Background Report; ard2) For the
remaining six GWCLs, the Director will adopt the values calculated in tables 7,8, and 9 of the
July 14, 2014 Director Memorandum.
During the writing of the revised Permit and this Statement of Basis, a typographical error for the
calculated GWCL for Nickel in MW-35 was identified. In the May 1,2014 Permittee
Background Report, the Permittee proposed a value of 5 pglL for Nickel based on the fractional
approach of the State GWQS for nickel. The GWQS for nickel is 100 pglL. Therefore, using
the fractional approach (50% for Class III) the GWCL should be 50 pgll-, not 5 pgll,. This enor
was also shown in the Director July 14, 2014 Review Memo and July 15,2014 Approval Letter.
However, the correct value of 50 pglL for Nickel in MW-35 appears in Table 2 of the Permit.
Routine grourdwater quality monitoring is conducted on a quarterly basis (4-times/year).
However, the Director may allow a reduced frequency of routine groundwater sampling if site
specific groundwater conditions warrant [see UAC R317-6-6.16(AX2)]. For certain sites where
groundwater velocities have been found to be low (e.g., less than l0 feet per year), the Director
has approved a semi-annual sampling frequency (2-times/year) in order to avoid statistical
problems such as auto-correlation, and allow a better measure of natural groundwater quality
variations.
As described in the Permittee Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit - December 1,2004
Statement of Basis, there are two different frequencies of routine groundwater monitoring at the
Facility, as follows:
Semi-annual (2-times/year) where groundwater velocity is less than l0 feet/year, and
Quarterly (4-times/year) where groundwater velocity is equal to or greater than 10
feetlyear.
Part I.H.4 of the Permit required the Permittee to install groundwater monitoring wells MW-36
and MW-37. Part I.H.5 of the Permit required the Permiffee to calculate the average linear
groundwater velocity calculated for the wells. The Permittee provided this information in the
May 1, 2Dl4Background Report. After review of the Background Report, the Director found
that the Permittee provided aquifer permeability data and average linear velocity calculations for
the three new wells: MW-35 (8 feet/year), MW-36 (13 feet/year), and MW-37 (0.6 feet /year).
As a result, the Director has decided that wells MW-35 and MW-37 should be sampled on a
semi-annual basis and MW-36 should be sampled on a quarterly basis (see July 14.2014
Director Memorandum, Table 3), as set forth in the Permit Parts I.E.1(b) and (c).
o
o
Page l5 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
vII. UPGRADIENT MONTTORTNG WELLS MW-l, MW-18 AND MW-19
Per Director review of the October L0,2012 Source Assessment Report and April 13,2012pH
Report, the Permittee requested the removal of Ground Water Protection Limits from three
upgradient monitoring wells (well numbers MW-l, MW-18, and MW-19).
Perthe Directors Api123,2013 Review Memo (April 23,2013; Attachment E):"DRC agrees
with the justifications provided by EFR, thatfar-upgradient wells are not likely to be impacted
by current Mill activities based on review of lcriged water level maps included with the Mill
Quarterly Ground Water Reports. Specifically, per DRC review of the water level elevations, the
elevations at monitoring wells MW-1, MW-|8 and MW-19 are higher than water elevations in
the Burro Canyon Aquifer beneath all of the Mill tailings cells. Additionally, those monitoring
wells are located north and northeast of the tailings cells, local groundwaterflow is to the south-
southwest. Iffuture groundwater gradients change such that there is reqsonable evidence to
suggest that any of the upgradient wells MW-1, MW-L8 or MW-19 may be impacted by tailings
cell discharge or other Mill related activities, then the Director will re-institute GWCLs in the
Permit at any or all of the monitoring wells. Continued semi-annual (baseline) monitoringfor
all contaminants listed in Table 2 of the current Permit (Current - DRC 8/24/2012) will be
required to continuefor continued assessment of background groundwater quality at monitoring
wells MW-L, MW-18 and MW-19."
Spectfically, DRC justifications to allow removal of GWCLs at wells MW- I , MW- I I and MW- I 9
are as follows:
Per DRC review ofwater elevation maps and expected groundwaterflow directions,
wells MW-(, MW-18, and MW-19 are hydraulically upgradientfrom the Mill,
Groundwater monitoringfor all currently monitored parometers listed on Table 2 of the
permit will continue at baseline monitoringfrequencies and will be submitted with the
Mill Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring Reports,
Continuation of GWCLs at upgradient monitoringwells may result in unnecessary
enforcement action and source assessment."
The Director also provided notification that the removal of Ground Water Compliance Limits at
the upgradient monitoring wells appeared appropriate per an April25,2013 letter to the
Permittee (Utah Division of Radiation Control, April25, 2013). Removal of GWCL's at the
upgradient wells (change is designation to general monitoring wells in the Permit) is considered
a major Permit modification and is discussed in Section XIV below.
VI[. GROUND WATER COMPLIANCE LIMIT MODIFICATIONS
The Permittee has made several requests for ground water compliance limit modifications via
Source Assessment Reports (SAR's) (in addition to the October 10,2012 SAR discussed in Part
fV.c above). Per the SAR's the Permittee proposed modifications to the Permit Partl-Table2,
l.
2.
3.
Page 16 of 3 I
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
Permit Part I.E.1.c., and Permit Part I.E.3.d. The Permittee submitted requests for GWCL
modifications (SAR's) as follows:
October 1,0,2012- Permittee Source Assessment Report6
November g, 2OI2- pH ReportT
llu/.ay 7 ,2013 - Permittee Source Assessment Report for TDS Exceedances in Monitoring
Well MW-29e
4. August 30,2013 - Permittee Source Assessment Report for Selenium Exceedances in
Monitoring Well MW-3 1
ro
5. January 13,2014 - Permittee Source Assessment Report for Gross Alpha in Groundwater
Monitoring Well MW-32r I
6. March 18,2014 -- Permittee Source Assessment Report for Sulfate Exceedances in
Monitoring Well MW-l and Total Dissolved Solids Exceedances in Monitoring Well
MW-3A12
7. December 9, 2015 - Permittee Source Assessment Report for Selenium, Sulfate, TDS
andpH in Monitoring Well MW-3113
8. Jwrc 24, 2OL6 - Permittee Source Assessment Report for Sulfate in Monitoring Well
MW-18 and Fluoride, pH, Cadmium and Thallium in Monitoring Well MW-2414
9. November 17,20L6 - Permittee Revised Statistical Analysis for Cadmium and Thallium
in Monitoring Well MW-24rs
10. January 16, 2017 - Permittee Revised GWCLs for Cadmium and Manganese in
Monitoring Well MW-3AI6
The Director reviewed the GWCL changes pending inclusion in the Permit as follows:
l. April 23, 2013 - Directors review regarding the Permittee October 10, 2012 Source
Assessment Report, November 9, 2012 pH Report and December 7, 2012 Pyrite
Investi gation Report25
2. July 15, 2Ol3 - Directors Review regarding the Permittee I{gy 7,2013 Request (l't
Quarter 2013 Ground Water Monitoring Report Review Memo)''
3. September 17,2013 - Directors Review regarding the Permittee August 30,2013
Request28
4. March 4,2014 - Directors Review regarding the Permittee January 13,2014 Request2e
5. June 5, 2014 -Directors Review regarding the Permittee March 18,2Ol4 Request3l
6. February 16, 2016 - Directors Review regarding the Permittee December 9, 2015
Request3a
7. September
8. December
Request36
9. Jantary 25,2017 - Directors Review regarding the Permittee January 16,2017 Request3T
A table of all proposed GWCL modifications is included in section XIV below and in the redline
strikeout version of the proposed Permit (Attachment A).
l.
2.
3.
14,2016- Directors Review regarding the Permittee June 24,2016 Request3s
20, 2016 - Directors Review regarding the Permittee November 17, 2016
Page 17 of 3 I
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
IX.PERMITTEE REQUESTED MODIFICATION FOR COMMENCEMENT OF
ACCELERATED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The Permittee submitted a letter and attachment request for Permit modification regarding
accelerated monitoring schedules, request dated May 25,2012. The request was made in
response to a Director February 7,2012 Director Notice of Enforcement Discretion regarding
reule* of the Permittee's 1", 2'o and 3'd Quarter 2011 Ground Water Monitoring Reports. The
Permittee's Modification Request formalizes agreements made between the Director and the
Permittee during a phone conference on April 5,2010. The Permit modification affects Part
I.G.1.b, which requires initiation of accelerated sampling. The modification changes the time
period for commencement of accelerated monitoring from "immediately'' for both monthly and
quarterly monitoring to the accelerated monitoring period (monthly or quarterly) following
Director receipt of the Permittee Exceedance Notice.
Per the April 5, 2010 telephone conference between the Director and the Permittee this schedule
for commencement of accelerated monitoring was deemed appropriate due to increased sampling
requirements in the facility Quality Assurance Plan (requirement for a2 well volume purge) at
the Facility and the need for more flexibility in preparing and submitting the Exceedance Notice
to the Director, due to the extended time required for sample collection and longer timelines to
receive all of the period laboratory reports. The Permittee proposed at the time to commence
accelerated monitoring during the monitoring period following the submission of the 30-day
Exceedance Notice to the Director.
x.REMOVAL OFROBERTS POND
The Director notes thatpart2.7.6 of the Permit Application summarizes the uses of Roberts Pond
as follows: "Roberts Pond receives periodic Jloor drainage and other wastewaters from Mill
process upsets, is frequently empty, and was re-lined with nan FML in May, 2002. In order to
minimize any potential seepage releasefrom Roberts Pond, the Director required thefollowing
in Part 1.D.3(e) of the Permit: (i) EFN shall operate this wastewater pond [Roberts pondJ so as
to provide a minimum 2-footfreeboard 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 wasta,vater
elevation exceeds this maximum level, the Permittee shall remove the excess wastanater and
place it into containment in Tailings Cell I within 72-hours of discovery; (ii) At the time of Mill
site closure, EFN will excavate and remove the liner, berms, and all contaminated subsoils in
compliance with an approvedfinal reclamation plan under the Mill License."
The Director notes that during early 2014 the Permittee reported that the Roberts Pond Liner had
torn. The Permittee proceeded to provide the Director additional reports concerning the pond
including soil sampling results beneath the pond and evidence that the soils were contaminated.
The Permittee then excavated soils to remove contamination to screening concentrations. The
Permittee opted to completely remove the pond after the excavation activities, and submitted a
Page 18 of 31
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
re-grading plan for Director Review and Approval. The Director subsequently approved the plan
on August 5,2015. Additionally, the Permittees Discharge Minimization Technology
Monitoring Plan has been revised to remove inspection requirements associated with Roberts
Pond. The Permittee has completed a drainage line directly to Cell l, and other onsite diversions
to handle discharges previously routed to Roberts Pond.
Based on these actions it is appropriate to remove Permit sections related to Roberts Pond. This
is summarized in the Minor Permit Changes Section XV below.
XI. REMOVAL OF MONITORING WELL MW.3
A 2005 Permit Statement of Basis listed several construction issues associated with Monitoring
Well MW-3. At that time it was decided that a replacement well should be installed and the
Permit included a requirement to irlstall the replacement monitoring well. The Permiuee installed
monitoring well MW-3A as a replacement during August 2005.
Specific issues conceming the Monitoring Well MW-3 construction were:
1. No geologic log is available for Monitoring Well MW-3 and it is not possible to veriff
whether screened interval is located at the base of the Brushy Basin Shallow Aquifer.
2. MW-3 was constructed without a filter media or sand pack across the screened interval.
3. A lO-foot long section of blank (non-perforated) casing was left at the bottom of the well
below the screened interval which acts as a sump and contains stagnant water and
sediment.
4. MW-3 is a low yield well. Water levels are typically only 5 feet above the base of the
well screen.
These construction issues, combined with low water levels and low recharge rates in the well,
have resulted in inconsistent results for several of the monitoring constituents in the well. It is
noted that both monitoring wells, MW-3 and MW-3A, have been monitored by the Permittee
since the installation of Monitoring Well MW-3A (11 years of data for both wells). The two
wells are located in close proximity to each other and MW-3A does not show the same
inconsistent results. This observation supports the finding that the MW-3 well construction has
been the historical cause of fluctuating results and has likely resulted in GWCL exceedances of
several monitoring parameters.
Based on these findings it was determined by the Director that continued monitoring of MW-3
was not necessary and that the well should be plugged and abandoned in conformance with State
rules and regulations, as was intended during the 2005 review for the Statement of Basis. Well
abandonment activities were completed on November 30,2016 by Bayles Exploration Inc., a
Page 19 of 3 I
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
licensed water well driller, under the direction of a
Smith) with Hydro Geo Chem, fnc. Based on this,
monitoring of MW-3 have been removed.
licensed professional geologist (Stewart J.
sections of the Permit pertaining to
XII. MODIFICATION OF SLIMES DRAIN COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
FOR TAILINGS CELLS 2 AND 3
The Permit Part I.D.3.b.3 has required the calculation of slimes drain tailings fluid elevation and
comparisons with prior years to ensure that the tailings fluid elevations were lower, as measured
in the slime drain pipe, for the current year as compared with the two previous years. This
requirement became insufficient as the result of tailings fluid rise due to the emplacement of
Phase I of the final cover on Cell 2 (per Reclamation Plan v. 5.1). Emplacement of Phase I of
the cover has essentially surcharged the tailings.
In addition to placement of the Phase I final cover on Cell2, a series of piezometers were
installed to allow measurement of tailings fluid head across the cell. This allows for fluid
elevation measurements across Cell2, fluid elevation contouring across the cell, and provides a
means to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the slimes drain pumping.
Since the physical state of Cell 2 has changed and is progressing towards construction of final
cover, and since new tools, including piezometer measurements and enhanced settlement
monitoring now exist to evaluate the effectiveness of the slimes drain dewatering, and to better
project timelines for cell dewatering, it was determined that a specific plan for compliance at
Cell2 (and Cell3 when dewatering activities commence) would be more appropriate than the
previous compliance measure. A requirement for submiual of a Slimes Drain Compliance Plan
has been added as Part I.H.1 of the Permit. This change will result in a more comprehensive
compliance measure.
Based on the foregoing, the previous Part I.D.3.b.3 language and equation has been removed and
replaced with a requirement for the Permittee to submit an annual report to the Director which
includes slimes drain pumping volumes, results of slimes drain recovery tests, a calculation of
average wastewater recovery elevation, and verification that the maximum fluid volume which
could practicably be extracted from the slimes drain in accordance with the systems in place was
removed. This measure is appropriate until Director receipt and review of the Slimes Drain
Compliance Plan, at which time, it is expected that Part I.D.3.b.3 will be revised to include a
more comprehensive reporting requirement.
XIL RESOLVED COMPLIAI\CE SCHEDULE ITEMS - RE,MOVED FROM
PERMIT
Completion of Compliance Item L. On-site Chemicals Inventorv Report. Part I.H.l
Part I.H.1 of the Permit required the Permittee to submit an On-Site Chemical Inventory Report
at the time of Permit renewal. The Permittee compliance is summaizedbelow:
Page 20 of 31
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
On January 16,2012, the Director received the Revised Renewal Application for the
Energy Fuels Resources Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit No. UGW370004.
Appendix L of the revised Permit Renewal Application included the On-Site Chemical
Inventory Report.
In a March 19,2014 Request for lnformation for the revised Permit Renewal Application,
the Director asked that the Permittee update the Chemical Inventory Report and include
historic chemicals used and their estimated volumes.
On June 5,2014, the Permittee provided an updated On-Site Chemical Inventory Report
that included the requested information.
As described above, the Permittee has satisfied the requirements of Part LH.l of the Permit.
Therefore, this compliance schedule item has been removed from the Permit.
Removal of Comnliance ltem 2.Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Work
Plan and Report. Requirements Moved to Stipulation and Consent Order
Infiltration modeling was conducted for the monolithic ET cover and a complete description of
the analyses was provided in EFR's March 2010 Revised Infiltration and Contaminant Transport
Modeling (ICTM) Report. The modeling was updated to address the Director's March 2012 and
February 2013 comments on the ICTM Report and to incorporate supplemental field
investigations conducted in 2010 and20l2 for cover borrow material and in 2013 for in situ
tailings. The updated infiltration modeling results were presented in EFR's submitted responses
to the Director's March 2012 and February 2013 review comments in August 2012 and August
2015.
On November I l, 2015, the Director held a conference call with EFR outlining a plan to
complete reclamation of tailings Cell2. This plan includes field testing the ET cover using a
constructed test cell on Cell 2 and, a supplemental test cell located outside of the restricted area.
The cover test cells will evaluate findings of the Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Model
Predictions in the field. Completion of placement of the Proposed Cover Design on Cell2 will
be accomplished according to timelines and specifications outlined in the current Reclamation
Plan (version 5.1), and will be conducted in two phases. The first phase will include the
construction of the cover radon barrier across all of Cell 2 and completion of a demonstration
that the ET cover will perform adequately according to performance monitoring at the cover test
cell and supplemental test cell. Requirements related to the cover test cell construction and
monitoring are included in a Stipulation and Consent Agreement (SCA), which includes
timelines, performance criteria and stipulated penalties for violations. In the event the ET cover
does not meet performance criteria outlined in the SCA, and these issues cannot be resolved by
additional evaluation and groundwater modeling as specified in the SCA, the Director may reject
the ET cover and revert to the currently-approved rock armor cover design.
The current actions required for the cover test cell, including potential requirements for
additional groundwater modeling are included in the SCA, and therefore the ICTM Report
Page 2I of 31
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
compliance item has been removed from the Permit.
Completion of Compliance ltem 3. Plan for Evaluation of Deep Supplv Well WW-2 . Part
I.H.3
Part I.H.3 of the Permit required the Permittee to submit a report that documented 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 maintains hydraulic isolation between the shallow unconfined
and the deep confined aquifers. The Permittee actions are summarized below:
On January 24,2012, the Permittee submitted the Facility Evaluation of Deep Supply
Well WW-2 Report. After review of the report, the Director sent the Permittee a Notice
of Enforcement Discretion (NOED) for failing to perform any of the investigation
techniques required in Part I.H.3(a) of the Permit. However, the Director did still find the
deep aquifer was protected and closed out the project.
As described above, the Permittee has satisfied the requirements of Permit compliance schedule
item I.H.3 of the Permit. Therefore, the Director has removed this compliance schedule item
from the Permit.
Completion of Compliance ltem 4.Installation of New Groundwater Monitorins Wells.
Part I.H.4
Part I.H.4 of the Permit required the Permittee to install groundwater monitoring wells MW-36
and MW-37 to replace wells MW-33 and MW-34 and submit an As-Built report for the wells on
or before June 30, 2011. The Permittee undertook the following action:
o The Permittee submitted the As-Built for well MW-36 and MW-37 on June 29,2011
and the Hydraulic Testing report on June 28,2011. The Director reviewed the reports
and closed out the project on November 14,20IL.
As described above, the Permittee has satisfied the requirements of compliance schedule item
I.H.4 of the Permit. Therefore, the Director has removed this compliance schedule item from the
Permit.
Completion of Compliance ltem 5. Backsround Groundwater Oualitv Report for Well
MW-35 and New Monitorine Wells. Part I.H.5
Part I.H.5 of the Permit required that after completion of eight consecutive quarters of
groundwater sampling and analysis of wells MW-35, MW-36, and MW-37, the Permittee would
submit a Background Groundwater Report for Director Approval. The Permittee compliance is
summarized below:
. The Permittee submitted the Background Groundwater Report for wells MW-35,
MW-36, MW-37 on May 7,2014. The Background Report was approved by the
Director on July 15,2015.
Page 22 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
As described above, the Permittee has satisfied the requirements of Permit compliance schedule
item I.H.5 of the Permit. Therefore, the Director has removed this compliance schedule item
from the Permit.
Completion of Comoliance Item 6. Detailed Southwest Hvdroseolosic Investisation and
Report. Part I.H.6
Part I.H.6 of the Permit required the Permittee to conduct an investigation to define, demonstrate,
and characterize: 1) hydraulic connection and local groundwater flow directions between the
area near Tailings Cell48, and the western margin of White Mesa and submit an investigation
report on or before January 13,2012. The Permittee compliance is summarized below:
o The Permittee submitted the Southwest Hydrogeologic Investigation Report on
January 12,2012. The Director reviewed the report and sent the Permittee an RFI on
May 30,2012.
The Permittee submitted a revised Southwest Hyrogeologic Investigation Report on
August 3,2012. The Director reviewed the report and sent the Permittee an RFI on
September 20,2012.
The Permittee submitteda2"d revised Southwest Hyrogeologic Investigation Report
on August 7,2012. The Southwest Hyrogeologic Investigation Report was approved
by the Director on February 21,2013.
As described above, the Permittee has satisfied the requirements of Permit compliance schedule
item I.H.6 of the Permit. Therefore, the Director has removed this compliance schedule item
from the Permit.
Completion of Compliance Item 7. Modification to the DMT Monitorins and Cell4A and
Cell48 BAT O&M Plans. Part I.H.7
Partl.H.7 of the Permit required the Permittee to submit proposed modifications to the cu:rently
approved DMT Monitoring and Cell4,A' and Cell48 BAT O&M Plans for Director approval on
or before August 1,2011.
The Permittee submitted a modification for the Facility DMT and BAT plans on July
I1,2011. The Director reviewed the modification and sent the Permittee an RFI and
Confirmatory Action Letter on September l3,20ll
The Permittee submitted revised Facility DMT and BAT plans on February 29,2012.
The Facility DMT and BAT plans were approved by the Director on March 12,2012.
As described above, the Permittee has satisfied the requirements of Permit compliance schedule
item I.H.7 of the Permit. Therefore, the Director has removed this compliance schedule item
from the Permit.
Page 23 of 3L
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
XIV. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PERMIT CIIAI\GES
Removal of GWCL's for Upsradient Wells MW-l. N{W-18 and MW-19 Part I.C. Table 2
The removal of GWCLs in upgradient wells MW-l, MW-l8 and MW-19 is appropriate for the
reasons described above. These wells will be included as general monitoring wells and the
Permittee will be required to monitor the wells for all compliance parameters, this language has
been included in the Permit Partl.E.2.
GWCL Chanees Part I.C. Table 2
The Permittee has submitted several Source Assessment Reports (SAR's) in addition to the one
discussed in section IV.c above (Requests for GWCL modifications were received from the
Permittee and reviewed by the Director as discussed above. The table below lists the GWCL
modifications that are included in the Permit.
Wells/biect to GWCL modificatearame[crs suDlect [o m cauons
Moffiitofug' Wo:[n,,,,No.P,ar:amete#Current GWCL Nilodi:fi0d,,G1[ Ct
MW.3A Selenium 89 pelL 109.58 pelL
MW-3A Sulfate 3640 mslL 3949.27 melL
MW-3A TDS 5,805 mglL 6,028 mel1 (a)
MW.3A Cadmium 8.3 pg,lL 3.55 pglL
MW-3A Manganese 6,287 LLg,lL 383 pslL
MW-I1 Manganese 131 .29 LL9L 164.67 VglL
MW-12 Selenium 25 pelL 39 pglL
l/{W-24 Cadmium 2.5 pg,lL 6.43 $g,lL
}i,IW-24 Fluoride 0.36 melL 0.47 mg/L
}/4W-24 Thallium 1 ug,lL 2.01 wg,lL
MW-25 [Jranium 6.5 uslL 7.25 pg,lL
MW-26 Uranium 4l .8 welL 119 wslL
I[{W-27 TDS 1075 melL 1185.72 mgL
MW-29 TDS 4,400 mglL 4,570 melL
MW-30 Selenium 3a peL 47.2 pglL
MW-3 I TDS 1320 melL 1700 mgl1,-rt
MW-3 I Sulfate 532mg,lL 697.60 mslLtc)
MW-3 1 Selenium 7 | vslL 86.81 $glLr"t
MW.32 Gross Alpha 3.33 pCiL 7 pCill(o)
a
(b)
(c)
Director Approval Letter Dated June 5,2014
Director Approval Letter Dated March 10,2014
Director Approval Letter Dated February 16,2016
Page 24 of 3l o
Wells subject to GWCL modifications for pH
Mofiitdrifig We[[,,:,,N$.Parameter cu#cflt,,GrMCu
:: : (,s.u.1
Mboifi.eflG.IMCI
MW-2 pH 6.5-8.5 6.72-8.5
MW-3A pH 6.5-8.5 5.84-8.5
MW-s pH 6.5-8.5 7.04-8.s
MW-l1 pH 6.5-8.5 6,2s-8.s
MW-12 pH 6.5 - 8.5 5.86-8.5
MW-14 pH 6.5 - 8.5 5.42-8.5
MW-I5 pH 6.62 - 8.5 s.88-8.s
MW-I7 pH 6.4-8.5 6.27 -8.5
MW-23 pH 6.5-8.5 5 .97 -8.5
IN/{W-24 pH 6.5-8.5 5.03-8.5
MW-25 pH 6.5-8.5 5.77 -8.5
MW-26 pH 6.74 - 8.5 s.6l -8.s
}/{W-27 pH 6.s-8.5 6.47 -8.s
MW-28 pH 6.1-8.5 5.58-8.5
MW-29 pH 6.46-8.5 5.94-8.5
MW-30 pH 6.5-8.5 6.47 -8.5
MW-3 I pH 6.5-8.5 6.23-9.5(u)
MW-32 pH 6.4-9.5 5.31-8.5
at _.
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW3700A4
Director Approval Letter Dated February 16,2016
Removal of Monitorins WelI MW-3
The plugging and abandonment of Monitoring Well MW-3, pursuant to findings stated in a 2005
Statement of Basis and construction of replacement well MW-3A at that time, has been
completed in accordance with State rules and regulations. Monitoring well MW-3 has been
removed from the Permit Table 2. And Section E. (Ground Water Compliance and Technology
Performance Monitoring).
Out of Compliance Status Changes Part I.G.l.
The Permit modification request to extend the timeline to report GWCL exceedances and
corlmence accelerated monitoring is deemed appropriate and necessary due to increased onsite
groundwater monitoring requirements and laboratory analysis timelines. These changes were
verbally agreed to during an April 5,2010 teleconference between the Director and the Permittee
at which time it was communicated that the current Permit timelines were unfeasible.
Page 25 of 3L
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
XV. STIMMARY OF MINOR PERMIT CHANGES
Recalculation of TDS Averase and Standard Deviation for Several Monitorins Wells Part
I.A. Table I
Monitoring Wells which had initial calculations of TDS average concentrations and standard
deviation with a data population of twelve or less were re-calculated to ensure consistent results
using all historical TDS results. Based on the recalculations, none of the original groundwater
classifications will be altered.
Addition of Monitorine Well TW4-24 as a General Monitorine Well Part I.E.2
ln consideration of altered hydraulic gradients due to groundwater pumping for the chloroform
remediation project, monitoring well TW4-24 (Currently used as a pumping well) will be
included in the Permit as a general monitoring well and the Permittee will be required to sample
the well for all compliance parameters semi-annually. This issue is additionally discussed in
section fV.a. above
Chemicals Inventorv Report. Part I.F.8. Table 2
Part I.F.8 of the Permit requires that the Permittee submit a Chemicals Inventory Report at the
time of submitting an application for Permit renewal. Requirements have been added at this Part
on what should be included in the report.
Clarification of BAT Requirements for Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock
Storaee Area Part I.D.ll
Per the Permittee's June 5, 2014 response to a Director March 19,2014 interrogatory regarding
clarification of the Permit Part I.D.11, the Permittee requested a wording change. Per the
Director's review of the response and the Permit, it is agreed that the language in Part I.D.11
needs additional clarification. The permit language has been revised to clearly state the
requirements for feedstock material outside the feedstock storage area. Specifically, the
Permittee is required to provide aisle ways between drummed material to allow inspection of all
drummed material and ensure integrity and water tightness of the drums or overpacks, or to
provide an approved hardened surface for drum storage.
Removal of DMT Requirements for Roberts Pond Part I.D.3.e and I.E.7.c
The Permittee found that the Roberts Pond liner had a tear during 2012 and,removed the pond
from service. Soil sampling beneath the pond was subsequently performed during 2014 andthe
contaminated soils were excavated. The Director issued an August 5,2015 Approval Letter to
backfill and re-grade Roberts Pond. The DMT Monitoring Plan was revised by the Permittee to
remove inspections at Roberts Pond, which was subsequently approved by the Director on
April7,20l5. Since Roberts Pond is no longer in use and has been backfilled and re-graded
according to approved plans it is appropriate to remove DMT requirements for Roberts Pond
from the Permit. The Permit parts I.D.3.e and I.E.7.c have been removed.
Page 26 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
Slimes Drain Compliance ltem Cells 2 and 3 Part I.D.3.b.3 and Part I.H.l
Since the physical state of Cell2 has changed and is progressing towards construction of final
cover, and since new tools, including piezometer measurements and enhanced settlement
monitoring now exist to evaluate the effectiveness of the slimes drain dewatering, and to better
project timelines for cell dewatering, it was determined that a specific plan for compliance at
Cell2 (and Cell 3 when dewatering activities commence) would be more appropriate than the
previous compliance measure. As such, the previous language has been updated to require
relevant reporting data, and a requirement for the Permittee to submit a Slimes Drain
Compliance Plan within two years of the effective date of the Permit has been added as a
compliance schedule item. Upon Director receipt and review of the Slimes Drain Compliance
Plan, it is expected that Part I.D.3.b.3 will be revised to include a more comprehensive reporting
requirement.
XVI. REFERENCES
rDenison Mines (USA) Corp., November 16,2007, Revised Addendum: Evaluation of Pre-
Operational and Regional Background Data, Background Groundwater Quality Report: Existing
Wells for Denison Mines (USA) Corp.'s White Mesa Mill Site, San Juan County, Utah, Prepared
by INTERA, [NC.
O 2Denison Mines (USA) Corp., September, 2009 Renewal Applicationfor Ground Water Quality
Discharge Permit UGWj 70004.
3Denison Mines (USA) Corp., July 13, 2012 Revised Renewal Application for Ground Water
Quality Dis charge Permil UGW? 7 0004.
aEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., November 7, 2012, Second Revision Hydrogeologt of the
Perched Groundwater Zone in the Area Southwest of the Tailings Cells White Mesa Uranium
Mill Site. Prepared by HYDRO GEO CHEM, INC.
sEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., April 13, 2012, Plan and Time Schedule for Out of
Compliance Parameters, I't Quarter 2012.
6Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., October 10,2012, Source Assessment Report, Prepared by
INTERA,INC.
TEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., November 9,2012, pH Report, Prepared by INTERA,
TNC.
8Energy Fuels Resources (USA) lnc., December 7,2012, Pyrite Investigation Report, Prepared
by HYDRO GEO CHEM, D.IC.
Page 27 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
eEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., May 7, 2013, Source Assessment Report for TDS in MW-
29, White Mesa Ursnium Mill, Prepared by Intera
toEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) tnc., August 30,2013, Source Assessment Report for Selenium
in MW-31, Whtte Mesa Uranium Mill, Prepared by Intera
lrEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., January 13,2014, Source Assessment Report for Gross
Alpha in MW-32, White Mesa Uranium Mill, Prepared by lntera
r2Bnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., March 18,2014, Source Assessment Report for Sulfate in
MW-01 and TDS in MW-03A, White Mesa Uranium Mill, Prepared by Intera
r3Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., December 9,2015, Source Assessment Reportfor MW-31,
Prepared by Intera
raEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., June 24,2016, Source Assessment Reportfor MW-18 and
MW-24, Prepared by Intera
ItEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., November 17, 2016, Revised Statistical Analysis for
Cadmium and Thallium in MW-24,Preparedby Intera
'6Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., January 16, 2017, Revised Groundwater Compliance
Limitsfor Mangdnese and Cadmium in MW-|3A,Prepared by Intera
rEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., June 2014, White Mesa Mill Renewal Application State of
Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004.
r8Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., June 5, 2014, Response to Utah Division of Radiation
Control ("DRC') March 19, 2014 Requestfor Information ("RFI'1, regarding the DRC review of
the July 2012 Revised Renewal Application for the White Mesa Mill Groundwater Discharge
Permit UGW370004.
reEnergy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., July 17,2015, Re: Utah Ground Water Discharge Permit
No. UGW?70004 White Mesa Uranium Mill - Roberts Pond Final Grading Plan
2oHurst, T.G., and Solomon, D.K. University of Utah, 2008 , Summary of Work Completed, data
Results, Interpretations and Recommendations for the July 2007 Sampling Event at the Denison
Mines, USA White Mesa Uranium Mill Near Blanding, Utah, Prepared by Department of
Geology and Geophysics.
"Utah Division of Radiation Control, April 5, 2010, Staff notes regarding a telephone
conference between Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. and Division of Radiation Control Staff.
Page 28 of 3l
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
"l)tuh Division of Radiation Control, November L4,2}ll, Denison Mines Installation Report
Pursuant to Part 1.F.6 and LH.4 of the Permit - Closeout Letter.
"tJtuh Division of Radiation Control, February 13, 2012, l(hite Mesa Mill Evaluation of Deep
Water Supply Well WW-2, Utah Groundwater Discharge Permit No. UGW370004, Part 1.H.3:
Notice of Enforcement Discretion and Closeout Letter.
'otJt^h Division of Radiation Control, February 7,2013, Notice of Enforcement Discretion
Regarding Review of the Energt Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. I't, 2nd and 3'd Quarter Ground
Water Monitoring Reportsfor the llhite Mesa Uranium Mill.
"Utah Division of Radiation Control, Apt'rl 23, 2013, Review Memorandum, Re. DRC Staff
Review of the Energt Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., October 12, 2012 Source Assessment Report,
November 9,2012 pH Report, and December 7,2012 Pyrite Investigation Report., From Tom
Rushing P.G. to File
2\ltanDivision of Radiation Control, Apt'il25,2Ol3, Letterfrom the Director to Jo Ann Tischler
Re. DRC Review of the Energt Fuels Resources (USA) Inc., October 12, 2012 Source
Assessment Report, November 9, 2012 pH Report, and December 7, 2012 Pyrite Investigation
Report.
z7UtahDivision of Radiation Control, July 15, 2013, Review of the l't Quarter, 2013 (dated May
28, 2013) Groundwater Monitoring Report, Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004 -
Energlt Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.,From Tom Rushing P.G. to File
"Utah Division of Radiation Control, September 17,2013, Re: Review of the Energy Fuels
Resources (USA) Inc., White mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding, Utah August 30, 2013 Source
Assessment Reportfor Selenium in Monitoring Well MW-31, From Tom Rushing P.G. to File
"tJtuh Division of Radiation Control, March 4,2014, Re: Review of Energt Fuels Resources
(USA) Inc. Documents Dated January i,3, 2014 (Source Assessment Reportfor Gross Alpha in
Groundwater Monitoring Well MlIt-32, and January 28, 2014 (Removal of Certain Groundwater
Monitoring Parametersfrom Accelerated Monitoring Status), From Tom Rushing P.G. to File
'outah Division of Radiation Control, March 12, 2014, DRC Staff Review of the July 13, 2012
Energt Fuels Resources Revised Rena,val Application for Ground Water Quality Discharge
Permit UGW3 70004: Requestfor Information.
"Utah Division of Radiation Control, June 5, 2014, Re: Review of the Energt Fuels Resources
(ISA) Inc., White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah, March i,8, 2014 Source Assessment
Reportfor Sulfate in Monitoring Well MW-l and Total Dissolved Solids in Monitoring l{ell MW-
13A,FromTom Rushing, P.G. to File
Page 29 of 31,
O!
Statement of Basis - Ground Water Permit Renewal
Ground Water Permit No. UGW370004
3'UtuhDivision of Radiation Control, July 14, 2014, Re: DRC Staff Review of the Energt Fuels
Resources (USA) Inc), Background Groundwater Quality Reportfor Monitoring Wells Ml[-35,
MW-36, and MW-37.
33utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, August 5,2015, Re: Approval of
Roberts Pond Final Grading Plan, Ground Water Quality Discharge Permit UGW370004
3outuh Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, February 16,2016, Re: Review of
the Energt Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. Source Assessment Reportfor Monitoring Well MW-jl
"Ut h Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, September 14,2016, Directors
Letter Regarding Review of the EFR June 24, 201 6 Source Assessment Report for Monitoring
Wells MW-18 and MW-24
36utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, December 20,2016, Directors
Letter Regarding Review of the EFR November 17, 201 6 Revised Statistical Analysis for
Cadmium and Thallium in Monitoring Well MW-24
37utahDivision of Waste Management and Radiation Control, January 25,2017, Directors
Letter Regarding Review of the EFRJanuary 16 20lTRequest to Revise GWCLsfor Cadmium
and Manganese in Monitoring Well MW-03A
Page 30 of3 1
Attachment A
Proposed Permit Changes - Redline Strike-out Groundwater Discharge Permit UGW370004
Page 31 of 3l
PermitNo. UGW370004
STATE OF UTAH
DryISION 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,
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 UnionBoulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, CO 80228
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
atract of land in Sections 28,29,32, and 33, Township 37 South, Range 22Bast, 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 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 ) _,2017 .
2022.This Permit shall exptre on
Signed this day of 20t7
Scott T. Anderson, Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Table of Contents
PART I. SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS............. .................:............ 1
A. GnouuoWerpnCrassmrcerroN........... ...................... 1
B. BacrcRorrNDWarenQuar,nv ..............22
C. Ppnurrl,rrrrrrs....... ..................2
l. Ground Water Compliance Limits ..........3
2. Tailings Cell Operations............ ............. 3
3. Prohibited Discharges .........3
D. Drscuancp MnqIrraIzarloN AND Bpsr AvATLABLE TEcnNoLocy SreNpenps ..................7
1. DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells l, 2,and 3...................................... 7
2. Existing Tailings Cell Construction Authorized.......... ............... 9
3. Existing Facility DMT Performance Standards ........ 9
4. Best Available Technology Requirements for New Construction................ ................12
5. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell4A ..........12
6. BAT Perfonnance Standards for Tailings Cell44' ................... 15
7. Definition of 11e.(2) Waste........ ........... 15
8. Closed Cell Performance Requirements...... ............ 16
9. Facility Reclamation Requirements........... ............ 16
10. Stormwater Management and Spill Control Requirements................. ....... 16
11. Requirements for Feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area.....17
12. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4B...... .....17
13. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell4B...... ..........-..20
14. BAT Performance Standards for the New Decontamination Pad............ .....................21
E. GnouND WATER Col,rplnNcE AND TBcnxor.ocy PBRnonumcp MoNtroRrNG ............ 19
1. Routine Groundwater Compliance Monitoring............. ........... 19
2. Groundwater Monitoring: General Monitoring Wells .............20
3. Groundwater Head Monitoring ............20
4. Groundwater Monitoring Well Design and Construction Criteria................................21
5. Monitoring Procedures for Wells... ......21
6. White Mesa Seep and Spring Monitoring ..............2t
7. DMTPerformance StandardMonitoring ..............22
8. BAT Perfonnance Standard Monitoring ................23
9. On-site Chemicals Inventory... ............24
10. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Monitoring .......24
1 1. Groundwater Monitoring Modifications ................25
LZ.BAT Performance StandardMonitoring ................25
F. ReponrrNrc RnqunrunNTs .............. ........27
1. Routine Groundwater Monitoring Reports .........-..27
2. Routine DMT Performance Standard Monitoring Report....... ....................28
3. Routine BAT Performance Standard Monitoring Reports..... .....................28
4. DMT and BAT Performance Upset Reports ...........28
5. Other Information ...............28
6. Groundwater Monitoring Well As-Built Reports...... ................29
7. White Mesa Seeps and Springs Monitoring Reports ................29
8. Chemicals lnventory Report....... ...........30
9. Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Reports..... ......... 30
10. Revised Hydrogeologic Report .............30
11. Annual Slimes Drain Recovery Head Report................ ............ 31
12. Decontamination Pads Annual Inspection Report ....................31
G. OurorCorrapueNcESrATUS ........-........-.32
7.
1. Accelerated Monitoring Status........ .....32
2. Violation of Permit Limits ................-...32
3. Failure to Maintain DMT or BAT Required by Permit.. ..........32
4. Facility Out of Compliance Status ....... 33
H. CouprreNcB Scuroule RTqUTREMENTS. ...................34
1. Slimes Drain Compliance Plan........... .................34
PART II. REPORTTNG REQUTREMENTS ............... ..........3s
A. RppnssENTATrvE SruraprrNc. ....................35
B. ANeryrrcAt. PRoc8puRss................ ....... 35
c. PeNaruES FoRTarrapBnrNc ..... 35
D. RnponuNc oF MoNrroRmc RBsurrs ...... 35
E. CorrapuaNcp ScnsoulEs............ ..............35
F. AoonroNer- MoNrroRrNG By rus PBRurrrEE ............ ................. 35
G. Rpconos CoNrrNrs ................ ................35
H. RBTBNUoN oFRrconos ........36
I. Noucr or NoNcovrpLrANCE REpoRTTNG .................... 36
J. OrHenNoNCoMpLrANCe Rnponrnqc ............... ......... 36
K. INspncnoNANDEurny .........36
PART III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES............. ......................37
A. DurvroCoprpry ....................37
B. PBNar,rrES FoR VroleuoNs or Penurr CoNonroNS ..........-..... ..................... 37
C. NBBo ro Hnrr oR RroucB Acrrvrry Nor A DBpnNsB ................37
D. Dury ro MrucerE................ ...................37
E. PnopBn OpBna.rroN aNp MITNTBNANCE ......... ..........37
PART rV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ........47
A. PraNNBo Cneuces .................47
B. ANucpnrBoNoNcoMpLrANCE ................47
C. PpnurrAcrroNs .....................47
D. DurvroR-eerplv ...................47
E. Dury ro PRovDe INronu.a,rroN............. ...................47
F. Orurn INroRuauoN............. ...........-......47
G. SrcNaronv RrqunrMENTS ......................47
H. PnNeruES FoR FersrrceuoN oF Rsponrs ............... 48
I. Ave[esil,rry oF Rpponrs ...................... 48
J. PRopenry Rrcsrs ................... 48
K. SsvBneBrLrrY ......48
L. TneNsrERS............ .................48
M. Srarplaws........ ....................49
N. RpoppNpnPRousroNs.............. ........-..----49
List of Tables
Table l. Ground Water Classification............. ........................ 1
Table 2. Groundwater Compliance Limits................. .....---......4
Table 3. DMT Engineering Design and Specifications ...........7
Table 4. Feedstock Storage Area Coordinates......... ..............9
Table 5. Approved Tailings Cell4.A. Engineering Design and Specifications ...........12
Table 6. Approved Tailings Cell48 Engineering Design and Specifications....... .....17
Table 7. Groundwater Monitoring Reporting Schedule ............... ...........27
o\
111
Part I.A-&-[B
PermitNo. UGW370004
O ARTI. SPECIFICPERMITC.NDITI,NS
A. Gnouuo WereR CLessrncerloN - 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
Average TDS (mg/L)
DUSA Data
Class III Groundwater
Average TDS (mg/L)
DUSA Data
Well ID p(t)
Average
Concentration(2)
Standard
Deviation(2)Well ID 11(t)
Average
Concentratio nQ)
Standard
Deviation(2)
MW-1st 77 1,273 93 MW.2 77 3,050 2s2
MW-5 82 2,058 170 MW-
I2I4\4L3
6t7{,ru#7 24lW
MW-I1 7t 1,844 178 MW-
l4+4rrAl-E
514 W w?++
MW-30 421+.W4 1008+MW-
l5IAU,z-
14
47g"ww 24394
M\I935;TBD TBD TBN MW-
uMr$tr
{5
22+7 4444W1 3212+!
MW-
l8(s)M:rv-
g-
t8L2 2.6454144 297+2+
MW-
19tr\g:6!ga
2213 2.457ryS w*+
MW-
ZFls+v-
lgtr)
23+?5.192?l/FT7 47 59AO
MW-
22(1,$A+'t-
4,+o
23+7.633ffi 6s6114
MW-
3 AI4rAt-
-22,v+)
408 5.684r-#7 w)#
MW-
231*rrr-
34
339 w#7 40889
MW-
u$A:N-B
21+.4.080W 26844
MW-
zsFlt+\At-
4
rc$rcw yt#
MW-
ZP-I*\IL
y+s)
60+r W rys
Part I.A*JJI
PermitNo. UGW370004
1) N: Number of Samples
2) Based on historic total dissolved solids (TDS) data provided by the Permittee for period between October, 1979 and September
2A[Beeembe#gg+. This datawas obtained fromthe Permittee's background groundwaterqualityreports.@
s+,a0e8-slla+L?0+tl.
3) Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-18 (55.1 pgll-) and thallium in MW-tg Q.l pelL) exceed the GWQS, 30 pgll- and 2.0
pgl[,, respectively. Therefore these wells have been classified as Class III groundwater rather than Class II groundwater.
4) Wells MW-I. MW-18, MW-19. MW-20, an+MW-22, and,T\N4-24 ate not point of compliance monitoring wells, but instead are general
monitoring wells as per Part I.E.2. Average concentrations ard standard deviations for wells MW-20 and MW-22 were provided by the
Permittee for the period between Jung 2008 and February, 2010. This data was obtained from the Permittee's Background Groundwater
Quality Report for wells MW-20 and MW-22 dated June, 2010.
5) Background concentration of manganese in well MW-25 (1,806 pg/L) exceeds the GWQS, therefore well MW-25 has beeir classified as
Class III groundwater rather than Class II gtoundwater.
6) Well MW-26 was originally named TW4-15 and was installed as part of the chloroform contaminant investigation at the facility. Under this
Perrnit, MW-26 is defined as a Point of Compliance (POC) well for the tailings cells (see Part I.E.l).
7) Background concentrations of uranium in well MW-27 Qa pg/L) and selenium in MW-31 (71 ltglL) 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 chlorofonn contaminant investigation at the facility. Under this
Permit it is included as a POC well for the tailings cells in Part I.E.l.
B. BecrcnouND WATER QUALITv - based on groundwater samples collected through June 2007
for existing wells (MW-l, MW-2, MW-3, MW-5, MW-ll, 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
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance, and documented in the Permittee's
background groundwater quality reports dated October 2007--an#April 30, 2008, and May l.
2014.
MW-
27o\Asn-,
No
45p-1.067w 5655
MW-
28}4rfrI-
-4€)
32]p,3.633++{9 1q128
MW-
2gIU]|ALx
40+t $n3#7 1188+
MW-
3l(z)M+g-
D
988 1.395ffi w+7
MW-
32%rL
-+l€)
3zJp,3J03W 1 6650
MW-
35l4rr\f-
32$)
2+D 3JEW 3542+7
MW-
3614\Il-#
2lE 4.344W 154+32
MW-
3 7[4IAr-
%
2tJp.3.8814414 t 08l+t
Footnotes l
C. Penun LIMITS - the Permittee shall comply with the following permit limits:
1.Ground Water
monitoring well
Compliance Limits
listed in Table 2 below
Part I.B & I.C
Permit No. UGW370004
contaminant concentrations measured in each
shall not exceed the Ground Water Compliance
2.
3.
Limits(GwCL)definedinTable2,below.Groundwaterqua1ity@
listed in Table 2 below 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.
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.
Prohibited Discharges - discharge of other compounds such as paints, used oil, arttifreeze,
pesticides, or any other contaminant not defined as 11e.(2) material is prohibited.
oo
o
JU
c
a.a-)
>{H
J
C)otrd
r\
al
-l-l(l)l
Fl
EI.-lEI
6tl
6l
-l6tl
bl
HI
iIol
trl
=lal
Els=
Fl(J
o
f-lql
ol tn rrtlcrl 6l ,.?l
-,1
Orr)
lf)\o
co
OIrrl
rOl
O
r.)
l,.)
\n
f-
\OtOIoolJ Oo.l lr)rnc{Or.|
OOv)
oo
rr)cl
f-
OIc.rl
O\n
c\
vl
f-
O
\.l
ca
v')
c\
OOq
c\
,,?
c!
\n
ea
t.a ,Q
c.l
otn c7)
c\
OOrr}
OOO.
r'1
rnl
TI
r-l\lnl
c\q
O
(.t
aa
ila>!gl
JU
Bo
r-l rr)f-c\
eol{liol
Orn
(.)\o
ca
OIrrliol
C\\o
+
\a
f-
r-.1olrrl
dr-l
O6l Orr)r
C\
Otar q(\
Oov)
@
o\OIc.rl
OIolnl
c.il
v?
f-
O[a)
ea
v')
c\
ololOI
c.tl
./)
6l
rr|
ca
l.)
6l
O\n eaC!
Oorn
OOO.
\n
ial
TI
"nlql
nl
f-nO f-
Et3
,-]U
o
\qlol rn lrll
c.tl 6l t,1l
oll o\.)
ra,\o
ca
OIrrlrol
Oov)
ia)
(n
f-
OItnlnl
oN O(n ir.ll
crtl rat
,.,.!l
-,1
OO
'')oo
C\
ea
OIcol
.(r
f-
\o
oq
c{
l,.)
crr
nc{
Ooo"
N
tQ
c{
tn
ca \t.n
v?
c\
OInl c.t
e{
Ooir)
OO
..i
lfil
odl
JIqlrrl
GI O
El3
J(J
()
\Olcll
OI
p
rn
tarlNI C{nlc{l
Orr)
ra)\o
c.)
OIrrl\ol
OOv)
far
v''l
f-
=qlrrl
O,l
oc!o[n lnlc\l \r)
Or
oo
\o9\o.f,
oca
oO\n
c\
oq
C{
Ora)
ea
v?
c\
OOO.
6I
t?
N
t.)
CO
tr)v?
N
O(.|c.)
c\
Ool,n
OOO,
\n
,,?l
TIr-lNI\il
e\t
oo
\o.f,
lna
- t-(
L! q)
-a'-(B
Il F(AU
FlU
ts(,
e!
O
f-c!
O
raN N v?
C{
O\n
la)\o
ca
O\n\o
\
oo
nf-
oO+O
ea
f-o\
\
@ol Ofa)
oov)
@
\rn\o
o$
oo,rI
N
,{.1
f-
Otn
ca
v)
6I
oOO^
6l
v?
c.l
rn
cal
(n ,,?
c\
o\n c.l
e.I
oOtn
ooO.
rn
6l
oQl -Kl o,;q
\o
c{It-ra
.+H
F( |-r
*ta*H>5
FlQ
o
\r|
c.i rr|rac{c{v.l
c!o\n
ta,\o
aa
o(n\o
oovi
fa)
,{r)
f-
O(t)ocac{
N
\ac{o\n \nc\l o\n O\n
oo
€o\oca
$q
\
cO
v?
f-
Oro
ca
nc{
aoo^
N
nN
\n
ca
\r)l?
C\
olf)Cf)
C{
Ooin
ooo.
\n
c{lnl nr,t1l mvl)
\o
c!o f-C{
N=
F( F{
Lla
r-a,.CB
ll F(AU
JQ
(,
9O ta rncl c\f-o(n
io\o
e.}
o\n\o
OorI
\.)
n
f-
ooq
@ooo^
c\l
oC!O\o
o\calrtr
CN
ora)
Oov)€
v?
eoc\
a
(ft
oo,fI
N
vr)
r\
o|.a
er)
vl
cl
Ooo^
c.l
u')
c!
l.o
t'ar
\n u'.!
GI
arat eaN
oola)
Oo
,f;
I
\ol
ool n,r;l od
VI)
\0
6t
tnooo
\-tl
l-(o+)d
B€
F(
ot-{o
c.i
()
-odF
F( t-{
*fr
=g;
a
JO
tso
(n
e!
\o
rtrj
c{
r.)rnel \r)c\
v?
e{oo
\n(\
(fl
ora\c{
rn\(n
$l\Ol
$qt
$
,.,.'!
O O c.,!
\o.t
rn
c.i rnc{
tn
O
O\n
CJ
tf,
r.)
r-rn Otnc{
rn\
eo
\rtf-rnc!
Ooo"
ia)c!|.n
[*-vr.!
f-
(r)
oJ \.t
c{
\n o\nN
Ootr)
6l
v?
6
I
rn
c-.ll
\o
\o
oica
|aa
*sau
FlU
Bo
6l
<?n6t
f-N (n
c\I
t?
(\l
oo
rnc\
cr)
o\a)\
C{+
\f,f-
\c,f-ca
o +$
tn
e'i r.)6l vl
O
o\nc*s
nf-
\n a
ca
t--oo
\n\
co
lnf-
[nc!oO
t.)cl r.)
r-v?
f-
r.)
c.l (n
C\I
rn o\a)N
oovl
c{
JrOl nI-l oovft
,.d
e!n f-
<3'(qH
*fr>U
FlU
B(,
\q
O
("')rr)c\C-l
ct
o0tfrl,.?l
eol
O(a)
\o\o
ea
Oln\o
Oov?
fl^)
v'!
f-
$@cltscolool
eol
OC{
(.|o
ool
v?l
o\lol
6\
oO
or.)n oOvI
oo
rn
ea oca
\\n nf-
Olat
ea
ta?
N
OOo^
c!
n
c\I
\n
cn no\
ta?
C.l
Orri co
C{
oOtl^)
oOo.
\n
I$loql nt loovtt
-d
q
f-
acr{ Er
Efreo
:(J
ts(,
\n
c.i
e.l
o
rr)
c..|C!L,r)
c!
o\n
\.)\o
co
o\a)\o
9
\r)nf-
\o\
oof-
cO
oc{o\o 9\o
C\l
oin
oo,rI
a
r.)n
@
oeo
Oo,rI
ol
cl
ca
or.)
cA
,.,.)
c{
oOo^
c.I
,..?
C!
t.r)
co
rn ,.?
N
orn cac\
oo\n
Ooo.
rn
I
c.rl\l nrol oovl)
\o
CA..t
o
o6I
EIo)l
EI FtF
st
r-H
N |-r
*l rr)
-a'- cBll -.A()
JO
tsu
v1
c!9
i
rr)c\c\l ,Q
c.l
orn
ra)\o
eo
o\n\o
oOtr)
\n
v)r\oO$
Oc!O\n \nc\oI.)
OO,rI
oo
$ea
oca
oO,r)
N
c.l ota)
ca
nC\
oOo^
c\t
,Q
N
rn
ea
\n tQ
C\l
o\.|cac{
C)orn
OOo.
rr)
,Q
oo
I
f-lnl\Cl
VD
\0
rn
00
O
€
ca
o0o
F()
FI
t.)
c\I
o orn $rr)Oo
r')
ocaF-
Oocfl
ooo (n sl
oo
oo
c{
N
C>!t Oo o(
oo c.l
+
oo
O
f-
:o
Oca
tr
o\o
ooo.
\n
\a $g
.EI
SISISI
sl
g
F]ol
$l\.IEIBI\il
SI
+
Oof-
l,n
N
ooo
!+
\n $
Of-
N
O
cO
rn
ra)
cl
oO
sf,
\osf
ooe
ooO
o
v..!
@
I
v?
\o
rf,
IAx€l-t.l-tHclt-Io(J
ss
EISI$l.Elst
EI
z
a
cS
(0
o
H
z
a(d
(,)
tr
z
+()
(s
L<
z
$
&lsl
o
tr
C)a
t
Lo
m
tr€(no
F
o
U
(spoO
o
C,aoQ
go
'1,
cUc)J
()
u)oc
cg
b0
(B
t
()
C)
E
g
o)€
-o
o
o
.54o
Z
Ho
()a
L<(,)
a
Cg
t-r F
E
CBLr
H
E
E(o
CB
otr
N
Ss
"rl.sl
s1
€l
€l
c$
0
(t)
rnoLr()
c)tro
(.)
O
()
oNtr
0)
na
M
14
a
o
otr
cS
mIN
o13
L{o
-qo6L{
(.)F
o-oL((B
O
E€oLrs
U
()
d
o
>r
oLo
U
()
(B
(l)
>{
oko
c)
o
o)
o)
d
,tro
Cdz
tr
CB
do
E
5dl<
C)F
(1)
tr
G)
oti
(n
o
(t)
o)tro
X
slsltrlot
0
a
q)
tr{
3h
o€
o
fr{
Flttr
(.)E
t{o
()
oo
el
ol
Bl
PIclo)l.dl
csl
Lil(,l
-lEI0)l+rl
CBIilol
cl>t
'ol
ol
Il3
JI()I
>tot
v1
C\
c\.llc.tl
c!l
tat
c{c\rn
N
o(r)
\.)\o
co
Orn\o
Orrt
trl
l'1
F.
OO$
OC!Olrt r
C-l tar
O
,r1
oo
@q
oo co
\atc!
sf
c'!
$
orr)
ea
r')
c.i
OO
c.i
,.,?
Gl
(n
c-t
trt ,,..)
c\
Olr)ca
C\
OO
r
<>
O.
rr)
iU
tsrhv
a
f),F(
Fl>{L{) t-{I
()
(J
t-,(
CB
El3
JI
UI
Blol
t1
c{(.ll rat
c\6l t,1l
c!l O(n
tn\o
ca
Orr\o
Otat
t,
r',1
f-
OO.f,(\O(
Nn
f-
a.)
o
r,a)
rn
c-)
O
v)
oo
C\n\oc\
Oca
OOv'i
c.I
v)
[t-
Or
co
1,1
GI
OOo.
(-.t
\a
(\l rat
c-t
(,,?
c!
o(n coN
oOl.n
OO
tn
in
=l(t) r-{
*l u)
-a'a cB
El t-aL)
J()
o
$
OVtt
ct!
\6
rn
.{i
Vht-
ch.+
Iat
N
c\,1
c\
Vhctl+
Vh
CN
trr
Vt)
.{i
oo+h,\o
co
Vtt
clr
c.h
(n
\o
CD
Vh
r.l-
C.tl
oolo
eoco
nt--l/t
r-l:
ch
oo9Oo\
C\
CDo
c.N
"f)6
CD+
c{
Otal
ctr
Vtr
"li(a)
N
tfto(
clt
VTo
CD
Vh
ctr+OOv)
m
vl)
r+\6r-.
\o6l
a
e-l
Vh+
ol\nl
c\.t
CD
Vh
ch+
v?
r--
Vtr+
crh
ola)
ca
Vhr++
Vh
(^tr
+tn
C.I
oOO+c\
Vhctl+v?
IN
ut
$(n
ea
Uh+rar
VNcit+,.?
c!
Vh
ctlO|'n
Vtr
Jc.tc\
ooi.)
c{t
OIOo
tn
"li
tr:<o()
L<
C)+)(€
B€g)ol-{(,
i
C))F4L{
*-)
L(oU
c\I
(l)
r-{
-o
CG
NA(Q r-r
-l v)
-a'- cBll ,-{AU
f-
-.:tr|(al
c\I c{
c\\\f,
orn c'l
tnf-
o\n\o
o\oo+
,a?
C-
q$o\rn
rrl
oGI $o\\
c.I ol,at
oo
'fI€
\o
c.!
\n
O(fr
oeac\
f-
c,h
"tc.h
o\n
ca
(n
c'i
oao.
N
tt]
c{
(n
(f)
r ,,?
c{
O\n ca
e\I
oota)
oOo"(a
F(=
(f) )-{
*la
-a'- cB
ll riE()
JQ
Bo
tn
c.i \n \a)N 6l nc{Or
ra)\o
co
o\n\o
Oo\n
\n
rl.)
f-
oo$o(\or
*rl
oo
\o
oo
or
Ootrl
oo o\o
eal
ootr}
N
vr)
f-
o\n
ca
v)
c{
Ooq
6l
v?
c{
tn
ca \o
t.!
c{
o(r)coc{
oorr)
ooo"
tn
OQ(v) -lu)
=5
J(J
()
rf,
o
tn
c.i
rn
c.i
ln
cJ r6l
,a?
N
oo
\nc!eo
O\n\N
r\
co \o u')o o ra
c.l
.l
f-.ir
x
ta)
c.l
l,.|o
o\r)cl
tf,
c!(r)€rn o\nol
rn\
c.t
\
f-
tnc!
oOO.
larel rn
[.-\n
F-
r.tcl rnc{
\n ornc{
oo|rT
c\
O\H
FIH
*la,H>5
J
C)
o
ca \tN c\v?
c!
o\a
(.)\o
co
o\n\o
o\\ooq rf)r\
$(\
\o"
\n
oc.l otrl rr)c\o
l,a)
cl OovI
@
tr)oco oco c\orr)
ca
nc{
ooq
c{
,.?
c\
\n
c.t
\n ,,?
c!
oln coN
oorr|
Ooo-
\n
€=(\l r-{
*la,sEU
JQ
O
rn
c.i ral c{c\cl
\r)o\r)f-$
ora\o
o\o\c{
tt?
f-
f-caoq oN otn orr)
C)o,r)€
q
$
oca co
@
c\-q
6l
o
l,.)
ca
nol
oo
cl
rQ
c.l
(n
cf)
q
.+n6t o\n coN
ootrt
Ooo^
\n
\a=
GIH
*la
-a,- cgEF{aO
JU>(,
C.lq
O
c\l9o
\nc!N t{..!
C{
o\n
r.)\o
ea
O(a
\o
coq
\nr-\o^
c!
t?
f-
O
\o oc{o\n \nc{oin
oov)
6
o\
cr?
J+
oco
O\r)
N
o\\o+
or
co
v.)
c{
Ooo^
6I
rn of-oca r.)o(r|caN
oo\n
c>oo^
(r)
ao^
=a(,
\
rn(\
O o
|.rf,ra)oo ocor\
ooca
d
Ooo (r)e
OO€C\
.{
o$oo o\n
oo c{
9
Ooo"
C-
oc.)
+
o\o
oOor
t
\at
€lSISISI
SIstg
.ilsl
13I
t{ol
$lNI:i!sl
sl
f
oo
f-
(.)
.'t
ooo
\f
ra)
+
of-
\
oea i.)
s
OO
+
\o:f,
ooo"
oood
3-H
GI-I.laax
GIt-Lo(J
N
Nsq
$
L
Ea
z
rn
d
Cd
otr
L.
z
U)
CO
c)
k
z
+
(l)
(B
t<
z
S
€lBI
{
3lUI
EI
o
tr
C)
Chtr l<(l)
m
A
E€
G!U
tr
Eol<
U
(0po()
L{()
IcoU
trol<
'o(l
C)
F]
(.)
(n(l)
CU
bItr(B
L<
ol<o
A
u
C).O
,o
o
oJ4oz
E
0)
C)a
L<o
a
E
Cg
t-{
tr
F
q
i
CgLp
H
€
c$trd
otr
N
s
Us
ai)
uS
S\B(
cs
o
(t)
v)oL.t)
(,)
o
(.)o
()
tr()
Ntr(I)a
MH
a
o
o
CB
mIN
(l)€
L<o
-eo
C(,L
()F
tro-ok(B(J
E
,.9oL{o
U
()
d
C)
ol<o
U
(l)
(o
-c
(l)
EoL(o
o
a
(/)
()
Cg
,qo
COz
si
cgli
.trol-{€
CB
l-,.
o
F',
c)iO3
oF.
d
o
(h
C)go
X
?
t){La
(..ll
c-rl
O\l.jl
\olr-lO\l
C{I
cnlolO\l
c!l
OI(nl
$l
.r1
.irl
c.llrl.{
c.rl
olf-l\cl
carl
OI\ol
ool
c!l
e\lrllnl
oolOIt)l
c.lq
o\\rtrl
c!
o
?or
$
oc.)c'I
c{
N\oo^$
o\ovI(\
cac{co
s
o\o("I
a6llrl
c!
€
\a
tnf-,rI
c{
$lO\lJr-a' .l
$^-
c+t
c..llOI
..o1
r/ho
obla
rrtt
C-$
c.i
oo
oo^
ca
c!\o\f
\llrll
=lJ
-l cl
r,hrl6
-F
J
ao
tr
()
,-E
=V)
Jb
F
anF
t.f-
c.)
I
tsl<'iz
Ecd
\.o
ca
I
B=a
,r;
co
I
B
a
a
(.)
tr
lio
o)&
(B
o
L()+)
c0
B
o$r
oLo{.Yo
cd
m
t
N
-t
(B
()
o{
t
t<
cld
bx
c.)
l-
F
dt<o
(D
t<.fa
ao{
UI
BNI
3l
=lC,)l ol
Pll -J
BgI(')l hl
El €l
ol .=l
crl cl
EI EI
al sl>l El
zl ;l
3l 8l
Sl El
siEl
El slml -l
Rl rlJBI
El3
EI BI
Et >l
El $l
g=]
o,ll oolHql
El
=lg\r
El=]
o.rl rrl
El ql
f=l
Etil<ll .l
JRI
*l
=lit 3
+l El
*l3l
+l rl
itB
=l
El
+I EI
Bt 8tafloll .trI
*l sl
3sl
;l €l
aElql ol
=t
Et
-1 h,l
*l El
!rr-.ES
-oEEqo
Mi<ils
-qE{-)'E ,,d
E HE'E .EBE Fd
* EE.= =bb gE
.ts' HEE {EcE s6
S YT FE* EE E.S
B g=€ sfi
3€Er ;Hl
€* EE EH
5, EE E$'
G
= E; sir
JE EE EJ
H E T E FSI
EaEE 6;itr.= 99co Ecd
lEE'E ?=E;i: E$
E?HE EEEEEE 6t
35 I E . E 'r
*H;€E15
aEiEgE E
:EqE:EE
= eZd=E =c.i E-d:
*.Es g *3 * = E
^X'(,oo=O.
EE EeS rc
IliE0? ts5'
Y>*.EdEE
? EE : g x g
EE;EO'.o,€EE;e€€
;tHE#ft$
*gE it 5+??E E E ts s
E;sit?1
= _.2'E 9.= G)
r* E gi**
=E-icg{roo)
EE8 i,EEEr_ (! tr tr o =9seE&es:iaaaaZ.l.oC/OO Og U
E66eeEf(r 8 8 8I Ei
st 5 ! ! ! ! .E eEI
otol alrrl -, C\ cet tf, t \O f-
,.11
TI
ql
.ol
el
eolcl "'llr-lnl
(.)l
elr-lc.tl
O\l
d
c-tl
rlc!l
iol\Ol
ool.lrl
v?l
TI
o,lrliol
\nl
"rlcl t--
-l"tlrol$l
-l.dl
OI
t-- |.+l
nl
ll
TI
-l
-t,,ol
-+
C\tl1lol
c\l*l
O,l
\O1
OIOI$l
c.tl
oolool
FIool.{sl
-l"rl ur
lnl €
s
C{
o\
ot)
\at
r.)
o\\oi.)lrl
C\t
O\oq
co
I
r+lvh ln
frl "d\o
N co.$
OI\ql
Hl $
crhvh t$
ar-lnl ,"1
\Ol 6r/t)$
\n
O
ae{C.tC-
Ol
€
o\
Jr
Ql -G' odq
.6
$
\o$q
c{
OIF-l.nlsl(D
CD*+
I
ml.r,l rr,
,r;l o<;+\o
co
f-
O
(r)
O
caca,rI
c{
C![n
oq
ca
*l
"?l -S' od
r-l:
\o
c!c?
oo\n
\oq
N€o^
c\t
o\
+oooI
co
t?
oo
t
v?
\o
$
-
a
a
'1,
()
fJ.(
E
E
C)€
o
tr.r
b(
tr
(r)
'1,
o
U
bo
(l)
,E
=0
ho
E
aa
t.<
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW37O004
D. DrscH.qnGE MrNrMrzATroN aNo Bssr Avaraslr TBcrmorocy STANDARoS - the tailings
disposal facility must be built, operated, and maintained according to the following
Discharge Minimization Technology (DMT) and Best Available Technology (BAT)
standards:
l. DMT Design Standards for Existing Tailings Cells l, 2, and 3 - shall be based on existing
construction as described by design and construction information provided by the
Permittee, as summarizedin Table 3 below for Tailings Cells l, 2, and3:
3. DMT E dS
Footnotes:
1) D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., June, 1979, "Engineen 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.
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 apperdices.
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.
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., March, 1983, "Construction Report Second Phase Tailings Management System White Mesa Uranium Project
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.", unpublished company report, l8 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 2O-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 axe 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 l2-inches on the cell floor and l8-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
ifiDb1
2)
3)
4)
a e nglneenn ES an calrons
Tailings
Ce11
Report
Type Engineering Report Design Figures
Construction
Specifications
Cell 1 Design Jrure, 1979 D'Appolonta
Consutting Engineers, [nc (')
Appendix A, Sheets 2,4,8,
9, 12-15
Appendix B
Cell2 Design June, 1979 D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, Inc (')
Appendix A, She ets 2, 4, 7 -
10, 12-15
Appendix B
As-Built February, 1982 D'Appolonia
Consultine Engineers, Inc (')
Figures 1, 2, and ll N/A
Cell 3 Design Muy, l98l D'Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, Inc (3)
Sheets 2-5 Appendix B
As-Built March, 1983 Energy Fuels
Nuclear, Inc. (4)
Figures l-4 N/A
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW370004
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.
b) Tailings Cell2 - 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 2O-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 Cell2 FML liner is independent
of all other disposal cell FML liners. Immediately above the FML, a nominal 12-
inch (cell floor) to l8-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 l2-inch
thick protective blanket layer was constructed of native silty-sandy soil. On top of
this protective blanket, a network of l.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 l8-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 2O-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
Cell2 south dike forms the north margin of Cell3, 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.
2.
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW370004
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 Layer and System - immediately above the FML, a
nominal l2-inch (cell floor) to l8-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 l2-inch diameter, inclined HDPE access
pipe. Each run of the 3-inch lateral drainpipe and collector pipe was covered with
a 12 to l8-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 l2-inch diameter inclined access pipe.
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 Director approval, modification of this Permit, and issuance of a
construction permit.
Existing Facility DMT Perfonnance 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 I - at all times the Permittee shall operate
and maintain Tailings Cell I 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 and3 - 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) Quarterly Slimes Drain Recovery Test - effective July 11,2011, the Permittee
shall conduct a quarterly slimes drain recovery test at each tailings cell slimes
drain that meets the following minimum requirements:
Includes a duration of at least 90-hours, as measured from the time that
pumping ceases, and
9
3.
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW370004
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.
rvastewater reeevery elevatien in the slimes drain aeeess pipe; as determined
iefs-in
Eqp&tionl.W
---+guation-+=
[EEv + EErr #v+*ltNy$*y+4ly z ]+[EFy+4r+#y-+#FNy++
Nrz+l1.1l
Where:
EE, - Sum ef all menthly and quanerly sli+nes drain t*ilings fluid
Pa* I,B,g(b)(2)'
tests are te be eendueted and the SDRE valnes reperted in units ef feet abeve mean sea level
(amst), HeweYer;
EEr+ - Sum ef all SDRE measurements made in the year previeus te the
is
the equatien ebeve, eeeh qnarterly value shall be multiplied by a eeeffieicnt efttree (3),
EEr+ - Sum ef all SDRE measurements made in the seeend year previeus
te the ealendar year ef interest. Hewever; when menthly and quarterly measurements are
€+
EEr+ - Sum ef all SDRE measurements made in the third year previeus te
the ealendar yea- ef interest, Hewever; when menthly and qnarterly measurements are eembined
in the equatien abeve
- Tetal number ef SDRE tests that meet the test perfermaneestandards
feund in Part I,D,3(bX2)r eendueteC during the ealendar year ef interest, Hewever; when menthly
thre€€Xqarate+es+s-
N*+ - Tetal number ef SDRE tests that meet the test perfermanee sta*rdards
found in Part tr,n,3(bX2); eendueted in the year previeus te the ealendar year ef interes$,
Hewever; wh€n nrenthty a
s€per#e-tests;
Nt+-- Tetal number ef SDRE tests that meet the test perfermanee stanCerds
feund in Part I,D,3(bX2); eendueted in the third year previeus te the ealendar year ef interest,
HeweYer; when menthly a
Prier te January l; 2013; the follewing values fer E and N values in Equatien I
4):l ennuat Stimes Orain C
report on or before March I followine the reportine year which includes but is not
limited to: l) Monthly volumes of fluid pumped from the slimes drai+ for each
applicable tailinss disposal cell: 2) The results of all quarterly slimes drain
l0
o
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
recovery tests: 3) A calculation of averase annual wastewater recoverv elevation
in the slimes drain access pipe. and: 4) The annual report shall include an
assessment and verification that the maximum fluid volume which could
practicably be extracted from the slimes drain in accordance with the svstems in
place was removed.
measures te ensu in-is
ln
the cffcetiveness ef t
iofs=
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) Reberts Penrel the Permittee shall eperate this wastewater pend se as te previde a
wastewater and plaee it inte eentainment in Tailings eell I within 72 heurs ef
gfl 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.l l. 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.
1l
T ble 4. Feedst k Sto A
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
Coordinates (l)
4.
aole +. r eeostocK Stora e Area uoo
Corner Northing (ft)Easting (ft)
Northeast 323,595 2,580,925
Southeast 322,140 2,580,920
Southwest 322,140 2,580,42A
West 1 322,815 2,580,410
West 2 323,040 2,580,085
West 3 323,120 2,580,085
West 4 323,3 15 2,580,285
West 5 323,4r5 2,579,990
Northwest 323,600 2,579,990
Footnote:
1) Approximate State Plane Coordinates beginning from the extreme northeast comer atrd progressing clockwise around
the feedstock area (from 612210l DUSA Response, Attachment Il Site Topographic Map, Revised June, 2001.)
fg) Mill Site Chemical Reagent Storage - for all chemical reagents stored at existing
storage facilities and held for use in the milling process, the Permittee shall provide
secondary containment to capture and contain all volumes of reagent(s) that might be
released at any individual storage area. Response to spills, cleanup thereof, and
required reporting shall comply with the provisions of the approved Emergency
Response Plan as found in the currently approved Stormwater Best Management
Practices Plan. For any new construction of reagent storage facilities, said secondary
containment and control shall prevent any contact of the spilled or otherwise released
reagent or product with the ground surface.
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
Director 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 Director approval this Permit may be re-opened and modified to include any
necessary requirements.
BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 4,A. - the BAT design standard for Tailings Cell
44 shall be defined by and construction conform to the requirements of the Jane25,2007
Director design approval letter for the relining of former existing Tailings Cell No. 44,
and as summarized by the engineering drawings, specifications, and description in Table
5, below:
Table 5. A ed Taili Cell 4AE Desi dS ificati
5.
aDle J. ADDTOVeO I alllngs uelr 4l\ Englneennq Lreslgn ano DDeclucauons
Engineering Drawings
Name Date Revision No.Title
Sheet I of 7 June, 2007 Title Sheet
Sheet 2 of7 June 15,2007 Rev. 1 Site Plan
Sheet 3 of7 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 of7 June 15,2007 Rev. 1 Lining System Details II
Sheet 7 of 7 June 15,2007 Rev. 1 Lining System Details III
Fizure I Aurust,2008 Spillway Splash Pad Anchor
t2
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
Footlotes:
l) As qualified by conditions found inMay 2,2007 Division of Radiation Control letter.
2) As clarified by February 8,2007 Division ofRadiation Control Round 6 Intenogatory.
Tailings Cell4,A. Design and Construction - approved by the Director will consist of the
following major elements:
a) Dikes - consisting of existing earthen embankments of compacted soil, constructed by
the Permittee between 1989 andl990, and composed of four dikes, each including a
l5-foot wide road at the top (minimum). On the north, east, and south margins these
dikes have slopes of 3H to lV. The west dike has an interior slope of 2H to lV.
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%o. Floor of Cell 4,A' has an average
slope of lo/o that grades from the northeast to the southwest corners.
c) Tailings Capacity - the floor and inside slopes of Cell 4,A. 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 44. floor area. In other locations, the
primary FML will be in contact with the slimes drain collection system (discussed
below).
Engineerin g 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 (l)
Geosyntec Consultants
November 27,2006 Cell Seismic Study *')MFG Consulting Scientists
and Engineers
Octob er 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 (z)Geosyntec Consultants
August 22,2006 Pipe Strength Calculations Geosyntec Consultants
September 27,2007 DMC Cell 4A - GCL Hydration Geosyntec Consultants
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW370004
2) Leak Detection System - includes a permeable HDPE geonet fabric that extends
across the entire area under the primary FML in Cell 44, and drains to a leak
detection sump in the southwest corner. Access to the leak detection sump is via
an l8-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 l0 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 4,A. floor, up the inside side-slopes and is also anchored in a trench at
the top of all four dikes.
4) Geosynthetic Clay Liner - consisting of a manufactured geosynthetic clay liner
(GCL) composed of 0.2-inch of low permeability bentonite clay centered and
stitched between two layers of geotextile. Prior to disposal of any wastewater in
Cell 4A, the Permittee shall demonstrate that the GCL has achieved a moisture
content of at least 50% by weight. This item is a revised requirement per DRC
letter to DUSA dated September 28, 2007.
e) Slimes Drain Collection System - including a two-part system of strip drains and
perforated collection pipes both installed immediately above the primary FML, as
follows:
1) Horizontal Strip Drain System - is installed in a herringbone pattern across the
floor of Cell 4,A. 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 44' where it joins the slimes drain
access pipe.
3) Slimes Drain Access Pipe - consisting of an l8-inch ID Schedule 40 PVC pipe
placed down the inside slope of Cell 4,{ at the southwest comer, above the
t4
0
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
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 l8-inch pipe and used to remove tailings wastewaters for purposes of de-
watering the tailings cell.
Cell 4A North Dike Splash Pads - three 2O-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 44, 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.
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
skucture 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 Cell4,A.,
including the Probable Maximum Precipitation and flood event.
BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 4,A. - the Permittee shall operate and
maintain Tailings Cell 4,A. 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 Director 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 Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the Permittee initiates
pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell 44, the Permittee will provide:
l) 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 Cell4,A., as measured from the top of the upper FML.
Definition of I le.(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
15
s)
6.
7.
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW370004
lle.(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 intemal to any disposal cell,
i.e. create a "bathtub" effect, and
c) Ensure that groundwater quality at the compliance monitoring wells does not exceed
the Ground Water Quality Standards or Ground Water Compliance Limits specified
in Part I.C.1 and Table 2 of this Permit.
9. Facility Reclamation Requirements - upon commencement of decommissioning, the
Permittee shall reclaim the mill site and all related facilities, stabilize the tailings cells,
and construct a cover system over the tailings cells in compliance with all engineering
design and specifications in an approved Reclamation Plan. The Director 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 R3l7-6-6.3(G) and R3l7-6-6.4(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 Director 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 Director after
occurrence of a major spill or catastrophic failure, pursuant to Part ry.N.3 of this Permit.
t6
l1
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW370004
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:
afFeedstock materials gbAll+ritl be stored at all times in water-tight containers or water-
tight container ovemacks. and , and
b)d_Aaisle ways will be provided at all times to allow visual inspection of each and
every feedstock container and container overpack, or€r
ier
te-s+e+aSffir
OQ-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, md operated in accordance with
engineering plans and specifications approved in advance by the Director. Al1
such engineering plans or specifications submitted shall demonstrate compliance
with Part 1.D.4,
3) A storage area that provides containment berms to control stormwater run-on and
run-off, and
4) Stormwater drainage works approved in advance by the Director, or
5) Other storage facilities and means approved in advance by the Director.
12. BAT Design Standards for Tailings Cell 48 - the BAT design standard for Tailings Cell
48 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. Aooroved Tailinss Cell48 Ensineerins Desisn and Soecificatieo.ov altln e ngmeerln esl an lIlCatlons
Engineering Drawings
Name Date Revision No.Title
Sheet I of8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Cover Sheet
Sheet 2 of 8 January 2009 Rev. I Site Plan
Sheet 3 of8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Base Grading Plan
Sheet 4 of 8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Pipe Layout and Details
Sheet 5 of8 Decemb er 2007 Rev. 0 Lining System Details I
Sheet 6 of 8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Lining System Details II
Sheet 7 of8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Lining System Details III
Sheet 8 of8 January 2009 Rev. 1 Linins System Details [V
Figure 1 January 2009 Mill Site Drainage Basins (supporting reference)
Engineerin g Specifi cations
Date Document Title Prepared by
January 2409 Slope Stability Analysis Calculation Package Geoswtec Consultants
January 2009 Seismic Deformation Analysis Calculation
Package
Geosyntec Consultants
January 2009 Revised Pipe Strength Analysis Calculation Geoswtec Consultants
t7
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW3700A4
Tailings Cell 48 Design and Construction - approved by the Director 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 2O-foot wide road at the top (minimum) to support an access road.
The grading plan for the Cell48 excavation includes interior slopes of 2H to lV. The
exterior slopes of the southern and western dikes will have typical slopes of 3H to lV.
Limited portions of the Cell 48 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 lV. 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 90Yo at a moisture content between +3%o
and -3o/o of optimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM D-1557. The floor of
Cell 48 has an average slope of lo/o that grades from the northwest corner to the
southeast corner.
c) Tailings Capacity - the floor and inside slopes of Cell 48 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:
Package
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:
Fizures I and2
Geosyntec Consultants
August 2009 (Revised) Technical Specifications, with the
exception of Section 02200 (Earthwork)
Geosyntec Consultants
Ausust 2009 Cell 4B Capacity Calculations Geosyntec Consultants
Auzust20A9 Revised Cushion Fabric Calculations
August 2409 Construction Quality Assurance Plan for the
Construction of Cell 48 Lining System
Geosyntec Consultants
September 2009 (Revised) Technical Specification Section 02200
(Earthwork)
Geosyntec Consultants
August 6,2009
B1ast 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
l8
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW370004
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 Cell48 floor area. In other locations, the primary FML
will be in contact with the slimes drain collection system (discussed below).
Leak Detection System - includes a permeable HDPE geonet that extends across
the entire area under the primary FML in Cell 48, and drains to a leak detection
sump in the southeast comer. Access to the leak detection sump is via an l8-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.
Secondary FML - consisting of a 60-mil HDPE membrane found immediately
below the leak detection geonet. Said FML also extends across the entire Cell 48
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 48, the 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 48 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) Hoizontal 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 tum, 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
1)
2)
3)
o
t9
I
Part I.D
Permit No. UGW370004
"backbone" to the slimes drain system and runs from the far northwest corner
downhill to the far southeast corner of Cell 48 where it joins the slimes drain
access pipe.
3) Slimes Drain Access Pipe - consisting of an l8-inch ID Schedule 40 PVC pipe
placed down the inside slope of Cell48 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 l8-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.
e)-Cell 48 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 Cell48, 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 48 floor beyond the toe of the slope.
0_
$d___Srcell 4B Emergency Spillway - a concrete lined spillway will be constructed
near the southeastern corner of the east dike to allow emergency runoff from Cell 44.
into Cell48. 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 ffapezoidal channel. A 100-
foot wide, 60-mil HDPE membrane splash pad will be installed beneath the
emergency spillway. No other spillway or overflow structure will be constructed at
Cell4B. All stormwater runoff and tailings wastewaters not retained in Cells 2 and3,
and 4,A. will be managed and contained in Cell48, including the Probable Maximum
Precipitation and flood event.
13. BAT Performance Standards for Tailings Cell 48 - the Permittee shall operate and
maintain Tailings Cell 48 so as to prevent release of wastewater to groundwater and the
environment in accordance with the currently approved Cell 48 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 Director in accordance with Part I.G.3. Performance standards for Tailings Cell 48
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.o
20
Part I.D
PermitNo. UGW370004
c) Slimes Drain Annual Average Recovery Head Criteria - after the Permittee initiates
pumping conditions in the slimes drain layer in Cell4B, 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 than 3-feet in Cell4B, as measured from the top of the upper FML.
14. BAT Performance Standards for the New Decontamination Pad - the Permittee shall
operate and maintain the New Decontamination Pad (NDP) to prevent release of
wastewater to groundwater and the environment in accordance with the currently
approved DMT Monitoring 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 Director in accordance with Part I.G.3. Performance standards for the NDP shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) NDP LDS Access Pipes - the water level shall not exceed 0.10 foot above the
concrete floor in any LDS access pipe, at any time. Compliance will be defined as a
depth to standing water present in any of the LDS access pipes of more than or equal
to 6.2 feet as measured from the water measuring point (top of access pipe).
bLbFSoil and debris will be removed from the wash pad of the NDP, in accordance
with the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. Cracks in the wash pad greater
than l/8 inch (width) will be repaired within five working days of discovery.
2t
Part I.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
E. Gnouuo W.e,ren CoupuaNcE AND TrcnNorocv PpRroRuaNcB MoNnoRING - 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:
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 Director. Any non-conformance
with QAP requirements in a gtven quarterly groundwater monitoring -period will be
corrected and reported to the Director on or before submittal of the next quarterly
groundwater monitoring report pursuant to Part I.F.l.
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 Director 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) I-ateral or Downgradient Wells: MW-11, MW-14, MW-25, MW-26 (formerly
T'W4-l 5), MW-30, MW-3 1, an+MW-365.
ing
wells MW 36; MW-37; er any ether well reqnired by Part I,H,4 ef this Permit;
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 Director to be less than 10 feet/year,ggglgll
general monitorins wells. For purposes of this Permit, semi-annual monitoring is
required at the following wells:
1) Monitorine Wells Listed on Table 2:
i. Upgradient Wells: -27.
ii. Lateral or Downgradient Wells: MW-2,I4\{A3,IvIW-3A, MW-5, MW-12,
MW-15, MW-17, MW-23, MW-24, MW-28, MW-29, and MW-32
(formerly TW4-17). MW-35. and MW-37.
2) General€aek*reund Monitoring Wells:
i. Uperadient W*ells:- MW-l. MW-18. and MW-19.
iii.ii. Lateral or+n+ Ddowns -20 artd,NIW-z2,
a)
b)
c)
22
2.
Part I.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
d) Compliance Monitoring Parameters - all groundwater samples collected shall be
analyzed, for the following parameters:
l) 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%o
of the reported activity concentration. An error term may be greater than 20o/o of
the reported activity concentration when the sum of the activity concentration and
error term is less than or equal to the GWCL.
4) All equipment used for purging and sampling of groundwater shall be made of
inert materials.
Groundwater Monitoring: General-Eaek$eunC_Monitoring Wells - Uperadient wells
MW-l. MW-18. and MW-19: Lateral Monitoring Well TW4-24: and Ddowngradient
wells - MW-20 and,NNV-2z,- _!the Permittee shall monitor wells MW-l. MW-18, MW-
19.TW4-24.MW-20 and MW-22 ona semi-annual basis. Said sampling shall comply
with the following Permit requirements. but shall not be considered compliance
monitoring for the purposes of Part G:
a) Routine groundwater compliance monitoring requirements of Part I.E.1.
b) Groundwater head monitoring requirements of Part I.E.3
c) Well monitoring procedure requirements of Part I.E.5.
Groundwater Head Monitoring - on a quarterly basis and at the same frequency as
groundwater monitoring required by Part LE.l, the Permittee shall measure depth to
groundwater in the following wells and/or piezometers:
a) Point of Compliance Wells - identified in Table 2 andPart I.E.l of this Permit.
b) Piezometers - P-L,P-2,P-3,P4, and P-5.
c) Head Monitoring Well - MW-34.
3.
23
Part I.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
d) General Monitoring Wells - Upgradient wells MW-l. MW-18. and MW-19: Lateral
well TW4-24: and Ddowngradient wells MW-20 andN$l-22.
e) Contaminant Investigation Wells - any well required by the Director as a part of a
contaminant investigation or groundwater corrective action.
0 Any other wells or piezometers required by the Director.
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:
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(D(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 Director 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
identiff 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.
d)
Part I.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
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.
Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a Utah
certified laboratory.
Analyical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analytical
methods listed in the currently approved QAP pursuant to Part I.E.l of this Permit.
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:
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
mglL, and I mg/L, respectively.
e)
0 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.l 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 Director 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.l and I.D.3 of this Permit, including,
but not limited to the following activities:
a) Weekly Tailings Wastewater Pool Elevation Monitoring: Cells I and 3 - the Permittee
shall monitor and record weekly the elevation of wastewater in Tailings Cells I 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) Quarterly Slimes Drain Water Level Monitoring: Cells 2 and 3 - the Permittee shall
monitor and record quarterly 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 eachtailings cell:
1) Perfom at least I separate slimes drain recovery test at each disposal cell in each
quarterly period of each calendar year that meets the requirements of Part I.D.3,
b)
c)
25
Part I.E
PermitNo. UGW37o0o4
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.
5fFor Cell 3 these requirements shall apply upon initiation of tailings de-watering
operations.
e)fl Weekly Wastewater te
qd) Weekly Feedstock Storage Area Inspection - the Permittee shall conduct weekly
inspections of all feedstock storage to: l)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.1l.
e)d)_feedstock Material Stored Outside the Feedstock Storage Area Inspections
l)qlWeekly Inspection - the Permittee will conduct weekly inspections to veriff that
each feed material container complies with the requirements of Part I.D.1l.
2)blHardened Surface Storage Area - in the event the Permittee constructs a
hardened surface storage area for feed materials, pursuant to Part I.D.ll, prior
Director 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.
tg[nspections of Tailing Cell and Pond Liner Systems - the Permiuee 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 cu:rently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. The
n
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, and2) report all repairs made pursuant to Partl.B.2.
g)flWeekly New Decontamination Pad Inspection - the Permittee shall conduct weekly
inspections of the New Decontamination Pad as described in Part I.D.14 of this
Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan.
8. Cell 44' BAT Perfonnance Standards Monitoring and Maintenance - in accordance with
the currently approved Cell4,A' BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan, the
Permittee shall immediately implement all monitoring and recordkeeping requirements
therein. The Cell44. BAT monitoring includes the following:
26
Part I.E
Permit No. UGW370004
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 Director.
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 Director. Under no circumstance shall fluid head in
the leak detection system sump exceed a l-foot level above the lowest point in the
lower flexible membrane liner on the cell floor. For purposes of compliance
monitoring this l-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,L60 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 Cell4,A.. Said measurements shall be made to the nearest 0.1 foot.
Quarterly Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring - immediately after the Permittee
initiates pumping conditions in the Tailings Cell 4A slimes drain system, quarterly
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 the currently approved
Cell44. BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan.
Liner Maintenance and Repair - all repairs to the liner shall be completed in
accordance with Section 9.4 of the approved Jlurlre 2007 Geosyntec Consultants Cell
44. 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 Director 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 Director 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 kglyr.
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:
b)
c)
27
a)
b)
Part I.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
One surface impounded wastewater location at each of Tailings Cells 1, 3, 4A, and
48.
One slimes drain wastewater access pipe at each of Tailings Cells 2, 3,4A, and 48.
For Cells 3,4A, and 48, this requirement shall apply immediately after initiation of
de-watering operations at these cells, and
One leak detection wastewater access pipe at Tailings Cells 44. and 48.
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) Water Quality Sampling and Analysis - the Permittee shall collect grab samples
and perform laboratory analysis of all:
i. Water quality parameters identified in Table 2 of this Permit, and
ii. Semi-volatile compounds identified in EPA Method 8270D.
2) Certified Laboratory Analysis - all laboratory analysis will be conducted by a
Utah certified laboratory.
3) Analytical Methods - all laboratory analysis shall be conducted using analytical
methods listed in the currently approved QAP pursuant to Part I.E.l of this
Permit.
4) 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,
For TDS, Sulfate, and Chloride, the Minimum Detection Limit for those
constituents for Tailing Cell wastewater monitoring will be as follows: 1,000
mdL,1,000 mg/L, and 1 mglL, respectively, and
Lower limits of quantitation for groundwater for semi-volatile organic
compounds listed in Table 2 of EPA Method 8270D, Revision 4, dated
February, 2007.
Quality Contol 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.
Prior Notification - at least 30 calendar days before any water quality sample
collection, the Permittee shall provide written notice to allow the Director to
observe or split sample any tailings cell, slimes drain, or leak detection
wastewaters.
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.
28
c)
d)
s)
6)
7)
Part I.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
The Permittee shall not omit sampling of any of tailings cell wastewater source
during said annual event, without prior written approval from the Director.
ll.Groundwater Monitoring Modifications - before any modification of groundwater
monitoring or analysis procedures, methods, or equipment, the Permittee must obtain
prior written approval from the Director.
12. Cell 48 BAT Performance Standards Monitoring and Maintenance - immediately
following Director approval of the Cell 48 BAT, Monitoring, Operations and
Maintenance Plan, the Permittee shall immediately implement all monitoring and
recordkeeping requirements therein. The Cell 4B BAT monitoring shall include the
following:
a) Weekly Leak Detection System (LDS) Monitoring - including:
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 Director.
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.
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 Director. Under no circumstance shall fluid head in
the leak detection system (LDS) sump exceed a l-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 l-foot limit shall constitute failure of
BAT, and a violation of this Permit.
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.
3-foot Minimum Vertical Freeboard Criteria - the Permiffee shall operate and
maintain wastewater levels to provide a 3-foot Minimum of vertical freeboard in
Tailings Cell4B. Said measurements shall be made to the nearest 0.1 foot.
b) Quarterly Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring - immediately after the Permittee
initiates pumping conditions in the Tailings Cell 48 slimes drain system, quarterly
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 the currently approved
Cell48 BAT, Monitoring, Operations and Maintenance Plan.
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
Cell48 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 Director approval in
1)
2)
3)
4)
29
Part I.E.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
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.
30
Part I.E.E
Permit No. UGW370004
F. RppoRrrNc REqulnerrarNrs - 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 \.E.|,LE.2,I.E.3, and I.8.5 of this Permit for Director review and
approval. Reports shall be submitted according to the following schedule:
Table 7. Gr R rti Scheduleounowaler vtontlorlng l(eDortmg Dc
Quarter Period Due Date
First January - March June I
Second April - June September 1
Third July - September December I
Fourth October - December March I
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:
d)
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.
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.
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.
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 PIan. 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
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.l(a).
M
a)
b)
c)
e)
3l
2.
Part I.E.E
Permit No. UGW370004
D 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
Director.
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.
Routine DMT Performance Standards Monitoring Report - the Permittee shall provide
quarterly monitoring reportS of all DMT performance standards monitoring required by
Parts t.D.3 and I.E.7 of this Permit. DMT monitoring shall be conducted in compliance
with this Permit and the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. When a liner repair is
performed at @ 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
Director approval on the schedule provided in Table '7, above.
Routine Cell 4,A' and 48 BAT Perfornance Standards Monitoring Reports - the Permittee
shall provide quarterly monitoring reports of all BAT performance standards monitoring
required by Parts I E.8 and l.E.lz of this Permit. BAT Monitoring at Cells 4A and 48
shall be conducted in compliance with the currently approved BAT Monitoring,
Operations and Maintenance Plan. When a liner repair is performed at Tailings Cell 4,A.
or 48, 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 Director approval on the schedule provided in
Table 7 above. At a minimum, reporting of BAT monitoring for Cells 4A and 48 will
include:
3.
a) LDS Monitoring - including:
1) Report on the operational status of the LDS
during the quarter, including identification
status and repairs.
pumping and monitoring equipment
of any intervals of non-operational
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 4,A. and 48
determine freeboard.
c) Slimes Drain Recovery Head Monitoring as per the requirements of Parts I.D.6 and
r.E.8(b).
4. DMT and BAT Perforrnance Upset Reports - the Permittee shall report any non-
compliance with the DMT or BAT performance criteria of Pan I.D in accordance with
the requirements of Part I.G.3 of this Permit.
32
5.
Part I.E.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
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 Director, the Permittee shall submit such facts or
information within 10 calendar days of discovery.
Groundwater Monitoring Well As-Built Reports - as-built reports for new groundwater
monitoring wells shall be submitted for Director approval within 60 calendar days of well
completion, and at a minimum will include the following information:
a) Geologic Logs - that detail all soil and rock lithologies and physical properties of all
subsurface materials encountered during drilling. Said logs shall be prepared by a
Professional Geologist licensed by the State of Utah, or otherwise approved
beforehand by the Director.
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 Director review and approval with the 3'o 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
fro* seeps, springs, and monitoring wells at the site from the 3'd 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,
6.
33
Part I.E.E
Permit No. UGW370004
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.l (d),
0 Electronic Data Files and Format - that meet the requirements of Part I.F.l(e) of this
Permit, and
g) Survey data for the seeps and springs shall be based on an elevation survey,
conducted under the direction of and certified by a Utah licensed professional
engineer or land surveyor. The survey will include State Plan Coordinates (northings
and eastings) and vertical elevations. The surveyed coordinates and elevations ofthe
seeps and springs shall be within I 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 submittal of an application for Permit
renewal the Permittee shall submit a report to update the facilities chemical inventory
report+equi+edbyPartJJ{J. Said report shall
@
a) Identification of all chemicals used in the milline and milline related processes at the
White Mesa Mill. and
b) Provide all inventory information gathered pursuant to Part I.E.9"
Determination of the total volumes currentl in use and historicall used as data is
available.
&.9.Tailings Cell Wastewater Quality Reports - all annual wastewater quality sampling and
analysis required by Part I.E.10 shall be reported to the Director with the 3'd Quarter
groundwater quality report due on December l, 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.l(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 Director 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
34
Part I.E.E
PermitNo. UGW370004
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.
ll.Annual Slimes Drain Recovery Head Report - on or before March I of each year the
Permittee shall submit for Director 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 slimes drain recovery head monitoring data for the previous
calendar year, including, but not limited to: date and time for the start and end of
recovery test, initial water level, final depth to stable water level and equivalent
recovery water level elevation.
b) Calculate the average slimes drain recovery head for the previous calendar year.
c) Include a time series chart to show trends of the 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:
l) 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.
l2-p-.Decontamination Pads Annual Inspection Report - the New Decontamination Pad and
Existing Decontamination Pad will be taken out of service and inspected annually during
the second quarter ofeach year, to ensure integrity ofthe concrete wash pad surfaces. If
physical defects in the wash pad as defined by Part I.D.l4 of the Permit are identified
during the inspection, repairs shall be made prior to resuming the use of the facility. Said
defects include, but are not limited to concrete deterioration, cracking, subsidence, etc.
The results of the annual inspection and all repairs will be documented on inspection
forms in accordance with the currently approved DMT Monitoring Plan. The inspection
forms and documentation of all repairs completed shall be included in the 2no Quarter
DMT Monitoring Report due September 1, of each calendar year.
35
Part I.F.G
Permit No. UGW37A004
G. Our or CoMPLTANCE STATUS
1. Accelerated Monitoring Status
compliance monitoring sample
shall then:
is required if the concentration of a pollutant in any
exceeds a GWCL in Table 2 of the Permit; the facility
a) Notifu the Director in writing (,the Exceedance Notice) within 30 calendar days of
receipt o
includins quarterly and monthlv samples. but no later than 60 days after the end of
the quarter. and
b) mseaia*elfihitiate accelerated sampling of the pollutant as follows:
1) Quarterly Baseline Monitoring Wells - for wells defined by Part I.E.l(b) the
Permittee shall initiate monthly monitoring. Monthlv monitoring shall begin the
month followine the month in which the Exceedance Notice is provided to the
Director.
Q_Semi-annual Baseline Monitoring Wells - for wells defined by Part I.E.l(c) the
Permittee shall initiate quarterly monitoring. Ouarterly monitoring shall begin the
quarter following the quarter in which the Exceedance Notice is provided to the
Director.
2[)_Said accelerated monitoring shall continue at the frequencies defined above
until the compliance status of the facility can be determined by the Director.
Violation of Permit Limits - out-of-compliance status exists when the concenffation of a
pollutant in two consecutive samples from a compliance monitoring point exceeds a
GWCL in Table 2 of this Permit.
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 tsAT or otherwise fails to meet DMT or BAT standards as required by the
Permit, the Permittee shall submit to the Director a notification and description of the
failure according to R317-6-6.16(CX1). Notification shall be given orally within24-
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(CX2), within five calendar days of the Permittee's
discovery of the failure of best available technology.
36
2.
3.
Part I.F.G
Permit No. UGW370004
b) The Director 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 Director determines that the Permittee
has met the standards for an affirmative defense, as specified in R3l7-6-
6.16(CX3Xc).
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:
I ) The Permittee submitted notification according to R3 I 7-6-6. 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 Director, for the Director'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 notiff the Director 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.l, unless the
Director determines that other periodic sampling is appropriate, until the facility is
brought into compliance.
c) The Permittee shall prepare and submit to the Director within 30 calendar days
following the date the Exceedance Notice is submitted to the Director, 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 Director 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 Director.
37
Part I.G++
Permit No. UGW37A004
H. CouplIeNce ScuBoure RrqurnrMENTs. The Permittee will comply with the schedules as
described and summarized below:
l, en site €hemieals Inventery Rwert the Permittee shall eernptete a histerieal revierv;
$Ihi@
is
2, Infiltr+tien and eenhminant Transpert Medcling Werk Plan and Repe* - the Permittee
ing
rcpert that demonstrates the
requirements of Part tD
tailings eell eever design and tailings eell system perrerrranee,
o
38
&o
Part I.H++
PermitNo. UGW370004
Permittee may seleet e
@
physi€al preeesses
ive--€r
the physieal demain(s) and geemekies simulated ineluding the tailings eell des;gn
and eenstruetien; all
bcenfr€di€H
e) Jr*sti{ies hew the infilkatien and eentaminant kanspert pretilem has been adequately
r€qpi
0 Previees; eesed ing,
l) Medel Results :neluding eleetrenie input arrd eutpnt files frem all infil*atien;
3) Steady Stete eondi
@
4) Sensitivity Analyses ineluding deseriptien ef varieus medel simulatiens run and
is net limited te: b
ftnd ternperal distrib* in
Pest-medel r\udit Plan inelnding plans te revisi+the medeling efu at seme
term perfermanee ef tailings eell design and eenstruetien; and greundwater
pr€+ee+ion;
The Permittee shall eemplete all medeling in aeeerdanee with the requirements ef
Permittee rnay in€t# in
Permit reguirements
39
Part I.H++
Permit No. UGW370004
Permittee will proYide a
the Direeter, Upen Direeter appreval ef the final infilhatien and eentarninant
Eanspert repert; the Reela"natien Plan may be medi{ied te aeeemmedate
ing
R655-a 9); wittr s ie
ien
io+
ien
Ageney: wetl €asing
iselate the two aqBifers ment
twe aquifers is uneertain er nnsnbstanti*ted fer any reasen; the Permittee shall repair
ir+-€re
ion
teehniqnes required rxrder Part I.H,3(a) te dernenskate existeree ef tlre required
@
l, Installatien ef New Gronndwater Menitering Wells - the Permittee shall install at least
@
l) rtt least ene well plaeed en the seutlr side ef eell lB between existing wells MW
+5-a#+4\4L3+
3+
4) r\ll new wells will demenstrate a sattrated thiekness erat least 5 feet; inside the
s'o
Part I.H++
PermitNo. UGW370004
@vide erly deteetien ef tailings eell eentaminatien ef
6) rtll new wells shall previde diserete greundwater menitering fer tailings eell lB.
tleDi+ee+er'
nireeter te ebserve al
I-rireeter determines &
will be installed rd related rts Built Repert(s) submitted (for appreval) within a time
withi+30 ealendar days ef Direeter appreval ef the new meniterin^ well As built Repert,
fl) Reutine greundwater eo
is
ef well MW 35 and tlre new wells required by Part I,H, l; the Permittee shall submit a
Ra€k$eund Reeert fer Dirc
l) Data prwaratien arC statistieal analysis ef grerxrdwater quality data; ireluding;
ies
ieus
w7=
2) Shallew aquifcr averagc linear greu*rdwater veleeity ealeulated fer the new wells;
ive
aqp@.
ion_is
timefrarne appreved by the Direeter- Afte* appreval ef this repe*; the Direeter will
with *re eriteria fennd in Part I,E,l(b) er (e), and establish Greundwater Cemplianee
r,imits in Table 2 for
4t
Part I.U++
Permit No. UGW370004
i
western mrgin ef Whitc Mesa; ineluding Westwater and eeftenweed Seeps; and Ruin
l+W g3 and the western m is
@
Permatien, Saie sruey s
Tailings Cell lB; and the Westwater and eeftenweed Seeps; arC Rnin Spring, At a
1) Dry rvellser -iezemeters; eernpleted Cewn te a depth equal te er belew the upper
") Piezemeters ef w ion
inimum
insi
b) Demenstrate the foll geelegie and physieal extent erthe apparent unsaturated
Tailings eell lB arrd nearby Westwater and Cettenweed Seeps and Ruin Spring,
leesti€n*
arrd eertified by a Udr li
13; 2012= This repert shall be eertified by a Utalr Lieensed Prefessienal Engineer er
l) Geelegie legs and well lts built dia€rarns that eemply rvith the requirereents ef
Psft+#5r
") rt reYised rquipete#
margin€f+Aite}v4es'a
4) rt revised saturatien thiekness map based en eentemperaneeus greu*rdwater head
M€sa'
42
Part I.HI+
PermitNo. UGW370004
6) Results and interpretatien ef aqnifer perrneability testing as per Part I,F,6(e) ef
this+emit
ies,
U) ln tne event tne is
infematien witt Ue suUml
+1.
en er befere August l; 20ll; the Permittee shall submit prepesed medifieatiens te the
Slimes Drain
Compliance Plan - Within trvo (2) years after the effective date of this Permit. the
Permittee shall submit a Slimes Drain Compliance Plan for Director Review and
Approval. The Plan shall include measures to ensure that wastewater removal from the
tailines cell slimes drain is effectively dewaterine the tailinss to the extent practicable
anC-r*il{-in order to allow placement of final cover within specified time frames. The
Plan may incorporate multiple methods to evaluate the effectiveness of tailings cell
dewatering and projected timelines for placement of final tailings cell cover. including.
but not limited to: l. Demonstration of decreasing fluid elevation kends as measured by
slimes drain recovery tests: 2. Evaluations of head data from piezometers installed in the
affected tailings cell demonstratins net dewatering. and 3. Demonstration of decreasing
trends in cell settlement monitoring. The Plan shall include specific measures for
Tailines Cell 2 and will incomorate Tailines Cell 3 after initiation of dewatering
oDerations.
43
rLa
Part II
Permit No. UGW370004
PART II. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. RSpnBSENTATTE SalrprrNc. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements
established under Part I shall be representative of the monitored activity.
B. ANaTyTICAL Pnocrounrs. 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. PwaruES FoRTeupsRlNc. The Actprovides that anyperson 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. RrponuNc oF MoNtronrxc RESULTS. Monitoring results obtained during reporting periods
specifiedinthePermit,shallbesubmittedtotheDirectorat
the following address, no later than the date specified following the completed reporting
period:
State ef Utah
Division of Waste Management and Radiation ControlaterQuality
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, Utah 841 14-488+0
The quarterly due dates for reporting are: June 1, September l, December l, and March l.
E. CovrprnNcn Scunpulrs. 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 than14 calendar days following each schedule date.
F. AppIrtoNar, MoNlronnqc By rIIE Ppnulrrep. 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. RpconpsCournNrs.
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,
44
Part II
PermitNo. UGW370004
0 The results of such analyses.
H. RereNrIoN oF Reconos. 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 Director at any time.
I. NorTcB oF NoNCoMPLIANCE RppoRrmc.
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 Director 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 reoccrurence of the
noncompliance.
3. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part II.D, Reporting of Monitoring Results.
J. OurBn NoNcoupLIANCE RrpoRrnqc. 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: INspBcuoN AND ENrnv. The Permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required
by law, to:
l. 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.
45
A.
B.
Part III
PermitNo. UGW370004
PART III. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
Durv ro 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 Director of the Division
of Water Quality of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity which may
result in noncompliance with Permit requirements.
PeNeruBs FoR VIoLATIoNS oF PERMIT CoNoIrtoNs. 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.
Nrrn ro HALT oR REDUCE Acrrynv Nor A DEFENST. 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. Durv ro MITIGATB. 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. PRopEROppReuoNAND MAINTENANcB. 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 ofback-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.
C.
46
C.
D.
E.
Part IV
Permit No. UGW370004
PART TV. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. PralrNBn Cruucrs. The Permittee shall give notice to the Director 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. ANucplreo NoNCoMrLIANCB. The Permittee shall give advance notice of any planned
changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with Permit
requirements.
PBRUIT AcuoNs. 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.
Dury ro REAppLv. 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.
Dury ro PRovIDE INFoRMArtoN. The Permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a
reasonable time, any information which the Director 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 Director, upon request,
copies of records required to be kept by this Permit.
Orusn INroRuarroN. 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 Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
G. SrcNaroRy REeUIREMENTS. All applications, reports or information submitted to the
Director 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 Director 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 Director, and,
F.
47
Part IV
Permit No. UGW370004
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 havrng 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).
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 Director prior to or together with any reports, information, or
applications to be signed by an authorized representative.
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."
PrNru-rrns FoR FALSIFICATIoN oF REroRTS. 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.
Ave[esLITy oF RBponrs. 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 Director. As required by the Act, permit applications, permits,
effluent data, and groundwater quality data shall not be considered confidential.
PnopsRry Rtcurs. 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.
SevpnasnlTy. 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. TnaNsrERS. This Permit may be automatically transferred to a new Permittee if:
1. The current Permittee notifiesthe Director at least 30 calendar days in advance of the
proposed transfer date;
48
3.
4.
H.
I.
J.
K.
Part IV
PermitNo. UGW370004
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 Director does not notiff 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.
Srere 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 l9-5-
115 of the Act.
RpoppNsR 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 Director determines permit modification is necessary to protect human health or the
environment.
M.
N.
49